Quote of The Day: On Sarah Palin’s Experience
Michael Kinsley, writing in his unique style in the Washington Post, on Republican Senator John McCain’s pick for Vice President Gov. Sarah Palin:
It seems like only yesterday that the Republican Party was complaining about Barack Obama’s lack of foreign policy “experience.” (As a matter of fact, when I started writing this, it actually was yesterday.) Even now, the Republican National Committee’s main anti-Obama Web site has the witty address http://www.notready08.com. The contrast in experience, especially foreign policy experience, between John McCain and Obama was supposed to be the central focus of McCain’s campaign,
But that’s so five minutes ago, before Sarah Palin. Already, conservative pundits have come up with creative explanations for McCain’s choice of a vice presidential running mate with essentially no foreign policy experience. First prize (so far) goes to Michael Barone, who notes on the U.S. News and World Report blog that “Alaska is the only state with a border with Russia. And it is the only state with territory, in the Aleutian Islands, occupied by the enemy in World War II.” I think we need to know what Sarah Palin has done, in her year and change as governor of Alaska, to protect the freedom of the Aleutian Islands before deciding how many foreign policy experience credits she deserves on their account.
And then he writes this:
We all know that modern political campaigns choose their issues from the cafeteria line, after market-testing them and then having them professionally framed. Rarely, though, are we offered such a clear and unarguable example. How could anyone truly believe that Barack Obama’s background and job history are inadequate experience for a president and simultaneously believe that Sarah Palin’s background and job history are adequate? It’s possible to believe one or the other. But both? Simply not possible. John McCain has been — what’s the word? — lying. And so have all the pundits who rushed to defend McCain’s choice.
This is especially damning to McCain because his case for himself (besides not being Obama, a standard under which many of us might qualify) has rested on his honor and integrity. The North Vietnamese couldn’t break him, and neither could the Brahmins of his own party in the Senate. He was a maverick who always told it straight.
So much for that.
Indeed.
People who are giddy over Palin because she’s anti-choice should come out and simply say they’re giddy because of that. People who are excited because the GOP is now running the same kind of historical ticket that Walter Mondale did, should simply come out and say that.
Some Americans today have sworn off belonging to political parties because of partisans’ penchant to totally discard their previous line of attack and most passionately-held values to defend something when it involves their own “sports team” (you always yell at the other team if they do something that can be criticized and defend your own team like it’s not the same thing if your team does it, no matter what). Will most Americans buy this line of defense which is so transparently… a defense?
This isn’t a matter of being pro-GOP or anti-GOP or pro-Palin or anti-Palin. It’s a matter of accuracy and the growing belief in politics that if you repeat a talking defense point long enough it will be accepted as fact.
The question is this: if Barack Obama had picked a similarly dark-horse Democrat with Palin’s exact experience at the eleventh hour to run with him would Republicans say they had to concede that it was a terrific choice because Alaska is so close to Russia? Or would Sean, Rush, and Bill be all over it like a cheap suit and the RNC already be flooding the airwaves with negative campaign ads?
We all know the answer and Republicans do, too.
So much for that…
Cartoon by Wolverton, Cagle Cartoons
UPDATE: Be sure to read Big Tent Democrat, one of the best bloggers on the left.
27 Responses to “Quote of The Day: On Sarah Palin’s Experience”
[...] Original post by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief [...]
“People who are giddy over Palin because she’s pro-choice..”
Good morning Joe! Did I miss some breaking news overnight?
There is definitely a dearth of honesty and logic in American politics.
I'm guessing that was a typo Chris, but you're right, she is staunchly ANTI-choice. In fact when asked the hypothetical question about whether she would let her own daughter terminate a pregnancy that was caused by rape, her answer was no. I just can't imagine how someone could maintain a draconian, medieval attitude like that regarding rape, especially a woman.
Her attitudes about science seem equally reactonary and ill-informed. She doesn't believe in global warming, she believes creationism should be taught in public schools, she believes that opening the ANWR would cure our dependence on foreign oil, she is against stem-cell research, In otherwords, this is a seriously NOT up to date person… not for this century anyway.
Need a little help.
I was searching for Joe’s article ridiculing Governor Tim Kaine for his lack of experience back when Barak Obama put him on the short list for VP.
Does anyone remember it?
Surely, it’s in the archives somewhere, but I just can’t find it.
Also, for some reason, my computer is having trouble pulling up the media’s criticism of Kaine being considered for VP. There must be volumes of articles outlining how he was a mayor then governor, and what a ridiculous choice he would be for VP, but the internet tubes must be plugged or something.
Joe, your analogy of politics today being like sporting events – in which fans defend their team whether it's right or wrong, hits the mark. Also this business of repeating inaccurate and deceptive talking points until they are accepted as fact is incredibly damaging to our democracy. When did this start being an accepted tactic? And why is the fourth estate so inadequate when it comes to bucking this trend? These are definitely the questions voters need to be asking themselves.
Jwest,
Repeat after me. “Barack Obama chose Joe Biden as his VP. John McCain, who believes we face a “transcendental threat” from terrorism, chose Sarah Palin as his VP.”
Chris,
In the coming weeks, you will learn that neither Barak nor Biden have ever made an executive or command decision in their lives.
McCain has the command decision experience by virtue of his military training and career. Palin has executive experience by being a mayor and governor.
Every bumpkin thinks he can be the boss – until it’s time to actually make a decision with consequences. Barak is a master at being “present” when decisions need to be made, and Biden loves to talk on and on and on, and then be one of a hundred votes so responsibility never rests solely on him.
The only command experience he appears to have is when he was the leader of a training squadron. Do you want to seriously argue that this is experience enough to be president?
The truth is that Obama and McCain have made multitudes of executive decisions. They've each been in charge of massive campaign operations where they are the “deciders.” They command thousands of people and direct millions of dollars.
Palin's level of experience and knowledge should frighten everyone a little. I say that knowing the kneejerk fans of her ideology are likely to defend her and attack Obama independent of any genuine concerns for intellectual honesty. Sorry if that rankles anyone, but I've been seeing a lot of this lately. Along these same lines, how important is McCain's experience if it hasn't taught him what he needs to know? I suppose the experience issue may become a wash at some point, at least in the eyes of the general public. They will get tired of the question, and afterall, we are stuck with these candidates. More important will become matters of ideology; there is more than enough meat there for voters to sink their teeth into.
Chris,
The Naval Academy, along with West Point and the Air Force Academy, are four years of instruction on leadership, honor and command decision making. Once commissioned, an officer is placed in a series of positions in which he/she is evaluated on the quality of the decisions made.
If you think running an election campaign qualifies you president, then Karl Rove should be elected by acclamation. Barak is simply going were his campaign manager tells him to go and reading the speeches his speech writers write.
The man has never made a decision that matters. Deal with it.
You should try to get a job with military recruiters. You could spout that stuff all day long.
Anyways, it's nice of you to forget that McCain finished 894th out of 899 students in his class at the Naval Academy. Wanna spin that one for us now?
JWEST: I have to head to LA. I love it when people pull the old shell game. Unless I needed glasses, my post deals with specifically the issue of the experience issue as McCain has use it against Obama and with Palin. Did my post mention people on the short list? Did Obama pick anyone else? That's an old rhetorical ploy to go after someone writing a post and try and change the subject. YAWN. Read Kingsley again. And discuss what is in the post. Even can of string beans on a shelf at Vons can see the subject of this post and it isn't a short list of people who were not selected.
ALSO: I will fix the error and note it. Thanks!
Chris,
You’re forgetting that I can’t stand McCain. Out of all the candidates in the primary, he was the absolute last choice for me.
Of course, as opposed to Obama, he’s the better pick.
Just to establish your intellectual honesty here, how about admitting that Barak and Biden have never been in a position to have been the “decider”.
jwest,
I stand by my comment from earlier:
“Obama and McCain have made multitudes of executive decisions. They've each been in charge of massive campaign operations where they are the “deciders.” They command thousands of people and direct millions of dollars.”
Joe,
You’re right.
The article you wrote didn’t mention who was on the short list, so I guess my point was totally off the wall.
Naturally, I would have loved to see your reaction had Barak picked Kaine. I’m sure it would have been similar to Palin.
I am sure people like ChrisWWW, JSpencer and the other ideologues here would talk about how “refreshing” the choice was.
I didn't like Tim Kaine or Evan Bayh. They would have been meh choices. Biden was the best of an uninspiring “short-list.”
I made that opinion known to my friends, and I regret not having opined publicly about it. The VP selection stuff just hasn't been interesting to me, until now.
jwest,
I wrote a lengthy post on the fallacy of low-level experience the other day. In order to translate low-level experience into high-level experience, you need to advance a vision, plan and profile to put your lower-level experiences into action at the higher level. If Palin had made statesmanlike comments about matters of national and international importance, advocated for reform nationwide, or worked publicly with national organizations advancing some sort of agenda then I'd easily overlook her short tenure in the Executive Mansion. But absent any larger vision for the country she is just a low-level administrator promoted beyond her means.
Elrod,
We could argue all day about what constitutes experience, but the real reason for the panic in the democrat party lies elsewhere.
For years republicans have won on the issues. Democrats have always known their only route to the White House was through a charismatic politician who can wave something shiny in front of the electorate long enough to get voted in.
Barak had a good thing going with the “change” thing, but it got co-opted by McCain.
The real “deciders” in this election won’t be the democrats or republicans, but those unwashed masses of people who don’t even know who the current VP is. Democrats know that a personality like Palin will play exceptionally well with this group of voters who think that, if only they would get a woman – a working mother into that job, all the troubles of the world could be solved.
Forget the issues. Forget the resumes. This election is going to come down to who these uninformed voters think is more like them.
No, they won't. Those unwashed masses who are that ignorant are the ones who don't vote. So they aren't going to be the deciders. In addition most Americans do not agree with her views on abortion and if the question comes up in the debates how will those parents of daughters react to an ideologue who would force their daughters to have a rapist's child? Only the really hard core fundamentalists approve of that one. Let's face it. Those “voters” are the minority who still believe in Bush. I don't think this election will rest on them.
Jim,
Do you think everyone watches Olbermann?
There are 120 million voters in a presidential election. You have 30% who love Bush (40 million), you’ve got 36 million who voted in the Democrat primary.
That leaves a whole lot (like 42 million) who are somewhere in the middle (or should I say “muddle”). This is the way it’s always been.
To get a clue about what these voters know, grab a clipboard and go to the local mall. Ask the first 10 people if they are going to vote in the upcoming election, then ask them some simple questions about politics.
You’ll walk away with tears in your eyes.
jwest, I'm afraid you're not exactly in the best possible position to suggest that someone else needs to “get a clue”. No doubt there are sites where people will accept your comments verbatim, but it probably isn't going to happen here. More objectivity and better focus would definitely help with that. Btw, I suspect this “panic” you mention as being among the democrats is mainly in your imagination.
“For years republicans have won on the issues. “
That, jwest, is simply not true. They bought the Republican LIES. Lower taxes (how about $4,000 a year EACH tax increase to pay the interest on the Reagan Bush Bush debt?), smaller government (just the opposite), states rights (GOP sez f*ck that), individual rights (ditto), fiscal responsibility (HA!) and non-intrusive government (not !! The GOP means big government wants to dictate what you do in the doctor's office, the bedroom, even the death bed.) Republicans have won by deceiving the voters.
Under “compassionate conservatism” (Bush lie #1) middle income Americans have seen their real income decline by $2,000 under Bush, while the extremely rich are literally eating our children's lunch. How do you get people to vote themselves a pay CUT? Easy. LIE.
I know, I know…..
Whenever democrats win it’s a victory for truth and justice.
Whenever republicans win it’s due to lying, cheating and big oil.
I guess there’s just no fooling you liberals.
jwest, are you incapable of addressing my points? It's ok to admit that, rather than retreating to ad hominem attacks against “democrats”. Defend the position. Where am I wrong?
One trick pony.