Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Out scouting for Sarah Palin blogs

I took a few minutes to wander around the Internet in search of positive blogs regarding Sarah Palin a few days ago. It was rather surprising to find that Google seemingly can't find hardly any, and can't find any to put on the first number of pages that come up on their search engines.

Now all I hear from friends is good stuff. All I get via email from all over the country are good things. Everyone has fallen in love with Sarah Palin it seems, except the media and liberal or Democratic bloggers.

So, I decided just to try popping in names of blogs with Sarah Palin's name in them to see what the level of support might be for her.

Here's a list of what I've found thus far:

Barracuda Babes for Sarah Palin
Lipstick Smears
Go Sarah Palin
We Love Sarah Palin
You can call her GOVERNOR, Senator Obama
Scared of Sarah
Superwoman Sarah Palin

I'm sure there are more, but those are part of the "Read My Lipstick" network! Isn't that cool? With any luck I'll find a few more out there and will be able to share them with you.

I am one of the many across the country who happens to think Sarah Palin is fantastic. She has done it her own way. The media keeps trying to say she's an "unknown" but geez, I think the country must know more about her at this point than they know about any of the other candidates.

I watched part of the interview Greta did on Fox last night with Todd Palin. She is one lucky lady to have a guy who is comfortable enough in his own skin that he's not threatened by her. You can tell the way he talks, and the way she talks, that they have built a strong relationship and that they are supportive of each other. It was kind of interesting seeing him on the snow machine, winning the race. She was so excited for him. When they talked with her she was chewing gum and holding a little one. I bet she quit chewing gum and talking when she ran for office!

On the issue of experience and the other Democratic talking points we keep hearing... line 'em up, look at history, and she's got more experience than quite a few who've run our country. I was listening to someone on the "talks" discussing foreign affairs experience. They ran down who had it when they went into office (not Clinton, not Bush, not a bunch of others) and then they mentioned those who did. ALL of them made errors in judgement (in hindsight) when dealing with issues relating to foreign affairs. ALL of them had people around them who had great experience in that arena.

I think of being the Vice President or President as somewhat akin to being a parent. We all go into it, or went into it, unprepared no matter how we judged ourselves at the time junior popped into the world. As older parents most of us are able to look back and see errors we made while raising our children. It helps in parenting if you've taken some classes (rare) or come from a family where you had siblings you had to help raise or you kept the church nursery on a regular basis, but nothing prepares you for the unknown.

It take good judgement, a sharp mind, a willingness to listen to others and many other characteristics to be a good parent. Ditto with being President.

I think we give to much credit, or blame, to a President to begin with. We're being rather silly if we think the President is the one who is at fault for our economy. Congress has more power than the President. The President isn't up there making the laws. He can veto some things, but it can be overturned. He appoints judges and those in certain critical positions, then fights tooth and nail to try and get them approved. The entire time he's fighting for those positions decisions are being made and life is going on in those particular offices.

Oil prices are set outside the country. It's not the President who's stopping us from drilling, it's a small segment of the American population putting pressure on their elected officials who are bowing to their wishes.

I know there are some things the government could have done to help forestall some of the things that we're dealing with now. But I betcha that if they'd tried before the crisis hit enough people would have been up in arms that they never would have had what it takes to put it into action. And, it wouldn't be the President who would have had to take action, although it would have helped if he'd been behind it (or given the makeup of the majority, probably would have helped more if he'd been against it!).

I love the way we sit out here judging what people in office do when we really haven't got a clue. We don't know what kind of ideas are floated by our elected officials and turned down cold. We don't know the deals being brokered. We don't know an awful lot, yet we judge.

There is nothing going on at the moment in our economy that resulted from the action of one person, one government, one business, one group. It's a conglomeration of all kinds of factors and to blame the President to my way of thinking is rather silly. There's plenty of blame to go around and a lot of it boils down to pure human ambition and / or greed.

How far off track I have gone! I start with Sarah and end up talking about the ills of the world. This blog might work better in my Ramblin' Jan blog given the way I'm rambling and just barely touching on so many subjects. Isn't it amazing how we can take something so big and complex and try to analyze it in a few short paragraphs?

I watch the various economic analysis shows at times. Just like in politics, there's opposing views on every subject under the sun. How in the world does anyone ever get anything right?

I want to end with Sarah Palin since that's the subject I started out to tackle. While I'm waiting for websites to load or things to download I'm going to continue to see if I can find more positive blogs. I loved the "Read My Lipstick" network! I wonder if there's a site where they list all the blogs? Hmmm... there you go, I have my search direction!

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Janet, you're right about the sour economy not being the fault of one particular individual. You're also right that the reason that the housing crisis is bludgeoning the banking sector to death has a lot to do with corporate and investor greed.

However, the pathway to this current crisis was paved by an excessively neo-liberal economic strategy that was founded on the principals of "trickle-down economics" and de-regulation. These disastrous policies have been championed by Republicans in the Goldwater/Reagan/Bush/McCain right wing of the party for decades.

The collapse is not the result of the economic policies of true Democrats (or Eisenhower/Nixon republicans), who generally push for more government regulation in the financial markets.

Deregulation and trickle-down policies place complete faith in the free market. The theory is that by removing government oversight and reducing corporate tax burdens, financial institutions (and other corporations) will be more profitable and the money will trickle its way down to the every day American's pockets. However, the recent tax-payer buyouts of Fannie and Freddie have shown us that the market cannot be trusted on its own.

Without regulation, greed conquers. Firms find way to make more and more money in riskier investments. Jobs get outsourced to raise the bottom line. Then, because of greed and bad ideas, the government must step into rescue the giant financial firms in a last ditch effort to prevent the complete capsizing of the American economy.

With more federal oversight in place to begin with this never would have happened. The president and congress cannot shape economic policy all by themselves--that is true. But the Commander in Chief has more power than you let on. He's the one who appoints the Federal reserve Board.

You point out that Dems have a majority in Congress now, but that has only been true since January 2007. The "majority" is 1 in the senate, and then only if the Dems count independent Joe Lieberman as one of their own (which convention did he speak at again?). Even with this "majority" many democratic congressmen are "blue dog dems" meaning that they, like republicans, are economically liberal (in the true meanings of the words, Dems are economically conservative and socially liberal. Vice-a-versa for Republicans. Don't confuse the terms "economic" and "fiscal," as fiscal applies to federal spending. However, labeling either national party fiscally conservative is laughable at this point)

I don't want more of the same. McCain and especially Palin reflect GW's ideas almost identically across the board. And for all the Palin love (she is spunky, I have to admit), just remember that the McCain campaign has publicly admitted that she was McCain's second choice. The GOP party big-wigs would not let him choose Joe Lieberman as a running mate. Her selection is a cynical, calculated and purely political move. To think otherwise is naive.