Ok, so I maybe a little ignorant on this one but can someone please tell me why Sarah Palin is John McCain's VP nominee?
I mean I would not argue with this photo or some of the other ones I found on the web (see cover of Vogue spring 2008), but come on....can it be a little more obvious we are trying to ride the Hillary wave? Her personal issues aside, she's from the great state of Alaska....a place I very much want to adventure in and a place I would respect any strong person from. But how does being a governor for less than 2 years in a state that is light years away geographically, culturally, and most importantly economically from the nations population base qualify you for being capable to assist a commander and chief who's showing his age at best?
Maybe I'm showing my youth by only appreciating this photo, but what characteristics that would make her a suitable VP beside a shoot first attitude does she show? Cheney at least can be diplomatic and is very smart. Her attitude I'm sure works in towns of 200 hundred and cities of 10,000, but this is the USA and we don't just show up to work and knock heads together to get things done. Alaska's population is 626,392 as of the 2000 census, the USA as a whole has 305 million people......so when someone like former Governor Tom Ridge (Republican from PA, homeland security guy, etc.) says she is more fit to lead than Barack Obama or John McCain because she has been a governor for not even2 years, I want to know why?
Am I missing something? Stubah confused....
10 comments:
According to the Republican's she's supremely more suited to serve than Barry because of her "executive" experience (at least that's what First Lady Laura Bush just enlightened America with to Brian Williams live from the Convention just a few moments ago).
According to the Democrats, she fails on all points, for exactly what you point out.
According to me - she was a clear pander to the conservative base. That base does what DEMS don't do: they go out and actually vote. And they ALWAYS vote regardless of what they threaten.
And Palin wins on all points for them because she is anti-abortion, skeptical on the environment (i.e., open to drilling everywhere), pro-business and she's a strong WOMAN so they get points for nominating a minority.
McCain could have either gone Lieberman to truly garner those people on the fence - OR - someone like Palin to mobilize his true conservative base without losing his "maverick" status. He chose the later. And I don't see him choosing Palin as trying to garner disenfranchised Hillary voters. On the contrary, this was a calculated, tactical and brilliant choice for him to firm up the conservative base because they've been whining about how they weren't going to support him. He seemingly has succeeded.
I think I'll shut up now - I'm too talkative today.
- JARRIN
This is a great discussion. As an INDEPENDENT I would have liked to have McCain pick Lieberman. I think it would have been a great thing for our country to have a "down the middle" team (hey folks - this is as down the middle as you get in our politics) lead our country.
I don't think Obama has any experience and I don't think Palin has any expereince. Both are "stars" in their respective parties. Both sides can argue all day about which has more experience (and I listened to those debates all last night from Newt, Hatch et al) but let's not fool ourselevs...neither have the experience to be president (IMO). That being said, Woodrow Wilson was simply the president of Princeton and a governor for 2 years before he became commander in chief. Truman (one of the best presidents of the 20th century) was hardly a "chum" of FDR's and was a haberdasher (of all things!) prior to his scant career in the senate. Ike (the other great prez of the 1900s) NEVER held political office...but he ran a war.
I like Obama (much more than I do Kerry) but he was WRONG on the biggest issue (IMO) that has come to fruition since he was elected into the Senate; the Surge. The surge has worked. If we did what Obama wanted to do, Iraq could have become a Darfur. I "like" Biden (as I "like" Obama) too, but think he is all over the place.
I am not sure whether Palin will shore up many votes or not...her selection is of course pandering to the Clinton folks but hey, that's politics.
STUBAH,
Seriously, that be one hott gub'nah.
Two reasons we now know her:
1) McCain needed to fire up the conservative base with a "surge" of excitement
2) McCain needed to get a few disaffected Hillary voters in swing states
In all cases, a VP nominee is supposed to round out whatever weaknesses, real or perceived, could be issues for the presidential nominee on election day. Yes, these often take the form of "demographic weaknesses" that might make it hard to win over a particularly important demographic of the electorate, so you end up with the possibility of a guy like Romney, who could help tip Michigan to McCain, or Lieberman, who could help lure more disaffected Dems in swing states to McCain's side, or Lindsey Graham, who could help in the south. Look at Obama-- Biden helps blunt criticism of Obama's lack of experience, particularly in foreign affairs, helps to win a few Catholics, and helps to win a few Pennsylvanians (supposedly).
So why Palin? McCain has never been a darling of the more conservative wing of the Republicans, and these conservatives don't come out in droves for him; this was not about to change in this election cycle. The Republican fear was that the Obama-wave would overwhelm any chance McCain has because the conservatives (and there are lots) would stay home. And although JARRIN says it'd never happen, he's wrong. Yes, most rock-solid conservatives would get out and vote, but this election hinges on a few percentage points in a few battleground states, so McCain counts on ALL of these people on the far right as much as Obama counts on ALL of the Daily Kos leftists. He needed a strong conservative on his ticket. What did he also need? Excitement to counterbalance the buzz Obama has.
Would he have found a strong conservative elsewhere? Sure, but consider how these folks would be perceived by the middle ground of the electorate. Excitement and buzz? Consider (not necessarily my opinions, but how they'd be portrayed):
- Romney (too standard. Smug, rich, white guy, more of the same)
- Leiberman (boring old guy, typecast as old-Gore-guard by conservatives, major pro-choice issue for conservatives, typecast by liberals as a traitor, typecast by Obama as nothing but a war-mongering lapdog of Pres Bush)
- Huckabee (crazy preacher, white guy, nothin' exciting)
- Tom Ridge (would be lampooned by the left for the terrorist warning system and hated by conservatives for his pro-choice stance, although he would help in Penn.)
Major downsides to all of the above. *No* excitement factor, and excitement is what McCain needs to overcome the Obamania.
So what could be more exciting to conservatives (and maybe the electorate in general) than:
- pro-life
- gun-rights supporter
- someone who has stood at the battle-line of energy independence and conservation
- executive experience, unlike any of the other 3
- a family gal
- a hottie, to boot
???????
I take issue with the Obama-loving media's predictable insinuation that she "doesn't have enough experience." Please. Obama's "real world" experience pales in comparison.
- He's traveled the world? Big deal. She's lived off the land and can fend for herself (would like to see him try that). While he was living the life of riley at his elite Hawaiian prep school, she was growing up as a blue-collar huntress o' the wild.
- Executive experience? Obama zip, Palin much more than zip (if not lengthy), and she's not even the top of the ticket. Obama and Biden (and even McCain) have no room to talk here. Before you laugh at Palin's mayorship of a town of 9000 and governorship of a state of 600K, think about whether you would make the same comments about someone who was CEO of a Fortune 500 company of 9000 or (gasp) 600K. Governorship is no piece of cake, and Alaska is a tricky state of contradictions. Oil companies vs. nature, city growth vs. preservation, hunting rights vs. conservation, the good-ol' boy network of Juneau vs. the common man. Politics is politics, it's as alive and well in Alaska as anywhere else, and she's proven she can succeed. Let's not forget that her national guard (she is the Commander in Chief as governor, after all) units are the ones who scramble jets to intercept Russian bombers as they tarry along the borders of Alaskan territory. Not that she has any real control over this on a day-to-day operational basis, but it's silly to claim that her "executiveness" in general is somehow not enough. Ideally, yes, she would have much more time in governorship than 2 years before being a VP pick, but Obama/Biden will have a hard time throwing rocks as they sit inside their glass house on this one. Within a year of sitting as VP, she will have been part of enough substantive discussion on foreign or domestic policy that all arguments will be blunted.
- Living out what she preaches? Been there, done that. You may disagree with her pro-life stance, but she and her family are walking her talk.
- Charisma? Nice try. Biden vs. Palin? Don't think we're seeing anything tip far in Biden's favor.
McCain blunts the Obamania momentum and makes a push for disaffected Hillary voters. Let's be real here; the Hillary women who are shrieking at Obama right now were not shrieking about real issues, but were shrieking with indignation that their "girl" was pushed down by the good ol' boy network (a ridiculous charge-- she ran a bad campaign). Some of these women voters of independent (not radically left) minds will eventually warm to Palin, and that obviously helps McCain. He shores up the conservatives who don't much like him. He brings excitement to his ticket, excitement that none of the guys above would come close to bringing.
It's an ingenius stroke on McCain's part. I like her. I won't claim to be independent on this. I would have voted for McCain anyway, albeit not exactly thrilled with either choice, but now I get to warm to the idea of a Palin '12 or '16 ticket. Oooooh yeah, all aboard the Fishnet Express. Come on, it's an Alaska fishing reference! ;-)
Do you really think she is a babe?
I don't at all.
Number one requirement for VP selection...
Ready to take over the presidency the day after the inauguration. See William Henry Harrison.
Is she ready...doubtful...
I think Cindy's video and speech were the best tonight. Maybe she should be the one running with Palin.
In all seriousness...a few points on John's comments:
- The conservative base will ALWAYS rally;
- Palin's resume is extremely thin (see my blog later tonight for video analysis of Republican hypocrisy) and claims of "executive experience" are honestly laughable;
- SNOW...for real, you honestly fear Russia invading us through Alaska? That's pretty funny.
JARRIN
PS - She's still soft on the eyes and that has nothing to do with anything...merely an observation.
PS - Yes, I'm that bored watching Maverick's speech.
I'll give you credit for watching the speech, J, even if you know it won't resonate with you. You're doing your civic duty.
KLIM, yes, I'll go on the record. I think she's a babe. Then again, it's not all looks; I prefer my vixen to be smart and independent, with "executive experience." :-)
GREAT Then! You should propose to Hillary!
Post a Comment