By Mark David Blum, Esq.
Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah ‘cuda’ Palin is one of the rising stars of a new generation of candidates who are Washington outsiders and are fiercely independent. I am in the camp of those who love ‘Cuda but think she still needs to grow a brain. We are about to vote for President, not the running mate. When the dust settles, I expect another ‘Good Job, Cuda’ for the blood and a violence Ms. Palin is going to interject into the campaign. Even before taking office as Mayor, Palin had gone out of her way to ban and remove books from public libraries and schools. She fired those who opposed her. Heckuva good attack on the First Amendment, I say.
If any one statement exemplifies and stands out as the summation of the Bush Administration, it will be his bestowing “Good Job, Brownie” on former FEMA head Michael Brown. Nearly everything the President touched and certainly every crisis faced by his Administration has resulted in mediocre performance. “Brownie” was not the only such proclamation of achievement made in the face of disastrous performance. Remember ‘Mission Accomplished’? Spoken prematurely as more than 2,000 American soldiers have since died. Is the Mission truly accomplished; or anywhere near it? How good of a job did Brownie truly do?
So what did the Republicans expect when they nominate a barracuda in a skirt as exemplifying and representing the finest and absolute most capable person to be President of the United States. I know nothing about the nominee other than what I read in the news and heard on pundit radio. Nobody can argue her professional pedigree. She is indeed an accomplished woman apparently well skilled at ‘big league’ ball. I applaud her achievements. I resent her politics.
First of all, I am like totally unimpressed by the ‘pitbull’ label. At one time or another, in someone’s opinion, EVERY politician or lawyer is considered a pitbull. I earned my wings in my second year of law school. My friend ‘N’ in the student lounge called me a pitbull. I questioned his choice of canines and suggested an alternative of ‘bulldog’. It sounded more macho to me. I was told that a pitbull was far more appropriate. He told me that as breed, a pitbull will lock their jaws when they get hold of their victims. That was how he characterized my trial work. His explanation was that on cross examination, when I got my “teeth into someone, I didn’t let go.” I was flattered.
At first, I thought this was a good reputation to have. I even marketed it when I first got out of law school. Little did I then know that such a concept, at least amongst my peers, would be a joke that hung over me for years. But as I tend to do, when I do something stupid, I really am good at doing it spectacularly.
Consequently, being a pitbull is what I would consider to be nothing more than a job prerequisite. To get where she did in the world, requires more than just brains and brawn. It requires the ability to manage calculated, intense, high risk. Closing deals in boardrooms or in courtrooms requires a very thick skin and very sharp teeth.
vThe question to you is whether being a pitbull is a prerequisite or good job qualification skill. My own personal and professional experience have taught me that being judicial requires skills that have nothing to do with being a pitbull. In fact, having an honorable presidential temperament seems almost contrary to attack dog tactician.
I guess what troubles me most about this nominee is her lack of real world contact. Clearly she fought uphill and against monumental odds to reach her plateau. In the process, she became the person who was first in the office in the morning, last out at night, and raised a family of 5. These facts speak loudly to me as a person who has spent a career in high government office, and the nosebleed levels of national politics. What the facts also tell me is that the nominee is not really in touch with the world around her. She seems to not have a real grasp on what it means to be not a corporate director.
It would appear that the “Good Job, Brownie” is again upon us. Call it patronage, loyalty, or pandering to a particular constituency, I concur with all sides on this issue that this nominee was NOT the best person for the job. I do not believe the nominee has been selected for any reason other than she was next in line for right wing paybacks.
Even more troubling is why was this particular nominee selected. Beyond the façade of returning a favor to a friend, I am very worried that if confirmed, this nominee will bring with her the chaos of her politics of the right wing militias into the White. She is not the nominee for her smarts as she admits to knowing nothing of international politics or macro economics. She is not there because of her experience as she has none. Her politics seem cemented in a dying dogma. Her nomination is a finger in the eye of the base of support upon which John McCain has relied since Day One. It is this last fact that I find most unnerving as it raises a real question as to the the Republican nominee’s motives.
I don’t trust the nomination. Given the temperament of the Senate, I highly doubt this nominee will be compelled to answer any questions. Fifty one Republican senators will do as they always do, vote their party – right or wrong.
My question to you is this: Do you feel safe entrusting your life, your freedom, the safety of your home and property, and your children and their great grandchildren in the hands of this nominee? How do you feel a poor weak defenseless person will fare before her? Can you already tell her position on such fundamental issues as privacy and separation of powers? Will police and big corporations always win with her vote? Loyalty is big business for the Republicans and friends.
There is simply too much risk of another 'Good Job, Brownie'. Say no to Cuda. Say no to Republicans pandering. Issues that keep Sarah Palin in the spotlight are of no interest or relevance to the President. Clearly Palin is but an attack dog; like Cheney was for Bush, and Quayle for Bush. Unqualified candidates are on a ticket solely for the purpose of causing pain and suffering and distracting the issues from the voter.
Heckuva lousy job there, McCain. Thanks for assuring a race on the question of substance over style. Beach this ‘cuda and let’s get on with the race for President.