Conventional wisdom is already saying it's easy to understand why Palin was picked since she challenges so many of Obama's own tick-boxes: she's young -- three years younger than Obama; she's a looker -- better to half the population than Obama; she's not a Washington insider -- unlike the buffoon knows as Biden ("change" you can see); with a Governorship of two years she does have political experience -- more, perhaps than Obama, who can only boast three years in the Senate; she's helped clean up corruption in her state -- unlike Obama, whose friends n his state are the sort who need cleaning up; and of course, she's a woman, which it's presumed might help steal votes from disgruntled Hillary supporters who care only that their political leaders have a vagina; and a member of the NRA, which might help confirm votes from NRA members who care only that their political leaders have a gun -- and that they know how to shoot bears with it.
As Thales says, to many this will be "the grand slam in the bottom of the 9th" -- the moment when John McCain wins the Presidency.
* He will get a significant portion of disaffected Hillary voters who are desperate to vote for a woman"None of which," as Thales points out however, "is a good reason to vote for anyone. So that's modern politics in a nutshell."
* He calms the GOP's base who want a conservative
* He undercuts a major reason that many are voting for Obama - he's black.
* The "change" message now flows to both sides.
* He gives cover for those who feel that they have no choice, morally, but to vote for Obama
As for her policies, which is the reason to vote for someone: she's pro-drilling ... but she's anti-abortion. She delivered Alaskans a significant tax rebate worth several thousand dollars each ... but at the expense of raising taxes on oil companies. She believes anthropogenic global warming in a hoax ... but she wants creationism taught in schools, and opposes birth control even for married couples! A very mixed MILF then. (Or, perhaps, the first VPILF.) An anti-abortion, creationist wacko who begins to make sense when she gets her head out of the Bible.
Fact is, as Myrhaf says, the way her character is already being assasinated by the left suggests they see her as a threat to nationhood under Obama.
The left is trying to do to her what they did to Dan Quayle in 1988. There was a media frenzy when Bush the elder picked him to be his Vice-President. The media and the Democrats defined Quayle unfairly as an airhead. The left has a long history of attacking Republicans as stupid: Reagan, Ford, Eisenhower, and I believe even Wilkie and Coolidge were attacked thus.And all this talk about her being "one heartbeat" away from the presidency, covertly raising the spectre of McCain's age and fragility -- while ignoring that his mother is still alive and well and living in Peoria* -- and Palin's supposed inexperience -- but "inexperience" compared to what? Obama's lack thereof? Barack Obama has never governed or run a business. He has no major legislative accomplishments. He is a socialist community organizer with zero understanding of economics -- whose Obamanics look very much like an Americanised version of Hugo Chavez's -- whose career has was kick-started by the corrupt Chicago political establishment because of his "glamour" and his ability to make gown women cry.
However, how is Palin significantly better? As George Reisman points out, Obama and Palin are both ignorant of economics, and her career has been elevated primarily because she's a babe with the zeal to make abortionists cry.
When it comes to "the question of experience," Myrhaf responds with another question that's worth considering:
Taking experience alone as a qualification, then the most qualified man to be President is Jimmy Carter... Would you want Jimmy Carter to be President?
Ideology is of supreme importance. Experience is a minor factor compared to what a man believes. Barack Obama is ideologically a lot like Jimmy Carter. Neither has a good understanding of America's enemies in this dangerous world. Obama, you could say, is Carter without the experience.
Which of the two inexperienced candidates, Obama or Palin, would you rather have answering that 3am telephone call announcing China's invasion of Taiwan? A lifelong member of the NRA or a man who holds collectivism as his ideal? A woman who once worked as a commercial fisherman or a man who once worked as a community organizer (a job that is by its nature altruist-collectivist-statist)?
Ideas get little discussion in American politics, and that is a shame.... But however bad she might be, I have a hard time believing she could deal with the invasion of Taiwan worse than Obama or even the supremely experienced Jimmy Carter.
* I confess, I have no idea where Mrs McCain lives. Peoria sounds good.
39 comments:
I first read about her earlier this year via the "Liberator Online". The writers were more complimentary than not, whilst acknowledging her obvious conservatism. I also understand that Newt Gingrich has been talking her up for a while.
I think she's an inspired choice by McCain - from a political perspective. The GOP has been perceived as dated for some time now, and with some reason. Like it or not, the Bush administration has big baggage.
Enter a young, attractive woman who's successfully, albeit recently, taken on the male arena that is Alaskan politics. As for her relative inexperience, what about Obama? And he's going for the top job.
The race is truly on now. Her nomination, hot on the heels of Hillary Clinton's dismissal, could be quite a blow for the Democrats.
There's a lot of variables at play here, some of which are bullshit .. but that's politics.
Ok, just spotted your update. Looks like I agree with Thales. (Or he agrees with me). :)
Peoria? Illinois.
I don't see the confusion as to McCain's choice. Seems an obvious strategy to me: If in doubt, pick the MILF.
I wonder if that will be her Secret Service codename ........
Sarah Palin is gorgeous. She will adapt to the role on the GO as all politicians do and it is no difference to Libz gaining 5% to enter Parliament. All the Libz's members are inexperienced in everything, from economics, businesses, international relations and a whole lot of other pre-requisite skills that are required for Parliamentary candidates.
Just read an amusing American blogger who stated--
If an American city gets nuked, Obama is the man to pick up the phone at 3a.m. and make that call to the UN.
AndyL said
"All the Libz's members are inexperienced in everything, from economics, businesses, international relations and a whole lot of other pre-requisite skills that are required for Parliamentary candidates."
Andy, which planet do you live on?
The experience of MMP has been that none of these are "pre-requisites".
A nose long enough to poke into the trough of publicly-funded perks seems to be far more important...
In this respect, AndyL, you are right - the Libz are woefully ill-equipped.
Most Libz I have met are either self-employed or work in the private sector, so understand how and who creates wealth.
After reading the comments Sus makes for a very long time and following "Suslinks" I finally decided to vote for the Libz.
The thing that tipped the balance for me was the response Sus made when I said there were some Libz policies I disagreed with.
That response was something along the lines of "if you agree with the core principles, then the parts you disagree with aren't so important"
(more or less--my memory isn't the greatest)
So what if Sarah Palin doesn't tick all the boxes? The fact is she's on the right side of issues such as corruption and government spending. And that's a huge plus for a lot of Republicans which may get them off their butts to go vote in November.
Anthing but Obama!
Euan : Most Libz I have met are either self-employed or work in the private sector, so understand how and who creates wealth.
So as Sarah Palin, and what makes George Reisman's point anymore valid than Sarah Palin? At least she used to run a small commercial fishing business. What George Reisman's stand in the business world? Does he own one or has ever run one apart from being an academic?
I reckon Poughkeepsie would have been funnier.
My money says come November, Sarah Palin is going to have two more trophy heads mounted either side of her fireplace--Obama and Biden.
George
The fact is she's on the right side of issues such as corruption and government spending.
No, she's not.
Euan is quite correct...most Libz members are chaps who are self employed and busy earning a quid...
(Obviously some of us are better at it than others..ha ha!)
I consider myself a most experienced parliamentary candidate...pointing out the importance of Libertarian values to the locals, and highlighting our various policies; and trying to encourage electors to abandon their ghastly 'middle class' values to embrace "Rich Chap-ism".
(Who is this Andy chap?!?!)
PC, do you not realise what a liability it is having that twit Lineberry holding forth on bullshit like 'Rich Chap-ism' and advocating for the Libertarianz at the same time?
At the very least, something like 'The antiquated, elitist and bizarre views held by Elijah Lineberry are not necessarily shared by the Libertarianz Party'. Unless of course they are, but I find it very hard to believe.
DenMT
Perhaps the Libz are confident enough to accommodate varying views, Den? Unlike the socialist lockstep collectivist groupthink of the other parties.
DenMT ..I must have missed seeing your name on a ballot paper as a Libertarianz candidate...(with 'nothing' people like you there is always some excuse)
As usual, the empty cans make the most noise.
KG - whilst I think it is healthy for a political party to accommodate a broad range of ideas and approaches, there are some ideas which are poison to most people.
Do you, and I encourage you to answer this, believe that 'middle-class' values are 'ghastly' and that we should be more like Elijah Lineberry's kooky vision of 'rich chaps'?
If so, exactly who are the Libertarianz attempting to attract votes from? It looks just like a party for the rich, who wish to sever all involvement with the vulgar poor. Luckily for me, I have been a reasonably regular reader of PC's for some years now, and am aware that the Libertarianz stand for much, much more than this, and that most of the policy I have read has little, if anything, to do with personal wealth assigning some sort of status.
I have a good deal of sympathy for some aspects of Libz policy, and those areas which I oppose I can still appreciate from a logical perspective, even if I disagree with them. I just see Lineberry's views as directly antagonistic to any hope of reaching out to anyone who is not already a confirmed Libertarian voter, or some sort of eccentric super-capitalist like himself. You'll have to agree that both of those groups are decidedly minute in New Zealand, so the question is, why sabotage yourselves by tacitly endorsing his errant nonsense?
DenMT
(PS: Before you get excited about my expressed sympathy for some of the Libertarianz views, PC, I've already voted Greens/Greens... ;)
Okies, Den I'll give it a go.
"Do you, and I encourage you to answer this, believe that 'middle-class' values are 'ghastly' and that we should be more like Elijah Lineberry's kooky vision of 'rich chaps'?"
Nope. I believe middle-class values are enormously important.But if he chooses to believe that, I'm neither repulsed nor threatened by it. It's just another end of the spectrum of opinions.
"I just see Lineberry's views as directly antagonistic to any hope of reaching out to anyone who is not already a confirmed Libertarian voter.."
Perhaps. But there's an alternative to that, or perhaps a logical endpoint, which I see as far worse--the Blairite (and Key) move towards the so-called "middle way".
That's a betrayal of principles and effectively a perversion of the idea of an opposition party or parties. It effectively leaves voters disenfranchised.
And that's far worse than one person switching off a few undecided voters.
Duncan, that's an economic argument I'm not qualified to comment on.
I'll say this though--she at least knocked the bribery on the head and the first requirement of good government is honesty.Without that, no reforms are possible short of hemp rope and pitchforks.
Here in NZ we ought to have learned that by now, surely.
Her economic sense may not be pure according to Reismann but I'll take principles as a starting point.
By the way, Den, perhaps I ought to point out that I'm exceedingly poor--as a result of my own bad choices.
So I'm not arguing from the point of view of a 'rich prick". :-)
andyl
What makes Prof Reisman's view more important than Sarah Palin's is that he is correct. He KNOWS his subject as fact of reality and can prove it. Sarah's situation is that she has possesion of a mish-mash of arbitrary ideas, some of which contradict each other, which are not linked and ultimately she can't validate. Now that does not mean she can't do the correct thing from time to time, but it does mean she is often likely to do the wrong thing for EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS as she acts correctly. It means she does not know why she does what she does. In her case you will find that ultimately, at base, she would explain that she does what God wants... (in other words God sends messages to her or her local ayatollah).
Much information regarding Prof Reisman's career is on the public record. You can (and should) seek out his research, analysis and publications. Then you should read them (Start by reading "Capitalism"). That action would go a long way towards curing your obvious ignorance of economics, politics and Libertarianism.
Final points, Reisman's analysis of the Central Banking system as cause of the boom/bust cycle has been demonstrated to be correct. Application of that analysis since 2000 by several associates of mine has resulted in significant attainments for them (and retention of the family house in one case). The Professor's role as researcher, analyst and teacher has been undertaken honestly and effectively over a long career spanning decades. That was his job. It is mine (and yours) to benefit from the knowledge he uncovered by applying it consistently and honestly.
LGM
Interestingly, some Objectivists are reporting that a McCain presidency would be far more harmful to individual's living within the USA (and elsewhere for that matter). Rather than another rehash of same old socialism (which would ultimately fail- think peanut), it would be an empowerment for a ruthless theocratic anti-individualism justified by arbitrary belief in God (mad chattering voices in the head).
Anyone got any comments on that?
LGM
"All the Libz's members are inexperienced in everything, from economics, businesses, international relations and a whole lot of other pre-requisite skills that are required for Parliamentary candidates."
Oh for fucks sake - can't you just ban this loser?
Man for man, Libz are far more qualified in absolutely every category than any of the current MPs and certainly than every other political party.
Libz are far, far more experienced in business than any other batch of New Zealanders - it's the Libz that are paying the taxes that are paying for your benefits, the schools for the kids you are too lazy to educate yourself, for the healthcare you are to pathetic to buy your own insurance, for the police for you insist on having because you're unwilling to take responsibility for your own security.
What bludging scum like you don't get is that we're not going to do it any more. We're sick of paying taxes for 17 year old's to have kids, for South Auckland wide-screen TVs that it is now illegal to cut the power off?
and all this happens only because we are fucking paying for it.
pay you own way.
look after your family yourself.
stop bludging. stop begging.
pay back your student loan, the costs of your bludged state schooling, the costs of your bludge health cover and on and on and on
and then you are in a moral position to take part in a discussion about New Zealand's future
until then - fuck off.
exactly who are the Libertarianz attempting to attract votes from?
From anyone with any moral sense.
From anyone who doesn't want to steal and defraud their fellow kiwis anymore.
From everyone who wants to stand on their own two feet!
From everyone who is truly human.
Den, Elijah's amusing mission to make the world safe for upper class chaps is not mine -- and in fact the energy of free capitalism mostly does the opposite -- but as KG says, Libz are confident enough to accommodate varying views, just as long as their bottom line is the non-initiation of force principle.
It is for Elijah. How 'bout you?
I can't help but mention the irony that while one school berates Libz for being too exclusive, another berates Libz for excessive tolerance.
Go figure.
They can't both be right,can they. Perhaps they should both check their premises.
Now, now, Den .. (long time, no see, by the way!) .. you've been hanging around libertarians long enough to know that free speech means just that, meaning individuals may say what they like, and of course take responsibility thereof.
It naturally means that others may not like what an individual says, much less agree.
I'm not here to bat for Elijah .. he's a big boy & can take care of himself .. but newcomers to libertarianism need to learn that most fundamental of tenets. Do I agree with everything he says? Of course not, as is my right, and I have no doubt that the feeling is mutual, as is his. :)
Talking about poisonous ideas, though, my antennae automatically points toward the Greens .. and Ms Bradford springs to mind; can't imagine why. Did you know she's now the Green party spokesman on ... gaming. As of last weekend, according to radio reports. She wants to ban pokies now, bless her. Still, she's nothing if not consistent when it comes to interference.
The same woman who vowed and declared that she would "pull her bill" should any amendment be imposed - and then did precisely the opposite.
I wonder how *you* could support a party boasting such a representative.
I wonder how *you* could support a party boasting such a representative.
Precisely, because DenMT is naive and can't reason at all. He/she is one of those feel good do good environmentalists around that sees the Greens is the savior of the planet, more alike that the rest of us somehow are just visitors from Mars where we're here to exploit the earth's resources, pollute its environment and then fuck off back to Mars, when the doom predicted eventually arrives.
We all live on the same fucking planet and any looming disaster that is being projected to hit us in the future, I and any environmentalist out there would be very concerned. But the Greens are not producers of the society. They like to boss around producers who would one day, solve the problem of global pollution.
Interesting that Sarah and the Greens would agree that an apocalyps is looming. It's all about blind irrational beliefs. That's one of the many troubles with these cultists.
LGM
"Interestingly, some Objectivists are reporting that a McCain presidency would be far more harmful to individual's living within the USA (and elsewhere for that matter). Rather than another rehash of same old socialism (which would ultimately fail- think peanut), it would be an empowerment for a ruthless theocratic anti-individualism justified by arbitrary belief in God (mad chattering voices in the head).
Anyone got any comments on that?"
Just one (ok two).
First: utter nonsense.
Second comment: the current empirical evidence points strongly the other way - that the U.S. is less likely to be theocratic now than it was 20, 50, or 100 years ago, which is to say not all and never was (past about 1750).
If there is any risk at all it comes more from an Obama presidency, who has pandered to the religious like no candidate before, and combines a strong inclination toward socialism in a dozen ways. McCain on the other hand refuses to discuss his religion, has never advocated a position (that I know, apart from some 'pro-life' anti-abortion stance, though he has no intention of attempting to outlaw abortion), and refused to compromise when Dobson and other similar loonies refused to endorse him.
He chose Palin because she was like him: an anti-corruption fighter, moderately pro-business (when it's honest), and an all around 'American'.
She has many faults, as does McCain. But they are as nothing compared to Obama-Biden. This is an election, not a philosophical debating society about faith vs reason.
To expect Palin, or McCain to be John Galt, or even Calvin Coolidge in the context of today's politics is to abandon the field to the avowed and consistent enemies of freedom rather than supporting its weak and inconsistent defenders.
The better candidates/executives give the maximum time for better ideas to have a long term impact.
Letting Obama appoint the next two or three Supreme Court Justices could do damage it might take 100 years to undo, if we ever could. That's apart from the awful economic consequences if he were successful, backed by a majority Democratic Congress.
The only limiting factor with an Obama presidency would be his obvious incompetence and readiness to be liked, which would tend to paralyze him.
Think about the actual choices with which we are faced. The theory that we should vote for the worse candidate in order to have a better outcome later ("because people will see that X was tried and failed") has no basis in actual experience. Just to give one recent piece of evidence, has the total cockup from Congress the past two years made it any more likely that the Republicans will gain seats in Congress this November? Despite having promised to 'clean up Washington' (laughable, to be sure) and deliver a sound energy policy, they've done the exact opposite and are still the favorites.
Benjamin said: "But the Greens are not producers of the society. They like to boss around producers who would one day, solve the problem of global pollution."
That is a very important point IMO. It is the capitalists, not the moochers and looters, that solve mankind's problems. Always have, always will. If there was a real problem with climate change, you can bet your bottom dollar a capitalist would solve it (because their bottom dollars depend on finding a solution).
Any problems with pollution will be solved - and probably is being solved as you read this - by a capitalist.
Underpinning these solutions will be respect for property rights; and at the root of it all will be every person's right to maintain and improve the quality of their life on this planet, provided they don't harm others in the process.
Addendum:
And, by the way Duncan, Dr. Reisman (a man for whom I have considerable respect and agree knows his stuff) is wrong in some important ways in this case.
There are substantial differences between Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin.
Which will work hardest to defend the U.S. against jihadists? Which will push back harder against Georgia?
Even on the economic front, which will work to open up oil resources in the OCS, shale in Colorado, and (probably, later) ANWR?
The answers to those questions are obvious if you have paid any attention to the actual campaigns, rather than pick out a few statements or actions and compare them to the Objectivist ideal.
"Which will push back harder against Georgia?"
Correction:
I meant (as I hope was clear), "Which will push back harder against Russia's invasion of Georgia?"
"All the Libz's members are inexperienced in everything, from economics, businesses, international relations and a whole lot of other pre-requisite skills that are required for Parliamentary candidates."
I don't think "experience" in shutting down 99% of useless government. Interesting concept though, wonder how the job interview would go?
"As you know it's a pre-requisite to have experience to become an M.P., have you got rid of anything big that is of fuck-all use to anybody before?"
"Well, I keep trying with the mother in law..."
Start with a joke, always start with a joke.
Sarah Palin's opening speech is here.
Jeff
Thanks. Interesting comments.
This morning it was reported that McCain did not intend to have Palin as his running mate originally (his preferred alternatives were an ex-Democrat senator and the present Gov of Penn). He was approached by certain delegates and influencial "high-ups" within the Republican Party and told that neither of those candidates was considered suitable by the religious faction of the party. He was threatened with a walk out and rebellion by a significant portion of the Republican delegates should he have chosen one or other of his preferred. At that point he was presented with a list of acceptible alternatives (or rather some "examples" of the sort of good people like us who would be supported). He quickly chose Palin (an evangelical) after an interview.
Whatever the fine details turn out to be it would seem that the theocratic have control over a significant portion of the Republican Party. They are certainly able exert enough control and influence to direct significant decisions. One wonders how this would play out when appointments such as Supreme Couty judges are made or certain policy is set.
This appears to be an example of what some Objectivists are expressing concerns about. Still the Democrats are "reaching out" to the religious lunacy voting block as well.
Jeff, I don't believe that McCain is that much less of a collectivist than Obama. He's a proclaimed "patriot" who esposes ideals of self-sacrifice and service to the nation after all.
Do you think that the political direction the USA is headed is going to change?
LGM
LGM,
I appreciate your thoughtful reply.
I can't answer your final question right now, except to say that: Yes, I do think it will in the long run, but not in the direction of theocracy. That is a bogeyman with little basis in evidence. But the question is more complex than I care to answer at length right now.
As to McCain being less or not of collectivist than Obama, well he has made some god-awful (pun intended) statements.
But whether he is or not, his views and policies, bad as they are in so many ways, are so superior to Obama's that I am compelled to choose him.
If, as some argue, it were true that McCain represented socialism-slow and Obama socialism-fast (or lite and full calorie, or whatever), I vote for less socialism over more. That gives the maximum time to reverse the trend.
No, I don't expect big changes in a positive direction from McCain-Palin. But I do (reasonably, I think) expect much less bad ones. Obama is an all but explicit communist. McCain, because of age and cultural influences still has some vestiges of American philosophy clanging around in his confused head.
I'll talk about SCOTUS picks later.
LGM,
By the way, I don't know what 'reports' you are reading but what you describe sounds nothing whatever like the vetting process I've read about in the Washington Post (hardly a right wing lapdog of McCain or the Republican Party) and elsewhere.
I'm not big on conspiracy theories so if you have trustworthy sources on how and why McCain chose Palin, I'd be interested to read them. Otherwise, let's not spread baseless rumors.
Jeff
Thanks for the analysis and in-sight.
Aside from corresponding with associates in the USA I was listening to radio reports from the BBC o/seas service. The BBC reported what I reproduced regarding the Palin nomination. It has not be denied by the Republican Party. Several commentators have seriously discussed the matter (on air) and what it may bode for the future.
--
I hope that there is a change of direction and sooner rather than later on. It is difficult to understand why people go along with such nonsense as religion and socialism when those ideas have such destructive consequences.
Interestingly most religious people I know get very embarrassed when you quote aspects of their own religious system to them in a public forum. It seems that is the situation when they understand the idiocy of what they embrace (or say they embrace). Pity they are not consistent and think the whole thing through logically. Tragic really.
The socialists I've met fall into completely different groups. Some just say they accept the ideas because that's what they've been taught and think they know about. Others are plain criminal in their thinking and approach to life.
Socialists and religious minded appear to be in the ascendancy at the moment. That's trouble.
--
I look forward to your next post. Please write again.
LGM
Did you know you can read lots of Jeff's comments at his blog, 'Shaving Leviathan.'
"The socialists I've met fall into completely different groups. Some just say they accept the ideas because that's what they've been taught and think they know about. Others are plain criminal in their thinking and approach to life."
I've only a few minutes right now, but I'll try to respond at greater length later. For now, I'll just say that in the US the two types you mention do not exist, only the latter type. There are no 'good' socialists in America; they know that to be a socialist is to be against American philosophy to the core.
By contrast, the conservatives - whose philosophy is heinous in many ways, not just their religion - are very often extremely decent and advocate the traditional American ideals and values. (That is, after all, in large part what makes them conservatives.)
Post a Comment