The Palin Prop
It looks like my weaselly wait-and-see attitude for Sarah Palin is no longer tenable. Since the announcement, it has become abundantly clear that she is not prepared for any of the duties of a Vice President, official or not, besides breaking ties in the Senate however McCain directs her. I find her membership in the Alaska Independence Party for two years in the ’90s somewhat endearing, if only because I have a soft spot for eccentric politicians (and yes, I extend this fondness to Joe Biden, too). Almost everything else we’ve come to know about her suggests she is not fit for her candidacy. You can find exhaustive accounts of her incompetence here, here, here, and here. I had previously expressed some hopes that she would be a champion of reform; it now appears that her scandal is worse than it first appeared and that her opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere was illusory. It’s a mystery why anyone would want this politician in Washington or representing a national party. As Ramesh Ponnuru, among countless others, asks, “Can anyone say with a straight face that Palin would have gotten picked if she were a man?”
The only fallback for her defenders is to point out the strength she brings to the ticket. I have yet to see any evidence of this. Aside from firing up the base, it is not at all clear that she has swayed marginal McCain voters, and especially not women. And as far as Palin enthusiasts go, how telling is it that the most exciting politician in the GOP ranks is a pretty cypher? They have deluded themselves into thinking that she is electoral gold, and that is more energizing to them than policies or ideology. With this selection, Camp McCain has delayed yet again a very serious discussion the party needs to be having about who they are.
The story of how she was selected also reveals what a cynical, lightweight politician McCain is. For starters, McCain had only met her once or twice and probably barely spoken to her over the phone. Next we have an anonymous GOP strategist claiming that Camp McCain, “used little more than a Google Internet search as part of a rushed effort to review Palin’s potential pitfalls.” Reporters doing the legwork in Alaska have found some astounding revelations: McCain advisors failed to contact key figures in State and local politics essential to a proper vetting. This may be partly because due diligence isn’t McCain’s style, but it’s mostly due to the fact that impulsiveness is: no one at the Camp had enough time to vet Palin because she was picked on-the-fly with little serious consideration until the week of the announcement. Daniel Larison sums this up:
That lack of preparation ensured that the public and media would experience maximal surprise-and it will probably ensure future surprises for the McCain campaign! This is the classic McCain style: blindly winging things from day to day with no coherent or consistent plan for what comes next. While many people are taking the Palin pick as evidence that McCain is unserious or reckless or, when they want to pay him a compliment, a “gambler,” this is simply the latest in a long line of episodes when McCain tried to thrive on nerve and impetuous actions instead of relying on long-term strategy and careful planning.
Note that he wrote the first sentence before the latest shocking headlines. Palin was picked as a gimmick designed to dominate the news cycle; she’s doing so in spades, though probably not in the way McCain intended. So far, that only bears on the McCain campaign and a few innocent bystanders. What happens when McCain starts making erratic decisions with unintended consequences in the White House?
55 Responses to “The Palin Prop”
Can I quote you as a source for what the AIP does and does not stand for, or for your claim that “becoming a separate and independent nation” has nothing to do with secession?
Huh? I have made no such claim.
I suppose you would know, being a member and all.
r.johnson, this is getting really weird. The information that I am using is all written out in their platform, to which I linked again in my previous comment. I think you are looking at a different document that states the party’s long-term goal, a goal that the platform does not even reference.
And if republicans and the AIP have the same views on so many topics, why is it exactly that someone would chose to become a member of the AIP as opposed to the republican party? Taxes? Small government? Becoming a separate and independent nation?
As I wrote this morning, “The United States has many third parties that are populated by people who believe what one of the major parties supports in theory, but who think that the two main parties are too similar in practice (or ineffective for some other reason).”
And nice attempt at converting you prior claim (no evidence that they favor secession) to “I have never claimed that this party repudiates secession.”
It doesn’t look to me as though you have even been reading these comments. I have repeatedly written that the Alaskan Independence Party calls for a vote on Alaska’s status, but that this goal is not a part of its platform and that its focus in practice seems to be on issues that have the potential to appeal to a large number of anti-secession Alaskans.
On September 5, I described this party as “a party that advocates a vote on Alaska’s status, but whose immediate agenda does not involve secession.” I then quoted you as saying, “You have a hard time even seeing her association, whether limited or not, with a party advocating session as being a problem in a year when the republican party is making ‘patriotism’ a centerpiece of its campaign.” I responded, “At this point in time, that advocacy seems to be only a small part of its agenda — while it is supposedly their ultimate goal, it is a distant goal, and not even a part of their short-term agenda, as represented by their platform.”
Later on September 5, I wrote: “Their platform suggests that the vote on Alaska’s status is, while still a long-term goal, a dormant issue. It is not even a part of their short-term agenda, if we are to believe their platform.”
This morning, I wrote, “Secession is not a plank in the Alaska Independence Party’s platform. The party does have a vote on Alaska’s status as a long-term goal, but it is not even mentioned in its policy program for the foreseeable future.”
Later in my comment from this morning, I described this party as “a party that does not even mention secession in its platform but that formally advocates a vote, at some point in the future, on Alaska’s status.”
As you can see, I have never claimed that the Alaskan Independence Party opposes secession — they want a vote, at some point in the future, on the status of Alaska, and one of the options would be secession. As you know, all of these comments were available above for you to review in this very window.
I have stated, however, that there is no meaningful evidence that Palin supports secession, yet Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party are not the same thing.
Karl, you are full of it. You just make this up, right? Don’t just take my word for it, but listen to Dexter Carter, the AIP party chair. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NK2sFJebGc
Wait, what was it that he said starting at the second minute, something about “the number one plank of our platform”?
And in the 6th minute, when he describes Sarah Palin as a former member, sympathetic to their views (when he is refering to ‘a vote for independence’)?
Next time, at least do a little research so that your blatant mis-statements are not so easily revealed.
Their actual platform is posted on their web site, and their web site also includes a correction denying that Palin was ever a member. You are grasping at straws — chairman or not, he obviously isn’t authoritative enough on the issue of what is in that party’s platform, or what he says is in the platform would actually be there.
If you want to know what is in the platform, read the platform.
Actually, he does not even claim that the platform includes what you say that he claims. I can see why you did not attempt to state what exactly he said was the “number one plank of our platform.” He said, “The basic argument of the Alaskan Independence party has always been that the number one plank in our platform is the question of our vote to become a state. The most glaring disparity in that vote was the definition of an eligible voter…” He then explained what he thought was wrong with that vote. He was talking about an historical event, not a proposal. He plainly did not say that secession is the number one plank in his party’s platform. You are now misrepresenting even your own sources.
Additionally, Dexter Clark is their “Vice Chairman North,” not their chair.