It appears McCain has indeed "swung for the fences" with his vice presidential selection. All signs this morning point to Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, someone I've mentioned here on a couple of different occasions. (And someone who a BraggingWrites commenter "Ted", really, really liked).In a normal year with a level playing field, McCain's choice should have been Mitt Romney. But McCain is facing an uphill battle over the next two months. In Barack Obama, he is up against an extraordinarily well-funded, remarkably charismatic candidate. The anti-GOP sentiment in the country is real and formidable, as is the so-called "Bush Fatigue". (McCain also inadvertently dealt an enormous blow to Romney's chances of being chose with his "inability" to answer a question last week about how many houses he and Mrs. McCain own).
So, who is Sarah Palin? At 44 years old, she is the first female Governor of Alaska, an accomplished outdoors(wo)man and athlete, and a former beauty queen who finished second in the Miss Alaska contest in 1984. She and her husband have five children, the eldest of whom will be headed to Iraq in September with the Army. She is currently the most popular governor in America (in terms of her statewide approval ratings), and she has a record of reform, particularly in terms of aggressively fighting corruption. Perhaps most importantly for McCain, who continues to be viewed with some suspicion from the "base" of the GOP, Palin's conservative bona fides -- social and fiscal -- are unassailable. Lastly, as a woman, she has the potential to appeal to disenchanted Hillary supporters.
What will we hear about her from Democrats or anti-McCain members of the media?
- She's too inexperienced: While it is true that she is relatively green, she is really no less experienced than Barack Obama, and he's at the top of the Democratic ticket! (And in terms of executive experience, by virtue of having any, she already has more than Obama). Quite frankly, I don't think the "experience" argument is one that Democrats will want to make given the obvious and potentially unfavorable comparisons to Obama's experience (or lack thereof) that will result.
- The "scandal" in Alaska: Quite frankly, I can't completely understand this one as it seems to be rather complex. Long story short, Governor Palin fired the Alaska Commissioner of Public Safety and offered him a spot running the state's ABC Board instead. He turned down the offer, and then alleged that Palin had fired him because of his refusal to fire an Alaska State Trooper, Mike Wooten, who is in the process of divorcing Palin's sister. The story is full of twists and turns and at the end of the day, I don't think it has any legs.
I think the Palin choice is a game-changer, and that's exactly what McCain needs.
UPDATE: ABC News reports that Palin is still in Alaska, raising the prospect that she is, not, in fact the choice. Personally I believe this is a smokescreen designed to throw the media off the scent. BUT, if she indeed is not the pick, watch for three more wild-card women to emerge as the actual pick:
- Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman
- Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina
- Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
I'm glad we can look to your blog to hear the crap Republican talking points repeated back to us.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to point out the strange hypocrisy between your more recent post and the one before it. In the prior post you say that the race is even. In the current one, in an attempt to stay on party line, you say that the GOP competition is formidable and McCain needed to make this bold move. Why make such a bold move if the polls are even???
Do you still feel that she is a home run after we have found out that McCain barely knows her and barely vetted her?
First of all "anonymous", if you're going to leave a critical comment -- particularly one that refers to the content of my blog as "crap", please have the courtesy to use your real name. I certainly use mine.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, I do sincerely appreciate your reading the blog, and I always appreciate comments, even (maybe especially) those that challenge me.
And now onto your questions/points. Your first point is weak. I do tend to identify with the Republican Party, so it shouldn't be a huge surprise if the points I make are sometimes similar to those of the GOP "talking points". On the other hand, I certainly disagree with the Republican Party on many occasions and on many issues, and my criticisms of the McCain Campaign here have been frequent. If your implication is that I'm just another mouthpiece for the GOP then I do take issue with that.
As for my "hypocrisy", in my prior post -- written on Day 2 of the Democratic Convention -- the race was effectively even. Regardless, the title of the previous post alone ("Will McCain Swing for the Fences?") should clue you in that I was advocating a bold choice by McCain regardless of the tightness of the race. (Subsequent to my writing that post, Hillary Clinton gave her excellent speech, Bill Clinton gave his, and then Barack Obama topped everyone with his acceptance speech. The polls began to reflect this as well, and by the time McCain announced his choice of Palin, he was trailing again in most polls. Further, you'll find many instances on this blog when I have expressed my belief that McCain faces an uphill battle and that Obama and his campaign are remarkably well-run). Regardless, as I wrote in that post, McCain's gaffe about how many houses he owns changed the calculation required for his selection of a running mate. I also referred to the whole episode as "the type of answer that loses elections".
In that previous post, I also wrote the following: "McCain needs a game-changer [of a VP] to break the tie and build a legitimate lead over Obama..." I further note that while the housing gaffe had both effectively eliminated Romney from consideration and probabaly helped Pawlenty's chances, I felt that Pawlenty "represent[ed] the Biden equivalent of the potential GOP vice presidential candidates. He’ll do no harm, but it’s not clear he’ll help much either."
But here is the important passage -- again, from the previous post that you claim made no mention of McCain's need to make a bold move: "McCain can fundamentally alter this race and gain back his lost momentum with a bold and surprising veep choice, particularly in going with a woman after Obama disappointed the Hillary supporters by not choosing her. But who? Unfortunately for McCain, there is no Republican female who perfectly fits the bill, but there are a few names to keep in mind as we await the official announcement: Alaska Governor Sarah Palin..."
So I fail to see the merits of your arguments. I felt McCain had lost momentum, and I felt he needed a game-changer. I even made a specific mention of Palin as a possible choice. Please feel free to elaborate on how that is "hypocrisy" relative to the Friday's post in which I praise McCain for a "game-changer" of a choice.
As for my feelings about Palin now after the series of revelations over the last few days, I'll be posting on that later today or tomorrow. (Needless to say, I'm not as bullish as I was on Friday).
Again, I respect your opinions, but I happen to disagree with them in this case. I do, however, appreciate your reading and commenting, and I hope you'll continue to do both.
If you'd like to continue this discussion off the comments board, feel free to email me directly: braggvanantwerp@gmail.com.
Thanks,
Bragg
Sarah Palin is a home run alright--a home run for Obama! How dare the Republicans point out the inexperience of Obama and then McCain chooses someone with less experience than Obama. The only true reason McCain chose her is to woo those bitter women who are still upset that Hilliary didn't get the nod for the Democratic candidate for president.
ReplyDelete