Vice-President Picks

Remove all ads!

I think anyone can acknowledge that the affirmative arguments for Palin coming out of the Republican party the last few days are pretty ridiculous. The following have all been argued seriously this week, by multiple people in McCain's campaign:

She has "military experience" because she was "commander in chief" of the Alaska National Guard. Yet she never issued them a single order, and even if she had, the Alaska National Guard has no bearing whatsoever on our national security.

She's supposedly tough on pork, but every year John McCain puts out his famous list of the worst pork offenders in the US. Guess who made that list 3 years in a row?

She has "foreign policy experience" because Alaska is the closest state to Russia (I still can't believe this is being argued with a straight face). Really? I live in Texas...does that mean I get to be Ambassador to Mexico? I also live near NASA so, guess who's goin' to Mars!

She's "tough on corruption" because she supposedly killed the Bridge to Nowhere. But how many people realize she supported it before it became so unpopular? Her hands are all over it.

They've been lashing out at the media for digging into her personal life about her daughter's baby, yet they parade Bristol, her teenage baby-daddy, and the downs-syndrome baby around as campaign props. I can't even count how many times they passed Trig around on camera last night. They're making this front and center and then whining about unfair media treatment.

McCain really seems to have abandoned the classy, issues-based campaign he promised and is now going straight to firing up the base and nothing else. It's disappointing. His reputation and legacy will never survive this, even if he does manage to eek out a win.

 

On that subject, Sarah Palin has the strangest named kids I've seen in a long while. They are:

Track (19) This is the oldest son, who is on track to go to Iraq next week.
Bristol (17) Now the most famous pregnant teen ever
Willow (13) I think there was a strange fantasy movie out about 13 years ago with this name
Piper (7) Insert joke here
Trig (5 months) I have only heard as a name for a math class, not a person

I'm not really faulting the kids, because it's your parents that pick your names, but unless some of these qualify as traditional Inuit names (the father is half Inuit), which I somehow doubt, why would you put your children through the inevitible abuse that comes with those type of names? I mean Piper is just terrible! How can you do that?

There will be no eeking. There were a few new polls out today in Iowa, Minnesota and Ohio. The polls were conducted Sunday-Tuesday of this week (so after the Palin VP announcement and during the beginning of the RNC - granted there wasn't much "C" in the RNC on Monday). Iowa and Minnesota went from favoring Obama by 8% and 6% respectively two weeks ago, to solid Obama, 15% and 12% repectively today. Two weeks ago, McCain had a 4% lead in Ohio, today he is 2% behind (which is still technically in the "undecided" column but still...). I know you get a bounce after a Convention, but given that the RNC had already started you think this would have muted the Dem bounce to some extent.

 

Actually, and I know we're drifting , but Piper is the most common name in the bunch. I know a few girls named Piper, and some Pipers are incredibly hot.

 

Maybe it is just me, but I see a real fear of Palin being spread here and in other liberal strongholds. I'm not sure conservatives wasted 15 minutes on Biden.

Was the Biden pick a mistake? It hasn't seemed to generate any passion. It hasn't made conservatives dislike Obama any more than we already do. Did it energize the Democrats? When he was picked did it make liberals get more behind Obama? I'm not convinced. I'm thinking not picking Hillary was a mistake. While I despise her at least she would have been an interesting pick.

Now the selection of Palin has been the exact opposite. Conservatives who were going to vote for McCain by default actually got invigorated by the selection and are now feeling more positive about the GOP. As for the liberals and Democrats they seem to have gone insane in their dislike of her selection.

I find it interesting.

 

Did you just cut and paste this from a comment on the Huffington post or something? "Other liberal strongholds?" DailyKOS, HuffPost and Sorcerers Place? What?

People are talking about Palin because she was announced 6 days ago, and no one knew who she was before that. Biden has been known in Washington for decades, no surprises there. That, and he's not presenting a retarded baby and a pregnant teen named, "Mudflap" for a photo-op every 10 minutes.

They're going for the "Reality TV" vote, its surreal.

 

Snook,

Since you get your information from the right-wing blogs as near-exclusively as you do, I'm not surprised that you'd think that. There is no fear generated by Palin - it's shock and head-scratching. Yes, she fired up the base - but as you said, they're already voting against Obama, and this is a change year. In a change election, when the current unpopular president is unpopular in large part because he was so far to the right, running in exactly that direction is an obvious mistake. By all accounts, Sarah Palin is flopping with the middle and with women. They don't know her, so her attacks on Obama aren't coming from a place of authority. They don't trust her, as she's already been caught in a number of lies regarding her governership, and being in office for less than two years and already being embroiled in corruption investigations isn't doing her much good. Yes she fired up the far-right base...but who cares? You guys are in the minority right now. In a change election, you don't ignore everybody who doesn't already agree with you.

Democrats are more excited than ever about Biden's appointment because it means Obama chose him to make him a more effective president. He could have chosen someone more flashy and groundbreaking, but he didn't. It's now clear that McCain chose Palin for no other reason than because the hard right made him. This shows two things - one, he cares more about winning the election than what happens after it. Two, the one thing that made McCain unique and admirable - his willingness to stand up to and disagree with the hard-right Rove Republicans - has now been kicked to the curb. They say jump, he says how high. He's a maverick no more.

And, as a hint to you Snook - that was the one trait that made him most appealing with independents, and that's why he won the nomination to begin with...he represented a Republican while still making a clean break with the last 8 years. With Sarah Palin's petty, sniping speech last night, effective as it was for people who get excited by liberal-bashing, he's blown that advantage with independents – and independents don't like partisan hacks on either side. If they did, they wouldn't be independents.

I think it's a mistake for you to continue underestimating the Obama campaign and its supporters, and especially to think we're scared of Sarah Palin because she's getting a lot of attention. I assure you the Dem base was just as fired up by last night's speech as the Right base was. The difference is, the Dem base has the numbers, the money, the orgainization and the enthusiasm this year – in spades.

 

TGS,

I largely agree with Art, in that the reason Palin got so much more coverage and analysis than Biden is that no one knew who she was. I'm a political junkie, and before last Friday I had never heard of her. I was actually travelling to see my parents last Friday when the pick was announced, so I heard from my father when I got there that McCain had picked Sarah Palin. My response was "Who the hell is Sarah Palin?" And I'm certainly not alone - I'm friends with many Republicans and they had never heard of her either. Conversely, I doubt many people said, "Who the hell is Joe Biden?" when Barack made his announcement.

I also agree with DR in that the selection left Dems scratching their heads. McCain has pounded the line about how "dangerously inexperienced" Barack Obama is, and then he goes ahead and picks someone who herself is relatively inexperienced. On top of that, it isn't like there aren't other hard right wing women options in the Republican Party that could have been selected as VP. The main thing Sarah Palin brings to the table is youth, but with that she also (necessarily mind you) brings inexperience.

I also think the selections speak volumes about how each campaign views thier chances. The Obama camp likes their chances in this election. That's why they picked a known commodity such as Biden. Biden has been in politics for 30 years. Everyone already knows everything there is to know about him. He brings no surprises, and was a classic "safe" pick. McCain evidently felt that he had to go with a riskier pick. Which is fine, but you don't take a risk if you think you'll win if you play it safe.

On this front, I think he's right - a vanilla pick like Pawlenty would not have had much impact on the race. So he essentially had two choices - pick someone who was hardcore right like Palin, or go the completely opposite direction and pick a very centrist candidate like Joe Lieberman. Personally, I think that McCain really did want to pick Lieberman, as they are such good friends, and Lieberman would have helped rehabilitate McCain's "maverick" image of being willing to reach across party lines. However, a pick like Lieberman likely would have alienated the one group that still whole heartily supports McCain - the Christian Right - and the Republican Party would have none of that. Afterall, it wouldn't do to have a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and *shudder* a NON-Christian as a VP.

And since this entire post has been on-topic, I feel I can add as an addendum: Piper is a relatively common name? Where? In strip clubs? I have never even met someone named Piper.

 

Well, it's not as common as Jill, but it's not as exotic as, say, Hatsumomo. Somewhere in the middle. "Piper" is one of the main characters on Charmed, so...I don't know if that helps.

 

Actually, I found something in a different article - the whole angle, and especially Mrs. Palin's claims on it, are completely absurd. Here is what she said - twice, now - ""I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves.""

The whole project was supported and pushed through by Alaska senator Ted Stevens, but in late 2005 it came under intense scrutiny and was widely opposed. There was even an incident in which Sen. Stevens threatened to resign over it, but eventually the earmarks were scrapped and the money was simply given to the state of Alaska to be used as the state saw fit. This happened in November 2005, before Mrs. Palin was governor. The bridges earmark was shot down by the Republican party, and they were vehemently opposed by Sen. McCain. Congress removed the earmarks around an year before Mrs. Palin even stepped in office. So just what, and how did she tell them?

So what was Mrs. Palin's position on that bridge? During the gubernatorial race, she supported the bridge projects, but without the earmark, the state did not have the money for it. In 2007, Governor Palin stopped the project, stating ""Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer...Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here." Judge for yourself, but that doesn't sound like a very damning portrayal of the infamous pork project - more like shifting the responsibility for the failed construction to Congress.

The money that the state received in lieu of the scrapped earmarks was utilized for other projects, of course. So the part about her telling Congress to take the money back is complete BS, and (with all due respect) Mrs. Palin lied through her teeth on that part of her speech on the RNC.

 

TGS - I keep hearing this from conservatives all over. The part we're waiting for is the "Why" part of the newly found "invigoration."

 

An interesting spin from the UK. I do not know the author, but she clearly is a conservative so read at your own risk.

 

Ah, another piece loaded with prattle...just what we need at a time like this. And how does any of this translate into the job that she will be elected for?

Another person who shows his/her ignorance of American History. Can there be no end to misrepresenting history by careless bloggers?

 

I'm glad that the republican supporters are so delighted with Sarah Palin. She is obviously qualified and to suggest anything else would be pure hypocrisy...

 

That's for that link, Vukodlak. Great stuff!

 

....and yet you fully believe that the Democrat smear machine isn't in full swing. I believe you are proving my point.

 

With all due respect, TGS, what exactly is your point? Just a few examples would add some substance to this debate on both sides.

Tonight I heard Mac claim that there would be no more "corporate welfare for big oil from the US government." That's "your guy" saying that, not me, sir. Although, you know, I've been trying to make that point for quite a few years now....

For a minute there, I thought I was hearing the Big Mac of old....

 

What part of this is smear, exactly? If you could disprove the accusations about her, please do so.

 

You should watch the video Snook, Stewart basically just let different conservatives speak.

On the other hand, of course both parties dabble in smearing but up to now most of the "smear" directed at Palin has been questions about her past, present and opinions.

 

Joa,
What I found best was Stewart taking those two statements by Karl Rove. In the first one Rove said that a D mayor or whatever it was again lacks experience for governing the 105th largest city in the US or somesuch. And then, the second one where Rove without blinking states that Mrs. Palin is highly experienced for having been mayor of an 8.000 soul village and then for having been governor of the least populated state in the US.

Stewart then framing it as Rove, Mr. Wedge isssue himself, being divided on the isssue is just delicious irony.

More generally speaking, the GOPers haven't exactly held the 'experience issue' to better than arbitrary standard. Stewart put his finger on it and rubs the sore spot. Can't blame him.

 

Actually North Dakota, Wyoming, and Vermont have lower populations. Would you be saying the same of a Vermont governor?

Just how does Palin coming from Alaska put her at a disadvantage to Governor Clinton? Arkansas isn't that much more populated than Alaska, it has approximately the same annual budget. Great Presidents have come from low population states and states on the "edge of the frontier" -- most notable would be Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln (chronological order, Chandos, not order of who was better).