Sunday, November 22, 2009

You want us to READ the health care bill??

I heard a few days ago that Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) was planning to force the clerks in the Senate to actually read the entire 2,074 page health reform bill on the Senate floor before they'd be allowed to vote on it. See that article here.

Now, I'm reading that he likely won't do that, in fact. See this.

What are your thoughts on that? Senator Coburn is one of two physicians currently in the Senate, so naturally I already like him :) Actually, I hadn't heard of him, before this, but I read up a bit on him, and he sounds like a pretty good guy. As for reading the health bill, it SOUNDS like a bit of a no brainer! Shouldn't you read a bill before you pass it? But, I'm not a politician, nor do I have a firm grasp on the details of politics. Apparently he's changed his mind at least in part due to concerns that it would not be productive. Well, I certainly don't want to advocate wasting the Senate's time, but at the same time I have to wonder, what better thing do they have to do? Your thoughts?

Sarah Palin

Well, Sarah's in the news again, with her new book coming out. I wonder, as I write this, what proportion of you think I do or do not support her. I would think most of you would think that I support her.

I DO like her. However, that is not enough. Her perspective on things in last year's election, and her energetic attitude was quite refreshing. Unfortunately, I require more than that from a politician. I need results, I need intelligence, I need an ability to either effectively play the game, or effectively circumnavigate the game.

There were a lot of things that I liked about George W. Bush (please don't hate me). One thing that I never could get over, though, was his inability to make a speech. I cringed every time I heard him say "noo'-cyu-lar". He came across to people as a hokey, uneducated ignoramus, and the media devoured him for that. Sarah has a similar problem. Her politics and whatever the truth may be put completely aside, she has allowed the media to portray her as a simpleton, as a "Miss Alaska" beauty pageant queen. In order to be an effective politician, you need to be able to get your points across effectively. You can be the most principled person in the world, with the absolute best ideas for how to fix up this country's problems, but if you can't get people to rally behind them, all your ideas are worthless. I'm glad I am not a politician, for I fear that that simple concept would be my own undoing.

I really want to like Sarah. In fact, I actually do like her, as a person. From what I can see about her, she seems to be a very principled, driven woman. It sounds as if she did some pretty good things for Alaska, until she stepped down as governor (What was up with THAT?). I think she's probably a wonderful person, and I applaud many personal decisions on her part. I like that she stuck by her principles and did not have an abortion. I like that she has chosen to love and support her daughter, despite the stupid things that she's done (shouldn't all parents do that?). If she chose to resign for her family's sake, I like that as well. All of these things make me like her as a person, and certainly earn my respect.

That does not convince me that she would be a good or effective politician, however. Has she demonstrated that she knows enough about current events to be able to intelligently engage the current world scene? Not to me, at least. Has she shown herself to be effective at transcending the media's desire to splatter her name? No, she has not. Could she prove, in the future, to be an effective politician? ABSOLUTELY. If she were able to do so in the future, she would likely have my support. However, I do not see any good reason to support her, politically, at the moment, unless it would be for lack of someone more qualified.