fizzawrites (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
fizzawrites) wrote2008-08-29 07:38 pm
fizzawrites) wrote2008-08-29 07:38 pm
deep, calming breaths; deep, calming breaths
So I CAPSLOCKED a lot this morning over McCain's Veep choice. (side note: why don't we do the runner-up in primary automatically gets to be Veep anymore? Seems a lot less "deemed from on high by the possible next president" and more "hey, this is the other person who really wanted this job! And a lot of people seemed to like them!". If if worked that way, we'd get Clinton and Romney as VPs. And that'd be hilarious for a debate. I'll have to look into this.)
And the more I thought about it, how my initial reaction went from "huh? did someone talk this over with McCain before he made that decision?" to "I'm very uncomfortable with the assumption that women would be automatically wooed with the possibility of voting for a female vice president without knowing who she is " (emphasis very very important) to blackout rages over a variety of anecdotal (yes, anecdotal... but honestly sometimes that gives me the greatest pause) evidence that this is possibly true for more than an extreme minority of undecided (not Hillary supporters, not dyed in the wool Republicans, undecided) voters would want to do just that. Say "I'm making history by voting for a woman in the national executive! Wooo go women!" (Meanwhile, Ferraro just shakes her head and rolls her eyes). That, to me, is far more disturbing than whatever Rachel Palin's political views are. That hurts deep.
So, laying aside the "experience" issue (from what I've seen on TV today, talking heads on both sides are racking up some bizarre logics to attack the other on this point.). Laying aside Alaska and beauty queen and whatever sort of things are going to be thrown around this weekend, the question remains: who is Sarah Palin? Do you know? Does anyone who says today "this changes my vote!" ,either way, know?
Isn't that a fucking scary way to choose someone in the executive branch? VP or not, isn't that a scary way to elect anyone? I'm not even talking "hey,that person is a Democrat! And I general agree with Democrats!" way. At least that's more informed than "LADY! WOOO! VOTING!!!" That's TRL-style voting kids, and I adored TRL, but that was before I could vote in a political election.
I'm going on a fact-finding mission y'all, I'm going to look high and low, sources I agree with and sources I don't, I'm going to wade deep - because if nothing else, I don't want to tick off my absentee ballot with a ounce of "I should probably take my own advice" lingering. I made that mistake already this year. I can't stop people from not paying attention. But whenever anyone tells me who they are going to vote for, I'm going to ask (with hopefully, the most unjudgmental voice I can muster) why?
Because regardless of your reason, you should probably be aware of what it is.
Dear Flist,
Why?
love,
me.
ETA: I'm also pretty excited about reading this book (True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society), because it speaks to a lot of concerns I have about the internet and my possible chosen profession.
And the more I thought about it, how my initial reaction went from "huh? did someone talk this over with McCain before he made that decision?" to "I'm very uncomfortable with the assumption that women would be automatically wooed with the possibility of voting for a female vice president without knowing who she is " (emphasis very very important) to blackout rages over a variety of anecdotal (yes, anecdotal... but honestly sometimes that gives me the greatest pause) evidence that this is possibly true for more than an extreme minority of undecided (not Hillary supporters, not dyed in the wool Republicans, undecided) voters would want to do just that. Say "I'm making history by voting for a woman in the national executive! Wooo go women!" (Meanwhile, Ferraro just shakes her head and rolls her eyes). That, to me, is far more disturbing than whatever Rachel Palin's political views are. That hurts deep.
So, laying aside the "experience" issue (from what I've seen on TV today, talking heads on both sides are racking up some bizarre logics to attack the other on this point.). Laying aside Alaska and beauty queen and whatever sort of things are going to be thrown around this weekend, the question remains: who is Sarah Palin? Do you know? Does anyone who says today "this changes my vote!" ,either way, know?
Isn't that a fucking scary way to choose someone in the executive branch? VP or not, isn't that a scary way to elect anyone? I'm not even talking "hey,that person is a Democrat! And I general agree with Democrats!" way. At least that's more informed than "LADY! WOOO! VOTING!!!" That's TRL-style voting kids, and I adored TRL, but that was before I could vote in a political election.
I'm going on a fact-finding mission y'all, I'm going to look high and low, sources I agree with and sources I don't, I'm going to wade deep - because if nothing else, I don't want to tick off my absentee ballot with a ounce of "I should probably take my own advice" lingering. I made that mistake already this year. I can't stop people from not paying attention. But whenever anyone tells me who they are going to vote for, I'm going to ask (with hopefully, the most unjudgmental voice I can muster) why?
Because regardless of your reason, you should probably be aware of what it is.
Dear Flist,
Why?
love,
me.
ETA: I'm also pretty excited about reading this book (True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society), because it speaks to a lot of concerns I have about the internet and my possible chosen profession.
no subject
Um, not to get my historical note up, but it's never been like that! Technically! That runner-up business was general election shenanigans! Primaries-ish have only been around since 1832!
OH WAIT. PERHAPS YOU WERE NOT ASKING THIS IN A SERIOUS VOICE. I'm a nerd.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
A quick Google search revealed Draft Sarah Palin for VP if you want a view from the other side. I'm currently perusing it.
But I already know I wouldn't support her because of 2 things: anti-choice and believes marriage is only between a man and a woman. I realize that Obama subscribes to that belief as well but he has at least acknowledged civil unions and that, oh, just because someone is gay they shouldn't be discriminated against. It's not perfect but it's better than Palin or McCain.
She supports creationism and thinks climate-change isn't man-made and by this point if you still believe that I must call your intelligence into serious question.
Also, according to that blog the Southern Baptist Convention supports her and as the Baptists are still driving me absolutely nuts at work 3 months later I'm ready to say ship them all to an island. That's just a personal opinion though.
I shall stop before this comment gets to be super long and livejournal says I can't post it.