Loading ...“Her”story in the Making
John McCain has picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate. She brings a number of pluses to the table. She has a reputation for being a reformer in Alaska politics. Alaska is the part of the debate on energy. She would be the first female to run for Vice-President on the Republican ticket and she is also socially conservative, being pro-life and a lifetime NRA member.
The only minus is that she was elected Governor in 2006 so the experience charge may be effectively neutralized by both political camps.
Let the games begin.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:13 am
I think that saying experience is neutralized may be an understatement given Senator McCain’s age. The ability of his VP to take over in the tragic case of inability to serve, for whatever reason, is a very very real consideration and her inexperience, particularly her Washington inexperience, will not easily be mitigated.
Additionally, in a move that I imagine is intended to bring in disillusioned Hillary supporters, I think that her pro-life stance will amount in no net gain in female votes. Most of the women who are still staunch Hillary supporters that wouldn’t vote Obama are also staunch liberal feminists and hence pro-choice voters.
I don’t think this pick will do what he’s hoping it will.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:40 am
I think this was a pretty cynical pick by McCain. Might be great strategy, but cynical nonetheless.
I was unimpressed with both McCain & Obama before their VP picks. I am even less impressed now.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Being from Alaska, I would suspect her ties to oil companies might be more pronounced than most politicians. If so, that would be another minus given our high gas prices.
Her solution to high energy prices was apparently to give tax money to citizens for them to spend on energy — a twofer: negative in the eyes of small government, free marketeers, and a negative in the eyes of those who are skeptical of the huge profits raked in by energy companies.
Those sorts of negatives aside, I think she’s probably a solid pick for McCain except for, as you point out, the negation of McCain’s attacks against Obama’s lack of experience. Given McCain’s enhanced actuarial risks of not completing his term, Palin probably has a higher than average chance of becoming President than the average Vice President.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
She is a very interesting and very strong pick for reasons of age, background, sports enthusiast, hunter, fisher, ect. She fits the Republican mold very well and should make conservatives very happy. Having a child with Down syndrome in common with Governor Palin will make myself and others in the disability world look long and hard at both parties again.
Peace
August 29th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Doug, she was on the “Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, where she ended up serving a role in an ethics probe into Republican Party Chairman Randy Reudrich, who was questioned about conflicts of interest with the oil industry.” As governor her adminstration was responsible for the huge natural gas pipeline being built.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
While JC Watts would’ve been my preference, her “experience” stacks up quite well against that of Senator Obama…
August 29th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
It’s typical for a man to think that all Hillary supporters are pro-choice feminists who vote only on the issue of abortion.
I am a huge Hillary fan and am even more thrilled with Sarah Palin. McCain made the bold choice to run with a woman — a choice Obama rejected.
The choice of Palin has already begun to re-energize conservatives, and it is definitely turning the heads of moderate independents. This was a brilliant pick.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Anne: survey don’t lie. Over 90% of Hillary supporters rate pro-choice as their first or second-most important issue.
Whether you or I agree with that view, it’s my observation that it’s pretty true.
McCain’s pick was cynical. Kinda stupid, too…given he had a slight leg up on the “experience” card, and he just dealt it away. In spades, actually, because he’s no spring chicken, thus his VP choice was especially important.
I watched her announcement. Lightweight, in every sense of the word, without regard to gender at all.
Kiss of death” Dana Perino just said from the White House podium that Pres. Bush thinks this is a very strong choice.
McCain may yet do the impossible–make Bush look smart.
As an Obama supporter, every other McCain short-lister scared me. This choice is a joke.
August 29th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I think the naysayers, misogynists, jealous types are going to eat their words. If it isn’t reported elsewhere beforehand, I’ll say why when I have a little more time to write it all down.
So far, from the “insiders” crowd, all I have heard are dismissive comments and derisive insinuations. From a bunch of highly paid consultants and national “leaders” it just sounds pretty juvenile. They should have left that kind of kiddie-talk to us amateurs. ;)
August 29th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Her “inexperience?” Gov. Palin actually has more relevant experience to serve in the executive branch than does Obama (who only has THREE years of federal legislative experience). By picking her as VP, McCain has already ensnared Democrats who took the bait by saying she is too inexperienced. That only hightlights Obama’s lack of relevant experience (and he isn’t going for the No 2 spot). Every time you hear “well McCain might die in office and she will be president” remember that, if elected, Obama will be president and he has no relevant experience. I’d rather take may chances with someone who has some experience and who may or may not serve over someone who has NO experience and would be the one serving.
August 29th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
John McObvious “We’ll get those women votes now, huh.”
August 29th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Each side would need an experienced staff. Not ideologs like Bush picked. People that actually know what they’re doing. “Experience” is now blunted. Each side now also has a magic group member to equalize percieved affronts. Maybe they’ll now actually discuss how they plan to fund their programs? Sorry. Just dreaming. Looking for my meds…..
August 29th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Wasn’t it Ronald Reagan who said that the first female vice-president would be a Republican (in response to the Mondale-Ferraro ticket)?
August 29th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Why is it that most people automatically think that women are all pro-abortion? Nobody knows better that an unborn baby is a living creature than somebody who’s carried one and felt him or her moving and expressing their personalities, even when very small. And nobody gets hurt by abortion more (other than the dead baby) than the woman who hired someone to kill her own child. I was going to vote for McCain anyway, now I will do it with much more enthusiasm.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
After 7+ yrs of Bush, I’m a reformed man on piddlely stuff like oval office shenanigans. I’m shopping for beliefs, competency(least likely to sink our leaky ship), experience, and (my wild card) divided government. If we can’t elect somebody more interested in serving taxpayers than bureaucracy - end of story. Bush is the template for what happens when you don’t elect somebody basically competent. I think experience counts, & a subset(SUBSET!) of that are past associations in your accumulation of experience. Lastly, the insatiable reelection desires and our asleep at the wheel electorate have created a Great Pyramid of Debt. Divided branches of government seems to be the imperfect fiscal check. With the likely election of a Democratic Congress, that makes McCain at least 3-1 on my subjective scorecard. But, 97(?) days to go and more to learn.
August 29th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Thunder, please don’t bring that tax-and-spender Reagan into this. he left our budget a mess. Good riddance.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
I love how the idiots keep calling Alaska a small state due to its population. Alaska is, in fact, the largest state in the union by far. A governor’s scope of responsibility is not limited to where people live. This woman is the governor of the state that may well be the answer to our energy ‘crisis’. Barack may talk about it. She’s actually doing something about it. And, by the way, nobody lives within hundreds of miles of Anwar.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
The Democrats are hypocrites. Personally, I applaud Senator McCain for his wise choice of Sarah Palin. A devoted wife and mother who compliment activism and chose to seek public office to affect change in government. She fought to eliminate corruption as chair of her state’s ethics committee. She brings compassion, understanding, sensitivity, as a mother with a son serving in the Army and one of her five children suffers from Downs Syndrome. Thank God, McCain did not select another lazy male attorney who earns their living and wealth off lobbyist and taxpayers. She is a breath of fresh air as a Washington outsider. As a reformer, she has championed causes for the average citizen and fought the “good-old-boys’ network.” Her experience on the city council, as mayor of a small city propelled her to run for governor. Citizens of Alaska recognized her common touch and elected her each time. She fought the establishment and won. Serving with integrity and having the courage to demand accountability from other public officials for their actions, Sarah Palin is a dedicated public servant. She is exactly the kind of executive Americans need in the White House.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Palin commands the National Guard in Alaska as governor which qualifies her and McCain with more military experience than either one of the democrats’ nominees.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Similar to Ballard, I find her “outsider” status appealing, desperately needed, and looks to be the least likely to be “bought”. I acknowledge the jury’s out for the whole of Ballard’s term(s). Long-shots like President Carter make you think twice. But, I’m not onboard for suppossed gain from having Abdul’s “political class”, although he might argue that we’re not flushing them when we should. New blood is coming. We’ll see if Palin’s is the less tainted.
August 30th, 2008 at 6:14 am
Governor Palin, a known maverick has over a 90% approval rating in the State of Alaska with voters. This lady must be doing something right in government while the democrat controlled congress has less than 10% approval rating in the eyes of the public!
August 30th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Good points, Taxpayer 834512.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Alaska’s population is about the same size as Indianapolis’ 7th Congressional District. Julia Carson got more votes than Sarah Palin ever did! True, Palin did get a few more votes than Ballard…
August 30th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Amazing how you DemocRATS always spout about the greatness of having a woman or ethnic candidate as long as they are a LIBERAL. When the person is on the other side of the aisle from you then they are unqualified. Hypocrites!!
-
The fact remains that she is beholden to NO-ONE!! She helped lead an investigation into corruption in the oil companies and in TOP ALASKAN REPUBLICANS. She has integrity and experience, two things Obama and Biden STILL don’t have.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Another insightful post from the village idiot.
August 30th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
greg don’t be so hard on yourself.
August 30th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Anti-big-oil?
Palin’s husband works for BP!
August 30th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
So?? She still was part of the investigation.
-
Greg, was that aimed toward me or Wilson?
August 30th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
SW. Totally in tune with your post.
August 30th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
7th District voter, her youngest son has Down syndrome which will only be one small part of what makes up his personality. He does not suffer from Downs syndrome no more then I suffer from being white or 6′5″. I have a son with Down syndrome and I can assure you he is not suffering.
Peace!
August 30th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I hope Sarah Palin’s the real deal. Not even as much for winning, as to believe somebody might actually battle the morass of parasitic entrenched muck that collectively sucks so much out of the average worker. Brings up images of the errant girl who slayed the beast in Tolkien It’s not a matter of disbelieving Senator Obama wants to do something similarly positive. To each their own. For now, she’s my Audacity of Hope.
August 30th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
I think Obama has had it. This lady is amazing. And women like Sarah Palin, don’t sell their souls for money or power. As they say, the lady IS authentic.
August 30th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Wilson is pathetic. Julia Carson is deceased.
August 31st, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Why don’t any of you crying liberals talk about Joe Biden and his brain tumor? Hundreds of people have died from brain tumors.
What if his returns? What if he gets another one? etc. etc. etc.
Oh…sorry…we don’t talk about democrats; only republicans.
August 31st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I’mn not sure this woman’s husband’s employer is pertinent–unless he’s a policy-maker. I just heard him for the second time, on a natinal radio interview. I seriously doubt he makes any policy anywhere.
My twist on this is different than most Obama supporters. I think it’s great because regardless of her gender, or in spite of it, I’m hoping this all gets reduced to issues, not gender, sexual orientation, race, economic standing, etc. Sure, Ferraro prceded her, but when the Rpeublican Party can nominate a woman for the national ticket, I think it represents true progress.
And it seems to me that the more barriers we bust–Obama’s (race) and Pallin’s (Gender), the easier it is to get to issues. Instead of sidebars and crapolla.
Am I dreaming?
August 31st, 2008 at 4:10 pm
The world must be coming to an end….I actually agree with the general theme of TA’s post.
August 31st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I dreaming the same way, TA. Hopefully some of that stuff is going to get nulled-out or we’re shuffling that way. While we’re dreaming of adults debating issues on merit instead of the latest group that’s affronted, I’d still love to see any gov’t budget reductions be darn near across-the-board. We’d have a good caterwaul then, but maybe start having badly needed public debate on priorities and fairness in spending and taxation. Like all the kids missing recess until you find out who threw the spitwad.
August 31st, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Well, Statler, it was bound to happen.
Now mind you–I am perfectly comfortable with an issues-only Obama/Biden vs/ McCain/Pallin debate. With experience on the table. Hell it already is for both sides anyway.
It’s just not the Republicans’ year. It happens.
I’m not so sure, Statler, that we Democrats will be thankful in a year. Your President has effed things up so badly, in every federal agency, top to bottom, and to our image around the world, not to mention his ho-hum treatment of the economy–that the job may be impossible.
But we’ll take a lick at it.
Peace.
August 31st, 2008 at 9:39 pm
TA,
He is the President of These United States. He is OUR President, regardless of what you and your liberal friends think.
August 31st, 2008 at 9:48 pm
He’s not mine, Nate. I refuse to acknowledge him. And I am not liberal, although, if I were, I wouldn’t be ashamed of it. DOn’t assume.
See, that’s where folks like you have your political opponents all wrong. Sweeping generalizations don’t work any more. They died with Reagan.
September 1st, 2008 at 12:27 am
Think Again should study the U.S. Constitution Article I: Sections 7, 8. The Powers and Qualifications of the House and Senate Members. Article II: Powers and Qualifications of the President and Vice President, or maybe review a copy of the entire document, I have.
Democrats have failed repeatedly to acknowledge their role and responsibility for the bills they have passed during the past two years under a majority control, and previous votes to declare war, also voted for the budget to fund the war in Iraq.
Americans were warned by presidential candidate Ross Perot regarding the long term effects of NAFTA. Yet, President Clinton signed the NAFTA Agreement into law near the end of his second term in office and jobs went south of the border and out of the country. Neither the Democrats nor labor unions continue to blame Clinton for the loss of manufacturing jobs in this country, they blame President Bush. The full impact of NAFTA manifested under the Bush administration with a failing economy.
The President [Bush] can only sign into law bills passed by Congress or file his objections to bills and send bills back to the House and the Senate for revision. To over ride his veto, a 2/3 vote from Congress is required for the bill to pass, and then sent back to the President for his signature before it becomes law. Yet, the Dems would have Americans think President Bush acted alone.
Only uneducated or illiterate citizens believe the propaganda circulated by the Democrats. Reasons President Bush was elected for a second term. Study the Constitution stupid and quit repeating the dumb stuff!
September 1st, 2008 at 7:47 am
7thDistrict: I have, extensively. It also says only Congress can declare war. Check the Iraqi resolutions: very carefully worded.
In the fevered rush to get int Iraq, and exact revenge for 9/11, Bush brainwashed an entire nation. We were led to believe the WMD were placed in Iraq by the same folks who bombed the Pentagon and World Trace Center.
Now, we know that was a lie.
So, in essence, Bush used misleading information, or was misled himself.
The Constitution is a tricky thing–if you’re going to quote it, ya gotta know the whole document. And something about the context and history of its authors.
September 1st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Think Again
I know the contents of our Constitution. Congress was advised and received the same report and information the President received from the CIA director and other officials.
Are you trying to tell me our lazy Congress did not do their own homework before they voted with their power; 435 members of the House and 100 members in the Senate could not verify the informatiom with the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, Secret Service, FBI or somebody?
Wrong, after they voted, the Democrats used the Iraq War against President Bush and the Republican Party to win more congressional seats in 2006, purely political, and they assumed no responsibilty for their participation in the decision. To, date, they continue to do so for political gains. Didn’t those dummies know in advance there would be casualties in war? Are was this a setup?
September 1st, 2008 at 10:03 pm
7th District Voter, please re-read: Article I, Sec. VII, of the Constitution, regarding the Congress’s sole power to declare war.
Then, read the Iraqi Resolution.
The Resolution was introduced at Bush’s request, drafted by the White House, and sent to friendly MCs. The testosterone-driven Iraqi invasion was designed on grossly-inflated NIEs (National Intellegence Estimates) and at no time did it involve a threat to America or Americans.
Congress didn’t have the guts to tel Bush what they should’ve: if you bring trumped-up nonsense to us again, we may impeach you.
The information given to them isn’t the problem, 7thDV–it’s the action they took, which may have been many things, but it was not a Declaration of War.
You really oughta think before you type.
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:41 am
TA is correct - Congress didn’t declare war.
-
THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!
-
Congress has abdicated their authority since WWII.
-
Indeed, Chairman Henry Hyde called our Constitution ‘anachronistic’. Here was a man who swore an oath to support and defend our Constitution; and he called it ‘anachronistic’.
-
Ron Paul warned Congress that they were — ONCE AGAIN — violating our Constitution.
-
Once again, Ron Paul was ignored.
-
From Wikipedia: In response to Rep. Ron Paul’s resolution requesting a formal declaration of war, Hyde stated: “There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. … Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore.”
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hyde
-
Following is the amendment that Ron Paul provided during the Iraqi Resolution debate — which was of course voted down:
-
“That pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the Government of Iraq and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the United States Armed Forces to carry on war against the Government of Iraq and to bring the conflict to a successful conclusion.”
-
Here is a link to the debates:
-
http://www.givemeliberty.org/NoRedress/MiscDocs/HouseIRTranscript10-03-02.pdf
-
Hyde’s BS tirade begins on page 131 of the document:
-
It is fascinating to go back in history and see how our Constitution
was drafted and what it means. There are things in the Constitution
that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration
of war is one. Letters of mark and reprisal are others. There are
things no longer relevant to a modern society.
The problem with a declaration of war is that is a formal step
taken by a nation. And when you do that, you kick in other laws.
Enemy aliens—people suddenly become who are of German extraction
or Saudi extraction, depending on whom you are declaring war
against, suddenly become enemy aliens. Trading with the enemy, they are your enemy.
Most importantly and psychologically, if you declare war, if we
had declared war on Vietnam, China would have had to declare
war on us, and then the Soviet Union, not to be outdone fraternally,
would have had to declare war on us. And you start a chain
of events. That is the last thing you want to do. You want to isolate
these conflicts. You don’t want them to metastasize.
Declaration of war metastasizes conflict.
Insurance policies are invalidated in time of war. There are so
many consequences, criminal statutes. So there are laws affecting
military personnel in time of war and in time of peace.
Now, the Congress always has the last word in war and peace
because we control the purse strings. We could introduce a bill and
rush it through that would say no funds appropriated herein may
be used to pay for an expedition to France or to the Caribbean.
Congress always has the last word because we control the purse
strings. But now this resolution we are dealing with today does not
declare war. It does not approach war. War may never happen. If
we mean what we say and we say what we mean and we have a
reasonably tough posture, we may avoid war.
Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are saying to the President,
use your judgment. We know you have tried to have inspections
work. We have tried the U.N., they have been made a fool of
for 11 years now. The League of Nations was muscular compared
to the U.N. That is the situation we are in now.
So to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to
death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not
called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore because
it has the effect of pyramiding when what you want to do is
to isolate.
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:47 am
Think Again
Exactly without writing a book, Robert NW did and he has made my point for me.
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:50 am
Then your point is fluid, 7th.
Robert NW probably made everyone’s point somewhere in that diatribe.
So I’m sure he made yours, too, somehow.
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
(hand raised) Can I make a quick point?
Our intelligence-gathering in the Middle East for years has been horrible. Jimmy Carter didn’t believe in foreign surveillance of any kind at any level and cut accordingly. All Reagan cared about was the Russians so he didn’t bother reinstituting any of it either. We’re decades behind the curve on this one. Our own intelligence used to justify the war was gathered under the Clinton administration, but the vast majority of our intel came from Mossad because the Israelis are better at it than anybody else in the world. Go to a government class on terrorism, and it’s taught or put together by an Israeli. The truth that has been revealed for all to see that has also been released for any and everybody to read is that Hussein duped each and every one of his generals (even in regard to each other) because A) he was afraid of Iran, and B) he knew they were being paid well by agencies such as MI-6 and Mossad and figured bluffing about WMD would keep the world off his back. Truly, if the administration deliberately manipulated information to that extent, don’t you think they would have planted WMDs, or even made an issue out of spent chemical ordnance that has been recovered?!
Should we have gone to war with Iraq? No. Read the 9/11 report. Even saying Iraq had minimal involvement is an exaggeration. Terrorists/insurgents/etc. aren’t good for dictatorships. It’s certainly possible and some intelligence has suggested he allowed training in his country, but if that’s the case we should have invaded Iran, Yemen, and even Saudi Arabia many times over by now. Nevertheless, we’re already there so arguing over whether or not we should have gone there in the first place is moot.
When we went to Iraq the first time, Bush Sr.’s people told him if we stayed there we’d have a lengthy insurgency to deal with. For whatever reason Bush Jr. didn’t follow that advice, and Congress/Senate were too lazy to call him out on the floor for it. They’re all at fault.
Be that as it may, the law of unintended consequences has helped us. Al Qaida decided to make Iraq a new front, so suddenly Iraq HAS become a front on the war on terror. McCain wasn’t smart enough to realize we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq, but Obama’s not smart enough to realize how important a front on terror it’s become. I know this isn’t exactly the congress/war thing, but when people want to call Bush/Cheney war criminals I find it usually arises from a misunderstanding of the facts. Surely oil plays a role, it’s not like we’ve lifted a finger in regard to all the other rogue nations out there who are a much bigger threat. Again, though, suddenly everybody realizes how much of a national safety issue oil can be.
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:44 pm
You heard it here first. ABBIE….so ponder this. I political insider I know within the McCain camp told me the following regarding Palin and the discussion into his choice. I will be paraphrasing our conversation. First, McCain wanted a fresh maverick choice but he also wanted a pretty face with a family to offset Obama’s race and family . Second, McCain knew of her pregnant daughter and didn’t blink an eye. He saw her appointment as a media distraction for at least 2-3 weeks. McCain claimed Obama was getting too much media coverage and that Palin would offset or at least equal the Obama media craze. Three (THIS IS THE KICKER). She will only be VP for no more than 24-36 months months after McCain/Palin win the election. A deal was struck between hardline conservatives in the GOP that Palin would be around for a short time and would resign prior to the end of the 4 year term. The hardline conservations would then select a hardline conservative as VP after Palin resigns for family reasons. The short list to replace Palin include Romney, Brownback, Sununu and Coburn. Supposedly, this was agreed upon and Palin was OK with the arrangement because she would be the first female VP. Additionally, McCains handlers dictate her every move leading up to the election in fear of her screwing things up. McCain has a nasty temper so his camp is on eggshells right now.
September 4th, 2008 at 7:16 am
Really….you are FULL of it. Go back and get something else from the blogosphere.