On the other hand, if Palin exceeds expectations, and her selection ends up looking both bold and wise, McCain could win.
The Palin pick already, as Noemie Emery wrote, “Wipes out the image of McCain as the crotchety elder and brings back that of the fly-boy and gambler, which is much more appealing, and the genuine person.” But of course McCain needs Palin to do well to prove he’s a shrewd and prescient gambler.
I spent an afternoon with Palin a little over a year ago in Juneau, and have followed her career pretty closely ever since. I think she can pull it off. I’m not the only one. The day after the V.P. announcement, I spoke with an old friend, James Muller, chairman of the political science department at the University of Alaska, Anchorage. He said that Palin “has been underestimated over and over again. She took on the party and state establishments here in Alaska, and left them reeling. She’s a very good campaigner, a quick study and a fighter.”
Muller called particular attention to her successes in passing an increase to the oil production tax and facilitating the future construction of a huge natural gas pipeline. “At first the oil companies thought she was naïve, and they’d have their way. Instead she faced them down and forced them to compromise on her terms.”
It continues to concern many of us conservatives that McCain wants to “shake up” the Republican Party. He really wanted long-time friend Joe Lieberman (Democrat & Pro-Abortion) as his running mate, but advisors strongly warned this would tear the GOP apart. If he had gone that direction, I don’t know how we could have ever trusted him with regard to judicial appointments. The fact that this was his first choice and really wanted to do it, continues to give me pause.
Palin is about the only thing that makes it possible for me to vote FOR McCain and simply AGAINST Obama.
Palin’s star rose fast and seems to be falling faster. So much for abstinence-only education.
The question is, Mark, will Obama urge Palin’s daughter to abort her unborn child so as to not be “punished” with a baby?
“…the advice of Margaret Thatcher: “In politics if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman.â€
But not just any woman…this woman appears to walk the walk, but is able to talk the talk when need be.
Mark…its inappropriate to bring Sarah Palin’s daughter’s private life into this blog…I am highly offended and expect you to apologize to all of us…
#3 Jeffersonian – how is this any different than Jamie-Lynn Spears? Remember several months ago when people went wild on this blog about what that young girl’s pregnancy was saying to the rest of the country? Now, it’s the possible next-VP’s daughter. As I wrote elsewhere – Palin wants to institute her moral values on the rest of the country. So, yes, she’s talking the talk, but not sure she’s walking the walk.
#5, the daughter is 17 years old, she’s not 5. She knows right from wrong and this is relevant.
Anyone going to discuss Bill Kristol’s column? The daughter is a legitimate issue as long as it is treated in proper perspective, but it is not the subject of this thread where it was not even mentioned.
#6, at the core two teenage girls are pregnant, so it’s no different at that level. At a bit higher level, the Spears family has been selling sex for well over a decade, and thus the pregnancy of JLS is the culmination of that effort. OTOH, Bristol Palin’s pregnancy seems to be contrary to her parents’ teaching. So, I think, it comes down to what should be taught: a message of abstnience that sometimes fails, or one of promiscuity that will almost always succeed?
Now answer my question.
There is such a quixotic idea of right and wrong here…
Apologies Kendall, but I will respond to Mark.
When I heard the news about Bristol Palin this morning, I wondered how long it would be until the left started in on this. The hypocrisy of using this issue to diminish Palin politically is astounding. If SS relationships are acceptable, then this should be no problem. Is it sad that a 17 year old is pregnant and unmarried? Yes. Does it have anything to do with Palin’s candidacy? Not one bit! This is typical of the left in American Society be it the church or national politics. The politics of character assassination has become the only argument they have.
This leads to a comment on the Kristol article. Palin is a true conservative and a bit of a Maverick. She is not an unknown to observers of the conservative movement. Kristol and a few other pundits had spoken of her over the past year. When she was selected I can honestly say that I had heard her name before. I knew little about her, but the more I hear the more comfortable I am with her selection.
Look you all, of course her daughter’s situation matters. No parent wishes to be confronted with this kind of situation because it does not reflect well on them. But we all have broken families, so we shall see how the family has been responding. Yes it does have to do with her candidacy at the level of her work within her family, but it is one factor among so many. Does anyone here really believe that if this were the situation with one of the two Democratic candidates that the other side would remain silent on it? Of course not.
It is not a question of her star rising or falling, her star, such as it is, is just emerging. Let’s give the woman a chance and see how it goes….–ed.
Ok, I have made a seprate post on the daughter’s situation so please could we have any further comments on that subject come on that thread, and leave this thread for the Bill Kristol column.
The daughter is a legitimate issue as long as it is treated in proper perspective
Could you illuminate exactly how it could be seen as legitimate? Teaching children right from wrong does not guarantee that such morals will always be followed. Shall a parent be blamed that one of her children slipped up? Shall we blame Jesus that of few of us fall short of His Sermon on the Mount? The way a parent responds to this situation is the relevant factor, as that is the action of the parent.
I find the repellant behavior of Mark Johnson to be typical of partisan fanatics who know no decency or proportion. Everything is relevant to them if they can make political fodder out of it. Despicable. You might go to the Daily Kos to find how low this loathsome attitude so easily sinks.
Come on Chris you need to apply the same standard to both sides. “He must manage his own household well” is a criterion for church leadership (1 Timothy 3:4) and it is one part of the equation for political leaders as well. It matters, it shows brokenness, and now they have responded. As you say it is the response which should be a factor now, and overall this is simply one small piece of the overall picture–ed.
“He must manage his own household well†is a criterion for church leadership (1 Timothy 3:4) and it is one part of the equation for political leaders as well.
Since when? Really? When have we ever made such isues political? VP is not a priestly office. Neither is the Presidency. It is not an office of moral leadership. Did we care that much that Reagan had difficulties with his children? I know that the Dems are acting like Obama is their messiah, probably because for many of them politics is religion, but it’s not supposed to be that way.
For the record, I have never criticized democrats for their children’s faults. So I do apply my standards to both sides. I just know the difference between politics and religion.
Kristol’s article is well written, so far as it goes into the political background. It is deficient in the sense that it has been overcome by events that in some ways have become the pressing interest of such posts as #2, which in that post attempts to portray Palin as some sort of fundamentalist extremist interested in turning public schools into pseudo religious indoctrination centers. It is issues and allegations like that which Kristol usually ignores, but which will have to be answered in detail elsewhere, but which will motivate many voters one way or another.
I suppose allegations like Palin being some kind of fundy nut case are cut from the same bolt of cloth as allegations prior to FDR of how the “wet” Democrats were morally dysfunctional. They serve only to obscure the principal issues, such as whether Hoover or Smith might have handled the overheating economy and international trade better. Kristol ignores these appeals to woe and intrigue.
“It is not an office of moral leadership.” Of course it is. Have you ever studied the history of Christian political theology?