Who won the vice presidential debate?

Palin

1 of 3

by Jerome Costello

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

If you follow the fuzzy logic applied to the first McCain / Obama debate, wherein Barack was said to have been the underdog and a tie resulted in his being declared the winner, you clearly have to recognize Sarah Palin's victory. Katie Couric, Tina Fey and others have piled on their fodder for Palin to be burned at the political stake, or hoping she would crash and burn on her own. I watched the interview with Katie Couric. For someone relatively new to the national spotlight, I thought Sarah Palin did okay. Katie has spent her career putting public figures on the "hot spot". Granted, Sarah is in the crash course of national exposure, and being well versed therein. But last I checked, media interview skills were not a pre-requisite for national public office. Still At least Tina Fey was funny.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microso ft-com:office:office " />

I think we are missing the point, or maybe several.

First, about Sarah Palin being just a "heartbeat" away. The last time a president was succeeded by his V.P. due to death was 1963, John F. Kennedy. Since then the only president to be replaced for any other reason was Nixon in 1974. Let's be honest, McCain has endured far greater hardship than anything his opponents can throw at him. He will be around for a long time.

Second, John McCain has been a thorn in the side of President Bush (and many republicans) for years, all the while, adored by the media and democrats alike. During the primaries, before he was seen as a legitimate threat to Obama, he was largely ignored. Now that Sarah Palin is introduced as his running mate, he and his candidacy seem suddenly abhorred.

John McCain is a maverick all right, but not a conservative. This has been a problem since many conservatives refused to vote for him. Sarah Palin brings balance to the ticket, revitalizing the conservative base. She is strong, moral, ethical, intelligent, and therefore a profound threat to liberal ideologies, as evidenced by numerous attacks on her character and experience. (Those who disagree may choose to wipe the foam from their mouths first so we can understand what they are trying to say.)

Sarah Palin is allot like most of us. The events of her life reflect the events of many, if not most Americans. All of us have moral or ideological standards, expectations, etc that are not always (if ever) perfectly upheld. In the unlikely event that she succeeds to the presidency during McCain's term, she has the moral and ethical compass that is the foundation of her strength to guide, and good common sense, which of course is not common. She will be surrounded by sound and experienced advisers to assist her. Finally, for all of you (us) who have complained that Washington politicians are so out of touch with the common people of the country, wouldn't it be nice to have someone at the top who will make decisions (foreign and domestic) with "us" in mind?

Last night's V.P. debate was a media show for the cameras. In spite of that, the veep candidates promoted the message they want the voters to hear. Some may say that Palin didn't answer the questions directly or satisfactorily. She stuck with her strengths and avoided exposing weakness. She was clear in the message she wished to send to the voters. These are winning points for her.

For me, the bottom line is this: Barack Obama and the liberal democrats (not all democrats are liberal) believe that "change" and "progress" are defined by the ability of government(s) to make all peoples equal. They use the "lawn mower" approach to cut down the tops of society and create a more stark class system: the elites and the new "equals". Make no mistake; the only thing shared when we are all economically equal is poverty. McCain/Palin and conservative (again not all) republicans believe change starts on the inside, with each of us and our institutions, public or private. That government(s) must be restricted, to allow it's people the benefits of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as we individually desire. The slobbering Great Dane that our government is should be kept on a strong leash, to keep it from further invading our lives and restricting our liberties (i.e. eminent domain). And before we start talking about corporate greed, let's remember who owns those "greedy" corporations, their "greedy" stockholders (Got IRA?). Those corporations need to be held accountable too.

McCain/Palin for change, accountability and reform. VOTE

Learn more about this author, Jerome Costello.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.