Palin and Bachmann | Why the Republican 'dream ticket' would be my personal nightmare

October 19, 9:08 AMAtlanta Lesbian Relationship ExaminerLeslie Davis

Related Articles

• Homophobic politics and policy
• Why the gay marriage debate is important
• Gay marriage and the Republican Agenda
• Gay marriage from a constitutional perspective

One of my fellow examiners posted an article advocating a 2012 Republican ticket comprised of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.

Call me crazy, but the more I listen to Republican males currently in office, the more convinced I am that the strongest ticket for 2012 or 2016 would be Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, Congresswoman, MN.

Now that is an out of the box thought, don't you agree?

Sir, I will call you crazy. I agree that the current male Republican leaders lack any semblance of charm, charisma or appeal, but if Republicans view Palin and Bachmann as the Republican dream ticket, then they must genuinely want the perpetual stigma of being the ‘party of stupid.’ It is not an 'out of the box' idea.  It is a jack-in-the-box idea.

If Republicans opt for that ticket, my reaction will be some variation of: “do you think the population of this country is comprised of idiots?” I won’t be the only one having that reaction. That ticket represents blatant pandering to the female electorate, eye candy for the males and bad news for the world. Neither woman has sufficient experience on the global stage. Neither woman seems open minded enough to engage the world in the dialogue that is necessary to make progress on some of the pending issues. Both women seem bereft of facts and logic when discussing important political issues.  Has short term memory loss wiped the Katie Couric interview from the Republican collective memory?

Neither of these women appeals to me. A conversation with either of them would make me twitch uncontrollably or slam my head against a brick wall repeatedly. My contempt for them has nothing to do with their stance against all things gay, though that is certainly a factor when I go to the polls. I have a strong preference for exceptionally intelligent, well traveled, feisty, opinionated, open-minded, assertive women. I appreciate people who like to study and learn; who contemplate things and evaluate issues based on research and careful deliberation. Both Bachmann and Palin seem bossy, but in that mean, kind of clueless, popular, evil cheerleader in high school sort of way. They lack substance.

Palin's appeal seems to be based on being 'relatable' or down to earth; however, that folksy charm is unlikely to win me over. I live in the South. I know that a gentile variation of “bless his heart,” often uttered by proper, elderly women, actually mean “he’s a f’n moron.’ I am not ‘buying’ it.

Michele Bachmann always looks wide-eyed and demented when being interviewed. She says crazy things. In my mind she is the quintessential representation of how far you can get on your looks in our country. She freaks me out. I cannot accept that her insane, and misinformed, ideas are the basis of her popularity. I prefer to assume that people are shallow and vain rather than hate-filled, separatist dimwits.

Palin freaks me out in a different way. During the campaign, I remember thinking that if McCain died in office and Palin became the first female President, it would be such a fiasco that another woman wouldn’t be elected for 100+ years (assuming the women’s rights movement makes it that long…another blog entirely).

Whereas I would love to see the United States elect a woman, I vote based on platform, qualifications, ability and talent rather than gender or aesthetics. Evidently that puts me in a minority. Other than being more pleasing to the eye than their male counterparts, please tell me what qualifications these individuals possess that will benefit them on the world stage as the leader of a global power?

Has anyone else noticed that the U.S. hasn’t elected anyone aesthetically challenged since television became widespread? Washington and his wooden dentures probably wouldn’t have done well in a culture more obsessed with bright teeth than bright ideas. Lincoln was gawky and goofy looking. His brilliant oratory ability would be unlikely to get him beyond the Senate these days.

I have a hypothesis. The right wing Republican rhetoric is becoming so painful for moderate Republicans that they need something pretty to look at so they can tune out the drivel that they are being fed by their party. ‘Conservative’ evidently implies social conservatism exclusively, because Republicans obviously forget to ‘conserve’ when it comes to economic issues. For example, Republicans constantly denounce Democrats for ‘tax and spend’ government, but how is cutting taxes for the wealthiest, while eliminating social programs and education for the least privileged, and continuing to spend madly, a better idea? Neither party seems to have a clue about the fundamental rules of accounting, which may explain the inclination within big business to ‘cook the books.’ This is what we get for electing so many lawyers and business elite rather than individuals from a wide range of professions. However when I contemplate the merit of expanding the professional perspective of our political representation, I prefer CPAs, doctors, engineers and teachers to beauty queens whose knowledge of the world would not fill the head of pin.

E: meanderingmuse@comcast.net
If you like what you see, please share, subscribe, bookmark/RSS