Republican Alaska State Senate Prez Disses Palin

And it gets worse: She's from Palin's hometown.

The reaction wasn't so rosy elsewhere. State Senate President Lyda Green said she thought it was a joke when someone called her at 6 a.m. to give her the news.

"She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Green, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"

Green, who has feuded with Palin repeatedly over the past two years, brought up the big oil tax increase Palin pushed through last year. She also pointed to the award of a $500 million state subsidy to a Canadian firm to pursue a natural gas pipeline that is far from guaranteed.

Burn. But wait, there's more!

The early morning news of McCain's pick sent jaws dropping throughout Alaska, with friends waking up friends with "Oh my God, have you heard?" phone calls.

State House Speaker John Harris, a Republican from Valdez, was astonished at the news. He didn't want to get into the issue of her qualifications.

"She's old enough," Harris said. "She's a U.S. citizen."

Former House Speaker Gail Phillips, a Republican political leader who has clashed with Palin in the past, was shocked when she heard the news Friday morning with her husband, Walt.

"I said to Walt, 'This can't be happening, because his advance team didn't come to Alaska to check her out," Phillips said.

Phillips has been active in the Ted Stevens re-election steering committee and remains in close touch with Sen. Lisa Murkowski and other party leaders, and she said nobody had heard anything about McCain's people doing research on his prospective running mate.

"We're not a very big state. People I talk to would have heard something."

So, the Republican Alaska Assembly Speaker can't think of anything about her to say other than she meets the barest requirements for the office, and no one in the state heard anything about Palin being vetted. But hey, McCain, after meeting her once before interviewing her for the job, says "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." Is this like George Bush seeing Vladimir Putin's soul after meeting him once?

No wonder arch-conservative Charles Krauthammer described the pick in a piece I'll take the liberty of quoting in full:

McCain had been steadily gaining on Obama (before the inevitable convention bounce) and had the race in a dead heat in a year in which the generic Democrat is running ten points ahead of the generic Republican. He had succeeded in making this a referendum on Obama. The devastating line of attack was, "Is he ready to lead?"

The Palin selection completely undercuts the argument about Obama's inexperience and readiness to lead -- on the theory that because Palin is a maverick and a corruption fighter, she bolsters McCain's claim to be the reformer in this campaign. In her rollout today, Palin spoke a lot about change. McCain is now trying to steal "change" from Obama, a contest McCain will lose in an overwhelmingly Democratic year with an overwhelmingly unpopular incumbent Republican administration. At the same time, he's weakening his strong suit -- readiness vs. unreadiness.

The McCain campaign is reveling in the fact that Palin is a game changer. But why a game changer when you’ve been gaining? To gratuitously undercut the remarkably successful "Is he ready to lead" line of attack seems near suicidal.

And apparently McCain is on Fox News Sunday this morning calling Palin "a partner and a soulmate." After meeting her twice? From a guy who's already ditched one wife for a younger, hotter woman? Creepy.

Or, as Mrs. Mav succinctly put it, "She's the Queen of the Lightweights!"

Hail, Palin, Queen of the Lightweights!

H/T: Sullivan.

Pat Buchanan: Obama's speech was "Manly"

Dear Conservatives: When one of your staunchest speechwriters is praising Obama's speech in no uncertain terms, it might be time to rethink your criticism.

Because seeing is believing:



And the hits just keep on coming.

Even David Frum is panning Palin

With a hat tip to Andrew Sullivan (who also had this to say about the pick: New slogan - Putting. Country. Last.) here's Frum's full text from the National Review:

The longer I think about it, the less well this selection sits with me. And I increasingly doubt that it will prove good politics. The Palin choice looks cynical. The wires are showing.

John McCain wanted a woman: good.

He wanted to keep conservatives and pro-lifers happy: naturally.

He wanted someone who looked young and dynamic: smart.

And he discovered that he could not reconcile all these imperatives with the stated goal of finding a running mate qualified to assume the duties of the presidency "on day one."

Sarah Palin may well have concealed inner reservoirs of greatness. I hope so! But I'd guess that John McCain does not have a much better sense of who she is, what she believes, and the extent of her abilities than my enthusiastic friends over at the Corner. It's a wild gamble, undertaken by our oldest ever first-time candidate for president in hopes of changing the board of this election campaign. Maybe it will work. But maybe (and at least as likely) it will reinforce a theme that I'd be pounding home if I were the Obama campaign: that it's John McCain for all his white hair who represents the risky choice, while it is Barack Obama who offers cautious, steady, predictable governance.

Here's I fear the worst harm that may be done by this selection. The McCain campaign's slogan is "country first." It's a good slogan, and it aptly describes John McCain, one of the most self-sacrificing, gallant, and honorable men ever to seek the presidency.

But question: If it were your decision, and you were putting your country first, would you put an untested small-town mayor a heartbeat away from the presidency?

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Heck, even Romney would have made a better "ready to govern" choice, because of his experience on the economy. However, I'm sure Romney was ruled out because (aside from McCain's obvious personal dislike for the man) he played too much into the "ungodly rich" story line unfurled by McCain not knowing how many houses he owns. If McCain really cared so much about "putting the country first" he would have said, "Damn the torpedoes, I'm picking someone ready to lead." But no, it's Palin. Cynical, cynical, cynical.

UPDATE: John Dickerson on Slate sums it up thusly:

But Palin is 44 and has been governor for less than two years. She has no foreign-policy experience. For a candidate who turns 72 today, the heartbeat-away question carries weight. It also seems to undercut a key line of attack against Obama. If Sara[sp] Palin is ready to be commander in chief, then so is Barack Obama.

But wait! Dickerson really zings McCain with this bit:

John McCain used to be an undisciplined politician. Now he speaks less often to the press, stays on message, and runs fact-free ads that once might have bothered him. That he picked a woman he doesn't know well and who has little experience suggests he continues to progress as a pragmatic political realist. Sarah Palin isn't the only one on the Republican ticket we're learning new things about.

So very true, and so very sad.

Memo to the Right: Stop Digging!

I've been hearing a few people on the right complain about Obama's speech last night, so I feel like I need to ask some questions.

-Exactly what specific parts about Obama's speech were so objectionable? His asking for better parenting and more personal responsibility? Suggesting that people starting being "their brother's keeper?" The shocking proposition that we ought to take better care of our wounded warriors and actually focus on getting bin Laden? Tax cuts for the middle class? Had any of these things been said by a Republican, all the people who are whining now would have stood and cheered. Had a Republican candidate said we can get off our addiction to foreign oil in ten years, Republicans would have said, "Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work." Now a Democratic nominee says it and all you can hear is, "It can't be done, so why bother?" It's not as if JFK pledged that we'd get to the moon in ten years or anything. My suggestion: It's the sanctimony, stupid.

-Republicans talk all the time about the "ownership society" and personal responsibility, yet why do they get so hot under the collar when asked to "own their failure?" From what vast reserve of chutzpah could they summon the nerve to state that this presidency has been a success? The economy is indisputably worse than eight years ago (unless you own seven houses and make $5,000,000 a year), our Constitution is being systematically ignored (even Bob Barr thinks so), our military (particularly the reserves and the National Guard) are battered and stretched to the limit, and our reputation around the world is in tatters. Whoops, I forgot that Republicans don't give a horse's ass what the world thinks about us. Has the right's stock of temerity really grown so vast that they can still claim a successful administration even when confronted by these failings? If that is the case, we might have just solved the energy crisis, since I'm sure the supply of Republican hot air is large enough to harness as a supply of power. My suggestion: Perhaps instead of being such enormous gasbags, these critics ought to start contemplating the fact that their "beloved" president has the lowest approval rating in history.

-From which of the policies of George W. Bush would John McCain be any departure? I assume the convention next week is going to draw attention to McCain's long-forgotten record of bucking the party line in order to dissociate him with Bush. Well, first, that makes you think maybe Republicans do realize that Bush has been a dismal failure (which would make sense, since I do not presume all Republicans to be stupid) and are just too stuck in cognitive dissonance to admit it, because doing so would require them to admit that Obama was correct about something. But second, if John McCain is such a "maverick," then why is this year's Republican platform, rather than retreating from the unpopular positions of George W. Bush, actually doubling down on them? Banning abortion even in cases of rape or incest? Who let Pat Robertson sneak into the platform writing committee? More tax cuts for corporations that ship jobs overseas and for oil companies already raking in massive profits? You don't even have to be in favor of punishing those companies to see that further incentivizing the shipping of American jobs to other countries and rewarding price gouging at the pump are both unbelievably stupid ideas. Rattling the saber to every country that gets on John McCain's nerves (which seems to happen pretty often)? Threats are not strength, and I think someone needs to remind John McCain of that. My suggestion: When more than 70% of the country thinks your president is doing a crappy job, you might want to think that the policies, as well as the man, need to change.

So Republicans, you want ownership and personal responsibility? How about a little leadership by example from the right, by owning up to, and taking responsibility for, the mess our country is in? If your approval ratings are anything to put stock in, the focus of next week should be your entire party getting down on your knees and begging the country for forgiveness for leading it so far astray. I can see Cheney now, whimpering, "Please, please give us another chance. We can be trusted. I swear we can."

Because to hear John McCain tell it, you'd never know that the Republicans had been in charge the last eight years. Yet it seems their party is in a hole, so perhaps they ought to do the smart thing and put down the shovel.

UPDATE: Oh, so McCain picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate. Well, so much for that whole thing about Obama being too inexperienced for the job...

Is it just me, or does it look like McCain and his party are delving deep into the realm of self-parody anymore?

And they wonder why people don't pay attention to politics...

I'm ashamed to live in an area where the NBC affiliate (WTMJ) thinks that a Packers preseason game is more important than perhaps the most momentous and historic political speech in my lifetime, and did not show the speech until the meaningless game was over and Barack Obama was nearly 10 minutes into his delivery. Sure, if I had cable, that wouldn't be a problem, but I don't. So here's looking at you, TMJ4, for sending a loud and clear message that football is more important than who gets to lead our country.

Disgraceful.

Sullivan Nails It

For anyone who's confused as to why I am such an avid reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog (and his latest book, The Conservative Soul, which I recommend to anyone who'll listen), he's provided yet another example with his analysis of Bill Clinton's speech at the DNC tonight. In fact, it's good enough that I find it worth quoting in full. So, without further delay - take it away, Andrew:

Readers know my personal disdain for Bill Clinton. But longtime readers will also know I have always defended his solid centrist, smart record in office and defended him against his most over-reaching enemies. Tonight, I think, was one of the best speeches he has ever given. It was a direct, personal and powerful endorsement of Obama. But much, much more than that: it was a statesman-like assessment of where this country is and how desperately it needs a real change toward reform and retrenchment at home and restoration of diplomacy, wisdom and prudence abroad. Yes, he nailed it with this line:

"People around the world have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power."

I don't buy his evisceration of everything the Republican party has done in the last quarter century. I think the GOP did a great deal to rescue this country in the 1980s and early 1990s.

In fact, I think Clinton would have failed as a president without the foil of the Gingrich GOP. But since 2000, the worst aspects of Republicanism have crowded out its once necessary virtues. The reflexive impulse to use force over diplomacy, to use aggression over persuasion, to spend and borrow with no concern for the future, and to violate sacred principles such as the eschewal of torture with no respect for the past: these must not just be left behind. They have to be repudiated.

The United States needs this repudiation, as does the world. McCain, alas, cannot provide it. He may once have. But his party is too far gone, and his moment passed. His use of fear and deception and brattish contempt in this campaign have sealed the deal for me. But Clinton reminded all of us of what is more broadly at stake. He did it with passion and measure and eloquence. And surpassing intelligence.

We've seen the worst of Bill Clinton these past few months, Tonight, we saw the best. And it's mighty good.

(Emphasis mine.)

Amen.

Craig R. Smith: Racist

I don't think there's any other way to describe this article, claiming Obama would be our first "hip-hop president" and ascribing to him all sorts of ugly stereotypes derived from hip-hop culture. I don't like to see the race card played as a defense to Obama, but there's simply no other explanation for such dreck. Apparently, Smith missed the part about Obama being an alumnus of Columbia and Harvard Law, because to hear Smith tell it, Obama just showed up on the political scene (here comes a hip-hop reference, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!) "Straight Outta Compton," or something.

Besides, doesn't Craig R. Smith remember Bush giving the German Chancellor a backrub? Or saying he "saw Putin's soul?"

Good grief.

H/T: Sullivan.

Clinton Gets It Done

I'm listening to Hillary's speech and I'm pleased to hear her taking a big whack at Bush (and by extension, McCain) and emphasizing that those who stood with her need to stand with Obama if they truly care about the issues she cares about. The stanza asking if her supporters got involved just for her or for a larger purpose was particularly effective and driving that point home.

The "four more years of the last eight years" section made a pretty good campaign pitch, too. Obama ought to incorporate it into his stump speech. And the preemptive strike on the GOP convention by saying McCain and Bush are awfully hard to tell apart was something this convention needs. By going first, the Democrats have a chance to hit the Republicans before the GOP gets to strike back, and they have to take the opportunity.

All in all, Hillary did a lot to redeem herself in my eyes tonight.

For crying out loud!

John McCain can't even go on the freaking Tonight Show without mentioning the fact that he spent five-and-a-half years as a POW. Are you kidding me?

This man is single-handedly reducing a truly heroic feat of patriotism to political theater, to mere shtick to be exploited at every available opportunity like a cheap advertising gimmick of the form, "Did I mention I spent five-and-a-half years in the Hanoi Hilton?"

Here's a slogan suggestion to differentiate Senator McCain's current campaign from the one he ran in 2000: "John McCain, New and Improved. Now with 95% more supporting George W. Bush and 200% more self-congratulation for being a Prisoner of War. Hurry, supplies are limited."

Seriously, this is getting to the point of being literally "a noun, a verb, and POW."

Clinton Catharsis!

With a huge hat tip to Andrew Sullivan, I give you this brilliant video:

Now here's an ad I'd like to see

Some amateur made this here Youtube ad, and I've gotta say, it's pretty funny. Enjoy.

For the Last Time...

I'm really tired of the surge being categorized as a "success." Are American casualties down? Yes. But that wasn't the goal of the surge going in. The stated goal of the surge was a conjunctive one: First, to bring more forces to bear and, in doing so, reduce the violence, which would lead to the second step, breathing room for the government, which would lead to the third step, political reconciliation. Unquestionably, steps one and two have been successful, but the Iraqi government still hasn't gotten together, which tells me that the problem isn't the violence, but the intransigence of the leadership of the Iraqi government. So, we have the surge being defined as 1 AND 2 AND 3. So, we have an outcome of True, True, False, which leads the total statement to be analyzed as FALSE. Ergo, the surge is not successful and will not be so until the Iraqi government reaches some sort of political reconciliation. Q.E.D.

Mav Returns to Man His Post

Alas, after a bit of a blogging hiatus, I have returned to begin anew on this, my very small slice of the internet pie.

Let me open my return foray by stating how overjoyed I am by Obama's selection of Joe Biden as his running mate. Originally, I'd thought Biden's talents would be better served as a nominee for Secretary of State. However, Obama's major weakness in the campaign seems to be that he is reluctant to go on the attack himself (as befits the message and tone of his campaign). While I approve of that on one hand, the necessities of getting elected are such that he needs an attack dog, and the guy who put a big stake through Rudy Giuliani's 9/11-obsessed heart (with the now famous "a noun, a verb, and 9/11" remark) is probably the best choice possible for that. Besides, McCain is begging to get hit with "a noun, a verb, and POW," and I eagerly look forward to Biden taking a big home run swing at the McCain campaign's silly and childish implication that his POW status (laudable though it is) can serve as some sort of non sequitur excuse for any and all bad decisions or campaign gaffes.

More to come later.