McCain-Palin Analysis

John McCain surprised the political world by choosing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate. Palin had long been considered a dark horse candidate who was adored in conservative circles, but was often considered a far less likely selection than more established candidates with stronger national profiles like Mitt Romney, Tom Ridge, and Tim Pawlenty.

John McCain must be given credit for snatching the media limelight away from Barack Obama after his powerful speech last night. And by choosing someone who wasn't on most people's radars, this will ensure that the gushing over Obama's speech will be tempered considerably by pundits assessing who Palin is and what she brings to the ticket. This pick clearly shows that McCain is willing to shake up his campaign and try to blunt Obama's message of change.

As a governor, Palin is the only non-senator who will be on the two presidential tickets this fall. She will also be the only person on the tickets who has executive experience, so she can easily portray herself as both an outsider and a reformer. Of course, Barack Obama had been running on the same message, so the challenge for Obama would be to ensure that Palin does not co-opt his message.

Palin is unequivocally pro-life and a strong advocate of other issues important to social conservatives. This should please the Republican base who may have still had reservations about John McCain after the Rick Warren Forum earlier this month. McCain certainly pleased social conservatives at that forum, but tapping Palin to join him shows that he is indeed serious about showing social conservatives that he will be loyal to them. Any doubts they had about him earlier should immediately be erased by this pick. Also, because of the murmurs about McCain choosing Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman, both of whom are pro-choice, that augments the feeling of relief pro-life voters have about Palin and enhances her appeal.

As a lifelong member of the National Rifle Association who also enjoys fishing, conservative-leaning male gun owners and sportsmen should not feel threatened by Palin. The same holds true for fiscal conservatives, as this statement from the Club for Growth indicates.

Democrats are going to have a difficult time attacking her because she is far removed from Washington. There aren't pages and pages of votes she has to account for, like McCain, Biden, and Obama do. And it inoculates her from Obama's complaints about sending the same politicians back to Washington year after year. Palin has earned a reputation as a reformer who has taken on corruption in Alaska and stood up to politicians, no matter how powerful, in the name of ethics reform. And as an obscure governor, Democrats will be hard pressed to find video of her criticizing McCain. Had McCain chosen Romney, they would have had reels and reels of tape to gleefully sort through. Palin forces the Democrats to reconnoiter.

However, McCain's selection of Palin presents him with several disadvantages. At 44, Palin is younger than Barack Obama (who is 47) and a generation younger than John McCain, whose 72nd birthday is today. In addition to reinforcing John McCain's age, it also prevents Republicans from attacking Obama's youth.

Second, she hails from Alaska. Just like Barack Obama did not need Joe Biden to deliver Delaware, John McCain does not need Sarah Palin to deliver Alaska. (If Alaska was truly in danger of going blue, that would probably signify a problem far greater for the McCain campaign that not even Palin could stop.) A more important consideration that goes beyond this fairly superficial point is the fact that it's difficult to see which states she could be particularly beneficial in. For example, Mitt Romney would have been able to help in Michigan, Nevada, and Colorado. Mike Huckabee would have had strong appeal throughout the South. Alaska, on the other hand, is a small state that may be difficult for voters in the 48 contiguous states to wrap their brains around. Some Republicans tried to paint Hawaii in the same light to show that Obama was "exotic" because of it. That line of attack will not work anymore.

Perhaps Palin's true appeal lies not with geography, but rather with a certain demographic. Female voters may immediately be intrigued by Palin, and the lingering number of diehard Clinton fans may give her a second look. Her staunch pro-life positions, however, may turn many of these women off. But at the same time, as a female, perhaps she can better communicate with them than a male could. A second risk is that this selection could be seen as overt pandering by McCain. After all, he has been running ads all this week suggesting that Barack Obama snubbed Hillary Clinton.

Another common criticism of Obama has been his lack of experience. Obama has served for 8 years in the Illinois State Legislature and 3 years as a senator. Sarah Palin has served as Alaska's governor for less than two years. Prior to that, her political experience comes at the municipal level, where she served as a city councilwoman and mayor of Wasilla, a city that has fewer than 7000 people.

The obvious line of attack from Democrats will be that this undercuts John McCain's message of the importance of experience. Any attack McCain makes on Obama's lack of experience will be countered by reminding voters of Palin's record. Of course, the difference between Obama and Palin is that Palin is running at the bottom of her ticket while Obama is running at the top of his. But the Democrats would likely retort that the vice president should be someone who is "ready from Day One," to use Hillary Clinton's words. Either way, the "experience" weapon has likely been neutralized.

The vice presidential debate looms as the biggest risk associated with Palin. She will have to debate Joe Biden, a strong speaker with vast foreign policy experience. Palin has none. If the debate focuses on domestic issues, Palin may have a chance. But if the debate has a strong military and/or foreign policy component, Biden vs. Palin '08 will look very much like Cheney vs. Edwards '04 or Bentsen vs. Quayle '88. Biden, of course, would have to be careful not to overstep his bounds and risk offending women the way Rick Lazio did against Hillary Clinton in her 2000 senate race.

Tying in with this, Republicans should be worried about ceding the national security issue to Democrats because Barack Obama largely acquitted himself with his acceptance speech last night and Joe Biden has obvious foreign policy and military knowledge. Can Sarah Palin really convince voters that she would be tough on national defense and fighting terrorism? Her political opponents will likely run ads with her picture displayed asking "Can you trust Sarah Palin to stand up to Iran and North Korea?"

Another possible Achilles's heel for Palin concerns something that may very well damage her primary strength: ethics. Palin has been the subject of an ongoing investigation examining whether she abused her power by trying to get a state trooper (her former brother-in-law) fired. This feeds into the Democrats' "culture of corruption" argument and shines an angry spotlight on Alaska, where Representative Don Young and Senator Ted Stevens are both battling ethics investigations of their own. If Palin becomes tainted as well, her political capital will be significantly weakened.

All in all, Palin represents a bold choice for John McCain and should revitalize his campaign and his supporters. While she was largely unknown to most of the electorate, she was a hot topic in conservative circles and the right-leaning blogosphere. However, she cancels out several of Obama's weaknesses and may disappoint ideological Republicans who did not find Obama's experience sufficient and may not find Palin's experience sufficient. (These conservatives felt the same way about Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.) However, she is an ideological ally of the Republican base who may be difficult to attack. And because she is a largely unknown politician, she should attract a lot of attention from the media and voters who want to learn more about her. So perhaps this gamble by McCain is paying off already.

35 comment(s):

rawdawgbuffalo said...

thats why i wrotye he may loose last week. Obama that is

Did Obama do enough to win? Did his speech convert any of the 20% I have spoke of previously or was he preaching to the choir?

robo said...



Anyone who can work on an Alaskan fishing boat is tough.

Anyone who can care for a Down's Syndrome child is compassionate.

Her husband and her children are direct descendants of Native American Eskimos. Her husband also has a real job - and is a union member. They are perfect to represent America.

Small town values ALL THE WAY. Small town America needs a voice in Washington.

I also understand that she suffered a crushed hand on her husband's fishing boat. It doesn't look like she has let that "disability" stop her from working hard for her country. She entered government for the right reasons... SHE HAS A SERVANT HEART. The only one on any ticket, IMHO, who seeks FIRST TO SERVE.

U-S-A for Palin (and McCain, too).


Anonymous said...

As a former Hillary supporter I am delighted by this choice. There is nothing scary about a woman as VP. McCain has shown more guts than Obama. What is not to like of Palin? She is governor of the biggest state of the nation. She has successfully balanced a career with motherhood - and five children at that, one of them with Down's Syndrome and a son about to go to Irak. I admire her very much. McCain just won my vote.

J. R. Miller said...

Two quick observation.

First, the democrats say that this election is about understanding people in small town america. Yet their criticism of Palin is that she was the Mayor of a small town and this counts as 0 experience. So why do they disparage small town Americans as unqualified?

Second, it is interesting to watch as the media savages another women and throws Palin under the buss as a VP candidate while it celebrates a man with equal or less experience as a qualified presidential candidate.

Anthony Palmer said...

JR Miller,

The experience issue is tricky. In terms of total government experience, Palin has fewer years of service than Obama. But in terms of executive experience, Palin has more experience than Obama...and Biden...and McCain. I think the reason why the experience issue matters so much with Palin is because McCain was making that one of the central arguments against Obama. If Republicans hadn't been stressing experience so much earlier, nobody would be complaining about it now. And Governors Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney had even more gubernatorial experience than Palin, so that may make some people wonder if McCain was simply pandering or if Palin was essentially an affirmative action pick.

Having said that, Palin will be a difficult person to attack. Seems like a high risk, high reward selection. Should be an interesting race.

J. R. Miller said...

I agree and would point out that the big difference is she is a VP and Obama is a Presidential candidate. My two observations are really about strategic problems Obama is going to have with the way they have chosen to attack Palin.

Personally, I would like to see both Obama and Palin have more experience, but only one is trying to be President. For me, Obama would be a much stronger candidate in 4 years from now.

Anthony Palmer said...


As the first ever PUMA to leave a comment on this blog, I would like to ask you if a person's politics are more important than a person's identity. And do you believe that Palin is more of a political pick than a sincere pick? It seems that McCain has only met Palin "once or twice."



I read your comment and it seems that your assessment, but I have to challenge you on a few things. If "working on an Alaska fishing boat" makes one tough, does that make one tough enough to prosecute the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? And does the parent of a child without Down's Syndrome not exercise compassion?

I do not ask you these facetiously. I am genuinely interested in what makes one person more qualified for leadership than another person whose biography is similar.



Obama can indeed lose this election, but it seems at present that he has a better chance of winning than McCain does. But yes, McCain has a serious chance of stunning everyone.

Anthony Palmer said...


In the case of Obama, he was not making "experience" the pillar of his campaign. He was running on more of a "unity" and "change" message. And his message and his lack of experience was supported by millions of voters who gave him the nomination.

In the case of Palin, you are right in that she's running for VP and not the Presidency. But let me ask you this. Do you really believe McCain put his "country first" with this selection? I'm not picking on Palin. I'm just interested in seeing how the standards change when a politician you support makes a decision.

J. R. Miller said...

Anthony, I find it interesting that you assume my comments make me a McCain supporter. Interesting how someone offering two early observations draws you to that erroneous conclusion.

So let me correct your assumption. Only in the last few weeks have I started to lean for McCain, but to be honest, I am still on the fence. I like stuff about both men and dislike stuff about both. I want to see this thing play out for the next few months and how each campaign handles itself will make the final difference. You can read some of my other thoughts here in the comments section of my post... go right to the last comment.

Yes, I think McCain picked Palin as a political move. Clearly he is trying to pick off the Hillary vote and he has picked a conservative to help bolster his support from the Republican base. But maybe he thinks that is what is best for America?

What you failed to point out is that Obama has also billed himself as above partisan politics and one who will put America first. Yet he has made many political moves to serve his campaign as well.

So it is no real shock to me that both men are making decisions where politics eclipses good decisions. You tell me Anthony are you suggesting that Obama has never compromised himself putting politics above what is best for the USA? Do you think Obama is above all politics and McCain is the only flawed candidate in this race?

Again, interesting how you assume my standard has changed? Can you show me how I personally have applied a different standard or is that your assumption based on your political persuasion?

Anthony Palmer said...


You are right. There's nothing in your comment that explicitly identified you as supporting one candidate or the other. It seems though that people who support McCain support Palin and people who don't support McCain don't support Palin. Since the campaign has been going on for so long now, it would seem that there wouldn't be very many undecided voters left. But I guess not, and I should not have jumped to conclusions. No offense intended. Honest political debate is hard to find and I appreciate the opportunity to engage in it with you.

J. R. Miller said...

You are right. It is hard to find and even harder when people don't allow others to speak for themself, so I appreciate your backtracking on that assumption.

But you did not answer my question. You are suggesting that McCain is a hypocrite for selecting Palin because that does not put America first. Do you see Obama as a political virgin who has never violated his campaign to be above partisan politics?

I also hope you will read the comments I linked to above so you can get a better idea of where I am coming from.

Thanks for the intelligent discourse Anthony!

Anthony Palmer said...


In the case of Obama, he certainly has made some negative attacks. But I think what passes as "negative" for Obama is what passes as "softball" for what we're used to seeing in politics. Being "post-partisan" doesn't mean you can't ever go negative because no politician will ever win an election without doing so.

In the case of McCain, the reason why I mentioned "country first" is because it would seem that McCain valued someone who was strong on defense and presumably shared his Iraq views. Sarah Palin does not strike me as someone who Republicans would naturally envision as being able to prosecute terrorism or lead the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And if McCain didn't think she was qualified to lead the military and its campaigns abroad, that would seem to endanger the country. Hence my "country first" comment. I think that would be a major talking point if Palin were a Democrat.

Freadom said...

Excellent post anthony. I'm going to link to it from my blog in case anyone missed it.

Brett said...

Good lord, what a sad, cynical pick on John McCain's part. People may criticize Barack Obama for picking a guy to cover his weaknesses, but at least Biden can actually do something for him (since Biden is very familiar with both the legislature in general and foreign affairs in particular) when and if he becomes President.

I'm having a hard time, though, seeing Sarah Palin as ANYTHING but a campaign prop. She's been governor for less than two years, during which her main claim to fame is fighting corruption (she needs to get in line behind McCain, then). That's not exactly much executive experience to add to the ticket, particularly from an irregular state like Alaska.

She has no particular specialty other than that, either, nothing that would indicate that she would be a good step-in President, or even a good surrogate.

She is, however, a deeply conservative woman, and that is the cynical part; McCain's campaign is clearly hoping that conservative women will mobilize, and borderline women vote for her out of Identity Politics.

Of course, this is all assuming that she doesn't get indicted for what happened with the commissioner up in Alaska. Now that would be humiliating for McCain.

DB said...

I love the irony in this pick. My biggest issues, well among the biggest, is his grasp on foreign policy and ability to lead the US in the world we live in. I am not comfortable putting someone so close to the Presidency who "hasn't really focused much on the war in Iraq." Values are one thing, but we are talking about who can lead our country if McCain retires early.

J. R. Miller said...

I agree that the pick is very ironic.

McCain says, "we need experience" and picks someone who has about as much experience as Obama.

Obama says "we need Washington outsiders" and picks a guy who one of the biggest Washington insiders left in the Congress.

The old saying holds true... "Politics makes strange bedfellows."

Anonymous said...

Palin is a fundamentalist idiot who thinks it is reasonable to teach creationism in the classroom. She is on utube in an earlier interview stating that she doesn't even know what a vice president does. If that's your idea of a good choice, good luck, America!

S,W, Anderson said...

McCain is 72 today. His father and grandfather had died by that age of heart attacks, if I remember correctly. McCain has been treated for skin cancer twice.

Being realistic, his chance of not surviving another four years is notably higher than the average president's. That makes his choice of running mate especially important.

By any reasonable measure, Palin is not qualified to take on the responsibilities of the president. Several mostly enjoyable movies have been made about an everyman, anywoman or Walter Mitty type becoming president. All of the ones I've seen ended happily. But we can't count on happy endings in the real world.

Right now our country is in worse shape than it's been in for a very long time. Much of what's wrong can be traced back directly or indirectly to the worst, most incompetent, ignorant arrogant and corrupt administration in U.S. history.

The chance that in practically no time Sarah Palin could step in to be the follow on to Bush is bizarre and unacceptable. McCain made a bold, cynical and absurdly irresponsible choice.

That's not to say Palin lacks intelligence or some worthwhile capabilities. I know any number of people who are intelligent, talented and/or skilled in some way. However, I wouldn't let anyone do major surgery on me because none of them are educated, trained and qualified to do that.

This is not a hard concept to grasp.

BTW, Alaska might be the largest state geographically, but that doesn't mean diddly squat. Being governor of populous, diverse New Jersey or Connecticut is several orders of magnitude more challenging in every way.

George W. Bush was governor of big-state Texas. But the governorship of that state bears little resemblance to the governorship of New York or California. Bush was poorly qualified to be president in 2000 and what he's done over the past seven and a half years has only served to verify how unqualified he was. It's also demonstrated how impervious he is to learning and growing on the job.

Khaki Elephant said...

As you know, I'm a big Palin supporter and have to tell you that you did a fantastic job of capturing the risks and rewards of the pick. Particulary the fact that men will find her appealing (and not just physically) because of her NRA membership and frontier-women image (not to mention that she also plays hocky) and that Democrats will attack her experience and rural connections.

The one attack that I think will not stick are the indictments. In fact, I think those attacks will twist in the Republicans favor. Keep in mind that she unseated an incumbant governor and removed oil committee members because . . . well, they were slime, and these guys were all fellow Republicans. She can easily spin off the indictments a partisan politics while pointing toward her own sweeping reforms to eliminate corruption in her own party.

Great post! Read it twice.

Khaki Elephant said...

Yikes, I had some typos on that post. Serves me right for posting around 3:00am

DB said...

It's cool Khaki, I even "proffread" all my comments and go back and add the errors and speling mistakes!

Phillip said...

Anthony, a couple of points in regard to your post...You warn that the VP debates could end up like Bentsen-Quayle in 88, but remember who won that election...point is even if Biden cleans Palin's clock it may not matter much.

Re Biden and Palin both coming from small, electorally unimportant states...I think they are planning to use Palin in exactly the same places the Dems are planning to use Biden...Ohio, western PA, maybe Michigan...going after the working-class vote and especially the disaffected Hillary supporters. (Though I don't understand how a Hillary supporter could possibly vote for McCain, who is against virtually everything Hillary is for.)

In each case the pick was not for the sake of the home state of the nominee, but for that candidate's appeal to a particular constituency. Of course, Obama's pick also was someone who can quite plausibly be considered a potential Prez should circumstances dictate. Can one really say the same of Palin?

In any case, a big swing at the plate by McCain...in a few weeks we'll know whether it was a home run, or a humongous "whiff."

WileyCoyote said...

I think that you may be missing somethng integral here. The attitude in Alaska is that of rural America (or at least the values that they think they have, which in the voting booth amounts to the same thing) - self-sufficency, a lack of governmental dependence, and an emphasis on structure, family, and the value of hard work and productivity. These are things that the Republican Party, pre-Christian Coalition, used to stand for. The conservative voters who for years have been saying, "This is NOT my father's Party!" will become reinspired by his choice of a woman who is tough enough to work a fishing boat or hunt elk, and woman enough to care about her family and community.

And THAT was the purpose behind that pick. Anyone who thinks that women will be turned off by a tough, outspoken female with a husband and five children and responsibilities is mistaken - they will applaud her reality in the same way they rejected Hillary's aritifical attempts at presenting herself so. Biden is so far left of center that he will put off those who have come to the Democratic Party in the past few years due to the Party's theoretically Centrist philosophy that Obama embodied.

The disenfranchised Republicans and the rural Americans who actually vote every time will flock to the polls, and the harder the pundits attack her the better it will be for the Republicans. Check, and in November, Checkmate.

Silence Dogood said...

She is a Union member (as well as her husband) at least that is what was reported yesterday, and since all the staunch conservatives I know are anti-Union to the max, I have to wonder the likelihood that the conservative right is all goggly eyed for her will be once this is sinks in?

Anthony your thoughts?

Khaki Elephant said...

In any case, a big swing at the plate by McCain...in a few weeks we'll know whether it was a home run, or a humongous "whiff."

Wish I'd come up with that analogy because it is spot on. McCain is doing what he has to do given Obama's appeal. He tossed aside a chance to take Minnesota or Michigan to swing for the fences. He may not win, but the Maverick will going down swinging.

And before folk completely dismiss the difficulty of Governing Alaska, keep in mind that it is the nation's richest ground for oil and other important, though less politically charged, natural resource. And it also happens to be the only state that borders Russia.

End DB, thanx for being nice. eye am gonna mak shure I my post are prufred bedder before sending from hear on.

northernlights said...

Just when I thought there was no intelligent, civilized political discourse on the Internet, I found this lively discussion of the McCain-Palin Analysis. Thanks to all of you for the lively, thoughtful insights into this intriguing new political scenario.

Re Governor Palin: I've spent a lot of time in little Wasilla, and while ten years of executive experience in any job is admirable, there is no way that running Wasilla is comparable to running the United States.

Also - and this is a delicate question - she just gave birth to a disabled child four months ago. Campaigning for the White House will be an extremely demanding, 24/7 job for the next two months. Can this be in best interests of her child? I cannot imagine any woman I know leaving their newborn at such a young age -- or can she really be thinking of taking him on planes and campaign buses for the next couple of months? I haven't heard anyone else raise this question, and I'm curious how it will play in terms of "family values."

Anthony Palmer said...

Thanks for the comments, everyone. I'll try to get to all of them.


Thanks for the link. And thanks, as always, for arguing your political views without actually arguing.



There is an excellent post over at Political Wire about how McCain is essentially "hiding" Palin from voters who have a right to know who she is. By choosing someone as unknown as she is to be VP, should anything happen to McCain while in office, America would be left with someone whose views we are almost completely unfamiliar with. It's "undemocratic," according to the post.

After the initial luster wears off from Palin, it will be interesting to see how she's covered and viewed by voters.



What you said captures the difference between Obama and Palin perfectly. At least Obama has been on the campaign trail for months articulating his views. Voters got to have their say with him. But with McCain's selection of Palin, she got to bypass all of that. So nobody really knows what we're getting with Palin. I don't see how that's putting "country first."



I guess politics is about having the right message at the right time. Underneath it all, there's a lot of hypocrisy. Had Obama chosen Tim Kaine, I highly doubt McCain would have chosen Palin.



Palin is very hard right and she voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000. The Democrats could create a campaign ad to scare the heck out of female voters everywhere based on this Buchanan vote alone.



Go read the piece at Political Wire that I linked to earlier in this long comment. It provides a new take on your thought, which I happen to agree with. It seems like the presidency and vice presidency aren't so demanding after all in terms of what it takes to govern. But hey, you get the government you deserve.

This "Alaska is the largest state" nonsense is just that--nonsense. Delaware actually has more people than Alaska. So does New Hampshire. When people talk about this "largest state" nonsense, I don't think they are thinking critically about what it means. Canada is actually larger than the United States, so does the Canadian Prime Minister have more responsibilities than the American President?



For McCain's sake, I hope you're right about the Troopergate scandal. Because if it explodes, Palin will be history and McCain will be finished. That would cripple Palin's reformer message, call McCain's judgment into question, disenchant the Republican base, remind voters of Republican corruption, and reinforce Obama's "judgment" argument. The media knives are out, though. We'll see what happens.



Point taken about the Bentsen-Quayle debates. So that would mean the election would remain about the top of the ticket, not the bottom. I guess the VPs can rally certain constituencies, as you mentioned, with Biden in blue collar communities and Palin with women. But your second point about Obama looking for someone who could conceivably fill in should Obama not be able to serve anymore is important because I agree that that might not have been a tactic with McCain and Palin. Seems to me like McCain was looking for someone who could help him win the election, rather than someone who could help him govern. I mean, he only met her once!



Yes, Palin does represent a return to Barry Goldwater conservatism. I don't think the criticisms surrounding Palin, however, stem from her ideology. They stem from how McCain arrived at his decision and how he contradicted his message of experience by choosing her. But with any Hail Mary selection, there's always the chance that it could result in a touchdown. But frankly, I would have felt a lot more comfortable about Palin had she at least been on the national scene a little longer and people actually knew who she was.



Yes, she is a union member and she supports drilling in ANWR. So there's some disconnect between her and McCain. But I think the excitement will remain because abortion and guns are what single-issue voters focus on. As long as the Republican is pro-life, the evangelicals won't protest too much. As long as the candidate won't take away our guns, we'll go along with them. That's the mentality I think will prevail.

Having said that, McCain has a strong pro-life and pro-gun record, so I think Palin can't help too much in that regard. Her appeal will be among women, and that's where Obama will have his work cut out for him.



You are right about Alaska's proximity to Russia. It will be interesting listening to Palin articulate her views on illegal immigration, however. Same with offshore drilling, especially given the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska 20 years ago.



Thanks for dropping by The 7-10, and thanks for the comments. We try to keep the discussions here intelligent and thought provocative. So please drop by again and join in the discussion.

I agree with you about how being a small town mayor doesn't give you automatic credentials to run for President. People were skeptical of Rudy Giuliani and he was the mayor of a city that had more than 10 times the population of Alaska! She has really set a new standard for qualifications and that genie is not getting back in the bottle.

The Down Syndrome issue could hamstring her because even if women admire her personal story, they may wonder why she's on the campaign trail and not taking care of him. That may make Palin look like she's just being political instead of responsible, which ties into McCain's own possible irresponsibility regarding this pick.

The family values crowd might not mind so much though because as long as she didn't get an abortion, nothing else may matter to them. Who knows?

Thanks again for the comments.

WileyCoyote said...

Just another little thought on Palin's Down's Syndrome child - isn't it the DEMOCRATS who say, "it takes a village to raise a child"? For them to protest her taking the child on the campaign trail, or not staying home and being the little woman/martyr, will bite the Dems soundly in the butt.

Reading the other blogs and forums this weekend, I have seen this already come to the fore and be trounced, as well as her Union position, and her inexperience in office - and the INexperience is working for her, not against. "Someone fresh, to clean out Washington and the Federal Government the way she is cleaning out the Alaskan government" is the prevailing sentiment.

Finally, a November election that is going to be FUN to watch! This totally unexpected move will put the Dems off-kilter, which is exactly what it is meant to do. (Visions of Lee Atwater keep springing to my mind. Someone learned at his feet on this one!) We'll see over time if this SCHMACK in the Blue faces with a gorgeous and intelligent wet salmon leaves fin marks or fades away...

Even the far right conservative women I know are either like her or wish that they were. Always remember the first Law of Politics - People. Vote. On. Emotion.

Anonymous said...

What executive experience does she have? I keep hearing this argument but I don't understand what's behind it. Please elaborate.

Also, I don't understand women who seem to be ready to vote for ANY candidate just as long as it's a woman. I am a woman but frankly I'd rather vote for a smart and promising male candidate than for a bimbo.

As for Sarah Palin, she is a laughable VP choice. McCain had a good chance but he blew it when he picked her. She's a joke. On the other hand, it'd be fun to watch Biden wiping the floor with her on Oct 2.

And please find out whose child is it anyway. I've heard it's her daughter's.

Anthony Palmer said...

I've heard rumors about Palin's youngest child really being her daughter's child too. However, I cannot verify any of this and am reluctant to post more about it. So far, I've only seen it posted on DailyKos. If the mainstream media pick up on it and it turns out to be true, then Palin and McCain are finished.

I'll do more research and see what I can find. But until then, I'm reluctant to post unsubstantiated rumors on this blog.

DB said...

This claim imo is a super long shot. Typical conspiracy theory. I would think the left has enough to run on without going here, but blogging is blogging!

J. R. Miller said...

Hi Anonymous, you asked, "What executive experience does she have?"

The government in the United States of America is split into 3 branches; Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The Governor's office is part of the Executive branch of Government. Therefore, since Palin has been a Governor for a couple years, that gives her executive experience.

You can read about how government works in any Junior High textbook. I am sure you can find a copy in your local library. I am sure someone can give you directions to one if you have never been.

J. R. Miller said...
This post has been removed by the author.
J. R. Miller said...

I do have a question for all those concerned that McCain's choice of Palin violated his principles on experience.

Obama had made the case from day 1 that more than experience it is his (Obama's) decision making that qualifies him for President. Specifically, he has said that his vote against the Iraqi war shows he has the judgement to be President and McCain's vote for the war shows he is not qualified to be President.

Obama picked Joe Biden for VP and Biden voted for the war, like McCain. So based on Obama's own critera, Biden does not have the judgement to be President.

Are any of you Obama supporters concerned about this isssue?

Anonymous said...

"As a former Hillary supporter I am delighted by this choice. There is nothing scary about a woman as VP. McCain has shown more guts than Obama. What is not to like of Palin? She is governor of the biggest state of the nation. She has successfully balanced a career with motherhood - and five children at that, one of them with Down's Syndrome and a son about to go to Irak. I admire her very much. McCain just won my vote."

I'm desperately trying to find something in this ramble that makes sense.

Slapping on different genitalia does not make someone immediately more or less qualified for a position. Given that you were a Hillary supporter, Palin should scare you out of your mind, as she is the complete, total opposite of Hillary in policy.

She's pro-life, Hillary's pro-choice.
She's served 0 time on the national level. Hillary served for years in the senate.
She's pro-big Oil ( her husband works for BP). Hillary is (more or less) anti-big-oil.

Sarah Palin does not represent "values." She improperly several employees upon her entering office because she "knew in her heart" they weren't loyal. Still think she's a great substitute for Hillary?

Please, please, PLEASE, do some research before you ruin this country for the rest of us.

Copyright 2007-2008 by Anthony Palmer. This material may not be republished or redistributed in any manner without the expressed written permission of the author, nor may this material be cited elsewhere without proper attribution. All rights reserved. The 7-10 is syndicated by Newstex.