LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

Selection was an insult to women

Joseph J. Carbone, Las Vegas

Sun, Aug 31, 2008 (2:06 a.m.)

I have no doubt whatsoever that Sarah Palin is a great mom, a wonderfully bright woman and a fine person.

That said, there is also absolutely no question about why she was chosen by John McCain and the guys in the shadows to be the Republicans’ vice presidential nominee: to see if disenchanted and disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters will go for her to punish Barack Obama and the Democrats for not nominating Hillary.

All along the attack dogs have been stressing experience and Obama’s “lack thereof.” It would be so easy to call this desperation move pandering but it’s far worse than that. This choice is an insult to women in general, all women.

What it says ever so loudly is that the Republican Party believes women will vote exclusively on the fact that the choice is female and that women are really too dumb to see this choice for what it is. It is unquestionably sexist and in my humble opinion stupid.

I guess the Republicans truly believe that if the country bought Dubya for two terms, they can sell us anything.

Discussion: 13 comments so far…

By jfnance32

8/31/08 at 8:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

What a very loud sexist letter this is?

Obama and Palin have near the same about of experience. Palin has more executive experience than Obama.

Yet, is the letter saying that Obama is a slap on the American voters for pandering to the extreme left in the Democrat party? No it is not.

The basis of this letter is about gender.

It is very sexist to say Palin is not qualified to be VP and then say Obama is extremely qualified to be president.

One can not have it both ways unless you are using gender as addition qualifier for Obama.

I am very shock that "feminist" are using the qualification club to slam into the head of Palin. If you are true feminist and you think experience is a good indicator of qualifications then you must slam that club into Obama's head, too.
By Future2012

8/31/08 at 9:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

The LV Sun has found four Democratic who apparently appalled that Republicans have selected AK Governor Sarah Palin as VP. They are Ellen Sterling, Mark Mikowski, John Sloan, and Joseph Carbone. The LV Sun could not find a letter from anyone that supported AK Governor Sarah Palin as VP.

Collectively they found:
They are insulted by a woman from small town (Wasilla, AK) USA.
A Republican woman on the ticket is an insult, and just pandering to disenfranchised Democratic. Why are they disenfranchised?
A woman with five kids and strongly moral values is an insulted. (how many kids did Biden have?)
They are insulted by a woman who destroyed the corrupt politicians and good old boys in AK.
They are insulted by a woman who has gotten the $40 billion NG pipeline project moving.
They are insulted that National Guard Commander Sarah Palin has been to Iraq twice as the head of the AK National Guard. She did not need to be a Candidate before going and doing her job.
They are insulted by a woman standing up to a Trooper who threatened to murder her father.

VP select Sarah Palin is less risk then President Barak Obama.
Lack of foreign policy is not the case. AK is bordered by Russia and Canada. Governor Sarah Palin has extensive international trade experience with both countries.
Governor Sarah Palin has extensive international oil experience.
As a Governor and a Commander Sarah Palin is making decisions constantly that affect peoples lives, sets the States priorities, runs the services of a state, deal with the finances, deals with hiring and firing. etc.

Senators Obama and Biden make no decisions, they talk, hold hearing, and vote (if in session) as one of 100 senators following Harry Reid; and 435 representative following Nancy Pelosi, in a feebly attempt to pass a operating budget (non this year so far) and a few laws. Obama has no results to point to for his social service job sandwiched between his six figure lawyer jobs.
By neiman1

8/31/08 at 9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sure glad to see the debate center on issues. The media and the DNC trashed Hillary and now they have their eyes set on another woman. Why are these guys so venomous about protecting their candidate at all costs. They trash voting rights, freedom of speech, and common decency. They belittle women's rights and attack someone for being unqualified while covering the resume of "their candidate" from any scrutiny. What has Obama and his backers promised them?
By thebs

8/31/08 at 12:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Palin raised taxes on the oil companies, ensuring higher prices at the pump for all Americans.
"Palin also raised taxes on oil companies after Murkowski's previous tax regime produced falling revenues in 2007, despite skyrocketing oil prices. Alaska now has some of the highest resource taxes in the world. Alaska's oil tax revenues are expected to be about $10 billion in 2008, twice those of previous year."
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/29/news/new...

Fiscally conservative? Hardly! The cost of government in Wasilla under Palin rose 150%!
"She wasn't doing this by shrinking government, however: The cost of running the growing city, apart from capital projects and debt, rose from $3.9 million in fiscal 1996 to $5.8 million in fiscal 2002."

Tax-cuttter? No way! She pushed for a sales tax increase to pay for a pet project, a sports complex which is still LOSING money. Sounds like the LV monorail!
"She successfully pushed a half-percent sales tax increase to build a $15 million multi-use indoor ice arena. The popular sports complex is not breaking even, as its advocates projected, but the city's subsidy has been cut from $600,000 to $125,000 a year."

But surely this is John McCain making a maverick choice for his VP, right? Not quite. Instead, it exposes his political motivations... as "will sell my soul for the Presidency."
"The spin on McCain's choice of the Alaska governor is that it reinforces his maverick credentials. I see it the opposite way: It undermines them. McCain looks like any other calculating politician, willing to do whatever it takes to win. "

Wait, won't this help the Republicans gain some of those Hillary PUMAs? No.
"The main reason McCain knuckled under to the religious right by picking Palin is that he actually believes there’s a large army of embittered Hillary loyalists who will vote for a hard-line conservative simply because she’s a woman. That’s what happens when you listen to the TV news echo chamber. Not only is the whole premise ludicrous, but it is every bit as sexist as the crude joke McCain notoriously told about Janet Reno, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton."

Take a look at the poll results from Gallup and Rasmussen:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/...

Will this help with the Republicans? Let's check NRO.
"McCain is essentially telling the world that he doesn't really need a Vice President. It is hard to imagine Palin playing the same sort of role that modern Vice Presidents like Gore, Bush, Cheney, or Mondale played. ...McCain has thus made a purely political play without regard for the governance concerns. And how could he really have a good idea of how she would govern? My understanding is that he only met with her once before choosing her."

So what does Palin bring to the table? Not much apparently.
By thebs

8/31/08 at 12:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

What about her connection to Jack Abramoff, the disgraced GOP lobbyist and convicted felon?

During her run for the governorship of Alaska, she sat by and did nothing as the Republican Governor's Association, a group given a half-million dollars by Jack Abramoff, sent illegal mailers on her behalf.
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/1026...

Rather than condemning such illegal activity, a spokesman, on her behalf, shrugged and asked what they should do. "Have everyone give it back?"

What about her ties to Pat Buchanan? According to Pat, she helped raise funds for Pat's 1996 campaign.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sarah-pal...

Buchanan has a long storied history of racist and anti-semitic comments.
http://frank.mtsu.edu/~baustin/buchanan....

He's spoken of Hitler's "genius," questioned the Holocaust as a "group fantasy of martyrdom."

Will she distance herself from these comments? Why did she support Buchanan, given his history of outrageous and anti-semitic comments?
By Piranha9

8/31/08 at 2:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

As an old-style conservative, at first I was excited about the Sarah Palin choice. But then the details started streaming in...

Folks, look, Palin fought for the Bridge to Nowhere before the earmarks were taken out, raised taxes and drove Wasilla, town of about 7,000 people, into almost $1.5 million in debt. The town's citizens were pushing to recall her.

She's actively under investigation for ethics violations for the Troopergate scandal. And she acted like a childish fool in insulting one of her own Republican colleagues in Alaska, who is a reformer herself:

http://tinyurl.com/59t3ks

I'd been leaning toward supporting John McCain before, although I've been lukewarm about him, but this foolish choice has demonstrated lacks even the most basic abilities of judgment.

I'll be supporting Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr in November, and I'm hardly alone among Nevada Republicans. This is becoming a common theme.
By jfnance32

8/31/08 at 3:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

What about the biggest crook in Chicago being an Obama fundraiser?

"Rezko had long been a fundraiser for Obama."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=...

What about Obama's numerous ties to anti-Israel nuts?

His spiritual mentor frequently generated rants about those evil Jews in Israel.

His church of some 20 years had Hamas anti-Israel rants published in the church bulletins.
Obama has praised Farrakan who is the most famous anti-Israel nut in the USA.

Obama adviser and former Air Force Chief of Staff Tony McPeak, in a 2003 interview with The Oregonian, "placed blame on Miami and New York Jews for the failure of the Middle East peace process."

Sen. Obama's relationship with Rashid Khalidi, "an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights."

“In 2000, Rashid Khalidi, a former PLO operative who justified Palestinian terrorism as contributing to ‘political enlightenment,’ threw a fundraiser for his friend Barack Obama."

...announcement that former Rep. David Bonior will be representing the Obama campaign at the Democratic National Committee meeting this weekend in Washington, D.C. As a Congressman, David Bonior was known for his strong opposition to pro-Israel policies, being called by some "the biggest supporter of the anti-Israel Arab lobby in Congress."

Obama's closest friends have been either crooks or anti-Israel nuts.
By jfnance32

8/31/08 at 3:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Piranha9 is obviously a fraud.

In his other posting he says "Obama does have almost 4 years as a prominent US Senator who's been very active on major legislation, and a lot years in the Illinois State Senate-- a state with over 12 million people. He's not inexperienced and he has frankly accomplished quite a bit."

Obviously only a left wing nut would evaluate Obama's brief legislative experience as "frankly accomplished".

Yeah...he is a life long conservative.....(gg)
By NLVResident

8/31/08 at 4:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

As a woman, I agree wholeheartedly that John McCain's selection is an insult to women. There were other, more qualified Republican women he could have chosen; instead, he went for a trophy VP to match his trophy wife. In addition, the fact that she is under investigation demonstrates a clear lack of judgment by McCain. What if the allegations are true? What if they impeach her? Or could that be McCain's strategy? If they win the election and then she is impeached, obviously she would gracefully step down leaving him the opportunity to name her successor -- probably Joe Lieberman who he wanted to name in the first place. This is first-rate sleaze ball tactics. And, as women, we should be highly insulted because she was not chosen for her qualifications but for her looks.
By jfnance32

8/31/08 at 5:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

As a voter, I agree wholeheartedly that Obama's nomination is an insult to voters. There were other, more qualified liberals that the Democrats could have chosen; instead, the Democrats went for a cool sweet talking south Chicago dude. In addition, the fact that he has strong times to the most corrupt south Chicago convicted crook demonstrates a clear lack of judgment by the Democrats. What if the allegations are true? What if they find illegal activity that link the two? This is first-rate sleaze ball tactics. And, as he, we should be highly insulted because he was not chosen for his qualifications but for his cool sweet talking charming ways.

P.S. Obviously another sexist posting. Obama has 7 years as a state senator and 3 years as US Senator of which he has been campainging full time. Somehow Obama is fully qualified to be president and Palin, who has years of executive experience that Obama does not have, is not qualified.

I guess the difference is that he is man and she is a female.
By noelverzosa

9/1/08 at 3:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

I believed McCain when he said that Obama is dangerously inexperienced to be president. Then he turns around and names the even less-experienced Sarah Palin to appease the evangelical wing of the Republican Party. John McCain, please don't insult my intelligence.
By TPathman

9/1/08 at 5:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Great insight on why McCain picked Palin even though he knew her daughter was pregnant at

peoplepoliticsandpablum.blogspot.com/
By Doug_Rodrigues

9/1/08 at 10:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

I hope Palin will be elected along with McCain, and become President four years from now! Perhaps only she can put the "Conservative" back into the Republican Party.