Choices That Are Made
It’s striking listening to the commentary about why this is a smart pick for John McCain that the arguments are all about how this will help him politically — attract women voters, get attention, disrupt Barack Obama’s “change” message, etc. What I haven’t seen is any conservatives making arguments about why Sarah Palin will help President McCain govern. He’ll call on her insights about . . . what?
UPDATE: For example, Ross Douthat:
I’m pretty excited, I have to say. This could, of course, turn out to be an enormous debacle if she isn’t ready for prime time. But for now, Sarah Palin looks like a perfect face for the sort of Republican Party I want to support: She’s a pro-life working mom; she’s tough on corruption and government waste without being a doctrinaire Norquistian on taxes; she’s more supportive of gay rights than the current GOP orthodoxy (while stopping short of backing same-sex marriage); she has a more conservationist record than your typical GOP pol, but supports drilling in ANWR; she’s an evangelical but she isn’t a southern evangelical … and if McCain loses, she can run at the top of a Palin-Jindal ticket in 2012!
He likes the politics, nothing to say about the substance.
Or here’s Yuval Levin:
The positives, though, are exceptionally great. She will connect tremendously well with middle class parents, at a gut level and not only a rhetorical level. Undecided women are likely to find her very appealing. Her personal story—an athlete as well as a beauty queen contestant in her youth, deeply religious but not overbearing about it, a hunter and former professional fisher(wo)man—is interesting and impressive. Her family story—from marrying her high school sweetheart the snowmobile racer to the son about to deploy to Iraq, to the wonderful way she has welcomed her Down Syndrome son—is lovely and inspiring. And on the issues, she’s the kind of conservative the country tends like best. Her unabashed but non-confrontational pro-life views will contrast in the most dramatic possible way with Obama and be nicely illustrated by her own life; she opposes gay marriage but is otherwise friendly to gay rights; she’s an ethics reformer and anti-pork fanatic (she killed the “bridge to nowhere”); great on energy, and something of a conservative reformer in general, though she hasn’t said much to my knowledge about health care and taxes—which I suppose makes her a good vehicle for McCain’s positions on those. And while you won’t hear it much from the Democrats or the press, there’s the historic female vice president element too.
Surely not a perfect pick, but a bold pick, and I think a very good one.
Likes the politics, thinks the only problems substantively are a lack of record on foreign policy . . . and taxes . . . and health care . . . but that lack of record is potentially a political upside!
UPDATE II: It seems that even Sarah Palin didn’t see Sarah Palin as a plausible choice:
The element of surprise is politically useful, today, in terms of controlling the news cycle. But there’s a reason nobody expected this and it’s not that we thought John McCain might be too stubborn to recognize how badly he needs Palin’s experience to make his presidency the best presidency it can be.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
100 Responses to “Choices That Are Made”
Leave a Reply
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 29th, 2008 at 11:44 am
He’ll call on her insights about . . . what?
Pop culture post-ABBA.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Oil. Duh.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:46 am
He’ll call on her insights about . . . what?
Mooseburgers?
August 29th, 2008 at 11:48 am
How to smile and wave.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Palin was on McCain’s short list. The list of candidates shorter than him.
McCain: Do you put Country First?
Palin: Yes.
McCain: Do you wear flats?
Palin: Pumps. Why do you ask?
McCain: Can you switch to flats?
Palin: Sure.
McCain: Congratulations Miss VP. What do you think about Georgia?
Palin: It’s nice. I enjoyed the Coca-Cola museum.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Matt,
Have you notice this?
Carol McCain - Model
Cindy Hemsley - Cheerleader
Vicki Iseman - Cheerleader
Sarah Palin - Runner-up Miss Alaska
Kinda tell you something about McCain
August 29th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Well, I think she’ll be called on to connect rich old McCain to the challenges facing America’s families. I mean, unlike Obama and Biden, her family hasn’t gotten rich while in office, so she knows what the rest of us are facing.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:51 am
With his voting against the equal pay for women bill, John has already pledged to save thousands in government spending by only paying Palin 80% of the VP salary a man would get. Fiscal conservatism is back! That’s how she’ll help him govern, as a living breathing example of his desire to cut spending.
http://thesebastards.blogspot.com
August 29th, 2008 at 11:53 am
At least we can rest assured that she’d be no Cheney!
August 29th, 2008 at 11:54 am
This seems like a crazy dumb pick that McCain made in his mind before the Democratic convention and successful unification of the party.
Given McCain’s age, the chief consideration in voters’ minds about his VP pick is clearly making sure that there is a solid backup in place. So, he goes and pulls a Dan Quayle? It’s even worse than the Quayle pick, since George H. W. Bush was only 64 in 1988.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Holy frak…he just picked Laura Roslin for VP.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:58 am
As governor, she has executive experience (and seems to have done a good job). As for “oil” or more broadly “energy”, I don’t see it, though that would be how I’d spin it. I tend to think this may be an attempt by McCain to look to a longer-term future; I don’t see it helping him with this election, but may help the Republicans with future elections.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
If the Obama campaign doesn’t have an ad out TONIGHT in which they blast McCain for treating the Vice Presidency like it’s the guest judge slot on American Idol, then I seriously have to question their competence. This is the worst kind of stunt casting, and you really gotta wonder how insulted women are going to be over this one. “Oh, you didn’t get a woman nominated? Well, hey, here’s a woman for ya! Vote McCain!”
PS Over/under on how many talking heads forget about Geraldine Ferraro and call this a “historic” pick? I say 4.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Seriously, this woman’s longest political engagement was serving a town with a population that didn’t even hit 10,000!
I think it’s reasonable to be kind of worried about how Barack would handle the commander-in-chief position. Personally, his judgment on foreign policy matters reassures me on that count. But if McCain-Palin gets elected? I’ll be scared. One heart attack, and we could have a lady that was running a tiny, little town trying to juggle a whole country.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Thank you for making this point! The Press are idiots! As Obama said, “Making a BIG election about SMALL things”. This is NOT a game. The past 8 years have proven that these choices are SERIOUS business. Picking someone that can help you win, not govern is looking at this as a game.
One more thing, it’s funny how they think having a female on the ticket ties the hands of Dems. Dems are engaging women in debates and including them in policy discussions. The republicans might not have known what to do with this; but I believe the Democrats will react to this pick in stride.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I’ll be curious to hear how economic conservatives view this pick during these perilous times.
As well, the neocons may see another puppet because they can be her sounding board and she brings no knowledge to the table. Or, independent oriented national security folks may be saying WTF?
These are dangerous times and John McCain’s “judgement” pushes him to put a completely inexperienced person a heartbeat away from the presidency?
Wow, just a terrible choice to me.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
@TMRM: If the Obama campaign doesn’t have an ad out TONIGHT in which they blast McCain for treating the Vice Presidency like it’s the guest judge slot on American Idol, then I seriously have to question their competence.
This is such a weak pick, and Palin is so personally sympathetic, that they have to be careful about looking like they’re stomping on a mouse.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Matthew writes, about Douthat’s reaction: “He likes the politics, nothing to say about the substance.”
Huh? Douthat mentions the following substantive issues in his post: abortion, corruption and government waste, taxes, gay rights, conservation, and oil drilling. How is any of that not substantive?
August 29th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Since politics is mostly about personality these days it might be a genius move.
It’s better than Romney, who would have been the kiss of death for McCain, no matter how much the GOP establishment was pushing him to make that choice.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
You know, from what I’ve read she’s been pretty good at everything she’s tried. She’s got some executive experience, she’s won big fights against big opponents, she presumably knows a fair amount about the oil business, and she seems to be grounded and possess a lot of common sense. She could make an excellent vice president, especially given the open-ended nature of that role.
Oh: wait. I really really really really really don’t want John McCain to be president. Never mind.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Republicans don’t govern, Matt, they win elections.
Remember Digby’s thesis: Conservatism cannot fail.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Exactly
This is the contrast that needs to be pounded home. There are plenty of things to attach - her inexperience, her views on science, etc. But the biggest thing is what it says about the top of the tickets. Obama lived up to his claim to pick someone who would help him govern. McCain’s pick is purely, cynically, about campaigning.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
McCain’s selection is just another piece in a tiresome litany where Republicans politicize matters that cry out for good governance. It is hard to think that a major political party would be as fundamentally unserious as the Republicans are about matters of war and peace, security and solvancy. But time and time again the Conservative Movement-bound GOP has shown its true colors by subordinating sound policy to political expediancy.
The clue for me that the GOP was more interested in getting power than using it responsibly was in 2002 when George W. deliberately weakened the country on the eve of war — thus undermining his ability to prosecute that war successfully — when he used Iraq as a wedge issue to elect more Republicans. An embittered Democratic opposition made it much harder for Bush to adjust to changing circumstances on the ground for fear that admitting “mistakes” could be used against him politically. Thus the constant refrain that America must “stay the course” in Iraq, more for political considerations than military ones.
It is true that after dividing the nation Republicans were still able to use the war against their opponents by accusing embittered Democrats of being anti-American and rooting for America’s defeat when they attacked George Bush. But again, that’s a political calculation. It does not change the fact that, as a matter of policy, it is much harder to win a war with a divided nation than one united around a commander in chief.
Interestingly enough, Scott McClellen in his book reaches the same conclusion, that the “permanent campaign” of spin and deception that he was complicit in, made it very difficult to fight the war effectively. Talk about treason!
August 29th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
He’ll call on her insights about . . . what?
What do you think is more likely? That he takes her advice on something? Or calls her a cunt trollop?
August 29th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Powerline is baffled and disappointed. Hugh Hewitt calls it “extraordinary.” Then again, Hewitt would’ve called it extraordinary if McCain had picked a first-term city councilman from Des Moines, as long as the city councilman once said something about drilling.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I cannot wait for her debate with Joe Biden. Everyone, of course, remembers Dan Quayle’s debate with Lloyd Bentsen, when Bentsen put Quayle down with “you’re no Jack Kennedy.” But the question that prompted that exchange was something to the effect of, what would you do if the president dies and you are the president? Quayle didn’t have a clue. Will Palin?
August 29th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Politically and substantively, Huckabee would have been a better choice, since he’s run a state for more than 2 years (10) and a state with more people than Columbus, OH.
People seem to like him,, they already know who he is, he’s not under investigation and it’d get Colbert action too.
Huckabee was the pick the only pick of which i was afraid
August 29th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
It doesn’t bother any Republicans here that Palin perfectly represents every conservative complaint about Barack Obama?
August 29th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
First, I hate to disparage your former employer but, uh, the Atlantic hasn’t exactly been skewing left since you left. Douthat would have praised Caligula’s horse to the skies.
(The horse was arguably more experienced.)
As for the choice, it’s an attempt to sway Hillary supporters. Nothing more, nothing less. She brings nothing to the ticket otherwise: her state isn’t really in contention and carries few electoral college votes, she’s mostly unknown in the party and the country, has almost no experience in government, and the creationist thing is going to be a millstone around his campaign’s neck.
At best, it’s a a dog whistle saying “vote for me and you just might get a woman president, or at least a woman nominated for the GOP in 2012!” That’s it.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Joe Biden:
I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is my friend. And you, Sarah Palin, are no Hillary Clinton.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Crusty old guy and effervescent younger woman.
If they don’t win the election, this team should immediately earn consideration for a Fox News primetime show.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
If McCain expects to win religious conservatives women, he’s sadly mistaken. Their reaction to Palin will be: what’s a woman with five children doing working outside the home? More evidence that McCain and his advisors are clueless about the Republican religious base they’re trying to win.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Sorry, meant to add a link to that last paragraph.
(Matt, I’d humbly recommend that you get a “preview” function started on this here blog.)
August 29th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Also, I saw Bill Kristol guess that it would be Biden and Palin some time ago on a Fox panel. So he can now claim to have been right about something (two things if you count them as separate guesses).
He did, however, claim that Palin would demolish Biden in a debate. Lest you start thinking he might have a modicom of sound judgement after all.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
#27: All true points except for one small matter; McCain is said to loath the man.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
She’ll deliver Alaska, which is really big. Have you seen a map?
August 29th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
View this as a comparison between the decision-making styles of Obama and McCain. Obama made a serious-minded decision designed to bolster his ability to govern as president. Of course, he was thinking about how that would affect his electability, but he did it by demonstrating a serious and thoughtful public decision to choose Biden. Not the sexy choice, or the pragmatic political choice necessarily, but one that strengthened his ticket. Even the Republicans said so. McCain made a selection designed to get attention, to pander to social conservatives in his party, and to improve his electability. There were better candidates, even better women candidates available to him. He chose a contrivance, a cheap fairy tale of a VP candidate. “Values of Working People”, “Shake up Washington” my ass — he did this to put on a “maverick” act.
Best guess, 15% chance that Palin will be president before 2012. Who is really excited by that prospect, really? NRA anti-abortionists riding snowmobiles across the future oilfields of Alaska? C’mon!
August 29th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
It doesn’t bother any Republicans here that Palin perfectly represents every conservative complaint about Barack Obama?
It doesn’t bother any liberal here that every complaint against Palin applies double to Obama? I mean, it is awfully rich to complain that Palin has been governor for only two years when Obama has only been Senator for 4.
Let’s face it, the Democrats selected the least qualified and experienced nominee for President in more than a century. Any complains about Palin’s experience are even more applicable to Obama’s.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
McCain doesn’t need a VP to call on for insights into the areas of tax or foreign policy or healthcare. That’s Obama’s fatal flaw, and why he needs 30 years in Washington Joe Biden to paper over the non-existent record of…. ANY ACCOMPLISHMENT.
Palin brings the only executive experience to either ticket, actually stands up to state/local corruption rather than adopt it like Obama, is best suited for energy/oil/drilling issues, and nails down the social and cultural base.
Your candidate picked the old white guy as VP. We already got one of those at the top of the ticket. So balance with a young, attractive woman governor.
The reaction here confirms this is a pick that hurts the false prophet/angry black man Obama. Face it, you have some woman problems, despite the smily face stage show in Denver.
And so what if Matt’s pouting is correct that McCain only picked her because it was a good political move. Isn’t the goal here to win? Doesn’t Palin help McCain achieve that goal more so than, say, Romney? And more so than Biden helps Obama?
Now, which will come first: Obama calls Palin sweetie, or Joe flashes that dirty old man grin at her in the debate?
August 29th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Before we go too crazy on this everybody, realize that the McCain campaign might be trying to goad partisan Democrats into piling on, with strings of jokes and invective about beauty queens, dairy farmers, polar bears and not-ready-for-prime-time players. They might be hoping to generate an anti-Democratic backlash among women voters by putting Palin out as “bait”, even hoping that she will then be unfairly roughed up.
Let’s acknowledge that Sarah Palin seems like a perfectly nice and good woman, with a good head on her shoulders and genuine concern for others, and a promising political future. However, for a country justifiably concerned about the health and durability of the man at the top of the Republican ticket, she doesn’t seem to be the right person to have been thrust into this role so prematurely.
Yes, Obama also lacks some experience. But he has been in the national eye for four years, and has now been vetted by a grueling primary campaign. The country only has sixty-eight days to get to know Palin.
I feel bad for Palin, given that it appears she is being used very cynically by McCain as a prop and as bait.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
But McCain says she’s feisty!
August 29th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
“a Fox News primetime show.”
Or summer replacement for Regis and Kelly
August 29th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
She is as crooked as any from the Reich, she has not called fro Stevens to resign and she was invovled in trying to get her sisters ex husband fired from the state troopers and she has big oil on her side, you can`t get any worse of a pick than her.I don`t think she will appeal to any Hillary supporters at all.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
This is excellent news!!! For John McCain!!!
August 29th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
This was an embarrassingly political choice. And shows McCain cynically trying to chase the Change mantle. He’s simply following the leader.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
This kind of reminds me George Bush nominating Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. She was technically qualified for the job, but she didn’t have nearly the resume of any of the people sitting on the court now. I believe that George Bush decided he needed to pick a woman and then selected the woman who he thought would be most likely to carry out his ideological wishes.
McCain seems to have made the same choice. The campaign decided it needed a woman as running mate to capture the disgruntled Clinton supporters and to provide a distraction from Obama’s nomination and McCain’s old age. They scoured the country and Palin came up as the best choice. She has good conservative credentials and isn’t too mired in scandal.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
“Now, which will come first: Obama calls Palin sweetie, or Joe flashes that dirty old man grin at her in the debate?”
I’ve got my money on a McCain Tailhook flashback.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Alaska was potentially very important for Republicans. Thanks to the Obama/Dean 50 state strategy Alasks was within single digits of Obama taking it. This this helps the Republicans save face and not lose Alaska (Montana will be ours though /cackle!)
August 29th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
She’s on the radio right now and is completely selling the fact that her son enlisted and is now being deployed. Seems the opposite of McCain’s approach.
She sounds like a contestant being interviewed on a game show. Gosh, I’m totally excited to be here!
What do you bet his press avails are going to dwindle to none.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
My first thought was that she is a good choice to help them win, based on her interesting, appealing and not-strictly conservative history. However, I think she is going to fail to excite a great portion of the most conservative-of-conservative voters.
Whatever the case, I expect she will become a media darling, will receive much softer treatment from the media than either Barack or Hillary have, and will be seen to “win over” male media characters (like Chris Matthews) whose anti-Hillary bits had a misogynistic tinge to them.
What I can say with more certainty than all of the above is that this pick is a great object lesson for Democrats on how to play politics, how the Republicans operate, and how seriously they take what they’re doing (the important premise to these points is that a non-smart person can beat a smart person by taking what they’re doing more seriously and working harder). They know that the biggest point of the VP slot, since it is unlikely a VP will get a chance to replace the President, is what the VP does to make the ticket look more appealing in an election. Palin was chosen for how she will make people feel about the ticket. She provides a strong distraction from a lot of McCain’s weaknesses, and she hits with the “sweet spot” against the weakness we created by dropping Hillary. Now the Republicans will get to see how a woman can stir up female conservative support.
Remember, women are 50% of the population, and they are a big part of swing voters! And people always like to help or hire someone they can identify with more than someone they can’t! They’ve already got a white male on their ticket– another white male might not add as much to their voting bloc as this woman can.
A final point: I doubt that her moderate stances are sincere ones, and feel her true stances on the issues will turn out to be much more conservative in the future.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
McCain’s choice of Palin as his running mate reminds me of his approach to foreign policy. Is there a problem somewhere in the world? Let’s overreact to it! Make a bunch of noise and make it clear that you intend to DO SOMETHING about the problem. Your overreaction will create more problems down the line, but who cares? You need to respond NOW.
Similarly: Obama made a great speech last night, and the media are fawning over it. That’s a problem. So let’s overreact to it, by making a VP choice that will generate lots of noise. Try not to think about how useless Palin will prove to be on the stump and in debates. And for the love of God, don’t contemplate the thought of her serving as Vice President, or (shudder) as President. Just do what’s best for you today, as if there’s no tomorrow.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I mean, it is awfully rich to complain that Palin has been governor for only two years when Obama has only been Senator for 4.
He was state senator for 6, in a district a whole lot bigger than anything she has dealt with. Basically, he’s had 10 years of experience in politics. She’s had 2.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Watching Palin now. She says “nu-cu-lar” too. Oy vey.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
A better comparison than Quayle IMHO is Clarence Thomas.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
What over the past eight years — hell, the past 30 years — makes you think Republicans give a crap about governing?
It’s winning that matters — elections, fights about policy, etc. And, sadly, how one gets elected and the effects of those policies are irrelevant. As long as they win, it’s all good to them.
Not sure why you think it’d be different this time.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
As a taxpayer, I’m thrilled. Since McCain opposes equal pay for women, I’m sure Vice President Palin will take a pay cut and save us some money.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
In making the Dan Quayle comparison, it might ought be recalled that Bush Sr. won in 1988. Just sayin’.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I think it’s really weird for the “maverick” to pick a VP candidate who’s under investigation for abuse of her office. She’s welcoming the investigation, so if she’s cleared she looks like a hero; but if not, she undermines not just the “experience” argument but the “reformer” one too. Hell, she even looks bad on “equal pay” and lessens her appeal to women if she turns out to have fired someone for personal reasons.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Thank goodness she killed the bridge to nowhere! Stupid liberals and their pork!
I’m a middle class parent and working mom, and I personally don’t connect with a woman who wants to leave her disabled infant to spend two and a half months on an airplane with John McCain. I’m not telling her how to live her life or that she’s wrong or that it’s a campaign issue, I’m just telling y’all I do not, personally, relate to that particular instinct.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Tina Fey just got a sweet gig for the next couple months.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Nobody thought Roslin could do it either, but THE LADY’S IN CHARGE NOW OUT THE AIRLOCK WITH YOU
August 29th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
It doesn’t bother any liberal here that every complaint against Palin applies double to Obama?
Well, I don’t know about double, but Al is essentially correct. Liberals really don’t want to go there on Palin’s lack of experience. The best strategy is for the Obama campaign to say a few nice things about her personally and then simply ignore her and save their fire for McCain.
Now if she starts to play attack dog on Obama, then it will be time for Biden to chew her up and spit her out. But even still he will need to be careful about calling her on experience. That dog won’t hunt.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
The difference between Obama’s choice and McCain’s choice is that Biden will actually have a role, whereas Palin seems to be window dressing. Obama couldn’t pick another woman other than Hillary because it would have been insulting to Hillary supporters to suggest that one woman is easily replaced by another. I have a feeling that some women will feel that way about the Republican pick.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
It’s not the inexperience, it’s the *hypocrisy*. It’s the months and months of hearing about how Americans have to pick someone four score and seven years old who’s fought in eleventy wars or we’re just getting some whippersnapper with a dictionary. And here, have a Werther’s, honey.
Then he picks someone who is *exactly what he’s described this whole time as not ready for prime time.* I guess we can expect that to taper off.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
The only rationale I can come up with is that McCain has seen over the past 8 years the mischief and worse that a knowledgeable and motivated VP can do in an administration, and has chosen in a way to prevent such an outcome altogether.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Al is essentially correct. Liberals really don’t want to go there on Palin’s lack of experience. The best strategy is for the Obama campaign to say a few nice things about her personally and then simply ignore her and save their fire for McCain.
You’re missing the point. It’s not that her lack of experience makes her unfit, but that it makes McCain look like he was insincere in making a big deal about it in Obama’s case. It’s absolutely a great talking point. Imagine Obama: “I’m glad to see that John McCain finally acknowledges that the length of a person’s experience doesn’t necessarily indicate anything about their judgment. That said, I do wonder why he chose a running mate whose judgment leads her to embrace the same old Republican ideas even more consistently than McCain himself does.”
August 29th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Hey Matt, I love the blog, but I think you’re getting a bit partisan here. Traditionally the US VP does very little governing so it makes sense to treat the appointment as an opportunity to make a political statement. I suspect you wouldn’t be so negative about a comparable Democratic appointment if we were in a similar position.
It doesn’t really matter to the electability of a ticket that someone is an inexperienced governor. We elected George W. Bush president after all.
(None of this is meant to imply that Palin wouldn’t be an effective executive.)
August 29th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
The attack on the Palin pick is this: Apparently McCain believes that judgment, not years in Washington, is what counts. We want to debate McCain’s and Palin’s judgment versus Obama’s.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Matt, wasn’t it yesterday that you were saying that the VP shouldn’t be involved in day-to-day governing like Cheney - that he (or she) should basically not be distracted from the job of ‘being ready to step in’.
And yet today, you have nothing but sneers for someone who is exactly that situation. Oh I see, she’s on the other side, so therefore there’s no possible way that she could ever be a ‘good pick’. Right.
McCain probably lost a few religious zealots with this pick. I suspect he gained a significant chunk of soccer moms, PUMAs and others who were energized about Hillary, not so much about Barack.
She has executive experience, unlike Obama/Biden (or McCain). Yes, she doesn’t have a ton, but as others have said, it will be incredibly hard for Democrats to attack her as inexperienced without getting it blown back in their faces ‘well, Obama only has 2 more years Senate experience than she does, and he’s spent the last year campaigning’.
She ‘may not be ready’ for the job, but then, Obama is on record as saying in 2004 that if he were to run in 2008, he wouldn’t be ready either. Again, blowback is hell. You try picking on her, and watch the female contingent of the liberal media explode.
Is she the best VP pick ever? No, of course not. But in any election, Matt, as you know, the Republicans can pick someone with policies and experience ranging from the Anti-Christ Dick Cheney, all the way to throwing up their hands and saying ‘we quit, you Democrats are too awesome for us’. And the Republicans have chosen someone with a certain set of policies and experiences. They may not appeal to you, but then, you were never in play. Take a step back, remove yourself from the Obama Zone for a moment, and think about this in terms of the election, not Matt Yglesias and the Veep of Doom.
Personally, I want this election to be very close and very polarizing (i.e. I want gridlock, because both D. and R. policies suck terribly bad for American growth and international competitiveness, and America can run on autopilot far better than it runs with any of these jackasses in charge). So by all means, continue to snipe at how small Alaska is. Further reinforce the “flyover state’s” perception of Democratic contempt for middle America. Please, by all means, make this election a referendum on whether the governor of Alaska is fit to lead, because, since she is a woman, this will quickly become a referendum on whether a _woman_ is fit to lead.
*Sits back and grabs the popcorn*
August 29th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
The key is to attack McCain for the pick, not to attack Palin herself, who is a largely sympathetic figure. The two main lines of attack against McCain that Palin opens up:
John McCain has not been pressing the experience point in good faith. Ideally for the Dems, the party would have the discipline not to attack Palin for her inexperience, but to attack McCain for being cynical and disingenuous about the whole experience issue. Asking the Dems to refrain from going off-message, though, is like asking Dr. Strangelove to keep his hand under control. Still, it makes it really easy to say, “John McCain is being cynical, John McCain thinks you’re a bunch of rubes, John McCain can’t really mean what he says about Obama”.
Going hand-in-hand with this is the line of attack that says, “John McCain thinks women are just accessories.” It’s like women are the new black–first Bush Sr. tries to replace Thurgood Marshall w/ Clarence Thomas, and now McCain is trying to sell Clinton supporters on a kindler, gentler, female Clarence Thomas. This should extinguish doubts that HRC will try to undermine Obama’s campaign, and it will mobilize Clinton and other political lionesses to back Obama hard. This too reinforces a narrative of “John McCain is being cynical, John McCain thinks you (women voters) are a bunch of rubes, John McCain just sees women (especially young, glamorous women) as means to political ends.”
This could seriously backfire for McCain. He has to hope that the media focuses on direct attacks against her rather than attacks against him based on what his pick of her says about him.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
And each ticket now has someone from one of the two non-continental states. Take that, 1959!
August 29th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Non-continental may not the way to say that…lower 48?
August 29th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Three days ago, I was worried about the race. Now, after the phenomenal final two days of the convention, and then this disastrous pick by McCain, the race is over.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Please, by all means, make this election a referendum on whether the governor of Alaska is fit to lead,
Wow, I like you and all, Matt, but I don’t have as high an opinion of your sway with the electorate as jb does. Who knew Joanna Blo, American Undecided Soccer Mom Voter, read ThinkProgress blogs?!?!
whether the governor of Alaska is fit to lead, because, since she is a woman, this will quickly become a referendum on whether a _woman_ is fit to lead.
You know, Americans aren’t the sharpest knife in the International Drawer of Knives. (I love a good metaphor. I also like my metaphors, thank you.) But I kinda think we’re smarter than *that*.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
To follow up on #64 and #69 - the ‘lack of experience’ meme wasn’t working very well for the undecided voters. What was working was jokes and snipery about McCain’s age. What was working was the fact that Obama is a minority, and McCain is not.
To my count, by picking Palin, Republicans gave up on a line of attack that wasn’t working well, nuked Obama’s advantage in minority-ship, and potentially nuked Obama’s advantage in age and vigor.
At the same time, she seems to offer no obvious weaknesses to the McCain ticket that isn’t already in play in the Obama ticket - other than the investigation, which I suspect will turn out to be nothing (McCain’s too smart to pick someone with any sniffle of a chance to be indicted [ed: and if he isn’t, he certainly doesn’t deserve to be President])
Well, having said all of this, she may be really inarticulate in debates, which will work very well for Biden.
There are a fair number of people on the ‘I don’t like Obama’s policies, but I would like to see a minority/woman in the White House’ who suddenly have another choice. Now you have to engage those people on substantive manners.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Al: It doesn’t bother any liberal here that every complaint against Palin applies double to Obama?
No, Palin is simply NOT QUALIFIED to be President. That’s the inescapable fact when you get down to it. I certainly wouldn’t vote for Obama if he had Palin’s resume. Barack Obama is a United States Senator who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee and has demonstrated a deep mastery of foreign policy issues. He is a credible Commander in Chief in a time of war (as is Joe Biden).
Sarah Palin has been governor of a small state in the middle of nowhere for less than two years. Before that, she was the mayor of a town of 10,000 people. She is untested, untried, unready. This pick would be laughable on its face if it wasn’t so scary: there’s a good chance Palin could actually be President a year from now, after the senile McCain has a heart attack in the oval office. I’m genuinely frightened.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
jb: “There are a fair number of people on the ‘I don’t like Obama’s policies, but I would like to see a minority/woman in the White House’”
I do not believe that anyone like this exists, anywhere. What are you talking about?
August 29th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
If Palin was not female, would she even have been considered? Nope.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
jibeaux: …But I kinda think we’re smarter than *that*…
Wait, I’m sorry - did you sleep through the Hillary Clinton campaign, where her supporters claimed that Democrats who didn’t vote for her were sexist?
Let me make it clear - I doubt that Obama will intentionally ever try to connect her gender to her ability to lead. But someone, somewhere will slip up, and say something stupid or ‘inartful’, and it will explode across the news media. And all the PUMAs will leap on it, ‘If Hillary was the nominee, this wouldn’t have been an issue. Now we see the true colors of the Obama campaign, blah blah blah.’
We’re already starting to see all sorts of ‘Vote for Obama or you’re a racist’ themes popping up here and there. Why wouldn’t the reverse strategy be just as prevalent?
August 29th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
There are a fair number of people on the ‘I don’t like Obama’s policies, but I would like to see a minority/woman in the White House’ who suddenly have another choice. Now you have to engage those people on substantive manners.
Assuming such a creature does exist, why on earth would we engage someone making voting decisions based on anatomy or pigmentation on substantive manners (would that be matters)?
August 29th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Wait, I’m sorry - did you sleep through the Hillary Clinton campaign, where her supporters claimed that Democrats who didn’t vote for her were sexist?
Primarily, they claimed the media was sexist, which it was. The vast majority of them are Democrats and will vote for the Democrat, like Hillary wants them to. The ones who won’t are irrational, and I’m not going to waste my time on them. I don’t think most people find, “Oh yeah?! Well, I picked a GIRL!” to be a particularly awesome argument.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
As usual, Al ignores the central issue. For over a year Republicans have attacked Obama as someone without a lot of experience or foreign party credentials, and as being a candidate who is powered solely by identity politics. And who do they nominate as VP? Someone with hardly any experience or foreign policy credentials and whose nominations is transparently a product of identity politics. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
po Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
If Palin was not female, would she even have been considered? Nope.
If Obama was not 1/2 black, would he even have been considered? Nope.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
At least she doesn’t seem to be coming to office with an agenda. We won’t have to worry about “Darth Palin”
August 29th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Brian Young Says:
“Hey Matt, I love the blog, but I think you’re getting a bit partisan here. Traditionally the US VP does very little governing so it makes sense to treat the appointment as an opportunity to make a political statement. I suspect you wouldn’t be so negative about a comparable Democratic appointment if we were in a similar position.”
Except that in this case the top of the ticket is a 72 year-old man with a history of cancer. She’d be a heart-beat away from the Presidency. A failure on McCain’s part to realize that HIS VP pick, of all VP picks, needs to be ready on day one, is to me not putting the country first.
August 29th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
#83, sorry but Obama wasn’t “considered” or “appointed” he was voted in by the Democratic Party as its nominee.
Palin was in effect “appointed” so your supposed nexus between the two is flacid.
August 29th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
It is really this simple:
Barack Obama thinks the very next best qualified person to be president is Joe Biden.
John McCain thinks the very next best qualified person to be president is a woman who was mayor of a hamlet of 5,500 people 19 months ago.
August 29th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Hey, I have a question: how come Sarah Palin from Alaska is “all-American” (to quote the Corner) but Barack Obama from Hawaii is “exotic”?
Anybody?
August 29th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
With those glasses, she kinda gives me a boner. No, wait. I just spilled my slurpee.
August 29th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Memo to Democrats:
Openly mock McCain as a man who:
1. Has rotten judgment in every serious decision he makes.
2. Will do anything to be elected president
Line on Palin: Promising local pol. McCain’s choice is a cheap ploy to attract disaffected Hillary voters. Completely political and utterly unserious. This bad decision shows the real McCain who is a callow lightweight.
August 29th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
she’s tough on corruption
What kind of an asshat says this about someone who is currently under investigation for what amounts to corruption? Allegedly, Palin fired Alaska’s Public Safety Commissioner because he (in turn) refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law state trooper Mike Wooten. Wooten was (is?) engaged in a nasty custody battle with Palin’s sister.
After previously denying that her administration had anything to do with it, Palin now admits that her chief of staff was indeed implicated, but claims she had no knowledge - http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/48172.html
August 29th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Re: Let’s face it, the Democrats selected the least qualified and experienced nominee for President in more than a century.
The “inexperience” complaint against Obama– or Palin for that matter– would have applied richly to Abraham Lincoln– a one term congressman and failed Senate candidate.
Re: She sounds like a contestant being interviewed on a game show.
She used to be Miss Alaska– probably where she learned to gush winsomely.
Re: whereas Palin seems to be window dressing.
After Dick Cheney we could do worse than a useless vice president.
Re: McCain probably lost a few religious zealots with this pick.
Huh? The lady is as much on board the rightwing Christian bandwagon as Phyliss Schaffley.
August 29th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Ross Douthat:
Um… excuse me, but why should we “hear from the Democrats” how “historic” it is to nominate a female VP… 24 years after the Democrats did it?
August 29th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I just read some interesting background on her on the Washington Monthly web site, and it will be interesting to read more about her. She is a fav of Glenn Beck’s so that should be a point in her favor for the trolls out there. I see more and more a Rovian influence here, a 50% + 1 strategy as I think Palin was picked to motivate the base (both religious conservatives and climate skeptics) as she is extremely anti-abortion, an evangelical, says to hell with the Polar Bear and the Wolf, favors drill now, drill everywhere, and of course denies that there is any global warming. It is all just part of the natural cycle. Of course she is a creationist (I need to ask a creationist some day to explain the origin of petroleum. If one is out there reading this, plese post). So much for a “new politics.”
August 29th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
They might be hoping to generate an anti-Democratic backlash among women voters by putting Palin out as “bait”, even hoping that she will then be unfairly roughed up.
That was my first thought too.
There was a *lot* of misogynist dreck spewed by so-called-progressives during the primaries, and it left a lot of female democrats feeling alienated from the party. Unless there’s a concerted effort at the party level to shut them down this time around, those women may end up dropping out, because it undermines the message that the democrats are the better choice for women’s rights.
Given a choice between someone who admits they want to restrict your rights, and someone who claims they don’t in speeches while spitting on you the rest of the time, a lot of women will go for the honest a$$hole. A lot of others will shrug and decide “neither”.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Matt: “What I haven’t seen is any conservatives making arguments about why Sarah Palin will help President McCain govern.”
You’re an idiot, right?
When was the last time a Republican actually cared about GOVERNING - as opposing to LOOTING?
August 29th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
My snap judgement:
1) She’s there to attract the Clinton freaks who might be hesitant about voting for McCain because Clinton asked them not to even though they really, really want to because they hate Obama so much for beating Clinton.
2) She’s there to make sure there’s no “Dick Cheney” in his future.
3) She’s there to offset his reputation as an ancient.
4) She’s there because she’s young and attractive (more so than his wife) and maybe he can get some behind his wife’s back.
“why should we “hear from the Democrats” how “historic” it is to nominate a female VP… 24 years after the Democrats did it?”
Where was Douthat 24 years ago - in a crib - like Matt?
August 29th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
As noted by Scott McClellan, the way GOP governs is constant election mode. They are not looking any farther ahead than the election. Governing comes secondary and is too far away to even thing about. If Palin helps them win by deflecting attention and juicing up the far right, they think that is all they need.
It is the Scarlett O’Hara syndrome “I won’t think about that, I’ll think about that tomorrow”
I just do not get why they are so constantly and consistently short sighted. After hearing that audio from her on Iraq, and McCain with literally one foot ready for the grave…ooooh. I just don’t get it. How can republicans support this?
August 30th, 2008 at 3:09 am
#39 - Carlos, you just gave quite a bit of insight into the (black)heart of a wingnut:
1st, you can’t mention a female politician without adding references to her age/looks.
2nd, who has “woman problems”? the democratic party, which is pro-choice, pro-reproductive health? compared to the old white rich guy party; including the bush administration which is attempting to redefine birth control as an abortificant (which it’s not) as a last hit at women’s reproductive health? or mccain voting against equal pay? “woman problems” my ass - speak for your own gender.
3rd, “isnt’ the goal here to win?” obviously, each side wants their candidate to win. but, to make large political decisions based purely on getting votes, with zero regard as to how it could effect the nation? that’s selfish bullshit. with mccain’s age, this is one situation where his v.p. choice should’ve been more about what’s best for the country, not a last-ditch effort to get the female vote. you’re all so freaking selfish. that’s why, when i hear “i’m fiscally conservative”, what i hear is, “i made my money, and i don’t give a damn about the rest of you”. funny, seeing as how you wingnuts are all so “rah! rah! i love the u.s.a.!” yet fight tooth & nail to help no one but yourselves.
4th, regarding your last paragraph - obama calling her sweetie…F U! that last paragraph is pretty much admitting what most of us suspect - you guys don’t give a flying ‘f’ about the female gender. she’s just a pawn to try to use against the democrats. all this, “1st woman on the ticket since…!” and all because she’s being used. you wingnuts disgust me.
after the hell you’ve put this country through over the past 8 years, and you still have the nerve to gloat over using a female politician to “just win”.
September 19th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Penis Enlargement Exercises, Ejaculation Control, Sexual Performance, Woman Information and much more. Visit: http://www.sinepenis.com