The Palin Predicament: Recklessness in an age of volatility

NB: I SINCERELY APOLOGISE FOR THE LENGTH OF THIS POST. WITH THE AMERICAN ELECTION LOOMING, HERE'S AN EXTENDED ANALYSIS OF THE REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, SARAH PALIN.



Governor Sarah Palin’s installation as vice presidential candidate exhibits an increasingly desperate and reckless Republican party. By selecting a candidate for short term political purposes, the party refused to put the ‘Country First’, writes Bonita Silva.

I INTRODUCTION

America’s vice presidency has been gambled on a candidate whose insulated political career indicates no familiarity with foreign policy issues. Chosen for her aesthetic appeal and subsequent immediate benefits, Senator John McCain’s judgment erred in failing to recognise her lack of longevity.

Shielded by her campaign from the media, due to an inability to answer questions with poise, knowledge, clarity, or cohesion, Palin’s inexperience is only topped by a blatant ignorance for the primary issues. For a position that necessitates absolute readiness – to be so ready to serve as president should the need arise – the campaign trail has instead become The Re-education of Sarah Palin.

Political felonies are committed on an hourly basis. Every address lacks specifics and is an amalgamation of convoluted, grammatically incorrect sentences composed of numerous slogans and campaign stump-speech catch phrases.

Closer analysis indicates a politician that is unmistakably unprepared: unprepared to aid the president, unprepared to provide a sound and knowledgeable opinion, unprepared to lead the nation, and unprepared to take the reigns on domestic and foreign policy in a global period of economic and moral crisis.

Unfortunately, a love of the word ‘Maverick’, ‘Hockey mum’, or ‘Joe six-pack’ should not, and will not ever constitute the credentials necessary to lead the United States of America.

II CHOICE & IMPACT

Considerable portions of McCain’s criticism at Obama were focussed on his apparent lack of experience, young age, and inability to be commander in chief. Where the announcement of vice presidential pick is supposed to be the first test of judgment as potential president, McCain chose a woman who was younger, more inexperienced, and in her first term as Governor of Alaska. It may be for the post of second in command, though if McCain is to win, he will be the oldest person inaugurated for his first term in office – 72 years of age. He also has a history of illness and places Palin at a significant risk of having to assume the role of president.

Yes, risk: having Palin as president is anything but safe.

As Roger Cohen of the New York Times said, “I’m grateful to Bob Rice of Tangent Capital for pointing out that the actuarial risk, based on mortality tables, of Palin becoming president if the Republican ticket wins the election is about 1 in 6 or 7. That’s the same odds as your birthday falling on a Wednesday, or being delayed on two consecutive flights into Newark airport. Is America ready for that?”

The vetting process in her selection was not as thorough as is necessary. No regard was had for any consequences, nor was anyone around either circle prior to her selection, aware that she was a contender. McCain was reeling in desperation after the success of the Democratic National Convention. Palin’s selection is evidence that McCain was running out of options and made a hurried whimsical choice. He had only met her once prior to her choosing. He had only one phone conversation with her before offering the job. Surely choosing a running mate requires more substantial ties before asking them to join your ticket.

McCain didn’t choose her for her experience. He didn’t choose her for her knowledge. He didn’t choose her for her opinions. He didn’t choose her because she would be the best option to fulfill his place should she need to.

If that were his criteria, he would have put ‘country first’ and chosen virtually any other available Republican candidate.

The Arizona Senator chose his Alaska counterpart for short term political benefits: to woo women voters and so-called ‘disaffected Hillary supporters’. Her youth complimented his age, her looks and gender gave his campaign the façade of change, an illusion of progression. She was purely installed as a vote-attracting mechanism, despite her political sustainability being close to zero.

This is a ‘Change’ election, and the Republicans have attempted to steal that mantle from the Democrats. Symbolic and image driven change with no substance and disguised under the repetition of the phrase ‘but we’re mavericks’, subverts the principles they’re now representing – to change the old Washington style of politics.

Although this is a question of McCain’s judgment (… an opinion that can be reserved for another piece), the duo pose no real change, and recycle campaign slogan drivel in an increasingly negative campaign trail that surely attests to their old style Washington politics.

III SEXISM

Double standards in measuring a candidate’s capability must be abolished.

Senator Barack Obama enjoys no less scrutiny to Senator John McCain as an African-American. Senator Hillary Clinton enjoyed no less scrutiny to her Democratic rivals as a woman; in fact she attracted increased scrutiny. If race and gender have played no benefit in such examples – as they should not – the threshold for ‘expectation’ must not be lowered for Governor Sarah Palin.

It should not be sexist to question Palin’s capabilities. It should not be sexist to question Palin’s responses. It should not be sexist to question Palin’s qualifications. If she is to be the next vice president of America, she should be subject to the same threshold of competence Senator Joe Biden, Obama, or McCain must surpass. Were she to fall below the threshold, she must be deemed incompetent to be vice president. It is that simple.

In contrast, other double standards that unfairly plague Palin should also be abolished. Questioning her ability to simultaneously raise a family and extend her political career is unfair and undoubtedly gender-biased. That question has never arisen for Biden, Obama, or McCain, nor will it ever.

Living in the 21st century requires a 21st century mindset. Men and women are both capable of attending to house and child rearing duties. She is not subjecting her children to subpar conditions – she has a home, husband, and older children; all capable of helping her raise her son. Female CEO’s do it, and highly successful females in an array of occupations do it. The conversation should not be happening still. Period.

The vice presidency should be no different in the gender stakes.

That aside, the McCain camp has been intentionally looking for ways to accuse the Obama camp of sexism.

The farcical ‘lipstick on a pig’ situation highlighted the hypocrisy and dishonourable intentions of the Republicans. Palin’s well worn line: “You know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick,” was apparently the focus behind a comment by Obama on September ninth.

“That’s not change. That’s just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it’s still going to stink after eight years. We’ve had enough of the same old thing.”

Such accusations may have been plausible had McCain not used the line himself.

In Iowa in October 2007, McCain criticised Hillary Clinton’s health care plan: “I think they put some lipstick on the pig, but it’s still a pig.”

While campaigning in Denver in May this year, he again utilised the phrase to dismiss Clinton’s health care plan: “I don’t like to use this term, but the latest proposal I see is putting lipstick on a pig.”

A variety of figures have used the phrase including Vice President Dick Cheney, House Minority Leader John Boehner, John Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards, and Torie Clarke, a former McCain adviser who published a book titled Lipstick on a Pig: Winning In the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the Game.

Pulling the hypocritical gender card? Blatantly so.

IV MEDIA

Conservative commentaries that continue to stubbornly defend their ‘star’ candidate hold complete blame and contempt for the ‘liberal media elite’. Apparently, pandering to her incompetence or lack of knowledge displays a liberal streak with an anti-Republican bias, which has nothing to do with the aforementioned incompetence.

Clearly, conservative commentaries fail to recognise that the liberal media do not criticise Palin for her conservative status. The liberal media criticise Palin for her sheer incompetence in answering any questions thrown her way which shows an unsound knowledge for foreign and domestic affairs. Such commentaries and figures assert that the liberal media unfairly portray Palin. What they fail to recognise, is that the ‘liberal media elite’ are basing opinions purely on the words and actions Palin has communicated over her six weeks on the job.

If these figures were able to sit down, extract any biases, and view her words in a purely objective light, it would be clear that Palin is not ready to be vice president. Being offered the job is an insult to those many politicians (Republican and Democratic) that are ready.

Only three interviews have been granted to media since her unveiling, with ABC’s Charles Gibson, Fox News’ Sean Hannity and CBS’s Katie Couric. The McCain campaign is shielding her from the press because they recognise her inability to converse coherently and gaffe-free.

Being shielded from the public is a recognition that speaks volumes. It acknowledges that Palin is learning, and has a higher than usual potential to bring the campaign into disrepute. When a candidate risks their presidential bid with the addition of a verbal time bomb, they do so of their own accord. Calling for preferential treatment by disallowing the general press their deserved access and analysis process is deplorable.

The ‘Free Sarah Palin’ brigade that continues to champion their cause of calling for the removal of her muzzle are simply looking for excuses, trying to reassure themselves that if she were allowed to communicate more and increased her interview intake, there would be more to Palin than meets the eye.

There isn’t.

Six weeks in the spotlight is not enough time to repackage and resell characteristics that don’t exist. Media, politicians and the public are all capable of recognising such substantial shortcomings. A vice presidential candidate should be chosen for what they can offer, not for being a blank canvas that can be altered and sold to constituents.

McCain and the conservative base vow that Palin was chosen as a communicator, possessing an innate ability to connect with the people. If anything has become apparent, it is that Palin is anything but, with her confused syntax and incoherent ramblings.

For backup purposes the Republican base refers to her ‘explosive’ speech at the Republican National Convention – a speech penned by Michael Scully. It was written prior to knowing who the nominee would be, and subsequently tailored to suit Palin’s background.

Her competence cannot solely rest on a speech she did not write.

Clearly, politicians deliver key addresses based on the words of a speechwriter, yet this cannot be the sole basis for defence. A threshold for competence cannot be lowered to politicians whose only ability is to convincingly deliver someone else’s words.

It becomes exceedingly clear throughout the duration of all three media interviews that Palin is grasping at several scattered straws. On all occasions, the journalist has appeared more qualified for the position, in their superior knowledge and understanding.

Even prominent pro-Republican columnists are recognising inadequacies. Kathleen Parker wrote in the National Review, that Palin’s recent interviews “have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.”

Palin is searching for answers, avoiding specifics and the actual questions through a recitation of clichés and sweeping statements. She is unversed in political discourse, and continues to regurgitate campaign slogans. Palin is akin to a school student who memorises an essay and tries to adapt it to the question because they do not understand the content.

When asked by Gibson, “What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?” she responded, “They’re our next door neighbours and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.”

She may have been forgiven, had she not repeated the claim in an absent minded confidence that this daft assertion gave her foreign policy credentials.

Couric gave her an opportunity to justify her remarks, by asking why Alaska’s geographical proximity to Russia enhanced her experience and view. Palin responded, “That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land — boundary that we have with — Canada.”

Looking uncomfortable, she added: “It’s funny that a comment like that was, kind of made to – cari – I don’t know, you know? Reporters…”

Couric answered for her: “Mocked?”

Palin writhes in her seat as she says, “Yeah, mocked. I guess that’s the word, yeah.”

When given another chance to explain why proximity matters, Palin says, “Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbours are foreign countries, they’re in the state that I am the executive of.”

She added that when Russian Prime Minister Putin “rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right next to, they are right next to our state.”

As Bob Herbert of the NY Times notes, “the infantile repetition of this bit of trivia as some kind of foreign policy bona fide for a vice presidential candidate should give us pause.”

The governor had not travelled outside of the US until late last year. She had never met a foreign leader until a trip to New York after joining the ticket. An insulated political term does not lend itself to the vice presidency in a globally volatile period, where diplomacy and understanding is essential.

To compare her to the likes of vice presidential candidates who have had to assume role of president, such as Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Gerald Ford is a travesty.

Another statement that was blaringly obvious of the discrepancies arose when confronted that McCain has always sided with less regulation, not more, in his 26 years in Congress.

Palin’s garbled response involved ‘maverick’, ‘taking shots from his own party’, and the ‘need to reform government.’

When prodded for specific examples in his 26 years where he pushed for more regulation, Palin was clearly cornered and said, “I’ll try to find ya some, and I’ll bring em to ya.”

As Fareed Zakaria said in a scathing attack in Newsweek, “Palin has been given a set of talking points by campaign advisers, simple ideological mantras that she repeats and repeats as long as she can. (“We mustn’t blink.”) But if forced off those rehearsed lines, what she has to say is often, quite frankly, gibberish.”

V ALASKA POLITICS

Palin boasts about her opposition to the infamous “bridge to nowhere”, constantly incorporating the issue as part of her stump speech.

Its use is questionable. As governor, she supported construction of the $223 million Gravina Island Bridge in 2007 before opposing it when the price nearly doubled and the plan was increasingly ridiculed.

When pressed by ABC’s Gibson, she said “Charlie, we killed the bridge to nowhere, and that’s the bottom line,” – a line of logic riddled with loopholes. It’s okay for her to initially back something, as long as the ‘bottom line’ suggests she changed her stance. She doesn’t grant the same flexibility to her opponents when changing positions. In those cases it becomes a matter of ‘bad judgment’.

McCain opposes congressional earmarks, a focal point of campaign policy. Palin’s record involving earmarks suggests a reckless spender requesting the exact type of excess earmarks McCain so rigorously opposes.

As CNN’s Jack Cafferty notes, “Although Palin is now railing against earmarks, she got hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for local projects as both governor and as mayor of Wasilla.”

Speaking at the RNC, Palin bent the facts in stating she “championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.” While mayor of Wasilla, the town received around $27 million in federal money; similar to the amount received by Boise, Idaho. Boise’s population stands at 200,000, as opposed to Wasilla’s 10,000.

The earmarked funds aided in projects such as improving roads connecting the town to a local ski resort.

As Alaska’s governor, Palin has requested nearly $450 million in earmarks.

Gibson reminded Palin in her interview, that in the state of Alaska, she requested $3.2 million this year to research the genetics of harbour seals and to study the mating habits of crabs.

Because it was sought “in the light of day, not behind closed doors, with lobbyists making deals with Congress to stick things in there under the public radar,” Palin suggests her earmark abuse is justified.

But for a candidate that vows her ticket will rid America of abuses of power, the levels of hypocrisy just heightened.

Long awaited findings of the Troopergate investigation found Palin abused her power as Alaska governor, to pressure officials to fire her former brother-in-law, as a state trooper.

Investigator Steve Branchflower found that Palin had violated state ethics laws that prohibit public officials from using their office for personal gain.

Serge Kovaleski of the NY Times details how the Palins repeatedly pressed the case against Trooper Wooten.

Reform of government cannot occur when its administrators engage in unethical behaviour.

VI VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

Although the test of competency should have been identical for Palin and Biden, expectations for the candidate naturally declined on par with her appalling media interviews.

In the lead up to the debate, there was a belief that the debate would be ‘make or break’ for Palin.

Drawing a mind blank, discussing Alaska’s proximity to Russia, or showing an utter lack of confidence would constitute the ‘break’ scenario. If she did an adequate job and buried the old image of Palin, she would have tied or equalled Biden.

Realistically, simply doing an ‘adequate’ job would not qualify you to be vice president. Yet in Palin’s case, the barometer had been lowered. The McCain campaign were doing whatever they could to cast blame before the debate had even begun.

A senior campaign strategist, Nancy Pfotenhauer, said that because Biden had an advantage on foreign policy issues, “The moderators will have some questions to answer themselves if they do go so heavy (on) foreign policy.”

Since when do candidates get to pick and choose what issues are discussed at a presidential or vice presidential debate? Unfortuantely, to be qualified, an unequivocal understanding of the key issues are necessary.

After such poor performances, the notion that Palin would suddenly be qualified if she managed to adequately cram information and convey it effectively during the debate, is ridiculous.

When it came to the face-off, Palin stated several wrong facts about the oppositions record, avoided questions by giving generic answers, or sidestepped the question by providing an answer to something no-one asked.

Gwen Ifill’s first question as moderator was regarding the bailout bill.

Biden spoke about excessive deregulation, and laid out Obama’s four step rescue plan. Palin’s very first response of the night suggested the best ‘barometer’ for establishing whether this is a good or bad period economically, is to go to a “kid’s soccer game on Saturday and turn to any parent there on the sideline and ask them, ‘How are you feeling about the economy?’” Such a response suggests an over-reliance on the folksy mannerisms and tone that Palin is trying to tap into. It shows a candidate that is unaware of the real specifics needed to lead in an economic crisis.

Any response about the financial crisis involved a repetition of placing blame on the “corruption and greed on Wall street.”

Any response at all was peppered with the phrases, “we’re going to fight for America” and “we’re going to fight for the middle class” with no specifics as to how exactly they’re going to fight for the middle class.

It is clear that Palin’s only job is to recite campaign slogans and talking points that the campaign has drilled into her consciousness. On occasions she may be a strong willed, charismatic communicator, but clearly one who is out of her league when it concerns the vice presidency of the US.

VII CONCLUSION

McCain chose Palin to help him win the presidential race – there was no consideration of what qualities she would bring to the table once elected. Her ‘inexperience’ may be excusable, but her ignorance isn’t.

As he accused Obama in the second presidential debate of having to learn on the job, he conveniently forgot that this is what Palin is guilty of.

So let’s stop pretending this was a good idea and finally accept that McCain made a risky and ultimately irresponsible decision.

Palin is unqualified to be vice president, and that decision reflects on the increasingly desperate tactics McCain is engaging in to get to the Whitehouse.

The next administration faces a hell of a lot of challenges. With the ongoing military operation in Iraq, dealings with Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as the domestic concerns of an increasingly haywire financial industry, need for health-care and education reform, America requires a steady hand.

Palin’s selection was made with anything but a steady hand. With an irresponsible presidential candidate and an unqualified vice presidential candidate, the Republican ticket is not fit to bring the necessary, or qualified change to Washington.

It should also be a precondition for vice presidency that a candidate must be able to pronounce the word ‘nuclear’ should the need arise.

Surely the American people deserve that much.


Image courtesy of NewsHour