So I’ve been gradually digesting this whole Sarah Palin story as I’ve navigated the other goings on of my day. Questions are rising to the top, and I have nagging doubts. So what is at work behind this (incredibly calculated) pick? My cynical thoughts:
1.) McCain knows that people are making an issue about his age. He knows that people think he might just pop off during a presidential term. I would go so far as to say he decided to bet the race on that suspicion by bringing in a young, attractive, pro-life, dark horse VP. This is his gambit to reel in the hardline social conservatives. They feel like Palin adds a halo effect to the campaign, and maybe - just maybe - she’ll slip into his spot if he winds up pining for the fjords (a phrase, coincidentally, used first by Michael Palin in the Monty Python “Dead Parrot” Sketch.)
2.) Vice Presidents do very little. I mentioned it in the comment box, but it bears repeating. John Adams famously lamented, after spending some time as VP to George Washington, “My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived; and as I can do neither good nor evil, I must be borne away by others and meet common fate.”
This holds true today. Yet another reason why Palin is, in my opinion, an empty gesture to appease social conservatives.
3.) She’s a woman. She lacks the repulsive characteristics of that Pirrhana in a Pantsuit who was trying to attract the female vote before the Obamessiah crushed her with his heel. This will resonate with some women voters, even if not many of them would have been Hilary voters. Some disinterested female conservatives, however, may be energized by this. It also gives McCain a big fat gold star for his broad-mindedness. Another check in the PR column.
4.) Obama can’t attack her lack of experience, cause he doesn’t have any either. This leaves her youth and freshy-freshness on the political scene - an obvious vulnerability - far more protected than it would otherwise be. It’s that same youthfulness and sense of fresh blood and “change in the GOP” that makes her appealing to the constituents grandpappy McCain can’t appeal to. Does it matter to anyone that it means virtually nothing when it comes in the form of a VP pick? Nope.
5.) She’s foxy. Let’s face it - runner-up Miss Alaska in 1984, still very pretty today, and she hunts. Have you seen the picture of her holding the assault rifle? Gold. This will energize young guys and empowered women. Again, PR bonus points.
6.) She’s arguably pro-life. I haven’t read up on her record yet, but I’m hearing good things. She has five kids, including one with Down’s Syndrome. Beautiful. Wonderful. Great. Since McCain pretty much sucks on this issue, he needed this for the pro-life vote. And he may get it now even though Pilan won’t be shaping policy.
OK, so, having put a few of these observations down, I have questions:
For someone who is so pro-life, why is she a governor-going-on-VP? She’s got young kids. Politics is a profession for workaholics, especially once a candidate is on the campaign trail. If she really is still breastfeeding, she won’t be for long! Why is this a good idea and how does it reflect positively on her family values?
If she’s the person McCain has brought on to give him conservative creds, why is she so new to us? What kind of influence can she really have in a McCain administration? It’s not like she’s Dick Cheney, who is older and more experienced than Bush (and might just eat some cute puppies or children if his suggestions are not implemented). She’s young, she has no experience, and she is not going to have a strong voice. Is it just me, or is she McCain’s trophy wife VP?
John McCain is still John McCain - the same John McCain many of us swore off voting for months ago. The same John McCain whose policies on war, the economy, life issues, the judiciary and more are not what I want in a president. If you were NOT going to vote for McCain before, why now?
If Pilan really is a social conservative, why did she sell out to be on this ticket? She’s talking up McCain like he’s the best thing since Ronald Reagan, and not even the most hopeful conservative buys that crap. McCain is nobody’s first choice. Sure, it’s politics, but if she’s willing to throw a verbal make-out party for Crazy Uncle John, does that not give you pause?
Finally, do we really believe that she is being groomed for 2012? Is she our best bet against another Obama or Hilary run? I’ve been at my job longer than she’s been in politics. I mean, really?
That’s all I’ve got. Tear it apart guys. Show me the error of my ways.
Some thoughts.
1) If she’s so pro-family, why is she running for VP with an infant? Honestly, this comes down to personality type. Why does any good parent run for political office? some people just have that much energy, and they can make it work. Most don’t ever try, for good reason. A more fundamental question is, if she’s such a good person, why is she a politician? That’s a valid and scary question to ask, but its never going to help you find the right candidate to vote for.
2) The GOP is never going to take action on abortion, because then they would lose their base! We’re being pandered to! But I want to be pandered to. Its that or become irrelevant. You could apply this to any issue. What we need to do, in addition to voting our conscience, is convince other voters to come over to our side. Because if we do that enough, all those insincere panderers will want to jump on the bandwagon and be involved with actually doing what the people want them to do, whether it is outlawing abortion, or action on any other issue. The GOP’s lack of 100% purity on an issue shouldn’t stop us from voting for individual republicans who are really pro-life.
3) If women couldn’t vote, we wouldn’t have abortion or gay marriage! Give me a break. Black people vote more uniformly democrat than women. Is that evidence that they shouldn’t be allowed to vote either?
4) Women shouldn’t be in authority over men! Baloney. If more men than women are inherently more suited for leadership roles in general, then they will naturally rise to them, and the smaller number of women who are suited for leadership with join them there. Huh, that’s kind of the situation we have today, isn’t it?
I will vote for McCain/Palin. I will hate voting for McCain, but Palin makes it worth it. We need people like her in national politics. Meanwhile we’ll have a competent wartime leader who is kind of a dunce on constituional issues, and we’ll get to avoid all those Supreme Court Justices that Obama would have nominated.
I do, thankfully, know many wonderful Catholic men, but my father and his generation were a different breed. Their willingness to sacrifice not just for their families, but for all they encountered was incredible and true manhood. True Catholic gentlemen have become a rare breed and I think this extinction has made it harder for all women.
Are there TONS of great Catholic women out there? Where are they hiding?
When St Paul told women to be submissive to their husbands, he also suggested that men love their wives as Christ loved the Church. If all Catholic men behaved as they should and not like Peter Pans or neanderthal cave men, I believe you’d have more women willing to forgo the vote, among other things.
Mary - you’ll get no argument from me on this.
Steve, I knew I wouldn’t!
Kevin, I don’t think there are TONS of great Catholics out there of either sex, but I’m 40 years old and a lot of the men (Catholic and non-Catholic, single or married) around my age are really immature and lazy . I don’t think women are perfect, but this discussion had gotten into the realm of women voting and the differences between the sexes. I was commenting in response to that. My brother once said that a lot of Catholics think because they are not contracepting or fornicating that they therefore do not need to develop any of their other virtues. I have to agree with him. And, frankly, of the Catholics I know who are around my age and define themselves as conservative or traditional, I am impressed by more of the women. That is not to say that I don’t also look at many women and just cringe. There’s a real problem, obviously, I just happen to believe that until men step up to the plate, it won’t get solved. Most women I know would follow men and “be submissive” to them if they felt they could trust them to protect and care for them. Women who don’t trust men, manipulate and use them. Of course, there’s a whole host of other issues, but I’ve seen women who could have gone either way or who were way of course led in the right direction by their truly good, Catholic boyfriends and husbands.
Mary,
Your husband tells you who to vote for after you “discuss it”? He doesn’t tell me who to vote for. We really do discuss it, but because sometimes the vote comes down to personal preferences over personalities and such(as with this primary congressional vote today) I just trust his judgment and go with who he is voting for because of what you said later in your statement about YOUR parents: My parents, married 44 years with 9 children didn’t vote for years because their votes would have cancelled one another out!
It’s not because I can’t think for myself with the voting, but because my husband and I both want to build up society. I figure we may as well ban together with voting rather than cancel each other out with the voting. Plus a wise married women who has seven beautiful children told me before I married that you should learn to trust your husband in all things(that doesn’t mean you can’t discuss and debate about things) and by doing so you will have much peace in your house. I find her advice to be true today!
Plus a wise married women who has seven beautiful children told me before I married that you should learn to trust your husband in all things
(First thing that jumps into my head is would she be any less wise if her seven children were plain? Or what if they were downright funny-looking? lol)
But the main point here is so wrong, it needs to be called out: What if said husband isn’t talented (to put it nicely) regarding some things? What if you are the mathematical brains in the family and your husband couldn’t balance a budget if we gave him handles? Why on earth would you “trust him in all things”, if that includes home finances?
Another woman I know is like a Swiss watch with time management. Her husband gets lost in whatever he is doing at the moment and “forgets” about appointments, driving kids to practices, etc. Should she “trust” him with time organization?
I also know a couple where the wife has the political smarts; the husband…not so much. Why should she trust him when he’s not the one who can hold an informed opinion on politics?
It’s completely unrealistic to trust a husband in “all” things, especially when you might be the more trust-worthy one in some circumstances. As a matter of fact, it’s really demeaning to think that you never think you are that person, in anything, compared to your husband.
The problem with understanding “…as Christ loved the church” is that these men aren’t Christ; i.e. they aren’t perfect. But if they have real Christ-like love for their wives - as perfect as they can manage - they’d ‘fess up their flaws, say “you’re better at this than I am” and work from there. But that’s not what I’m hearing you say.
Allow me to suggest that some here are holding onto a laudable principle while perhaps not prudently applying it in practical matters. Emma’s comments recognize the real world strengths and weaknesses of spouses.
Could I run the finances of our household? Of course. I ran my own finances for years before I was married. But my wife is a mathematical/accounting whiz-kid. She’s simply better suited to such matters, so I leave the running of our finances to her. This includes our investments. Surely, we talk about our financial decisions, but she need not rececive my permission for every single transaction.
I’m involved professionally in the political realm, so I take the lead there. Even so, she is interested in political matters and reads up on them so that we can have meaningful discussions. That being said, I could never see me commanding her to vote a certain way. (I admit this might not be the best example, as I could not anticipate us differing on political matters.)
The male vs. female differences Steve notes are in our marriage are there, to be sure, and overall we do fit ourselves into the traditional role of man and wife. Though still we are very much partners. She is truly my best friend, and was so before we were married. Do we fight? You bet we do - and with gusto! But because I respect her and recognize where she is stronger/better/more accomplished in certain fields, I will defer to her on many practical matters. In the end, though, when it comes right down to it, our wedding bands are engraved with “EPH 5 19-33.”
I think Sarah Palin should sit behind John McCain tonight and breatfeed Trig. That would be the sign of a real woman
I think Sarah Palin should sit behind John McCain tonight and breatfeed Trig. That would be the sign of a real woman
That would be incredible.