Why I Could Never Support a Politician Like Sarah Palin

In yesterday’s post I noted that the politics attracts some people of questionable character but not all are of unsavory as there are a good number of honest brokers who have not been seduced. I noted that we, the voter, must give due diligence to weed out the former and seek the latter.

Regardless of my political leanings, I was the recipient of a mailing a year ago from one politician that very quickly disqualified her from ever being considered as the recipient of my vote. The letter contained a survey with five questions that recipients are encouraged to return.

One of my ongoing concerns is the way politicians of various parties and levels twist and intentionally obfuscate information to manipulate the public to support them or the issue they are pushing, and pushing not always for reasons that are apparent to the voter. One issue that greatly concerns me, and which I believe the public does not appreciate, is how push polling is being used to convince (manipulate?) the person being surveyed into coming to one and only one conclusion, and then to use the results to make claims on political talk shows and on the campaign trail that a large number of my and your neighbors feel about something, and if I think differently I am in a small minority and better rethink my views.

Most telephone push polling last three to five minutes and contains twelve to fifteen questions. The organization sounds innocuous enough or patriotic, but they are often fronts for an organization or party with an agenda. The first three or so questions are normally demographically related and are followed by two or three qualifier questions. If the person answering the survey answers the two or three qualifier questions in a particularly manner, the survey may well end quickly and before the primary questions are asked. If they are answered in another way that survey often moves quickly through two or three set-up questions before getting to the two or three primary questions.

The set-up questions are carefully crafted to draw the person to respond and think in a particular direction and thereby answer the primary questions in the way the survey designer is seeking. If the person being surveyed sends mixed signals with the qualifier questions two or three more set-up questions may be added.

One of the signs of push polling is not only how the wording moves you in a certain direction but also in that they require only a simple yes or no answer. No somewhat or gradient scales are used as are done with neutral and academic polling. Being forced to give only a yes or no answer is a telling sign of a push poll.

The survey in the letter not only has all the signs of push polling but also includes hot button words and demonizing language, another sign of push polling and driving people to think and feel along a particular line. The letter says that the author is interested in their views and will use them to help shape the Republican party.

What turned me off was the second paragraph in the letter inviting the recipient to join millions of other Americans in expressing their views and frustrations. The second paragraph reads, “If you think Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are doing a good job running America, the put this down. This Victory 2010 Survey isn’t for you.”

I already viewed Sarah Palin with a high degree of askance for stepping down as Alaska's governor in her first term to respond to "the higher national need" (code for...I'm a hot item and I will make as much money as I can). Any small vestige of a chance of supporting her vanished in the second paragraph.

In light of the second paragraph for Palin to on to say in the letter that she is not only interested but needs the public’s views is disingenuous. The second paragraph and the nature of the survey disqualified her from ever being considered for my vote. She does not want my honest views or yours. She only wants to have her own views reinforced by a choir of loyal supporters who do not think independantly. Regardless of the person's party a politician like her will not have my support.

We already have too many politicians seeking to manipulate how I and the public think and feel. The country does not need another, particularly one who does so with such unashamably bold craseness. We need honest brokers who wrestle with weighty issues, who are willing to listen, to change their mind and work for the overall interest of the whole country.

A Sad Commentary on American Politics

Ted Stevens, the current Republican Senator from Alaska, was convicted of lying on Senate disclosure forms regarding renovations on his home and other related matters. He claimed that the $250,000 in work were not gifts. Though convicted he refused to heed calls to step down from the Senate and withdraw from his reelection.

Stevens proclaimed that he was not convicted as he was going to appeal his case. This is an interesting as Stevens is thereby saying hundreds of thousands currently in prison are wrongly incarcerated as they are still writing and filing appeals from prison for years.

By rational reasoning, he should lose the election badly. Yet on election night he was ahead over his Democrat opponent by 3,200 votes. For some, the attitude is that he may be convicted but it was not a serious crime. With about 30,000 absentee and early voting needing to still be counted (out of about 90,000 such votes), Democrat Mark Begich is ahead by about 810 votes.

If he wins, Stevens is forcing/daring the Senate to remove him for his crimes. First the Ethics Committee of the Senate need to investigate and come forward with a finding that he be removed. Then the full Senate will debate the finding before voting to remove him. An interesting twist of the rules allows Stevens to not only speak as a fellow Senator and lobby them to his side, but he is also allowed to vote on the motion to expel him. This process will not start until late January and go on as long as a eight to ten months. In the meantime, Stevens remains in the Senate.

If he is removed from the Senate, which is likely as the Senate will not tolerate having a convicted felon in the Senate, the Governor of Alaska will appoint his successor. Governor Palin has not ruled out appointing herself and has implied that “If he’s (God) got doors open for me, that I believe are in our state’s best interests, the nation’s best interest, I’m going to go through those doors.”

There is a possibility that Stevens will still in the Senate for years. As one of his final acts before leaving office, President Bush could give him a Presidential pardon. Given other things Bush has done, a pardon is a stronger possibility.

Hopefully the Democrat will win at the end of the day and put an end to this sad commentary on American politics.

Harry S. Truman and Sarah Palin

Fans of Sarah Palin passionately claim that she is not only qualified to be Vice-President but also President. They point to her being mayor of a small town and governor of Alaska. As her record has become known, her taunted successes have been questioned. Once the initial enthusiasm waned, following a disastrous news interview and news of her misuse of her office, a number of powerful Republicans have wondered if she is qualified. Needless of one’s views of her record, she has burst upon the national political field with an aura, an aura that has faded, with a modest background and a short résumé.

People can come from the back of the pack with thin a résumé into a significant leadership position and excel. Gifts that were previously unseen and hidden under a basket burst forth to enrich us. One only has to look at Harry S. Truman an obscure Congressman that Franklin Roosevelt selected as his running mate. Few knew of Truman prior to him becoming Vice President. Yet upon the death of Roosevelt, Truman was thrust into the most significant and powerful office on earth. This unknown became the advocate of the Marshall Plan, the policy of containment rather than aggressive confrontation and one of the architects of the United Nations.

For nearly seven weeks we have watched Mrs. Palin strut across the national stage proclaiming her populist rhetoric. I have avoided the term “populist philosophy” since I have not been able to put together a coherent picture of her governing principles and philosophy. Other than stringing together populist platitudes that resonate but which have little content behind them, I see little evidence that she has the tools and the knowledge to be the President, let alone Vice President.

When asked what papers she reads regularly, she could not name one. When pressed she replied “them all.” When she was unable to mention the name of the major paper in Alaska or three or four other major papers in America, I am left wondering about her intellectual curiosity. We need our top office holders to be critical thinkers, who can ask probative questions of their advisors, Cabinet and Congressional leaders.

I am left wondering what Republican philosophy underpins her views, her hopes and dreams. Is she a liberal Republican or an extremely conservative one? It seems to me that she is a Republican as a matter of convenience as it is the dominant party in Alaska rather than being a Republican because of deep convictions. Even while standing on the national stage she has not fleshed out her views. I have not basis for understanding the basis from which she will make decisions in the future that will impact my life, the nation and the world.

Her interaction with the press has been tightly controlled. She has not been allowed to venture forth untethered into a news scrum. Palin has not been put before the press to address their questions. I fear that she is carefully controlled because the campaign leadership realize that she lacks the skills to handle the press, to think thoughtfully and respond cogently to their questions. Rather than giving a thoughtful response she responds with whatever comes across her mind at the moment. I am left wondering whether Palin will be able to handle herself and respond well when pressed by international leaders, strong Cabinet members and party officials. The last thing we need is a national leader who is a pawn of a powerful people who are around her. We do not need a political leader who will have a bunker mentality when it comes to the press.

We need leaders who are hardheaded and are driven by instincts. Instincts are important but operating only by instincts is dangerous, particularly for occupants of the White House. We need a leader who is more than a populist leader who is great to visit with at a barbeque and spouts platitudes. We need more than a party pal. We need leaders who are strong critical thinkers who can see the broad picture and are able to challenge others with probative questions, even if they are already predisposed to that option or view.

Harry S. Truman was an unknown whose light graced the world when he entered the office of President of the United States. Though an unknown Congressman from Missouri, Truman was a tough critical thinker who had the knack of getting down the heart of the matter, a man who knew the big picture, who knew what major battles to fight and what skirmishes must not distract him. He accepted responsibility. When he used a folksy phrase or expression people knew he was summarizing a complicated matter in his own words. He instilled confidence, not by his whimsical words but through his actions and decisions. He was a wonderful leader for the country at an important junction in its history.

Sarah Palin came onto the national stage an unknown like Harry S. Truman. Yet what she has demonstrated on that stage and what we know of her leadership in Alaska, is far from being a Truman. She is not the person who should be either President or Vice President.

A Victory to al-Qaeda From Lindsey Graham

Have you ever heard of the Uighurs? This is a group Turkic people who live in Central Asia, including a western province of China, are in a type of diasporas in that they are dispersed and scattered due to Chinese persecution. For generations the Uighurs have unsuccessfully pressed for independence from China. The latest Chinese strategy is to label Uighurs who oppose their rule terrorists.

Many of the refugees have been welcomed in the United States and for the most part they are very pro-American. Human rights groups have become concerned that the Chinese government has used a war on terror to further dismantle the Uighur community, its language, its religion and art.

In 2001/2002 as part of its attack on al-Qaeda seventeen Uighur men from China were caught in the dragnet going across Afghanistan and taken as “enemy combatants” to Guantanamo. They were not with al-Qaeda or the Taliban. They did not fire a shot at the American military but due to their looks and location they were captured. I should mention that when they were captured there was one gun between them and they had no bullets for that solitary gun.

The United States military and government has long determined that none of these men were enemy combatants or had ties to al-Qaeda or the Taliban. The problem for the US is that if they returned these Chinese citizens to China that China would imprison these men, and possibly execute them, for advocating independence and trying to organize a protest movement.

There was another group of Uighur detainees mistakenly captured who the United States has settled in other countries. Those countries received great flack and pressure from the Chinese government. Hence when the US tried to find countries to accept these seventeen men they have been unsuccessful given the pressure from the Chinese government and China’s reaction to the earlier group.

The State Department has noted that these men are not a threat to the US. Though a judge has ordered that they be released, the US will not do so and are appealing the case. Instead they note that they have received some “terrorist” training and US laws prohibit anyone who has received such training from entering the country.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R) has admitted that the US made an error in retaining these men. That said, this clear headed and most logical Senator in his pontificating stammered forth that “the judge’s decision to release these detainees into American neighborhoods is unprecedented. The decision is a dangerous precedent in the war on terror, that should it stand, could imperil U.S. citizens and the detainees themselves.” What? The U.S. has made a mistake and recognizing it by accepting these men into the country imperils the US and undermines the war on terror? Evidently the Senator does not believe that admitting guilt, making amends and doing the righteous thing will bring harm to America and our war on terror.

The Senator pointing proudly to the law goes on to say, “this prohibition on admitting those with terrorist training into the USA” must be upheld because it is the law. What is included in terrorist training? Handling and shooting weapons? If so then anyone with military training would be excluded. Ah, but Graham would note that formal military training is different. But in whose eyes? And what about the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have learned to shoot and handle significant weapons who have never been in the military? The Senator’s rationale on this point is thin indeed.

As to upholding the law, a Republican hobby horse that is ridden hard and long, and goes just about as far as a rocking horse when applied to this matter. The Lindsey Graham is talking as if the law was some powerful godlike force over which he has no power. Who is the Senator and to what body does he belong? He is a member of a body that has the power to modify laws and grant special exceptions when upholding of the law creates an injustice.

The law is not all powerful. It serves us well as a means to order and govern society. There are times when upholding the law undermines the very principals upon which the law rests or is seeking to sustain. The Senator has failed to acknowledge this reality.

What I find most interesting is the reaction of Graham and many of his Republican colleagues to the report that Sarah Palin violated Alaskan law. A common response was that the violation was more of a technicality as she sought to uphold a greater law. For me, the Republican defense of Palin undermines Graham’s argument that these seventeen men should be held indefinitely in Guantanamo, for the rest of their lives if necessary.

Graham by his actions and words is saying that the law and the war on terrorism trumps righteous actions, making amends of wrongs and correcting an injustice. Where are human rights in this matter? Evidently human rights are not an issue for the Senator or a concern here. Senator Graham, has given al-Qaeda a victory when a Senator disregards fundamental principles of the country he serves and advocates that an injustice continue indefinitely.

Regardless from where you hale, feel free to post your opinion on this matter. Should these men be released? Is an injustice being done?