I don't say this often, but Tom Friedman is right. The worse the economic news gets, the more bizarre the idea of a Palin vice presidency becomes:
How in the world can conservative commentators write with a straight face that this woman should be vice president of the United States? Do these people understand what serious trouble our country is in right now?We are in the middle of an economic perfect storm, and we don't know how much worse it's going to get. People all over the world are hoarding cash, and no bank feels that it can fully trust anyone it is doing business with anywhere in the world. Did you notice that the government of Iceland just seized the country's second-largest bank and today is begging Russia for a $5 billion loan to stave off "national bankruptcy." What does that say? It tells you that financial globalization has gone so much farther and faster than regulatory institutions could govern it. Our crisis could bankrupt Iceland! Who knew?
And we have not yet even felt the full economic brunt here. I fear we may be at that moment just before the tsunami hits -- when the birds take flight and the insects stop chirping because their acute senses can feel what is coming before humans can. At this moment, only good governance can save us. I am not sure that this crisis will end without every government in every major economy guaranteeing the creditworthiness of every financial institution it regulates. That may be the only way to get lending going again. Organizing something that big and complex will take some really smart governance and seasoned leadership.
Whether or not I agree with John McCain, he is of presidential timber. But putting the country in the position where a total novice like Sarah Palin could be asked to steer us through possibly the most serious economic crisis of our lives is flat out reckless. It is the opposite of conservative.
Yes. (Heavy sigh.)
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I suspect that most of them wouldn't do as well, particularly on the short notice that Palin got.
Perhaps we would prefer a candidate for President who cared about the major issues of the day before she had the nomination handed to her on a platter. Then "short notice" wouldn't be a problem, would it? My problem with Palin is not that she is "dumb." She isn't. It's that she is a lousy fit for this job.
Anybody who has been in business knows to hire the guy who enjoys doing the job. Don't pick the one who wants the salary, or the prestige, he'll slack off. Even if he'd be a hard worker in some other job. Palin doesn't want this job, she just wants to win. Not good enough.
Tell me, how well will Palin do on "short notice" when McCain's cancer comes back out of remission and kills him? Or when the next terrorist attack forces the President to hide in a bunker or Air Force One, and the Veep has to coordinate the nation's response?
Really? And where are Andrew's calls for accountability and transparency from Barack Obama? If Obama had been seriously vetted by anyone he would have never made it out of the primaries. His books are works of fiction and don't qualify him to do anything other than write more books. When Sullivan, Brooks and the rest hold Obama to the same standard they use on Palin, I might pay attention. After filtering out the smug smarter-than-thou academic spin, and noting that she is not running for President---Obama is!
Andrew is calling for all of them to release medical records, taxes, etc. - par for the course in campaigns. Obama has already released years of tax information. Obama's Senate records are an open book, as are his earmark requests. The focus has been so heavy on Palin lately because she's McCain's biggest canard.
Let's face one reality here: Palin is completely unknown on the national scene and of course she will generate more interest. McCain has sold her as something she isn't: a fiscal conservative? That's a load of hooey. Reformer? More like just a backstabber. Transparent? As a brick! And since she hasn't internalized the platform enough after 6 weeks to speak knowledgeably by herself, it seems a thick one, too.
Palin is an abominable choice for VP. I simply can't understand how McCain can, with a straight face, claim to put the country first and at the same time allow her to remain on the ticket. It's a truly disturbing commentary on his judgment, and at this stage I wonder if he's still running his own campaign. Palin appears to be intellectually challenged, but that's not the issue. The issue is that, like George W Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of intellect with a hostility to ideas and a dangerously misplaced sense of certitude bordering on self-righteousness. This is Bush's worst and most damaging trait. So, McCain has made the choice very simple this election - I'm putting country first and voting Obama.
I think Sarah Palin is an intelligent, resourceful politician, but that the particular gifts she has would not serve her well as president of the United States -- and that she is by intellectual temperament unsuited to the presidency.
Rod,
Forgive me, but I've been thinking over your switch on Palin. And I think it has more to do with your remorse over defending that idiot Bush, against the scurrilous attacks from the intelligentsia.
When Bush first ran, he was the subject to some of the same kinds of attacks that resulted from what we now know as "Bush Derangement Syndrome". (Full disclosure: Though I am an extreme Pat Buchanan/Ron Paul conservative, I've got BDS bad - I can't stand to watch him, my jaw clinches up and I get visibly angry. I've always thought of him as a stupid, swaggering little bully without a clue.) I've hated DUH-bya from the beginning, and nothing he's done has changed that view.
But in the same way that lots of decent conservatives reacted to the attacks on Bush, we have also reacted to the ridiculous attacks on Palin. In this scenario, "reg'lar gal Palin" ca. 2008 equals "reg'lar guy" Bush ca. 2000. Though I can't stand Bush, I love Palin. And in the same way that certain conservatives reacted against the attacks on Bush (I'm guessing that you reacted this way, based on certain things you've said in the past) we are now reacting to those attacks on Palin.
My amateur psychological theory is that you've turned on Palin because you recognize the same defensive emotions that you had for Bush, and because his critics turned out to be right.
But Palin is not Bush.
I was a Republican my whole life...until George W. Bush. Everything I read about his life told me he was a loose cannon. Gore might have been boring, but he at least was stable and deliberate. The media didn't do people any favors by turning it into a popularity contest instead of a serious decision about governance, leadership, issues and qualifications. I became a reluctant independent that election day and voted for Gore.
I liked McCain when this race began. I had respect for him that went back many, many years and was looking forward to possibly voting for him. But his choice of Palin was a red flag on 2 counts.
> Impulsive and reckless in action.
> Short-sighted and disrespectful to the office of VP in substance.
As a person I liked Sarah Palin's personality, but she had no business being a VP choice. When I heard her say she didn't blink (or think) before she took the nomination, she went down a notch. Seeing her interviews and lack of cogent answers she went down even more notches. But winking at people and give shout-outs during a debate...then she became an embarrassment to this country.
Now that I see she is a pathological liar and uses fear-mongering to stir up hateful emotions at her rallies, I find her despicable.
So for me, the reasons that I didn't find either Bush or Palin fit is because they showed to me they weren't.
I despair that our election process and governance has devolved into people and journalists defending candidates who have no business governing, just because they fall under their preferred party or religious platform. Whatever happened to COUNTRY first?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.