McCain and Palin: Palin Is the Greater Threat

Big Tent Democrat disagrees with Bob Herbert who points out that a McCain/Palin victory is dangerous because if something happens to McCain, we'd have the clueless wonder as President.

I agree with Bob Herbert and it is the single most important reason to defeat McCain/Palin. The prospect of her assuming the presidency if need be, even temporarily, is terrifying and unacceptable.

Nothing better shows the poor judgment of John McCain than his Hail Mary pass of choosing Sarah Palin, a politician with no relevant national experience, serious knowledge gaps on important issues and questionable ethical judgment to be his running mate. By putting his personal quest to be President over the well-being of our nation, he has demonstrated he lacks the character to be President. He sold us out for the sake of his own ambition. The radical right is now in a position to propel McCain/Palin to victory and then McCain will owe them. [More...]

We will pay, first with our Supreme Court justices, when he cedes control over the nominations of retiring justices to them. Our children will pay for this for the next 30 to 40 years.

If McCain wins it will be because the radical right leapt to his cause once he put evangelical Sarah Palin on the ticket. It is only their enthusiasm that can win the election for McCain. Should McCain win, the radical right will call in its chit and the price will be our Supreme Court justices.

Bob Herbert gets it exactly right when he says:

This is such a serious moment in American history that it’s hard to believe that someone with Ms. Palin’s limited skills could possibly be playing a leadership role.

McCain will lose this election. It will be because of voter turnout. There are too many people who are scared to death of Sarah Palin being in the second highest leadership position in our country and a heartbeat away from becoming leader of the free world.

People want change but they also want competence and confidence in their leaders. McCain/Palin fails miserably on both counts. As I wrote here,

The words I hear most frequently to describe Palin's nomination, from my normally not particularly political friends and colleagues, to those at my non-partisan hair salon, and everywhere in between, are "scary," "horrifying" and "outrageous." A few have said she makes them "apopleptic." Others have said they want to throw the remote at the television whenever she comes on. All of them now view McCain as desperate and pathetic for stooping to this Hail Mary pass. They will never forgive him for potentially endangering our country with this supremely unqualified candidate.

So it's a good thing that polls show McCain isn't likely to get away with his cheap stunt. As I frequently say, in the end it's going to be about whether there are more of them (radical right fundamentalists, ultra-conservatives and bigots) or more of us. Nothing has galvanized "us" to get out and vote more than the prospect of Gov. Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency and the evangelical extremists holding a huge I.O.U. chit over John McCain's head.

McCain couldn't win this election on his own, and now he appears unlikely to win even with Palin. We're not home free yet, just closer to the goal, so I'll be keeping the pressure on.

One more tip: Sign up for a vote by mail ballot. Don't risk having election day problems with lines and voting machines interfere with having your vote count.

Update: Thanks to Turkana in comments for pointing out this quote from a New York Times post-Palin debate editorial.

In the end, the debate did not change the essential truth of Ms. Palinís candidacy: Mr. McCain made a wildly irresponsible choice that shattered the image he created for himself as the honest, seasoned, experienced man of principle and judgment. It was either an act of incredible cynicism or appallingly bad judgment.
< The Polls - 10/4 | Saturday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    You think that without Palin, (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:34:32 PM EST
    McCain would have made good Supreme Court appointments? I sure don't.

    I fully accept the proposition that McCain alone is bad enough to fight.

    W/o Gov. Palin as (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:40:55 PM EST
    VP, would Sen. McCain be an acceptable President?  No.  He would still hue to his well-documented pro-life, anti-choice conviction.  He would still be a war monger.  He would still have a long record of supporting deregulation, no matter his current speeches and vote.  He would still have voted against GI benefits bill. He would still be uttering frightening words about Iran.  

    In short ... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 07:01:39 PM EST
    he would still be John McCain.

    In all the rampant attacks on Palin the subtext I always hear is:

    "McCain isn't so bad."

    And I think that's the message that Palinpalooza sends to the public.  It's as if you're saying:

    "If we could attack McCain as a horrible reactionary we would.  But, we can't, so we'll go after Palin."

    Well, you can attack McCain as a horrible reactionary.  So you should. Rather than tacitly supporting his moderate creds by attacking Palin.


    It's not that McCain isn't so bad. He is. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 07:15:39 PM EST
    But he is also frail in some ways and unstable. If he goes down, what is behind him is also horrible and despicable, and less competent and more knowingly unprincipled. And much further to the right.

    Think of it this way, if you must. One of the reasons Bush was always safe as in his granny's lap from attacks of the medically dangerous kind from anyone who thought at all was that the one who would succeed him in the power of the Presidency was Cheney. Worse by far as we all know so well, and hampered unless and until that happened from exercising complete power. And some of us therefore prayed regularly for Bush's good and well, thinking of the alternative.

    I gag to type it, but one must at least admit that Cheney did his power grab in some manner within the rules of the Bush White House and not apparently over the objections of Bush (Until the tell-alls are out, we won't really know that, of course) and didn't upset apple carts he didn't intend to upset when he did it. I don't think that if McC gets in, Palin will want less than what she thinks Cheney had, and I am sure she will be less disciplined and principled and protective of institutions that have to work for people after her, in going after that. I gag again to type it, but I must.


    I'm arguing for what I ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 07:26:36 PM EST
    and I think many others hear as the subtext of Palinpalooza.

    BTD makes a similar point down thread.

    And I think anything that even tacitly burnishes McCain's moderate creds is dangerous.

    Because, like it or not, McCain maintains high favorable ratings.


    i quoted it in btd's thread, i'll quote it here: (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:36:37 PM EST

    In the end, the debate did not change the essential truth of Ms. Palin's candidacy: Mr. McCain made a wildly irresponsible choice that shattered the image he created for himself as the honest, seasoned, experienced man of principle and judgment. It was either an act of incredible cynicism or appallingly bad judgment.

    by picking palin, mccain proved himself unfit to be president. there's plenty of other proof, but this alone was proof enough.

    Whatever (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:40:44 PM EST
    As I read you, McCain was acceptable except for Palin. That seems sheer lunacy to me.

    totally false (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:43:30 PM EST
    and don't misrepresent what I write. McCain is terrible, Palin is the bigger threat to our country.

    I have never said McCain is acceptable. Ever, and you know it.


    BTW (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:53:45 PM EST
    I said nothing false. I said "as I read you." My opinion is stated. Please do not misstate what I wrote.

    Kudos for trying to keep the focus on McCain (none / 0) (#50)
    by Iris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:22:41 PM EST
    and of course he was reason enough to fight by himself, as he is a self-described conservative who supports conservative policies.  BUT...recall that the radical religious right did not like McCain, until the Palin pick.  That is who she is, the religious right candidate, packaged up as a moderate and a "feminist" (at least out of one side of their mouths). After the last eight years of the wall of separation between church and state being steadily eroded, can you really say that doesn't add icing on the cake?  A Conservative president who will cave to the religious right is bad enough, actually having someone who IS one of the religious right as President...well that is pretty troubling don't you think?  Jeralyn didn't say McCain would be acceptable except for Palin.

    Either way, this argument is a "bridge to nowhere."  The more we argue and split hairs among ourselves, the more we enable McCain.


    I don't see why not picking Palin would make (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Teresa on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:42:20 PM EST
    him any better unless he chose a Democrat (not Lieberman). Even then, you wouldn't feel any better about him, would you?

    There were Republicans I used (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:46:31 PM EST
    to say that I had some respect for.  In attempting to survive the Bush reign though they have ALL lost their damned minds.  Can't think of one them that would have caused me to sleep better at night or find McCain any less dangerous.

    He would never be acceptable (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:13:02 PM EST
    He's wrong on the issues. His choice of Palin underscores the dangerousness of a McCain/Palin win.

    Sorry Jeralyn, but I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:58:43 PM EST
    your post makes any sense. The question you leave unanswered is why Palin is supposed to be more dangerous than McCain.

    And I don't see where I said that you said that McCain was a moderate. I am trying to follow you reasoning, and apparently not getting what you want me to get.

    in one sentence (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:01:10 PM EST
    as I've said a hundred times: She's unqualified to be Vice President and unprepared to take over the presidency, even temporarily, should the need arise.

    Since we're comparing her degree of dangerousness (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:03:18 PM EST
    to McCain's, it seems to me that the necessary implication of that statement is that McCain would be "prepared to take over the presidency."

    he is "prepared" (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:09:21 PM EST
    he's the wrong choice because he's wrong on the issues. He's also wrong because he has shown he lacks the character to put our country first.

    Last warning to stop twisting my words.


    I don't think it's fair for you to say (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:11:54 PM EST
    that I am twisting your words. But I will bow out of this discussion.

    With respect, Jeralyin ... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 07:21:56 PM EST
    if you going to post a diary, you have to give people a degree of space to debate what you've said.

    Rather than saying "you're twisting my words" at every turn.

    Otherwise, why have a comments section at all?


    I have no problem with (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:49:13 PM EST
    people disagreeing with what I write. They just can't mischaracterize it, or even worse, say I wrote or meant X when I wrote Y. They are my words, you guys need to write your own.

    Troopergate (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:06:45 PM EST
    This was the big news yesterday that got lost in all the debate post chatter.

    Clearly, there must be something in this report that is so damaging that it must be repressed or postponed until after the election. Would the McCain camp expend so much time and energy on it if it were otherwise?

    Agreed with both previous commenters. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 07:26:35 PM EST
    The reports I have seen say he decided two things, one that the dispute was not justiciable, and second that the subpoenas, challenged by the AG, were valid. What I have heard so far is that the AG is not party to the emergency appeal on the justiciability issue, and second, that at least so far, he has not appealed the part of the ruling that ruled the subpoenas valid. I suppose it is possible that the report might be delayed anyway if the investigation survives Thursday, which I suspect it will, until the  recipients of subpoenas or some of them testify, but what that well could mean is that the report still comes out on or before Oct. 30, as originally scheduled. I can see a pitch to delay the report until they have testified, and schedule fights to allow some to testify after the election, as a fallback way of delay.

    If the repubs lose in the SC, nobody will remember the Tuesday debates, since the implication is that the Report will . .  um. . . not be good for Palin, after the first witness reported changed her testimony when actually under oath and implicated the governor's office.


    absolutely false (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Iris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:34:13 PM EST
    McCain is not a Republican in Name Only.  He is a conservative, votes conservative, and he has proudly said so.  I have been watching the PUMA websites and the most troubling of the recent cross-posts (I think it originated with the Pumapac blog) is the one that says Democrats can vote for McCain and still get the policies they want.

    This is absolutely, 100% FALSE, and if we are going to be honest at all we need to denounce it, not use sophistry and the noise of an election campaign to get around it.  Obama, for all his compromising and caution, is a Democrat, and is decidedly left of center.  Any faults that you can attribute to him could have been attributed to Gore or Kerry also, and we voted for them didn't we?  Think about how different a Gore presidency would have been, despite the so-so campaign he ran.  Obama's years in national politics may not be as numerous as that of Hillary or McCain, but he has the judgment and is much more right on the issues than McCain or Palin.  He is as qualified as Bill Clinton was in 1992, and that is plenty enough for me, and I hope for everyone else who cares about a change in direction.

    I just want us all to be clear on this: the choice is between left of center policies (Obama) and hard-right policies (McCain).  No amount of spin can change that fundamental truth.

    Now is not the time to waiver or back down.  As Hillary has said, we have to "unite for change."  I was a strong Hillary supporter (and Obama critic) and yet I will be canvassing in Ohio in the coming month.

    I suspect Jubal is a Republican, so I'm not worried about convincing him/her, but everyone else needs to take note.  The McCain campaign has been been leading the PUMA folks up to this argument, and we need to counter it strongly, now.

    If you are right.... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 05:51:39 PM EST
    then why have so many Conservatives been so antagonistic to him throughout his campaign, compared to all of the others (Thompson, Romney [not Rudy though]) that they would have liked to see win the primary instead?

    Wondering if you have a theory on this....


    Jubal has been (none / 0) (#56)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 05:07:44 PM EST
    vaporized for inflammatory personal attacks on Obama. That comment is gone.

    The danger may not come from McCain (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by 1LTRob on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 12:51:23 AM EST
    "Nothing better shows the poor judgment of John McCain than his Hail Mary pass of choosing Sarah Palin, a politician with no relevant national experience, serious knowledge gaps on important issues and questionable ethical judgment to be his running mate."

    Can equally be written as:

    Nothing better shows the poor judgment of the Democratic Party than the Hail Mary pass of choosing Barack Obama, a politician with no relevant national experience, serious knowledge gaps on important issues and questionable ethical judgment to be their Presidential Candidate.

    Experience is not the best message.

    Except Obama does have (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 12:57:49 AM EST
    elevant national experience as a Senator, he's been briefed to the nines on every issue for the past 17 months and shown his comprehension of them during the debates, and was chosen by his own party, not a nominee. I'm not aware of any serious knowledge gaps on important issues. His only judgment lapse was a personal one that did not affect his job in Government -- his allowing Rezko to be involved in his house deal. Palin's questionable ethical judgment involved her alleged abuse of the Governor's office.

    Nice try, doesn't work for me.


    In your update you say: (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:42:28 PM EST
    Mr. McCain made a wildly irresponsible choice that shattered the image he created for himself as the honest, seasoned, experienced man of principle and judgment.
    But this image was always false.

    I didn't write that (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:48:41 PM EST
    The New York Times wrote that. They write it's a self-created image. And that his choice of Palin shows, to those who may not have known it before, it's false.

    So what you really mean (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:50:48 PM EST
    is that you think Palin makes it easier to defeat McCain, because people who thought he was moderate before now know otherwise?

    I think that is a different point from the one you make in this post.


    That is the correct argument in my opinion. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Teresa on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:52:20 PM EST
    Palin will cause McCain to lose (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:54:09 PM EST
    because more people fear her than him. Fear is a powerful motivator. Turnout will tell the story.

    While I disagree that Palin (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:44:07 PM EST
    is the real threat, my husband loves running around saying Palin is just Pain with an L  because he likes how everyone stares at him afterwards trying to get whatever the heck he's getting at, as if he's making a kind of sense in the Palin debate (which he isn't and knows he isn't).

    A prediction (none / 0) (#38)
    by tootired on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:13:37 PM EST
    I think the Republicans knew that John McCain's being elected was a long shot, and have used this election cycle to bring their new rising star to national attention the same way that the Democrats chose Obama to make the keynote a few years ago. If McCain/Palin ticket loses the election, Palin will return to Alaska. Given her high favorability ratings, she should easily win re-election as governor. The Republicans will find ways to keep her in the news. She will take the next four years to become more knowledgeable and more polished. No matter how good a President Obama might be capable of being, the next four years are going to be an uphill climb. He will find turning the economy around is a difficult job, he will have little money to fund new programs, and anyone with an IQ over 90 will expect that he will have to raise taxes. He will have a Democratic senate and house so it will be difficult to blame much on the Republicans. If you have noticed, the Republicans have begun calling the bailout the "Pelosi bill". In 2012, the Republicans will bring Palin back as the Presidential candidate. She will run an "I told you so" campaign. Many women who backed Obama will decide that they gave an African American the opportunity to be President, and now it's a woman's turn. Hillary Clinton will not try to unseat Obama for the nomination, and Sarah Palin will be there to step into the race.  I think she may have a good shot at it. The Palinpalooza will have given her the road map of obstacles she has to overcome, and contrary to popular opinion here, she's not stupid.

    Alaska Approval Ratings (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Jade Jordan on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:46:51 PM EST
    Have taken quite a hit.  The Alaskan community not happy having their state run by McCain's campaign.

    Part of the drop in her approval ratings (none / 0) (#47)
    by tootired on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:58:45 PM EST
    is that some of her constituents are upset that she's not there to run things. If she loses this election,she'll keep those checks going out to the citizens of Alaska, and her approval ratings will go right back up. My point is not that I want to see Palin as President, but that the Palinpalooza is setting her up for a more successful opportunity to run for the top slot in 2012 rather than vanquishing her. I know that Jeralyn doesn't want a discussion of sexism, but women are not going to buy the "I'd vote for a woman - just not this one" again if the attacks on Palin continue to follow this path. Many of Hillary's strongest supporters are pushing for "party neutral" support of female candidates, and it's catching on. Even the "Big Dawg" publicly supports it.

    Fact check (none / 0) (#57)
    by Iris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 05:10:16 PM EST
    The "Big Dawg" does not support 'party-neutral' voting for women regardless of policies or ideology.  Show me where he said that.  Meanwhile, here's this little nugget:
    "So he's got a better philosophy. He's got better answers. He's got a better understanding, and better advisers on these complex economic matters. He's got a better vice presidential partner," Clinton said to a crescendo of applause.
    Let's be clear, more women in elected office would be a great thing, as far as it goes.  For that matter, so would more African Americans in office, wouldn't it?  

    But it only goes so far.  This election is not about blacks versus women, and if we reduce it to that we are only hurting the people we purport to care about.  As someone who grew up in a union household, this is old news: the GOP will try to divide us white against black, men against women, and then ram through hard right policies that hurt the working class.  If we care at all about substance, we have to go beyond simple categories like gender, because there are plenty of women who would support the same policies as many male officeholders.  Would we want Bay Buchanan to be President?  Um, no!  How ridiculous.

    Further, I have to wonder about the sanity of anyone who supported Hillary Clinton, but have reduced this election to be about nothing but gender in their mind.  That cheapens everything that Hillary ever stood for.  Voting for McCain because of Sarah Palin--both of whom seek very different policy outcomes--would be a big middle finger to Hillary, and if McCain were to win, the only thing it would ensure for our side is that Hillary is never on a Presidential ticket again, because she would not have even been able to deliver her own supporters for the Democratic ticket.

    That kind of cheap gender-based voting is stupid.  There really is no other term strong enough to describe it.  As a female Hillary Clinton supporter, I look forward to being called sexist and being told I am losing votes for Obama.  Folks, the primaries are over.  It's water under the bride.  It's time to unite for change.  

    As a side note, I find it interesting that we are so sensitive about sexism but racism is off-limits for discussion now.  In Democratic circles, no less!  That is troubling, deeply troubling.  If we won't stand up to racism, do you think the Republicans will?


    The links have been here already. (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by tootired on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 05:38:09 PM EST
    Check out Bill Clinton's interview on the View for one place. He discusses Lynnette Long's speeches and essays about voting on gender. Bill talks about how Hillary understood that AAs would support Obama because they were excited about having an AA president, and that it would be equally understandable for women to vote based on gender. Racism isn't my issue, but you can can discuss it all you want. I find it interesting that every time someone brings up sexism, someone tries to change the subject to racism. Both are egregious in my mind. One is not more important than the other. I wish we were as sensitive about sexism as we are about racism.

    I saw the View interview (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Iris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 05:44:27 PM EST
    and Bill was saying that people don't always vote on rational bases, and that we walk a fine line in degrading the reasons people cast their votes.  He's being fair and presidential.  But that should in no way stop us from trying to convince people to vote rationally.

    The simple fact is, it's ridiculous and highly irrational for someone who is pro-choice, or anti-war, or pro-national health care, to vote for the GOP ticket because of Palin.  We're not completely slaves to our unconscious biases, we can force ourselves to think!


    I'll worry about 2012 then (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:16:57 PM EST
    right now I'm concerned about 2008 and ensuring McCain/Palin is not elected.

    introducing Palin (none / 0) (#53)
    by Iris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:36:06 PM EST
    may have been a bonus, but they are playing to win.  We should not let ourselves be fooled by a false sense of security about this.

    Obama-supporting women (none / 0) (#73)
    by sallywally on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:30:02 PM EST
    will never support Palin. She is a far-right fundamentalist "Christian" who stands opposed to everything Democrats value. Women who will vote for Obama are Democrats with democratic values.

    No way any Dem woman would vote to put such a dangerous individual in the White House. She is a profoundly negative role model for girls and women and she will never support their interests and values.


    Name one this doesn't describe: (none / 0) (#39)
    by pluege on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:15:02 PM EST
    serious knowledge gaps on important issues and questionable ethical judgment

    this describes virtually every republican politician from mccain and bush on down to the newest republican pols. It also describes their sick, sick pundits and cheerleaders.

    Big Liar john stands on his own as being the biggest threat to America, without porkbarrel palin. mccain will ravage the SCOTUS with or without her because he could give a rat's ass about the average person. palin only means that the threat they pose is double deep.

    Can we agree (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:19:35 PM EST
    that the Republican agenda and the idealogues who continue to tirelessly promote it -- against any and all evidence of it's bankruptcy -- with any number of camera-friendly frontmen (and women), may possibly be "the bigger threat"?

    The program, in my estimation, is sicker and more dysfunctional than McSame or Palin could ever be.

    yes, definitely, and let's remember (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Iris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:39:32 PM EST
    that despite all the noise, there is still a Democratic agenda hiding right in front of our eyes.  Elections are not about making points or reforming parties or getting revenge (I'm speaking to you, angry PUMA's), but deciding who gets power and who sets the policy agenda.  I've seen a lot of criticism of Obama, and I share some of those criticisms, but in the end they're about style and salesmanship, not the broad policy agenda.

    We need to win.  Right now that's all that matters, and we can sort out the rest on November 5th.


    McCain's temperament (none / 0) (#42)
    by Coral on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:24:00 PM EST
    is a real threat. Much more dangerous, I believe, than Palin, especially in foreign policy and the threat of nuclear war. His erratic behavior terrifies me.

    It's not like in (none / 0) (#43)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:35:09 PM EST
    the real world you can have a tantrum and press "the button" or call out an air strike on a whim, things dont work that way (even if McSame wished they did)

    THE danger is a course and ideology that McSame and Palin have already tacitly aquiessed to. Or, are you buying any of that "maverick" b.s?


    his dangerous, erratic temperament (none / 0) (#55)
    by byteb on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 05:07:30 PM EST
    is reflected in his choice of Palin for VP.

    But if you make that argument, you cannot (none / 0) (#69)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 07:37:05 PM EST
    abandon analysis of Palin's own probable conduct if she becomes President. I don't think you'd say the same thing if he had picked a candidate more like Hillary or a Hillary clone if such a thing existed or could exist in the Republican Party. Then it would  not be quite such an  act of horrrrrible  and manipulative bad judgement. I would say the same thing if Obama had lost his mind and picked Palin.

    The Only Thing (none / 0) (#49)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:08:25 PM EST
    That has kept McCain in the game (post Convention)is his pick of Palin. I'm with Jeralyn. There are any number of reasons to vote against McCain, but for me, Palin is number one.

    Why they chose Sarah Palin (none / 0) (#61)
    by Lora on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 06:06:03 PM EST
    Mark Crispin Miller says that the main reason they chose Sarah Palin was for cover.
    In his opinion, the only way the GOP can win this election is to steal it.  With Sarah on the ticket, they can claim that once again the radical right swarmed to the polls to elect McCain over Obama.

    They claimed this in 2004, but a critical examination of the data shows that there was no such surge that could account for Bush's victory.  However, we swallowed the myth then and they hope we will swallow it again.

    A very interesting theory, and one I believe worth paying attention to.  Particularly the "stealing the election" piece.

    Cover for stealing the votes? Is that what you (none / 0) (#70)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 07:38:26 PM EST

    Yep (none / 0) (#71)
    by Lora on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:23:15 PM EST
    So the theory goes.  I'm willing to entertain it.

    Yes, I'm really afraid of them manipulating (none / 0) (#74)
    by sallywally on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:55:45 PM EST
    the vote totals. Obama needs to win by enough, both in popular and electoral votes, that the Repubs can't really get away with changing vote totals or keeping enough potential Dem voters away from the polls to steal another election.

    I don't know where they're going after it now, but there is no doubt there are stealth efforts to steal this election. I'm afraid it will happen somewhere we aren't expecting it.


    ya (none / 0) (#62)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 06:37:22 PM EST
    McCain is certainly bad enough. A Bush clone, completely two-faced, short-tempered and possibly exhibiting signs of senility (spain issue).

    But I can't stand YEC creationists so Palin is my number one target.  Not only is she extremely adept at hiding her beliefs from scrutiny but she appears to be a foreign policy blank slate.

    I would flatly doubt the intelligence of anyone who felt she was prepared to lead the country.

    and (none / 0) (#63)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 06:40:10 PM EST
    I should add:

    McCain seems to actually believe in science.  Palin doesnt seem to have much use for it wether its evolution, global warming, predator control and probably a dozen other issues.


    McCain believes he knows what to do (none / 0) (#72)
    by rilkefan on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:29:34 PM EST
    and is tempermentally reckless.  Palin seems much less dangerous from a personality pov and is clearly aware of how much she doesn't know.  She would I think listen to advice; he would listen to his instincts.  Afaict McCain isn't aware of the depth of his ignorance, or doesn't care.  Except for Giuliani, I can't think of anyone prominent I'd less like to see running the country next year.  If Palin became president the Rs would surely appoint a sane regent (Powell?  Romney?) a la Baker as VP to restore confidence and make up for Cheney's legacy.

    I agree with you on Palin. (none / 0) (#79)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 02:27:42 PM EST
    She's right out of Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale."  But she's not fictional.