Okay, so we've heard some clips from the Charlie Gibson interview. We know something of her life choices and positions on issues, but we don't really know her. And of course, we wont before the election. But based on what we have, this is my question: how is John McCain's choice as her for VP anything other than irresponsibly reckless.
She has no experience. This executive versus legislative experience is a bunch of bullshit, and everyone knows it. She was a decision maker for a town of under 10,000 people? Shut the hell up.
When she was answering Gibson's questions, she sounded likely a semi-informed political amateur. She ran back to platitudes, not to make the sound bite, but because she was in over her head. She didn't know what the Bush doctrine is?!
John McCain picked this woman as a stunt. Period. Yeah, she's conservative, so are a lot of other people. Yeah, she may know something about energy policy, so do a lot of other people. This pisses me off.
And the fact that they clearly did not vet her adds to my anger. She is the subject of a Troopergate, shares a name with a Clinton scandal and the facts of a Bush scandal. Awesome! Abstinence only education doesn't even work for the daughter of a public official pushing the policy? Turns out she didn't really threaten to fire the librarian she just asked if she could order her to censor books. She just asked.
So, someone talk me off the ledge and explain why this VP pick doesn't show John McCain to be dangerously reckless.
20 comments:
She has no experience. This executive versus legislative experience is a bunch of bullshit, and everyone knows it. She was a decision maker for a town of under 10,000 people? Shut the hell up.
I didn't see the interview so let me just respond to one thing here. You mention her executive experience with the admonition that a town of fewer 10,000 is nothing interesting. You forgot her being the governor of a state?
Seriously, if you are going to criticize her experience, you have to at least start with her actual experience.
John McCain picked this woman as a stunt. Period.
He picked her to try to win the election. You can whine about it, but it worked, probably better than any other choice he could have made. It neutralized the Democratic convention bounce, took the air out of the room for the Democrats, and energized the Republicans and conservatives.
She may very well be unqualified to be president, but she's enormously qualified for being the running mate of John McCain.
I see it as a reckless stunt, and I don't think its whining for it to make me angry that he would gamble with the country's future this way in order to satisfy his personal ambition.
Even if there is room to view it as Realpolitik, John McCain is not the same politician that once commanded my respect. Perhaps you can view it as not a stunt, but one of the cynical but pragmatic alliances that are part and parcel of politics. Perhaps John McCain believes Obama as President would be so bad for the country that stopping him is worth the risk of Palin being President. Stunt or not, John McCain could not remain the politician he had been for years and be nominated by his party and win the election. And that's too bad, because I respected that politician and wasn't going to be that upset if he won. Now I'm terrified.
Matt,
You are very right in one respect: Palin appears to have been the most successful VP selection in recent memory. We'll see how it turns out, but based on the simple calculation of "Will she help me win the election?" is appears to have been a good choice.
Jim's point, I think, is one that has frustrated me and many others: the job of the VP is potentially very important: 1/6 of all VPs have become president. To pick someone incapable of doing that job is gravely irresponsible.
Or, in a reductio ad absurdum: imagine that in some bizarro world, Obama picked Brad Pitt as his running mate, hoping that Pitt's star power and liberal activism would boost the ticket's electoral chances. It might be successful, but it would still be irresponsible. McCain made an electoral choice, disregarding its actual governance implications.
I think it's amazing that you all are pretending she's not a governor. Jim listed her mayorship as her qualifications and you compared her to Brad Pitt.
Nice, but she is the governor of a state. It may be a small state, but it's absurd to say it's not a qualification for president. Is it harder or more important to be governor of Arkansas? I would say not.
Now Bill Clinton had been governor a ton before running for president, but governor of Alaska is not mayor of a town of 10,000 and it's not being a cute actor.
Yes, you hate her views, I get that. And I think there are tons of reasons for her not to be president, but her lack of experience isn't the biggest of them.
I remember having lunch with the medical director of the Prov ER. He was retiring from that job after seven years, and he wanted me to take it over. He told me that this job takes about two years to figure out. "One year is really just figuring out the scope of the job and the power centers of the hospital, and then another year to figure out how to do it well," he told me.
I kind of figure any executive position is like that, and in fact Bill Clinton said something similar about the presidency.
The reason I don't give Palin "credit" for her gubernatorial experience, is she really doesn't have any yet. She's been governor for eighteen months, and I suspect she is still fairly low on a steep learning curve. She's been through one budget cycle. If she were a six-year governor, as W was in 2000, that would be a lot more credible.
It was wrong for me not to list her year and a half as governor. My global point is the same: she is dangerous unqualified for the job.
Bill Clinton, BTW, was not picked but a candidate for President to be his number 2. Bill Clinton was the people's choice. That's very different.
John McCain knows what is required of a president. He ignored that to enhance his chance to get elected. It is WAY different than had he picked someone else who I don't agree with to be his running mate.
Sorry, too distracted during that last post.
The straight question is this: Why doesn't this move on John McCain's part show him to be reckless to the point of disqualification?
Her opinions are terrible, yes. But there should be no question that this woman is not qualified to be president. And if she has some unique skill set that enables someone as unqualified as her to be capable of this office, John McCain didn't find it out before picking her, and we certainly wont be able to find it out before voting.
I think if you waive the experience question, its still reckless. She is the kind of politician John McCain has made his career by at least pretending not to be. He doesn't believe in her views, and he took her on, putting her in position to be President, for votes.
He doesn't believe in her views, and he took her on, putting her in position to be President, for votes.
You don't think Bill Clinton wouldn't have nominated my ass to be his VP if it would have gotten him elected? And I don't mean me, I mean my actual ass.
I guarantee he would have.
And I'm not saying it's a good thing, mind you, only pointing out that every politician ever, ever, ever has done exactly the same thing. It's just that in the case of McCain in 2008, her many qualities, including her outsiderness and youngess which makes you use the word "reckless" are the very qualities that do this thing for McCain.
Matt, You can't just say "Wouldn't Clinton have done the same?" and end it at that. You see, it's actually not a hypothetical, because Clinton was once in exactly this position, and in fact he did not do the same thing.
By which I mean that he chose someone from the pool of capable individuals, whom he thought would help him win. As did Dole, Gore, Kerry, Obama, and yes, even George W Bush.
McCain chose someone incapable, because he thought she would help him. That is what I, Jim, Josh, Charles Krauthammer, David Brooks, David Frum, Andrew Sullivan, Ross Douhat, and practically every other member of the reasoning universe are concerned about. It may be a way to win the election, but it's a terrible way to govern.
In my opinion, JFK nominating a Southerner he hated and Reagan nominating an insider he hated are one thing. But choosing as your running mate a completely inexperienced person for his or her star power is different. I think it is unlike picking among many qualified people based on political advantage.
Matt thinks they are exactly the same thing. There you go, difference of opinion. Pretty high level abstract point to run into the nub of difference, but there it is.
No, I didn't say they are exactly the same thing. I was saying that McCain is caught in a unique position in this election where Palin ends up being two things: a) qualified to the extent she is and b) best amongst a field of candidates for getting him elected.
That Gore, Johnson, Agnew, Bush Sr., Cheney, Quayle happened to be more qualified than Palin, or at least more qualified according to you all, would have been tossed out the window by all the presidential candidates who named them if an unqualified candidate could have been more likely to get them elected. I'm not saying Palin has the same qualifications that LBJ had, I'm only saying that JFK would have selected Marylin Monroe if she'd have helped his ticket more than Johnson. I think it's kind of funny that you all think that isn't true.
And to clarify, I think Reagan, Bush Sr, Bush Jr, Nixon, and Ford would all have done the same. Clinton was just the one I pulled from my head in my earlier example.
And I'm not saying it's a good thing, mind you, only pointing out that every politician ever, ever, ever has done exactly the same thing.
I'm having a hard time thinking of an example during my voting years where a major politician sold out this far.
Now if John McCain had asked you to be VP, I would retain some respect for him.
I wish he had.
I actually wish engineers were more represented in government. I think it's sad that Congress has one (1) PhD in a sciency field. Turns out he's a nutjob, too.
I don't think having a law degree is somehow less good in governance, and in fact I think it's more on the nose for the profession, but we are effectively governed entirely by one kind of person--egomaniacs who are trained to be lawyers. That can't help but be part of the problem, right?
I'm only saying that JFK would have selected Marylin Monroe if she'd have helped his ticket more than Johnson. I think it's kind of funny that you all think that isn't true.
I see your distinction, but this is what I meant by you thinking it was the exact same thing. You think that the fact that they chose the people they did indicates they would have chosen someone like Palin. I don't think it does.
That Gore, Johnson, Agnew, Bush Sr., Cheney, Quayle happened to be more qualified than Palin, or at least more qualified according to you all,
According to us? Really, you think this woman might be as qualified as anyone on that list?
Ultimately, and this is likely going to stand as my final statement on the subject, is that I am just not expecting the candidates from either party to do other than disappoint me at every turn.
McCain named Palin in a naked attempt to get votes.
Obama voted "present" a bunch of times in a gutless retreat from any opinion which could hurt a future run for president.
I really think Obama named Biden with exactly the same cynicism that McCain named Palin. It is just Obama's (and Reagan's and Clinton's and Gore's and Kerry's...) luck that most often that naked cynicism makes the choice a long-running, gray-haired male senator or governor who has used government dollars a few times for ego-stroking trips overseas.
Matt -- fair enough. While I too am cynical about the inner nature of our country's politicians, I feel that your cynicism approaches nihilism.
'nuff said.
Post a Comment