The Seattle Times editorial board doesn't like the pick of Sarah Palin. Stefan has already linked to it, but the text of their position bears some examination for its revealing insight into their decision-making. Primarily, the assessment appears to be based on the kind of half-truths and flawed assumptions that have sent readers and viewers scampering from MSM institutions across the country.
Let it be said there are respectable and legitimate reasons to disagree with the Palin pick, regardless of whether or not one shares each particular view (see Charles Krauthammer). The topics of experience, foreign policy credentials, and her position on the issues are all obviously fair game - as they should be. Yet, is there any doubt that an Obama pick of a somewhat similar reform-minded Governor with little experience on the national stage like Tim Kaine or Kathleen Sebelius would have been met with less derision?
More importantly, look at the editorial's reasoning.
It says: "Palin's selection speaks volumes about McCain's erratic judgment and his campaign's ineffective vetting of an unknown governor of a small state."
Well, Republicans have longed claimed that McCain has a tendency to make decisions from his gut. Now after all these years of media fawning over his Maverickness, it's on display again. Funny thing though: the media isn't as enthralled with a standard-issue McCain curveball when it breaks to the right, rather than the left. It's just McCain being McCain.
Complaining about that now strikes conservatives as faux outrage indeed. And if it's "erratic" then the media is more than a little tardy in reporting on it since it's been his modus operandi for the whole of his political career.
In addition, the "ineffective vetting" bit is tiresome given that much of the coverage on this is based on media speculation about a vetting process that few people know about in full. Indeed, a notable portion of the reporting on this topic was so factually inaccurate (more here) that the McCain campaign finally stopped answering questions about a topic that had become more dominated by conjecture than fact. Lastly, part of the claim of "ineffective vetting" comes from the fact the media was surprised by the pick - and thus unprepared for it.
They shouldn't have been so miffed. There was evidence it was possible. At Sound Politics we discussed her back in September of last year as a serious potential VP option for multiple possible nominees (here and here), while a Sound Politics search for "Sarah Palin" shows she was part of our discussions of the short list for VP from an early stage, even if she wasn't at the top of the media chatter. Sorry they missed it.
Today's editorial also says: "Palin's selection was a calculated move to lure Hillary Rodham Clinton voters. Palin all but said so herself."
The first point is a pure myth (detailed here). Palin's demographic appeal to the fairer sex can be found in Republican-leaning women - some of whom had little enthusiasm for McCain - as well as independents potentially attracted by Palin and her compelling, "I'm one of you" story. Moreover, let's be clear: Palin has offered complimentary words to Hillary Clinton (and Geraldine Ferraro). Yet, she was no more making a play for Clinton voters than McCain was trying to lure Obama backers in his convention speech by politely recognizing them along with Obama's accomplishments. Setting a civil tone in politics is not the same as making a serious effort to steal supporters from the other side.
Which brings us to this from the Times:
But those who were excited about Clinton shattering the glass ceiling will move away from Palin as they learn she opposes abortion in nearly every instance, including cases of rape and incest. She supports abortion only to save the life of the mother. That's a dramatic position for a lot of voters accustomed to decades of legalized, and safe, abortions.
False; demonstrably so. The lens through which much of the country's electorate views abortion is not the same as left-of-center, urban journalists. Yes indeed, fervently pro-choice Clinton voters probably won't find much to like about Sarah Palin. Then again, that wasn't the point of the Palin pick anyway (see above). More importantly, many women with less partisan inclinations, who don't view the abortion issue uber alles, will be drawn to Palin, her story, and what she represents.
Ultimately, the Times editorial board thinks Palin is the wrong pick. Fine. Many of us here at Sound Politics disagree. I think I can speak for many readers, however, when I say that we would have more respect for the opinion it if appeared to be something more than an amalgam of New York Times front pagers, AP wire stories, and the conventional wisdom of the chattering class - all of which have at various times been proven wrong about the Palin story in recent days.
Then newsies wonder why people are turning to alternate forms and mediums by which to obtain their news and commentary, other than newspapers and the broadcast networks. Different opinions are one thing. Opinions derived from flawed facts and errant supposition engender much less regard. They've got the circulation numbers and ratings to prove it.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 05, 2008 07:53 PM | Email ThisAbortion used to be an issue for women mainly for economic reasons. Getting knocked up meant zero chance for prosperity. Now? It has zero or more impact as moms prove everyday what they can do.
So, these original Clinton supporters -- who the NYTimes cast as bra burning radicals from the 60s -- are actually more like....Sarah Palin! In fact, at no time did Sarah Palin ever rely on a man to bolster her career. The Palins are the ERA ideal of both people carrying the load equally.
Posted by: John Bailo on September 5, 2008 07:59 PMIt was refreshing to see Kirsten Powers speak out about it, to the point of calling them out saying that the National Organization for Women should really be called the National Organization for LIBERAL Women. Amen to that Kirsten!
Again, I saw that nitwit Andrea Mitchell interview some woman after Governor Palins speech. The woman said, you know I am pro-choice but the security of MY family is more important than being pro-choice.
I believe the 'boots on the ground' feminists, the ones who have a family, a full time job, a daily commute, a budget and a full calender, the ones WITHOUT A PELOSI NANNY agree.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 5, 2008 08:31 PMIt was painfully obvious at Saddleback that Obama is the one you don't want to put up there at the start. McCain is clearly tested and ready. The McCain-Palin ticket is the better bet right off the bat. The Times chose to ignore that "inconvenient truth".
Also, the Times is dishonest about what her abortion views would mean to the public at large---She has no power to implement her views. What she does have, should she ever become president, is the right to put up Supreme Court nominees. Let's say Roe v. Wade were overturned. All that would mean is that the states would decide how they wish to handle it. Period. The Times would have you believe something else. What, I don't know---but they hope everyone is too stupid to know the real truth of what the court decision would mean.
But the Times clearly chose to ignore all that completely. This was a lame opinion piece. They claimed she got earmarks, but completely ignore that McCain is no fan of them, and he's at the top of the ticket!
Oh, btw, Seattle Times---I'm still NOT a subscriber. Lame columns like this are a big reason why. phthhhh!
1. A Supreme Court would have to have an opening;
2. A candidate would have to pass the scrutiny of Congress.. with the particular dems currenting running things (into the ground) we are assured it would be neither easy nor pleasant;
3. A case would have to come before the court AFTER winding its way through the time-consuming maze of the lower court system;
4. The Supreme Court would have to agree to HEAR the case. Thousands of cases are presented yearly; they are reviewed by the clerks who whittle them down to the ones that would have the greatest impact and THEN the Court decides which to hear;
5. The justices would have to reach agreement on the SPECIFICS and only the specifics of that case;
6. Should ALL of that happen and by some alignment of stars, with perhaps an extra one shining in the East, and Roe be overturned, the very worst that would happen is that it then, again and rightly, becomes a states issue. I believe at this time there are 44 states that would allow abortion EXACTLY as it is allowed now by Roe. Further, some of those states, like ours, had those conditions in place BEFORE Roe;
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 5, 2008 08:56 PMThe case would then have to be appealed up the ladder (by either side) - ultimately filing cert with the Supreme Court. Often times, writs of cert are just categorically denied if it's obvious that there's no constitutional issue/confusion of law at issue.
The Supreme Court would have a hearing as to why this should be heard by the Supreme Court, before they even decide that they ARE going to hear it (and a tough part about that would be getting them to take it even though it's likely moot at this point - since 9mo have probably passed and the plaintiff is either born/aborted.)
Assuming they decide to hear it, they would then have to consider the merits of the case, as well as sort through all the amicus briefs that would undoubtedly be filed by every activist group with an interest in abortion as well.
THEN, assuming a majority of the judges could show why the ruling in Roe was wrong, given the new facts this current case is bringing up (ie. they would absolutely have to show that the fetus is a human life with guarantees to constitutional protections), they could overturn the original ruling.
Yeah, well good luck with that...
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 5, 2008 09:12 PMPlease fact check Senator Obamas credentials and voting record before judging or casting stones at him..
Abortion used to be an issue for economic reasons? My Godson is adopted as is my sister, brother, Father, Aunt and three cousins.
I know that adoption may seem simple but it is a complex process that leaves the birth Mother and child scarred and stressed pregnancies most often offer disabiliites.
Pro choice does not mean pro abortion. The last I checked this was a democracy and "CHOICE" was the point.
Posted by: mamabear on September 5, 2008 10:13 PMPlease fact check Senator Obamas credentials and voting record before judging or casting stones at him..
Abortion used to be an issue for economic reasons? My Godson is adopted as is my sister, brother, Father, Aunt and three cousins.
I know that adoption may seem simple but it is a complex process that leaves the birth Mother and child scarred and stressed pregnancies most often offer disabiliites.
Pro choice does not mean pro abortion. The last I checked this was a democracy and "CHOICE" was the point.
Posted by: mamabear on September 5, 2008 10:13 PMHave you, for example, posted on Kos or HA about your demand that THEY "fact check" Palin?
Of course not.
"CHOICE" is what happens when the mom decides to have sex. Now, feel free to preach to your fellow OhDrama supporters about "fact checking" and "throwing stones."
Hell, the fringe-left nutters posting here have tossed an entire rock quarry, let along a few stones.
In the words of a non-college attending democrat of some renown: "If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen."
Posted by: Hinton on September 5, 2008 10:30 PMReally?
What's your definition of the "choice" in regards to this issue then?
Why does the pro-abortion crowd refer to themselves that way then (besides trying to reframe the language to make baby-killing more palatable)? Why would they even NEED to make it more palatable?
What are the specific "choices" they are refering to if it's not the "right" to choose to abort?
You seem nearly as adept as bHo at convincing yourself that a given stance is not actually the stance that everyone KNOWS it is. That's called self-delusion and it's truly frightening to witness.... epsecially in a lightweight that hopes to lead the country.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 5, 2008 10:35 PMI certainly don't think Sen Obama has done anything comparable to this. He seems to get elected as a reformer then turn turncoat on his supporters, and move on to the next level.
Gov Palin isn't perfect, and has some definite weaknesses, but it is very unfortunate the Times editors seem unaware of her accomplishments.
But then again, the Times editors always have a knee-jerk reaction against reformers. Case in point: their constant support over the years for Port Commissioner Pat Davis against whoever was running against her.
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on September 5, 2008 10:49 PMTo say you're pro-choice, but suggest it doesn't mean pro-abortion, is disingenuous at the very least.
CHOICE isn't the point.
RIGHTS are the point.
And damn your right to "choose", you do NOT have the right to wrongfully deprive others of their right - MOST ESPECIALLY their right to EXIST.
Because if YOU do, then I or ANYONE else has the right to walk up to YOU and shoot you in the head... why shouldn't I have THAT "choice"?
"adoption may seem simple but it is a complex process that leaves the birth Mother and child scarred and stressed pregnancies most often offer disabiliites"
Abortion is a process that leaves unborn children DEAD.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 5, 2008 10:57 PMCredentials? What credentials? Please name for me ONE executive decision Obama has ever made in his political career. What's that you say? He's never held an executive office? Well, Palin has him beat right there. And Obama is shooting for being the actual heartbeat? God help us!
As for his voting record, I'm not quite sure how you analyze a "present" vote. Is that a "Yes" or a "no" vote? Seems to me it is a coward's vote.
Posted by: Dave on September 5, 2008 11:07 PMI'm still waiting for a single executive decision McCain has ever made in his political career.
Posted by: demo kid on September 6, 2008 12:06 AMIt's pretty apparent you have ZERO military experience, so let me clarify a few things for you...
Commanders are in charge of entire ships or squadrons, responsible for huge assets and thousands of troops. They answer to rear admirals, who answer to vice admirals and admirals.
In the business world, the commander is the equivalent of the division head, or in the Microsoft lingo the director. You answer to a vice president, who answers to the president and the CEO.
Being a commander is most certainly an executive role - the buck - millions of them, actually - stop right with YOU. If an ensign screws up and breaks a plane the admiral will call you on the carpet, not the ensign. If a mission fails, you get called out, not the flight crew.
And guess what - McCain was a flight squadron commander. Meaning it was an executive position.
Heck, don't just take my word for it - read the Merriam Webster Dictionary definition for commander: one in an official position of command or control. If that's not an executive leadership role, then please explain what you define!
McCain and Palin have been the person where the buck stops. They've been the ultimate end of the chain of command, and proven their abilities in carrying out those responsibilities.
What about Barack Obama? Or Joe Biden? What about your Slavery Party ticket? Anything there? Anything at all? What executive experience?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 6, 2008 01:47 AMEven to get a good view of left leaning opinion, there are just far better sources than the Don't Waste Your Times.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 6, 2008 05:51 AMNice parse job, dumbo. Of course, you avoid the actual question: "Please name for me ONE executive decision Obama has ever made in his political career." You don't provide an answer because there isn't any answer... besides "none." Palin, on the other hand, has made thousands of executive decisions during her political career. Obama? None. Biden? None. McCain? None.
Let's remember, gang, dumbo's parsing was the qualified: "executive decisions made" during a "POLITICAL CAREER."
I place no basic qualifier on the proposition: Obama has no documentable executive experience of ANY KIND, ANY WHERE.
The hero of the loony left is the LEAST experienced member of EITHER ticket.
Dumbo and his ilk don't give a damn about issues like that; Kool Aid drinkers rarely let facts or critical thinking get in the way of their decision-making process. And clearly, dumbo is no exception.
Posted by: Hinton on September 6, 2008 09:09 AMMcCain commanded a squadron 35 years ago while he was a Navy Pilot...Obama's only executive decison has been to take out the house trash, and that was at the behest of his 'hoodrat American hating wife Michelle.
Experience counts, not empty platitudes.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 6, 2008 10:09 AMMcCain= 26 years in Senate- 0 pork dollars
Obama= 3+ years in senate, paltry 77% attendance rate - nearly 1 Billion in pork
Somehow you rubes squealing about change miss that very important point-
Posted by: Rick D. on September 6, 2008 10:37 AMNot sure I believe your math on pork Rick, but if what you write is true, then Obama's ability as a senator in bringing federal dollars home to his state is rather remarkable isn't it?
Yet Obama is criticizing her for earmarks!. I guess the Obamassiah doesn't realize that EARMARKS cannot be made by Governors. But by Senators.
Obama's made $1 BILLION in earmarks; Palin and McCain combined have done $0. Funny how Barack casts her in a bad light because the Alaskan State Senators managed to get almost one half the earmarks Obama got.
Read that again - the Senators of Alaska - NOT Palin or McCain - got almost $1 dollar in earmarks for every $2 Barack Obama got.
Log in your own eye before the mote in another's, Barack!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 6, 2008 11:15 PMThe Supreme Court has already passed this a decision and Congress (mainly Democrats) could vote this in to law that could never be touched by Supreme Court.
Posted by: KS on September 6, 2008 11:38 PMThis "more perfect union" is like marriage between a man and a woman, with the states being the woman. Liberated liberal woman. Just because Miss Idaho married Mr Washington DC doesn't mean she is a burka wearing wife whose new husband beats her for her own good, to keep her pure.
Obama told us that we had to get used to Iran having nukes, etc etc. Well, he was partly right. Get used to Sarah Palin working in the White House. ˇhat's where the Veep has his office, didn't you know?
Posted by: barrackslawyer on September 6, 2008 11:47 PMThe second point separates supervision from managagement. The third separates lower/mid-level management from upper level management. The last item separates upper level management from executive level management (i.e., where the buck stops).
McCain's squadron lead days definately fit 1 through 2, but a limited extent of three. However, his leadership in the senate fills in for three (i.e., establishing direction and stategy). Number four can be assessed two fold. One all senators do run their office, which has its own budget. They also run their campaigns and their campaigns are a direct evaluation of their overall executive skills because it requires all four attributes, especially presidential campaigns.
I would also agree that Governors fit this bill and people that head their own companies, like Mitt Romney also fit this bill.
What I don't agree that mayors, in Sarah Palin's role, where she was responsible for city council meetings and PR, but where there is a city manager to run the day-to-day responsibilities, fit all the above criteria. Her running for Governor, and her duties as Governor would qualify.
I would argue, however, that Barack has also demonstrated all four with his senate and presidential campaigns. The issue is not comparing Barack's experience of when he started his campaign to Sarah Palin's today, but to compare their current experience levels. Someone who can manage a campaign and win against the Clintons, and against the right-wing attack machine, is totally prepared to face world leaders. So for Sarah Palin, her disadvantage is only having 60 days to demonstrate or not her composure under pressure. It is good to see that she actually is starting to give interviews with the press this week. Let's hope the McCain campaign's initial hesitation to not have here conduct interviews is over. If they want the public to be convinced that she is ready to be President at a moment's notice, she needs to be out there in the grinder, including facing the press. She demonstrated she can give a speech. Can she handle the press and actually answer questions herself? That is the question, I am interested in finding out.
Posted by: tc on September 7, 2008 04:17 PM