The title of the famous movie was also the title of yesterday’s editorial by William Kristol. (If you choose, you can read it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/opinion/01kristol.html?th&emc=th) Unfortunately for Kristol, if one stops long enough to think (which I am sure that his readers do not) about the reference to the oft-remade award-winner, one will recall that the story was one of a movie star with a career in decline and his romance with a star on the rise. Hardly the sort of picture Kristol would want to paint of McCain/Palin.
I don’t know why the NY Times continues to value the opinion of someone with such an exceptional track record of being WRONG on just about every issue. Yet Kristol continues to opine in its employ, so someone must be reading him.
After giving short praise to an Obama speech that was viewed by more people in this country than almost any other televised event aside from the SuperBowl, Kristol joins the conservative love-fest of Sarah Palin, John McCain’s arm candy of a Vice Presidential nominee.
“It’s amazing what a bold vice-presidential pick who gives a sterling performance when she’s introduced will do for a party’s spirits.”
Because that’s what you want out of a Vice Presidential nominee- a performance. Like she’s a trained monkey. Or is he touching back on that movie reference again? But I think he’s right; the kind of person that is still entertaining the idea of voting Republican probably LOVES Palin. Isn’t she pretty?? She sure knows how to accessorize. Love those pearls! Former beauty queen, you know.
This was actually pointed out by Cokie Roberts on the Sunday morning pundit-fest, This Week with George Stephanopolis. She was literally giddy as she pointed out that Ms. Palin was a BONA FIDE Miss Congeniality. Of course, thinking people would perhaps be a little leery of putting their country in the hands of a former beauty pageant contestant—she didn’t even win the thing—but, not our conservative friends. All shallow appearance and no substance, that’s what they like. They still back George W. Bush, after all, the most vacuous leader a country was ever forced to endure.
Then, and this is my favorite thing, Kristol tries to pretend that experience is not that important when choosing a President.
“There are Republicans who are unhappy about John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin. Many are insiders who highly value — who overly value — ‘experience.’”
As if the whole neo-con assembly of the Republican Party has not been harping endlessly, about how UNEXPERIENCED Barack Obama is. But now that the pretty, shiny lady has stepped into the limelight, that all just floats effortlessly out the window. Experience is JUST not that important. After all, she’s just the No. 2, as Kristol, sounding reasonable enough for the less-analytical reader, goes on to point out.
“…Obama supporters can’t get too indignant about Palin’s inexperience. She’s only running for the No. 2 job, after all, while their inexperienced standard-bearer is the nominee for the top position.”
So, what is the definition of the word “experience,” as applied to any nominee for high office?
Sarah Palin’s glittering resume contains two terms on the city council of Wasilla, AK, and one term as mayor. Wasilla, AK has, according to its website, a population of 6,715 people (per the 2000 census). Maybe that seems like a lot of people where she comes from, but not from where most of us sit. Also on her resume is an unfinished term (less than two years) as Governor, which is not even enough to judge whether she could be considered a SUCCESSFUL governor. But, I am sure that does not bother anyone who voted for George W. Bush, who must stand out as the least-successful “businessman” to ever have been called a businessman.
None of the punditry is comparing Palin’s paltry experience to Joe Biden’s, the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee. THAT would be laughable. No, they are instead comparing her lack of experience to what they claim is Obama’s lack of experience. Here is a look at the new math:
Maybe the reason the Republicans are doing such an abysmal job of running the country is because they can’t even properly perform a simple equation.
And this line of reasoning totally ignores the fact that McCain is 72 years old and has a history of cancer. It is not outside the realm of possibility that he might not last out a full term. Does Kristol genuinely believe that Palin would qualify as a good President?
And the next little gem that Kristol tosses out is actually supposed to be some kind of dig against Obama.
“And McCain doesn’t need a foreign policy expert as vice president to help him out.”
Wasn’t it John McCain that didn’t know the difference between a Sunni and a Shi’ite Muslim? Wasn’t it John McCain who confused Iran with Iraq? Has said that he would consider maintaining a troop presence in Iraq for the next 100 years? Wants to “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”? McCain has stumbled on basic facts concerning foreign policy enough times in public that he probably SHOULD have been looking for someone to shore him up.
Kristol at least admits that this choice of Palin is a gamble.
“But of course McCain needs Palin to do well to prove he’s a shrewd and prescient gambler.”
Does William Kristol think that our next President should be a gambler? Because I think most people are of the opinion that this country can’t afford any more gambling at this point. But then again, Kristol has been wrong so many times, perhaps he believes that at some point the odds will catch up with him. More of that poor Republican math. Sphere: Related Content