GOP VP thread: Palin is the pick

Hey, I haven't even had time to set the betting line!

 

Nobody's saying it's not progressive. (It was also progressive 24 years ago, you know, when a woman was first picked for a VP.)

We are, however, saying it's a pretty blatant attempt at pandering.

 

Well, if it makes you feel better, how about this: Obama wouldn't be any more ready even if he had experience. Because he's wrong on virtually every issue. Although it's obvious that in some cases these two things are clearly related.

 

She's already got the abusing power and intimidation tactics part of the job down pat.

 

Aren't you reporters?

Seriously, here I am a clear minority -- a Republican on a board overwhelmed by Democrats -- and I get the feeling you guys want me to leave the neighborhood.

But you are tolerant, right?

 

Life's so tough, isn't it?

Poor little guy.

 

Assuming we concede that her gender played a part in this decision, here's another more controversial question I've not yet seen anyone dare address: assuming her qualifications were otherwise identical, do you think she would still be the Republicans' vice presidential pick if she was uglier?

I'm still wondering what the Republicans saw in her that made them think she was preferable to other far more experienced and qualifed Republican women like Kay Bailey Hutchison, and I can't shake the idea that her looks had something to do with it.

I suspect some Rove-ish strategists saw this rising political star who, lo and behold, was also a babe and saw it as something that could really capture the public's imagination. With her looks, her maverick image, and the whole hockey/disabled mom image, there's a huge likability factor to sell there, maybe enough to get people to ignore the fact that she's grossly unqualified, experience-wise, for the job. After all, they got the public to overlook shrub's inexperience by selling the whole "guy you wanna have a beer with" angle 8 years ago, how hard could it be to sell this image.

 

Zeke12: Please try again because that was the weakest reply I've seen yet.

 

Interesting quote from the NYT profile:

“She wouldn’t have articulated one coherent policy and people would just be fawning all over her,” said Andrew Halcro, a Republican turned independent, who along with Tony Knowles, a Democrat, ran against Ms. Palin for governor in 2006. “Tony and I looked at each other and it was, like, this isn’t about policy or Alaska issues, this is about people’s most basic instincts: ‘I like you, and you make me feel good.’ ”

“You know,” said Mr. Halcro, invoking the Democratic presidential nominee, “that’s kind of like Obama.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/30palin.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

 

Well, I can hardly be expected to contend with the master of such gems as, "Obama's an affirmative action candidate," and "LIBRUHL MEEEEEDIA!"

I know when I'm in over my head, you see.

 

I second Buckweaver.

It's not bad for the GOP because it gives them a fresh young face to go along with Jindal to promote as the 'future' of the party. (Assuming she doesn't get chewed up by the spotlight in the next 60 days or so.)

But Aurelio, you can't sit there and really tell me this is what McCain had in mind all along. The campaign felt it had to go for something different, and by all accounts they felt it had to be done fast. Palin's selection was risky...just looking at their vetting process (or lack thereof) shows the chance he took.

Assuming that we all look at the issue one way because of political leanings that are invariably more complex (because ALL people have some complex interpretation of their political views, be they conservative, liberal, Green party, or whatever) is painting with a broad brush.

 

Kerry and Gore were cool? When did that happen?

And before the flame throwers are broken out, I have never voted for anyone with the last name of Bush.

But, really, Gore might be cool now with his Oscar and his Nobel Prize, but in 2000? He was the wooden nerd, remember?