Zcom_simple

The Rovian Politics of Choosing Sarah Palin




Change Text Size a- | A+


What does it say about John McCain that he not only picked the least experienced Vice Presidential nominee in ’s history, but picked someone he really didn’t know? Departing so far from any normal concept of appropriate background, he should at least have had a sense of why this individual is so special. Meeting Palin once at a Republican governors’ conference and having a single phone conversation on the eve of her selection just doesn’t pass muster—particularly for the oldest presidential candidate ever, who’s had four malignant melanomas.America

 

What makes Palin such a cynical choice is that McCain doesn’t know her and doesn’t know what drives her. Until she was selected by the Karl Rove types running his campaign (like campaign manager and Rove protégé Steve Schmidt), McCain might not even have recognized her on the street. Instead, she’s a category selection, made for the crassest reasons by the same kinds of political operatives who brought us George W. Bush.

 

Their motives  are obvious: Palin is an energetic and attractive woman who just might pick up some disgruntled Hillary supporters. She’s a westerner and a hunter who might appeal to rural voters. She might energize a previously tepid base of hard-shell religious conservatives through her opposition to abortion even in cases of rape or incest. These attributes may indeed prove her worth as a vote-getter. But they have no relation to Palin’s fitness for the job. McCain can’t have any sense of what lies beneath the marketing categories--who Palin actually is, what she could contribute to the Vice Presidential office, and what it would be like to work together--because he doesn’t know her and had no chance to. It’s like so much that the Republicans have done for eight years and longer—making choices with the gravest possible consequences based largely on political expediency.

 

Leave aside all the other troubling questions about Palin: her extreme abortion position; her backing the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” while campaigning for governor, then later claiming to disavow it; her denial of global warming and embrace of creationism; her Cheney-style vendetta of firing the Alaska public safety director who refused to fire her former brother-in-law from his job as a state trooper.  Leave aside Palin’s actual record, because John McCain barely knows it. And his vetters didn’t even bother to go through the archives of her local newspaper or talk with the former public safety director she fired. What choosing her shows instead is a politics that once again subordinates any greater common good to a raw pursuit of power. It echoes McCain praising Jerry Falwell after once calling him an “agent of intolerance.” Or embracing Bush’s campaign and administration after Bush’s political hitmen defeated him in  with Swift Boat-type lies. Or when instead of challenging Obama’s ideas, the McCain campaign tried to caricature him as one step up from Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Karl Rove’s minions may be smiling at the brazen gamesmanship of this pick: but if Americans fall for it, they should know all too well what to expect.South Carolina

 

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org To receive his articles directly, email sympa@lists.onenw.org with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-article

672083

Hunter?

By Carl, Susan at Sep 02, 2008 02:01 AM

Hunters, at least true hunters, do not run their game to exhastion with airplanes and then torture them. Hunters use skill and experience to outsmart them. The thrill and challenge is in the skill, not the kill.

She\'s an opportunist and exploitist, not a hunter.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

587943

Re: Hunter?

By C.rodas, Cliff at Feb 20, 2009 05:17 AM

I have slaughtered a chicken for food once, and I intend to learn and offer to my children the ways of hunting, but they are spiritual rituals. We eat as vegetarian as we can, but ancestral and ways-of-the-land and its peoples are important. A prayer, grief and a pinch of saymaa (tobacco) are offered the spirit and our (inclusive) relations.

Reply this comment


5243

Re: Hunter?

By Dominick, Brian at Sep 02, 2008 07:48 AM

Give me a break. It\'s just a matter of degrees between a gun or a bow and a helicopter. \"True hunters\" use their bare hands or maybe a sharpened stone. If you want to hunt for the thrill of it, which is disturbing in and of itself, stop cheating with technology. True hunters do so because they need to in order to feed their family. Period.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

672083

Re: Re: Hunter?

By Carl, Susan at Sep 03, 2008 02:12 AM

I\'ll give you that. I made a comment, not write a book. Yes, there are rules of ethics and safety to hunting. One is that you don\'t ever shoot something you are not planning to eat. Second, never take a shot unless you can make a quick, clean, relatively painless kill. Third, you never take more than you need. And you respect what you take. You play on a level playing field, no baiting, no trees, no crossbows or \"super\" weapons. A shotgun or bow, on the ground...ect. Yes, I may have a gun, usually a bow as I like the greater challenge, but I can\'t run and jump like a deer. Trying to \"run it down and kill it with my bare hands\", is not an option. I take one deer a year, and yes, it goes in my freezer. I don\'t like or eat beef, so it is my \"red meat\" for the year. And I\'m sorry, but when you hunt the good ole fashioned way. When you sit for hours in the snow and dark and the prey creeps in. When you hold your breath waiting for just the right timing, while trying not to make a wrong move and scare the prey. Yes, there is an adrenaline rush and a primal thrill. I could lie and say there wasn\'t, but that would be a lie. But to run something down, giving the prey no chance of being the victor, is not only not hunting, but shameful. Better?

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Img_9835

You should be a novelist

By Andrews, John at Sep 03, 2008 10:35 AM

Susan You really should be a novelist or film director I was totally gripped and I\'m a vegetarian! I take it that Sarah does not meet with your full approval then?

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

672083

Re: You should be a novelist

By Carl, Susan at Sep 04, 2008 02:10 AM

No, I am not impressed in the least. Not only on the one valid point, but many others. Like politics and media today, it is not what they say, it is what they omit. When you have the complete story many times it changes the entire picture. Based on my own research, I am not only far from impressed but shutter at the thought of her stepping up if McCain is no longer an option. People, to me, are losing values such as pride, intregrity, honor and even accountability for their own personal actions. I\'m also discovering that common sense is not as common as I would hope to think. People have to stop and look within themselves to correct their shortcomings before they can ever hope to \"change\" the world.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

672083

Re: Re: You should be a novelist

By Carl, Susan at Sep 04, 2008 02:25 AM

Oh, and Yellowstone Nat Park already found out the hard way what happens when you remove just one species from the equation. They noticed the park was dying. People from fear and ignorance over time had killed or removed the wolves from the park. They found that many other species depended on the life and habits of the wolf. Re-introducing the wolves, saved Yellowstone. Most science and nature based people already understand how everthing ties together. (I would hope) Watch the documentory \"Wolves: A Legend Returns To Yellowstone\" \'07 to discover how we depend on species for our own survival.

Reply this comment

Loading_border