We’ll see if Governor Palin can close the deal with the PUMAs (assuming that the rumor is true–she’s reportedly still in Alaska, with no way to get to Dayton by 11 AM–could be another head fake).
People will say that she’s not ready to be CinC. Well, she’s only running for Vice CinC. And she’s at least as ready (with actual executive experience) as the Democrats’ nominee.
[Update a while later]
It’s looking more certain now, but we won’t know for sure for another half hour or so. I wonder if she’ll take Senator McCain on a tour of ANWR?
Bob Beckel looked very depressed on Fox and Friends this morning. He knows how badly the Donkeys screwed up a free lunch this year, even if many others are in denial.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Carl Cameron is reporting that it’s official.
I don’t know much about her politically, but she’s certainly conservative, young, smart and with some executive experience, so there are three levels on which this would be a quite astute pick: it defangs some more of the age criticism (some was defanged by Obama’s pick of Biden), it gives Democratic women a plausible reason (within the Party subculture’s rules) to vote for McCain yet avoid the worst of the social stigma that would otherwise be brought to bear on them, and it would shore up the conservatives somewhat. So it seems it would be a good choice politically, at least.
Reading here Wiki biography it seems she has done a good job of cutting pork and cleaning up corruption.
She is a lifetime NRA member and actually goes hunting
with her family, her son is just enlisted in the army,
how could you possibly have a better personal story?
If McCain picked Palin it’s the best thing he has done this political cycle.
Hope its true
Well, here we are on Aug 29th… Despite this blog’s predictions, hopes, and popcorn, Denver did not melt down Chicago ’68 style, Clinton did not somehow become the nominee, there were no race riots… …the DNC was a big a success!
And now, today, 4 years after the Illinois GOP picked Alan Keyes to run againt Obama, the Republican nominee picks Sarah Palin, apparently because of her gender? If the Republicans lose, well, to quote someone here, it couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch bunch of identity politics mongers. 🙂
Picked Alan Keyes to run against Obama because Obama’s operatives got Jack Ryan’s sealed, by mutual consent with his ex-wife, divorce record opened. The candidate who had a better chance of beating Obama withdrew and so Keyes got the nod. Gods help us.
So Republicans aren’t allowed to pick any candidates who aren’t boring white guys without it being labeled ‘identity politics’? How do you know that she might be picked for her gender? Sounds a little bit sexist…
Bob, I only expected race riots if The One wasn’t annointed. But you’re right–the Obama campaign managed to tamp down the resistance. They had a potemkin unifying conference, but they come out very weak, with a lot of disgruntled Hillary! supporters. Many of them were already going to vote for McCain–the Palin pick will reinforce that and pick up more, even with her pro-life stance.
I only expected race riots if The One wasn’t anointed.
And that Lady MacBeth would try to sabotage her nemesis with a delegate fight.
TPS, CNN is now reporting that Palin is the pick. Picking a governor is smart. Picking the least experienced governor in the nation (with only mayoral experience previously – even the younger Governor Jindal, a former congressman, has more experience), well… …lets put it this way: I’d enjoy hearing an argument for why her gender wasn’t the prime reason why she was picked.
There’s no doubt that it’s a reason, but there are a lot of other good reasons. She’s as far from Washington as can be, she has a record of rooting out corruption (including Republican corruption), she appeals to the gun owners, she can talk authoritatively on energy issues (and persuade McCain to come around on ANWR), she has a great story (and charisma), she adds youth and vigor to the ticket, and she has more executive experience than the other three candidates combined (which is more of statement about them, than her). It will also make the ticket a lot more appealing to libertarians. If they were just going to pick a woman for the sake of picking a woman, they would have gone with someone like Hutchinson.
I think it’s a home run. Bob Beckel had good reason to be depressed.
I’m just glad he picked someone with executive experience. I was living in fear of an ‘all-senator’ ticket. The debates would have taken weeks.
Regarding Keyes – as an Illinois resident, my recollection was that the Chicago Tribune, a paper that repeatedly endorsed Republicans for President, got Ryan’s divorce papers opened. Ryan handled the crisis with all the grace and charm of a 5-year-old who doesn’t want to eat their vegetables.
Then the Illinois Republican Party went and found Keyes, an out-of-stater whose chief qualifications were 1) he was more conservative then Ryan and 2) he was black.
Bob Beckel looked very depressed on Fox and Friends this morning.
Well of course! If you want a Democrat or liberal who is some combination of fractious, disloyal, defeatist, ugly, pliant, boring, or otherwise unconvincing, the ones who work for Fox News are the convenient choice.
It was the same with your other post. I was wondering what happened to Howard Wolfson; he sounds like he devolved into a teenager with a short fuse. Then I noticed, oh yeah, his employer pays him to do that. It’s very unlikely to be sincere anger.
But since media-bashing is high sport these days, let me be clear that it’s a free country and you can always change the channel. So if you watch whatever horrible cable news show, it’s your choice and your fault before it’s theirs.
Should McCain suffer a setback in his health, etc, I wonder what President Palin would be like? I wonder what her foreign policy would be like? I learned, here, on this blog, that the Cuban Missile Crisis was caused, in part at least, because Khrushchev didn’t think Kennedy had enough experience to handle himself well when presented with a threat. I wonder what foreign adversaries would make of President Palin.
Moving back into a more plausible scenario, I wonder whether Palin, as the Vice President, would have any role in shaping national space policy, and if so, I wonder what we can predict now about that?
Who even knew a conservative, moose hunting, hockey playing, hetero-sexual, mother of 5, governor existed? It could ONLY happen in Alaska. I may move.
Alaska’s loss is America’s gain.
And Jimmy Carter is STILL an idiot.
Bob, the Khrushchev question is a good one. She may not have what it takes. And even if she does, she may be underestimated, which is almost as bad. Particularly by Muslims, given their views of women. Would Pakistan or Iran do something stupid?
But those who would underestimate her might give a moment to think on a few things: (1) her nickname in highschool was “Barracuda” because she was so aggressive at basketball, (2) she continues to shoot, hunt and play hockey, so she’s clearly not afraid of wielding violence, and (3) she’s a female with young. There are circumstances under which, given her Alaskan background and the Islamo-Fascists’ habit of killing children, I can imagine her earning the nick-name “Ma Grizzly”.
Sounds to me like the potential to be another “Iron Lady.” Maggie Thatcher didn’t have much foreign policy experience when she became prime minister. But she knew to pick good advisers.
“And Jimmy Carter is STILL an idiot.
LoL! eh, YEA!
Picking the least experienced governor in the nation (with only mayoral experience previously – even the younger Governor Jindal, a former congressman, has more experience),
As opposed to picking for Presidential Candidate the least experienced Senator? Governor and Mayor are executives positions.
I’d enjoy hearing an argument for why her gender wasn’t the prime reason why she was picked.
First, next to the War on Terror, the biggest issue with voters is energy. The largest area of natural resources for meeting US energy needs is Alaska. Speaking of the WoT, she’s has a child serving in the military. She hasn’t made racist comments about her Presidential running mate. She has no previous ties to Washington D.C. politics. Again, she is a Governor, and a governor of a state roughly the size of the lower 48.
If the biggest topic on the left is the environment, then who better to talk that then someone very familiar with the Arctic region?
Yes, she’s a lady, but as Rand said, if McCain just wanted a token woman, he could have choosen Hutchison. I know Democrats tend to forget that Republicans have many women and minorities in key positions across the country, so it really is no surprise that an excellent choice could be made from one of them.
Leland, it is just the opposite: there were plenty of better choices, of either gender.
By the way, Obama isn’t the least experienced — if simply look at time in the Senate, senators elected in 2006 are junior to Obama, and if you look at total electoral experience, Obama also has more experience than a number of senators …but it doesn’t matter any more, as the Republicans have ceded the argument that experience matters.
And yes, after being the mayor of a small town, Palin became the governor of a state with only 2/3rds the population of Detroit. But she is indeed a governor: she even has her very own trooper-gate! (I actually hope this trooper-gate doesn’t become an issue – it is too trite, like most issues in Alaska politics.)
“August 29, 2008 10:12 AM
Leland wrote:
First, next to the War on Terror, the biggest issue with voters is energy.”
I disagree completely. There may indeed be many people who care about the so-called War on Terror (a term, which incidentally, the Bush administration has quit using). I don’t know any, but I might move in different circles than do you. In any event, six years on, it doesn’t have the same urgency it once did.
I don’t think most people care about energy. They care about the immediate price of energy. If it goes down, for whatever reason, they will stop caring.
One thing that I think a lot of people do really care about is immigration, illegal and otherwise. Most americans think there is too much of it, and too much from the wrong countries. I would be interested in knowing Mrs. Palin’s opinions on the matter. I KNOW John McCain’s opinion on that score. He think’s it is a matter about which I can not legitimately hold an opinion, hence his attempt last summer to ram the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill through the Senate without debate.
Whatever Mrs. Palin’s strengths or weaknesses, she’s still not at the top of the ticket. McCain is.
By the way, Obama isn’t the least experienced — if simply look at time in the Senate, senators elected in 2006 are junior to Obama
Except, how many days since he was sworn into the Senate has Obama actually been there? From what I’ve read and heard, he has only spent less than 150 days on the job. The rest of the time, he’s been campaigning for the presidency. It wouldn’t be hard for some of the Senators who were elected in 2006 to actually have more time doing their jobs than Obama.
“Respectfully, Senator Biden, don’t lecture me about ANWR.”
“Respectfully, Senator Biden, don’t try to teach me about semi-automatic weapons.”
“Respectfully, Senator Biden, don’t try to lecture me about violence against women.”
“Respectfully, Senator Biden, your running mate ruminates about the possibility that his daughters will be punished with babies. I submit he doesn’t have a clue of what blessings his wife has given him.”
“Respectfully, Senator Biden, I think you’ve been too close to the problem for too long. You need some fresh air.”
I say, great choice. Not Fred Thompson, but maybe, just maybe, gutsy, brilliant. Bring on the debates and the popcorn!
BBB
On the experience thing. I will not argue that Sarah Palin has the experience to be president, she does not. But she isn’t running for the top job, she is running for number two. Yes I know all about the heartbeat away etc.
But Obama IS running for the top job. How does his experience rate against Sarah Palin’s?
Obama served 7 years in the Illinois state Senate as one of ~60 senators. During which time he voted “present” 130 times.
Palin served 10 years in City government (4 city council, 6 as mayor). As mayor she was chief executive, she couldn’t vote “present” on issues.
Advantage Palin.
Obama has been a US Senator since January 2005. He began running for president, officially, 2 years later. It has been calculated that he has been “on the job” as a senator for less than 200 days.
Sarah Palin was sworn in as Governor of Alaska on December 4 2006. She has been “on the job” for practically all of that time, around 630 days.
Advantage Palin.
Not to mention her experience in the private sector, which also dwarfs Obama’s.
Cecil said “As mayor she was chief executive, she couldn’t vote “present” on issues.”
Hmmm. I think she usually couldn’t vote at all. Look at her actual duties at mayor here:
http://www.codepublishing.com/AK/Wasilla/Wasilla02/Wasilla0216.html#2.16
2.16.020 Power and duties of mayor.
A. The mayor is the chief administrator of the city, has the same powers and duties as those of a manager under AS 29.20.005, and shall:
1. Preside at council meetings. The mayor may take part in the discussion of matters before the council, but may not vote, except that the mayor may vote in the case of a tie;
2. Act as ceremonial head of the city;
Bob, are you saying that as manager of the city, she had no decisions to make?
Let’s get to the bottom line. Who has more actual executive experience, and has run more successful enterprises–Palin, or Obama?
Martin,
Immigration might be your biggest issue, and indeed it is up there for me too. But it is not the biggest national issue. Still, I too would like to see her position on immigration. I don’t expect it to be a good one (probably a weak, ineffective stance if one at all). Then, I never expected Obama/Biden to be better either.
“Leland wrote:
Martin,
Immigration might be your biggest issue, and indeed it is up there for me too. But it is not the biggest national issue.”
No, it is the biggest national issue, in the sense that immigration is the thing most likely to change “the nation”: 1.) by vastly increasing our population – half a billion by 2050, 2.) by causing parts of this country to become part of some other country, and 3.) by diluting the common bonds and assumed trust between citizens which are necessary for a nation to function.