23 comments

• 

  Kevin B. O'Reilly

  9 months ago

  Hmm. It's not that Palin holds Republican views; it's that McCain is trying to package her as this renegade reformer when she manifestly is not. (In the same way that Obama clearly is not, by the way.) He is trying to capitalize on her newness to de-Republicanize the ticket in a year when the brand is badly tarnished. That's the rhetorical debate going on here, and why liberals are making so much noise on the point.
  
  Also, the "don't know" factor you cite is a big one. It's clear that McCain knows precious little more about Palin than you or I do. I agree with you on the "qualifications" point, but usually one element of being "qualified" is that folks have some sense of who you are, what you stand for, and what you believe. All of that is still essentially known about Palin at this point.
  reply
• 

  Kevin B. O'Reilly

  9 months ago

  BTW, you misspelled Giuliani.
  reply
• 

  Andrew Fly

  9 months ago

  One aspect of qualifications is knowledge and interest in the issues that are pertinent to your job. Palin hasn't really show that. Although she has shown interest in getting up to speed on some issues, I don't think the vice-presidency of the united states is a job you can cram for.
  reply
• 

  Mansterdad

  9 months ago

  First of all, Will should be on the talking head shows because he is honest and his comments actually add something to the debate, thus differentiating him from the other 99% of talking heads on TV.
  
  Second, this post is spot on. I have two quibbles, though. Re Palin - As someone who followed her career long before anyone knew who she was, I actually think she has a lot to recommend her as a real reformer. I am not claiming sainthood for her or anything like that, but Alaskans are appreciative of her results in the same way Virginians were of Mark Warner's. They are both political oddities in that they actually got some things done. Besides, I'd take anybody over the current crop in Washington in either party. Re McCain - while I think you are correct in your assessment, I am voting for him anyway (albeit reluctantly).
  
  I was upset when Republicans won both the White House and Congress in 2000. I knew it would be a disaster and I said so at the time; I feel vindicated today. I vowed to always vote for the presidential candidate of the party least likely to control Congress.
  
  I am always surprised no one really talks about this.
  reply
• 

  Michael Drake

  9 months ago

  Well, if we didn't know, what Kevin said. But we do know from (among other sources) her interview with Gibson that she doesn't have the faintest clue about national politics or foreign policy; she was like a moderately bright high school freshman thrown into a college seminar on political science without having read any of the books. If that awesoming embarrassment doesn't tell you what you need to know about her present qualifications for the gig, what on earth would?
  reply
• 

  Cool Cal

  9 months ago

  I read your blog, Will. I needn't imbue you, therefore, with my ideological leanings. I live in LA. Everywhere I go, I see Obama bumper stickers, Obama lawn signs, Obama Soviet-style t-shirts and the words "Hope" and "Change" plastered up ubiquitously as stop signs. Needless to say at social events, any mention of capitalism or the market is accompanied by a sneer, or "Have you read The Shock Doctrine yet?". I am definitely not voting for McCain. But voting for Obama would leave a most unpleasant taste in my mouth. California is definitely going to Barack. I agree with you that he is more competent than McCain, but surely competence as an executive is no virtue per se.
  reply
• 

  Bill Gardner

  9 months ago

  "Joe Biden is qualified to be president in much the same way McCain is; he is a lifelong asshole and American senator."
  
  My nomination for Tyler's best sentence of the day.
  reply
• 

  pfjobrien

  9 months ago

  In terms of temper and personality Obama is a good choice, however doesn't ones political ideology matter even more so?
  
  In that sense, Obama is very nearly an explicit socialist. Hardly comforting and yet shockingly not that far removed from the atrocious John McCain.
  
  Sarah Palin's political ideology is unclear and that is what I find makes her unqualified to be a vice-president. That, to me, is the only purpose that governing experience actually has - it allows the voter to gain a sense as to the political goals and values of a politician. Isn't that more relevant and consequential than temperament?
  reply
• 

  Will Wilkinson

  9 months ago

  Come on. Obama is not very nearly a socialist. He is a relatively liberal American Senator, which puts him to the economic right of pretty much the entire world. I would rather have McCain's economic team, but Jason Furman does not terrify me.
  reply
• 

  pfjobrien

  9 months ago

  I would say that Obama's health plan of massive government oversight, regulation and mandatory, subsidized health insurance very nearly nationalizes 15% of the entire U.S. economy.
  
  Not to mention his New Deal lust and more frighteningly, his "social justice" vision of government. Recall how closely he worked with ACORN and Clinton empowered CRA update.
  
  That might not quite be Marx's vision but it is the product of Obama's fundamental disregard for private property rights. Once those go, then socialism isn't that far removed. So, while it may be a bit of hperbole to call him a socialist, it isn't so far removed from the truth that it warrants a dismissive reply.
  
  That being said, for an empty shirt like GWB, the advisors are of huge concern but for a man like Sen. Obama, it matters little to me. He has a vision of the world and it's that vision that troubles me...
  reply
• 

  Ryan

  9 months ago

  Nor, importantly, does Furman come chained to a guy who insists on starting a nuclear pissing contest with Russia.
  
  As for the socialism angle, I'm still waiting to hear Obama call for nationalizing GM. It's not like they could get a whole lot worse, right?
  reply
• 

  WJ

  9 months ago

  Mr. Wilkinson:
  
  I very much enjly your posts, but have to disagree with this one. What knowledge do you have about Obama not being on the far left? Has he ever championed anything in the Illinois Senate or US Senate that would shrink govt, that promoted capitalism? Am I just being overcome by soundbites or is he not one of the 2 or 3 most left-wing senators?
  
  You say he is a man of remarkable competence. But what has he actually achieved besides the next highest office? Can you please elaborate (if you have the time) on what information led you to these conclusions?
  
  Regards
  WJ
  reply
• 

  GilM

  9 months ago

  WJ,
  
  Obama has managed a pretty effective presidential campaign, and that's no small executive feat.
  
  But, the fact that he may be a competent executive and successful at achieving his goals seems to be a bad thing to those of us who disapprove of many of his goals.
  
  So, I agree with Mansterdad above and will be rooting for gridlock.
  
  I'd rather see McCain fail to achieve his goals than see Obama succeed with his.
  reply
• 

  WJ

  9 months ago

  To GilM:
  
  Thank you for your comment. I certainly will not disagree with your opinion that Obama has run an effective presidential campaign. It just seems a little bit of circular reasoning to say running for president makes you capable of being president.
  
  I still wonder what Obama has actually accomplished that would make him be a man of remarkable competence. Making to a US Senator is no trivial matter obviously, but it just doesn't seem as that is achieving something besides a promotion. I wonder what he has done to deserve promotion.
  
  Finally, am I wrong in my opinion that his previous positions and votes make him one of the 2 or 3 most liberal US Senators?
  
  Regards,
  WJ
  reply
• 

  GilM

  9 months ago

  What does anybody need to have done to deserve to be President?
  
  I think you need to be able to convince a plurality of people (given the electoral system, etc.) that they can be more comfortable (or less uncomfortable) with you as cheif executive. I don't really think that there's any list of qualifications that are necessary and sufficient to guarantee a qualified president.
  
  As for Obama's liberalness...I think that there are various organizations that rank them differently, based on differently chosen key votes. I don't think there's a definitive ranking, but it's probably fair to say that he's among the most left-liberal in the Senate.
  
  But, as Will indicates, that doesn't make him a socialist. Just an advocate of pretty bad policies.
  
  McCain is also an advocate of pretty bad policies, and whether he's worse depends on how you rank the differences.
  reply
• 

  GU

  9 months ago

  When people say Palin is not qualified, I think there is some credentialist elitism going on in many cases. "She only has a B.A. from a non-prestigious school? How stupid must she be?"
  reply
• 

  pfjobrien

  9 months ago

  You won't hear that from me... I think she's unqualified simply because she hasn't been in office long enough to determine her political ideology nor has she declared it explicitly. I don't care if even has a degree if her ideas are sound... degrees themselves have no intrinsic worth.
  reply
• 

  wcyee

  9 months ago

  "But how would you know when everyone is falling over themselves to characterize her to their stupid team’s advantage? Politics makes people dull and dishonest. The politicians, too."
  
  Well, exactly. And Sarah Palin is as much part of that equation as anyone else. Her speeches have been red meat for conservative audiences, but also deliberately tweaked liberals/dems to get under their skins. They, in turn, react by finding anything and everything to throw back at her. And yes, they play the same game. It's a little disingenuous to pull one politician out of the mix and cry foul or sexism or whatever. They're all part of the same vicious cycle. They know exactly what they're doing. None of this is to excuse any of it, but what do you expect? I'd love to see a different game, say what Obama started out as, but I'm not holding my breath.
  reply
• 

  Mike Tee

  9 months ago

  How are gainfully employed being this obtuse?
  
  Seriously. If there's a retard olympics, you come in last.
  
  I'm a libertarian who'll vote for a socialist!
  
  Those degrees from TTT have served you well.
  reply
• 

  Ella

  9 months ago

  Obama strikes you as central-casting picture of an executive? For serious? I don't like him and I'm not voting for him (nor McCain, either), so take my opinion for what it's worth, but Obama strikes me as the boss's son with the easy promotion. Not really management material otherwise.
  reply
• 

  RobertLight

  9 months ago

  Obama is not nearly a socialist? Okay, well, I agree, he's not a socialist in the "purist" sense that he's not advocating government seizure of industry or the abolition of private property (at least not outright). But you do know there's a panoply of varieties of socialism (cf. Georg Lichtheim's book, _Marxism: an Historical and Critical Study_, which gives a nice history and overview: http://tinyurl.com/4mkzsl , especially of European social democracy under Bernstein, the tradition to which Saul Alinsky -- and thus Obama -- is attached). Essentially government allowing us to keep whatever property we may currently have is the normative assumption/essence behind our death and income taxes. That is socialistic.
  
  See here as well for an excellent series of articles published at Investors Business Daily. High-toned Rawlsekian analysis it is not. Just dirty unvarnished facts, but valuable nonetheless: The Audacity of Socialism: a Series: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series8.aspx
  reply
• 

  Micha Ghertner

  9 months ago

  Essentially government allowing us to keep whatever property we may currently have is the normative assumption/essence behind our death and income taxes. That is socialistic.

  
  
  But this makes Obama just as much of a socialist as McCain, in which case calling Obama a socialist as a reason to vote for McCain is simply absurd. I don't have a problem with consistent libertarians who refuse to vote for either major party candidate calling Obama a socialist; I do have a problem with prospective Republican voters doing so.
  reply
• 

  Robert Light

  9 months ago

  Micha- thanks for your reply. In the strict sense, yeah, you're correct. Obama and McCain share a common starting point in that they are both progressives (John McCain's hero after all is TR). Like all progressives, whether they're actually aware of it consciously or not, they deny that human beings qua human beings actually own themselves and thus deny, in any real sense, any true ownership in property. The policy upshot is that whatever rights we have are not inalienable; whatever government gives, government can just as easily take away. (A subject I know is dear to Will's heart, which he puts down as a curious chestnut of mine -- my "plucking of the one-string" as I recall). This is another way of saying that rights cease to be natural and become socialized. This is how Leftists and not a few libertarians essentially view rights.
  
  Be that as it may, McCain's "soul" and disposition is of a conservative sort -- despite how "ungrounded" it may be in many respects -- and so I'm quite confident he'd be far more chary than, say, Obama, in how far he's willing to push that socialization of rights (confiscatory levels of taxation; appointing jurists who would further implement international law into the Constitution; the withering away of our national sovereignty, etc.). But, yes, I think you're right in principle -- there's no formal reason why McCain can't go whole-hog and be as much of a profligate, reckless jackass as Obama and his assorted pseudo-Marxist phucks.
  reply