Aaron Rogers might be better at running an offense, but would Gus Ferotte be better at running the White House?

Consider this, from a NYT Opinion article:

"You know, rather than bemoaning the low voting rate in this country, we should be astonished that anybody goes to the polls at all. We’re saddling the American voter with too many imponderables. For instance, you think that Obama would run an administration like his campaign but McCain would run one that’s completely different. What if it’s the other way around? Or what if McCain decides to be completely different by running an administration composed of no one but former members of the Green Bay Packers? The problem with being unpredictable is … well, you can’t predict.

Most voters grow up being told to vote the man, not the party. Out of all the biographical data and psychological insights we [the media] throw at them, they’re responsible for deducing who would be wisest when something terrifying happens overseas, who would be canniest about wheedling Congress into passing sensible energy legislation and which guy’s platitudes about reform would actually turn into something useful.

And given the fact that the current president came into office promising bipartisanship and no risky nation-building projects overseas, said voters could reasonably conclude that they have to make these judgments while completely discounting everything the candidates tell them.

No wonder people decide to base their entire choice on one issue, like abortion or guns or the preservation of Yucca Mountain. It’s all too big of a burden."

That being said, in the face of plummeting stocks and international financial stress, a falling dollar, and diminished relationships abroad, we're going to potentially turn to PRESIDENT Sarah Palin because of her stance on social issues like women's rights (or the lack thereof), gun rights, and a working operative of "Drill, baby, drill"?

I may not have invented the Blackberry, but I say "Thanks, but no thanks" to Sarah Palin.

The one thing that I think Gail Collins, the author of the above quote, misses, is that we DID know what we were getting with W. Bush. We knew he would do whatever it took to fill the pockets of his fellow oil cronies, we knew he would appoint smart, but ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justices, and we knew his ego and selfishness would strain international relations.

One can argue that a history in legislative work history doesn't ready someone to be an executive who has to make snap decisions at 4am when the country is under attack, but are you expecting me to say I am surprised that Bush's response (despite the fact the he had so called legislative experience) to 9/11 encompasses some of the most deplorable displays of decision-making that this country has ever seen. I DID know that that was a risk we would face with Bush in office and I DO know that is a risk we would face if McCain takes office in support of the same failed policy stances of Georgie-porgie.

I don't mind if you say that many (or even most) people vote on single issues. But you can't say that we (as a people) can't know what to expect with the candidates. It's actually surprising how politicians act incredibly predictably once they get in office -- even if it doesn't match up to what they say.