Politics

The Palin Shocker: McCain's New VP Choice [Breaking]

pO157.

Posted to Politics on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:03:01 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

In a last minute decision, John McCain switched from his first announced choice for the VP slot to announce Alaska Governor Sarah Palin got the nod.

Senator McCain cited her bipartisan record, role in cleaning up corruption in the union's northernmost state, solid pro-life credentials, and her military experience as head of the Alaskan National Guard as some of the reasons for picking her.

The move is considered a shocker because Palin was considered by some to be too young, too inexperienced, and busy considering she just gave birth to a child with downs syndrome. On the other hand, some Republicans are already gung-ho about the choice. She will be the first Alaskan to run on a major national ticket.

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by pO157, politics, 2008 Presidential Election, McCain, Alaska, FTW, 2008 election (all tags)

This story: 227 comments (1 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

Smacks of desperation or senility

port1080.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:26:33 AM EST

5.00 (astute)

What, exactly, are her qualifications?  This makes a mockery of McCain's criticism of Obama's lack of experience.  Obama has at least served on the national stage, has excellent academic credentials, and has clearly been preparing himself for the presidency for the last four years.  Palin has been the governor of one of the smallest states in the country (population-wise, obviously not geographically - but still, Alaska is actually smaller than Delaware in terms of population - WTF?) for less than two years.  She never even served as a state rep - she went from being the city mayor of a town of 5,500 people to being governor.  She has a B.A. in journalism (from the University of Idaho - I think pO157 may have something to say about the quality of that degree...), but no further academic credentials.  There is no evidence whatsoever that she is qualified to be president, and if she had run for president on her own terms she would have been laughed out of the smoke-filled back room before she even made her first fundraising pitch.  You might say that being governor is experience enough, but this is Alaska we're talking about.  There is a huge difference between running a small state government and a large state government.  Being governor of Texas or Massachusetts or California makes you qualified - but governor of Alaska?  Even Bill Clinton's time in Arkansas had him presiding over a state with 5.5 times the population of Alaska, and he did it for ten years, not two. Say what you will about Obama's choice of Biden, but he clearly has the chops to be president if need be.  The same statement does not obviously apply to Palin.  While it's macabre to say, it's perfectly reasonable to say that McCain's VP choice is very important.  There's no denying McCain's age, and even if he does serve two full terms, whoever his VP is will have a very good shot at winning the party nomination the next time it's open.  McCain's VP slot begs for a solid, well-vetted candidate with lots of experience who could easily step in and seamlessly take over if need be - not a lightweight from a backwater who has no experience whatsoever with large scale government administration.  I can't believe McCain went with her.  It's like a bad joke.

4

^ 1

Re: Smacks of desperation or senility

gerrymander.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:37:54 AM EST

4.75 (astute, funny, astute)

Say what you will about Obama's choice of Biden, but he clearly has the chops to be president if need be.

As opposed to Obama himself, who has Palin's level of credentials.

If she's not qualified to be Vice-President, what does that say about the Democratic nominee for President?

6

^ 4

Re: Smacks of desperation or senility

port1080.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:49:01 AM EST

none

Well, for starters, I have always been somewhat unhappy about Obama's lack of experience - but that just makes me doubly unhappy about Palin, who makes Obama look like an elder statesman.  Obama has three years of US Senatorial experience, plus multiple years of experience in state government in Illinois (a state that has almost 20x the population of Alaska) before that, plus years of community organizational experience before that, plus a solid academic background which proves he is no intellectual lightweight.  On top of that, he proved himself by running a brilliant campaign to win the nomination, and (if we does will) will have further proven himself by running a brilliant campaign to win the Presidential election.  Palin, on the other hand, will become VP by riding McCain's coattails.  She could never have hoped to win the office own her own, and yet if she becomes VP she will be one heart attack away from being President.  Tell me how that could possibly inspire confidence in you?

11

^ 6

Re: Smacks of desperation or senility

gerrymander.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 12:42:25 PM EST

4.50 (astute, interesting)

Obama has three years of US Senatorial experience

Did I miss the special election held in 2005 for Illinois senator? No. Obama has held office exactly as long as Palin: 8 years in the minors (she was a mayor), 2 in the majors. Both had lower level community positions before those.

a state that has almost 20x the population of Alaska

I fail to see how this matters.
solid academic background which proves he is no intellectual lightweight

This matters only to intellectuals -- who largely are already in the tank for Obama. Palin has a solid record of personal achievement -- which will matter to PUMAs, who aren't.

he proved himself by running a brilliant campaign to win the nomination

Please. He ran an OK campaign which greatly benefited from him being the other minority in a lackluster field, and from having no record to speak of to prevent him from being the progressive Left's darling. Had South Carolina's primary come even a week later, we'd be talking about the Clinton-McCain race.

if she becomes VP she will be one heart attack away from being President.

Fortunately, the man who would need to have that heart attack looks like he spends his free time wrestling alligators -- and winning.

16

^ 11

Re: Smacks of desperation or senility

port1080.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:01:04 PM EST

none

Did I miss the special election held in 2005 for Illinois senator? No. Obama has held office exactly as long as Palin: 8 years in the minors (she was a mayor), 2 in the majors. Both had lower level community positions before those.

Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004 and came into office on January 4th 2005, so he actually has almost four years of Senatorial experience, but I didn't want to overstate my case.  Palin was elected in 2006 and came into office on December 4th, 2006, so she has a few months less than two years experience.  It's also laughable to compare Palin's experience as a Mayor of a town of 9,000 with Obama's experience as a representative for an Illinois state congressional district of over 650,000.  My hometown growing up had 12,000 people, and it's a rinky-dink rural town.  It's current mayor is a college student.  Being mayor of a small rural town doesn't count for squat in terms of experience.

a state that has almost 20x the population of Alaska. I fail to see how this matters.

Then you either haven't thought it through or you're being disingenuous.  Let me put in it business terms, since that may make more sense to you.  If you were hiring someone to be a CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation, and you had two candidates, one who was the executive of a small company employing 1000 people, and one who had been the CFO of a Fortune 500 firm but didn't  have executive experience, which would you consider the stronger candidate?

Fortunately, the man who would need to have that heart attack looks like he spends his free time wrestling alligators -- and winning.

Gene Upshaw looked like he could wrestle alligators too, right up until about three days before he died.  There's no guarantee McCain won't live another eight years, but the odds are definitely against.  Age catches up to you, no matter how careful you are or how good your conditioning is.

43

^ 16

Re: Smacks of desperation or senility

gerrymander.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:50:41 PM EST

4.00

Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004 and came into office on January 4th 2005, so he actually has almost four years of Senatorial experience

You're right. Sorry about that.

It's also laughable to compare Palin's experience as a Mayor of a town of 9,000 with Obama's experience as a representative for an Illinois state congressional district of over 650,000.

As do I; being one in a herd of 60 state legislators (especially in clout-heavy Illinois) is nothing like being the primary leader. Palin has 10 years of executive experience; Obama, none.

If you were hiring someone to be a CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation, and you had two candidates

I would look at their records. In this case, Obama's experience is largely unexceptional, with what few initiatives he did champion leaving a legacy of failure. The welfare homes he stood behind are a disaster area. The school program he worked on with Ayers, useless. I'd say Palin looks pretty good in comparison.

59

^ 16

Gerry -- disingenuous?

rumata.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:47:53 PM EST

4.00 (funny)

Then you either haven't thought it through or you're being disingenuous.

You must be new here.

72

^ 11

Re: Smacks of desperation or senility

JimmyHavok.

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:12:42 AM EST

none

looks like he spends his free time wrestling alligators

Yes, those melanoma scars on his face are worrisome.  I'm surprised you brought them up.

57

^ 1

Re: Smacks of desperation or senility

profwhat.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:16:27 PM EST

4.00 (interesting)

Palin has more executive experience than the entire Democratic ticket combined.  Obama hasn't managed anything larger than the Harvard Law Review, and that was 18 years ago.  Maybe she was mayor of a small city, and governor of a small-population state, but she's got 18 years of managing bureaucracies, dealing with legislators, and handling warring cabinet members.

The trap set for the Obama folk is if they even try to raise the argument you are raising here.  Obama simply cannot attack her on a lack of qualification, because it opens him to a devastating counterattack.  At the end of that battle, maybe the GOP VP candidate will look unqualified, but the Dem Presidential candidate will also look unqualified--and who benefits from that?

75

^ 57

Re: Smacks of desperation or senility

port1080.

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:18:29 AM EST

none

Palin has more executive experience than the entire Democratic ticket combined.  Obama hasn't managed anything larger than the Harvard Law Review, and that was 18 years ago.  Maybe she was mayor of a small city, and governor of a small-population state, but she's got 18 years of managing bureaucracies, dealing with legislators, and handling warring cabinet members.

The trap set for the Obama folk is if they even try to raise the argument you are raising here.  Obama simply cannot attack her on a lack of qualification, because it opens him to a devastating counterattack

I guess I just don't get it, but to me Palin's "experience" doesn't add up to a hill of beans.  I just don't understand how you can equate it with what McCain or Obama or Biden has done.  I say there is a world of difference between big state and/or national politics and the politics of backwater Alaska - and nobody denies it, but you, gerrymander, and quite a few others nonetheless seem perfectly willing to ignore it.  Is it because you're so enthusiastic about the idea of a Republican ticket winning that you just don't care about her qualifications?  Or is there something I'm missing?  I just don't get how the right can love her so much, considering how much weight conservatives usually give to experience (which, I might add, was one part of conservative ideology that I still found quite compelling...not so much anymore, I guess).

102

^ 75

Re: Smacks of desperation or senility

laputanmachine.

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:26:27 PM EST

5.00 (brilliant, interesting, interesting)

I haven't read much about Palin, but the first thing I thought when I heard the news of McCain's pick was... ALASKA???? Wha?

It's like this whole election is about candidates who represent very separate and bizarre American demographics. No one gives you that "status quo" feeling that you sorta got from Bill Clinton and the two Bush presidents. With Bill Clinton, you had the standard Southern white guy "alpha male" thing going on. Same with the two Bush Presidents. And those two had the Big Business background which is common in politics. But none of the candidates we have today have any of that going for them, from what I can tell.

 You got McCain, the old white guy war veteran, who represents some kinda 1950s/1960s attitude. He seems so behind the times and disconnected from the year 2008. And he doesn't seem to have any big business background at all, having left the military and entering politics immediately after wards. He seems like a guy who should be running for President in the 1980s while the movie Red Dawn was in theaters.

We had Hillary Clinton there for a bit. No big business background, no "alpha male" feeling obviously, and her personal background had a very "corrupt post-modern America" feeling to it, thanks to the Lewinsky scandal, the rise and fall of feminism, and so forth. I would've voted for her if it weren't for her initial support for the Iraq war, but she didn't have that American Hero image attached to her, that's for sure.

And now we have Palin, who is from Alaska of all places. The only place that feels less "American" than Alaska but is still technically American is Puerto Rico. Her resume seems stronger than Obama's, but the state she governed seems so disconnected from the realities of the mainland that she feels out of place as well. No big business background here, either.

Ironically, the guy who seems to be most in touch with mainstream America is a a black guy who's middle name is Hussein and last name rhymes with America's arch enemy. No business background here.

Pretty interesting election, especially as it seems totally devoid of people with "capitalist hero" subtitles.

110

^ 102

Re: Smacks of desperation or senility

pO157.

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:34:41 PM EST

none

And now we have Palin, who is from Alaska of all places. The only place that feels less "American" than Alaska but is still technically American is Puerto Rico.

It produces a metric buttload of oil, which is important for the future. Self reliance, breaking addiction to foreign oil and all. Plus, Alaska is probably the one great frontier left on this nation's soil. What could be more American than that?

202

^ 110

Re: Smacks of desperation or senility

Shy Elf.

Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:42:10 AM EST

5.00 (informative)

It produces a metric buttload of oil, which is important for the future.

At its best It only produced about 2M barrels/day, and now under 2/3M barrels/day.  That's barely a drop in the bucket with the US using 9M barrels/day just for automotive gasoline.  And it doesn't get that much better with 1/2M barrels/day from ANWR.

T. Boone Pickens has it right.  By all means, drill, drill, drill, but anyone telling you that's any kind of solution is trying to pull a fast one one you.

117

^ 75

Re: Smacks of desperation or senility

bannister.

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:37:28 PM EST

4.00 (interesting, interesting, interesting)

Port1080:

I'm not a Republican - but I honestly don't believe Palin is any "less" qualified than Obama.

The difference lies in the duties of the office.

Senators are basically career politicians who study legal theory, attend lots of hearings and assisting in the making of laws.

By contrast, the Governorship is an EXECUTIVE position - it is administrative by nature. Governors have to make both major and minor decisions on a daily basis, be responsible for a multifaceted state budget, deal with municipalities (police, fire, schools, etc) speak to the local and national press on a weekly basis and perhaps most importantly, Governors bear the final responsibility should anything bad happen to the state.

Further, Governors act as Commander in Chief of their state's National Guard, which could be considered a form of military experience.

The size of the state which the Governor manages is not really a huge issue. The budget may be bigger but all of the duties are essentially the same.

In Palin's case, the state of Alaska should not be considered a "boondock" state. Yes, it is remote and small in population, but it is the center of a huge energy industry which is an important national issue right now. It is also the closet state to Russia and Alaska often negotiates with Russia concerning fishing territory, etc.

In my opinion, the fact that she is 2000 miles away from Washington is a bonus. She's not an insider and she has a strong reputation for cleaning up corruption.

For those reasons, I'd say she's every bit as qualified  as Obama - if not more.

122

^ 117

Palin and experience

JimmyHavok.

Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:01:42 AM EST

4.33 (astute, interesting, interesting)

If you look over Palin's Wikipedia entry, it seems that her management style is "my way or the highway."  She fired the entire Board of Agriculture and Conservation because they appointed a Creamery Board that advised an action (selling a non-profitable state-owned dairy) she didn't agree with, then ended up having to do what they advised anyway.  She pulled a very similar stunt as mayor, firing a couple of city employees because they had supported her opponent.

134

^ 117

Re: Smacks of desperation or senility

zyxwvutsr.

Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:25:51 AM EST

4.00 (astute)

Governors act as Commander in Chief of their state's National Guard, which could be considered a form of military experience
The governor of Alaska appoints the board of regents of the University of Alaska. Should that be considered a form of academic experience?

127

^ 117

Re: Smacks of desperation or senility

port1080.

Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:13:15 AM EST

none

Senators are basically career politicians who study legal theory, attend lots of hearings and assisting in the making of laws.

By contrast, the Governorship is an EXECUTIVE position - it is administrative by nature. Governors have to make both major and minor decisions on a daily basis, be responsible for a multifaceted state budget, deal with municipalities (police, fire, schools, etc) speak to the local and national press on a weekly basis and perhaps most importantly, Governors bear the final responsibility should anything bad happen to the state.

I don't know why it is that so many people seem perfectly willing to denigrate the experience of being a US Senator and favor Governors over Senators for the presidency.  I guess years of hearing it said on the campaign trail have made the accusation stick, even though there's absolutely no empirical evidence that governors (especially small state, minimal experience governors) make better (or even good) presidents.  If we look at the historical consensus candidates for top US presidents (here's the group: "George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt -- are consistently ranked at the top of the lists. Usually ranked just below those three are Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt. The remaining top 10 ranks are often rounded out by Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, and John F. Kennedy"), you have an almost completely even mix of governors (3), senators (3), and military leaders (2).  There is no evidence at all that being a senator leaves one unprepared to take over the presidency.  Being president and governor may both be executive positions, but they're completely different ballgames with substantially different staffs, expectations, and responsibilities.  Saying that being governor of Alaska prepares you to be president of the US is like saying being CEO of a small furniture sales company in Iowa makes you the ideal candidate to take over Microsoft.  The job titles may be the same, but that's pretty much where the similarities end.

Further, Governors act as Commander in Chief of their state's National Guard, which could be considered a form of military experience.

The Alaskan National Guard has less than 2000 troops.  Managing it is only slightly more complex than managing a large urban high school (actually, nix that, I think the large urban high school is probably harder).

131

^ 127

Experience

profwhat.

Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:06:27 AM EST

5.00 (interesting)

Every single president in your "top" list was either an officer in the military or a governor--and thus had executive experience.  Play along with the capsule biographies of the presidents:

Washington -- duh
Lincoln -- captain in the Black Hawk War
Franklin Roosevelt -- governor of New York
Thomas Jefferson -- governor of Virginia (post-independence); also count Secretary of State
Theodore Roosevelt -- lieutenant colonel during Spanish-American War
Truman -- captain during World War I
Eisenhower -- commander of Allied Forces during World War II; president of Columbia University
Jackson -- major general in the War of 1812
Wilson -- governor of New Jersey; president of Princeton University
Kennedy -- Navy Lieutenant during World War II

However, don't feel bad, because your methodology of consulting Wikipedia for a list of "top" US presidents, counting the number of governors, and drawing a conclusion about the usefulness of being a governor from that list has many flaws:

  • People are "top" presidents for wildly varying reasons.  I was surprised to see Mr. Trail of Tears on your list.
  • You are spanning centuries, when the job of president was very different.  Washington, and most 19th century presidents, presided over a microscopic federal government; it didn't really start to grow until Reconstruction.  These men needed fewer bureaucracy management skills.  (Note that the word "bureaucracy" did not enter English until 1818).

Being president and governor may both be executive positions, but they're completely different ballgames with substantially different staffs, expectations, and responsibilities.  Saying that being governor of Alaska prepares you to be president of the US is like saying being CEO of a small furniture sales company in Iowa makes you the ideal candidate to take over Microsoft.  The job titles may be the same, but that's pretty much where the similarities end.

This is very true; as many presidents (including Clinton) have said, there is basically no adequate preparation for the job.  That might be why incumbent presidents usually win re-election; they have the killer experience argument working in their favor.  However, to follow your analogy, saying that being a community organizer prepares you to be president of the US is like saying... well, that being a community organizer prepares you to be president of the US.

136

^ 131

Re: Experience

port1080.

Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:10:10 AM EST

5.00 (interesting)

You are spanning centuries, when the job of president was very different.  Washington, and most 19th century presidents, presided over a microscopic federal government; it didn't really start to grow until Reconstruction.  These men needed fewer bureaucracy management skills.  (Note that the word "bureaucracy" did not enter English until 1818).

True, but the list has a relatively equal distribution in terms of time.  In fact, focusing just on modern (World War II) presidents actually favors the senators somewhat, and removes all the governors on the list from contention (unless you count FDR as being a modern-era president, which is debatable since he sort of spans two eras and essentially invented the modern office of the presidency single-handed).

Every single president in your "top" list was either an officer in the military or a governor

While Truman, Kennedy, and Lincoln had some military experience, it was hardly what their political careers were based on, and I think it hardly served to make them "qualified" for high office - or if it does, there are hundreds of thousands of equally qualified ex-military folks out there right now.  It's very apparent that they got the chance at the top spot because of what they did in their political careers, not their military careers.  That's why I said there were two military-backgrounders on the list (although I guess you could say three - Jackson was a senator, but it's pretty apparent his political career was based mostly on his military career) - Washington & Eisenhower.  They were the only two that got to the position without any real pre-presidency political background.

However, to follow your analogy, saying that being a community organizer prepares you to be president of the US is like saying... well, that being a community organizer prepares you to be president of the US.

Did I ever say that it did?  I've leaned on Obama's Illinois State House experience & his US Senate experience far more than on his community organizing experience.  In any case, as I've said before, I'm not completely comfortable with Obama's level of experience - I would be much happier if he had more experience, but what he has is what I could consider to be the minimum requirement (or maybe just below the minimum).  Palin, on the other hand, is FAR below what I would consider to be the bare minimum.  If McCain was younger I might be willing to give that a pass, but considering his age there is a much higher likelihood than normal that he won't make it through his first term, meaning Palin could, potentially, be running this country with just a year or two (or even less - there's always that slight chance that McCain will be the next William Henry Harrison) of experience as being VP.  

That, in my opinion, makes this a stunningly irresponsible pick on McCain's part.  Palin may make a good president or she may not, but she has done nothing to prove that she will.  She is completely an unknown, as everyone has said time and again.  If she ends up being a great choice, it will be a surprise.  The performance of our second-to-top leader should not be a surprise.  McCain had a responsibility to pick a solid candidate who could take over and make sure things would run smoothly.  Instead he gambled on a blatantly political pick who is a complete unknown.  If McCain had picked someone with just that minimal amount of experience (Romney, Pawlenty, any of the other top contenders) this election would have been a difficult choice for me.  As it is, all I see here is that McCain is so desperate to get elected that he is willing to make irresponsible decisions just to get in power.  That to me says that he is no longer the man of character he (arguably) once was, and he no longer deserves my respect or my vote.  I just don't see how everyone is so blasé about, or even supportive of, this choice.

139

^ 131

Re: Experience

JimmyHavok.

Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:10:26 PM EST

5.00 (astute, astute)

You're citing holding the ranks of captain and lieutenant as "executive experience" suitable to prepare one for the Presidency?  That's some reach you've got there.

138

^ 127

different advantages

JimmyHavok.

Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:07:13 PM EST

none

Administrative skills at that level are essentially ones of delegation, and both senators and governors cannot be successful without those.

Senators bring an intimate knowledge of Congress and what needs to be done to get legislation through it to the office.

Governors bring experience in dealing with a legislature from the outside to the office.  

From what Wikipedia says about Palin, she brings neither.

135

^ 117

Federal vs State

Lou.

Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:30:23 AM EST

none

It is also the closet state to Russia and Alaska often negotiates with Russia concerning fishing territory, etc.

Does Alaska negotiate or is this the job of the fed?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

224

^ 75

Re: Smacks of desperation or senility

TopMarineGrunt.

Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:54:45 PM EST

4.00 (interesting, interesting)

Barack is in touch, most connected to the American people? Wait, wha?

He's only in touch with the left wing nuttys who pushed him through the media as the clear choice, from the MOMENT he was elected to congress.  Since that time he has done nothing in congress, just like his 130 "present" votes in the Illinois legislature.  The only thing he's done since getting elected is begin his campaign for the presidency, backed by the far left, who is definitely out of touch with main stream America.

226

^ 224

Re: Smacks of desperation or senility

pO157.

Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 07:13:45 AM EST

none

He's only in touch with the left wing nuttys who pushed him through the media as the clear choice, from the MOMENT he was elected to congress.

And here I was under the assumption that Hillary was the one running as the inevitable.

227

^ 224

Re: Smacks of desperation or senility

zyxwvutsr.

Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 07:51:44 AM EST

none

Obama transcends voting.

80

^ 75

Re: Smacks of desperation or senility

profwhat.

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:06:44 AM EST

none

There is a big difference between Alaska politics and national politics -- I don't deny it.  But there is also a big difference between being a Senator, where you run an office of maybe 75 staffers, occasionally make speeches, go on Sunday shows, and (if you like) introduce bills written by lawyers you hired, and being a President.  Senators do not have to make decisions between warring camps in their own organization, do not have to appoint people, do not have to know how to steer the largest bureaucracy in the world toward their policy objectives.  Governors do.

What is the experience of a Senator?  They might know a lot about policy issues.  I'll grant you that.

118

^ 80

Re: Smacks of desperation or senility

bannister.

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:56:07 PM EST

none

Profwhat - Good point, see my comments above.

119

^ 118

Re: Smacks of desperation or senility

profwhat.

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:26:36 PM EST

none

Thanks for the compliment, and welcome to the site!  Hope you stick around.

125

^ 80

Small comment

pO157.

Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 06:52:53 AM EST

none

Senators do not have to make decisions between warring camps in their own organization, do not have to appoint people

Perhaps not. But, they have to balance their base versus reaching out to independents and other voters. They have to keep all the disparate groups back home happy. They have to avoid pissing off their party leadership when going against them on roll calls.

Senators do have to deal with warring camps, just not inside a bureaucracy.

7

The VP debates.

singularity.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:59:10 AM EST

5.00 (astute, astute)

Biden will most likely destroy her in the VP debates.

13

^ 7

Re: The VP debates.

gerrymander.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 12:46:54 PM EST

4.50 (funny, interesting)

The beautiful part is that she doesn't necessarily have to win. If she holds her own, she gets credit for standing up to a powerful speaker -- which might be enough, if McCain mops the floor with Obama in their three debates.

9

^ 7

Re: The VP debates.

port1080.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 12:03:29 PM EST

3.00 (interesting, obnoxious)

Good point...I can't imagine more of a mismatch.  I wonder if Palin even knows where half the countries are that Biden's been to?

53

^ 9

Re: The VP debates.

Jackkeefe.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:31:40 PM EST

4.00 (interesting)

Out of curiousity, have you ever seen Palin interviewed? Or do you just believe that Biden will cream her because he's been in the Senate forever and she is newcomer to the national stage?

I've only seen Kudlow interview Palin and she was pretty frickin impressive. Of course its one interview and she could have been having her best day, but she doesn't impress me as being over her head.  If people expect a deer in headlights, they are likely to be surprised.

As for Biden, I watched him in the early Dem debates and he was not spectacular by any means. Obviously, Democratic primary voters weren't won over by his debating skills.  Plus with Biden, you never know when he blurt out some silliness like suggesting giving 200 million dollars to Iran with no strings attached.

The expectation game favors Palin.  biden is going to have to destroy her to live up to his reputation and he has to do without pulling a Rick Lazio. All Palin will have to do is hold her own to "win" the debate. Plus, the risk of Biden saying something incredibly stupid is at least as high as that of Palin.  

17

^ 9

Re: The VP debates.

T Slothrop.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:02:17 PM EST

none

Now wait a minute. I was going to stay out of this but this is just over the top. She doesn't know basic geography because she's a "young good-looking woman"? You are just assuming she's a bimbo.

I know as you have painstakingly pointed out Alaska has a tiny population. But I don't think that any state regardless of size is going to elect a bimbo as governor.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

40

^ 17

Just sayin'

Lou.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:30:09 PM EST

5.00 (funny)

But I don't think that any state regardless of size is going to elect a bimbo as governor.

Are you sure about that?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

42

^ 40

Re: Just sayin'

T Slothrop.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:45:46 PM EST

none

Sorry  but I suffer from an advanced case of paleo-sexism. To me, only women can be "bimbos". Men (like your example) who exhibit similar characteristics are "morons".

I know a whole shitload of morons have been elected state governors, but I still think a bimbo would be a harder sell. :)

{Insert amusing quotation here}

44

^ 42

Re: Just sayin'

Lou.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:51:48 PM EST

none

I appreciate what you're saying...I just feel that "Bush the Cheerleader" puts him squarely in the bimbo column.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

73

^ 17

Re: The VP debates.

JimmyHavok.

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:16:57 AM EST

3.00 (funny, astute)

But I don't think that any state regardless of size is going to elect a bimbo as governor.

Oooh...you haven't been to Alaska, I see.

21

^ 17

Re: The VP debates.

pO157.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:22:48 PM EST

none

I don't really think he called her a bimbo. Yes he pointed out she is physically attractive (in another sub thread), but I don't think his comment was obnoxious on its face.

I think he was trying to point out that Biden has a bunch of foreign policy experience and is well traveled. On the other hand, Palin has been mostly occupied with internal issues (she even sold the state executive jet on eBay). Not that there is anything wrong with that.

23

^ 21

Re: The VP debates.

T Slothrop.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:28:45 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

Whatever he was trying to point out, claiming she can't find countries on a map is way over the top.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

26

^ 23

Re: The VP debates.

port1080.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:42:49 PM EST

none

Whatever he was trying to point out, claiming she can't find countries on a map is way over the top.

Is it really?  If I gave you a blank map, could you name every country on it?  I don't think I could, although I would hope that a serious US presidential candidate could.  I expect Palin could point out where Iraq is, and hopefully Pakistan and Afghanistan, but Uzbekistan?  Armenia?  South Ossetia (if it hadn't been in the news lately)?  I don't think it's crazy to think that Biden's probably been to some countries that Palin couldn't identify on a blank world map.

34

^ 26

Re: The VP debates.

HidingFromGoro.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:10:22 PM EST

5.00 (informative, interesting)

If I gave you a blank map, could you name every country on it?

Only one way to find out.

37

^ 34

Re: The VP debates.

T Slothrop.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:17:39 PM EST

none

Great find!

{Insert amusing quotation here}

38

^ 34

Re: The VP debates.

port1080.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:20:56 PM EST

none

I got 42 out of 48, not too bad I guess.  I would have got three more (Singapore, Brunei, & East Timor) but they're so small I couldn't see them on the map, and hence forgot about them.  Totally missed Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, and Bahrain, though.

46

^ 34

Goddamn -stans.

pO157.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:06:46 PM EST

none

I gave up after 7 minutes. I got 39/48 right (no cheating), which isn't too shabby I guess since I am not running for anything. Even more frustrating was that you had to spell it exactly correct, so that was a pain in the butt.

But yeah, I'm satisfied. Run me for VP of something.

63

^ 34

Re: The VP debates.

PenitenziAgite.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:17:34 PM EST

none

43 out of 48
I missed Qatar, Brunei, East Timor, Bahrain and the Maldives....

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

222

^ 34

Re: The VP debates.

permazorch.

Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:33:27 PM EST

none

Man, I only got 23 out of 48. I suck. Those 'stans are particularly difficult, though.

----- The earth may burn, but we will quiver

28

^ 26

Re: The VP debates.

T Slothrop.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:48:05 PM EST

none

Is it really?  If I gave you a blank map, could you name every country on it?  I don't think I could, although I would hope that a serious US presidential candidate could.

Damn port, are you high? That's got to be about the silliest thing I've ever seen you post here.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

31

^ 28

Re: The VP debates.

port1080.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:55:20 PM EST

none

Damn port, are you high? That's got to be about the silliest thing I've ever seen you post here.

You don't think knowledge of the world around us should be a qualification for president, or are you knocking me because Palin is just running as VP?  I've already made my case that I think she should be held to a higher standard, because of McCain's advanced age, but I guess we could argue about that.  I don't see how that makes what I said "silly", though.

33

^ 31

Re: The VP debates.

T Slothrop.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:09:59 PM EST

none

What is "silly" is your assertion that ANY Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate of the last 40 years or so anyway could pull off that feat. Sorry if my response didn't make that clear. :)

Look I don't think Palin is qualified for either job. To be totally honest, if you take all four of 'em Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin, I'd say that Biden is the only who who is actually "qualified" for either job.

But you know as well as I do that American politics doesn't work like that.

Honestly I was only giving you a hard time because I felt your criticism of Palin was based almost solely on the fact that she is, admittedly, a serious milf. If I was wrong about that, I do sincerely apologize.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

35

^ 33

Re: The VP debates.

T Slothrop.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:13:04 PM EST

none

Sixth line should read "...only one who..."

{Insert amusing quotation here}

39

^ 33

Re: The VP debates.

port1080.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:22:03 PM EST

none

What is "silly" is your assertion that ANY Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate of the last 40 years or so anyway could pull off that feat. Sorry if my response didn't make that clear. :)

I guess it's asking for too much, but I wish it wasn't.  

But you know as well as I do that American politics doesn't work like that.

That just depresses me.

22

^ 17

Re: The VP debates.

port1080.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:28:28 PM EST

none

Now wait a minute. I was going to stay out of this but this is just over the top. She doesn't know basic geography because she's a "young good-looking woman"? You are just assuming she's a bimbo.

I know as you have painstakingly pointed out Alaska has a tiny population. But I don't think that any state regardless of size is going to elect a bimbo as governor.

No, I'm saying it because of her lack of experience and her provincial roots.  Bush famously didn't know who the President of Pakistan was when quizzed during the 2000 campaign, and he clearly wasn't a bimbo - he just had no foreign policy experience and didn't keep up on current events.  I imagine the same is true of Palin.  It doesn't really require any foreign policy experience or knowledge to be governor of Alaska, and keeping up on such things isn't something that I would expert her to do.  That's not a dig at her qualification to be governor of Alaska (or any state, really), but it's certainly a dig at her qualifications to be President of the United States.

25

^ 22

Re: The VP debates.

T Slothrop.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:40:07 PM EST

none

Bush didn't know who the president of Pakistan was because he was (and remains) a fucking moron who is lost without his handlers.

I can find even most obscure former Soviet Republics and failed-state African countries on a map. I know the names of most world leaders. Does that qualify me to be president?

My point is that any reasonably intelligent, reasonably well-educated person  - regardless of political experience - should be able to find countries on a map and answer simple questions about current events. Saying Palin can't is saying a lot more than she lacks foreign policy experience.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

27

^ 25

Re: The VP debates.

port1080.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:46:20 PM EST

none

Bush didn't know who the president of Pakistan was because he was (and remains) a fucking moron who is lost without his handlers.

....and yet Bush in 2000 had FAR more proven executive and political experience than Palin, and also a much better educational pedigree.  Given that, why is it crazy for me to think that Palin's foreign policy chops may be lacking?

My point is that any reasonably intelligent, reasonably well-educated person  - regardless of political experience - should be able to find countries on a map and answer simple questions about current events. Saying Palin can't is saying a lot more than she lacks foreign policy experience.

Now you're extrapolating far more than what I said.  I said that there are probably countries Biden has been to that she couldn't find on a map (and I meant a blank map, although I should have made that clear from the beginning).  I never said I thought she was a complete moron.  See some of my other replies to you for further clarification.

30

^ 25

Re: The VP debates.

port1080.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:53:00 PM EST

none

I can find even most obscure former Soviet Republics and failed-state African countries on a map. I know the names of most world leaders. Does that qualify me to be president?

My point is that any reasonably intelligent, reasonably well-educated person  - regardless of political experience - should be able to find countries on a map and answer simple questions about current events.

I should also point out that I teach political science, and I'm well aware (and depressed by the fact) that a large portion of the kids who graduate with a BA in political science are not capable of finding countries on a map and answering simple questions about current events.  If you go out of political science it gets even worse.  People like you and I are the exception, not the rule, when it comes to knowledge of international relations.  It wouldn't shock me at all to find out that you would do better on a quiz of international affairs than many US Senators, and probably most state governors.  So, yes, I have a low opinion of Palin, but not just of her.  I'm pretty pessimistic about most politicians when it comes to those sorts of things.

29

well this is a surprise

wetkarma.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:51:21 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

I'm somewhat reminded of how I felt when Bush announced Harriet Miers as his choice for the supreme court. Yea she's a citizen of the USA and as such meets the minimum requirements for the VP slot, but I think that this decision is based 100% on voter calculus (winning the HRC vote) and very little attention has been paid to the 'what if he dies' scenario.

I understand that politicians have to have a big ego in order to do the job that they do. But really -- does McCain think he is immortal?

IF McCain can live, then the choice of Palin to capture what I assume to be the independent/swing HRC votes is a devious one. I mean if all you want in your candidate is a pair of breasts and accompanying genitalia -- then Palin is just like HRC. But thats about where the similarities end.

I know that people are going to try and spin this as some sort of genius/maverick pick, but to me it smacks of desperation -- desperation for the votes of those Democrats still upset that HRC didn't get the nod.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

41

I must say

Lou.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:43:25 PM EST

5.00 (astute, brilliant, interesting)

I think McCain made a good strategic choice.  She seems to have conservative chops and looks to be a popular leader in her state.  She's a "Feminist for Life", which might rankle the pro-choice folks, but she still self identifies as a feminist.  She wasn't in the race for the presidential nomination so there won't be any troublesome video of her tearing down McCain. (I'm lookin' at you, Joe Biden.)  Sure, Biden might trounce her during the debates, but as someone mentioned down thread, all she will have to do is show up.  Remember, that's what folks said about the debates between Bush/Gore...and that seemed to work out pretty well for the GOP.  Experience?  Meh.  I don't think it's all that important for the VP slot as long as she gets in a year or two as VP before McCain croaks. (I also think it's over-rated for the prez as long as he surrounds himself with smart people...but that's for another discussion).

Finally, as much as it pains me to say it, she's easy on the eye.  I wish it were otherwise, but the  typical American voter of either stripe has the attention span of a kitten and one can't discount the 'ohhh shiny' factor.  Hell...there is already a comment or two plus a QL about how her looks matter to the tripodial conservative voters among us.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

55

It's Over

ms sue.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:37:44 PM EST

5.00 (funny, interesting, astute)

I think McCain has clinched the election with this choice. I think he probably would have won with a couple other choices, but this was masterful.

For those of you who think Biden will rip her to shreds with his vast knowledge and experience, let me remind you that most people don't give a crap about that elitist stuff anymore.

It's over.

86

^ 55

Wrong, and wrong by a mile

1fastdog.

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:53:29 AM EST

5.00 (astute, astute, interesting)

Sorry, Sue, but your conclusion is way off. The general consensus from my relatives, co-workers, and other assorted friends and neighbors was that McCain is openly pandering; thinking that females are so dumb that they'll be swayed to vote for him simply because he picked a VP on the basis of chromosomes. My wife (a Dem, who votes Republican from time) just laughed at the sheer transparency of the move. All of the women (they're all Repubs save one) who run the offices at my workplace had the exact reaction at the announcement yesterday: WHO??!! Followed by: good lord he must be desperate if he thinks picking a woman magically blinds people to McCain's faults.
Now, to shed some light on the faulty theory floated by gerry and others that a statistically significant portion HRC's supporters are going to embrace Palin (whom, it should be noted, is under an ethics investigation). My mon and my sister are ardent HRC supporters. My mom's in her eighties, my sister in her fifties, and both sent in large chunks of money to her campaign. Both had their Republican friends switch party affiliation (you can change party affiliation before a certain date) so these same Repubs could vote for hillary in PA's primary. Both have local networks of like-minded co-workers, or retirees in my mom's case, that devoted similar time, money and energy to HRC's campaign. They're all voting for Obama according to my mom. My mom's reaction to McCain's picking Palin: "He must think women are stupid!" All that said, this is how it appears at my locality and my small sampling of reactions is just that: small. However, I suspect that this sentiment is a damn solid purview of those coveted HRC supporters. Anyone believing that any more than 2% of HRC supporters will be jumping ship to McCain on the basis of this pick are willfully deluding themselves.
Obama's trouble spot, at least in this area, is overcoming the racist vote. In a stunning display of bipartisanship, I've run across a truly heartbreaking number of people that won't vote for him simply because of his skin. Forget stances on issues, they don't care. They simply won't pull the lever for a black man. Mostly, these folks are in the 50 and up age group and always vote, as opposed to their younger counterparts who by and large are friendly to Obama, but don't always show up to vote, and may not vote for him anyway, especially if they lean rightward.
What does my local analysis tell me? It tells me that the Palin choice is mostly a dog and pony show born out of desperation that will fail to resonate with the intended demographic, which renders your conclusion that "McCain has clinched the election with this choice," just plain wrong in my eyes. Obama's path to the White House will ultimately be determined by those truly independent voters that conclude his stances are more important to them than the color of his skin.

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

87

^ 86

Re: Wrong, and wrong by a mile

zyxwvutsr.

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:26:28 AM EST

5.00 (interesting)

...thinking that females are so dumb that they'll be swayed to vote for him simply because he picked a VP on the basis of chromosomes
Have a look at the exit polls from the Democratic primaries. You'll see that women voted for Clinton at a rate 10-12 percentage points higher than men did. In fact, in several states that Clinton won, the male vote was pretty close to even between Clinton and Obama, and the race was decided by women who, apparently, voted for Clinton mostly based on her gender.

90

^ 87

Re: Wrong, and wrong by a mile

JimmyHavok.

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:14:47 PM EST

none

Considering that Obama and Clinton were so close in their policies that they were nearly indistinguishable,no doubt there were a significant number of women who gave her their vote only because of her gender.  But McCain and Obama have some very significant policy differences, so I doubt that the gender of the second spot will be quite so compelling.

91

^ 90

Re: Wrong, and wrong by a mile

zyxwvutsr.

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:17:22 PM EST

none

McCain only needs a handful of votes in key states.

93

^ 87

Re: Wrong, and wrong by a mile

1fastdog.

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:33:42 PM EST

none

and the race was decided by women who, apparently, voted for Clinton mostly based on her gender.

Well, yeah. But those were Democratic women voting in a Democratic primary, so all other things considered equal, that's to be expected. 99% of those same women will not make the change to McCain on the basis of Palin's gender alone. I just don't see any appreciable number of Dems, regardless of gender, embracing the extension of GOP policies that McCain ultimately represents. Given what McCain represents, it'll be interesting to see how many conservatives Obama reels in. There looks to be quite a few.

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

94

^ 93

Re: Wrong, and wrong by a mile

zyxwvutsr.

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:37:56 PM EST

none

99% of those same women will not make the change to McCain on the basis of Palin's gender alone
What's the spread right now in, for example, Ohio? 1% may be all McCain needs.

96

^ 94

Re: Wrong, and wrong by a mile

1fastdog.

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:45:54 PM EST

none

1% may be all McCain needs

True enough. On the other hand, 1% of Obamacons may represent all that Obama needs.

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

124

^ 86

Re: Wrong, and wrong by a mile

wetkarma.

Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:52:11 AM EST

none


Obama's trouble spot, at least in this area, is overcoming the racist vote. In a stunning display of bipartisanship, I've run across a truly heartbreaking number of people that won't vote for him simply because of his skin. Forget stances on issues, they don't care. They simply won't pull the lever for a black man.

sigh..that is so..very very depressing.

Unsurprising perhaps..but still a major downer.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

56

^ 55

Re: It's Over

pO157.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:49:15 PM EST

3.00

For those of you who think Biden will rip her to shreds with his vast knowledge and experience, let me remind you that most people don't give a crap about that elitist stuff anymore.

Nor do people give a crap about VP debates, in general.

58

^ 55

Re: It's Over

profwhat.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:19:32 PM EST

none

Wow, you are more decisive than anyone else I've heard.  I agree this is a smart pick, but, "it's over?"  I think we have a hell of a race on our hands with four excellent candidates.  For the first time, I don't feel like I have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

60

^ 58

Re: It's Over

Lou.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:55:45 PM EST

5.00 (interesting)

I have to agree with Sue.  I can see the ears of disgruntled, right of center HRC supporters perking up.  Oh sure, they'll probably vote for Hillary in 2012, but for now there's a fresh faced, self-avowed hockey mom (her words, not mine) who could be in the white house.  And to be honest, I kind of like that idea too...I would like it more if she wasn't coming in on the landing path with McCain. A person, believe it or not, I used to like...until he just rolled over for the ass-raping from Bush/Rove/Cheney without the privilege of a reach around.  Hell I could even forgive him that if not for the fact that he's going to just continue the same bullshit we've been living with for the last 8 years.  And come on, let's face it...most elections are won on charisma and the McCain team just pulled a charisma end around.

Nope...Sue is right.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

61

^ 60

Eh, Wot?

uncarved block.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:26:53 PM EST

none

    disgruntled, right of center HRC supporters . . .

    And how a large a percentage of the electorate do you really place that figure at? Just curious, because after living through the 90s, the conservative CW would say that you couldn't even fill a regular season Arena Football League game with those numbers. Seriously, this could have some slight impact in Ohio- which is a big swing state, obviously- but I can't see it taking much away from the debate at the top of the ticket.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

62

^ 61

Re: Eh, Wot?

Lou.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:56:49 PM EST

none

By itself, it probably won't mean much...but if we look at it as a pebble in a pond...

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

64

^ 62

Re: Eh, Wot?

pO157.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:18:34 PM EST

none

You're probably right. If anything this neutralizes the HRC '12 run. If McCain/Palin lose then she has a legit contention in the primary during the next cycle. In that case I assume the Dem powers that be would be hesitant to allow HRC to mount a primary challenge against an incumbent Obama.

If McCain/Palin wins then one of HRC's big selling points is also taken off the table.

Is Palin the best possible running mate for McCain right now? I don't know. But in the long run it is a good move for the GOP.