I have tried to keep my blog fairly apolitical, though I am not shy to admit my political leanings. However, I just have to speak up with what I am hearing and seeing on TV in the last day or two.
Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska for two years, was chosen as John McCain's running mate. I had personally never heard of her before the announcement. So I started investigating and listening. She has done a lot in her time as a public servant. Besides being the first woman governor in Alaska for the last two years, she served two terms as mayor of Wasilla, as well as two terms on the city council of Wasilla. She obviously has had a lot of experience running local and state governments.
Now, many of the media pundits, as well as the Democratic party, are arguing that she has very little leadership experience. I understand why they are doing this. The Republicans have been pushing the lack of experience of Barack Obama since he clinched the Dem nomination. Turnabout is fair play, right?
Except it doesn't work. Obama truly has done little when it comes to leadership. He was elected to the Senate against a non-Illinois competitor. He hasn't even served one full term. He did serve eight years in the Illinois Senate.
But the appalling thing that I have heard from the media (at least two sources yesterday) was that he has led a campaign of some hundreds of staffers. Are they kidding? He has led a campaign? So has Sarah Palin, when she sought to get elected as mayor and governor. Running a campaign with staffers who want to get you elected is not comparable to running a city or state with a multitude of citizens who may or may not agree with you leadership decisions. I really had to laugh, because anyone who thinks that simply running a campaign full of staffers who obviously agree with their candidate (otherwise why would they work on someone's campaign?) gives you the leadership skills it takes to become president is simply ludicrous.
Palin has actual credentials. Look at her resume.
The second opinion that angered me as I watched TV last night came during Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show." I flipped over to this show remembering how much fun I've had in the past watching it during election years. Newt Gingrich did a good job of pushing back Stewart's obvious leftist leanings. I also know it is Jon Stewart's job to push and rile. But then Stewart brought up Palin's oldest daughter's unplanned pregnancy. He said it was fair game because, according to Stewart, Palin announced that her daughter had made her choice, and it is to marry the baby's father and keep the child. Stewart then proceeded to say that as a father of a daughter, he finds it hypocritical that Palin wants her daughter to have a choice, but if elected with John McCain, they would get into office and take that "choice" away from his family and all other families.
Now, I didn't actually see Palin's announcement about her daughter. So I don't know if "choice" is the word she used. If it is, perhaps she should have said it was her daughter's decision. Because as we all know, pro abortion groups have co-opted the word "choice" to only mean one thing, abortion. Her daughter may never have even been considering abortion. Her choice may have been between keeping the baby and giving it up for adoption. But Stewart took it to mean that she chose not to have an abortion. Knowing how Sarah and Todd Palin feel about abortion, and teaching this to their children, her daughter was probably never even considering abortion. I find it very condescending and twisted that Stewart brought this up during his show with Gingrich and further that he assumed Bristol Palin was even considering abortion. Contrary to what many people think today, not every girl or woman who makes a mistake with an unplanned pregnancy considers abortion.
Sarah Palin is a breath of fresh air, as far as I'm concerned. And the fact that John McCain chose her for his running mate only makes me more impressed with him.
There. If you didn't know I was a Republican before this, you certainly do now.