Sarah Palin: The other bridge to nowhere
John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin is ultimately about his decision making and judgment. Palin could be effective on the campaign trail or an absolute disaster, but what does it say about McCain that he would put Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency after only meeting her once?
If we've learned nothing else from the last eight years, it's that when politicians make gut decisions without thinking things through, it can have disastrous consequences for our country. Choosing a running mate after only one meeting? George W. Bush decision making at its worst.
Presidents sometimes must make difficult, complex choices on a moment's notice. But this decision was an unforced error -- how many months ago did McCain effectively wrap up his nomination? It's stunning that the single most important choice a candidate makes didn't warrant more consideration and due diligence from John McCain.
What we know about Sarah Palin:
We know she describes herself "as pro-life as any candidate can get." We know -- Republican talking points aside -- that Palin supported the Bridge to Nowhere just two years ago, citing the need for action before her congressional delegation lost its political advantage. She sued to block protection of polar bears. And she's advocated for the teaching of creationism in public schools and campaigned hard for Pat Buchanan in 1996.
Susan Nielson did an excellent job this morning of laying out just how at odds Palin's politics are with the interests of the 18 million women who supported HIllary Clinton in the primary. But beyond any specific issue, I can think of few insults worse than the prospect of Sarah Palin, not Hillary Clinton, becoming the first woman president.
Prior to two days ago, if you asked 100 leaders in the Republican party to make a list of the top 100 people best prepared to serve as leader of the free world, Sarah Palin likely wouldn't have registered in the top 10,000.
America just got glimpse of the judgment we can expect from John McCain as president. And what we learned is that with McCain, the decision making of the next four years will look a lot like the gut decision disasters of the last eight.
Update: An article in tomorrow's New York Times also highlights McCain's history of risky decision making. From the piece:The selection was the culmination of a five-month process, described by Mr. McCain’s inner circle and outside advisers in interviews this past weekend, and offers a glimpse into how Mr. McCain might make high-stakes decisions as president. At the very least, the process reflects Mr. McCain’s history of making fast, instinctive and sometimes risky decisions. “I make them as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can,” Mr. McCain wrote, with his top adviser Mark Salter, in his 2002 book, “Worth the Fighting For.” “Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.”
|
August 30, 2008 |
Charlie Burr | Comments (146 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Remulac | Aug 30, 2008 6:48:56 PM
What bugs me about McCain's choice of Sarah Palin is its shallowness. I rarely find myself agreeing with McCain on anything that doesn't also involve Russ Feingold, but he's never struck me as shallow. He cannot seriously believe that Sarah Palin possesses the education, training, and experience to take the helm in the more-than-unlikely event that McCain is (a) incapacitated by another bout of melanoma or (b), saints forefend, he should die in office. Nor can he seriously think that a President Palin would wish to continue his policies, given the multitude of points on which they disagree. A Dominionist creationist in charge of the United States (and it's storehouse of nuclear weapons)? Is that really the sort of politician "maverick" McCain would bequeath to us?
A short-sighted decision, bounded entirely by electoral considerations, and most of them misguided.
Posted by: Kristin | Aug 30, 2008 7:03:27 PM
I've been ruminating over this choice ever since McCain made it, and have written about it on my own blog. However, I didn't, until reading your post, internalize the idea that, after all of the hard work of feminists and their supporters, Sarah Palin could be the first woman president. Don't know why it didn't hit me, but now it really does. Clearly, it's more than just a possibility, given McCain's age ...
Now I'm even more effing angry....
Posted by: Bridget | Aug 30, 2008 7:48:34 PM
Is there any chance that the Republican delegates will pick somebody else for Veep?
I almost cried when she stated in her acceptance speech "Oh gee whiz, I never planned on running for public office. I was just a hockey mom!"
It reminded me of the apologies Anne Bradstreet wrote for her poems 200 years ago.
I want a woman in the white house who says, "Hell yes, I ran for office, because I wanted to change things for the better."
This country doesn't need a hockey mom for president. They need a leader, and there are plenty of republican women who could have fulfilled that role better than Sarah Palin.
I know he didn't just pick her because she was a woman. There's that whole uber-conservative, pistol-packing, mother of 5 with a boy going to Iraq business. The female-ness is just icing on the cake. And shame on him for potentially putting our country in her inexperienced hands.
Posted by: Rob | Aug 30, 2008 8:29:20 PM
What an absolute stupid post. Let's look at Obama and Bidens decision making and judgment shall we.
First Obama's, lets see there is William Ayers, Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko and George Soros. A terrorist, a racist and a convicted fellon and a billionaire that wants to legalize drugs. These are the people he associates with and only tossed the first 3 under the bus after he was caught.
Then there is Joe Biden. Remember his first run for Pres. He got busted for plagiarizing a speech from Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party. Something he was also caught doing in college. He has no original thoughts and needs to barrow others.
Let's talk about Obama's Executive decision making abilities. Wait, we can't because there aren't any. The only thing he has ever run in his mouth. We can look at the 160 million he wasted with Terrorist Bill Ayers while they worked together on the Anneberg Foundation. Yes, Ayers was just some guy that lives in his neighborhood. Real good decision making on this one.
Oh yea, you got some real winners there.
As the Governor of Alaska she deals with Russia and Canada on a regular basis. The polar bear population is actually increasing (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm). She was right to protest.
Wait, she thinks it is wrong to butcher an unborn child. I can see where the would bother you. Where as Obama does not want his child "to be punished with a baby," she brought a child into the world knowing it has Down's.
I will take her judgment and decision making abilities over your two guys any day.
Posted by: KTDM | Aug 30, 2008 8:44:49 PM
Hey Rob,
So what do you Republican trolls get from McCain in gifts and prizes for hanging out on Democratic blogs and trying, in this case desperately, to defend the weakest choice for Vice President in recent history? By the way, can someone answer for me what it is about McCain that he does not appear to hang out with any women who aren't either swimsuit models (wife number 1), beauty queens (wife 2, VP) or cheerleaders (all of them, plus Vicki Iseman)? Hey Rob, how about the butchering of the Iraqi children this administration has managed so handily? Oh, and I feel so much better to know that we have someone as a potential VP who has experience dealing with CANADA. Not to mention the pressing issues related to the, um, Bering Strait w/Russia? I wonder if she's ever vacationed in Puerto Rica too!?!
Posted by: Matt Davis | Aug 30, 2008 10:05:25 PM
Never mind bridging, bitch lied about being pregnant...
http://mattdavisopenshismouth.com/2008/08/sarah-palin-lied-about-pregnancy/
Posted by: Unrepentant Liberal | Aug 30, 2008 10:11:09 PM
She sounds like Marge Gunderson from "Fargo" don't ya know. Gonna be a heck-of-a-debate with that Joe Biden fellow.
Posted by: Pedro | Aug 30, 2008 10:13:52 PM
Great post Charlie.
Sarah Palin will be the punch line for many VP jokes for years to come.
Elephant trolls like "Rob" are so confident that McBush picked a winner that instead of enjoying the long weekend they are hanging out on Blue Oregon trying to stop the laughter.
Good luck to you "Rob"!
It must really suck to be a Republican this year!
- Pedro -
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Aug 30, 2008 10:21:12 PM
Rob is not defending Palin so much, KTDM. He's desperately trying to distract by attacking Obama. This is accomplished by pretending that people with whom he only has had a passing acquaintance is the equivalent of choosing them for Vice President of the United States. It's the typical Republican morality: lie, attack, lie, attack, make false comparisons, lie, attack, hope no one notices the billions of dollars they're stealing.
Posted by: Rob | Aug 30, 2008 10:22:49 PM
Hey KTDM
Glad to see you so eloquently defended you boys, not. I did 2 tours in Iraq. Sorry, we did not butcher any children. In fact, we went way out of the way to decrease collateral damage. But NObama does support the killing of 1.3 million children in the US. When it comes to answering a tough question he responds above his pay grade. A real winner ya got there, truly inspiring.
You never did list NObamas executive experience.
Hey KTDM, If you and you alone were responsible for the safety of 300 million people what would you do. Please be specific. Try your best to make me feel safe.
Putin is laughing his ass off over your pick for a Pres.
Again, why to defend your guy. You could have responded with "you mama wears army boots." Would have taken you less time to type and would have been just as intelligent a response.
Time to go surf where the arguments are a little more challenging.
And once again KDTM, go job at defending your guys. Go ahead and type what you want, I have no plans on coming back. No challenge here.
Posted by: rob | Aug 30, 2008 10:29:12 PM
Sorry Steve saw your post as I was leaving. Please do list which statements I made that were a lie.
I will let you off the hock, I am not coming back since you are unable to state specifics about my post.
Oh and Steve, you did a heck of a job defending your weak candidate as well. Way to stand up and defend all his accomplishments. Wait, there aren't any.
Posted by: Kristin | Aug 30, 2008 10:29:44 PM
"Go ahead and type what you want, I have no plans on coming back. No challenge here."
NO! No more Rob? Oh, sob. sob. I miss him already.....
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 30, 2008 10:53:44 PM
Charlie makes an excellent point, which hasn't really been addressed by the comments so far.
Whether you support or oppose Sarah Palin, whether you think she's qualified or not to be commander-in-chief, it sure does seem to say a lot about John McCain that he made the decision after meeting her just one time.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Aug 30, 2008 11:14:09 PM
Some of our greatest Presidents had no executive experience before becoming President. Obama's elected office experience is very much like that of President Lincoln.
Some of our worst Presidents (George W. Bush), for example, did have executive experience.
The vast majority of the presidents that Americans have selected as the greatest presidents in fact did not serve in a position such as governor before becoming President. Many came out of Congress, cabinet positions, etc.
Executive experience is not the most important quality of a Presidential candidate - I wouldn't even put it in my top 5. And apparently the majority of voters in this country don't have it as their top item either, as they nominated two people who have never held an elective office in the executive branch of our government. They chose Obama and McCain even when given the choice of those who did have such experience.
Posted by: LT | Aug 30, 2008 11:14:16 PM
Listening to Springsteen sing Eyes on the Prize---remember that the goal is to win the election, not criticize the opposition. Don't get distracted.
We SHALL Overcome if we just keep focused on the ultimate goal.
Posted by: Mark Jaquette | Aug 30, 2008 11:57:03 PM
To quote OUIDA -
"A cruel story
runs on wheels,
and every hand
oils the wheels
as they run.
Posted by: Brian | Aug 30, 2008 11:58:02 PM
All this banter about weak VP choices and presidential succession got me ruminating over a similar hypothetical from days past. "The President of the United States, James Danforth Quayle!"
Posted by: Unrepentant Liberal | Aug 31, 2008 5:31:46 AM
I don't think she lasts two weeks before resigning. The national spotlight will show her woefully unprepared for this task. She will be universally viewed as a colossal mistake on McCain's part. I think they will find too many skeletons in her closet. She reminds me of Thomas Eagleton.
It was a huge mistake on McCain's part to even chose her because it plays up the issue of his age in a way Democrats wouldn't even try to: He's very, very old and not in great health. (I don't care what anybody says, he isn't) Her greatest job experience is as mayor of a small town.
Imagine 'President Palin?" Facing the problems that we do, that should scare the s#$@ out of each and every American.
Posted by: Jennifer | Aug 31, 2008 7:05:25 AM
Matt writes: "Bitch lied...." above...
Every time you guys call her a bitch or talk about her vagina, you're costing Obama a few more votes.
Misogynism looks worse when Democrats do it.
Posted by: Bill R. | Aug 31, 2008 7:39:57 AM
Among friends I have in Alaska who have first hand knowledge of the trooper-gate scandal, their reaction is utter shock that McCain would have not vetted this choice, not even sent any staff to investigate. The trooper-gate story has real legs and involves, a blatantly unethical, and possibly illegal, abuse of power. The cover-up itself may doom her. She fired a respected civil servant,the Alaska State Commissioner of Public Safety, highly regarded among state troopers, for purposes of a personal vendetta against a former brother in law. The brother-in-law may be an ass-hole but following civil service rules he was placed under a probationary plan of correction for misconduct and has been in compliance.
Palin has no sense of the boundaries between the personal and the public, and that is a fatal flaw in anyone aspiring to high office. Now McCain who met her once for a few minutes before choosing her, now calls her his "soul-mate." Sheesh... what a reckless judgment!
Addendum:
Memo to the McCain slime trolls- Why do you frequent this site and say provocative things? It's not like you're going to change any minds here. All you do is confirm the worst thoughts people have about your candidate and your party.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Aug 31, 2008 8:08:27 AM
Memo to the McCain slime trolls- Why do you frequent this site and say provocative things? It's not like you're going to change any minds here. All you do is confirm the worst thoughts people have about your candidate and your party.
Did you ever think mayber it's precisely because it is so easy to provoke you guys into elitist, misogynist, ignorant and hate-filled responses that we can then quote elsewhere as evidence of what the Democratic Party's true believers really think?
The Sarah Palin issue is an excellent example of the obvious disdain so many of you feel for small towns, small states, small schools and the people who inhabit them. And the really amusing thing is that you think you can get away with this on your blogs because you somehow think that you are just talking to yourselves.
And when we remind you that other people are listening in, you get worse! It just doesn't get any better than this.
Posted by: KTDM | Aug 31, 2008 8:13:40 AM
We absolutely cannot underestimate the ability of Palin to galvanize the people we were hoping would stay home. It will be about all those guns, God, anti-abortion evangelicals and fundamentalists. They are ecstatic right now, and there are far too many of them in this country. They were seriously going to stay home, many of them, out of conscience, and now they are not. Every one of us needs to get out the vote. Every one of us has to work every bit as hard as we can. We cannot trust the slightly positive polls--they turn on a dime or one line misspoken. I've been getting emails from conservatives I know who are absolutely gleeful.
Posted by: Dan | Aug 31, 2008 8:28:35 AM
Jack Roberts wrote:
Did you ever think maybe it's precisely because it is so easy to provoke you guys into elitist, misogynist, ignorant and hate-filled responses that we can then quote elsewhere as evidence of what the Democratic Party's true believers really think?
Jack's right on here. While I enjoy reading and participating in these discussions, the frat-boy-like garbage into which threads frequently degenerate is idiotic. I respect people like Jack for engaging with us - and it should be easy enough to just ignore the real trolls. By responding to them in-kind you're doing the same thing that groups or protesters do when they're egged on to violence by provocateurs in ways that then completely undermine the purpose of the action, instead turning the focus onto the unruly tactics.
How 'bout if, to borrow a phrase, folks think before they ink?
Posted by: Steve | Aug 31, 2008 8:44:51 AM
Kari says
"it sure does seem to say a lot about John McCain that he made the decision after meeting her just one time."
Oh yeah it REALLY does seem to say a lot.
Everything the left dreams up.
Like this
"I don't think she lasts two weeks before resigning. The national spotlight will show her woefully unprepared for this task. She will be universally viewed as a colossal mistake on McCain's part."
Funny thing is the left found her universally colossal as soon as she was named.
The immediate hatred for her seems to say a lot about the left.
Posted by: Bill R. | Aug 31, 2008 8:56:40 AM
@ Jack Roberts says:
"The Sarah Palin issue is an excellent example of the obvious disdain so many of you feel for small towns, small states, small schools and the people who inhabit them. And the really amusing thing is that you think you can get away with this on your blogs because you somehow think that you are just talking to yourselves."
**************
Oh, great, Jack, the agent provocateur! Pretty juvenile. You have fallen pretty far in the political world, from holding state-wide office to being a slime troll in the blogosphere. I come from small town Oregon,born and raised, so I know something about small towns and low income voters,and a lot of small towns are waking up to what the Republican party has done for them. Maybe some of us in small towns can be fooled by the bumper stickers of "God, guns, and guts" for a while, but when Republicans ship our jobs overseas, and run us into the ditch of a low wage economy,destroy the family farm, turn the control of energy over to the oil companies, leave us without access to affordable health care, and try to divide America by race, creed, and sexual orientation to win elections, eventually it begins to sink in. Who are the real elitists in our country?
Sarah Palin and her three homes, her big oil connections, doesn't represent the people of small towns. People in small towns don't believe in abuse of power for personal vendettas. People in small towns believe that every person should be able to take their children to a doctor and get adequate care. John McCain's health advisor says there are no uninsured in America because everyone can go to an emergency room. The health care crisis is even worse in rural Oregon thanks to your party.
I know the extremist religious right loves Palin because she wants to criminalize abortion and some forms of birth control, she doesn't believe in science, and thinks the Bush/McCain war policies are just great, opposes universal health care coverage, and is owned by corporate interests, but she and the Republican party are the ones who are outside the mainstream. And you are supposed to be the "moderate" in the Repug party?? Troll away, Jack!
Posted by: Pat Malach | Aug 31, 2008 9:26:54 AM
"The Sarah Palin issue is an excellent example of the obvious disdain so many of you feel for small towns, small states, small schools and the people who inhabit them."
I don't think you put a whole lot of thought into that comment, jack.
I come from a small town. I live in the mountains outside a small town. I love small towns. I just don't think being mayor of a small town for two years does much to prepare you to be VICE PRESIDENT of the United States.
You're losing it, jack!
Posted by: ewoc | Aug 31, 2008 9:37:29 AM
Palin thinks the Arctic is melting (as I write this, by the way) not because we are dumping billions of tons of CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere annually, but because it is part of a "natural cycle." She says she believes in science, but her statements (on creationism as well as global warming) belie her lack of acceptance of the work of thousands of scientists, who have spoken through the IPCC, as well as in Nature, Science, and many, many other peer reviewed venues. Unless you subscribe to an overwhelmingly comprehensive conspiracy theory, they cannot all be the subjects of a mind-control experiment by Al Gore.
I don't care what she looks like, how popular she is in her home state, or who she appeals to among the conservative base. Can we afford to have someone so profoundly ignorant of what's going on in the real world be so close to leading our nation?
Posted by: ewoc | Aug 31, 2008 9:38:54 AM
Almost forgot -
I live in small town Oregon and have for nearly twenty years. I thought Jack Roberts lived in the Portland suburbs?
Posted by: Remulac | Aug 31, 2008 9:40:40 AM
Hailing, as I do, from a small town in France, I have a special appreciation of the plight of little people everywhere.
But seriously: it's a measure of the partisanship in political discourse nowadays that anyone can argue with a straight face that Sarah Palin is qualified to occupy the Oval Office [say it loud: President Sarah Palin] or that there is really any equivalency between the experience of Sarah Palin and Barack Obama. Reasonable people can agree, whether they agree with his policies or not, that John McCain has a great deal of experience. Same goes for Joe Lieberman, whom McCain would have chosen had not the state GOP heads staged a mini-rebellion to prevent a bi-partisan ticket.
I disagree with both most of the time, but that hardly prevents me from acknowledging the wealth of expertise and insight they have amassed over the decades they have served in Congress. The fact that John McCain wanted Joe Lieberman as his running mate shows that he, too, is not so blinkered by partisanship (viz.: Jack Roberts) to recognize a wise head on the other side.
The obvious corollary is that McCain is fully capable of recognizing inexperience and shallowness among the ranks of his own tribe. Confronted with the anti-Lieberman rebellion, did he simply shrug and give in to Rove? If McCain is so easily persuaded to make a frivolous decision, what does this predict about his presidency?
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Aug 31, 2008 9:53:05 AM
This woman is a brilliant pick. That's the genius of the next Karl Rove-- Steve Schmidt, McCain's cmapaign manager.
Despite the big POW cushion, McCain is another spoiled brat who got special treatment from the time he entered school until the present, and has the same detatched sense of fuzzy privelege that we've come to admire in The Decider.
*************
Two months ago, McCain was as good as gone, with his inept campaign, failure to stay on any message more than two seconds, new policy made just as it flew out of McCain's moouth having, once again, bypassed any chance to think things through. We were at, as Olbermann put it, "The candidate does not speak for the campaign."
Enter Schmidt, and the candidate is out there doing simple repeitions of beleivable lies, has chosen a Veep on which an entire narrative can be manufactured and quickly hung.
Schmidt and his Littler Tailors were busy fitting her up even before they told McCain who to pick.
*************
If you think this didn't just make things a hella lot more difficult for our guys, you haven't paid attention for the past 30 years.
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Aug 31, 2008 10:11:01 AM
Sarah Palin as the first woman (vice) president would be the equivalent of Clarence Thomas as the first African-American Supreme Court justice--someone who benefited from the hard work and sacrifice of the liberal movement they refuse to recognize.
I agree with Jenni Simonis on the experience canard--Lincoln had one whole term in the House under his belt when he assumed the presidency; Dan Quayle had been in the House/Senate for 12 years when George H. W. Bush tapped him for VP. So much for resumes. What matters more is the judgment and agenda of both the candidate and the party they represent.
But I applaud McCain's honesty in his VP choice by finally coming clean as the far-right extremist that he is. This November's choices for America's future over the next four years should be crystal clear to all at this point.
Posted by: Katy | Aug 31, 2008 10:11:44 AM
Matt Singer, Enough with calling women bitches! What the hell is wrong with you?
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Aug 31, 2008 10:12:14 AM
Jack, you may be really excited about Sarah Palin, but what do you think about McCain's decision making process here and the fact the two apparently met only twice before his pick? Seems a little rash to me.
It's also pretty ironic that McCain made this "maverick" pick because he didn't feel the religous right would let him get away with his first choice, Joe Lieberman. Not that I'm complaining about Lieberman's omission, but having social conservatives dictate the process doesn't strike me as very maverick-like.
Democrats aren't against small states -- we plan on winning many of them in November. But I am enjoying watching the same party whose anti-Clinton mantra was "failed governor of a small state" try to now make this case.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Aug 31, 2008 10:17:23 AM
Almost forgot -
I live in small town Oregon and have for nearly twenty years. I thought Jack Roberts lived in the Portland suburbs?
So Eugene is a Portland suburb now?
I come from a small town. I live in the mountains outside a small town. I love small towns. I just don't think being mayor of a small town for two years does much to prepare you to be VICE PRESIDENT of the United States.
But does that disqualify you from being Vice President? By the way, no one has explained why Howard Dean being governor of an even smaller state, Vermont, didn't disqualify him from running for President.
Let's face it: If you guys really thought Sarah Palin was such a terrible pick, you wouldn't be wetting your collective pants over it.
Actually, Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton have been responding much more appropriately to this. As a Republican, I'm just thankful that you Democrats have as many vocal wackos as we do.
Posted by: local mom | Aug 31, 2008 10:54:29 AM
With all due respect, Mr. Roberts, Howard Dean was governor of Vermont for TWELVE years, not TWENTY months. Before that, he was Lieutenant Governor for two years.
The other issue is that Howard Dean ran for President, and in those many months, was thoroughly vetted by the media and the public. Ms. Palin will be on the campaign trail for just over 60 days. Not much time for all of us to learn about her.
And, to be fair, I wouldn't call her a "terrible" pick, I would call her a "surprisingly unqualified" pick, given the importance of the office she is being nominated to hold.
Posted by: fbear | Aug 31, 2008 11:01:56 AM
Jack,
Howard Dean was Governor of Vermont for over eleven years. Sarah Palin has been Governor of Alaska for less than two years, which means she has not had to govern based on the results of a previous legislative/budget cycle.
She's also the governor of a state with a budget anomaly--Alaska's government is funded by oil revenues, so she hasn't had to deal with the budget wrangling and trade-offs that happen in most states.
You're also ignoring the fact that it's not just her lack of experience, it's also things like the fact that she's said she's ignorant about Iraq. You'd think someone with a son about to be deployed there that she'd have looked into it a bit.
I also wonder about the wisdom of a parent of a four-month-old special-needs child running for one of the top two offices in the land. Most of the parents I've known at that stage, men and women, found it challenging dealing with a regular 9 - 5 job.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Aug 31, 2008 11:36:54 AM
I also wonder about the wisdom of a parent of a four-month-old special-needs child running for one of the top two offices in the land. Most of the parents I've known at that stage, men and women, found it challenging dealing with a regular 9 - 5 job.
Please, please, make this an issue in this campaign.
And don't forget to defend the state trooper who tasered his 11-year-old stepson while you're at it.
Oh, and please also tell us what 12 years as a governor of small state teaches you about being President of the United States that 2 years doesn't teach you. Because that same argument would seem to apply to being a U.S. Senator for 3 years versus 21 years.
Of course, we could settle all of this right now if we would all just agree that both John McCain and Joe Biden are qualified to be president, while Sarah Palin and Barack Obama are not.
Posted by: Jennifer | Aug 31, 2008 11:38:59 AM
It was Matt Davis, not Matt Singer, who called the future Vice President a bitch.
He's a "journalist" for the Portland Mercury. But he's not bitter, and loves to see women succeed.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 31, 2008 11:39:21 AM
Let's face it: If you guys really thought Sarah Palin was such a terrible pick, you wouldn't be wetting your collective pants over it.
Actually, my pants are mostly dry, but there's a difference between whether someone is a "good" pick electorally and whether they'd do well behind the desk in the Oval Office.
The scary thing (for me) is that I think this is might be a close election, despite what some people here see as an obvious advantage for Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin, and that the latter pair still have a chance of winning.
As someone who was of the opinion that George W. Bush would make an incompetent president back in 2000, it gives me no great satisfaction to see someone like John McCain in the running for the White House, because I don't consider him competent, much less his running mate. And I think it's entirely possible that they could win.
Posted by: Bob B | Aug 31, 2008 11:39:52 AM
That you don't agree with her politics should not be a suprise. And that doesn't make her less qualified. She's more qualified than the top of the Dem ticket. That her husband tried to get his mean drunk brother-in-law, who tasered his step son for fun, fired, will only endear Palin to most of the country. Keep underestimating her. The arrogance worked real well with Kerry and Gore.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Aug 31, 2008 11:47:15 AM
Jack, if we agree that the vice presidency is important, I wonder if you think two meetings with Palin does this decision justice.
Posted by: local mom | Aug 31, 2008 11:54:01 AM
Mr. Roberts - Sarah Palin's decision to run for this office while she has a 4 month old infant with a genetic disability is, quite frankly, what causes me to be most concerned about her judgment. She is obviously pro-choice, and I commend her very personal decision to have her baby despite his genetic condition. Here's where I have a problem: she returned to work just THREE days after the delivery; she is taking on a very challenging campaign schedule with a four month old infant with a disability; her daughter, not she herself, held the infant during the announcement of Sarah's candidacy for Vice President. Makes me wonder if she is in denial about this infant, or uncomfortable about his disability, or just putting her own needs ahead of her family. Who is caring for the infant now? Has she bonded to him and if so, how can she leave him while she campaigns? Little Trig has very special needs and it does not appear that his pro-choice mother is demonstrating the appropriate attention to that detail. It makes her look pro-HER choice!
For the sake of her baby, I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by: mlw | Aug 31, 2008 11:59:34 AM
Please, people, Jack Roberts isn't a troll. Like all of us, some of his comments are more thoughtful, some less, but he never falls to the level of pure venom or vacuous propaganda that distinguishes a troll. Insults are never helpful.
Sarah Palin is unqualified and deeply conservative in a way that doesn't jive with the beliefs of most Americans, but no one who has read much about her would call her dishonest, much less some of the less polite terms people have used. It is sufficient to simply tell the truth about her, not take her flaws to an illogical extreme. As Obama put it about about McCain, it's not that she doesn't care, it's just that she doesn't get it.
Let's face it, although I deeply disagree with her positions, it would be reasonable to appoint her to Interior or Energy, since those positions match her background and aren't so important that you can't take some risks. However, putting her a heartbeat away from the Oval Office is too much of a risk. Of course, McCain has stated many times that he has no respect for the VP office anyway, so you might consider her nomination even more insulting.
I like the analogy to Clarence Thomas. Like Palin, he was underqualified for his position and chosen entirely for his immutable identity, albeit race instead of gender. Like Thomas, her selection was apparently a deliberate insult to her highly qualified successor. I'm not a big Clinton fan, but I hope she doesn't have to go to her grave like Thurgood Marshall, watching her "successor" demolish everything that she's worked for her whole life.
Posted by: genop | Aug 31, 2008 12:22:31 PM
How much experience did Obama have in presidential campaigning before he took on and beat the Clinton machine? The guy's a quick study and brilliant. Those qualities reflect fresh air after eight years of stale executive governance. A lifetime of experience means little to a slow learner. I'll take curiosity and intelligence over hubris and experience any day. McCain's choice for VP is consistent with preserving the status quo, while pushing for Gov't intervention in women's rights and resource depletion. A solid choice if that's what you want.
Posted by: ginette mayas | Aug 31, 2008 12:23:31 PM
Stop the madness. I can still remember George H. Bush complaining about the "unfair pounding" leveled at his VP choice in 1988. Did he say something similar about Clarence Thomas? John McCain has spoken and in doing so has shuffled the deck. Let the new games begin and may the better man (Obama) prevail. John McCain knows what he is doing. I don't agree with candidate McCain 2008, but so be it. In the meantime even if this is a blog, please grow up. We are Americans, most of us civilized Americans. It is reprehensible to call the Governor of Alaska the "b" word (even though I am sure she would not flinch at leveling that word at another woman if the opportunity presented itself). Bill Clinton is absolutley right when he says the Constitution sets the criteria for president. In that respect Sarah Palin, McCain, Obama and the clerk at the supermarket (provided he or she is at least 35 years old and a US born citizen) are equally eligible to become president. The stakes are so high in this election. Democrats, right thinking Independents and progressive Repulicans must focus on the issues not the inevitable craziness of an election campaign.
Respectfully,
Working mother of toddler twins from Massachusetts
Posted by: Jack Bog | Aug 31, 2008 12:29:14 PM
Er, guys? She's done.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223
http://bojack.org/2008/08/clip_and_save.html
Posted by: local mom | Aug 31, 2008 12:32:04 PM
I also have twins, am the mother of five and worked while raising my family. My questions about Ms. Palin's choice to run for the second highest office in America AT THIS POINT IN TIME and in light of her situation, I feel, are legitimate. I am not calling her names, I am not belittling her, I am simply questioning her decision. As a Mom, I feel I am entitled to ask these questions - and so are other Moms. We will not all agree on the answer.
Posted by: Ed Bickford | Aug 31, 2008 12:42:38 PM
The qualifications for the offices of President or Vice President is laid out in the Constitution:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." (Article 2, Sec. 1)
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." (Amendment 12)
Those are the qualifications in full, other than convincing the actual people of the United States that the candidate will properly represent the will of those people in accordance with their Constitution. So the bankruptcy of any shouts of lack of qualifications of either of slates of candidates is exposed.
The truth is that we need to know well the character and philosophy of government of the nominees; that cannot be learned by the electorate in two short, busy months. It becomes more acutely necessary to know the Vice Presidential nominee who is running as back-up to a man in his seventies.
What raises the ire of myself and many others on this blog is the sheer cynicism behind the choice of an unknown woman for VP, which seems merely aimed to exploit a perceived discontent with the loss of the nomination by Hillary Clinton. Their assumption that the lack of any presence on the national political scene by their nominee should be of no concern to the electorate is insult added to injury.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: janek | Aug 30, 2008 5:06:14 PM
She's Pro-Life, but not if you're a moose, wolf, or polar bear.