Why Sarah Palin?

The question for today has been being asked since the announcement that Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska would be the Vice Presidential Nominee on the Republican ticket. People want to know who she is, where she came from, and most importantly, why do you want her as the vice president("heartbeat away from the presidency")?

Well, I don't know that all of those questions have "good" answers, but I can give you what I think is the answer as to why Palin got the nomination. To do this, though, we need to shift our perspective to that of the McCain Campaign.

There are certain criteria that would need to be met by a Republican vice presidential candidate. Let's take a look at those, shall we?

1. They have to be a Republican. This is a fairly obvious one and takes the top of the list because it effectively halves(or more) the pool of candidates from which you can choose.
2. They must have no connection to George W. Bush. This takes second priority because it narrows down the pool even further, but more importantly, it is a major tenet of the campaign. Bushy-boy has an approval rating in the low 30s, at best, and lower than that by most estimates. It takes more than that to get elected, and with the strong comparison between bush and McCain, it is imperative that the campaign separate itself from Bush as much as possible. So this eliminates most of the federal government, especially the executive branch.
3. They must be female. This criterion came into effect really after the DNC(Democratic National Convention), when it was determined that Barack Hussein Obama would be the Democrats' nominee. A female candidate on the Republican ticket would help to "steal" some of the votes that Hillary Clinton would have gotten. So, now we're looking for a female republican at the state level. Following so far? Good.
   

The next couple of criteria are where the details come in. It's partially speculation on my part, but I give the Republican Party credit for their ability to think ahead in these kind of decisions. Ok, back to the list


4. They must have "executive experience". Ok, what does that mean? Well, it's arguable whether you can call Sarah Palin's short stint as governor(less than two years as of now - elected December 4, 2006) "executive experience". However, it is enough that th phrase can be used in ads and such. This is important because it gives a strong contrast between our nominee and the other candidates on both sides. This narrows our choices down to Female Republican Governors.
   

There are a total of eight female governors in the United States. Of these, five sport a little blue (D) next to their name. So we're now narrowed down to three women:

• M. Jodi Rell
• Linda Lingle
• Sarah Palin


5. They must be... exciting? This is a bit vague, admittedly. Let me explain myself. Obama is an exciting guy. He is a relatively new face to the political scene and he makes a big impression. The nominee we pick has to draw that same kind of attention because, let's face it, John McCain just isn't very interesting.

Alright, so now we have three potential nominees. Let's take a look at each of them and compare their relative "wow factors".

• M. Jodi Rell - Governor Rell has been active in Connecticut's government for over two decades, serving as Governor since 2007, and as a member of the State Legislature before that. She is stable on her issues and relatively well know as far as state officials go.
• Linda Lingle - Governor Lingle has served as Governor of Hawaii since 2002 and has become a relatively common name among informed voters. She comes from a traditionally Democratic constituency and has been a big supporter of progressive policies. She's well known, well liked, and quite possibly electable. This translates to boring.
• Sarah Palin - Governor Palin served two terms on her city council(Wasilla, AK. Population 7,028 according to the 2000 U.S. Census) and an additional two terms as mayor. She is against women's rights. No one has really heard of her outside of Alaska. Who is she? What does she really stand for? Does she really believe the things she says? This is exciting.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have our candidate. Sarah Palin is perfect and meets all the requirements. She is a Republican woman with no tangible connection to the Bush Administration(ideology and theology aside). She has a claim to executive experience(however flimsy it may be). Finally, she has the power of curiosity. People will focus on her because they want to know who(and maybe what) she is.

That's my take on things, anyway. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that this is the general line of thinking that was followed to come up with the Palin Nomination. There was no legitimate policy behind the selection. It was a purely political decision, but what do you really expect?

A Conscious Approach

Welcome to Stumbling Through America - an American Political Blog. Yes, that's right, this is another political blog. Don't count me in with most of the other bloggers, though. I think my approach is a bit different. I'm not interested in being the first to report the bleeding edge events as they happen, though that can be fun sometimes. I'm more interested in finding answers to the questions everyone wants but that no one wants to dig for.

From the basic concepts behind the mechanics of our government to the advanced workings of specific groups, I plan to answer every question that is within my ability. Theories are wonderful, especially conspiracy theories. They'll be entertained from time to time, though I don't necessarily believe many of them.

I've recently begun the task of teaching my mother some of the basics she needs in order to be an informed member of our society. In the course of our conversations, I had a few, shall we say, epiphanies. Among them:

• My mother is indicative of a large portion of our populace
• This information should be readily available and having this information held off from people is absurd
• People have hard time absorbing this kind of information because it's boring
• Most of us tend to learn a large number of things easier if they are taught in small portions, rather than trying to teach a single subject all at once

Our minds follow a "stream of consciousness", which is traditionally a term used in writing that applies to a story structured in the way that our minds work. This structure usually includes a number of flash backs, flash forwards, etc. It bounces from topic to topic as would a persons thoughts.

My idea is that this same concept can be applied to teaching. A big part of politics that people tend to miss out on is the connections between points. I think a stream of consciousness approach will make seeing those connections a lot easier.

So it's time to start learning, teaching, and improving our society as a whole. If theres something specific you would like to see discussed here, leave a comment or drop me an email and we'll get you the answers you deserve.