As promised, I finally wrote an article in the Hatchet, and today it finally got published. It is a response to my conservative friend Andrew who claims that Sarah Palin’s presence on the ticket is infact a good thing. Naturally, it was my job to refute that- let me know how I did!

The article is reproduced below:

Last Thursday, my friend Andrew Clark wrote a column detailing the effects Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin could have on the presidential race (”Picking apart Palin, McCain’s wild-card VP,” p. 4). While he did note some vulnerabilities, for the most part his piece extolled Palin’s virtues as a true conservative, a fresh face and a compelling choice for middle America. I know people will agree when I say these claims couldn’t be farther from the truth.

To be fair, I agree that Palin unites the Republican base. But since Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., had already pulled in most conservatives simply by opposing a guy whose middle name is Hussein, I’m not sure why he thought he needed extra help. And unifying the base is the only benefit Palin brings to this haplessly mismatched duo.

Palin’s freshness actually hurts the ticket. Independents admired McCain’s experience but were always wary of his age and melanoma history. Understandably, these folks aren’t reassured by the possibility of a Miss Alaska runner-up in charge of the nuclear arsenal. The selection of Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., shows judgment by reinforcing his foreign policy message, but Palin’s addition only highlights McCain’s shortcomings and does nothing to bolster his dubious claims of sound judgment.

Being a New Jersey Democrat, I’m no expert on swing-voter psychology, but I find it hard to believe that Palin’s breathtakingly flimsy résumé will resonate with bread-and-butter voters in Ohio or Pennsylvania. Not to mention the fact that Palin has come down on the wrong side of issues like wasteful spending, political corruption and even women’s rights. We all abhor pork-barrel projects, but they won’t stop under a vice president who was for the “bridge to nowhere” boondoggle before she was against it. Of course we want to end favoritism in politics, but we’ll get even more by electing someone who allegedly dismissed a public official because he wouldn’t fire her ex brother-in-law. And all of us respect female candidates but not ones who would force an impregnated rape victim to carry the perpetrator’s child to term.

The best part is she’s only been a national figure for a couple weeks. After her vicious RNC speech, Sarah Palin has made it clear she wants the focus on Obama, not her. And based on the sordid details already unearthed from the Alaska permafrost, who can blame her?

——–

Epilogue:

A cool point raised by my roommate Avram the other day had me thinking. Call me crazy, but I feel like Palin’s addition to the ticket is actually one big invitation for Democrats to start attacking her. In that sense maybe I’m being counterproductive, and I won’t be surprised if someone decides to call me sexist for saying a political nutcase who happens to be female is a bad candidate. The way I see it, it’s fine to attack Palin just as you would McCain, provided you do it with facts and not insinuations (like the effective but risky “lipstick on a pig” comment Obama made the other day). Anyway, I’m in class now so it’s time to start taking notes.

Tags: McCain, Obama, Palin

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 11th, 2008 at 1:39 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.