Women of God can never be like women of the world. The world has enough women who are tough; we need women who are tender. There are enough women who are coarse; we need women who are kind. There are enough women who are rude; we need women who are refined. We have enough women of fame and fortune; we need more women of faith. We have enough greed; we need more goodness. We have enough vanity; we need more virtue. We have enough popularity; we need more purity. ~ Margaret D. Nadald

Our Father also gifted us with the nature to nurture, keen sensitivity to the Spirit, selflessness, discernment, and heroic faith. No wonder our Father placed us at the heart of the family and thus at the center of the plan of salvation. We are the Lord's secret weapon. ~ Sheri Dew


I'd love it if you would follow my blog!

15 September 2008

More on Palin and the Today show

So, here's an article from the Washington Post that was left for me on the Palin interview . In a nutshell the guy states that he was the first to use the phrase "Bush Doctrine" and that Charlie Gibson's definition of it was incorrect.
While I can appreciate what was written, I still don't think the interview went well. Palin DID look confused. From what I know, what defines "Bush Doctrine" now (even according to Wikipedia which the author above refers to) is basically a culmination of many different policies our oh so somewhat confused President has put into effect.
I don't expect everyone to know everything. I learn many knew things everyday and wouldn't have it any other way. I also don't expect Palin or any other presidential candidate to know everything, but I DO expect them to say when they don't know something.
I appreciate Palin's moral character, and can align myself with what I know of her ethics and thoughts on family. (McCain doesn't get any respect on that one from me.) However, from my feeble minds point of view, I would have appreciated a "I don't know what you mean by Bush Doctrine" or "The Bush Doctrine means a lot of different things Charlie...." Instead she just starts talking like she's in a huff. I don't care for how she interviews.
Agree with me or not, it was just kind of uncomfortable to watch her. I've enjoyed her speeches, and if she keeps giving those I'd be happy, but in a Q and A session I find her too jumpy.

I HAVEN'T WRITTEN PALIN OFF. I stated this in my initial criticism. I expect some changes though and I'm sure the campaign people are working with her on what I think would make her a lousy leader in today's world. Everything is televised so heavily and you never know who's watching. Everyone has moments of notsogreatness, I WANT for her to be better. I think she could be a good running mate, but for now I see an inexperienced person who needs to better define he knowledge of a question even if that means saying "I don't know what that is."

On a side note, I'm really not looking forward to a "First Lady McCain." Her answers to questions are ones for the history books.
Q: "Does Palin have Foreign Policy experience?"
A: "No, but she is the Governor of Alaska, and Alaska is the closest part of our country to Russia."

Wow! She's a winner. Let the blond jokes commence!

I think Stephen Colbert had it right in his "The word" segment: That's the ticket! Palin/Romney.

1 comment:

Veronica said...

I think it's really sad that there isn't a single candidate that you (or, at least I) can really support anymore. The more I learn about each candidate, the more I find to be disappointed in. (Choice A would be good, except he supports policy B that I definitely don't agree with and doesn't support policy C that I do. Choice 2 would be good except that he won't make up his mind about policy 3 and doesn't support policy 4 while he seems to support policy 5, etc.) I honestly don't know what I'm going to do with this election, because I can't figure out which is the lesser of 2 evils!!!

Oh, by the way, you have now been tagged. Go to my blog and look at the post titled 6 Random Things About Me for the rules! ;)