So last week, as I often do, I happened to be skimming headlines on Google. The link said:
McCain picks Palin for VP
And, I shit you not, my first thought was: "Michael Palin? That's kind of a ballsy move." (Which should give you some idea of how my brain is wired.)
My second thought was: "Well, of course it isn't Michael Palin. So who the HELL is that?" And, the intertubes being all clicky and everything, I followed the link to find out.
Now, I'm no longer the 24/7 political junkie that I was before I moved to Las Vegas and got, you know, (kind of) a life. I simply have more pressing daily responsibilities than keeping up with every last detail of the political scene.
But I'm pretty good with names, and I do at least try to pay attention to national figures. So if I've never heard of someone before, you know they're waaaaaaay off the mainstream radar screen.
If you're reading this page, you're obviously on the internet already so there's no need to explain who Sarah Palin is. So, here's a few of my quick thoughts on this pick:
Seriously, WHO?
Ready to be president on day one: No.
Ready to be vice-president on day one: Maybe. Depends on how she handles herself over the next couple of weeks.
Washington outsider? Good. It doesn't get much more "outside" than Alaska.
Governmental experience? Not-so-good. Not actually bad, mind you -- even at less than two years in the governor's mansion in Juneau (and six years as the mayor of a tiny town), she's got more executive experience than the other three people on both parties' tickets COMBINED. So there's that, depressing though that point may be. But presiding, even as chief executive, over a town of less than 10,000 people just doesn't count for much when faced with the prospect of potentially needing to step up and preside over a country of more than 300,000,000.
Policy positions? Who really cares? With the notable (and highly aberrant) exception of Dick Cheney, no Vice President has had much of an impact on administration policies. To the extent that they align with McCain's policies, they are redundant. To the extent that they differ from McCain's policies, they are irrelevant.
Unwed teenage daughter pregnant? Irrelevant. Sucks to be her (Bristol, that is), for sure, but that's properly a private family matter. Of course the media won't let it be a private family matter, so it doubly sucks to be her. And the bit about Palin's "abstinence-only sex education" policy being thoroughly discredited because of the example of her own daughter? Puh-leeze. As if no teen who ever had the benefit of accurate, explicit sex-ed in school has ever gotten pregnant. (That's not, by the way, a defense of "abstinence-only", simply a rejection of the argument against it based on a single example, however prominent.)
Brilliant ploy to snatch up support from Hillary's "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuits"? UTTERLY LAUGHABLE. No self-respecting, Hillary-supporting, left-leaning, "feminazi" (as Rush so endearingly calls them) would seriously consider voting for McCain instead of Obama simply because he put a chick on the ticket. Seriously, where can I get some of THAT crack?
Former beauty queen and runner-up as Miss Alaska? What does that have to do with anything? Sure politics is supposed to be "Show business for ugly people", but that doesn't preclude attractive folks from being successful. They're awfully easy to misunderestimate, which can certainly work to their advantage. Simply being easy on the eyes doesn't have any bearing on your ability to do the job. Seems kind of sexist for people to imply that a (female) beauty queen must only be getting by on her looks, but an attractive dude who is successful might actually have substance.
Irresponsible parent for taking up the burden of the campaign (and potentially the office) with a young family to raise, including an infant? Also patently sexist. Barack Obama has two young daughters, yet nobody even hints that for him to spend the past 20 months campaigning, or (should he be elected) the next 4-8 years of his daughters' lives in the most demanding office in the world, somehow makes him an irresponsible parent. However, if a woman dares to exhibit ambition for herself, apparently with the full support of her family, she's a bad mother?
Bottom line on all of this, McCain made a risky move picking a relative neophyte as a sop to the conservative base of his own party. Which is annoying to me if for no other reason (and there are others) than it reminds me of why I'm a former Republican myself. It used to be that the party stood for entirely reasonable, solid philosophical positions regarding the proper role of government. Then they went and threw religion into the mix (along with a dramatic misunderstanding and misapplication of the Laffer Curve), and it's all gone to hell in a handbasket. Make no mistake, Governor Palin was selected precisely because she has the "right" religious views for the "values voters" bloc of the Republican party, period. It certainly isn't because she is one of the top... oh, let's say ONE HUNDRED... most qualified Republicans (and one "Democrat" from Connecticut) that McCain could have chosen.
If, however (and this is a HUGE if), this pick allows McCain the maneuvering room to get back to his more moderate, independent roots, I think it'll be a good thing. If she can placate the far-right base, while McCain can appeal to moderate independents, he just might pull it off.
But if Sarah Palin flames out (and if it happens, it'll happen fairly early -- within the next couple of weeks -- and not because of any scandal or media story, but because she'll implode on the campaign trail) then McCain will go down the tubes with her. And it'll be four years of Obama before the Republicans can take back the White House and try to undo that damage.
So, am I happy with the Palin pick? No. Is it the worst possible pick McCain could have made? No. Does it make me change my opinion on the correct way to vote in this election? Not in the least.
Look, this election isn't about Obama or McCain. It's about far, far larger issues than that. With the Democrats virtually guaranteed to build on their control of Congress, the choice is really pretty simple:
Do we give one party entire control of the government, with the inevitable Democratic overreaction/backlash after years of Republican abuse (leading inexorably to the next backlash the other way when the Republicans eventually return to power)?
Or do we safely divide government, protecting the country from the overzealous agenda of either party, by requiring the cooperation of both to get anything done?
McCain could have picked a ham sandwich (to paraphrase) as his running mate, and I still would have to vote for him for the good of the country. That I happen to like him, and distrust Obama, makes that choice easier. That he made a questionable pick for VP is a bit troublesome, but I understand entirely why he made that choice. I'd have chosen differently, myself, but that's OK.
By the way, I find it fascinating that McCain made a poor VP choice for the country, but possibly an excellent choice for him -- while Obama in my opinion made an outstanding VP choice for the country (Joe Biden is possibly the most qualified person on either ticket for the #1 job) but a terrible choice for him.
Seriously, Mr. "Hope-You-Can-Believe-In-Change" selects a 35-year Washington veteran and consummate insider as his running mate?
Doesn't exactly fit the theme, does it? But that's perhaps a topic for another post...
Comments