Sarah Palin: The Worst Possible Republican Choice

Sarah Palin, the first term governor of Alaska is without a doubt the worst possible choice John McCain, the Republic Nominee could have picked. Without question on the surface she has proven capable and a bonus to an otherwise lackluster campaign but, as the campaign drags on (by the hours might I add) it is becoming more and more clear it was a terrible choice. Not only was she the wrong choice, she is a dangerous choice and gives off the impression it is McCain NOT Obama who will do anything to get elected.

1. Inexperience and Corruption
Let me start off by agreeing Obama is not the most experienced candidate in our history of presidential elections. However, he has shown he knows the issues, dealt with foreign affairs as well as domestic issues. The other thing that neutralizes Obama's inexperience issue is that Joe Biden is his VP who happens to be more experienced than John McCain. Still it seemed to be one of the Republican's strongest attacks and by selecting someone who has numerically less experience than Obama in terms of office and years she has no experience internationally, has shown a willingness to embrace the right-wing doctrine that even many Republicans are beginning to shun, she's even to the right of our most "beloved" sitting President George W. Bush. Most of all she doesn't even know what a Vice President does!

Yes she may have been an executive of a state but, when it comes to executive experience Alaska is hardly the state where future Presidents are made. It is a state that prides itself on privacy and not being like the rest of the continental US. Why else did the mainstream media not pick up on the private matter of her daughter's pregnancy? Now had she been a second term governor I think this whole issue would be negligible but, the fact that's she only in her second year and facing questions about her ethics is certainly not a plus.

For those who may not be aware Sarah Palin is currently being investigated by the Alaskan state legislature into allegations that she used her office as a way to strike back at the now ex-husband of her younger daughter. Something like that alarming and spells terrible omens of what a Palin vice presidency might bring! I think we've had enough vice presidents who have used their power to influence things that should not be influenced. *Cough* Dick Cheney *Cough*

So not only has she single handily disarmed one of the Republicans' attacks but, armed the democrats with an arsenal of information to lobby at the Republicans including her relationship with the infamous Ted Stevens who authored the bridge to nowhere pork. Which of course she supported before it became obvious that the United States tax papers don't like their money being spent so foolishly. Yes, she energized the base but, she's energized the democratic opposition researchers as well.

2. "Pit bulls" Tend not to survive against a "Lion"

A self described pit bull with lip stick, she's proved to be an incredible speaker with a sharp tougne. Any sane person will tell you that. What we seem to be forgetting however is that she will be matched up again Senator Joe Biden in the debates. He is without a doubt deserving of the title of a Lion in the senate. He's participated in every major national and international debate since he was thirty, talking to foreign leaders before Sarah Palin even entered high school. No amount of prepping could allow her to appear more knowledge than someone of Joe Biden's stature. Not to mention Joe Biden is renown for his one liners. She's proven to be good when given time and in a controlled audience but, she won't be fed lines in the debate and Joe Biden will most likely tear her to shreds question by question and with a smile far more disarming than hers.

3. McCain is Old Let's Face it, Barack is Black let's face it, The Vice President Actually Matters.

I'll be forthright and blunt. Both nominees face questions of what if? McCain is old, had bouts with cancer several times and suffered five years of brutal punishment by Vietnamese guards. His mother is ninety something but, each of his paternal ancestors has died in their seventies and under a far less stressful life. Obama could be assassinated let's be honest. There are still people who are ignorant as they are moronic and could try to commit such an unspeakable crime and tragedy. That means Biden and Palin matter more than any other VP in history. Biden as explained above is more experienced than McCain, is the definition of centrism, and can govern effectively. Palin is a former mayor of a town of 6,000-9,000, been a governor for two years and has foreign credibility because as explained by Cindy McCain and Fox Media, "Alaska is close to Russia." The fact that such a mind blowing statement is their defense is not just laughable it's scary. She's also right-wing, far right-wing in a time when the country wants to be united and is tired of the hyper-partisanship that has gripped our capital. Biden is ready to step in the shoes of President, Palin didn't even know what a VP does; how can we sanely trust her with being a heartbeat away? The move was political and the majority of people see it that way.

So in summary Palin has cut the hands off the experience monster the Republicans were fielding, given dozens of attack angles for democratic researchers, might very well eclipse Obama in celebrity which would be ironic, has proven herself unknowable on national government, unaware of foreign policy, and might not be the reformer the McCain campaign is championing her as instead, she might have violated the laws and abused her power. Now is this the kind of person should have been picked? I think there's no doubt absolutely not.

1. Obama has not shown that he knows the issues. He has flip-flopped on almost every single issue he has committed to. Public campaign financing, FISA, Iraq, etc.

2. Biden does not neutralize Obama. Since Biden is second on the ticket, he is in a less position of power, when he has more experience. This does not neutralize Obama's inexperience because more weight is placed on the candidate on the top of the ticket (Obama). Obama's inexperience outweighs Biden's experience, as Obama is on the top of the ticket, thus weighs the most on the ticket.

3. McCain picking Palin as his running mate might appease the "Hillary Clinton independents" who are now searching for a candidate, but want a candidate who will keep with this year's theme of "historical elections". McCain's experience, plus a "history-making" candidate on the ticket, will draw in said "Hillary Clinton independents".

4. Sarah Palin has more experience in politics that Obama has ever had.

Thus, Sarah Palin was not the worst choice John McCain could have made. If he had picked Pawlenty, he would have picked the typical "white male", with less experience, to be on the ticket, which would have swayed the "history" voters to Obama.

1) Bringing up flip flopping is playing with fire, not to mention it has nothing to do with the Palin Choice. In fact this seems like an attempt to score points on an issue that obviously the con does not have much ground on. However, since it was brought up by my opponent I feel neccesary to defend Obama's actions as well as lay it bare so that the truth is seen clearly.

Although I for one do not believe all flip flops are bad as they show a gradual increase in understanding of an issue, it is no way fair to accuse Barack Obama of flip flopping when McCain has not only his own share but, more. Yes, Obama has flip flopped most notably on FISA but, they are far less than McCain or we maybe should call him McChange for the number of times hes done an about face. I present this link and using google for a full, complete and irrefutable list of McCain flip flopping: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com... However, I'm sure there are more. McCain also has done some pretty pitiful full out flip flopping to pander the Confederate flag supporters and being against the MLK holiday before it was for it. And just to make sure we keep in the topic with Sarah Palin, she was for the bridge to nowhere before she was for it.

http://ap.google.com...

"She boasts of rejecting plans to build the notorious "Bridge to Nowhere," a $389 million bridge to an island with 50 residents. But only after she said yes did she say no, rejecting the locally-popular project after it was ridiculed and Congress cut some of the funds. She hung onto $27 million to build the approach road to the bridge."

Still I would appreciate if attacks were not leveled at Obama to score points on an issue that was not raised. Especially because flip flopping does not mean you have no knowledge of the issue. In fact you have to understand both sides before you can even change sides and neither candidate is quite frankly, stupid. They know each issue they debate except when they admit that they don't i.e. McCain and the economy.

2. No one, not one being is ever fully prepared for the Presidency. Look at JFK and Herbert hoover for example for both sides of the coin of the experience issue. That being said Obama would gain tremendous advice from Biden and his cabinet as numerous presidents have done in the past. That's why they are there, to advise the President. Now one must have a basic understanding of the issues, great judgment and the political capital to act for the good of the country. Obama and Biden have that, McCain and Palin do not. Biden is widely respected in the senate, Obama is beloved by his supporters which means they will be able to shape the public agenda. While McCain was once popular in the senate and the streets during the campaign he has lost much of that. Palin has had no experience in the senate or on the national stage at all. Therefore Obama who has been involved in the community and politics for twenty some odd years have far more experience in the continental United States than Palin who has been mayor and Governor of the small town esque state. There is no way Alaska could prepare a person for the national stage just be geography.

Also Biden's experience doesn't not matter because he is a VP. Obama even stated he wanted a VP who knows the issues and will tell him when he's wrong, a governing partner. Biden's experience counts as much as LBJ, Gore's and Cheney's. Now how can Palin be an effective VP when she's never dealt with foreign policy or domestic issues in the continental US? Honestly, she can't.

3. It's extremely upsetting that you agree with me that McCain picked Palin so that she could "appease the "Hillary Clinton independents" who are now searching for a candidate, but want a candidate who will keep with this year's theme of "historical elections"." It won't work except for those who voted for Hilary based off gender not issues and those weren't going to vote in the election either way. Lastly experience voters that the Media talks about on the democratic side will now stay with the party because of Biden not cross over to support a man who thinks that there is a Pakistani-Iraq border, doesn't know there's a difference between a Shi'ite Muslim and a Sunni and continues to think that the country Czechoslovakia still exists all the while admitting he knows nothing about the economy.

4. If you could please explain further and cite it would be most appreciated.

5. Actually Pawletty would have been a better choice. He has real experience, youth and had the ability to put Minnesota in play. If only we could say that Palin had more than one of those...

Lol, so your entire 2nd round argument is based on... insulting (not refuting) my points? Good one, chief.

And I like how you told me to cite, when you did not do so yourself. Hypocrisy isn't a good way to win an argument, buddy ;)

By the way, for purpose of debate, EXPLAIN why Palin is THE worst choice for John McCain. You have failed to do so, and we are already in the second round of the debate. You are the affirmative, and you haven't provided me one fact or stated evidence supporting the affirmative case.

And also, by the way, please define "worst" for sake of your argument, and try to convince me that "worst" is not an opinion.

By the way, Sarah Palin IS more experienced than Barack Obama, buddy. Obama was a "community organizer" and JUNIOR senator from Illinois LOL.

Please explain how a senator that has voted "present" over 130 times is qualified to make the tough decisions that our commander in chief will have to make in these difficult times.

Please, elaborate.

1) Obviously you have not read my argument in its entirety otherwise you would have seen I've refuted each and every one of your points with facts and some cites. Have I cited everything? Of course not but, I didn't think it'd be worth the work considering you'd probably not to do the same. However, I have cited several things and you have yet to do this for anything you have said. I also do not see where I "insulted you" and would rather keep this to the topic at hand instead of drifting off into such nonsense.

2) I've explained why she was the worst candidate, in fact there is still more reasons. One of the most profound being that his greatest weakness is the economy and he needed someone to help shore of those concerned with his well known declaration that it's not his strong suit. It is you, my opponent who has yet to bring forth a clear argument why she is even a decent pick, except by expressing your opinions with no hint of facts. Yes, I admit I have not cited as much as I should have but, at least I have made it clear they are facts in need of citing. It seems although I could be wrong, yours are opinions in need of facts.

3) Worst is an umbrella term which suggests she's the least qualified, does nothing to help him and out of all the potential candidates to be selected for the VP she should've been on the bottom of the list, if not even on it.

4) Again you're bringing up something that has nothing to do with the debate but, I'll explain anyway. In the Illinois State Legislature most of those present votes were tactical votes done under the instruction of the democratic leadership, a way to help other democrats cast nay and usually part of an overall strategy that usually takes part in legislatures such as this. http://www.nytimes.com... Read that for more on that subject and let's try to keep it to Palin. Thank you.

1.) Obviously you are dodging the fact that I DID, in fact read your argument, and I still retain that you did not refute any of my points, let alone each and every one. Also, you stated as plain as day that you did not cite anything, thus agreeing with me. You told me to cite, I stated that you DIDN'T cite, and then you agreed with me, so it looks like I win this point. You have turned this entire debate into much and have destroyed all of its topicality, turning it into a debate over who did what in the debate, and not the argument at hand. And the fact is that Sarah Palin is, in fact, NOT the worst running mate that John McCain could have picked. He could have picked someone entirely random, who is COMPLETELY unknown. Sarah Palin is NOT completely unknown, and McCain could have had many other less effective choices. However, since "worst" is a matter of complete opinion, you lost the debate just by posting the resolution.

2.) So, you're trying to win the debate based on the fact that you committed hypocrisy? Wow. As I have said before, Sarah Palin has more experience than Barack Obama. She has 12 year of executive experience, and 11 years of experience in other public jobs. Barack Obama has no executive experience, and about 7 years of senate experience, the majority of that time spent preparing for his campaign for the presidency, and voting "present" over 130 times on important bills. Sarah Palin has "maverick" status, and has shown bipartisan qualities. She campaigned against a corrupt representative from her own party, and has repeatedly shown time and time again that she is ready to take public office. Obama has not.

3.) I just explained why she is qualified in my previous point, so nothing to do here.

4.) You're saying voting "present" was a tactical strategy? I don't need to tell anyone here why that makes no sense at all, and is a desperate plea to defend a candidate who is unable to be defended in any way in such as claiming "tactical indecision".