Sarah Palin: The spoonful of sugar that helps the McCain go down
Posted on September 4th, 2008 at 12:47 pm by Shawn NaegleWhat does it say about a candidate that knows he has to select his exact opposite as a running mate to be elected? Sarah Palin is everything McCain is not: young, attractive, articulate and most important of all, conservative. The problem that I have with McCain’s choice is not Sarah Palin herself, but what it tells me about McCain. He knows he is unelectable if he chooses a running mate that is closer in ideology to him than Sarah Palin is.
For fun, let’s recap some McCain positions and ask yourself WWSPD (what would Sarah Palin do)?
McCain sponsored a campaign finance reform bill limiting freedom of speech. The McCain-Feingold bill was the biggest violation of the First Amendment in US history. The First Amendment (you know, the one that comes before that other amendment granting us the right to own weapons so we can hunt Moose) is paramount to individual freedom. The bill’s enactment was a tragedy. But, be careful that you don’t criticize McCain publicly about it thirty days before an election or you might just windup in jail.
What about that windfall profits tax on Big Oil that liberals are so keen for? McCain has stated publically that a windfall profits tax is on the table as an option.
What about the Bush tax cuts demonized by the Left? McCain voted against them along with his liberal friends.
Cap and Trade? You bet! McCain is all over it sponsoring the McCain-Lieberman Stewardship Act in January 2003 which would have authorized a Cap and Trade system on greenhouse gases that would cripple the US economy.
Offshore drilling? He was against it before he was for it.
Remember the Gang of 14 that derailed an effort for an up and down vote on conservative judicial appointees? Yeah, that was McCain in true Maverick style.
From support of the Kyoto Protocol to amnesty for illegal aliens, McCain has been on the wrong side of conservative issues again and again. When you were listening to Sarah Palin last night, could you picture her agreeing with McCain on any of these issues? So why the Palin pick? If McCain believes strongly in his positions on these core issues, why set up a future presidential run, possibly as early as 2012, for a person who would oppose them? If country truly comes first, why not pick a running mate he agrees with? The answer? Because McCain’s core beliefs are second to his personal ambition.
To me, this is cause for concern. If McCain has to choose between what is right for the country or what will build his legacy, will he choose the country or the legacy? You decide.
So when the euphoria of last night’s election speech begins to wear off, and that old sinking feeling about McCain begins to set back in, take two spoonfuls of Sarah Palin and call me in 2012. We’re going to need her to clean up this mess.
30 Comments
Leave a comment
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Shawn, welcome to PD. Fantastic first post.
You’ve said more eloquently what I liveblogged last night. (Also in reference to Rudy.) Lest we forget, there is much conservatives and McCain disagree on. But last we night they screamed and shouted whenever his name was uttered as if Reagan’s ghost were standing on stage behind Palin. And tonight will be no different. They’ll go nuts for him.
Goes to show you just how much republicans loath the idea of a President Obama. (shiver up leg alert)
Well done Shawn.
I’m trying to imagine how different the pallor of this Convention would be if McCain had gone the complete opposite of his Palin pick, and had tabbed someone like Tom Ridge or even Joe Lieberman.
I’m thinking Thunderdome.
Stemming a little off the specific topic, when do you think we might be getting an updated “If the election were held today” post since we have some new excitement?
Fabs - There hasn’t been any change in the RCP state averages, as soon as there is, I’ll do another ITEWHT.
Shawn, you’ve not been drinking enough coolaid. Elections are not about runningon principles or issues. They are all about getting someone elected from the party of preference.
Thus, McCain / Palin is the (almost) perfect ticket — Palin appeals to women, conservatives and libertarians, all in one shot. McCain appeals to… ummm… someone help me out here… Oh, yeah! Moderates from the Dem party. All they are missing is someone to appeal to the Ron Paul fan club.
dw,
Palin does appeal to the Ron Paul fan club. Its the same club as the Libertarians. The question is whether or not she is strong enough to get the Libertarians to stomach McCain for four to eight years. That’s a pretty tall order.
I certainly don’t agree with every one of McCain’s positions and I’m sure there are few out there who do. I’m also sure there are few people out there who agree on all of Obama’s positions. That’s the great thing about this country… we aren’t required to agree on everything.
Someone once told me that the most successful people are the ones who surround themselve with people who think differently than they do. To me, picking someone who has different opinions than you means that you’re open minded and willing to hear all sides before making a decision.
Alaina,
Lets look at it the other way around. If Palin were the nominee, would you consider her closed minded if she chose another conservative for a running mate instead of picking a John McCain type liberal? Do you really think in 2012 she picks a liberal just to prove she is open minded? Or does she stick by her principles and pick a conservative and try to balance the ticket geographically rather than ideologically?
First of all, I would never say anyone should pick a liberal for anything. Well… I could think of a few things…
I’m just saying that you don’t have to agree on everything and it’s okay to associate with people who aren’t in lockstep with you on every single topic of discussion. In the overall scheme of things, they generally agree, but certainly not on everything and I think their differences compliment each other.
All of those points are the reason why I said I wouldn’t vote for McCain.
And while my position has faltered some, I still plan on voting for Bob Barr UNLESS NoBama somehow makes this an extremely tight race.
Actually it was the Gang of 14 that derailed the judicial nuclear option. The Gang of 10 is trying to pass some sort of compromise on off-shore drilling that will help Dusty Harry and The Pelosi save face in this election cycle.
I’m sure both Gangs share a few members, so I’m not exactly certain as to how to tell them apart. Maybe they coordinate tie colors.
Forgive me. That’s what I get for blogging from memory without checking my facts. I have corrected it.
Although McCain isn’t exactly Mr. Conservative, he was the person that won the nomination for the Rep party. So if he’s supposed to have such a hard time getting votes come the general election because of his moderate standing on issues, how did he make it to even becoming the nominee? I’m not sure he NEEDED Palin just to make up for his moderate side. But she sure doesn’t hurt in that department now.
I feel as if I do not have a candidate in this election. Obama is at best a novice and nowhere near ready to lead our country. In addition, he is the most liberal member of the Senate. John McCain is too old and seems to be one who has compromised on several issues. His choice for vice president is weak. Like Obama, she is a good speaker, but I not impressed with much else about her. Anyone else out there leaning toward voting for an independent? If so, who are you voting for?
Fabs,
He was nominated the same way Clinton was elected - twice - by splitting the majority of the vote between two other candidates, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. For example, he only pulled 47% in his home state. He clearly did not have a majority of support from conservatives in the Primaries. Hence the endless talk about whether he can deliver the conservative vote or not.
Make no mistake he NEEDS Palin.
Sweet!
In 24 hours, we’ve gone from “What was McCain thinking/drinking?” to “He needs Palin”.
I love it when a plan comes together.
Makes sense, makes sense. In thinking about it, the Repubs did seem to have a few more viable options to choose from to spread the votes, while the Demos were comparatively more focused on the two big ones.
And I like Gary’s point!!
Good writing, Shawn.
I don’t agree with your basic point, however.
Applying your point equally to the Dems, you would be saying that Obama knows that he is not electable because he chose an old, white, experienced dude.
Applying your logic, are you saying that Obama should have chosen another young, inexperienced, non-Caucasian, ultra-liberal?
Yes, the point is the same for Obama, but not nearly as drastic because Joe Biden is a true liberal like Obama and the issue there is experience not ideology. They are not night and day like McCain and Palin.
Night and day? Not really.
Sure, they might disagree on the points that you mentioned (though a few that you mentioned are not disagreements, like drilling.)
But, they aren’t THAT far apart on most of them. If they were, then you seem to be saying that McCain and Obama are in agreement.
Sure, Palin is to the right of McCain (thankfully). But they certainly aren’t “night and day”.
Really? Not that far apart? The First Amendment, Cap and Trade, windfall profit taxes, amnesty -all trivial? Do you think if the situation were reversed, Sarah Palin, conservative goddess, would be down with picking McCain as a running mate? No. Way. She wouldn’t be the person everyone was cheering for last night if she did. He needs her, she doesn’t need him.
I stick by the night and day remark. You can keep your sunglasses on if you like.
“I wear my sunglasses at night
So I can, so I can
Watch you weave
Then breathe your story lines”
i didn’t use the term “trivial”, Shawn - that was your word.
Hey, I’m not McCain’s biggest fan. But as a conservative, I’ve grown to admire him in a lot of ways.
Again, I don’t say “trivial” - I just disagree with your assessment that they are “night and day” apart. And, I feel that John McCain will be open to re-examining the conservative values of his “soul mate”.
Oh yeah, and the drilling, go back and look at how he voted on the issue. Actions always speak louder than words. He has every been part of the problem on offshore drilling. Never part of the solution. It is one thing to be all for offshore drilling when gas is four bucks a gallon andyou are running for President. Quite another when you vote against it in a non election year. He revealed his true character about how he feels about oil independance with his vote and his remarks on windfall profits. You can buy his born again drilling position if you want. But the real McCain, that wonderful Mavrick would be right back voting against it if he weren’t running for President.
In that non-election year that he voted against it, gas prices were significantly less than what they are now.
That’s not an issue that I want someone voting on based on their ideology. That vote should be based on economics. It’s a basic supply and demand principle. Today, we need the supply to relieve the prices at the pump and drive speculators out of the market.
And I know what you’re going to say… they should have been working on alternatives fuels this whole time. Yeah, yeah. I agree, but it is what it is. They didn’t (Dems and Reps) and we’re in a situation now where we need immediate relief.
Changing your opinion on something like abortion is one thing. Changing your mind on drilling for oil based on the current circumstances is another.
That’s not an issue that I want someone voting on based on their ideology. That vote should be based on economics.
Which economics course did McCain take that taught him to wait until there was a crisis to drill for oil, or to buy oil from our enemies? If he based his earlier votes on sound economic principles he would have voted to drill long ago. His vote was based on his very misguided environmental beliefs - which is exactly what you said he shouldn’t do - base a drilling vote on ideology. He is ever still the environmentalist which is why I believe if he weren’t running for President he would stand behind his offshore drilling vote.
What economics course did McCain take? I’m really more interested in which economic course you took.
Oil prices would not be near as bad as the are if it wasn’t for the speculators in the market. I’m not saying price wouldn’t still be relatively high, but I think the drop in prices after Bush lifted the ban proves that speculators are a major driver in the prices. Not to mention all the companies that are getting busted for hedging.
I know McCain’s old and all, but I’m pretty sure he wasn’t around when the decision was made to purchase foreign oil. You can’t place the blame on one party for this. It’s been going on for years and no one has taken responsibility. And if you are going to blame someone, what about Biden? He’s been in Washington a lot longer than McCain has.
As for the environmental issue, please provide me with a couple of examples within the last 25 years of oil spills related to offshore drilling.
As for the environmental issue, please provide me with a couple of examples within the last 25 years of oil spills related to offshore drilling.
I’m sorry, I’ve got no idea where you are headed with this one? I’m not sure there have been any major oil spills in the last 25 years. Offshore drilling is pretty safe and the oil companies are very environmentally aware and friendly. They spend billions making sure their operations are safe. All the more reason McCain has no excuse for voting against offshore drilling. All he was doing in the past is capitulating to the environmental wackos that want to shut down all of our natural resources.
Thanks. Glad you liked it.
oops. That was supposed to nest below Jason’s gracious comments.
http://whatwouldsarahpalindo.com