An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Flooding Causes Multiple Levee Breaches SE of NOLA

Who is Against Bristol Palin? »

And the Vetting Goes On

Posted by JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor in Politics.
Sep 1st, 2008 | Comments

At this point it has almost become tedious… one can only jam one’s head against the same brick wall so many times before the roughshod imprints begin to dent the cranium too far. But in the ongoing saga of the vetting of Sarah Palin (which we have been repeatedly assured by the McCain team was done thoroughly and carefully before Friday’s surprising announcement) there is yet another crack in the wall coming out of the convention.

We had heard hints of this. But just moments ago, Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC said that Republican lawyers are currently doing a vet of Sarah Palin up in Alaska. We’ll get you the video shortly. But it seems that the really deep vet of Palin started after her selection was announced.

While this may seem vindictive, I have seen the standard talking points issued in defense of both the vetting and the qualifications of Sarah Palin as our next Vice President. Frankly, even before seeing the report above, I have hardly been convinced by either. Never mind the fact that nobody ever checked into the hometown newspapers where Palin was Mayor. Perhaps we can assume that Team McCain knew that the pro-life, abstinence-only, family-values-oriented Palin’s unmarried teenage daughter was pregnant. The bridge to nowhere flip flop, the windfall profits tax on Alaskan oil interests, and the obvious questions about why a state Governor’s office was involving themselves in the employment issues of a state trooper barracks… we can let it all go for now.

What exactly would be so bad? I’ve been involved in politics at various levels since the Nixon administration and blogging and/or doing radio since before the invasion of Iraq, but I feel like a silly freshman asking the question. Yet still I must ask! Why? Would it be all that awful to say that the choice had been Pawlenty, or Lieberman or Ridge or even Charlie Crist? To admit that something - be it the Democratic convention, Obama’s speech, the polls… something - spooked McCain into a rapid and unwise pick of someone even less qualified than Obama with so little to recommend her to the office? And with so much baggage attached? The convention hasn’t reached its peak. Is it really too late to turn back?

PattonGuy

Poetic opening, Jazz. I agree that it's just getting worser and worser for the Republicans, or at the very least, weirder and weirder. I think Obama did come up with an appropriate response to the news of Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter: that family matters like that are off limits. The fact that her daughter is just like any ordinary teenager, with hormones running rampant through her bloodstream, is not news. Things like so-called "Troopergate" may be news. Her position on evolution should be news. Not the fact that her daughter is now cleared to be the target of stupid puns on the title of the movie "Juno".

ChrisWWW

I don't see how McCain can throw Palin off the ticket and survive in the polls. His lack of judgment is already taking hits; he can hardly admit he made such a big mistake. Not only that, but the Christianist nuts who are donating in large numbers to his campaign since the announcement would feel highly betrayed unless he nominated James Dobson in her place.

GeorgeSorwell

The base already has embraced her. They don't care about any of this egg-headed stuff.

They just think it's kind of mean.

Jillmz

Just so you know - I came across this re: Palin, as mayor, fired her town's chief of police and library director it's believed because they voted for her opponent but she had the same clause there that she has as gov. that let's her fire anyone for any reason:

http://hatthief.blogspot.com/2008/08/vetting-sa...

StockBoySF

"....she had the same clause there that she has as gov. that let's her fire anyone for any reason:"

This just reminds me of Bush turning civil servant positions into political positions, the Department of Justice firings, etc.

Of course the religious right won't have a problem with this. They must be overjoyed that the McCain/Palin ticket means that those people who survived the Bush firings and replacements will now be filled with religious right wingers and political hacks. How long does it take to dismantle the government of the world's only superpower?

SteveK

Anybody else watching CSPAN?

Some RNC guy ten minutes ago wouldn't even confirm a 'McCain Acceptance Speech' on Thursday. The quote was, "We're taking it one day at a time."

StockBoySF

"Some RNC guy ten minutes ago wouldn't even confirm a 'McCain Acceptance Speech' on Thursday. The quote was, "We're taking it one day at a time."'

Oh goodie! Maybe McCain will make another rash decision and decide to drop out of the race. :) I'm being flip again, but seriously.... what's to take one day at a time? I mean Gustav wasn't the whopper that it could have been and businesses are reopening as I type this. Maybe McCain still doesn't want to follow Obama and the GOP is doing opinion polls....

aloos

pictures of Trig with "mother-in-law" sarah palin, from a myspace site that is no longer available....
http://suchandrika.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/sar...

Ron Beasley

The wingnuts were playing hard to get but unfortunately for McCain there are not enough wingnuts left to win an election. Can't win without them but now you can't win with them.

Mike_P

The question is rapidly becoming "how long can she survive on this ticket?" Earlier, comparisons were being made to Dan Quayle. Now it's turning into comparisons to Tom Eagleton (youngsters should search Wikipedia).

We have "Troopergate."
Bristol's hubby in waiting's Facebook page.
The "Alaska Independence Party" connection.
Ted Stevens PAC-gate
Miss Congeniality... er... Gate?
Librarian firing-gate
but most of all, Lack of Vetting-gate.

In THREE DAYS, all easily and quickly uncovered by the non-mainstream media (blogs). We're beginning to see real pushback on cable news. What more is going to happen over the next two months (and, Lord have mercy, during the VP debate)?

Understand - I don't believe any of this reflects (particularly) badly on her - it's about McCain, and his judgment. I would be absolutely appalled as a Republican to have him put the Party in this position in the midst of a national convention already on the defensive.

StockBoySF

I have another thought concerning Palin... What happens if Palin becomes pregnant while VP? Given that she believes in abstinence only prevention (and that's far from full-proof) I think it's a fair question to ask. At the age of 44 Palin just had her fifth kid.

Just to be clear I'm not suggesting that she or her husband change their lifestyle... It's their choice. But since per primary function as VP is to step in for the president if he becomes incapacitated, I believe it's a fair question to ask and a discussion we should have. Though the chances are remote that she will be delivering at the same time McCain becomes incapacitated, it's not unlikely. And if she has another kid at her age there may very well be complications which require a longer hospital stay.

I guess the short answer is that the Speaker of the House becomes president. Go Nancy! :)

Jazz

StockBoySF, you're leashing another of the sacred cows that, while obviously valid questions to consider from a common sense point of view, are not allowed in politics nor in the mainstream media. (And will get you torn apart in approximately one half of the blogosphere as well.)

The reality, of course, is that there are medical situations which are peculiar to the womb-bearing crowd which are not found in men, and there really aren't any comparable conditions unique to men. (True, women can't get testicular cancer or prostrate problems, but men of age for the presidency should already be getting checked for them on a regular basis and treatment programs are pretty standard.) However, asking questions about anything unique to women is radioactive. Fair or not, there you have it. It's off the table.

Kathryn

Here's the thing as a mother, I get really upset when people scream "sexist" whenever someone brings up "differences" in females. Ignoring the fact that women can bear children serves neither women nor children. It allows conservatives to ignore family issues (like flex time, child care ect . . .)because women are supposed to be just like men in their work life.

Neocon

This is absurd.

Why doesnt the democratic party just change their slogan to "WOMEN SUCK!!"

The reality, of course, is that there are medical situations which are peculiar to the womb-bearing crowd

Just to be clear I'm not suggesting that she or her husband change their lifestyle

This is the most sexist, absolutely demeaning thing Ive heard in years about a woman official. I think I will have to do what others have done and no longer visit this site. It now has become clear to me there is no desire to have discourse only dissection.

Jazz you were better then this. I don't know what caused you to flip out over Palin like you have but even if she turns out to be guilty of not being a saint I still do not understand why you have jumped head first into gutter politics with the far left.

So long TMV. You have tasked me and I was not up to the task.

RememberNovember

Even more disturbing is Todd's involvement in having people sacked for personal reasons. What does she bring to the GOP but more scandal- and a whole heap of ready to wear scandal for this UNvetted candidate...But yet again, Reckless Johnny hasn't done his homework. At least Lieberman is the devil you know...
Her lack of a "track record" ? She has a trail long enough for a blind moose to follow.
One wonders what other skeletons will pop up come spring thaw.

Neocon-try reading the actual text next time instead of having Rush do it for you. I see no sexism inherent in this piece, but since neocons are so good at spinning lies out of vapor I am not surprised.

Guilty of not being a saint? what? Just because she's a woman we have to kowtow? Umm, no. This is second in line to lead a nation of 300 million. We expect mroe from our Pres and VP, but then again Bush has dumbed it down so any PTA -hockey mom-Governor by misadventure and blind luck can jump into 1600 Penn ave and call "shotgun".
.

jwest

Now I know what the term “jazzed up” means.

Palin was picked primarily because Hillary, the media and the pollsters showed McCain that this is not an “experience” election – it’s a “change” battle.

The bar has been lowered on the qualifications for president, just as they were when Clinton was elected. Prior to ’92, who would have thought that someone without basic military experience and a draft dodger to boot would have been considered for the office?

Palin brings the reformer/change message along with a demographic stealing story and personality.

Rudi

Neocon, sad to see you go, but it will be Redstate, Townhall and PoliGazettes gain - LOL.

StockBoySF

Jazz, thanks. I value your input and withdraw the question with no further comment.

BBQ

Rudi I imainge your favs are Daily Kos, DU and TMV.

StockBoySF

Kathryn, I apologize if my comment came across as sexist- it was not meant to be.

StockBoySF

Neocon, I started down this latest path, not Jazz.

Kathryn

StockBoy, I apologize for being unclear. I wasn't inferring that you were sexist. Quite the contrary. I am upset that anyone who brings up biological differences gets accused of being sexist. Pretending that there are no differences and only sexists would bring up those differences does no good to either children or women, or for that matter men because if forces people into a box of being one-dimensional work machines while families (children) are on their own.

Leonidas

Its been amusing watching the media try to catch up on all the mudslinging that they missed the chance to do because Palin's name wasn't prominent during the primaries. They all look pretty much like tabloid reporters at this point. The funniest thing is to see the obvious disappointment in their faces after an interview with a Palin frined or associate who doesn't act shocked at siome new "revelation" and who takes the wind out of their sails with a "yes we knew, she never hide it".

It just goes to show, that when confronted with the honesty and character from outside the beltway, political reporters are as lot as a camel in the artic. circle. THis is so refreashing, God I hope this woman goes to Washington.

StockBoySF

Kathryn, thanks.

Rudi

Rudi I imainge your favs are Daily Kos, DU and TMV
No this Liebral doesn't like to sing along with the choir.
Some of my favorites are:
http://amconmag.com/larison/
Andrew Bacevich
The conservatives at Atlantic, not just AS.
http://www.reason.com/
CATO
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/
BBQ, do you read the other side, or just sing at the Republican karaoke bar?

GreenDreams

A republican Senator, interviewed by Andrea Mitchell says all the questions "on the Internet" about Palin are just "hearsay" and that "the only things we know about Gov. Palin are what the McCain campaign have told us." Oh, really.....

DLS

The two best choices among the "heavies" would have been Thompson or Lieberman.

Thompson would have been the better of the two, someone who would address the problems McCain has in being often an anti-GOP or anti-conservative politician when it suits him, though the question has always been with such actions how much was on ideology or principle, and how much was just attention-seeking.

The choice of Lieberman naturally befits and is most compatible with McCain currently, and it might appeal to many additional swing voters (one can't expect a lot from Hillary Clinton voters), but would have destroyed any appeal to conservative voters and many non-liberals. It would have been the ultimate Dem Lite (truly becoming Dem) offering by "the GOP" this year for the White House and I believe that ticket would be slaughtered by the (real) Dem ticket this November.

The other choice some people suspected that was "heavy" would have been Huckabee, to directly address Religious Righties. The problem is that they are far from the only constituent of the GOP-leaning electorate and many would have been put off by such a choice.

AustinRoth

Stockboy - so, I guess this whole 'women's lib' thing has been horribly misguided.

I mean, you can't put women of childbearing age in any position of extreme authority or responsibility (draw the line where you want), because they might become preggers! And with modern medical advances being what they are, that age is getting pushed back and back.

Oh, and what if she has to make a critical decision when it is "that time of the month"? You know how bitchy and irrational women can be then.

They really should just stay home, barefoot and (potentially) pregnant. Can't take any chances, as you point out.

StockBoySF

Austin, I withdrew my question and am hesitant to continue this.... but my point is that the VP needs to be in a position in their life and make sacrifices to serve this country as VP (or P).

Before anyone becomes VP or P, they must understand what the job requires and the sacrifices they may need to make to run this country, particularly a country in two wars and negotiating with other countries threatening actions which may cause our country harm. Other countries are not going to wait for the president or vp of the US to handle their own personal issues or problems before invading their enemies or take some action (not necessarily military) against the US.

The Founding Fathers required presidential candidates to be at least a certain age, because FFs value someone with life experience and also in a position to serve the country as commander in chief, which does require maturity and sacrifice.

I think all parents (man or woman) should be able to take time off from work, even if that person is the CEO of the world's largest company, to raise a family. Running a country with enemies that might strike in one way or another is very different than running a company.

By the way, I did not bring up "that time of month". My general view of that is that everyone, men and women, have good days and bad days and we deal with them. This isn't a perfect world and no one is happy all the time. Hopefully we all know how to deal with people (and ourselves) in a bad mood.

AustinRoth

I never claimed you said anything about 'time of month'. I was being snarky, the point being your original post was, IMHO, a complete repudiation of the gains of the Women's Liberation movement. That argument really used to be put forth as to why women couldn't be executives.

We have had crippled Presidents (Roosevelt), Presidents that suffered from clinical depression and had that to be drug out of their beds by their aides some mornings (Johnston), Presidents that suffered from various other maladies that occasionally interfered with their duties (Kennedy, Eisenhower, Bush, etc.)

The point is that President (and VP) are a human, and subject to human maladies, and to eliminate all women of child-bearing age because they might become pregnant in office was offensive, IMO.

blog comments powered by Disqus