Friday, August 29, 2008

McCain's VP Choice: Sarah Palin

Surprising most everyone, John McCain has chosen Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, as his running mate.

Now watch the Mainstream Media twist & turn to find ways to attack her. Before, all we heard was that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were "historic" but now somehow Sarah Palin is not. Right off the bat she's being attacked for her lack of experience, but yet she has tons more than Obama. The next 2 months will provide textbook proof of extreme hypocrisy and liberal bias.

10 comments:

md said...

http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/08/29/more-palin-on-guns/

Gotta love this woman.

johnschochet said...

Palin does not have "tons" more experience than Obama. She has far less experience than Obama. I was in Alaska exactly two years ago, and politically knowledgeable people in Anchorage were just in the process of figuring out who she was after she won the Republican primary for governor. Before that, she was mayor of a town of 9,000 person town in suburban Anchorage. Before that she was a fisherman and part-time sportscaster. To me, that makes her far less qualified to be president than someone who has worked in politics or public policy his entire professional life, served as president of the Harvard Law Review, has held elected office for more than 10 years (initially representing a state senate district far, far larger than Wasilla, AK), and proved himself in the most grueling presidential primary in decades. But even if you disagree and think her minimal executive experience trumps Obama's far more extensive legislative and community, and national campaigning experience (a position understand, but don't agree with), Palin still throws a wrench in McCain's "I'm qualified and he's not" argument. The primary qualification for the vice presidency is the ability to take over the presidency. Obama chose a running mate who is unquestionably qualified; McCain did not. Palin is a historic and bold choice, and she might prove to be a smart political choice (albeit a risky one), but it is clear that she was chosen for her ability to win votes, not for her ability to step into the presidency if anything happens to the 72-year-old McCain.

PelaLusa said...

Great talking points, John, but I don't agree. I think the weeks & months ahead will prove that Palin CLEARLY has more experience than Obama.

Your twisted logic at the end to try to say that McCain's experience vs. Obama's lack thereof no longer matters is directly out of the Democrat playbook. I heard the same earlier this morning.

It saddens me that your first reaction is to immediately attack a female candidate, just because she has an (R) after her name. Saddens me greatly, John.

md said...

It's quite disheartening, yet not surprising, to see the left deride her small town origins. When she saw problems with her local government, she did not get bitter and turn to guns and religion (well, she already had those), instead, she chose to do something about it.

Btw, John, what about the WA State darling Patty Murray? The left loves her, and I seem to recall her playing the "mom with tennis shoes" card to great effect. What's good for the goose...

johnschochet said...

Robert: Please explain how Palin has more experience than Obama. She has held statewide office for fewer years in a much smaller state. She has never held national office, unlike Obama. And whatever you may say of the Illinois state senate, it's a much bigger job than mayor of Wasilla. As for pre-politics careers, while I find her sportscaster/fisherman background refreshing, it is not as relevant to the presidency as Obama's community organizing/constitutional law professor background. As for attacking a female candidate with an (R) after her name, I promise you I would not be making any of these arguments if McCain had nominated, say, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), or even Sen. Kay Baily Hutchinson (R-TX). I would not vote for either of them, but I would not argue that they are unqualified for the vice presidency.

MD: I have no problem with Palin's small town origins; I just don't think someone who was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska two years ago should be a heartbeat from the presidency five months from now. And Patty Murray was a Washington state senator when she was elected to the U.S. Senate 16 years ago. That is a perfectly normal path to a U.S. Senate seat, just as it would be perfectly normal for Palin to run for Senate from her current job (or even from her old job). But no one was talking about nominating Patty Murray for vice president in 1992.

PelaLusa said...

Interesting points, John. Let me address them.

Yes, Palin's primary experience is 2 years as the Governor of a State. Let's consider that the baseline for comparison.

Now let's look at Obama. Sorry, but I absolute & completely dispute your notion that being a Community Organizer counts as experience. The Constitutional Law Professor work is valid. Let's let things play out to see what his actual experience there was. As for being a Senator, what precisely has he done in that capacity? His entire time he seems to have been running for President.

So in the end equation we have a former Law Professor & Limited Senator running for President vs. a Governor running for Vice-President.

Clearly you & I will never agree on this. We'll now just have to sit back and let the people of your nation decide. Oh wait, we can also watch the polls over the next few weeks. Lot of blue ink there right now. Let's see if that stays!

md said...

Let's not forget, Palin is running for the #2 position here. She has time to build some experience, and she does have executive branch experience already. Obama would have to start January 20th.

McCain might be a bit banged up, but he's only 72. There's a lot of life left in that guy, and while anything can happen, Obama has to be held to a much higher standard.

You're right about Patty Murray, she did have state experience. It's just odd to me that Palin is getting grief for being a "hockey mom" when Murray used much the same language in her first senate run.

johnschochet said...

This post, from a generally right-of-center law professor blog, offers a good explanation re Palin's lack of qualifications: http://volokh.com/posts/1220046212.shtml

md said...

From the article:

" Sarah Palin has been in public life, basically, for two years. to my knowledge, she has never articulated (because she was never called upon to articulate) any views whatsoever on:"

She's been in public life for longer than two years, she was a mayor and city council member as well; I know, a hick town of only 9000 people, all bitter and armed no doubt.

That she has never been called upon to articulate her position on the issues he enumerates does not preclude her having well reasoned opinions on them, or at least a sizeable subset thereof. In any event, I submit that many of Obama's stated positions are the result of well thought out opinions put forth by his aides, not those he arrived at sua sponte which is perfectly reasonable for any executive or one with executive aspirations - the same courtesy should be afforded Palin, all the more because she is running for #2.

PelaLusa said...

John, I just found this interesting reporter's blog. Seems the early talking points you repeated were retracted a bit later in the day. More to come, I'm sure!