McCain has put himself in an impossible situation and reminded the conservative base, again, why he makes them so uncomfortable.
Today he introduced his Vice Presidential Candidate as an affirmative action play targeted at disaffected female Hillary supporters reluctant to embrace the Obama-Biden ticket. Since when was the Republican party the party of affirmative action?
Sarah Palin will resonate with Republicans. She typifies government of the people, by the people and for the people. She sincerely believes in principles and ideals that are dearly held by bedrock conservatives such as the value of human life, the perils of expansive government and common-sense energy policy.
However, conservatives and McCain supporters who have for some time been pointing to Senator Obama’s lack of experience are now in the awkward position of having to argue that Govenor Palin’s lack of experience is not an issue, which it obviously is. It demands explanation. Why not select a more tenured partner with so much at stake? Because she is a woman? That would bring us very close to being just like liberals who say that we should elect Barack Obama because he is black, as though that will prove something. The logical extension of these arguments is farcical. It’s like the breathless announcements we hear that so and so is the first latino woman with double jointed thumbs to swim the English Channel or the first black man to summit Everst in June wearing no socks.
Liberals like to talk about conservatives lack of sensitivity to the opinions of our neighbors around the world. They are usually desperate to impress the French but as long as we are talking about the issue, what message does this send to enlightened foreigners like Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, Hu Jintao and Mahmud Ahmaddinejad? This is not Margaret Thatcher.
As a conservative I appreciate having an actual conservative on the Republican ticket but we are still the party of pragmatism and realism. This is not who we would have picked as the second in command. What if McCain wins, will the RNC be supporting and Sarah Palin presidential bid?
Republicans have been quick to crticize Obama’s accceptance speech in Denver and rightly so. It was style and spectacle over substance. It was marketing to the lowest common denominator. It was MTV and Pop Tart commercials. Unfortunately McCain’s selection partakes of the same strategy. There are some cracks in the argument.
5 responses so far ↓
Webber // August 29, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Palin – a political maneuver indicative of no particular ideology except possibly anarchy. Clearly the only real ideology is the desire to win, especially after consideration of two pro-choice (Ridge, Lieberman) candidates; and Giuliani who’s probably pro-choice. . . this would have been more believable if all the prior considerations had consistent world-views but there’s nothing in common with any of them. The only other thing that’s interesting is she looks like Diane Keaton but judging from the little there is to know, is actually a Dick Cheney type ideologically (again, not like Lieberman, McCain’s choice). The Dick Cheney type is however consistent with the McSame label and will be difficult to refute for Republicans. I don’t see McCain as a progressive anymore.
twoblogright // August 30, 2008 at 9:12 am
Webber,
I have to agree with you about Palin’s appearance. The fact she looks like an iconic female actor is significant. If the glass ceiling is going to crack, it’s appraently going to be cracked by a woman who is easy to look at and easy to listen to. Hillary is neither easy to look at nor easy to listen to.
Rich // August 30, 2008 at 12:56 pm
That’s well written but I think you’re in the minority on this one. There is an obvious rejoinder to the criticism: you’re right, she doesn’t have 20 years of experience; that’s why she’s on the bottom of the ticket, not the top. What’s their explanation? She’s being elected to be John McCain’s understudy in a way. Thank goodness he chose somebody with rock solid conservative credentials. We should all be happy about that. I hope he doesn’t die before she has a chance to learn the ropes but I think it’s a good risk. She has more executive experience than Obama has and her performance as governor was spectacular. She can speak effectively about energy issues and this probably signals that McCain is shifting his position on ANWR. You’re right that tokenism is an issue. We aren’t the party of affirmative action but we have to play the hand we’ve been dealt and it is suicidal to ignore the opportunity to peel off some of Hillary’s disaffected voters.
I think you might be making the perfect the enemy of the good. If Obama wins, the dems will probably also have 60 seats in the Senate. Do you realize that that means we will have universal healthcare, a Truth Commission for the Republicans who lead us into Iraq, and a doubling of the capital gains tax rate?
Good article though.
Rich // August 30, 2008 at 12:58 pm
By the way, how do you know she’s not Margaret Thatcher?
twoblogright // August 30, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Rich,
Margaret Thatcher had a 20 year political career prior to becoming the leader of the Conservative party and finally Prime Minister, 2 years before Reagan was elected President.
I am with the majority who hope that the gamble pays off. Iam not critical of Sarah Palin. Quite the contrary.
However, the do anything to get elected strategy is how we end up with “Republicans” like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Follow that thinking to it’s logical conclusion. Gradual capitulation will not lead to a resurgence for the Republican party. Leadership, activism and a clear coherent message will. If the election of a conservative now turns on the whims of a handful of misguided “undecided” voters or single issue feminists, then even if we elect John McCain we will be a long way from safety.