Thanks to Kim for sharing
Women Against Sarah Palin, a collection of women's responses to the selection of Sarah Palin as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee. I've not gotten terribly far in reading the hundreds of individual replies, but it didn't take more than a few to generate a big smile on my face. I don't necessarily agree with all the opinions shared, but I love the passion, the freedom exercised, and the variety of viewpoints. Here's one fairly typical response:
By selecting someone as inexperienced, incompetent, and intolerant as Sarah Palin, John McCain shows that he has no true concern for his nation or its citizens. He’s older and not in the best health, yet he doesn’t care if his choice means that America stands a good chance of being governed by such an inappropriate and flatly frightening person. Ladies, gentlemen: We’re not voting for someone like ourselves, who drives to soccer games or likes a beer with the guys. We’re voting for the most intelligent, able person we can find. Those people are not John McCain or Sarah Palin. One more thought: I’m tired of people who are actually anti-choice being called pro-life. No one is truly pro-life who enjoys shooting defenseless timber wolves from an airplane and draping her office couch with a huge bear skin.
-Anne B., 61, Arlington, VA
Now the beginning is a bit over the top, but the closing is fabulous. I too question the legitimacy of those who oppose abortion being given the label "pro life," which would seem to imply that those of us who support a woman's right to an abortion are "anti life". I also whole heartedly agree that someone being like one of us, able to hunt, or an involved parent does not inherently qualify them for the Vice Presidency. It's just not that simple, and to infer such things in campaign speeches is insulting to the voting public (who may occasionally deserve it, but still, I'd rather vote for someone who appeals to my higher tendencies than lower ones).
- Aside # 1: The wacky connotations occasionally attached to the term "pro choice" are why I tend to prefer the bumper stickers that say "Pro Family - Pro Child - Pro Choice" to those simply proclaiming support for choice.
- Aside #1-A: Check out Urban Conservative's alternate view of the above bumper sticker. I like Adam's reply in the comments section. Hear hear.
- Aside #2: In high school a friend and I used to jokingly refer to ourselves as "pro abortion" after a classmate used the term during debate class to describe those who are in favor of choice. "Abort 'em all!" we'd cry, tongues firmly planted in cheeks. Clearly I've mellowed with age.
The responses on
Women Against Sarah Palin come from avowed liberals and conservatives, young and old, Republicans, Democrats, and others. There are a number of common themes in the responses. Many hold the same opinion I do, that being relatable does not qualify one for high office, and many more respondents are frustrated that the selection and verbiage used to introduce it suggested in some ways that women are interchangeable (sad that this must be clarified) or even universal in their interests. There are lots more personal, passionate and thought provoking arguments against the selection of Sarah Palin. I appreciate that the majority of letters are attacking the cavalier or cynical selection process rather than the woman herself. (My $0.02 is that Palin should not be blamed for accepting the nomination, or for the party choosing her for political reasons in the first place; she would be silly NOT to take up such a grand opportunity. I don't think she's a dummy.) Anyway, the website makes fascinating reading, and I recommend it.
2 comments:
so being "relatable" doesn't qualify someone for the vice presidency. okay. then why does obama say he's going to fight for the everyman instead of the big, bad corporations? why is he trying to make himself "relatable" to us? why does he go on The View and Oprah? are these not "relatable" shows to most Americans? candidates HAVE to try and come off as "relatable". who the hell wants to vote for someone that they feel isn't in touch with "reality" or with what most citizens are going through? or have been through? no one.
or maybe it's just those of us who don't know what to do at four-way stops.
Uh oh, sounds like I hit a button with the 4-way stop comment. :/
I believe what I said about relatability was that it does not inherently qualify anyone for executive office; I didn't say it isn't a nice thing to feel about candidates. (And it's a politically expected one, as campaigns are largely PR exercises. One modern turning point in this was when Bill Clinton made a big impression on young voters by playing sax on Arsenio Hall back in 92. Since that time presidential candidates have stretched their media appearances farther and wider, made easier by the fact that there are so many more places to do so.)
Relatability is like sugar in the medicine--it makes it easier to swallow. When we like someone we tend to cut them some slack in questionable moments, which is fine but only to an extent. I don't want whether I like the person to be the end-all-be-all in campaign messaging; there's too much at stake.
There are a lot of people I know who are a great joy to be around or who do tremendous things but who would definitely not make good bosses, more less presidents. As a result, when I vote for someone to represent me in government I prefer to consider more than just personal qualities; that's my choice.
I don't think anyone who runs for President is a common citizen. First I think they all must, of necessity, have egos the size of Delaware to be willing and able to put up with the constant attention and fawning/criticizing. It also takes private money (and/or superb fundraising ability), charisma, and at least a modicum of national exposure/experience to be a major party candidate. While I believe any citizen can ultimately rise in the ranks to become President, I don't think it's their everyman quality that puts them there. These are extraordinary people.
When I'm given a chance to choose who's in charge, I prefer to look for a person who can lead large groups of people constructively, manage staff and details effectively and efficiently, and act in ways that are thoughtful, resourceful, decisive, and ethical. I don't really care if the person can relate to me, per se, because the country is a heck of a lot bigger than me. I want to make sure that the medicine behind the sweetness is actually going to treat what ails us, not just cover it up for a while.
One of the things I admire and respect about Barack Obama is that he embraces and promotes an atmosphere of cooperation and thinking in positive rather than negative terms (on average, for there are no absolutes). Others may dislike this same thing about him. So be it.
As I've said before and will say again, I prefer looking on the bright side of things. Consider it my own sweet additive to the medicine of life. :)
Post a Comment