Palin horrible choice for candidacy

The Daily Toreador of Texas Tech University ^ | February 15, 2010 | Tony Cardone

[2ndDivisionVet]

Sarah Palin may very well be the worst presidential candidate in the history of U.S. elections. It’s not because she’s a Conservative and I’m a Liberal. It’s because she’s plain unqualified to manage a game of “Civilization IV,” much less the political affairs of the office of the president.

It is a mystery to me, to be honest, why she has so many supporters, because anyone with a vocabulary larger than the words “you” and “betcha” understands she rivals former President George W. Bush in literacy.

For those of us that don’t watch Fox News, this was illustrated perfectly at the National Tea Party last week. The Associated Press story printed across the nation started with the following line: “Sarah Palin, in a speech that was short on ideas but big on enthusiasm, took aim at President Barack Obama ...”

Therein lies the problem. Enthusiasm will get absolutely nothing done in international politics nowadays. Palin would make an absolutely terrible president. She has a lot of enthusiasm, I’ll give her that. She knows how to get all folksy and talk to an audience like my mother. The problem with this is that my mother would probably make a terrible president.

For some reason, there has been an intellectual backlash against Obama. The term intellectual was bounced around during the 2008 campaign in a derogatory fashion.

Personally, I would love to be called an intellect, but it seems to play directly into the conservative movement of anger and hate. The conservative movement, ever since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, has considered the Democratic Party elitist and for the intellectuals.

The backlash could be attributed to the lower education standards in conservative states. In 2006, the Census Bureau released a report detailing the percent of people in each state with a bachelor’s degree or more. A key statistic behind the highest 15 states: each one of them Obama won in 2008.

I don’t think that’s a coincidence. The most intellectual states want an intellectual president. But the question begs, why doesn’t everyone? Shouldn’t we elect the smartest capable person to the most powerful office in the land?

Typically, it’s hard to judge people based on their educational alma maters. However, every president since Lyndon B. Johnson has been to a very prestigious university, ignoring the brief period an actor with terrible leadership qualities led the country between 1981 and 1989. It shows having a good education is necessary to even become the president, much less become a good president. Bush was actually a Harvard grad, if you can believe that.

Since her brief stint in the world of academia, it seems unlikely that her political prowess has sharpened her understanding of the world. Her most recent gaffes are far more embarrassing, as they show her distinct lack of understanding of the nation’s political system.

Four days after her resignation as Alaska governor, she famously referred to the non-existent Department of Law in Washington in an interview with ABC News. Mere weeks before the election, she completely melted down in a CBS interview with Katie Couric, insisting she reads all of the newspapers. In that same interview, she could not name a Supreme Court ruling other than Roe v. Wade.

Perhaps her most famous quote from that interview was her response to a Couric question regarding the $700-billion bailout. “But ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy.” A 4-year-old playing Mad Libs can construct a more competent sentence.

This week alone featured her using her hand as a notepad at a Tea Party convention and incorrectly characterizing fellow right wing pundit Rush Limbaugh’s use of the word “retard” as satire on Fox News Sunday.

It’s fairly obvious she is far too unqualified to become leader of the once-free world. Not only is she about as politically savvy as the lipstick she puts on a pig, her credentials just don’t stack up. Obama was again targeted by the Conservatives for being unqualified and not prepared for the job. He served in the Illinois Senate for seven years, followed by a term as the junior Illinois senator in Washington.

Palin, meanwhile, hasn’t had a position of national prominence. Her highest office was the position of Alaska governor, and she resigned that position after two-and-a-half years. Her previous international political experience involved looking at Russia from her house. She cannot, and should not, be expected to deliver a speech to the United Nations without even knowing Kenya’s location. She could start a war with the country of Africa without even knowing it is more impossible to win that war than our two current wars.

I only get one column a week, and I’ll be going well over my word count again this week. I can’t even discuss half of the stuff that makes her a terrible candidate. However, presented with the aforementioned proof, I have to ask her supporters one question. Why, exactly, do you support this woman?

[BnBlFlag]

This dumbass is an embarassment to Texas Tech!