Granted, but missing the point. Agnew was brought up as an example to counter the oft-mentioned “The thing that seems the most sexist to me is that I can’t imagine a Republican male with so few credentials being nominated for the position of Vice President” (posted by Zoe, but not unique). How well it turned out is irrelevant to the original assertion.
Not that bringing up Agnew is a complete answer either. Picking a candidate primarily based on political superficialities, whether it be gender or perceived appeal to Southern voters should be excoriated. (Note primarily — of course political pragmatism enters the deliberations, I am referring to the fairly transparent pandering inherent to Palin’s selection.)
The fact that she is being held from political talk shows while she is getting crammed goes to her lack of qualifications. She would have been exposed as an unprepared lightweight. If she was chosen for her qualifications they should have put her on Sunday morning shows like Biden was.
Here’s a cutie. In this lovely clip I’m sure we’ve all seen, Karl Rove suggests that Wasilia was the second largest city in Alaska. I’m thinking what about Fairbanks and Juneau?
It turns out that at the time of Palin’s mayoralty, it was either the fifth or seventh largest town in Alaska. You can always count on Rove to give you the Straight Dope. :rolleyes:
This exposes the absolute vapidness of Palin as a candidate, and I can’t imagine that her touting “pro-life,” “evangelicalism,” and “gun rights” actually mollifies anyone with critical thinking skills.
While she may have experience in an executive capacity (however debatably limited it may be), her experience considering and analyzing issues – foreign and domestic – as would benefit decision making at the VP/POTUS level is negligently absent. That they are trying to “protect” her (sexist?) from the media is frighteningly thin – the media, including the Internet, exists in Alaska, and as governor, she has faced cameras before.
Correct. Even though the governor is commander-in-chief of the state guard, it’s not a military role, any more than the President’s duty as C-in-C is military in nature. Instead, it represents the subordination of the military in this country to civilian control. Yes, she commanded her state’s National Guard, as does every governor; no, it means nothing militarily and is in fact redundant to simply saying she was governor.
But, of course, so usually is the entire Commander in Chief thing. Lincoln is the only President I know of who did much in the way of strategizing, and that was primarily because McClellan refused to (great trainer, but a little combat wary). The Commander in Chief decides where the wars are and puts limits on how much effort we’re willing to commit. Beyond that, shouldn’t he just get out of the way?
Speaking as someone who sees her as a scary prospect to have a heartbeat away …
C in C needing experience as C in C? Nah. Don’t care. Don’t to be a general. Need to understand the enormity of sending men and women to risk their lives and be able to use the other tools well enough to avoid having to do that most of the time. I’ll ding her for her lack of knowledge and curiosity, for her simplistic “God’s work” view of America’s mission on the world stage, so on. That’s enough.
Sequestered away to cram? Not a problem if she comes out of her intense study sessions able to handle herself. If anything that shows she can be a quick study, which what a VP needs to be more than anything else.
Her ability will either declare itself or not during the debate and as she eventually comes out of cram mode. So far she passed to first test with flying colors - she is able to speak well on stage, better than any of the other players this cycle short of Obama, better even than Huckabee, who can speak well also. If she can manage debate questions then she passes part two also. Expectations should be held high, she should be built up as a skillful formidable politician in preparation for that - no curve on her grading scale needed.
If she were qualified as they claimed she would not have to be told what to say. She can not be taught how to actually do anything just what to say in response to questions. That will not make her qualified.
I must respectfully disagree (with the “not a problem” bit). If she needed time to prepare for the media onslaught due to media inexperience (say, for example, had she been a judge or university professor with little media contact), I could understand the sequestration for the time being. I would, however, feel insulted by the campaign’s attempt at Gotcha Ya by hiding her until the last minute rather than giving her – and the voting public – more time to become acquainted.
If she needed time to become fully conversant with the Republican talking points and particular spin, I would also have some degree of understanding. The “wearing a hat” meme or injecting “change” into lots of sentences is a political (though anti-intellectual and similarly offensive) necessity in dealing with an unfortunately unsophisticated audience. This, of course, is done by both sides, so the time to coordinate views is somewhat expected.
Unfortunately, given her previous non-candidate statements and the paucity of evidence suggesting she has a wider view of the world than the microcosm of Alaska, the extra time needed before she faces the press is strongly suggestive of her lack of independent thought and analysis. So then, her views on, say, inner city crime, diplomatic involvement in Palestinian/Israeli negotiations, or statutory interpretation will be only slightly more fleshed out than a glorified Turing machine.
Can she ape the party line within a couple months? Possibly. That means she’s a trained circus animal that can read speeches and regurgitate talking points. This takes nothing away from her as a person – now that she’s been inflicted on the national scene, it’s entirely possible that she can form her own opinions and put out some semblence of analysis. But at the moment, no matter how intelligent or capable she is, the space she “needs” to prep for facing interviews is a pack of lies covering the fact that she has a frightening dearth of cognitive experience.
I guess you have confidence that the VP debate will actually cover something of substance, instead of just trading talking points. Don’t discount the possibility that she is able to fluff her way (wait, was that sexist?) through the debate and come out looking like she won - with the fawning press beaming about how she exceeded expectations yet again.
Well, Condi just went on the record with a not so hearty endorsement of Palin–as I told my daughter, I suspect Condi of being a closet Obama supporter. She’s out of a job anyway no matter how the election turns out and I have a hard time imagining a smart black woman choosing McCain over Obama regardless of nominal party affiliation.
I think we’re seeing more in the MSM regarding Palin’s bewildering lack of credentials–here’s a good NY Times op-ed piece that has a good round up of Palin’s Greatest Hits, including her own summationof the value of “executive experience” re being mayor of Wasilla:
It’s also kind of interesting that apparently nobody hipped Cindy McCain that nowadays her hubby, with whom she “talks about everything” is in favor of overturning Roe v Wade.
It really worries me that so many people aren’t seeing the cognitive dissonance involved in McCain’s flipflopping around on the issues and outright lying about the vetting process on Palin. It seems pretty obvious that he picked her as a “so there” impulse move and I can’t imagine anyone wanting a Chief Executive who makes decisions based on pique and random impulse or as a response to temper. It’s not what the country needs–Bush is another one who makes snap decisions based on his “gut instinct,” but we don’t need guts, we need some brains, and I’m not seeing a whole lot of statesmanlike behavior or brains in either McCain or Palin. They just seem like puppets to me, and I’m tired of a Punch & Judy government where the real governors are hiding behind the scenes, making pointless shadow shows to keep the audience unaware of the fact that their compatriots are slitting purses out in the crowd.
This is an issue, of course, but for some reason I’m leaning toward believing that Gwen Ifill as moderator will be less likely than many to softball the debate–that’s a smart cookie there, and she’s not in the pockets of the MSM. I’m also thinking there’s very little in her resume to indicate she’d be kindly disposed to Ms Palin.
Nonetheless. some strategic emails regarding pertinent questions that should be asked of the VP candidates might be in order…
Interesting that in that same article Cindy says she’s in favor of “teaching both sides” about evolution in schools. Does no one ever tell these idiots that there is no “other side” to evolution? No one who interviews them ever challenges them on that.
I think it’s fortunate that Ifill will be moderating because she may be able to come out with some blistering questions (or follow-ups) on Palin’s inconsistencies and not look like a Big Bad Misogynist.
She’s the managing editor for “Washington Week,” so I’d start with the contact page for the show–something tells me they have staff to watch that!
I also ran across something very interesting, an article written by David Frum, a conservative who obviously has a lot of brains in his head. The article addresses “The Vanishing Republican Voter,” and in the course of pegging the current stagnation of wages that have disaffected voters from the GOP to the staggering rise in health care costs he makes the following observation:
This is someone who is firmly in touch with the fact that courting the social conservative “base” is NOT where it’s at. In fact, another very interesting point he makes (something I hadn’t really thought of) regarding one of those social conservative sticking points rings true:
It’s really not helping McCain or the rest of the Republican party to pander to that same base of badly educated, low information and single issue voters. Aside from the fact that it’s gotta be gallingly insulting to conservatives who are none of the above, it’s going to keep driving the smart ones to the Democrats–which is not something I mind at all, of course, but it’s something the GOP elites seem to be appalingly unaware of. I heartily recommend reading the entire article, it’s quite enlightening. If more Republicans were as thoughtful and honest as this guy, I don’t think us librul types would have a problem discussing our differences. I’d also make a five buck wager that this guy is not enthused over the McCain VP pick…