A Belated Palin Analysis
September 2nd, 2008 by 
Kevin
Ok so the pick of Palin is a bit old but I’ve been away on a hunting trip. It was announced as I was packing the last of my gear for the trip. Since then I’ve been cut off from the world sitting in the desert with two buddies and our rifles. Very little of that time did I think much about the pick but I did somewhat and conservations were had about it. Here’s my thoughts.
An excellent pick, if for no other reason that to fire up the base. One could argue her youth offsets McCain’s age. Or you could say it makes him look older. Let’s just accept the fact that he’s older than dirt and be done with it then yeah? Her youth adds energy, and her qualities match up well against both Biden and Obama.
She’s a solid conservative, with a history of reformer and a maverick streak of her own. At the same time she’s attracted unheard of approval rating, especially in these days of extreme partisanship. Her husband is union and she brings a working class look. Speaking of her look, she’s damn good looking, something that always plays well on this television addicted society. She both pissed off and worked with the oil companies, including negotiating with Canada to build a pipeline towards the continental US. Probably most appealing about her is how she matches up against both Biden and Obama.
Against her primary opponent she matches up very well. Obama picked Biden to be his attack dog, something Obama couldn’t do without completely punting on his already damaged clean “new politics” look. Now Palin is already known as a spitfire and I’m sure could more than hold her own against Biden. But you also have the added factor of an old guy beating up (figuratively speaking) on a woman. Yeah, it’s a cheap political ploy but the fact is it also works and plays well to the cameras (just ask Hillary).
Against Obama she also brings much to the table. She is the only one on either ticket that could truly claim to be a Washington outsider, bringing that real “change” with her. Some claim her inexperience would be a downfall but she’s also the only one on either ticket with executive experience. And Obama can barely claim to have more experience than her period, since he’s spent most of the last two years campaigning rather than doing his job. And with Obama already having issues with bringing Clinton supporters back into the fold, the addition of a woman to the GOP ticket has to bring additional worry.*
With her son on his way to Iraq, and McCain’s son already serving, it virtually inoculates the ticket on that regard. On the abortion issue, she’s more than put her money where her mouth is, and it’s hard to attack her on an issue like that. Oh and did I mention the base loves her?? Not only that, but it’s hard not to note that when McCain retires, it sets the GOP up well for a Palin/Jindal ticket….which would strike most as pretty damn impressive.
On the down side, however, Alaska was already a safe GOP state, so she doesn’t really bring any new electoral votes to the table. Although with some states being decided on slim margins, the few stray Clinton voters who go with the GOP might be enough to deliver. And her relative inexperience does diminish that talking point a bit. However, that dead horse has already been beaten tender, so if the GOP dropped that angle at this point I’m not sure it would matter. And Obama has since provided a plethora of other attack points.
Obama’s pick of Biden was a “safe” pick and the real worry was that McCain would feel the ability to also go with a safe pick. Whether embolden by their good positioning in the polls and having the momentum, or else feeling the definite need to shore up the base, they picked Palin instead. It took a lot of people by surprise including, if their initial press release was any indication, the Democrats, by surprise. A welcome surprise by most conservatives though, in a race that’s been filled with little to cheer about. Good move and I have to think it will pay off.
* Yes it probably brings worry, but I guess I don’t put much stock in the idea of women voting as a block for a woman for the sake that she’s a woman. And I hope they don’t. I’d like to think that merit has more to do with it than age, race, sex, whatever. However, it is a bit of conventional wisdom so I’m somewhat compelled to at least mention it.
Email This Post
| 
Print This Post
Posted in 2008 Elections | 
8 Comments »
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:55 am
I suggested to a couple of strong Republican women yesterday the idea that women would vote for Palin just because she was a woman, and got the ticked-off response I expected. We did agree, however, that those women who would vote for a candidate simply because she was a woman– HIllary Democrats– would have their votes welcomed.
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:59 am
Wow! Over one page of “analysis” and not ONE mention of an issue of substance – well done!
“Fire up the base” … “Set up a potential Palin/Jindal ticket” … “Executive experience” … “Son going to Iraq” … “Washington outsider” … “Real change” … “Spitfire who can hold her own against Biden” … Blah blah blah
Remember that commercial where business employees were making fun of their boss by playing buzzword bingo? I think my entire card is covered.
Heh. Nice analysis – sounds eerily similar to everything I’ve heard on the news this weekend.
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:17 am
How odd. You mention a large numbers of issues of substance, and then complain that there are none. The “analysis” was of the political aspects of a largely political decision. The only issues of substance are political considerations and ramifications. The fact that others may have said them before this posting does not negate the accuracy of the analysis one bit.
Come to think of it, and considering your past postings, why would you even care? Are you being tempted to actually cast a vote?
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:55 am
Ha, JE, it’s safe to say I’d never cast a ballot. Never again.
What part of “fire up the base” … “vote for a woman” … yadda yadda yadda smacks of substance?
If anything, Kevin’s “analysis” is insulting to the intelligence of the American voter (and serves to strengthen my case for non-voting) … attempts to convince people to vote through solganeering is a surefire sign of intellectual deficiency.
Assuming that people are dumb enough to vote for someone because she has five children, her husband is union (conservative trait? I think not, but I guess you can file that under “maverick” huh?), she’s “more than held her own on the abortion issue” (whatever that means) her bringing energy, etc. is a rather arrogant assumption, is it not? I mean, I know you guys love platitudes – indeed, that’s the only language you speak – but c’mon, seriously? This is analysis?!?!
Isn’t it rather disheartening to know that the “informed” votes you and Kevin will cast can/will be negated by two equally stupid people subscribing to Obama’s empty rhetoric?
At times like these, when drivel like the above is passed off as (and even defended) as analysis, I am reminded of a great quote by the brilliant H.L. Mencken:
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
Based on the above “analysis” I think Mencken has you guys pegged – enjoy casting that “informed” ballot. HA!!
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:39 am
Wow, two whole comments and not one sentence of substance. Just bitching and petty insults! Well done!! True to form!
A VP pick is often picked for purely political reasons. I gave some. At the same time, while you may think how many kids a candidate has or what their husband does doesn’t matter, to many voters it does and it has to be taken into consideration.
As far as issues go, a VP candidate is going to largely follow the lead of the presidential candidate. So analyzing those issues would be pointless since it’s essentially the same McCain platform we’ve had for months now.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:39 am
Perhaps instead of criticizing Kevin’s spot-on analysis you would favor us with your brilliant dissertation on the subject? Exactly what substantive issues should have been factored into a political analysis of a political event?
OK, so you won’t vote, regardless. But some people will vote on the “non-substantive” issues of character and moral values or even Party label, while others will vote on the more substantive issues of policy. What is the difference? In the end, the one with the most votes wins, and if you don’t vote, you can’t complain about the result.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:52 am
The opposite is true, JE: if you vote, regardless of the outcome, you have no right to complain. The system you endorsed by casting your ballot seals your fate, regardless of whether your new slavemaster is named Obama or McCain.
Again, linking empty phrases such as what is contained in the post above as reasons for people to head to the polls to cast a ballot only strengthens my non-voting position. What’s the difference? Exactly! Garbage in, garbage out…and the retards who think they are “performing his or her civic duty” by voting are only endorsing the (ever-expanding) State. Congrats, comrades…the State is only too happy to have a couple more cogs in place.
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:27 am
Sorry, I keep forgetting what a radical concept of government you have– somewhat akin to the black-masked poo-flinging monkeys rampaging through St. Paul yesterday. Since I have no hope of convincing you otherwise, I must content myself with the knowledge that 1) about 10% of eligible voters will make an informed decision based on the issues, 2) 40% of eligible voters will decide based on “other” reasons, that 50% will NOT vote, including you, and 4) that the 50% who do vote will determine who runs the country and how. It doesn’t matter WHY you don’t vote, and you can claim the intellectual and moral high ground all you want, but in the end analysis, you don’t matter!
You are, in essence, criticizing us for the way we choose to make a decision that you yourself refuse to make. Somehow I find that proposition lacking in intellectual rigor.