Demons & Politics

[giftederic]

So, John McCain has chosen Sarah Palin the noted conservative, 44 yr old mother of 5, former beauty queen and governor of Alaska for the last 20 months,  as his running mate....

I can't help wondering if someone has just done a deal with the devil somewhere. My suspension of disbelief is under considerable strain right now. It just doesn't feel like a choice that is going to give the republicans any chance of winning the election. So either, the democrats secured that veep choice thru magic and trickery, or the Republicans feel they are going to win, regardless of the 'real' outcome.

Hmmm.....

I guess even 20 months is more 'executive' experience than McCain, Obama & Biden have between them....

Comments

[ulaire-daidoji.livejournal.com]

Seems like a really clever choice to me. She's a life member of the NRA and apparently rabidly pro-life so that ticks two boxes. Pushes oil and gas development in Alaska so there's box number 3 for the republicans

Has been a whistleblower against her own party for corruption... That's gotta count for something with a lot of swing voters.

Young (hasn't had time to get as corrupted, similar to Obama)

Female...

From the most Libertarian of the republican stronghold states...

[cradok.livejournal.com]

Except she's being investigated for corruption at the moment, and may even end up removed from office in the very near future.

[ulaire-daidoji.livejournal.com]

Where are you getting this from?

oh you mean "Toopergate"? The Daily Telegraph makes a big deal of it but none of the other big news companies seem to think it worthy of more than a footnote. It's hardly grounds for removing her from office.

Also the fact she has an 80%+ approval rating in her state make highly unlikely there will any moves to remove her.

international experience

[wargle.blogspot.com (from livejournal.com)]

Don't forget her international experience (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/votNEuzq5oM/211284.php)!

Re: international experience

[wargle.blogspot.com (from livejournal.com)]

Hmm, that came up as a real link in the preview. Have you got some strange "don't allow comments to contain links" thing turned on?

[saoili.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure where I stand on this myself just yet, but I have heard someone say that it's a smart move because she'll get republicans votes because she's hard core republican, but she might get some feminist democratic votes because she's a woman, or words to that affect.

[ulaire-daidoji.livejournal.com]

That kind of implies that feminist democrats are idiots really? Or maybe they are misandrists?

Is voting for someone because they are a woman a valid choice?

The older I get the more my contempt for democracy grows. The most important job in the world is going to be decided by morons who vote on the black guy versus the white guy. Or the woman versus the man. Or the old guy versus the young good looking guy. It's not going to be decided on who is best for the job or on actual issues.

[giftederic.livejournal.com]

Democrats aren't going to vote for her one way or the other, but its all about those independants, and women voters there may be more inclined to vote for her. My own thoughts are that she is too inexperienced, aggressive and insubstantial for the republican ticket. She also brings no state to the table (Alaska is firmly republican), and even if she is good, she is a star that might flare too early, and be ruined by this election. On the other hand if the Republicans know they have this one in the bag, maybe they are grooming her for 4 or 8 years time.

[(Anonymous)]

All Palin , all the time:

http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/379316788/606

Oh and it appears she was a member of an Alaskan secessionist party (who knew there was even such a thing?) in the past too:

http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/380880710/4427

Bottom line - Palin's not going to attract Independents because she's too hard right. Once people see what she's like and remember that she's McCain's heartbeat away from the Oval Office, she'll scare the horses big time.

What is does do is showing that McCain has the same kind of reckless Decider-ing skillz that his buddy Dubya has - and we all know how that's worked out.

The only good thing she's done for the GOoPers is suck all the oxygen out of the media, smothering any afterglow to the Dem. National Convention and Obama's speech (which, along with locking down the Crazytown vote, was the idea, of course).

P.

[giftederic.livejournal.com]

One interesting upshot of this could be that with the crazys firmly on side, McCain can go back to being the real deal, and then he could be a real problem for Obama.

To be fair, there are crazys on both sides of the poltical spectrum, and from where I stand, the centre, they are equally scary, you may see things differently depending on where you are standing.

This one seems like a hail mary pass to me, but the more I hear about Palin and the more I think about it the more likely it seems to me to work. That still ranks it as an outside shot, but if McCain returns to his 'good' old centrist self, I think it will only be for the betterment of all, win or lose. Remember this is the man who called the religious right, 'agents of intolerance'. If they are willing to support him, I think that that shows that Palin was a good choice for him.

Only time will tell of course, but I really would prefer if McCain discontinued his swerve to the right, and if the choice of Palin is a way to get him back on ground he is more comfortable with I consider that a 'good thing'.

[giftederic.livejournal.com]

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12001775

A very good article on McCain, written before the veep nomination. The Economist is not comfortable about the veep nomination, I am looking forward to reading this thursdays edition...

[(Anonymous)]

Good god, if they put 'maverick' in that article one more time, I'd have punched the screen.

How mavericky are you when you vote with the president over 90% of the time? Or violated your own law on campaign finance (the one that got you that mavericky reputation)?

McCain's POW schtick is now verging on Giuliani 'noun-verb-9/11' territory. Deft it is not.

And shouldn't someone who was tortured and has given lip service to being anti-torture, actually vote against the use of torture by US forces (McCain in fact voted for the Military Commissions Act, but not before making a song and dance about his principles first)?

There was a few good facts there wrapped up in a lot of nonsense. A poor article IMO.

P.

[giftederic.livejournal.com]

You're beginning to sound more and more like those wacky radicals no one likes.... It might not seem angry or bitter to you, but that is what you are coming off as... "Punching the screen"??

[(Anonymous)]

That's what we call hyperbole. It's just for effect and shouldn't distract you from the substance of what I said.

Is it radical to point out that McCain's maverick reputation is pure spin? Or that he's not the bipartisan centrist he paints himself as?

If you're interested in maintaining a balance between left and right in the US, you should be ginning for Obama to win in November. A McCain presidency means four more years of corrupt Republicans entrenched in Washington, using the Federal government to partisan ends (cf Monica Goodling, Alberto Gonzales, Scooter Libby et al).

It also means a Supreme Court that's skewed conservative for the next god knows how many years. This is important since the current conservative minority of Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts dissented against all of the SCOTUS judgements that stood up for habeas corpus in the last while (Hamdan vs US and others). A conservative SCOTUS is not good news for civil liberties, which haven't fared too well in the last eight years as is.

For that reason alone, it's vital the Dems get the White House this year.

But possibly I'm letting my wacky radical anger and bitterness get the better of me.

Meanwhile, in maverickland...

"McCain Hires GOP Operative Who Helped Smear Him in South Carolina in 2000"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/mccain-hires-go.html?cid=128664060#comment-128664060

Nice to see he doesn't hold a grudge.

P.

[giftederic.livejournal.com]

I think it only fair to point out that with sizable Democratic majorities in the House and Senate a foregone conclusion, an Obama presidency would be anything but non-partisan.

McCain is as maverick as is tolerated in American politics without becoming am independant, and I for one value it highly. Yes, he has to do certain things that are less than savoury to keep the backing of the majority. Obama has to do the same within the democrats cowing to such partisan groups as the teachers unions and the NAFTA bashers. And perhaps Obama in the fullness of time will be revealed to have half the backbone as McCain, but for the moment, apart from his No vote on the war (which I will always disagree with) there are no high profile examples of Obama disagreeing with his party.

As for the Supreme Court argument, I can see how it is important for the liberals to defend their current majority, but it is a case that at the moment the Supreme Court is broadly centrist, if either candidate chooses to appoint a radical to the court it will change it for the worse. I believe that it is hard to decide which candidate is more likely to propose a radical. I know that a democratic senate is unlikely to confirm someone too conservative, but I am unsure that they will block someone too liberal. (You may believe that there is no such thing).

[(Anonymous)]

I think there's a very big difference between a party holding the White House while having majorities in Congress and the kind of illegal (under the Hatch Act) partisanship that's been seen in the operation of Federal agencies over the past 8 years (the US attorneys case being the most egregious).

McCain's backbone? Oh, like how he was against the Military Commission Act before he voted for it? Or was for campaign finance reform, before he was against it (Obama did the same in fairness, but at least he wasn't breaking a law that was named after him). Or was against "agents of intolerance" before he picked a creationist as his veep? McCain's voting record shows he's conformed at least as much to his party line as Obama has.
The man is not a maverick. Please can we get past that talking point.

Obama certainly isn't perfect either. The NAFTA bashing is silly happy talk. Protectionism isn't going to fly. Pandering to unions is no better than pandering to big business in the greater scheme of things. Equally, Obama voted for the most recent and very bad FISA law.

Still - the policies he announced in his acceptance speech sounded sensible - investing to create hi-tech jobs, rather than trying to protect industrial jobs that are screwed anyway. Giving tax incentives to companies to employ Americans rather than penalising them. Throwing clean coal and nuclear into his energy independence plan (which must have caused some outrage among the tree-huggers).

I get the feeling - and it's just a feeling - that Obama isn't the ideologue you seem to think he is. And that would be a good thing. America needs competent, pragmatic leadership now and I don't think McCain is capable of providing that.

SCOTUS - liberals in the majority? Are you nuts? Kennedy is hardly a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. He only looks lefty when set beside the likes of Scalia and Thomas. At the moment the court is balanced, I'd say, and that's a good thing. Another conservative justice would most likely replace Stevens (who is a liberal) and tip the court in favour of Roberts and co. Given their dissents on Hamdan and the other Guantanamo cases, I think that would be a very bad thing.

P.

[giftederic.livejournal.com]

My point is that McCain would have to appoint a non-radical, Obama won't necessarily have to.

McCain went against his party strongly on immigration reform in a bipartisan bill baring Ted Kennedys name aswell. Please tell me that that was not being a maverick....

[kaleandwine.livejournal.com]

P. is right. Maverick is a non-issue, and will not resonate with the American public for much longer.

So forget "maverick" as talking point number one. Or remember it, and consider the personality trait (which is all it is) as it ought to be considered: a record of good or bad choices. I'd trust an independent-minded person with good judgment in a heartbeat. McCain used to fall into that category. But now? His choice of Palin will continue to undermine his credibility with anyone but the deeply-conservative base. Just watch.

Good judgment means knowing the person you choose as your running mate. It means investigating their record before you sign them on to (potentially) become President of the United States (read the NYT's piece on the last-minute decision, and lack of vetting. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02vetting.html?pagewanted=2&em) McCain is a 72-year-old cancer survisor, so this vetting should mean a lot to most Americans... Good judgment means knowing enough about your Vice President to be able to justify the choice, and her experience, to the American public when they ask about it (please watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYYiw_y2qDI) of McCain's spokesman as he falls all over himself trying to explain her national security experience, and note that McCain has since cancelled his interviews for tonight).

This concern about Palin does not equate to Obama's so-called "inexperience". Obama's political history is well-documented. Palin's personal history is exploding over the airwaves because there is very little, politically, to make of her. And what there is seems to be questionable at best. Ethics violations, etc, ahem.

Add to this everything P has detailed above... Maverick don't mean a thing if it ain't got good principles behind it. :)

[(Anonymous)]

Palin's shaping up to be the Tom Eagleton of the Noughties (or Harriet Miers writ large). Except McCain can't give her the bullet without losing Crazytown. But Crazytown won't get him over the line.

And while McCain's support for the immigration bill was certainly commendable - it was right in line with the wishes of the business wing of the GOP, even if it made the nativists crazy(er).

As for Obama's Supreme Court Justice pick - well, we'll just have to wait and see, won't we. :)

P.

[giftederic.livejournal.com]

I love the fact that he his so at odds with his party. They don't want him almost as much as ye don't want him, how can you not feel good about that atleast? :)

I think its great that he wanted to put Joe Lieberman on the ticket aswell, it shows that he is thinking truly bipartisan, though admittedly you guys probably think of Joe as a traitor or something.

I remember last time around McCain was approached by the Kerry team to be his running mate... Even then, he was refered to as a maverick and was considered an astute choice as a veep.

To get back to the Palin shenanigans however, I agree that she is a big risk and not at all what I expected or hoped for (I wanted Condi or Mitt). I also agree that McCain has sucked for a few months now as he has leaned further and further to the right to try and get his 'base' fired up. My hope now is that he will be able to put that crap behind him and start to be the McCain that many people have respected for many years.

Only time will tell.

[(Anonymous)]

I think Lieberman's an asshole. He's uncritically supportive of Israel, which makes him recklessly bomb-happy when it comes to the Middle East (like bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran McCain).

He's also supported and enabled a lot of very bad Bush policies (like McCain - and, in fairness, a lot of congressional Democrats).

Being bipartisan is not a virtue when it means surrendering your principles and letting the other side do as it damn well pleases. There is no moderate, centrist, bipartisan consensus position on unwarranted wiretapping, suspending habeas corpus, engaging in torture and extraordinary rendition to facilitate torture, ignoring congressional subpoenas.

Lieberman also bears an unsettlingly striking resemblance to Chancellor Palpatine. :)

P.

e.

[kaleandwine.livejournal.com]

Lieberman also bears an unsettlingly striking resemblance to Chancellor Palpatine.

LOL! Holy crap!

[kaleandwine.livejournal.com]

I despise Lieberman, you're right, but I would have respected McCain for choosing him. I do NOT respect McCain for bowing to Rove et al and nominating his second/third choice on a whim. Ick.

Your post did make your discomfort with this pick clear. But you'd still vote for him? The Republican platform is suddenly looking a lot less clear ("time will tell" indeed). I think everyone who intially signed on to the McCain camp because of his independence, bipartisanship and so-called stability ought to be paying very close attention to the next month's RNC talking points.

[(Anonymous)]

This says it all I possibly could about McCain's faux maverickyness:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/02/AR2008090201922.html

P.

Surprisingly I think its a good call

[(Anonymous)]

Gav,

Unsurprisingly I think this is a great appointment. I didn't think Mitt would be appointed, he could yet be appointed to Cabinet (Treasury) were McCain to win.

Palin has completely energised the base, and McCain was unlikely to win without his own party showing up. Coming into the conferences he had got right back on top of Obama, and yesterday stood 4 pts behind with 10 pts undecided. 2pt move from Obama into undecided after McCain's speech. That is massive when you consider how much a hammering the GoP is going to take in Congress in November.

I am completely unsurprised also by the Left Wing views of the other commentators and was Jack's Complete Lack of Surprise that they hate Lieberman. Could P. please illustrate Obama's legislative experience with a real bill that he has authored or co-signed at any level of Government?
Or his voting record in Illnois on any controversial issue? The reports I've come across all say Absent on any hot button issue.

What is for sure, is that the next 53 days will be very interesting, and the debates will certainly be must sees.

Brian