An Alaskan's Perspective on Sarah Palin

I've been waiting all day for this. Alaska strikes me as the kind of "small town" state where everyone kind of knows each other and thus it takes an Alaskan who has been on the ground there to understand just what kind of person Palin is.

My initial impression: she is something of a rising star in the GOP who, after a couple more years of shaking out, could have proven valuable as a national leader. But McCain, in his desperation, pushed her out on the stage while she was still practicing her lines. Lots of potential, but seriously untested.

Kind of like taking the star of the local High School production of Les Mis and putting her in the Broadway cast. It could work, but you'd have to be pretty desperate to even take the chance.

Trophy Veep

Daily Kos: Who's Afraid of Sarah Palin?

This is a classic and damning gender narrative: a young, more conventionally attractive, underqualified woman is picked to "replace" or "stand in for" an older, more qualified one. In this story, Palin is the trophy wife on McCain's arm (she'd be his second trophy, actually), while Clinton is the martyred and noble older woman. Or, for a non-marital metaphor, Palin would be the young blue-collar employee that keeps her mouth shut and stays in the boss's good graces, while Clinton is Lilly Ledbetter. I freaking love the potential here. Let's make them both pay for this one.

Nails it.

Knock it off

There's some hand-wringing already starting to manifest itself in the liberal blogosphere over the Palin pick. But really, the fundamentals on this are simple: VP's rarely provide a significant benefit to the top of the ticket. At best, you hope that they won't hurt you. So I don't think Palin, despite some of the positives being talked about, has much chance of helping McCain. But she has a huge potential to destroy his candidacy because she obliterates one of the main attack points the Republicans have used against Obama: that experience matters.

McCain/Palin

1st Response: Who?

2nd Response: There goes the "experience matters" argument

3rd Response: Is this really a desperate attempt to get Hillary voters? And if so, how patronizing.

4th Response: McCain will be, what, 79 if he is elected President? He has a history of health problems. And he just selected Palin to be "one heartbeat away from the Presidency?" McCain, in one single move, just made his age and health a legitimate campaign issue.

Putin says U.S. orchestrating Georgian war for McCain's benefit

I really don't want to get into a discussion of whether this accusation is true. What I find more interesting is the question why Putin would make it. Putin does not strike me as the loose cannon type (like Ahmadinejad of Iran) who would spout off something like this in a heated moment. So, if we assume that Putin is a rational actor, we have to question what Putin hopes to accomplish by pushing the idea that U.S. agents instigated the Georgia conflict in order to help John McCain.

Perhaps what he is hoping for is angry denunciations from U.S. officials so that he can help portray Russia as the victim in this conflict:

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino blasted Putin's statements, saying they were "patently false."

"To suggest that the United States orchestrated this on behalf of a political candidate just sounds not rational," she said.

U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Robert Wood concurred, and labeled Putin's statements as "ludicrous."

"Russia is responsible for the crisis," Wood said in an off-camera meeting with reporters in Washington on Thursday. "For the Russians to say they are not responsible for what happened in Georgia is ludicrous. ... Russia is to blame for this crisis and the world is responding to what Russia has done."

If so, Mission Accomplished.

Taking it to the RNC

I likey

Vicious Cycles

Kevin Drum identifies the vicious cycle of Republican foreign policy: (1) act tough, (2) acting tough creates bad will, (3) bad will eventually manifests itself in some foreign policy crisis which requires (4) acting tough.

The perverse nature of this cycle is that the final step may very well be the best approach in that point in the cycle. Certainly acting tough with a Hitler is the right call. But the essence of Republican foreign policy is not simply to act tough when tough times call for it but to act tough every single day. You run around with a chip on your shoulder daring people to knock it off and eventually someone will. And that's all the excuse you need to punch even harder.

Kevin correctly identifies the political problem this presents for more sensible foreign policy advocates. Most people aren't paying much attention until the crisis rears its ugly head. So most people learn that acting tough is the best policy because they don't see anything else going on.

But liberal foreign policy is about reducing and minimizing the crisis in the first place. And doing so requires something more than a simplistic "act tough" approach. But that more "nuanced" approach can be painted easily by the demagogues who will simply portray all of foreign policy as if it were in a constant state of crisis. We are not stuck at 3AM.

The Republican foreign policy, as outlined by the neo-cons, is all about maintaining a permanent sense of crisis.

And this vicious cycle applies to economics as well. Republicans push the idea of "tax cuts yesterday, tax cuts today, tax cuts tomorrow!" as the be all and end all of economics. Yet sensible economic analysts know that there are times when tax cuts make sense and times when they don't. But, as in the cycle identified above, the time when tax cuts often do make sense (during a crisis) are often the only time people are paying attention. This allows Republicans to paint all tax cuts at any time as a reasonable policy.

This is why I tell politicians I meet that they should always respond to the "taxes, yes or no?" question with a simple, "taxes are not an ideological issue for me." Taxes are simply a tool by which you can execute economic policy. But they are not the only tool and they can be used in many different ways.

Similarly, armies are just a tool by which you can execute foreign policy. But they are not the only tool and they can be used in many different ways.

I am reminded, once again, of Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine". Klein correctly identifies that "disaster capitalism" is based on the idea that a population kept in a state of constant crisis will be much more compliant in the face of proposed solutions, regardless of whether those solutions actually have any merit in addressing the crisis. When things are bad people just want "someone" to do "something".

Democrats must, unfortunately, re-educate voters on this every election season in order for them to remain viable. They must put forward policies that show they understand that, in times of crisis, acting tough may be necessary. But they must also push the idea that a well-rounded policy must work to avoid crisis as much as it plans for how to deal with crisis.

It's a harder selling point. But it is absolutely essential if we are to prevent the crisis-mongers from ruling our lives.

Guilt By Association

Reading this adds weight to my growing belief that the Democrats strategy for the Fall should NOT be to attack McCain directly (unless, of course, he gives them golden opportunities like he did with the house gaffe). McCain's favorables are pretty solid in the public's view (as are Obama's) and, short of something dramatic happening, no amount of attacks from the Democrats will change that.

People like him. The time to deal with that was several months ago. It's to late now. People like him and Democrats are just going to have to deal with that.

So how should they deal with it?

This election will, I think, come down to "more of the same" vs. "something different" and I think "something different" is the default position of most voters right now. Unfortunately, McCain's personal popularity may allow the public to buy into the idea that he represents "something different". Democrats must spread doubt on that front, but not by attacking McCain directly.

Instead, they must bury him through the use of guilt-by-association.

McCain is a Republican. McCain has wholeheartedly supported Bush policies for the last several years. He has been a cheerleader for everything the Republicans have done that the public hates. By highlighting all the bad things Republicans have done and then adding, "McCain is a Republican", the public will make the connection. And when it comes time for them to pull that lever they will think in their minds, "Yeah, McCain's a decent guy, but damn I just can't trust the Republicans to be in charge anymore."

Attack Republicans directly. Attack Bush directly. Attack McCain by association.

Chemical Party!

Carbon is really attractive to Hydrogen!