Far from being a last-minute tactical move or a second choice when better known alternatives were eliminated, Palin was very much in McCain's thinking from the beginning of the selection process, according to McCain's advisers. The 44-year-old governor made every cut as the first list of candidates assembled last spring was slowly winnowed. The more McCain learned about her, the more attracted he was to her as someone who shared his maverick, anti-establishment instincts.Never mind that the McCain campaign, themselves, said that they would only make a pick after Obama made his. The real deal is that this is strawmanship posing as a nut graffe. The real question is how heavily was she vetted? Why did McCain only meet with her about the job once? Instead we get vague cliches like "maverick anti-establishment instincts." That phrase is so lazy, and so weak, that it borders on the offensive. As a quick aside, it's also--I think--one of the biggest reason blogs are giving mainstream media hell, right now. That phrase is exactly the sort of bullshit that Serious Journalists laughingly fling at each other on Sunday morning talk shows, only to retreat to their offices, the next day, and wonder why no one is reading them. Anyway, at least we have the cheetos-munchers over at TPM to sift through the stupidity:
« Booo...Boooo! | Main | Elitism Bait » Weak-sauce defined31 Aug 2008 08:56 am
What an incredibly thin and one-sided story by the Post on the Palin selection. You can almost see the McCain folks calling up the reporter promising exclusive access--except they just offered a bunch of anonymous quotes. Talk about hard dick and bubble-gum, the Post gave away premium inches and in exchange got a press release in disguise:
Comments (18)Comments on this entry have been closed. |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Hello:
I felt the same way when I read the article this morning.
I went to bed last night after reading on several blogs about how McCain had only met with her once and about how no one was sure how thoroughly she was vetted.
This morning there is a fluff piece in the Post right off the desk from McCain HQ about how deep the process was and how she was the front runner from back in February.
Shame on the Post for this one.
It really looks like they didn't vet her, which seems pretty foolhardy. As per those cheetos-munchers, the results of the corruption investigation are due to come out a couple days before the election.
It's a perfect example of the modern journalism dynamic where every point no matter how invalid or weak, is weighed equally against substance. Granted, what is meaningful or not can be subjective but it seems that the republican party has taken the goal of objectivity in journalism and used it for propaganda purposes so often that the distinction is nearly irrelevant. The Palin choice by any objective measure is thin, using the language of substantive achievement doesn't change that. Maybe my whole critique is a bit out dated at this point but it just gets a bit much listening to all this uncritical equalizing of the Obama and Palin's stature and achievements. As a matter of fact I would go even farther and say it's disgusting and insulting.
agree wholeheartedly with karl.
let me also say that the way the obama team is handling this is masterful. they're doing...absolutely nothing. while everyone of any repute from the alaska republican state chair to the blogosphere continues to fan the maelstrom and pan the hell out of this selection, the obama team has decided to just lay back in the cut---realizing that mccain has probably just torpedoed his own campaign. apparently, undecideds are sharply against the palin pick and democrats are unmoved (www.fivethirtyeight.com). not the results you want to see if you're the GOP.
when this intial bout of credulousness wears off on the right, they're going to look back on this as the moment the moment they lost it.
I personally love the (sham) excuse that at least one of these unnamed source must not be identified "in order to be able to speak freely." The author of the piece is writing about how intensely McCain was invested in this pick, not whistle-blowing on a legal matter. Wouldn't credible sources underscore the argument? What possible reason would a source feel the need for protection in this case, if not for obscuring the fact that it was he/she was a political shill for the campaign?
I'm racking my brain on this one.
I just watched 'This Week', and it was like walking into alternative universe. Not once they bring up the fact that McCain only met her once. Not once did they talk about how closely she was vetted. It was an "exciting pick" according to Cokie Roberts. George Will, who I have a weird sort of respect for because at least his opinions are usually coherent, makes the incredible statement that McCain's base is now more fired up than Obama's. The only one who seemed really skeptical was Stephanopolous himself, but he seemed like a kid in High School, who knows that what he's hearing is bullshit but doesn't want to appear too uncool by harshing on the vibe. Admittedly, when Stephanopolous interviewed Lindsey Graham he actually pressed him really hard on the hypocrisy and cynicism of McCain's choice. But once roundtable started, it just became ridiculous. What's interesting is that even in the Village blogosphere (Time, Politico etc.) all of them seem pretty aware of what this pick actually says about McCain. But once you get into print media or cable news it really is like entering a parallel universe. The same things have happened, in the same temporal order. None of the facts have been changed. But the interpretation of what they mean could not be more different.
they can bullshit ignorant post reporters all they want: the fact remains that john mccain wants to put someone a heartbeat away from the presidency whom he has barely met.
the sheer irresponsibility will tell, as will her lack of grounding in many of the issues and lack of support staff.
as of mid-day friday, i thought there was a 10% chance she'd withdraw by early this week, but the odds are falling: between stubborn mccain and the usual gang of clods and idiots in the echo chamber, he's going to forge on....
TNC, could you get someone to go check on Ross? I'm fully expecting someone to walk into his closet and find a wall full of Palin pictures shot from suspicious angles.
Per Andrew, the vetting was so incredibly discrete and super-secret and under the radar that no one in Alaskan politics noticed it. Or, just possibly, she wasn't seriously vetted. Let Kaine list the bare facts of how she was selected; cut to Bush explaining how he looked into Putin's eyes and read his soul. No further comment needed.
*rubs hands, sits back*
I dunno - it's just one piece. On the website, with a more prominent headline, is a piece regarding her issues with her brother in-law.
It might be a puff piece, but considering the press that Obama has gotten (didn't Kurtz of the WaPo state that the coverage of Obama was 3 to 1, when compared to McCain), it's hardly unseemly.
Shoring up your conservative base and pandering to feminists is a rare feat in politics and it's really a great pick. The obvious pander is probably why there's a "not for attribution".
I can't think of a single political office that I would be excited to vote for her, but it's a good pick.
Here, I'll make it easier conservatives and neo-cons.
Take Obama and McCain out of the equation (that's the premise behind "ready to lead" in terms of the vice-presidency right). Obama or McCain are no longer able to perform their duties. Amadinajhad(?) is still working towards nuclear power, hell, worse case scenario, Russian decides to invade the rest of the former USSR states and begin an all out war in Eastern Europe. A call is made for some form of US assisstance, who do you think is better equipped to handle that call or putting it another way, for whom would you feel more comfortable answering that call? Joe Biden or Sarah Palin? No rationalizations, no explaining, just gut reaction!
As a quick aside, it's also--I think--one of the biggest reason blogs are giving mainstream media hell, right now. That phrase is exactly the sort of bullshit that Serious Journalists laughingly fling at each other on Sunday morning talk shows, only to retreat to their offices, the next day, and wonder why no one is reading them.
I don't disagree with this assessment, I just think the blogs have their glaring weaknesses as well, and many can be every bit as arrogant as the press they bash. This certainly isn't directed at your blog, I wouldn't read it so much and comment here if I thought that. Journalists are lazy and they are constantly on guard against charges of bias, so I think they go for bland.
Most blogs have clear political points of view and are not so concerned with charges of bias. This has good and bad aspects. The good is that there is less a need to be bland, down the middle, and report things in a Press Release format.A blog can provide the skepticism that the media is not providing. The bad is the tendancy to drift into propaganda and not look at a story from the other side, or to entirely ignore stories that are unpleasant for one's side. It is the theory that blogs report what is useful for their point of view rather than what is news.
This is why the left will push points like McCain wants 100 years of war, when he was talking about a Korea-like presence and not military conflict. The right will state that Obama is the most liberal Senator without looking at the obvious flaws in the National Journal's methodology. More recently, the left has been harping on McCain stating that under $5 Mill is middle class, when it was an obvious joke.
It seems like too many readers of blogs want to get their marching orders and talking points in order to reinforce their sense of righteousness. At its worst, it becomes an online Rush Limbaugh show.
This is why the left will push points like McCain wants 100 years of war, when he was talking about a Korea-like presence and not military conflict. The right will state that Obama is the most liberal Senator without looking at the obvious flaws in the National Journal's methodology. More recently, the left has been harping on McCain stating that under $5 Mill is middle class, when it was an obvious joke.
Problem is they are not joking matters. Iraqis don't want us there for 100 years, even if our presence there is more like Korea. So why couldn't McCain answer the question? The economy isn't a joke right now, either. Why can't McCain give a straight answer about anything? We've already had one frat boy President, we don't need another.
Doug,
For what it's worth, I basically agree. I'm an unapologetic lefty, but I do my best to at least tackle the opposition in good faith. One of the reasons I've always had little regard for Michael Moore is because his stuff comes off as propaganda to me. I'll take, say, Fog Of War over Fahrenheit 9/11 any day. I loved No End In Sight, also. Sorry I know those aren't blogs, but the creators of those works certainly brought their biases to bear. I'm just saying that bias doesn't have to equal rank dishonesty. I disagree with David Brooks fairly regularly. But I don't have him confused with Limbaugh.
"We've already had one frat boy President, we don't need another."
Straight up. While this sort of tight criticism may come across as joyless, sad to say, it's a joyless time. As a presidential candidate you don't make light of issues surrounding the economy and use of the military, not post-bush. If that seems a bit quick to judge blame the neocons and the president not the people who have been forced to point out this stuff at every turn due to the recent legacy of shifting and deceptive political tactics.
Problem is they are not joking matters. Iraqis don't want us there for 100 years, even if our presence there is more like Korea. So why couldn't McCain answer the question? The economy isn't a joke right now, either. Why can't McCain give a straight answer about anything? We've already had one frat boy President, we don't need another.
The way I saw it, McCain was not mocking the middle class or the economy, he seemed to be mocking an irrelevent, almost unanswerable question. What passes for discourse has been reduced to political journalists asking politicians during debates to raise their hands or asking why they don't wear a flag pin. If the left ridicules the press in a witty way over questions as stupid as flag pins, they are not mocking the country or the flag, only the vapid press.
I'm just saying that bias doesn't have to equal rank dishonesty.
Ta, I agree, perhaps I spend too much time reading the worst of the left and right wing blogs and see too much rank dishonesty.
I am reading Nixonland right now, written by a liberal with strong opinions, however, he does present an image of the Kennedy's which is outside the Camelot mythology that exists in the minds of many.
I really do appreciate that you, and many of your commentors here do tackle the right in good faith.
"maverick, anti-establishment instincts."
I actually kind of agree with this assessment. Again maverick is one of those ambivalent words that walks the line between foolish and courageous, depending on the ultimate result. In this case, as much as I hate to say it, McCain-Palin might pull it off. If Bush-Cheney hadnt succeeded to make it into office twice, I'd score it differently.
Anti-establishment is accurate as well. While Tom Brokaw gushed over Palin's bumper stickers this morning on Meet The Press, Mike Murphy McCain's former campaign manager looked a little uncomfortable with this pick. But, the right will whip all dissenters in line quickly. God, money, race, fear, and power are effective motivaters.