Sarah Palin, First Impressions
When Joe Biden was chosen as the VP there were numerous posts on the subject and at the time I declined to enumerate too extensively on him because he had been talked about so extensively already.
McCain has effectively thrown the chattering classes (of which I am a mere serf of) for a loop with this pick. I had already read about her before but a closer look is in order.
As with the VP choices in Bidens case, there are two aspects to the choice, the politically strategic and then the actual practical. I will look at both.
First the politically strategic aspect. Not because it is more important but because it (should) be less important, despite the outsized attention it gets.
On the plus side she is young, attractive and female. She is very conservative, making her unlikely to anger anyone in the base. She’s also an avid hunter, which should lay to rest any idiocy that may arise about her being frail. Being female is an asset in another way of course. Democrats may fear laying into her lack of experience too much in case they get called sexist. The sexist label is not nearly as spent as the racist label, so that accusation could stick to the minds of women the way a racist charge won’t. She has 5 children with one son having enlisted in the armed forces in 2006, so she matches a “child in the army” for Biden one for one. She will bring the PUMAS out to vote, though their actual numbers are unclear. She’s very popular in her state, though of course she hasn’t yet had time to make anyone mad.
On the minus side she has less than two years experience as governor of the 47th largest state in the union. It severely undercuts McCain’s argument about being ready on day one. It also leaves an opening for speculation about the wisdom of leaving someone that green on the national stage one step away from the White House with an elderly man in between. Is it politically correct? Of course not, but it WILL arise, sooner or later. Her appeal amongst real feminists will probably be limited by her severe anti-abortion stance (she would only allow it to save the life of the mother). She has a small scandal brewing over the firing of her ex brother-in-law during a messy divorce from her sister, but I doubt it will have an effect.
Now on to the actual important stuff, readiness and policy.
As far as readiness goes, she’s quite simply not. She’s younger than Obama (not a big problem) but more importantly has spent very little time in positions of authority of any importance. Of all the states in the union, perhaps being governor of a frozen state far north is the least representative governorship in terms of comparison to the nation, along with being governor of Hawaii. And not only that, she has only been governor for 18 months. Think of it this way. If she had run on her own for President, would she have a hope in hell? No, of course not, she would have been eaten alive for being way too green. Now, I don’t think this is a point that will work strategically, but I do think it’s an important issue. Sadly, the important issues and the prominent issues often don’t coincide.
As for the issues, she’s a very solid conservative, on both social and fiscal issues. For conservative voters, she’s pretty much rock solid. She also has a reputation for not being afraid to make her party mad, which is something I like. The one aspect in which she does buck her party is on certain GLBT issues. She nominally supported the gay marriage ban ammendment in her state, but used her very first veto to prevent a bill that would have banned gay state employees from extending benefits to their partners, making a lot of people mad, though I find it highly commendable.
She’s a creationist, which is pretty much a deal breaker for me. She has advocated that creationism be discussed alongside with real science in schools. I know that this is not a deal breaker for almost anyone who would consider voting for a core conservative, or even for many people, but it is to me. To me the idea that someone could have their finger on the button that would give credence to the most discredited hogwash and on top of that be willing to foist in on children in public schools is deeply offensive and frightening. I’m not saying that you can’t be a very nice and decent person while being a creationist, of course I’m saying that if you believe that creationism has “science” behind it you have no clue what science is about and I don’t want you running my country.
Mostly, I think it doesn’t much matter. If she turns out to be a fantastic campaigner she could be a mild plus. If she turns out to be a disaster, she could be a mild minus.
"To me the idea that someone could have their finger on the button that would give credence to the most discredited hogwash and on top of that be willing to foist in on children in public schools is deeply offensive and frightening. I’m not saying that you can’t be a very nice and decent person while being a creationist, of course I’m saying that if you believe that creationism has “science” behind it you have no clue what science is about and I don’t want you running my country."
Well said. End of argument for me.
I think that her biggest plus is the fact that her Alaska administration has a reputation for successful reform, especially for rooting out Republican corruption. Obama talks a lot about change, Palin has shown that she can deliver it.
The Democrats will have difficulty attacking her on the small town and backwater state arguments, as this would alienate quite a few of their own voters from such places.
I think that the inexperience argument is probably her biggest minus, especially in conjunction with McCain’s age. Again the down side to this is that at least she has executive experience unlike Obama.
I think that this is a good choice by McCain.
lol, I don’t think anybody thought that the GOP would have your vote to begin with Claudia.
She has as much voter elected experience as Obama does, which is more than HRC had. Her Executive experience should give her the edge - but I wouldn’t expect any Liberal to acknowledge it in this race. Although I’d agree that Gov of Alaska would have less flashy appeal than a gov of a larger State would. Either way she has served in the highest publically elected office in the United States. No Democrat in the race can claim that.
Actually I’d favor it being mentioned in school as well. What’s to be scared of if it’s mentioned as an alternative view. Do you not trust people to be able to make up their own minds? In addition, you should have found the first -debate- between Obama & McCain to have been highly offensive as well.
She has advocated that creationism be discussed alongside with real science in schools.
I don’t know, I’ve seen one excerpt of an interview with her where she didn’t seem to be saying that creationism should be taught in science classes- just that there should be open discussion in classrooms about differing ideas about the origin of the universe. There’s quite a difference between those two things, and I don’t see why the second should be a deal breaker for anyone (particularly since her election to the office of VP of US would have absolutely no effect on classroom curricula anyway.)
Perhaps there is more too it than that and perhaps she’s a zealous Creationist, but something tells me that one quote is probably being blown completely out of proportion, obviously because it does effect some voters the way it did you, Claudia.
"she’s a creationist"
All four candidates profess to believe in God, making all of them creationists. Are you saying Barak is lying his teeth off when he professes to be religious?
Walter hehehe :))))
Good one. Nice to see that you are actually being "scientific" and "logical" about this whole thing.
This is going to sound like I’m defending Palin here, but if I’m getting it right she does not push that to be taught in a "science" class. If this thing can be taught properly in a philosophy class, where arguments in favor of and opposing creationism may be discussed, that can be a very fascinating and enriching course.
In fact, I went to a liberal arts college that taught an introductory philosophy course discussing evolutionary theory versus creationism and we’ve read some fascinating material from both sides. It was a great class.
I’ve been thinking about this choice…and I honestly think it would have been better not to have made Nebraska a state. Whoops, wrong thought!
I meant to say that I think it would have been better for McCain to have chosen Huckabee as his running mate as opposed to Palin. Huckabee is just as conservative, but much better known and a clear favorite of the party’s evangelical base. While I very much dislike Huckabee’s views I still think he’d have been a better choice than Palin, or Romney, or even Pawlenty.
And seriously, have you ever seen a road atlas of Nebraska? Huge empty spaces! Would have been better to split it up among surrounding states.
Tom, your argument about Huckabee only makes sense if you assume that shoring up the Christian conservative part of the base was the only reason for the choice of Palin, and that’s not the case. Other things she brings to the table are youth, a strong reformist record (even in a short time in office), and involvement in energy policy. Plus, she doesn’t have the baggage that Huckabee had- mainly his minister background which appealed to Christians but turned off independents.
Not to mention Huckabee’s tacit acceptance of anti-Mormonism, which would inevitably alienate one of the Republican party’s most loyal constituencies. I have found that a lot of Mormons didn’t like Romney either, but they were offended by the WAY in which many of Huckabee’s supporters targeted Romney for his faith instead of for his other weaknesses.
I, for one, will never even consider voting for any ticket with Mike Huckabee on it unless and until he explicitly and unconditionally condemns the anti-Mormon bigotry from which he benefited during the 2008 primaries.
I, for one, will never even consider voting for any ticket with Mike Huckabee on it
I agree, and require no further qualifiers. He lost me completely with his "Armies of God" speech.
From a fiscal conservative and a little left of center social policy guy [other words I don’t like gov’t/people restricting (pvt/personal) liberties] her speech wasn’t a Home Run but it was good. She is likable, folksy, and well-spoken. I don’t like the fact that her daughter and beau are being dragged into the public eye over something that a few years ago [and if they were a minority] would’ve triggered hoots and howls of “welfare mommas” and derisive comments about premarital sex. I like her feisty style and its one of the reasons I have liked McCain, plus he is more “centered” than the supposed “conservative base” of the RNC. He is running to the right to energize the base and get out the vote, he is shrewed enough to know that breaking the mold [with Palin] was smart move that appeals directly to voters Obama has trouble connecting with. However, don’t fool yourself, his track record is the way he will govern and many in the RNC didn’t like it then and you probably aren’t gonna like it when/if he gets in the White House.Really, our country needs to reshape our political party’s in to 3 new ones: the crazy eco-wackos anything goes left liberals, the crazy morally corrupt right conservatives [who for the moment have accepted the reality of premarital sex] and a CENTRIST party for the rest of us [and majority of us]. See I’ve pissed off everyone, I’m sure, on this board but that is how many of us independent-minded people think and we’d take the centrist part of RNC and DNC with us. I vote - still just not sure for who I will cast my ballot. I urge everyone to look at non-partisan analyses of our candidates economic, foreign policy, and social/societal plans. Reread the Constitution and see who is upholding it. Forget the Hannity’s and Olbermann’s of the world and decide for yourself.