Governor Palin and State Politics

For those of you that watched the Superbowl, you saw the above spot with Governor Sarah Palin that came on. When it did, one of my friends wasn't too excited, to say the least. :-) Which led into a short conversation about why it was that she wasn't excited about Sarah Palin. We were both really exhausted after a long couple of days, so the conversation didn't go very far - but, summed up, this friend disagreed with most all of Palin's policies (drilling in ANWAR, purchasing of rape kits, etc.) and thus, really, really just doesn't like Palin.

That all led me into ruminating over the last couple of weeks on the idea of State politics and the main purpose of a Governor. A Governor's purpose is to meet the needs of the citizens of their state. To do the best job governing them they can do. During the election, Palin had a 90% approval rating as Governor, the highest of any Governor in the country and, perhaps, the highest of any state official. That tells me that, for her constituency, the people who elected her, she's doing something right. In fact, to think that she won the gubernatorial elections with 48% of the vote, the high approval rating a year and a half later is incredible.

This weekend, an article came out about actress Ashely Judd's outcry against the wolf-hunting policy in Alaska. Several of the animal rights activists in the 48 states decry the policy as inhumane and, in Judd's words, 'It is time to stop Sarah Palin and stop this senseless savagery.' The reality is that the policy in place is limited to Alaskan citizens who must obtain a permit and the numbers are closely monitored. The whole program is in place to protect the caribou and moose populations - the very populations the same group cries out about when it comes to drilling in ANWAR. I understand that it's the method they object with.

However, fundamentally, it's the question of, who under our Constitution, has the right to tell who what to do? Who's the 'top dog' in the constitution? Is this a country where the Federal Gov't can legislate it's views for the States? Or, do the states have protection from the government to put in place policies that are best for their people? It's the latter. The Federal government isn't supposed to legislate on anything outside of it's jurisdiction as set out in the constitution. Unfortunately, it frequently does.

Once again, another reason I'm a Republican. The best group of people to take care of the needs of a town or city are the elected officials over that town or city. The best officials over the state are the state's elected officials. The Federal government was created to protect the union of this country from inside threats and outside threats - not determine what's best for the states therein. It's also why I'm in full agreement with Republican pushes for Federal Tax cuts. Keep more money away from the federal government and you keep more money in your own state, meeting the needs of the citizens in your state, which includes you.

Okay, I'll step down off my soap box now...

Obama: How does Bipartisan Work?

Quick post, since I really need to be doing some other work. I was reading Reuter's this morning on the Stimulus Package that the Dem's are trying to get through the Senate. There were some things that struck me.

*One of Obama's key ideas in his campaign was the end of partisanship. It seems that this stimulus package is the first test of that, because:

1. The bill passed the House, from what I understand, without a single Republican vote. It seems significant that there weren't even moderate Republicans that voted for it.

2. For the bill to pass the Senate, where it is currently, it only needs two Republican votes - yet it can't even get those from moderates. That also seems really significant.

So, while the ideal of bipartisanship seems a good one on the surface, the truth is that partisanship is there for a reason - because all the different parties see the answer to the country's problems in different ways. I refuse (it's the stubborn side of) to chalk this up to "Republicans don't want to vote for a Democratic bill." No, if it truly was something they were comfortable with, I imagine at least a few would have voted for it. It's in instances like that that I'm really glad our government is set up the way it is - that the partisan sides call each other into check. Thank you Founding Father's for checks & balances. :-)

Reuter's article: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0142074920090206?feedType=nl&feedName=usmorningdigest