With the economy in tatters, the war in Iraq surging towards how-to-get-out-without-looking-like-fools - not to mention the Aftermath, the carnage of a destroyed nation, and foreign policy run by the Pentagon at multi-trillion-dollar "guaranteed" funding, is Sarah Palin the one we want in charge?
This quote may be old news, but it's worth repeating. With the impossibly complex decisions facing the next U.S. president, who really would want Sarah Palin in a position to possibly be that person? Then, would the country by run by committee? And who would set the agenda? It would have to be someone who was never elected - a Cheney-like, shadowy back-room sort of advisor, or set of advisors. Is that really democracy?
CNN's Jack Cafferty commented: "If John McCain wins, this woman will be one 72-year-old's heartbeat away from being president of the United States. And if that doesn't scare the hell out of you, it should… I'm 65 and have been covering politics...for a long time. That is one of the most pathetic pieces of tape I have ever seen for someone aspiring to one of the highest offices in this country." (A commenter on Cafferty's blog wrote that he felt "sorry and embarrassed for Sarah" because "McCain has sucked her into an 'opportunity' akin to a sub-prime mortgage situation on a house she cannot afford.")
Our problems need more than spunk, more than enthusiasm, more than supply-side cheerleading. Doesn't any Republican see the use of the human mind?