The other day, my "Psychology of Leadership" course had a guest speaker, Coronel Kurt Wheeler. It was incredible to hear his perspective on US foreign policy, international relations, and the War on Iraq, but what struck me as intriguing was his suggestions that Sarah Palin may be the most qualified candidate on the ballot. Thus in this blog, I take this simple suggestion to the next level and argue why she just very well may be the best candidate on the ballot to run our nation!
As I am sure that everyone knows, leadership in the legislative branch and leadership in the executive branch differ immensely. That may be why, many presidents are elected from governorships rather than from Congress. Take George W. Bush as an example, the former Governor of Texas.
Given that legislative decisions often require politicians to vote based on their constituencies rather than on their own intuition, it is hard to understand how the decisions of a particular candidate would transform from his term in Congress to his term as President. And wouldn’t you say that it is more reasonable that someone who has governed a microcosm of a nation, such as a town or a state would be more qualified that someone who has only written legislation within their limited area of specialization?
Looking at the background of candidates, Sarah Palin is the only individual among the four who has proven that she can successfully fulfill and executive position as opposed to a legislative role. Does this reasoning not warrant her the most qualified of the candidates for election as the next president (in this case V.P.)?
I understand your concern about a person running for VP not being qualified - we all should be concerned!
In my opinion, I think she is ready for VP. She's essentially doing the same thing she did in Alaska, only now larger scale. She's taking on oil companies, lowering taxes, helping out everyday people - heck yes she's ready!
Not to mention, she totally rocks in general. And she's for homeschoolers (yeah baby!)!
Read and comment as you like....http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/starving-musician
Nope, she is just not objective enough. She does not speak for all citizens of this nation and wants to incorporate conservative Christian views into our legislature. Separation of church and state were put into place for a reason. Because one person's religious views will overshadow and oppress all others. She does not see this. She does not see, period. She is not qualified, in my opinion anyway, to be a leader of all the people.
True, she may not be speaking for all the people, but what presidential candidate did?!
I like her because she's not afraid to hide from the issues, and she says things in very understandable language, not wasting time with fancy explanations.
Plus. she's a Republican, and I will ever vote for a Democrat.
Read and comment as you like.... http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/starving-musician
Yes you are right that it is impossible to find a politician who encompasses all American's views. The typical American cannot be defined; we are all so different.
But, dude, turning this into a theocracy??? A secular government that provides religious freedom to all (within the confines of the general law) guarantees more freedom to all versus a government based on only one religion's views.
Inclusion of all in America may be an idealistic, almost impossible goal, but we should continue to strive for it in as objective a way as possible. Otherwise we cease to be what we claim to be. McCain was correct in leaving gay marriage up to individual states. Obviously Palin is not on the same page as this. It makes me wonder what else she would like to impose on the rest of us who are not conservative Christians.
As far as fancy explanations, Barack is an intellectual. Intellectuals are wordy and phrase their answers carefully - not to deceive - but to make sure they get their point across properly. It is important to an intellectual to be understood. But too often they are misunderstood.
Intellectuals are much, much more likely to give an issue careful thought and try to view things from ALL perspectives, versus non-intellectuals who come from only one perspective and have a very, very hard time accepting other people's viewpoints. Society is made up of both. We balance each other out. But I'd rather have more intellectuals running my country than non.
Rigid thinking and democracy just don't mix.