The problems with Palin

I'd bet the pledge comment was taken out of context. She was talking about the phrase "under God," and she said "if it was good enough for the founding fathers..." I bet she was referring to the founding fathers' belief in God.

Whatever the problems with Palin, the truth is that she has taken the focus away from Obama. BO's appeal might just shrink when he's not always in the spotlight.

Doug Cramer: "...in light of her foolish comment about the pledge of allegiance."

Yes, Doug, it's clear that Sarah Palin doesn't have your erudite knowledge and extensive experience and -- unlike other folks in the Commentariat -- didn't go to seminary or an Ivy League college or God knows what else.

But in the great scheme of things I don't think NOT knowing that the phrase "under God" was only added in 1954 to the Pledge (thanks initially to lobbying by the Knights of Columbus, incidentally) is hardly a disqualification for the Presidendy or the Vice Presidency.

Have we forgotten that Barack Obama confuses Memorial Day with Veterans Day (one honors those who died in battle, the other those who served); got the number of states wrong (no, Barry, not 57 but 50); and can't complete an unscripted sentence without at least uttering a minimum of ten "ahs" or "ums" ??

Rod: "I don't think Palin will be in any way a countervailing force on McCain regarding foreign policy."

Constitutionally, Rod, VPs aren't supposed to be. And I can't think of any VP in modern times that has been a "countervailing force" although others were certainly "contributing forces" (Cheney to Bush 43 and, to a lesser degree, Mondale to Carter). Apparently, during Roosevelt's third term Henry Wallace tried to be a "countervailing force" which is why FDR gave him the boot for Harry Truman at the 1944 DNC. Which, given Wallace's leftist orientation, was a Godsend.

Eagleton factor?

Good musings, Rod.

(1) Again, on experience, I'd say she's more experienced than Obama (and I don't think running a campaign that dethrones the Clinton's should count as 'experience' here, fwiw). So, again, bring it on -- let's have that debate. As you say, she's our #2 but he's their #1.

(2) Is McCain *really* that hawkish on foreign policy? (That's an honest question, not a rhetorical one.) I know he sang the *bomb bomb Iran* song, but watching the video, looked like he made a rather bad and impolitic vote. He's seen war. He's been tortured. He's been really critical of Bush on foreign policy (and domestic policy too) -- why anyone entertains this "Bush 3rd term" nonsense is beyond me. Given his experiences and his words and deeds *before* he was a candidate, I trust him not to do anything rash. (Palin too -- her son's in the military, so if she were ever in a position to do X or Y, she'd have her own blood in the fight, so to speak.)

I know he's said tough things about Putin and Russia lately. But really, I think a sensible Senator McCain will appear, not a 'candidate McCain', all bellicose and belligerent. And, God forbid, if we did find ourselves in another war, I'd trust him to manage it a heck of a lot better than GWB and his merry band of miscreants.

Thomas Eagleton was removed as VP from the Democratic ticket in 1972, due to alleged psychiatric problems, casting doubt on candidate George McGovern's judgement. Nixon won the election.

Ok, this Alaskan Independence Party thing could be a problem after all.

The Party's Introduction page has this quote from its founder: "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." h/t washingtonmonthly.com. This could be her "God damn America" moment if the press runs with it. Who knows?

Rod hits the nail on the head. The big problem (or question) is not Palin but McCain. He probably belongs to the "John Nance Garner" school of defining Vice-Presidential duties in any case.

McCain is very scary on foreign policy. He was making the rounds on TV and radio the day after 9/11 to attack Iraq and Iran. McCain has flip-flopped on almost everything since he lost the 2000 primary. I just read tonight that a group of right wing conservatives picked Palin. James Dobson was one of the members. Most of McCain's other VPs were pro-choice. There was a long list of things that came out today. Vegas started betting on whether she would be dumped.

Reaganite:

All good points. But I think that you could expand on what's *really* bothering the Commentariat, i.e. she's young, beautiful, pro-life and conservative. She's feminine but tough (as contrasted with Hillary, who is definitely tough, but not feminine.)

Further, she doesn't fit the Left's stereotype of a religiously conservative woman in that she's not at all frumpy and she doesn't have a perpetual scowl on her face. She doesn't wear long dresses and doesn't look anything at all like those LDS women living on that compound in Texas.

But most importantly of all, they hate her because she chose to have that Down's Syndrome baby -- and although the Left champion's a woman's freedom of "choice", that choice must never ever be "Life."

In short, they hate her because she exposes their true nature by contrast.

I think the Pledge thing makes her look a bit dumb. It's certainly possible she meant the Founders believed in God being over us, but it's possible she means what it sounded like. The question, and answer, are ambiguous. Either way it's not good for her. I think my problems are similar to Rod's, but I might state a few differently.

On experience a concern I have is that she was Governor of a state that is very different than the rest of the nation in Geography, History, and maybe even overall culture. California, Reagan's state, is an outlier in many ways too but contains more things typical of the lower 48. If she were governor of Utah or Massachusetts or Hawaii this could also be a concern. She was also not governor all that long. So there's a risk that she is, or at least could be portrayed as, out-of-touch with the rest of America.

A concern I've developed on listening to her is she might be too focused on fossil fuel issues. Managing those is critically important in Alaska, hence if she did well at it it makes her a good governor for the state, but in the nation as a whole there's other things involved. I worry she does see these wars as "wars for oil", or natural gas anyway, and is okay with them being such. I guess I hoped she'd be a bit more open to alternate energy than she seems to be.

I still think she sounds like a neat lady who did many good things. It's just I'm naturally cautious and although I was actually very excited for a bit, my natural tendencies have reasserted themselves.

Anyway kudos to Rod for considering the problems in a serious manner. I doubt people like Sullivan would ever do that with Obama.

The only good thing that may (MAY) come from a Palin run now is that you "conservatives" (the word really doesn't mean what it used to mean) will for once and all realize that the government has no business meddling in the private lives of its citizens. If you still insist that everyone needs to live their lives according to one particular dogma, then nothing good will come of this at all. We should not condemn Ms. Palin for any of her or her daughter's personal choices, nor should we exalt her for them, we should only acknowledge that the Palins are humans. So is everyone else, and if modern-day conservatives had learned to keep the social agenda in church and developed a concept of governing that included views other than their own, they might not be put under such scrutiny when one of their own comes down with a touch of Common Human-ness.

Rod,

There are serious questions about Palin's commitment to the American union. She allegedly was a member of the Alaska Independence Party, a party that seeks Alaska's departure from the United States and an independent Alaska. How can we trust somebody who was once a member of that party to be loyal to the United States? This is much worse than Obama's reverend Wright problem. It is problematic in two ways:

1) Where do her ultimate loyalties lie? Even if she was not a member (which by credible reports she was), she gave a recorded address to their convention. That is very troubling. Why would somebody who is loyal to the United States address a secessionist party?

2) What was John McCain thinking in naming her with this serious question about her having either been a member of the AIP or at least having given a sympathetic address to their party? John McCain obviously has some serious gaps in his judgment that need to be considered in voting for him.

On foreign policy, I'm hopeful that McCain's outward toughness is a posture taken to let our enemies - you all do remember them, I assume? - know that we will go to war if necessary. His actual military experience and pedigree might in fact make him less adventuristic than a chickenhawk Dubya or an effete BHO in an actual crisis. He certainly knows how foot soldiers can experience "quagmire."

The biggest problem with GOP foreign policy is not a posture of toughness but the Messianic rhetoric of spreading democracy. Bush's second inaugural was totally unhinged in that regard, but the GOP has been seeking a raison d'etre, since the fall of Communism, and tax cuts aren't plausible forever.

Good to see that you are finally coming around on Sarah Palin. There were much better women GOP candidates that were overlooked because they are pro-choice.

Having watched Palin be extensively interviwed the other night on energy policy, ANWR, etc- she is smart, knows her stuff, and shows good judgement. It made me even more convinced that she is a good pick.
Re the abstinence thing: the irony is that it shows even more why abstinence is the best policy. If her daughter had followed that policy, she wouldn't be pregnant today.

Ben (1.58 AM): which is why I'm betting the press won't run with it.

There are morally and intellectually respectable arguments why *neither* Sarah Palin *nor* Barack Obama is qualified for the position that she or he seeks.

There are morally and intellectually respectable arguments why *both* Sarah Palin *and* Barack Obama are qualified for the positions they seek -- thought those arguments would be less convincing to me.

There are even morally and intellectually respectable arguments why Sarah Palin *is* qualified and Barack Obama is *not* qualified for the positions that she and he respectively seek -- since she seeks a less exalted position that has traditionally required less qualification than the one that he seeks.

However.....

There is absolutely no morally and intellectually respectable argument why Sarah Palin is *not* qualified for the position she seeks while Barack Obama *is* qualified for the one that he seeks.

What we have here is a case of two promising but unproven Vice-Presidential candidates -- one of whom is running for President and one of whom is running for Vice-President.

What we have here is, on the one hand, a politician with executive experience who has resisted the culture of corruption that she has had to face, and, on the other hand, a politician with no executive experience who has at best acquiesced to and at worst extended the culture of corruption that he has had to face -- by wallowing in bed with machine-political grifters and grafters, radicals and racist demagogues, terrorists, militants, mau-mau men and mau-mau women.

Other than this, the difference between the two comes down to these:

He's (half) black, while she's "only" white. Who cares?

He's a man, while she's "only" a woman. Who cares?

He went to Harvard, while she "only" went to the University of Idaho? Who cares?

He wrote two (unreadable) books about himself, while she "only" raised five children. Who cares?

He's run his mouth non-stop for the last two years, while she's "only" run her state. Who cares?

"Ah.................the victim card. We've been waiting." jim

TR: That was silly. Teen pregnancies happened in the fifties. I think they happened a good deal more often than people act like. Back then they tended to expect they'd get married when it happened, which seems to be what they're doing. I'm not sure I'm for that, but hopefully the actual marriage won't happen until she's at least 18. Either way it's their business.

"If it isn't the most conservative state, Alaska is at least the most libertarian one." jim

TR: This, however, undercuts your argument a bit. Libertarians generally believe in the sexual revolution. Or at least they believe in the Old Western "rugged individualist" kind of sexual liberalism. So the other person can just say "fine she's a victim of a libertarian culture then."

"He went to Harvard, while she "only" went to the University of Idaho? Who cares?
He wrote two (unreadable) books about himself, while she "only" raised five children. Who cares?" Rufus T

TR: I think for many in the news media these two would unavoidably make one person less than another. A Democratic woman with five kids who went to the University of Idaho would, almost automatically, be less impressive than a published writer who went to Harvard. Harvard is a better rank school. And I think for many in the media or academia having five kids is rare or even considered bizarre.

I was a initially Giddy As A Schoolgirl about Sarah Palin; but now things are settling down a bit and the questions are starting to form in my mind. I haven't quite decided how I feel about this election.

- The experience thing doesn't bother me all that much. Historically, governors have proven to be better presidents than senators. And let's not forget Harry Truman, the guy from Missouri who sold hats. Most of what passes for "experience," in politics, amounts to "experience getting re-elected," which I suppose translates into "not upsetting anyone near election time" for years upon end. I am not sure how much of that entails "leadership" or the like, however.

- The lack of Ivy League education also does not faze me. I live near Boston, and know lots of Harvard, Yale, and Cornell graduates. While they are certainly smart, they are not necessarily all that much smarter than other people I know who either lacked rich parents or who were arguably smarter and decided that paying over $30K a year tuition was for suckers. And Bush 43 is a Yalie, and I think we have all agreed he is probably not the sharpest card in the deck.

- As far as Baby Trig; well, I applaud Ms. Palin's not having an abortion. With the sort of advanced testing available now (which is really pushed upon "mature" mothers), Down's can be detected as early as 11-12 weeks at which point many mothers quietly abort without having ever even announced the pregnancy. So I don't agree with people who say "What's the big deal? It would have been bad PR for the pro-life governer to abort at 5 months," since she theoretically COULD have aborted very early on without anyone knowing. She is obviously TRULY pro-life. Now, I am not sure how I feel about the VP having a 5 month old baby; I am probably projected here, but I know when my own children were 5 months old I was severely sleep-deprived and running purely on caffeine fumes. Though my children were all notoriously poor sleepers and liked to nurse approximately every 16.2 minutes round the clock; perhaps the Palin offspring are of easier temperment.

I guess I am just not completely comfortable with a mother at what is probably a more than full-time job, with an infant at home. Though it is true that for the first 3-6 months, babies are pretty happy to just be held and nurse and could conceivably be brought to work with minimum disruption.

- Bristol's pregnancy - Once again, I am glad that Bristol did not get an abortion. And I try not to look down upon pregnant teens; my mother-in-law married at 17 and my darling husband was born six months later -- you can do the math. Both in-laws continued their education and earned masters' degrees, albeit on a slower timetable as they had to juggle family obligations. They are still happily married 37 years later. My own grandma had a shotgun marriage, as far as I can tell; my great-grandpa went so far as to have a friend at City Hall alter my dad's birth certificate to make him appear to be born a year later (the official family story was that it was so that Dad wouldn't get drafted...but I don't know...). Still, I can't help feeling a vague sense of Britney Spears-esque foreboding...it may be my native New England snobbery showing, but it just seems so trailer-parkish (my own grandma WAS an Appalachian hillbilly, so in my elitist little mind it seems understandable for that sort of thing to happen).

- The whole Bristol thing also makes me wonder about Ms. Palin's judgment; if MY oldest daughter was a pregnant teen, and John McCain asked ME to be his running mate, I would probably say "no thanks, we are having a bit of a Family Crisis right now, and I really don't want to see my daughter Dragged Through The Mud, so to speak, and have our difficulties aired on CNN nightly." So my maternal instincts are saying "geez, what kind of mother would do that, knowing that her child will get RIPPED APART by the press?" Here is where I acknowledge being a bit of a sexist; I know that many great leaders were terrible fathers and I can rationalize that by saying "Well, of COURSE he was a shameful excuse for a parent - he WAS off saving the free world from Hitler/Communism/whatever, it wasn't as if he had much time left over to play catch with Junior!" But I have a hard time translating that same understanding to a woman; perhaps I feel that fathers, by nature, have to go out and do stuff that takes them away from their families on a regular basis, but that mothers should have the home as their primary focus. I say this as a mother, myself. But I don't know if I'm RIGHT to think this way.

So I just don't know how I feel about anything ... I really cannot bring myself to vote for Obama, even though he seems like a very nice person, because he is just way too liberal for me and I cannot stomach his stance on abortion, partial-birth abortion and infants who survive abortion. But I don't know if I can vote for McCain, either...probably the best thing for conservatives would be if Obama won, turned out to be an awful President, and thus paved the way for Bobby Jindahl in 2012.

If Palin's daughter Bristol and Levi the expectant father become major tabloid fodder in the next couple of weeks, that could be a major problem. If I was running the McCain campaign, I'd try to turn this into a human interest story for the press.

This morning Mike Murphy, former McCain adviser in 2000, appeared on "Morning Joe". He's not too positive about the Palin pick. I've seen poll numbers that ABC released about independent and swing voters. There mostly pro-choice and liberal to moderate on the other social and economic issues.

If right wingers continue this hard right turn, they're gonna put more people off. Mr. Murphy said the only thing he could see this pick doing was solidifying the base. That's a problem when independents are growing and self-identified Republicans are shrinking.

One thing that turns liberals and moderates off is hypocrisy. Obviously the abstinence-only-program didn't work for Palin's daughter; so, why should folks listen to Palin? If Palin tries to speak about family values it may speak to Evangelicals only. Others, after learning about her daughter may question whether the moral platitudes are just a ploy.

In fact, Republican children hardly seem to be the paradigm of virtue. Huckabee's kid was facing animal abuse charges. The Bush twins we're trying to use Secret Service agents in a scheme to engage in under-age drinking.

Maybe the Republicans should stop trying to use their government positions to preach morality. Maybe they should focus on governing.

If Palin's smart, she'll try to convince folks she's a reformer in her speech. God knows what she'll say about foreign policy? She has no record whatsoever. I guess they're saying she was part of the "Independence Party" which wanted to secede from our 49 states. Hardly sounds patriotic.

After I wrote my comment, I felt perhaps I was being too hard on Sarah Palin for accepting the VP nomination and exposing Bristol to public scrutiny and ridicule; but it seems that smarter people than I, like Patrick Deneen also had the same thought.

oops, the scandals keep coming with just a few hours since McCain gave us Democrats the "gift", clearly she was not properly vetted. Women in my office laughed, it was such a lame, obvious attempt to impress the women and pander the vote.

1) A preggers daughter with "daddy's" my space site saying he did not want to have children(until it was taken down today)--good old fashioned shotgun wedding/romance. The boy wanted the action, not to be a new Daddy.

2) New Impeachment probe(began in July) with recently fired state official accusing her of abuse of power, firing him because he would not fire her ex brother in law, a state trooper. Hell hath no fury like a woman's sister scorned. She just hired a private defense lawyer this week to defend her on those allegations made BEFORE she was ever a serious choice for VP, so they are not politically-motivated.

3) Hubby alleged to have a DWI

4) Took a record number of earmarks as Mayor and now as Gov, tho she claimed to be against them last week.

5) She was a member of a weird Independent Party for a long time that had the platform for Alaska to Secede from the Union--she didn't even want to be an American back then

All of this and probably more secrets to be revealed, with only 2 years as Governor, no national experience, Green Acres small-town mayor before that. No international experience at all.

He really messed up his first big decision. "Mavericks" sound cool when venting, but in the real world, it is the quiet gentle patient plodders like Reagan and Roosevelt who get things done.

Reaganite,

This is a bit of nit-picking, but your example contrasting Al Gore and Palin isn't correct. You say the Albert Gore III incident took place in 2000, but that is not true. His son had run-ins in 2003 and 2007.

I certainly agree with the larger points that the family dynamic is something that none of us can know, so any conclusions we reach on Palin's judgement, ambition or what-no are all informed by our prejudices and assumptions, and little else.

And of course, I felt this same way about the use of the young Michelle Obama's college papers. Conclusions that she hates America, has a chip on her shoulder or otherwise is an angry person only demonstrate the viewpoint and prejudices of those who dare to assume they know what's in her heart and soul.

Alicia,

With all due respect, I think McCain's "impulsive" choice of Sarah Palin as an associate shows much better judgement on his part than Obama's presumably "calm," "cool," and "collected" choices of William Ayers, Michael Pflaeger, Antoine Rezko, and Jeremiah Wright as his associates. If those presumably "considered" choices are signs of Obama's much-vaunted "intelligence" or of the "education" one receives in the Ivy League, then give me Sarah Palin and the University of Idaho any day. Again, with all due respect.

Daniel: "Palin is a blank slate on which we project our wants and fears. ... We know quite a bit about Obama; I mean, the man's written two memoirs."

Daniel, we're getting to know a lot more about Sarah Palin (including her daughter) than most people might care to know.

As for Obama, how much can we actually verify about his life? Including what's in those "two memoirs" he's written? Columnist Charles Krauthammer noted the oddest thing about Obama at last week's DNC: no one from his pre-2004 past (with the exception of Michelle) showed up to vouch for the guy. It's odd because with all previous Conventions the Presidential nominee arranges to have old school buddies, war buddies, the 2nd grade teacher, old neighbors, law school friends, old business colleagues, etc., etc. show up and speak at the convention or be available to the press. Nothing for Obama! Why?

Of course, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright WAS his "spiritual mentor for 20 years" ("Like a father to me") and might have vouched for him --- but was busy getting new sermons prepared for the fall season, one supposes.

Likewise, Professor William Ayres who hosted Barack's first ever campaign house party (back when B.O. ran for State Senate in 1996) might have made it .... but apparently Professor Ayres was at the annual reunion of the Weathermen Underground.

How strange, too, the way the Obama campaign gets nervous when reporters try to poke around in Obama's past ... and the way they have kept old friends and family shielded from the media. What are they hiding? And why is the MSM letting the BO campaign get away with this?

"The Perfect Stranger" was the title of Krauthammer's column, and it expresses brilliantly the Jay Gatsby-like nature of this self-made political creation.

Reaganite, this isn't about Obama. We've had 18 months of campaigning, he's sat through hundreds of interviews, he's had every corner of his life examined.

Palin, we've known for a weekend. She's a blank slate. We should be able to ask some questions, starting with a list of her actual accomplishments as opposed to her campaign promises. She's raised taxes. She built an ice rink. She's taxed oil companies. She tried to get her brother-in-law fired. Beyond that, all this "executive experience" seems shockingly thin.

Face it, Rod, you've jumped the gun in your embrace of Sarah Palin as a new face of conservatism. She is a seemingly attractive but largely unknown quantity from a mostly overlooked state, which, on the rare occasions when it attracts attention, looks to be a swamp of corruption, cronyism, petty vendettas and wacko ideology, in which she stands somewhere between knee-deep and neck-deep.

Palin arrives on the national stage as a budding insurgent - but only budding, not having gone through the seasoning to outgrow small-town machinations, too-recent dalliances with extremists and protege/surrogate links to the likes of Ted Stevens.

Her premature elevation reinforces the case you've sometimes made: That an exhausted party should be put out of power for a spell for its own good. It's obvious that the Republican Party has shot its bolt for the time being, that it needs to regroup, rethink its ideology and governing philosophy, and properly nurture a new set of leaders.

Rufus, I'm not sure if you were posting here a few months back, but I was just as up-in-arms about Jeremiah Wright's demagoguery as anyone else.

In fact, I was often accused of being a right-winger (I'm a moderate) and a bigot for suggesting that the Obamas should have had the courage and common sense to resign from their church much earlier than they did. Oprah used to belong to that church, too, but she had the sense to leave it many years ago.

I'm not crazy about Obama's past associations, but those associations are not yet a "deal-breaker" for me. I regard Obama as a talented politician, but hope that, if he is elected President, he will show himself capable of more political courage than he has shown in the past.

Wow! Zing, zing, zing!

People are naaaaa....sssssss....teeeeeeeeee (nasty)

Who would ever want to serve in the highest offices in our land?

The 4 most mentally ill people in the nation:

Obama
Biden
McCain
Palin

Praying that someone will give them a break.

The right and the left are unbelievable
20/20 vision on the sins of others
In need of eye transplant surgery to see their own faults
How does that work?

I withdraw my 2012 candidacy immediately

Peace,

Duh-sciple

At least McCain is showing some consistency, if only as a maverick. If Obama wants credibility for reaching across the aisle, do you think HE might have been the one to choose Lieberman as his VP pick?

Alicia,

I hear you. And I'm not saying vote for McCain -- though all the attacks on Sarah Palin incline me to do so, for perhaps misguided reasons of chivalry and class solidarity.

Just don't vote for Obama.

If Obama can be elected President, then vetting for personal character or professional qualification means nothing anymore -- at least in Presidential politics.

I can't imagine Obama passing any kind of vetting that Palin would fail, except a snob's sniff test.

But like I say, this campaign has enter such a heart of darkness with regard to gender, social class, and religion, that as at least a would-be gentlemen, a country mouse, and a Christian, I can help but fall back on the atavistic stances that this whole campaign has been about from the very start.

The Democrats seem desperate *not* to get *my* vote.

Fine.

They won't. : )

Good Morning Rufus, and Hello, Jim R. I respect your decision not to vote for the Democrats, Rufus. I left the Democratic Party a couple of years ago, myself, and registered Republican. My choice would have been for a moderate third party if one such existed.

However, this year, I have decided that supporting the Democratic candidates is the lesser of two ills, for the reasons I mentioned above. In fact, what I heard on the Today Show this morning suggests that the ethics investigation into Sarah Palin's conduct may be more serious than at first claimed.

It certainly looks as if Palin abused her Gubernatorial power and authority in order to attempt to have her ex-brother-in-law (a creep and a jerk, but that is besides the point) fired. If these allegations turn out to be true, Palin is the last person I want to serve as our next VP.

If this is the case, I think I was right to say that McCain acted impulsively in picking a VP who has not been sufficiently vetted.