The main crux of the attacks and criticisms of Alaska Governor and McCain running-mate Sarah Palin (aside from her daughter being used as an example of the tragic consequences of what can happen to teenage girls if they don’t take part in Democrats’ free condom programs or Planned Parenthood counseling sessions) is echoed in a Richard Cohen column in the Washington Post.

Here’s one argument against Palin: Alaska is an irrelevant state — an out-of-the-way nothing and an empty beer in the national cooler — and as such, governing it provides little in the way of executive experience.

For starters, I’ll take a governor of any state over a Senator any day of the week, and so will most Americans. Of our past five presidents, 80% of them were governors. Bush was a governor. Clinton was a governor. Reagan was a governor. Carter was a governor. Not that I’m a fan of some of these guys, but there is a lesson here that recent voters prefer governors in the national executive branch.

As for governors, nobody will ever convince me that running Arkansas as it existed when Bill Clinton was in office was more of a qualification to be president than somebody who governs Alaska — not unless somebody’s figured out a way to pay down the national debt with corruption and illiteracy.

In assessing Palin, Democrats are also doing what they always do: confusing sheer numbers as signs of effectiveness and competence. If it were a race for U.S. president between Palin and the governor here in Michigan, I’d choose Palin hands-down. Of course Jennifer Granholm “governs” more people. Big deal. The captain of the Exxon Valdez was responsible for more lives and property than the skipper of a charter fishing boat in Key West, but guess which one I’d trust more to take my family on a boating trip.

Think about it this way: The Mayor of Detroit “governs” more people than the Governor of Alaska. Yeah, I think we can drop the “size equals competence, integrity and positive experience” argument now.

Democrats are picking on Alaska — mocking the state as a great, big nothing that nobody would notice if it were gone.

But… talk about drilling there and watch what happens. Most Democrats act as if we just proposed demolishing the FDR Memorial and destroying the nation as we know it. Some liberals even appear willing to die for Alaska. Based on this, Alaska doesn’t look too irrelevant to me.

Democrats, is Alaska important, or unimportant? That’s all we need to know. The drilling teams are waiting for a prompt answer.

Comments

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.