Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Sarah Palin for VP!

I'm not going to make many comments for a number of reasons. Generally speaking, however, I'm always happy when women or minorities get important political jobs. However, what really matters with any politician is his or her policies.

I'll reserve judgement on Sarah Palin's policies, although I do congratulate her on being named John McCain's VP.

Ann

You have to run to get on the top of the ticket. If she performs well in the upcoming 60+ days until the election, she may very well be the heir apparent. It's rather odd to say she should be at the top of the ticket when she never ran. In four years or eight, you may get what you asked for. She's in the VP slot because she didn't run for president and John McCain did, and he feels she's the best choice for VP. It's not like both of them ran and McCain defeated her for the nomination and then chose her as his running mate.

Republicans were begging for Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice to run. Well, they're not at the top of ticket, not because Democrats believe Republicans are racists. They're not there because they didn't run. It's likely Rice could have easily won the nomination had she chosen to run, but she's still looking for the job of NFL Commissioner.

People say Palin's choice was purely a stunt. I don't think so. While that political calculation exists, I think he may have found a political soul mate. Compatibility is a good reason for choosing a VP, too. While McCain is a social conservative, he's not a fiscal conservative while Palin is conservative across the board. But the big reason why she's compatible as a running mate is because she's a maverick with reformer's credentials, too.

Romney and Pawlenty are old boys and are not compatible with McCain, which makes them bad choices. Choosing them would be a pure political calculation while the choice of Palin appears to have both political calculation and political compatibility as well.

Anyone watch the sixth season of the show, 24? Now there was a case where the vice president had been chosen purely for political calculation and the two were completely incompatible. Does anyone really want that in any ticket? Granted this is a fictional show but it does showcase a vice president who had been picked merely to win a few states the presidential nominee had trouble winning. Palin, from a small red state, population-wise, does not fit that profile.

This type of thing is why the Constitution was changed to make the vice president be the president's running mate rather than the original text which had the runner-up in the electoral college as vice president. These days that would mean the vice president would always be of the opposite party to the president. That's a recipe for disaster with the VP constantly stabbing the president in the back at every opportunity.

This is why I believe Obama was correct in not choosing Hillary Clinton since those two are like oil and water. It might have helped him win the election but the aftermath would have been a disaster.

As for experience, McCain and Palin have something Obama does not; they have a track record of accomplishments. His are too numerous to mention (and I disagreed with about half of them, including the egregious McCain-Feingold bill). She has successfully fought the establishment to reform ethics in government and was in the process of helping us in our energy independence with the natural gas pipeline. So while she hasn't been in office long, she has shown she can get things done.

Obama, OTOH, hasn't shown an ability to do anything except vote "Present" most of the time. Keep in mind Obama had been a Senator for 143 days when he formed his presidential exploratory committee. At least Sarah Palin had two years as governor, which represents executive experience. True, not the same as the presidential level, but executive experience helps which is why George W. Bush could get away with a little foreign policy inexperience since he had been governor for six years of the second most populous state in the union. Obama's had the title of Senator longer than Palin's been governor, but counting the time actually spent doing Senate business and you'll find Obama hasn't actually shown up for most of his tenure.

As for the Democratic ticket, the same holds true when it comes to the "wrong" person at the top. Hardly anyone would say that Joe Biden doesn't have experience. By your reasoning, Biden should be at the top of his ticket. But hey, he didn't run either. When he did run a few years back, he was forced to withdraw after his bout with plagiarism came up. He would not have won a nomination even if he had run.

As for foreign policy experience, LabRat said that Bush got a pass while Obama doesn't. She forgets the circumstances. In 2000, there was no more enemy. The twin towers were still standing and hardly anyone had ever heard of al Qaeda. The 2000 elections were fought on the failing Clinton economy and virtually nothing else. Nobody cared if Bush had no foreign policy experience since who'd need it with Russia as an "ally" and no major conflicts going on around the world. The Cold War was over and we were still reaping the "benefits" of the "peace dividend." Today, foreign policy is front and center.

I'll save the comment on Bush's foreign policy "mess" for another time, seeing as we've essentially won in Iraq and kicked al Qaeda's tail in the process. I'll take that kind of mess anytime.

P.S. Yes I saw the smilie.

I'm with Jessi on this one! If they win I'm hopping boarders...

Roger, you are amazing as always.

TEEEEEJ

There's been speculation, here and elsewhere, that Sarah Palin's a token choice -- hey, she's got ovaries, let's get all the womens' votes, 'cause they're too dumb to see past the superficial... but I've seen some good arguments why she *specifically* is a very good choice. Time Magazine thinks she's a very good fit, message wise. HotAir.com summarizes it like this:

Wow, I'm surprised to find a political debate going on here... who knew.

Anyway, I've been reading and watching since the big announcement. Overall, I'm impressed.

During the Republican convention I learned things I didn't know about Palin (obviously) but more so about Cindy as well as John McCain. I've always been lukewarm towards him but my respect went up four-fold.

I also had no idea that Cindy has been so involved with the charities she supports and that she even adopted a girl from Bangladesh. Wow.

I'm actually excited to vote for them now...

I love your logic!

I trust that she's lost many women's votes for her pro-life views, if nothing else. Regardless of anyone's personal views on the rights and wrongs of abortion here, restricting access to abortions is a blow to women's rights and negates everything she's achieved by being picked for potential VP, IMHO. If pro-life is the opposite of pro-choice, then it's basically anti-choice, when you take away the sugar coating.

After Bush and his homophobic issues (and from what I understand, Palin is of the same opinion), I'd really like to see someone who isn't looking to opress anyone at the top. (I admit I haven't looked very much in depth into Obama's merits or lack thereof either, however.)

Julie

About the always voting "present" thing...

I have to preface this saying that its not my intention to convince anyone--I'm just putting another perspective out there. Those remarks on Obama voting present 130 times, which are often used as campaign catchphrases, largely oversimplify the situation for the soundbite. Not blaming anyone, it's a media thing. I've been scouring the web for weeks (left and right blogospheres) to get a better rundown of both candidates and it's been relatively difficult to get straight information.

(Btw, I need to thank Roger for mentioning National Journal way back when, it's been really helpful and unsnarky, which I've come to appreciate).

For those who are wondering 'what the...'(as I was when this statement seeped into my head), the NYT has something here . I don't find it a particularly biased article, but I'll be the last to claim objectivity, so 'grain of salt' for those who dislike/distrust the publication (and go read it anyway). Basically the article states that the "present" vote is just a day-to-day politics thing, to address tough issues from how a bill is written, to party strategies to pass or not pass something in an ambiguous situation, and yes there is an element of political self-preservation/expediency as well depending on how one looks at it.

This goes more into Obama's reasons for several hairy "presents" concerning crime. I found it eye-opening, because at first glance, I was surprised, to say the least, that some bills didn't get an automatic "yes."

There is a lot of talk about transparency in politics and the need for people to be up front. However, realistically, the political establishment won't tolerate anything that deviates too far from business-as-usual. There are always compromises to be made in order to stay in the game. I could cite McCain's own compromises for political self-preservation/expediency, but I'm sure die-hard Republicans could do a much better job, since McCain has had his own history with political maneuvering.

Pretty much the only thing we can do is figure out our deal breakers and check on soundbites to decide what compromises we will tolerate and what we won't.

alcyone

Eh, the only votes she'll lose are the Democrats. :p I've never met a Republican who's signed on with a pro-abortion candidate. Feel free to call us neanderthals about women's rights if you like, but as volunteer, you just wouldn't believe the number of women who've made a point of telling us, "Wow, this abortion was a mistake."

Is it a mistake to invoke legislation? Honestly, we're not ready for legislation because neither side has a good enough stance on abortion to rule on it, IMO. We need more facts, and less opinions and feelings. But the fact that I can name names of crying women who feel like they made the worst mistake of their lives by aborting their unborn bothers me enough to do something about it. And that's enough for me to ignore the feelings of the women's rights hoo-ha and support a candidate who supports life.

Anyway, I've just got to get out of here. The day a women's rights debate goes anywhere on this website is the day I'll shave my head.

Peace,
JD

No. Women's rights are not "hoo-ha."

Julie,

I respect your stand on women's rights; I'm in favor of them, myself The devil's in the details.

But I'm not going to argue about that. Just like to point out -- we Repubs have had "pro-life" presidents for how many decades now? And the difference this has made is...? :rolleyes:

And keep in mind, it's very likely going to be a solid Democratic congress. So whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing, the fact is that Roe v. Wade is not going anywhere anytime soon.

For the last week, I've been hanging out on a new message board -- www.govpalin.com -- that was founded by Hillary supporters -- it's an offshoot of www.hillaryclintonforum.net , where I've been lurking. They are very furious and disgusted with the sexism that was aimed against Hillary during the primaries, and with the sexism from the same sources that's now going after Governor Palin. There seem to be a lot of women there who've decided to vote Republican for the first time in their lives (there's a lot of comments on the theme of "I never thought I'd do this, but..."). They do not like the "pro-life" thing but have decided to overlook it, partly for the reasons I stated above.

Also, they figure that if Obama wins, Hillary won't get another chance til 2016, whereas if McCain gets in, she can run again in 2012. Very pragmatic, those ladies <g>

On a slightly different note -- I saw a radio interview by a local station (they video taped it, too) from the Republican convention. They were talking to two die-hard Hillary supporters who, on their way home from Denver, heard the slime being thrown at Gov. Palin and decided to find Minneapolis, to offer their support. They'd been working on the trail for Hillary for over a year, they said.

One of them argued that if Sarah Palin is attacked and brought down by sexist attacks (the way Hillary was), and if the Democratic party can abuse women and still get their votes anyway, then how many decades will it be before *anyone* nominates another woman on a national ticket? Geraldine Ferraro ran in '84 -- 24 years ago.

So here's me, life-long Republican, hanging out with life-long Democrats. On a *political* forum. (L&C has always been a model of non-partisan drooling) It's a weird political season

PJ

I found a link for that interview I mentioned, above.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/05/rncc-interview-pumas-for-mccain/

It's a little hard to hear in spots, but it's good enough.

PJ

I have a friend who was a huge Hillary fan and agrees with Obama on every issue you can image but something about him absolutely rubs her the wrong way. She had - grudgingly - decided that she probably just wasn't going to vote because she couldn't vote for either in good conscience. She came over Thurs night and watched Palin's speech from Wed night with me. She's now voting for McCain/Palin. She's a strong woman and loved that about Palin even if they disagree on a lot of issues. She loves strong, independent women who stand up for what they believe in regardless of pressure and who stands against the status quo etc. She's well educated and we've never delved into the abortion issue, but I think she tends to be pro-choice but not pro-abortion if that makes sense [I don't think she personally believes in abortion but believes in a woman's right to choose].

I couldn't believe it when she said she was going to vote McCain/Palin. I figured she'd like her enough as a person but not enough to vote, you know? She's about the 'stereotypical' Hillary woman voter that they've been discussing ad nauseum and that's her decision.

Carol

Palin\'s comments on Hillary--video

She said:

Decide for yourself. I personally think it's hilarious in a darkly cynical way that makes me think McCain is going to win.

I heard the interview from HotAir as well and also laughed (it's either laughter or tears) at how Betty Jean Kling and Robin Rollinson were voting for Palin based on the issue that women's rights were human rights. I wondered if they really knew what that meant in terms of issues of bodily autonomy, health care, equal pay, etc. I heard a lot about her being a woman, but nothing actually about why she's the right woman and what about her/McCain's policies speaks to women's rights specifically (since they brought it up).

As a third wave feminist, I have my issues with Gloria Steinem (y'know for anyone who thinks the feminist movement is a monolith). However, her position was vastly more nuanced than that of the women above. I thought her column brought up some good points here about the politics of Palin and how they might part with women's issues:

The "democratic" women in the interview say nothing to counter this. Apparently these issues are made insignificant by the simple female presence on the Republican ticket. They criticize Steinem for talking about the agenda of the democratic party as if it has nothing to do with women and leave it at that. The largest faux pas here is that this completely erases the fact that Hillary did not run because she was a woman, but because she thought she was the best candidate.

Slate has a lovely article here which echoes disturbingly:

Vote for whatever makes you passionate, but Palin hardly provides a rational base for a vote against sexism...at least as Hillary understood it.

alcyone

I'm sorry; I can't help but read these statements as confirmation that the Republican ploy to get the Hillary supporters' votes for Palin because of her gender, is working. They have vastly different views on so many issues, yet women everywhere are deciding to turn a blind eye to that.

Alcyone's post (thank you!!!) illustrates exactly what I meant when I said Palin's views negate her being a woman herself, as far as the women's rights movement goes. Furthermore, IMHO, voting for a woman because of her gender when you disagree with most, if not all, of her policies, is just as sexist (and harmful) as voting for a male candidate just because he is the male. Sexism goes both ways and many people forget that. Not to mention, a double-standard, when the women guilty of the first are raging against the latter, not seeing the parallel or perhaps ignoring it.

Yes, Pam, I agree that her views on various issues don't mean that she'll get to make her opinion absolute law in the US, but there is a lot of harm she could do, not least of which is offer her support (compounded by her status as VP) to people who could change laws - for instance, state laws regarding sexual education, abortion, same-sex marriage, and such.

I also want to add this in: people who are pro-choice and support same-sex marriage, are not necessarily the ones who are going to run and get an abortion or get married the very next day they are allowed to do it. They are also the people who believe that the ones who want to do it, should be able to, regardless of anyone else's moral standing on this. And this is why I think Palin is, in fact, not a human rights supporter.

Julie

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear...

She's not voting for her BECAUSE she's a woman but because she likes Palin. She doesn't like Obama or Biden and isn't crazy about McCain, but she does like Palin. Not BECAUSE she's a woman but that's one aspect of it. She said that she came across as more... something. Something about Obama bugs her but she really likes Palin as a person [from what she's seen] and that's more important to her - that someone is a good person.

I'm quite certain she would take offense that she is turning a 'blind eye' to the issues, but instead is voting for the person/ticket she feels is the better PERSON regardless of gender.

There's more I could say about lots of things but I won't. I want to badly, but I won't.

Carol

Carol said:
Actually, that's fairly typical of people who are pro-choice. We're not all rabid seekers after abortions, either for ourselves or anyone else. We just believe that a woman (and the man involved, as well) has a right to choose, not be dictated to by people who have no involvement in their personal situation.


Wendy

Alcyone,

I saw that video a few days ago. On balance I think I agree with her on that. She's not whining about sexism at all that I've heard; it's voters who are ticked about it. And they're putting that passion into action. That's democracy for ya.

What it "really means"? They've got their interpretation, you've got yours. Obviously the two don't agree. As you say, feminism isn't monolithic.

Very true. I know why I love her, as a Republican, but you're coming from a different perspective and don't like the same things I do (to put it mildy ). I'm looking forward to the debates.

About the Gloria Steinem quote... it's a masterpiece of provocation. Um, yeah, she's a Republican. Nobody's denying that.

I don't know specifics on all the issues Steinem listed, but I do know that Palin does *not* want "creationism" taught in public schools. She wants schools teaching the science. Her point was that if the topic of intelligent design (which is *NOT* the same as creationism; that's a common derogatory slur but bears no resemblance to the truth

Wow. How about me, am I a woman? And who gets to decide that, anyway?

I do know that. In fact, people who are pro-life and pro-traditional marriage are not breathlessly waiting to arrest knocked-up teenagers or go beat up gays.

(If I may digress, I think one of the difficulties of the abortion debate is that the two sides are arguing past each other. One side says a thing is red, the other insists that it's square.)

Fair enough.

Thank you, Alcyone and Julie, for the explanation, and for letting me explain a few things, too. Even if none of us changed our minds a bit it's healthy to have a civil discussion like this. And it's especially difficult to remain civil on explosive topics like this.

PJ

I would be very interested in seeing statistical data to back up Steinem's claim that "women" believe in:

- abortion
- evolution
- anthropologic global warming
- gun control

and oppose:

- abstinence-only programs
- controlling the wolf population in Alaska
- gov't subsidies for the Alaska gas pipeline
- drilling in ANWR

We live in a very different world than the one I grew up in. When I was young, a woman was a person with XX chromosomes, and a man had XY. Nowadays, gender is defined as Male, Female, Other. Telling men to use the Men's Room is intolerant and sexist. Up is down and down is up, and now Steinem tells us that the only thing Palin shares with Hillary is a chromosome, and somehow that isn't good enough. If she doesn't share her politics, then she isn't a "real" woman.