Ganked from HunterPDX
Ok, one more political observation before I wade back into shallow waters and make another post about how shiny my iMac is.
In talking with my mom yesterday about my sister’s preference for McCain (because she’s started believing in those chain letters that claim Obama is secretly a Muslim terrorist, and the flag lapel pin he wears isn’t REALLY an American flag if you look close enough; but that’s an entire post of its own), I finally voiced something that’s been at the back of my mind lately:
There’s been this constant running commentary about how Obama lacks foreign policy experience, which is pretty much true. But what I have yet to hear from anyone, either pro- or anti-Obama, is any mention of George W.’s foreign policy experience before HE took office. I’ve read pages of articles, listened to the speeches, the debates, and the talking heads, and I don’t recall hearing a single remark about it.
The joke has been that the totality of Palin’s foreign policy experience is that, “I can see Russia from my house!”
By that line of reasoning, Bush’s experience while governor of Texas could have been summed up as, “I can see Mexico from mine!”
Certainly very little of Bush Sr.’s skill rubbed off on Junior, so that just leaves his experience as a pilot in Vietn…oh wait, never mind.
So, does Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience mean he shouldn’t be President? Well, Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. The two of you appear to have something in common.
“In response to a question sent to the network by a third grader at a local elementary school about what the Vice President does, Palin erroneously argued that the Vice President is ‘in charge of the United States Senate’:
Q: Brandon Garcia wants to know, ‘What does the Vice President do?’
PALIN: That’s something that Piper would ask me! … [T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.”
The ACTUAL job of the Vice President, as defined by Article I of the Constitution:
“The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.”
Even the Senate’s own website describes the VP’s position in the Senate as largely ceremonial:
“During the twentieth century, the role of the vice president has evolved into more of an executive branch position. Now, the vice president is usually seen as an integral part of a president’s administration and presides over the Senate only on ceremonial occasions or when a tie-breaking vote may be needed.”
The woman has no clue. Seriously. It’s very possible that, if elected, McCain won’t live through his first term, which would leave this utterly hopeless amateur in charge of the country. Those of you who are supporting McCain should stop and think about that for a moment; in this situation you’re quite possibly voting for Palin, not McCain.
|What’s Your Political Philosophy?
created with QuizFarm.com
|You scored as New Democrat
New Democrats emphasize fiscal conservatism, and have a strong preference for the free market. They believe in small-scale programs that provide targetted help to those in need, while working with the business community.
Just received an interesting email by way of DailyKos, whittled down here to just the relevant bits:
“Are you a Democrat or independent registered to vote in Michigan? If you are, vote for Mitt Romney in the Republican primary on Tuesday, January 15th!
Okay, so, I know – you must think I’m nuts to suggest that anyone ever vote Republican. But this situation is special. As it happens, the Michigan Democratic primary is uncontested. Barack Obama and John Edwards aren’t even on the ballot. So that means even if you’re a Hillary Clinton supporter, there’s no need to vote for her – she’s running unopposed.
But the Republican primary is hotly contested. And Michigan law lets anyone – including independents AND Democrats – vote in the Republican primary. This means there’s a great opportunity, as we say above, for us to make mischief!
So why should Dems and indies vote Romney? After his victory in New Hampshire, the press has declared John McCain the Republican front-runner. Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee, who won in Iowa, looks poised to do well in South Carolina, which hosts the next primary after Michigan.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat. And the more Republican candidates who are fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for the Democratic candidates, of course! In other words, we want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.
So Michigan Democrats and independents who want to see the Republican battle royale continue should just take a few minutes on Tuesday, January 15th to cast a ballot for Mitt Romney in the Republican primary. And don’t feel bad or awkward about doing so – the Republicans have done things just like this many times in the past. What’s more, if Michigan Republicans didn’t want Dems or indies to vote in their primary, they could have changed the rules. But they didn’t, so here we are.”
Hmm…I just may have to dig out my voter registration card.
Here in Michigan, one of the proposals on the ballot next week is Proposal 2: The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. This would amend the state constitution to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment based on race, gender, color, ethnicity, etc.
I started this entry to explain why I was going to vote Yes on this proposal. In 2004 there was another Proposal 2, to amend the state constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman, which would also cancel any same-sex benefits given by local, county, or state government offices.
According to a friend of ours who’s lived in downtown Detroit for years, and follows the political happenings very closely, the African-American community turned out in droves to approve the 2004 Proposal 2, using the same tired reasons: gays are unnatural; gays are against God, ad nauseum. The proposal passed, helping solidify gays’ status as second-class citizens in this state.
And now, two years later, along comes another Proposal 2, and guess who’re up in arms because they feel unfairly targeted by a discriminatory ballot initiative?
*sniff* Smell that? Smell kinda like just desserts to you?
So anyway, I was going to vote Yes on this proposal; not out of racism, but out of vindictiveness. I haven’t forgotten the last Proposal 2, and since those who voted for the last proposal did it for “Christian” reasons, here are a few Christian phrases that I think apply in this case:
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
“As ye sow, so shall ye reap.”
While reading the actual proposal in preparation for my self-satisfying rant, it turns out to be a very bad piece of legislation. This is the initial info from a voters’ guide: http://www.pridesourcevotes.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?article=20421, but from there links to a report on the proposal by the U of M Center for the Education of Women, here: http://www.cew.umich.edu/PDFs/MCRIecon6-25.pdf
So, long story short, I have to vote No on this proposal, and I encourage you to do the same. It goes beyond my desire for petty vengeance, and could cause more harm than it proposes to solve.