Saturday, August 30, 2008

The Democratic double standard on Sarah Palin

Paul Begala is calling McCain's selection of Arizona Gov. Sarah Palin "reckless and irresponsible" because of her "lack of experience." But not only do liberal Democrats not consider experience important when it comes to their own nominee for president, but try to bring up the issue of experience and seniority when it comes to gender equity legislation and affirmative action and see what happens.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

1) McCain and Republicans have criticized Obama for being inexperienced.
2) Palin has even less political experience than Obama.
3) McCain picks Palin for VP.
4) Begala criticizes McCain for picking someone inexperienced.
5) Mr Cothran criticizes Begala without mentioning McCain's and the Republicans' inconsistency and prior statements.

Now, Mr Cothran has never stated that his comments are meant to be fair or unbiased. And it is certainly his right to put his partisan spin on the facts. But what purpose does it serve to post one-sided comments which will only be taken seriously by those who already agree with him? Is it merely repeating one's beliefs for psychological reinforcement?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27aamodt.html


jah

kycobb said...

In fairness, the selection of Palin should put to bed any GOP argument that Obama isn't experienced enough to be president. However, elections aren't fair, and I fully expect that the GOP will be able to pull of the double standard. I mean, in 2004, they managed to trash the service record of a decorated veteran even though their candidate was a draft-dodger who went AWOL!

Lee said...

Who here thinks that inexperience in the No. 2 slot should be less of a factor than inexperience in the No. 1 slot?

Anyone? Buehler?

Not that I mind. I prefer my liberal antagonists to be inexperiences.

I have no horse in this race. McCain told me years ago he was a maverick Republican, which means that he's a Republican who discovered that Republicans get better press when they attack conservatives than when they attack liberals.

So this year, I am a maverick Republican voter. Constitutional Party, anyone?

But that doesn't mean it doesn't grate me to watch the entire mainstream media throw flower petals in Obama's path.

Martin Cothran said...

I agree with Kycobb that the selection of Palin makes it hard for the McCain campaign to make the experience argument against Obama. But that doesn't make it any less hypocritical for Paul Begala use it against Palin.

kycobb said...

Thanks Martin. The correct criticism, IMO, is that McCain sacrificed his own standards for political expediency. If he thought that Obama lacks the experience to be president, one would expect him to select someone who did meet that standard, especially since McCain is a 72 yr old cancer survivor. Instead his selection was clearly a political calculation, designed both to appease conservatives and to try to appeal to women voters.

Lee said...

By my count, it is the first thing McCain has ever done to "appease conservatives."

American politics is not symmetrical. Democrats are reliably liberal, but Republicans are not reliably conservative. When Democrats are elected, they do liberal things, they appoint liberal people, and they die on liberal mountains. When Republicans are elected, mainly thanks to conservative votes and conservative contributions, they too do liberal things, though they may not appoint liberal people and usually won't, but sometimes do, die on liberal mountains.

But both parties talk more conservative than they really are at election time. Look for the mainstream media to emphasize Obama's conservative credentials, such as they are. That will be a favorite media trope from now until election, as they look for ways to further confuse swing voters.

For me, the lesson in all this for conservatives is they need to quit supporting candidates who aren't conservative, just because they are labeled "Republican". Republicans want to hear from conservatives at contribution time and at voting time, and then they want conservatives to go home, shut up, and take what their betters dole out. What happens when conservatives behave themselves is people like Bush get elected. It's hard to imagine someone can discredit conservatism by not being one, but that's our boy. Talented fellow.

From a conservative perspective, the only thing I have any confidence that Bush got right were the two SCOTUS picks, and that was only because conservatives backed him into a corner with a rolled-up newspaper.

Republicans remind me of that famous military officer evaluation given to some junior officer: "Lt. So-and-so performs well when watched constantly and cornered like a rat in a trap."

My conservative friends tell me it's my job to hold my nose and vote for McCain, because the alternative is so much worse. I agree that McCain would probably make a better president than Obama, but I also think he would carry the Republican Party even further left than Bush has.

If there is one thing that you can absolutely count on, it's incentives. The one way you have to guarantee someone will keep doing something is to keep rewarding him. So far, the Republican Party has been drifting leftward, and I keep rewarding them with my vote. It seems clear to me: vote for McCain if you want to encourage this. It's too late to change McCain's mind on the issues. We have to work on the young'uns.

Anonymous said...

Lee,

You just haven't been paying attention if you think McCain has never done anything to appease conservatives. Such as making the tax cuts permanent when he previously opposed them, flipping on equal pay for women, flopping on torture, and speaking at Falwell's university after he said people like Fallwell were ruining the Republican part.

The straight talk express derailed a long time ago.