Saturday, August 30, 2008

Georgina W. Bush

So, we now have an attractive, affable, young governor, who believes in the spirit of bipartisanship in the state legislature. The governor has no knowledge of, much less experience in, foreign policy, and is a religious rightwing ideologue: pro-life; supports teaching intelligent design in schools, against equal pay for women, anti-gay, a game-hunter.

In short , Sarah Palin is George W. Bush all over again.

I wonder whether Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Dick Cheny are available for more tutoring.

7 comments:

Y. Ben-David said...

To tell you the truth, I, as someone who hopes McCain will win, am not comfortable with the his choice for VP, but I still would rather have an unqualified, inexperienced person in the Vice President's slot, as is the case with the McCain ticket, than an inexperience, unqualified person in the White House, as is the case with the Obama ticket.
Bush I's choice of Vice President, Dan Quayle, was also considered a poor one (I really can't say if Quayle was NOT qualified to be President, he, after all, had been a senator for some time....there is more to being President than knowing how to spell "potato"), but that ticket won, even with the very qualified Lloyd Bentsen on the opposing ticket.

Jerry Haber said...

Experience is not the issue for me, either in the case of Palin or Obama (although you have to admit that Obama, in defeating Hillary Clinton nationwide in a difficult campaign, now has some experience that Palin lacks.)

Experience is now not the issue with Obama, according to McCain and the Republicans. By selecting Palin, they have just given up their best argument

Dan Quayle was a US Senator, and while he was certainly not impressive, he had some grip of foreign policy issues before running for Vice President. I am talking not about experience but about knowledge.

The issue is whether you are comfortable with Sarah Palin as president, not as vice-president. And maybe you are, or at least prefer her to Obama.

And what I was saying is that we have seen what happens when a rightwing religious ideological president who has no knowledge of foreign affairs pushes a narrowly partisan agenda.

But I certainly can understand why a McCain supporter (and a George W. Bush supporter) will continue to support McCain, even when he is not happy with the vice-presidential choice.

I doubt that most of the Clinton women will go for it and, depending upon what unfolds in the coming weeks, I doubt that working class Democrats will go for it, either. But I grant that it will energize the religious right, though, and that is something.

Jerry Haber said...

By "working class Democrats" I meant those who were not going to vote for McCain in any event.

Y. Ben-David said...

Just for the record, all the "progressive" bloggers I interact with assume I am a supporter of W. Bush. That is most certainly NOT the case, I think he was a very poor President, because of the war in Iraq, because he didn't use 9/11 as an opportunity to implement a real energy policy in the US and because I don't view him as any sort of "friend" to Israel, but of course, my idea of how a "friend" treats Israel is probably different than yours.

David L. said...

I am voting for Chuck Baldwin on the Constitution Party altogether for President. Baldwin-Castle '08, the ticket for those who put America First!

Anonymous said...

She's Palin comparison to Obama ( and I don't mean skin colour). Those Hilarytes who stay home or vote for Palin remind me of those Trotskyists who urged their followers to vote right as that would make things worse and more workers would see the light and the revolution would come sooner.

McCain-Palin would put the US clearly into the late 19th century as far as women's, minorities', and working people's rights are concerned. Being firmly rooted in the late 19th century would help the US deal with Russia and lose badly in China, India, Africa and especially in the Middle East.
-Ploni

Margaret said...

It is possible there are women who support the ideal of the freedom of women from exploitation, I'm not sure how, but let's accept all things are possible), and who would support the platform of the Republican party. It does not seem likely that there are many such, and I believe those women who voted for Clinton did so for what she believed in, not a hundred per cent, of course (there are some significant areas where she and I part company), but those areas of agreement are important enough to override other less important considerations and to keep one in the camp that has nominated Obama. I'm willing to bet money that Clinton's supporters will vote in the majority for Obama.