Did McCain Really Vet Sarah Palin?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Alaska, McCain, Palin, Veep
As more question marks emerge about Palin, I can’t help but think the answer to the titular question is “Barely.”
TPM points out what has been revealed about Palin just yesterday…
* The news that Palin once backed the Bridge to Nowhere went national.* It emerged that Palin has links to the bizarro Alaska Independence Party, which harbors the goal of seceding from the union that McCain and Palin seek to lead.
* The news broke that as governor, Palin relied on an earmark system she now opposes. Taken along with the Bridge to Nowhere stuff, this threatens to undercut her reformist image, something that was key to her selection as McCain’s Veep candidate.
* The news broke that Palin’s 17-year-old daughter became pregnant out of wedlock at a time when the conservative base had finally started rallying behind McCain’s candidacy.
* Barely moments after McCain advisers put out word that McCain had known of Bristol Palin’s pregnancy, the Anchorage Daily News revealed that Palin’s own spokesperson hadn’t known about it only two days ago.
* A senior McCain adviser at the Republican convention was forced into the rather embarrassing position of arguing that McCain had known about the pregnancy “last week” — without saying what day last week he knew about it.
* It came out that Republican lawyers are up in Alaska vetting Palin — now, more than 72 hours after it was announced that she’d been picked.
* Palin lawyered up in relation to the trooper-gate probe in Alaska — a move that ensures far more serious attention to the story from the major news orgs.
Listen, be wary about Obama and his experience all you want, but he has talked consistently about the idea that he has the judgement to lead the country and that same judgement led him to choose Joe Biden as the person who’s a heartbeat away. And as far as I can see so far, Biden has proven to be a very serious pick that filled in a perceived experience gap Obama had in the foreign policy column.
On the other hand, McCain picks a little unknown Governor from Alaska who seems like she’s ill prepared for the international spotlight given all of these stories that have started to pop up about her, not the least of which is this latest news that she wasn’t just cozy with a secessionist group…she was a member. I mean, how could McCain not have known about that?
I just don’t think he really checked her out. The evidence is starting to become overwhelming.
More as it develops…
This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Alaska, McCain, Palin, Veep. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:13 am
The AIP has a video on their web site of Palin telling them to keep up the good work and praising them for their annual convention this year. You know, while she is governor of the state as a Republican.
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:44 am
I don’t think they did their homework and neither has Mrs. McCain! Has anyone seen the video of Cindy McCain explaining Gov. Palin’s National Security Experience. The link is to the clip on my site. You’ve got to see it.
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:58 am
Agreed. That was my first response to the announcement. I also expect that we will find that she was not the maverick against corruption and the oil industry they are playing her up to be. Oil like money corrupts. I wouldn’t be surprised if something pops up there as well. It just seems like McCain played it to woo some Hillary voters or get them to stay home, and also deal with the age issue, possibly pick up some conservative voters. Young vibrant, fresh, washington outsider, woman and old washington insider, maverick man take on Young presidential candidate, and old maverick VP. I think it was a hasty decision on McCain’s behalf.
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:06 am
[...] Justin Gardner points out the contrast between the running mate selections of the major party candidates: [B]e wary about Obama and his experience all you want, but he has talked consistently about the [...]
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:09 am
I am beginning to think that this wasn’t a decision by McCain at all. I think the Council for National Policy, a far right wing, religious group strong armed McCain into taking her, but not just for the obvious reasons.
I still think there is something to Palin–the more you read, the more it is clear she is smart, but she also appears to be both a bit of a political opportunist and also ruthless (I don’t necessarily mean that perjoratively, but ruthless in the way one has to be to succeed in politics.)
My first impression was she was much more of an outsider, but from all the above and the payolla she brang in for Alaska and her town when she was mayor shows a savvyness and deviousness not at first apparent.
Again, I think McCain was told to take her ro lose the right–and I think that McCain took her not knowing everything about her, but also being more aware than we are that she is a force to be reckoned with.
I sincerely doubt he would have taken her, though, knowing all that we know now–if he did, it was such a tragic error in judgement he does not deserve the presidency. What will be interesting is to see how he deals with it now.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:24 am
Justin, the claim that Palin wasn’t vetted is false. Totally false. The lesser claim that she was inadequately vetted rests, I must assume, on a false premise: the idea that McCain wouldn’t have picked her if he had known that [insert preferred "revelation" that was "unearthed" over the last 72 hours], ergo he must not have fully vetted her. It just doesn’t seem to occur to you those pushing this trope that the “revelations” they find so concerning might be matters of total indifference to McCain and to his primary audience: non-liberals.
My suspicion is that this idea arises from the fact that those pushing it - which includes the MSM - actually thought this pick was a bolt from the blue. That was the narrative that the media sort to push all weekend - that this was a “surprise” pick that came out of nowhere. That narrative - assuming its ingenuousness - reveals only the media’s ignorance of what’s happening in conservative circles, where Palin’s name has been circulating for months. The only thing that surprised conservatives was that McCain actually picked her; she was the preferred choice of many conservatives weeks - months, even - before McCain named her. Moreover, not only do we know that she was vetted, the idea that she wasn’t is ludicrous - it just doesn’t pass the laugh test. Like the meme that Palin said that she didn’t know what the veep does, it begs the question of whether the person advancing the claim is serious - is it really likely that McCain picked his veep on a whim, facing as he did an extremely tough election against an opponent who has a funding advantage and a media that is determined to win it for the left? It just doesn’t have the ring of credibility.
Moreover, I would like to see someone explain to me how a pick that has united and energized the GOP while driving the left into counterproductive apoplexy is a misstep by McCain.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:25 am
Do you all have your tin-foil hats on?? If you don’t have one, let me know…I’ll tell you how to purchase one from me via paypal.
I’m hearing “twighlight zone” music in the background!!
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:42 am
Unfortunately for a certain RNC talking points echo that posts here I did not make up a thing. Here is the AIP web site complete with video.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:51 am
John says his first reaction was that she was barely vetted; my first reaction was: WHO THE F#@K IS SARAH PALIN
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:57 am
Jim, I don’t think that video supports your claim. Not only does she not claim or imply membership of the AIP, Palin, a Republican, says that just as she believes in competition in business, she thinks it’s healthy in politics too, and that she welcomes competition from AIP. Don’t you think that such phrasing implies that she sees AIP as being in competition with her views? Don’t you think that by carefully noting what she does agree with with AIP on, she is impliedly limiting what she agrees with them on?
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:57 am
Rob, her name has been floating around as a potential veep for McCain for months.
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Rob,
Simon said it for me. I knew who she was, had heard some reports she might be in the running. But my understanding was that they were actively vetting other candidates, with reports that McCain’s people were asking around. I hadn’t heard the same from Alaska.
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:54 pm
My sense is that the folks on the left are way off on this one. Every example I have seen turns out to fall far short of what the liberal hysteria is plumping. If its not the exact opposite.
Here’s the thing, folks Sarah Palin is going to sink or swim based on who she really is, what she really stands for, what sort of competence and mettle she demonstrates. Seems to me lots of folks are awfully eager to make a judgement about this choice without actually taking the time to familiarize themselves with the person who is the choice.
She does sound a little but squeaky to me at first glance, but other than that she seems knowledgeable, capable, and cognizant of the issues. Looks to me like liberal folks who want to dismiss her out of hand as no more than an example of calculated gender tokenism are going to be sorely disappointed.
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Kranky,
I think the thing is that you and McCain’s people don’t want us to find out who she is. Hence the look into who she is. The talking points out of the Rep’s is Christian, Conservative, Pro-Gun, Anti-Abortion, Woman, Mother, Executive Experience, Spunky, Woman, Smart, Maverick, Anti-Corruption, Woman. Unfortunately, McCain didn’t look much further than that. I’m knowledgeable, capable and cognizant of the issues, I’m not being picked for the VP.
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Wait a minute, Kranky K, you’ve said a lot of sound, rational things in the past, but so far this VP selection has turned up some pretty questionable stuff and I’m always amazed at how piople see and hear only what they want.
First, the Right Wing Evangelicals may love the traditional values of this Gov. Mom, but when her 17 year old daughter is pregnant and unmarried many rational people might wonder how abstinence is working out for ya now? Would it be appropriate to ask who will actually raise all these kids, babies, kids havin babies, when both parents work such demanding jobs? Of course a good moral person with such strong family values would never wonder at such a thing, right?
The main point here is that this has been an election when all of these types of issues - the Repub vs. Dem ideology, party-line base issues had pretty much been off the table. In a year when change was the issue for BOTH candidates, now it’s back to bull#$it as usual. Does McCain win in that mud fight? I don’t think so, especially when he seemed to be doing so well before. Good luck!
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I’m with Kranky. It’s almost like the left wants to pre-judge her and pre-empt the kind of press and campaign vetting that permitted Obama to overcome his complete lack of experience for the job.
I’m happy to see how she does.
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Ben,
QuestionABLE? Yes, which means you can question them. Unanswerable? Nope.
Any knucklehead can “raise questions.” That’s a favorite line of argumentative partisan morons of both red and blue stripes…”this raises many questions blahblahblah.” Fine, there are questions. What are the answers? Do they make sense?
John, I’m not a McCain supporter. I’m undecided, and I usually vote democratic. So far, I like the Palin pick, subject to further scrutiny. She feels like a next-generation politician to me, for whatvere that may be worth. And while I don’t like her pro-life stance, I appreciate that she has won a governorship while opposing entrenched government cronyism and managed to raise 5 kids. I am unbothered that she seems capable of handling a gun in a matter-of-fact way like an equal of men. In fact, good for her.
For her to win my support, she’ll have to show her reluctance to pass laws enforcing a socially conservative mindset on ME and other more freedom-of-choice minded folks. I’m not gay, but the fact that she doesn’t seem interested in oppressing homosexuals seems like a sign that she gets it in a way the boomer generation of socons does not.
Abstinence? I don’t know Palin’s position, and I also don’t know what she in fact told her daughter (which might have been different from her political position, and if so would not bother me one bit).
You know what all the sensible non-partisan liberal-leaning folks ought to do on this count? Stop assuming that conservative family-values folks are so effing stupid that they don’t understand that adolescents are 100% capable of exercising poor judgement despite the best efforts of well-meaning parents. That would be a great start.
Then, let’s let Palin rise or fall on her merits. For all the talk of whether McCain vetted her, shouldn’t we do so too, instead of rushing to judgement on the basis of a few questions raised in a “let’s throw it all and see what sticks” effort.
That’s what I am going to do. The election is 2 months away. Palin has the chance to show me what she’s about based on her conduct while campaigning and what she says about where she wants our country led and how she thinks we can get there. I’m going to pay attention to that. I won’t factor her daughter’s pregnancy into it, nor will I factor in shadowy associations. I have faith in my ability to take a measure of a person from direct observation. That’s my preferred methodology. Folks are welcome to their own mileage, though.
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Ben,
So, to state it a little more generally, your point (”when her 17 year old daughter is pregnant and unmarried many rational people might wonder how abstinence is working out for ya now”) is that the sex education she got failed her. And because the sex education she got was abstinence-only, abstinence-only sex ed failed. Right?
Well, let’s stipulate for sake of argument that your logic holds. There’s a glaring problem with the “if her daughter’s pregnant, abstinence education must have failed” meme. Can you guess what it is? Bristol went to public school. The sex education she got was not abstinence-only.
So, Ben: if the sex ed she got failed her, and the sex ed she got was what you might call the “explicit” kind rather than the “abstinence only” kind, what conclusion are you forced to by your own logic?
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
[...] She was also a member of a controversial church- anyone else thinking about Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Justin Gardener notes, "McCain picks a little unknown Governor from Alaska who seems like she’s ill prepared [...]
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Well. looks like I hit a nerve?
Listen, I’m not stupid enough to think that ones ideology can insulate or control their children’s lives. Stuff happens and, as the Dems have rightly said, our kids should be off limits. My point is that John McCain’s choice for VP has brought all of these issues into play. What does that say about the type of leadership decisions he’ll make as president?
I made that comment about abstinence b/c that is what her mom strongly believes in, as does Mr. McCain. We, unfortunately, have many more critical issues to confront during the next term and all we’re talking about is personal family matters - thanks to this VP choice! To blame this on anybody other than McCain is just crazy talk. But then the previous 8 years have been everybody else’s fault too.
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Ben - that is an incredibly weak response. It’d be more dignified to just admit that your talking point had been shipwrecked on the rocks of reality, but I suppose that intellectual honesty just isn’t your tipple.
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Simon,
Got news for ya. Alaskan public school sex ed is abstinence only. They take funding that by the standards of the Bush administration must be abstinence only. The blogger you linked to is a clueless goof. Any other lies you’d care to spread?
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
krazy,
The problem with your attack on people who have actually done some research on Palin gives rise to doubts about your honesty on your political philosophy. The truth is that it takes little effort to discover that the people you criticize as assuming things are the ones who have actually done research about her. For instance:
This comes from an interview she did with Newsmax. It wasn’t at all hard to find. I don’t assume anything about her stands. I did some research. It was easy. If there is a position held by the far right wing of the Republican party she supports it.
It’s just as hard to find her position on sex ed:
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
There is a difference between being talked about in conservative circles as a veep pick and actually getting serious, serious consideration. There’s even a difference, I suspect, between submitting vetting documents and getting serious, serious consideration. That McCain’s campaign has seemed rather flatfooted in responded to a number of these Palin angles is one sign that they weren’t entirely prepared.
None of this implies that she will doom his candidacy or is even a horrible pick, but it does suggest her selection was something of a reactionary, late decision.
Really, nothing that’s come out has been anything close to disqualifying, but I do think the cumulative effect clearly has set a negative narrative for her introduction to the electorate. As a result, voters may not take her seriously as a potential commander in chief, which seriously undermines the message McCain was beginning to have success with in recent weeks.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:52 am
Jim - let’s see some evidence for that claim, please. And you can drop the condescending tone, too - do you think we aren’t aware of that questionnaire, even though it’s been all over the blogosphere for several days? It doesn’t prove as much as you seem to think it does.
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:29 am
Just a friendly quest and statement. Is it true McCain only met her once? She must have looked darn good. I think he was like some men…. thinking with the wrong head. But come on Americans don’t let this man mess with or future.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
We can’t afford 4 more years of the same. Grampie McSame and Caribu Barbie have got to go!