|
The process of vetting means that sufficient time and effort has been allowed to check for authenticity, verification, and accuracy of records. In the case of Sarah Palin, the vetting process has hardly begun; her nomination has come like a sniper shot from nowhere, and assurances from the Mc Cain camp that their private “due diligence” should suffice will be no substitute. On the surface, it seems like John Mc Cain was simply told who his nomination would be, and he merely obeyed his parties directive.
The vetting process is crucial when the primary candidate is 72 years old. The Republicans cavalier attitude toward this real-world concern has left me with the sensation that another “bums rush” for the Whitehouse is in play as conceived by Karl Rove. Aside from the age and gender differences, I see few distinctions between the current administration and this republican proposal despite the mantra of change and the “red herring” attempt to distance themselves from the disaster of contemporary Republican philosophy. A “rogue” administration acting on the outside is what they promise, and this is exactly how Bush led our nation into this dismal state.
It is odd when a candidate touts religiosity while calling for change. Frankly, I am unaware of anything new that the religious community has brought to the world since the Bronze Age. Legitimate change is generally not accepted within this realm unless the stated goal is to “change” back to a 3000 year old sense of morality where the world is flat, sexual transgressions were punished by death, and children could be sold into slavery. An agonizing return to the superstitious world where a human sacrifice is considered to be a necessary “expression of love” is not a pleasant option.
President Palin would follow this administration in its belief that global warming is not caused by humans, that creationism is actually a valid “science” which should be taught in schools, end reproductive rights, erode environmental regulations, continue government subsidy of the oil industry, continue the Republican wars for mineral wealth, and expand “gun rights” while citing the threadbare idea that increasing the number of guns actually makes the world “safer”.
The pencil did not make me misspell the word argument draws a false comparison and overlooks the obvious fact that there would be no misspelling by pencils if there were no pencils. Increasing the number of guns in Iraq has done little to make it a “safer place” If true, then we can end all killing in the Middle East by giving everyone a machine gun along with an unlimited supply of bullets. We could even make our schools safer by giving children guns to carry in their lunch pails.
This “accept it by faith alone” in spite of, and without any, research or evidence methodology of the religious right may constitute “proof” for some, but not for me. Under the tutelage of George Bush, this type of false reasoning has saturated modern conservative thought to the point where any religious call to “shut up and believe” can be used as a substitute for investigation, thought, and meaningful dialog for the obedient conservatives. Even a member of the radical Alaskan Independence Party is above suspicion. The potential first man is an Alaskan secessionist whose party strives to place the vote for Alaska to separate itself from the United States on the ballot. This radical intent can be spun as “patriotism”, the Palin’s tribalistic world view can be passed off as Orthodox Religion, and the man behind the curtain will continue to dictate the beliefs of Republican Party loyalists.
Amid all these practical concerns of judgment, belief, direction, and character, the obvious questions still have not been asked.
What is the exact nature of the Alaskan Governors relationship to the oil industry? Will she build pipelines at taxpayer expense, and authorize the sale of Alaskan oil to Asia? Has she never met with the industry which is the single largest taxpayer to the state? My instincts tell me that after only a slight investigation, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove, and the rest of the Neo-Cons would come creeping out of the smoke screen.
Will this so-called platform of “change” withstand rational investigation? Of course not, so, shut up and believe!
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
