I’m really getting sick of the mainstream media – much more than normal.
First off, the veep vetting story is a total non-story. Talk about getting bogged down in a process story. And it’s a non-story at that: they knew about the DUI and the pregnancy. Vetting is very important, no doubt, but it’s not a story.
Second, much more annoying, the Bristol Palin story continues to draw attention. And I really hate the way the mainstream media is getting it both ways. On the one hand, they get to act righteously indignant and talk down on the blogs. They get to say how wrong it was for the blogs to make this a story, and how bad the blogs are, and how they don’t report “real” news, etc. So they get the shots in at the new media.
But then they say, Since the blogs brought this stuff up, we need to ask, What is its political impact?
No you don’t! There is no need to spend four days asking that question. The political impact is zero if the media decided that it’s not worthy of coverage, that it’s a private family matter, that it’s scurrilous and trashy to bring it up and play it up (which are precisely the adjectives they use to describe the blogs doing so). But they couldn’t resist the temptation to ask, “So, does this make conservative Christians hypocrites? Will social conservatives punish her for this hypocrisy?” They couldn’t pass up the opportunity to take a cheap shot at Evangelicals, the subjects of one of the last remaining acceptable prejudices. And I think the American people are going to punish them for it, because this is real life, and people know that and respect that. The media could end up the big losers in a battle of their own making.
Last 5 posts by Daniel- Tom Barrett's Savings Plan - June 8th, 2010
- C.J. Abrahamson on J. Stevens - April 11th, 2010
- Why always Bill Bablitch? - March 24th, 2010
- Suhr on Nixon on Health Care - February 23rd, 2010
- Did the USCCB Foresee Dead People? - February 8th, 2010
Two comments.
1. The vetting story goes way beyond just the baby and the DUI. We’re talking troopergate, ties to the API, running Ted Stevens’ 527, being for earmarks before she was against them, being for the bridge before she was against it, etc… I think the vetting (or lack thereof, in this case) is a big deal and very telling of McCain’s decision making process.
2. I agree that the baby story should be off limits. But, at the same time, McCain and Palin also want to have it both ways. They want to keep their children and their lives private, but they also want to use them to show her high moral standing and trot them out on stage in St. Paul.
Evan, regarding #1, that’s exactly the problem. I agree with Daniel that the “Juneau Juno” storyline should not be major news. The difference is, Daniel thinks that it shouldn’t be covered because the media shouldn’t criticize Gov. Palin, whereas I think that it shouldn’t be covered because there are much more relevant (and damaging) dirt on the Governor that they should be covering instead, the things you listed being among them but by no means all of them.
As for the “she wasn’t fully vetted” story is anything but a non-story. This is John McCain’s first big executive decision, he had plenty of time to decide on the best course of action, and he ended up making a snap judgment without bothering to fully investigate the possible consequences? That says quite a bit about McCain, especially given his history of temper tantrums and rash decisions. The voters deserve to know whether or not the person running for president can be trusted to make informed decisions if the future and defense of this country end up in his hands.
I trust you’ve seen this, Kat:
http://www.washingtonindepende.....n-earmarks
It’s a Wasilla City Council Informational Memorandum from 1999 that outlines some of the state-funded projects for Wasilla. In the margin Palin wrote, “FYI This does not include our nearly one million Dollars from the Feds for our Airport Paving Project. We did well!!!”
It’s the sort of thing the McCain camp would have found had they properly vetted her.
Evan: No, I hadn’t seen that yet. This just keeps getting better. That seems to drive a stake through the heart of this “financial reformer” myth. Well, that and the fact that she left a town of fewer than 8,000 people, which had been debt-free before her, $22 million in the hole. I mean, come on–$22 million in debt? Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars she squandered as governor in the Mat Maid debacle in order to make sure her cronies got nice, fat paychecks, or the state surplus she completely frittered away. (And this is the ticket of fiscal responsibility? Spare me.)
Her history of firing people for standing up to her whims (it predates and extends beyond Troopergate), her ties to the AIP (Sarah Palin–first in the line of secession!), the “bridge to nowhere” debacle, her love of earmarks and lobbyists throughout her political career, her close connections to Ted Stevens and his PAC, her Abrahamoff connection, her slashing of funds for projects supporting teen mothers and parents of disabled children (if you want people to choose life, Sarah, shouldn’t you stop making it financially impossible for them to do so?), her pastor problem, her general financial irresponsibility…once Junogate blows over and the media starts looking at the real issues here, it’s going to be fun to watch the implosion of John “the media are my base” McCain and his campaign.
It’s like Chanukah came early this year…I just keep getting presents!
Hey guys:
My problem with the vetting story is that it operates on the assumption that the McCain campaign did not know about any of these issues you’ve delineated. There was a 40-page single spaced briefing book, and the team followed the same process on Palin as they did on Romney or Pawlenty.
The difference is that her nomination caught the media off-guard, so it’s the first time they’re seeing this stuff about AIP and earmarks, etc. (unlike Romney’s grounds crew, for instance, which came out in the primary). Thus, because the media had not vetted her ahead of time, they assumed McCain had not vetted her. And that is wrong – she went through the same process. It’s just that the media is now discovering these things and reporting them as they find them.
I’m fine talking about Palin’s “pastor problem” – it is nothing compared to Rev. Wright. Or her “flip-flop” on the Bridge – nothing compared to Obama’s flip-flops on things like campaign finance reform. She may be tied to AIP – he’s tied to Bill Ayers, a terrorist. She’s hired a lawyer for the state trooper investigation – Tony Rezko is sitting in a federal penitentiary right now.
And who wasn’t amused to see an Obama Campaign Spokesman try to link her to Hitler with the Buchanan – Nazi Sympathizer comment? I find this particularly hilarious when Pat now works for MSNBC – the official network of the Cult of Obama.
And as to your 2nd point on comment 1, Evan, I think if anyone has trotted out his family, it has been Obama. The two McCain sons have been almost entirely absent from the campaign trail, and Cindy McCain has held very few, if any, stand-alone events. Michelle Obama, on the other hand, is traveling the country on her own making policy pronouncements and head-lining rallies. She and her daughters are on the cover of more magazines than can be counted. I think it’s pretty clear that the campaign is using the Obama family to humanize him and establish his ‘normal guy’ credentials.
Hey Daniel,
For me, actually, it’s a damned if he did and damned if he didn’t story. Your mention of this 40-page briefing book is the first I’ve ever heard of it. If you could point me toward a source I’d appreciate it. What I’ve heard from the McCain campaign is that they had met once a few months ago and that she sat down for her first in depth interview the Wednesday before she was announced. That every politician in Alaska, state and local, every business leader and journalist that was asked said no one from the McCain campaign had talked to them. Wasilla’s City Archives were not accessed by anyone. The archives of the Wasilla Frontiersman were not accessed, nor were those of the City itself. I don’t know what’s in this 40-page book you mention, but they certainly left a lot of stones unturned.
BUT, let’s say for a minute that she was fully vetted. I honestly think that’s just as bad, frankly. So, McCain knew about the $27 million in earmarks, the ties to Ted Stevens, the AIP affiliation, her lies about troopergate, etc…. and still thought she was the best choice for VP? Seriously? I really don’t see how that’s any better than not vetting her at all.
As for the family issue, I think spouses and children are different. I see nothing wrong with spouses holding rallies for the candidates. So, in that regard, if Michelle is holding political rallies, then her comments are open to analysis and criticism. But to the children, yes, Obama has featured his at times. No argument there. He’s certainly been guilty of it at times. He brought them into an interview some time ago and said he regretted doing so and said he wouldn’t do that again. But I have not seem him do anything to the level I saw last night. Biden has never talked about his son’s Iraq service and to his credit neither has McCain, but to see Palin have her son stand up at the convention and for her exploit his service for her own political gain was pretty sad. And she did the same thing with Trig’s Down Syndrome. And yes, Obama had his children up on stage after Biden’s speech, but he never, to my knowledge, picked them out of the audience and used their specific situations as a rallying cry, as a reason to vote for her. I think there is a difference, perhaps a fine line, between having one’s family present at campaign events and putting one’s family in the political spotlight.
Hey Evan:
Here’s a post from Huffington Post (no fans of the McCain campaign) describing the vetting process:
Sarah Palin’s path to the Republican ticket started with her name on a list _ and a team of some 25 people poring through public records searching for trouble spots without her knowledge. Then came the 70-question survey and a nearly three-hour interview.
Culvahouse said Palin’s review, like others, began with a team of two dozen people culling information from public sources. The team reviewed speeches, financial records, tax information, litigation, investigations, ethical charges, marriages and divorces, for a number of potential running mates.
For Palin specifically, the team studied online archives of the state’s largest newspapers, including the Anchorage Daily News, but didn’t request paper archives for Palin’s hometown newspaper for fear the secret review would become public.
Among the findings: Palin had once received a citation for fishing without a license.
Reports on each candidate _ 40-some pages and single spaced _ then were reviewed by McCain, Schmidt, campaign manager Rick Davis, and top advisers Mark Salter and Charlie Black.
Palin then was sent a personal data questionnaire with 70 “very intrusive” questions, Culvahouse said. She also was asked to submit a number of years of federal and state tax returns. The campaign also checked her credit.
Culvahouse then conducted a nearly three-hour interview. He said the first thing Palin volunteered was that her daughter was pregnant, and she also quickly disclosed her husband’s two-decade-old DUI arrest.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....23063.html
Finally, I don’t know that I would characterize Palin’s remarks as exploiting Track’s service or her family… She’s new to the American people, her family is very important to who she is, and she was introducing them. It seemed eminently appropriate and she dealt with a tough issue (Bristol’s pregnancy) in a graceful if subtle manner.
Good info. Thanks, Daniel. I hadn’t seen that before. But I still go back to my other point that in light of all the issues in her past that I outlined in brief above (which Brandon calls “lies” but I haven’t seen refuted yet), I think for McCain to decide that she was the best qualified option is ridiculous. And obviously we’re going to disagree on that. So, good chat. And thanks for the link.
Hey Evan:
I’m not going to argue that she was the “best qualified option.”
I’m content to argue that she was the right person for the times.
Hey, the text you posted doesn’t match up with the link outside the first paragraph.
Where’s that other info from?
:sigh:
Nevermind. I need a break. hahaha.
Frankly, Daniel, I didn’t find the Buchanan bit amusing in the least. Pat Buchanan is a complete anti-Semite, and the fact that Palin supported him makes me sick to my stomach. Not to mention, if a person is sitting in church and the guest speaker begins lecturing about how terrorism against Israelis is divine judgment for the Jews’ refusal to worship Jesus, I would expect any principled person to at least walk out. But Sarah Palin didn’t.
To me as a Jew, that speaks volumes. And the fact that anyone believes she represents the direction this country should be headed terrifies me beyond words.