Not surprisingly, Republicans still hold her in high regard… as many as 70% view her favorably and rank her among the top three contenders for a presidential candidacy in 2012. White evangelical protestants are her most avid supporters, but even their view of her hasn’t remained untarnished.

Here’s a quote from the article summarizing the poll (emphasis mine).

As Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin prepares for the next stage of her political career, a majority of Americans hold an unfavorable view of her, and there is broad public doubt about her leadership skills and understanding of complex issues [...]

I had to pause when reading that because, as usual, I’m constantly amazed that anyone ever thought she did have an understanding of complex issues… or that they thought she did have leadership skills suitable for a vice presidency.

In the 2008 election, I had been wavering between Obama and McCain. I was leaning toward McCain because he seemed like he was going to maintain fiscal conservatism without going all theological on the country the way Bush had done. I was leaning away from Obama because of typical "Democrat" things like union support, crazy spending, and bigger government.

Then McCain picked Palin (or was directed to pick her… I don’t know) and after I learned about her and heard her speak, my decision was made. Palin was not (and still is not) vice presidential material, much less presidential material, and she repeatedly showed it every time she took the microphone or granted an interview. The media wasn’t hard on her. They tossed softballs. Katie Couric wasn’t even hard on her, but Palin came across looking like a uneducated bible thumper in nice clothes. She couldn’t answer simple questions. She got defensive when Couric pressed her for an answer to a reasonable question about what news sources she reads. She conveyed what I consider to be some reprehensible moral positions.

I was disappointed because, even though I had (mostly) liked McCain, I couldn’t support him as president after making a choice like Palin for his vice president. So I was stuck with Obama, who I admired for some things, but who didn’t quite represent what I wanted. I liked (and still do) his international stance, his speaking ability, his education, some of his ideas… but I didn’t like some fiscal positions and union support.

Palin was a deal-breaker because she was clearly unqualified on multiple fronts… yet Republicans and evangelicals just loved her to death. Maybe it’s just a religious thing… a carryover from Bush’s eight years of mobilizing and empowering the religious right to commandeer the Republican party. Maybe it all has to do with Palin making claims of God-inspired wars and praying that the country is following God’s plan. Maybe they liked her because, not only was she overtly religious, invoking God and faith on a regular basis, but she also winked at them and said, "You betcha!"

It certainly can’t be her professional qualifications.

Say "nuclear"

I’m dismayed by the number of people who seem to think that being “folksy” is a good qualification for a presidential or vice-presidential candidate. Being able to connect with people is one thing. Using slang, bad grammar, and incorrect pronunciations for common words is something altogether different. Comedians and television writers get damned good mileage from it, but do we really want it from our public officials?

Personally, I want someone smart in public office, especially in the office of President of the United States of America. When I say “smart,” I don’t just mean IQ. I mean having enough of an education to know how to speak in public, to use proper grammar, to pronounce common words correctly, to know enough about science to talk intelligently, to process information rationally, to negotiate effectively, to look at evidence objectively, and to know when to ask for help. There’s more to it than that, though. Someone “smart” understands that appearance matters… visually, audibly, and behaviorally.

Folksy appears uneducated. It probably doesn’t appear that way to uneducated people, but to anyone else (who has an ounce of honesty)… it does. However, everyone looks favorably upon well-spoken, even folksy people. Well-spoken doesn’t mean using big words, literary flourishes, clever allusions, and mythological references. It means having the ability to get your point across cleanly and clearly, using proper grammar and a relatively solid grasp of the English language. That doesn’t offend or alienate anyone.

That’s what I want in the office of President. We haven’t had it for 8 years now and, although McCain has it (or used to), his runner-up has precious little of it. Obama has it in abundance. Biden has it, too. When I visualize our president sitting down with other world leaders to discuss matters of global importance, I cringe to think of someone saying “new-cue-luhr” and “you betcha” and winking and stumbling over facts and simple scientific issues. If that happens, it reflects poorly on us as a country. It looks laughable. It looks farcical. It looks sad.

What really struck me in this interview, though, was McCain’s statement that Palin is “probably one of the foremost experts in this nation on energy issues.” He backed that up by saying that she was responsible for a 40 billion dollar pipeline bringing natural gas from Alaska and that she’s been on a board that oversees natural gas, oil, and other Alaskan resources. He says, “There’s nobody more qualified to take on our mission of becoming energy independence.” That’s not a typo. That was the quote.

I was dumbfounded by the claim that Palin is one of the foremost experts in this nation on energy issues. …Because she was the governor of Alaska? I suppose if you consider “energy” to be only oil and natural gas, that claim might not be quite so outrageous, but it’s still pretty far out there.

The 40 billion dollar pipeline claim is partially true, but misleading. She was partly responsible for moving the project closer to realization, but construction has not been started and the project isn’t a done deal yet. TransCanada, who is to be the builder, estimates that it will take 10 years to complete and will cost about 26.5 billion dollars, not 40 billion.

Either way, claiming that, because she’s been governor of Alaska, Palin is one of the leading experts in the country on energy is like saying that I have foreign policy experience because I can see Russia from my back yard.

Oh, wait…

I thought Biden came across as very down-to-earth and knowledgeable. He’s obviously familiar with the debate topics and showed his knowledge in a relaxed, straight-forward, and confident manner. He seemed “real,” especially for a politician who’s been around Washington as long as he has. However, he also seems extremely well-educated and intelligent.

Unlike what I’m used to hearing in political interviews, he actually answered the questions instead of dodging them and he responded to Palin’s statements about his record and the record of Obama with relevant counter-points. I think he demonstrated beyond a doubt that he understands the issues and has a clear, defined plan about how to deal with them. I don’t happen to agree with all of them, but he’s clear and specific.

To me, Palin came across as flippant. I get that she was trying to connect with “middle America” and, from some things I’ve read, she seems to do very well at that, but it doesn’t work for me. Her folksy colloquialisms, patronizing smiles, and winks seemed out of place and inappropriate in the setting of a Vice-Presidential debate. Maybe those are good things in a small town like Wasilla, but on the national stage (much less the international one), they make her seem like a cookie-baking trailer-park queen.

With regard to the topics, it really seemed that she stuck to her script no matter if it was relevant to the standing question or not, even going so far as to state that she might not answer the questions in the way that the moderator or Joe Biden wanted her to. As the debate went on, that translated into “not at all” in some cases. Her counter-points were also scripted, as they rarely addressed anything specific that Biden said or any explanations he had given. Biden’s voting for the War Powers act and bringing up Bush’s policies for the last eight years both come to mind. Her constant over-use of the word “maverick” also made me want to scream.

The big polls seem to show that the general population thinks Biden “won” the debate. The expectations for Palin’s performance had been set low enough that it could be said that she won, too, but I don’t think that applies to her knowledge and understanding of the topics. It has to do with her stage presence and showmanship. I think if the initial questions had been followed up with questions testing the depth of understanding, she probably would have failed miserably.

It saddens me that McCain picked her as his running mate.

Ask yourself: how has “elitism” become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn’t seem too intelligent or well educated.

The rest of the editorial expressed similarly thought-provoking views, but this one specifically caught my attention because the whole idea of “anti-intellectualism” has been on my mind lately, especially with regard to religion and politics.

Here’s the link to the entire editorial: http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080/

How ’bout that Sarah Palin! Boy can she handle a gun!

Now I didn’t hear the comment myself, but my wife’s interpretation was that, in context with the other things he was saying, he was indicating that this was a strong point in her Vice Presidential qualifications. I can’t say I was shocked, but I was saddened (and amused, but in a mocking sort of way).

Upon telling that humorous/saddening story to a friend, he made a counter comment which I found hilarious because it mocked the guy at the barbershop AND the current Vice President.

It’d be nice to have a VP who could put her boobs in your face as opposed to a load of buckshot like our current one.

Oh my god.