TheApple

"The selection of a running mate is among the most consequential, most defining decisions a presidential nominee can make. John McCain’s pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says a lot about his decison-making — and some of it is downright breathtaking.

We knew McCain is a politician who relishes improvisation, and likes to go with his gut. But it is remarkable that someone who has repeatedly emphasized experience in this campaign named an inexperienced governor he barely knew to be his No. 2. Whatever you think of the pick, here are six things it tells us about McCain:

1. He’s desperate. Let’s stop pretending this race is as close as national polling suggests. The truth is McCain is essentially tied or trailing in every swing state that matters — and too close for comfort in several states like Indiana and Montana the GOP usually wins pretty easily in presidential races. On top of that, voters seem very inclined to elect Democrats in general this election — and very sick of the Bush years.

McCain could easily lose in an electoral landslide. That is the private view of Democrats and Republicans alike.

McCain’s pick shows he is not pretending. Politicians, even “mavericks” like McCain, play it safe when they think they are winning — or see an easy path to winning. They roll the dice only when they know that the risks of conventionality are greater than the risks of boldness.

The Republican brand is a mess. McCain is reasonably concluding that it won’t work to replicate George W. Bush and Karl Rove’s electoral formula, based around national security and a big advantage among Y chromosomes, from 2004.

“She’s a fresh new face in a party that’s dying for one — the antidote to boring white men,” a campaign official said.

Palin, the logic goes, will prompt voters to give him a second look — especially women who have watched Democrats reject Hillary Rodham Clinton for Barack Obama.

The risks of a backlash from choosing someone so unknown and so untested are obvious. In one swift stroke, McCain demolished what had been one of his main arguments against Obama.

“I think we’re going to have to examine our tag line, ‘dangerously inexperienced,’” a top McCain official said wryly.

2. He’s willing to gamble — bigtime. Let’s face it: This is not the pick of a self-confident candidate. It is the political equivalent of a trick play or, as some Democrats called it, a Hail Mary pass in football. McCain talks incessantly about experience, and then goes and selects a woman he hardly knows, who hardly knows foreign policy and who can hardly be seen as instantly ready for the presidency.

He is smart enough to know it could work, at least politically. Many Republicans see this pick as a brilliant stroke because it will be difficult for Democrats to run hard against a woman in the wake of the Hillary Clinton drama. Will this push those disgruntled Hillary voters McCain’s way? Perhaps. But this is hardly aimed at them: It is directed at the huge bloc of independent women — especially those who do not see abortion as a make-or-break issue — who could decide this election.

McCain has a history of taking dares. Palin represents his biggest one yet.

3. He’s worried about the political implications of his age. Like a driver overcorrecting out of a swerve, he chooses someone who is two years younger than the youthful Obama, and 28 years younger than he is. (He turned 72 Friday.) The father-daughter comparison was inevitable when they appeared next to each other.

4. He’s not worried about the actuarial implications of his age. He thinks he’s in fine fettle, and Palin wouldn’t be performing the only constitutional duty of a vice president, which is standing by in case a president dies or becomes incapacitated. If he was really concerned about an inexperienced person sitting in the Oval Office we would be writing about vice presidential nominee Mitt Romney or Tom Ridge or Condoleezza Rice.

There is no plausible way that McCain could say that he picked Palin, who was only elected governor in 2006 and whose most extended public service was as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (population 8,471), because she was ready to be president on Day One.

Nor can McCain argue that he was looking for someone he could trust as a close adviser. Most people know the staff at the local Starbucks better than McCain knows Palin. They met for the first time last February at a National Governors Association meeting in Washington. Then, they spoke again — by phone — on Sunday while she was at the Alaska state fair and he was at home in Arizona.

McCain has made a mockery out of his campaign's longtime contention that Barack Obama is too dangerously inexperienced to be commander in chief. Now, the Democratic ticket boasts 40 years of national experience (four years for Obama and 36 years for Joseph Biden of Delaware), while the Republican ticket has 26 (McCain’s four yeasr in the House and 22 in the Senate.)

The McCain campaign has made a calculation that most voters don’t really care about the national experience or credentials of a vice president, and that Palin’s ebullient personality and reputation as a refomer who took on cesspool politics in Alaska matters more.

5. He’s worried about his conservative base. If he had room to maneuver, there were lots of people McCain could have selected who would have represented a break from Washington politics as usual. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman comes to mind (and it certainly came to McCain’s throughout the process). He had no such room. GOP stalwarts were furious over trial balloons about the possibility of choosing a supporter of abortion rights, including the possibility that he would reach out to his friend.

Palin is an ardent opponent of abortion who was previously scheduled to keynote the Republican National Coalition for Life's "Life of the Party" event in the Twin Cities this week.

“She’s really a perfect selection,” said Darla St. Martin, the Co-Director of the National Right to Life Committee. It is no secret McCain wanted to shake things up in this race — and he realized he was limited to a shake-up conservatives could stomach.

6. At the end of the day, McCain is still McCain. People may find him a refreshing maverick, or an erratic egotist. In either event, he marches to his own beat.

On the upside, his team did manage to play to the media’s love of drama, fanning speculation about his possible choices and maximizing coverage of the decision.

On the potential downside, the drama was evidently entirely genuine. The fact that McCain only spoke with Palin about the vice presidency for the first time on Sunday, and that he was seriously considering Lieberman until days ago, suggests just how hectic and improvisational his process was.

In the end, this selection gives him a chance to reclaim the mantle of a different kind of politician intent on changing Washington. He once had a legitimate claim to this: after all, he took on his own party over campaign finance reform and immigration. He jeopardized this claim in recent months by embracing ideas he once opposed (Bush tax cuts) and ideas that appeared politically motivated (gas tax holiday).

Spontaneity, with a touch of impulsiveness, is one of the traits that attract some of McCain’s admirers. Whether it’s a good calling card for a potential president will depend on the reaction in coming days to what looks for the moment like the most daring vice presidential selection in generations."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/12997

History has shown that the selection of a Vice Presidential candidate has minimal effect on the outcome of an election. People vote for or against the candidate for President, not Vice President.

The only issue with the selction of Palin is how McCain, who has repreatedly said that his choice for Vice President is critical because of his age and health history, has chosen someone who has absolutely no qualifications to be President. This raises serious issues about McCain's judgement and whether his self-interest in getting elected has begun to outpace his concern for the country. I am the last person who would call McCain unpatriotic, but this choice raises serious concerns.

MaCain's selection of the obscure Gov. Palin reminds me of Richard Nixon's 1968 choice of little-known Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew as his running mate. We all know how that worked out.

johnslat says ...

Deven says ...

McCain's selection of the obscure Gov. Palin reminds me of Richard Nixon's 1968 choice of little-known Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew as his running mate. We all know how that worked out.

 

Not too well, especially for your Mom.

Going a little overboard on the vp pick critiques.  She is not a Joe Biden but then McCain doesn't need one as Obama DOES.  OBSCURE? No more so than Obama himself.  INEXPERIENCED? She has more experience than OBMAMA.  Don't limit your analysis to Palin vs Biden. Palin exceeds Obama on many fronts.

 You may want the voters to consider a comparison of issues. That won't happen.

You may want the voters to consider the differences between the Obama team and the McCain team. That won't happen.

In my silly opinion, the issue that will cause a voter to vote for one or the other is simple. Does the voter want to vote AGAINST the black guy or the old guy. Race and age will be the deciding factor in the election, although it won't show up in the polls. The only "poll" that will count will be the actual election where everyone votes in secret. People are notorious about lying to pollsters when it comes to their prejudices.

Deven says ...

Mr.D, would you please explain to me how a two-year Governor of Alaska whose entire national speaking experience was her speech Friday is not less obscure than a US Senator who has been speaking around the country for four years since making a well-noted keynote speech at the Democrat's national conevntion in 2004.

How is Mrs. Palin, whose name has been in the headlines fror just over 24 hours now, not more obscure than a man whose name has been in the headlines for at least two years.

How is a woman who, in her election as governor, gathered just under 115-thousand votes and won with less than a majority of the vote cast is comparable to a man who in primaries alone has gathered 18-million votes.

Mrs. Palin, in all of her winning elections, has garnered something less than 120,000 votes, and that includes her winning the mayorality of the thriving metropolis of Wasilla, Alaska.

Mike, I respect your support of Mrs. Palin and Sen. McCain, but don't lose sight of reality.

Deven,

Give her a chance. She has more experience, more executive experience and when her times comes to be voted on (which hasn't yet occurred yet you seem anxious to measure her on) she will carry her weight.

When Obamas campaign began no one I know or no one htey knew or 6 degrees of knowing had everheard of him.  Until some Boy Band producer decided he was going to be the next big thing no one outside illinois had ever heard of Obama. It is unfortunate that more of us since have .

joelheffner says ...

 You may want the voters to consider a comparison of issues. That won't happen.

You may want the voters to consider the differences between the Obama team and the McCain team. That won't happen.

In my silly opinion, the issue that will cause a voter to vote for one or the other is simple. Does the voter want to vote AGAINST the black guy or the old guy. Race and age will be the deciding factor in the election, although it won't show up in the polls. The only "poll" that will count will be the actual election where everyone votes in secret. People are notorious about lying to pollsters when it comes to their prejudices.

I do not know if race and age will be the deciding factor in the election, but I do know it will not be the deciding factor in MY vote. I WILL compare issues and teams.  Please do not lump all voters into one massive horde of lemmings. Some of us think.

hotteacher1976 says ...

 She only has 18 months experience and to be quite honest, that's not enough executive experience, especially given a state that's so small in population (Obama as a senator of Illinois dealt with a larger population and more pressing matters); she doesn't have more experience than Obama either in years. 

Thats serious wishful thinking and she's not eve running for presidnet!!

The Vice Presidential pick is key. After all, based on the last eight years, one could reasonabley conclude that the Vice President is the one who runs the country and makes all the important decisions.

I think the choice of Palin is pandering at its worst. I would hope that people vote on positions, not chromosomes. We'll see.

You are correct! Hasn't the most successful ones been senators (i.e., Kennedy)?

Deven says ...

MisterD says ...

hotteacher1976 says ...

 She only has 18 months experience and to be quite honest, that's not enough executive experience, especially given a state that's so small in population (Obama as a senator of Illinois dealt with a larger population and more pressing matters); she doesn't have more experience than Obama either in years. 

Thats serious wishful thinking and she's not eve running for presidnet!!

While you are technicaaly correct that Gov. Palin is not running for PResident, even Sen. McCain earlier acknowleged that his selection of a running mate is, to quote him "crucial" because of his age.

You are correct that executive experience is very different from legislative experience, but most of the Presidents of the past hundred years who were executives and not legislators before election are considered among our least successful: Nixon, Carter, George Bush pere, George W Bush, Eisenhower, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding and Taft. FDR and Reagan are notable exceptions to this trend.

The single most assuring this about this election for me is that no matter who gets elected President, he will have come from a legislative background.

Well, it IS a mixed bag:

 James Monroe

Senator, 1790-1794

President, 1817-1825

-----------------------------------------------------

John Quincy Adams

Senator, 1803-1808

President, 1825-1829

-----------------------------------------------------

Andrew Jackson

Senator, 1797-1798; 1823-1825

President, 1829-1837

-----------------------------------------------------

Martin Van Buren

Senator, 1821-1828

President, 1837-1841

-----------------------------------------------------

William Henry Harrison

Senator, 1825-1828

President, 1841

-----------------------------------------------------

John Tyler

Senator, 1827-1836

President, 1841-1845

-----------------------------------------------------

Franklin Pierce

Senator, 1837-1842

President, 1853-1857

-----------------------------------------------------

James Buchanan

Senator, 1834-1845

President, 1857-1861

-----------------------------------------------------

Andrew Johnson

Senator, 1857-1862; 1875

President, 1865-1869

-----------------------------------------------------

Benjamin Harrison

Senator, 1881-1887

President, 1889-1893

-----------------------------------------------------

Warren G. Harding

Senator, 1915-1921

President, 1921-1923

-----------------------------------------------------

Harry S. Truman

Senator, 1935-1945

President, 1945-1953

-----------------------------------------------------

John F. Kennedy

Senator, 1953-1960

President, 1961-1963

-----------------------------------------------------

Lyndon B. Johnson

Senator, 1949-1961

President, 1963-1969

-----------------------------------------------------

Richard M. Nixon

Senator, 1950-1953

President, 1969-1974

Sixteen State Governors have subsequently become President

 Jefferson, Monroe - Virginia

 Van Buren, Cleveland, T Roosevelt, FD Roosevelt - NY

 Polk, A Johnson - Tennessee

 Hayes, McKinley - Ohio

 Wilson - NJ

 Coolidge - Mass

 Carter - Georgia

 Reagan - California

 Clinton - Arkansas

 GW Bush - Texas

Only six have been neither previously

 1) George H.W. Bush - Director of CIA, Ambassador to U.N.

(2) Gerald Ford - Minority Leader of the House

(3) Dwight D. Eisenhower - general/war hero

(4) Herbert Hoover - Commerce Secretary

(5) William Howard Taft - Secretary of War

 As for Obama resembling JFK, well, at least two people think that's the case:

"The senator was accompanied by his niece, Caroline Kennedy, who has also endorsed Obama, saying he reminds her of her father, John F. Kennedy. "

and myself. And, MisterD,  Caroline and I were both around in the 60s.

I have to credit Bill Maher with this line about vice-presidential nominee Palin:

“When she got a phone call at three in morning it was because a moose had gotten into the garbage cans.”

 And here's some good news for McCain: Since it looks like Hurricane Gustav could hit New Orleans, President Bush and Vice President Cheney won't be going to the Republican convention so they can initiate relief efforts should that happen.

I'm certain that all the survivors of Hurricane Katrina are greatly relieved to hear that.

Neither Bush, Cheney or McCain had any culpability for Katrina. That shows a knee jerk ideological reaction.  The Mayor mostly and the Governor secondly made it impossible for Feeral relief to possibly work. I don't think it is a respctable charge to make.

As far as JFK, one of his mot famous thoughts "ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country" Sorry Tanya, you are definitely on the wrong side of that statement. 

johnslat I can't say for sure but he sure gives the impression he is too.

You both want government to FIX everything for everybody.  While You are also at least willing to do your share (kudos) JFK WAS NOT in the business of pandering or giving handouts of any kind.  Something that today is the HALLMARK of the democratic party, buy as many votes as you can with as many handouts as you can possibly promise.  That to me is morally disgusting.

John, I agree.

Why, MisterD, are you supporting/defending a party that doesn't include you in their plans. Do you honestly think they care about you? So, helping people is morally disgusting? That's a first. The Democratic Party is not about "handouts", but creating opportunities for all, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, and religion, not the 1% of America that the Republicans tout.  Do you honestly believe that the Republican party cares about the "common man"?

 

johnslat says ...

 You'll have to argue with President Bush regarding his culpability/responsibility:

"George Bush today said he took "full responsibility" for the US government's poor response to Hurricane Katrina, which hit the Gulf Coast a year ago today.

The storm killed 1,900 people, more than 1,500 in New Orleans, where Mr Bush made his comments on the anniversary of the worst natural disaster in US history. The delayed rescue efforts at the time shocked America.

Mr Bush admitted today that the "hurricane brought terrible scenes that we thought we would never see in America". He also conceded that the government "fell short" at "all levels".

"I take full responsibility for the federal government's response."

 

Nope, I don't want the government to "fix everything for everybody/" But I would like a government that would help the middle and lower classes rather than one that takes care of the oil companies and others in the mega-wealthy class.

The middle-class has taken some major hits from this administration, and we're really the ones that pay most of the bills. The way President Bush and his cronies have squandered MY taxes and run this country into debt - now THAT'S morally disgusting.

 

 I believe this gentleman put it pretty well:

"The Federal Government alone cannot begin to provide solutions to all our problems, although it can play an important role in meeting these challenges. Exactly what government should do, and how it should do it, are especially critical questions as we deal with changes in work and family life and other new challenges of the twenty-first century. That is why rethinking and reinventing government has been a priority in the past several years.

The Founders created the Federal Government to do what only a national government could do, such as oversee foreign affairs and national defense. From a limited number of initial responsibilities, the government has grown to encompass an increasingly broad range of social concerns. Yet America has always been skeptical of "big government." During most of our history, we have remained philosophically conservative about its role -- even when circumstances required an expanded role for government.

The debate over government's role has acquired a new urgency for three reasons: None of the old approaches to our social problems have worked very well; we cannot afford a government that is wasteful or too bureaucratic, and the changes in information technology and the organization of work require that government learn to do more with less.

The question now is, how should we change government? The answer is, Americans don't want our government gutted. There are some things that government must or should do: Protect us against enemies; come to our aid when disaster strikes, and help fight crime, to name a few.

We don't want government in our face, but we do want it on our side when we need it. The real issue isn't big government versus small government. I believe America needs a government that is both smaller and more responsive. One that shifts authority from the federal level to states and localities as much as possible. One that relies upon the private sector when the private sector can do the job best. One that works better and costs less.

For example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has formed a partnership with the private sector to spur home ownership to record levels. It is giving more vouchers to poor people to choose their own housing, and is committed to replacing 300,000 units of crime-ridden public housing with new, safer garden apartment complexes.

Responsibility is simply the flip side of opportunity, and together they represent the two sides of the coin of citizenship in America. When opportunity and responsibility are in balance, we achieve the objective we seek -- a community of purpose.

Care to guess who it was?

Good call, MisterD - it WAS Clinton.

 "Government only makes everything it touches worse. Period!!"

Well, good-bye public schools, then. 

But perhaps  you're not a Republican, MisterD. You sound to me more like like an anarchist:

"Anarchy is a functioning society free of government controls."