Northern Extremism

I’ve been holding off discussing the Sarah Palin nomination, but briefly, here goes.

I think she needs to be framed as a “northern extremist” as soon as possible. She’ll survive all the rest, I think, and the rugged corruption fighting, tax-cutting, church going, family loving, snowmobile riding, frontier image they have planned for her will be attractive if it isn’t transformed into something most people would view as an interesting character, certainly, but much too extreme in far too many ways to be elected to the second highest office in the land. She has plenty of extreme views, so it's not a false characterization, and with the AIP connections, the earmarks, commitment to oil companies, the bridge to nowhere problem, abortion views, her views on regulation, social programs, banning books, taxes, and so on - not to mention the ethics questions that still need to be answered - it should be possible to highlight how unconventional she is in ways that extend beyond eating moose.

If it were my choice, I’d drop the whole discussion about qualifications – why fight about how close Alaska is to Russia or how many square feet or people or whatever there are in Alaska versus elsewhere when, to me, that isn’t the main issue and takes away from the time that could be used to expose her extreme political views. Just because she does not live in a giant city or populous state, is a woman, has kids, or whatever, does not automatically lead to the conclusion that she has no knowledge of world affairs, or that she lacks the other knowledge and personal traits she needs to be effective if she has to step in and serve as president on day one, and an adamant stance that she is not qualified before giving her a chance to answer questions about these things is a mistake. I can certainly imagine someone with no time at all in elected office that I would view as very qualified (though I think it’s entirely fair to point out that that there are important open questions that, once answered, may lead to the conclusion that she is not ready, and I also think the right null hypothesis for any candidate is that they are not ready unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary).

I think the campaign more generally needs to avoid "chasing the rabbit" and stay focused on the issues people care about, jobs, health care, things like that. The selection process puts McCain's judgment in play as well, though I wonder how much staying power that issue will have (how the selection was made is independent of the attributes of his selection, this is about what we learn from how the choice was made). As part of the discussion of the issues, they should target her extreme views until that’s the topic of discussion where she is concerned. Focus on her extreme beliefs, and the decisions she is likely to make because of them and stay on message day and night. The rest is a distraction from defining her in a way that causes people to be wary of what she might do if she is given the chance.

On that front, there's still a lot to find out, I have no idea how she feels about healthcare reform, Afghanistan, and many, many other important issues, but what I have learned so far is that her policies are like her moose-eating personality – far out of the mainstream – and the sooner that message gets out, the better.

Comments

[Captain Quirk]

I think they should describe her as Bush Jr Jr. Mini-Bush. Because that's what she is: A replica of George W Bush, just another "reformer with results."

Find ways to match her resume to George W Bush. There are countless options. Frame all attacks and comparison on her accordingly.

[X Man]

This election already had me on pins and needles--now that McCain's mooted his veep there's an added hilarity factor. One thing that's already come out is people are getting a better feel for just how ridiculously unreasonable the right wing can be: e.g., Palin's from Alaska, which is really close to Russia, so she's got foreign policy experience!
"The GOP: Defending the Indefensible Since 1964"

[hari]

I think Mark has hit it with objective criteria - she shld be given a chance to disprove that she is really *qualified* for VP.

I'm intrigued about her (recent) AIP part.

Listening to Liberman defend Mccain's choice...one gets the impression that although RNC refused Liberman's selection, GOP is still going to carry a heavy handicap with this VP candidate, me thinks, come Nov 4th.

[bakho]

The election really is about judgment and the ability of either candidate to fix what Bush has broken.

In my mind, Bush has littered our government with incompetent ideologues of the Monica Goodling ilk and no less than a thorough house cleaning is going to restore trust. McCain is in a less good position to clean house because he will be beholden to his party (especially the religious right). Palin will have no effect one way or another on this dynamic. On other issues, McCain's pugilistic and bombastic approach to foreign policy is not suited to the preseidency. In international relations, we need to restore international institutions and cooperation and someone who is unilateralist and mavericky like McCain will be less likely to take an internationalist approach and more likely to try to use the US military to solve problems.

McCain is an economic zero. Palin is much better at economic policy. I would contrast her support for SCHIP, understanding the role of earmarks and infrastructure money in the economy of her state and city,taxing the oil companies, asking about an Iraq exit strategy all as better policies than the ones McCain supports. On the other hand, Palin is an intolerant religious extremist on most social issues and will inflame divisiveness on these issues. McCain has climbed into bed with this crowd. McCain will truly be more of the same on the most divisive issues facing our country.

If McCain is elected, look for the Democrats to have a show-down with him over policy. There will be a massive struggle to reassert Congressional control and oversight of the executive. The Dems look to pick up many Senate seats and will assuredly oust Holy Joe from his chairmanship and return oversight. There will be huge fights between the left and the religious right over appointments. A McCain administration would be rife with turmoil.

[swells]

Man do I agree. There's no need to go the ad hominem route with Palin. For one thing, she thinks we need to make sure our actions in Iraq conform to "God's plan". This one example of her extremism, presented correctly, can cost the republicans a lot of votes amongst the sensible sort even as it jazzes up her fellow travelers in extremism on the religious right. A lot of attention should also be paid to the charges of vindictiveness in office with parallels drawn to the situation in the Justice Department with it's tests of ideological correctness under Bush. She tried to dismiss the town librarian for being insufficiently politically loyal and committed.

It's also factually the case that she has no record of fiscal conservatism. Wasilla went pretty heavily into debt during her tenure as mayor to do things like build athletic facilities when there was no working sewer system, etc.

There's plenty of substance to go after here.

[Ninja Zombie]

Sarah Palin is a trap that the netroots and the media seem to be falling for hook line and sinker. What are her weaknesses?

1. Her husband has weird political views. That makes her unique, cause after all no other candidates have wacko spouses.

2. She comes from a seriously corrupt region, and has questionable dealings and associations. Who knows, maybe she is friends with some unrepentant former terrorists.

3. She is inexperienced. She has 2 years of executive experience. 4 years of legislative experience would be better.

4. Earmarks. She killed the bridge to nowhere, admittedly after a flipflop. Alaska is a pork filled state, but she made her career by targeting the porkers. I wonder, did any other candidates try to get about $700 million in pork for their home state, including $1 million for their spouses employer?

All this stuff makes a great target for attacks, and it would be great if all parties could agree that these are the important issues. EPIC FAIL.

[spencer]

Every republican defending her should be asked does this mean they now support a windfall profits tax on oil.

[kharris]

There goes bakho, being all insightful and reasonable again.

Because of Supreme Court decisions made long ago, US politics are far more divided than the US populace. One result is that we keep being faced with political choices based on ideology instead of competence. These are not mutually exclusive characteristics, but when so much energy is used up on ideology, too little goes into consideration of competence to have any hope that we will get both. Clinton is criticized within his own party for being too moderate, but he at least seemed to understand that FEMA needed to be ready to meet its mandate, that if Treasury was going try to save Mexico's financial market, it had by-god better succeed. The choice of Palin is very clearly based in a calculation about the need for an ideological beard for McCain. Bush Senior chose Dan Quayle for similar reasons, though I suspect Palin is more capable than Quayle in the conventional job of just getting things done.

A reasonable expectation in any presidential election is that both parties will present a presidential and a vice presidential candidate capable of running the executive branch competently. Neither party has done that in this election. There are lots of Democrats with lots more experience in and out of government, who are a safe bet to be better prepared to run the executive branch. With Obama, we get change and hope and charm, but little experience. On the GOP side, Palin has the same problems, and McCain's choice of Palin raises questions about him, too. Why would we expect fewer Goodlings from McCain when we already have a Palin?

Mark is offering us a particular version of a fairly standard political hope among voters. Let's settle this on issues and competence, rather than personalities. Good luck to us all in that hope.

[robertdfeinman]

The world is divided into two personality types: the rationalists and the emotionalists. Psychological research (see the work of Robert Altemeyer at theAuthoritarians.com) has found a strong correlation between "liberal" political views and rationalists and an even stronger correlation between emotionalists and what he calls "right wing authoritarians".

Mark Thoma is proposing the standard liberal, rationalist approach to selecting a candidate: consider the issues, consider the candidates position on them, consider their performance on past issues to determine how rationally they approach problems and then make your choice.

The conservatives do not follow this pattern and suggesting pushing more information at them to try to make them to do so has proven ineffective. You can see their preferred approach last night, the focus is on "character" and life story. These voters look for an emotional connection with the candidate. With Bush it was "somebody you'd like to have a beer with". With McCain it is "brave, resolute and not beholding to the political establishment".

Listening to interviews of the man on the street and with the delegates you hear only these themes by McCain supporters, they never mention policy.

So what is left is the 5% or so of "undecided" who end up determining every election in recent times. These people are not paying attention and won't until near the end when they will make a choice based upon image and "gut feeling".

A billion dollars spent to influence the least informed and least involved voters. That's what elections now have become. I see no changes on the horizon, too many people make a living off the billion dollar electoral cycle and the permanent campaigns.

[ken melvin]

For any who missed:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/holy-joe-by-digby-god-how-i-loathe-and.html

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Holy Joe

by digby

God how I loathe and despise this sanctimonious jackass. How dare he call himself a Democrat and presume to LECTURE and harangue us to vote for a rightwing nutcase for president.

And what's the first thing out of Wolf Blitzer's mouth? "Anyone who knows Joe Lieberman, knows that he speaks from the heart." Sure he does --- he's always been a prick, even when he was a Democrat and he is even more of one today. He is a perfect Republican --- hypocritical, bloodthirsty and completely full of shit. Enjoy GOPers, he's all yours.

Update: Plus, he lied.

[Barkley Rosser]

Sarah Palin's views are substantially more extreme than those of George W. Bush. She makes him look like the moderate Republican he once paraded as being (remember how he was supposedly going to "bring us together" in 2000 after all his experience supposedly working so well with a Dem legislature in TX?).

I also think she is going to have a lot of personal appeal. People mock her sportscaster beginnings, but that is how Ronald Reagan started. I bet she gives a knockout speech tonight at the convention. Mark is right; the focus needs to be on her extreme policies and views, not her inexperience or her family.

[anne]

Barkley Rosser:

"Mark is right; the focus needs to be on her extreme policies and views, not her inexperience or her family."

Right.

[Larry]

This election, like all the rest will not be significantly influenced by VP choices. Bush 41 won with Quayle, remember? Opponents should ignore Palin, except to criticize McCain. The longer this appealing new face is the focus, the more McCain gets to solidify his base while positioning himself as pro-women.

Why am I giving you guys advice?

[FrankL]

Attack her? where to begin?

How about the very good question of whether she had a passport prior to her 2007 trip abroad? It seems she didn't have one. With McCain looking more haggard by the day, there is a very real possibility this woman will assume the helm.

Her main selling point seems to be that "she's so pro-life" as I read elsewhere.

Oh well.. America gets what it deserves when it comes to elections. It's a democracy after all.

[outsider]

outsider says...

"How the Republicans win." Parry, Consortium news article on Truthout.com.

Go,Robertdfeinman

[Ninja Zombie]

Robertdfeinman: *the rationalists and the emotionalists...[conservative] voters look for an emotional connection with the candidate. With Bush it was "somebody you'd like to have a beer with". With McCain it is "brave, resolute and not beholding to the political establishment".*

Clearly, no Democrat would base a campaign on "hope" and vague promises. Nor would their website say, "I'm asking you to believe...". Thanks to the rationality of Democrats, such a campaign would completely fall flat.

And obviously, liberals would never fall for "people like us are so great, while the OTHER is bad" type propaganda. Thanks to their inherent rationality, liberals will immediately see through such nonsense.

[kthomas]

The more I think about it, the more I believe Sen. McCain is lucky to be alive. He should be thanking the NVA for sparing his life.

[Alex Tolley]

I think robertdfeinman has characterized this topic well. If you try attack her on her policy foibles she will demur and say that as VP she will not be influencing the president. She will ride on her anti-corruption credentials.

Far better to show how her personal beliefs and choices have affected her and try to show that these choices would be unsuitable for most working Americans (Down syndrome baby, pregnant daughter). This will make her a far less sympathetic figure and cast doubt about her beliefs and choices. If that doesn't happen, she will become a telegenic person that people feel they can vote for.

As regards competency, wasn't Cheney the "grown up" who would guide Bush? Look how far that got the country. Condi Rice, the Russian expert; what happened, she was looking the other way with our Russia policy over the last 8 years? Don't assume competency will necessarily lead to better outcomes.

[JB]

The mainstream media's narrative is back in McCain's hands to do with as he pleases. When was the last time you heard about troop withdrawals or universal healthcare?

That's Palin's strength -- she focuses the public's attention to the divisive cultural issues instead of what's really important in this election.

In 2004, gay marriage was a big part of the ballot initiatives, and Bush ran as a staunch advocate of "conservative values." He supports a ban on stem cell research, pro-gun ownership, and marriage between a man and a woman. What did he do this term though with regards to those values? Nothing. He did, however, make a push to privatize social security and increased and already severe budget.

If this election becomes about social morals, then the Democrats lose. Unwed mothers, gun ownership... Obama's pragmatic message will be entirely lost. He needs to reclaim the narrative that he brilliantly outlined on Thursday night in Denver. 40 million Americans heard his plan, now he's got to get to the other 260.

[robertdfeinman]

Zombie, there is a spectrum of behavior, it's not all or nothing. However there are some strong correlations at the edges (about 20-25%).

If you listened to Obama's speech you will see it was filled with policy promises. If you want the specifics go to his web site and read the details. A speech is meant to keep the audience energized, not be a college lecture.

I'd suggest reading Altemeyer's book (it's free and online), but he has already found from experience that people like you don't want your preconceived notions challenged by facts.

[Julio]

Mark Thoma:

"I think she needs to be framed as a “northern extremist” as soon as possible."

Obama has positioned himself perfectly to exploit the extremism of his opponents. One of his consistent points has been that only a policy of compromise on each issue, one that carries along at least some Republicans, is needed to make Washington work again.

Whatever you think of that idea, it is an effective way to paint Palin as proof that McCain will just give us four more years.

For example: we as a country have serious and heartfelt disagreements on abortion. Do we really need someone in power who does not believe in exceptions even for rape? And what does it say to you about the next four years when McCain chooses such a person?

[a]

Why even focus on Palin? It brings back memories (at least to me) of Dukakis attacking Quayle and laying it down to a question of Bush I's judgment. It didn't work; it made it look like Dukakis had nothing much he could say against Bush I or his positions, so he was attacking the veep. This election is about Obama vs McCain. Keep the focus on McCain and Republicant policies of the last 8 years. Emphasize how McCain will not only continue Bush's policies but double up on them. (That is, when Republicants say that McCain is no Bush, reply, "Of course he isn't. He's Bush times two.")

[robertdfeinman]

George Lakoff makes a case similar to mine on Huffington Post:

The Palin Choice and the Reality of the Political Mind

[Alex Tolley]

a: "Emphasize how McCain will not only continue Bush's policies but double up on them. (That is, when Republicants say that McCain is no Bush, reply, "Of course he isn't. He's Bush times two.")"

Read the WSJ OpEd pages - that is what they are saying is McCain's strength. A lot of talking heads say Bush has done well on the economy, Iraq, etc. The failures e.g. Katrina are forgotten, although Jindal actually stated that New Orleans has done very well with Bush policies done locally.

Obama's message is going to have to be a lot more compelling if he is to sway Republicans to vote Democratic.

[Captain Quirk]

I believe they have to go, not after her per se, but after the following topics:

1. Abuse of power. E.g. banning of books, firing of people (librarian), troopergate, etc.

2. Scandal. Related to abuse of power: Haven't we had anough scandal with Bush?

3. Pandering. Was for the bridge until she was against it. Was for earmarks before she was against them.

4. Hypocrisy. Raised taxes on oil companies while Republicans want to lower taxes on oil companies. Can't they make their minds up?

5. Debt. Left her home town in debt. Do we need another four years of massive Republican federal deficits?

6. Unnecessary war. She's on record supporting Iraq as a war for oil and a mandate from God. Do we need four more years of Bush--who believed God wanted us in Iraq--and Cheney--war for oil, Halliburton, etc.

Seems to be these positions can be attacked directly without attacking her. Then bring the in the argument that selecting her implies McCain's program is the same as that of Bush.

[a]

"A lot of talking heads say Bush has done well on the economy..."

Talking heads can talk all they want. On the economy Americans don't listen to talking heads. They look at how they are doing and how people around them are doing. If they like it, sure they'll probably vote McCain. But I can't believe that a majority of Americans are happy. (And if they are, well then they *should* vote for McCain.) Bush times two works fine. IMHO.

[Ninja Zombie]

Robertdfeinman: I'm not sure what you mean by "people like me". FYI, I was an Obama supporter up until he picked Joe "turn over your encryption keys" Biden for his running mate. Now I'm probably staying home.

I'm simply disputing the ridiculous claim that only republicans appeal to emotion.

The decision to support Obama is almost entirely an emotional one for most people. That's why picking Joe "I wrote the Patriot Act" Biden didn't hurt him; Biden is unknown enough that most people have no emotional reaction to him.

Incidentally, I skimmed your source. It appears extremely biased, from the very definition of RWA. The RWA scale conflates authoritarianism and American right wing views. You could get the reverse result by rewording the questions:

5. It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubt in people’s minds.

5'. It is always better to trust the judgement of the proper experts in the UN and climate science than to listen to the noisy corporate-shills in our society who are trying to create doubt in people's minds.

7. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas.

7'. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our Great Society and the values of FDR, put some smart leaders in power, and reduce the influence of Big Money in politics.

But of course, if he used neutral language, then he probably would have gotten results that didn't support his views. Incidentally, I'm guessing the real reason he published online is that he couldn't get past peer review.

[outsider]

outsider says...

Also, Martin and Jardine twin studies, 1986, show a genetic component of "up to" 50% for conservatism.

[btg]

"The GOP: Defending the Indefensible Since 1964"

In retrospect, Goldwater looks good - and in his later career he was quite progressive on environmental issues.

Even Nixon - who was an admitted Keynsian, looks moderate compared to today's bunch - they keep getting worse - the McCain of 2000 would have been a vast improvment over Bush - only by drinking all of the Kool-aid did he get where is is today.

I shudder to think what the GOP might have in store for candidates in 4 or 8 years!

[anne]

Alex Tolley:

"Condi Rice, the Russian expert; what happened, she was looking the other way with our Russia policy over the last 8 years?"

I do not think we know enough to really judge yet, because our policy with regard to Russia has been clouded for several years likely even to the Russians for reasons that are not clear. Russian policy appears to have centered on securing the borders, and that has been successful.

[anne]

NZ, please explain in more detail the policy problems you have with Joe Biden, if there is time.

[rufus]

JB, I think this comment is insightful, and a point not to be overlooked, "The mainstream media's narrative is back in McCain's hands to do with as he pleases." I believe Friedman's article may be ahead of the curve in identifying what could be the most damning effects of the current 'controversy' (talking point). At a minimum, McCain and his campaign appear to be self inflicting more damage, rather than conducting artful spin.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/palin-predicament-brings-out-worst/story.aspx?guid=%7BAF2B9A29%2D5BA8%2D42E5%2D90A2%2D11EE0A690E84%7D

...McCain, according to The Wall Street Journal, "abruptly canceled a scheduled appearance on CNN's 'Larry King Live' in retaliation" for an earlier interview when network anchor Campbell Brown of CNN introduced questions about vice-presidential candidate Palin's foreign policy expertise.

When he reacts by blaming journalists for his problems, McCain looks petty and churlish, not icy cool and, well, presidential. He is sending the worst possible signal to the reporters who were responsible for telling America what he stands for...

[Ninja Zombie]

Anne:

Joe Biden is one of the worst opponents of civil liberties out there, right up there with Bush and Hillary. His views on the Patriot act: "I drafted a terrorism bill after [note: it was actually slightly before] the Oklahoma City bombing. And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill,"

He opposes universal Turing machines (modern computers), and wants to reduce them to limited devices capable of performing only approved functions. He wants to make it a federal felony to modify devices *you own* to play "unauthorized music" or run "unapproved" programs.

He opposed encryption, and pushed for laws demanding that everyone turn over their encryption keys to the government. Note that if this law had passed, modern E-commerce probably would not exist.

He sponsored the RAVE act, which makes it illegal for nightclubs to take precautions against drug overdoses (cooloff rooms, having plenty of water available, medical staff on site).

This is all I'm completely certain of at the moment, but there is more.

[anne]

Thank you, this is unknown to me so I will ask and read further.

[ken melvin]

I suspect McCain and Holyjoe have had many a huddled conversation about triangulation, that form which Joe, DiFi, ... use. In the case of Joe and DiFi, they understand that they can pull a certain number of dem votes amd a certain number of rethug votes, which, together are more than enough to easily win the election. McCain now understands that he probably won't get all those rethugs votes Bush/Rove got, but that if he can pul off enough dem votes he can win. All he needs do is peal off some of those dems who didn't think Obama was the right choice.

[Richard H. Serlin]

Secession? Could you imagine what they'd say if this were the Democratic Nominee!

From the New York Times, "she [Palin] was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02vetting.html?hp)

Could you imagine what the Republican machine would say if the Democratic vice presidential candidate were a member for two years of a Party which has at times sought a vote on whether a state should secede!

They call you unpatriotic if you don't wear a flag lapel pin everyday, even though the trust fund babies like Bush who the party loves rarely if ever do anything hard for their country, and even though the vast majority of hard working Americans who are willing to do hard things for their country don't wear a flag pin everyday.

Yet not a peep out of them when their vice presidential candidate was for two years a member of a Party which at times sought a vote on whether a state should secede. If this were a Democratic candidate for the vice-presidency, with a 72 year old running mate who's had Melanoma, they would be screaming about treason and how the country is at risk.

Add: Just look at what is says on the Alaska Independence Party website (http://www.akip.org/):

The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:

1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.

The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party's founding father, Joe Vogler, which was for Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government...

The Republican machine would be going insane if this were the Democratic candidate for the vice-presidency, with a 72 year old running mate who's had Melanoma. The propaganda mills would be running 24/7. They'd be calling the candidate a traitor, and I wouldn't be surprised if they would pressure the state's U.S. attorneys to go after him or her. It's breathtaking the hypocrisy.

[anne]

Bob Somerby * has taken a stance from the perspective of press analysis that is parallel to Mark Thoma's.

* http://dailyhowler.com/dh090308.shtml

September 3, 2008

Groaning work in the New York Times may yet help elect Sarah Palin

[When Maureen Dowd can contentedly write about "Broken-watergate," as in this New York Times, we have a serious problem indeed.]

[anne]

http://dailyhowler.com/dh090308.shtml

Darlings, be sure to understand: It isn’t Dowd who is saying these things. It’s “some bloggers,” and it’s New York magazine. And it’s the National Enquirer!

DOWD: * Only four days into her reign as John McCain’s “soul mate,” or “Trophy Vice,” as some bloggers are calling her, on the ticket known as “Maverick Squared,” Palin, the governor of Alaska, has already accrued two gates (Troopergate and Broken-watergate), a lawyer (for Troopergate), a future son-in-law named Levi (a high school ice hockey player, described by New York magazine as “sex on skates”), and a National Enquirer headline about the “Teen Prego Crisis” with 17-year-old daughter Bristol.

Dowd herself doesn’t focus on “sex on skates.” She’s just quoting those others, who do.

As usual, Dowd plays the consummate fool today, closing her piece with inane remarks about people who hide behind manufactured claims of sexism. (One more chance to scold Hillary Clinton!) But in her purring, in her mockery, she (and others) run the risk of making Palin a figure of sympathy. On Sunday, for example, Dowd seemed to mock the fact that Palin attended the University of Idaho. Darlings! It just isn’t done! Except by tens of thousands of voters—while many more dream of the chance.

* http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/opinion/03dowd.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

says...

Sarah Palin is the ideal man's women, attractive and fit. The only reason men go to beach resorts is because women have a preference for leisure pleasant pursuits.

Sarah Palin is the dream. Good looking women to hunt, fish and skin through the backcountry on skies. You can have your cake and eat it too!

It's not surprising that the Paul Krugmen types haven't picked up on this.

[anon/portly]

"I think the campaign more generally needs to avoid 'chasing the rabbit' and stay focused on the issues people care about, jobs, health care, things like that."

No, no, no, no, no, no. You obviously didn't learn anything from "A Tiny Revolution." There is no middle-ground sensible position on anything any more. A frenzy of anti-Palinism is required of you, but if you're just going to point out what is wrong with her ideas, instead of what is wrong with her as a person, you might as well cut a $10,000 check to the McCain campaign and get it over with.

[rufus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7596225.stm

"This vetting controversy is a faux media scandal designed to destroy the first female Republican nominee for vice president of the United States who has never been a part of the old boys' network that has come to dominate the news establishment of this country," the statement said.

Media coverage of the 'controversy' is either pandering to American appetite for gossip, or legitimate questions as to the competency of the McCain Campaign's selection process. I don't think retaliatory attacks against the media will make Palin a sympathetic character. Relentless 'exposé' coverage will.

[anon/portly]

If "anne" is going to start excerpting Bob Somerby and dissing Maureen Dowd, does that mean she regrets the (what must be) hundreds and hundreds of Dowd excerpts that have graced the Economist's View commment section?

I mean, it's not as if Dowd's anti-Bush and anti-Cheney columns were actually any better than her anti-Obama, anti-Clinton, anti-Gore, etc. columns.

(One of Somerby's frequent points is that approving of bad MSM practices when they benefit the left is actually detrimental to the left).

Sorry to be a creep or a thug or whatever, I just can't help it.....

says...

RobertFeinman,

Monica Lewinsky might disagree with you.

[anne]

Maureen Dowd is an important voice, being highly popular as a regular columnist in the New York Times, and Dowd has for many years a voice of anti-feminism, increasingly and vehemently so. Using Dowd when the writing suits a purpose may well be a mistake and I will think carefully about that.

Thank you for the reminder.

[Barkley Rosser]

I would like to clarify that while I do not think attacking Palin on her lack of experience is good politics, I do think it is a problem with her. However, I am in a lot of agreement with anne that the attacks on her, especially those focusing on her family, could easily backfire. She may not do well in interviews, but from what I hear, she will probably give a very strong speech tonight, probably much better than the one McCain will give tomorrow night, and she will have the convention delegates on their feet and cheering mightily, possibly even lustily, if I dare to say so.

Regarding who her appeal is to, so far the early polling suggests that it has been to Republican women. Man may find her hot, but ones that were not already for McCain are not rushing to support him because of selecting her, although some Christian Right biggies like Dobson, not to mention Rush Limbaugh, appear to have done so. She has not yet had much appeal to independent or Dem women (or men), although that could change.

I am for criticizing her on issues and policies, where there is a lot to criticize very legitimately (anybody catch that she tried to censor the public library in Wasilla while mayor?). But even this can backfire, if she is quick enough and witty enough. After all, the immediate media reaction to the 1980 Carter-Reagan debate was that Carter had won, at least on points, and he had, but today the only line anybody remembers from it is Reagan's "there you go again," even though Carter's "going" was a perfectly legitimate pointing out of the extremity of some of Reagan's positions.

For that matter, Reagan pulled the same trick earlier on George H.W. Bush in New Hampshire. There was GHWB reasonably pointing out that Reagan's "cut taxes, increase military spending, and balance the budget" proposals amounted to "voodoo economics," but all anybody remembers from that debate is Reagan's line about how he "bought the microphone," which blew GHWB out of the race. Wow.

Of course, Reagan had nearly 40 years history of genial stardom in film and TV, 8 years as CA gov, and two previous runs for prez, prior to all that, which Palin does not have. But there is a real danger here. I predict McCain will get a bounce of some sort after her speech.

[James]

Sarah Palin is being deceitful about her stance on the "Bridge to Nowhere".

[Bridges]

You might like this picture:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/03/fh000020.jpg

[donna]

Reformer? She left her city $20 million in debt. She's used her political power to wage vendettas against her personal enemies. That's not reform we can believe in...

[Picture This]

Bridges,

Was this the pic you were referring to?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/03/cindyalexwonggetty.jpg

Looks like a case of plastic surgery gone awry...but I dare not say anything about a woman whose had plastic surgery as men are never guilty of that?!

[Lee A. Arnold]

On national security, the McCain strategy may be the projection of voters' unease with Palin's unreadiness, over onto Obama.

He is to be the more dangerous example of her, because he's running for the higher position.

The answer is to point out that you need the strongest team. Running this show has become a two-person job.

In fact, I would argue that at this time in history, it is the VICE president who must be ready on Day One with enough prior knowledge of Wash DC, foreign relations, and force structure of the United States to take command, without having to have it explained to him or her.

I think this was the implicit presentation given by both B. Clinton and G.W. Bush, in re Gore and Cheney.

In the meantime, the VP can help to run policy for the President, because there is more than enough for both to do.

So here Mark, I must respectfully disagree with you, at least in regard to the national security discussion. The question of qualifications, of any lack of experience, is foremost.

Now in readiness among the beginners, Obama has a strong lead over Palin in national security -- in thinking about the policy, in talking to the players.

From reports of the large number of foreign policy advisors to the campaign, I imagine they are ready to move coherently into State and Defense. It sounds like a fair chunk of the foreign policy and military establishment is contented, if endorsements from Nunn to Hagel are indicative.

While of course among warhorses Biden lords it over everybody, including McCain. And in the historical progression, Biden's going to be tasked as extensively or even more than Cheney.

This leaves you with domestic policy, where Obama's much more heartfelt than McCain.

The electorate should be reminded continuously that we are in a dangerous world situation. What is to be known, should already be known by the Vice President. This position is the back-up.

Running the show has become a two-person job.

[rufus]

BR, Just a quick clarification, "There was GHWB reasonably pointing out that Reagan's "cut taxes, increase military spending, and balance the budget" proposals amounted to "voodoo economics,"

I believe "voodoo economics" was directly aimed at the "cut taxes to increase growth" proposal (aka Laffer Curve) unless I'm mistaken.

[brian holt]

Zombie says:

"It appears extremely biased, from the very definition of RWA. The RWA scale conflates authoritarianism and American right wing views. You could get the reverse result by rewording the questions:"

Actually, rewording the questions as you describe reduces the effect size to non-significance. Altmeyer has spent a significant amount of time looking for the other extreme, but to no avail.

[Barkley Rosser]

rufus,

The Laffer Curve argument was the key to how all that was supposed to be pulled off, with all that supply side growth generating rising revenues with the tax cuts, which would resolve the problem of increasing military spending while balancing the budget (there was a deficit then, although not much compared to what Reagan made it later when he tried to implement his voodoo econmics). Of course Reagan claimed he would cut domestic spending, you know, all those "welfare queens," who were responsible for the deficits. He did cut it some, but not much.

[Markus]

Obama should definitely leave her alone, at least for now.

Now that the celebrity gossip columnists and tabloids have decided that she is "interesting", there is almost nothing that he can do as damaging to the McCain campaign with regards to "undecided", i.e., "low information", aka stupid voters as what is being done by the celebrity gossip columnists and tabloids such as the National Enquirer.

I really wish the left were capable of pulling off the sort of thing, that appears as a smear campaign, but isn't, that is going on right now, but they can't.

The reality is that most of the damage being done to Palin isn’t due to some sort of political attack. Instead, she has just managed to have gotten dragged into the mess of celebrity gossip columnists and tabloids.

The most damaging apparent attacks on Palin aren’t really any more political attacks then the latest gossip about what is going on with Brittney Spears or Tom Cruise, but, damn, is that crowd damaging. The celebrity gossip columnists and tabloids make Karl Rove look like a nothing little amateur in terms of the amount of personal damage that they can do.

[Patricia Shannon]

Ninja Zombie
As a songwriter, if Biden is against lazy people w/o talent stealing the results of other people's hard work and monetary investment, that's a point in his favor.

[turquoise]

Based on her VP acceptance speech, it is seems very plausible that Mrs. Palin will outshine McCain and drag the Republican Party further to the right.

To quote MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, The Republican Party has found its Barack Obama at last. But she is such a mean version of Barack Obama.

I suspect that if he wins, McCain will regret his VP choice later.

I shudder to think how America’s race relations will look like if this ticket wins.

[swells]

Joe Klein of Time magazine seems to be taking just the tack recommended here. It's worth a read:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/angry_amateurs.html#comments

[Patricia Shannon]

I worked late, so didn't hear most of the GOP convention last night. But I heard a bit of Ms. Palin's speech, and she certainly has a mean voice.

[Patricia Shannon]

The comments on electors choosing who to vote for on the basis of emotion based on the emotional appeal of a candidate, rather than policy, had an example in an interview with a woman at the Republican convention, which I heard this morning on the radio. She said that Palin's speech and appearance "proved" she would make a good president.

[anne]

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/angry_amateurs.html#comments

September 3, 2008 2:04

Angry Amateurs
By Joe Klein

The story of the day out here in Minneapolis is the McCain campaign's war against the press....

[I wonder why.]