Palin Pick Puts Politics Ahead of Country.

He turned our money into an investment for a more important role.

 

anybody can run for president if they want; voters can either vote for them or someone else in the primaries. I wouldn't be disgusted with Palin at all had she run for president, and lifted the curtain on her strengths, weaknesses, viewpoints, experience, etc.

as far as obama doing his job as senator: it's an unfortunate bi-product of the way our system works, obviously. I personally prefer the british system, where the party develops a unified platform, and then if their party wins in the national elections, they appoint the PM from among the party leaders. I hate that you could have a half-dozen candidates from the same party, and each one could have a different set of policies and approaches for resolving issues (when it is unclear how much thought has gone into it), and simply because they become the chosen candidate it becomes the basis of the "party platform."

 

He won though. He did get more votes. In the end that's what the primaries are for. Had Hillary been the nominee when all said and done, the argument would be she didn't even win the majority of the vote in her own party. Let's not act like Obama didn't deserve the nomination. He did. The people choose him. The problem is Hillary deserved it too. Obama just got that +1 on her and the super delegates weren't going to give the nod to Hillary when she was down -1.

Should the refs award the victory to the team with fewer points? Of course not.

As far as the topic ahead. Take out Palin and put McCain's name in place in the title. That's what the dems should do.

I say forget Palin and go after McCain's judgment. Hit him on the ambition issue. The very thing he went after Obama with.

Hit him on the fact that he and Palin had only met one time prior to the Dayton rally.

Hit him on the fact that this was a last minute decision and she seriously wasn't vetted until a week before the decision. Something McCain insiders have even echoed.

Yet the dems go after experience when they really can't in this case.

McCain says country first over politics but Palin was taken for political purposes anyways. McCain chose a woman to go after votes period. He took the VP whom he thought could help him win. If the democratic party didn't come really close to nominating a woman for president, Palin would not of been the pick. It's common sense.

Come out and compare that to Obama who took Biden because he thought he could govern the best with him. That's the message they should be sending right now. Had he wanted to pick a candidate that would further his ambition in becoming president, Hillary would have been the choice or even Bill Richardson. Say Obama took the high road.

Yet the dems aren't sending that message out or at least not good enough.

 

You hit it out of the park, ride this ambition attack-wave all the way to the White House (they should only bring up Experience in the context of what McCain said). Lord knows how well Barry keeps doing in spite of the Palin pick.

 

Yes, telling fibs is exactly what Obama should do. We all know that is a crock of shit. Obama took Biden because he was being knocked for his experience.

Obama is smart enough to know that he would have died as president if Hillary was his VP. Her ambition to be president for another 8 years (what you thought Bill was really in charge?) is extremely strong

 

When your basketball goes flat and your without air then yes the game is over. At least that's how we did it when I was a kid

Oh come on. Telling fibs is what every political candidate in this nation's history has done. At least in modern times. My point had nothing to do with experience. If that comes up then you use Biden.

If someone challenges you on both. Say I took an experience candidate who helps me govern and not win elections.

Besides Biden had little to zero impact in the polling anyways.

It's all about spinning it your way one way or another and doing the experience thing only brings it back to you.

 

I just finished watching a bunch of Republicans talk about Sarah Palin. Nearly half of them were women. They talked a lot about how their counties would be voting McCain.

The very last question posed to the panel was ,"If Sarah Palin was named Sam Palin, would John Mc. have selected him to be his running mate?"

If this has already been talked about, just link the thread. If not, please comment. I stopped reading this forum for a day, and I have already missed about 100 posts.


I think, that he would have not selected Palin if Palin were a man. From the announcement of the pick, Sarah was already speaking directly to "women" in her acceptance speech a few days ago.

If they are really putting "country first", and not "politics first", then what does this mean?

 

Well clearly the answer you are looking for is. They aren't looking for country first. They are looking to get elected. Is it bad for the country that politics works this way?

Yes it is, because less qualified candidates oftentimes get elected. Unfortunately both parties do this, the parties tend not to put forth someone who is the most qualified if they have someone else who they think will have a better chance of getting elected. And no I don't think "Sam Palin" would be chosen for VP.

I mean George Bush clearly isn't the most knowledgeable guy around, and if his father wasn't who he is. He wouldn't even have came close to President.

As well politicians will need the vote of unions and make policies that they wouldn't have and aren't necessarily good policies in order to get elected.

And even if the majority of voters choose the guy with the better campaign and appearing to be more qualified, oftentimes once in office, a large amount of the campaign promises are not followed through upon.

but, I don't have a solution to make a better system. It's easier to criticize .

 

I'm going to answer my own question. Both parties put politics first.

 

Maybe if Sarah was a man named Michael. That would be the greatest vice presidential debate ever.

 

EVIEW & OUTLOOK

The Beltway Boys
September 3, 2008; Page A22

Even as the Obama camp ponders how best to handle John McCain's veep pick of Sarah Palin, the high priests and priestesses of the media have marked her as an apostate. The Beltway class is in full-throated rebellion against a nondomesticated conservative who might pose a threat to their coronation of Barack Obama and the return of Camelot-on-the-Potomac.
[Sarah Palin]

Here is a sampler of media comment on Governor Palin this week:

- Eleanor Clift, the McLaughlin Group: "If the media reaction is anything, it's been literally laughter in many places across newsrooms."

- Sally Quinn, Newsweek: "It is a political gimmick . . . I find it insulting to women, to the Republican party, and to the country."

- E.J. Dionne, Washington Post: "Palin is, if anything, less qualified for the vice presidency (and the presidency) than [Harriet] Miers was for the court. But there is one big difference: Palin passes all the right-wing litmus tests."

- Maureen Dowd, New York Times: "They have a tradition of nominating fun, bantamweight cheerleaders from the West."

- Ruth Marcus, Washington Post: "But as a parent in the media, I also know that the Palins assumed this risk. Anyone who watched coverage of the Bush twins' barroom exploits knew that the avert-your-eyes stance toward candidates' children has its limits."

- Charlie Cook, Beltway pundit, on PBS's "Charlie Rose": "I had a friend that had a young person tell them that they had three interviews to get a job as a server at Ruby Tuesday! So this is like putting a whole -- for someone that hasn't played on a national -- Geraldine Ferraro had more -- Dan Quayle had undergone more scrutiny, had played on a bigger stage than this. This is putting an enormous risk on someone he didn't know. And he has to just pray that it works!"

This is the same media whose chant for weeks -- no, months -- has been "let McCain be McCain." If we know anything about John McCain, it is that he is by instinct a reformer, sometimes to a fault. Yet when he acts like McCain and picks a maverick reformer in his own mold, his former media cheering squad turns on him for not conforming to Beltway mores and picking someone they've all met 10 times in the CNN green room.

They want a VP to be a kind of parliamentary choice, someone they have already vetted, someone who's made them laugh with insider jokes at the Gridiron dinner. The Beltway class whines constantly about how it wants fresh voices in politics, but we guess this means a first-term Democratic Senator rather than a first-term Republican Governor from some godforsaken U.S. state few of them have ever been to.

We are instructed that Mrs. Palin isn't qualified, because she lacks Washington experience. But until recently that was said to be a virtue in Mr. Obama, who is at the top of his ticket. Meanwhile, there's hardly a peep of media notice that the Obama campaign is preposterously trying to remake Joe Biden into a poor scrapper from Scranton when he's been in the Senate for 36 years. They all know Joe. But when Mr. McCain picks an authentic middle-class mother who is also a Governor, we are told she's not up to the job.

The spin du jour is that her choice reflects poorly on Candidate McCain because she wasn't properly vetted. Yet this seems to be false. Campaign vetter A.B. Culvahouse, White House counsel under Ronald Reagan, says Mrs. Palin told the campaign about her pregnant daughter and her husband's DUI at the age of 22. On Monday, Time magazine's Nathan Thornburgh wrote from Wasilla, Alaska, that Bristol Palin's pregnancy had been known by virtually everyone there, with little made of it. But what do these private family matters have to do with Mrs. Palin's credentials to be Vice President in any case?

The press in 2000 ignored marijuana use by Al Gore's son, as it should have. But now we are told a teenage pregnancy is going to raise second thoughts among evangelicals and "family values voters" about Mrs. Palin's ability to be both a mother and a public official. This is also false.

Leaving aside the embarrassing reality that the Beltway press corps barely knows any evangelicals, religious leaders this week greeted the pregnancy news with support for the Palins. Offering support for unwed pregnant women and their families is a primary activity of these churches from one end of America to the other. That might even make a good story for someone this weekend.

What's really going on here is that the Beltway class can see how popular the Palin pick is with Republicans outside Washington, and especially with middle-class conservatives. As Richard Land, a leader with the Southern Baptist Convention, said Monday, John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin closed the "enthusiasm gap" between the two parties.

There is nothing more dangerous to entrenched Washington power than a populist conservative who looks unlikely to buy into Washington's creature comforts. Take a close look at Governor Palin's record on ethics and energy in Alaska, and it becomes clear what this Beltway outburst is actually about. The irony is that while Senator Obama is running on change, his acceptance speech made explicit that he's promising only more power and money for Washington. Sarah Palin's history of taking on the career politicians of a corrupt Alaskan GOP machine -- her own party -- shows that she's the more authentic change agent.
* * *

If Sarah Palin succeeds as a national candidate, she could help John McCain proceed to a reform Presidency. Even if he loses while she does well, she could emerge as a major figure in GOP politics for years to come. This is why the media and political classes are so eager to discredit her. They can't let it happen.

We hope Mr. McCain and the GOP are prepared to fight back. On the evidence this week, it looks like an army of volunteers is forming up to help them.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039719000892745.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

 

It means a phrase like 'putting "country first", and not "politics first"' is meaningless pap

The world is more complex. Sure, Palin gets points for being a woman just like you can be damn sure that if Barack Obama was Barry Obamason, skinny nasally-pitched white boy, he wouldn't have have been chosen by the Democrats. Does that mean they're putting "politics first" and not "country first"?

I don't even know what that means. But I do have an extensive background in history, politics and economics, and they all suggest to me that, much more than specific policies, we vote for the sort of folks we think both embody and protect our visions of what kind of place we want. And then we hope the images we vote for are actually guided by the policies we associate with them. Obama certainly reflects a certain sense of cool ("look, he plays basketball!", qualifications ("he gives a good speech! Oh, how my liberal heart doth weep! He went to Haaaavaad, he's our intellectual better and can solve problems us mere mortals can't!"), and, yes, of course, he's interracial ("Look at the progress we've made!").

If you believe significant numbers of people don't think like that, you delude yourselves.

And I don't even say it's that bad. In a situation where votes are one in hundred of millions and policy changes are typically Manichean affairs on which we don't have direct say, the symbolism and "cultural progress" of promoting an interracial guy is a meaningful thing.

And it's meaningful to consider what non-white is the first one. If it's Barack Obama or Thorgood Marshall then it says something very different than if it's Alan Keyes or Al Sharpton. Who the man is, and how the man acts, will set the tone for future race relations in the country, and for generations of individuals who will look to see how he does. As will the actions of the folks who oppose him.

It's exactly the same with Palin, Hillary, or whomever the first woman is going to be. Her life, her story, her actions within it, and those of America toward her will be a much bigger story than the policy specifics. Will it be a woman who's comfortable being a woman and being independent? Will it be a woman who's largely known for her husband's actions? What will she stand for? The "symbolism" will be important because both parties, and each of us as individuals, want to put forth our own notions of what "the right way" is, and we want to shape those images in the future. That seems way more important than whether a particular tax rate is 12% or 13%.

 

I agree but I think the dems can spin the Palin pick into politics first much easier than the republicans can the Biden pick even though we all know if Obama though Biden would lose him the election, he would not be the pick. It's just a matter of how you can get the public to perceive the pick. In this case, you might be able to get some to perceive McCain's pick as politics first at least more than Obama's.

 

You're making a comparison with Obama that is inaccurate. Obama got more votes than his opponent and won a primary. They didn't pick him because of his race, he won it outright. Palin was "selected" with no voting. Obama is a cult of personality, but we're not even talking about that in this topic thread. Palin's selection had much to do with her gender.

 

It's not inaccurate at all, it's simply not the similarity you chose to look at. The people voting in primaries (and let's not forget, big-wigs selecting in caucus states) are making choices about who they want. Obviously you can't say that some or all of them didn't pick him (or pick against him) because of his race. Of course not all of them did, but of course some of them did. He won the vote outright amongst a group of voters who are somewhat likely to see his race as a positive. Certainly for some voters it was the positive, and for a few it was the negative.

And given the closeness of the race, it's very possible that he was selected by the Dems because of his race. It's part of the "cult of personality" as you put it.

Obviously Palin's gender, just like Hillary's, is part of hers, and her selection is owed in part to that. But after reading extensively about her, I also don't see any obviously better choices.

The people that had been mentioned leading up to her announcement, frankly, all sucked. Mitt Romney? Tim Pawlenty? Please. These guys are not even potentially the future of the Republican party, and I think that's something that needs to be strongly considered.

When you see folks making the argument that the Republicans "need to be punished" for fucking up the last 10 years or so, do you think a guy like McCain doesn't want to set things up differently heading into the future? Going back to 2000, he was the path, in terms of where the Republican party could go, that it didn't take. In various ways, the Republicans seem to be trying to make up for it, and one way is nominating McCain. But beyond that, McCain himself is exercising some leadership and dictating where he wants things to go. And making an appeal to women and also to libertarians just generally to people who take their duties seriously, live life and don't wine about shit is a good direction to go in. The Repubican bench was pretty shallow in that direction, and I certainly wouldn't prefer one of the blow-dried cultural conservative guys.

So generally, I think that criticism is coming from people who would simply criticize McCain's choice no matter what because they're against McCain. As a libertarian (but not a sort of anarchist libertarian) who's well-educated on the issues and realistic about the possibilities, McCain's nomination and his selection of Palin are steps in the right direction.

Even if all my wishes are fulfilled that will get the Republicans only back into the "slightly less bad" category that they held under Reagan, but in the end that's still better than the "just as bad and in some ways worse" category they seemed to be drifting into with guys like Tom DeLay and Trent Lott running the show.

 

Both parties are at the very best equally disgusting panderers. I'd say Palin was the most egregious example though.

Time blog

 

This is a different author.