Watching John McCain defend his VP choice these days is a little like watching a drunk driver attempt to talk his way out of a DUI. After a reckless night on the road with a good lookin’ but toxic brunette, a pollster cop pulls McCain over to deliver some sobering news: he and his lady friend are headed for a serious, possibly fatal, crash. Undeterred by the overwhelming evidence, McCain deflects attention from the bottles of booze littering his car and desperately exclaims: “No problems here, officer! Never mind what your Breathalyzer says — my moose huntin’ lady and I are doing just fine!” It’s almost as bad as ‘pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.’
Even as sweat beads visibly form on his forehead, McCain slaps on that famously awkward grin and tells the cop (who’s now reaching for his handcuffs) that his reckless decision to drive drunk was actually the best move of his career. But even as he says it, McCain appears woozy. He doesn’t seem to believe the claim himself.
John McCain is not stupid. He knew exactly what he was doing when he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate back in August. His campaign was about as exciting as watching paint dry before Palin stepped onto the scene clad in $150,000 GOP-sponsored clothing. But after the Republican National Convention, the McCain-mobile was zooming through the news cycle with renewed speed and a brand new hot-pink paint job. Some pundits were claiming it was the shrewdest political move the Republican nominee could have made — given his propensity for being boring and old.
But the American people are not so easily fooled, as it turns out. Sure, they fell for the hockey mom act for a short time (who isn’t susceptible to emotional blackmail in the form of a special-needs child being held at the RNC by his 4 year old sister?) but most of America is wising up to the real Palin: a 633-day (312 of which she spent in her hometown Wasilla – population 9,780) governor of a state comprised of 670,000 people with zero foreign policy experience and frighteningly little knowledge of the American constitution. This is a woman who, in an interview with CBS anchor Katie Couric, could not name one single Supreme Court Case with which she disagreed (say Dred Scott for crying out loud!) or one newspaper she reads with any regularity (just say the New York Times for god’s sake!) and has now failed to adequately describe what exactly the Vice President does on four separate occasions. It’s almost too much for even Saturday Night Live to handle.
In the face of these embarrassing revelations about his VP pick (and plummeting poll numbers), McCain still asks the electorate to believe that Palin was, in fact, the perfect choice. More than that, McCain wants the public to believe that HE still thinks she was the perfect choice, and will be ready to lead our divided country through wartime and economic crisis if his 72-year old body was to suddenly give way. It’s like some bizarre reversal of Stand-by-Your-Man – but this time it’s Stand-By-Your-Obviously-Incompetent-Running-Mate. Not quite as catchy, but definitely more dangerous.
In an interview with radio talk show host Don Imus on Wednesday, McCain went a step further and actually asked the American people to buy that Palin was “the most qualified VP nominee in recent memory.” The American public can be impressionable, but we are not flat-out stupid. It takes one Google click to figure out that Dick Cheney was the Secretary of Defense, Al Gore was a member of Congress for 16 years and George H.W. Bush was Director of the CIA before they all became Vice Presidential nominees. Sarah Palin is more qualified than these nominees, Senator?
Yet with a straight face, McCain shamelessly asks American voters to believe pure fiction — or should I say, fairy tale?
You are really pushing your luck here, Senator. Some Americans might sincerely like Palin for being a small-town mayor with conservative values, but few would call her the most qualified VP pick in recent memory unless they are experiencing an staggering bout of amnesia.
But writing fiction (particularly biographical fiction) seems to be the name of the game this election season. The McCain camp has really done a phenomenal job of crafting Sarah Palin’s lofty narrative — the supposed reformer, the purported Washington outsider, the no-frills hockey mom. If only it were remotely true – for starters, none of the hockey moms I knew growing up had tanning beds in their homes, and $27 million of pork barrel spending for tiny Wasilla, Alaska seems like an awful lot for a mayor ignorant to the Washington game. Not to mention that $223 million intended for Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere” that Palin kept and used for state pet projects. Palin’s extravagant requests actually landed on McCain’s list of “objectionable pork” a few years ago, before the two became soulmates.
But the gig, it seems, is up. Polls suggest that most Americans are no longer buying the Palin myth that is being so unabashedly pitched to them- not even the suburban white woman she was meant to target. The latest MSNBC poll actually shows the “Palin effect” has been more detrimental than the “Bush effect” to McCain’s campaign. Sure, some Americans are still caught up in her catty humor, small-town shout-outs, and folksy rallies, but fewer and fewer are buying the act every day. I even have a suspicion that McCain himself isn’t buying it anymore – just watch his latest interview with Brian Williams. He sounds, well, like a guy who just blew a .32 trying to tell a cop he’s not wasted. But at this point he and Palin are inextricably strapped in, and have no choice but to careen toward the finish line with the entire GOP in tow. This is one crash I don’t want to miss.
Paul M Davis
5 Comments
J.P.
Great piece of editorial writing, and when “preaching to the choir,” one definitely worthy of a Keith Olbermann high five. Only trouble is, for all of its creative flourishes, it lacks a studied understanding of the true dynamics of this election. Remember too, that Abraham Lincoln served less time in public office than Sarah Palin, and went on to be one of our best Presidents. And more importantly, Sen. Barack Obama has served even less time in public office than Sarah Palin, and she is not running for President! For most women, this isn’t about Sarah Palin’s experience, it’s about one issue: her stand on a women’s right to choose. If she were pro-choice, women all over the U.S. would be lining up around her like human shields in Iraq. McCain’s mistake: trying to appease the core conservative base of the Republican Party with this choice……that’s the true story here. Feminists can’t stand her because she represents “everything” that they are against.
When I make my choice for President next Tuesday, I will be looking very hard at ALL of the issues, and making a decision not based upon personal likes or dislikes of the VP candidate, “$150,000.00 GOP sponsored clothing, “emotional blackmail” and McCain’s lack of the oratory excellence that one can attach easily to a likable and charismatic figure like Barack Obama. Come to think of it, Hitler was an excellent and captivating speaker too, and boy did he know how to motivate a country! (Will critics mischaracterize this statement to say that I’m comparing Obama to Hitler, which I’m clearly not?)
Oh, but that does bring something else to mind. As a Jew, I find Obama’s stand on Israel and the situation in the Middle East as troubling, at best. Researching various Israeli newspapers and sources, I found overwhelming support for John McCain in the form of condemnation of Obama and his pro-Palestinian views. Personally I support a two state solution, but that cannot be achieved if a president allows Iran and other anti-Israel powers to take an active lead at the negotiating table. There are other foreign policy issues at play here, too numerous to mention, but ones that I’ve been studying for the past several months.
For all of the supposed failings of Sarah Palin mentioned in this editorial, most of which are just Democratic talking points, we are not voting for “Mr. Congeniality” or “Ms. Wasilla.” Nor are we voting for the best contestants on “Political It’s Academic”. We must make a tough choice between two formidable candidates, and that choice must be made with the utmost care and consideration, not by peer pressure, popularity, or emotion. As a lifelong Democrat, I find that many of my political peers are making this choice based not on the “Bush factor,” the “Palin factor”, or the “Obama factor”, but solely on the vitriolic factor — their unabashed hatred for George W. Bush and his administration. This speaks volumes when it comes to selecting a president that should be of unquestionable strength and character, as well as experience.
When I go to the polls on November 4th, I’m going to have to consider all of these factors before I activate the touchscreen and help select our leader for the next 4 years. I take my vote seriously; seriously enough to do the homework. Let’s hope we all don’t make a huge mistake based on our personal feelings, pro or con, for either of the candidates, but rather make our decision a fully informed one.
29 Oct 2008 04:10 pm
Paul M Davis
I find it far more troubling that peoples’ decisions next Tuesday could be determined by this country’s inexplicable fealty to a minor ally whose role in the Middle East is no more strategically important to us than any of our other allies in the region, which receive far less concessions and hand-holding. Obama wants to bring the Iranians to the table? Music to my ears. It’s nice to hear someone so close to the Presidency speak reason for once.
Why this country’s foreign policy continues to be driven by our misplaced role in the centuries-old battle between the warring superstitious tribes of this region–be they Muslim, Christian or Jewish–is a mystery to me, but I find it chilling that it could be the deal-maker for as articulate and thoughtful individual as the commenter above. All three tribes seem more than happy to keep the caravan merrily chugging along towards armageddon, so any sort of real diplomacy is counter-productive to that ultimate goal, I guess. As an atheist, I thank those who believe in magic instead of reason for threatening to make such decisions for the rest of us, based on such a shaky premises.
Next Tuesday, I’ll be voting for the candidate who believes in evolution, a woman’s right to choose, and finding forward-thinking energy solutions so we can finally extricate this country from the tribal battles of a region we have no business being involved in. I’ll be voting for the candidate who considers gay rights to be a matter of civil rights, who has half a clue about what to do with the economy, and who will solve disputes through diplomacy, not via the apocalyptic doctrine of George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Ehud Olmert and John McCain’s neocon-cabinet-to-come. These issues are far more important to the future of this nation than how the next President will soothe Israel while the country engages in an endless game of one-upmanship with the likes of Iran and Palestine.
29 Oct 2008 06:10 pm
Matthew
I’m struggling to understand the point of JPs comment. Do your homework before you vote? I think that the responsible use of democratic power is understood here.
There are enough major fundamental differences between the candidates to take a look outside of policy- things such as Sarah Palin’s lack of intellectualism, war on science and reason, John McCain’s rapidly deteriorating health (have you seen him lately?)
Also, Obama’s going to support Israel. To think otherwise is ridiculous- if for no other reason than AIPACs dough and influence. And we have domestic issues to worry about. Helping me see a doctor takes priority over using my money to send Israel weapons.
29 Oct 2008 06:10 pm
Paul M Davis
Also, regarding Israel’s take on Obama, the Economist’s global electoral college map speaks volumes: 71% for Obama, 29% for McCain.
http://www.economist.com/vote2008/
30 Oct 2008 10:10 am
J.P.
I appreciate Matthew’s comments, and it’s also good to know that there are others such as he who will be voting in today’s election. He appears to be well informed and reasoned in his decision on candidates.
I do, however, believe he misread my intent when I discussed the Middle East. It is only one issue, and I make my decision based upon many. I agree that there are a lot of factors that come into play when working on Middle East peace, which should be the ultimate goal. Placating the extreme factions of Iran, or Israel for that matter, are not first and foremost. But the President of the United States must be careful not just in his dealings with foreign leaders, but in the message he or she sends the rest of the world in how or with whom they choose to deal at all.
As to Matthew’s comments, well I believe they speak for themselves.
04 Nov 2008 12:11 am
Leave a Comment