Look how liberal the Republican Party is being, they've chosen a female running mate for Old Man McCain. How progressive, they're closing the gender gap, and allowing a new governor in her first term, from a low population state, a chance at the big-times. She's a hockey mom with 5 kids. How special. *puke*
Let's take a closer look and read between the lines.
Prior to her first term as Alaska's governor she was a mayor of a small town of only 8,000-9,000 people. Now I'm all for someone who's capable of a job being given a chance, but that's not why she was chosen. She was chosen because the people he wanted were vetoed for being to controversial.
She was also chosen because as a woman and a mom she will appeal to some of Hilary Clinton's more conservative supporters. She appeals to the people because she lives in a small town, she has 5 kids and one is on his way to Iraq. Big deal. Her sex is really a non issue here, the point is she is very right wing on all the traditional Conservative issues she's supposed to be right wing on. She's for guns and hunting, she's opposed to same sex marrige, and she's pro-life and pro oil. (Personally, I find the pro-guns, pro- life thing a little hypocritical don't you think?)
She was also chosen because of the state she represents. I've watched talk of armed conflict over the arctic and oil exploration go from 2 paragraph articles on page 16 of section D to being discussed on national and international news. Although armed conflict has not shown up of front pages, it is being talked about by political scientists, political analysts and opinion writers. Alaska is the United States door to the Arctic. Having the former governor of Alaska in the Whitehouse keeps the Arctic issue at the fore front of America's media. She has no foreign policy experience and we're going to have her influencing the largest "land" claim dispute since the post World War II?! Not wise.
This woman is for aggressive oil exploration on land and in the Arctic seabed, she's for drilling in Alaska's wildlife refuge, she's just signed a deal with Canada to build a a major oil pipeline. Her influence in Alaska is key to pushing hard on the Arctic issue.
The most concerning part about her nomination is how likely should would be to become president. We've seen what happens with someone who has something to prove gets in to office. Is Canada and the Arctic the next Iraq? You'd think a mother with 5 kids would want to preserve the environment so that her children and grandchildren can enjoy it as well. Perhaps she jsut wants to preserve their ability to buy and fuel a shiny new car and buy cheap ipods.
Let's face it here, John McCain is 72, he could die from the flu, let alone heart attacks and other age related issues. To quote a CBC correspondent "she is just one heart beat away from Presidency"
Not only would she be the first female president, she would be a young and inexperienced. She would have to prove herself over and over again, for being a woman, for being young, and for being inexperienced. Canada is only one heart beat away from armed conflict with the United States, one of the most powerful armed forces in the world, for the Arctic seabed and the North West Passage, because a 44 yr old soccer mom from small town Alaska has something to prove the the world.
Obama was correct is saying the United States can be a better country than it has been the last 8 years, but it won't be better the next 4 with a stale old man that has agreed with George W. Bush 90% of the time and an aggressive inexperienced woman with something to prove.
She was brought in to fill a niche not to bring balance to team. She's there to win over Hilary Clinton's supporters and to focus on the Arctic. McCain is using her for what she represents and not for what she can contribute personally to the administration. She must know that, which only means she'll be over compensating even more at every turn. The myth is that bringing a woman in to office will be lessen the likelihood of a war, war is a man's game, right? In this case, I think she's more likely to cause it. Perhaps I give Washington too much credit in believing that they know all of this and plan to use her as a scapegoat. Someone to blame the conflict on and to say that women should not be in office. But know who knows...
A win for the Republicans on November 4, 2008 is dangerous for Canada. We have water and we have oil and America wants them both. With a Democrat win there's perhaps a 50% chance of armed conflict over the Arctic and it's natural resources. With a Republican win I predict a 80% chance of armed conflict over the Arctic.
There's more at stake here than just Canada and the United States. There's more at stake that oil and water and North American trade. They're both G-8 countries, they're both NATO countries, they're both UN members. Any conflict would not be just a North American conflict, it would be a global conflict.
Let's take a closer look and read between the lines.
Prior to her first term as Alaska's governor she was a mayor of a small town of only 8,000-9,000 people. Now I'm all for someone who's capable of a job being given a chance, but that's not why she was chosen. She was chosen because the people he wanted were vetoed for being to controversial.
She was also chosen because as a woman and a mom she will appeal to some of Hilary Clinton's more conservative supporters. She appeals to the people because she lives in a small town, she has 5 kids and one is on his way to Iraq. Big deal. Her sex is really a non issue here, the point is she is very right wing on all the traditional Conservative issues she's supposed to be right wing on. She's for guns and hunting, she's opposed to same sex marrige, and she's pro-life and pro oil. (Personally, I find the pro-guns, pro- life thing a little hypocritical don't you think?)
She was also chosen because of the state she represents. I've watched talk of armed conflict over the arctic and oil exploration go from 2 paragraph articles on page 16 of section D to being discussed on national and international news. Although armed conflict has not shown up of front pages, it is being talked about by political scientists, political analysts and opinion writers. Alaska is the United States door to the Arctic. Having the former governor of Alaska in the Whitehouse keeps the Arctic issue at the fore front of America's media. She has no foreign policy experience and we're going to have her influencing the largest "land" claim dispute since the post World War II?! Not wise.
This woman is for aggressive oil exploration on land and in the Arctic seabed, she's for drilling in Alaska's wildlife refuge, she's just signed a deal with Canada to build a a major oil pipeline. Her influence in Alaska is key to pushing hard on the Arctic issue.
The most concerning part about her nomination is how likely should would be to become president. We've seen what happens with someone who has something to prove gets in to office. Is Canada and the Arctic the next Iraq? You'd think a mother with 5 kids would want to preserve the environment so that her children and grandchildren can enjoy it as well. Perhaps she jsut wants to preserve their ability to buy and fuel a shiny new car and buy cheap ipods.
Let's face it here, John McCain is 72, he could die from the flu, let alone heart attacks and other age related issues. To quote a CBC correspondent "she is just one heart beat away from Presidency"
Not only would she be the first female president, she would be a young and inexperienced. She would have to prove herself over and over again, for being a woman, for being young, and for being inexperienced. Canada is only one heart beat away from armed conflict with the United States, one of the most powerful armed forces in the world, for the Arctic seabed and the North West Passage, because a 44 yr old soccer mom from small town Alaska has something to prove the the world.
Obama was correct is saying the United States can be a better country than it has been the last 8 years, but it won't be better the next 4 with a stale old man that has agreed with George W. Bush 90% of the time and an aggressive inexperienced woman with something to prove.
She was brought in to fill a niche not to bring balance to team. She's there to win over Hilary Clinton's supporters and to focus on the Arctic. McCain is using her for what she represents and not for what she can contribute personally to the administration. She must know that, which only means she'll be over compensating even more at every turn. The myth is that bringing a woman in to office will be lessen the likelihood of a war, war is a man's game, right? In this case, I think she's more likely to cause it. Perhaps I give Washington too much credit in believing that they know all of this and plan to use her as a scapegoat. Someone to blame the conflict on and to say that women should not be in office. But know who knows...
A win for the Republicans on November 4, 2008 is dangerous for Canada. We have water and we have oil and America wants them both. With a Democrat win there's perhaps a 50% chance of armed conflict over the Arctic and it's natural resources. With a Republican win I predict a 80% chance of armed conflict over the Arctic.
There's more at stake here than just Canada and the United States. There's more at stake that oil and water and North American trade. They're both G-8 countries, they're both NATO countries, they're both UN members. Any conflict would not be just a North American conflict, it would be a global conflict.
