More on Palin

Political Wire has been posting a flurry of responses from various politicos about Sarah Palin's nomination for Vice President. Here are three snippets that prove to me just how dangerous (not just to his campaign, but for the nation) this nomination is.

The First:

"According to the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin "thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms."

This says to me that McCain is hurting to get the Pat Robertson people on board.

The Second:

"In fact, as Palin's cultural views become better known -- she oppose abortion in all cases and opposes the use of birth control pills and condoms even among married couples -- she will undoubtedly scare the hell out of the soccer moms and 98% of Hillary voters."

It also scares the hell out of me. I don't care how pro-life you are, anyone with any sort of grasp on reality understands that taking away contraception is going to lead to staggering increases in the numbers of abortions, cases of preventable sexually transmitted diseases, and kids who end up leading shit lives because their parents weren't ready to have them. Family planning helps kids, helps parents, helps communities, and all the way on down the line.

The Third:

Nothing undersocres the riskiness of Sen. John McCain's pick of a running mate than this fact: "In an interview with Roll Call two weeks ago, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) said she had met presumptive GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain only once or twice."

According to Politico, McCain "spoke with just once on the phone" with Palin "about the position before offering it in person earlier this week."

John McCain is risking his campaign on the blank page. He's taking the chance that his people can write an appealing story about Sarah Palin faster than Obama's people can point out how truly idiotic the choice was, and that two months isn't enough time for people to fully form an opinion on her, and they'll just take Mr. Straight Talk's word that she's qualified. Meanwhile, the honorable Senator hasn't even bothered to develop any sort of relationship with his running mate, and he's using her as a prop without regard to the fact that, should anything go awry for him, he'll be putting the country in the hands of someone who has neither an idea how to run the country, nor even a basic understanding of how a vast majority of Americans relate to their own bodies.

And to really drive the point home, here's a bonus for you, from a Politico article from last month:

"As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?"

This nomination is going from silly to scary in a hurry.

Re: The "Riskiest Political Move" Pat Buchanan's Ever Seen

As a former paleoconservative, I'm still digesting the idea of Sarah Palin as Vice President. But this Politico post did bring an appropriate quote to mind.

There is a fine line between clever and stupid.

I'll definitely have more to say about this very soon.

Initial response on Palin

Today John McCain introduced Sarah Palin, the current governor of Alaska, as his running mate. In a few short minutes of completely insufficient research, here is what I have found.

• She is younger than Barack Obama, and has less experience.
• She has five children, one of whom is going to Iraq, and one of whom has Down's Syndrome. The one going to Iraq is named "Track," so she obviously is either cruel or insane.
  
• She has been governor for less than two years, and before that was a 2-term mayor a town of less than 6,000 people. In between her last term as mayor and her election as governor, she lost a bid for the lieutenant governor spot, and served as an appointed official for then-Governor Frank Murkowski.
• From Wikipedia: "Governor Murkowski appointed Palin Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, where she served from 2003 to 2004 until resigning in protest over what she called the "lack of ethics" of fellow Alaskan Republican leaders, who ignored her whistleblowing complaints of legal violations and conflicts of interest." Read that again. She resigned as an ethics commissioner because people weren't ethical.
• She is currently in trouble for trying to use her position as governor to get her sister's ex-husband fired.
• Her husband works for British Petroleum.
• She comes from Alaska, the only state to rival Illinois for corruption in government.

What to look for:

• No one will be allowed to say anything bad about her during the election, because she's just a poor defenseless woman and it isn't gentlemanly to pick on girls. Joe Biden will have to play Mr. Nice Guy at the debate. The McCain campaign will play the gender issue on both sides. The GOP will pride itself on picking a dynamic young woman as its vice presidential candidate, who is perfectly qualified despite having negligible political experience, in a state that resembles little of the rest of the country. However, despite being every bit as qualified as a man for the job, it's off-limits to challenge her character, her credentials, or her political beliefs because she's just a girl. Anyone who does so would clearly be a misogynist. I cannot roll my eyes any harder.*
  
• The Obama camp has a HUGE opening with the political firing scandal to compare that to the U.S. Attorney firing scandal, and continue his "four more years of the same" tactic.
  

*[Someone asked if I was being sarcastic in this paragraph, so let me clarify. Yes, I am. I think Palin is not only qualified but obligated to defend everything she thinks and says to the country. I think she should be pressed and needled about her beliefs at every turn, just like anyone running for public office. But considering how often people have dug out the "cut him some slack, he's a POW" defense for McCain (where Rudy had 9/11 Tourette's, McCain has developed POW Tourette's) I fully expect them to make insinuations to the effect of "cut her some slack, this is all new, and besides, it's not polite to pick on a nice Christian woman." My response is that democracy is not about cutting your leaders slack, it's about ruthlessly cracking the whip and making them do their jobs right.]

Obama's Acceptance Speech

I'm grateful to Barack Obama for saying some things last night that I've been wanting to hear for a long time. The highlight reel, as taken from CNN's helpful transcription:

• "Now, I don't believe that Sen. McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know."
  [I really, truly believe that John McCain is a good man, and I really truly believe that he doesn't have a grasp of the real world consequences of his policies.]
  
  
• "For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy -- give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is that you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. You're on your own. No health care? The market will fix it. You're on your own. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps -- even if you don't have boots. You are on your own."
  [This addresses two of my biggest pet peeves about non-interventionist economic policy. First: "The market will fix it." I do believe in capitalism, and I do believe that over a long enough time frame, market forces even things out. Nevertheless, I believe that government services compensate for providing things that the private sector wouldn't find enough profit in to make it worthwhile. Elementary education, for example. The private sector can provide it, and make a profit, but they can't make it profitable without making it unavailable to the poor. Which leads to the second fallacy: The "bootstrap" story. As Obama points out, you need to have boots before you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps. American society is a limited meritocracy: it is possible, in some cases, through hard work and diligence, to pull yourself out of poverty. However, the field at the top is already crowded (capitalism is, after all, built on competition), and it's crowded by people who may not always have the most potential, but have better tools with which to take advantage of that potential. The Bootstrap story is real, but it is necessarily rare by the nature of capitalism. Unfettered capitalism yields what we saw in the late 19th century: abysmal respect for human rights and a perpetually indentured underclass. Labor pushed back and yielded the communist movement. A good government provides a countervailing force to the fluctuating moods of the market so that the highest amount of people have the opportunity to take advantage of the benefits capitalism can bring.]
  
  
• "We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off and look after a sick kid without losing her job -- an economy that honors the dignity of work."
  [The Obama campaign has talked about "dignity initiatives" before, but not enough. There's a lot of diplomatic and economic benefit to be had just from making sure people get treated like people.]
  
  
• "Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves -- protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and science and technology."
  [As I said before about the regulation of the free market . . .]
  
  
• "And for the sake of our economy, our security and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: In 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East. We will do this."
  [Damn skippy!]
  
  
• "I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America." [The biggest thing standing is the automotive infrastructure. Everything's built around how cars are now, so if we change how cars work, all the factories and, say, gas stations, have to change with it. If we can take care of getting our companies equipped, that's a huge step.]
  
  
• "And we will keep our promise to every young American -- if you commit to serving your community or our country, we will make sure you can afford a college education." [I really, really like the idea of civil service leading to college scholarships.]
  
  

• "And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our "intellectual and moral strength." Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility to provide love and guidance to their children. Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility -- that's the essence of America's promise."
  [Yes! I believe that the government should be there to help make sure the people who fall through the cracks can get back out. But there is an inner libertarian in me, and I do worry about what libertarians call "the nanny state." The government shouldn't have to waste time and money banning trans fats because people refuse to make the effort not to eat crap. The government shouldn't have to spend millions of dollars chasing pot dealers because some people find it offensive. People need to grow up and realize that they don't have someone to attend to their every beck and call. They are responsible for their own lives.]

• "We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans -- Democrats and Republicans -- have built, and we are here to restore that legacy."
  [I'm sick of the stereotype of Democrats as ineffectual cowards when it comes to defense issues. Ask questions first and shoot later is not generally a bad strategy.]
  
  
• "But what I will not do is suggest that the senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and each other's patriotism."
  [Dissent is patriotic. It's an attempt to make our country better.]
  
  
• "We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. You know, passions may fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. But this, too, is part of America's promise -- the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort."
  [This is the heart of what's being called "post-partisan." He's acknowledging, finally, that both parties generally have the same general goals. The differences are in the strategies and the how we define the problems.]
  

In response to Obama's speech

LET'S GET IT DONE.

E Pluribus Unum

Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn't matter with me now, because I've been to the mountaintop.

And I don't mind.

Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land!




I don't know if Dr. King was talking about tonight, or about a day five months hence, but today I feel just a little bit more like we're one people on the road to the Promised Land tonight. I might not agree with Senator Obama on every issue*, but I'm glad that as a nation we're finally to the point where a night like this is finally possible. And I'm glad one day I'll be able to tell my children I saw it.


* But tonight, I agreed with him on nearly everything.

Schweitzer audibled?

That's what Politico is saying.

"We had a convention that went through the first day and didn't get anybody fired up," said Schweitzer, who spoke on the second evening after keynote speaker Mark Warner of Virginia. "We didn't have anybody stand up, and we didn't have anybody get excited," he said.

"Sometimes you go to the line and you say, 'Let's go,'"

...

"If you would have turned around and looked at the teleprompter, you would have seen that for most of my speech, it didn't move," he said.

So Gov. Schweitzer perceived the convention's biggest problem and pulled a Scramblin' Fran by addressing it extemporaneously? I'm even more impressed with his speech now than I was on Tuesday.

Asleep in perfect blue buildings

I don't know if the Democrats are planning to close Barack Obama's speech tomorrow night with fireworks over Mile High Stadium INVESCO Field, but if they are, they might want to secretly test a few of them in Wyoming beforehand. From the moment Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi opened the 2008 DNC with a thudding, dead-on-arrival speech, this convention has been a dud.

Prime-time viewers who have turned in only to watch Michelle Obama's speech on Monday and Hillary Rodham Clinton's speech last night might not be fully aware of how bad the vast majority of the speaking has been. Out of curiosity, I've been watching the convention every day. Here's what I have to report: So far, it's been a near-total snoozefest interrupted by Michelle Obama and Senator Clinton during the prime time hours.

Nancy Pelosi's speech opening of the convention on Monday was an absolute bomb. Quite honestly, she made John McCain look like a great orator. As we chatted online during the speech, Tim gave a pretty straightforward assessment -"she probably had an intern write it in the cab over from the hotel." That essentially summarizes both the quality of the content and the delivery - uncompelling, stilted, milquetoast, and bush-league. Quite frankly, it was the speech of a political dilettante (which neatly dovetails with her record as Speaker). I've heard high-school speech teams with more impressive, convincing public speakers.

Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, who I have heard is considered a potential future Democratic candidate for President, delivered the keynote yesterday night. The best I can say about Warner's speech was that it was pretty tepid. If this is the guy the Democrats would like to see running in 2016, he's got a lot of work to do between now and then not to come off as boring as John Kerry.

Which brings me to Bob Casey, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania. More boring, unmemorable speaking, which is making me wonder if the concessions at the convention center are rice cakes and tofu with watered-down iced tea. Casey did have one good line - "John McCain calls himself a maverick, but he votes with George Bush 90 percent of the time. That's not a maverick. That's a sidekick." However, one zippy line does not a good speech make. Andrew Sullivan summarized the night, pre-HRC:

I'm not judging their accomplishments, merely noting that Mark Warner and Bob Casey were terribly mediocre speakers, their speeches unfocused, their themes muddled, and their style close to non-existent. I guess none of this matters much until the networks move in at 10 pm. But what's been broadcast tonight has been a meandering, tedious mess. I always associated the Obama campaign with crisp, clear messaging. Not tonight.

There have been a few bright spots, though. It's just that the DNC somehow scheduled these brilliant speakers for times when people wouldn't be listening or watching. Congressman Dennis Kucinich's speech was the best of the convention so far (even better than Mrs. Obama's or Sen. Clinton's), one that would have been a great opening speech if it weren't for Nancy Pelosi (and, presumably, the rest of the party) regarding him just one step up from persona non grata Mike Gravel. Kucinich, who has been the Democrats' winsome but doomed Don Quixote for the last two Presidential primaries, was scheduled to speak at 4:35pm on Tuesday, well before anyone would be paying attention. If you missed his speech, it's absolutely a must-watch:



text of Rep. Kucinich's speech is available here

Obviously the speeches by Michelle Obama and HRC have been the big draws, but I'd say neither of them quite measured up to Kucinich's frantic elf-self hopping around at the podium denouncing the Bush Administration.

Likewise, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer's speech last night was a real crowd-pleasing barn-burner toward the end and would have been a massive improvement over Warner's warm vanilla tapioca keynote. It took him a few minutes to get going, but once he got the crowd invested in his call-and-response, the speech really took off. You can view it here:



text of Gov. Schweitzer speech is available here

Hopefully tonight BillJeff and Biden follow Kucinich and Schweitzer's lead and bring the real goods, or I'm going to start wishing for Billy Mays to give all the speeches in Denver from here on out.

Michael Dukakis earns his due:

"Look, I owe the American people an apology. If I had beaten the old man you'd have never heard of the kid and you wouldn't be in this mess. So it's all my fault and I feel that very, very strongly. So this is an important election for us. Let me tell 'ya."

My suspicions about conservatism have been confirmed

Now we have an explanation for the 1980's.

[Edit: That's actually a really sad article. I'll delight in the political defeat of a political enemy, but I won't delight in the suffering of a human being. I didn't mean to be callous, but the headline did tickle my funny bone before I started reading it.]

Biden

From Mark Halperin:

Surely, as the Obama campaign unveils Biden to the world, they are little concerned about his ability to surmount the primary hurdle that any potential vice president must get over, that Biden is ready to be president from day one by virture of experience, temperament, and judgment. But the campaign will just as certainly be coaching him on his initial speeches and media appearances. Once again, Joe Biden will be told to keep it short and limit the use of the pronoun "I."

Those who know Biden well, who have watched him and worked with him over the years in the Senate and on the campaign trail, know two things with absolute certainty. One, it will be exceedingly difficult for Biden to carry out those instructions. And, two, if he is able to do as he is told regarding his renegade mouth, he will be a smash hit as Obama's running mate.

I like Joe Biden a lot, actually. Why Obama picked him as a candidate should be fairly self-evident. Clintons people can attack Obama's short resume all they want, but they can't attack Biden's. He's been in the Senate since the Mayflower arrived, and he's one of those guys you can consistently count on to be an unabashed liberal Democrat. Quite likely, if you take Ted Kennedy out of the picture, he's the first name on your lips when you're asked to name a Democratic Senator. His specialties shore up all of the perceived weaknesses is Obama's expertise. He is as qualified to lead the Senate as anyone in office. He will not be (and I believe is physically incapable of being) a yes-man. That's one of Biden's great gifts: he's fully aware of the complexities of the issues he's dealing with, but he can still communicate forcefully and directly in colloquial speech. For as long as he's been in the Senate, he still sounds like a normal guy when he tells you exactly what he's thinking.

But that's also the reason so many loyal Democrats want to smack the crap out of him sometimes.

As condescending as this is going to sound, politicians spend lifetimes learning how not to talk like normal guys for a very good reason. The language of the Senate is far more fluid and far more nuanced. There's a reason Bill Safire felt obliged to write a whole dictionary for it. Common speech is often more honest, but it can be blunt to the point where it acts as a bludgeon. You can get criticized by your constituents for sounding like a pompous ass, but when executed properly, Senate-speak is so vague and formal that it's impossible to say anything that could constitute a gaffe. Biden . . . how shall I put this? Biden should keep an extra pair of socks in his briefcase at all times so that he can put on a clean pair when he shoves his foot in his mouth. Biden exceeds most politicians in his honesty and his ability to speak directly, which is why he has to make so many apologies.

In a nutshell: Biden will be a great Vice President. However, as a running mate, he is very likely another land mine Obama will have to tip-toe around on his way to the White House. Personally, I think he can do it. But if, on November 5, anyone has reason to mention Tom Eagleton, Democrats will never forgive either Biden or Obama.