I've said for years that the Republicans needed to get a woman vice presidential candidate, if for no other reason than to blunt the liberals' claim of the party as a "good old boys network". I'm glad we now have such a candidate.
How funny, though, that she's running in the same election as the first black (major party) candidate!
The cynical libs will claim that Palin was chosen only because she's a woman. Or are they smart enough not to suggest she's an "affirmative action" candidate?
Stay tuned!
I think she probably was just chosen because she was a woman, but I'm not a lib. I do think it was a good choice for McCain considering how much flak he was getting for being "just another rich white old dude."
ReplyDeleteI think her being a woman had something to do with it but, after hearing her speak and learning some of her history, I think it was an inspired choice too. The lefties are already showing themselves to be the bigots they've always claimed conservatives to be.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a very interesting choice. She's a true Reagan Republican. She's not only balanced a state budget, but purged it of excess and put money in the bank. She's rooted out corruption and ran against incumbents in her own party and WON. It's funny how the liberals are looking down their noses when they compare her accomplishments-which have her at an 80% approval rating-to Biden, who is a senator in a Congress with the lowest approval ratings in history at 9%. At this point, the timing is perfect to suck the wind out of Obama's sails. Age and wiliness beats youth and beauty every time.
ReplyDeleteMcCain met her once before choosing her. She was chosen because she's a Republican Woman. To suggest anything else is simply naive.
ReplyDeleteThere is it, she's the affirmative action candidate. I guess at least one lib isn't smart enough not to suggest it.
ReplyDeleteI'm enjoying this entirely too much. =)
Doesn't anyone have the courage to say that McCain chose her because she's pretty seriously hot?
ReplyDeleteFor just a second when I walked up on the TV I thought the McCain campaign had gotten Angie Harmon to give a speech but then it became clear that the woman was giving her VP acceptance speech. Then the sub-text identified her and my next impression was that she came across as tough enough to make a lap dog out of a wolf.
The NYTimes has a somewhat mixed bio on her - http://tinyurl.com/6nsvg6 - although just the fact that she knocked the state Repub hierarchy on its ass recommends her strongly.
In Michigan the state Repub hierarchy has been willing to embrace any change that didn't result in any changes so I can sympathize with the need to deal with an entrenched leadership that sees as its first duty the protection of their turf.
P.S. it looks like the first response of the Obama campaign is to attack on the basis of Palin's lack of experience. You gotta love the irony.
I do. I'll be honest, I can't believe they're dumb enough to go after her on that basis, or on the basis that she's a woman, or on the basis that caring for her children means she won't have time to be a good vice president.
ReplyDeleteRubber/glue, sexism, and chauvinism, in that order.
"There is it, she's the affirmative action candidate. I guess at least one lib isn't smart enough not to suggest it.
ReplyDeleteI'm enjoying this entirely too much. =)"
You failed to respond to my point. You didn't even want to vote for McCain until recently (Republican vote). You do know that McCain met her once in his lifetime before choosing her, correct?
I suppose it's that sort of mentality that led America to re-elect Bush (elect, as well).
Oh, and personally, I find her ugly.
(She has less experience than Obama, for the record)
You're mistaken on several accounts, but as a liberal, you should be used to that by now.
ReplyDeleteWould you like me to address your points? Fine. I'm sure being a woman was *part* of the calculus. Considering that even Geraldine Ferraro said Obama wouldn't be where he is today if he were white, I'm not sure you libs should be talking about affirmative action candidates.
And so what if he only met her once? He's not marrying her, he's running for office with her.
You libs will reach for anything. The fact that you're already throwing crap and the wall and hoping something sticks shows me how scared you are of this pick, and I for one am breaking out the popcorn.
I still don't like McCain--so what? Choosing between him and Obama is easy. This VP choice makes voting for McCain even less unpalatable.
I'm sure you adored John Kerry....
Man, they're getting nasty out there. I thought Republicans were supposed to be the "attack the other guy" party.
ReplyDeleteMy irony meter will need some serious recalibration soon.
But I'm not very surprised, I've come to expect this kind of rancor from the party of tolerance. I just hoped they'd do better this time.
I was rather baffled by the choice.
ReplyDeleteIt throws the experience, especially foreign policy experience, issue right out the window. It can't be about the electoral college, as she comes from 3-vote reliably Republican Alaska. The disgruntled Hillary voters won't be swayed, as they are mostly pro-choice Democrats. It can't be conservative credentials, as McCain already had the conservatives who won't choose Obama and won't stay home and let Obama win. And, I have to say, it bothers me a little on the family values issue, as I just don't see that a mother with a four-month-old child with Downs Syndrome should be out campaigning. (That's not meant to be sexist, though it sounds that way. I'm just being honest).
Honestly, here's what bothers me. If the day before the election, you had asked Republicans who is qualified, who they want, who should be the vice-president, she is one of the last candidates Republicans would have chosen. If you asked who would you want to take over from McCain in an emergency or after four years, she is, again, the last person most voters would choose.
It just doesn't make sense. I am completely baffled.
She's a real person, the first we've has on a ticket in a very long time. I'm ok with that.
ReplyDeleteRemember, she's gonna be the #2 slot--and will have time to learn the job of President by being the #2.
I was baffled by this choice initially as well - it didn't add up. Regardless of what the talking points may be, she's clearly at the bottom of the list in terms of experience. The "reformer" stuff plays well on the tube, but everyone with a brain cell already realized McCain gave up on that when it became clear he wasn't going to get elected on that plank, and besides, running as a Republican reform candidate alienates the Republican power base.
ReplyDeleteThen I took a look at the people roundly applauding the selection and looked a little deeper at Palin, and found the reason. Putting her on the ticket has nothing to do with Hillary voters, women's rights, progressivism, or reform. She's an Assembly of God member/follower/believer (not sure of the proper term). It's a reach out to the fundamentalists who would have stayed at home otherwise, and who - by what I've been reading - are pretty energized and excited by the choice.
In this light, I'm not so sure the choice is a smart move for McCain. The media will get a hold of this and run with it. I think her religion will be far less palatable to the mainstream than Mitt Romney's. Then again, it might be offset by getting the evangelicals energized.
We'll see how this plays out, but this is the first explanation I've been able to put together that feels right.
Experience could hardly be that much of a consideration. Remember that Obama's pick was supposed to help offset his inescapable lack of experience, a handicap from which McCain does not suffer.
ReplyDeleteIf anything her contribution to the campaign seems to run along the lines of cementing McCain's reach towards the more conservative edge of the party. Palin's solidly pro-life, religious, an NRA member (!), a hunter and a sportswoman.
One of McCain's problems is as someone who bucked the president he became the darling of the media which is not a good thing if you're trying to appeal to conservative voters. Ironically, some of the differences McCain has had with the president were because the position McCain took was *more* conservative then the position taken by the president. But Bush Derangement Syndrome meant that McCain got points from the media for being opposed to president Bush without all that much in the way of illumination of the position McCain took that put him in opposition to the president.
On a purely idealogical basis McCain isn't my first choice but I appreciate the educational benefits of being forced to confront reality if you want to have input to the system.
Just out of interest, what is the difference between claiming that Obama is an affirmative action candidate and that Palin is?
ReplyDeleteThe difference is the Obama people squeal like a stuck pig at the mere mention of it.
ReplyDeleteDarren,
ReplyDeleteShe's a real person? What kind of argument is that? Again, voters and pundits can and should reasonably argue that this choice diminishes the job.
It is, in my opinion, not conscionable to explain that she can learn on the job. That has always been a legitimate criticism of all candidates - that they are not ready on day one, as they should be.
Keep in mind, Harrison served only thirty days, Garfield six months, and Taylor only a year. Granted, they served in a different era when people didn't live as long. However, the on-the-job training is not a strong argument.
She's running for the #2 slot, not the presidency. See, the Republicans are running their "less experienced" candidate as VP, not as President.
ReplyDeleteFrom everything I've read about her, she strikes me as someone I'd like to have in the high halls of government. I'm sure she has areas in which she's not as strong as she is in others, but everyone has that.
I'm not convinced that time in the Senate counts as "experience" in running a government, and that's what we're electing here--someone to run a government. She's the only one of the 4 who's ever run a government of any size, and that's more important to me than whether or not she has ideal foreign policy credentials.
Biden might have such credentials, but he's an idiot. I'll stick with Palin. Watching the two of them debate might be entertaining; I'd consider watching that =)
I have a very hard time believing that a man with her credentials would have been chosen.
ReplyDelete"From everything I've read about her, she strikes me as someone I'd like to have in the high halls of government. I'm sure she has areas in which she's not as strong as she is in others, but everyone has that."
Like what? I've been trying to read as much as I can about her and I've found nothing that makes her appealing other than the eloquence in her speech and her relative good looks.
Also, http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/30/201818/606
ReplyDeleteYes, it's dailykos, which is hardly an unbiased source, but you're smart enough to figure out the unbiased information in that.
Nick, the only things you find appealing about Palin are the only things I think anyone could find appealing about Obama. And the Republicans are running Palin in the #2 slot, the Dems are running Obama in the top slot.
ReplyDelete