« Welcome Back, Bill | Main | McCain's Missed Opportunity »
September 02, 2008
Palintology (Or: the new Alaskan Gold Rush)
There's just too much to say about McCain's extraordinary choice of Sarah Palin--so here's a quick catalogue:
Troopergate:
I agree with most other reasonable voices that the Troopergate scandal is the most serious challenge to her personal ethics (as opposed to those that might reflect on McCain). And, more important than the gravity of the substance, is what it says about her overarching governing temprement. I'll sum it up with a quhttp://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/211769.phpote from Josh Marshall:
We rely on elected officials not to use the power of their office to pursue personal agendas or vendettas. It's called an abuse of power. There is ample evidence that Palin used her power as governor to get her ex-brother-in-law fired. When his boss refused to fire him, she fired his boss. She first denied Monegan's claims of pressure to fire Wooten and then had to amend her story when evidence proved otherwise. The available evidence now suggests that she 1) tried to have an ex-relative fired from his job for personal reasons, something that was clearly inappropriate, and perhaps illegal, though possibly understandable in human terms, 2) fired a state official for not himself acting inappropriately by firing the relative, 3) lied to the public about what happened and 4) continues to lie about what happened.These are, to put it mildly, not the traits or temperament you want in someone who could hold the executive power of the federal government.
Experience:
Both the challenge to Obama's experience and the corresponding claim that Palin IS experienced missed the point entirely: Experience is a wonderful thing for a candidate; if you have it, it makes good sense to tout it. But experience does not predict success in office, and the lack of it does not predict failure. James Buchannan, 15th president, had lots of it but still brought us to the brink of civil war; his successor, Abraham Lincoln, had almost none, yet skillfully led us through that civil war.
Experience is essentially one of several possible credentals one may offer to demonstrate readiness to serve. Its absence is a red flag to voters that they need to look further (or elsewhere) to verify a candidate's claim that she/he is prepared for office. Those who raised questions eighteen months ago about Obama's personal abilities to govern were right to do so. Likewise, those same people are justified in saying that his performance over the last year and a half satisfies their concerns. (A marathon run for the presidency is a a graduate level education in the office--with exams taken daily and in public, administered by media-proctors who want you to slip up.) Over the coourse of the campaign he's grown into the role. Just as importantly, we've had that time to study him.
Sarah Palin might be ready--or might be able to mature into readiness. But we don't know and we won't know. And nothing we do know gives me any confidence.
Vetting I:
The most troubling thing about the Palin choice is that she was not seriously vetted. And that, of course, is a disturbing comment on McCain. It confirms the worst fears about him--that he's a hip-shooting risktaker who lacks the temprement to be president. Presidents must be decisive, but not impulsive, bold, but not reckless. So much of McCain's career (going back to his fighter pilot days) is marked by his "by-the-gut" penchant for high stakes gambling.
Vetting II:
If I were a Republican I'd be damned pissed. Regardless of what you think of the (mounting number) of disclosures and accusations about Palin, the recognition that Palin has not been seriously vetted is nothing if not red meat to the press. When a candidate has been properly vetted it tells the media that the bad stuff is already out; you can nose around if you want, but if there was anything to be found we would have already have found it, told you about it, and put a spin on it before the other guys can. But the news that Palin has not been seriously vetted tells the media something else: there might be gold in them thar hills. McCain has triggered a media feeding frenzy that will, at the very least, raise even more questions about Palin and derail their attempt to define her as a good government type. At the most, it may put on solid ground the perception that she is a rank amature.
Posted by stevemack at September 2, 2008 09:56 AM
