Oregon Magazine

Cover

What, Exactly, is a "Sarah Palin?"

(OMED: Oregon Magazine's Editor, Fred Delkin, wrote this when he heard about what happened: John McCain has made a brilliant choice for a running mate...A very attractive lady whose husband has been a commercial fisherman, who is a mother of a son serving in Iraq, who has beaten back special interests as Governor (the only executive experience on a national ticket), is a member of the NRA and not only looks good, but speaks very well! And the best the Obama campaign could do for an immediate reaction to this choice was to say that her only previous experience was as mayor of a small city, 9,000 pop? That stupidity shall haunt them in the days to come!! )

August 31, 2008 -- It was the morning after McCain announced that his VP pick was Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. The dweeb on the Good Day Oregon show (KPTV, Channel 12 in Portland) said that McCain's selection was "an attempt to maintain his maverick status." Or, his "maverick reputation." I forget which. This means a local television "reporter" has the ability to read another human's mind.

I can't read McCain's mind. I can't ever recall writing that so-and-so was thinking this when he did that, but if I did, I would describe it as a guess, and list the behaviours and statements the subject had exhibited which supported the idea.

Anyway, at the time McCain did what he did, I was distracted by Mayor Nagin, of New Orleans, who is apparently trying to find a fleet of school busses he lost to somebody named "Kate," so he can use it as public transportation to evacuate New Orleans citizens ahead of an oncoming typhoon named after some Nordic chap, all of which is George Bush's fault. (Liberal "news reports" fascinate me. They are the best fiction you can get, these days.) While distracted by this faery tale, I wasn't paying attention to the other important event, because while elections can blow people away, they don't usually do it in a manner that can be videotaped, like typhoons, which in Atlantic waters are usually called hurricanes. Same kind of storm, though.

Truth isn't relative

Getting back to our local television station morning reporter dunces: they are proof that the American liberal controlled educational establishment has achieved perfection. They were issued forth from the public education system without a single fact in their possession. So, these days, a human being can go from kindergarten to an advanced university degree in all but the pure sciences without learning a single thing that is true. (And if the science degree is in climatology, they can even achieve that without knowing anything that is true.)

This matters in this specific essay case because the prime source of information for the people of the United States of America is morons like the one described above. Facts, to them, are in their reports only if they serve the liberal cause. We note with satisfaction the recent admissions by a few in what is known as the "mainstream media" that their organization's bias in favor of Barak Hussein Obama borders on the ludicrous. (That bias is already being applied to Palin. The New York Times doesn't care for her, at all.)

In actuaity, there are such things as "facts" which are independent of political need. Things that are "true." For example if somebody hit you in the face with a two by four, you happen to be awake at the time, are not under the influence of some kind of pain-killing compound or elixer and your physical body has a working nervous system, it will hurt. The first time. The last time. Every single time.

Sarah Palin is like that. She hits liberals in the face like a two by four because she is exactly what they despise: a fact. Most of her national critics come from a media which supports a Congress that recently was awarded an approval rating below 10%. You thought only Bush got low ratings? Bush's ratings are three or four times as high as those of the Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid Congress. Click on this:

Rassmussen Report: recent Congressional approval rating

Sarah Palin's approval rating in Alaska is 80%. She is, indeed, a living terror to the current Democrat Party, and so will be battered by the major networks and most of America's big magazines and newspapers. The Oregonian has already written an editorial about her. It read like a release from the DNC.

The truth about Palin

I know a bit about Alaska. Read this later if you have time: The Alaska Airlines Eskimo   She is just the kind of politican you would expect from some classical John Wayne kind of frontier state. To this day, there are people up there who would be happier if it was still a territory. It is my opinion that there are people here who have the same feeling about Oregon. A territory seems somehow less constricting, more free, than a state.   My old pal, Walt Morey, the legendary Oregon author, was like that. Read this later, if you wish: Walt Morey

Now, you can find the basic life details about this Alaskan named Sarah Palin in the Steve Beren piece on this month's cover, and a hundred places on the internet, so I will keep to the point, here. What is this woman? Not who, but what. Here goes. She is that rarest of modern politicians. One who never lies about herself. She is so honest that even though she is a Republican, she went after corrupt Republicans in her state, and won the battle. There isn't a single modern example of a liberal Democrat going after corrupt liberal Democrats in America -- let alone a case where such a person cleaned out of nest of them.

She is, therefore, a character whose exploits verge on myth.

Republicans -- the folks who, according to the standard media types like those at KPTV in Portland, don't care about "women's rights" -- were elated by McCain's decision to make her his VP choice. This is because Republicans who are conservative have been incorrectly characterized by old-line liberal journalists. Conservatives just love women like England's Margaret Thatcher, and Palin is that kind.

Liberals only love liberals. No liberal politician has ever made a mistake -- except when they were misled by a conservative. The fact, for example, that national unemployment rates under Bush are in the five percent range -- below anything achieved under any Democrat administration in living memory -- is irrelevant. Clinton, who had higher unemployment rates, actually had lower unemployment rates because he is a liberal. A liberal president's eight percent unemployment rate is lower than a conservative president's five percent unemployment rate. According to Karl Marx, everything is political, even mathematics. (Doubt my UE claims, above?   Go to: http://www.bls.gov/cps/    Once there, scroll down to the history stuff and click on this: Employment status of the population, 1940s to date (TXT) (PDF) Run the numbers yourself. Bush specific year and overall average numbers beat Clinton's.)

Liberals, to use another absolutely proveable example, ignore the fact that the Bush tax cuts generated record revenues to the federal government. Obama wants to eliminate those tax cuts, which will reduce those revenues, because he wants to increase revenues. You read that right. It doesn't make a lick of sense.

Sarah Palin, however, does make sense.

It's about experience

Her actions are the result of her beliefs. Her beliefs come from principles. If she sees corruption, she attacks it, no matter who is involved. If they happen to be Democrats, that's too bad. If they happen to be Republicans, that's too bad.

There are those who after decades of observing the world say that the term "honest politician" is an oxymoron. A label made of two words in conflict with each other. In Sarah Palin's case, the term would have to be "oxygenius," I suppose. Like the rest of us, she's human and probably makes mistakes from time to time, though I personally can't name a single example of that. But observation of the woman's actions in offices ranging from small town mayor to the governor of the largest state in the nation tells us that in her case the difference is that, unlike liberals, her next decision is influenced by her last on one and only one basis. Her pass/fail designation is "did that turn out the way I wanted it to turn out?" People who are capable of recognizing, let alone admitting, their own mistakes are rare in this world. Clearly, what happens matters to her -- not in the sense of how an outcome might damage her political power, but rather in the sense of did it work?. Her dedication is to the outcome of her actions, not the survival of herself and her political friends.

One of the interesting things about her, just as an aside, is that she has more executive branch experience than the other three candidates in this race, combined. Is "executive experience" important in an American presidential election?

Read this: How To Pick the Next President of the U.S.

(LL)