The GOP and Sarah Palin
Okay, I've let this topic go for a copy of days. I've been mulling over this choice, trying to figure out why McCain made it. My initial reaction was "this is the most monumentally stupid pick, ever". That's pretty high "praise" considering Dan Quayle, too. After all, the only reason I'd heard of Sarah Palin before Friday was for her falling under an investigation ordered by a legislature controlled by her own party due to her firing of the Director of Public Safety, who had refused to fire her sister's ex-husband, who was an Alaska state trooper, during an ugly custody battle. Allegations in that case aside, using your power as chief executive of the state to fire someone for what could be seen as personal reasons is incredibly stupid; involuntary terminations require a mountain of evidence so that investigations into the use of your power would never even need arise. It's also an incredibly cynical; to believe that picking a female candidate, any female candidate, for VP is going to sway women voters. After all, isn't that the ultimate in "identity politics"; to pick someone based on the idea that "she's a woman, so the other women will vote for her because of that". After all, that's what Madame Governor's comments about breaking through Hillary's cracked glass ceiling was meant to signal. How little must the man think of women to make such an assumption? However, in fact, I've seen few women swayed by this pick, but many men swayed by the selection of a beauty pageant queen for VP. Why not pick a woman of substance; Kay Bailey Hutchison, Elizabeth Dole, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe or Jodi Rell?
In this rant, I'm going to stick to what the GOP are putting out there with regards to Sarah Palin; their arguments for why she's a good pick. Their justifications as to why she ought to be "one heartbeat away from the presidency". These are the things that I wish that they'd ask McCain and/or his surrogates on the Sunday shows, but they never will be; it would require the press corps to ask substantive follow-up questions, rather than moving on to their next note card, like some demented James Lipton impersonation. (Yes, Washington press corps, I know that I've been hoping for the last six years that you would all quit being shills and take on the responsibility of being journalists, and you've continued to fail me.) Since I'm sticking to the arguments that the GOP is making for their candidate, I'm going to stay away from some of the other rumours that are beginning to swirl about the governor. Those are better left to other blogs, or the National Enquirer, and if you want to find out about these, they have been discussed in places like Daily Kos and Democratic Underground, so it's easy enough to find.
On to the substance:
Her son will be shipping out to Iraq - This is invaribly the first "foreign policy experience" qualification that is trotted out. To me, it's a big "so what?". Senator Johnson has had a son in Iraq. Senator Webb has a child in Iraq. Senator Biden's son is about to go to Iraq. Oh, and they'll say "but it's different, because she's a mother!" But Joe Biden, as we're all quite aware of at this point, was father and mother to his boys for five years. He nearly gave up the Senate, after just having been elected to it for the first time, because his concern for, and love of, his sons. His concern for his son going to Iraq should somehow matter less because he has a penis? How insulting is that? Doesn't that go against the whole concept of "family values", to say that fathers matter, except when it come to emotional attachment to your children? What a load of horseshit! And this is the main pillar of her foreign policy qualification?
Alaska is close to Russia - Oh dear god, this is a rich one. "Russia is only 2.5 miles away from Alaska! She's ready to deal with Putin!" Because those Russians, they have the tanks on the Chukchi Peninsula, and they're just preparing to roll into Nome! She's on the brink with Russia every day! Too bad Arnold is disqualified from being Vice-President, because wouldn't growing up in Soviet-occupied Austria be the ultimate in "foreign policy experience"? So, I guess this is the next best experience in the Republican Party. Because Olympia Snowe's 8 years as governor and 14 years as senator from a state bordered on three sides by Canada hasn't got the same depth of "experience" that Sarah Palin does. (Or maybe she's just not photogenic enough, or congenial enough?)
She's a "reformer" - This is a horribly empty argument to make for the candidacy of anyone, for any office. You're only a "reformer" if people believe that there is something that needs to be "reformed". Changing a program, or removing people from their jobs, is not "reform" just because you've made a change. There a difference between a problem being resolved and a resolution in search of a problem. And up until a year ago the same "reformer" label was being applied to Eliot Spitzer, then the governor of New York. Then we find out about high escort-service habit, and suddenly all of the crusading against shady traders and corrupt corporate executives no longer applied to him. He was no longer a "reformer". So, if you're going to make someone fit the "reformer" label, you'd better be sure that their nose is clean, and they're not tainted by a looming scandal. Like, say, firing someone because they won't fire your ex-brother-in-law.
In charge of the National Guard - When Bill Clinton used this as "experience" in 1992, the GOP poo-pooed the concept. Now they're wrapping Sarah Palin up in this argument. Really now? Governors only have control of the Guard so as far as deploying them within the state, and usually this only applies to emergency situations. They can't just willy-nilly deploy the Guard to foreign actions (so much for the "foreign policy experience" that comes with being in charge of the Guard!) and they can't use the Guard against other states -- well, they haven't been able to in recent experience, anyway. Not for close to 150 years. And since the Guard has been largely federalized, and since the courts have backed the right of the President to call the Guard to duty in the 1980s, being "head of the state National Guard" is largely a ceremonial title for a governor. At least when Clinton was first governor of Arkansas there was still some gubernatorial control over where and when the federal government could call out the Guard. That's not the case for Governor Palin.
Bridge to Nowhere - Time to break out the old "I was for the money before I was against it" tapes of John Kerry. In 2006, while campaigning for Alaska governor, Mayor Palin said that she supported the building of two bridges, collectively referred to as the "Bridge to Nowhere" because, and this is paraphrasing here, Alaska should take advantage of the money being brought in by their congressional representatives while they're in a position bring that pork home. Then, after she's elected, and the heat is on nationally about these bridges, she refuses the money. She's a "reformer" and an anti-pork crusader, not because of principle. She wanted that pork. She felt it was important to chow down on as much pork as possible while Alaskans were in a position to bring it home, even! No, she was only against the pork because the heat was on to take it away, anyhow, and maybe even because she had ambitions outside of the 49th state. Maybe she didn't want Alaska to be her "Last Frontier", and making a bold public rejection of this symbol of public largesse was a way to further that goal? And given her position on drilling in ANWR (and the building of the pipelines necessary to get that oil to Prince William Sound), she surely isn't against federal dollars building things in Alaska.
So, as you can see, there are many questions about these issues that the Republicans put out as "qualifications" for Governor Palin, and the media seem to be completely uninterested in covering them. They're more caught up in the glow of the beauty queen. They continue to perpetuate this belief that this is going to draw in the Hillary voters, even as early polls show that men are more moved to the ticket as a result of this choice than women are. In fact, the only Hillary supporter I've seen suggest that this will draw in the Hillary voters is Darragh Murray, head of PUMA, whose commitment to the Democratic Party had been pretty much nil before this year's election, and whom no one had heard of before this whole PUMA movement she started up. Far more credible Hillary supporters, like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, have talked about how they're insulted that McCain would think so little of women to think that choosing a female running mate would sway their votes. Yet the Sunday show pundits are still out there talking about the choice of Palin as VP will draw in significant numbers of women voters. After all, women can't think for themselves; their votes are tied to their identities as women, and if there's a candidate with a womb, women will vote for her. The GOP played this same game in Ohio in 2006 with voters of colour, putting up a very conservative black man for governor, and they were expecting blacks to abandon the Democratic ticket just because the Republican was black. However, if anything, black voter support for the Democrats was stronger in that election than it had been in recent years. People are not that stupid that they'd vote against their interests to vote their identities, not on the whole. Sure, there will be the gay people who would support a conservative gay Republican candidate just because he's gay, and likewise with all other identity groups. But they're a much smaller minority of those groups than the GOP or the political pundits seem to believe.
In this rant, I'm going to stick to what the GOP are putting out there with regards to Sarah Palin; their arguments for why she's a good pick. Their justifications as to why she ought to be "one heartbeat away from the presidency". These are the things that I wish that they'd ask McCain and/or his surrogates on the Sunday shows, but they never will be; it would require the press corps to ask substantive follow-up questions, rather than moving on to their next note card, like some demented James Lipton impersonation. (Yes, Washington press corps, I know that I've been hoping for the last six years that you would all quit being shills and take on the responsibility of being journalists, and you've continued to fail me.) Since I'm sticking to the arguments that the GOP is making for their candidate, I'm going to stay away from some of the other rumours that are beginning to swirl about the governor. Those are better left to other blogs, or the National Enquirer, and if you want to find out about these, they have been discussed in places like Daily Kos and Democratic Underground, so it's easy enough to find.
On to the substance:
Her son will be shipping out to Iraq - This is invaribly the first "foreign policy experience" qualification that is trotted out. To me, it's a big "so what?". Senator Johnson has had a son in Iraq. Senator Webb has a child in Iraq. Senator Biden's son is about to go to Iraq. Oh, and they'll say "but it's different, because she's a mother!" But Joe Biden, as we're all quite aware of at this point, was father and mother to his boys for five years. He nearly gave up the Senate, after just having been elected to it for the first time, because his concern for, and love of, his sons. His concern for his son going to Iraq should somehow matter less because he has a penis? How insulting is that? Doesn't that go against the whole concept of "family values", to say that fathers matter, except when it come to emotional attachment to your children? What a load of horseshit! And this is the main pillar of her foreign policy qualification?
Alaska is close to Russia - Oh dear god, this is a rich one. "Russia is only 2.5 miles away from Alaska! She's ready to deal with Putin!" Because those Russians, they have the tanks on the Chukchi Peninsula, and they're just preparing to roll into Nome! She's on the brink with Russia every day! Too bad Arnold is disqualified from being Vice-President, because wouldn't growing up in Soviet-occupied Austria be the ultimate in "foreign policy experience"? So, I guess this is the next best experience in the Republican Party. Because Olympia Snowe's 8 years as governor and 14 years as senator from a state bordered on three sides by Canada hasn't got the same depth of "experience" that Sarah Palin does. (Or maybe she's just not photogenic enough, or congenial enough?)
She's a "reformer" - This is a horribly empty argument to make for the candidacy of anyone, for any office. You're only a "reformer" if people believe that there is something that needs to be "reformed". Changing a program, or removing people from their jobs, is not "reform" just because you've made a change. There a difference between a problem being resolved and a resolution in search of a problem. And up until a year ago the same "reformer" label was being applied to Eliot Spitzer, then the governor of New York. Then we find out about high escort-service habit, and suddenly all of the crusading against shady traders and corrupt corporate executives no longer applied to him. He was no longer a "reformer". So, if you're going to make someone fit the "reformer" label, you'd better be sure that their nose is clean, and they're not tainted by a looming scandal. Like, say, firing someone because they won't fire your ex-brother-in-law.
In charge of the National Guard - When Bill Clinton used this as "experience" in 1992, the GOP poo-pooed the concept. Now they're wrapping Sarah Palin up in this argument. Really now? Governors only have control of the Guard so as far as deploying them within the state, and usually this only applies to emergency situations. They can't just willy-nilly deploy the Guard to foreign actions (so much for the "foreign policy experience" that comes with being in charge of the Guard!) and they can't use the Guard against other states -- well, they haven't been able to in recent experience, anyway. Not for close to 150 years. And since the Guard has been largely federalized, and since the courts have backed the right of the President to call the Guard to duty in the 1980s, being "head of the state National Guard" is largely a ceremonial title for a governor. At least when Clinton was first governor of Arkansas there was still some gubernatorial control over where and when the federal government could call out the Guard. That's not the case for Governor Palin.
Bridge to Nowhere - Time to break out the old "I was for the money before I was against it" tapes of John Kerry. In 2006, while campaigning for Alaska governor, Mayor Palin said that she supported the building of two bridges, collectively referred to as the "Bridge to Nowhere" because, and this is paraphrasing here, Alaska should take advantage of the money being brought in by their congressional representatives while they're in a position bring that pork home. Then, after she's elected, and the heat is on nationally about these bridges, she refuses the money. She's a "reformer" and an anti-pork crusader, not because of principle. She wanted that pork. She felt it was important to chow down on as much pork as possible while Alaskans were in a position to bring it home, even! No, she was only against the pork because the heat was on to take it away, anyhow, and maybe even because she had ambitions outside of the 49th state. Maybe she didn't want Alaska to be her "Last Frontier", and making a bold public rejection of this symbol of public largesse was a way to further that goal? And given her position on drilling in ANWR (and the building of the pipelines necessary to get that oil to Prince William Sound), she surely isn't against federal dollars building things in Alaska.
So, as you can see, there are many questions about these issues that the Republicans put out as "qualifications" for Governor Palin, and the media seem to be completely uninterested in covering them. They're more caught up in the glow of the beauty queen. They continue to perpetuate this belief that this is going to draw in the Hillary voters, even as early polls show that men are more moved to the ticket as a result of this choice than women are. In fact, the only Hillary supporter I've seen suggest that this will draw in the Hillary voters is Darragh Murray, head of PUMA, whose commitment to the Democratic Party had been pretty much nil before this year's election, and whom no one had heard of before this whole PUMA movement she started up. Far more credible Hillary supporters, like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, have talked about how they're insulted that McCain would think so little of women to think that choosing a female running mate would sway their votes. Yet the Sunday show pundits are still out there talking about the choice of Palin as VP will draw in significant numbers of women voters. After all, women can't think for themselves; their votes are tied to their identities as women, and if there's a candidate with a womb, women will vote for her. The GOP played this same game in Ohio in 2006 with voters of colour, putting up a very conservative black man for governor, and they were expecting blacks to abandon the Democratic ticket just because the Republican was black. However, if anything, black voter support for the Democrats was stronger in that election than it had been in recent years. People are not that stupid that they'd vote against their interests to vote their identities, not on the whole. Sure, there will be the gay people who would support a conservative gay Republican candidate just because he's gay, and likewise with all other identity groups. But they're a much smaller minority of those groups than the GOP or the political pundits seem to believe.