At This Point, Does Anyone Care?
After the crazy baby rumor stuff, and the hurricane, and the long Labor Day weekend, the GOP (already facing an ‘enthusiasm gap’) is going to have to really struggle to keep this convention on track. At this point, I can’t even find out the schedule for tomorrow. My man Rudy G. was originally scheduled to deliver the keynote, and I hope he still does, because it will take a speaker of stature to regain control…oh, and Rudy – bring that intimate, conversational style you brought in 2004…it wears well on you…
UPDATE 11:17 p.m.: I have some thoughts sloshing around in my giant brain that I’m struggling to articulate in a way that is fair to all parties. They involve the Palin pick, McCain’s Joe Lieberman preference, and the way, way too high priority party activists put on abortion. I’ve hinted a little about my views in the comments, but perhaps it’s best to leave things unstated for now. Anyway, here’s the latest from Elisabeth Bumiller:
A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain’s choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket.
On Monday morning, Ms. Palin and her husband, Todd, issued a statement saying that their 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, was five months pregnant and that she intended to marry the father.
Among other less attention-grabbing news of the day: it was learned that Ms. Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in dismissing the state’s public safety commissioner; that she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede; and that Mr. Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge.
Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin’s background. A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice. The campaign was still calling Republican operatives as late as Sunday night asking them to go to Alaska to deal with the unexpected candidacy of Ms. Palin.
Although the McCain campaign said that Mr. McCain had known about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy before he asked her mother to join him on the ticket and that he did not consider it disqualifying, top aides were vague on Monday about how and when he had learned of the pregnancy, and from whom.
While there was no sign that her formal nomination this week was in jeopardy, the questions swirling around Ms. Palin on the first day of the Republican National Convention, already disrupted by Hurricane Gustav, brought anxiety to Republicans who worried that Democrats would use the selection of Ms. Palin to question Mr. McCain’s judgment and his ability to make crucial decisions.
At the least, Republicans close to the campaign said it was increasingly apparent that Ms. Palin had been selected as Mr. McCain’s running mate with more haste than McCain advisers initially described.
Up until midweek last week, some 48 to 72 hours before Mr. McCain introduced Ms. Palin at a Friday rally in Dayton, Ohio, Mr. McCain was still holding out the hope that he could choose a good friend, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, a Republican close to the campaign said. Mr. McCain had also been interested in another favorite, former Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania.
But both men favor abortion rights, anathema to the Christian conservatives who make up a crucial base of the Republican Party. As word leaked out that Mr. McCain was seriously considering the men, the campaign was bombarded by outrage from influential conservatives who predicted an explosive floor fight at the convention and vowed rejection of Mr. Ridge or Mr. Lieberman by the delegates.
The left has been saying she wasn’t vetted – and you now what? They’re right…at least not vetted in any way comparable to other vice presidential picks…we’ll unfortunately probably revisit this later…
NYT hates GOP choice, calls in question process. I never would have seen that coming.
None of those things are a problem.
Everybody knew of the investigation, what does it add if she has a lawyer? Who wouldn’t?
Her husband has a DUI 22 years ago, shocking! I say don’t vote for him.
McCain knew about Bristol. How much “vetting” does it take? “My teen age daughter is pregnant and is marrying the boy”. Vetting done.
We still have to see how she does in the campaign but these process questions are just stupid.
The reasons to take her still outnumber the reasons not to take her.
What Bob said. Would you be worrying about a teenager pregnant out of wedlock if the candidate was a man?
Answer: No
Sexism is alive and well in the Republican Party; just ask Gerry.
Yup, the drunk driving thing is entirely irrelevant. I don’t really care about Palin’s husband’s arrest record. But the firings she’s done, and the membership in the AIP, are troubling.
You left out the part later in the article which reports that McCain offered her the job after the first interview. Also, nobody thought to talk to the people she works with: legislators and businesspeople.
I’ve hired people for jobs far less exalted than VP, and I wouldn’t think of offering anyone a job on the spot or not checking references. Nor would anyone I know. This is the guy who says we should elect him because of his management experience?
Troopergate? There’s nothing there.
Political Party? You really want to go there? Here’s a quote of my own from some time ago about Obama’s first political party:
Beautiful statement here, and unfortunately true:
Uh, no. We know a lot more about Obama than we know about Palin. There’s not much about him that we don’t know. No doubt we will learn a lot more about Palin in the days to come.
As for the media: McCain picked someone who is under investigation for alleged wrongdoing, was a member of a wacko political party (and addressed them last year), and has a pregnant seventeen year old. In my view, the latter is newsworthy because Palin advocates abstinence training instead of teaching kids about safe sex. Let’s face it: if she were not a woman and a mother, she wouldn’t be on the ticket, and she made a big deal of her family values in her acceptance speech. She knew the pregnancy would come to light — how could it not? — and if she wanted to shield her daughter from national exposure, she should not have accepted the job.
So thank God for the media, who is doing the investigative work which the McCain campaign failed to do.
While I think it doesn’t reflect terribly well on Sarah Palin that she’d accept a nomination she clearly should not have, I think the fault mostly lies with McCain for making such an uninformed pick without vetting her in the slightest. She’s under investigation for troopergate and will have to take time off of campaigning to give her deposition on the matter. Her securing of federal funds for Wasilla by way of earmark goes against McCain’s stated anti-earmark stance. Her membership in a secessionist party whose slogan is literally the opposite of McCain’s campaign slogan is troublesome at best.
Alaska Independence Party Membership? It’s not even true! It’s a made up story.
God, the libs are desperate.
We know all about Obama? Hmmm…how many MSM stories have you seen on Obama-Ayers? Obama-Rezko? Obama’s house? Obama and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act? Obama’s shredding of the first amendment with his attacks on the American Issues Project ad?
Now, how many stories have you seen on Bristol Palin’s pregnancy?
Here…I’ll do a little of the research for you. You can do the rest yourself:
“Bristol Palin” – 830
“William Ayers” – 442
“Bill Ayers” – 137
Total stories mentioning Bristol Palin in the last 30 days: 830
Total stories mentioning William Ayers in the last 30 days: 579
Let’s check Google news:
“Bristol Palin” – 2548
“William Ayers” – 1517
“Bill Ayers” – 518
Total stories mentioning Bristol Palin in the last 30 days: 2548
Total stories mentioning William Ayers in the last 30 days: 2035
You keep throwin’ out talking points. I’ll keep shootin’ down with facts.
Let’s be honest with ourselves.
When the MSM tells us that no real vetting is done, they’re projecting. They didn’t vet her, so they assume that McCain’s people didn’t either.They were caught completely by surprise by the pick, and they can’t believe that if she’d been vetted properly that they could’ve been caught off guard like this. They can’t believe that McCain’s people might have just been discreet about the whole thing.
Oh, that first search was “Yahoo News”…sorry about that.
Talking points alert!
Palin has been a registered GOP since 1982. So, try again on the AIP thing.
Vetting! Vetting! Vetting!
Its like a chant with the Dem opposition.
Process is meaningless to most people. Only reporters and political professionals. They are mad because Palin was not one of the usual suspects.
Palin’s pros and cons are exactly what they were on Friday at 11am. Her speech on Wednesday, future interviews and her debate performance will tell the tale. In the meantime, the money and volunteers and enthusiasm she brings will help McCain in Misssouri and Ohio and Colorado and Virginia. You know, the places which will decide the election.
In the meantime, Obama is comparing himself to the opposition VP choice. He is using “small town mayor” which she has not been for 6 years. At some point, that talking point will collapse in on him.
Before Palin, Obama was 95% certain to win. A pick like this changes the race. Who else could he have picked who was a game changer? Romney and Huckabee are hated just as much as liked in the party. Lieberman is a Democrat. Jindal is even younger than Palin. Pawlenty is unknown nationally too and is boring. Like Biden. Unknown and boring.
Now I still think Obama will win but for the first time, a path to victory is actually there for McCain.
Facts? And the only sources you cite are right-wing blogs? Dig it.
Fargus, it’s not my fault you couldn’t take the time to look at the PDF of her registration.
Like I said, the MSM is projecting because of their own lack of vetting. And they’re still doing a stellar job.
What have we gotten since Friday?
She lied about the “bridge to nowhere”. FALSE.
She lied about Trig. It wasn’t really her baby!. FALSE.
She was a member of a secessionist party. FALSE.
Troopergate. Dead end.
She hired a lawyer to help her with troopergate. FALSE.
She wasn’t vetted. PROJECTION, and apparently demonstrably FALSE.
Archives of her newspaper aren’t available online and haven’t been accessed by anyone locally. FALSE.
She should stay home with her family in this time of need. SEXIST.
Her daughter getting pregnant reflects poorly on her. Oh God…if this is what you have to settle for, then you’re in deep trouble. There’s not a family in America that hasn’t had similar issues. Somehow I don’t remember Gore’s children being treated this way when they had drug issues. What the H***. I’ll go with SEXIST.
She used to be the mayor of a town with only 9,000 people, somehow forgetting that she is CURRENTLY the Governor of AK. If that’s your tactic, I’m going to call Obama a “community organizer” from now on and forget all about his Senate job that he doesn’t do anyway. Let’s go with SEXIST again.
Her husband got a DUI 20 years ago. SO?
She got federal money for her city as a mayor. TRUE, but isn’t that what mayor’s are supposed to do?
This would be funny if it weren’t so a) BIASED and b) PATHETIC.
Now, if only the press was so interested in Obama’s past…but I’ve given up on that. As I said earlier.
Vetting?
I snorted my coffee when I read this:
Wasilla City Council records are, of course, just the tip of the iceberg.
The problem is, of course, not Palin, who is, I’m sure, very sweet and cooks up a mean Moose Stew.
The problem is the strictly amateur hour nature of John McCain and his campaign.
Previously, I gave Palin three weeks (give or take a week). It begins to seem as if I was overly generous.
1) “Process is meaningless to most people.” It isn’t. You don’t pick someone to be VP on a hunch.
2) The statement that “no real vetting is done, they’re projecting” is untrue. The Times article interviewed a number of legislators and businesspeople in Alaska (one of whom said “it’s a small state, everybody knows what everybody else is doing”) and none of them knew that she was being looked at. McCain picked her at the end of the first interview.
3) McCain had three months to make a choice and he waited until the last minute. He considered the political benefit of a surprise announcement to be more important than a careful investigation into her past and present. So much for putting the country first.
4) “Before Palin, Obama was 95% certain to win.” No way.
Peter: Why don’t you read some history about how VPs have been selected over history. Start with Truman.
Vetting is useful just so you know the potential traps, it has little to do about the calculations that go into selecting a running mate. Interviews are just not important.
Selection has mainly to do with ticket balancing. A VP is selected bcause she balances the top candidate in some way. Biden is a good example of that. Kaine and Clinton would have been good balance picks but for totally different reasons.
I repeat that process questions do not matter and that no one cares. Nothing that has been revealed so far has either 1. been unknown to McCain or 2. matters.
You just think that these “scandals” matter. They don’t. The reasons that favored this pick still are vaild.
Who would have been a better pick to help get McCain elected? That is the standard.
Since Schmidt took over, it has been a machine.
Uh, Truman had been in the Senate for ten years when FDR picked him. After chairing the Truman Commission, he was nationally prominent. In no way did he come out of left field. There’s just no comparison.
First we heard that Obama was unqualified because he is purportedly inexperienced. When Palin was nominated, we then heard that experience is no big deal.
When Biden was picked, we heard how adding a Washington insider to the ticket negated Obama’s call for change. It’s good to learn that a “VP is selected because she balances the top candidate in some way.”
We now hear that “process questions do not matter and that no one cares.” I never heard that one before. Might as well throw darts.
I think that sooner or later you will come to the grudging realization that McCain picked the wrong person for the wrong reasons.
You are missing the Truman point. FDR had zero realtionship with Truman. He was picked because of political calculations. Like all VPs.
Ok, look at Eisenhower and Nixon. What kind of relationship did Ike have with Nixon? How many time do you think they talked?
President and VP. Are they different somehow?
Not from me. My picking on Biden was based on the fact that he is a blow hard.
I still say that “vetting” has little to do with it. McCain was not throwing darts. He was making the political calculation that he had to 1. pick someone who brough excitement and 2. helped him with the majority of the GOP. Palin meets that. Who else would?
In fact, instead of this bad selection, who should have been the pick? One name.
If she performs badly, sure. I have said all along that it was up to the actual campaign.
If she does well, will you admit you were wrong?
He is.
To quote my father…what’s this “we” stuff. Do you have a mouse in your pocket? I’ve never heard any such thing.
It does.
Ok, whatever. Not sure what your point is here.
Which wrong reason is that? That she’s pro-life, a proven reformer, has executive experience (unlike anyone else on either ticket), has business experience (unlike anyone else on either ticket), she’s pro-family, has had to work for her success and hasn’t had it handed to her by a political machine, is incredibly smart, has excited the base, can actually be a “candidate of change” since she’s from about as far outside the beltway as possible, is pro-2nd Amendment, is pro-small government, and has no fear of political machines or the media?
The reason why libs hate Palin isn’t because she’s the wrong candidate, but because she’s the right one.
Bob:
1) The issue is not whether or not McCain has a relationship with Palin or not. It is whether she is the right person for the job, and whether he did sufficient due diligence to find out.
2) VP can become President. You can’t excuse the wrong choice simply because it’s the VP job. If experience matters, then it matters for both.
3) Plenty of others have attacked Biden for being a Washington insider.
4) So McCain picked her because he “was making the political calculation that he had to 1. pick someone who brought excitement and 2. helped him with the majority of the GOP.” Both are political calculations and have nothing to do with whether she is qualified for the job. And I thought he always put country before politics?
5) He should have picked Chuck Hagel. Someone who is truly a maverick would have made that kind of choice. Picking someone because she “brings excitement to” and “helps with” the base is not emblematic of being a maverick.
6) If she performs well, then of course I will admit to being wrong. I am a married man and admit to being wrong pretty much on a daily basis.
Chris:
1) I’m glad that you are so thrilled with her. To me, being against legal abortion, being pro-family (whatever that means), and has excited the base aren’t exactly positives. As for business experience and executive experience: our current President has both, and look where we ended up.
2) I don’t hate Palin. Frankly, I think she’s kinda hot. For someone who (like me) was raised to believe that voting Republican is a crime against nature, the thought of fantasizing about Republicans is the new taboo.
I think it’s worth noting that while Sarah put the Palin in palindrome (Wasilla = All I Saw), it was Bristol who brought Juno to Juneau.
Hagel is about as unpopular among the GOP as Lieberman is with the Dems. There would have been a revolt at the convention.
Shrewd pick.
But nothing so far would disqualify her. So, what would due diligence reveal that he did not already know?
(Oh my god #22, thanks for being the 10,800,000th person to use that picture. I’m glad you brought that to our attention. Have any Palin Halloween pictures?)
1) You asked who McCain he should have picked. Not my fault that the talent in the GOP is pretty thin. Admittedly Hagel is unpopular with the Republican base — but if the only voters McCain can attract are from the base, he’ll lose by a landslide. Lieberman would have been a good choice, but of course he would never have been approved by the Taliban wing of the Republican party.
2) One thing that due diligence might have revealed is that she hired a lobbying firm and was very successful in getting earmarks for Wasilla:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090103148.html
So McCain’s description of her as someone who “stopped government from wasting taxpayers’ money” by fighting earmarks is as phony as her claim that she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere.
A letter writer to the Times today answers Bob’s question better than I can:
“The vice-presidential picks of the two candidates indicate how they view the presidency.
Barack Obama chose his running mate after weeks of careful deliberation, finally settling on someone who is well known and with whom he can govern.
John McCain chose his running mate as a knee-jerk reaction, settling for someone he met only this year and interviewed only once as a potential running mate.
Mr. Obama took his responsibility seriously. Mr. McCain played politics instead. “
Very well put #27
Even if it’s found that Sarah wasn’t a member of The Alaskan Independence Party– we know her husband was, we know she spoke at the convention. Was she a fellow traveler with the AIP? was/is she sympathetic to their beliefs? or does she just like to go to her kids hockey games and shoot moose from a helicopter?
This is what happens when the media is caught by surprise and is unable to publicly vet a potential nominee. Now, after this knee-jerk decision, Senator McCain has made, Palin will be vetted by the media on a daily basis– everyday something new will come out– be it positive or negative. Essentially, we all know the skeletons of McCain, Obama & Biden, but really- who is Sarah Palin? Why wasn’t she on the Sunday Talk Shows like Biden was after he was put forth as the Democratic choice for VEEP. We cannot condone and accept impulsive decision-making. We had enough of that with the current occupant of the White House. McCain failed miserably at his first opportunity to make decision. Maybe he has the false impression that he’s still a maverick. America deserves better than playing politics with this position.
It seems this is yet another reason for me to cast my vote with Senator Obama.
Wow…lots of comments while I was out today.
Let me clarify one thing from the post above: I said Palin was not vetted to the extent other VP picks are. That’s possibly (probably?) not true. She WAS definitely vetted – but I don’t think the vetting was thorough enough. When you have a known quantity like Joe Biden or Joe Lieberman, the vetting process is less important than when you have a relative unknown…
Now, do any of the allegations/”scandals” unveiled over the last few days amount to much? No, not really…and I don’t think Palin should withdraw. As more of the backstory becomes known, however, I am less enamored of the pick than originally…
Concerned: “Joe Lieberman speaks tonight at the Republican Convention– I know he doesn’t agree with everything but for the most part he’s the same as McCain”
Seriously?
Can you name one domestic issue on which Lieberman and McCain agree? (No fair picking a resolution of support for hurricane victims or something like that — I mean a partisan issue with well defined Dem and GOP positions on which they both agree with one of the two parties.)
“The vice-presidential picks of the two candidates indicate how they view the presidency.”
Possibly.
“Barack Obama chose his running mate after weeks of careful deliberation, finally settling on someone who is well known and with whom he can govern.”
Perhaps . . . If, however, Obama thinks he can govern with a foolish blowhard who has ZERO credibility with fair-minded people, being the best-established liar and the most self-important egotist in Washington — no small task — then Obama is a fool.
His pick of Biden also completely undercuts his entire purpose for running for the presidency. Change? With a 36-year Washington insider, the sixth (soon to be fifth) longest-serving man in the US Senate? Scratch that.
Face it. Obama picked Biden because Russia invaded Georgia a few days earlier and he didn’t want to appear weak on foreign policy. This, in spite of the fact that, per Mark’s previous post about Biden’s idiotic fantasy-land proposal of declaring the democratically-elected, US-sponsored Iraqi government void so that we could try his little experiment that everyone who is serious about foreign policy knew would cause Iraq to descend into complete chaos and take the entire Middle East with it. The Democrats (likely with Biden in the lead) could have then blamed Biden’s sure-fire policy failure on Bush, and we all know the media would have been more than willing to accomodate.
“John McCain chose his running mate as a knee-jerk reaction, settling for someone he met only this year and interviewed only once as a potential running mate.”
It’s undeniable that McCain only met her this year and only interviewed her once.
McCain needed someone who was a proven reformer, someone who has the strength to take on entrenched interests — the kind before which Barack Obama kneels down to bring his offerings — and whom he could trust to carry on the banner of reform if, Heaven forbid, he was unable to continue. Did he really need to even meet her in person at all to determine this.
As far as your earlier suggestions/implications that he should have listened to the Republican Alaska Senate president who hates Palin, did it cross your mind why this person might despise the governor? Ever consider the possibility that Governor Palin is a reformer who has taken on the entrenched interests that have run rampant in Alaska and that the Senate president just might be a part of that.
How would you think the Abramoff expellees feel about McCain’s work exposing them? It seems that when McCain met Palin and learned about her record, he saw a kindred spirit (politically-speaking, of course).
“Mr. Obama took his responsibility seriously. Mr. McCain played politics instead. “
Your letter-writer had it backwards.
Were there political considerations/calculations involved in picking Palin? Of course. She’s a woman and might appeal to some disaffected Hillary supporters. She’s a conservative and will appeal to the base that isn’t thrilled with McCain. Were there political calculations in picking Biden? Have you been keeping a tally on how many times they referred to him being born to a blue-collar Irish Catholic family in Scranton, PA (the same kind of Democrats who voted for Reagan in the 80′s and Hillary earlier this year)? I lost count somewhere in the area of 5,000, a couple hours after Obama announced the pick.
The difference between the two is that Palin underscores McCain’s theme of reform and clean government, while Biden only undercuts the last, most central, and most abstract message that Obama had: change.
Thus, McCain remains true to his core beliefs, while Obama proves conclusively that he has none (other than that he is the Chosen One, of course).
Thanks for the laugh, Aaron. It’s especially funny to see you say that McCain is remaining true to his core beliefs after reports have come out saying that he really wanted Lieberman or Ridge to be his running mate. I guess “core beliefs” is code for “whatever the base commands him to do,” right?
Bite me Peter.
You know better than that. No one in American politics is like the Taliban. You need to retract that.
From last night’s festivities:
1) Fred Thompson accusing Barack Obama of allowing infanticide (“We need a president who doesn’t think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade”)
2) George Bush’s applause line of “if the Hanoi Hilton could not break John McCain’s resolve to do what’s best for his country, you can be sure that the angry left never will” (elect John McCain because we need a President who can stand up to the new axis of evil: Kos and HuffPo)
3) the omnipresent Country First posters: what’s that supposed to mean? That the other guy doesn’t? Any evidence of that?
Taliban might be hyperbole, but the intolerance and calumny coming from last night alone shows that it’s not that much of a stretch.
I have to say I’m a little confused by some of the reaction on the left to Palin’s selection. Let’s look at this line from Peter because I think it’s illustrative:
“First we heard that Obama was unqualified because he is purportedly inexperienced. When Palin was nominated, we then heard that experience is no big deal.”
What’s the argument here? That experience matters and Palin doesn’t have it? In which case I find no good argument for Obama. Or is it simply that McCain’s a hypocrite? In which case I agree but it’s really shockingly not useful to point out that a politician (especially a senator) is a hypocrite. And it also doesn’t disqualify Palin in any way, since she’s not the hypocrite in question. My point is simply that this argument doesn’t work. McCain knows that, of course, which is why he’s more than happy to watch the left hop into his trap.
Now, I also think the “experience” argument has always been a red herring. It’s why I was comfortable supporting Obama over Clinton in the primary, and it’s why I’m fine with Palin now. The rest of the arguments against Palin strike me as similarly useless: troopergate is garden variety politics, as is earmark flip-floppery. And trying to paint Palin as some kind of wacko secessionist is a really good way to waste oxygen.
Finally: Peter, we agree that there is a spectacularly ugly side of the GOP. Support for torture, the equation of liberalism and treason, and on and on. I think Taliban is a big stretch, but the damning point is it’s a stretch of degree rather than kind. That’s why I’m supporting Obama, even if my heart is really with Sarah Palin (despite some of her unfortunate positions on science questions).
(Mark: If Palin has no other value, she’s at least driven me somewhat back to the conservative side of your comments section.)
Ryan:
1) The argument is that for the McCain campaign, experience was a sine qua non. Until it wasn’t.
2) While it’s hardly shocking that a politician would flip flop – especially McCain – his choice of VP was the single most important decision of his campaign, and he made a choice which was diametrically opposed to the mantra he repeated every day for the past few months. On the Flip-Flop-O-Meter, it’s off the charts.
3) I’m not sure if Troopergate is “garden variety politics:” firing someone because he wouldn’t fire a trooper for her personal vendetta (if that’s what happened) poses conflict of interest and other legal issues. As for the other Gate (broken-watergate), I couldn’t care less. Earmark flip floppery is relevant because McCain picked her because she is supposedly a fearless enemy of pork –so evidence to the contrary is most relevant.
However, as we’re learning more about her, she sounds more and more extreme. Her campaign for Mayor was based on her religious and anti-abortion beliefs (as though being Mayor of a podunk town has anything to do with either). As Mayor, she asked for the resignations of the people who supported her rival and fired some of them (shades of Alberto Gonzales!). Municipal employees were hired using political and religious litmus tests (Alberto Gonzales again!) She forbade people who worked for her from talking to the press. She asked the town librarian to ban certain books, and fired her when she didn’t. And so forth and so on (for the details see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/us/politics/03wasilla.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin)
So there are plenty of issues with her, and the GOP party line is to revert to old tactics: claims that looking into these issues is sexist (as though her gender should provide a shield from legitimate questions) and the result of a media vendetta (McCain’s group didn’t spend much time checking her out – why shouldn’t the media?). You now have a whine-a-thon from the McCain campaign (cancelling his appearance on Larry King because a CNN reporter had the audacity to ask a spokesman to give an example of her purported foreign policy experience – which of course he couldn’t do).
I think that the GOP realizes that McCain’s pick is turning out to be disastrous – or so one would think based on what is said when unaware that the mike is on:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/top-gop-pundits-fault-palin-selection/
peter,
1) The McCain campaign has not changed their message at all. As a matter of fact, they released an ad today once again belittling Obama’s experience. You can keep repeating this all you want, but repetition doesn’t make it true.
2) Since I’ve repeatedly destroyed point 1), that makes your point 2) pretty much nonsense.
3) Yawn.
Wow, you found two “pundits” who are against the selection. And one of them already has a bone to pick with McCain. I’m sure that you could have found two no matter who he picked. I assure you that is not the position of most of the conservative pundits. See here for a partial list.
I guess Jesse Jackson must think the pick of Obama is disastrous too?
Ryan,
Thank you. I, for one, do not equate liberalism with treason. I think there are some liberals (a very small number) that have committed acts that you could stretch the truth to describe as “treason”, but I honestly believe that even those people thought they were doing what was best for their country. In most cases I disagree, but that doesn’t make them evil…it just means we see things differently and have different priorities.
1) John McCain has said for months that Obama was not qualified to be President because he lacked experience, especially regarding foreign policy. He then chose a VP candidate with much less experience, who (if elected) could well become President. In other words, he chose someone who didn’t meet his own standards. Experience was crucial when it was Obama’s which was being questioned, but when Palin’s lack of experience is questioned, then suddenly experience is irrelevant.
It’s irrelevant that “the McCain campaign has not changed their message at all” — i.e., they still attack Obama on his experience level — because their acts are diametrically opposed to their message. Sort of like the governor of the state which gets the most federal aid per capita positioning herself as an enemy of government waste.
2) Peggy Noonan was on television this morning praising Palin and talking about how we are a “nation of Wasillas.” This was before her real thinking on the subject was inadvertently revealed. I’m not sure how many Republican pundits sing Palin’s praises in public forums but secretly acknowledge that picking her for VP was a disastrous choice — but I am sure that it’s far more than these two.
You are right….I suppose we would have to freeze a moment in time where both Lieberman and McCain agree on a domestic issue. With Senator McCain he does seem to vascillate a lot on the issues making it difficult to pin him down on a position be it immigration, tax-cuts, offshore drilling, torture, health care, social security privitization, etc. It’s the sad thing about the McCain candidacy he really was a maverick at one time– now, it appears he is guided by whatever is politically expedient. Again you are right that would be a futile exercise to find an area of agreement between those two.
Peter, for what’s worth, Noonan defends her comments and (surprise!) says she was quoted out of context here…
Ryan, I noticed!…
Peter
1) I was wrong, perhaps repetition will make this true. Keep tryin’.
2) Whaddya know…Noonan was taken out of context, and that’s not what she meant by “it’s over” at all. Also, there’s a great difference in the people I pointed out. Almost all of them have been highly critical of McCain, to the point of saying they would not vote for him. Now they are enthused because of Palin. I can guarantee you that if Palin was bothering them, they’d say so.
Now, if you want to find a conservative pundit that really doesn’t like Palin, I suggest Charles Krauthammer. He’s been outspoken in his belief that it’s a bad choice for McCain. Of course, he also thinks that McCain can win by campaigning on the surge, so I’m going to have to question his judgment when it comes to McCain.