Back In Chicago
This morning I arrived in Chicago after my brief vacation back home. There is a lot that has happened in the last few days that I will be talking about before too much longer, but for now I’ll say a few things quickly. I should say that my initial reaction to the choice of Sarah Palin was much more like Michael‘s than anyone else’s I have seen. While I have very few reasons to complain about Gov. Palin’s views (her foreign policy remarks on Friday being chief among them), I think it does her a tremendous disservice to name her to a national ticket before she is fully prepared for that role, just as it would have been a disservice to Jindal had he been named. Leave aside for the moment the important point that drafting a governor not yet halfway through her first term neglects and devalues the importance of state government and insults Palin’s voters.
If the goal is to drag down the ticket and at the same time provide a Buchananite scapegoat for Republican defeat in the fall, a defeat I now believe to be more likely than it was a few weeks ago, McCain seems to have done his work well. As Gov. Palin’s remarks yesterday made clear, she seems unlikely to balance the worst instincts of McCain and his advisors and may instead be used to confer conservative legitimacy on McCain’s domestic and foreign agendas. The remarkable thing about the choice is that it was done for transparently electoral reasons and appears at first glance to be a poor choice with respect to governance, but in reality Palin will likely prove to be an electoral liability, possibly costing McCain the election in the Midwest, and yet I think she would probably be a competent and effective Vice President despite her short time in statewide office.
P.S. The controversy over the firings of her state trooper ex-brother-in-law and the Public Safety Commissioner, which had already prompted the establishment of an investigation by the Alaska legislature last month, is also going to dog the campaign, whether or not Gov. Palin did anything wrong. Correction: I misstated the nature of the controversy: Wooten, the ex-brother-in-law, was not fired, but Monegan, the Public Safety Commissioner, was fired. It was the questionable nature of Monegan’s firing, which may or may not have been done in retribution for his refusal to fire Wooten, that drew complaints and prompted the legislature to authorize an investigation.
Update: Of course, it will be more difficult for the party regulars to blame the loss on a Buchananite if she insists that she never supported Buchanan. Apparently, she did not support him in the 2000 election.
Welcome back.
If the goal is to drag down the ticket and at the same time provide a Buchananite scapegoat ….
The goal, Daniel? Yeahhh, that’s a credible premise.
Welcome back, indeed! We have missed you. Hope that you enjoyed the respite, and look forward to the return of Eunomia.
Cheers,
NPO
Obviously, I was phrasing it that way to drive home how poor I think the choice was. That clearly wasn’t McCain’s goal, which is why the choice is such a bad one. Do try to keep up. His actual goal was to steal away Clinton voters and generate media buzz, but in this the choice will fall short.
I don’t think McCain’s primary goal in making this choice was to steal away Clinton voters much as it was to shore up his support among the evangelical base. Palin is one of their own and, if the overwhelming enthusiasm with which they’ve reacted at places like NRO is any indication, McCain has succeeded in placating and energizing them. I think the choice was also made to boost his credibility among white working class voters, who’ve been lukewarm about Obama. When is the last time you’ve heard a Republican warmly embracing union membership, as McCain did when introducing Palin as his running mate? Finally, I agree that McCain wanted to steal some thunder from Obama’s big speech by making a surprise choice, as well as remind folks that he is still The Original Maverick (TM).
Given her ethics problems back in her home state, I wonder if she’ll still be on the ticket come November.
McCain is living up to his reputation as a maverick, which I’m beginning to think should be bettered defined as “loose cannon.” He’s not thinking about what is best for his party or other individuals, much less looking at the long term. I think his decision may end up more destructive than he apparently is capable of realizing. From all reports, this was a serious “shoot-from-the-hip” decision. And gee whiiz, as a practice, it doesn’t bode well for the future of this country if he’s elected. I.e., thoughtful and farseeing in its implications it is not.
You reassure me. I am enough of a liberal to doubt my own loudly expressed reaction in the face of an enthusiastic amen chorus at NRO and other, less savory, conservative outlets. But, I figure, even though I sometimes agree with Larison or even Frum, I never agree with Ramesh Ponnuru and absolutely never with Krauthhammer. We can’t all be that out of touch simulataneously. I predict that, this time, it is the NRO guys who are experiencing the echo chamber effect and who are surprised at the “New Coke” net result. I mean, jeez, even Pat Buchanan was a little appaled and I guess Palin was, at one point, one of his volunteers.
Welcome back. We who are unworthy missed you.
You may be right, but I rather like the lady. She may do just fine. Look whom she’s up against.
I’m glad your back for the home stretch. Your posts always challenge my thinking (as a slightly left-of-center independent) and I was missing them.
I agree with you that the selection might be a disservice to Palin, as she is just getting started in her political career and will have to define herself in only a few months for the rest of her political career. That said, I think she is a brilliant strategic choice.
Many have said that her inexperience cancels out Obama’s but I see it as highlighting his resume. Now, Obama’s campaign cannot hit her chief weakness without exposing an opening to his–that of little experience and foreign policy concerns. Also, Biden and Obama cannot be aggressive toward her or memories of perceived sexism from the primary will spring up and remind Hillary supporters why they despise(d) Obama so much.
The only way this pick is a mistake is how blatantly strategic it is. I can’t imagine she would have been picked if she was a man due to her inexperience and youth. This may backfire as this seems apparent, at least to me.
I just listened to Biden introduce Obama on CNN. He’s Cliff Clavin from “Cheers.”
He’ll probably find a potato that looks like Nixon.
Sarah Palin will do just fine.
His actual goal was to steal away Clinton voters and generate media buzz, but in this the choice will fall short.
Well that was a new usage for me, sorry.
In any case, I don’t see how you can say it failed to generate media buzz considering nobody has talked about anything else since before it was announced. I don’t even buy the premise. More than media buzz, the biggest goal of this pick was to bring several disparate strands of our right-of-center quilt back on the team, and it that way I think it succeeded better than could be imagined beforehand.
On the negative side:
- One of McCain’s main anti-Obama talking points was that Obama lacks experience, an issue that Obama naturally would like to avoid. Now, some people are claiming that an advantage of the Palin choice is that it prevents Obama from bringing up the issue of experience. OK, but the more interesting question is whether it affects McCain’s ability to bring up the issue.
- An important part of McCain’s branding is that he is a “straight shooter” who will always put Country first (with the corresponding talking point that Obama is the sort of person who would rather lose a war than an election). The Palin pick is so blatantly purely political that it goes against that branding. Granted, every vice-presidential choice is based on obtaining some political advantage, but there is usually a semi-plausible story one can tell about how the pick is qualified to be president. Suspension of disbelief only goes so far.
- Unlike some of the higher-profile veep possibilities, Palin is untested on the national stage. She will not be used to the level of media attention and having to carefully watch what she says to the extent that somebody in her current position has to. One blooper about Iraq or Russia (for example), and it’ll be all over the news. Such a blooper would be more damaging than if it came from McCain or somebody more experience, because it would reinforce the media narrative that she is not ready for the job.
- Possible downside: we don’t know how good her media “presence” is. McCain has reported only met her a few times before the pick, so it’s unclear how well they’ll work together.
On the positive side:
- The pick shores up McCain’s support on the right. It may also help with some Democrats who are still upset over Hillary not getting the nomination.
- It provides an opportunity for Democrats to over-reach in their attacks on her. Try to paint her as some yokel and it just reinforces the idea that the Democrats are elitists that out out-of-touch with ordinary people.
- It puts some energy back into McCain’s campaign.
Nice to see you blogging again, Dan. I was afraid something terrible had happened to you.
I share your underwhelmed reaction to Palin’s elevation. A few random thoughts and questions:
1) Any new-found paleocon / libertarian “buzz” on behalf of the McSame candidacy will collapse five seconds after Benito Giuliani begins his keynote speech next week.
2) For McSame’s sake, I hope Palin was carefully vetted, although I have my doubts. She’ll have a pretty good convention week, and much of the Mainstream Media will swoon. Nonetheless, Palin could be one gaffe away from obliterating whatever chance he has of winning in November.
3) As bad a selection as this is, I’m not sure what you mean when you describe it as a “disservice” to Palin. No one is forcing her to do this. She could have said no.
4) It will be interesting to see how the so-called “Hillary Democrats” react to this. If enough of these professional feminists and liberals vote for McSame because of Palin (and sweep her anti-abortion, anti-gun control track record under the carpet) they’re more childish than I thought. One of the many reasons why I loathe identity politics.
5) You write, “[Palin] seems unlikely to balance the worst instincts of McCain and his [neocon] advisors …” Seems unlikely? Trust me, she won’t. She would not be on the ticket otherwise.
Daniel,
First off, it’s great to have you back.
But could you say something more about what makes you so confident that Palin’s going to turn out to be a net negative? I agree with what’s been said above, that she’s ultimately going to serve more to reach out to social conservatives, and in particular to women who are also social conservatives, than to Hillary voters, and the excitement so far among the GOP base – hell, even I’M feeling a bit of it – has been pretty remarkable. (The chattering class is another story, but they (we) aren’t America.) Is this just Larison being contrary, or do you have some specific concerns in mind?
I can only comment briefly this morning, but here is the short version of what I think the problem is. Electorally, I think the choice is both a missed opportunity to compete more intensively for the Midwest and probably a drag on the ticket among those voters who say they would not support a woman for President. While I don’t know for certain, I would guess that some significant part of the 10-13% who say this are among regular GOP voters. McCain is not going to increase his margins among married women by that much with this choice, he will probably lose some unmarried women and possibly some men. The campaign definitely is making a play for Clinton voters, but this will almost certainly fail. As an effort to win over independent and “moderate” women, it may help some, but to the extent that it reinforces the pro-life credentials of McCain (which is otherwise desirable) this may prove to be a drawback among these same independent and “moderate” women who tend to respond less favorably to McCain when they are informed about his views on abortion. Also, whether we like it or not, a constant drumbeat of criticsm from insiders and the media does hurt a campaign, especially when that campaign is already struggling against a huge headwind.
While this choice does energize conservatives, which will help close the so-called enthusiasm gap, I find the choice and the enthusiastic reaction to it to be worrisome for another reason quite apart from whether or not it will “work.” Instead of an opportunity for conservatives to develop some healthy independence from the GOP, the election will become another occasion for conservatives to fall in line and endorse a continuation of the current administration’s policies.
You seem to be overestimating Obama’s strength and McCain’s weakness. In a year when Dems should win the White House in a cakewalk, their candidate only gets an 8 point bump from his convention — half of what Carter got and less than a third of what Clinton got against Poppy.
I’m not even a conservative and I think the Palin choice — while unconventional — is no worse than Quayle and may help split women’s votes and energize the base.
More here: http://www.ratdiary.com
Finally, Daniel Larson’s blog is back!!! Dude, we traditional conservatives could not go this long without you, that was a very long break!!
I think Palin still has some sort of Buchanan ties. Pat is still really praising her on MSNBC, and there is definitely a preponderance of evidence that she did in fact support Buchanan at least one time, or was at least favorable of him.
Charles Krauthammer and David Frum are against this pick saying that it will make the GOP look like it cares more about abortion than “national security.” Shows how much the GOP actually cares about the pro-life issue.
On Iraq, she has been critical before over the lack of a plan and exit strategy for Iraq – this is on more than one occasion.
Pat Buchanan has been praising her since early summer. I remember Chuck Todd saying months ago that Sarah Palin “worked for Pat’s campaign” on MSNBC.
But Bill Kristol likes her, so we’ll see about the whole thing…
Not only do they want to blame it on a Buchananite, I have a hunch they want to blame it on the woman, too.
All I can say is this is a real desperate choice. Their internals must have sucked wind, looking a whole lot worse than the public polling let on.
I was going to vote for Barr but being in a swing state I’m scared enough with someone so light on experience being one old heartbeat away from the Presidency I may have to hold my nose and vote for Obama-Biden.
And welcome back, Daniel.
This must be the first time all year that I stand accused of overestimating Obama’s strength. It is encouraging that Krauthammer and Frum are opposed. It doesn’t surprise me that they would be worried that pro-lifers could be gaining within the party at the expense of national security types, but what worries me is that pro-lifers will once again take the bait and think that the GOP does take opposing abortion seriously. It is interesting how this does seem to mirror 1988 in some ways (with the notable exception that Quayle was better-known and had more background in national politics), but before anyone gets too excited about this just consider what the elder Bush’s term yielded: internationalism and wars abroad, tax hikes, the ADA and the Casey ruling from a Republican-majority Court, among other things. Sounds a lot like what we can expect from McCain, come to think of it.
Palin will probably function in a McCain administration more or less as Quayle functioned in the first Bush administration. Just as Bush used Quayle to shore up conservatives behind him, McCain will use Palin’s good qualities to cover his many policy sins and lock conservatives into another four years of futile loyalism. That could very well lead to another intra-party fight in ’12 that would put Palin on the wrong side. Meanwhile, having given the base Palin, McCain will think he does not owe them much else and may think that he has earned leeway to push his agenda in collaboration with the Democratic majority, whether on foreign policy, immigration, climate change or what-have-you. Assuming, that is, that this ticket can win, which I don’t think is likely.
In defeat the consequences will not be much better. Despite the continued neglect of social conservatives by the party, social conservatives will again be accused of dominating the GOP, which means in practice that their priorities will be neglected even more to counteract this false perception. Should McCain lose, as I think he will, social and religious conservatives will be blamed for it, just as so many have tried to blame the ’06 loss on social conservatives. Once again, the GOP will try to explain away its failure by pinning it on pro-lifers or any other faction besides the one that brought the party to this sorry pass.
What I should have emphasized above is how much I like Palin, which is why I wish she hadn’t been chosen or hadn’t accepted.
Good to know I’m not the only one unconvinced on McCain and judges. I wouldn’t put it past him to nominate a Souter despite his rhetoric, especially if the Dems have 58 or 59 seats in the Senate.
I’m probably the last person to ever accuse you of overestimating Obama’s chances, so I’m more than happy to see you confident of his victory, though I am still biting my nails. I’m also suspicious of my own impressions regrading GOP candidates, so I also wonder if it’s too good to be true that many elite conservatives are critical of the Palin choice. I wonder if her personality and campaigning skills will outweigh the negatives, in that many people really don’t seem to care about McCain’s recklessness, and really do respond to faux gestures of “regular gal” feminism. Palin seems to play into that meme quite well. Even I admit to liking her overall personal presentation, regardless of the sheer silliness of her policy views. It’s just a question of whether she will implode under pressure and intense scrutiny. In any case, she takes attention away from an examination of McCain’s dreadful policies, and puts it on personality and biography, which is all his campaign really boils down to anyway. Distracting from policy is always good for McCain, and even if there are some serious problems with McCain, as long as she keeps smiling while lying I’m not sure she hurts him. Of course, that whole mother-daughter-trig scandal, if it turns out to be true, could be a real whopper.
[...] gap is here. No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTMLallowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> [...]