It’s Palin
Aug 29
So after criticizing Obama’s inexperience, McCain picks someone with even less experience. And after criticizing Obama for “snubbing” Hillary (who, he tells us, got “millions of votes”), he “snubs” Romney and Huckabee, who also got millions of votes. Apparently, the McCain campaign doesn’t own a mirror…
UPDATE: I think this is a pretty fair analysis of the Palin pick and its implications.
#1 by digglahhh at August 29th, 2008
| Quote
…actually he does, but it is located in one of the houses he forgot he owns, so he is unaware of his mirror ownership.
#2 by tgirsch at August 29th, 2008
| Quote
I think it’s in the glass house…
#3 by Big U at August 29th, 2008
| Quote
Seems to be a good choice from what I have read. Young. Female. Not connected in any way to the Bush administration or the old boys network in Washington.
And being objective, there is a huge difference between Obama not taking Clinton who had almost 1/2 the delegates and McCain not taking Romney or Huckabee who realistically weren’t even close. This should make things very interesting.
#4 by tgirsch at August 29th, 2008
| Quote
The “not close” thing has to do with the difference in the way delegates are awarded in the GOP primaries as opposed to the Democratic primaries. The Democrats award their primaries proportionally, while the Republicans make them an all-or-nothing prize in each state. So in terms of votes cast, up to the point when Romney bailed out, things were a lot closer than they appear.
#5 by gattsuru at August 29th, 2008
| Quote
Good thing she’s not running for President, then.
And, seriously, less experience? She’s been governor for two years, a mayor from before then to ‘96, and doing city council stuff before that. Obama’s been in the legislative branch since ‘96.
I could buy similar levels of experience, assuming we’re talking in terms of years as opposed to actually doing things. I could even buy smaller scales of experience, since Alaska is kinda small from a population viewpoint. But less is either unnecessarily vague or pointlessly misdirecting.
I’d also argue that Huckabee ([freakazoid]Hugabees![/freakazoid]) and Romney deserve to be snubbed more than even Clinton did, and given how much I hate Clinton, that’s not a good thing. At the very least, Huckabee wasn’t in for the VP candidate; he was busy being “Fair And Balanced” (it’s like self-parody). Dunno about Romney.
#6 by Steve Plonk at August 29th, 2008
| Quote
I’m a Democrat, with a capital D. However, kind folks and gentle people, I don’t scoff at the republican ticket. They have a good line-up which is going to be hard to beat.
It would behoove us to get a background check on the Alaskan governor and look into the “Sarah Barracuda” allegations. If there’s mud there, we need to be able to sling it if the going gets tough.
In my opinion, this election is turning into a “too close to call’. Let’s pray that our policies bring us through and that the public sees through a political ploy as it surfaces. We have our work cut out for us. This is the
Ownership Society’s “last gasp” and they have plenty of air to try to keep from “drowning”. They are trying to
pry disgruntled Hillary supporters away from the Democratic
fold. We can’t let the republicans do that. As a former
Hillary supporter, I stand firm with Obama and Biden. Since Hillary said Obama is good to go, it is good enough for me. Some others might want to play the “sexism” card.
Biden is a great person as well as a great guy. He gets it
and is also endorsed by Hillary.
#7 by gattsuru at August 29th, 2008
| Quote
That is true, Plonk. She’s been trying the outside reformer with squeaky-clean image, and that’ll show up mud very well. I don’t think the firing scandal is going to be good ground for Democrats to cover, but I have little doubt that you can find something. I hear she smoked pot, for example, and the photo spread and dairy things are going to bit her in the backside.
You also really don’t need to provide carriage returns, except between paragraphs.
#8 by Ted at August 29th, 2008
| Quote
Mayor of a 9000 person town is probably not on par with State legislator. Governor of a state with for 2 years is probably not on par with being in US Senate for almost 4 years. Teaching constitutional law is probably not on par with attending beauty contests. Editor of Harvard Law Review is probably not on par with BA in journalism from Idaho.
But heck, who knows, perhaps Palin was strongly considering running for President last year and just decided to wait a bit longer.
#9 by Ted at August 29th, 2008
| Quote
Hey, I did short change her a bit. When she won th mayor job, she did receive 909 votes, so it’s not like it wasn’t a large, complex campaign…
#10 by gattsuru at August 29th, 2008
| Quote
You haven’t seen a congressional law teacher in Chicago, recently, then, have you?
:shrug: I guess I’m operating more from a technical viewpoint than from a people-person one. That’s a pretty hefty personal bias for me. For a programmer or network designer, good experience on a small scale translates very well to larger scales, while I assume from your statements that isn’t the case in politics.
I was smacked by a co-worker with a radio. Noticed she says “nucular” before I could get out of range.
#11 by tgirsch at August 29th, 2008
| Quote
Ted:
Not quite two years, actually it’s 20 months.
gatt:
Look at it this way. Break it down in to state, federal, and municipal experience. She’s got 20 months of state experience, and the rest is municipal experience. She’s got zero federal experience.
Now it’s true that Obama doesn’t have any executive experience, but neither does McCain, so that blunts that potential line of attack. And as I’ve already noted, Palin’s lack of any sort of federal experience blunts any attacks on Obama’s purported lack of experience. You can point to other things Palin has done at other levels, but you can do the same for Obama, so it winds up being a wash.
As for president-vs.-veep, when considering a veep, you have to consider the possibility that the president is unable to finish out a term. With McCain’s age and Obama’s race both being issues, you can’t rule out the possibility.
I also wonder how much the strongly-anti-abortion thing is likely to hurt her with soccer moms she was otherwise likely to attract.
Don’t get me wrong, I like the pick, insofar as (A) it’s not Huckabee; and (B) the worst case scenario is that the nation has its first female veep. That’s not to say that I like her politics, of course: I don’t. But he could have picked a lot worse.
#12 by gattsuru at August 29th, 2008
| Quote
I thought that went out the door around the time of Nixon; only wierdos like Bush expect the VP to be able to fill in from day 1. After a year or so, the VP’s usually got more foreign policy and national security experience than anything but a previous VP.
I expect both the anti-abortion thing, and the anti-gay marriage thing, and the hunting thing, and the Down’s kid (like cystic fibrosis, people prefer not to be reminded of the eugenics project that the various drives to cure these conditions became) to be a very big problem with soccer moms. There’s an assumption that she was picked to grab those votes, but I don’t think that’s really a reasonable assumption. This is a woman, where there exist photographs of her firing an Evil Black Rifle. Anything involving oil companies and Alaska aren’t going to help, either.
She’ll get some women, but her pull’s going to be stronger for countering Biden, pulling a lot of unforced errors from Obama, and getting men and a strong Republican base motivated.
#13 by tgirsch at August 29th, 2008
| Quote
Plus there’s the vpilf factor. Hey, somebody had to say it.
#14 by gattsuru at August 29th, 2008
| Quote
Better the heterosexual man, then.
But, yes, she’ll get a lot of heterosexual and bisexual men paying a bit more attention than otherwise. I don’t really react much to looks, but from what other people say she does exceed a lot of expectations regarding physical appearance.
It shouldn’t be a big decider, but if you’ve got looks and smacked Stevens around, it certainly isn’t a minus.
#15 by Big U at August 29th, 2008
| Quote
Was she good at her job? Does she stick to her convictions?
I think the fact that she is young, not tied to Bush, and not a long-term establishment Republican will, in some way, stifle any “change” message Obama presents.
And I would be very surprised if the anti-abortion stance will hurt her with soccer moms any more than it will help her. The vast majority of soccer moms I have spoken with focus on many many more issues than just abortion and often are offended when any politicians assume that is one of their greatest concerns (along with same sex marriage). Most seem to be more focused on their children’s futures meaning they look at things like jobs, education and community supports. Of course, this is from a Canadian perspective.
#16 by Ted at August 29th, 2008
| Quote
Does she stick to her convictions? What are her convictions? What is her stance on Iraq?* Afghanistan? Georgia? Palestine? Social Security? Federal regulation of banking? What is her energy policy other than drill in ANWR? Affirmative action? NAFTA?
We know she is anti-abortion, pro-creation, anti-gay, more pro-union than most Republicans. But she just plain has not dealt with (or seems to have formed opinions on) virtually all positions of importance on the federal level.
Call me an elitist. A good, hard-working person who sticks to their convictions is not by default presidential material.
Another way I look at this is this: Obama has chosen a very experienced, knowledgeable, proven leader to be his #2. I expect he will continue this as he fills out his cabinet and other senior staff. McCain picked an absolute unknown. Clearly his pick does not represent the best possible replacement for him should he have to leave office. Dare I say it - with this pick McCain has put some imagined tactical advantage in wining the election ahead of the good of the country. And he has told us that’s not a good thing to do.
*(Four years into Iraq, when asked, Palin said she had not been paying much attention to the subject.)
Palin might prove to be a great politician, but at this point, it is a very open question. To be honest, it reminds me a bit of the Harriet Miers nomination for SCOTUS.
#17 by gattsuru at August 29th, 2008
| Quote
Odd. I’d put a good, hard-working person who sticks to his or her convictions far ahead of anyone else for the Presidential position. If an individual is hard-working, he or she will build a cabinet that will fill holes in issue knowledge and research whatever is necessary to fill in the gaps. If he or she is good, they’ll make the best decisions possible with that knowledge. If he or she sticks by his or her convictions, there’s no risk of turning into a monser or becoming some sort of hypocrite.
The problem is finding someone who actually is, rather than someone who can pretend it.
There’s also a difference between “not been paying much attention” and “not really been focused on”, Ted. I haven’t been focused on Iraq, but I still pay more attention than the average Joe.
#18 by tgirsch at August 29th, 2008
| Quote
I’d put a good, hard-working person who sticks to his or her convictions far ahead of anyone else for the Presidential position.
It’s going to depend a lot upon what those convictions actually are, don’t you think? If those convictions are ones you almost universally disagree with, then sticking to those convictions will be viewed as a minus, no? Not saying that’s the case with Palin; I’m just saying that “sticks to his/her convictions” is a vague platitude that in and of itself doesn’t really tell us a whole lot about someone’s fitness to lead.
And anyway, as far as the “sticks to his or her convictions,” there’s such a thing as too much. I mean, really, that’s exactly what we got with Bush, and look where that got us. It’s one thing to have “resolve” or whatever the hell, but when your convictions clearly turned out to have been wrong, sticking with them moves from an asset to a liability very quickly.
#19 by Ted at August 29th, 2008
| Quote
How about “being interested in”. I’d like my future president to be interested in issues like the war in Iraq. If only as a hobby.
I know plenty of good, hard-working people who stick to their convictions who are not even remotely within a stone’s throw of walking distance to being close to haing the intellectual capacity to be a competent POTUS. It’s a complex job. It requires a very intelligent person to do it well, or else you end up with a Bush situation. The degree that you discount the intellectual requirements for being a good prez is baffling to me.
To be honest, I’m not convinced your whole line of comments here is not just a spoof.
#20 by Big U at August 29th, 2008
| Quote
Twice on these boards and also on several other sites I’ve seen negative references to her being a beauty queen. What happened to women having the ability and right to choose what they want? And at least two of the people in the Obama camp (according to Salon.com) have made sexist remarks about her.
I would think that will be something the Republicans will attack, especially with Dems always claiming the high moral ground regarding women. I will be shocked if her beauty pageant past is brought up by another Democrat.
#21 by gattsuru at August 29th, 2008
| Quote
You keep bringing up the “But Bush was…” to someone that supports a pretty wide variety of the man’s positions, or at least enough to think “upholding his convictions” were the least of the man’s problems.
Beyond that, when you bring up the “good” part, that’s supposed to cover improper convictions.
As for intelligence… No one is smart enough to answer every question the presidency brings up. I wouldn’t want Mensa trying the Presidency without advisers, nevermind the sort of people who actually go for the seat. That’s what the entire friggen executive branch of the federal government (and part of the legislative) is there for.
Intellect has not, in the past, been a great marker for success. Jimmy Carter, Adlai Stevenson, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Ford, they were all considered fairly intelligent… but they made some stupidly large mistakes. This worship of elitist intellectualism is almost a new pseudo-religion on the level of transhumanism, and potentially as dangerous when used for the wrong ends. It’s not that intelligence is bad, but the assumption that it makes up for poor judgment or makes a good leader on its own is.
I’m no genius, but I score fairly well on meters of intelligence. That doesn’t make me any good in a leadership position, and the President of the United States — like the President of any organization — is a leadership position. There’s an intellectual requirement, in ability to make decisions when presented with the information and to know who is and isn’t trust-worthy on a subject, but the ability to make decisions and the ability to deal with people are much, much more valuable.
And, again, there’s a difference between “not being interested in” and “not focusing on”.
#22 by tgirsch at August 30th, 2008
| Quote
The problem that I have is that in modern politics being intelligent and knowing what the hell you’re talking about are somehow considered negatives for the job of president. I’ll never get that. I look for a lot of things in a president, and “drinking buddy” isn’t one of them. That puts me decidedly in the minority, apparently.
Of course no president can ever know everything they need to know to do the job properly. That’s what good advisers are for. But does that excuse not being intelligent at all, or not knowing anything at all about what the job requires? I certainly don’t think so.
#23 by Ted at August 30th, 2008
| Quote
Big U, lighten up. Nothing wrong with beauty pageants. My point was to contrast that with Obama’s time teaching constitutional law, which is more relevant to the jobs at hand, that’s all. She says she only did it to raise money for college (pretty much the standard refrain). Which is fine. There’s just so little else o talk about when it comes to her.
Well, we could talk about the bridge I guess. She’s a big “cut the waste” crusader. Except she was in favor of the bridge when it was going to be paid for by the Feds. It was only when the federal money went away that she flipped on the bridge and decided to not support it.
But hey, you guys are all about minimizing risk, saying Obama is too risky. If this VP choice does not give you pause for concern, then I guess all must be OK. (Or else your position has changed 180 degrees due to the situation at hand.)
#24 by Ted at August 30th, 2008
| Quote
Palin is giggling in thge background. Is this the strong, ethical, politician we want negotiating for us? Or is this a high school class president candidate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKkydrUnBZE&eurl=http://dailykos.com/
pulled this from Kos…
#25 by Big U at August 30th, 2008
| Quote
Ted,
The beauty pageants comment wouldn’t bug me if it wasn’t for the fact they are coming from the holier-than-thou left that screams sexism and oppression any time someone on the right makes any type of comment like that.
I understood your comparison. But part of what Obama is pushing is the fresh new attitude that hasn’t been corrupted by the old boys network in Washington. Seems Palin will make that a tougher sell.
#26 by tgirsch at August 30th, 2008
| Quote
Big U:
It’s not just about the attitude, but also about the policies. And Palin is pretty much party-line GOP, meaning new face, same failed policies.
#27 by Ted at August 31st, 2008
| Quote
Yes, I agree with tgirsch. Also, I don’t subscribe to the concept that complete lack of knowledge on an issue represents an improvement over any policy on that issue. There are multitudes of people who do not understand, and have no experience dealing with, the important issues of our time. Appointing one of them to be VP candidate does not, in my opinion, represent a reasonable approach to reducing corruption nor does it embody a “fresh approach”. It makes a complete mockery of the office of the VP.
Ignorance is not a virtue. We need informed, serious people who have studied the issues, formed opinions, and made those opinions public so that their opinions/positions can be judged. If judged well, then those folks are elected to office and given the opportunity to implement the changes they have espoused.
As an aside, a Fox commenter actually stated that Palin must have foreign policy experience because Alaska is in close proximity to Russia. This is true. I’ll go on record stating that living in Alaska does not, in and of itself, provide anyone with foreign policy experience.
#28 by gattsuru at August 31st, 2008
| Quote
Tgirsch, there is certainly some anti-intellectualism out there, but I think you’re mistaking some of its close neighbors. The “could I see him or her with a beer at my bar” test isn’t about individuals being stupid — the Kennedy clan almost certainly passes the test where Nixon would not — but as a general metric of the “holy virtues” of humilitas. There’s a certain and unfortunate inverse correlation between it and intelligence, at least for political candidates, but it’s really not the same thing.
#29 by tgirsch at August 31st, 2008
| Quote
Gatt:
Maybe there’s some of that, but I think the anti-intellectualist stripe runs a lot deeper than you think. And I don’t think it has anything at all to do with humility. W passes the beer test handily, at least in middle America, but hasn’t shown so much as an ounce of humility.
#30 by John V. De Nicola at September 6th, 2008
| Quote
I thought McCain and his “MY FRIEND” bit was annoying,
but what grates on my nerves is the media saying “S. Palin
Didn’t say new-clear like “W” does. However She says EYE-RAq.Someone please give her elocution lessons.