Print This
Email This
Last night the pundits were left either completely speechless or spilling praise after Obama’s nomination acceptance speech. Everyone asked how McCain could possibly respond to such a speech that laid out populist policy plans, attacked McCain’s political experience, and rebutted a number smears.
But he did manage to steal some of Obama’s thunder this morning with the announcement of Sarah Palin for VP.
A few considerations. . .
To some degree, it’s impossible to deny McCain is reaching out to the remaining disgruntled Hillary voters who aren’t yet convinced by Obama. But the question is why Palin when Kay Hutchinson and Elizabeth Dole would be far more recognizable female Republican running mates? Palin has even less experience than Obama — and experience has been a focal issue for McCain this campaign season.
That we know little to nothing about her is actually to the advantage of McCain. Right now, it looks entirely possible that the Republican National Convention will be postponed and scaled down, if not cancelled entirely due to Gustav’s impending arrival on our shores. No RNC this year means Americans won’t have a direct line of vision into the policies supported by the GOP going into this election. Plenty of Americans still think of McCain as a party maverick and/or pro-choice and/or a moderate. His record shows that he is none of the above.
Now we have the addition of Sarah Palin who has zero nation or foreign policy experience. Frankly, given her limited local government roles, we know little of her positions on a number of key issues for Americans: health insurance, education, Social Security, etc. And the Average American isn’t going to necessarily be exposed to what little is known about her.
As Huffington Post columnist Linda Bergthold points out, here’s what we do know:
She is NOT pro-choice. She has NO national experience. She has never been under the intense scrutiny of a national campaign. She is under investigation for some incident in Alaska that is messy and personal. She has no international experience. Her experience governing is in a very small state, famous for its “Bridge to Nowhere” kind of political graft. Her Republican colleague in that state, Senator Ted Stevens has been indicted for corruption.
Does that sound like a candidate ready to lead on Day 2, should Sen. McCain die during his first term in office?
While she acknowledges the Republican Party in raising the profile of women in this election, Ann at Feministing notes she is pro-life and on the wrong side of progressive social issues.
First up, she’s super anti-choice. The forced-pregnancy crowd is thrilled today! (She recently had her fifth child, who has Down’s syndrome.) She’s against marriage equality and supports a federal gay-marriage ban, but has made sure to note that she “has gay friends.” Though she has signed on to same-sex partner benefits. She believes schools should teach creationism. She’s also pretty terrible on environmental issues, and is a huge advocate of drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.
The upside to this election, women’s issues will now be front and center going into the fall. The downside, if they can keep Palin off the center stage, fueling low key events that get less coverage, the maverick might be able to keep his image intact, and possibly make this a closer election than anticipated.
For more timely, relevant, and engaging articles, subscribe to Brazen Careerist.
Recent Comments
Popular Posts
40 RESPONSES TO "THE MCCAIN/PALIN TICKET : GENIUS OR INSANITY?"
@ Emily
1) She is not interested in what you think are women's rights. There are plenty of women out there that really connect with her and believe she is fighting for them.
2) If you watched her speech on wed. you would have seen that there was no pandering or going for Hillary voters. She is further right than McCain.
3) If Obama was in the senate 8 years why did he vote present so many times? Is everyone from IL better at politics than people from Alaska because it is bigger? Is everyone in America from an urban setting, therefore VP's and POTUS should be from an Urban setting? What about rural America? I know they have their guns and religion. As for his senate time, he has spent most of it (19 months) campaigning, not legislating.
4) McCain's mom is 96 running around the RNC like she is 40. The POTUS probably has the best health care in all the world. I really think the chances of him dying are slim and using that as an argument is stretching.
Doesn't Palin mention both creationism and evolution should be taught?
From your linkPalin: “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information." That's a far cry from saying she believes in teaching only creationism.
I mean, in my graduate school studies, I'm taught to understand a lot of economic ideas that are completely false, simply so I can learn what those who are misguided think. It is a way to ensure I don't fall into the same trap.
Wouldn't offering both views be the same concept?
You didn't anticipate that this would be a close election? Did you think Obama would win hands down because of the failed policies of the current administration?
I hate to say it but, I don't think so. There are a lot of complex issues here, and I have a feeling this election isn't going to go the democrat's way. We'll have to wait and see, but I really think I'm right on this one.
Well, your brother has more executive experience than 0bama. if he has socialist leanings i'm sure he could get the democratic nod.
palin was a mayor for 10 years and governor for 2 years. that is exponentially more executive experience the 0bama. how is this not obvious? she also helped bust ted stevens.
gen y= fail
Jeremiah,
So my brother, who successfully manages a retail store as has for several years, could in theory be tapped as CEO of the company.
We're just talking about scaling operations, right? I don't think so.
I think it was a stupid choice given the other experienced female politicians if it was that important to have a woman on the ticket. It's a blatant pander that a few undecided female voters might be uninformed enough to fall for.
The news has been out for less than a weekend and already I have heard not only about her rigidly conservative views on a woman's right to choose and the environment, but also a scandal involving her sister and brother-in-law and one regarding the fact that her fifth child is actually her teenage daughter's child. If this is how her honeymoon period look, I think she has a hard road ahead on the campaign trail.
Palin's selection was an idiotic short-sighted misogynistic pander to angry Clinton supporters determined not to support Obama. The news has only been out for a weekend, but already scandals have surfaced regarding her firing her former brother-in-law and the somewhat credible idea that her fifth child is actually her teenage daughter's child. The honeymoon is over before it began.
Aside from the obvious fact that her stance's on a woman's right to choose and the environment are completely at odds with the views of these potential voters, her scant elected experience suggests nothing of her ability to manage the responsibilities, both current and potential, of the #2 spot. For an Alaskan's perspective on her fitness for the position, read http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/what-is-mccain-thinking-one-ala...
Palin's selection was an idiotic short-sighted misogynistic pander to angry Clinton supporters determined not to support Obama. The news has only been out for a weekend, but already scandals have surfaced regarding her firing her former brother-in-law and the somewhat credible idea that her fifth child is actually her teenage daughter's child. The honeymoon is over before it began.
Aside from the obvious fact that her stance's on a woman's right to choose and the environment are completely at odds with the views of these potential voters, her scant elected experience suggests nothing of her ability to manage the responsibilities, both current and potential, of the #2 spot. For an Alaskan's perspective on her fitness for the position, you should read http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/what-is-mccain-thinking-one-ala...
So Obama or Hillary arent’t/weren’t Democratic props? Come on. Obama was also picked for his looks and ability to excite people - despite less experience than other hopeful nominees. These are the criticisms we are seeing of Palin. I don’t think you can deny that relative to other choices in the Democratic party, Obama didn’t top the list experience-wise. Also, even many pro-choicer’s are horrified by Obama’s partial-birth abortion voting record, so he is not winning a lot of human rights votes there.
Furthermore, you assert Palin won’t do anything for women’s rights. But that is only according to your personal definition, not mine. For example, I am pro-life, so does that make me anti-woman? No, that makes no sense.
As for breaking glass ceilings, since when did we need one specific woman leading the way? Why don't we each lead the way? I personally don't need Palin, Hillary, or Michelle as my role models just because they are women. I can learn from any man or woman who has been a great leader.
When it comes to experience, it is clear both tickets have that. Furthermore, the cabinet chosen will supplement deficiencies both parties have. Can we move on to proposed positions please?
On point about teaching origin theories, whatever you believe takes a certain amount of faith. If you believe that the earth is truly billions of years old and that we evolved directly from primates, there is definitely strong elements of faith in carbon dating processes and macro-evolutionary processes. If you are a Christian and believe that God created humans directly without scientific processes and that the earth is only 5/6K years old, you have to have a certain level of faith in the bible and a given interpretation of it (while also holding that this holds more truth than biological/anthropological explanations).
Science intermingles with religion/philosophy on the origins of our planet and human beings so these theories both should be taught.
Also, as Milena added, I and everyone else through property taxes and other taxes are paying for public schools so why shouldn't more ideas being explored and presented? If the "separation of church/state" argument is brought up, then there better be a strong backing.
Palin is a prop. She isn't going to further women's rights and therefore her candidacy as a means to break more cracks in the glass ceiling is a complete sham.
Let's not get confused by another false narrative being perpetuated by the Republicans - Palin is not a "change agent" - she is an unqualified elected official being used for her gender to attract voters who don't know any better.
Milena,
18Million people vetted Obama over the last 18 months. I don't see how being a charismatic and inspiring speaker is a negative. He has run a sophisticated 50-state campaign, driving voter registrations and historic donations -- it's valid executive experience if that's your threshold for preparedness.
Pro-women policies further the freedoms and rights of women in society. The pro-life movement is for restricting rights, thus I would say that the pro-birth movement is anti-women to the core. I know we passionately disagree on this point.
When you look at the number of senior women in the Republican Party who would have been solid female running meates -- Snowe, Hutchinson, Dole -- and he picked palin who Palin with no national or international experience --- living next door to Russia is not international experience -- his judgement comes into question.
He picked her, not because he puts country first, but because he wants to win. And 75% of Americans agree.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08.htm
"John McCain chose Sarah Palin because he felt the time had come to nominate a woman."
Agree 43
Disagree 56
"John McCain chose Sarah Palin because he thought having a woman on the ticket would help him get elected."
Agree 75
Disagree 25
Per wikipedia: "Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which prioritize individual liberty[2] and seek to minimize or even abolish the state."
The secessionists would be taking a major level of government out of play. . . thus, I would expect it would please libertarians.
I respectfully disagree with your view of pro-life pro-womanness, thus I did not comment, as I've already state where I stand on that subject in a previous post.
Roe v. Wade becoming a state issue -- means that most likely women in red states would suffer -- blue states couldn't get away with banning abortion, there would riots at state capitals. But Red states are where the hard core right are most likely to be found and the place where'd they'd work to chip away at women's right annually. And I don't see what good could come of that reality.
And good for you, for having developed benchmarks of your own for choosing a candidate. Hopefully, more voter that not, will do more than just tow the party line and do the same.
@Zak - uh. What? Libertarians are not secessionists.
Anyways - her "ties" to the AIP are dubious, but thanks for digging deep for that tidbit and ignoring almost everything else I said.
I never said Obama wasn't a good choice for the Democrats, but he hardly has the experience other Democratic presidential hopefuls had. That is the criticism of Palin.
You are right, we passionately disagree as to when life begins so I would never consider pro-life as anti-woman, that doesn't even enter the equation given my premise. Because I believe life begins at conception, there cannot be an anti-woman position from my point of view. This is my point, you cannot say Palin is anti-woman, that is unfair. Yes, she has a different belief, but that is not anti-woman, because I could take the logic in the other direction and say pro-choice supporters are fundamentally anti-humanity, and I doubt you'd describe yourself that way.
Furthermore, as for overturning Roe v. Wade, the decision wouldn't outlaw abortion, it would become a state issue and you'd be free to live in states that support your beliefs. It would not be illegal.
As for Palin, she was the most libertarian choice, and that is why I like her. She is not perfect, nor is McCain, Obama, or Biden. I'm not willing to defend any of them 100%, but I think that the criticisms flying over Palin can be easily turned back on the Democratic ticked, i.e., pointless.
Even if I were a Democrat, Obama's "lack of experience" would not be an issue at all, because I'd like his politics. I don't happen to like his politics, his experience has nothing to do with it. Similarly, Palin may not have a ton of experience, but again, she is the most libertarian choice of all candidates.
You are correct about her libertarian leanings --- she is after all tied to the AIP, Alaskan Independence Party.
She, in fact, recorded a greeting for the convention this year, encouraging and congratulating them on their work.
ABC acknowledged her ties toady
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html
@zak - If you'd like to argue that some libertarians are known for extremist ideas, I won't try to defend those small factions, but most do not support secessionism. I'm glad you pointed that out though, I don't want to be associated with secessionists. I really prefer the term classical liberal which connotes limited (not non-existent or de facto) government, but I've found most people aren't sure what that means, though a wikipedia search is easy enough I suppose.
I understand we disagree on abortion, and I'm not trying to change your mind, but emphasize the double-standard whereby you'd get to call me anti-woman (which is unfair), however, if I applied your logic to my position, I'd get to call you anti-human (also unfair).
Also, the phrase is "toe the line."
I certainly don't plan to toe the Republican line, as I'm not a Republican and take issue with a number of the McCain/Palin platforms. So I agree, I hope that no matter which party voters choose, they will continue to challenge their deficiencies, as I plan to do.
are we really reduced to petty corrections of grammatical errors Milena. We both know I was trying to provide a prompt response, so spell/grammar check wasn't my primary concern.
There I go again; it should have been a capital "Are" and there should have been a question mark not a period at the end of that first sentence.
I guess it's time to go back to 5th grade language arts for me. . .
Rob,
how is my post name calling? I'm sharing what her positions are on a number of social issues, the few positions we know about. . . that's not name calling.
I find it amazing that people criticize Sarah Palin's lack of experience and what would happen if McCain died. What about Obama's lack of experience.
I don't believe you can say one has foreign policy experience just because he has visited Iraq.
If the Democrats or their sympathizers think the choice of Palin was a bad choice why are they so upset.
It seems to me with the ridiculous sentiment against George Bush that the election should be a cake walk for the Democrats.
Perhaps the Democrats aren't in tune with the voice of the people as much as they think they are.
I can only wonder if Obama wins and doesn't serve our country well will there be stupid bumper stickers like the ones that give the date of George Bush's departure.
I have one answer that I will give if Obama wins. The Democrats never wish that the Republican president does well in office. The answer I will give if Obama wins will be, We'll see.
You may not like it but history will be kind to George Bush. What other president was hit by a disaster or attack to the United States very soon after taking over the presidency?
If he did nothing else in office at least he wasn't distracted by various daliances such as our last president.
mea culpa.
@Zak: "but it also makes me a bit upset because if enough idiots vote in the Republicans again. . ."
@Rob,
Emily made that comment; address your remarks to the appropriate party. I can't speak for her.
I am totally offended by Palin's nomination, and agree with Vanessa that it was misogynistic.
Previously, I didn't hate McCain, even though I was growing quite disturbed with his recent decisions and "perspectives." However, choosing Palin put me over the edge. I cannot believe that everyone in the country is not outraged with such a sexist decision. I also cannot believe that such a supposedly smart and respectable woman would accept being a token. If she wins the election for him, I will have to give up and move to Canada.
Here you go Chris, before you jump in about Obama's experience
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/13001.html
creationism and intelligent design don't belong in biology classes, they belong in survey classes on world religions or classes on culture. Science and Religious belief are two very separate subjects.
I guess the whole creationism/evolution debate is odd to me. I cannot see how if one believed in creationism (not a science), or was told some people do, how it could possibly negate evolution. I mean, evolution is well-evidenced in history, you kind of can't deny it. Oh well, I know there is a lot of weird crap being circulated in public schools, I won’t deny that.
Anyhow, I think the real issue is that the government shouldn’t decide what my kids learn, period.
Terrible pick. Unless Mccain really hopes to get lucky on the campaign trail with Palin, I don't see what he accomplishes with this pick.
@zak - It's not a grammatical error that I was pointing out, "tow" also makes perfect sense, but is oft-mistaken.
Anyways - I thought it was interesting when I learned it was "toe."
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/toe-the-line.html
Tim,
There are solid difference between science and religion.
By definition, "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws; knowledge gained by systematic study"
whereas religion is defined as " a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
The difference is that science is ever evolving, as studies show one previously held truth wrong, the field experiences a paradigm shift to adjust for the new information. Scientific fact is open to inquiry and challenge and change. It enocourages critical thinking
Religious belief is static. It's what the book says. Period, end of sentence. There is minimal room for challenge.
Religion belongs in philosophy/culture/history classes NOT in a Science class room.
If Palin is as bad as you imagine, you should be tap dancing over the choice. Why are you so dang upset?
I think Palin was an insane choice for McCain. It just looks like a desperate attempt to get the Hillary folks, though I strongly doubt it will work since she is not interested in womens' rights. I'm shocked McCain didn't pick someone like Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is better known and actually has large-scale experience.
@Jeremiah, Obama was in the Illinois state senate for 8 years and has been in the national senate for almost 3 years. That's just as much experience as Palin except on a larger scale. Illinois is much more populated with many more complicated issues than Alaska. I've been to six different towns in Alaska and it is a much smaller, slower place with very different issues than urban places. Plus, being a mayor is very small-scale politics -- Obama was in state-wide government while Palin was running a tiny Alaskan town.
McCain is 72 and a cancer survivor, and he may keel over at any minute. Because of this, he needed to pick someone who can easily step in and lead the country in his place. He needed someone with at least a little foreign policy experience and Palin has none.
@Rob: This choice does make me more hopeful that Obama will win, but it also makes me a bit upset because if enough idiots vote in the Republicans again, I will not feel secure that we have a strong back-up in case McCain dies. He's already in his 70s and I don't think Palin has the experience to handle the job.
@Zak: Idiots. Good one.
Gotta love identity politics. By repeating the same ad hominem attacks rather than dealing honestly with the real issues (agree or not), you will surely help to secure the opposite result for your party. Name calling and yelling just ain't persuasive (probably not your purpose anyway). But you can't help yourself can you?
Tiffany,
have you seen Gloria Steinem's piece about Palin in the LA times.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-steinem4-2008sep04,...
I think it sums up how a lot of feminists feel about the situation.
Brandon,
3) Do you actually understand what voting "present" means in the Illinois Senate? He wasn't sitting on the fence -- there's usually a good reason.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/opinion/16mikva.html
Alaska is terrain unlike any other state in the union. It's incredibly rural and the weather/economics are unique to that region. Illinois has a wide variety of community types from rural to urban.
Chicago is the 3rd largest city in the US with over 2.8M residents; Alaska's largest city (#65) is Anchorage with a whopping 280,000 people. The entire state of Alaska has fewer that 750,000 people. 1/4 of the size of Chicago.
(wikipedia #s)
It's like comparing apples and oranges.
4) His mom doesn't have the pressure of being the leader of the free world to bear. 20% of presidents have died in office -- being 72, increases his odds dramatically.
"Do you actually understand what voting “present” means in the Illinois Senate? He wasn’t sitting on the fence — there’s usually a good reason." - Zak
Some of us understand perfectly. It means that rather than taking a stand on an issue, it means he wants to hide his position from the record, so that he can't be blamed if things take a turn for the worse.
While Il. Might have a variety of communities from rural to urban, the urban population outnumbers the rural population. The result is that Obama's won his campaigns based strictly on urban support: He's got no advantage over Palin in that regard.
As for 4, You're comparing presidential death statistics for the last 232 years. It would be far more accurate to look at the last fifty (for reasons which should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual of observers), in which only one president has died in office: That was because of assassination, not old age.
Fox,
I'm not talking about election support, I"m talking about understanding the diff't needs of different community types The state of Alaska can't offer that kind of variety in urban v. rural issues because even their urban areas are small in scale.
According to a friend's insurance broker, "a 72 year old man with a history of cancer has a one in six chance of living to the age of 80." so while slightly better than a 1 in 5 chance of dying in office as shown by the history -- the odds still aren't good.
GOT SOMETHING TO SAY?