Whooda Thunk It?

Was anyone else as shocked as Mr. D over McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as veep?

Maybe you politically astute readers saw this coming, but Mr. D. was stunned.  And pleased.  Talk about PRO-LIFE.  Grand slam.

Hugh Hewitt says,

When the Dems come after Palin for inexperience in foreign affairs, the reply will be obvious --the GOP vice-presidential nominee is as experienced as the Democratic presidential nominee but also has executive decision-making that Obama lacks.

The issue this election is energy.  Palin gets it.  So does McCain.  My brother-in-law and I agreed that the RNC should be held in ANWR on a mock drilling platform with hard hats on.

I thought Mitt was the right choice.  We will see if McCain has proven me wrong.  I think he has.  I hope he has. I can hardly wait to see senator foot-in-mouth debate Mrs. Palin.  Mr. D was suffering from election burn out.  Things just changed.

Comments

[tgirsch]

Apparently experience isn't anywhere near as important as McCain has been claiming, since he just put someone with very little experience (and no foreign policy experience) a heartbeat away from the presidency if he's elected.

He could have chosen worse. I was afraid he was going to tap Huckabee...

[Mr. D]

Actually, she has more executive experience than Mr. McCain's opponent ... and that was before she became governor ;)

C'mon Tom, let's both take a hammer and shatter that glass ceiling that Hillary cracked once and for all!

Change! Change! Yes we can! :)

Have a great labor day weekend, btw.

[Susannah]

I knew she was being considered, but I thought she was pretty far down on the list. I was, frankly, shocked that she accepted, given the age of her youngest child. Although she manages the demands of the governor's office pretty well. Campaigning means being on the road, though.

I mean, last I heard, she was still nursing! Talk about a political first!

That said, I'm thrilled with the ticket. :) I was won over by the family as soon as I saw the report and pictures published on the birth of their baby. McCain has succeeded in energizing his base by choosing Palin. I find him cantankerous and bull-headed and infuriating in turns, but I was consoling myself with his pro-life voting record. I really didn't expect this much out of him with the veep pick. She's very likable and conservative, yet independent-minded.

What a contrast to the "infanticide" party, hm?

[Rob Ryan]

Oh, dear; I got here too late, and all the Kool-Aid is gone. McCain just shot himself in the foot, bigtime. I would not be looking forward to that vice presidential debate if I were you. Palin may already be damaged goods by then. This was a desperate choice. I didn't know how scared McCain was until this selection was announced.

[Mr. D]

Rob,

I think you are guilty of the same mistake Mr. D has made about McCain all along ... you under estimate him. Be careful. I am certainly learning my lesson.

[Ron]

Rob,

Did McCain choose Palin out of fear? The big problem with this analysis is that it assumes that she was picked because she is a woman who could pick off some Hillary voters. I think this was a part of McCain's calculus but I think the bigger thing is her conservatism which is more rock solid than Romney, Tom Ridge or many other men in consideration. She shores up the conservative base as well if not better than the men that McCain could of picked and has the added advantage of exciting both conservative, moderate and even some liberal women.

She is young and intelligent. I think she can more than handle Biden.

[tgirsch]

Mr. D:

More executive experience, sure, but "more" is still "not very much." The problem with this pick, from McCain's perspective, is that it dulls two of his previous lines of attack. They can't go after Obama's experience very much any more, because McCain just picked a running mate with very little experience. And they can't go after Obama for snubbing the second place primary finisher, because he just did the same thing.

It seems like an odd pick. If they expect Palin to help pick off some Hillary voters, I don't see how that's going to work. The abortion issue will be a non-starter for those voters. More likely this was an appeal to the evangelical conservative base, and based on your reaction, in that regard it seems to be working.

[Susannah]

I hate to say it, but there is a segment of the conservative Christian vote (albeit small, I believe) that would have been put off by a Mormon on the ticket. Speaking for myself, I would have been content with Romney or Pawlenty, but neither would have galvanized a conservative base as well, given Romney's "flip" on abortion, etc.

From what I hear, the campaign's raked in $7 million dollars since the veep announcement.

Keeping in view the consistent polling that indicates the majority of Americans lean conservative, I would say that *if* Sarah Palin campaigns effectively (that's still an if, but she is experienced), McCain has nailed down this election. She's very personable, her family is lovely, and who doesn't melt at the sight of that adorable baby? :) He's really, really cute. Did you see the pictures at McCain's daughter's site? Awwwww!

Add to that, Obama/Biden are as radical left as it gets. Without the cover provided by left-wing "journalists," their positions, baldly stated, would turn most people off. I personally do not see why their supporters enjoy being condescended to. It would make me angry to be spoken to/about so patronizingly.

The lefty blogs are already speaking out of the abundance of their depraved hearts (God have mercy on them--and I mean that). That kind of perfidy, cruelty and creepiness do not impress the average American. I think it'll backfire, and will only help McCain.

I don't expect Palin to garner many Hillary followers. They are polar opposites politically, and feminists will not abide a pro-lifer. I think the chief reason for this choice was to engage the base, and if volunteers and donations are any indication, McCain has succeeded in that.

I still don't trust him as far as I could throw him, but I like her a lot.

[tgirsch]

Actually, she also has more executive experience than Mr. McCain.

[Deb]

While I do like Sarah Palin very much, I'll have to admit I cringed upon the announcement. The reason why I cringed is because it seemed pretty plain that the selection was reactional and for appearances more than anything - 1- to remind women voters of the DNC snub toward Hillary and 2- to upstage Biden's on the family story strengths. Her family story is at least as interesting as his, and connects solidly with conservatives.

Picking her seems completely political, as she trumps Obama's selection from all of the emotional angles. IMHO

[Rob Ryan]

"The lefty blogs are already speaking out of the abundance of their depraved hearts (God have mercy on them--and I mean that). That kind of perfidy, cruelty and creepiness do not impress the average American."

Good thing right-wing blogs don't do this, or we might have people claiming Obama is a Muslim (Berean Watchmen) or John Kerry is a war criminal (Evangelical Outpost).

[matt curtis]

Tom,

Senator McCain has fairly significant executive experience from his days as a Naval officer.

[tgirsch]

Today has not been a very kind Monday for Palin, I'm afraid. Is Mr. D. still feeling so optimistic about the pick? Links to an Alaskan secession movement, a history of reliance upon the very earmark system she claims to oppose, being for the "bridge to nowhere" before she was against it, lawyering up on the abuse of power state trooper scandal -- all that setting aside the personal family issues that I think people are too quick to jump on -- not a good day for McCain's veep pick.

[tgirsch]

Susannah:
Keeping in view the consistent polling that indicates the majority of Americans lean conservative

I don't think that's actually an accurate statement. Americans tend to self-identify as conservative (in part because the term "liberal" has been effectively vilified over the last two decades), but actually tend to lean left of center on most policies. In other words, they like liberal policies, they just don't like to call themselves liberals. :)

Add to that, Obama/Biden are as radical left as it gets.

Seriously? What does that make Nader, then? And even he's not all that far to the left compared to, say, the commies...

[tgirsch]

Without the cover provided by left-wing "journalists,"

Problem is, while Obama has gotten a lot more coverage than McCain, it's been overwhelmingly negative (72% negative according to one study, vs 57% negative for McCain).

[Mr. D]

"Today has not been a very kind Monday for Palin, I'm afraid. Is Mr. D. still feeling so optimistic about the pick?"

Actually, I am more optimistic than ever. If this is the best that hate politics can produce, then there is much to be encouraged about.

Bill Kristol's recent column on Palin did a terrific job of reflecting Mr. D's thinking on the Palin pick.

"Problem is, while Obama has gotten a lot more coverage than McCain, it's been overwhelmingly negative"

Uh, wha? Maybe on the Rush Limbaugh network, but aside from that, this is a laughable statement.

[Mr. D]

"John Kerry is a war criminal (Evangelical Outpost)."

Provide a link please. I would like to read this post.

[tgirsch]

If this is the best that hate politics can produce, then there is much to be encouraged about.

Aside from the family stuff, which I've already dismissed, how is the other stuff "hate politics?" And if you're going to condemn "hate politics," then you have to condemn McCain, whose ads so far have been overwhelming negative (and, according to non-partisan FactCheck.org, often grossly misleading).

Bill Kristol's recent column on Palin did a terrific job of reflecting Mr. D's thinking on the Palin pick.

Free advice: Any time you find yourself agreeing with Bill Kristol on anything, it's time to re-think your position. I mean, the guy isn't just wrong a lot, he's spectacularly wrong about almost everything he writes about! :) Most recently, he reported that Colin Powell would speak at the DNC. Oops!

Provide a link please.

See, for example, here

[tgirsch]

Maybe on the Rush Limbaugh network, but aside from that, this is a laughable statement.

It may seem laughable, but there's a study to back it up, in case you didn't click the link. And it's a study done by a media bias research group that has often been used and cited by the "fair and balanced" folks over at Fox News. Sorry, but the numbers don't lie. The MSM coverage of both candidates has been more negative than positive, but the coverage of Obama has been significantly more negative.

The above in short form: read the story! :)

[tgirsch]

Also, it's worth noting that the argument that the Palin pick undermines McCain's experience attack isn't just coming from Democrats and liberals. See, for example, Krauthammer.

[Rob Ryan]

"... you under estimate him."

The only thing about McCain that I have underestimated is his cynicism. Does anyone really think that Palin would make a better president than any of dozens of politicians McCain could have chosen? Romney? Pawlenty? Even Huckabee, Brownback, or (gasp) Gingrich? Heck, no! This was purely a political choice, calculated to garner votes for McCain, who apparently cares more about being elected than what happens to us if he shucks off his mortal coil in office. My respect for McCain, once considerable but on the wane since the field narrowed to two, has dwindled to almost nil.

Is he showing his true colors now, or does he hate what he is doing as much as I do? With McCain, you won't know until after the fact. He admitted that his couching of the flag controversy in SC as a matter for the state was "cowardly". Will he make a similar confession after Obama destroys him in November?

[Susannah]

It seems that by the end of this election cycle, Sarah Palin will outstrip Obama *and* McCain in terms of negative coverage.

& I'm sorry, tgirsch, but no statistic will ever erase Matthews' teary eyes & tingling leg, and "journalists" openly applauding speeches at the DNC. Nor can anyone deny that the vast majority of journalists are democrats. NPR is a spectacular example of assuming the so-called progressive outlook on all issues.

Tonight on NPR, I heard a "reporter" unapologetically base his anti-Palin story on research done by a cadre of liberal bloggers!

I know that DMI site "self-identifies" as non-partisan (yet progressive? don't get that), but, seriously...asking people to bet the fall of gas prices against "Brangelina's" marriage?

So much of an opinion poll's credibility goes to the wording of the questions, you know. The poll I was referencing was the one truly bi-partisan poll that asks the exact same questions from year to year. I'll dig up the link later.

[Matt]

I don't think McCain needs to do a whole lot more on the inexperience attack against Obama. Obama's pick for VP was pretty much conceding the point.

I think Obama's exceptionally uninspiring VP pick combined with McCain's rather interesting pick is going to give McCain the serious edge he's been lacking thus far in the race.

Time will tell.

[Susannah]

By the way, aren't they just charming people? Really winsome. Makes one long to join the ranks of the lefties, no? ;)

[tgirsch]

It seems that by the end of this election cycle, Sarah Palin will outstrip Obama *and* McCain in terms of negative coverage.

That might change if she'd stop telling bald-faced lies in her speeches...

[tgirsch]

By the way, aren't they just charming people? Really winsome.

Yeah. I'd much rather hang around with people who publicly and prominently disparage community service.

[matt curtis]

"That might change if she'd stop telling bald-faced lies in her speeches..."

Examples and support, please.

[Mr. D]

Matt,

This is what tgirsch is referring to :

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html

[tgirsch]

Mr. D is correct, that's part of what I'm referring to. However, it's deeper than that. Even though FactCheck and others have demonstrated, in pretty thorough detail, that Palin's history on the "bridge to nowhere" is not as she presents it, she continues to repeat the "thanks, but no thanks" applause line. It's insulting to the intellect of the average voter. (And, if they let her continue to get away with it, they will have proven deserving of the insult.)

[matt curtis]

Tom,

I have a couple of takes on the Bridge to Nowhere issue. It appears to have been a ridiculous project in the first place. Interestingly enough, it's my understanding that both Obama and Biden voted to approve funding for the bridge (per The Weekly Standard or National Review).

One possibility is that Palin never was for it and said she was during the campaign to garner votes. That would be a strike against her, and, of course, McCain, Obama, and Biden would receive strikes for their changed positions throughout the campaign.

A second possibility is that she actually did support it until she found out more about it after assuming the governorship. This might indicate she was either uninformed as a candidate or was not privy to all the information.

Once in office and having the option to commit state funds to the project, Palin apparently said no and refused to ask for any state funding of the bridge. She might have done so for political reasons, or she might have done it because it was a misguided project. My understanding is not that Congress cancelled the funding (as it should have), but rather that it removed the requirement that the approved funds be used for the bridge. Consequently, the argument that Palin only said "No thanks" to the bridge once it was no longer an option or was about to be cancelled appears to me to lack any foundation.

So far, I haven't seen any evidence that would show why Palin acted as she did. If we're going to be cynical in judging her motivations, then shouldn't we apply that same degree of cynicism across the board to all the candidates?

[tgirsch]

Interestingly enough, it's my understanding that both Obama and Biden voted to approve funding for the bridge

I don't think it's terribly interesting at all. Obama and Biden haven't tried to bill themselves as crusading opponents of earmarks and pork. Palin has done so. (But hey, while you're moving the goal posts, it's worth noting that if McCain was such a ardent opponent of the bridges, he could have bothered to show up for the vote on it.)

The issue here isn't whether or not earmarks are bad; it's whether Palin has been forthright about her stance on them. And the record is abundantly clear that she has not been. This makes her some combination of a liar, a hypocrite, and a flip-flopper. Take your pick. :)

Seriously, you're doing some pretty serious dancing to make excuses for her on this. If the target were Obama or Biden instead of Palin, I doubt you'd be anywhere near as flexible.

Consequently, the argument that Palin only said "No thanks" to the bridge once it was no longer an option or was about to be cancelled appears to me to lack any foundation.

The argument that she said "No thanks" to Congress at all lacks any foundation -- she did, after all, keep the money. And while it's true that she didn't spend the money on the bridges, by that time there was no congressional requirement that she do so. So please enlighten me: In what way could anyone possibly see any truth in her statement that she "said 'thanks, but no thanks' to Congress" about anything, never mind the bridges.

And, of course, in last night's interview with Charlie Gibson, she danced some more, saying that she was asking the Congress for infrastructure money and that this is a normal practice for governors. Fine, but how does that constitute standing up to Congress or saying "no thanks?"

So far, I haven't seen any evidence that would show why Palin acted as she did. If we're going to be cynical in judging her motivations, then shouldn't we apply that same degree of cynicism across the board to all the candidates?

Well, yes, we should. But who's really being "cynical" here? Me, by taking her at her word when she repeatedly expressed support for the bridges during her gubernatorial campaign? Or you, by suggesting that she was just pandering and never really supported them, or that she really would have changed her mind once she assumed office, had the earmarks still been in place by that time?

The facts of the case are, it seems to me, crystal clear. If you don't like FactCheck's analysis, perhaps you'll find PolitiFact's analysis more compelling.

To me, the bottom line is this: While she can truthfully claim to have ultimately killed a bridge project that was already nearly dead, she can not truthfully claim this as some sort of principled stance against government waste, nor can she truthfully claim to have in any way rejected Congress on the matter. You've proven pretty reasonable here on most issues, and I can't imagine you can in good conscience disagree with me on that bottom line.