George Bush is often cited as a guy you could sit down with and exchange jokes while drinking from a beer bong during a football game. There may very well be some truth to that.

Similarly, Sarah Palin may very well be a lot of fun to hang out with by the pool in her swim suit in between rounds of Marco Polo.

However the question we owe it to ourselves to ask is, do these kinds of qualifications mean they are good leaders? Is it important to choose candidates we'd like to personally spend time with, or are there better parameters to follow when deciding who we would like to formulate and enforce policy for running our country?

What's more important: Candidates track record and positions, or the fact that we find them personally appealing? It's too late to ask this about Bush, but the time is now to ponder these questions relative to the lovely and charming Ms. Palin.

The more I learn about her, the less I want her to be a heartbeat away from a President in his 70's. (A President who would be 77 by the end of his first term. A President whose father and grandfather died in their early 60's and 70's from cardiac arrests.)

Her penchant for lying is disturbing. Putting herself out there as being against ear mark pork barrel spending while being the leading mayor and governor for getting ear marks.
The perfect microcosmic example is her support for the bridge to nowhere with a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, until it got national publicity and then she suddenly she was against it.

Allegedly she's for family values but she puts her career over being home for her children, even in their early formative years. God bless "Dr." Laura Schlessinger for being consistent enough to come out and say for that reason alone she doesn't support her candidacy.

I do appreciate the fact that Palin has helped give us the ultimate example of what happens when you teach teens a sex education consisting of "abstinence only", but I still can't fathom the surrealistic comedy of bringing your knocked up underage daughter and her shot gun wedding (not underage) future son-in-law to the Republican National Convention and having everyone salute you as some sort of homage to family values. Can you imagine how the conservatives and pundits would have reacted if Obama had tried that?

Of all the disturbing things we are finding out about her, most of which I'm not even touching upon here, its her position on rape victims and how she should would use governmental powers to affect them, if she possibly could.

If left up to Palin, she would make sure that no rape victim be allowed to stop her pregnancy, even to the point of denying them the morning-after pill. There's a huge difference between saying, "No matter what, I would never do that," and saying, "No matter what, I would never let YOU do that."

While it's one thing to speak in terms of what she would do if she could, it's another to report what she did or as the case may be, she didn't do when she had the chance to.

Before the Alaskan legislature and the democratic governor enacted a law to change this practice, the town of Wasilla billed rape victims, who went to the police in hopes of tracking down the low life who violated them, up to $1,200 for the cost of the 'rape kit'.
Mayor Palin thought this was a peachy idea and did not see the need to change the policy of the Wasilla police.

Evidently, the only thing she thought the citizens of her small town should finance to the tune of tens of millions of dollars with higher taxes and bonds, is the sports complex built on property they didn't have the rights to, but she drew the line at ponying up for police investigations for sex crimes. Sounds like a priorities problem to me.

Bill the victim. How disgusting.

(Is this who you want as your Vice President, with an actuarial tables, 1 in 3 opportunity to be your President?)

Guaranteed Vacation Financing (No Credit Checks, No Interest), Up To 80% Travel Discounts; + Residual Income! Click For Unselfish Wealth & Travelencia

Create Wealth With Forex: 8 Week Money Back Guarantee