Oh what fun. The liberal blogosphere gets to vet John McCain's vice presidential choice, Governor Sarah Palin, because his campaign failed to do so. According to RK, she's a creationist. She has two years experience as govenor of a remote state, no foreign policy experience whatsoever and McCain thinks she's qualified to be a heartbeat away from his presidency but Barack Obama is too inexperienced to govern.
And here for your listening pleasure:
You know, it's entertaining to make fun of such a light weight. But the truth is I'm damned mad about this pick. No matter how much I disagree with the Republican philosophy I'll admit there are some strong, smart and capable GOP women out there who would be more than qualified to serve as vice president. Instead, McCain picked the pin up girl for his party's right wing.
21 comments:
Just for argument's sake, couldn't the GOP have said the same thing about Barack Obama on the liberal side?
You are being uncharacteristically generous. "Strong, smart and capable GOP women" are like Bigfoot; often cited as being "out there" but nobody has actually met one in real life.
Respect must be earned and no woman has emerged from either major Party who honestly commands the respect of the citizens to the degree required to serve as Commander in Chief.
Some like to cite Britain's Maggie or Israel's Golda, but neither country was a world power, nor were they serving in a form of government where so much power was vested in a single political office, such as our Presidency.
This power has been especially exaggerated in recent years with the emergence of the "Imperial Presidency" of Bush; a man who has utterly ignored the Constitution and the Congress.
The Palin choice should lead to great rejoicing on the part of the Democratic Party. With here dragging the McCain ticket down, America is assured of at least four years of President Obooboo.
At least Oprah will be happy.
I am sorry and don't want to be sexist against my own gender, but I couldn't agree more with your "pinup girl" characterization. Every woman knows that the "up do" style she sported for the announcement is for women having a bad hair day or who are too lazy to give a lot of thought to their appearance. I think it shows disrespect for the importance of the office which she see for her to appear on national television looking like one of my daughter's high school friends on their way to cheerleading practice. There are many more serious reasons to object to the woman, but I am having a hard time just getting past the hair.
How sexist, AIAW.
If a Republican said what you've said, you'd be ALL over them.
Republicans have said far more offensive things Brian. And I usually give them a pass when they are clearly joking.
It's not sexist to say that a more experienced and capable Republican woman could have been picked. I think this was a sexist choice on McCain's part.
What experience does she have with foreign policy, national defense, even the economy on a national level? What exactly does she bring other than being pretty and exciting the right wing base with her social conservatism - and even there, there are other candidates who are equally strong on issues important to social conservatives.
She was picked solely because she was an attractive young woman.
You called the pick "patronizing" on another blog.
And I asked your opinion of Democrats registering African-Americans for Obama, since I didn't see your write about your outrage about that.
I'm looking all over your blog, and I just can't find it.
Brian, if I may seriously suggest this: If you have to look all over my blog, you seriously need to get a life.
If Hillary Clinton had been the nominee, Democrats would still be looking to register blacks, as well as woman, union members, and young people, because we sincerely believe we best represent their interests and our policies benefit them more than the policies of the Republican Party.
Democrats are not registering blacks simply because they believe black are only interested in voting for a black candidate. I'd be bitching about Michael Steele being a patronizing choice if McCain picked him.
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
you are blinded by partisanship, aren't you?
Yup, and you are not?
apparently not
You were the person who thought that country music fans might support Obama because Toby Keith does.
And you have the nerve to call anyone else patronizing?
AIAW:
I have been reading your stuff for quite a while. While at times I agree with you, I don't agree with your analysis of Sarah Palin at all.
First, Palin is a creationist. But then isn't Tim Kaine and all of the other evangelicals that the Obama campaign is trying to reach? I think that close to 70% of folks in the United States believe that God created man and woman. Some may think it literally, and some may think that the first cell that climbed out of the sea with legs would eventually form the first man and woman. In any event, God did create the first cell of that man, woman, or thing that crawled out of the soup.
Second, you state that she has two years experience as govenor of a remote state. Tim Kaine, whom many in Virginia supported for the Dem. VP slot, has 2.5 years experience as Governor of VA. What's the beef? Palin actually returns money to the taxpayers of Alaska from the sale of natural resources.
You are only partially correct to state that she has no foreign policy experience. There are several compacts dealing with customs and the like that Alaska deals with regarding Russia and Canada. That is not a substitute for designing a plan for world peace, but McCain will be President, not Palin. She is the Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard who deals with troops, citizens of Alaska all, that are deployed overseas. Again, no subsitute for great geo-political wunderkind logical thought, but McCain has that covered for the GOP in droves.
She is pro-life. She is pro-family. She is pro-growth. Unlike Joe Biden and Obama, she has experience as a Government Executive--Executive Experience.
She has fought corruption in Alaska and held folks to account. She even got rid of the infamous bridge to nowhere.
She is for limiting Government spending as well. Partisan Democrats underestimate her at their peril.
Best, MAXIMUS of the Contemporary Conservative Blog.
Palin, much like Virgina Governor Mark Warner, has brought Republicans and Democrats together within her Administration and has seen approval ratings of over 80 percent.
She has challenged the influence of the big oil companies while fighting for the development of new energy resources.
Palin leads a state that matters to every one of us -- Alaska has significant energy resources and she has been a leader in the fight to make America energy independent.
Governor Sarah Palin, unlike Governor Tim Kaine, has actually used her veto and cut budgetary spending. And she put a stop to the bridge to nowhere that would have cost taxpayers $400 million dollars.
In Alaska, Palin challenged a corrupt system and passed a landmark ethics reform bill. This is errily similar to what Obama accomplished in the U.S. Senate.
As the head of Alaska's National Guard and as the mother of a soldier herself, Governor Palin understands what it takes to lead our nation and she understands the importance of supporting our troops.
Her experience in shaking up the status quo is exactly what is needed in Washington.
In choosing Governor Sarah Palin, John McCain put Washington on notice that he is serious about shaking up the status quo.
What we're seeing is a maverick who has shaken up Washington picking as his teammate a maverick governor who has shaken up her own state.
What it's going to take to change Washington is a team of Mavericks who have a record of ccomplishment in shaking up the status quo.
Best, Maximus
I agree with you, AIAW, this is a truly patronizing choice. While I do not see eye to eye with Kay Bailey Hutchison on anything, for example, she would be a far better choice. She has more experience and real credentials. It is not just insulting to women to pick a candidate because she is female. It is also insulting to qualified women, and those who would benefit from their qualifications and experience, to pick a Barbie doll in chic glasses and an empty pantsuit.
I saw elsewhere a mention that Palin is opposed to birth control. Any idea whether that's accurate? If so, this will be interesting.
Btw, I don't think Kirwin gets to lecture you on sexism. He just doesn't.
Spotter launches the namecalling, negative attacks, again.
You folks are looking pathetic.
While we are all engaging in truth telling, let me offer this:
From all reports KB Hutchison hankers to run for gov of Texas. Moreover, had she been selected the same folks that are attacking Palin for youth and inexperience would be going after a Hutchison pick for being ancient (she turned 65 in July) and indicative of an inability to change.
All who support John McCain should enourage AIAW and other to call Palin a "Trophy VP candidate" and a "Pinup girl"...I suspect these untoward attacks will rebound.
Let's just suppose for a moment that Palin was 15 years older and uglier than homemade sin...she still bring to the table 15 years of conservative involvement who can help keep evangelicals, Pro-Choice, NRA...you know, your GOP base voters...on the farm while McCain can swing out and and try to work beyond the base.
Bottom line-if an election turns into a change election, change trumps experience (see 1932, 1960, 1980, 1992)...and had McCain picked one of the ususal suspects, it would be game over before Halloween.
The Palin selection, regardless of how it annoys some, potentially opens the ballgame back up for the GOP-especially if the Democrats attempt to to diminish her through name calling and double entendres.
Bwana makes good points as always. But I don't think the analysis of Palin will rebound as much as he thinks it will. I also will give CCMaximus that she has great promise for the GOP. She is a very promising rising star but she is way too inexperienced to be a vice president. BTW, I argued the very same about both Tim Kaine and Mark Warner many times over so you really can't fault me for consistency there. Neither of them would have been good picks for Obama for the very same reasons.
Not only is she not experienced in foreign policy - trade compacts with Canada and Russia notwithstanding - but she doesn't have a great deal of domestic experience yet, talent and potential also notwithstanding.
There are many women Republicans who could have been truly bold picks because they were not just women but accomplished, experienced and capable women. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Susan Collins, Olympis Snowe, Elizabeth Dole to name just a few. And if you're going to pick an inexperienced governor of a largely rural state, why not reach into the House or an older, more experienced female GOP governor.
Sorry guys, this is a bad pick. It's pandering to the social conservatives and that's really about it. And thank you Spotter for backing me up.
Not many independent women or Hillary supporters, except the most intractably whacked out - are going to fall for this pick. It's mainly a sop to the right.
I guess that is an issue of semantics...what one person identifies as pandering another identifies as solidifying the base or a key constituency.
The fact is that presidential nominees have picked candidates to shore up their resume either on experience or with a party consituency, demographic, or geographical segment since forever.
As far as the women you mention, good folks and true. But Hutch (age 65)and Dole (age 72) make the GOP ticket just look old. Snowe and Collins, like Ridge and Lieberman, would cause GOP base voters to sit on their hands.
I think the real difference in analysis here is that many seem to think that if McCain took a safe pick (Romney, Pawlenty, etc.), he had a good chance of winning.
I doubt that seriously.I think his campaign sees the long term status quo as trending against him, and that he needed to inject something new to change the dynamic, upset the table, throw the Hail Mary...er...fill in with the metaphor of your choice.
The Palin pick may end up running against him...but if you are in a position where you see a campaign in trouble, you have to take the chance. One doesn't run for president to run a solid race-you run to win...and apparently this is what they think they need to do to win.
A Governor is a Governor, which is to say that she is a Chief Executive of a state with just under 1 million people (the population is roughly less than Fairfax).
As difficult as it may to be to believe, Palin has more Executive experience than Obama and Biden. There is no way to get over that or around that or through that. On that basis alone, as Vice President she is running for an Executive Branch Office, not a legislative Office like the U.S. Senate.
In a truly logical argument, Barack and Joe are members of a legislative body. Barack and Joe have no Executive Branch Experience. Based on Experience, Barack and Joe should be running in their respective caucuses for Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate. Their experience is in the legislative branch, so why not run where your experience leads you? The rhetoric of Obama and Biden may lend itself to Executive Consideration, but, the logical reality is that only Palin HAS Executive Branch experience necessary to successfully fufill the duties required of a Federal Executive Branch Office holder.
Palin has knocked out the big boys in Alaska to the surprise and chagrin of their respective power networks and the established political class. For the record, Kaine and Warner were qualified to run for President, the later far more so than the former--yet both were qualified.
Palin will be the Iron Lady of the United States as Margaret Thatcher became the Iron Lady of the U.K.
I concede that Palin is a cupie doll--a very unique one with the teeth of a great white, the fearlessness that David had against Goliath, and the unshakeable confidence that comes from the desire to serve the public for the right reasons.
If Palin is running for the Office of Vice Trophy, then Biden is running for Vice-Plagerizer.
Best, ccMAXIMUS
A new face with old ideas hardly qualifies as a change agent in my mind, and I suspect it won't for a lot of people. I decided to unplug for a little bit, wander around and find out what non-bloggers and non-political people actually think rather than having Wolf Blitzer try and tell me--and everyone was pretty "yawn" about it. Most of the women I talked to didn't have anything bad to say about her (they didn't have anything nice to say about her, either--no one knows who the heck she is). But I may have underestimated them. Ben Tribbett may think it's a brilliant choice (has anyone else noticed he has a really weird fetish for powerful women? I need a shower reading his twitter account), but no one really cares about who the Vice President will be. They were a little more concerned with her background because McCain is so old--Obama picked a partner in Biden, but for McCain the chance that she could naturally become a successor sooner than expected seems a little more tangible.
But really. It's the Vice President. No one cares about the Vice President. Bush has gotten elected twice with the most unpopular American in living memory as his VP. An airhead like Quayle didn't prevent G.H.W. Bush from winning his first term, and Gore can't take credit for either of Clinton's victories.
This is the first executive decision McCain gets to make as a potential President, and it's disappointing that he felt that he had to make one that was obviously so very political by passing over more-qualified candidates who perhaps weren't as highly-regarded by the religious right (leaving aside, for the moment, the question of whether this particular woman happens to be qualified, and the fact that she's a woman: surely we can agree that someone like Ridge would have been MORE qualified as someone who has experience on Federal issues as a US Representative, executive experiene as a Governor who served in that role three times as long as Palin in a bigger sate, and national security expertise as our nation's first Secretary for Homeland Security). For such a supposedly out-of-the-box, maverick pick, I think the selection shows just how tight a grip the religious right has on John McCain's balls.
At the end of the day, though, who really cares? It's the Vice Presidency. It's the first name people care about most on the ballot.
Yes, it's pandering. It's also a hilarious miscalculation. Republicans tend to think that Democrats are driven entirely by identity politics, so when they want to run someone that they think will draw away Democratic votes, they dig deep and find a super-conservative African-American, or a woman who doesn't care about women's issues. It never works, but they keep trying.
Here. I'll show you a female voter who will swing for Palin if you can show me a woman who is both: passionate about putting a woman, any woman, into positions of power; and completely indifferent to the usual slate of women's political issues. Those two things don't usually go together. If that woman exists, she's a very small slice of the electorate. On the other hand, I'm sure there are a whole lot of conservative women who love Palin and would have voted for McCain anyway. Once again: this is a pretty familiar Republican tactic, and it usually smacks of desperation, and yes, there's something fundamentally patronizing about it, since it implies that those same women who love Hillary because SHE REPRESENTS THOSE ISSUES THAT MATTER TO THEM will ignore the advice of HRC herself and vote for McCain simply because he chose a running mate with a uterus.
Final Score: Palin adds nothing. Look for some serious buyer's remorse in the next few weeks.
Post a Comment