Yet More Politics

[tahnan]

My last four posts were all about politics. I really, really didn't mean to go down this road. And mostly I'm getting this stuff from Oliver Burkeman's blog at the Guardian, which I'm sure you're all still reading. But just in case, presented with minimal commentary:

"I have had a strong and a long relationship on national security, I've been involved in every national crisis that this nation has faced since Beirut, I understand the issues, I understand and appreciate the enormity of the challenge we face from radical Islamic extremism. I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time."

That is, of course, Joe Biden talking about Sarah Palin...no, wait, my mistake. That's John McCain talking about Giuliani and Romney.

Comments

[zundevil.livejournal.com]

It may be my Palinphilia speaking, but if I'm reading the above correctly...dude, this is some pretty thin gotcha gruel. As with much of the silly "lack of experience" nonsense being thrown at Caribou Barbie, it still doesn't hurt her as much as it hurts Sen. Obama. There's enough wrong with the McCain/Palin ticket (particularly the front-end) that I don't know why the Dems keep harping on this political loser of an issue.

Although I hadn't heard it before (which may reinforce my point about its insignificance), so kudos.

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

It's the hypocrisy. It's the fact that McCain has said (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5715542):

Oh, absolutely. Having been the governor of our largest state, the commander of their National Guard....

Of course, it helps to be a mayor....I mean, she's got an incredible resume.

[...]

She's had positions of responsibility and authority.

So what you have is, on the one hand, McCain saying that being a mayor for seven years, or being a governor for four years, doesn't prepare you for the White House; and then, on the other, McCain saying that Palin being mayor for six years (of a town whose population is 4% the size of NYC's city government) and governor for two (of a state whose population is a tenth that of Massachusetts) makes her "absolutely" qualified.

(In passing: "largest state" is not a particularly meaningful statistic, insofar as she's much more in charge of the people than the land; commanding the state's National Guard doesn't mean much, since she doesn't really give them orders (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/51665.html); the "20% of the nation's energy" statistic is wholly fictitious....)

The point is, again, the about-face, the inconsistency, the convenient forgetting of the past. It's the point I wanted to make with the "lipstick-on-a-pig" post, where McCain took offense at the phrase used vaguely near Palin even though he'd previously used it directly at Hillary Clinton. What it looks like is that McCain is perfectly willing to say one thing at one time and contradict it at another, without any qualms. It makes me wonder what he really believes--if he did believe, in 2007, that being a mayor or a governor didn't qualify you to be president, does he actually believe what he's saying now about Palin? Did something happen, was there some new evidence, that made him change his mind; or does he not really believe that these things are qualifications, and he chose Palin not because she's qualified but for some other, perhaps more cynical, reason (e.g., "she has a vagina! Hillary supporters love that!")?

[zundevil.livejournal.com]

Couldn't a more charitable reading of his debate statement be "Being a mayor or governor is one thing, but my past makes me even more qualified"? Anyhow, yeah, he's spinning, but he's got enough fudge room to feed a room full of kindergartners. I'm sure he'd love her to have a fatter resume than she does. Instead she's only got as much or slightly more than the current head of the Democratic ticket and the #2 on the previous one.

The lipstick/pig blow-up was impossibly stupid; Sen. Obama was *clearly* referring to Gov. Palin's big "improvised" line, and the McCain camp isn't actually offended but is pretending to be. But I dunno -- had Sen. Clinton referred to herself in some major speech as wearing some form of lipstick just days before Sen. McCain used that phrase?

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

Couldn't a more charitable reading of his debate statement be "Being a mayor or governor is one thing, but my past makes me even more qualified"?

No. I mean, sure, you could be charitable, but that interpretation relies on immense amounts of charity, beyond what the government allows an individual to give to a candidate. Look at the text of what he said: it's of the form "X is true of me; Y is not true of me." The meaning of that—not the literal meaning, perhaps, but the necessary implication—is "If Y were true, X would not be true." For instance, I can say, "I'm stuck on this puzzle. I'm not Kray/Spelvin/Jangler/etc.", and it makes sense because what I mean is, "If I were [as good as] that person, I wouldn't be stuck." In comparison, it makes no sense to say, "I'm stuck on this puzzle. I'm not Paris Hilton" (unless the puzzle is about, I don't know, shoe-shopping—that is, once again, unless being Paris Hilton would help me solve the puzzle).

What McCain said was "I am prepared; I wasn't a mayor/governor." The pair of assertions makes no sense without an implication that "If I were merely a mayor/governor, I wouldn't be prepared." I don't think it's possible to weaken that to "If I were merely a mayor/governor, I'd be prepared, but not as prepared"—it would be like being stuck halfway through the puzzle, seeing Codex stuck three-quarters of the way through the puzzle, and saying, "I'm stuck. I'm not Codex", which in that context sounds extremely odd to me.

I'm sure he'd love her to have a fatter resume than she does.

Well, and I think that right there is saying something. If he'd love her to have a fatter resume, why not pick someone who does? Joe Lieberman, say?

The lipstick/pig blow-up was impossibly stupid; Sen. Obama was *clearly* referring to Gov. Palin's big "improvised" line...

To be honest, that's not clear to me at all. When I watch the video, I see him hesitate as he reaches for the analogy he wants; I don't see him smile knowingly at the crowd in any way that might indicate that he's glad they got the joke; I see him actually seem a little surprised at the reaction. It's also not clear to, say, Republicans like Mike Huckabee (http://mediamatters.org/items/200809100010) ("It's an old expression, and I'm going to have to cut Obama some slack on that one. I do not think he was referring to Sarah Palin. He didn't reference her...") or John McCain (Did he call her a pig? McCain was asked. "No, but I know that he chooses his words carefully, and it was the wrong thing to say," he responded.)

Note, too, that McCain was specifically asked about Clinton when he used the phrase; Obama, as Huckabee notes, was speaking about McCain and not Palin.

[zundevil.livejournal.com]

If you sat Sen. McCain down and asked him how he justifies the Palin selection given his above statement, he could say "Ahh, but she was both a mayor *and* a governor!" And, voila! No more contradiction in any meaningful, sticky sense. I think you've got something of a point, but it's a minor one, and I don't think it merits a post from someone lamenting how he posts too much about politics.

Do you care to similarly deconstruct Senator Biden's lines expressing doubt about Senator Obama's readiness to lead?

In a perfect world (or as perfect as one where Sen. McCain heads the GOP side), a conservative policy wonk like Newt Gingrich would find his way onto the ticket. And the ticket would go down to predictable humiliating defeat. This is about as electable a ticket as is possible from the GOP of 2008, and it's almost palatable to me.

But what do you care? Would you be voting for McCain/Lieberman vs. Obama/Biden? Are you telling me that, in some perfect world sense, you *wouldn't* want Senator Obama to have (more) meaningful experience?

I realize page two of the Dem playbook is to somehow rile up the female majority in the land by claiming the Palin selection is "insulting" to Clinton voters, but the next ad from the McCain camp proclaiming "Vote for me because my running mate has a vagina" will be the first. It's a bold stab, it excited the base (100% more than putting any number of squishy, more experienced RINO-types -- even female ones -- would have), and it stole countless thunder from the Obama camp. What more justification is needed? Your nominee excites/excited the Dem base for a plethora of reasons that have nothing to do with "Proven successful executive experience".

I don't anticipate going round-n-round every time one of my LJ friends posts something political (seeing as I'm the only guy on the other side, AFAIK), but I thank you for the food for thought and intellectual honesty. I'd love to see you put that brainpower to use against any number of anti-Palin screwups -- maybe starting with the Charles Gibson "exact words" shenanigans -- and finally using your powers for awesome instead of merely good. :)

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

To respond briefly: "...mayor and a governor!" would be one of the least convincing responses I can think of.

On Biden expressing doubts: well, you've got this commentary on Biden's lack of unmitigated doubt (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/08/22/flashback-biden-on-obama-pakistan.aspx). Though I do admit that the shorter quote, the non-block quote, is something of an indictment, it's true. And then again: you've got McCain in fact running an ad based on that very quote (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV14xqelWxY). (Again, shades of lipstick: "Sure, {criticizing my running mate/using the phrase 'lipstick on a pig'} is something I did myself, but look, the Dems are doing it! Don't vote for them!")

Again, that's the real thing that's irritating me here. Would I have voted for McCain? Not especially, no. But until recently, I thought of him as up-front, honest, warm; I genuinely believed in his "straight talk", and while I wouldn't have voted for him, I could have accepted the idea of him as president. I sure as hell would have preferred him over Bush; someone with foreign policy experience would have been nice, given the way the last eight years have played out.

So I used to like McCain; I want to like McCain. And yet here he is, attacking Obama spuriously over things he himself has done; choosing a running mate in spite of the fact that, apparently, he doesn't really think she's qualified; and so on, and so on. That, more or less, has been the theme of my ongoing against-my-better-judgment political posts: that the more I learn about McCain and the more I see of him, the less I like him (as a person, to say nothing of as a candidate). I was hoping that, even though I really don't want four more years of a Republican White House, I could at least look at the Republican nominee and feel OK about him. And while McCain may be the least of the evils (I lived in MA while Mitt was governor, so I have plenty of opinions there; and as a Jew, I'm scared of Huckabee's religious beliefs—I'd love to have him over for dinner, he seems like a great guy, but I don't want him setting policy in the country I live in), I really just can't like him any more.