Palin: another hasty decision?

I ADMIT IT. I̢۪M A CONSERVATIVE JOURNALIST.

I support the second amendment. I̢۪m pro-life. I support teaching creationism in schools. (Don̢۪t worry, I̢۪ve informed my editor in chief about the deluge of hate mail we̢۪ll get for my daring to support such things.)

I should be thrilled that Republican presidential nominee John McCain chose the extremely conservative Sarah Palin as his running mate. I̢۪m not.

Palin, currently in her second year as governor of Alaska, is the second-biggest mistake McCain could have made.

The first would have been to pick Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman for the position.

Rumor has it Palin was chosen to both entice Hillary Clinton̢۪s former supporters and reassure Republicans concerned about McCain̢۪s history of compromise. In other words, Palin is supposed to appeal to both the extreme left and the extreme right.

Lynda Carter, move over.

First, let̢۪s look at why Palin should appeal to Democrats. Clinton is female. Palin is also female. Therefore, Clinton̢۪s supporters should now support Palin. In addition to failing tests of basic logic, this is the most offensive assumption McCain could have made. Policies and ideologies don̢۪t matter to voters as much as the candidate̢۪s sex does.

Some women, of course, supported Clinton merely in hopes of seeing a woman in the White House. History shows that there weren̢۪t enough of them to keep Clinton afloat. Why would any politician try to copycat a losing tactic?

Then there̢۪s Palin̢۪s conservative appeal. A hunter and fisherwoman, she supports gun ownership and use while advocating drilling for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. She supports abortion only when the mother̢۪s life is in jeopardy. She wants creationism and abstinence-only sex ed taught in schools.

She is the right̢۪s answer to Obama in that she, like him, has very little actual experience. Dreamy-eyed as only a neophyte can be, she holds aloft the banner of party idealism, becoming, like Obama, more of a caricature than a real person.

Granted, such a deficit of experience is more forgivable in a vice presidential rather than a presidential candidate. But with less than two years as governor of Alaska under her belt, she̢۪s hardly someone to go running to if, to create an impossibly outlandish scenario, terrorists fly airplanes into the Twin Towers.

She could very well be the person handling America̢۪s delicate international situations if McCain̢۪s age gets the better of him.

Someone who got her first passport in 2007 is not ready to make decisions of that magnitude.
So she doesn̢۪t have experience with foreign affairs. At least she̢۪s had experience managing the budget for the state that had, nation-wide, the fifth-highest gross state product in 2006.

One of Palin’s selling points is her experience at exposing government’s fiscal excess. She auctioned off her predecessor’s private jet for $2.1 million on eBay. She refused federal funds for the so-called “Bridge to Nowhereâ€Â that was to connect Ketchikan, Alaska, to the airport on nearby Gravina Island.

At least, she refused to build the bridge. The Anchorage Daily News reported on August 31 that a federally funded road was still being built to the bridge̢۪s planned location because Alaska would have had to return the money allocated for the road otherwise.

There won’t be a bridge, the funds for which are being used “for other projects,â€Â the ADN reports. But there will be a road to the water’s edge.

Magnify that inanity by fifty and apply it to national issues.

In McCain’s 2002 book, “Worth the Fighting For,â€Â written with Mark Salter, McCain said of his decision-making, “Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.â€Â

He may indeed be able to live with the consequences of his rushed decision to pick Sarah Palin over a more stable, less polarizing candidate like Mitt Romney.

America shouldn̢۪t have to.