I’ve called for the ouster of Sarah Palin from the McCain ticket — and encouraged certain conservative commentators to do the same. I suspect they won’t.
Posted by conor friedersdorf in Uncategorized
October 1st, 2008
Kick Her Off the Ticket
12 Responses to “Kick Her Off the Ticket”
-
Larry Sheldon says:
You are absolutely without any marging wrong.
Completely wrong.
You do not speak for me.
October 1st, 2008 at 7:40 am -
Tom says:
Wowzers. I’m going to listen to the Couric interview and some others in full before responding further.
-
Jamie says:
An interesting point, Conor. I think you make a good case against Palin, especially the comparisons to Bush’s various disastrous appointments. It is almost impossible to watch that Couric interview and not have a sinking feeling in your stomach.
The only flaw in your argument is your characterization of the conservative base. I fear that the base are no longer those “who prefer fealty to the principles of the founders, a preference for small government, an appreciation of competence and a tempermental aversion to rapid, risky change” but rather the Rovian coalition of big government, social conservative, Christian evangelicals.
That base would almost certainly revolt against the expulsion of one of their own.
-
Bubba says:
Conor’s editorial is certainly provocative, but it’s not reasonable in the least.
First, Conor doesn’t account for the political ramifications of McCain having to replace his VP pick, for whatever reason, weeks after the convention and only a month before the election. He writes that “the GOP has an opportunity to significantly improve the qualifications of the team that may enter the White House this January,” without noting that the very act of improving that team’s qualifications would likely doom its efforts to win.
Second, to make this position palatable, he has to make Palin seem much more disastrous than she is, even relative to the alternative we face in the Democratic nominee.
He apparently thinks that there is a “great risk that [Palin] might preside over our government,” but he does not compare that to the even greater disaster that would come with an Obama Administration, which would be all but guaranteed if Republicans followed his advice.
(So much for his “fealty to the principles of the founders, a preference for small government, an appreciation of competence and a tempermental aversion to rapid, risky change.”)
He not only ignores the alternative, he actively downplays the alternative. While writing that Palin is a “reckless, irresponsible VP pick” he admits only that Obama is “relatively inexperienced.”
Third, he appeals to Andrew Sullivan, of all people, as a conservative whose voice Hannity and others should mimic, an appeal so ridiculous that it need not be criticized in any detail, except to say that, whatever Andrew Sullivan is or was, he is not now a conservative. A more shrill and partisan advocate for Barack Obama you are not likely to find anywhere outside of Trinity UCC or the DailyKos, and his judgment on Palin and every other aspect of this campaign should be discarded as the worthless tripe that it is.
I will readily admit that Palin is not as experienced as I would like, but this essay arguing for her replacement isn’t remotely serious.
-
Hubbard says:
I’m on the fence regarding Palin. I’m very interested in seeing how she does in her debate with Biden tomorrow. That could quash Conor’s argument or justify it.
-
Kenneth R Schoentag says:
Conner:
The problem with Sarah Palin is that she has been
kept under wraps by the McCain team. She has been programmed and scripted and not allowed to be herself. If this election is lost it will be lost by conservatives that have put conservative purity above political practicality. Leave aside the national media and the complete job they have done on her and do some research and you might be suprised by the person behind the curtain. McCain is losing because he is not fighting the right fight, he thinks that the media still like him. He should realize that they are out for the “Messiah” and they will do and say what they must to get him elected. Conservatives are jsut as much to blame as the media for there failure to unite behind the McCain/Palin ticket and go after Obama with the same zeal the left has gone after McCain/Palin. -
Evil Old Rich White Guy says:
Any argument, on any topic, that cites Andrew Sullivan in a positive context, can be dismissed as delusional twaddle.
It’s funny that so many who are hysterical about Plain’s supposed lack of experience/ qualifications for VP, when I don’t recall anyone objecting to the Dem’s selection of the empty suit known as John Edwards in 2004 on those grounds. In fact, the afore-mentioned mental case, Mr. Sullivan, was downright giddy about Kerry’s choice of the Breck Girl.
I would 1,000,000 times rather have Governor Palin as Vice President, or President for that matter, than either the Chicago “community organizer” (read: radical left-wing rabble rouser) or that empty-headed plagiarist and buffoon Biden.
-
Michael Seebeck says:
I saw Palin express opposition to Roe vs Wade because she believes it should be decided at the state level. She referred to herself as a Federalist. Am I missing something here? The Federalists promoted a strong federal government. They opposed states rights.
-
Hubbard says:
Mr. Seebeck—
It’s somewhat misleading to claim that the Federalists supported a strong federal government. It’s more accurate to say that they opposed to a strong federal government but saw it as a necessary evil, while than the Anti-Federalists thought the federal government evil.
The idea of Federalism is that power is divided between the state and federal governments. Consider the tenth amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
For the Federalists, this meant that anything not in the constitution was a state issue. The things the Federalist supported that the Anti-Federalists did not were issues like copyrights, the coining of money, federal taxes, a national army rather than state militias, etc.
Palin’s claims to Federalism and letting the states choose their position on abortion are consistent.
-
Geoff says:
Michael — you’re thinking Founding-era federalism. Modern federalists are in favor of a federal system, ie state and central governments responsible for different governmental fuctions and possessing their own rights and powers, as opposed to centralization.
-
Apollo says:
Imagine a centralization scale of 1 to 10. Under the Articles of Confederation, America was a 2. Under the Constitution, the Federalists wanted to move us to a 4, maybe a 5. In 2008, we’re about a 7. So to be consistent with what the Federalists wanted would require advocacy of decentralization, even though the Federalists advocated centralization.
-
Tom says:
I have soured on Sarah Palin myself in the last few weeks, more so having listened to her last group of interviews and reading more about her. That being said, I do not agree with Conor that her performance(s) since the convention warrant “kicking her off the ticket.”
I largely agree with Conor’s criticisms. With the debate starting in a few minutes, I’ll just add one and expand another:
1) Palin’s consistent use of identity politics, and we hates identity politics. In Indianapolis, Palin made great hay her sex in a rather disgusting appeal to disaffected Hillary supporters. Then, her candidacy became all about her appeal to the Christian Right. This week on Hugh Hewitt’s show, she played-up her working classness. All of us tells us who Sarah Palin is, but nothing about how she will govern. Not my cup of tea.
2) The lack of curiosity. This troubles me far more than her inexperience and reminds me of some of much of problems President Bush. To pick one example, it’s remarkable how neither of them had ever been to Europe before their national campaigns. It’s not that taking pictures at the Efil Tower, the Florence Duomo, or the Prada gives you some great insight into the diplomatic relations, but it sure as hell shows an incurious provincialism.That being said, I don’t buy this argument:
John McCain has stuck principled conservatives with an awful choice: ratify a reckless, irresponsible VP pick or else enable the election of a relatively inexperienced liberal senator to the presidency. Some on the right are already dividing along both sides of that line. A great many others, however, find neither option palatable.
This is a difficult choice? The questions about Palin’s inexperience are based on the possibility that McCain might die; the questions about Obama’s inexperience are based on the likelihood that he will survive.
Unless McCain pulls a William Henry Harrison on us, Sarah Palin will have time to grow into the vice presidency. Given that her ouster would likely cause the McCain campaign to implode, I’m for keeping her, barring a truly awful performance this evening.