This is yet another retort to another silly anonymous comment left about my political affiliations. Sorry this one got my back up and is therefore rather wordy.
...If McCain is in fact inaugurated, he will be the oldest President in History, at 72 years old. If he dies, would you want her to be the next President?
She was the mayor of Alaska for 1.5 years. I just find it amusing that McCain chose someone as inexperienced as her for her VP, when he is slamming Obama for having no experience.
Also, something I find strange is that a woman of 5 children could possibly be the next VP of the United States. I am not saying that women should not have careers and all stay home with their children, but I really hope her husband stays home with them or something... but I think that is just my maternal instinct speaking...
Also, she is not concerned about the environment at all. Okay--Global Warming is this huge controversy, and who knows if there is really such thing? God, i guess. And he's going to burn the world in the end--so what is the use in worrying about the Earth? I find it SO difficult to believe that people don't care about the planet we live on. You gather up clutter and say, "i'll just throw it out", well what people don't realize is that there is no "out". We can't just launch it out of the solar system in hopes that it will never find its way back to us. Someone told me a few weeks ago that some of the garbage they are putting in the ocean is making it's way up to beaches and there are children swimming and playing in it, and swallowing it! I would have a hard time ever voting for her, if she is McCain's VP, if she doesn't care about things like this.
And about the oil, sure McCain's plan sounds lovely, but if we keep finding these short term solutions, nothing will ever get better. It is going to take a long time to get the whole oil problem worked out, and our impatience isn't helping.
Women should not be allowed to hold a high government office because they have children? It is sad to think that some consider a highly qualified, educated, and driven woman with genuine concern for her children’s future should be limited to a self-proclaimed “hockey mom’s”* existence. It’s preposterous, that her skill could be so disregarded simply for procreating. A woman of this caliber should not only be shuttling her children to various after school activities but valiantly lobbying for a better future in such dangerous and uncertain times. Instead of merely complaining about what is wrong or unfair Sarah Palin chose to fight.
Sarah Palin is tough as nails and fights her own battles. Starting with her local PTA, she rose to a City Council position, then on to defeat the incumbent (John Stein) become the Mayor of Wasilla, and eventually filed a formal complaint 2 members of her own party for their “lack of ethics”, they resigned. She ran for Governor of Alaska in 2006 successfully with a clean-government platform. How many of Mothers of 5 do you know who care enough about their communities, friends, and family to take matters into their own hands? Her committment to motherhood is probably best shown by her choice to keep her youngest son (Trig) affected by Downs Syndrome. I’m sure her children will be looked after and no doubt, better than most. Her appetence to change the world into a better place for you and me as well as her children is laudable.
It is ridiculous to think that McCain will drop dead mid-office, he has excellent health. As an Obama supporter you ought to know the difference in the experience of which you speak. Yes, she is relatively inexperienced when compared to Biden or McCain. However, her experience (1.5 years) as Alaska’s Governor is superior to Obama’s 2 years as a junior Illinois Senator. With no EXECUTIVE background how can we as a country possibly hand him the most important office in our esteemed nation? Palin was supreme leader, to quote someone more sage than myself: “what she said happened, whereas Obama was laughed at”. I’m not disputing your claim that she is less experienced than we would prefer, nonetheless she is not our tickets frontrunner.
As for environmental policy, let me enlighten you or at least shed some perspective. We cannot expect change overnight (nor can most afford to), although the Democrats always want a change now. Republicans seek a more gradual change, more conducive to reality; radical changes would send our nation into chaos. Short term fixes are necessary to implement a lasting change. Drilling is a means to an end. I find it poor logic to say that because she isn’t an alarmist like most Democrats she is not concerned about the environment. Global warming is serious, but rather than alarming the public in order to win votes about a cataclysmal event that may or may not occur, they agree that something needs to change. How can our nation expect this to occur if we continue to send our money to hostile nations? Venezuela, Russia, and many Middle Eastern countries are burgeoning because of our dependency on finite resources. All of which display defiant and brutal traits not worthy of our most base consumerism. So I ask you: Why not drill ANWR?* Just a few statistics on this project the liberals oppose. There are 586,412 that make up Alaska (it is twice the size of Texas) and there are 640 acres per square mile; meaning that Alaska is composed of over 375 billion acres (375,303,680 acres) ANWR would mean less than 2,000 acres would even be affected. That means that .000533 of that 375 billion would be affected, roughly equivalent to a dime on the floor in the Olympic stadium in Beijing. It is no comparison to the benefits. They far outweigh the negative aspects. Besides more crude oil production, it would increase jobs, and decrease our nation’s dependency on malevolent countries, you can read further here.