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

Bush's Treatment by the American Public: An Article & Responses

"To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office."

In my own self-absorbed way of thinking about what thoughts others must have of me, I often come to the decision that they don't know quite what to do with me. I probably come across as naively idealistic and, now, in light of posts on Obama, all to willing to support him, ignoring the troubling policies or issues he may support.

I think, for one, rather than naivety, it's simply a continuation of who I am. I remember receiving from my high school Spanish teacher a note at graduation of congratulations that went on to say that she'd never heard anyone speak badly of me. A compliment and an encouragement - for I believe I'm called to respect, love, and honor everyone - even with whom I disagree or have very little in common.

It's as a result of that mindset that I'm committed to honoring those with whom I disagree at times (such as Barack Obama and the Democratic party platform) and encouraging others to do the same. Here's an article published by the Wall Street Journal this last week. I tend to agree with it's perspective that Bush has been undully mocked and disrespected. So, if nothing else, I don't want this to be said in 4 years about those of us who did not vote for Obama. May the review be, "They disagreed with him and the Democratic congress, but they always did it with deep respect that honored the President and those in power."

Here's the article at WSJ.com. Also, the emails/letters in follow-up to it are really good - albeit, lengthy. For what it's worth, enjoy!

Reading: The New GOP & Obama

Reading "The Gaurdian" the other day, I came across a column that talked about the GOP party getting together to redefine itself. In fact, they've set up a website to get input from Republicans on what needs to happen. In all this discussion, I've also come across two books on what the "new" GOP party needs to look like. Here's links to articles on them. I'll likely pick up one of the two.

The Grand New Party: Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream

A New Kind of Conservative (I couldn't find a review, since the book is so new, but here's an excerpt from it at RelevantMagazine.com)

On the second note, Obama. While I didn't vote for Obama because of policy issues and what I believe is best for the country, now that he's my president I really do want to know more about who he is as a man - a man of faith, an African-American man, etc. The Faith of Barack Obama showed up in last month's Relevant Magazine. It's written by Stephen Mansfield, who wrote a well-reviewed biography on George W. Bush's faith, and is published by Thomas Nelson - an evangelical publishing company that has a reputation for publishing well. So, in order to understand Barack Obama more, this new president of mine for 4 years and to speak intelligently about who he is and in a respectful, honoring way with others over the next 4 years, I'm planning to pick this book up and see what Mansfield has to say.