Sarah Palin would be a good president of the United States.

It's certainly a pleasure for me to get to take up this issue with such a distinguished opponent. I don't anticipate that this dialogue is going to be bogged down too much by my opponent and I attempting to define "good". A "good" president helps promote human wellbeing, justice, and also helps to maintain a functional society. As such, I am inclined to agree with my opponent's standards for "good". However, I would also add rationality to the list of qualities a good president must possess. So, with definitions taken care of, let's get into the crux of the debate. C1: Sarah Palin's views are incongruous with the pursuits of a civil society. My opponent opens his critique of my first argument by stating that the religious views of past presidents have traditionally never been an important factor in their administrations. This is probably true; we've never had anyone like Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin win the office of the presidency. People like Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin really are motivated by the basis of their religious convictions. On the other hand, all of the past presidents that my opponent has listed such as Nixon, Kennedy, Carter, and Obama are all deeply secular in a very fundamental way. All of those men understood the importance of the principle that church and state should be kept separate. To take just one specific example, Barrack Obama is only nominally religious. In other words, he is totally a secular leader, although he may hold certain nebulous and numinous religious convictions. This is evident every time he talks, despite the views of the church he may have attended for political reasons. Moreover, this is especially evident in one speech that he gave on religion. [1] Thus, Roy, your analogy is a false one. C2: Sarah Palin doesn't posses the intellectual prowess necessary for high office. My opponent has argued that intelligence isn't necessarily the defining quality of a good president. However, it's important to realize that people like George Washington governed in a completely different era than today. Further, Palin seems to have difficulty with talking about even basic things that a political figure should know. Consider, for example, her interview with Katie Couric. Katie Couric asked Palin, "Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more, and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?" Sarah Palin responded by stating, "That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it's got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and getting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade -- we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation." [2] Speaking in tongues may be acceptable in the church Palin attends, but it is certainly inappropriate to engage in this behavior while being interviewed by a professional journalist. That was truly the most incoherent response that I've seen from a major political figure, and the rest of the interview with Couric was just as bad. Bush got hammered a lot for being thick, but even he possessed an admirable level of intellect. I can't, however, say the same thing about Governor Palin. She is a living, breathing repository for clichï¿½s, talking points, and platitudes, and the interview she did with Couric proves it. A1: ‘Sarah Palin is honest and has sound principles.' Among other things, my opponent claims that Palin is honest. Nonetheless, she has been caught telling lies, even during the 2008 presidential campaign. For example, Palin practically made it a campaign slogan to say that she opposed the "bridge to nowhere". But this is false. She supported the "bridge to nowhere" before she was against it. In fact, Charlie Gibson pointed out that she even used to wear a t-shirt that indicated her support for the bridge. [3] In addition, Steve Schmidt, McCain's most important advisor during the 2008 elections, went so far as to say that, "There were numerous instances that she [Palin] said things that were — that were not accurate that ultimately, the campaign had to deal with […]". [4] Clearly, she isn't above cynically manipulating the truth. A2: ‘Sarah Palin has good administrative skills and contextual intelligence.' Even the people that worked closely with Palin thought she was helplessly ignorant. In fact, one of McCain's closest advisors has come out to call Palin a "whack job". [5] Now, I don't know a lot about the intricacies that go into the political process; however, I do know one thing: loyalties run deep in politics. Here is one of McCain's closest advisors referring to Palin as an idiot. Moreover, John Heilemann and Mark Halperin – the authors of ‘Game Change' who had unprecedented access to Palin - also described the governor as quite ignorant. [6] Therefore, it seems safe to conclude that Palin is even less impressive behind closed doors. Additionally, Palin's decision to quit as the governor of Alaska halfway through her first term demonstrates her incompetence, not her political intelligence. This is the very type of decision one would expect from a bad administrator. Likewise, her motives for quitting also seem to be suspicious. She called it quits right when an ethics investigation was overshadowing her administration. [7] This was probably a wise decision on her part considering the fact that this investigation found that Palin had abused her power as governor. [8] ::Conclusion:: Palin is shockingly unqualified to be president in terms of her principles and her political knowledge. To take just one more example, during a prayer for the former governor in her church, she was rebuked from every form of ‘witchcraft'. [9] This leads one to wonder, what forms of ‘witchcraft' are afoot in the Alaskan tundra? Perhaps Harry Potter came to Wasilla in order to get his revenge on the governor for her disavowal of his book series. At any rate, this whole spectacle speaks to a larger problem. Governor Palin may be charismatic, but her entire career exudes an aura of ignorance – a clinging and systemic ignorance that is beyond the power of exorcism to dispel. What the United States needs now is not leaders who are guided by medieval incantations. If anything, it should be obvious that such techniques are unlikely to produce results in the real world. What is needed now is the application of reason – and swiftly at that. Sources: 1. "YouTube - Barack Obama Versus Religion." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 12 June 2010. http://www.youtube.com... 2. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com... 3. "YouTube - Palin: Okay, I Didn't Quite Say "Thanks, But No Thanks"" YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 12 June 2010. 4. http://www.politico.com... 5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 6. http://www.nydailynews.com... 7. http://online.wsj.com... 8. http://www.msnbc.msn.com... 9. "YouTube - Raw Video: Palin Saved From 'Witchcraft'" YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.Web. 12 June 2010.