Sarah Palin Hates Freedom

I am, according to my wife, somewhat of an independent.  While I’m a registered Democrat I was not sold on Obama for a very, very long time.  During the Presidential campaign I decided to wait until I understood who would be selected for the VP slots.  Over the last two weeks this has happened and it’s galvanized my choice.  

Before I go on, I am not going to address any of the personal issues that have been swarming around Sarah Palin.  To be honest, I find that they don’t matter and are none of my business.  I do, however, wish to highlight an article I read today that convinces me that Sarah Palin is the worst possible choice for VP. Possibly ever.

An article in Time shows how Sarah Palin has attempted to impose her beliefs on her fellow citizens on far ranging topics from banning books to controlling how alcohol is served. This woman isn’t conservative, she’s controlling. When a mayor asks how she can go about banning books, she is simply saying she hates freedom. The more I learn about her, the more I realize that she does not want citizens to be able to read or act in a way they desire. She wants us to be drones that drink her particular brand of Kool-Aid.

Beyond this, Sarah Palin has no experience. If her experience as mayor of a small town qualifies her to be the Vice President of the United States of America then my experience as Vice President of my Homeowner’s Association equally qualifies me. I balanced a budget, raised funds creatively, undertook projects that helped repair infrastructure, managed departments, etc. That being said, this woman has no business being one step away from the Presidency. I could see if you want to drop her into a cabinet post because you find her smart or dynamic. Let her run a department, be a senior adviser, etc. At least George W. Bush was governor of Texas.

While Barack Obama might not be the most experienced politician, his judgement is obviously superior as he picked Joe Biden, one of the most qualified people in Washington D.C. to be on his ticket.  It is time that the media stop focusing on her family and start focusing on the hard issues.  By focusing on her family, they’re allowing the Republicans to make a very emotional plea for support.  These types of messages bypass the war, economic issues, energy policy, etc. and make it about personalities.  It’s key that the Obama campaign starts hammering away on issues and that the media, for once, broadcasts hard news instead of fluff.

Sarah Palin may be a nice woman with a sweet family but her stance on almost everything is wrong for America.  While she won’t be President if elected, John McCain’s inability to follow through on centrist policy that might disagree with the far right and his inability to outline coherent, logical policy alternatives to the Obama campaign have helped me make up my mind as to where my vote will go.

Advertisements

19 responses to “Sarah Palin Hates Freedom

  1. Thank you for injecting a little sanity into the discussion.

  2. Great post, honey!

  3. Wow, you certainly have a way with ignoring the facts. The Time article you referenced quotes her losing opponent in the mayoral race as follows : “Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. “She asked the library how she could go about banning books,” he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them.” I’m not generally in favor of banning books, but NO details are provided that would give a thoughtful person reason to assume that Sarah hates freedom because she asked a librarian a question about it. As far as the booze topic? “St. George, however, points out that Palin couldn’t have seen everything through an Evangelical lens. She did, he says, notably resist calls to restrict operating hours for the bars in town.” Is that what you are even referring to? You must have just misread it.

    Sarah Palin hates freedom so much she is sending her oldest sign to fight and possibly DIE for it. Get your head out of your ass.

  4. Look, no one is dying for freedom overseas. I love our troops but they are fighting for nothing and should be brought home. To ask a librarian if she could ban books sure sounds freedom hating to me!

  5. Freedom in this country to me means to be able to get by without working 3 jobs, to be able to send your children to the best colleges possible and to have the freedom to get the best possible health care whether you have an EPO PPO or HMO.

    You may agree with Sarah Palin, I do not.

    The issues that trouble me the most are the fact she does not believe global warming is man made, creationalism, abstinence and pro life (you keep your religion, I’ll keep mine thank you), support for ending the ban on hand guns in DC, a total lack of regard for the environment and polar bears and the fact that she took the job even though it put Bristol and her two grandchildren in the spotlight….

  6. Amen Natalie. The only thing I disagree with you is the DC gun ban, I thought it was unconstitutional.

  7. Dylan – I am sure the Palin’s aren’t sending their son off saying “go risk your life for nothing”. She believes (as I do) that everyone who fights with the United States of America on their uniform is fighting for freedom – not only our continued freedom from terrorist attacks, but for the Iraqis freedom from a tyrannical, dictatorial nightmare. The point is she DOESN’T hate freedom. Whether or not the wars we are fighting will prove to be fruitful endeavors is not the point.

    Natalie – It is nonsensical to try to create your own personal definition of the word freedom. What you are describing could be called economic security, and you are currently “free” to do every one of those things. Whether or not you are ABLE to achieve economic security, is up to you, NOT the government (at least not yet). The issues you list are certainly valid reasons to oppose her ticket, and on many of them I agree with you.

    I am also an independant, and spent a lot of time weighing the various issues that our country will be faced with in the upcoming years. I basically figured that without protection from the serious threats we face abroad, and without a strong plan for becoming independant from foreign oil, it will be OUR survival we need to worry about instead of the polar bears.

  8. Come on, the war in Iraq has opened us up to more hatred from the world! There is no way you can say it has protected my freedom in one way. We were safer with Sadaam in power, he at least kept the Iranians in check. The mess we’ve created has caused more instability in Middle East and embolded other countries (Russia) to act in a unilateral fashion.

    Maybe my initial point was a little extreme, but how can you say that someone who seeks to censor books at the library even likes freedom? How can you say someone who is anti-choice likes freedom?

    You’re right, we need to get off the oil, but drilling for more won’t do it. We need to get off oil altogether and find a new energy source that will allow us to lead the world again.

  9. There’s another difference that couldn’t be more stark. McCain/Palin want us off FOREIGN oil, Obama/Biden want us off oil altogether.
    Even if Exxon and pals get there way and drill everywhere they want at taxpayer’s expense, we still would have 3% of the oil produced in the world, while consuming 21% of the world’s supply.
    McCain can do math as well, he knows his policy is crap.

  10. 4leslie – You may think that is what Obama wants to do – but this is what his New Energy For America Plan says:

    “Promote the Supply of Domestic Energy

    With 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, the U.S. cannot drill our way to energy security. But U.S. oil and gas production plays an important role in our domestic economy and remains critical to prevent global energy prices from climbing even higher. There are several key opportunities to support increased U.S. production of oil and gas that do not require opening up currently protected areas.”

    I read both parties energy plans and find that the major differences between them aren’t really that major. McCain would drill in ANWR, Barack wants to redrill in existing oil fields and tap into our strategic reserves. Both would enact laws to (or at least try to) crack down on speculation practices that drive gas prices. Both are ready to offer tax credits and other various incentives to promote alternative fuels & FFV’s, both increase natural gas, nuclear, clean coal, electric, and just-about-anything-that-we-can-invent power. Both emphasize reducing waste, addressing climate change, and “greening” many facets of government and industry. Barack has a few more mandates (especially to car companies) than incentives than McCain, McCain is offering a $300 million prize for commercially developing a plug-in car, and Barack would create the “windfall profit tax” which gives $500 to each tax-payer, paid for by creating a new tax, but it is at least, on oil companies. I doubt very highly that either party thinks their policies are crap.

  11. wow, ECKD, there is absolutely no legitimate reason why anyone should ban books! Because of the language in some of them? Are you kidding me? Thats why you can BORROW a book or not, whats next the book stores? I dont need Palin being the moral authority in my library let alone my country.

  12. Pingback: What’s With All This Drilling Fever? « Ruined My Life

  13. Sabina – Of course, I am not in favor of “banning books”, but the issue is not as cut and dry as the article or you try to make it appear. I contend that removing books from a library (which never even happened, but was only inquired about) is NOT book banning. Preventing something from being published, sold, and passing laws that prohibit owning or reading a book is banning it.

    Everyday libraries cull their stacks and remove outdated, rarely borrowed, or damaged books, many of which are not replaced. Everyday libraries must decide which new books to add to their collections. Sometimes these tasks are left to the librarians themselves, sometimes they follow national selection criteria for libraries their size, sometimes there is a committee, but almost always they are funded by local taypayers money.

    If Palin’s constituants had a problem with some of the materials the library was offering, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for her to ask the librarian what course of action might be taken to address that. Since few small town libraries have the space or funds to carry every book in print, there will ALWAYS be some sort of censorship, some books will be offered, some will not. Of course, this begs the question – WHO gets to decide what books are available? The Library? The Mayor? The Taxpayers? You?

  14. Wow, what you’re talking about IS banning books. You’re basically saying that it’s ok for a small town (where often the library is the only source of books) to decide what is appropriate to provide to its citizens. Any time a government official tries to remove books it is a violation of the 1st Amendment and should scare the SHIT out of all of us.

    The tyranny of the majority is no excuse to remove books either. Great works of literature have been attacked by people trying to uphold community standards. Should we remove Catcher in the Rye or A Clockwork Orange from the shelves of a library because someone finds them objectionable? The answer is NEVER.

    You’re right that limited budgets will force librarians to purchase some books and not purchase others, but for any official to ask for them to be removed is censorship at its worst. Why not just have everyone gather in the center of town and burn the books they don’t like?

    Censorship is ALWAYS cut and dry. As a society we need to fight back those who wish to restrict the ideas that flow and Sarah Palin is one of those people.

  15. I am saying that the small town library already DOES decide what materials are appropriate to provide. You have somehow confused the ideas of “to prohibit” and “must provide for free to the public”. There are hundreds of books my library doesn’t have that I would like to order from Amazon, but do not have the disposable income to purchase, am I being censored?

    As far as the 1st Amendments protections for free speech, (which I believe is what you are alluding to), wouldn’t you extend that same concept to my right to burn books I think are questionable – as an act of free expression?

    It’s kind of cute, but very naive, to think “censorship is ALWAYS cut and dry”. It almost never is, and our Supreme Court has been hotly debating and ajudicating cases about it for a hundred years. (Please Do NOT force me to start quoting case law to you). I’m sure you’re familiar with the typical examples of “yelling fire in a crowded theatre” etc., but there are thousands more restrictions on obscenity, pornography, hate speech, libel, fraud, and incitement to illegal conduct. NONE of our rights, especially written or spoken free speech are protected unilaterally. And yes, if you ever did care to know the breadth and extent of it you should be scared.

    Moreover, the question remains – Who SHOULD decide which books to make available?

  16. Why is it that the fire in a crowded theater bit is quoted as a way to support the restriction of free speech?? Yes, the librarian makes a decision based on the budget and may decide to not buy a book they don’t feel there would be demand for. However, that is entirely different than Sarah Palin going to the local librarian and trying to get books pulled off the shelves that she finds objectionable.

    If you want to burn books, go ahead. Again you’re missing the point that Sarah Palin tried to get books pulled that SHE didn’t like. Where does she get the nerve to decide what other people can or cannot check out of a public library.

    It’s clear to me that the woman does not have the basic understanding of civics that any high school student should need to graduate and we’re talking about her potentially being the VP? She may be the last elected official who should have been selected. She’s a God Damn Menace!

    And I for one don’t think there should be any restrictions of obscenity, pornography, or hate speech. They may be offensive but tough shit.

    I believe that the American Library Association (ALA) makes suggestions of new books being released to its constituency that are objective and take into account the ideals of the free exchange of ideas. It may not be an absolute perfect system, but I know that the INTENT is good. Sarah Palin’s intent to pull books off the shelves is about as UnAmerican as you can get!

  17. The “fire in the crowded theater bit” was is often cited to support the restriction of free speech, because it stems from the landmark free speech case Schenck v. United States back in 1919, where Justice Holmes determined that even the “most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a panic”. It is the Supreme Court justifying restrictions on free speech, and thus deemed THE authoritative source on the matter.

    I find it odd that you feel comfortable letting an unknown, (non-elected) librarian choose the books we can read, but not the mayor. Besides that, your Time article clearly stated that Palin was asking about books her constituants found objectionable, not her personally. We don’t know what books, we don’t know how many constituants. She could have had a bunch of angry PTA moms in her office demanding that she pull Hustler, and she just “asked” to appease them and was as secretly happy about the librarians refusal. Probably not, but “innocent until proven guilty” is another basic civics concept that you choose not to apply here.

    Your attempts to paint her as a “God Damn Menace” and “UnAmerican” are as unjustified as your original claim that she “hates freedom”. I responded to try to elevate the discussion with some actual intellectual discourse, as opposed to the typical mud-slinging and thoughtless, close-minded, party-line following, crapola that totally dominates politics. If you honestly want to uphold your “ideals of the free exchange of ideas” – why don’t you start here?

  18. Excuse me but I haven’t made one edit to any discourse on this blog so don’t start to try and paint me as the one who is not having a free exchange of ideals. Also, I could care less which party she belongs to (I think Tipper Gore is the worst person in the world because of her work on the PMRC), but Sarah Palin IS unAmerican.

    She represents the worst of this new breed of thought where it’s all “do what we say.” I’ve read on the Internet (and while I’m not sure its 100% true) that one of the books she wanted to pull was A Clockwork Orange. The point isn’t what the material was, it’s that she shouldn’t have asked in the first place AND she shouldn’t have tried to get the librarian fired for disagreeing with her.

    The point of this whole post is NOT the fire in a crowded theater bit. It’s a booking banning issue. And yes, I feel much better with a librarian making the decision any day of the week. The ALA makes a point of trying to promote books regardless of their content.

    There is just no way to justify Sarah Palin’s actions. Her “ideals” are dangerous. If John McCain had picked Tom Ridge, I would have had a tough decision to make. Instead he picked Sarah Palin to be a heartbeat away from the office of President. She’s not qualified and her stances are out of touch with what is best about this country.

  19. First ask what is Mrs. Palin hiding? And yes she is a weird one. The fact is her son is going of to Iraq is so he doesn’t cause any more embrarassment to the family. being he had been using drugs. So this is one way to get rid of him for now. And they quickly let her pregnant daughter come back home to cover up, how she felt about that too. This lady have quite a bit to cover up. Not VP material at all, more like a professional misinform individual.