Tonight, playing the role of Vice President....
(update below)
Right now, as I write this, Sarah Palin is surrounded by a team of handlers who are literally telling her what her position will be on virtually every issue of national importance. This process has been going on for the last week or so and will continue throughout the campaign. And that's pretty remarkable if you think about it. This is a woman who, whatever her merits as a half-term governor, has never had to grapple with any of the issues she'd face as President of the United States. She has absolutely no public record of expressing opinions on these issues, and there's really no evidence that she's ever even thought about them.
I don't say this to insult her. She appears to be intelligent and clearly has good political instincts. But the situation we're presented with here is really no different than if John McCain had gone out and hired a skilled actor to play the role of Vice President. Either way, a team of advisers would be hunkered down with the candidate telling her what her positions are going to be. The Sarah Palin that we'll see in upcoming interviews and the vice presidential debate will be little more than a character, a persona created by the McCain campaign who believes exactly what the McCain campaign wants her to believe.
Indeed, what little is known of Palin from her brief career is already being reworked and repackaged (often through the use of outright lies) to fit the character that the McCain campaign wants her to be. A politician that specialized in securing federal earmarks is being presented as an anti-pork crusader. A rather conventional Alaskan politician with virtually no significant accomplishments to her name is being presented as a reformer who "shook up" her home state and will do the same to Washington. And in the coming weeks, a half-term Alaskan Governor who, until two weeks ago, had never really thought about national or international issues, will start revealing her deeply held beliefs on one policy issue after the next, and we'll all be expected to pretend that these beliefs weren't just imparted to her by her handlers five minutes ago.
She's not presidential material, but she'll play one on teevee.
UPDATE: Wow, I didn't even notice this Wall Street Journal op-ed until after I wrote this post, but it illustrates my point perfectly. It's a policy piece about the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purportedly written by John McCain and Sarah Palin. Now, I'll bet you my left arm that Palin didn't even read this piece much less co-author it. After all, just the other day she made a comment in Colorado Springs which clearly betrayed the fact that she had no idea what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are. But we're all supposed to believe that this is her analysis of the situation. How dumb do they think we are?
Right now, as I write this, Sarah Palin is surrounded by a team of handlers who are literally telling her what her position will be on virtually every issue of national importance. This process has been going on for the last week or so and will continue throughout the campaign. And that's pretty remarkable if you think about it. This is a woman who, whatever her merits as a half-term governor, has never had to grapple with any of the issues she'd face as President of the United States. She has absolutely no public record of expressing opinions on these issues, and there's really no evidence that she's ever even thought about them.
I don't say this to insult her. She appears to be intelligent and clearly has good political instincts. But the situation we're presented with here is really no different than if John McCain had gone out and hired a skilled actor to play the role of Vice President. Either way, a team of advisers would be hunkered down with the candidate telling her what her positions are going to be. The Sarah Palin that we'll see in upcoming interviews and the vice presidential debate will be little more than a character, a persona created by the McCain campaign who believes exactly what the McCain campaign wants her to believe.
Indeed, what little is known of Palin from her brief career is already being reworked and repackaged (often through the use of outright lies) to fit the character that the McCain campaign wants her to be. A politician that specialized in securing federal earmarks is being presented as an anti-pork crusader. A rather conventional Alaskan politician with virtually no significant accomplishments to her name is being presented as a reformer who "shook up" her home state and will do the same to Washington. And in the coming weeks, a half-term Alaskan Governor who, until two weeks ago, had never really thought about national or international issues, will start revealing her deeply held beliefs on one policy issue after the next, and we'll all be expected to pretend that these beliefs weren't just imparted to her by her handlers five minutes ago.
She's not presidential material, but she'll play one on teevee.
UPDATE: Wow, I didn't even notice this Wall Street Journal op-ed until after I wrote this post, but it illustrates my point perfectly. It's a policy piece about the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purportedly written by John McCain and Sarah Palin. Now, I'll bet you my left arm that Palin didn't even read this piece much less co-author it. After all, just the other day she made a comment in Colorado Springs which clearly betrayed the fact that she had no idea what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are. But we're all supposed to believe that this is her analysis of the situation. How dumb do they think we are?
posted by A.L. at 9:53 AM
22 Comments:
Sarah Palin's a boy band. McCain's just hoping he can win this election before her CDs end up in the $1 bin.
Who is really to blame if the public allows this and swallows the pap provided? Underlying this whole charade is the role of main stream press. They are being used and seem to be a willing party to it. If I can see that Sara is lying, why can't Brian Williams or Bob Schaeffer? One has to conclude there is no "free" press anymore. It has become some strange game of reporting what is said with no attempt to determine if it is accurate or not. The whole idea of a career Washingtonian running on the theme of change is laugable but for it to go unchallenged by the press makes you want to cry.
Well-stated, as always. I think that the Obama campaign is handling Palin correctly on this one. If they go after her too hard, the media won't pounce on her you know the way they will after her first inevitable gaffe.
I saw this on the blog of Craig’s List founder, Craig Newmark, yesterday and thought it was worth sharing:
http://ObamaTravel.org — real grassroots democracy
"Hey, this is a good example of genuine grassroots democracy:
http://ObamaTravel.org is a platform that connects volunteers who want to travel to a swing state with financial sponsors and swing state host families. It’s sort of a political hybrid of craigslist and Team-in-Training - volunteers post profiles and solicit sponsorship from their family and friends. Sponsors can see their donations in action by following the activities of their volunteers.
... and let's remember that "community organizing" is pure grassroots democracy."
So, let me get this straight. Obama supports infanticide and lies about it, votes against helping New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in favor of the bridge to nowhere and never mentions that, but it's Palin who is not presidential material?
Steve, I'm not going to respond to your comments any more. You're not even trying to be honest.
A.L., You've been polite, generous, and reasonable with the right wingers who post here. They are not well-intentioned, do not care about honest dialogue, and are deliberately trashing your site. I say either expunge their crap or just ignore them.
So back to the subject of creating concise, catchy ads that capture the essence of what's wrong with McCain/Palin.
Contrasting phonetically with the inclusive phrase "the ties that bind us," I suggest an ad that revolves around "the lies that bind them." As in bind them to George Bush, bind them to Iraq, bind them to their mean spirited and divisive ideology, bind them to torture, bind them to Katrina, bind them to anti-science, bind them to secret renditions, bind them to Guantanamo, the sub-prime mortgage debacle, spying on Americans, tax giveaways to the rich and big oil, etc. It is the blatant commission of lies that binds them to each other and to their perpetual failures. Lying is their only plan and hope for staying in power. Bind them to it.
A rather conventional Alaskan politician within virtually no significant accomplishments to her name is being presented as a reformer who "shook up" her home state and will do the same to Washington.
From today's Telegraph (and which others have reported on since she became McCain's running mate):
Her first target was an absurd bureaucratic tangle that for 30 years had kept the state from exporting its gas to the other 48 states. She set an agenda that centred on three mutually supportive objectives: cleaning up state politics, building a new gas pipeline, and increasing the state's share of energy revenues.
This agenda, pursued throughout Palin's commission tenure, culminated in her run for governor in 2006. By this time, she had already begun rooting out corruption and making enemies, but also establishing her bona fides as a reformer.
[snip]
The surprise is not that she has been in office for such a short time but that she has succeeded in each of her objectives. She has exposed corruption; given the state a bigger share in Alaska's energy wealth; and negotiated a deal involving big corporate players, the US and Canadian governments, Canadian provincial governments, and native tribes - the result of which was a £13 billion deal to launch the pipeline and increase the amount of domestic energy available to consumers.
Accomplishments.
I think that post of Steveil is a perfect example of the overall strategy of the GOP. Spread little lies, especially on the internet, and they will have a life all their own. It has worked so well using trolls and amatuers that now the Republican candidates and campaign staff are using the same technique. As long as Obama, Biden and their staff ignore such underhanded techniques, the lies are going to keep gnawing away at their support. A large portion of the population doesn't take the time and effort to track down these little seemingly inconsequential lies and take them for the gospel. The Democrats are going to have to hold a press conference every morning and refute the latest batch, giving the facts and calling them what they are, lies. They cannot rely on MSM to do because they won't.
You forgot to mention the actors playing the role of journalists who will pretend to be won over by her charisma and swoon over the greatness of her answers to their questions.
Charles Gibson probably already recorded his narration for the interview: "Tonight, the all-American girl-next-door from Alaska, proved that she's more than just a pretty face, but a brilliant politician with razor-sharp wit and a heart of gold....."
Palin has secured this election for the Republicans. The Democrat Party is flat footed now, you don't know how to handle her!
They don't think we're dumb. They know it. There simply is no other rational explanation; they couldn't get away with it if we weren't.
In 2002, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act (SB1083) while he was an Illinois legislator.
This law would have ensured that any child born is entitled to full and equal protection of the law. It explicitly called out the case where the child was born alive in the course of a "failed" abortion.
The full text of this at: Induced Birth Infant Liability Act.
When a similar bill was introduced in 2003, it was never brought up for a vote in the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.
Now, I have to give Obama credit. His reasoning for not supporting this bill was spot on, given his assumptions:
"Number one,'' he said, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a child, a 9-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this were a child, this would be an anti-abortion statute.''
To defend abortion he HAD to vote to deny protections to the children born alive in the course of a "failed" abortion.
Note that the bill he voted against explicitly refers to "born" children. It does not apply to any fetus/baby/whatever that has not been born.
His position is well stated. I wish more supporters of abortion-rights understood the logic of their position as well as Mr. Barak does.
Defending the life of the baby that has been born "accidentally" would put him in the position where he could not defend abortion rights. When push came to shove, abortion rights won out over the rights of already born humans.
In time, the abortion issue may bee seen through the lens of civil rights. Of the more than 44,000,000 legal abortions in the US to date, over 15,000,00 of them were for black babies.
The KKK probably can't even dream of a record like that.
Black or African American's make up ~ 13% of the population but account for nearly half of the abortions. Somebody doesn't like them very much.
For that matter, how much of the bailout does McCain understand? He has admitted he knows little of economics. It was probably entirely ghostwritten.
Anonymous,
You can believe what you want, but the reality is that the "Born Alive Act" served no other purpose than to try to change the legal definition of personhood. Doctors don't in fact kill babies who are born alive. It doesn't happen. It would violate all of their ethical rules. This is a made up issue. That bill, and bills like it, are trojan horses designed by abortion opponents to try to create a backdoor way of making abortion illegal.
And I think you're completely wrong about the trajectory of history. Over the years, more people have come to support abortion rights, not less. There are virtually no countries in the world now where abortion is illegal.
If you care about reducing the number of abortions (and we all should) the way to go about it is to try to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies through education and the use of contraception.
Because here's the other thing that abortion rights opponents don't seem to understand. Even if you were to criminalize abortion, it wouldn't reduce the number of abortions. We live in the age of RU-486, abortion by pill. If abortion were criminalized, women would be able to order RU-486 over the internet. There would be an instant market for it. The number of abortions would not go down.
Plus, realistically, even if you succeed beyond your wildest dreams and Roe v. Wade is overturned, most states won't outlaw abortion. So women will be able to cross state lines, go to back alley clinics, or order pills on the internet. It won't make any difference.
The only way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
You can believe what you want, but the reality is that the "Born Alive Act" served no other purpose than to try to change the legal definition of personhood. Doctors don't in fact kill babies who are born alive. It doesn't happen. It would violate all of their ethical rules. This is a made up issue.
House Report 107-186 that accompanied H.R. 2175, the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Beginning on page 8 through page 11 includes testimony from two nurses who did witness what you say "doesn't happen". One of the nurses, Jill Stanek, was eventually fired for being a whistleblower. For reporting infanticide.
Plus, realistically, even if you succeed beyond your wildest dreams and Roe v. Wade is overturned, most states won't outlaw abortion.
But it does do the one thing that supporters of Roe never mention; it would turn the decision of outlawing it or not over to the people and their elected representatives. You know, democracy.
The question people should be asking themselves is: Since the words being placed in these people's mouths are obviously not their own, what is the guarantee, after being elected, that the words will still have any meaning whatsoever?
We all do remember "I'm a uniter", from the most polarizing president in recent history, don't we?
On anything the candidates have no investment in, their words are worth, precisely, squat.
Steveil--I don't think the word "infanticide" means what you think it does . . .
"There are virtually no countries in the world now where abortion is illegal."
Where did you get that information from?
mls,
I should have said First World countries. Abortion is available more or less on demand in roughly 2/3rds of the countries in the world, and in virtually the entire Western world. And the trend has been toward increasing abortion rights, not decreasing rights.
Great article, very well articulated.
They obviously don't think we're all dumb. They just want sway enough of the low information voters who don't pay much attention to the actual facts and issues but still plan to vote.
Don't they ALL sort of "play one on teevee?"
Some are better than others, clearly, and Sarah Palin presents quite well--better than John McCain, who may well be a smart guy, and certainly nobody can question his patriotism or commitment to the USA as a concept, BUT...he's not a fiery speech-giving type. Besides the fact that his running mate is female, she's simply more charismatic.
I sat through the DNC thinking, "well, there is our next president" but when the RNC came around, and the GOP put up a multitude of charismatic people telling the McCain story, I wondered why I had never really heard any of this before. To me, he was just a career politician...the reality is that he's a pretty interesting guy--just not a very good speaker.
The worst thing the Dems could do right now is go into some kind of Palin Panic in which they freak out over her good showing and try to over-compensate somehow. I was quite nervous about the post Palin speech press conference, for example.
The press will do their best to tear down whoever is most popular at the moment--the only defense ANY of them have is to actually have other things to talk about, like, their plans for the country, for example.
I'm not going to say with any confidence that ALL of the people voting in the US can, or are even willing to, sift through the BS to get to the substance of anyone's actual platform. Many of us are guilty of siding with whomever has the most amusing sound bytes. The press AND the politicians have created this monster. It is only in times such as these, when we see the true nature of the beast, that we decide to call it that--the rest of the time, the American people are quite content sleeping next to it.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home