So John McCain picks Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice-Presidential nominee. I know nothing about her, so will suspend judgment. But she is a woman, which is fantastic. The U.S. will either have an African-American President or a female Vice-President, which is the kind of history that should have been made long ago; so kudos to McCain for his courage in making that choice.
Beyond that, there are just a few tidbits that seem to be trotted out in all the stories about Palin. She is very firmly pro-life. Unless you are a polar bear. She is in favor of domestic partnerships, although against gay marriage (which puts her in the official Democratic position). She’s been embroiled in some sort of scandal, although it’s always hard to tell at first glance how serious those things should be taken. Perhaps her signature issue, as far as national politics is concerned, is drilling for oil all over the place — she’s in favor.
One might wonder whether McCain undermines his message of the importance of experience by picking a 44-year old governor with no national experience at all. But one might wonder whether Obama undermined his message of bringing change to Washington by choosing a white male Washington lifer from the Northeast; so clearly the McCain camp thought this was worth the risk. We might learn terrible or wonderful things about her in the next few months, but for the moment this seems superficially like a more palatable pick than any of the bigger Republican names that had been floating around — clearly it was in McCain’s eyes. (Brad DeLong wonders whether a similar line of reasoning didn’t leave us with Dan Quayle twenty years ago.)
Update: I originally included a link to this YouTube video of Palin making Craig Ferguson an honorary citizen of Alaska, which I think speaks to her sense of humor. But it also involves Ferguson making jokes about her giving off a sexy librarian vibe, which is fine in the context of a late-night comedy show, but isn’t a fair first impression for a female candidate for a major national office. All sorts of jokes will doubtless be on their way, we might as well make some meager effort to start things off with more substantive considerations.
Update again: Because I don’t know anything about Palin, I’ve tried to be open-minded about the pick. But 24 hours later, the obvious first conclusion to which one is tempted to jump appears increasingly correct: this is a person who has no business being anywhere near a national ticket. Sufficient evidence for this conclusion comes from the words of her supporters, along the lines of: Sure, she’s woefully underqualified, but in all probability John McCain will live for at least another four years! And if he doesn’t, we’re sure she will have the good sense to resign.
I wonder how many times she has visited Iraq to get the facts on the ground?
Apparently Palin pressured a city librarian into censoring books and tried to fire her for disagreeing.
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html
This lady looks more and more like one of the insane zealots that have no business in public office.
Apparently “Country First” has no meaning for you.
Sarah Palin is the best thing that’s ever happened to tis country (or the world.
Take off the blinders. NO WAY-NO HOW-NOBAMA !!!!!
I notice the oddity that many of Sarah Palin’s defenders work up the idea that it matters more how to game the argument and tit for tat with respect to Democrats and how it scores politically than the question, how good a “country first” pick is was and what that shows about John McCain. But first I do agree that we shouldn’t expect she’d need to take care of kids, I think that can be handled by helpers. The real issue if of course what she has to offer and what the issues are – and instead of complaining that critics should judge her on the capabilities, positions, and issues, I challenge her supporters to do that.
As for Obama, yes we already knew he was inexperienced. The whole point about him (and any other inexperienced person) is, what *else* do they offer to make up for that inexperience? Maybe Obama has that extra something, maybe not, but just throwing a merry-go-round of “you too”s won’t tell us what she has – we’ve already heard about Obama’s case for months, agree or like it or not. Now it’s her turn.
Please don’t feed the trolls.
Well Mark I was hoping that at least some of them could offer a genuine argument supporting their ostensibly terrific VP candidate, that 99% of them hadn’t heard of before last week, instead of pubescent breast-beating and nyah nyah rubbish. BTW here’s something from a thoughtful conservative who really does care about his country and isn’t going to flack for the Republican party’s candidate-whoever-it-is:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/will_palin_fuse_the_gop.html
He’s concerned about her lack of experience, and whether she has more to offer, in like vein to my previous post. Would any conservatives out there consider taking George Will seriously? Also, Neal Boortz (another libertarian independent who won’t flack for Republicans unless he really agrees with them), and typically ultraconservative and abrasive Michael Savage (whatever he is) have panned her, all for the same type of issues. That’s meaningful.
Poor liberal democrats – lowest rating in a century in congress – a pathetic nobody for their presidential candidate who can talk forever and say absolutely nothing – who has a wife that is not suited to be first dog, let alone first lady. The second person on the Mccain ticket looks a hell of a lot better than the first person on the Obama ticket. Biden has health issues far worse than McCain yet nobody is discussing them. The embedded politicians of Washington don’t like Sarah Palin because she does promise change – change that is positive. She will be an excellent Vice President. And I have news for you socialist liberal idiots – if you are so fond of socialism, move to Russia! It is not your constitutional right to have housing, health care, or income. If you want it, get off your lazy ass and go earn it! Too many black people in the south living on welfare. Why? Because they know how to work the system because it is ALL THEY KNOW! 3rd and 4th generation welfare recipients in the south, something Obama wants to continue to feed! Yeah, right, bring on Obama. He’s for change – but not for the better for America or the people of America – just for bigger government, special interests, reduced national security, higher taxes.. and the list goes on and on and on – yuck. What a bad choice Obama/Biden would be. VOTE MCCAIN/PALIN – the TRUE AMERICAN TICKET!
Oh, and one last thing – don’t believe everything you read – about ANYONE! LOL
I liked Governor Palin befor, I love her now! But sometimes I wonder if
people are actually paying attension. There have been several comments
about Governor Palin as being “anti-choice” which by the way she is not.
She is pro-life. there is a hudge difference, don’t constue the two. If you
are not educated enough to know the difference then please keep your ignorant comments to yourself.
Now that you’ve wound my clock…… Does Senator Obama ever listen to what
comes out of his own mouth? He said today that “they (McCain/Palin) have not
said anything about what there are going to do to change things”. Excuse me sir, but they have said much more about their plan that you have yours.
Give me a break!
Obama’s voting record is dismal. I just checked it and went through it, all of it. Man, I would be ashamed to have this type of record at my job. I wouldn’t have it long if I did.
Bottom line: Obama had 566 issues to vote on thus far. He has voted “yea” 252 times (45%) and “nea” 87 times (15%). And I can’t believe when you look closely at each issue and how he voted it’s a joke no matter which side you stand on. There is no consistancy to his voting.
But worst of all he did not vote at all 227 times (40%). Is that what he intends to do as President of the United States? Just show up 40% of the time?
Surprising how many of the comments are parrotting right wing talking points, including the hateful comments, and do not back their accusations up with any facts. I thought this blog twas mostly frequented by people people who think for themselves and critical.
Essentially none of those comments are from regular readers. Like many other blogs, we are being located by folks searching for “McCain Palin” or some version thereof, and then dumping in their prepared talking points. The McCain campaign encourages it.
So Gov. Palin thinks “misinformation and flat-out lies must be corrected.” Apparently the only things meeting those descriptions are facts about her and her history. The gross exaggerations, misrepresentations and baiting that she spewed at the convention don’t qualify? Nice try, Chickie-poo. You want truth? You’ll get truth. I’m the first to call out Obama’s supporters for their missteps, too, so don’t think I’m one-sided in this. It just sickens me to hear obvious distortions from the podium, and then to watch the red-meat crowd salivate in response.
You’re right, boomerang, there is a ‘hudge’ difference between being ‘pro-life’ and ‘anti-choice.’ And you can be both.
‘Pro-life’ means you respect living things. Like babies AFTER they’re born. Like school children whose programs are cut because their school systems didn’t toe the conservative line. Like young women who don’t get treatment for STDs because the local Planned Parenthood office has lost its funding due to government cuts. Like mothers who have to leave home in the dark and return in the dark to work to maintain state assistance. Like 100 million Americans with no health insurance. Like women who earn $0.71 to every $1.00 men earn FOR LIKE WORK. Like injured veterans returning to subhuman medical care or get discharged for performance so the military doesn’t have to pay legitimate medical benefits. Like senior citizens who couldn’t pay their utility bills while Kenny-Boy Lay got rich. Like foreign nationals held for over 5 years in Guantanamo without representation. Like Americans whose civil liberties are chewed up and spit out every day by a Bush administration that calls itself ‘pro-life.’
‘Anti-choice’ means you don’t think women are capable of making rational decisions about what happens within their own bodies, and so feel compelled to make those decisions for them. Sound familiar?
A compassionate conservative is an oxymoron. Look it up.
If Charles Sifers is still here, he might want to consider this: The next POTUS is likely to appoint as many as three Supremes in quick succession. That could absolutely affect Roe v Wade.
From his own Website: “John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned…”.
And as for diminished civil liberties? Bush has already been working at that, and McSame shows no inclination to reverse Duhbya’s ‘successes.’ The Republicans rail against ‘activist judges’ until it comes to their own agenda, then it’s full-speed-ahead.
Don’t you realize that YOUR liberties are at risk, too? It’s not just ‘the bad guys’ whose phone calls they listen to.
I read from response #159. Boomerang that Obama has a dismal voting record? What about Johnny boy? He has missed 407 (63.8%) of the votes this year! Also he has voted with the party 88.7% of the time, a real maverick, 11.3% of the time! Barak Obama has missed 270 votes (45.5%) of the votes this year. So using the Obama missed this, missed that they all have, and Palin has missed no votes, because she has never been in the position of being able to vote! And for people (republicans mainly) who at this point is going to say, what a crappy choice she is! None of you who vote with the party lines! It would undermine the party and expose the truth that she is a bad choice. Lets face it Biden is technically speaking in terms of years the only experienced one.
obama is going for president ,he has never run a bussiness,a city, or a state.!..palin has ….who has the most experiance? he is going for the #1 job who should we be worried about the most? your worried if mcCain dies thats a if…obama wins then what??? no experiance give me abreak that for real
I find it interesting that apparently you all only really like to hear from people who agree with you. I stumbled across this website while researching the candidates. I imagine the “trolls” are conservatives. It amazes me that the feminist of this country who have fought so hard for women’s rights would work so hard to tear down a female. We don’t all have to agree with everything either party says, we do have to respect thier opinion. I am a nurse- I see the problems in health care, I see the poverty. I also see a lot of people out there with their hands out, begging for someone to give them something for nothing. I work hard, my husband works hard, we raise kind, responsible children, and our reward is paying for other people who do nothing to get all the benefits. I believe that the system is broken. Young women should not be rewarded with more welfare money for each child they have. I witness parents who choose not to get married because she can keep benefits if she stays unmarried- and he can lay on her couch. I want a president who isn’t afraid to say “enough is enough” if you want benefits you will serve your community in some fashion. FDR was onto something when he put men to work during the depression and they sent their checks home to the wives to support the family. Nothing should be free and it seems far too many Americans expect to be taken care of from cradle to grave.
Check out this youtube video! Very interesting! Hot off the press.. No time to HTML code link Copy paste…Cya
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg
Dear deeppeace, Just an fyi…we exist :). I’m a life long vegetarian, 10 yr yoga practitioner/instructor, 20 yr animal rescue volunteer, HS teacher, CPA, wife, mother, and life long conservative from the heartland of America, relocated 15 yrs in a major metropolitan city. (Btw, please do not assume Conservative and Republican are necessarily one in the same.)
I am a conservative, because I believe in ‘conserving government’ at the request of our forefathers, as evidenced in the magnificent document they penned…The Constitution. Have you seriously studied The Constitution, or even in read it in full deeppeace? If so, then you know there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing health care, or any other “entitlement” program”, to every US citizen, let alone illegal aliens (who are included in the uninsured numbers quoted). Anyway, do tell…why in the world would anyone want, or think the federal government could provide high quality national health care, in an efficient and fiscally responsible manner? Consider the bankrupt status of the single, most expensive federal debt, SS and Medicare, (which Libertarians and some Constitutional lawyers, often argue is illegally funded via FICA tax). Which prompts the next question, who is going to pay for our substandard, national healthcare? And yes, it will be substandard to the system we have now, as flawed as it may be. The idea of nationalized healthcare is a product of Socialism, and as has been proven over and over again, “Socialism”, aka “the great equalizer”, renders excellence obsolete. Thank God, (whomever he, she, or it may be for you), the USA is a democracy – built on excellence and ingenuity – often prompted by competition and rewarded through capitalism.
Although I certainly do not always agree with John McCain, I do agree with him that Roe -V- Wade is a flawed decision…because it simply isn’t a federal law issue as mandated by the Constitution. And although it’s highly unlikely, should Roe -v- Wade be overturned, the laws governing abortion simply go back to the states, where they rightfully belong. With a great mix of liberal and conservative states comprising our great nation, pro-life, pro-choice, and pro-abortion advocates all, will continue to be well represented.
I’m compelled to address the statement, “‘Pro-life’ means you respect living things. Like babies AFTER they’re born.” I won’t even bother to belabor the obvious…for I’m sure deeppeace recognizes that babies are alive and kickin’…long before they are “born” 🙂 …just ask any mom if you have doubts. More importantly, this statement reminds me that Obama doesn’t support this notion…that a baby deserves the respect of life…even after it’s born, if his/her mother intended for her baby to die during an abortion. Shocking, isn’t it? But it’s absolutely true. While serving in the IL state senate, Obama remained the lone holdout in three separate attempts to pass into law, the “Born Alive Infant’s Protection Act”. This law requires that usual and customary medical care be given to babies who are born alive, after surviving botched, labor-induced, late term abortions. Even the staunches supporters of abortion rights, like B Boxer of the US Senate, found the alternative practice of placing these living babies “out of sight” to die, like in a “soiled linen closet”, to be just a bit too inhumane for the leader of the free world. The exact same law passed unanimously in the US Senate. Check it out for yourself Kai Noeske…read the transcript of Obama’s detailed objections, “but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead…”, available on the IL State Gov’t official website: pp. 31-34, http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf.
Part 2, cont.
Since not one person on the entire blog has nailed the reasons McCain chose Palin, I’ll enlighten you. McCain had a weak standing with Republicans, conservatives, and the religious anti-abortion crowd (which includes traditional Catholics, Jews, and evangelical), and he needed to shore up his base. The common factor for all groups is always smaller government and lower taxes, for which Palin has a proven record of accomplishment as both Mayor and Gov. She also satisfies the religious crowd by proudly “walking the walk” front and center, but she doesn’t insist her views become law so she doesn’t ward off the more liberal Republicans and Conservatives. Moreover, her executive record of clearing corruption, and creating a surplus budget, (in short order) with just “ethics and grit”, is tangible change that speaks for itself, (…change that obviously resonates well with the people of AK where she holds a 76% approval rating – what politician can say that??). Neil B, I am a big fan of G Will, but my take on the article you linked was not so much his concern for her lack of experience, as he admits Palin has more executive experience than the other three, but rather if she’s a knowledgable, authentic conservative, who understands the constitutionally imposed limits of the federal government. Thus, my reference above to documented tangible change of reformed and reduced government…, not to mention, how many politicians would really sell “their” private jet on Ebay, and fire their free chef if they had 5 kids…except a committed conservative??? One of Palin’s democrat opponents in AK, with whom she later joined forces to exile corrupt republicans, is quoted as saying, “do not underestimate that woman (Palin), because I guarantee it will come back to bite you in the ass if you do”.
Deanna in #167,
It’s probably because she is diametrically opposed to nearly every political stance they hold. The idea that they’ll vote for her merely because they share vaginas is just ludicrous. Most women in this country are much smarter than that, and actually care about the issues.
Jason Dick #171
If you noted my next line
We don’t all have to agree with everything either party says, we do have to respect thier opinion.
I just think Sarah deserves the same respect that feminist give to those they agree with on every issue. It is a crying shame that the movement that started in this country to advance women has been reduced to whether you do or do not believe in a woman’s right to end a pregnancy! Why don’t we concentrate more on convincing women to hold their bodies in high regards and not share them with every joe that comes along?
Wow, ProudAmerican. You’re good. But don’t pretend you’re not vomiting back the Republican talking points.
Yes, I have studied the Constitution—in high school, I found it boring because I had a boring teacher. In college, my prof taught it as the Bible: Most of us choose six or eight favored passages to quote and conveniently ignore those that disagree with our persuasion. In the last eight years (wonder why?) I picked it up again and found it pretty interesting. For instance: Nowhere in it does it say corporate ‘ingenuity’ gets to rape its stockholders or its employees’ pensions. Nowhere in it does it say it’s okay to torture prisoners. Nowhere does it say Christian holidays are national holidays. Nowhere does it say that signing statements should allow a President to ignore legislation passed by Congress. Nowhere does it say that you get to tell me what I can do in my own home. Wait, wait—isn’t that one of YOUR team’s cheers? “Smaller government! No activist judges!” Oh, I see—that’s only “No activist PROGRESSIVE judges.”
When I referred to caring for babies after they are born, I meant breathing, sentient beings who depend on loving, capable parents to thrive. In your heart, you know that’s what I meant, but you, typically, chose to misinterpret and then turn the argument to your one-note song. Sen. Obama’s opposition to the ‘Born Alive…Act’ came from his concern that it was a backdoor attempt to undermine Roe by frightening practitioners and facilities into denying women anything but YOUR chosen outcome. And it was.
For your information, I am a mother, several times over. I have never chosen to terminate a pregnancy. So don’t go assuming anything there, either.
You also choose to misinterpret my mentioning ‘100 million Americans without insurance.’ Would you please point out to me where I said the government should either provide or pay for their health care or care for illegal aliens? You can’t. CONservatives choose to put words into the mouths of those who dare to disagree.
I wasn’t present when the founders wrote the Constitution, so they could request nothing of me. What I see in their work is some sections of intentionally vague language because they were wise enough to know that their current awareness couldn’t prepare for every future outcome. It was designed for interpretation, ProudAmerican, not for rigid adherence. The problems arise when the parties in power choose to interpret it to fit a narrow, judgmental bias.
Some points to consider:
1. I saw the complaint about “Young women should not be rewarded with more welfare money for each child they have.” Well, you have a point, and the Welfare reform already happen in the 90s (B Clinton signed it.) I am not sure just how it works now, those points sound outdated but in any case: the dependent deduction and child tax credit on ordinary tax forms *are* a form of welfare, because they are subsidies that shift money to those with children, *even up to income of 100k.* Why should childless people earning 30k etc. provide welfare for the kids of people making three times their income?
2. As for the Constitution not having rights to health care, etc: Yes, not “enumerated”, but the Ninth Amendment makes such strict construction impossible. It says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Since it does say “the people”, then not finding a right in the USC cannot be used as evidentiary against it being a viable right for the basis of policy. Hence, A9 prevents claims that States clearly do have the right to ban birth control (as in Griswold v. Connecticut) from being based on not finding a right such as privacy in the USC, but of course it doesn’t prove that or any other particular right – it has to be debated, that’s why strict construction is impossible.
3. It is odd and hypocritical for detractors to have complained about Obama not having much experience, being elevated just due to speeches, books, etc. – and then turn around and listen to one speech from Governor Sarah Palin, and go nuts over how wonderful she is, etc. Many of you think, now you can’t criticize Palin because Obama isn’t well experienced, but the argument works the other way around: Now it doesn’t make sense anymore to criticize Obama for that, since McCain-Palin is presenting it as not worth worrying about. (Yeah, “executive experience” does help, but McCain doesn’t have it either, and it’s an apples and oranges trade-off between State executive and National legislative – and Obama is on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.)
ProudAmerican, try this column by Charles Krauthammer as well:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/08/the_palin_puzzle.html
He makes a point similar to G. Will, that Palin undercuts McCain’s original advantage.
I think Sarah Palin is a “buzz” choice, designed to needle an opposition and stir up red-meat enthusiasts etc. Such a choice is not compatible with “putting country first” in principle, even if she isn’t an *awful* choice (and I’m not saying she is.)
PS: I can’t wait to see Tina Fey!
Impressions of McCain’s Acceptance Speech
I have to say that although he isn’t a great speaker by any means, I think
he effectively delivered the clear meme of his speech last night was “I
paid my dues I deserve it. And I deserve it more than Obama”. Like the
majority of Americans, I acknowledge his service and sacrifice. I thought
that his plea was heartfelt. But I think they are trying to play on our
guilt, rather than give us a substantive reason to choose him. My
overwhelming impression is that he is eight years too late. And now he
wants and expects America to make up for that because it’s his turn.
It’s sad. Like the 40 year old NBA player who sees his career coming to a
close and all he wanted was one championship ring.
Well the supreme irony here is that it is the same people that stole his
chance eight years ago by their dirty tricks in the South Carolina primary
that are running his campaign now.
So I say. It was Bush and Rove who denied McCain a legitimate chance to be
President. So John take it up with them. There is too much at stake for us
to feel badly that history has passed McCain by.
e.