Sunday, September 14, 2008


Sometimes when I find something amazingly appalling or horribly wrong I get a sort of buzz in my head that drowns out everything but my shock.

I don't want to tell you what your response should be when you read this. But that was mine.

And this is the New York Times, folks. It's not a joke.


Braden and Meredith said...

Ana, what was it that set off the buzz? I think the story seems to be quite slanted and unfair--rather a hatchet job, it seems. Is that what you are objecting to? Or, are you accepting the basic premise of the story and are angry that Gov. Palin has done these things? Just curious because I could see it being either one...

Lucy said...

You and Matt Damon must have a lot in common. I think Sarah Palin is a polarizing figure, because she is in the position she is in. Really, if you really look at her...she represents a lot of Americans. I guess I'm alarmed that so many of the intellectual "elite" hate her so bad, because it's kind of telling about how they view the average American and their apparently uncouth beliefs.

Now, as for as the nepotism and placement of her friends in positions of power, I really, really don't think she's that different from any politician. It's just that her friends are even more average than she is, so they appear even that much more unsuited for the position. Spitzer did it in New York. I would be you couldn't find a single politician who had a clear record.

I'm sorry, but as reputable as the New York Times is, this really is a very, very biased piece.

Jenne said...

Okay, I finally read it all, I promised I would. I do think it is very slanted. All of those points have reasons. First, we do not know the deets of the troopers affairs with his wife, was he abusive, lying, then he is held to an even higher standard being a member of law enforcement, and he should be fired, I don't care who instigated it. Second, if she is new to politics, and there is corruption(which I keep hearing there was, no arguments there I've seen), small population state, I would most definately surround myself with people I trust. Probably not the most qualified, but I'm not hearing they did horrible jobs????? 3. Personal email accts., I most definately can see her not wanting all of her new political enlightenment/thoughts to be aired publicly. Maybe people had a hard time drawing the line between personal/business and it was necessary. 4, I also would ask my mil to guard her words (wink). Just my humble opinion. I am still a LONG way from making a decision on either candidate and avoiding getting worked up over all of this, it's overwhelming. But I will be fair and do my own research on all of them. I just didn't get the same feeling. I don't agree with everything she does or stand for, but I loathe politics, and have had my fair share.

NY Times, is media, and imo, they all have their good and bad moments. I don't happen to think this is a good moment for them. It's not very eye opening for me because I'm reading between the lines and see explanations for many of her actions. TBH, it's how small govt' works, and Alaska isn't exactly a metropolis.

Newsgrrl said...

Ana, I'm with you.

The thing that bothers me is that we are not allowed to question Palin, to know her credentials, and we are supposed to just "trust" that she's "ready" to lead.

We cannot be a free society if our leaders are not operating publicly and are not accountable. That's fascism, not democracy.

And when we point out -- as we do with all other candidates -- that there might be some things people want to consider before they vote, we are "slanted" and "unfair."

The other thing that really gets me is that the McCain camp says if anyone asks Palin about her credentials, beliefs, past practices and policies, they are being "sexist."

His choice of Palin is sexist in itself. He chose a woman not because she was qualified, but because he needed a woman to try and snap up the angry Clinton supporters.

And he did it having only met Palin in person once, for 15 minutes, and a half-hour phone interview. No vetting.

I can't get a job at McDonald's with that brief a job interview.

His attitude is that all women are interchangeable. Palin and Clinton couldn't be more different. AND, his camp thinks American women are too stupid to notice the difference, and we will simply vote his way because he chose a woman.

The actuarial tables say McCain won't survive his first term in office.

If you want someone with absolutely no qualification in the White House -- someone who "doesn't follow what's going on in Iraq," even though her son is being sent there; who doesn't understand that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't taxpayer supported UNTIL the bailout; who thinks being able to see Russia from her house means she has foreign relations experience -- if that's who you want in the White House, then by all means, vote for McCain.

Me, I can't live with another four years of fail.

Either can a lot of people who are losing their homes and their jobs, not to mention their savings and 401K accounts. I cannot live with another four years of Iraq. I cannot live with another four years of fearmongering and divisive politics.

We have a responsibility as members of a democracy to make informaed decisions when we go to the polls -- not to elect someone because we like their hair or we think they might be nice to have dinner with. We're never going to have dinner with them. They will be -- or should be -- way too busy running the country.

In the end, we all have to vote our consciences.

I know what mine can live with.

Ana said...

Coming back to this after a couple of weeks reminding myself that all the people I care about don't have to agree with me ...

Here is what bothered me the most: the cronyism that is well documented here is what gave us Michael Brown in charge of FEMA during Katrina. If I were running a major enterprise I would never do my hiring that way, no matter how much I love and respect my friends (and I do!) It is just not a responsible way to do business. It's not professional. It's the work of someone who thinks popularity and loyalty are more important than intelligence, experience or even competence. It is, to borrow a campaign slogan, more of the same.