Cohen: Sarah Palin who?
What was Sen. John McCain thinking when he chose the Alaskan governor?
By Ben Cohen
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008
After being captivated by the Democratic National Convention, I wasn’t sure I could handle any more excitement. Democratic nominee Barack Obama had just given one of the best speeches of his life, and he’s a man who knows his way around the spoken word.
But in the world of this proud politi-geek, there would be only one thing that could come out after the end of the DNC that I would pay attention to, and it happened.
According to 2000 U.S. census, Wasilla's population is close to 7,000 people, meaning it could theoretically be invaded and conquered by the line for Chic-Fil-A at the Underground on any given weekday afternoon.
Nobody knew exactly when Republican nominee John McCain would announce his choice of a running mate or who it would be. Old campaign rivals like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were considered front-runners, as was the possibility of a party-line shattering alliance with Joe Lieberman. The Republican Party had a ripe field of potential vice presidents to pick from.
But McCain is just full of surprises. Desperately trying to regain his old maverick status, he picked somebody completely out of right field. I’m aware that the phrase is usually “out of left field,” but that would be inappropriate in this context for obvious reasons.
The day after the Democratic National Convention ended, McCain shocked his party, the country and probably his own campaign staff by announcing that his running mate would be that shining star of the Republican Party, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
I first discovered this while browsing Facebook, when a Republican friend had changed her status to “McCain/Palin ’08.” I was unfamiliar with the name, as she hadn’t been considered a top pick for the position.
McCain chose somebody who has held only one office relevant to national affairs and who has only held that for a bit over a year and a half. Before this, she briefly held a position on the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission and during the 1990s was both a city councilwoman and the mayor of the vibrant Arctic metropolis we know as Wasilla.
No, I hadn’t heard of it either.
According to 2000 U.S. census, it’s population is close to 7,000 people, meaning it could theoretically be invaded and conquered by the line for Chic-Fil-A at the Underground on any given weekday afternoon. Oh, and she was also the runner-up for Miss Alaska in 1984. Sexy.
If we dig into John McCain’s mind, his decision in selecting Palin becomes clear: she has two X-chromosomes. The McCain campaign has been desperate to court disenfranchised Hillary Clinton supporters, and they seem to feel that the best way to do this is to include a woman on their ticket. It may mean that in doing so, they’ve pointed the gun at their foot and pulled the trigger.
Don’t tell me that she represents change, the favored buzzword of this election. She’s a staunch neo-conservative, open about her anti-gay, anti-abortion and anti-evolution beliefs.
You can’t tell me that she’s experienced enough for the job. She may be the only person on either major party ticket with executive branch experience, but it is too little to qualify her for the position she is running for.
And you can’t tell me that she’s free of controversy. It was reported a few days after her nomination that her under-age, unwed daughter is pregnant, which could also be a knock against those elusive “family values” the Republicans refuse to define. Also, she is under investigation in Alaska for abuse of power after firing a public safety official when he refused to fire her former brother-in-law.
I would not be so bold as to say that this will completely dash McCain’s hopes of winning. The 2004 election proved that some voters are willing to forgive anything. That doesn’t stop me from calling this the worst possible pick McCain could have made short of vice president Dick Cheney and, for once, it isn’t just because of my partisan bias.
The desire to be exciting has led to a reckless selection of an unqualified candidate for the second most powerful individual in the nation. If anything were to happen to a President McCain, who has a history of skin cancer problems, this woman would be president of the United States.
I don’t care which party picks somebody like that — it is unacceptable.
— Cohen is a Topeka senior in political science.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
Is this what they're teaching you at KU? You are in luck, I hear there are a couple openings at MSNBC.
The very tone of this editorial is a perfect example of why the Republicans will win in November. The majority of Americans are mostly in the middle, but are smart enough to realize when media propaganda is being shoved down their throat.
The people who pay the taxes in this country identify with war heroes and hockey moms. If the media-left doesn't tone it down, they will drive all the undecided's to vote GOP.
I've got three words: Ben Cohen who?
Comments about the tone aside, I'd like to point out that I did not say that the population of Alaska was 7,000 when I wrote this. It was supposed to be in reference to the city of Wasilla.
So what do you make of this "last second choice?" McCain's shortlist in APRIL included the names of Romney, Pawlenty, Huckabee, and yes of course your favorite woman Sarah Palin. There is no evidence that she was picked last second, so don't make assumptions. Also, if you think about McCain's strategy, it becomes clear that Romney and the others were deployed to the DNC as a distraction. A pump fake before throwing the hail-mary pass to Sarah Palin. Her "lack of experience" only accents Obama's obvious shortcomings. As well as accent McCain's resume as a maverick. She is a staunch conservative, but you miss the point of the pick- to rally the base and get some enthusiasm! not go after Hillary's people. If that was the goal it wouldn't have been Palin.
She's done more for more people in public service than Obama. It's not the time in office that creates experience, its the accomplishments.
Partisan hackery at its finest. Poor analysis and a pretty clear bias are shown in this WONDERFUL article written by Mr. Cohen. I agree with the poster a few slots above me. MSNBC needs some help ghostwriting for Matthews and Olberdork.
this is a great article. obviously, some people need to look at the description under the author's name that was featured in the newspaper: "loudmouth liberal". he never claims to be "fair and balanced" (unlike a certain pathetic excuse of a cable "news" station). he's quite honest about where's he's coming from, which i find very refreshing. too bad gov. palin has some troubles with the concept of integrity. i find mccain's and palin's outright LIES on issues such as the bridge to nowhere (literally "thanks but no thanks", except she kept all the money), earmarks (27 MILLION for a town of 5,000????? that's crazy), hiring lobbyists for aforementioned town, iffy per diem charges for her KIDS' airplane tickets paid by you, the taxpayer and so on and so forth, to be absolutely repulsive. and they have the AUDACITY to pretend as if they are mavericks who can change washington? they can't even come up with their own campaign theme, instead clumsily, shamelessly stealing obama's message, the message he has had since the beginning. mccain/palin's tactics are so freaking unbelievable. picking palin was a great short term strategy. mccain clearly showed us he is great at the whole attention whore thing by going after gimmicky, superficial qualities in his VP pick. but obama's pick for biden is great long term strategy because biden brings a wealth of foreign relations experience. he added SUBSTANCE to his ticket. the VP choices clearly demonstrate who has better judgment.
I, for one, am extremely happy with McCain's decision of Tina Fey as Veep. The only thing that could make this set up better would be if Amy Poehler were the actual Presidential nominee.
there is an error in this piece that affects many people, one which must be pointed out before anyone votes:
it is CHICK-fil-a... not chic-fil-a.
Yea, well I hope you guys are happy if Obama gets elected. Personally, if I wanted to live in a communist country I'd move to China. Instead I live here and I'd like my country and government to work for me. Unfortunately the Democratic party doesn't do that.
I would be careful before accusing Palin of being a staunch "neo-conservative," whatever that means these days.
Palin believes that creationism/intelligent design is a topic worthy of debate, but she has explicitly stated that she would not pursue having it taught alongside evolution in schools and has never done so.
On the gay-marriage issue: Palin has expressed that she is not fond of gay marriage in the past, but in August 2008 she vetoed a bill passed by the Alaska legislature denying benefits to gays and referred to it as "unconstitutional."
Strict constructionism in the face of moral beliefs? That's a plus to me.
And finally, on the abortion issue: I am not aware of her having dealt with any legislation over abortion. I know that she is pro-life, but not what she would do in regards to legislation. She might call it unconstitutional.
Speaking of life issues: The probability that McCain will be able to appoint a conservative Supreme Court Justice as president is next to nothing since the Democrats will control the Senate and would require a majority approval to make an appointment.
All I really have to say is that both tickets, Republican and Democrat, are worthless this year. Their platforms are almost identical on foreign policy, energy, immigration, civil liberties, and almost everything else.
We need REAL 'change.' No, we need to stop using that word because it doesn't mean anything anymore.
We need to look at the third parties:
http://www.bobbarr2008.com
http://www.baldwin2008.com
http://votetruth08.com/
http://www.votenader.org/
Share your 2¢
Requires free registration.