McCain picks Palin: A Smart Move
September 10, 2008 4:13 pm GeneralAfter pvanhoof opened the floodgates earlier, I guess I’ll follow up with some thoughts from across the pond…
McCain’s spent the last 8 months being painted by the hard-right nuts in the US republican party as an independent moderate Republican – I think this is an election ploy to make him appeal more to the swing voters.
And now, McCain’s chosen Palin as his VP pick. Where some people see a woman, I don’t think that’s why she was picked. She’s anti-abortion, pro-guns, anti-environment (she doesn’t believe that global warming has been proven, and even if it has, doesn’t believe it’s man-made): all in all, she’s a woman who has nothing in common with Hillary Clinton, and has no chance of picking up any disillusioned Clinton democrats. Sure, she appeals to the right wing of the party, and will consolidate the base.
What’s been interesting after this pick is the way the entire election campaign framing has changed. What people see in Sarah Palin is inexperience. And that’s suddenly become the centerpiece of the election.
The republicans are masters at framing the discussion, at making the democrats play defense. Kerry was a flip-flopper, Gore and Bush were “essentially the same”, the list goes on.
The Republicans almost always win when the most important thing in the campaign isn’t actually the candidate’s platform.
And so, by picking Sarah Palin, McCain’s trapped the democrats. “She’s inexperienced”, they say. “She’s got more experience than Obama”, say the republicans. “Biden’s got more experience than her”, say the Democrats. “McCain’s got more experience than Obama”, say the voices in the voter’s heads.
When you put Obama against McCain and measure experience, McCain wins. When you allow the debate to be framed as “who’s got the experience?”, Obama loses.
What the Democrats need to do is talk less about experience, and more about what you do when elected, where you want the country to go. “I may not have the experience of my opponent, but that just means I haven’t had to cut as many deals as he has,” he should say. “I haven’t had to compromise my ideals. I know where I want to take this country, and it’s a good place, where we take care of our sick, give our children the education they need to survive in the world, and where we use our position as a world leader to make the world a better place, instead of bullying the regimes we don’t like.”
If he speaks to their hearts, Obama will win.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
“What the Democrats need to do is talk less about experience, and more about what you do when elected, where you want the country to go.”
I’m not so sure about this. Democrats often lose *because* they talk about that kind of stuff while Republicans talk about, or rather, evoke, general notions of pride, family, sacrifice, etc. Republicans are also great at catering—rethorically—to people’s psychological needs, specifically their need to be reassured and find comfort in those grandiose but vague notions.
Dems are often seen as boring and out-of-touch (“ellitist”) because they explain things and appeal to people’s intellect.
“If he speaks to their hearts, Obama will win.”
That, I agree with.
About Palin and McCain, there’s a fantastic article about GOP “theology” over at n+1: nplusonemag.com/over-my-dead-body.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I would choose someone with less experience but the right intentions over someone with extensive experience and malicious intention.
Obama is not my first choice either but I would choose him over any Republican candidate (with the possible exception of Ron Paul).
I’m not one to chastise any single party, but the Republican party, at the very least in its stance and policies, is exactly why America is dragged in the mud today – since it has produced a war criminal and their candidates stand for every criminally ignorant thing present in America today.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
“Bullying the regimes we don’t like?” So now the Iran nuclear issue is reasoned on something so childish as “not liking them?”. Maybe we fought the Nazis because we didn’t like them too. Seriously, if we could all just join hands and seem cumbiya, we could all get along and make the world a better place.
Thats not foreign policy, its wishful thinking.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Agree
September 11th, 2008 at 5:30 am
@Russ: To be specific, I am talking about Cuba, Iraq, Venezuela maybe? And sure, I think Iran fits in the list of regimes that the US has been throwing its weight at over the years, rather than using its influence to obtain results. You could even throw in Russia vs Georgia in there (anything but a black & white issue, conveniently presented that way by the American press).
September 11th, 2008 at 10:15 am
>she’s a woman who has nothing in common with Hillary Clinton, and has no chance of picking up any disillusioned Clinton democrats.
You are so over-estimating people here.
People believe things like:
a) – obama is a muslim
b) – mcain’s is against lobbies
c) – american media has a left-winged bias
d) – iran poses a threat
e) – iraq planned 9/11
f) – they are safer with a republican president
But any well-informed person knows this all to be a lie.
a) obviously
b) except when his campaign manager is the biggest lobbist
c) except when calling out democrats on lies, but parrotting the lies of the republicans
d) dissing israel is internal iranian politics: move the focus away from their internal problems. (see; wag the dog)
e) iraq/saddam was one of the reasons why al quida attacked the US in the first place. The meddling in the middle-east pisses them off [perhaps rightfully so?]
f) international politics and economics is like chess. You don’t send donald duck the war veteran. You send somebody with an iq 120+ at the very least. You don’t need balls; you need brains. [not to mention that it was BUSH lack of effort that did not prevent 9/11]
My point being: 90% of the people in this worlds are badly informed idiots that really don’t mind being that uninformed. They happily form opinions.
In this context: There were a bunch of people that for, emotional reasons, liked Hillary; a large group of them now likes Palin.
The are not making their decision on the issues. Instead, they are identifying themselves with the candidate. The more people bash Palin; the more she’ll be the underdog and become a symbol of the repression of females in their mind.
This is not because woman are less intelligent. Men are making their mind up in much the same way. A lot of dumb males voted for Bush because they could relate to him; because they too were never really appriciated for their intelligence. When a person of average intelligence becomes president; they feel less insecure about their own intellectual shortcommings.
Interestingly, I want people to vote McCain. But i’m not american and I think McCain and I share the same priorities: making America less powerfull; weaken their spirits; destroy their economy; punish the stupidity of its people..
Evolution needs to take its course here. We need a WWIII. I don’t like it; but I don’t think america is going to step down without it. I don’t think the muslim fanatism is going to lay down without it. I don’t think the industrial society as we know it (and which can; resource-wise; only exist for another 20-30 years before a much much bigger catastrophy happens) can be broken down; without bringing down its capital.
But that’s just me…
September 11th, 2008 at 10:18 am
“If he speaks to their hearts, Obama will win.”
That’s demagoguery. All the “Change” rant is. It’s effective, though.
Whan an honest politician should do is to talk more about what you do when elected.
By the way, I find Palin a great woman, with lipstick 😉
September 11th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Dave: “To be specific, I am talking about Cuba, Iraq, Venezuela maybe? And sure, I think Iran fits in the list of regimes that the US has been throwing its weight at over the years, rather than using its influence to obtain results. You could even throw in Russia vs Georgia in there (anything but a black & white issue, conveniently presented that way by the American press).”
I’m not sure it’s fair to characterize Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba as simply “regimes we don’t like”. There’s a long history of shit more serious than “I don’t like you” between the US and all of these places, for one (not getting into who had the high ground when, just saying there’s a lot of bad history with each).
For another, what’s the difference between “throwing its weight around” and “using its influence”? These phrases can be used interchangeably.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:01 am
You need to think outside of the box a little more. These two parties are ruining America and our Liberty. Neither of them are talking about the real problems facing this country, while the 3rd-party people are always debating them.
Vote 3rd-party and tell those in charge that we want more than the status quot of Dem vs. Rep; We want America back!
http://www.campaignforliberty.com
September 12th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Some quick notes on this whole climate change thing…
The IPCC model was flawed, used bad science, only took into account accumulative effects and not decreases in environmental gasses caused by the effects of living systems e.g. algae at a most basic level, CO2 is digested by algae, other gasses by other living systems. Methane is a problem so lets kill all the cows as they’re the number 1 contributor to green house gasses.
Pumping gasses into a jar and measuring light doesn’t even begin to create a significantly complex model of gases in a living system. (n.b. this is why the US government refused to accept the IPCC’s findings, they said, provide a better model and we’ll consider it)
I think before anyone starts making commentary about “climate change” they should really read this nice article here: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm
It points out quite a number of very interesting facts about the way climate change is dealt with in the media and public mindset, mostly as a result of scare mongering tactics in the media, remember the whole MMR vaccine thing? same shit different story…
Although the article does fail to mention that climate change scares are generally related to a build up to war… There was one in 1937 for instance when the government overtaxed fuel to decrease usage, bleated on about global warming etc… in order to increase stored fuel without showing an obvious will to purchase more fuel from supply to store, thereby hiding the increase in storage from the growing enemy. That’s all pretty straight forward political manoeuvring for war.
The simple truth is the climate is always changing, it changes 4 times a year, many times a century, and over the last few billion years has been all over the place. Just because we’ve had a settled period for a while means nothing! Saying the climate is changing is like saying the tides are turning… The human race has lived through some drastic climate changes and still survived… You can’t hope for peace, balance and harmony the way you like it, you just ride the back of the whale we call earth and hope it doesn’t get too pissed off at you nibbling the fat.
btw: I’m not supporting palin, I just think we should discern truth instead of listening to FUD and bad science as the new religion.