sarah palin: only good for one thing

any lingering doubts i may have had about how the republican party views american citizens have now been removed. morons, all of us, morons who think with their crotches. men are expected to fall over one another in order to vote for the beautiful governor (and preliminary polls sadly show some truth in this) while women will vote their gender — though the fact that palin was booed down in pennsylvania when invoking hillary is cause for hope.

so what, other than her beauty-queen credentials and the honor of governing the smallest (we have more people in the Bronx), most politically corrupt state in the nation, does she bring to the table?

sarah palin believes that climate change has nothing to do with the activities of humankind.

she does not believe that polar bears are an endangered species.

she’s a right-to-life breeder (five kids! it’s downright embarassing) who seems to think that the world really needed another retarded baby. by the way, her fifth kid is in truth her grandson.

she calls herself an average hockey mom despite the fact that there is no such thing in the US. russia, maybe, has hockey moms.

she believes it’s OK to use her position as governor to wage a vendetta against her former brother-in-law, a crime for which she is still under investigation.

she’s already lying through her teeth about what she did and didn’t support as governor — for the view from alaska, visit the excellent mudflats blog.

we are left with an inexperienced politician whom, despite the meagerness of her record, still required a bit of whitewashing before being anointed veep. i don’t know who “young trigg” is, but i sure know who he works for.  no one — left, right or center — believes palin was chosen with america’s best interests at heart. sure, picking a VP is a political choice, and campaign considerations must play a part. but the country deserves a bit of consideration as well: mccain’s got one foot in the grave, and the best he can do for america is this very junior, scandal-ridden, narrow-minded, bible-thumping, moose-hunting “hockey mom” who, as recently as august had no clue as to what the vice president actually DID? whose own mother-in-law isn’t going to vote for her because of her lack of experience? (though that’s a problem mccain shares, as his sister-in-law has gone public with the fact that he’s not getting her vote.) if the NYT got it right, mccain didn’t even want palin on the ticket, he wanted joe liebermen, but the conservatives wouldn’t have it. i can believe that, if not the reasons that the times came up with — is the party who brought us (and intends to continue bringing us) the war in iraq really that concerned with the so-called “right to life”? i think the bible-thumpers simply wouldn’t have a jew on the ticket.

mccain may well find himself hoist with his own petard over this choice. palin’s got nothing to contribute to national (let alone international) politics and policies, and is only good for one thing: getting mccain elected. and it’s already starting to look like that one thing’s gonna backfire.

Recent Posts:

• “breaking news” – climate change is a problem

bookmark to: