Back Towards The Locus

Lest you think it’s cruel to cite the wife of the candidate – it isn’t, or they wouldn’t let them comment – here’s a few words from John:

“She’s not from these parts and she’s not from Washington. But when you get to know her, you’re going to be as impressed as I am.”

Well, before last week I think that he’d only met her once. I know that first impressions are valued, but mine were poor.

A tip of the hat to James Grieves

Over at CiF, Olly Kendall makes this point:

“Hitherto, the Lib Dems have been able to capture the zeitgeist on issues like the Iraq war, or abolition of tuition fees, or campaigning against post office closures. They have excelled in winning protest votes.”

Surely opposition to tuition fees, post office closures and the invasion of Iraq are policy decisions. On what basis does one join a party except its policies?

There’s an interesting comments thread – no, really – over at Iain Dale’s. Iain has latched onto a Daily Kos post alleging that Sarah Palin’s youngest daughter is, in fact, the first child of her eldest, and has therefore insisted that smears against Palin should be ‘condemned‘. Other commenters have demanded that he should therefore be swift in ‘condemn[ing]‘ accusations against Obama.

Both of these demands are, of course, silly.

There’s nothing necessarily absurd about a ‘conspiracy theory’ or a ’smear’. The former is merely a chain of events that suggests a plot, while the latter is usually a chain of events that suggests a misdeed. One can refute the interpretation of these events – and these interpretations, as has been suggested in the cases of Obama and Palin, may be founded upon bigotry – but one can’t dismiss them as intrinsically irrational.

On the subject of Palin smears, however, I echo the truism that the ‘bimbo’ tag is ludicrous. I’ve already given my opinion that she is a symbolic selection that attempts to appeal to both the religious right and the liberal Clintonites, but you had better be very successful before you claim that a former Mayor and Governor is nothing but a pretty face.

Karl Rove in the Weekly Standard:

“…the American people are particular about who they elect as president. And voters do not tolerate candidates whose opinion of ordinary citizens is so low they think they can get away with misleading them…“

Srsly, just send him to jail, please.

For once, I was right.

In Palin’s speech she mentioned that her son is “about to be deployed to Iraq“, highlighted her ethics reforms, challenged the “status quo“, praised the “determination” of Hillary and let forth these words of wisdom:

“it was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America. But it turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.”

Ick.

Earlier, she had flattered McCain, and claimed that noone had presented a greater challenge to “business as usual” in American politics. This is, I’m afraid, wrong. Later, she promised that she’d let “noone forget” McCain’s “heroism“. Doubtless McCain has shown extraordinary bravery, but, in a campaign such as this, we were hardly like to forget it. Another highlight was her celebration of McCain’s “judgement…in a dangerous world“. Hah…hah….

On a more personal note, she decided that “as the mother” of a soldier sent to serve in Iraq, McCain is “the man [she] want[s] as Commander in Chief“. This, at least, is hardly surprising. After all, McCain thinks that her son is heading to a “peaceful, stable country“. Hooray!

This poor 11-month-old baby is said to weigh as much as an average eight-year-old, and has apparently perplexed doctors in Colombia…

Condemn him, Lansley, don’t show him any mercy.

A tip of the hat to Septicisle.

With the selection of Sarah Palin, it becomes clear that John McCain is pursuing his maverick image. From that, he can project himself as a figure of principled change among the Republican Party; attempting to attract both disaffected Hilary supporters and those jaded by the Bush Administration.

The selection was canny, if horribly cynical, in its identification of symbolism, but there are still multifarious opportunities to exploit his many errors of judgement, areas of ignorance and occasional outright absurdity. There’s also a lot to sift through regarding Palin.

Maverick? Rly?

• In 2003, McCain declared that he would have done “nothing” differently in the run-up to the war. This year, even the Senate Intelligence Committee has said that the rhetoric of the Administration was “fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false premises“. McCain himself contributed to this in linking the anthrax attacks to Iraq just a month after 9/11. Sound judgement, as ever (goodness, I fear for that poor girl if McCain is elected).

• He now claims, wrongly, that Iraq is a “peaceful and stable country“, despite the difficulties in the “surge” that he is proud to have supported. Even his knowledge regarding the beginning of this initiative is deficient.

• McCain has regularly voiced his opposition to the US’s practice of torture, but has nevertheless supported legislation that a) helped to establish it and b) blocked attempts to prohibit it. That doesn’t mean that his vocal opposition is necessarily cynical, but it does mean that he has prioritised party loyalty over individual principles.

Change? Rly?

Despite the perception that the selection of Palin proves McCain to be a ‘maverick’, the records of his other advisers suggest differently. Kagan, Kristol and Scheunemann have all advised him on foreign policy, and all are signatories of – or, in the case of the former pair, the co-founders of – PNAC, which shaped the Bush Doctrine. Even Henry Kissinger has chipped in. These are discredited figures.

Palin has no foreign policy experience, and so the views of these advisers will be highly significant in moulding the lamentable positions of the Republican candidate. At least with regards to international affairs, four years of McCain seem likely to be four years of the same, and Biden should be able to exploit this at the Veep debate with Palin.

Palin, Rly?

A few questions have been surfacing that Biden will probably be keen to pose to Palin:

• Is Ms Palin still “pleased” with Obama’s energy plan?

• Having only met John McCain once prior to this week, does Ms Palin feel that their relationship is sufficiently developed?

• Does Ms Palin feel that her foreign policy experience is sufficiently substantial?

• What insight does she bring to McCain’s campaign?

• Since June, has she been made aware of the responsibilities of a VP?

Updates incorporated into text

McCain has chosen Sarah Palin, the Governer of Alaska, as his Veep. Much focus will be placed on the fact that she’s young (younger than Obama, in fact) and a women, but I believe that there’s another significant factor in the choice.

In 2004 she resigned from her position as the Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, protesting against the dismissal of her whistleblower complaints against favouritism and other unethical practises. This led to fines for several officials.

Since then, she has campaigned against leading figures from her own party, and has gained a reputation as an honourable politician. One Weekly Standard columnist has described her as “a politician of eye-popping integrity” (yes, coming from the Weekly Standard, I know).

With this in mind, it appears that McCain is attempting to break away from the popular vision of the Republican Party, not merely in age and gender but in individual principle.

A slight problem, however, is that only this month she’s had an investigation established into her sacking of a Commissioner. Little appears to have been found as yet, but if the Democrats realise the Republican strategy they may target it nonetheless.

Update: Andrew Sullivan notes that, while the GOP are obviously praying for attack on Palin’s ‘inexperience’, she doesn’t appear to have any foreign policy experience whatsoever.