I don’t know what it is. Maybe it’s because she’s a former beauty pageant contestant. Maybe it’s because she likes guns and hunts. Maybe it’s because she not only challenged the Republican establishment in Alaska, but she won. Big. Maybe it’s because she knew her fifth child would be born with Downs syndrome and had him anyway.
Oh, and maybe it’s because she’s a redhead and she’s hot. Sorry, call me petty and shallow, but if women can swoon over Obama, I’m allowed to swoon over Sarah Palin.
I am laughing my ass off listening to Democrat, liberal, and progressive pundits trying to hack at her lack of experience. Are they really so oblivious to the fact that all such accusations apply even more so to The One? Someone actually remarked that she’s even less experienced than Obama, effectively acknowledging how inexperienced he is.
There are a couple of key differences, however. The first should be obvious to anyone with a pulse: Palin’s not running for president, Obama is. She may, indeed, be “a heartbeat” away from that job, but Obama is heading straight for it. If there is such a thing as on-the-job training for the presidency then she’s heading for that, the vice-presidency, and not the job itself. The same cannot be said for The One.
The second is a little more subtle, and that is her experience (meager as it is) versus his experience (meager as it is). She’s been an executive, he’s been a committee member. That is, he’s never been an actual leader, the one guy where the buck stops and he and he alone has to make the decision. He was a member of the Illinois state senate (groupthink) and now he’s a member of the US senate (more groupthink). While she’s also worked on committees, she was also a small town mayor and now she’s a state governor. He comes from an insular world, she governs a state with international borders. He works in groups, she leads.
And that’s the difference.
In general, the American voter tends to agree with this. The last time we elected a sitting senator was John Kennedy. Since then we’ve consistently chosen governors for president over senators. Neither Carter nor Clinton had the depth or experience of their Republican opponents, especially in foreign affairs, but we voted for them anyway. That was at least in part because their opponents were senators. Governors, as executives, had a better grasp of the duties involved with the presidency, you know, the executive branch of government.
Senators don’t.. As a matter of habit, they work for a majority vote or consensus, the antithesis of leadership. In peacetime, this is sorta fine; during war, it’s lethal.
This difference was one of the reasons I supported Romney as the Republican nominee. His executive experience just thumped on his senatorial rivals, and I just didn’t give a hoot about his being a Mormon. (Something liberals and progressives made a big stink over, being the bigots that they are.)
Until this morning I was stuck having to choose between two examples of my least favorite people, US senators. On around six different measures that matter most to me, McCain trumps Obama, so he already has no vote. I wish he’d cut back on his moonbat environmental wacko nonsense, but hey, nobody’s perfect.
His choice of Sarah Palin, however, rather than another member of that oligarchy of arrogance and privilege we call a Senate, cements my choice. She may screw up during the campaign to come, but given the races she’s already run – and won – somehow I doubt it.
Yup, my day just got a whole lot brighter.
Comments