Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Palin Redux

The selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate brings up a lot of issues for me, and because I'm feeling restless and out of sorts tonight, I'm going to write about it.

There are good reasons for McCain to choose her: She's a reformer who stood up against corruption in her own party. She also has a background as reggaler fokes--hell, she's even an evangelical.

But a big issue in this campaign (as in every modern campaign) is the media narrative. What story is the media going to repeat to the American people about all this? Once a couple of reporters/pundits/editorialists decide on a story line, they can harp on that for months, and never mind what actually happens. Remember George Bush as the guy Americans want to have a beer with? Howard Dean's temper? Gore's wooden personality?

All through the Democratic National Convention, reporters were trying to get quotes from and interviews with PUMA voters to better play up the supposed division within the party. It didn't really mesh with what we were seeing on the screen, but it was the only justification they had for a trip to Denver.

McCain, naturally, wanted to blunt the effect of Obama's big speech (38 million viewers? Holy cow) by releasing his VP pick the next morning. He wanted to give the pundit's something to talk about other than The Speech.

But is this the narrative he was hoping for? After slamming Obama for a lack of experience and saying that the most important criteria for a VP pick would be a person ready to step into his office, he chooses someone with even less experience than his opponent. Was that a serious criticism or just fishing for a negative ad that might stick?

And she has a ethics investigation against her going on. And McCain met her once before he offered her the spot. What kind of decision is this?

I realize that he's trying to sew up the right wing of his own party, but I don't think he can win with just his base, not this time.

The media narrative on this--as far as I've seen--has been "McCain has taken a huge gamble. She's personable, but who is she?"

Another thing this brings up is the Republican tendency to fill political slots with people who are not competent to do the job or openly hostile to the duties associated with that position. If you believe government can't function well, it doesn't matter who goes where, and every failure only proves your anti-government bias.

I'm sure McCain believes himself eminently qualified for the presidency. I'm not sure how much he cares about the VP slot.

Then again, Dan Quayle served 4 years, so what do I know?



( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
Aug. 30th, 2008 05:12 am (UTC)
You do know that she is a creationist, right?
Aug. 30th, 2008 05:35 am (UTC)
I sure do. I'd vote against her a thousand times, if it was legal.
Aug. 30th, 2008 09:55 am (UTC)
Right, gotta move to Chicago to do that

The only good Republican is a private citizen

Aug. 30th, 2008 11:54 am (UTC)
Seems to me, more than Dan Quayle, the parallel to draw was born three years ago this week...

"Heckuva job, Palin."
Aug. 30th, 2008 12:00 pm (UTC)
I was also thinking Harriet Myers, but yeah.
( 5 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2020


  • 14 Jan 2019, 21:47
    Oh, yeah, excellent point.
  • 14 Jan 2019, 21:46
    Oh yeah. Like the lawyers who get obvious really venal criminals off because it makes their success rate look good. But those are not the ones I am referring to in meaning well. These guys are mixed…
  • 14 Jan 2019, 20:37
    This reminds me of the time my wife was injured and the insurance guy handling her case did everything possible to deny and stall the payment. We had to put her surgery on a credit card because this…
  • 14 Jan 2019, 19:24
    The creepiest part is that some of them are actually well meaning.
  • 14 Jan 2019, 19:08
    Yeah. It's godawful what people will do when they have authority and no fear about using it.
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner