"The Cynicism of the Palin Pick"

'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.

Not quite. There's a lot more to it than chromosomes, either Palin's or her fifth child's.

Read McCain's talking points memo, reprinted on the Weekly Standard blog. Points' # 1 and # 2 answer your question.

Given that Putin's about to cut off oil and gas to Germany and Poland-- assuming the EU goes forward on Monday and tries to punish Russia, as they show every likelihood of doing-- the national energy security and drill drill drill will now be front and center in the national security debate. The Governor of Alaska has a lot more heft on this issue than the Governor of Louisiana.

Funny how impressions can differ. Even a couple of conservative friends are pooh-poohing the Palin pick at the moment, whereas since this time last year, I've thought that a Huckabee-Palin ticket could easily win 37 states.

Just read that she supports teaching creationism in schools.

Honestly, this is a total disqualifier for any public office for me, especially the VP slot.

I just refuse to countenance such idiocy out of typical Democratic defensive-crouchism ever again,

Stupid is as stupid does.  And this is a stupid, anti-intellectual stance and just plain toxic to our culture.

That's sort of what I was thinking.  If you aren't worried about picking someone with limited experience (note: the point here is not that I think experience such a crucial factor, but that McCain has based much of his campaign around it and is now undercutting that argument), Jindal is just a much more impressive candidate than Palin.  He's actually has some noteworthy accomplishments and he's a strong, charismatic speaker. People on the Right have been absolutely gushing about him as a rising star in the party (I think Limbaugh called him the next Ronald Reagan).  Hell, even tep likes him.

I assume others are going to beat me to it, but this is a joking rhetorical question right?  I can think of one difference between Jindal and Palin that doesn't have anything to do with a Y chromosome right off the bat...

Jindal and Palin make me LESS likely to split my ticket. I don't care for Palin. Next to Biden, she's a complete joke. Like Wandrey I'm sick at the thought that there is now, thanks in no small measure to Obama's championing the issue, a de facto religious litmus test for our leaders. If you don't proclaim your faith in Jesus, you don't rate. Palin's choice accentuates this trend, as does Jindal. But let's be fair: it was Obama who choose to fight Jesus with Jesus, with his speech in 2004. Both parties share the blame for this creeping and creepy overt religiosity in our politics. That battle's lost. Sucks but that's how it is.

Overall, though, I think this pick will have a positive effect on the nation, in two major ways:

1) we will finally get serious about an energy security policy for us and for Europe that will reduce our vulnerability to Putin's energy blackmail. About f***ing time.

2) the GOP will cease to be a good ol' whiteboys richkid club. Look for the GOP to start aggressively recruiting many more western (semi)libertarian types and also more asian-american striver types-- all of them devout Christians, to be sure, but most of them strong good-government types with real executive leadership chops, like Jindal.

Again, not my cup of tea-- hell, Obama looks attractive next to Jindal and Palin-- but good for the debate and good for the nation overall.

There's still the exorcism fiasco. Jindal's introduction to America would include that very weird note.

Democrats are boxed in now, and all the initiative is with McCain/Palin. It's going to be a hell of a fight. Rove can now make the language of the campaign rhetoric and slogans as mean and nasty as he likes, and then give the mike to Palin to run interference for McCain. Perfect.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all Obama/Biden, have no use for the G.O.P. hate the Gospel Social (vs Social Gospel) but Democrats are slow on the pick up. We've got to be fast, polite and not get rattled, because Rove/Schmidt have all the ammo they need to get us up and dancing to their tune. Any suggestions?

kbecker - true, that's pretty damned weird. So is a "spiritual mentor" who says that blacks are right-brained and whites left-brained. Both parties' shining lights have put us in this ridiculous situation.

Tep, I hate religion more than most and am described by my friends and family as an "evangelical atheist," and you are right that both parties now indulge in the overt displays and "God bless" everything every two seconds.  (It started not with Obama, but with, I believe, Bill Clinton.)  Still, Obama's sort of Christianity is the sort that says help your neighbor -- the Christianity of MLK -- while Palin's is the sort that says, my book says that I get to hate you.  Both are religious positions but they're miles apart.

'twas Carter, actually. Confessing to lust in his heart, IIRC, from that Playboy issue I filched from old man Porter's garage.

I hear you re the social gospel but I'd guess the Jindal GOP will move in that direction too. That's not all bad, but the go-to-Canossa spectacle that we saw at Saddleback has to stop. Disgraceful.

To all the liberals who supported Obama by saying experience doesn't matter, put on the cynical hat and say, never mind.

"Overall, though, I think this pick will have a positive effect on the nation, in two major ways:

1) we will finally get serious about an energy security policy for us and for Europe that will reduce our vulnerability to Putin's energy blackmail. About f***ing time."

Tep, THIS PICK has what to do with an energy security policy exactly?  Because Palin is gov of a petroleum-producing state?  I guess when you've got an engergy security/Vladimir Putin hammer, everything's a nail.

"You want change," says a McCain aide. "Here we come."

'Nuff said.

I initially supported Sen. Biden for president because of the experience issue, so I am sensitive to that charge.  

That having been said, I think Sarah Palin is dangerously unqualified to be vice president.  

There's a big difference here between being UNqualified and being UNDERqualified.  At the beginning of the Democratic primary campaign in 2007, I thought Sen. Obama was underqualified, but made a convincing case that his intellect, judgment, and ability to mobilize public opinion made him able to serve as President.  

No, he didn't have the most sterling experience.  BUT, at the very least, Sen. Obama has been forced to think seriously about national security issues since he began running for the United States Senate.  

Gov. Palin, on the other hand, is 20 months removed from discussing zoning ordinances in a backwater town of less than 10,000.  

Country First?  Give me a break.  This was a politically-motivated pick by Sen. McCain that has the potential to put our country at grave risk.  

aero - Palin has been pushing drill drill drill. Having chosen her, McCain will change his stand on ANWR.  Energy security accounts is at the top of the talking points memo McC issued today in connection with the pick.

flynnb_az - "at the very least, Sen. Obama has been forced to think seriously about national security issues since he began running for the United States Senate."

Why then has he been so clueless about Putin? Why did one of his own nat secy advisers praise McCain's response to the crisis and disparage Obama's specifically calling out Obama's "inability to crystallize the issue"? Doesn't that trouble you?

tep, if you read anything about Alaska you know that drilling is a prerequisite for being a politician there.  There's nothing prescient about it, oil's the mother's milk (pardon the pun) of Alaska funding

Roughly 90% of state revenue in Alaska. And something like 2/3 or 3/4 of Alaskans have always supported drilling in ANWR. So her position is not prescient at all, as mschol17 says.

I guess this does mean we are going to see more pretending that opening new areas to future drilling will reduce oil prices now, and that we can drill our way to energy security. Both utter fantasy. Maybe McCain will go beyond that, but I doubt it because that is a more complex argument that starts sounding more like what Obama has been saying.

By the way, I wanted to say that I enjoyed jacobt1's post. I usually have a rather different opinion of them, but the Casablanca reference was great!

I don't find here prescient. I just think McC's sending  signal here that involves the importance he places on energy security.

So does getting 29% of our oil domestically instead of 25% equal energy security?

I am sure he will use the angle you mention, tep. And he may even flip-flop on drillng in ANWR (or has he already? If so, I missed it). But I think she was chosen for four basic reasons:

(1) She appeals to social conservatives.

(2) She has a maverick image, allowing him to paint them as a matched pair.

(3) She can make a plausible case for being fiscally conservative. But see below.

(4) He think he will get a bump in the polls by picking a woman.

Argument #3 has some holes. She did line-item veto a number of (Republican) legislators' pet projects in the name of cutting spending, but the cuts seemed arbitrary (and almost petty given the state's huge surplus). And she just pushed through the Legislature an "energy rebate" plan that hands out $1200 to everybody to compensate them for the burden of high energy prices (a real problem, given the winter temperature and the cost of heating oil).

"I just think McC's sending  signal here that involves the importance he places on energy security."

Not that I don't disagree Tep, but I would have a much easier time swallowing the concept that McCain truly understands the relationship between national security and energy independence if he actually started talking sense; the fact that his latest energy policy is "all-of-the-above" REALLY creeps me out because now it sounds like he can't argue policy and it trying to disingeniously usurp any good ideas by saying "me too", or "sounds like they read *my* policy". Now, it looks like he's going to hop on board the "drill, drill everywhere, drill now" express, but I won't believe that until I hear him promise to authorize drilling mandates for any company leasing federal land or natural resources.

Well, it's a learning curve for all of us. The only national figure to even raise the issue over the last decade is ex-CIA Chief James Woolsey, who correctly  pointed out that shambolic, kleptocratic thugs like Putin Ajad Chavez are nothing without their hundreds in billions in windfall oil revenues.

God forbid I should ever swap my redcat for a POS Prius, which is what Woolsey drives, but if Pres. McCain or Obama puts forth a sensible and comprehensive energy security plan, sign me up. I'll sacrifice, do my part.

tep -- I'll be honest with you -- I didn't really grasp the strategic situation in regard to Russia, Georgia, and NATO until I read the excellent George Friedman piece from STRATFOR on the topic.  It is only now that I really appreciate what kind of powder keg this has been for some time.  

And I would be the first to say that I'm sure that this wasn't at the top of Sen. Obama's mind.  But there again is the genius of the Biden pick.  He and Dick Lugar had written an Op-Ed in the Washington Times that dealt with this issue back in April, far before it was on most people's radar screens.  

And I don't mean to take a cheap shot here, but it is unavoidable -- I sincerely doubt Sarah Palin could find the Republic of Georgia on a map.