Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Only Certainty? McCain Pandered.

Here's a presidential politics story:

Six years ago, 44-year-old Sam Jones, former high school basketball star, winner of a college he-man contest and runner up in the Mr. Wyoming contest, was the mayor of a Wyoming town of 9,000 people.

His next job was in state government, where he was chairman of a commission for two years. Ambitious and eager to move on, he jumped into a three-way contest for governor and got elected with 48 percent of the vote. Among other things, Sam Jones is known for having said he was open to the teaching of creationism in public schools along with evolution.

Today, he’s running for vice president of the United States of America, a position that puts him only a heartbeat away from having his finger on the nuclear trigger. That lofty spot on his party’s ticket was given to him by a man he met seven months ago, and who talked to him about the job only a couple of times since then.

The stuff of a Woody Allen comedy?

The only part that’s false is the identity and state of the individual. The description above fits Sarah Louise Heath Palin, former city council member and mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, from 1992 to 2002; she has been the state’s Republican governor for the past 20 months.

None of this is funny.

The one thing that can be said with certainty is that Sam Jones or any other man bearing such thin credentials would not even remotely be considered qualified to occupy the second-highest office in America.

Sarah Palin is on the Republican ticket because of her gender. She was chosen by a pandering John McCain, who thinks he can peel off some of Hillary Clinton’s disgruntled supporters.

This time, war hero John McCain pulled a role reversal: He put himself, not his country, first.

By Colbert King  | August 31, 2008; 1:45 PM ET
Categories:  King  | Tags:  Colbert King  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain's Faith in the Surge
Next: Gustav ex Machina

Comments

Mr. King,

It is big of you to support the McCain Myth; but the facts of the matter are that John McCain has always been a selfish, reckless jerk.

Born into a prominent military family, he honored his future responsibilities by blowing off his education and finishing near the bottom of his class. He failed the character test in the 1950s.

He began his career flying by the seats of his pants and ruined many an aircraft. Failed in the early 60s. Womanized. Cared more about himself than his military responsibilities.

Then he was shot down and tortured. War hero. All sins are forgiven. Fair enough.

Comes back home and, as a 40yr old, ditches his first wife for a younger, prettier model from a wealthy family from a *very suspect* business network. Character test failed yet again.

Uses the corrupt fortune to launch a political career... Hello.

Gets hand caught in the Keating cookie jar by putting $112k in his pocket without reporting it to the IRS. Was part of the massive savings and loan crisis which, effectively, stole billions from US taxpayers and was a cynical reverse Robin Hood play.

Becomes a 'reformer'... so he can run for President...

He's a fake. He's a fraud. YOU KNOW IT. I KNOW IT. Half of America knows it.

John McCain knows he's a fraud. George Bush knows he's a fraud. Ross Perot and T. Boone Pickens knows he's a fraud.

When it someone from the WaPo going to report the TRUTH about John McCain's character and career.

When we lose the ability to perceive and report reality, we have lost our way.

Posted by: Deep Blue | August 31, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Really Colbert? You didn't see the painfully obvious rebuke of your argument?

Four years ago, 43 year old Barry O'Neil was a state senator in Illinois, a part-time job he combined with teaching law. During this time he passed no meaningful legislation and continually voted "present" on countless bills. Among other things, Barry developed relationships with "interesting" characters such as Tony Resko and William Ayers.

In late 2004, Barry gave a compelling (if vague and platitudinous) speech at a party convention and was elected to the senate. Less than two years later, after achieving no accomplishments and passing no legislation, Barry decides to run for president.

Now, with no executive experience (or accomplishments in general, save writing two autobiographies) he’s running for president of the United States of America, a position that puts him his finger on the nuclear trigger

Sam Jones has more experience, and more importantly, more accomplishments than Barry O'Neill.

Hope and change!!!!!!


Posted by: Brian Cobbs | August 31, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

If Sarah Palin is so ridiculous as to offer no threat to the Democrats, why the attacks on her? Why not just ignore her? I'm a Democrat myself, but I think Mr. King is vastly oversimplifying the case. Is she on the ticket because she's a woman? Certainly. Obama made an enormous mistake by failing to tap Hillary Clinton for the ticket, and McCain would be an idiot not to capitalize on that. But she's also his choice because she's a social conservative, a governor, and a reformer. She meets a lot of needs for him and will appeal to independents as well as the conservatives whom McCain was having trouble with. She will strongly appeal to working-class whites, with her proudly blue-collar, union-member husband. And for those wondering how many votes a Democratic woman needs to get on the ticket, there's now a reason to take a second look at McCain. For those reasons, she's a smart pick politically.

Mr. King and other opinion writers who are strongly enamored of Obama seem reluctant to acknowledge that he opened the door to this. It was utterly predictable; Obama's camp just didn't credit McCain with the guts to do it. A reform-minded, attractive, female governor who excites conservatives and appeals to blue-collar workers seems, to this Democrat, like a very smart choice for McCain. Her sex is only one part of that equation, but it's the one King is choosing to dwell on.

Posted by: ezr1 | August 31, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

If Sarah Palin is so ridiculous as to offer no threat to the Democrats, why the attacks on her? Why not just ignore her? I'm a Democrat myself, but I think Mr. King is vastly oversimplifying the case. Is she on the ticket because she's a woman? Certainly. Obama made an enormous mistake by failing to tap Hillary Clinton for the ticket, and McCain would be an idiot not to capitalize on that. But she's also his choice because she's a social conservative, a governor, and a reformer. She meets a lot of needs for him and will appeal to independents as well as the conservatives whom McCain was having trouble with. She will strongly appeal to working-class whites, with her proudly blue-collar, union-member husband. And for those wondering how many votes a Democratic woman needs to get on the ticket, there's now a reason to take a second look at McCain. For those reasons, she's a smart pick politically.

Mr. King and other opinion writers who are strongly enamored of Obama seem reluctant to acknowledge that he opened the door to this. It was utterly predictable; Obama's camp just didn't credit McCain with the guts to do it. A reform-minded, attractive, female governor who excites conservatives and appeals to blue-collar workers seems, to this Democrat, like a very smart choice for McCain. Her sex is only one part of that equation, but it's the one King is choosing to dwell on.

Posted by: ezr1 | August 31, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Sorry; my comment somehow posted twice. My apologies.

Posted by: ezr1 | August 31, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Is he pandering to women, or to the Repub religious extreme right?

Posted by: LarryB | August 31, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin isn't qualified to carry Hillary Clinton's luggage! Anyone who considers voting for the McCain-Palin ticket deserves the four more years of incompetence that will surely follow.

Posted by: maggie | August 31, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Deep Blue, it seems your views are way too slanted and narrow to fit Obama's wish for change. Your extremist, almost childish socialist views, prove that Obama's worst enemy is his own supporters.

Posted by: Deep Blue the Troll | August 31, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Deep Blue, it seems your views are way too slanted and narrow to fit Obama's wish for change. Your extremist, almost childish socialist views, prove that Obama's worst enemy is his own supporters.

Posted by: Deep Blue the Troll | August 31, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Deep Blue, it seems your views are way too slanted and narrow to fit Obama's wish for change. Your extremist, almost childish socialist views, prove that Obama's worst enemy is his own supporters.

Posted by: Deep Blue the Troll | August 31, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Did I hear that Sarah Palin actually RAISED TAXES when she was mayor? Did I also hear on YouTube that she chortled, or laughed, when another woman was called a b---h? And did I hear that she "waffled " on the Bridge To NoWhere and, when she quashed that project, kept the money in state with no clear idea about what to do with it? Oh, she'd make a wonderful President if any of these were true, wouldn't you say?

Posted by: OCPatriot | August 31, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

McCain doesn´t believe in his own platform, policies, or party and so he picked someone that made sense from a polling data perspective and who will put his name in the history books (as having the first female VP for the Republicans). Maybe on paper, the plan looked good but, with a little analysis, good judgement would have identified the problems: 1) his plan reflects that his campaign and principal criticisms of Obama are based on total
hypocrisy, 2) he shows that he, himself believes that Washington needs
a new, fresh perspective (strengthening the case for Obama), 3) it makes everyone chary about McCain´s own old age and health, and 4) it´s offensive that Palin says Clinton paved the path for her extreme
rightwing candidacy or that Clinton supporters should join her in the
spirit of Clinton. Palin believes that creationism should be taught in
schools as a science, does not believe in women´s choice or family
planning, does not believe in environmental protection (or even
that human activity affects global warming), while keeping a bear´s
carcass as a throw rug in her governor´s office. When asked prior to
her selection, she said she didn´t know what was going on in Iraq and
doesn´t know what a Vice President is suppose to do. However, now we have a bunch of mostly Republican men speaking and thinking for her and telling us what she thinks about Iraq and what her positions are - that's empowering! McCain wants to mobilize the conservative right and try to take woman voters at the same time (the only problem is that the base of the conservative right and the Hillary base are inherently incompatible). The issue is not that Palin's a woman but that she is asking woman to vote for her solely based on that, which is offensive and an argument she provoked by using Clinton's campaign in her speeches and implying that Clinton passed the baton to her in the final leg of the race to finish it for "us" all... I don't think so. Tell her to stop
mentioning Clinton´s name because it is extremely disingenuous and offensive. Palin was against Hillary and Palin's political base is too. Palin needs to honestly run on her right-wing platform and be honest about the political base she represents, which ran a no holds bar attack on the Clintons personally and on Hillary´s most important issue, healthcare. In Alaska, Palin has shown she, herself does not care about healthcare. Don´t be fooled: no way, no how, no Palin, no
McCain.

Posted by: Cindy | August 31, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Well of course he pandered. And it ain't going so well with Palin. So now he lurches into the Gustav pander. No wonder he lost in 2000. He's just not a very good politician. He'd be a terrible president.

Posted by: Mary | August 31, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Trollmeister,

The fact is that McCain, as a 40yr old man, married into an organized crime family with ties to Kemper Marley and Meyer Lansky.

Make of that what will you; but as for how you can use Republican logic to get to the conclusion that therefore I am a socialist is beyond me.

Then again, as far as Republican logic goes you've been trumped by Bush and Co. who've committed $2 trillion dollars to Iraq *to install a democracy in a place that would vote to get rid of us in a heartbeat- so they can sell their oil to the highest bidder.* What did we get for 4,000 death, many more casualties, a $2 trillion? Iraq just signed its first billion dollar oil services contract... with a Chinese company.

Republican logic sucks.

Posted by: Deep Blue | August 31, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Cluck, cluck. There will be ado about McCain's choice of back-up to his hoped-for Presidency; Eye-candy for Evangelicals. It doesn't matter. The republicans will try to make this important election about little things instead of the big issues. They will fail because once everyone know the emperor has no clothes then he's just an old naked guy walking bare-arsed on parade.

The only thing Mccain can change is all his positions to satisfy the extreme right wing evangelicals that he, himself called a threat to America just a few years ago.

Bush, Cheney, McCain. No More Years!!!

Posted by: thebob.bob | August 31, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Pandering: To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others, or exploit their weaknesses

Your post above is pandering Mr. King. It’s laughable to read this post from you, an African American, about how John McCain is pandering. Come on Mr. King.

I’ll bet your smarter than your post above, but I’ll go ahead and remind you now, that as an African American in this electoral season, your enjoying a sweet retreat of your own political blindness.

You’re the one pandering Mr. King. You speak of Barak Obama’s personality… while pointing at John McCain.

Pandering? A Barak Obama supporter is pointing a finger and calling foul by pandering? Now that’s funny.

Did you even listen to Obama’s speech last week? Or did you just clap and nod your head while thinking about his dark, “African American’ness”?

Granted his speech was stellar, but it was pandering all the way.
Read again the meaning of pandering here.

Pandering: To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others, to exploit their weaknesses.

When it says “others”, that’s you Mr. King, and I think your aware of it. I think you know that Barak Obama, is pandering you, catering to your weaknesses, catering to your insecure self image of being a lesser member of this country, and in turn, you’ve given up your own thought’s and your own wisdom, and now you’re out pandering in his name to gather others into the voting booth for him. Come on Mr King, you and I are brothers, you and I are fellow countrymen, we are equal you and I. You are NOT a lesser member of this country like Obama is pandering.

I like Sara Palin because we can trace her actions, her root’s, and her loyalty’s to our country, back beyond grandparent’s birth. She’s what normal jaded people would call a “Boy Scout”. But Barak Obama? Obama’s roots have mysteriously changed a very great deal in the last two years. Two years ago it was reported that he was raised in Afghanistan, and attended the most radically Islamic school in that country, then suddenly he never lived there at all, then he was raised in the Islamic faith, then he never was, then he joined a christian church here in the states, but then this year, it’s said that he’s been a member there for 20 years. Who is this guy?

Ask your self alone in the dark Mr. King, why are you voting for Barak Obama?
American’s, no matter what color they’re skin is, know why you are… Do you?
Or have you gone totally “Stepford Wife” on us?

Posted by: David D. | August 31, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Looking at your picture I fully understand your comments, however if the lady was black you would not say one word

race discrimination!

Posted by: lee | August 31, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

You know, there are many socially conservative woman who find woman like Palin quite offensive. These woman feel a woman's place is at home with her children, unless of course she's forced to work for financial reasons. From a social conservative's point of view, Ms. Palin may look more like an aggressive ambitious beeeeaaach, who's abandoned her children in favor of a more exciting career.

Posted by: spicegal | August 31, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

The Palin pick is sure to mobilize women all over the country. I for one hotfooted it to the local Obama headquarters within 24 hours of the announcement. Why? Because it would be hard to recall a time that I, as a woman,have ever been more deeply offended. And I am over 50 and have been condescended to and patronized by men more than a couple of times over the past several decades.

Let me see if I can explain this to you, David D: Assuming you're a white male,
wouldn't you as soon vote for McCain as, say, Ted Kennedy, for president? If not, why not? They'e both white males, aren't they? That makes it all the same. You didn't bother to vote in the Republican primary, did you? If so, why? Again--all white males. David, Mr. King would not vote for Clarence Thomas for president, not ever, nor would he support a Tyra Banks candidacy for vice president. Think about it. Why did you choose your wife or girlfriend, if you have one? Aren't all females alike? Ever have your heart broken by a woman? Couldn't you replace her right away with any other woman, much the same as changing the batteries in a flashlight? No, David, of course white males aren't all alike. Neither are all women are not alike, all African Americans alike.

Women, please check the Palin woman's record on women's issues. Also, ask yourselves, as mothers, would YOU leave your 4-month old Down Syndrome baby to hit the campaign trail? Would your own mom have done that? Every woman must make her own choices, but the ones you make speak volumes. Most women would do anything to be able to be with their kids, but have to work. This one chooses to run for vice president. Talk about the difference between a child and a choice! BTW,
she doesn't believe other woman should be able to make our reproductive choices for ourselves, but that all abortions should be illegal---yes, even in the case of rape and incest.

REAL women of America, let's take this battle to the streets. Volunteer for Obama/Biden, the real champions for women and families.

Posted by: Olive | August 31, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Women vote in larger numbers then men and so yes, McCain picked a VP who he scarcely knew on a gut feeling - a gamble.

We applaud another woman entering the fray - however moderates will turn away. I don't want my kids being taught creationism in school. Religion belongs at church.

Posted by: McGreen | August 31, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Lee...

Wow. .... Just ... wow.

Race discrimination? I don't recall Mr. King specifying the racial identity of Sam Jones. In fact, it is safe to assume that our fictitious Mr. Jones is a white man. Wasn't the whole point of the article to remove race and gender from the issue?

Posted by: Travis | August 31, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

American Women need to stand up for respect and equal treatment, we need Sarah Palin to break that glass ceiling for ALL American Women.

The civil rights movement succeeded as individual differences on issues were put aside for the good of ALL African Americans.

Women need to look at the greater good and vote for Sarah Palin. Inlike Obama who did pander to women voters, McCain is actually taken affirmative action.

Don't let sexist reporters like this one disuade you for the greater good - let's BREAK THAT CEILING!!!

Posted by: Women United Agaisnt Sexism | August 31, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Women United Against Sexism: Don't elevate real women, just lower that ceiling! What a neat trick.

Posted by: Olive | August 31, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Whoa there, Women United Against Sexism. You don't speak for me or any other woman who doesn't want to be perceived as gullible, naive, easily deluded, manipulated, you get my drift.

I am female, feminist, and danged proud of it. Sarah Palin may be a nice lady and good cheerleader for her state, but she is unqualified and does not represent me or my views. There is no doubt in my mind that her selection is pure political pandering.

Posted by: fralene | August 31, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

Obama legislation (only since 10/07):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/172059/936

Posted by: James King | September 1, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

McCain is considering skipping the convention and accepting the nomination by satellite? Another slick way for him to hide his awkard, socially inept image that's just beginning to show like a pregnant sophomore.

He can't read a telepromter. He looked like a stumbling bumpkin introducing Gov. Palin on Friday. Picking his fingernails, he projects an image worse than Jerry Ford...and he's trying hard to hide this from a large public audience.

Who is the "real John McCain?" Just Google the cruel joke he once made about Chelsea Clinton, when she was 17 years old. He's a disgusting political figure, who just might ride that POW horse right into The White House.

If another Republican wins, I'm seriously considering my own exit strategy...as an expat.

Posted by: His True colors are showing | September 1, 2008 3:09 AM | Report abuse

McCain is considering skipping the convention and accepting the nomination by satellite? Another slick way for him to hide his awkard, socially inept image that's just beginning to show like a pregnant sophomore.

He can't read a telepromter. He looked like a stumbling bumpkin introducing Gov. Palin on Friday. Picking his fingernails, he projects an image worse than Jerry Ford...and he's trying hard to hide this from a large public audience.

Who is the "real John McCain?" Just Google the cruel joke he once made about Chelsea Clinton, when she was 17 years old. He's a disgusting political figure, who just might ride that POW horse right into The White House.

If another Republican wins, I'm seriously considering my own exit startegy..as an expat.

Posted by: His True colors are showing | September 1, 2008 3:11 AM | Report abuse

You are so jealous just because John did not choose you.

You might think that you are better qualified than Sarah Palin just because you know where London is and just because she has not yet visited London.

Let me ask you this: when was the last time you caught your own moose, skinned it and cooked it before the kids came home from their hockey match? I bet it was N-E-V-E-R.

If you really wanted to become the next VP all you had to do was don a dress and shake hands with John. Just once would have been enough. You would also have to tell him that you are in charge of the scout troop. If you are asked about travel you must confirm that you once took a trip on a GreyHound Bus.

I understand that when Sarah arrived she did not know what McCain looked like and she gave the wrong guy a hug. (Well, the wrong guy did have gray hair.) Anyway, anyone can make a mistake.

John has principles and there is no way that he would have picked a journalist as a running mate.

You are so sour and jealous.

Posted by: Robert James | September 1, 2008 3:43 AM | Report abuse

BAM!!!!

You nailed it Mr. King!!! Well said.

I guess the only reason he chose palin is because rachael ray turned him down.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 1, 2008 3:56 AM | Report abuse

Once non-evangelical women get a wiff of palins views on abortion, Obamas numbers will skyrocket.

Women want a proponet, she's the enemy.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 1, 2008 3:59 AM | Report abuse

ezr1 asks why not ignore Palin if she's so ridiculous as to not be a threat to Democrats. Simple: she's a threat to all and an embarrassment to every American. She's not only anti-abortion, but anti-science, anti-environment and runs a high risk of abusing any power she has in the same way as our current VP. If McCain kicks the bucket while in office, as is highly possible, this empty skirt will be the de facto leader of the free world with her polished fingernails on the trigger of a whole lot of nuclear weapons. Whatever meager credibility Bush and Co. haven't destroyed will be wiped out with this woman in power.

Hillary had a great many problems with both her campaign and any potential candidacy, but NOT because she was a woman. I don't care that Palin is female and I doubt other, thinking, women will either. At least, not those who supported Hillary because of her stance on the issues. You see, that's McCain's problem: he assumes one woman is as good as the next and that, essentially, ALL women are too stupid to care who they're voting for anyway as long as the candidate has the right plumbing. As a woman, I'm highly offended.

Posted by: tad | September 1, 2008 4:26 AM | Report abuse

Robert James is so right!!!!! You girls are all just jealous John didn't choose you!
I can't wait to move into Barbie's Dream
Vice Presidential Mansion complete with soccer-mom
to president make-over kit and caribou blind in the back yard. Oh, I am so anxious to read "Running the Free World in six easy lessons," and "Commander-in-Chief for Dummies"--well, maybe the cliff notes versions!

Huh? There's lead in the plastic moose-burgers?

Posted by: Barbie | September 1, 2008 8:26 AM | Report abuse

Gender is the shiny object. and provides McKept a nice story line to keep the media quizzlings too busy to notice . . .
she is a naked reach to Dobson and all the others "sitting this one out"

Everyone's favorite maverick has subjugated himself to the "Agents of Intolerance"

POW = Prisoner of Wingers

Posted by: ayfkm | September 1, 2008 8:30 AM | Report abuse

I'll have to disagree with the author. Palin is not gender pandering as much as it's exciting the evangelical base of this party. McCain now has street cred with the foot-soldiers, but it remains to be seen whether this translates into a Republican upset. The evangelical base with its extremist "Christian" views is quite out of step with the feelings of most Americans and that point will be pounded home again and again by the democrats. They barely won using this strategy, as well as official vote suppression, in 2004. The dynamics in 2008 are far less favorable to the Party...McCain did what he needed to do to take some kind of advantage from the Convention. I don't think it will work.

Posted by: Richard | September 1, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Deep Blue said it well. Inside McCain is a reservoir of anger that he can't conquer. He is famous for his temper ...a temper that is not simply righteous but vindictive and destructive. Ask anyone who has worked with him. He can be charming and manipulative or brutal and destructive.

By selecting Palin, McCain trivialized the role of vice president in an unconscionably dangerous way. Talk about blowing off the good of the country. Talk about underestimating the intelligence of Hillary supporters much less the American public.

Talk about reckless disregard for the welfare of our nation and the world.

I'm not talking partisan politics here. I'm talking cluelessness. Palin is a warm and likable figure. However, she is naive and untested in a way that makes Obama look like a senior statesman....(she has) less than 2 years as a governor of a state with issues far removed from mainstream America.

C'mon America. Palin is sassy and endearing. McCain is 72 with a medical history. What's worse---- that legendary vicious temper or fluttering well-intentioned ignorance? Will you sleep better at night knowing either one of them is at the helm of the ship?

Posted by: magritte | September 1, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

*******A NEOCONS DREAM********


As a Vietnam veteran and a Political Science major, I just can't wait to see do-do McCain as President of this declining country. Will he be holding hands with Palin as they pray on the White House lawn waiting for a sign from God?

Let's see, what will the agenda be?

1. give the Federal Government control over women's bodies and their ability to choose for themselves

2. infuse the government with more religion in every sphere so that we will eventually become a theocracy like Iran

3. minimize minorities, homosexuals, liberals. Set-up interment camps in strategic locations throughout the United States

4. build more churches, at least three per square mile. Capture apostates and convert them. If unsuccessful, send them to the interment camps

5. close all institutions of higher learning, except for Bible colleges, especially if located in the South

6. erode the rights of individuals further in a stealth manner gradually so that the ignorant citizenry of the United States won't realize what's happened until it's too late

7. create a commission to destroy all media that is unrelated and nonsupportive of the goal, ie, a religious theocracy of the United States

8. all future politicians and attorneys will have to have a religious education background and degrees from "approved" religious institutions

9. we will continue to remain aggressive, unilateral and beligerent in our Foreign policy, emulate the Romans and invade, destroy and conquer for the benefit of others

****ALL THE ABOVE IS A NEOCONS DREAM*****

Posted by: sanity | September 1, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Well put sir. Palin is a most transparent attempt to beguile the right wing sheep into thinking the the last 8 years of monumental economic and foreign failures of the republican party can be swept under the dress of a neo-con gun toting 44 year old political wannabe who obviously considers personal advancement more important then the mothering her 5 children.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 1, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Ya know King,
Y ou may be right that Palin doesn't have a whole lot of experience...but at least she does have some...now lets see what eperience does the person you want for Commander in Chief have...oh yeah, community organizer...that, I'm sure, has the Russians and everyone else who wants to do us harm, shaking in their boots, sandels, feet etc.

wise up!

Posted by: ss | September 1, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

I'm a bit surprised that some political commentator hasn't remembered this TV series:

"Commander in Chief" (19 episodes, 2005-2006)
First woman VP takes the presidency when the President croaks.


Ah, life imitating TV.

Posted by: Jimmy | September 1, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

ss is a typical paranoid conservative believing Russia and so many others outside of the United States wants to do us harm. This is exactly the attitude that will bury this country.

Posted by: sanity | September 1, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

It is true that Mr. King's article did not mention the "race" of "Sam Jones". However, one just has to look at the picture of Mr. King to realize that without stating it, that he obviously and cleverly "inferred" that "Sam Jones" was an "African American".

Wikipedia (the free encylopedia) defines (in part) "experience as:
experience (plural experiences)

1. Event(s) of which one is cognizant.
2. Activity which one has performed.
3. Collection of events and/or activities from which an individual or group may gather knowledge, opinions, and skills.

As for the difference in Ms. Palin's "experience" and Joe Biden's "experience", let's look at the real picture.

Ms. Palin is "cognizant" of the fact America is in need of drilling for oil and natural gas as part of a comprehensive energy strategy. She is "cognizant" of the fact she is an "American" - not a "White American". She is "cognizant" of the fact that she is tough and makes decisions based on what SHE believes is right, not what is "politically correct" or partisan.

Mr. Biden is "cognizant" of the fact that he is opposed to doing anything to solve the energy crisis. He is "cognizant" of the fact that it is "politically expedient" to reverse decisions and comments he has made in order to get elected to office - even about his "running mate" - whom I might add is an "African American" (not just an American as I thought we were all supposed to be). Seems if you are not white, you are something MORE or LESS (depending on one's definition) and your race or nationality must be expressed with a "hyphenated" description such as "African-American, Asian American, Hispanic American" - well you get the picture).

Mr. Biden is "cognizant" of the fact he is not a "Pennsylvanian from Scranton". He is from Delaware. Do or did you hear Hillary Clinton say she was an "Arkansan" (or "Arkansawyer" as some might say) when she was running for President? Of course not. She was (in her words and others who spoke of or introduced her "The Senator from New York").

Now let's take a look at the second part of "experience", i.e., "activity one has performed".

Ms. Palin has made "executive decisions" concering running a city and running a state. This involves being the "leader" of members of ALL parties involved in the city or state government - not just a "Boss".

Mr. Biden has been in the halls of Congress playing politics and being "mainstream partisan" for his entire career. While he may be a good Senator and good man (and I believe he is) he's made NO "executive decisions" as a leader of anything other than a "committee" of something or other. As for his running mate, Mr. Obama, he's made NO "executive decisions" of ANY kind for anything.

I'm not even going to address the third part of the definition. I saw a bumper sticker that sums up MY opinion of Ms. Palin versus Mr. Obama/Mr. Biden as President/VP of the USA. To quote "I'd rather she (Ms. Palin) be a heartbeat away from the Presidency than he (Mr. Obama) BE the heartbeat of the Presidency" - unquote.

Well, you might guess I'm an evangelical, conservative, Republican (whom I might add has voted Democrat in the past - never again). Yeah, Ms. Palin is MY candidate and she has my utmost respect. She is not only experience, she is capable and READY to be Vice President OR President if needed.

I might add that JFK (and I personally liked him) had little experience and was in his "mid thirties" when elected as "President".

So you people get off the "soap wagon" about "experience" and "age". It doesn't wash. The election is about issues that face the country - not personalities - and it's about doing one's duty - to wit "VOTE" - regardless of who you vote for. If you stay at home and don't vote because you are angry your candidate did not make it to the ticket, then you are doing your country a "disservice" and have no right to complain about anything that those who are elected to represent us do as politicians.

JUST MY OPINION.

John McCain & Sarah Palin get my vote!

Posted by: Abe | September 1, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Abe---JFK wasn't in his mid-30's when elected to the presidnet, he was the 35th president.
When elected, he was 43.

Posted by: Jackie Blue | September 1, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, misspelled president. I was raised in the evangelical faith, and I remember a book, "Your God is Too Small."

Posted by: Jackie Blue | September 1, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

McCain's campaign has been all about the experience question and putting his country first. Yet, he chose Palin because she is a woman and only because she is a woman. An ultra conservative Annie Oakley that knows only local politics. He is not a maverick. He is a hypocrite. She is ill equiped to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Not with a 72 year old candidate that is already showing signs of slowing down. Regardless of the "wall of support" the Republican party is showing the public he has to of deeply angered and worried his own party. He will now justify his choice the same way Bush-Cheney justified the war. With straight faced lies.

Posted by: Pam M | September 1, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Sorry Jackie Blue. You are correct JFK was 43 when elected as President (pays to check your facts rather than rely on memeory or whatever). But, he was still "younger" than Ms. Palin which is my point. Just because you are "young" shouldn't, in itself, be a "campaign issue". By the way I am not "young" (in some people's opinion - I'm 64) but I'm still "young at heart" and hopefully "open-minded" and try not to spew "hateful words" at other people just because they differ from me in whatever respect. Democrats (and I'm not saying you are one -(doesn't matter) but I've noticed in lots of different blogs and editorial comments that Democrats SEEM to be more "hateful" and "angry" than similar comments posted by "true Conservative Republican". Of course, there are always "exceptions. Thanks for correcting my post!

Posted by: Abe | September 1, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is the Democrat's worst nightmare come true. She is going to rock your world.

Posted by: Dave | September 1, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

I think John McCain's crazy campaign speaks volumes about the man's lack of ability to lead. He's erratic and makes bad decisions from a gut level rather than thinking them through. He's all over the place -- sending Cindy McCain (diplomacy queen) to Georgia; picking a nut for the VP slot to show Karl Rove he could what he pleased; dashing down to Louisiana like he thinks he's going to be Superman saving the city. Cancelling the GOP convention on a whim, deciding the country is more likely to vote for him if they don't see him speak. Now I understand why he changes his mind on policy positions all the time. He just spontaneously acts without thinking things through. I didn't think we could have someone mroe dangerous than Bush in the White House, but my opinion is changing.

Posted by: Whiplashed Onlooker | September 1, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Not content with carrying racist propaganda for Obama, Colbert King is now playing misogynist. This racist shill should be put out to pasture.

Posted by: jd-winterbottom | September 1, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

For all the talk from Evangelicals about abstinence and morality according to their definitions, he we are with Palins daughter pregnant and unmarried. And whose child is the boy with Down syndrome?

Of course the Evangelicals will minimize it because it suits them to do so, as they spin everything, including the Bible, to suit themselves.

Posted by: sanity | September 1, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

"Women vote in larger numbers then men and so yes, McCain picked a VP who he scarcely knew on a gut feeling - a gamble."

Great. All we need is another 4 years with a non-thinking jerk in the Whitehouse -- shooting from the hip.

Posted by: Tubby | September 1, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

I have to tip my cap to the person who came up with the "executive" experience talking point. But, what a joke. There is no such thing as generic "executive" experience. There are all kinds of executive experience. A high school principal, the owner of a small business, and the mayor of a small town all have executive experience. Even Obama has executive experience, running his campaign for the presidency. (Including the notable achievement of knocking off Hillary. Republicans should rejoice!)

The issue is whether a specific person's experience, executive or otherwise, is sufficient. George Bush's years of "executive" experience as governor and businessman did not make him even a mediocre president. Yet, Abraham Lincoln had a resume as thin as Obama's and yet managed to succeed.

Alaska has a tiny, homogeneous population. The budget is almost entirely funded by taxes on oil revenues, so the kind of hard trade-offs of the federal governement simply aren't there. The governor does not have to deal with inner-city violence or industrial jobs being shipped to India. The political spectrum, relative to the lower 48, is completely different. Reaching across the aisle to democrats is a whole different ballgame at the federal level. The governor of Alaska does not need to even think about comprehensive health care, national security or myriad other issues. That we are talking about Alaska's proximity to Russia as some kind of foreign policy experience should make painfully apparent how much of a stretch this is. To claim this Sarah Palin's "executive" experience is relevant to the VP job is just absurd.

Does this mean she would necessarily be a bad VP. Of course not. The problem is that she has 0 record on any of the major issues facing America today accept being pro-life and supporting creationism.

We have been told she is a reformer who fights federal waste. But is the claim true? It turns out she supported the famed Bridge to Nowhere while running for office and then backed out due to a lack of funding but kept the funds (which could have gone to New Orleans) for other Alaskan projects. She also passed a windfall profit tax and tried to raise taxes to fund a sports arena. So the claim to be a crusader against waste is completely false.

What we did learn is that she will say whatever she needs to get elected. So I'm not sure I can take anything she says in the next two months seriously.

John McCain spent the last two months telling us experience was crucial to the presidency and then, as a purely political move, picked someone with no experience. Was he lying all this time or is he now putting his own ambition above the interests of the country? In either case, I can't in good faith support him. Perhaps its time to take a look at the Dems. God help us all.

Posted by: Disgrunteld Independent | September 1, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

So I guess that this announcement of Palin's daughter's pregnancy is supposed to squelch the rumors. But suppose she did cover for her daughter... what is one more lie, and what if -- wonders never cease in this case -- it turns out that they later allege that this newly reported pregancy ends up in an alleged miscarriage? If that raises any eyebrows it will be after the election in November anyway, right? For me, if the original rumors are credible, this well-timed "announcement" is not evidence either way. In the original rumor, people at the local health center would have had to have been in cahoots with the Governor -- and that could still be the case. I'm not saying the rumors are true, only that this announcement has no bearing whatsoever on their plausibility -- unless of course you for some reason believe this new "fact" -- but then why would you have believed the initial rumor? On the other hand, if they lied then, they are lying now -- and the "beauty" of it (for them) is that the truth of this new revelation is unverifiable, unless Bristol, unlike her mother, is actually showing signs of being pregant.

Posted by: frank burns | September 1, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Democrats should not underestimate Sarah Palin. True, her positions on abortion and Darwinian evolution disqualify her from national office for many of us, including myself. For all of that, she is a warm, energetic, competent person, and has done a good job running a diverse state with huge land area, and pushing reform of her own Republican party. She is untested, but she is not necessarily a lightweight. She also takes the race issue off the table; her husband is part Yup'ik Eskimo. Democrats should focus on her beliefs about abortion and Darwin, and be wary of attacking her political record.

Posted by: oldhonky | September 1, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

"Sarah Palin is the Democrat's worst nightmare come true. She is going to rock your world."

Yes, she is a nightmare as is McCain and a boulder on the world. We'll be rocked all right if they get elected.

Posted by: sanity | September 1, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cobb, the one thing you forgot to mention about ole Barry O'Neil was that he currently runs a 500 employee political machine that has raised over 400 million in the last few months.

Posted by: 1armywife | September 1, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

It is the forum in which Mr King is presenting his ideas that makes his writing open to misinterpretation. His writing on Saturday and today says two things. Governor Palin's strong qualifications are 1. Her race (ethnicity) 2. Her gender. That's all. There are other admirable virtues but they were not of any significance in her choice.

Posted by: Draesop | September 1, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

you libs are so predictable. Obama is such an empty suit. This was such a brilliant pick. Sarah is not a politician, she believes in trying to do the what's best for her constituants. This is something you Dem party hacks will never understand. Obama has American enemies or crooks for friends. Sarah is loved by Alaskans, and soon to be the darling of the U.S. You Obama coolaid drinkers need to watch out on the experience issue. I look forward to the V.P. debates you libs are going to be so surprised.

Posted by: dave | September 1, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

The only certaintly is you are a dyed-in-the-wool bigot. What a chump.

Posted by: mrjerbub | September 1, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

If Sam Jones had actually accomplished something in his supposed tenure, then why wouldn't he have been considered? Especially if he were a proven reformer. CK needs to get outside the Beltway.

He also needs to look at American history. Neither Teddy Roosevelt nor Woodrow Wilson were brimming with experience when they stepped into their executive roles. But I guess what is important for CK is that they were men, and it takes more for him to allow a woman to rise to the same office.

Posted by: CB | September 1, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

CB: RE Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson's prior experience:

A quick Wiki check revealed:
Teddy Roosevelt was a leader of the Republican Party and of the Progressive Movement, a Governor of New York, a professional historian, naturalist, explorer, hunter, author, and soldier....
As Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt prepared for and advocated war with Spain in 1898. He organized and helped command the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry Regiment — the Rough Riders — during the Spanish-American War. An avid writer, his 35 books include works on outdoor life, natural history, the American frontier, political history, naval history, and his autobiography.

Woodrow Wilson was a leading intellectual of the Progressive Era. He served as President of Princeton University, and then became the Governor of New Jersey in 1910. With Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft dividing the Republican Party vote, Wilson was elected President as a Democrat in 1912.

Of course, Alaska was not a state until 1959. But populations of NY State, NJ, and Alaska as of 2006 are as follows:
New York State: 19,306,000
New Jersey: 8,725,000
Alaska: 670,000

Posted by: Anonymous | September 1, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Mr Colbert,

I must tip my cap to you for being bigger than the Republican treachery that has characterized this general election. As it is, put me down as an ANGRY WHITE MAN.

McCain has run an appalling campaign. By accusing Obama of being a "traitor" for championing the popular idea that we should withdraw from Iraq - but not blasting Bush for recently agreeing to those withdrawals - McCain shows himself to be shameless. And with his "One" ads that portrayed Obama as the anti-Christ, McCain is clearly trying to create a groundswell of religious hatred against Obama.

If anything were to happen to Obama, I will blame McCain for his reckless, selfish campaign. That you are not writing, in ALL CAPS, in letters six miles high, about the McCain treachery goes to show that you, like Sen. Obama, have a great deal of poise and control.

You are a good man, Charlie Brown.

Posted by: Deep Blue | September 1, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

It is also worth noting that Teddy Roosevelt, just like Dwight Eisenhower, would probably have been a democrat today.

Roosevelt wanted universal health care. And he fought against the corrupt elite.

Ike also fought against the corrupt elite, and opposed the military industrial complex.

Both care a LOT more about their fellow man than today's Republicans, who are the party of lobbyists and deregulation and corporate greed subsidized by taxpayer bailouts. They'll socialize the losses of big business, but Heaven forbid we socialize the sort of education and health care that will allow today's young people to compete with the Chinese...

Posted by: Deep Blue | September 1, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Deep Blue, (that was my post about TR & WW.) I like to fact check, and learn a lot that way. Your posts above are very much appreciated, and I agree that McCain has run an appalling campaign, also the part about socializing business losses but not health care. As I am sure you know Susan Eisenhower
(Ike's grand-daughter I think)supports Barack Obama.

Posted by: Jackie Blue | September 1, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Wow, tad, Palin is a threat to all and an embarrassment to every American? What a lot of power you ascribe to her. Very interesting.

Posted by: ezr1 | September 1, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

It so happens that the state of Alaska has some 670,000 citizens and ranks number 6 in per capita income in the United States. The state of Delaware has some 845,000 citizens and ranks number 9 in per capita income.

There is no doubt in my mind that if some black man who was the sitting governor of Delaware since 2006 had been nominated for the Vice President post you would; 1) be singing this man’s praises, and 2) you would be openly hostile to anyone that dismissed him in the way that you feel free to dismiss Governor Palin.

Posted by: Provincial | September 1, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

To all who are continuously touting Palin's "record of reform", I have a request. Please name some specific things she actually reformed, and explain how a scant 18 months is sufficient to be called a "record"? I have yet to read or hear anyone who can name anything concrete.

To all who call her more qualified because she has executive experience, please also note that by this logic she has more experience than McCain, Ted Kennedy, Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms all put together.

To all who thoughtlessly hurl the "misogynist" label at anyone with an honest concern over her qualifications: Please don't use any more valuable screen space until you have something meaningful to add to the discussion?

Finally, in Palin's defense, I do also believe her daughter's pregnancy has absolutely nothing to do with this election. Humbling to Palin though it may be, this is her family's business and no one else's.

Posted by: BlueDevil | September 2, 2008 3:19 AM | Report abuse

As a retired Naval officer, I honor McCain's service to the country, and the horror he went through as a prisoner of war. However, I wonder, had he not been the grandson of an Admiral, and the son of a Navy Captain (or perhaps still a Commander) at the time of his appointment to the Naval Academy, would he have, in fact, been admitted to the Academy?

Nearly every year, there are approximately 1000 applicants to every seat at each of the military academies. These 1000 applicants represent outstanding young men (and now, women) who have excelled in academics, outside activities, community involvement and passed a rigorous physical exmaination to even be considered. Line that up against a young man who barely scraped by his private high school, with a reputation of being a rabble rouser who got into fights, did not follow the rules, etc. Had John S McCain III been Joe Smith, I doubt if he would have been accepted to Annapolis. He was given a huge head start with a free education and placement at the head of his year group in the Navy, with all the benefits that entails (including promotion nearly a year ahead of those who graduated from other colleges in the same year, summer cruises that give experiences unobtainable to normal college students, first shot at flight school, etc.)

John McCain was a "legacy" student at the USNA, and without that, perhaps none of the rest would have followed.

McCain's own son is continuing the family "legacy" at the academy. There are many others who would have dearly desired that opportunity. Perhaps he would have made it on his own. Perhaps not.

Posted by: CalSailor | September 3, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company