Sarah Palin?

This reminds me of the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers. You could hear the collective "uhhhhhhhh...." of voters across the nation. If John McCain wanted to make an argument for the 2008 election about experience and sound decision making, I think he sunk his own battleship. Palin has been governor of Alaska for about a year and a half, a mayor for six, and on a city council for four. I'm trying to figure out what she brings to the table for McCain, and I hate to say it, but it's starting to sound like nothing, other than the obvious, that she is a woman. This is the impression that I get, especially given the overtures the McCain campaign has been making to disaffected Hilary Clinton voters.

Palin herself said during her introduction:
"It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hilary left 18 million cracks in the highest hardest glass ceiling in America, but it turns out that the women of America aren't finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all."

It sounds like the McCain/Palin campaign are banking that voting women are going to vote for this ticket, solely on the fact that Palin is a woman. Talk about single issue voting. Sure, Hilary was a woman too, but she brought with her, strong Senate experience, a positive record on womens' rights and reproductive freedom, and populist appeal. Palin, on the other hand is very much pro-life. If you were a Hilary supporter, Hilary agrees with Obama on about 95% of the issues, why would you vote for McCain who agrees with Obama on... say... 5%?

"I'm pro-life. I'll do all I can to see every baby is created with a future and potential. The legislature should do all it can to protect human life. "

With a McCain presidency and justice elections, the Supreme Court will actually have the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade. I have a feeling that even pro-life women, when faced with a legislative ban on abortion (even in cases of rape or incest) will change their tune when choice becomes no choices.

I can't help but wonder if we just witnessed the tipping point of a McCain self-destruction; maybe it was just a "senior moment". Republicans everywhere must be kicking themselves for not electing Mitt Romney in the first place. Or could it be that Palin will decline the nomination and Romney will get the nod, it sounds crazy enough to be true, especially given the way left field nature of Palin's nomination.

More information will come out about her in the coming weeks, and maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised, but as of now, it looks like he was looking for a woman to be on the campaign (it wouldn't be hard to find a more qualified woman and one that wasn't in the midst of an ethics investigation). If he truly wanted a woman as vice-president, why didn't he pick someone the GOP was more familiar with and more qualified? He could have easily chosen:

Condoleezza Rice, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Susan Collins, or Elizabeth Dole.... 4 women who I am at odds with on the political spectrum, but who obviously have more political experience, practical experience, foreign policy experience, more national exposure and support, and more distinguished careers than this former mayor of Wasilla. Any one of those women could have easily been strong contenders for VP. I think more people have heard of Wasilla, Alaska band, "Portugal. The Man," than have heard of Palin.

But to be serious for a minute, to be VP you don't need to be popular or well-known. What Americans are interested in is, if something were to happen to a 72-year old John McCain, is she ready to step in and govern the United States of America, the most dynamic economy in the nation and the most powerful military the world has ever seen. Palin was a real shot in the dark, and if she actually accepts the nomination, I think this election is over now.

less government in business, more business in government

I've always thought of George W. Bush as the MBA president, running the United States as if it was a multinational corporation (albeit with a inept CEO at the helm). For the last eight years, it has seemed to be the singular mission of the Bush administration to outsource government and let business run it. It came as no surprise that they brought in Blackwater to fight our wars, and even less when industries began to deregulate with the industry policing itself, driven by the whim of a free market economy.

This in some cases, makes for more efficient government and a more aggressive economy, but in many other cases, you are throwing the public interest to the wolves. The most recent, and most egregious that comes to mind is a proposal to make changes to the Endangered Species Act which would "streamline" the protection services of the Department of the Interior. What the proposal really does is to remove mandatory consultation from government scientists, so that what goes on the endangered species list and what factors contribute to extinction of a species becomes the responsibility of a department that oversees conservation and land development.

Quote from the MSNBC article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26143098/
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said late Monday the changes were needed to ensure that the Endangered Species Act would not be used as a “back door” to regulate the gases blamed for global warming. In May, the polar bear became the first species declared as threatened because of climate change. Warming temperatures are expected to melt the sea ice the bear depends on for survival.

The reasoning offered up for this is that since we don't know/can't make correlations that global warming is a contributing factor to species extinction (uhhhhhhh we can't?) the DOI doesn't need to seek experts on climate, ecology, etc. They can decide for themselves. Additional reasoning is that the Endangered Species Act has been around for long enough that government agencies and private land developers and land owners know best how to take care of species that fall within their boundaries and plans; they don't need to waste time consulting the experts. I can just see the level of abuse this is going to open the floodgates for rampant disregard in the name of efficiency and money.

How business friendly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26199580/
Again, none of this is unexected. I was surprised however, to see that today, George W. Bush, signed a bill banning lead in toys. Whaaaat? This is one of the few times I've seen this administration step forward to regulate the private sector. I would have expected Bush to offer the veto pen and say that it should be up to businesses to regulate themselves and consumer displeasure to manifest itself in corporations bottom line. Maybe the legislation was veto proof, or maybe you'd look heartless by not passing it. Whatever the reason, this represents a stark difference from the business friendly legislation pushed during the last 8 years of Bush.