Palin Not Well Vetted
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
By Bristol Herald Courier Editorial Board
Published: September 3, 2008
Sen. John McCain energized his campaign by choosing a young, solidly pro-life vice presidential nominee and the first woman ever on the Republican ticket. In addition to closing the enthusiasm gap with Democratic nominee Barack Obama, he also accomplished in one quick decision what he has been unable to do in more than 18 months: win over the GOP’s most conservative wing.
But the optimum word here is “quick.”
Amid questions raised over Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s level of experience and new personal and familial revelations trickling out every day, it has become clear that Palin was not vetted properly.
In fact, a McCain team didn’t even arrive in Alaska to investigate Palin’s background until Thursday, the day she accepted the running mate offer and a day before she was introduced to the nation and world as McCain’s VP selection.
The New York Times also reports that McCain’s campaign is sending operatives back to Alaska to further vet the governor. It’s a little late for that.
Palin is under investigation by the Alaska legislature over allegations she abused her power and fired the state’s public safety commissioner because he would not fire her ex-brother-in-law. On Monday, Palin announced that her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, was five months pregnant. Word also got out that Palin’s husband has a DUI charge, although it’s 22 years old.
These revelations singularly are not career-enders, nor should they be. They say nothing about Palin’s fitness to be one heartbeat away from the presidency of the United States. But they say a lot about McCain’s judgment in picking a running mate without a thorough background check. (McCain claims he knew about the teenage daughter’s pregnancy, but it’s not clear how or when he became known of it.)
It’s not what has been learned already about Palin that is problematic for McCain, but the unknown – and the constant risk to McCain’s newfound momentum.
McCain’s VP pick also smacks of pandering – hardly the trait of a self-styled maverick. Campaign insiders have said the Arizona senator really wanted as a running mate former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge, a Republican, or Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent but longtime Democrat.
This dilemma presented a Sophie’s choice for McCain: Pick the pro-choice Ridge or Lieberman and attract the support of moderates and independents, or risk the evangelical vote on Nov. 4. It very likely will take both to win Nov. 4.
Instead, McCain assuaged evangelicals by selecting an unknown with less than two years in the governor’s mansion of an obscure state, and two years removed from the mayor’s office in a town of 6,700.
Supporters claim the Palin selection will appeal to disenchanted Hillary Clinton supporters, but that assertion is downright silly. Palin holds diametrically opposed views than Clinton on everything from abortion to global warming. To think that Clinton supporters will punish Obama by abandoning their principles is an affront to these women.
We are not knocking Palin, but we are questioning the process in which she was chosen. The Alaska governor might possess the stuff of political greatness, but she should not have been selected on the GOP ticket after a single, 15-minute-long, face-to-face meeting with McCain.
The last time a VP selection was this unvetted was Sen. Thomas Eagleton in 1972. He lasted for 18 days on George McGovern’s Democratic ticket before being pushed aside following revelations that he three times had been hospitalized for depression and twice received electroshock therapy.
Contrary to the stigma, there’s no shame in being treated for depression – it’s admirable, in fact. The shame is that McGovern operatives didn’t know about it until after he was on the ticket.
And the shame here is that McCain rushed a veepee pick who may not be ready for prime time and for whom there might be other surprises.
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( Russ ) on September 13, 2008 at 10:25 am
Chester, I’ve noticed that you always use factual historical records to support your arguments. Is it possible these records could have been biased? As I said in an earlier post the victors write the history.
Now, the non-factual records I ascribe to, show estimates of as many as 120,000 blacks. Remember now, these are the non-factual records I ascribe to. That way I save you from having to rebutt the 120,000 figure. Also, the non-factual records state that there were many in support roles as teamsters, cooks, foragers, etc. However, again non-factually speaking, many more than you would imagine served as combatants.
For example, as General “Stonewall” Jackson occupied Fredrick Maryland in 1862, a Dr. Lewis Steiner, Union Surgeon, observed over 3000 negroes marching with Jackson. He said they were armed with rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie knives, dirks, etc. Again, this may be non-factual, however I have read this in several publications and at least two biographies.
Now, you’ve implied that because I’m not in lockstep with your take on “THE WAR FOR SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE”, that my arguments are based in racism, and by association I’m a racist. I’m going to ignore that because that’s a tactic those of your stripe use to discredit those who aren’t in lockstep with the “factual records”.
I also noticed that you, who often gives a line by line response, was strangely silent regarding the 600,000 deaths that Mr. Lincoln’s noble defense of the constitution caused. Did you check out Article IV, Sec. III of the constitution regarding the formation of West Virginia? What happen to Mr. Lincoln’s defense of the constitution in this instance?
I’ll end this by saying that slavery was wrong. However, I believe that it could have ended in a less tragic way. Yet there is no way you or anyone else will lessen the sacrifices of the Southern Soldier. I have read numerous biographies and firsthand accounts of the participants. Very seldom is slavery mentioned. The common theme is most always northern aggression, and defense of our families and homeland.
Now, you believe what you want, and make your little sarcastic remarks about “the simple facts” to your heart’s desire, cause that’s all you have.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( captainkona ) on September 09, 2008 at 11:17 pm
LOL! Chester. :-]_~
That is the perfect video to show just exactly what a stammering idiot George Bush really is.
Native Americans are just “brown people” to Chimpy McCokespoon. And all one has to do is look at Iraq and New Orleans to see what happens to anyone darker than thou when a Bush is in charge.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Russ ) on September 09, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Chester,
Please don’t quote a bumper sticker, “If the south would have won we would have had it made,“ and attribute it to what I said. Funny I didn’t notice any mention of the 600000 dead as result of Mr Licoln’s noble defense of the Constitution.
Of course, I ascribe to malarkey and Chester, the all knowing one, adheres to the facts. The WAR FOR SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE was not about slavery. Please, you don’t need to quote what Jefferson Davis or Alexander Stephens said about slavery, I know what they said. If you believe that men like Lee, Jackson, Stuart, Early, A.P. Hill, all great Virginians, and all the other fine southerners that sacrificed life and fortune were duped by a few powerful and wealthy landowners into a war to preserve slavery, then sir in my humble opinion you are woefully ignorant of the facts.
So you say aren’t we better off as a nation that is united rather than divided. Now if you want to defend the most bureaucratically burdensome, money wasting, inept, and corrupt organization in the world, the federal government, then be my guest.
Yes Chester I feel it’s alright to buy and sell humans because of their skin pigmentation. You’ve found me out. Now you can read this and say “I knew it.“
I’m not going to waste time about causes. I work, and my time is very limited. Of course, you’ve bought the history written by the victors hook, line, and sinker, and all the evidence opposing your conclusion will just be labeled revisionist garble by you. Try to be a little more open minded on occasion. You might be surprised at what you find.
Here’s a coupla hints for you, on Mr. Licoln’s defense of the Constitution, read Article IV, Sec. III, then check out how West Virginia was formed. Also, although I suspect you are to narrow minded to believe it, google black confederates.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( captainkona ) on September 08, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I’d just like to expound on Chester’s appeal to TwoFeathers.
Seriously, TF. You’re ok. I’ve been at this a long time and I can tell.
Surely you know Chester is correct when he states the abuses that the Republican Party have heaped upon the Native American. I’m 30% Cherokee myself and it pisses me off, surely you realize these truths?
Are you familiar with Wounded Knee, TF?
1890, massacre of Big Foot and his people, President Ben Harrison (Republican).
And today? Are you familiar with Jack Abramoff?
Republican Abramoff Swindles Native Americans
You’re a good dude, TwoFeathers. All I ask is that you ask yourself why. Why do you support these people? What do they have to offer you that’s any different from the last 120 years?
Regards,
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( captainkona ) on September 06, 2008 at 1:41 pm
CS-
Heh, if I did, she wouldn’t be guzzling booze straight from the bottle…
How cute, her name is “Bristol”. She’s seventeen in this picture. I thought you had to be 21 or something to drink.
Bristol Palin boozing it up
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( carl ) on September 05, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Chester, you like the BHC board need to get your facts in order.
Palin is, in fact, governor of Alaska, which has annual budget of approximately $11 billion and more than 20,000 employees. She manages far more than a campaign and has done far more than co-sponsor non-controversial legislation.
And if Obama were in charge of Wasilla, the town of 9,000 would no doubt employ 2,500 on a budget of $36 million a month.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( carl ) on September 05, 2008 at 8:12 am
Byron York at National Review went over some of the vetting process with the McCain campaign. Palin indeed had multiple interviews as well as a long (70 page, I believe) form to fill out. I am surprised that the BHC is not repeating the lies about the “Alaska Independence Party” also!
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Russ ) on September 04, 2008 at 9:18 pm
You, know I checked the Constitution, just to be cetain, Article II, Sec I states the requirements for the presidency as follows: Native born citizen, attained the age of 35 years at the time of taking office, and have 14 years contiuing residency in the United States, and of course you have to get the most votes. It doesn’t say anything about experience of any sort. So relax, everyone running is qualified.
Chester, I assume you are referring to Lincoln. He violated the Constitution, and started a war that lead to 600,000 deaths, and untold economic hardship. My 2nd great grandfather wouldn’t have agreed that those were sound judgements. By the way, he didn’t own any slaves.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( carl ) on September 04, 2008 at 7:08 pm
“I don’t want my daughters punished with a baby.“
That is the quote. You may not like it, but that is what he said.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Two Feathers ) on September 04, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Here is a nice pile to step in. This paper belongs to “US” magazine? How unfair and unfortunate. How narrowminded, venomous and biased. The way this opinion was written, it looks like someone held their hand in front of their face as they typed the words.
I read here of all the experience in foriegn policy that Palin does not have? Excuse me,, Just how much executive and foriegn policy experience does either democratic canidate have again? ZERO you say?? Hmmm, guess that McCain /Palin one up?
BHC Board, your well warranted concern is showing!
You know, I was determined that I was not going to vote at all in this election.
After this paper’s (HA) “innocent shrug” at Palin and these responders diatribes in the rediculous, I will be voting McCain/Palin. The very notion of these “hyper-rabid-liberal” (a new word?)responders getting it their way makes me sick to my stomach. As a US Army veteran, as an American and as a WORKING Native American, it is my solemn duty to help quell this frenzied wave of salivating, incoherent liberalism.
Responders will notice that the pro Obama liberals post on here during the day when everyone of us conservatives are AT WORK??
It is an interesting concept ,work. You Obamites should try it.
Report Inappropriate Comment