by publius
As Hilzoy correctly pointed out, the real significance of McCain’s Russian Roulette blind VP nomination is that it reflects upon his judgment and illustrates that he will govern on the fly. Yglesias adds another crucial point, and I’ll just quote him:
Looking at the Sarah Palin debacle, one is reminded that one of the principal powers of the presidency is the power to appoint people — federal judges, ambassadors, cabinet secretaries, subcabinet officials, FEC members, the Amtrak board, all kinds of things. Presidents don’t always put the best people in these positions, but normally they give the matter some thought. Even an unqualified crony gets his job because somebody knew him. Is McCain going to just pick people at random in order to “shake things up?” Not bother to do any vetting in order to preserve the element of surprise?
I’d add that the selection is deeply troubling even if the selection turns out ok. The President shouldn’t play dice with the universe.
Prediction: Palin is off the ticket next week. McCain then goes with Huckabee and they play the “Palin was harassed off the ticket by godless liberals who hate motherhood, children, and America” card all the way to the White House.
You heard it here first.
cynic’s answer: (True) Random choices would be a real improvement over the current GOP SOP.
Someone mentioned the other day after the Palin pick that, for a change, they couldn’t wait until the next Maureen Dowd column.
Here it is.
She wonders: “Why do men only pick women as running mates when they need a Hail Mary pass? It’s a little insulting.”
The Son of Cain could also up the ante and replace Palin with Malkin (and threaten that the next candidate would be the blonde banshee).
McCain picked Palin because the fundamentalists knew her even if he didn’t.
Though his comment that he had been following her career for years and years is as laughable as the rest of this situation.
That old Maverick didn’t even pick the guy he wanted. He’s controlled by the religious right-wing and lobbyists.
Ugh: “Prediction: Palin is off the ticket next week.”
Palin does have a ready-made excuse. She could step down and say something to the effect that, upon further review, she doesn’t see how she could devote enough time to the job of vice president and being a mother of five at the same time.
But such a resignation would really expose McCain’s lack of judgement, so I don’t see it happening — unless Palin herself really decides she’s had enough already.
props for the Einstein quote.
Ugh: You heard it here first.
Actually, I suggested in one of the many previous threads that McCain chose Palin in order to distract the news cycle from Obama – and that he’ll ditch her on September 12th.
Shall we have bets?
The Athenians filled every office except general with citizens chosen by sortition, and that was the very womb and cradle of democracy.
I say let’s get rid of the Plum Book, use the mailing list from the IRS’s stimulus checks, and mail out scratch tickets:
Look, honey! I’m the Assistant Undersecretary of Transportation for Procurement!
McC’s VP decision-making process is frankly cavalier.*
Haven’t we seen this before? “Don’t bother me with facts, I know what I’m doing.” So familiar, and somehow not at all comforting! All hail John McCain, “W2.”
*marked by or given to offhand and often disdainful dismissal of important matters.
Prediction: Palin is off the ticket next week. McCain then goes with Huckabee and they play the “Palin was harassed off the ticket by godless liberals who hate motherhood, children, and America” card all the way to the White House.
That’s a frightening thought. But a little reflection reminds me that the “godless liberals” card is only valid with the lunatic 28%. The center, among whom McCain used to enjoy some support before he decided to blow it all by pandering, wouldn’t be favorably disposed toward any card from that same deck.
Actually, your scenario would probably lead to great turnout among the looney 28% – and a 325-213 win or something for Obama.
Ugh: No, I think, if she goes, she’ll say that she has to spend more time with her family, what with her son deploying and her daughter getting married.
But I’m not holding my breath. Unless something extraordinary happens, she’ll stay.
This is too rich.
TPM notes that the McCain camp is “post-vetting” Palin.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Shall we have bets?
I claim first dibs on predicting she’ll be off the ticket here. I said two weeks here. So that would be Sept 13th.
Well, I’ll stick to September 12th, which is a Friday.
Anyone else care to opt for other days? Winner wins something prizelike.
TPM notes that the McCain camp is “post-vetting” Palin.
who here thinks they’ll come back with anything but “not only is her record clean, but our research shows that Sarah Palin is uniquely qualified to be Vice President” ?
Ugh: No, I think, if she goes, she’ll say that she has to spend more time with her family, what with her son deploying and her daughter getting married.
Sure, she will say that in her official statement, but an added aside from the McCain camp will be “We can’t believe all the vicious rumors about her and her family by liberal bloggers, some of whom have Barack Obama’s name in them.” Just like this week, with an official statement that announced the pregnancy (along with various extraneous unnecessary info), with the campaign’s aside that this was to debunk “nasty liberal blogger rumors.”
And there will be not incriminating stuff (left) in the archives 😉
In the event of a McCain presidency, where would one submit his name for such an appointment.
Or is it completely random?
TPM notes that the McCain camp is “post-vetting” Palin.
In other circles this is known as “damage control”. See also: barn doors as they relate to equine escape attempts.
Keep pounding away on McCain’s judgment in this.
It’s the same sort of rash judgment that he used on Sept 12 when he said *next up Iraq*. It’s the same sort of rash judgment that led to his chest beating *we must teach Russia* when there wasn’t a thing the US could do even if he was right, which he wasn’t as it turns out much more complicated than his simplistic response.
This pick can be extrapolated to many of his career and, dare I say, personal life choices. He’s a documented gambler and it shows in his approach.
This country is facing very serious and very complicated problems. We simply cannot afford more intellectually incurious, black and white kneejerk governance.
ENOUGH!
Since we’re taking bets on a Palin regsignation, I’ll go with Saturday, Sept. 27 — the day after the first presidential debate — and right before the veep debate scheduled for Oct. 2.
That way, the new veep will be insulated by the low-expectation card the Republicans love to play.
FWIW, I hear intrade has a “palin not making it to the election contract” which is currently at around 18…
That way, the new veep will be insulated by the low-expectation card the Republicans love to play.
I dunno the current pick seems pretty well inoculated on this front…
let not get too excited here, she’s not really a bad debater… and if she can B.S. her way through the issues, she’ll beat the low expectations by a mile. (see Bush, G.W., 2000)
Shall we have bets?
My bet is that it won’t happen. One impression I have formed at this point is that she is tough enough to play this game. She’s not going anywhere except I fear the WH.
I just wish she loved America more, that’s my biggest regret.
Heavens, I dislike what Maureen Dowd does.
I was joining in on the fun, OC, I don’t think she’s going anywhere, either — especially the White House.
Does making the cover of US Weekly along with Jennifer Aniston, Halle Berry, and David Duchnovny (sex addic!) make her a celebrity? Though I’m guessing they’ve probably had Obama on too.
Why is that OCSteve? Because she’s a pit bull?
Ara,
I’m not even sure what she was doing there, other than rambling on — to the point where the final line invoking the PTA and KGB really fell flat.
“Babies, Lies & Scandal” — what a headline for a future vice president.
All this seems so surreal.
My bet is that it won’t happen. One impression I have formed at this point is that she is tough enough to play this game. She’s not going anywhere except I fear the WH.
I’m with OCSteve on this “resignation date” bet – I just don’t see her being dropped from the ticket ever. McCain has too much of his mavericky self-image invested in this pick, he will never drop her now. Do you honestly think after having his hand forced on not gettting his 1st pick (his Sunni-Shia whisperer), he is going to give ground on his 2nd pick?
I disagree with OCSteve about Gov. Palin being the key which unlocks the door to the WH for the GOP this year. The variables are hard to juggle, but I think what she does in firing up the social-con base of the GOP (bringing in both votes and money) is partially offset by a corresponding effect on the Dem side (polarizing candidates tend to do that), and I think she may end up costing McCain enough votes on the moderate/indy side with voters who are concerned with her inexperience to offset the “hockey mom” appeal with voters who are still undecided. The net “Palin effect” is (I suspect) a wash.
McCain will have to win this election on his own, and he seems to have a hard ceiling of about 46% in the polls, whereas Obama is able to get up to and slightly above 50%. That means a slim Obama win, unless something changes. McCain is going to have to score a clear victory in one or more of the debates to shift this election that much. Palin alone won’t do it, unless Biden is an absolute ogre in the VP debate (anyone who thinks the Obama camp isn’t already gaming this scenario, raise your hand please).
Ara,
Read that Weekly Standard link. My reaction: And they think Obama is cocky.
Do you honestly think after having his hand forced on not gettting his 1st pick (his Sunni-Shia whisperer), he is going to give ground on his 2nd pick?
What if he thinks the uproar is a good enough reason to tell the “senior party leaders” to p!ss-off, drop Palin, and go back to his first pick?
OCSteve: My bet is that it won’t happen.
On your past track record, makes me feel quite safe to stick with September 12th.
Anyone else?
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
Technical question: Can the convention reject the presidential candidate’s choice for VP?
What would happen, if there’d be a “yes” to the Son of Cain but a “no” on the “Plain One”?
What if he thinks the uproar is a good enough reason to tell the “senior party leaders” to p!ss-off, drop Palin, and go back to his first pick?
Too late for that. It would be admitting he made a mistake the 1st time. Comparisons in the press with Eagleton in 1972 would be impossible to ignore, and the Obama camp would hang that like an anvil around his neck
The election would be over.
If McCain loses, and the choice of Palin is seen as a crucial element, this might have another positive side effect: hastening the GOP’s crackup along various fault lines. If you get sniping that she was a terrible choice, and a pander to the religious wing of the party, that wing is likely to feel even more marginalized.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
McCain gets in a pissing contest with CNN? And cancels an apperance with Larry King, the world’s most senile “journalist”? Are you kidding me?
I love the smell of bridges being burned in the morning. It smells like victory.
The Athenians filled every office except general with citizens chosen by sortition, and that was the very womb and cradle of democracy.
The Athenians were godless foreigners (or possibly godmore, which is worse). The fundies ought to get a proper apostolic lottery, like in Acts 1: 23-26, and then they can replace Judas.
I love the smell of bridges being burned in the morning. It smells like victory.
Maybe. But it also points out the big problem with our gov’t and journalism today: pose “tough” questions to candidates/the administration, like asking them to back up their ridiculous talking points, and your access is cutoff. We’ll see if CNN is brought in line by this and agrees to softball interviews (not that Larry King wouldn’t have been a softball), or if the bridge is truly burned. I’m hoping for the latter but betting on the former.
“Are you kidding me?”
LeftTurn beat me to that.
McCain relied on free media so long that it’s amusing that he is suddenly biting the hand that fed him.
But being afraid of being brushbacked by a Larry King softball is just, well, it’s just cowardly — it it weren’t so laughable.
Does making the cover of US Weekly along with Jennifer Aniston, Halle Berry, and David Duchnovny (sex addic!) make her a celebrity? Though I’m guessing they’ve probably had Obama on too.
I’m sure they have. I wouldn’t be the tiniest bit surprised if they’ve had McCain on the cover, and you can bet that they’ll put Biden on there if he ever does anything colorful enough to justify it.
Like it or not, the President, VP, and their families have become celebrities. Do you ever look at the tabloids in the supermarket checkout line? I do (I only look at the covers, I swear) and they’ve been making a big deal about senior political figures at least since the Clinton administration. McCain may not like it- heck, I don’t like it- but there’s a big market for the latest trashy gossip about these people.
Getting embarrassed by freaking Campbell Brown is laughable already! I mean for them going on Larry King must feel like the 60 Minutes gang showing up unannounced.
bedtimeforbonzo: My irritation was that they were going to have it both ways. To talk up her toughness, she was going to be some kind of Thatcherite “pit bull with lipstick”, but if someone criticizes her, they are going to retreat to the politics of victimhood.
It’s all just empty bluster anyway.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ: What line did Brown cross? Can someone articulate what she did wrong?
Maybe. But it also points out the big problem with our gov’t and journalism today: pose “tough” questions to candidates/the administration, like asking them to back up their ridiculous talking points, and your access is cutoff.
Agreed. But I think I see a media management problem developing with the McCain camp.
McCain’s personal bond with the MSM was built up over the years by giving lavish access to the media. Essentially he was the guy who showed up every day at the monkey cage in the zoo with a bag of treats to feed them, even on days when nobody else would.
But now he has taken Karl Rove’s people on, and their game is different – the tactic they know best is using access control as a tool for media intimidation. It is what they are best at and what they tend to revert to under stress. It also works better when you have a monopoly on access to the WH*
The problem for McCain is that these two approaches don’t necessarily have a positive synergy when you try to combine them. It is hard to be friends with the press and also make threats to hurt them by cutting them off – wielding the carrot and the stick at the same time is a tricky business.
*Instead, McCain has probably pissed off some long time campaign pros and other insiders in the GOP with the Palin VP pick, some of whom are going to work on burnishing their reputations with the press for the next go around in 2012 by dishing dirt to reporters regarding what they already see as a sinking ship.
Anybody want to bet that people in the Romney camp are not exactly heartbroken to see St. John in a fix, and are weighing the chances of their guy in 2012 against Obama/Biden vs. a McCain/Palin intraparty challenge? If I were a political reporter right now, that’s where I’d be drilling for oil.
Why is that OCSteve? Because she’s a pit bull?
Not knowing much about her (or Alaska politics) I’ve just been reading what I can find on her. I’ve seen a few things from Alaskans on both sides of the isle saying essentially “don’t underestimate her”:
What the Republicans missed about Sarah Palin then–and what the Democrats seem poised to miss now–is that she is a true political savant; a candidate with a knack for identifying the key gripes of the populace and packaging herself as the solution. That keen political nose has enabled her to routinely outperform her resume. Nearly two years into her administration, she still racks up approval ratings of 80 per cent or better.
Jes: On your past track record, makes me feel quite safe to stick with September 12th.
I hope you’re right. 😉
Ara: The Party of Bush/McCain wants to have it both ways? Surely, you jest.
What line did Brown cross? Can someone articulate what she did wrong?
Questioning a minion of Dear Leader.
Okay, OCSteve, two things to bear in mind. One is already coming true.
(1) Figuring out how to packaging yourself to 600,000 is very, very different than figuring out how to package yourself to 270 million. Alaska is small enough that a politician can do that with on-the-ground connections. Not so nationally. You’ve got to worry about what they think of you in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado, and New Mexico all at once.
(2) It’s much much easier to hide wacky stuff about yourself in local politics. There’s just nowhere near the same level of scrutiny.
I just don’t see a savant here. Case in point: her first five days haven’t been exactly smooth, have they? Not much finessing of the lovely news cycle. People are taking bets on whether she’ll make it through the week. Where’s the savant going to show?
I hope you’re right. 😉
Live a little. Bet on the 14th.
The Campbell Brown interview was very refreshing, and the McCain camps response demonstrates just how feeble the American media has become, it really does sadden me.
The other great example of this lately was the Samantha Powers mini-controversy where, accustomed to Washington’s habits, Powers thought she could simply declare certain disclosures ‘off the record’ and have them ignored by a foreign journalist, who would almost certainly never have had the opportunity to interview her again in any case.
This is really incredibly though, because this guy is actually the McCain spokesperson, if he can’t handle a little questioning, who can?
I am new to your blog (I swam in on the Sarah Palin tide.) but just wanted to say that you’re doing a fantastic job of delivering the news in a timely and fair matter. I will continue to visit this site, and you’ve been added to my daily reading bookmarks.
I’m glad to stumble into your corner of the internet!
LeftTurn: “Romney 2012” is indeed looking like a winner out of this whole mess. He’ll wind up thanking McCain in the end for not selecting him.
And to think, folks on the right were concerned about Romney because he wasn’t exactly one of them, being a Mormon and all.
Now they’ve got one of their own and she drafts her energy policy partly based on God’s will.
Every time I see a GOP operative on TV they mention “Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania” as if Sarah Palin had three more children named after those states.
I think voters in these states, and beyond, will be voting on their economic interests this time around and wonder how Palin is playing in the heartland, where they may be as bemused by this Alaskan politician as the rest of us.
From what I’ve seen from Palin’s five days in the national spotlight, Alaska bears little resemblance to the Lower 48, where it takes a little more than God’s will to get things done, as Katrina victims know all too well.
Realistically, I don’t expect Palin to drop out or anything like that. Nor do I expect her to be a total dunce and come off like a lesser muppet in her debate with Biden (not that it would matter if she did, the current president got away with it twice). I’m sure she’s far from stupid, although I do think that there is a high chance of her making some goof and being disproportionately punished for it over the next two months (the bridge to nowhere lie not being an auspicious beginning in that regard).
However, I would be very happy if the result is that she is a base-rallying pick that does little if anything to get votes in the middle, if her various mini-revelations rain on the RNC’s parade this week, and if McCain’s reputation as a decision-maker, steady-hand, and crisis-guy takes a severe dent.
So far the chances of those more realistic hopes look pretty good. I hope she is defined by her social policies more than anything else, and I hope that Obama-Biden closes the gap on national-security issues and general ‘safety/no-drama’ perceptions.
What line did Brown cross? Can someone articulate what she did wrong?
She pointed out repeatedly that the emperor had no clothes on, and laughed at him for it. Less metaphorically, she called him on his bulls***, repeatedly, and laughed at him when he wouldn’t (couldn’t) answer a straightforward question.
Did you watch the interview? Or maybe you were being sarcastic and I didn’t get that….
Ara: The points you make at 5:56 are spot-on.
PM: Welcome. To use your word, I stumbled onto this corner of the internet during the height of the primary season as a wayward Clinton supporter having never done the blog thing. If I have one complaint: ObWi = too addicting.
Ara: You may well be correct.
In other Palin news, she cancelled an appearance at a convention pro-life event today, and Fred Thompson is going to defend her tonight. Wee!
If you think Biden is going to mop the floor with her, check out this 2006 debate with Tony Knowles and the Independent candidate (via h/a). She handles herself very well I think. Will it scale to the national stage? Who knows.
Oh, and at around 15 minutes in, the journo really pushes her on abortion and she confirms that she “would choose life” even in the case of her own daughter being raped. Yikes.
I think another benefit of the Palin pick is that it is widely perceived by the electorate to have been an opportunistic, electoral decision. I hope that that will undermine McCain’s efforts to define Obama in his speech on Thursday night, because whatever he says will be perceived more through the prism of a politician saying whatever he feels like he needs to say. I guess what I’m saying is, I hope his credibility has taken a knock, as he has been given far too much credit for being straight-talking in the past.
I can’t make a guess, I’m not attuned to the rhythms. I mean, everyone thinks it will be a Friday because that is when bad news is traditionally dumped, but I can see a ‘well, normally we don’t do much news, but this time, we will plaster is wall to wall’ happening.
Assuming she stays, my thought on the most dangerous job this year: being one of the people asking qustions at the VP debate. Not since Judge Ito in the OJ trial has there been such a chance to either make or break a career.
Not sure why folks think he could. She’s not dumb. She’s going to be a quick study and she’s motivated to be a quick study.
Where she’s gonna be tripped up is in attitudes and values, and that’s hard to expose in a partisan debate. And any trip ups are going to be worth more if done by non-partisan sources.
“Though his comment that he had been following her career for years and years is as laughable as the rest of this situation.”
If “years and years” means “since 2006,” it’s perfectly reasonable. I’ve paid slight attention to her since then.
If it means more than that, it’s more questionable.
lj: You got me to thinking, so I turned to the google.
Gwen Ifill, the antithesis of the Keith Olbermann/Bill O’Reilly style journalist, will be the moderator.
Perhaps you’re right about the make-or-break part: Ifill has been rumored to be a candidate for the coveted Meet the Press anchor once Tom Brokaw calls it quits for goods.
(Google hits on “vice president debate 2008” are over 8 million, no doubt Palin-driven.)
McChicken.
Not sure why folks think he could.
Me neither – but I’ve seen that sentiment in comments here about a half dozen times since Friday.
OCSteve: Oh, and at around 15 minutes in, the journo really pushes her on abortion and she confirms that she “would choose life” even in the case of her own daughter being raped. Yikes.
Yeah, like I said: it’ll be interesting to compare-and-contrast her forced-pregnancy claims back two years when this wasn’t a real issue for her, with her public admission that in real life she’s pro-choice, yesterday.
You know, I think anyone could mop the floor with a politician who’s made that kind of public mix-up – especially if she starts out saying she’s still anti-choice. Was she lying Monday, when she said she was pro-choice? Did she lie two years ago, presenting herself as a forced-pregnancy candidate? What will she say, faced with this contradiction?
I wonder what kind of 3 a.m. phone calls the governor of Alaska gets.
Why would McCain cancel the Larry King spot? That only has two consequences:
(1) You don’t get to show up in front of the one of the world’s great softball lobbers on CNN in prime time.
(2) You give CNN and everyone else an opportunity to broadcast that you are protesting Larry King and show the original, humiliating clip again.
Not exactly in your self-interest.
I know it excites those people who think there is a big media conspiracy, but I thought the McCain camp thought this election would be won in the center, not on the fringe.
Isikoff:
[insert snarky My Fair Lady reference here]
Isikoff:
[insert snarky My Fair Lady reference here]
matttbastard,
What is the Alaskan equivalent to ‘move yer bloomin’ arse!”?
“If the McCain oxygen burns up her little lungs, let her seek some stuffiness that suits her. She’s an owl sickened by a few days of my sunshine. Very well, let her go, I can do without her. I can do without anyone. I have my own soul! My own spark of divine fire! And I was a POW!”
I thought the McCain camp thought this election would be won in the center, not on the fringe.
Christine Todd Whitman (who must be thanking her lucky stars that McC didin’t pick her) seemed to think this election would be won in the center, not on the fringe when she was interviewed this afternoon.
She also used the word “partisanship” without laughing or throwing up, so I guess she’s a GOPper through and through now.
======================
a team of former Bush White House aides
There’s that mavericky independent maverickness again!
Umm. Someone please explain this to me.
If Palin and McCain just wanted privacy for Bristol why on Earth is the boyfriend showing up at the convention?
[insert snarky My Fair Lady reference here]
No, let’s not. Fighting the sexism-on-the-blogs wars during the primaries was so much fun, that I’d like to do it again in oh, let’s say 100 years from now. In the meantime, no, don’t go there.
I don’t care how funny you think you are, it isn’t worth it. Do not say anything disrespectful which is not policy related, regarding Gov. Palin.
TLT,
true, but one gets overwhelmed when you read stories like this.
I’d note that the article quotes Steve Clemons, who says
Describing Biegun—a Russia expert who once served as staff director for Sen. Jesse Helms at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee—as a “big gun” in conservative foreign-policy circles, Clemens said “he will turn her into an advocate of Cheneyism and Cheney’s view of national-security issues.”
I see the neo-cons falling into line because Palin is a lump of clay to be molded, which I suppose could be taken as a sexist comment, but this is the only explanation that I can see with the conservative pundits who are not evangelical right who are able to keep a straight face while regurgitating the Palin talking points.
“There’s that mavericky independent maverickness again!”
I listened a bit to NPR today. It seemed like everyone–commentators, people in person-on-the street interviews, passing dogs, African grey parrots–were all using that word “maverick”. Seemingly intelligent people (not to mention parrots) really do behave like automatons when they start talking about politics.
What line did Brown cross? Can someone articulate what she did wrong?
She broke the rule that you’re only supposed to ask the question once, and accept whatever spin comes out of the Republican’s mouth as an acceptable answer to the question.
For what it’s worth, I think (as I said earlier) that it’s a mistake to underestimate Palin, and in particular the way she connects with people. On the other hand, I also think it’s a mistake to underestimate how hard it is to learn all the things she seems not to have been interested in all these years in one short month. If I thought the media would do a decent job of highlighting major mistakes, I’d be more optimistic about the debates, because in a world in which basic competence mattered, Joe Biden would, in fact, clean her clock no matter how quick a study she is. (I mean, it would be like me deciding to do brain surgery after a month of study: however quick a study I am, it wouldn’t be enough time.)
I’m betting, though, that a fair number of further wingnutty things come crawling out of the woodwork between now and then, and that unfortunately, that will matter more.
Yeah, like I said: it’ll be interesting to compare-and-contrast her forced-pregnancy claims back two years when this wasn’t a real issue for her, with her public admission that in real life she’s pro-choice, yesterday.
I still think that you’re misreading the her comments about her daughter choosing to keep the baby. She’s talking about keeping the baby vs. giving it up for adoption, not continuing the pregnancy vs. ending it.
In Palin’s mind, that’s a choice. It doesn’t bother her to eliminate options that you think should be available. As long as there are at least two options that she approves of, her daughter’s decision still counts as choosing to keep the baby.
Clemens said “he will turn her into an advocate of Cheneyism and Cheney’s view of national-security issues.”
That’s not “change”, that’s just John McCain and Sarah Palin bringing you more of the same in George Bush’s 3rd term.
That is the angle I would take in commenting on that story.
I mean the other bit is funny, and I hate to be a humorless scold, but I just think this is a time to be very careful not to hit the wrong buttons and give them an excuse to play the victim card.
I’m sure it is in the minds of most Americans, too.
Except…think about it. Grandchild of the vice president of the United States? Given up for adoption? Instant target for attacks, kidnappings, extortion, terrorist attacks, etc. Not to mention you can kiss anonymity goodbye from day one.
Some “choice.”
Palin didn’t have a passport until 2007.
I wonder if McCain will have a snit and tell off the AP next:
Campaign money hurts Palin’s outsider image
Ara: If Palin and McCain just wanted privacy for Bristol why on Earth is the boyfriend showing up at the convention?
And the Democrats are the ones dragging her daughter into the spotlight? Sigh…
sarah palin began in elective office in 1992.
barack obama began in elective office in 1997.
palin has five (5) more years of experience in public office than obama.
and neither Obama nor Biden have any executive experience. Sarah Palin does.
but you’d never know any of this by watching the mainstream media or reading hilzoy.
didn’t barack obama work for years with domestic terrorist bill ayers? didn’t he lose $110 million in grant money for the Annenberg Challenge in Chicago?
didn’t joe biden get caught twice plagiarizing?
these obama/biden scandals show real moral turpitude.
these palin “scandals” – she’s in the AIP, whoops! no she’s not – are just examples of the mainstream media and hilzoy trotting out the Democratic talking points as soon as possible.
metro1: At least come up with an original comment for each thread you troll. Have some decency.
Come on, MeDrew, if s/he posts three more comments, s/he will have enough ‘talking points’ to get the McCain decoder ring and be able to decode those super ultra top top secret messages. Drink more Ovaltine!
Leave Ovaltine out of this!
(I’m a big fan. Nesquik is gritty.)
and neither Obama nor Biden have any executive experience. Sarah Palin does.
McCain has none either.
so why is McCain at the top of the ticket?
“props for the Einstein quote.”
Paraphrase. But quantum uncertainty does exist. Fortunately, the President isn’t God.
“Can the convention reject the presidential candidate’s choice for VP?”
Technically, yes. It can be tricky, but enough of a rebellion by enough delegates could do it, despite fairly strong hierarchical control. That’s apparently what McCain’s people were afraid of if he picked either Lieberman or Tom Ridge, the pro-choice former Governor of Pennsylvannia, and former Secretary of Homeland Security; that’s what McCain was apparently was warned would happen; if it the rebellion didn’t succeed, it could have been messy enough to badly depress the base, and look bad enough to the general public, to be bad.
Gary: Fortunately, the President isn’t God.
Of course not! For the last 8yrs, it has been the vice-president. Why, when people sneeze, I say, “Cheney bless you!” Unfortunately, too many people duck, thinking I want to shoot them in the face.
With the discussion of the VP’s confirmation, what would happen if she’s approved at the convention, but withdraws shortly thereafter? Would McCain just get to pick, say, Ridge, with no outside approval? Or would there be a mini convention to confirm the pick? (And how did this play out for the Dems with Eagleton, logistics-wise? I’m familiar with the electoral results.)
I don’t care how funny you think you are, it isn’t worth it. Do not say anything disrespectful which is not policy related, regarding Gov. Palin.
After all the bullsh!t sexism re: Senator Clinton that ObWi was in the thick of during the primaries and that few here felt the need to address and denounce (to the point that a number of pro-Clinton posters felt uncomfortable enough to leave, and are only now beginning to return), you now have the nerve to self-righteously lecture me about ‘disrespect’?!
In hindsight, my statement is not one that I’m likely to be proud of in the morning (imagine that — even humourless feminists like yours truly f#ck up, too), but if the only reason I am being called out is because you are afraid that the mean ol’ feminazis are gonna get mad–because it is impolitic and you just don’t want to deal with the fallout, and not because what I said was, in fact, sexist (which, again, I now realize it was, without equivocation)–well, with all due respect, save it.
Here is the Einstein quote I find most relevant.
To me, this is why it matters.
Meh. Disregard my previous, um, outburst; lack of sleep shortens my fuse substantially. A few decent REMs should help lengthen it once more.
because it is impolitic and you just don’t want to deal with the fallout
mattbastard,
I wasn’t attempting to single you out, and certainly not in a hypocritical way with regard to who was on which side during the primary battles (I’m sorry if this provides further offence, but I didn’t have you mentally pigeonholed as one of the committed partisans from those days. Bad memory I suppose).
Your My Fair Lady comment just happened to pop up at just the time I was looking to make the point which I made on more general grounds, based on a whole lot of other snarky and potentially sexist comments which have turned up in the threads here recently, made by other people, not you.
If it hadn’t been your comment, it would have been somebody else’s. You just happened to furnish a pithy quote at the wrong time, and I’m sorry if I offended you by using it without doing a good job of taking prior context into account.
if the only reason I am being called out is because you are afraid that the mean ol’ feminazis are gonna get mad.
My “was so much fun, that I’d like to do it again in oh, let’s say 100 years” remark was an attempt at humor. Obviously a failed one.
My serious point was that the GOP is already trying to use sleazy and sexist attacks on blogs to deflect legitimate criticism of Gov. Palin’s record and policy preferences (criticisms which are not in and of themselves sexist), and I think it would be a tragedy for all us if this were to be the tipping point in a very close election.
If you still want to be angry at me, so be it. I bear you no ill will.
“Would McCain just get to pick, say, Ridge, with no outside approval?”
I’d have to research the Republican Party rules in nitty-gritty to be sure, but I’m reasonably sure it would be something along those lines. That is, likely there would have to be some sort of pro forma vote of the Republican National Committee, or some mechanism or subcommittee of theirs, I’m guessing — and that’s all I’m doing, from general knowledge of how it tends to work — but most likely McCain would get who he wanted if it wasn’t a super-controversial choice like Lieberman, in which case the precise details of the mechanism as to precisely which individuals would have a vote might indeed be relevant. But please forgive me if I don’t feel like trying to track down their detailed rules this minute.
“And how did this play out for the Dems with Eagleton, logistics-wise?”
Again, I’m not going to go research the precise details now, but as I recall, it was McGovern’s pick, in coordination with the Democratic National Commitee, which was fairly pro-forma. They were just desperate to find someone vaguely reasonable by that point, and it’s not as if there was a huge difference of POV between McGovern and Larry O’Brien, et al.
matttbastard: In hindsight, my statement is not one that I’m likely to be proud of in the morning (imagine that — even humourless feminists like yours truly f#ck up, too), but if the only reason I am being called out is because you are afraid that the mean ol’ feminazis are gonna get mad–because it is impolitic and you just don’t want to deal with the fallout, and not because what I said was, in fact, sexist (which, again, I now realize it was, without equivocation)–well, with all due respect, save it.
I actually thought the My Fair Lady snark was funny, apt, and not particularly offensive in the circumstances (comparing Sarah Palin to Eliza Doolittle is not exactly insulting, since it suggests Palin does have the smarts to get the job done). Of course as a George Bernard Shaw fan I officially hate My Fair Lady, but that aside… most of the really good lines are Pygmalion.)
Yeah, sexist: no one would make that joke about a man. Still: funny and not hateful. Given the sheer number of people arguing that the main reason Palin ought not to be President is that she’s got too much to do in her own family which it is obviously all her job to do, not worth picking on in particular. As ThatLeftTurnInABQ acknowledges.
Cracks about humourless feminazis, though: always good for taking offense at.
I need coffee.
Italico delendi!
I’m trying to get up to speed on all this, and I’m a bit confused about where the “judgment” argument goes. The theory is that McCain made his pick quickly, and thus didn’t properly vet her or consider her negatives. Hence, bad judgment.
Except that the evidence that has come out indicates that McCain’s vetting, though quick, was complete. He knew about the AIP issue. He knew about the pregnancy. He knew about troopergate. He knew all that when he made his decision.
It seems to me that one can still fault his decision to go with Palin — and I’m on record that it’s a high-risk pick. And you can spin his decision as a result of faulty judgment. But the process stories that Hilzoy, Publius, and others focus on don’t show a lack of judgment. Indeed, if anything, the process seems remarkably good: It accomplished in 24 hours what ordinarily takes much longer.
“Except that the evidence that has come out indicates that McCain’s vetting, though quick, was complete.”
Von, you don’t seem to have read the key points about this: they didn’t send anyone to, or talk to anyone in, Alaska until after the nomination was announced. How could that possibly be “complete” vetting, or anything within miles of it?
“Indeed, if anything, the process seems remarkably good: It accomplished in 24 hours what ordinarily takes much longer.”
So why doesn’t every campaign take only 24 hours? Do you have any idea how kooky this sounds, and how much it makes the person saying look like they’d say anything to defend McCain?
He knew all that when he made his decision.
Thus showing his complete incompetency.
if anything, the process seems remarkably good: It accomplished in 24 hours what ordinarily takes much longer.
not surprising, since they say you often know your soul-mate instantly upon meeting them for the first time.
More detail on the remarkable goodness:
Dan Balz got rolled in his previous story on this and other details, so I’m still hardly counting on him to be a hard-hitting investigator into the McCain campaign. He seems clearly happy to pass on campaign spin without skepticism.
Of course, I say that without having had the FBI do a background check.
Contestant #1: I can vet that candidate in three weeks.
Contestant #2: I can vet that candidate in two weeks.
C#1: I can vet that candidate in one week.
C#2: I can vet that candidate in two days.
C#1: *pauses for effect* I can vet that candidate in twenty…four…hours.
Audience: ooooooooooo.
C#2: Vet that candidate.
C#1: Ummmm…errrrr…uuuuhh…lives next to Russia!
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!
Cleek’s, Gary’s, and Ugh’s (second*) remarks miss my point. They’re arguing that McCain made a bad choice. Maybe he did. The point is that, if he made a bad choice, the vetting process isn’t to blame.
McCain’s judgment (or lack thereof) is certainly at issue in this campaign, as is Obama’s. But I don’t see how the vetting process reveals anything positive or negative about McCain’s judgment.
*Ugh’s first remark is on point.
von, the evidence is that the vetting process was … minimal. An interview and maybe some google searches. Literally no one in AK state government was spoken to, the city clerk of Wasilla wasn’t asked for records until the Washington Independent called up in the last couple of days.
The vetting process didn’t happen. McCain picked an unvetted candidate. I’m not clear on what argument you’re trying to make about his judgment in regard to this; can you elaborate?
Cleek’s, Gary’s, and Ugh’s (second*) remarks miss my point. They’re arguing that McCain made a bad choice. Maybe he did. The point is that, if he made a bad choice, the vetting process isn’t to blame.
Agreed – no more than, in 2003, outing the covert identity of the undercover CIA agent who was heading the JTRI was to blame for the US failure in Iraq. McCain made a bad choice in Sarah Palin but given the inadequacy of his “vetting process”, any pick might have turned out bad or good: McCain’s crappy vetting process was illustrative of how incompetent he is, as is his choice of Sarah Palin – to be the President of the United States if he gets into the White House but dies before his 76th birthday. It illustrates in the same way, but it is not identical. Just as Cheney’s outing of Valerie Plame was illustrative of how treasonous the Bush administration is, as was their lying the US into an aggressive war with Iraq.
But that’s the style of administration you like, Von: you want 4 more years of McSame. Beats me: I always thought you did have an idea of how bad the Bush administration is, and here you are, cheerleading for more of it.
not surprising, since they say you often know your soul-mate instantly upon meeting them for the first time.
Hah! In your face, space coyote!
von is simply picking up the other end of the stretcher to help carry Palin across the finish line.
Those picking up Palin up top say: Question Palin’s qualifications! You are sexist?
von grabs the stretcher end where the feet point and says: Question McCain’s honesty? But he said he vetted her! He must have thought it enough, or he wouldn’t say that!
Von, not being a woman, ends up with the end he does, but nonetheless, it takes two to carry a stretcher, and given that Palin has not been made available for any meeting whatsoever, the stretcher metaphor seems more than apt.
von: I can think of two ways to assess the Palin vetting process. First, you ask whether it led to a good choice, and if it took a shorter than usual time to get there, all to the good. The second is to ask whether it was a process that would reliably lead to good results, whether or not it did this time. (In this case, unlike the first, you’d count a process as a good one even if through some genuine total fluke it didn’t turn over something crucial, but not if it didn’t miss anything, but only through blind luck.)
You’ve said you’re not interested in the first (at least, that’s how I read this: “They’re arguing that McCain made a bad choice. Maybe he did. The point is that, if he made a bad choice, the vetting process isn’t to blame.”) I agree with you that the first question is less interesting than the second: it’s the second that is informative about McCain’s future performance.
But what I don’t get is how a process that apparently didn’t involve checking her hometown paper, checking with people in Alaska who knew her, and generally trying to see what dirt, if any, was out there, could possibly be a good process for vetting.
It seems to me — I might be wrong — that you’re asking a sort of hybrid of 1 and 2 above. You’re not asking whether McCain made the right choice, so you’re not looking at the result on that level. But when you ask about the vetting, you seem to be asking: did the process in fact uncover all the information needed?, rather than: was this the sort of process that would reliably uncover all the information that was out there? (E.g., if all they did was ask Palin, and Palin actually told them everything worth knowing, that would get all the relevant info, but would not, imho, be a process it would be wise to rely on generally.)
I think it’s very hard to defend a vetting process that didn’t make any attempt to see what was out there by actually going to Alaska, asking people other than Palin, etc., as a good vetting process. It might have gotten the right results, but that would be luck.
Put it in much simpler and starker terms: would you invade another country with as little on the ground information, based on local sources (readily available local sources which anyone who wished to could easily use), as McCain made his pick of Palin with?
Shia? Sunni? What’s that you say? The details don’t matter if you make the right decision, am I right?
Or perhaps not. Sometimes the details do matter.
TLTABQ — no worries. Frayed nerves all around, apparently.
jes: Cracks about humourless feminazis, though: always good for taking offense at.
Hey, I resemble that remark (although, as you did note, my one-liner was funny, if not one I’d add to my snark-portfolio). In all honesty, I’ve yet to encounter a feminist/womanist who didn’t enjoy a good laugh as much as the next person (I inhereted both my ideological affiliation and my funny bone from my mother); maybe our humourless brethren/sistren are living on a commune in Montana with those aging freaks who, back in the proverbial day, got their jollies spitting on ‘Nam vets.
“Cleek’s, Gary’s, and Ugh’s (second*) remarks miss my point. They’re arguing that McCain made a bad choice.”
Of course, I said absolutely no such thing whatever, and never said a thing about the value of the choice; you appear to have my comment confused with someone else’s.
Let’s try again: Von, you don’t seem to have read the key points about this: they didn’t send anyone to, or talk to anyone in, Alaska until after the nomination was announced. How could that possibly be “complete” vetting, or anything within miles of it?
“Indeed, if anything, the process seems remarkably good: It accomplished in 24 hours what ordinarily takes much longer.”
So why doesn’t every campaign take only 24 hours? Do you have any idea how kooky this sounds, and how much it makes the person saying look like they’d say anything to defend McCain?