Cynical of legitimate? Well, I think it was both.
All VP picks are a combination of two things: a candidate who can take over as President in an emergency, and a candidate who can help win the election. IMO it's fair to say that a pick with too much of the latter and too little of the former is cyncial and less legitimate.
Although a McCain/Palin supporter, I must concede that Palin is not ready to take over for McCain on day-one. My initial impression is that after 1-2 years in the VP slot she'll be ready...but I can't be sure of this until she's been vetted by the media and has her debate (surely there should be more than one!) with Biden. So, yeah, it's a cynical pick.
However, I think it's also legit for two reasons:
1. She does have adequate (not great) qualificatons: She's got excellent Executive experience which is the most valuable type to have for the Presidency. She's also got a stong record of reform, has shown real "balls", and based on what we've seen appears to be very smart. Also, I'll paraphrase from Obama's primary campaign here...experience is only one of many important criteria; character, judgement, and intelligence are just as important.
2. I've been saying for months that McCain MUST pick a female if he was to have any chance of winning. Every statistic/metric/trend is in the Dem's favor this election. McCain's only shot at winning was to peel off a large group of voters from Obama. IMO the only two big groups really in play were Hispanics and blue collar white women over 30. In picking Palin, he was going for the latter group. My first pick was Kay Baily Hutchison (nat'l name recognition, lots of experience, decent creds with the base); rumor has it she wasn't interested. I liked Condi Rice too, but whoa! She's a neocon and linked to Bush at the hip. A non-starter for sure. So...through process of elimination that left Palin.
And guess what? The pollos on 09Sep indicate it's working. There has been a huge shift in blue collar white women over 30 from the "undecided" block to McCain. We'll see if it holds up. We'll also see if Palin holds up through the barrage of vetting that's headed her way.
And finally, give me credit for not pointing out that if lack of experience in sufficient reason to torpedo Palin, the same must be said of Obama (oops! I just pointed it out!).
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Good entry, John
I agree with you on both points: the selection was both cynical and legitimate. I confess that I've done a poor job of stifling my gag reflex over the last two weeks since Sarah Palin came to national (and international) acclaim as a Vice Presidential nominee.
But here's what makes her illegitimate. The campain appears concerned as to whether she can handle the press or not. No surprise there; the press in the lower 48 is a lot harsher than what she was used to in Alaska. But when John McCain declared that his Administration would be transparent, that (I assume) meant her as well. When Rick Davis angrily demanded that the media show her "deference," I bristled. This woman is not my governor, not my mother, not my boss, not my co-worker. In fact, she's interviewing for a highly important job with the American people. Now, then: here's how that comes across: I walk into a job interview, but instead of showing deference to the interviewer, I refuse to do the interview unless s/he (or them) shows me the "proper respect I am due." Are they going to buy that? Of course not, and neither should the American people. But in an election year where education and upward mobility have become anathema to low-information voters, where words like "uppity" are used with astonishing frequency in a cynical attempt to bait the ethnic candidate into playing the "race card," and charges of sexism against the media yield the desired results, the interviewees seem quite capable of making up new rules as they go along.
I will give you this: Karl Rove has invented what amounts to the political equivalent of the phalanx. Attacking it by traditional means simply won't work. The media, neutralized by charges of sexism, no longer refer to the myth of the bridge to nowhere or the plane sold on e-bay, or the claim that she won more popular votes than Joe Biden as lies. And in trying to combat the repetition of these falsehoods, the Obama campaign spends its energy defending itself instead of going on the offensive.
A Republican victory hinges on low-information voters, and Karl Rove has returned to perform the neocon sleight-of-hand, distracting the voters from the issues - which is where Sarah Palin comes in. I've talked to men who are literally voting for her because, "she has a nice rack." The party of economic Darwinism, academic creationism and social despotism, may have just pulled off the political equivalent of selling the Brooklyn Bridge - again.
Legitimate or not, we will have to live with the results per the majority, whether fear mongering, prejudice and cheap parlor tricks or real, substantive issues decide this race. Given the last eight years, I know what to expect if the issues are overwhelmed by the sensational.
Jack, good points all through, and I actually agree with some of them.
Particularly the "inexperience" argument re Palin. IMO the Dems should focus on this issue as it's legit. The other issues being raised (e.g. husband's DUI, banning books, etc) are niggling and aren't going to move those swing voters that are really the only important factor at this point.
We're entering a critical phase where she'll be vetted by an aggressive (and largely hostile) media and will have to debate Biden. But the key here is the expectations game. There has been so much talk about her inexperience and the "backwardness" of Alaska, etc. that I don't think the swing voters (blue collar white women over 30) expect her to come across as a combination of FDR/JFK/Churchill. I think all she needs to do to satisfy those swing voters is to be LIKEABLE; to show humor, intelligence, and wit.
So, the bar for Palin is actually quite low (thanks mostly to the savageness of the Left's attacks on her) and I think she'll come out the other end relatively intact.
You are absolutely correct, John - we got played. After looking at the electoral map today, there are three likely categories for outcome: McCain squeaker, Obama squeaker, or a tie.
That's right, a tie.
There are at least four possible scenarios for each - exactly four for a tie.
Now, here's the rub: in the event of a tie the House of Representatives picks the President and the Senate picks the Vice President. The last time this happened was in 1800, when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied. Though Jefferson had been a bitter enemy of the Adams Administration which he had defeated, Alexander Hamilton picked Jefferson - probably because he, unlike Burr, wasn't a nutjob. No doubt that slight against Burr led to the historic duel that left Hamilton dead.
It's cut and dried you say? Hardly. The best evidence right now is that the House will fight itself to a standstill. That leaves the Senate, who will pick the Vice President - WHO WILL BECOME THE PRESIDENT, since the House is unlikely to deliver the 26delegate majority required to appoint a President.
That decision rests on two wild-card Senators: Chuck Hagel and Joe Lieberman, who switched parties after the Dems abandoned him. Lieberman may well have his revenge against them. Hagel, a real maverick, might well go the other way, but if he doesn't it's a tie.
That leaves the decision to . . . Cheney.
In all seriousness, John: if Sarah Palin is appointed President, I HOPE that Bush attempts a coup to stay in office and that the military helps him. It beats the alternative.
That's quite a scenario you outlined. The media would have a stroke trying to cover all the angles.
One thing I'm not clear on though...would the House/Senate have to pick from among the current Pres/VP candidates? Or could they vote for anyone?
If I had to rank the four (in terms of who is ready today), I'd say McCain, Biden, Obama, Palin.
BTW, don't worry about the Bush coup; even if he tried it, he'd screw it up.
LMAO about Bush screwing 'the coup' up. Your order for who should be president makes sense, given the combination of your political affiliation and reasoning skills. One thing that has to be on everyone's mind right now is, "What if Senator Clinton had been the nominee?" Certainly the much discussed Bradley effect will play a part in the outcome of this election. But if Hillary were the nominee the 527s would attack her from everything from the S&L scandals to stealing the White House china. I'm curious to know which you think would be more effective: 1) the continuous allusions to Obama as a secret Muslim or 2) the effect arcane mystery surrounding Vince Foster's suicide on Hillary.
Post a Comment