Joss Delage

Sarah Palin selected by McCain for VP slot

257 posts in this topic

What do people think? Does that improve the McCain ticket? She seems to be an anti-abortion, creationist wacko. The other tidbits I was able to find are rather good. She's easier on the eye than any other politician I can recall....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do people think? Does that improve the McCain ticket? She seems to be an anti-abortion, creationist wacko. The other tidbits I was able to find are rather good. She's easier on the eye than any other politician I can recall....

Mixed, as always. She's good on some issues: she's pro-drilling in Alaska, and she opposed listing polar bears as endangered. She's bad on others: she increased taxes on oil profits, is anti-abortion and anti-contraception, and advocated teaching creationism in government schools. She vetoed a law that would have banned same-sex benefits for state employees, after she exhausted every avenue she had not to veto. She supports the 1998 Alaska constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. She's also under investigation for using her power as governor to settle a family matter. (All this is from the Wikipedia article about her, though I did briefly scan some other sites that corroborate it.)

Yeah, she's a babe.* Yawn. For what matters, she's kinda homely.

I think the big news about this is the timing. The day after Obama's acceptance speech? Worried about the bounce much? Also the (I think) blatant attempt to get disgruntled Hillary voters to switch to McCain.

_____

*If anyone searches and finds her on the cover of Vogue, yes, she did a photo shoot for them, but that cover on so many web sites is a fake (and pretty obviously so). You can see a couple of the real pix here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Her critical flaw is an explicit religious viewpoint, though I have to say that in the day to day proceedings of her time as governor here in Alaska, it wasn't noticeable. While she is definitely pro-life, she doesn't speak on abortion with any regularity, and when she said she supported teaching creationism in schools (I know of only one instance where she spoke on this) she mentioned teaching it alongside evolution, and that it shouldn't be a criteria used to select the schoolboard (which selects the teachers).

Her greatest asset is independence: she has taken measures to reduce the size of government in Alaska, starting with cracking down on "corruption" via her ethics stance, and she actually cleaned out a lot of pork-barrel projects and regulatory garbage that has been hampering the commercial fishing fleet and oil, gas and mining industries. She is a proponent of opening ANWR, and has recently approved the construction of a NG pipeline for the North Slope. She is VERY pro-industry.

One conflict with her pro-industry viewpoint was her raising taxes on oil companies operating in Alaska. Their seems to be two ways of looking at this: The first way is that her altruist principles demanded a sacrifice to make things right, and that the oil companies were the ripest victims. The second way of looking at it is based on the oil companies being the bad guys, with political favors from the old regime inflating their profits. I have yet to hear enough either way to decide for sure which is which, but two things are worth mentioning in relation to this. One is that the tax bill was passed at the same time a crackdown was occurring on ties between people with connections to former Governor Frank Murkowski, involving channelling funds into reelection campaigns and of course, lining some pockets. At least one person has pled guilty to the charges so far. The other thing is that new development of the oil and gas resources seems to be coming along nicely. Is it a matter of these newer instances being "yesmen" for the new government, or an instance of blank slates being favored over known corruption, I don't know. I do know that government and oil are inextricably tied together in Alaska, so maybe starting fresh is the best choice. But I can't speak to her motives for supporting this, just the results so far, which have been ok.

I haven't seen an explicit statement from her about foreign policy, but from the email lists that she is a member of, I will state with 80% surety that she will speak up in favor of bringing the fight anyone who challenges the interests of the United States. She is a big supporter of the armed forces, and a HUGE proponent of each state fielding a well trained, supplied and compensated National Guard. Her answer to things like the Patriot Act and such are to put more responsibility into the hands of individuals, as opposed to creating more government institutions...

One thing I haven't found on any sites that talk about her or her stances is her early involvement in the AIP political party here in Alaska. It is our Inedependence party, in that they seek Independence for the State of Alaska. Actually, they seek to have a revote on statehood, based on what is believed to be an illegal vote back when it was origianlly crowned a state. I keep tabs on the AIP but I don't support their platform because the leaders are all far too explicitly religious, and their methods reek of pragmatism. I like the idea of Alaska as an independent nation, but if the AIP gets there, it won't be for lack of attempting to go in the completely opposite direction....

Bottom line on Palin is that she is a moderate populist republican, with critically poor views on the status of a human soul, but respectable views on a human life and its defense. I have appreciated her tenure as a governor, using it as an opportunity to get the groundwork in for expanding my own business and life, and in a relatively short period of time. But there could be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She's also under investigation for using her power as governor to settle a family matter. (All this is from the Wikipedia article about her, though I did briefly scan some other sites that corroborate it.)

Yeah, she's a babe.* Yawn. For what matters, she's kinda homely.

I think the big news about this is the timing. The day after Obama's acceptance speech? Worried about the bounce much? Also the (I think) blatant attempt to get disgruntled Hillary voters to switch to McCain.

The investigation is about what someone might expect from the situation described. I will say that to put her role into context, she is famous for the hours she puts into her job as Governor (and formerly as the mayor of a small town near Anchorage). She is in or around her office ALL OF THE TIME. The case is revolving around phonecalls made from her office, and the timing of them relating to a guy with a connection to her through a family memeber being fired, and to my knowledge, they have been in 100% full cooperation with the investigation. Pretty much a non-issue, IMO.

I can speak for the babealisciousness. I met her in person and talked to her a little about her pro-life stance, and she lights up when she is discussing ideas. She also is a good listener and and absorbs what you are trying to tell her. She almost seems to normal to be a VP of the United States. That Vogue cover is just funny to me.

I think you are exactly right on the timing. She would be a great support piece in the foreign policy battle, IMO, but who can speak for what is going through everybody's head right now with the choice of her? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do people think? Does that improve the McCain ticket? She seems to be an anti-abortion, creationist wacko. The other tidbits I was able to find are rather good. She's easier on the eye than any other politician I can recall....

I think this will backfire. It's clear that she got the offer solely because she's a woman and an ultra-conservative (mostly because she's a woman). Her "executive experience" consists of being mayor of a town of 7000 (a small suburb in most of the rest of the country) and governor of a tiny state for 2 years. Alaska apparently is almost as corrupt as Illinois, so her "reformer" credentials are a bit suspect, as well (no surprise she's under investigation). Add the fact that she's anti-life and creationist, and it's clear that McCain is going to move dangerously to the right in a worst-of-both-worlds sort of way.

I'm beginning to think the least unpalatable combination would be an Obama victory with a stronger-than-expected GOP showing in the Senate. That doesn't seem likely, so perhaps a McCain victory with a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate would be OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do people think? Does that improve the McCain ticket?

I guess that depends on whose perspective you're talking about. I'm speculating--based on comments from Rush Limbaugh, callers on his show, and other news stories from today--that Conservatives like this pick a lot. Additionally, I've heard and read a lot of criticism of Obama and the convention lately. I think it was a flop, including his boring speech last night. So, I'd guess a lot of people on both sides see the McCain ticket as having the advantage right now. But, there are two months to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the big news about this is the timing. The day after Obama's acceptance speech? Worried about the bounce much? Also the (I think) blatant attempt to get disgruntled Hillary voters to switch to McCain.

Obama never got much of a bounce. The biggest lead I saw was that he was up 6. But even Axelrod, who I believe has been writing Obama's speeches, and may be his campaign manager, is now claiming that they didn't expect a big bounce from the convention. Yeah, right. I think the Obama campaign is in serious trouble, and they know it.

Plus, I can't recall if I have said it here or others have, but the fact is that McCain is really an acceptable candidate to a lot of Democrats. They won't consider it the end of the world if he's elected. Palin also seems to have been brought in to pull in union types, like in OH and PA, i.e., the disguntled Hilary voters you mention, and not just the women. She also apparently has the military connection, so that will have appeal among some segments of the Democrat population, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, of course I meant population. The last time i checked, elk don't vote, and neither does empty land.

Not for lack of wishing (or in some cases trying) by environmentalists... :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do people think? Does that improve the McCain ticket?

This is the grand slam in the bottom of the 9th. Choose your metaphor. John McCain has just won the Presidency.

* He will get a significant portion of disaffected Hillary voters who are desperate to vote for a woman

* He calms the GOP's base who want a conservative

* He undercuts a major reason that many are voting for Obama - he's black.

* The "change" message now flows to both sides.

* He gives cover for those who feel that they have no choice, morally, but to vote for Obama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do people think? Does that improve the McCain ticket?

This is the grand slam in the bottom of the 9th. Choose your metaphor. John McCain has just won the Presidency.

* He will get a significant portion of disaffected Hillary voters who are desperate to vote for a woman

* He calms the GOP's base who want a conservative

* He undercuts a major reason that many are voting for Obama - he's black.

* The "change" message now flows to both sides.

* He gives cover for those who feel that they have no choice, morally, but to vote for Obama

None of which is a good reason to vote for anyone. So that's modern politics in a nutshell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None of which is a good reason to vote for anyone. So that's modern politics in a nutshell.

Agreed 100%. This is one of the shallowest elections in memory. The mass voting populace is more explicitly intrinsicist than ever before. That said, I'm so aghast of Obama's platform that I really want McCain to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do people think? Does that improve the McCain ticket?

This is the grand slam in the bottom of the 9th. Choose your metaphor. John McCain has just won the Presidency.

* He will get a significant portion of disaffected Hillary voters who are desperate to vote for a woman

* He calms the GOP's base who want a conservative

* He undercuts a major reason that many are voting for Obama - he's black.

* The "change" message now flows to both sides.

* He gives cover for those who feel that they have no choice, morally, but to vote for Obama

Sure. Liberal women are going to vote for an anti-abortion, gun-toting conservative just because she's a woman. Anyway, I thought the GOP was against affirmative action.

She does mollify the conservatives, but by capitulating to their wishes, McCain is throwing away his "moderate" credentials.

You overstate Obama's race on this. There are a lot of people who will vote against him because he's black (as Hillary tried to point out), which should offset those who will vote for him solely for that reason.

About the only good thing this did for McCain is that it took the spotlight off Obama the day after the convention. Pawlenty or Romney might have had the same effect, and are more qualified for the position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure. Liberal women are going to vote for an anti-abortion, gun-toting conservative just because she's a woman.

I'm not defending her position on abortion and intelligent design, but you say "gun-toting" as if it's a bad thing. I'm not saying that you think it's a bad thing. My point is that by the Brady Bunch's own estimates 38% of the households in the US have firearms. According to another source (a video by Fred Thompson's campaign many moons back, so I haven't been able to independently verify the figure) 50% of households in the US contain firearms.

Clearly this demographic cuts a wide swath: liberals, conservatives, and all in between. Men and women. All races. Straights and Gays. etc. Obama has been at least astute enough to avoid this like a third rail in this election.

As a gun nut firearms enthusiast I'm curious as to why you would interject such a non-issue into your post?

--HH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was listening to KCRW's "Left, Right, or Center" (which is a good show though it should be called "Left, Left, Left, and Right"), and Tony Blankley said that even though she will not appeal to leftist women, she might appeal to blue collar women who would otherwise have voted Hillary (and might otherwise have preferred Obama or stayed at home). It seems to make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... I like the idea of Alaska as an independent nation ...
How long do you think it would take that bloody-handed KGB killer Putin to discover that Alaska "really" belongs to Russia, and seize it by force?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The jury is out on just how her religion plays out in public life. On the one hand she's anti-abortion, on the other hand she vetoed a State bill which would limit legal rights of gay couples.

I guess in the larger scheme of things whom I'm impressed by is McCain: this guy is a tough cookie, and while Obama is softening up and cooling off, McCain seems just getting warmed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....she might appeal to blue collar women who would otherwise have voted Hillary (and might otherwise have preferred Obama or stayed at home). It seems to make sense.

And those who would have voted for the "historic" candidate, for no other reason than the candidate's historicity (whatever we might think of such a low motivation), now have a choice.

I thought it was a very savvy choice--although now the GOP has to be more ginger throwing around the "inexperienced" label. And they'd better be very careful with Biden, who is as low a debater as they come.

But yes, Palin will definitely appeal to many women who would have otherwise voted for Hillary, in spite of the philosophical differences between the two. And the evangelicals who would never have voted for Romney because he's a Mormon are now energized, to say the least.

I find it interesting that Palin is anti-amnesty, while McCain has unlearned what he supposedly learned after the grass-roots slap-down a few months ago, that we need to first "enforce the borders," and has resumed his previous hispandering ways that so alienated the base.

I heard in passing that Palin is a global warming believer. Oh well, the bad with the good, the bad with the good....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I heard in passing that Palin is a global warming believer. Oh well, the bad with the good, the bad with the good....

I don't think that is true. She buried some proposal in Alaska in a 'study' as a common technique to deflect it. From what I recall she rejects the claims that climate change is man-made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... I like the idea of Alaska as an independent nation ...
How long do you think it would take that bloody-handed KGB killer Putin to discover that Alaska "really" belongs to Russia, and seize it by force?

He wouldn't get that far because the US won't give it up. Alaska is generally regarded in Washington as more of a colony of subjects than a state, with a large part of it preserved by the Federal government on behalf of the viros. The rest is owned by the state and the native corporations (Indian tribes). Less than 1% of the land is privately owned in Alaska. The state was shafted by ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act) in December 1980, which locked up 100 million acres. The state opposed it but it was rammed down their throats as a "compromise" -- the viros wanted much more control and would have gotten it if Carter had been re-elected. It is a normal convention in the US Senate that if a state's Senators oppose such a provision it dies, but not when the state is regarded as a colony. It is too late for Putin, Alaska has already been conquered by US viros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... I like the idea of Alaska as an independent nation ...
How long do you think it would take that bloody-handed KGB killer Putin to discover that Alaska "really" belongs to Russia, and seize it by force?

He wouldn't get that far because the US won't give it up. Alaska is generally regarded in Washington as more of a colony of subjects than a state, with a large part of it preserved by the Federal government on behalf of the viros. The rest is owned by the state and the native corporations (Indian tribes). Less than 1% of the land is privately owned in Alaska. The state was shafted by ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act) in December 1980, which locked up 100 million acres. The state opposed it but it was rammed down their throats as a "compromise" -- the viros wanted much more control and would have gotten it if Carter had been re-elected. It is a normal convention in the US Senate that if a state's Senators oppose such a provision it dies, but not when the state is regarded as a colony. It is too late for Putin, Alaska has already been conquered by US viros.

Well put, ewv. I can't think of a thing to add to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I heard in passing that Palin is a global warming believer. Oh well, the bad with the good, the bad with the good....

I don't think that is true. She buried some proposal in Alaska in a 'study' as a common technique to deflect it. From what I recall she rejects the claims that climate change is man-made.

Excellent! Thank you! That's something I would be delighted to be misinformed about. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure. Liberal women are going to vote for an anti-abortion, gun-toting conservative just because she's a woman.

I'm not defending her position on abortion and intelligent design, but you say "gun-toting" as if it's a bad thing.

--HH

Because the Hillary supporters he is trying to court with this affirmative-action hire tend to support gun control. McCain is trying to mollify his conservative base and thinks because Palin is a woman that he can get away with putting someone in who would otherwise be regarded as extreme by the mainstream voter.

Palin's affirmative action appointment has confirmed to me that McCain will say and do anything to get elected, including pander to the evangelicals. This is extremely dangerous and I'm a bit surprised Peikoff hasn't spoken up more. Tracinski seems to be endorsing McCain in his recent columns. Perhaps a week of non-stop GOP coverage and we'll see which McCain and GOP decide to show up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have split off posts dealing with Immigration and Border Control to a separate thread here. Those interested in the topic are also urged to review previous discussions by using the search engine with the keyword "immigration".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites