I post stuff on politics (nothing too terribly impressive, just whatever happens to grab me at the moment) at my MySpace page. This is something that went up a few days ago, written following a conversation with a co-worker. I'm cross-posting it here, not because it's groundbreaking or anything, but because perhaps someone will find the ideas or wording helpful in conversations of their own. There are also lots of links at the original blog page--too many to reproduce here--so I'm including a link to that page.
the Sarah Palin "Executive Experience" argument
[...] Anyhoo, today's little ramble was inspired by a passing conversation I had yesterday with a co-worker, J. J's a dear man and decidedly conservative. I asked him (as neutrally as I could) what he thought of Sarah Palin. He paused before saying, "I'm a Republican," with a half shrug. Then he added, "Well, she does have more executive experience than he does. You can't argue with that."
I wasn't about to go too far into it with him, not at work. His tone really told me everything I'd wanted to know. At the same time, though, I was intrigued by the whole executive experience thing. I've read it other places and just regarded it as just hot air. I didn't think I'd hear anyone actually state it as a rationale.
I mean, yeah, I suppose an quantitative analysis of Obama's and Palin's records does get you that result. Witness:
Obama: Eight years in the Illinois state senate. Four years in the United States senate.
Palin: Four years serving on the Wasilla city council. Six years serving as Mayor of Wasilla. Two years as Governor of Alaska.
Eight being larger than zero, well, I reckon that makes J. right after all. Except--not quite, at least not unless you truly believe that apples and oranges are the same, which I don't. I also firmly believe that you can put kittens in the oven, but that doesn't make them biscuits.
(For the record: I am completely against any combination of kittens and ovens. No baby animals were harmed in the writing of this blog.)
Just for starters, let's look at some other numbers:
Population of Wasilla, Alaska, by the end of Palin's first term: 6,300
Population of Alaska, as per the 2007 census: 683,478
Population of Obama's Illinois state senate district: no reliable figures found, although I've heard the number 210,000. If anyone finds a reliable number, lemme know.
Population of Illinois, as per the 2007 census: 12,852,548
Those numbers are still much less than substantive, as far as comparing abilities or careers. But by my personal qualitative analysis, Obama's record still stacks up much better than Palin's.
In the Illinois state senate, Obama:
Passed campaign reform
Helped restructure Illinois' welfare system
Chaired the Health and Human Services Committee
Increased state tax credits and child care subsidies
In the U.S Senate, Obama has:
Co-sponsored immigration reform bills (one written by John McCain)
Worked with Republicans to control global nuclear proliferation and increase benefits and assistance to soldiers and veterans
Supported expansion of SCHIP
Served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
As Wasilla's mayor, Sarah Palin:
Supervised the police, public works, parks and recreation departments, a planning office, a library and a small history museum.
Cut property taxes, but raised sales taxes to pay for a sports complex
Procured close to $6 million dollars in earmark funding
She also left the town 20 million dollars in debt.
Palin also successfully pushed through a sales tax increase in Wasilla, which went to fund a $15 million sports complex. However, a land dispute over the sight of the complex led to "years of legal wrangling" and cost Wasilla almost $1.7 million, "a lot more than the roughly $125,000 the city would have paid in 1998 if it had closed a deal to buy the property outright." Wasilla is still facing budget shortfalls from the case today.
As Alaska governor, Palin's purview is considerably larger--she oversees energy policies, wildife and game departments, a much larger state budget, and so on. She has signed ethics reform bills into law and promoted energy exploration. She's also supported hunting wolves from helicopters as part of a predator control program, and opposed clean water bills.
And then, there's "Troopergate." Time Magazine analyzes the recent report on Troopergate, and comes to the following conclusion:
But the Branchflower report still makes for good reading, if only because it convincingly answers a question nobody had even thought to ask: Is the Palin administration shockingly amateurish? Yes, it is. Disturbingly so. [...]
A harsh verdict? Consider the report's findings. Not only did people at almost every level of the Palin administration engage in repeated inappropriate contact with Walt Monegan and other high-ranking officials at the Department of Public Safety, but Monegan and his peers constantly warned these Palin disciples that the contact was inappropriate and probably unlawful. Still, the emails and calls continued — in at least one instance on recorded state trooper phone lines.
Further, many of her positions as governor were and are well to the right of the mainstream.
You can point out that many of these reports and articles are taken from liberal news sources--and you'd be right. You can also point out that I am obviously partisan--and you'd be so right it might even hurt. I don't like Palin. I think she's George W. Bush in a skirt, a provincial, incurious, demagogue who disingenuously plays to voters' fears and resentments. Actually, "Bush in a skirt" is too mild. George Wallace in a skirt might be more apt.
Under normal circumstances, perhaps I wouldn't care as much. As a rule, one votes for the top of the ticket, not the bottom. But these are not normal circumstances. The U.S. is conducting two wars, neither of which are going terribly well. We face, as I have been told numerous times, an implacable, devious, ruthless enemy in Al Qaeda. Meanwhile, the U.S economy and the global economy are in crisis. And John McCain has a 1 in 4 chance of dying during his first term in office.
In that context, try imagining a reverse ticket--Palin-McCain.
Would you vote for a Palin-McCain ticket? Would you vote for a small-town mayor and a first-term governor of one of the most homogeneous and least populous states in the Union, (whose tenure in both positions has been marked by administrative screw-ups and scandal)? Further, ask yourself whether you would vote for a President whose positions on many issues are right of the mainstream, and who can't elucidate those positions without resorting to rehearsed catch-phrases and canards.
Think hard. Would you vote for President Palin? Right now? Because if you vote for McCain--or if you vote for Ron Paul, or Bob Barr, or write in Hillary Clinton, for that matter--there's at least a 25% chance that you are.