(Update: Please ignore the positive spin I tried to put on Palin. She is horrible. See my latest post on her: http://districted.blogspot.com/2008/10/revelations-about-palin.html)
I kind of love FactCheck.org. I was thinking about writing a post about Palin and all the slightly incorrect statements out there, and they went ahead and did a video on it:
The next thing I heard about her was the book-banning thing. What actually happened was that Palin asked a librarian if she would agree to ban books from the library if the administration asked her to. The librarian said she would not agree to ban anything. Then Palin tried to get the librarian fired, but enough people supported the librarian that she was able to keep her job. Was there a correlation? Maybe.
Recently Palin said that the Iraq war was "a task that is a task from God," but she went back on herself: check it out here in her interview.
So Palin is not the demon we fear. But my problem with Palin is this: she's still scary. She is willing to discuss banning books, if that's what her constituents want. She has appeared to change tactics and beliefs from election to election, if that's what will make her win. When she has power, she doesn't appear able to wield it impartially (see librarian-firing above and "troopergate"). She's wishy-washy on gay couples' rights: no they can't be married, yes they should be treated equally (see here). Honestly, Democrats don't know what to make of her. The only thing they can stick to her is her pro-life-ness and her NRA-love.
I see an ideologue without an ideology of her own. She appears to stand for something, but I don't know what it is. I just know that she isn't standing for my beliefs (freedom of speech, not banning books; greater separation of church and state; not drilling for oil when we need green energy; politicians working for the American people and not on tasks "from God").
I see the same kind of thing in McCain. I don't believe that his stance on "moral values" is real. But I do know that he is not going to be a good President, for the very reason that his "values" aren't his own.
Liberals are scared of Bush, McCain, and Palin because liberals value freedom of and from religion, not just freedom to be Christian. Liberals think that elected officials should be accountable, not free to fire contrary librarians and public safety officials. Liberals value intelligent and independent decisionmakers, not "deciders" who need to consult with Karl Rove every time they make a move. And liberals like books so much that the mere mention of "banning" horrifies them into a fugue state. They won't care if it was a rhetorical question, Sarah; it was the wrong rhetorical question for a leader and possible VP to ask.
I ain't sayin' Obama/Biden's the Second Coming, but they don't scare me nearly as much as McCain/Palin.
Posts
2 comments:
I enjoyed your comments and your
unabashed use of the word "liberal"
which some folks are just plain
afraid to say outloud, as if being a liberal is something to be ashamed of. I appreciate you educating me about FactCheck.org--I plan to use it. And, lastly, I
am gratified that you validated my
entry into a fugue state over the
book banning thing. Being the
book lover that I am, that did not
set well with me. I saw her in the
Charlie Gibson interview last night and I just didn't believe her--don't EVER mess with my books.
This is from Hatandcoat's Mom.
Hi, H&C's Mom! Thanks for your comment.
I used to think I couldn't be pigeonholed as a "liberal." That was back in high school. Now, there's no better term to describe me.
FactCheck.org is great. It's sometimes hard to take when they are refuting the things your own preferred candidate said, but it keeps you well informed without bias.
And seriously, book banning? When has that ever been a good idea?
Post a Comment