Thursday, October 02, 2008

Sarah! Sarah! Sarah!

Some comments on Sarah-palooza of late:

1) NO ELECTED OFFICIAL actually reads the papers. NOT ONE. I know they don't because that's why I have a job. I read the papers, I cut the stories, so I tell them what is important to read! I did this for a Congressman, I do it for 33 Senators now. Trust me--not one of them really reads every paper that's important cover to cover. If they want to know what papers they are in, they do a google alert (at least that's what we do) and all the stories will be delivered neatly to the inbox. 
So the fact that Sarah "couldn't possibly read" all the papers in Alaska is crap. Do you actually think the President reads the Post or the New York Times or the Orlando Sentinel? NO. His staff does, and they tell him what he needs to know. Sheesh, people. Next you're going to be amazed that politicians have speechwriters!

2) Supreme Court (SCOTUS) case(s) she disagreed with: She could have safely said Dred Scott v. Sanford, the case that said slaves aren't really people. I think we can safely say that everyone disagrees with that ruling (except, say, Chief Justice Taney and Southern plantation owners). But that's really not a fair question. Unless you've really studied Con Law then how many SCOTUS cases, PERIOD, can you name? This is a relevant question for a judge or judicial position. It's not really relevant for a candidate for political office. At all. 
For the record, I took a year of con law at Capital. Here are the cases I can name off the top of my head, at this moment:
  1. Lawrence v. Texas
  2. Kelo v. New London
  3. Marbury v. Madison
  4. Dred Scott
  5. Brown v. Board of Ed
  6. Donnely
  7. Lemon v. Kurtzman
  8. Roe v. Wade
  9. Griswold v. Conneticut
  10. McCullough v. Maryland
  11. Plessy v. Ferguson
  12. Miranda v. State of Arizona
Frankly, I'm a lot more interested in a political candidate's grasp of the Constitution--especially the point that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are NOT IN IT. 
3) It amuses me how many people on chat boards, etc. say that they want a "really experience VP." Dick Cheney was chief of staff, secretary of defense, etc.--he's really smart. And yet--people don't like him. Hmmm. 

No comments: