Here is the link
http://my2bucks.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/a-letter-from-someone-who-has-known-sarah-palin-since-1992/
We Know Better
5 days ago
Thursday, September 11, 2008
A disturbing insight regarding VP Sarah Palin (A rare post by Chris)
Hello everybody. Since her amazing introductory speech at the Republican Convention last week, VP candidate Sarah Palin has been the hottest topic of conversation within all of my social circles. My friends, family, and co-workers have been talking about little else other than this firecracker who impressed us so much with her speech. Most people agree that Palin has been an excellent choice to balance out many of the concerns that people have against Senator John McCain. Some even think she has stolen the spotlight from him. Right now even Republicans seem to want someone who is not afraid to take on their own party to help it return to the traditional standards for which it originally stood. Sarah Palin has left a strong impression of being just that sort of person. However, I recently came across a reply post from a woman named Anne Kilkenny, a resident of Wasilla Alaska who has known Sarah Palin since 1992. She is on a first name basis with Sarah as well as her parents and in-laws. She is extremely active in attending city council meetings and has always been heavily involved in her community. She has submitted a very detailed review of Palin's work in Wasilla that I think sounds pretty legitimate but of course needs to be followed up on (She has posted her e-mail for people to folow up with to ensure that her information is not fabricated). I would be interested to know what other people's responses are to this post and if you think this opinion has legitimate weight. I'm not trying to be contentious. We all know she gave a really impressive speech, but I would like to hear some dialogue about some of the issues discussed in this posting. I think that this election is something for the history books. I have never known an election that has brought people into the issues more than this one. We are all very involved. I know that political issues, though very frustrating at times, are important for us to understand and I would like to encourage other people to discuss these issues in a non aggressive way. Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Chris, good post man. I think everyone has been talking about McCains running mate. I would assume that most of what the article talked about was true. I think the author of the letter tried to frame everything in a negative tone. One line she says that spending increased 33%, and the taxes collected by the city increased 38% and went on to talk about how bad her spending was for the city. If my math is right (tough equation) that is a 5% surplus. I don't know how she left the city swimming in debt if she decreased the amount of money spent compared to money collected. I think it is interesting how she tried to downplay Palin's ethics reform. So she took a job making over 100K, I think her complaining about that salary, then quitting and exposing the oil company is a good thing. It sounds like this citizen tried to frame that move as a bad move that was only done to get back at her oil and gas employers. It's hard to say what someone's intention is, and this citizen has admitted to not getting along with Palin. As far as I'm concerned, I like her. Her record will have to be dissected with a fine tooth comb, and whatever comes out comes out. I'm disgusted by the way she has been treated within the media. We all must realize that the Washington Post and NY times will unlikely write anything good about her. That article is informative, but I think the majority of it is this citizens slant on the actions of someone whe doesn't like. I think you could find someone that could say negative things about anyone. So I say that we give the hot mama a chance.
Thanks Ivan. I love getting your insight dude. That's a really good point about the 5% surplus. But I can still see why people would not appreciate their taxes going up to match overspending, especially if what the money is being used for is not of primary importance for the City. But as you mentioned, people have different opinions on how money should be spent. Overspending and borrowing is a huge concern I have against the past administration. I would like to see information that shows that she is truly fiscally conservative and doesn't just do uninformed line item cuts to prove a point.
i'm not as informed as my hubby, but she's not my fave. It does bother me that this is becoming an Obama vs. Palin race, rather than focusing on the actual candidates. And that Obama can no longer criticize his opponent without being accused of being sexist. (The whole lipstick on a pig comment...McCain said the same thing about Hilary Clinton's proposed legislation, and it was taken for what it is-a figure of speech.) Yes, McCain may die while in office, but he probably won't. I wish people would take a better look at what a McCain presidency would look like, not a Palin presidency. (Neither of which are appealing to me.)
The overarching theme of my reaction isn't anti-Palin. I think she's a good woman with whom I probably disagree on a lot of things, but she stands by her principles, loves her family and deserves a lot of respect. My biggest concern is that when you select your vice presidential running mate, you are making your first important executive decision as a candidate and potential president. If a President McCain picked his Cabinet, Supreme Court appointees and key advisers with the same impulsiveness with which he picked his running mate, that's a bad sign for his executive judgment. There was clearly very little vetting. Even today, he is often quoted saying things about Gov. Palin that are in direct contrast with what the record and what the governor's own words show to be true about her. She has shown little to no interest in foreign policy (she said she doesn't really know anything about the surge or whether it worked, that what she knows about it is just from blurbs she heard on the news) and that's evidenced by the talking point we've heard from Cindy McCain, Fox News and Gov. Huntsman that she has foreign policy experience because "Alaska is close to Russia."
I'm also not at all impressed by her speech. It was fiery and it was snarky and filled with applause lines that clearly worked well with the Republican base in the audience. But it was demeaning and belittling (the hateful way she twice spit out the words "community organizer," for example, as if there is something to criticize about dedicating your young life to helping people in the inner cities. Also, "what will Obama do after he's finished turning back the waters and healing the planet?" Sarcasm like that does not contribute to the conversation). She joked that "terrorists want to hurt Americans, and Obama's worried that someone won't read them their rights." That's a mischaracterization and an apparent misunderstanding of concepts like habeas corpus and human rights that make the United States the best country in the world.
I actually felt nauseated, physically nauseated, after that speech. I previously had this idea that an Obama-McCain race would be uplifting, exactly the kind of thing this divided country needs. It would be high-minded, a debate between two genuinely good men who care about their country and just have different ideas about the best approaches to policy - while respecting each other's ideas. It really had the potential to be that way. The old McCain would have run that kind of campaign. I think he still wants to.
But he is allowing himself to give in to advisers who tell him that the way to win is to divide the American people along cultural lines, along an argument of "us real Americans" vs. "those wacky coastal big-city liberals," and after a long career in politics filled with a few near-misses for the presidency, McCain really wants to win this last-chance run and is giving in to cynical politics despite his conscience. He showed that by picking a vice presidential candidate about whom he knew very little based on snap judgments about how she'd appeal to the extremists in his party, how she might rile people up. He was right - she will, and she has. But with that speech and its lack of any policy proposals other than "drill for oil everywhere and anywhere," and with her refusal STILL, two weeks after being chosen as the nominee, to speak to the media and answer honest questions about her record (in fact, when people do question her record, it's portrayed as rude and somehow off limits), she hasn't done anything to add to the important debates about what's best for our country.
Sorry to fill up so much of your comments page with my rants, but your post did say you wanted to hear people's thoughts. :) I reiterate my opinion that I actually have a lot of respect for Gov. Palin in a lot of ways. I am appalled that she wanted to have books banned from the library when she was mayor, and I'm not impressed by her changing positions on the Bridge to Nowhere. But she has been a very popular governor in Alaska, coming from obscurity to shake up politics in a state that needed shaking up. She has some sincere beliefs and principles that she admirably sticks to. And since her family has become part of the conversation, I think it's fair to say that she seems to be a great mother and a loving member of her community. Her decision to go through with a difficult, potentially dangerous pregnancy and give birth to a Down syndrome baby at a late age in life not only shows she walks her talk on pro-life issues, it also is the mark of a woman filled with love and selflessness. I just don't think she's the right choice for vice president - and that speaks much more poorly of McCain as a candidate than it does of Palin as a person, a governor or a public servant.
Doug your comment was incredibly insightful. I really enjoy hearing your perspective on things. This is exactly the kind of conversation I wanted to hear. I'm so sick of the polarization of parties as well. I want simple, unconvoluted discussion about different policy approaches without having to weed through manipulative character attacks, or playing off of fears that our country will be run by socialists or evangelicals. I think it would do our country good if we viewed both left and right ideologies as being flawed in some respects and that the solutions our county needs depend on our current balance. Could it be possible that our country could use some more leftist solutions now without saying that the right has always been in the wrong? Why not. The only way to know is to talk plainly and respectfully about our candidates and their different approaches. Thanks for contributing Doug. I know you're a busy writer so let me know if I can ever draw a picture for you...........that sounds like a pathetic trade doesn't it?
Chris, you can and should always draw me pictures! :) And I think you are absolutely right on with a point that I have almost never heard before: Why can't a more liberal policy be what our country needs now without that meaning that there is never a good time or place for conservatism? Especially the way our country (and most societies, actually) has the tendency to swing between right and left in reaction to historical events, etc., and a correction in the opposite direction is eventually needed.
Also, I think it's valid to point out that what much of the Republican party has become today is no longer about being conservative. Being certain you're always right is not conservative; it's risky and foolhardy. Spending money you don't have is definitely not conservative. I'm going to stop myself now before I end up writing another rant, but I do want to sum up with one thing: There is a difference between parties and ideologies. You can (and should) be disillusioned with or angry with a party when its people have abandoned their principles, and doing so does not necessarily mean you are opposing the merits of their ideas.
beautifully stated.
Post a Comment