Here's my new, blue Monday, presidential race worry:
We need to move beyond the trivia and Sarah Palin's lack of preparedness and even beyond all the comments about her popularity turning the ticket upside down. Lately, I have begun referring to "McPalin." But there is a more serious worry.
Mike Luckovich's cartoon in yesterday's Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Frank Rich's column in the New York Times got me thinking about this. The cartoon depicts a short, old, befuddled looking McCain, with a taller, alert and assertive looking Palin standing next to him. An adviser says: "To avoid gaffes, you should shield your running mate from the media." And Palin answers, "Got ya."
The real worry is not so much that Sarah Palin would be one heart beat away from the presidency; it's that she would become the de facto president, her ambition aided and abetted by the hard right ideologues and the ruthless forces now running the campaign. We may not have seen the last of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. I'm convinced they will find a way to control this debacle from behind the scenes.
Frank Rick spells it out: John McCain of 2008 is too weak to serve as American's chief executive, he is now "a guy who can be easily roiled by anyone who sells him a plan for 'victory,' whether in Iraq or in Michigan. A McCain victory on Election Day will usher in a Palin presidency, with McCain serving as a transitional front man, an even weaker Bush to her Cheney."
We've been talking about a third Bush term; we should be worrying about a third Cheney term -- or worse. Obama's focus should be on McCain, on his flip-flops, his confusion, his ignorance of economic issues, his retrograde ideology about fighting terrorism. I think maybe the Obama campaign is already on top of this. Yesterday on This Week, Claire McCaskill declared that McCain's age and health are very real issues that must be talked about. It needs to be carefully done, but it's McCain's fitness, even more than Palin's, that needs to be questioned.
In retrospect, maybe my "McPalin" is appropriate after all. It means "son of Palin."
Ralph
PS: here's an excellent article from Eve Ensler, author of The Vagina Monologues. A femininist speaking against Sarah Palin: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/drill-drill-drill_b_124829.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
An added thought:
The sudden rise of Palen and her headline grabbing biography keeps the focus off McCain. And that has got to be a major objective of their campaign strategists right now.
No wonder they plan to have them keep campaigning together. Even if it emphasizes his weaknesses, at least they will be talking about her, not him.
Democrats have to redirect the attention back to him. Talk about her but in the context of his choosing her and what that means.
McCain is clearly the weak link. Another thing that Obama needs to do is develop clear messages. He comes off as a ponderous professor, he sounds like he's dissembling.
A significant weakness is his record of voting "present." Did he do that because he could never make up his mind, so he never came down on one side or another? Or did he do that because he was not engaged? People worry that he won't be able to make a decision as president. Is he engaged now?
This record turned a number of people off during the primary, and he can't afford that with a tight race.
Obama's voting 'present' is a non-issue.
Here is the NYT's explanation ...
Unlike Congress and the legislatures of most other states, each chamber of the Illinois Legislature requires a “constitutional majority” to pass a bill. The state Senate has 59 members, so it takes 30 affirmative votes. This makes a “present” vote the same as a no. If a bill receives 29 votes, but the rest of the senators vote “present,” it fails.
In the Illinois Senate, there can be strategic reasons for voting “present” rather than simply no. A member might approve the intent of legislation, but not its scope or the way it has been drafted. A “present” vote can send a signal to a bill’s sponsors that the legislator might support an amended version. Voting “present” can also be a way to exercise fiscal restraint, without opposing the subject of the bill.
Abner Mikva, former Illinois state legislator explains
I voted “present” on the annual highway appropriations bill. Like many of my fellow senators, I thought some of the money being allocated should have gone to public transportation. Still, I didn’t want to vote no, because I did not want to stand against the basic principle of maintaining our public roads. So I voted “present.”
Obama had a solid reputation as being an outspoken member of the Illinois state Senate. He didn't dodge questions. Questioning the use of 'present' as a vote is another sleazy attempt to distort the truth.
richard
Post a Comment