Back to Clive Crook's blog homepage
Column: McCain’s gamble on Palin is shrewd
September 1, 2008
So John McCain is no longer a maverick. Here is one Democratic talking point that will need some work, and it is by no means the only one. In naming Sarah Palin – the young and only recently elected governor of Alaska, a small-town mayor before that – as his Republican running mate in the US presidential race, Mr McCain has taken an extraordinary risk. It was certainly the act of an unorthodox politician. Was it, though, the act of a reckless and stupid one? I think not.
The instant reaction among Democrats was astonishment. Quickly that gave way to outrage. James Carville, a former adviser to Bill Clinton, said he was “vexed, completely vexed” by the choice. Paul Begala, another friend of the Clintons, in almost his first sentence on the matter, sneeringly attributed Mrs Palin’s poise to her time as a beauty queen. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the House of Representatives’ Democratic caucus, said: “On his 72nd birthday, this is the guy’s judgment of who he wants one heartbeat from the presidency? Please.” The prevailing attitude was a hair’s breadth from laughter at the bimbo from a state that does not count.
Will these people never learn? Let me try to walk the experts, with their many years of experience, through this thing.
The remainder of this column can be read here. Please post comments below.
McCain’s reputation for integrity has been one of his strong points but has suffered from the actions of some of his staffers - Mrs Palin has suffered but this has only strengthened her reputation for integrity. It seems like a choice on character, but one that will help, not hurt, his electoral prospects.
Posted by: John | September 1st, 2008 at 1:20 am | Report this commentThere is a lot of potential upside to the election of Senator Obama, but a McCain/Palin victory would send a message to clean up the pork-barrel cesspit.
I have posted so many comments about McCain’s cynical choice of Sarah Palin for VP on Gideon Rachman’s blog on this same subject, that I have lost count. So I will try not to repeat myself too much. I agree with Clive Crook that on the surface, Palin is a shrewd choice. She might even be called a brilliant choice, because it not only throws red meat to the anti-intellectual, Darwin-hating. global warming denying, anti-immigrant Republican base (since Palin actually supported Patrick Buchanan for president in 2000, even though he wants to cut off all immigration, legal and illegal, especially by Hispanics), but it may bring in millions of women who are still furious over Hillary’s failure to get the nomination and are only waiting for an excuse to vote for McCain in retaliation.
But what does this cheap ploy show about McCain’s judgment and character? Nobody can possibly think that Sarah Palin’s 2 years as governor of a state with less than a million people and her previous experience as mayor of a hamlet that no one has heard of can possibly qualify her to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. As McCain is now 72 years old himself, this is putting America, and the world, in terrible danger, far far worse than any alleged danger it would be in from Obama, who has not only been exposed to foreign affairs just by being in the Senate, but has shown better judgment on Iraq than McCain, and earned a great deal of respect in Europe, just in case any one remembers.
But what is most disturbing of all about Sarah Palin’s own character is the fact that she supported Buchanan, who, underneath his genial (?) persona as a respected (?) MSNBC commentator and former syndicated columnist, has almost gained the right to a trademark on bigotry and white supremacy.
Buchanan is notorious for his many alleged anti-Semitic remarks, but nothing is worse than his defense of accused Nazi concentration camp guards. While Buchanan’s column was appearing regularly in the New York Post in the 1980’s and 1990’s, I used to read it regularly.
I was horrified at Buchanan’s consistent and repeated calls for an end to prosecutions of death camp guards, especially his outrageous statement that the trial in Israel of a camp guard accused of being the sadistic “Ivan the Terrible” of Auschwitz (or was it Treblinka?) was an injustice equal to that of the anti-Semitic Dreyfus case in France at the turn of the last century.
It is true that the guard in question ( a Ukrainian named John Demjanjuk) was ultimately acquitted, but only because the evidence at the trial placed him at a different concentration camp from the one in the indictment. After his acquittal, I believe that Bemjanjuk was allowed to return to the US, which had tried to take away his citizenship for lying about his past, but that he was ultimately stripped of it and deported back to his country of origin. (At least this is according to my memory.)
Buchanan also, in his most recent book, argues that it was Churchill, not Hitler, who was responsible for WWII, a piece of revisionist history worthy of Ahmedinejad himself.
In another recent book, on immigration, Buchanan repeats every imaginable racist myth about Latino immigrants, including the “Aztlan” canard the Mexican immigrants want to take over the US Southwest and return it to Mexico. This is not the stuff of rational immigration debate. As if there were any doubt on this point, Buchanan also goes out of his way to emphasize that the alleged difficulty of non-white immigrants in “assimilating” to America culture is specifically due to race.
It is well documented that Sarah Palin, while she was a mayor in Alaska in 1999, was one of only 85 people in that state who attended a rally for Buchanan, and that she wore a Buchanan campaign button at the rally. It is reasonable to assume that she voted for him for president as well.
By picking Palin, therefore, McCain is doing more than sending a message about Obama’s supposed lack of experience. He has shown that he, McCain, far from being the “maverick” against his own intolerant party that he was on immigration only a little over a year ago when he sponsored an “amnesty” bill along with Democrat Ted Kennedy, is now willing to ally himself with the most extreme type of intolerance and racial bigotry that can be found in America, if that is what it takes to be elected president.
Posted by: algasema | September 1st, 2008 at 4:47 am | Report this commentI meant “Demjanjuk”, not “Bemjanjuk”. I hope that my above post is otherwise free from “algasemas”. My apologies if there are any others.
Posted by: algasema | September 1st, 2008 at 4:54 am | Report this commentalgasema,
An excellent round-up of your many emphatic postings on Gideon Rachman’s blog.
I agree it remains to be seen if this ploy will not backfire. In the long run ploys do not work. The golden path to success is to always take the moral highway and never abandon its course. But the long run may have seemed to long for McCain, who is 72. (”Success” might have to be widely enough defined in this context: does not knowing you did the right thing count as success? McCain has been successful in this way many many times before — from his days in Vietnam to his principled stance on many political issues. Can the same be said of Obama, whose whole political career has been built on calculated opportunism?)
However, let us also remember that McCain chose Palin, not Buchanan. Reading your posts it is easy to forget this simple fact. Palin is not Buchanan, neither is she his daughter. We have yet to learn more about her.
Posted by: RCS | September 1st, 2008 at 6:36 am | Report this commentCORRECTION: “does knowing you did the right thing not count as success?”
Posted by: RCS | September 1st, 2008 at 6:37 am | Report this commentAs a non-US citizen I am alarmed that someone who supports the teaching of Intelligent Design (who is by definition either unintelligent, or unprincipled enough to take an absurd position for political advantage, or religiously-blinkered) should be taken seriously as a VP/presidential candidate.
Of course surrounding experts would help to steer a better course - but is this enough? Would you be happy to have a candidate who opposed the teaching of maths, say, on the grounds that the experts would prevent such a policy being implemented?
Posted by: Will Stewart | September 1st, 2008 at 7:31 am | Report this commentThe concept that “there is a lot to like” about Sarah Palin is a little hard to swallow. It would take a certain type of gun-loving, evangelical fundamentalist to approve of everything Ms Palin stands for.
And unfortunately we can’t necessarily rely on surrounding experts to steer a better course, if the last 7 years is anything to go by.
Posted by: MKL | September 1st, 2008 at 7:41 am | Report this commentThe author is solely taken into account one argument in order to agree with the decision taken by McCain. First of all, I find this sole argument ridiculous. Voters will not say “Ohhh… she is also inexperienced (like Obama)…then we will change our minds and vote for McCain”. That just doesn’t make sense. It does not make sense because now McCain has lost one of his only selling points “Experience”. Now he cannot go around and say…”hey we are the ones with experience”.
Secondly, the author has put aside important arguments that suggest that this decision was bad. This decision is nothing but a “cheap shot” designed to attract women and young voters. And although some poeple in this demographic group will vote for her, most of them will not vote for her because of the type of ideologies, type of policies and background. Three things that completely differ from Hillary’s charachteristics. Therefore, most of women and young people who voted for Hillary will not vote for McCain just because he picked a young woman.
Thirdly, the decision to pick a very conservative republican does not gain terrain in the minds of liberals. An intelligent decision would have been to place someone with a semi-liberal record in order to win some votes from undecided voters.
However, I agree with one of the author points. I think this is a defensive strategy from McCain. His team is seeing how the Obama campaign machine is growing little by little and McCain just made the less worst decision available in order to steal camera from the democrats.
Nevertheless, this will work only in the short term but it will be fruitless in the long term because at the end the decision will be seen as nothing but a “cheap shot” from McCain.
Posted by: Alejandro | September 1st, 2008 at 9:08 am | Report this commentThe fact that democrats and people outside the US don’t like Sarah Palin doesn’t mean she won’t make a good Republican candidate for VP. www.winnowed.blogspot.com
Posted by: Vinod Joseph | September 1st, 2008 at 9:28 am | Report this commentI’d second Alejandro’s points and just add another: as someone not entirely averse to McCain I find it absolutely shocking that he has chosen an unknown who may potentially take over as President, when there are only a couple of months left to the election.
Surely he should have gone for someone who had been through the gruesomely tough vetting process of a presidential nominee election (like Mitt Romney) or a long-time high-profile politician (a la Biden)?
Posted by: James Clarke | September 1st, 2008 at 10:32 am | Report this commentInteresting point that Clive Crook made that character counts for more than experience, and that voters know this intuitively.
Similarly when choosing a mate we are guided by our intuition towards a healthy potential mother, ie one which is outwardly attractive.
Conclusion: the electorate does not need to be sophisticated, human intuition is sufficient for Democracy to be viable. (For proof of this note that even Al Gore won the popular vote, it was the sophisticated Supreme Court judges which installed George W Bush. However, it must also be remembered that the unsophisticated electorate may be manipulated by populists [eg Chavez]; in such cases their intuition is blinkered by psychological means.)
Clive Crook also notes that the state of the economy + the popularity of the outgoing administration are the best predictors of the outcome of elections. That might sound depressingly deterministic, as if their is no collective free will. However, note that the second factor in that equation, the popularity of the outgoing administration, is itself an amalgam of many different variables, it captures the essence of voters’ intuitive perceptions based on various sets of data.
Conclusion II: we live in the best of possible worlds.
Posted by: RCS | September 1st, 2008 at 10:44 am | Report this commentA religious Believer such as Palin with one hand on the Holy Book, the other on the red button, mind on the theological program.
Posted by: I | September 1st, 2008 at 10:55 am | Report this commentNot in Iran, or Israel, or Pakistan, or India, or Russia, or the USA.
Its called Mutually Assured Destruction.
So far, almost all of the comments on this blog, as well over a hundred on Gideon Rachman’s companion blog about Palin, have focused on the question of what this cynical, calculating VP choice says about McBush. This is true almost all of my many posts as well.
Clive Crook, however, suggests that the choice also says something about Obama, by highlighting his supposed “inexperience”, even though we know a great deal about Obama’s well thought out and responsible views on both foreign affairs and the economy. At least we can decide whether to agree with Obama or not, whereas we know nothing at all about Palin’s views, if indeed she has any at all.
For example, since Palin clearly belongs to the farthest right and most intolerant fringes of the Republican party on abortion, evolution, oil drilling, guns, global warning and, judging by her support of Buchanan, immigration, would the same be true of her foreign policy? If called to the presidency, would she surround herself with Neocons like Cheney, Bolton and the like? Would Rumsfeld be called out of retirement to become Secretary of State? Would Palin be the one to bomb Iran (or Pakistan, or North Korea), assuming that McBush had not already done so? Would she build a second Guantanamo, or a third, or a fourth, and extend the Patriot Act to include surveillance of pro-abortion and gun control activists, not only suspected terrorists?
The answer is that we simply don’t know. But we do know one thing about Obama. Even though he has had the whole weekend to react to McCain’s Machiavellian choice of a running mate, and even though her selection has already wiped out the “bounce” that Obama got from the convention in the polls, he has done almost nothing to react.
The only thing I have seen so far was one lame joke by Obama, at a rally with Biden in Ohio (at which the latter did everything he could to bolster his windbag credentials) to the effect that since Obama had campaigned in 49 of the 50 states, maybe it was now time for him to go up to Alaska, too. There might have been one faint laugh, from perhaps one person, or maybe it was just static from my TV.
If McBush’s motive in making this in-your-face VP choice was to test Obama’s ability to react quickly in the face of disaster, then it was a wise decision, because the biggest worry about Obama is that he may be too cautious. Everyone agrees that he was slow in condemning Putin over Georgia (even though a really bold candidate would also have socked it to Saakashvili, and to the big oil companies behind the Caspian pipeline as well).
Many people are also worried that if Iran did something in the Straight of Hormuz, or if China did in the Taiwan Straight, or Russia did with regard to Ukraine, Poland or the Baltic republics, Obama’s only reaction might be to prepare a Harvard Law Review article analyzing the respective rights and obligations of the parties under applicable international conventions.
Of course, this might still be better than having McBomb, Bomb, Bomb, as president, but Obama does not need to set off a nuclear holocaust with a small “h” to deal with a Republican vice presidential candidate who voted for someone who once complained that Jews were “too sensitive” about the Holocaust with the big “H”. All Obama needs to do is go on the attack against this caricature of a lunatic fringe Republican whose only known views are so far to the right than in 2000 she went off the deep end and left her own party behind in the voting booth completely.
The longer Obama tries to ignore Governor Palin, or make light of the mortal threat that she presents to his chances of becoming president, and the more time that he lets pass without going on the offensive against this very obvious target (or at lesst having Biden, or even better, Hillary do so) the more suspicious even Obamaniacs like myself, who greatly admire him as standing for the best in America, will be that Obama might not be up to dealing with the likes of Putin, Ahmedinejad and Chinese President Hu.
To borrow the campaign slogans that Palin’s favorite candidate, Buchanan, used himself in 2000:
GO, BARACK, GO! GO GET HER! GET OUT THE PITCHFORKS! LOCK AND LOAD!
Posted by: algasema | September 1st, 2008 at 12:21 pm | Report this commentLets see, the choice of Palin has made Roger type in all caps and take up an obsession with Pat Buchanan.
I think if the McCain campaign knew they could expect those two results, they would have announced Palin long ago.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | September 1st, 2008 at 12:50 pm | Report this commentalgasema,
You very convincingly present the case against Obama. His “coolness” under pressure seems to be a kind of pathological apathy. It seems he cannot react to anything he was not prepared for in advance. His speeches are, like the commercialized Democratic convention, meticulously crafted set-pieces. But ask him to extemporate and he is at a loss. And their are still two whole months to go in which anything could happen! Chances are it will be enough to unmask Obama’s unfitness for the job.
Posted by: RCS | September 1st, 2008 at 1:18 pm | Report this commentHi RCS,
From what one can learn from Obama is that he is playing chess and not checkers. He is using the same strategy used with the Clintons, that is “low-profile” strategy. He will not react until the right time comes.
In a campaign, you must concentrate your efforts especially on the last month of campaigning due to the “short-term memory” bias. Meaning that people who are already convinced to vote for one of the candidates will not change their minds easily but the undecided voters will vote according to the issues that they remembered in the last month of the campaign.
Therefore, Obama is not wasting time and effort reacting to this VP nomination. He needs to know first what is behind this move. He will have enough time to react to it later on.
Posted by: Alejandro | September 1st, 2008 at 1:56 pm | Report this commentRCS, I agree that Obama may be too cool, but that is still better than having McBush’s temper or Palin’s explosive and dangerous combination of ignorance and far right fanaticism on the nuclear trigger.
JBP, which is worse, my “obsession” with Buchanan, a white supremacist and Hitler apologist for whom Pain actually campaigned, or yours with Wright, a black supremacist who, for all his faults, has never spoken out in favor of Hitler, one of the most dangerous enemies that we have ever had in our history? In any event, Obama has totally disavowed Wright. When will Palin do the same with Buchanan?
There is a terrible double standard in America which tolerates and even embraces the worst kind of white supremacist bigotry and fanaticism on the right, while focusing only on less dangerous black or alleged Latino versions of intolerance on the left.
This attitude is the same as that which brought fascism to Germany, where there was so much agitation against the Communists that Hitler was given a free pass to power.
Posted by: algasema | September 1st, 2008 at 2:06 pm | Report this commentWill these people (the Dems chattering class) never learn?
The short answer is “no”. These people are largely intellectual snobs who sneer at the instincts of the “uneducated” peons outside of the big liberal cities. What Mr. McCain himself will come to realise, is that in Mrs. Palin, he has motivated a large swath of us Christians to vote for him through her. To be clear, she still has to stand up to harsh scrutiny of the democrat media, but assuming she holds her own, Mr. McCain’s chances will have improved significantly.
Posted by: Peter | September 1st, 2008 at 2:20 pm | Report this commentAlejandro,
I doubt it. It is simply not in his nature to react quickly. Was he playing chess in Hawaii when he failed to respond to the invasion of Georgia? The truth is he most probably is not immersed in international affairs, does not take much interest, and only after prodding by his staff woke from his slumber.
Obama has the potential of being a 21st century Calvin Coolidge: a do-nothing president who lets dangerous events fly by him, allows America’s position in the world to sink even lower, rogue states to reassert themselves. After four years of an Obama presidency not one iota will have been achieved in domestic affairs and the world will have become a more chaotic and dangerous place.
Bush/Cheney were dangerously interventionist. By overreacting and voting for Obama the American electorate will have forked for the other extreme, no less dangerous. Moderation is the only way to steer a super-power. An American president needs to be alert and shrewd, EXPERIENCED in geopolitics and with moral authority over his armed forces (look what happened to Bush the shirker: he has been overthrown in a coup by the military and intelligence services, and kept in office as a figurehead just to save the constitution). At least until we reach “the end of history”, these imperatives will not have changed. Obama is not fit to be president. McCain will do.
Posted by: RCS | September 1st, 2008 at 2:30 pm | Report this commentWell argued, although very much overstated, RCS. But if one were to substitute “Palin” instead of “McCain”, a 72 year old cancer survivor, in your final sentence, would the rest of your sentence, in all honesty, still be the same? I very much doubt it.
Posted by: algasema | September 1st, 2008 at 2:45 pm | Report this commentHi RCS,
Can’t the guy have some holidays? What was McCain doing anyway? Letting his nurses changing his senile diapers?
To react to the invasion of Georgia is not Obama’s responsibility. To react first does not mean to react correctly (There you have Bush taking decisions without having all correct information at hand). The Georgia issue is very complex and very dangerous which can escalate enormously without careful thinking. There you have the Germans, complaining first and retracting later because they relaized that 80% of their Gas supplies come from Russia. Or the French and the British after realizing that great investments come from Moscow.
Anyway, whas has McCain achieved in the issue of Georgia? Nothing. And what will he achieved? Nothing. Because he can only talk. He has no power or weight in international affairs. I’m sure Putin must be laughing at him right now.
So, if the voters want to have a guy who doesn’t remember how many kitchens he has, with a VP who doesn’t know what a VP does, then they should make their wise decision to vote for McCain.
Posted by: Alejandro | September 1st, 2008 at 3:02 pm | Report this commentSarah Palin is the New Republican Terminator she will terminate Joe Biden in their debate. As a hunter she knows how to handel a “RUSSIAN BEAR” if it starts to roar. She will “HUNT” down the Women and Child killing terrorists who sing ‘ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE BOMBS A CHANCE” not “ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE”. She has more executive experience than the “APPEASEMENT KID” AND “WITHDRAWAL VP” combined. she will be the next VP so get use to it.
VJ Machiavelli
Posted by: VJ Machiavelli | September 1st, 2008 at 3:03 pm | Report this commenthttp://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com
I think Clive is incorrect calling this choice “shrewd.”
It is actually another example of McCain’s shooting from the hip, without too much thinking.
Her youth and inexperience neutralize Mccain’s favorite line about Obama’s inexperience.
And the fact that he did not even know her rather negates stuff about presidential seriousness and judgment.
She has a reputation for being argumentative and vindictive, having several times got herself into rather nasty efforts to get back at opponents.
There are accusations of her illegally hacking into someone’s computer to get facts on her opponent when she first ran for office.
Indeed, there are serious charges against her in Alaska of misusing her office to get back a brother-in-law. These may well explode to national attention. There’s even a citizens’ group on the Internat dedicated to getting rid of her.
She is on record saying some stupid things, including a nasty tirade about Hillary. That’s why just the other day she was booed at a gathering when she referred to Hillary and women’s rights.
She represents only an appeal to disaffected Hillary supporters for a close election, and she’ll likely fail there.
Besides, the sexist nature of her selection is pretty obvious.
The clever political writer Chris Floyd called the ticket “Lady and the Gramp.”
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | September 1st, 2008 at 4:41 pm | Report this commentClive Cook writes “No training or experience can prepare you for the presidency.” Is this the opinion of an intelligent man? Sure, Clive, inexperience is an asset. I won’t be reading any more of your articles.
Posted by: John Zeger | September 1st, 2008 at 5:29 pm | Report this commentCharacter trumps experience? Ok, what kind of character does McCain exhibit by choosing as his VP someone who would be utterly incapable of leading a traumatized nation whose president has just died?
Posted by: fred | September 1st, 2008 at 6:10 pm | Report this commentYou can say Obama is unqualified, but 18 million people across the country said otherwise during an 18 month long campaign in which he defeated the candidate of inevitability, Hillary Clinton. He has the nomination of one of our two parties.
What does Sarah Palin have? 100,000 Alaskans voted for her. One irresponsible man then chose her to be next in line for the presidency.
The best argument Palin supporters can come up with is “yes, she’s unqualified, but no more so than Obama”. If she’s unqualified, does it matter how that compares to Obama? Doesn’t it tell you that McCain has exceedingly poor judgment?
This pick is an insult to the nation. Mccain is telling us that if he drops dead, so should we.
Posted by: fred | September 1st, 2008 at 6:19 pm | Report this commentObama’s track record of buying his house with felon Tony Rezko and blowing $100 million on a flop project with Bill Ayers (his only role as an executive btw) should surely have disqualified him for a job a the water department, let alone Commander in Chief.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | September 1st, 2008 at 7:52 pm | Report this commentWhat do we really know about SP—-not enough to jumpo to the Clive Crook conclusions I think. This is what one Alaskan just sent me—food indeed for thought:
FROM MOLLY DOUGHERTY,
As an Alaskan, I am writing to give all of you some information on
Sarah Palin, Senator McCain’s choice for VP. As an Alaska voter, I
know more than most of you about her and, frankly, I am horrified that
he picked her.
The most accurate description of her is red neck. Her husband works in
the oil fields of Prudhoe Bay and races snow mobiles. She is a life
time member of the NRA and has worked tirelessly to allow
indiscriminate hunting of wildlife in Alaska, particularly wolves and
bears. She has spent millions of Alaska state dollars on aerial
hunting of these predators from helicopters and airplanes, dollars
that should have been spent, for example, on Alaska’s failing school
system.We have the lowest rate of high school graduation in the
country. Not all of you may think aerial predator hunting is so bad,
but how anyone (other than Alaska wolf-haters, of which there are
many, most without teeth), could think this use of funds is
appropriate is beyond me. If you want to know more about the aerial
hunting travesty, let me know and I will send some links to
informative web sites.
She has been a strong supporter of increased use of fossil fuels, yet
the McCain ca mpaign has the nerve to say she has “green” policies. The
only thing green about Sarah Palin is her lack of experience. She has
consistently supported drilling in ANWR, use of coal-burning power
plants (as I write this, a new coal plant is being built in her home
town of Wasilla), strip mining, and almost anything else that will
unnecessarily exploit the diminishing resources of Alaska and destroy
its environment.
Prior to her one year as governor of Alaska, she was mayor of Wasilla,
a small red neck town outside Anchorage.The average maximum education
level of parents of junior high school kids in Wasilla is 10th grade.
Unfortunately, I have to go to Wasilla every week to get groceries and
other supplies, so I have continual contact with the people who put
Palin in office in the first place. I know what I’m talking about.
These people don’t have a concept of the world around them or of the
serious issues facing the US. Fu rthermore, they don’t care. So long as
they can go out and hunt their moose every fall, kill wolves and bears
and drive their snow mobiles and ATVs through every corner of the
wilderness, they’re happy. I wish I were exaggerating.
Sarah Palin is currently involved in a political corruption scandal.
She fired an individual in law enforcement here because she didn’t
like how he treated one of her relatives during a divorce. The man’s
performance and ability weren’t considered; it was a totally personal
firing and is currently under investigation. While the issue isn’t
close to the scandal of Ted Steven’s corruption, it shows that Palin
isn’t “squeaky clean” and causes me to think there ay be more issues
that could come to light. Clearly McCain doesn’t care.
When you line Palin up with Biden, the comparison would be laughable
if it weren’t so serious. Sarah Palin knows nothing of economics
(admittedly a weak area for McCa in), or of international affairs,
knows nothing of national government, Social Security, unemployment,
health care systems - you name it. The idea of her meeting with heads
of foreign governments around the world truly frightens me.
In an increasingly dangerous world, with the economy in shambles in
the US, Sarah Palin is uniquely UNqualified to be vice president. John
McCain is not a young man. Should something happen to him such that
the vice president had to step in, it would destroy our country and
possibly the world to have someone as inexperienced and inappropriate
as Sarah Palin. The choice of Palin is a cheap shot by McCain to try
to get Hillary supporters to vote for him. when McCain introduced her
today, Palin had the nerve to compare herself with Hillary and
Geraldine Ferraro. Sarah Palin, you are no Hillary Clinton.
To those of you who, like me, supported Hilary and were upset that she
did not get the nomin ation, please don’t think that Sarah Palin is a
worthy substitute. If you supported Hillary, regardless of what you
think the media and the democratic party may have done to undermine
her campaign, the person to support now is Obama, not Sarah Palin. To
those of you who are independent or undecided, don’t let the choice of
Palin sway you in favor of McCain. Choosing her shows how unqualified
McCain is to be president. To those of you who are conservative, I
guess you have no choice for president. But please try to see how the
poor choice of Palin tells us a great deal about McCain’s judgment.
While the political posturing inherent in the choice of Palin is
obvious, the more serious issue is the fact that the VP is, literally,
a heartbeat away from the presidency. Sarah Palin is totally and
unequivocally unqualified to be vice president, let alone president.
I know this is a lengthy and emotional email, but the stakes are high.
Posted by: Frank Vogl | September 1st, 2008 at 8:30 pm | Report this commentI thought it might help for all of you, regardless of political
affiliation, to know something about Palin from someone who has to
live with her administration in Alaska on a daily basis.
I’m an Alaskan. I know Palin. She is a winner. Strategically, McCain could not have made a better choice. When America gets to know her, they will wonder why she is not at the top of the ticket…someday…in the mean time, I hope she pushes for as many VP debates as possible - she steals the show in that venue. This will change the race as much as Clinton’s focus on the economy vs Bush 1. She is the best representative women could have. This is not a political hail mary, but a shrewd and wise choice for VP. It fundamentally changes the nature of this race, and makes the Obama/Biden call for ‘change’ look superficial and weak. Palin is the real deal and McCain is lucky to have her…that’s why Obama said, “the race is about McCain” in response to her announcement…hmmm…I think Obama is about to get “out Obama’ed”…by a very capable woman…and Biden will outright lose the VP debates - the ironic thing is, every punch the democrats throw at the bespectacled “hockey mom”, the attack will boomerang back on them five-fold. The recent attacks that say she is “unqualified” or “under-educated” are good examples — if she is unqualified, then every parent that tells their kid they can grow up to be president, but can’t afford a Harvard education is hollow. Besides, I’m not sure you can pay for Palin’s education: sending her oldest son to war, taking care of her youngest son with a disability, and running the largest state in the USA while attacking political corruption in the process…hmmm…I think she is more in touch with the American public, tougher than anyone gives her credit, and will make a better VP for that grounding judgment. Without a doubt, she understands sacrifice and selflessness better than any career politician, ivy league profiteer, or lawyer. Finally, a “regular American” not social elitist is on a ticket and can help clean up the mess in DC – my gut tells me this election is over, in favor of McCain. We just witnessed Obama’s political Pearl Harbor. Hands-down Democratic win if they had kept McCain in the box on his VP pick. Shunning Hillary and her supporters, and selecting a DC-insider for VP gave McCain the opening to be imaginative and daring. The result will awaken a jaded mass of independent, women, Libertarian, and Republican voters that will carry this election. Yesterday was the beginning of the end for Obama in ’08 and the Hillary supporters will get another go at it in four years.
Posted by: Rich | September 1st, 2008 at 9:18 pm | Report this commentSade,
In contradiction to your juvenille taunts, I’ll take a guess that most social conservatives see children as a blessing rather than a curse.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | September 1st, 2008 at 10:19 pm | Report this comment“As a non-US citizen I am alarmed that someone who supports the teaching of Intelligent Design (who is by definition either unintelligent, or unprincipled enough to take an absurd position for political advantage, or religiously-blinkered) should be taken seriously as a VP/presidential candidate.”
The selection of Governor Palin represents the culmination of the hideous policies and actions that the USA electorate has suffered under since President Reagan was elected - aside from the respite of President Clinton’s Administration, which was largely hemmed in by the extreme right-wing Republicans who took over Congress in 1994.
I am sure that much tabloid-style behavior and much worse will be reported about Governor Palin shortly. Barely a few days into her nomination: the evidence of blatant lying and hypocrisy on her part is stunning. That Senator McCain’s campaign manager would contend that Senator McCain was aware of Governor Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy before the Governor’s nomination, not to mention the possibility that the Governor’s fifth child is in fact her daughter’s, is unquestionably another blatant lie by the McCain campaign.
The daughter’s pregnancy is not a “private matter”. It is four-square in the middle to the gross hypocrisy of Governor Palin and the rest of the odious “Christian” right-wing.
I am sure there will be much more to come that will overwhelm the idiotic, positive spin that the diehard right-wingers are granting to Governor Palin.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | September 1st, 2008 at 11:59 pm | Report this commentWith all due respect to Wendell Murray, with whom I normally agree, tabloid-style focusing on whatever juicy scandal can be squeezed out of Sarah Palin’s family biography, while ignoring her immeasurably more serious far right wing views, is equivalent to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. No pun intended.
If America is ever to beak the far right wing stranglehold on our political life that we have suffered under since the election of Reagan, facing this reality directly and bringing it out into the open where we can examine and debate its pernicious effects is the only way to do it.
Trying to turn politicians’ family lives a TV reality shows is not. This is why Barack Obama, a supremely decent man, has announced that he will fire any staffer to tries to exploit Sarah Palin’s family situation for political purposes.
I was also surprised to see GR get into the Palin family scandal game, while ignoring Buchanan completely. If Palin is already pulling respected British commentators down our our level here in America, she has already done more damage than anyone could have imagined in the short time since she was nominated.
Posted by: algasema | September 2nd, 2008 at 12:31 am | Report this comment“break”, not “beak”. Yet another algasema.
Posted by: algasema | September 2nd, 2008 at 12:33 am | Report this commentThe conservatives who were initially enamored with Palin seem willing to remain on her side, no matter what information is coming out of Alaska (teenage pregnancy, DUI, previous membership in a secession movement, Troopergate, etc.).
Specifically, regarding unwed mothers, Dan Quayle railed against TV’s Murphy Brown in 1992 for being a bad role model, espoused by Hollywood. When Reagan ran in 1980, he talked about Welfare Queens, women (implying mothers) who were living the high life on the dole. This perception really hasn’t changed.
If Palin was any attempt to appeal to swing voters, especially women, the Palins seem like an out-of-control dysfunctional family. I think the average undecided voter is coming to the conclusion that something is amiss.
Posted by: Mason | September 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 am | Report this commentI tracked down this diatribe to a person named Sammy S, from LOS ANGELES, posted on the internet. However, let us consider Sammy’s points.
> The most accurate description of her is red neck. Her husband works in the oil fields of Prudhoe Bay and races snow mobiles.
Oooooh! She must be an awful person, then!
> She is a life time member of the NRA
In Alaska, being a member of the NRA has a completely different connotation than being a member in LA or New York. Many people in Alaska rely on hunting of moose and caribou to survive. And there’s much less violent crime per capita.
> and has worked tirelessly to allow indiscriminate hunting of wildlife in Alaska, particularly wolves
Okay, this concerned me, so I checked it out. Apparently, there are some specific areas within Alaska where the moose and caribou populations are extremely threatened by predators. Governor Palin has moved to allow culling of wolf and bear - not endangered species - packs to promote the growth of their dwindling populations. In the past five years, more than 700 wolves HAVE been killed. However, wildlife biologists give the annual kill rate for wolves - that is, the number of kills required to maintain a stable population - at 643 per YEAR! In other words, the wolf population in these regions is exploding, severely threatening other indigenous wildlife.
> and bears.
Also a problem in some areas. Palin has by no means moved to allow indiscriminate hunting of these animals across widespread tracts of land - merely systematic thinning of populations in restrictive regions where the populations have gotten out of hand.
> She has spent millions of Alaska state dollars on aerial hunting of these predators from helicopters and airplanes,
True. However, consider that aerial hunting is more efficient than land based hunting (http://www.slate.com/id/2199140/) and you’ll see that this actually saves the state money in terms of Wildlife and Game commission salaries.
> dollars that should have been spent, for example, on Alaska’s failing school system. We have the lowest rate of high school graduation in the country.
Consider, however, that Palin’s administration has strongly supported the University of Alaska.
“The University of Alaska received a 7-percent increase in funds for the 2008-9 budget year, only the fourth time in 20 years that the system has won an increase greater than the state’s fixed-cost requirement. The university plans to use the extra money to expand programs in high-demand fields, such as health and engineering, and to support research into climate change, energy, and biomedical sciences. The state also provided a fourfold increase in the university’s budget for deferred maintenance, which rose to $48-million.”
(http://chronicle.com/weekly/almanac/2008/regions/pacificwest.htm)
This is extremely important, as prior to this, only ~13% of high school graduates continued on to higher education. More money for the university systems means more students progressing to and through college, which leads to more students finishing high school.
A major problem with education in Alaska remains its relative geographic isolation. Even with a high school diploma, it is difficult for young people to find jobs. Bolstering the University system attracts research and high-tech jobs to Alaska, which leads to more jobs, and thus more students continuing their education.
> Not all of you may think aerial predator hunting is so bad, but how anyone (other than Alaska wolf-haters, of which there are many, most without teeth),
Someone who uses this kind of invective rhetoric is someone that you want be listening to? “Most without teeth”?
> could think this use of funds is appropriate is beyond me.
Consider that the Alaskan government, both Democrat and Republican, spends hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly to cull the predator populations. Now consider that, as a newer, more effective and cost-efficient method of doing so has arisen, Governor Palin has moved to support it. Supporting new technologies and techniques is one of the reasons that Alaska has had a budget surplus under Palin’s stewardship.
The hunting of wolves hurts my heart. However, after doing the research, it is apparent that, while outwardly barbarous, it is actually quite necessary for the sustainability of the Alaskan ecosystem. Sure, it’s a dirty job. But I cut the heads off of deceased ferrets as part of mine, so…does that make me a redneck?
> If you want to know more about the aerial hunting travesty, let me know and I will send some links to informative web sites.
Or, do the research on your own, and don’t trust what someone with an agenda leads you to.
Many in the lower 48 don’t really appreciate how Alaska works. Suffice to say that it is a state almost as big as 1/3 of the rest of the US. There are tons of bears and wolves, both of which really do attack and kill people from time to time. And it gets so cold and windy in some parts of the state, that fur is not a fashion statement, it is the best protection from almost instant frostbite. There is also a large native population that is very vocal about maintaining their traditions, like hunting polar bears and whales.
Alaskans know well how much their lives depend on the health of the land and sea around them.
> She has been a strong supporter of increased use of fossil fuels,
Actually, so has Obama - on August 4th, he stated his intentions to complete a natural gas pipeline in Alaska and to give families a $1,000 energy rebate.
> yet the McCain campaign has the nerve to say she has “green” policies.
The only people I’ve heard saying this are those wanting to ridicule the McCain campaign. Palin has acted to preserve the interests of citizens of Alaska AS citizens of Alaska. As far removed as the rest of us urban denizens of this country are, we cannot truly understand what “green” means. We drive to work. We consume fossil fuels at a ridiculous rate, don’t recycle, and pollute the environment with our countless starbucks and McDonald’s containers, yet we have the audacity to call ourselves “green” because we support “green” causes.
Whereas Alaskans ARE green. They live off the land, with the land, and lead the nation in conservation of resources.
It’s an entirely different perspective, and, unfortunately, the majority of urban dwellers in the US don’t bother trying to reconcile the apparent contradictions. Instead, they lambaste Palin for her decisions in support of Alaska.
> The only thing green about Sarah Palin is her lack of experience.
So, what about Obama? Isn’t is preferable to have a “green” Vice-President, than to have a “green” PRESIDENT?!!
> She has consistently supported drilling in ANWR,
Another common complaint. Consider that fewer than 1% of Americans will EVER visit the ANWR, and that those that do will see less than 5% of it. It’s HUGE. And the fact of the matter is that we ARE dependent on fossil fuel, and much as we might wish for this to change, it’s not likely to happen any time soon. So, should we consistently give a large portion of our profits to overseas concerns - many of whom support terrorism - or should we move to retain some of our hard earned currency by becoming a bit more self-sufficient? ANWR is not endangered. As a government property, any and all drilling must conform to EPA regulations, and must not disrupt the ecosystem at large.
> use of coal-burning power plants (as I write this, a new coal plant is being built in her home town of Wasilla ),
Coal mining is a major part of Alaska’s economy. Honestly, it’s a major part of Illinois’ as well. Many things need to change before coal burning can be legislated against. Alaska is COLD! What would Sammy from LA (!) recommend they burn in order to keep themselves warm?
> strip mining, and almost anything else that will unnecessarily exploit the diminishing resources of Alaska and destroy its environment.
The ONLY information regarding this claim which I can find is the claim itself. I can’t find ANY evidence to support it, nor to contradict it. Therefore, I must assume it is BOGUS until proven otherwise.
> Prior to her one year as governor of Alaska, she was mayor of Wasilla, a small red neck town outside Anchorage.
Oh, no! Rednecks! We should just band together and deport them all to their own country.
> The average maximum education level of parents of junior high school kids in Wasilla is 10th grade.
Explain to me how this is pertinent?
> Unfortunately, I have to go to Wasilla every week to get groceries and other supplies, so I have continual contact with the people who put Palin in office in the first place.
Poor Sammy. It must be an extremely long commute from LOS ANGELES. Regardless, what an awfully bigoted thing to say! His community doesn’t have the necessaries, so he has to buy them in Wasilla, and doesn’t like the people living there? Oh, goodness gracious! Well, since he’s obviously such a fine judge of character, they must be truly evil people, indeed!
> I know what I’m talking about.
See? He KNOWS what he’s talking about!
> These people don’t have a concept of the world around them or of the serious issues facing the US.
He’s right. They’re probably more concerned with struggling to survive.
> Furthermore, they don’t care.
I guess Sammy would know…
> So long as they can go out and hunt their moose every fall,
Or starve…
> kill wolves and bears
Again, only state employees of Fish and Game are allowed to do this…
> and drive their snow mobiles and ATVs through every corner of the wilderness,
Well, their corner of the wilderness is relatively isolated. By which I mean, that without the dreaded SNOWMOBILES and ATVs (oooooh!), they would be completely unable to get around, and would most probably die, which, judging for this person’s above statements, would be a good thing…
> they’re happy. I wish I were exaggerating.
I wish he were backing up his claims with evidence!
> Sarah Palin is currently involved in a political corruption scandal.
This is true. So is OBAMA. Obama is, in fact, involved in more than one corruption scandal. And then there’s his shady campaign contributors, and he and his wife’s real estate scandals.
Once again, better for the VP to be under investigation? Or for the PRESIDENT to be under investigation? You decide.
> She fired an individual in law enforcement here
She then offered him another government job with equal salary, benefits, and less responsibilities, which he refused.
> because she didn’t like how he treated one of her relatives during a divorce.
He apparently made repeated death threats over the phone.
> The man’s performance and ability weren’t considered;
The making of death threats is a performance issue, according to my reasoning. Likewise, being that he was offered another position, his ability was obviously never in question.
> it was a totally personal firing and is currently under investigation.
We won’t know whether or not this was indeed a “totally personal firing” until the investigation has concluded. This statement is missing the key word “alleged”.
> While the issue isn’t close to the scandal of Ted Steven’s corruption,
Senior senator (R) from Alaska, who, on July 29, 2008, was indicted by a federal grand jury on seven counts of failing to report gifts received from VECO Corporation and its CEO Bill Allen on his Senate financial disclosure forms. Stevens is specifically charged with violating provisions of the Ethics in Government Act. The charges relate to renovations to his home and to more than $250,000 worth of gifts. On July 31, 2008 Stevens pleaded not guilty to the charges in a federal district court, and he requested that the trial be done before the 2008 election.
Compare and contrast!
> it shows that Palin isn’t “squeaky clean” and causes me to think there may be more issues that could come to light. Clearly McCain doesn’t care.
CLEARLY McCain doesn’t care! Everyone, myself included, has some questionable activity with which they’ve been involved, ESPECIALLY if their chosen field is politics. Show me a politician who IS squeaky clean, and I’ll show you the blinders that you’re wearing.
> When you line Palin up with Biden, the comparison would be laughable if it weren’t so serious.
Again, see how many of his complaints about Palin mirror those about Obama? So, which is more important? President, or Vice-president?
> Sarah Palin knows nothing of economics
She knows how to keep her state operating with a budget surplus…
> (admittedly a weak area for McCain),
And, that’s why you have a presidential CABINET! Because nobody knows everything about everything.
> or of international affairs,
What does Obama know? Again, Prez or VP? Cabinet! I believe I’ve mentioned these things before.
> knows nothing of national government, Social Security,
What does Obama know? He worked as a senator for a mere 12 months before embarking on the campaign trail. Again, Prez, or VP?
> unemployment,
She knows plenty. She’s worked tirelessly to bring new jobs to Alaska.
> health care systems - you name it.
Again. P or VP? Cabinet.
> The idea of her meeting with heads of foreign governments around the world truly frightens me.
Why? What do you think she could do? She’s an amiable person, and that makes the most impact when meeting with foreign leaders. No different than Obama.
> In an increasingly dangerous world, with the economy in shambles in the US,
Palin actually understands the need to bolster economies, as explained above.
> Sarah Palin is uniquely UNqualified to be vice president. John McCain is not a young man.
But he’s a healthy man.
> Should something happen to him such that the vice president had to step in, it would destroy our country and possibly the world
See? If McCain were to die, then Armageddon would commence immediately!
> to have someone as inexperienced and inappropriate as Sarah Palin.
As opposed to having a PRESIDENT (Obama) as inexperienced as her? Of course, THAT wouldn’t destroy the world, now, would it?!
> The choice of Palin is a cheap shot by McCain to try to get Hillary supporters to vote for him. when McCain introduced her today, Palin had the nerve to compare herself with Hillary and Geraldine Ferraro. Sarah Palin, you are no Hillary Clinton.
“You are no Hillary Clinton”. To which I say, “thank God”.
> To those of you who, like me, supported Hilary and were upset that she did not get the nomination, please don’t think that Sarah Palin is
a worthy substitute. If you supported Hillary, regardless of what you think the media and the democratic party may have done to undermine
her campaign, the person to support now is Obama, not Sarah Palin. To those of you who are independent or undecided, don’t let the choice of
Palin sway you in favor of McCain. Choosing her shows how unqualified McCain is to be president. To those of you who are conservative, I guess you have no choice for president. But please try to see how the poor choice of Palin tells us a great deal about McCain’s judgment.
So, what does the choice of an inexperienced Presidential candidate say about the DEMOCRATIC PARTY?!
> While the political posturing inherent in the choice of Palin is obvious, the more serious issue is the fact that the VP is, literally, a heartbeat away from the presidency.
In other words, McCain IS qualified to be President. Again, compare and contrast: P or VP?
> Sarah Palin is totally and unequivocally unqualified to be vice president, let alone president.
As is Barack Obama. But he’s still the only other choice. P or VP?
> I know this is a lengthy and emotional email, but the stakes are high. I thought it might help for all of you, regardless of political affiliation, to know something about Palin from someone who has to live with her administration in Alaska on a daily basis.
Namely, Sammy S., from Los Angeles.
Posted by: acespot | September 3rd, 2008 at 9:39 pm | Report this commentClive, you have this nearly right.
Democrats in general don’t have this issue, Obama Democrats (or the super left of the Party) do. You only have to go back to the Primaries to see that this a class issue and not simply a Democrat v Republican issue.
Just look at how they responded to Hillary Clinton’s platform issues (specifically the differences between hers and his), her voters, the states she won… The classicism and classlessness was palpable. And mirrors the attacks on Palin. While Hillary might be a wealthy woman now, she does not find it beneath her to be “among the people” because she’s still an American who loves her country and all those in it. Obama prefers to be free of the feel of the huddled masses — though wants them there for the camera. She is a public servant. He is a god, answering the prayers of the people — bit only the ones that are in their best interest (according to him and his posse).
Those of us that still (barely) call ourselves Democrats, but are not happy with the new direction Obama (Dean, Kennedy, Kerry, and Pelosi) have taken our party find ourselves looking closely for the the first time at voting Republican for President. McCain/Palin are closer to our views (while still miles and miles away) than the New Democrats are.
The Democratic elitists will surely find themselves licking their wounds again this November.
Posted by: pasdc | September 8th, 2008 at 8:05 pm | Report this comment