McCain Selects Palin as VP Candidate
Some rather historic news this morning: McCain selected Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate.
Palin becomes the first woman to serve on a GOP presidential ticket and the first Alaskan to appear on a national ticket. Her selection guarantees we'll see either a non-white President or a female Vice President.
My initial reaction was that the selection may backfire, and voters will write it off as "pandering" or somehow disingenuous. But, upon reflection, I realized those motivations have resulted in every other VP selection in the past - what good is the VP anyway?
Then I became concerned with whether she has sufficient experience to run the show (should McCain kick the bucket).
Let's compare Palin and Obama...
Palin, after a stint as a city mayor, won a huge victory over an incumbent Governor - in the primaries no less - and has since managed state affairs with a very high approval rating. She's guided budgets, managed the national guard, and pushed through the single largest construction project in North America (a new natural gas pipeline).
Obama, on paper at least, has really only been a successful state senator. Sure, he won a [largely uncontested] election to become a US Senator, but he's practically been running for President since. I'm unable to think of any major piece of legislation he's championed since getting elected.
Upon comparing these two, I think it's going to be hard for Democrats to attack Palin as "unqualified."
Instead, I think Democrats are going to turn to REAL issues when attacking Palin: just off the top of my head there's gun control, abortion rights, and capital punishment. And that makes me happy - like many Americans, I hate when the election rhetoric devolves into petty attacks. So strap yourselves in, it's going to be a very interesting couple of months...
Any other thoughts?
Palin becomes the first woman to serve on a GOP presidential ticket and the first Alaskan to appear on a national ticket. Her selection guarantees we'll see either a non-white President or a female Vice President.
My initial reaction was that the selection may backfire, and voters will write it off as "pandering" or somehow disingenuous. But, upon reflection, I realized those motivations have resulted in every other VP selection in the past - what good is the VP anyway?
Then I became concerned with whether she has sufficient experience to run the show (should McCain kick the bucket).
Let's compare Palin and Obama...
Palin, after a stint as a city mayor, won a huge victory over an incumbent Governor - in the primaries no less - and has since managed state affairs with a very high approval rating. She's guided budgets, managed the national guard, and pushed through the single largest construction project in North America (a new natural gas pipeline).
Obama, on paper at least, has really only been a successful state senator. Sure, he won a [largely uncontested] election to become a US Senator, but he's practically been running for President since. I'm unable to think of any major piece of legislation he's championed since getting elected.
Upon comparing these two, I think it's going to be hard for Democrats to attack Palin as "unqualified."
Instead, I think Democrats are going to turn to REAL issues when attacking Palin: just off the top of my head there's gun control, abortion rights, and capital punishment. And that makes me happy - like many Americans, I hate when the election rhetoric devolves into petty attacks. So strap yourselves in, it's going to be a very interesting couple of months...
Any other thoughts?
Labels: Elections
posted by tj at 9:31 AM
30 Comments:
Don't forget creationism!
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html
TJ, I think your analysis is off by a few clicks. First, guiding budgets in Alaska during soaring gas and oil prices is about as difficult as passing cell phone laws in California. Leading the Alaskan National Guard? WTF? Were they called in to suppress the violent baby seal uprising of aught seven? She also supposedly has a reputation of fighting against pork barrel spending. That's right, there is at least one person in Alaska who is opposed to pork. Then, I'm not sure how easy it would have been for her to guide those budgets without the plum juicy Stevens hog. I'd also add that "a heartbeat away from the Presidency" is no laughing matter with McCain.
Armen:
I think your partisan affiliation is blinding you from being able to see my point.
I don't disagree that her experience is lacking. I merely gave a couple examples of how it's on-par with that of Obama's. Not to mention that any un-biased poli sci major would take the experience of a governor over that of a junior senator ANY DAY when it comes to becoming President.
Also please note that I said nothing of her "judgment" - a concept Democrats are pushing in this race - largely due to the fact that's all Obama may even arguably have in his favor. I made no endorsement in my original note, and I maintain my claim of being non-partisan in this discussion...
But ten points for "violent baby seal uprising of aught seven."
I don't appreciate the labels. I actually think the Palin pick is a smart move, but not because of her "executive experience." Second, if you show me an "unbiased" poli sci major, I'll slit my wrist. Third, WTF is the relevance of a "poli sci" major? Really, that's what your hanging your argument on? You wrote a 10 page paper regurgitating your textbook? Next to sociology, it's one of the biggest scams.
Fourth, and very surprisingly, although you seem to grossly overvalue the worth of a "poli sci major," you also seem to misapply the concept of a "junior" senator. Yes, Barack Obama is the junior senator from Illinois. John Kerry is the junior senator from Mass., Hillary Clinton is the junior senator from NY, Russ Feingold is the junior senator of Wisc., and Evan Bayh from Indiana. Switching parties, John Kyl, John Cornyn, etc. are junior senators. So, which would you prefer? Any of the above or a governor who presided over fewer people than San Francisco? That budget that she "guided" is HALF that of the UC. Her BIGGEST executive experience is negotiating a pipeline deal. Are you kidding me? That stuff is handled by low-level State Department civil servants in Iraq. Negotiating a contract?
Fifth, can you name any legislation passed in the last four years? Can you name the authors?
And going back to the governor vs. "junior" senator point, I think we've seen the the results of electing a governor who has no grasp of foreign policy. If you'd elect Bush over a junior senator...well, I rest my case.
Her eldest daughter looks kind of hot.
Wasn't expecting to touch off a firestorm of rage there, but it appears I hit a chord or something.
First, I'd like to say I find your rant [somewhat] amusing. You seem to have perfected a very politician-esque approach of isolating discrete, irrelevant aspects of another person’s argument that are easy to attack, while entirely missing the point [again]. You managed to write a whole lot of words, often in ways that are written to personally offend, and fail to say much at all. Congrats! Ever think of running for office?
Second, my reference to an “un-biased poli sci major” [while, again, having little to do with my argument] was intended as a light-hearted way of saying “the very lowest common denominator could figure this out.” It appears you took it as me claiming some intellectual superiority on the topic – something I probably find most amusing, as I’m the person who most often belittles the value of a “poli sci” degree.
Third, I suppose I could get more specific when detailing how little experience and authority Obama has enjoyed as a senator. I merely referred to him as a “junior” senator. I’m sorry. Let’s call him what he is: a first-term senator. I don’t see how that helps your argument, or how it helps to list a number of other junior senators with more experience than Obama. Call me confused – though, after all, I managed to graduate with a valueless “poli sci” degree without even having to write a 10-page paper on the topic!
Fourth, it appears worth mentioning again that you may have missed the point of my original post: I never claimed Palen has a lot of experience. In fact, I think she’ll get trounced by Biden in future debates. Attack her merits all you like, because…
Fifth, what has Obama really accomplished on the national level while in office? I don’t think it should be considered heresy to merely postulate the question. Again, attacking me personally by challenging me to “name any legislation passed in the last four years” really doesn’t seem to address this point.
Sixth, I appreciate your concluding remarks on the relative value between a senator’s experience and that of a governor. Sure, the entire discussion is DEFINITELY over now (well, it must be, as you’ve “rested your case”). Let’s invoke the specter of one of the worst US Presidents in history, and somehow imply that the reason he was so bad was because he was a governor. You’re right: governors are simply incapable of producing foreign policy results that are better than we saw with Bush - let’s leave those decisions to powerless first-term senators.
So the "lowest common denominator" is supposed to prefer a governor over senator not because of the titles (or if so, we have to ignore the current president), but because of the relevant experience, in which case we have the relevant experience of a mid-town mayor against that of a US Senator. Ummm...yeah, you're right, I didn't address your larger point. It sort of addresses itself doesn't it?
But substantively you make a series of unwarranted assumptions that clearly contradict your asserted lack of bias, not the least of which is emphasizing Palin's primary win in a gubernatorial race in Alaska while ignoring Obama's primary win spanning 50 states and U.S. Territories. Yes, I guess if you look at it through that lens, the experience is about even.
Again, you claim a first-term senator would have more relevant experience in serving as the country's top executive than a governor - the state's top executive. I can see how educated minds could disagree on the topic, but certainly don't see how it "speaks for itself."
Not sure which "unwarranted assumptions" you are referring to, but I do concede a strong point you have that I should have included Obama's victories in the primary so far. I suppose I was limiting my brief original run-down on experience to events that took place prior to this election season.
But you still haven't addressed my point(s). Let me put it succinctly: (1) McCain is clearly pandering to particular demographics with his selection, but that's no different than any other VP selection in the past. (2) Palin's level of experience is not categorically different than that of Obama. People could have a serious debate over which has more relevant experience for the job - there's no clear superior. As such, (3) experience shouldn't really be as big of a concern in this election between the two sides - especially in comparison to the very different stances on substantive issues such as abortion, gun control, and capital punishment [and creationism, from 10:05].
It's not objectively reasonable to exclude from Obama's experience the fact that he has managed an extremely successful, national-level campaign for President.
He did so in the face of poor odds, and on several levels, he totally out-maneuvered the Clinton machine, which the media had practically anointed as the winner before the primaries even started.
The complexity and magnitude of this endeavor, not to mention the national media scrutiny it was subjected to, dwarfs any accomplishment Palin could possibly call her own.
1:50 - I agree with your statement. Obama has definitely showed his ability to run a successful primary campaign. It's really up to Palin to step up over the next 60 days to show she can be a part of a successful general election campaign. The odds are against her.
But, again, that doesn't really address what Obama and Palin have done before the election season that make them qualified to be President (directly or "heartbeat away").
TJ - (also my initials, neat) - you are contradicting yourself. You say that anyone in the lowest common denominator would pick a governor over a senator anyday. You then later state that you can see how educated minds could disagree on the subject, and that it doesn't "speak for itself". That contradiction aside, a quick analysis is in order.
Only two senators have ever gone directly from the Senate to the White House. This includes a president many consider to be one of the best ever (Kennedy), and a president scholars generally agree was the worst ever (Harding).
Over on the governor's side of things, governor's have gone on to win the white house an awful lot more. This includes one of the best (FDR) and one of the worst (for sake of laziness, GWB) - again, going by scholarly rankings for Kennedy, Harding, and FDR, which can be found here here, and my own completely non-scientific polling of people within shouting distance of me for GWB (sample size ~12).
So clearly, senate and governor experience can run the gamut of "relevant" and "qualified", so a bit more analysis is probably required in order to make a statement like "any of the lowest common denominator will pick a governor over a senator".
I'm not going to do too much of that here, but I'll throw in a little musing: Palin has almost 2 years experience as governor of Alaska, with a few years mayoral experience before that (for a town of 5000 people). Obama has nearly four years US Senate experience and 8 years of Illinois state senate experience before that. I agree that campaigning as Obama has will probably have little effect on his ability to be president. But while Palin has a VERY little amount of executive experience on the Alaska stage, and Obama has none, on the national stage Obama's exposure to foreign policy and the inner-workings of the Legislative branch of the government make him (in my opinion) not in the same league of "inexperience" as Palin.
Further, I don't think Obama will hit her on her lack of experience the way McCain has on Obama. I don't even think he needs to. McCain's pick will effectively cripple his last great argument against Obama, since he (at the very least) won't be able to push the inexperience line of reasoning without looking hypocritical. McCain is very old (well over 100), and has had cancer something like 14 times. Roughly 25% of veeps have gone on to become president in some capacity, so her inexperience becomes very very relevant (just slightly less than Obama's). McCain will probably have to revert to attacking how "liberal" Obama is, and his relative lack of POW experience.
Summary: Obama won't need to attack her lack of experience, and will still come out ahead since McCain won't be able to use the same attacks (which have had some effect).
"Palin holds a bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Idaho, where she also minored in political science."
TJ #2 / Toney: I was trying to extend the olive branch to Armen on his rather drastic assertions that governors can't be good presidents - hence the slight change in how forcefully I'd support the experience of a governor over that of a senator.
And I didn't mean to say "any of the lowest common denominator will pick a governor over a senator - without exceptions." Clearly, the people and years of service DO count. I spoke more to the value of one year as a governor vs. one year as a senator - especially the first couple years of both. First term senators often blend into the background when it comes to real policymaking, while a Governor is really where the buck stops.
And I agree wholeheartedly on your analysis regarding the impact of this pick on McCain's ability to tout experience. As I've restated again and again, I believe McCain's selection of Palin will effectively take the issue of experience off the table for both sides.
Armen - I agree with you on most things, but I hope that wasn't a knock on the VERY respectable University of Idaho. Which is also MY alma mater.
She's utterly unqualified.
Even the National Review is questioning McCain's sanity after this pick.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWY0YmM3N2JhMTVkYmI0ZjU0OTBiYTY3NmUyMjgxNTc=
It's a slap in the face to all the qualified GOP women out there that McCain went out and picked a pretty face who has virtually no experience.
And Armen, it's laughable to compare Palin and Obama. Palin's prior gig: Mayor of a town with a population of around 7,000. Obama, by contrast, represented around 217,000 people as a state senator.
So to recap: Palin is anti-choice, anti-environment (ANWR), pro-abuse of power (see: investigation), who has no experience.
An absolutely awful, awful pick. It's almost offensive for her to pander to the disaffected Hillary supporters.
In short: Sarah Palin is the new Harriet Miers.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never asserted such thing. I can actually think of great president from 8 years ago.
Whatever I said was meant to demonstrate the absurdity of your assertion, which is apparently getting more extreme, that somehow a year of governor experience weighs more than a year as a US Senator. You just seem to be in love with the notion of "executive" experience. Yes, Palin was the highest executive of a state with 500,000 people. Let's call up the Mayor of Modesto. By your measure, he has more experience than a sitting US Senator. That's supposed to be obvious?
And when the buck stops at a journalism major...[Toney, I hope that answers your question. I'm almost tempted to quote the place kicker from Springfield U when he breaks his leg].
I meant to say "TJ" not "Armen" when I pointed out population figures.
"I was just your average hockey mom in Alaska" before getting involved in politics, she said. "When I found corruption there, I fought it hard and brought the offenders to account." (Source here.)
She fought corruption in Alaska, and brought the offenders to account? Oh, please. That's like fighting hard to bring the weather to account.
Like Toney, I am also a proud, proud University of Idaho alum. Dammit, why don't we ever send any of our GOOD people into the national spotlight?
I think the comments have been overly harsh. A couple of observations:
1. Creationism issue. Based on reading the article, she merely seems to support open discussion. Is that bad?
2. Just a "pretty face." Really? She seems highly intelligent, accomplished, energized, and authentic. You may think she is insufficiently experienced, but there is no need to totally take away from what she has done.
3. "it's laughable to compare Palin and Obama. Palin's prior gig: Mayor of a town with a population of around 7,000. Obama, by contrast, represented around 217,000 people as a state senator."
So are we just ignoring her being governor?
In response to 5:54 -
1. Yes. Yes that is bad. This isn't 1963 anymore. Religion and religious beliefs have absolutely no business being presented as science. And this is coming from someone moderately religious. Religion IS NOT the equivalent of science and SHOULD NOT be taught in schools.
I mean, what if we had to teach about Prometheus getting his intestines eaten by giant eagles during the day and getting healed at night, all the while being chained to a giant rock every time the properties of fire were taught in school? What if every time you learned about the oceans, you were told that the water would remain calm if you sacrifice a goat or a virgin to neptune? What if when you learned about animals, they told you that despite it looking like a kitten, it could really be Odin, the shape-shifting norse God of the hunt (among others things)?
The point is, if someone wants Christian values and beliefs taught in public schools, it is without compromise government-sponsored religious preferences, and there is no way around it. Fortunately, most of the quacks that push for this eventually get overruled by the generally more level-headed courts (even in Kansas).
2. Agreed.
3. Same... good point.
You're right. Mayor of Modesto = Governor of Alaska. I shoulda known all along. I've been officially put in my place - because MY assertions are becoming "extreme."
But be warned: it's this type of thinking from partisan Democrats that may be the biggest reason we will all see this woman become VP come November. The people who didn't have tickets to Denver this week may not be so closed minded.
Data venia.
Whether one's experience as governor in a small state (with respect to population) is more relevant to the experience question than one's experience as a U.S. senator would definitely be a jury question.
And that's all I've gotten from law school so far. (1L week 2.) Oh, hence, it wouldn't survive a motion to dismiss.
Palin's remarks in the creationism article read like backpedaling, but to be fair there is no context, so it is impossible to tell.
I disagree with Toney's statement that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools, but I think he may have actually misspoke. (Miswrote?) Creationism, Prometheus, Odin, and virgin sacrifices are all proper subjects for a history/literature/ancient philosophy class. They just don't belong in science curriculum, and, as Toney implies, the very idea of "discussion" about creationism in a science class is deeply offensive on a number of levels -- including a Constitutional one.
I just spent five minutes on McCain's website looking at his "Ticket for America" graphic. I just can't see it. Can't see them in the White House. God help us if this is one of the top two duos our country could come up with.
My gut tells me that a journalism major, beauty pageant winner, and former small-town major is not quite ready for prime time. But I could be wrong and I think the debates will give us a good inkling of whether she is smart and sensible or whether she is in over her head. If the latter is the case, then I curse McCain for continuing the GWB stain of reckless decision-making on the national level--the last thing we need is to put our country at risk of another poor leader.
10:53, you might be interested in this Washington Post article about how she was selected. I actually think the article is twaddle and bunk, but I suppose it can speak for itself.
The article did remind me about Romney -- thank god THAT didn't happen!
Ooo, ooo!
I just skimmed through the comments after the WA Post article, and someone had posted a link to this NYT piece. It suggests McCain wanted Lieberman, but was pressured into Palin by the anti-abortion crowd . . .
Sources in Anchorage inform me that her ponytail is a clip-on. These accessories are popular among Alaskan "hockey moms." They are commonly referred to as "Palins."
he-he!
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/palins-17-year-old-daughter-is-pregnant/
Truly a tribute to abstinence-only education!
Post a Comment
<< Home