Palin, much ado about nothing

IUS Horizon

When the announcement was made that Sarah Palin was going to be McCain’s running mate, my first thought was, “People who use a superfluous ‘h’ on the end of their first name have no business being in office.”

My second thought was, “Brilliant move, McCain.”
After the boom of the Democratic convention had died down, the American public was left facing yet another convention with some affluent white guy. We gotta figure McCain knew this as well.

Why have one historic presidential ticket, when there can be two? True, she’s not the first woman to run for veep, but perhaps she’s the first whom the American public, generally speaking, has truly embraced.

This was, of course, in no way a last-minute decision. The McCain campaign had begun looking into Palin’s record several months prior to the announcement, though they avoided shuffling through newspapers from Palin’s hometown of Wasilla so as not to have their sooper seekret plan discovered.

In addition, the candidate himself did indeed talk to her, uh, once on the phone, and met her once in person before parading her on stage.

Palin is instantly more likable than Hillary Clinton ever was.

It’s been bandied about that she’s quite the MILF, despite the fact that photo circulating on the internet of her in a flag-bikini holding a rifle is a phony.

She also has had much less of the glass ceiling to deal with than Clinton did.

Those experiences shape who we are, so can we really blame Clinton for being a little rougher around the edges and preferring pant suits?

Beyond the fact that Palin’s got the look and is good at making babies, here’s hoping the American public can look beyond the charisma and make an informed decision based on her positions on issues that matter. Though maybe the qualities just listed are what matter to some.

Let’s not make the assumption that choosing to have a baby who is disabled, rather than aborting it, is noble.

Jeez Louise, that’s what a vast majority of the American public (The child-bearing ones, that is) do anyway.

OK Palin, you’re pro-life. We get it.

The fact that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant really isn’t a big deal.

The strong possibility that Bristol (The daughter, not the local restaurant chain) Palin will probably drop her wedding plans like a pack of birth control pills if her mom isn’t moving to Washington shouldn’t be surprising, but maligning the media for bringing it up is a stretch.

Sarah Palin belongs to a party that represents “conservative values.” This set of values frowns upon pre-marital sex, and advocates abstinence-only education.

Abstinence-only education not only strongly prohibits pre-marital sex, it also prohibits other aspects of sex education such as birth control methods, and teaches that there is no alternative to birthing the child of an unintended pregnancy.

If condoms are mentioned, it is swiftly followed by their failure rates, information that is usually inaccurate.

The Sexuality Information & Education Council of the U.S., which develops and collects information across the country on sex ed, has overwhelmingly found abstinence-only education to be ineffective in preventing unintended pregnancy and reduction of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

In other words, Bristol’s pregnancy is a tremendous contradiction to what Palin represents, and that leaves some of us wondering why we should vote for a ticket that has thrown millions upon millions of tax dollars to fund an “education” program that doesn’t work, among other plans which haven’t quite panned out either (Uh, Iraq).

Regardless of who wins the election in November, here’s hoping the American public chooses to do a little research on their own and not take what the general media or the candidates’ speech writers choose to present to us.

By MARY Q. BURTON
Editor
mqburton@ius.edu