Posted on 09/15/2008 12:32:01 PM PDT by markomalley
Historians looking back on these tumultuous times will no doubt argue over the precise date on which the Age of Palin began. Her speech at the Republican National Convention on September 3 certainly catapulted her to national renown. But there is a good case to be made for her introductory appearance in Dayton, Ohio, five days before.
It's all there: You have the same poise and panache Palin exhibited at the convention. You have the self-assurance of a champion high-school athlete who went on to bigger and better things (unlike in the gloomy Democratic, Bruce Springsteen version of life, in which it's all downhill after your Glory Days). There's the ability to deliver a barb with a smile. And above all, that day inaugurated arguably the most incoherent and blubbering partisan response to a candidate in the history of American politics--against which the charms of the candidate stood out even more clearly.
Let's get this straight: Your party has just nominated for president a fellow who has been elected exactly once to the United States Senate, in an uncompetitive race, following a garden-variety stint in a state legislature. And your response to the GOP nominee's choice for vice president--someone who has been elected once as governor following a stint as a small town mayor--is to decry the lack of experience? Nobody ever said Barack Obama was unqualified for the No. 2 spot on the ticket.
Had Hillary Clinton won the nomination and selected Obama as her running mate--which, being a savvy politician, she would certainly have done, in order to fire up his 18 million primary supporters--Obama would have been perfectly positioned. Either he would be preparing himself as vice president for his run for the Oval Office eight years hence. Or he would be experienced and tested in a national campaign that he would never be held responsible for losing, with a fundraising base beyond the imagination of Croesus. Instead, it's McCain-Palin with the wind at their backs, and Palin who is being prepared as the outstanding future prospect for her party.
Now, you might think it hypocritical to criticize the inexperience of a vice presidential nominee who has similar experience to your presidential nominee, but that's just a failure of the imagination. Indeed, hypocrisy was the strange charge Democrats decided to make against McCain and Palin: Having run against Obama all summer for his lack of experience and accomplishment, how dare John McCain pick as his running mate someone with (ahem) experience comparable to that of the Democratic candidate for president McCain had been criticizing?
Well, maybe because it is not a sign of the strength of a candidate at the top of a ticket to need the experience of Joe Biden (or Dick Cheney) in order to allay concerns that he's not quite up to some aspects of the job. And, contrariwise, it is a sign of strength at the top when the nominee can look to the future and make a priority of party-building. Does anybody think that if Obama loses, he will have left his party in a stronger position by advancing the prospects of Joe Biden? Fortunately for Democrats, at least they've got Hillary in the wings.
But these weren't the only hypocrisies in the air. Remember reading the discussions of Vice President Al Gore's parenting skills in all the papers the day after his teenage son got busted for dope at high school? No? That would be because Gore called around to all the papers (including the Washington Times, where I was editorial page editor at the time) and asked us not to publish it, kids being kids and being owed some privacy. The newspapers didn't. That was then: Given a preposterous Internet rumor that Sarah Palin was never pregnant with her four-month-old baby but faked it to cover up for her daughter, Bristol was fair game. This was a judgment shared among Democrats and, coincidentally, the media (the same ones who were also all over the John Edwards love-child story, remember?).
And so Democrats started pointing at the stunning "hypocrisy" of McCain putting Palin on the ticket in spite of her pregnant daughter. Shouldn't all the GOP talk about family values and abstinence education have disqualified Palin? Because, after all, Bristol is getting married and keeping the baby, and if that isn't a sure disqualification for someone's mother for the vice presidency, what is?
Plus, Sarah Palin, we've been informed endlessly, is a hypocrite with a capital H. In all the obvious ways, such as being opposed to women's rights while still having a career. Democrats have been at the forefront of cheering women on to break supposed glass ceilings, but only the right kind of women, which you can be pretty sure a Republican woman isn't.
Then there's all the pro-life business: It just took one columnist in Salon to expose the hypocrisy there: Palin had her baby tested for Down syndrome, and then--had the baby! If she were really pro-life, there wouldn't have been any reason to have the test. As Rahul K. Parikh, M.D., explained:
We could ask, given that Palin had no doubts about seeing her pregnancy through, why she bothered to take a genetic test. Why not, as you might expect a woman in her position and with her outspoken beliefs to do, decline any testing or counseling? Of course, it seems very reasonable to want to know about the health of your baby and to have time to prepare (emotionally and otherwise) for a baby that may have a genetic disorder. But that doesn't negate the fact that by having a blood test, Palin was given a choice about what to do. Her supporters say that Trig signals that she practices what she preaches. Her decision to make her own choice but not grant it to others is a sign of her hypocrisy.
So let's see if the pro-lifers can get this straight for a change: If you are going to have the baby anyway, you are not entitled to information about its health (even though the desire for such information is "very reasonable"), because some people who are not pro-life use such information as a basis for deciding whether to terminate their pregnancies. Got it?
But the most stunning hypocrisy of all, from the point of view of most Democrats and, coincidentally, the media again, was that McCain had promised a vice presidential nominee qualified for the job and then undertook such a haphazard, last-minute, incompetent vetting process that he found out all the things that Democrats and the media are so exercised about. And he went ahead with Sarah Palin anyway!
And just look at the bitter fruit McCain has reaped for all his "hypocrisies": Palin has helped propel him ahead of Obama in national polls for the first time. Fifty-two percent of respondents in a Pew survey think she is ready to be president now. If people could vote only for vice president, they favor her over Biden 53-44 in a CNN poll. And the unknown governor of two weeks before is now the most popular Republican politician in the country.
And the unknown governor of two weeks before is now the most popular Republican politician in the country.
The real reason for Palin Panic. Even if, God forbid, Obama wins in Nov. We still have a future with folks like Sarah Palin around. We will not lie down ever! We will fight for the fundamental beliefs of individual liberty and economic freedom. It will be impossible for the ‘progressives’ to achieve their desired goals without us, the productive, the makers, the hosts!
Who knows? We may end up seeing it in 2012.
“Didn’t know that CBS would reprint a Weekly Standard article. Refreshing and surprising!”
The MSM is starting to assess its future with a McCain presidency. If I were McCain, I’d be circulating rumors that I was considering a presidential press corps that excludes all of the MSM, from the alphabet tv and cable news services to the NYT and the WaPo. I’d circulate the rumors because that’s exactly what I’d do. The partisnaship of the MSM is no longer even arguable, regardless of how many Weekly Standard columns they reprint.
I don't think so. By 2012, Sarah has "shown the way" for many, many conservatives that are in the wings strengthened and emboldened, now they know and they will step out. Thank God for Sarah's strong bed-rock faith, her courage DEMONSTRATED by how she lives her life, her commitment to family and country, God bless this woman!!
She is also (by example) teaching men how to lead as well, how to be stand-up men for what's right instead of mincing around afraid to say something that might offend some Leftist, Godless puke.
Don’t think so. Both Hitlery and Osamabama are renowned for carrying grudges.
Neat article!
Tod Lindberg is still alive? I thought he was either dead or lost in the wilderness somewhere.
“A Hillary! / Obama ticket would have been ammost unbeatable this cycle.
Who knows? We may end up seeing it in 2012.”
As for Hillary, I don’t think she’ll get the nomination in 2012, either. Before 2008 Hillary scared off most of the “electable” Democrats that people thought would run, such as Mark Warner and Evan Bayh, but she won’t scare them off again in 2012. I think that this was her last chance at the presidency.
For the record, had Hillary won the nomination, I think that she should have taken Harold Ford, Jr. as her runningmate. Ford is way more qualified than Obama, and he would have (i) said yes and (ii) not let his ego get in the way of trying to win the election.
Sarah Palin is redefining manhood.
Do you think he'll even stay in the US?
If Obama loses (or WHEN Obama loses) he is likely to become the next Jesse Jackson, bitterly screaming racism at every turn and perpetually running for President. Obama is finally being shown as the over-the-top liberal that he is and even many Dems may not want to take it to that level.
Haven’t heard much from Tod lately. Good to see he’s still writing.
Who knows? We may end up seeing it in 2012.
Possible, but the worm will have made a lot of turns by then. Fight the battles consecutively.
Once Obama loses, I can't see any reason for his mentors not to drop him. I see no reason for him not to stay in the Senate until 2010, but doubt he'd be able to win re-election after having thrown the presidency.
You are right, the smart money says a defeated Berry would waltz into the Illinois Governor’s Mansion (unless we can “Nixon” him, not likely) and run later with that pesky “executive experience” under his belt. He’s young enough to wait.
A)P to VP? Never.
B)Hillary choose him after he snubs her and loses what should been a win to McCain? Never.
And it’s a laugh to say Hillary is unbeatable, remember her sky high negatives?
A vanilla dim like I don’t know Richardson could have easily won this year, luckily for us they choose a flawed candidate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.