The Audacity of Hope? More like Hopeless Audacity.
The two primary non-bashing talking points of the Obama campaign have been “change” and “youth.” Barack Obama is 47 years old, and has used his age as a weapon to attack the McCain campaign. Then he picked a 66-year-old senator as his running mate — a guy who is just six years younger than John McCain. Youth? Out the window.
Then the Obama campaign — and his “independent” supporters, the so-called unbiased media — had the audacity (you like how I worked that in, don’t you?) to rip into McCain’s vice-presidential selection of 44-year-old Sarah Palin, saying she was too young and inexperienced. Well, age can’t be a problem, since the three-year difference between them would be, in statistical terms, inconsequential. And to attack her experience? Okay, so she hasn’t been in politics as long. But she governed first over a town, then over a state. What have you governed over, Mr. Obama? A campaign? Being a senator is hardly governing; in fact, you have no constituents, you merely have a region within a state whom you represent. You have no power, no authority, beyond your meager vote in the senate. And, when senate decisions are split almost entirely down party lines, your vote doesn’t mean crap.
Palin, on the other hand, has had to oversea an entire state, and to bear the brunt of any bad press that may befall the Alaskan government. See, the beauty of being a senator or a representative is that you don’t have to be the face of a failure; you vote, move merrily on your way, and then blame the other party if things don’t go your way. But, as a governor, Palin became the face of a state — a state that is no less than an equal to any other state, regardless of how many people reside there. She put herself in harm’s way; she doesn’t have an army of fellow party members to laugh or cry with.
Okay, so the youth-and-experience is a pile of bull excrement. What about change? John McCain has 26 years of experience as a politician. The Obama camp has attacked this fact, stating that their candidate hasn’t been in Washington very long, and hasn’t been in town long enough to have become a true politician. Well, Mr. Obama, your votes are entirely along Democratic party lines. Where, Barack, is the change?
Not convinced yet? Okay, I’ve got more. This man touting the fact that he hasn’t spent much time in Washington went ahead and picked a 36-year political veteran as his running mate. And Joe Biden has made a career of toeing the party line, too. Did great things for Delaware? I lived there. The state has been on the verge of bankruptcy for about two decades, if not longer. And don’t get me started on the bunch of whack-jobs who have run the state for the last 12 years. A foreign policy expert? The same guy whose cries to bring the troops home only grew louder as the surge in Iraq began to show true dividends? Don’t forget, Iraq was one of the main talking points during the primaries. But things on the ground have stabilized — a sign that current strategy is becoming more and more successful — and the topic has suddenly falledn off the political radar.
Palin, on the other hand, has made a history (albeit a very short one) of standing up against traditional government beaurocracy. Party lines be damned, she’s done what is best for her state. She’s a maverick in the same mold as her partner in this election, but maintains her conservativism. She is exactly what the Republican party needed to win in November. The other party now knows that.
And now they have to find a whole different platform on which to stand.
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I can’t help but notice that you didn’t point out the hypocrisy in McCain’s VP selection – McCain has taken a firm stand against earmarks for state spending, and yet Palin has secured over $27MM in earmarks during her tenure as governer. So let’s cut the cr@p about one side being better than the other. If you haven’t realized yet that BOTH of these candidates are going to do whatever they can for one reason: to win an election. Very little of this has to do with helping our country, they have to do with securing their next jobs.
In short, I’m dissapointed in this entry. Yes, this is your website, and you can write whatever you please. But if you can’t bother to take your head out of McCain’s a$$ long enough to realize the shortcomings of BOTH parties, than I can’t be bothered with your blog any longer. Good luck to you, and good luck to this country, one of these two is going to be president… yay.
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Well, first of all, earmarks had nothing to do with this post. It was about Obama’s own messages coming back to bite him in the arse.
Secondly, read the entire Washington Post article that brought up these supposed “earmarks” of Palin’s doing. Here’s a rundown:
- $1 million for a rail system, as part of a transportation appropriations bill. Strange, I thought railways were part of transportation, and she was appropriated $1 million for transportation. Sounds to me like it’s all on the up-and-up.
- $500,000 for a mental health center. That’s no multi-million-dollar city park as once appropriated by Nancy Pelosi.
- $450,000 to purchase land to “rehabilitate an aging agricultural facility.” Wasteful I suppose, since we don’t need agriculture…
- $15 million to connect her town of Wasilla to a nearby town. You know, I can’t imagine why anyone would want to be in contact with their neighbors. Me, I prefer to sit in a cave by a fire every evening, and throw rocks at anyone who comes near me.
And if you read page two of the article, you’d see that Obama’s number-two man, Joe Biden, helped secure $85.6 million this year alone — and there’s still four months to go.
Calling these things “earmarks” is misleading. She did not attach anything to a bill that had nothing to do with the bill, and THAT is the traditional definition of an earmark. She asked for funds to help her city — exactly what else would you expect from a mayor? To fund the town via a monthly bake sale?
Sorry to see you go.
September 2nd, 2008 at 7:17 pm
And I may not have said so on here, but I’ve said it in conversations many times: I’m a registered Republican, but I’m not one of Today’s Republicans. I am very much a Reagan Conservative — fiscal responsibility, smaller government, don’t punish the rich just for being rich, etc. I voted for Bush twice, and I’d do it over again, even though I think he has been the one holding the torch in the march away from conservativism. Why? Because he’s still better than Al Gore (a puppet for Bill Clinton and the most wasteful conservationalist on record) and John Kerry (who pandered for votes like a child begging his parents for ice cream money).
Yes, I see the faults of both parties. But I can’t even begin to rationalize some of the things the left stands for — like letting convicted killers live while justifying killing innocent babies. I never said Republicans were unequivocally right — but what they stand for in principle, if not necessarily in practice, is what I firmly believe in.