It is my belief that Sarah Palin is an improper candidate for the vice-presidency of the United States, given that she is, by the account of these examples, unfit for the American people, being out of touch with their values.
She has recently called the occupation of Iraq “God’s task,” a position held only by those committed to an extreme ideology.
She has actively sought the support of the fringe Alaska Independence Party, which advocates for a vote on secession from the union, and wished the party luck on what she called its “inspiring convention.”
She has advocated the teaching of creationism (a demand that the Genesis story told in the Bible be interpreted as scientific fact) to children, in contradiction of current science, and has refused to admit the cause of global warming, remarking,
“I’m not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made.”
Her inauguration was sponsored by British Petroleum, and she retains strong ties in other areas to the oil industry. As if as a result, she supports the devastation of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by oil wells and the opening of coasts to drilling.
She has opposed abortion even in the case of rape or incest, and opposes comprehensive sex education in public schools, stating that she will only support abstinence-only approaches.
As a mayor in Alaska, Palin tried to ban books from the library, shocking the librarian, Mary Ellen Baker. According to Time Magazine, “News reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving ‘full support’ to the mayor.” This reflects the Bush administration’s practice of declaring those who oppose the war effort terrorists, and also reflects similar practices maintained by regimes said to be repressive around the world.
Palin claimed that she said “thanks, but no thanks” to the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. In 2006, Palin supported the project repeatedly, saying that Alaska should take advantage of earmarks “while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.”
All these appear to indicate that she is as distant from what this nation needs as the Bush administration has been, given that all of these ideas have been supported by them at one time or another. Therefore I ask that the United States reject
Sarah Palin as candidate for vice presidency.
Siddharth Mehrotra, Camarillo
Palin, not really the everywoman
If you’ve been swept up by the upsweep hairdo, regular-working-woman-hockey-mom image who will fight for women’s rights that Sarah Palin is trying to portray, don’t be fooled.
First of all, she’s a government official, who aside from making at least a living wage, receives all the benefits, perks and privileges that go along with the job, which is not quite the same as humping it as a CNA or a Wal-Mart or Burger King employee. So she’s not really the everywoman she’d like us to believe she is. Also, she has a husband who works for one of the largest oil companies in the world, so he likely earns a decent salary as well.
Secondly, she is extremely anti-choice. She does not support abortion even in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is in jeopardy, and believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. At the same time, she opposes comprehensive sex education and birth control information, and only supports abstinence-only (until marriage) programs, which fail miserably in the general population, and obviously didn’t work all that well in her own family.
Not to mention that she doesn’t think humans contribute to global warming, she has tried to ban books in her local library that don’t fit in with her personal beliefs and agenda, and (in her own words) has little idea of what the job of the vice president actually is. And though these are not specifically women’s issues, they should give us all great pause about Sarah Palin.
Is this the person we really want as our president should the 72-year-old McCain kick the bucket? A pit bull with lipstick (again, her own words to describe herself)?
It’s pretty hard to have any meaningful discourse with a pit bull, lipstick or not.
Wendy Steiger, Ventura
Strickland, a proud Republican?
Now that “Tony Strickland for State Senate” signs are sprouting up in every tree well and vacant lot, just like weeds do, I want to point out these signs’ appalling omission and even more appalling inclusion, both of which I am sure were purposefully designed by his campaign.
First of all, what party is he affiliated with? I know he is a Republican and maybe you know he is a Republican, but his signs are not letting on to this fact. I understand why he would want to disassociate himself from this party, considering all the damage it has done to America, but if he can’t stand the heat, he needs to get out of the kitchen. He shouldn’t lie by making inferences that he belongs to another party, which is the second thing his signs do by saying that he represents
“Independent Leadership.” This is totally misleading in one respect and an outright lie in another.
By not stating openly that he is a Republican and by putting the word “independent” on his signs, in one sense of the word, people could be misled into thinking he is a registered Independent.
In another sense of the word, the one that implies that he would not vote along party lines but would vote for the people he represents, he is just plain lying. All you have to do is look at his past voting record to see that he has voted in a
Bush-like way as often as Elton Gallegly and John McCain have.
He is a poster child for the kind of politico that Sen. Barack Obama talks about when he says it is time for a change in America. We need less lies and more honesty out of our government, and from his deceptive signs it is clear that we won’t get the latter from Tony Strickland.
John Darling, Ventura