I support McCain's choice of Sarah Palin

You know you can count on me to tell it like it is, and also put things in a proper context so that you can make your own decisions. So here are some points to remember, and not have an automatic liberally biased knee jerk reaction.

1) If someone is intelligent, flexible and of high moral fiber, there is no job they cannot do, including the Presidency. When one has a foundation that is firm, one can make decisions off of that. In evidence I offer the Founding Fathers. Absolutely all they had was the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, since when the country was new, obviously no one had "presidential experience." Yet from the Founding Fathers who had only a firm vision of a republic based in democracy, a piece of paper, and state militias sprang one President after the other in the first days of the United States. The only thing they had in common as "experience" was being a landowner. For most of human history being a landowner was the basis of all political office and "experience."

2) During the "women's liberation" movement, there were few women of "experience," in either politics or academia, or in industry, or high technology positions. Yet no one made women "wait to get their promotions until they have the same experience as men" once the glass ceilings were broken. To "wait" for the "same" or "comparable experience" promotes a kind of mindset that ensures that the pace of the disenfranchised group always remains behind. Women, blacks, Native Americans, etc cannot "wait" until they have exactly comparable years and type of experience as men who have held an office. This is especially outrageous when an "inexperienced" but moral and intelligent candidate is denigrated compared to a "experienced" leader who has made repeated and often immoral mistakes. Do you keep voting a corrupt politician back into office because he or she "has more experience" than the challenging candidate? Think about it.

3) Women's groups back in the 1960's-1980's promised that one of the "benefits" of more women candidates would be a higher morality and more compassion. The most hardened shrew bra burning hippies would even say this. Now they have drawn away from that position because they have discovered that morality implies self control and boundaries on behavior. Thus they have totally reneged on their promise of promoting "more compassionate and moral" women leaders, and instead push those that support tax and spend, hedonism, anti-religion, and self absorption rather than constancy and patriotism. So the very radical "women's libbers" promised more compassion and morality from women candidates and have for the past twenty five years totally run from (and worked against) this model of candidate. Witness their reaction to Sarah Palin.

Let's be honest. Many on the radical left, which controls the Democratic Party and the media, mix up compassion with hedonism. They do not recognize compassion when they see it. A woman like Sarah Palin has five children, including one with a disability that was known of pre-birth, and they act like she's hard hearted. Yet you know that many women these radicals push as "compassionate" would have happily had five abortions. How ironic that five abortions would be viewed as "more compassionate" than five living and loved children in a traditional family setting. If that does not tell you more about what this country has come to, I don't know what will open your eyes.

4) I'm already tired of the "how will she stand up against Putin" and "she won't have respect in the Middle East." Wrong. Here's why. We've had Secretary Rice "Russian expert" for four years or whatever, and what has she given us in foreign policy and respect? Wow, she sure put those Russians and Middle East sheiks in their place. *Yawn.* And how about the Middle East? Many in positions of power are Emirs, Princes, Sheiks, who received their office through tribal and familial position and status. They will respect a moral woman who has many children in a traditional marriage far more than you realize. And this includes the terrorists, by the way, who are often reactionaries against what they view as depraved Western moral values (gee, I wonder why they think that?)

I think many men (and women) have been brainwashed by a false ideal of what "foreign policy experience" really is in truth. Being a wonk and having "traveled the world" does not provide good foreign policy or respect among leaders from different cultures. Yet that idea is pushed over and over even though any dummy can see the repeated failed results in both parties who provide "experienced" UN Ambassadors and Secretaries of States. Most of them have been TERRIBLE and you'd have to be dumb to not see how respect and results have not come from "experience."

5) Many are repelled by her pro life position (and that tells you how much abortion has become the number one hobby and sacrament among liberals, rather than cultivating and nurturing the having of children in stable loving settings). And those people will not vote for anyone pro-life, even if they have no ability to wave a magic wand and turn back time. Yet the other side is expected to be mature and vote for anti life candidates, because we are expected to look at the overall candidate's offerings. So the anti life people get to be "single issue" while accusing the pro life people of being "single issue." For example, I have voted for anti life candidates because I have assessed that they were the person I wanted to vote for at that time in that office, and knowing realistically that they will not "make abortion worse" than it already is due to the public's addition to abortion and lack of familial responsibility and context. So I act like a grown up adult and not vote single issue, yet any pro-life candidate (especially a woman) is instantly rejected with disgust by many of these fanatics rather than admiration! It boggles my mind.

6) I supported Geraldine Ferraro when she was the first nominated Vice President female candidate in 1984 and I voted for her ticket. (I even have her autograph on an engraving from an environmental fund raising benefit). And what was she attacked for during her candidacy? "Lack of foreign policy experience." She was mightily dismissed and patronized to and I hear already THE SAME WORDS, but this time from WOMEN TOO, in the first reactions to Governor Palin from the Democrats. They are saying about Governor Palin the exact same thing I heard throughout the campaign against Rep Ferraro. I tell you, they have no shame.

7) I supported Jimmy Carter when he ran for President, in large part because he had something I liked seeing, which is military experience (submarine service in his case). His terrible management of all military endeavors have put me off of looking for "military experience" in the resumes of Presidential candidates (although I am glad for Senator McCain's honorable service and the high price he paid).

Again, Jimmy Carter is an example of having "experience" in an area is often a boomerang, where they end up being terrible because they think they understand something and they do not. Young people do not remember that Carter tried to "rescue" the embassy hostages in Iran by sending helicopters into a nighttime desert storm with no preparation or understanding of combat and evacuation in a desert setting (something we now have lots of experience in now).

8) I am so annoyed with the obsessing about Senator McCain "dying in office." What if all of you had totally wasted the eight years that Ronald Reagan served as President by obsessing that he would "die in office" and thus only paid attention to the Vice President? And President Clinton had his serious heart ailment just a few years ago; what if that had happened when he was traveling, in office, perhaps had been worse? Would anyone have predicted that based on his age? (Maybe from his affinity for fast food, which was a topic of humor that became tiresome too). All I am saying that this strange culture of death has made people obsessed with "being ready" for someone dying rather than looking at what is actually happening and having some faith that people set into roles that they are suddenly called upon to serve. It's not like they are all alone on a tennis court in a match. Through generations of humanity people have stepped into huge roles when suddenly called to do so, by their country, by their faith, or by their family's needs. It's amazing how much people come through in a pinch, and it's a sign of the depressive negativity of western culture today that no one seems to understand that. (Yet Americans expect people in other countries to throw incumbents out of office that they don't like, and just assume the successor will be "acceptable," "experience" or not).

In a way, Catholics have a better understanding of this because they relate to the sudden thrusting of the office of the Pope onto a cardinal during an enclave, and who truly knows who is "ready" from "experience" to be the Vicar of Christ? Only God, and God sees them through when each candidate in turn receives that office. I wish people would be less arrogant about "qualifications" and more trusting of human character and the ability to step up to a calling or a challenge.

9) Being a fiscal conservative by definition gives a man or a woman a strong leg up in having good judgment. Thus, Governor Palin's strong fiscal conservatism and her stance about ethics in spending will, by definition, be the framework for great decision making that others who lack fiscal conservatism and ethics but have "more experience" lack. Why is this? Think about the family budget. If you have to make hard choices about spending you tend to be more thoughtful about cost and benefit, and the consequences of a bad investment. Tax and spend liberals think they can buy their way out of every problem, and spend little time thinking about consequences of their fiscal decisions. I would take a no experience fiscal conservative over a twenty year tax and spend liberal any day of the week. And Governor Palin has experience, so there you go, figure it out.

10) She has a realistic balance between understanding consuming of natural resources and conservation of natural resources and you better believe that this balance in understanding is alarmingly rare nowadays. This is where hobbies, pastimes and lifestyle are assets even if they are not "experience." The first generations of effective conservationists were farmers, hunters, and other consumers of natural resources who also understood how to preserve and enhance our planet and its ecosystems. Many who claim to be "green" today are so wrapped in plastic and lack genuine understanding of how humans are part of the ecosystem, yes, but also are at the top of the pyramid. Many "greens" today would shudder at actually getting their hands dirty, and thus lack an understanding of some of the realities of life. I grew up with the generation of environmentalists who actually viewed themselves as being alive and part of the ecosystems as both stewards and consumers. I've seen that generation replaced with a very freaky intellectual view of being "green" that is anti-human and also totally ineffective in doing the dirty work to protect the environment (like building sewage treatment plants; they'd rather worry about carbon in the air than actually take care of real problems that are not so glamorous and certainly do not offer money mining opportunities through scams like "carbon credits.") The oceans are dying because people won't build toilets for a billion people and to control wastewater and run off but boy oh boy, they want to jet around lecturing about a theoretical problem with carbon while cashing in on it. Governor Palin's lifestyle shows that she has the balance and understanding just right and that is a very rare commodity that cannot be measured as "experience," but is in truth even better than what passes for modern day plasticized "experience."

I hope that you find this helpful.