I fully understand that the vast majority of McCain supporters find themselves in the position of simply having to ignore Palin’s lack of experience and, more importantly, her lack to date of actually engaging intelligently in the major questions of the day. I fully and totally understand that in a two-party race, voters have no choice but to cast their lots with the candidate who most closely mirrors their general policy preferences, and that sometimes means averting eyes to particularly bad aspects of one’s chosen candidate.2
What I find interesting (indeed, fascinating on one level and very frustrating on another) is the cognitive dissonance displayed by some in support of her selection. There is almost no evidence to date that she is ready to be the President of the United States (something that one would like a veep to be ready to be). And yet, if this is pointed out, there are attacks on the one doing the pointing out (not real defenses of Palin’s readiness–and where defenses are offered they are non-substantive, such as saying she is the next Reagan or the next Truman). Note: if one wishes to assert that Palin is a good choice for veep, some positive evidence in that regard is needed, not wild fantasies about might be.
If you do not wish to view the video, or prefer to read the transcript,3 here’s the response
COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy? Instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
PALIN: That’s why I say, I like ever American I’m speaking with were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the tax payers looking to bailout.
But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy– Helping the — Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. Shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americas. A
And trade we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive scary thing. But 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. ALl those things under the umbrella of job creation.
This bailout is a part of that.
To watch/read that and come away with the sense that she has even a basic grasp of the situation requires a great deal of charity, if not self-delusion. And is she looking at noted during the response? if someone can translate that, or make a cogent argument that it is a legitimate response, I would love to read it.
Sarah Palin is a pefect embodiment of what I termed a long time ago the Deion Sanders Effect4: the idea that we will often support (even like) someone only because they are on our team. As I wrote at the time:
We too often treat politics like a spectator sport–everything is seen in terms of whether it helps our side move the ball forward or not. If our side says it, it is good; if the other side says it, it’s bad. Such thinking diverts us from genuine, efficacious public dialogue. We altogether seem too interested in making sure our side scores (or, at least, that the other side doesn’t) than we are in actually having a worthwhile discussion about what our national priorities should be, and what solutions are needed to address them.
I don’t expect Republicans to en masse vote for Obama because of Palin–for any number of reasons that would be an odd expectation to have. What I would like to see, however, is some intellectual honesty about her selection and her qualifications.
The main reason for another Palin post is that usually one such post leads to comments supporting Palin that I find baffling, leading to a need to even further explain myself. Plus, I am likely also responding to market forces, insofar as it is clear that I am getting more traffic from more Palin blogging. As such, I suppose I should ride the Palin Bubble as long as I can. Of course, once the Palin bubble bursts, and traffic plummets, I fully expect that the federal government will come bail me out by passing a law requiring low-level employees (I’d settle for that) to click on PoliBlog during their coffee breaks, so as to shore up my flagging traffic. [↩]
Yes, I also understand that there are third party options, and arguments to be made in regards to supporting them over the Big Two. I am not going to engage that debate at the moment, real thought it is. [↩]
If the Deion ref is out of your experience, here’s my basic explanation:
When Deion played for the Falcons he was an annoying, preening player–but he didn’t bother me all that much, because that Falcons didn’t matter to the Dallas Cowboys. When Deion signed with the 49ers, he became extremely annoying. Indeed, he was perhaps the most annoying football player ever. However, when he signed with Dallas, why, he sure did seem to calm down–not quite as arrogant as he used to be. When he was helping make Larry Brown into a Super Bowl MVP he was the salt of the earth, right ?(at least if one was a Dallas Cowboys fan). And the funny thing is that he got all annoying again when he signed with the Redskins.
There days the appropriate analog would be Terrell Owens–who is a lot less annoying catching TD passes as a Cowboy than when he did the same thing for the 49ers and Eagles. [↩]
Maybe Palin just has different policy views than McCain? To give her the benefit of the doubt, here she is basically saying the bailout should include job creation and health care provisions.
Why isn’t anyone asking McCain if the reason he didn’t support the compromise hatched last week was because of the lack of these elements mentioned by his running mate? It seems to be a legitimate question if we are supposed to consider her a serious candidate.
Comment by Ratoe — Sunday, September 28, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
That is a very charitable interpretation, to be sure–although not a wholly unreasonable one. Still, I am highly doubtful of that possibility, as it seems to me that she is simply bs’ing her answers. And it seems that she is saying that the bailout will do these things, not that it ought.
(but, of course, I suspect you concur with that assessment).
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, September 28, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
In class this week I was talking about George Wallace’s populism. I think the problem of judging Palin is that her real appeal is to Western populism. It is an odd fit with McCain but her choice was about the base and populism. Just like with Wallace it the more academics criticize her the more it makes her popular. This may be crazy but I think this is why she is still view by McCain as a big plus.
Comment by Mark — Sunday, September 28, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
I would concur that she represents a type of Western populism. I can even see how such a populism might help McCain.
However, the vehicle of Palin strikes me as a rather inadequate one.
Put it this way: she is a populist, but to date has been an incompetent one.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, September 28, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
Intellectual honesty from Republicans? The same people who oppose abortion but favor the death penalty. I thought life was sacred. They want smaller government and less intruding on individual’s lives, but again favor a ban on abortion.
A republican politician accused of impropriety almost always has defenders among the GOP faithful, A democrat doing the same impropriety is automatically guilty.
Consistent intellectual honesty from either the left or right would truly be shocking.
Let’s put it this way, FM, I would like to see some intellectual honesty not so much form politicians (a mostly, if not totally, hopeless cause), but from supporters and commentators who, at least in some cases, ought to know better.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, September 28, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
Politicians rarely answer the question they’re asked. They tend to answer a related question that fits their world view. This was what Palin was trying to do, relate the question with a few nice buzzwords that she’s been told to use frequently. I have no doubt that looking at the transcripts of Friday’s debate would give the same type of swell sounding non answer.
The problem here is that it’s not politically correct to criticize the intelligence of either McCain or Obama or Obama’s running mate (I think Obama still has a running mate, but can’t remember his name right now). Obama ventured into the McCain intelligence criticism with the internet ad but then backed off when veterans and seniors took offense. And anybody who says anything against Obama is a racist. Within a day of any mention of lack of grasp of issues the columns dealing with “troubling racial stereotypes” would appear, followed soon afterwards by the demands for apologies and sensitivity training. Heck, even prosecution could result.
There’s are about 3 stereotypes for all conservatives on the national stage — they’re either dumb (Reagan, Ford, Quayle, Palin, GW Bush), evil (Nixon, Cheney), out of touch with the common man (GHW Bush, McCain), or sometimes more than 1 category (Bob Dole hit the out of touch and evil, GW Bush sometimes lands in the evil, depending on the columnist).
Someway liberals never find these classifications a problem.
Comment by Buckland — Monday, September 29, 2008 @ 10:21 am
It is accurate to say that Governor Palin is an incompetent populist. That seems to be the best defense available. Overall, not comforting.
Time for her to “shore up” her responses to valid, important questions in my opinion.
Comment by Sarah K. B. — Monday, September 29, 2008 @ 10:25 am
Buckland,
Yes, but not all evasions are created equal.
And btw, I have never said that Palin was dumb. I think she is unprepared and has not given these issues sufficient thought. There is a difference.
BTW, I would note that you aren’t actually defending Palin, but rather deflecting the criticism to a question of media templates.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, September 29, 2008 @ 10:57 am
I, too, would not argue that Sarah Palin should ever be considered dumb. To the contrary, she has shown herself to be bold, determined, success-oriented, and willing to adapt to challenging circumstances.
I do not think, however, that she has demonstrated the sort of competence regarding national and worldwide issues a vice-presidential candidate needs to exhibit. This shows a lack of preparation and a fair amount of self-deception, but not necessarily a lack of intelligence.
Comment by Sarah K. B. — Monday, September 29, 2008 @ 11:56 am
I think, given the actual situation, that I can succeed with an even weaker defense, that concedes your point but makes it irrelevant. McCain was never going to win.
If the next Presidential term is as ugly as I expect it to be regardless of who wins, and if Obama wins, and if Republicans always nominate the most obvious choice, then attacking Palin as unprepared right now, in 2008, doesn’t help you because she still gets elected President four years from now. You need to convince everybody she’s unfixably stupid, then maybe you’ll only get Romney.
Comment by Aaron Armitage — Monday, September 29, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
she still gets elected President four years from now
A curious claim, I must say.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, September 29, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
Why, exactly?
Comment by Aaron Armitage — Monday, September 29, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
Aaron,
Well, I don’t see here as the most obvious choice, and she is doing nothing at the moment to position herself as a frontrunner.
Further, historically the losing VP candidate rarely (if ever?) comes back to be their party’s nominee the next go ’round.
The 1980 losing veep nominee, Mondale, went on to be the nominee in 1984, but of course he had also been the sitting vice president.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, September 29, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
Dr, Taylor,
You’re looking at the wrong set of candidates. Here’s the list to consider in regard to a theoretical Palin ‘12:
Bush I, Bush II, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower.
Since 1952, every successful Republican presidential candidate has come into the race with major name recognition. The trend runs mostly in the other direction for Democrats (Carter, Clinton, Obama).
Comment by Ted Craig — Tuesday, September 30, 2008 @ 9:54 am
Ted,
I don’t see any analogy to be made between those candidates and Palin.
Bush I: veep of a highly popular president (not to mention one of the most impressive resumes of any candidate for president ever, just in objective terms: member of Congress, CIA Director, Ambassador to China, etc.).
Bush II: twice-elected governor of a large state, obvious linkage to Bush I after 8 years of Clinton
Reagan: governor of a large state, spent years on the radio and elsewhere building political capital. Almost won the nomination in 1976.
Nixon: Again, was the veep, amongst other things.
Eisenhower: victorious Supreme Allied Commander in WWII
So which one is Palin supposed to be?
Really: to try and compare Palin to any of these candidate is highly problematic.
(Note: Alaska is big geographically, but is a small state).
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, September 30, 2008 @ 11:26 am
Reagan.
She’s the person conservatives in the Republican base are enthusiastic about.
That being Governor of Alaska is less impressive than being Governor of California is a given, but doesn’t really matter. Even if conservatives liked Schwarzenegger, he can’t be President. The size of Alaska will matter less than the incumbent’s approval ratings. If I’m right to be as pessimistic as I am about the next four years, that’s already a lost cause.
Of course a President Obama can get a lot of slack by blaming everything on Bush, but that will only go so far.
Comment by Aaron Armitage — Tuesday, September 30, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
Aaron,
I must confess, it is this kind of argument that makes it difficult for me to take Palin defenders seriously. Yes, Palin is currently exiting the base, but where is the evidence that she is prepared for the roughly two-year (if not longer) campaign that will be needed to obtain the 2012 GOP nomination?
Beyond that, she has exited the base because a) they aren’t excited about McCain and desperately want to be excited about something, and b) she gave a red meat speech at the RNC. Beyond that, what’s the argument in her favor as a vp candidate, let alone as the heir to Reagan?
And it does matter that Reagan was from a large state, held the governorship for two terms, fought a hard battle for the nomination in 1976, as well as having a record for writing and giving speeches and commentary during a long career. That is supposed to compare to one speech at a convention + a partial term as governor of a small state and time in city government in a small town?
Such a comparison makes no sense.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, September 30, 2008 @ 8:33 pm
And where after Obama’s red-meat convention speech four years ago was the proof he was prepared to win the Democratic nomination in 2008?
But Illinois is bigger, etc. To a certain kind of political analyst, which it seems you are, a political situation has to have an exact precedent before it has a right to exist. But you’re wrong. It doesn’t matter if or how Sarah Palin matches any previous Republican nominee. It matters that she’s popular enough with the Republican base that the nomination will be hers if she wants it.
Comment by Aaron Armitage — Thursday, October 2, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
Look, regardless of what one thinks about Obama, it is impossible to make the argument that he hasn’t thought about the issues. To date, the evidence suggests that Palin hasn’t/
And, to be fair, Obama’s ‘04 speech was hardly a “red meat” speech.
To a certain kind of political analyst, which it seems you are, a political situation has to have an exact precedent before it has a right to exist. But you’re wrong. It doesn’t matter if or how Sarah Palin matches any previous Republican nominee. It matters that she’s popular enough with the Republican base that the nomination will be hers if she wants it.
Aaron,
You’re the one who had her with the nomination in 2012, and you were the one who proclaimed her Reagan-like.
Beyond that, however, it isn’t that I can’t conceive of something new, it is that I require some form of evidence to back the argument. You are not presenting a cogent, evidence-based argument. You are instead dealing in hopes and vague possibilities.
Yes, she is popular right now with the GOP base (although that is eroding). At the moment, being popular with the GOP base won’t be enough to win this year, and while she may be able to run for and win the nomination in 2012, there is no evidence to date that she has the requisite tools to accomplish that feat.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, October 2, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
You demanded that I identify which previous Republican nominee she most resembled. Which is a stupid demand that has nothing to do with anything, but I answered anyway, and in answering tried to redirect the conversation to something relevant, which is the fact that the base loves her, and that this is not eroding (certainly not after tonight). Sure, she spent a lot less time producing this result than Reagan had in 1980, and even if she starts running all but full time immediately after McCain loses, by 2012 she will still have spent less time than Reagan did. So what?
The Republican nomination in four years is hers if she wants it.
Comment by Aaron Armitage — Friday, October 3, 2008 @ 12:14 am
You demanded that I identify which previous Republican nominee she most resembled.
Well, no.
I asserted that it was a curious claim that she was automatically going to be the nominee (in #12 above).
You asked why.
I noted that the historical trend indicated that it would be strange for a losing vp nominee to be the party’s choice the next time around (#14).
Another reader (#15) asserted I was looking at the wrong list of candidates and named all the GOP winners–which made no logical sense, given the context, but I went with it. I listed the resume highlights of each candidate, and asked Ted which one she was supposed to be.
You then jumped back in (#17) and asserted: “Reagan.
“She’s the person conservatives in the Republican base are enthusiastic about.”
Not only is that hardly overwhelming evidence for your position, I never asked you directly (let alone “demanded”) that you make a selection.
And now you simply assert that “the base loves her” and that is enough to then assert “The Republican nomination in four years is hers if she wants it.”
You are hardly making a strong case. I can fully accept that, in your opinion, “The Republican nomination in four years is hers if she wants it,” but simply repeating your opinion isn’t an argument.
There is no evidence to suggest, at this point, that Palin has the talents and tools needed to run a nearly two-year campaign to get the nomination in 2012. Further, there is no evidence that she would not be seriously challenged by other aspirants, all of whom have been fund-raising connections and experience.
Palin can’t name her news sources nor any Supreme Court cases beyond Roe and her foreign policy experience is nil.
I would note, btw, that the “base” allegedly loved Fred Thompson. The “base” also was gung-ho (or so it seemed) for Phil Gramm many years ago.
Indeed, the GOP candidate this go ’round who was considered the least popular with “the base” was John McCain. Last time I checked, he won the nomination.
Also: the main reason, to follow on from that last point, that Palin is exciting the base, is that they aren’t excited about McCain and they want to be excited about something.
She gave one red meat speech, she’s pro-life and she didn’t blow the debate. This is supposed to be enough to propel her to the GOP nomination 2012? If so, the party is in more trouble than I thought it was.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, October 3, 2008 @ 7:01 am
To make it very simple for you: you win the Republican nomination by getting the most delegates to the Republican National Convention. You get delegates by having the support of Republican primary voters and caucus-goers. Now who participates in Republican primaries and caucuses? Right. Your strained historical comparison is, as usual, beside the point: this year the conservative vote was split between Romney and Huckabee, both of whom alienated a major part of the conservative movement. Are you seriously arguing that Romney as VP would have produced the same result?
It seems you ARE seriously arguing that because you personally feel that conservatives’ enthusiasm for her is unearned, it somehow doesn’t count. That makes no sense. It doesn’t matter at what length and in what detail you explain exactly why you consider it unearned. Earned or not, it exists.
You’re also getting basic facts wrong. She was asked to name a Supreme Court case other than Roe she disagreed with, not any other case at all. She negotiated a major oil pipeline deal with Canada, which is technically a foreign country. And no, the fact that someone came up with a stupid talking point about Russia doesn’t nullify the fact that she has more real diplomatic experience than the top of the other ticket. Not that the amount of foreign policy experience she has actually matters for the topic at hand, which is not, remember, whether you feel she’s qualified, but what Republican voters are most likely to do four years from now.
There are plenty of reasons Palin could run an winning campaign, starting with the fact that she beat a sitting governor and a former governor (yeah, I know, it doesn’t count because…). And yes, again, conservatives’ enthusiasm for her matters, a lot. It means that she will have a huge lead going in in terms of ground game and small donors. It means she starts out with higher numbers than the other candidates. These facts mean that big donors who are interested in backing the winner (because, to put it bluntly, they’re trying to buy influence) will give her more attention than other candidates. Unless the rest of the field very quickly narrows to one person, no other candidate will even come close.
Comment by Aaron Armitage — Friday, October 3, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
Aaron,
You ignored basically everything that I said. However, I will try to further my argument anyway.
Your basic argument appears to be: the past tells us nothing and that you like Palin, ergo: she’s a shoe-in for 2012.
However, you are also missing the fact that in 2012 there will be more candidates running than Palin to split up the votes in those primaries and caucuses–other Republicans, many of whom will also excite the base. If your contention is that she is the only member of the GOP who will pursue the nomination in 2012, then fine, your’re right: she’ll be the nominee.
At a minimum the notion that one can easily predict the political landscape in four year is a dubious one–which is the main reason I said your claim was odd in the first place and I have tried to explain why.
Indeed, the very fact of Palin herself, i.e., a politician who came out of nowhere (and whom you now like so much that you think she will be the nominee) undercuts your very argument, as no one would have predicted that she would be the veep nominee four years ago, because no one knew she existed. (Think about it: you are telling me that you know, right now, that Palin will be the nominee in 2012, yet the odds are that unless you are from Alaska, you yourself had not heard of Palin in 2008).
I stand corrected on the exact nature of the SCOTUS question, but my basic point remains intact. BTW, based on her convention speech it would seem that she disagrees with the Boumediene v. Bush (as does McCain) and yet she couldn’t conjure that one.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, October 3, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
After reading your first few paragraphs it’s clear to me you didn’t read my reply at all.
Comment by Aaron Armitage — Friday, October 3, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
As you wish.
I have tried to engage you on these issues, but I am not sure what else I can do. Since i directly conceded one of your points from the middle of your post, it would seem that I must’ve read something.
Mainly it seems you are unwilling to directly address my argument and instead wish to simply assert your position.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, October 3, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
I answered you almost point by point. You said I ignored everything you said.
I said, “Unless the rest of the field very quickly narrows to one person, no other candidate will even come close.” You absurdly characterized me as saying that she’ll be the only candidate.
Now you’re saying you’re the one who tried to engage and there’s nothing else to do? You’re right about the latter part.
Comment by Aaron Armitage — Friday, October 3, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
The line about her being the only candidate was sarcasm.
And no, you did not answer me point by point.
Really all you did was the following:
-Point about the GOP base votes in the primaries. Indeed, that is true. I am not sure how that bolsters your argument.
-You then pointed out that Huckabee and Romeny were factors in the race. As I noted, there will be such candidates in the future.
-I agree that I misstated the SCOTUS answer, but maintained it did not really change my point.
Again: your whole argument is predicated on the notion that conservative enthusiasm for Palin right now is guaranteed to sustain itself until 2012. Not only is excitement an ephemeral thing, you don’t know that political conditions four years in the future. And again: Palin herself is an example of how the unknown comes into these races every four years. Also, you have given no good reason why the historical pattern will be broken by Palin.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, October 4, 2008 @ 8:23 am
I see you finally got around to reading my post, but not to actually paying it enough attention that you could respond reasonably.
If this is how you “engage” you’d be better off if you just stopped.
So. You don’t see how people who love Palin voting in elections where she is a candidate is going to help her win. You do know what voting is, right?
You’re now reduced to arguing that something as surprising as McCain’s choice of her is going to keep her from winning the nomination. Well, maybe. The unexpected always happens, but you’re betting on it happening to one particular person and having one particular effect, when by definition you don’t know what it is. But we do know that Vice Presidential picks are made by one person and nominations are made by lots of people as part of a prolonged process. Which one do YOU think is more likely to be a surprise?
See, you’re making my argument as dogmatic as yours. You might reread my first post: I said “if… and if.. and if…”. You’re saying it won’t happen, period. You are the one claiming definite knowledge of the future, and I’m the one pointing out it isn’t necessarily going to be the way you say. But somehow the indeterminate nature of the future helps your case because you already know the effects that the unknowns are all going to have. Interesting.
Now, I also explain specific campaign advantages she has, and you ignored them. Or rather, denied that I ever said those things. You know, you’re not very good at this whole “conversation” thing. Maybe you should work on it. But I will repeat myself, and add a few more for good measure: volunteers, small donors, free media, buzz, and as a result of these, big donors. Yes, maybe she’ll wait so long she squanders these and then jump in at the last minute. (Are you happy? I qualified it. Of course not: you demand I “know” she won’t win and therefore “know” that something, anything, will stop her.) And again, candidates like Romney and Huckabee (and probably one or both of Romney and Huckabee themselves) don’t help your case: a large number of candidates favors the one who already has a connection with conservative activists and who will be getting lots of free media. The other candidates will be sucking up each others’ oxygen. Some number of Republican voters will have reservations about Palin: how is splitting them up three or four ways going to help you?
Comment by Aaron Armitage — Saturday, October 4, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
*sigh*
You originally stated:
f Republicans always nominate the most obvious choice, then attacking Palin as unprepared right now, in 2008, doesn’t help you because she still gets elected President four years from now.
I will concede that there was an “if” in the statement. However, I was basically making the assertion that it is unclear (at best) that Palin is the “most obvious choice” in 2012.
Indeed, as I said was:
she still gets elected President four years from now
A curious claim, I must say.
You responded with:
Why, exactly?
I have been trying to explain why for quite a while now.
You state in the comment above:You’re saying it won’t happen, period.
I haven’t never stated that it was impossible that she will get the nomination, just that she is far from the most likely choice in 2012. My contention has been that it is a stretch to assert that she will be the nominee (or even likely to be) in 2012.
I said in comment 14:
Well, I don’t see here as the most obvious choice, and she is doing nothing at the moment to position herself as a frontrunner.
Further, historically the losing VP candidate rarely (if ever?) comes back to be their party’s nominee the next go ’round.
That is hardly an assertion that she won’t get it no matter what.
What I have argued, consistently, is:
-It would defy the historical pattern.
-She does not have a true base of support to build upon into 2012. She could, perhaps, build one, but the fact that a lot of “the base” loves her at the moment simply isn’t enough. Again, the base loved Phil Gramm in 1996 and he didn’t even make to to Iowa and a lot of the base loved Fred Thompson, and we know how that turned out.
Some other point:
You state: You’re now reduced to arguing that something as surprising as McCain’s choice of her is going to keep her from winning the nomination.
Where did I say that?
You state: The unexpected always happens, but you’re betting on it happening to one particular person and having one particular effect, when by definition you don’t know what it is.
I am not sure exactly what you are saying here. All I have said about the unexpected is that Palin herself illustrates how difficult it is to project four years forward. She is the very definition of an unexpected surprise.
You state: I also explain specific campaign advantages she has, and you ignored them.
No, I discounted them. You whole argument is, as best as I can tell, predicated on the notion that a) she is popular right now with the base, and b) that that popularity will sustain itself sufficiently to take her to the nomination in 2012.
You state: But I will repeat myself, and add a few more for good measure: volunteers, small donors, free media, buzz, and as a result of these, big donors.
She doesn’t have a volunteer base or a donor base at the moment–they belong to the McCain campaign. These things dissipate after a given campaign and have to be reconstituted. Palin will not automatically inherent the McCain volunteers and donors and such from McCain. Indeed, many of them will end up working for/supporting other candidates in 2012. It always works that way. Indeed, her lack of experience on the national stage will make it difficult to create that infrastructure. This is not a slam, nor a criticism, just a fact.
Again, that is part of the point of comment #14–the losing veep nominee doesn’t simply take the foundation build by the top of the ticket and then add on four years later.
And back to comment #14: it has to count for something, and I think it is something you are ignoring, that the last time a losing veep nominee went on to win the party’s nod the next time was 1984 and then the nominee had actually been the Vice President. Nixon kind of did in in 1968, but that was after not running in 1964. He, too, was the VP. I honestly do not think that there is a case of the losing party’s VP nominee going on to win the party’s nomination the next cycle. I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying it is highly, highly unlikley.
In re “buzz”–that is ephemeral and is hardly enough to propel a candidate from one cycle to the next. And all candidates have, to one degree or another, access to free media.
You state: Are you happy? I qualified it. Of course not: you demand I “know” she won’t win and therefore “know” that something, anything, will stop her.
I demanded that when?
In re: Huckabee and Romney. I bring them up because what they illustrate is that in a situation where the nomination is open (i.e., there is no incumbent) then there will be a number of contenders for the nomination. if Obama wins in ‘08, then there will be a large number of GOP candidates in 2012. If Palin is one of them, then she will have to compete with them.
Also: Huck and Mitt are useful to illustrate that the candidates that “the base” supposedly prefer don’t always win (and you argument is that Palin is the candidate of “the base” and that gives her a likely shot at the 2012 nomination). Again, as noted already, McCain was not “the base’s” candidates, yet he is the nominee.
While it is true that I am not a Palin fan, my assessment of her chances of being the nominee in 2012 are not based on my preferences.
Would it make you happier if I stated that I also think that if Obama loses that it is unlikely he will be the Democratic nominee in 2012? I think he has a better chance than normal for a repeat, but I still think his chances won’t be very good.
It goes without saying that if McCain loses that he will not be the nominee in 2012 (but, I said it anyway ;).
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, October 4, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
I will concede that there was an “if” in the statement.
Astonishing.
However, I was basically making the assertion that it is unclear (at best) that Palin is the “most obvious choice” in 2012.
Because of a lack of exact precedents. But these aren’t court cases, so the kind of evidence you’re asking for is irrelevant.
You state: You’re now reduced to arguing that something as surprising as McCain’s choice of her is going to keep her from winning the nomination.
Where did I say that?
And then:
All I have said about the unexpected is that Palin herself illustrates how difficult it is to project four years forward. She is the very definition of an unexpected surprise.
Uh huh.
If you were logical, a general appeal to “the unexpected” would cut both cases, that she either is or isn’t the most obvious choice.
You state: I also explain specific campaign advantages she has, and you ignored them.
No, I discounted them.
Wrong. You said, “Really all you did was the following:” and did not mention them. Saying, in so many words, that I had not done what I had done. Unless in your private lexicon “really” means “all I care to interact with” rather than anything to do with reality.
You whole argument is, as best as I can tell, predicated on the notion that a) she is popular right now with the base, and b) that that popularity will sustain itself sufficiently to take her to the nomination in 2012.
Now, I know you read where I said, “Yes, maybe she’ll wait so long she squanders these and then jump in at the last minute.” So why should I take anything you say seriously?
She doesn’t have a volunteer base or a donor base at the moment–they belong to the McCain campaign. These things dissipate after a given campaign and have to be reconstituted. Palin will not automatically inherent the McCain volunteers and donors and such from McCain. Indeed, many of them will end up working for/supporting other candidates in 2012. It always works that way. Indeed, her lack of experience on the national stage will make it difficult to create that infrastructure. This is not a slam, nor a criticism, just a fact.
She is, once again, a person who beat a sitting governor and a former governor. And she doesn’t have experience at setting up a campaign infrastructure? Is that even meant to be taken seriously?
You seem to need to invent strawmen, being unable to answer my actual points. The point isn’t that she’ll inherit McCain’s network. The point is that her connection to conservatives now gives her a head start. If she chooses to take advantage of that head start, she will make it very difficult for any other candidate to catch up. Especially if there are many other candidates.
In re: Huckabee and Romney. I bring them up because what they illustrate is that in a situation where the nomination is open (i.e., there is no incumbent) then there will be a number of contenders for the nomination. if Obama wins in ‘08, then there will be a large number of GOP candidates in 2012. If Palin is one of them, then she will have to compete with them.
Also: Huck and Mitt are useful to illustrate that the candidates that “the base” supposedly prefer don’t always win (and you argument is that Palin is the candidate of “the base” and that gives her a likely shot at the 2012 nomination). Again, as noted already, McCain was not “the base’s” candidates, yet he is the nominee.
Everything wrong with this conversation in a nutshell: you make a fallacious argument, I answer the argument, you ignore my answer and merely repeat the original fallacy, I am obliged to repeat my refutation.
Here it goes again: Huckabee and Romney were chasing the same voters. You seem to be under the impression that having more conservatives in the race means that it was more likely that one of them should have won. Which would be an astonishing failure on the part of a poli sci professor, if true.
Palin starts with higher name recognition than virtually any possible rival, which means that other candidates are playing catch up. The more of them there are, the less able to compete with Palin any individual candidate is. And you need one particular candidate to beat Palin, not other candidates in general. You do understand why, don’t you?
Comment by Aaron Armitage — Saturday, October 4, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
Tell you what: if in four years she is the nominee, I will be more than happy to dedicate a post to how you were right.
And I am not being sarcastic.
I really don’t know what to say beyond that.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, October 4, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
I have my own standards of judicial ability, experience, philosophy, and temperament. And Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito meet those standards in every respect. They would serve as the model for my own nominees if that responsibility falls to me.
Now, there may be a lot of Clinton supporters who are mad about the way things are proceeding (several were in evidence yesterday at the RBC meeting yesterday) and I have seen sound bites of some of them declaring that they will vote for McCain in the fall. Further, much of the focus has been on how upset women will be if Clinton isn’t the nominee. I suspect, however, that once the dust settles, quotes like that above will change a lot of minds in terms of whether they really are willing to engage in a fit of electoral pique.
whomever is elected president will almost certainly change the makeup of the court.
While the notion of Roe going away in a year is absurd (and indeed, I am not convinced that even a conservative shift on the Court will result in abortion policy changing as much as some think it will), the bottom line is that John Paul Stevens is 88, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg is 75, and Breyer, Kennedy and Scalia will be in the 70s by the time the next President put hand to Bible.
Somehow, I think these facts will persuade a great number of frustrated feminists to rethink any ship-jumping to the GOP or abstentionism in the Fall.
Indeed, I predict a hearty manifestation of the Deion Sanders Effect soon, wherein Obama goes from being on the hated “other team” to “my team.”
I agree that it is unlikely that there will be a lot of democratic faithful jumping ship to vote for McCain in the fall, I think it is quite likely that many will simply stay home.
You have predicted that this will happen on the GOP side, with dissatisfaction among Republicans leading to lower turnout and assuring that the democratic candidate wins.
I don’t understand why, when there is just as much dissatisfaction among democrats is just as strong - if we are to look at quantitative measures and not hunches and feelings.
The most recent gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107242/Congress-Approval-Rating-Ties-Lowest-Gallup-Records.aspx) shows that America’s approval rating of the Democratic-party controlled congress is at 18%. That’s lower than Bush’s approval rating, and ties the lowest approval rating Gallup has ever recorded. While it is true that there is a historical tendency for the Congressional approval rating to lag behind the President’s rating, the gap is usually very close (within a few percentage ponts) when the Congress is controlled by a different party than the White House (and a few points is statisitcally irrelevant). So I think it’s safe to say that people in both parties are extemely unhappy with both their own and the opposition party.
Further evidence can be found in the Blogosphere - even on your own blog there have been comments left by Clinton supporters indicating their intent to stay home if Obama is the candidate.
My question to you is why, in the face of this kind of information, do you think the Republican Party will have a low turnout and the Democratic Party will not? If it’s the historic tendency of supporters of one candidate to hop onto the other’s bandwagon once the primary process is over, I would submit that your position is weak because this primary race has been different from any past races. It has been closer, uglier, longer, and more emotional. It is also extremely charged with race and gender issues, which people take very personally. These things make it unlike anything we have seen before. In short, I think historical models are not useful for predicting what Clinton supporters will do when she either drops out or is forced out of the race for the nomination. If we are to guess (and we are guessing when we try to predict voter behavior) we must look at other measures to gauge voter sentiment and think logically about how they will act.
It would seem to me that there is more data supporting the idea that the turnout for both parties will be unusual, unpredictable, and probably quite close.
I do not think that the energy that has been exhibited in the primary cycle is going to translate into support for ageneral election candidate on a 1:1 ratio. Some will hop on the bandwagon but a lot will stay home. The numbers and rhetoric I’ve seen all point towards a lot of Clinton supporters boycotting the vote. There will be a lot of sour grapes and a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Why would we assume, when the evidence points another way, that all (or even most) who support Clinton will happily jump ship and board the Obama Express when Clinton is out of the picture?
This will be a close election, and I can’t call it.
Comment by Captain D — Sunday, June 1, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
I have been meaning to compose a post that addresses your ongoing critique (which is fair) that the election is too close to call. I still disagree that the race isn’t clearly the Dems to lose.
I will say this at the moment: there is excitement is ousting Republicans that will galvanize Democratic voters more than any excitement that will be similarly generated on the GOP side. Indeed, all Reps have at the moment is bitter disappointment, save at that the hardcore 30% GOPers who are GOPers no matter what.
I really do think you over-estimate the degree to which the Clinton folks who are going to vote for McCain really are going to vote for McCain. Woman who went through the Women’s Rights Movements of the 1960s and 1970s may be angry right now that Clinton isn’t going to get the nomination, but if you really think that those types of voters will really risk a pro-life Court, you are mistaken. Those types, who right now are angry as can be, will vote for Obama in the Fall, and do so passionately.
I also think that there are enough Republican voters who are so disenchanted with the war, the budget, the executive power issue and such that there are enough of them to depress turnout. I think some of them will vote Libertarian or for Obama. As I continually point out every time we engage in this discussion: it won’t take much in a handful of states for the Democrats to win. And the GOP’s current approval rating (and not just Bush’s) is pathetically low. The war is unpopular, gas prices are high and there is very little on the table for the “small government conservative” to get excited about.
I agree that the popular vote will be relatively close-but, I have a really hard time seeing a GOP win in November. Now, those chances are better with McCain than they would have been with any of the other GOP candidates, but I still have a very hard time seeing a McCain win. However, time will tell.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, June 1, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
Well, I am wrong about these things more often than I’m right. I think it’s because my crystal ball is actually made of Lucite; I can’t afford real crystal on a military disability pension.
But to be clear, I didn’t argue that Clinton’s supporters will jump onto McCain’s train; I argued that some of them will take their ball and go home, and not vote at all. There is a huge difference, as one requires embracing your enemy, while the other does not; it is simply abstention from the process. While it may have the same outcome in creating a greater opportunity for your enemy to win, it does not carry the repugnancy that actually casting a vote does, and is therefore a far more palatable option for a person who is disaffected with their party. It’s also my position that a broad analysis including approval ratings for the Democrat-controlled congress (of which Clinton and Obama are a part) and evidence that I admit to be anecdotal seem to support this *possible* future.
In truth I’m sort of playing the devil’s advocate, in that I think there are many possible outcomes for November, and I think there will be some surprises for all of us before it’s over. To be honest, I don’t know what I’m going to do in November; I’m one of many Americans who doesn’t know what to do, and whose actions therefore cannot be accurately predicted.
One thing I would bet on (if I were a gambler) is that whoever is elected in November serves 1 term. They are going to inherit unpopular wars, an economy that has yet to have the bottom fall out from under it, and historically high gas prices (among other things).
Iraq is a mess that will take far more than 4 years to clean up, no matter what approach is taken. Same with the economy - it is where it is because of decades of bad lending practices that have pushed our household debt beyond our gross domestic product; our enormous debt load is what is crippling consumer spending, and there’s no way to eliminate it with the touch of a magic wand. And the president can never do too much about gas prices, as they are (as you have observed in the past) primarily determined by market forces that the president of the U.S. can do nothing about.
People will expect the new administration to “fix” all of these things, and will be sorely disappointed when in 4 years Iraq is still a mess, the economy is still weak, and gas costs even more than it did in 2008. These problems are all of a long-term nature that will require long-term fixes. America does not have that kind of patience or forward-thinking ability; no way the next president goes more than one term.
All the talk of change is going to amount to a flatus in the wind.
Comment by Captain D — Sunday, June 1, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
Obviously sir you are living in a bubble !!! I have never nor will I now change my status as to how I feel about this election, its process and our seated polical party’s… If this election goes off as predicted I will either not vote at all, or write in a vote for Hillary Clinton… Hows this for thought I’m an ex Republican and after Ronald Reagan swore never to vote republican for the rest of my born days… I don’t doubt your one of the professors brainwashing young adults in college to vote for Obama… But may I remind you like a college degree & education Ther are no guarantees you will be successful… So, if the rest of the Country chooses to make uneducated decisions such as the last 2 elections… I’m willing to let the stones fall as they may… Again America and the intelligent Americans will get exactly what they ask for (amazing how that works)
After this election I will be working fervently to start a new party as it is quite obvious everyone in charge now can’t handle the positions nor the authority which they were elected to guard or be trusted with… This election, should the choices be as predicted is incorrigible… God help us !!!
Comment by Harry C — Sunday, June 1, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
by the time the next President put hand to Bible.
Of course, if Obama is the nominee, he will be swearing in on a Koran.
You know, I’ve heard people say Obama is a “Black Muslim” but I’ve not seen much evidence of either. I don’t think he’s either of those things; he’s an American politician, which is a race and religion unto itself.
Comment by Captain D — Monday, June 2, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
[...] me as symbolically even more problematic. And, as I noted the other day, there’s the whole abortion issue and SCOTUS. I have a very hard time seeing feminists in their fifties and sixties saying that they are so mad [...]
ProfessorBainbridge.com is currently semi-closed (there is currently only one post and I think that the archives are inaccessible) as Steve seeks to “rebrand” away from general punditry:
I’ve pretty much decided to rebrand ProfessorBainbridge.com by repositioning it as what it started out to be; namely, a niche blog focused on business law and economics.
It is an interesting move. I wonder how much of it is a response to the general malaise that is settling over politics these days and how much has something to do with blogging burnout and the intermixture between academics and blogging and how such a person wishes to present themselves to the general public.
While I still enjoy “punditry” (although I prefer to think of it a analysis and commentary) I have for some time felt less and less interested in partisan discussions, per se–something which I engaged in more in the earlier days of this blog. While I remain more than willing to engage in philosophically-based commentary, I find myself less and less “partisan”–indeed, I believe that blogging has made me less partisan (at least in my own mind) than I used to be, even though it initially made me, I think, more-so.
Some of this is, no doubt, a reflection of the various messes made by this administration and the current congressional leadership. However, I really do think that daily blogging has made me think more about a panoply of issues, insofar as I have had to deeply examine why I think what I think if I am going to be making arguments in public. Further, reading a great deal of rabidly partisan blogging (from both sides of the aisle) has enhanced my distaste for such approaches to politics. That distaste has extended to other media. For the longest time I was quite the consumer of political talk radio, but for almost two years I have found my interest in such to have radically waned. I mostly listen to sportstalk now.
Further, I would far prefer to be taken seriously as an analyst (even if one known to have certain philosophical predilections) than to attract an audience of red-meat devouring partisans. Part of that is simply my own intellectual temperament, and part it is my academic orientation.
I wonder how much of these issues play into Steve’s decision.
And to be clear: while there is plenty to be frustrated with in terms of the political at the moment, my perspective on these issues as outlined above have been present in my mind for over a year. See, for example, there older posts:
Those posts are mostly about the mean-spirited nature of overly-partisan blogging, but fit my evolving point of view on the issue of partisan lenses in general, and specifically as they apply to blogging.
Or perhaps UCLA has been asking some questions about his uses of time that SB would rather not answer.
I strongly suspect that we will soon start to see universities, especially public universities, start to crack down on faculty who are running populist rather than strictly academic blogs.
Tenure does not include the right to spend all day goofing off via a blog.
True (the right to goof off part), but I question the supposition that because one blogs one is goofing off, unless one is literally blogging all day long to exclusion of all else–and the proof of that would not be in the blogging, but in the other work produced.
I would argue that your premise is, therefore, somewhat flawed.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, October 17, 2006 @ 9:19 pm
I want to say that his chair has actually been positive about the blog (as, btw, has mine), rather than the reverse. And to test your hypothesis, we will have to see if Euguene Volokh makes similar moves.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, October 17, 2006 @ 9:20 pm
It’s funny you should mention your change to a less partisan view, because I had recently commented on that exact fact to my husband. It was in a conversation about how much more I enjoy reading Poliblog now than I once did.
Comment by Jan — Wednesday, October 18, 2006 @ 9:57 am
Bainbridge (and Volokh) don’t work for the Chair. They work for the taxpayers of California and the tuition-paying students.
All you need is one activist politician to turn it into an issue. Wouldn’t be the first time.
This is a recurrent conversation–the whole working for the taxpayers bit–and it is a bit more complicated than that.
Regardless, I honestly don’t think that it is the issue at hand for Bainbridge.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, October 18, 2006 @ 7:29 pm
It seems to me that reading the news could easily be considered within the job description of a political science professor (or any professor for that matter). To then comment on it in an open forum hardly seems like “goofing off”. It’s sorta like an informal conference that goes on all year long. The sharing of opinions and ideas is an active part of acedemia.
However, the comment about a politician making a big deal about it at some point could happen. It seems unlike, to me anyway, that it would have a major effect even if one did. Maybe if one of the blogging professors was running for office it would cause a stir, but otherwise it seems unlikely.
Comment by Jan — Thursday, October 19, 2006 @ 8:03 am
Drowning in a Sea of Blogs
Stephen Bainbridge has grown weary of the day-to-day grind of maintaining a blog of political commentary.
With the blogging “market” increasingly crowded, the model of an eclectic, general interest blog is a less viable one. Perhaps more im…
A clear problem with a two party system is that by essentially making every election a binary choice means that partisans are prone to, especially over time, vest their side (in their own minds) with unlimited virtue and the side with undying vice. Call it the Crossfire/Hannity and Colmes Effect wherein all of the complexities of the political world have to be centered in one side or the other. I have termed the way in which we have a tendency to protect (or, at least, excuse) our own side as the “Deion Sanders Effect” (although, as I note in the original post, the younger members of the audience might want to call it the “Terrell Owens Effect”).
Because of the dichotomization of choices, we start thinking solely in terms of whether a particular event, or set of events, helps our side keep power or not. We, in turn, eschew critically evaluating our own side, or asking whether or not that which appealed to us about a given party in the first place–i.e., whether certain values and policies are, indeed, being promoted.
The response to such observations is that the “well, even a flawed version of our side is better than any version of their side.” Perhaps, but there does come a point where one’s side may lose their claim on one’s loyalty.
It seems to me that rabid partisanship often leads to three deadly sins:
1) The inability to look at one’s party with objectivity (a sin that has been committed rampantly in the last week or so).
2) The characterization of the other side as the enemy (rather than simply people with whom there are disagreements).
3) The notion that all that matters in politics is winning.
It isn’t just a vice of the two-party system, Dr. Taylor. Anyone who is overly partisan is quite capable of considering anyone and everyone else as the enemy and failing to be objective.
May I suggest a look at George Lakoff’s “Thinking Points” and his other work on “deep framing” for a probable reason why. Think of “deep frames” as reality maps - they aren’t easily amenable to simple facts and logic because facts and logic are understood and interpreted by reference to those very maps. Facts and logic have to be framed in language that must reflect the values and language of the deep frame before it can even by processed.
Maybe its time for those from all points of the political compass who consider the point of politics to be good governance “by the people and for the people” - all the people - to work on their deep framing a whole lot more.
Regards, Cernig
Comment by Cernig — Saturday, October 7, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
You are correct: partisanship can lead to the demonization of others regardless of the number of parties.
However, with a two party system I would argue that the intense need for your side to right (i.e, correct) is amplified by the fact there there only two choices.
The only way to give ground even a little is to defect from the system entirely. If there are multiple parties, there is at least the opportunity for alliance shifts at the margins-especially if one can follow one’s values from one party to another.
With only two choices, one has to either go with the proverbial “lesser of two evils” or simply profess the evil of the other side and the virtue of one’s own.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, October 7, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
I think your certainly on to something here. In a usual election today, you sell you message to the people. Now, people are busy and don’t have a lot of time to listen to indepth analysis (unless you a political junky like us bloggers), so they end up being sold primarily on talking points. These talking points are obviously huge oversimlifications like the black and white distinctions you point out above.
Now, in a multi-party system where you need some form of multi-party consensus to get any legislation passed, you need to not only sell your ideas to the masses, but too each other. Politicians, oddly enough, have a lot of time to think about politics, and can, in theory, go a lot more in depth on a topic than is possible by the average voter. (while I’ll agree US politicians don’t go in depth right now, I would argue that is because they aren’t forced to in any way)
Comment by Kevin H — Saturday, October 7, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
[...] Exhibit A of what I termed earlier in the day one of the “deadly sins of partisanship” (#1, in fact): an audio clip of James Dobson buying buying the prank hypothesis regarding Foley. [...]
We, in turn, eschew critically evaluating our own side, or asking whether or not that which appealed to us about a given party in the first place–i.e., whether certain values and policies are, indeed, being promoted.
to me, eschewing critical evaluation is an example of being irrational. In this situation, one is choosing an emotional attachment to party over his or her own actual best interest without taking the time evaluate or reevaluate the situation. Do you agree or disagree? Explain.
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, October 10, 2006 @ 8:41 am
I think that that problem (or, at least, a problem) in this ongoing dialogue about rationality is that you seem to keep setting up “rational” as either perfect, or somehow about being correct. To say that human beings are, in a general sense, rational is not to say that they are Vulcans who have completed the Kolinahr, but that they act in what they perceive of as their best interest and that there are discernible reasons for their behaviors. (I get the impresion from our conversations that you want “rationality” to be more than it is).
It does not preclude being wrong. I am ultimately saying that many allow themselves to believe that their political interests are so tied to a particular party that they then believe it is in their best interest to eschew criticism.
(And if one is a pundit, politician or otherwise makes one’s living for being partisan, that it is wholly rational to eschew criticism of one’s party).
That may result in an incorrect assessment of said party, but it isn’t irrational.
Indeed, perhaps I am wrong in my assessment, and that that better route to achieving my political goals is to be a rabid partisan.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, October 10, 2006 @ 10:03 am
I don’t really think I’m wanting rational to be more than it is, and sometime I feel like it is you that is trying to make it a black and white issue.
I’m not saying that people are either completely rational or completely irrational. I’m just saying that a particular act can be mostly rational or mostly irrational.
I’m not saying that because it turns out to be wrong or decided without access to all the facts that it is irrational. That’s not what I’m saying at all.
My understanding of rational, to put Plato aside for the moment, is to make a decision based on self-interest and with goals in mind. It is a two part definition that requires both aspects to be considered rational.
If one becomes so focused on a goal, whatever that goal may be, that they lose sight of their own self-interest, doesn’t it become irrational to continue to persue that goal? (Think Khan persuing Kirk to his death.) Alternatively, if one is seeking immediate self interest (such as some sort of carnal gratification) without some goal orientation or thought of the consequenses, it would seem to also be not rational, if not irrational. Any animal, human or otherwise, will persue its immediate self interest in the carnal sense without it having anything to do with rational capability.
Somehow I feel like we are still disconnected on this subject.
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, October 10, 2006 @ 10:55 am
Indeed, as the funny thing is that I was thinking that you were the one trying to make this into black and white.
The reason I say this is because most of thee conversation seem to come down to someone acting with emotion, thus disproving that human beings are rational. (At least that is how the argument keeps coming across)
The main disconnect that I think we have (although I could be wrong) is that you tend to always bring the conversation back to individuals and specific actions. I am mainly arguing in terms of aggregate behavior.
I don’t buy the Plato model, btw, at least not the way it is presented in the Republic, so that may be part of the disconnect.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, October 10, 2006 @ 11:16 am
How dost thou define rational, por favor? Just a simple straight forward definition. Maybe that would help.
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, October 10, 2006 @ 11:24 am
I am dealing with it in terms of the decision-making of actors.
A rational actor is one who has the capacity to assess given options and pursue the one that the actors perceives to be in his/her best interest.
The ability to assess the best option will be effected by such factors as incomplete or incorrect information, cultural filters and so forth.
Rationality assumes free will and the ability to assess one’s own circumstances and best interest within the constraints of available information
I assume that human beings are fundamentally thinking creatures, and the better they are able to collect and assess information, the better able they are to make decisions.
To me to assert that irrationality is the dominant characteristic of man is not only to go to a very dark place (at least potentially, look at Nietzsche, Mussolini and Hitler) but also to assume that ultimately human beings are really just so many talking animals (except, perhaps, for some transcendent elite).
Further, I think that empirically speaking the assumptions that people are fundamentally, if imperfectly, rational explains more than does the notion that they are fundamentally irrational.
I not sure if this helps or not.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, October 10, 2006 @ 11:45 am
I think I know where you are coming from now.
And I don’t think I have ever said that irrationality was the dominant characteristic of humans.
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, October 10, 2006 @ 11:50 am
Just for the record, that doesn’t mean this discussion is completely over, just that I think I know where you are coming from now.
And we both have writing to do, so we should probably let this go for now.
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, October 10, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
Perhaps not. However, the argument seems to have long been that they are not dominantly rational. I suppose I assumed from there that the alternative was that they were predominantly irrational.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, October 10, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
I believe I recently used the term 50/50. but anyway. . .
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, October 10, 2006 @ 12:24 pm
I suppose my point is that there is a dark side to human nature and to ignor that fact is dangerous. Individual human beings do not always act rationally and, as a result, human beings acting together in a group will not always act rationally. I am NOT saying that any one group (elites, etc.) are more rational than any other group. Any person or any group of persons are capable of falling into irrational behavior given the proper circumstance. Theory and reality should therefore account for that fact.
All people, cultures and states are capable of acting rationally. I accept that as natural fact. I just don’t accept that they always use that capacity especially in times of great emotional distress or turmoil.
Does that make sense?
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, October 10, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
Oh, I had no illusions about that.
And yes, we do.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, October 10, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
are we on the same page now?
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, October 10, 2006 @ 2:48 pm
Methinks that that remains to be seen.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, October 10, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
of course.
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, October 10, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
Are we at least in the same book? the same library?
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, October 10, 2006 @ 9:48 pm
To my critics: if the main reason for supporting the Bolton nomination is because President Bush nominated him, then that strikes me as not a particularly good argument (indeed, it isn’t an argument at all, it is the Deion Sander Effect in operation).
That isn’t a very good political argument, nor it is one that is based in policy nor in good governance. Rather, it is simply a partisan argument.
Yes, the President wants him, and on balance I think that Presidents should get whomever they wish, but that is not an absolute right by any stretch.
I am curious as to how many think that President Clinton “should have had” Lani Guinier to head the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ in 1993? After all, the President wanted her.
And if recess appointments are no big deal, why was Senator Trent Lott so upset when President Clinton used one to appoint James Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg back in 1999?
I suppose my annoyance at all of the brouhaha over Bolton is that I think that most of the supporters of the President’s action are borne not first out of desire to see the UN reformed, but out of partisan point-scoring. Indeed, I think that it is indicative of a lot what is wrong with US politics: arguing from partisanship first. I thought that we are became partisans because we thought one side was more likely to produce the policy outcomes that we prefer. Since I am of the opinion that policies I prefer would have had a slightly better chance of coming to fruition by a little capitulation on the President’s part in this case, I favored such capitulation. I think that Bolton has been (and I hate to agree with Chris Dodd) damaged by this process and therefore less likely to be able to be an agent of reform in the UN. Further, I think that upping the animosity ante for little gain isn’t helpful vis-a-vis the Senate, the press and the public.
I recognize that many disagree with me, but until someone can give me a better argument that isn’t essentially based in the “he’s the guy the President wanted” argument, I shall steadfastly stand on my position. I certainly am unconvinced that Bolton himself is such a vital soul. That is an argument more suited to judicial nominees.
Gee whiz, most of had never heard of John Bolton before this process and really don’t know all that much about him save for the fact that he has odd grooming preferences and has said some pithy things about the UN.
Comment by Henriet Cousin — Tuesday, August 2, 2005 @ 2:49 pm
The problem with partisan politics, especially the way it is today is that neither side will give an inch for common sense. When did this really start getting bad? I honestly don’t know, but I will venture to say that Gingrich simply turned the gas up on a simmering flame.
Poliblogger on Bolton, again . . . and again . . . and again
Poor Steven seems to be taking some heat for his stand on the Bolton nomination/recess appointment. See here and here.
For the record, I agree with almost everything Steven says in these posts, except for the fact that I don’t think Bolton is …
The real question you have to ask yourself: would any candidate that Bush put up NOT be “damaged goods” at this point?
You think Bolton is not the right pick in the first place? Okay, fine, the time to bitch about him was when he was appointed. But to say now that he is “damaged goods” when ANY candidate put forward would be in the same place as Bolton at this point is disingenuous.
You’re blaming the supporters of Bush’s as being partisan, when the fact is that we got here in the first place because of partisan sniping from democrats. Your solution is cave, cave, and cave some more until all 100 senators agree with the pick? No thanks. That’s not how the Constitution is set up.
The real solution would be to push for a full vote in the senate and then convince REPUBLICANS to vote against him and why. That is how this thing is supposed to work: lobby your senator. Make some ads. Start a anti-bolton blog and convince 51 senators to vote against him. Instead your solution is for the President to hang his nominee out to dry when things get difficult. Good leaders don’t do this to their people. Plus that would just give ammunition to the minority in the senate to keep doing this instead of sending his picks to the full senate.
First, have you read my rather stringent defenses of the “nuclear option”? Just search the term and read–I spilled quite a number of electrons on that one. It is rather difficult to characterize my position as “cave, cave, cave”.
Second, the reason Bolton is damaged is partially because he is damage-able. Watch Roberts (or think back to Pryor and the other 5 Appeals Court nominees that were approved–were they damaged once on the bench? No. And neither will Roberts be despite partisan attacks.
Third, I hope you remember all of this the next time a Democrat is in office.
Fourth, the structure of the Senate is such that there will be situations in which a minority can block.
Fifth, why in the world does this nomination have you so worked up?
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, August 2, 2005 @ 8:29 pm
And it isn’t that am opposed, per se, to Bolton; it is that I am opposed to using a recess appointment to put him in the post.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, August 2, 2005 @ 8:37 pm
Steven,
I totally agree with you. When the news of the recess appointment broke, I said Pres. Bush made a mistakes. This ‘victory’ could end up being a costly one. I expect the Dems to exact revenge somewhere.
Yes how many of us gave a hoot about Bolton before this confirmation battle started?
Comment by Bill — Wednesday, August 3, 2005 @ 5:38 am
Bolton Appointment
I haven’t written much about the appointment of John Bolton to the UN, mostly because I don’t care much about the UN. It’s a vile organization run mostly by criminal thugs, tyrants, and theocrats after all. Nevertheless, Steven T…
I don’t find it particularly telling that few people had heard of Bolton before this nomination. I would bet you a dollar that 95 out of 100 voters could not tell you who the last Ambassador to the UN was, and that 99 out of 100 couldn’t tell you who was UN ambassador before that.
It’s fairly clear to me that Bolton is opposed for no particular reason except that he’s Bush’s guy and is a stern critic of the UN. I favor him because it’s refreshing to see someone who’s a stern critic of the UN be sent there.
It is likely Bolton will disappoint me, but only because he’s likely to be nowhere near nasty enough to the pit of snakes and vipers that makes up that body. But then, honestly, if Bush sent up a guy who showed up half-naked with warpaint on his face, a bone in his nose, and a spear in his hand, screaming obscenities and calling down the wrath of God on the UN, I’d probably be delighted.
Diplomacy isn’t about nice. It’s about being nice when nice is called for, and angry when angry is called for, and flexible when flexible is called for, and rigid when rigid is called for.
We’ve had enough pansies who treat the UN like something sacred. In Bolton it appears we have someone who will step on toes and cause howls of rage. GOOD, I HOPE SO.
Thanks for the comment and the post. We share the same ultimate goal here. I am remain unconvinced, however, that the brouhaha surrounding Bolton furthers those goals. I think it makes it easier for the global community and domestic political actors, to take Bolton and the President seriously on UN reform and I think it unnecessarily further poisons the well in terms of domestic politcs.
Given the relative insignificance of the position in question, I don’t see the need to be confrontational over it in this manner.
However, it is moot at this point, to be sure.
S
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, August 3, 2005 @ 8:29 am
[...] For what it is worth, I opposed the recess appointment in the first place, so I am being consistent. I didn’t see this as a “the” fight that many seem to think it was then, and I don’t see it as such now. [...]
The current situation with John Bolton strikes me as falling into the realm of what I call the “Deion Sanders Effect?: which is that a good number of observers are viewing it through a lens which sees the situation solely as one that either allows the Bush administration to score, or that allows the Democrats to score.
As such, I expect a large number of partisan Republicans (politicians, pundits, bloggers, etc.) to see this as a “victory? because the Elephants will have “scored? by sticking it to the Donkeys-all well and good if politics and government is nothing more than a game.
However, there are legitimate issues of governance to be considered here. First, will creating a substantial confrontation over this nomination make it harder, or easier, for the President to govern? I would argue that it will damage his ability to govern, to some degree, given that it will enrage a substantial number of Senators and will do nothing to help his image in the public at the moment. Given that there are substantial questions about the President’s Iraq policy, and since pre-war intelligence on Iraq is at the heart of many Democrats’ critiques of Bolton, one of things that this recess appointment will do is bolster views that the administration is unwilling to learn from the past and give critics more ammunition.
Second, as I noted below, if the goal here is UN reform then surely having the alleged agent of that reform entering the job in such a damaged state isn’t a very good idea. If it is known that any proposals made by Bolton that might require congressional action may be blocked out of political spite, if nothing else, then certainly doesn’t that damage the ability of Bolton to foster reform in the UN? Granted, many (indeed, most) changes that could be made at the UN aren’t going to require congressional action, but US politics will come into play on any changes at the UN.
Third, since this position isn’t high profile, and isn’t one that is wholly dependent on the philosophies of the office holder (unlike a judge, for example), then why fight like this over the holder of the position? Any ambassador is ultimately a messenger for the President and the State Department. As such, does it matter this much as to whom it is who sits in the seat?
Given these factors, and given that the recess appointment in question could damage the President, then I have to ask “why?? and I have to point out that just because the President “scored? on the Dems doesn’t make this a “good? move.
I agree with you. This just keeps the divisive atmosphere fully charged, but again it also shows Bush’s true colors; he can’t think strategically only in immediate terms of win or lose.
“… why fight like this over the holder of the position?”
Because, as you stated, it’s turned into a game of “one upmanship” in a time when playing games is a VERY bad idea. You brought up some EXCELLENT points here. While I do not dispute the President had every right to appoint Bolton, I do think he’s the wrong man for the job, and I think the President and the GOP have just stirred the pot by appointing him. Why appoint such a controversial figure when he could have appointed a more moderate choice like he has (seemlingly) done with his Supreme Court nomination?
Great blog, by the way. A tip of the hat from another fellow Alabama blogger!
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, August 1, 2005 @ 10:54 am
[...] n the three-ring circus that is the United Nations. In this I concur with Dr. Taylor, who notes: since this position isn’t high profile, and isn’t one that is wholly dependent on the philosophies [...]
It was the Donkey who tried to “stick it to” the Elephant!
It is silly to suggest that the Donkey ought to have turned aside and be deterred by the proddings of jackasses!
Gather your thoughts and rethink it. Bolton speaks for the President and not 36 members of the Senate. And, what other country even has a check and balance process that permits the disloyal opposition a voice much less a veto?
Comment by Henriet Cousin — Monday, August 1, 2005 @ 1:04 pm
Well, actualy, Mr. Bolton speaks for the United States of America…
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, August 1, 2005 @ 1:06 pm
CORRECTION: …for the Elephant ought to have turned aside…
Comment by Henriet Cousin — Monday, August 1, 2005 @ 1:07 pm
Mr. Bolton speaks for the USA?
The President speaks for the USA in foreign affairs! Amb. Bolton speaks for the President. Get over yourself.
Comment by Henriet Cousin — Monday, August 1, 2005 @ 2:47 pm
Flagged as a spam? Courage….
Comment by Henriet Cousin — Monday, August 1, 2005 @ 2:48 pm
I repeat. The President speaks for the USA! Amb. Bolton speaks for the President.
Comment by Henriet Cousin — Monday, August 1, 2005 @ 2:50 pm
You sir are a phony! Flagged as spam.
Comment by Henriet Cousin — Monday, August 1, 2005 @ 2:51 pm
Henriet:
As I noted in an e-mail I sent you, I sometimes get over 10k pieces of comment and trackback spam in a given day. Hence, I have aggressive anti-spam software.
It may be that I am not the one who should “get over” themselves…
And yes, the President speaks for the US and any ambassador is the spokesperson of the President. However, it is also true that any given ambassaor is not just a spokesperson for the policies of a given president, but is the representative of the Unites States of America, not just the President.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, August 1, 2005 @ 3:11 pm
Bolton Appointment
I haven’t written much about the appointment of John Bolton to the UN, mostly because I don’t care much about the UN. It’s a vile organization run mostly by criminal thugs, tyrants, and theocrats after all. Nevertheless, Steven T…
He makes a number of salient points about why this isn’t the dramatic story that some wish it to be (and makes an interesting argument about what the overall effects of the story may be-and it isn’t damage to Karl Rove), including this one, which is my favorite:
Third, if we spend time thinking about Rove, then we must have decided that we are a virtual jury. Our job is to decide whether powerful celebrities are guilty or innocent and register our verdicts in opinion polls (if anyone happens to poll us). Or perhaps we think of politics as a contact sport, played by two relatively small teams of national pros. Then the question is whether Rove can play the second half–or was his foul so bad that he has to sit it out? Whether we’re a bunch of spectators or a virtual jury, we have no serious responsibilities or opportunities. But if we were focused, for example, on the high school graduation rate, then there would be much for us to do–starting in the schools of our own communities.
Exactly! We too often treat politics like a spectator sport–everything is seen in terms of whether it helps our side move the ball forward or not. If our side says it, it is good; if the other side says it, it’s bad. Such thinking diverts us from genuine, efficacious public dialogue. We altogether seem too interested in making sure our side scores (or, at least, that the other side doesn’t) than we are in actually having a worthwhile discussion about what our national priorities should be, and what solutions are needed to address them.
Because the current story involves Karl Rove–a man greatly disliked by many in the press and in the Democratic Party and a man loved by many Republicans because he works for a Republican President–the story becomes a way to score points.
Think Dick Morris: he was hated by Republicans when he was helping Clinton formulate triangulation strategies, but beloved by many of the same folks once he started criticizing Clinton in newspaper columns and writing anti-Hillary books.
All of this is part and parcel of what I have often called (although never on the blog) “The Deion Sanders Effect”. When Deion played for the Falcons he was an annoying, preening player–but he didn’t bother me all that much, because that Falcons didn’t matter to the Dallas Cowboys. When Deion signed with the 49ers, he became extremely annoying. Indeed, he was perhaps the most annoying football player ever. However, when he signed with Dallas, why, he sure did seem to calm down–not quite as arrogant as he used to be. When he was helping make Larry Brown into a Super Bowl MVP he was the salt of the earth, right ?(at least if one was a Dallas Cowboys fan). And the funny thing is that he got all annoying again when he signed with the Redskins. Must be that he has a more appealing personality when he resides in Texas. Perhaps its the really good BBQ and Mexican food that affects his attitude… (And maybe today, it ought to be called the “Terrell Owens Effect”).
Certainly, many look at all things political in a similar fashion.
Beyond personalities, I would point to the recent response to a suggestion President Bush made at his most recent prime time press conference, wherein he suggested that Social Security benefits might have to be indexed to income in the future to deal with the explosion in the number of beneficiaries. The suggestion was defended immediately by many Republicans and denounced by many Democrats, yet James Joyner was quite correct when he noted at the time:
Of course, if Bill Clinton had made this proposal, conservatives would almost surely be crying “Socialism!”
Quite right: yet Democrats, who should have been ideologically predisposed to support the idea rejected it and Republicans, who should have been predisposed to reject it, embraced it. So much for looking at actual ideas: all that matters is that if my side scores, or not, right?
The trackback said something about Social Security and, given the post title, I immediately thought of the commercial that came out shortly after he signed a then-enormous $35 million dollar contract with the Cowboys with the punchline “Both!” (Do you want $15 million? $20 million?)
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, July 18, 2005 @ 4:50 pm
I know you had some kind of point with the whole Deion Sanders analogy, but but it is totally ruined by the requirement for the reader to imagine being a Dallas Cowboys fan. A proper analogy must be reasonable; if it is too farfetched or ludicrous it distracts from the point you are trying to make.
Comment by Terry — Monday, July 18, 2005 @ 5:49 pm
Comment by Terry — Monday, July 18, 2005 @ 5:50 pm
The Deion Effect
Steven Taylor on Plamegate and politics as a spectator sport: We too often treat politics like a spectator sport–everything is seen in terms of whether it helps our side move the ball forward or not. If our side says it, it is good; if the other side…
If the progressive indexing proposal could have been construed as socialism by conservatives, then Social Security as a whole is currently socialism.
Also, I’d have to say that a lot of conservatives WERE very cool on progressive indexing. Human Events, for example, went all out against the idea after Bush announced it. So did a lot of right-of-center bloggers. I mean, didn’t even give it a chance. Even though Bush announced it.
So, in other words, with all respect to Joyner, that’s just a bad example.
An example nee dnot be universal to be a good example. I watched the talking heads responses that night, and Joyner’s observation was on target.
Neither he (nor I) am arguing that all members of a given group had an identical response.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, July 19, 2005 @ 9:21 am
Yep. When Danny Ainge played for the Celtics he was a spoiled brat, but when he came to the Suns he became a sterling citizen. And suddenly he was right when he disputed a call with the refs.
[...] e Process Was Sped Up Because of Rove and Plame! This is a favorite of those caught up in political scorekeeping (for example here, here and here). Now, do I think that the administration is glad to [...]
[...] as not a particularly good argument (indeed, it isn’t an argument at all, it is the Deion Sander Effect in operation). That isn’t a very good political argument, nor it is one that is bas [...]
Deion was always annoying and strutting, though I never much cared until Super Bowl XXX, where he helped beat the Steelers, surpassing thier win mark at the same time (they have 5, though they lost more too, including twice to the Steelers).
Then he got to the Ravens, which was weird, but not annoying to a Steeler fan because you have to be good and strutting to make people notice.
The Terrell Owens effect isn’t apt, though, because he’s so annoying that fans hate him after a while. Just ask any Eagles fan about this contract flap, and they’ll tell you they disliked the whole thing. They’ll probably put that aside for the season, though, should Owens play well.
Of course, if TO goes somewhere else and helps them win, those fans will love him–at least in the short term.
Remember: they used to like in SF as well
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, August 2, 2005 @ 2:46 pm
[...] that citizens (and denizens of the Blogosphere perhaps more than some) treat the political like a sporting event, I would underscore that the Aftermath of Katrina is as far from a football game as we c [...]
[...] A clear problem with a two party system is that by essentially making every election a binary choice means that partisans are prone to, especially over time, vest their side (in their own minds) with unlimited virtue and the side with undying vice. Call it the Crossfire/Hannity and Colmes Effect wherein all of the complexities of the political world have to be centered in one side or the other. I have termed the way in which we have a tendency to protect (or, at least, excuse) our own side as the “Deion Sanders Effect” (although, as I note in the original post, the younger members of the audience might want to call it the “Terrell Owens Effect”). [...]
I really don’t think Brady did enough to earn it this go ’round.
And my two favorite commericals were the P Diddy/Diet Pepsi piece and the AmeriQuest saucy cat.
Also: a tip of the hat to T.O. for putting in a performance that I thought was impossible to acheive given his medical issues. The man still annpys me, but fair is fair and kudos are deserved.
My MVP
Rodney Harrison - 7 tackles, 2 interceptions, and a sack. Easy call. Update: I have to admit that actual winner Deion Branch - 11 catches for over 130 yards - was a decent choice. (I note that two of my
Yeah, screw those soldiers getting applause in the airport (or train station). They don’t deserve nothin’!
Comment by Commercial Critic — Sunday, February 6, 2005 @ 11:00 pm
Screw Deion. If he hadn’t caught so many passes, and if Tom wasn’t throwing to him so often, I would have been the MVP. If I would have rushed for 250 yards, it would have been me in that fancy car.
This is like Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 all over again.
I rightfully won the MVP award.
Comment by Corey Dillon — Sunday, February 6, 2005 @ 11:02 pm
T.O. didn’t really do anything. He didn’t score, he didn’t really set up any scores, and they single covered him, so he didn’t even draw coverage away from the other WRs to allow them to get free.
He did a great job of running his yap though, him and the rest of the Eagles….
Comment by Shark — Monday, February 7, 2005 @ 11:09 am
I am no T.O. fan (by any stretch of the imagination), but catching 8 ball for over 100 yards is a more-than-solid performance regardless of any other factors. He certainly did far more than I thought he was going to be able to do.
Deion Sanders scored a touchdown in Dallas County civil court Monday when a judge ruled that he did not have to pay more than $1,500 in a lawsuit over a 2001 car repair bill.
“Thank God,” Mr. Sanders said after hearing the verdict in the lawsuit brought against him over repairs made to his 1961 Lincoln Continental convertible. “I’m happy that justice was served and the truth really did come out.”
The lawsuit, filed by Magrathea Inc., a vintage-car restoration business, said the former Dallas Cowboys cornerback refused to pay a $4,265.57 car repair bill because Jesus had informed him that $1,500 was all he had to pay.
Mr. Sanders, now an NFL studio analyst for CBS, denied that he ever said anything more than “God bless you” to Phil Compton, Magrathea’s owner, when the car was delivered to his Plano home Nov. 5, 2001.
He said his refusal to pay the larger amount had nothing to do with his spiritual calling. Instead, he said, he felt he was being taken advantage of because he is a sports celebrity.
“That guy was trying to rip me off,” Mr. Sanders said after the 2 -hour trial before state District Judge Joe Cox. “That’s what it was.”
Maybe Palin just has different policy views than McCain? To give her the benefit of the doubt, here she is basically saying the bailout should include job creation and health care provisions.
Why isn’t anyone asking McCain if the reason he didn’t support the compromise hatched last week was because of the lack of these elements mentioned by his running mate? It seems to be a legitimate question if we are supposed to consider her a serious candidate.
Comment by Ratoe — Sunday, September 28, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
That is a very charitable interpretation, to be sure–although not a wholly unreasonable one. Still, I am highly doubtful of that possibility, as it seems to me that she is simply bs’ing her answers. And it seems that she is saying that the bailout will do these things, not that it ought.
(but, of course, I suspect you concur with that assessment).
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, September 28, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
In class this week I was talking about George Wallace’s populism. I think the problem of judging Palin is that her real appeal is to Western populism. It is an odd fit with McCain but her choice was about the base and populism. Just like with Wallace it the more academics criticize her the more it makes her popular. This may be crazy but I think this is why she is still view by McCain as a big plus.
Comment by Mark — Sunday, September 28, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
I would concur that she represents a type of Western populism. I can even see how such a populism might help McCain.
However, the vehicle of Palin strikes me as a rather inadequate one.
Put it this way: she is a populist, but to date has been an incompetent one.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, September 28, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
Intellectual honesty from Republicans? The same people who oppose abortion but favor the death penalty. I thought life was sacred. They want smaller government and less intruding on individual’s lives, but again favor a ban on abortion.
A republican politician accused of impropriety almost always has defenders among the GOP faithful, A democrat doing the same impropriety is automatically guilty.
Consistent intellectual honesty from either the left or right would truly be shocking.
Bill
Comment by The Florida Masochist — Sunday, September 28, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
Let’s put it this way, FM, I would like to see some intellectual honesty not so much form politicians (a mostly, if not totally, hopeless cause), but from supporters and commentators who, at least in some cases, ought to know better.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, September 28, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
Politicians rarely answer the question they’re asked. They tend to answer a related question that fits their world view. This was what Palin was trying to do, relate the question with a few nice buzzwords that she’s been told to use frequently. I have no doubt that looking at the transcripts of Friday’s debate would give the same type of swell sounding non answer.
The problem here is that it’s not politically correct to criticize the intelligence of either McCain or Obama or Obama’s running mate (I think Obama still has a running mate, but can’t remember his name right now). Obama ventured into the McCain intelligence criticism with the internet ad but then backed off when veterans and seniors took offense. And anybody who says anything against Obama is a racist. Within a day of any mention of lack of grasp of issues the columns dealing with “troubling racial stereotypes” would appear, followed soon afterwards by the demands for apologies and sensitivity training. Heck, even prosecution could result.
There’s are about 3 stereotypes for all conservatives on the national stage — they’re either dumb (Reagan, Ford, Quayle, Palin, GW Bush), evil (Nixon, Cheney), out of touch with the common man (GHW Bush, McCain), or sometimes more than 1 category (Bob Dole hit the out of touch and evil, GW Bush sometimes lands in the evil, depending on the columnist).
Someway liberals never find these classifications a problem.
Comment by Buckland — Monday, September 29, 2008 @ 10:21 am
It is accurate to say that Governor Palin is an incompetent populist. That seems to be the best defense available. Overall, not comforting.
Time for her to “shore up” her responses to valid, important questions in my opinion.
Comment by Sarah K. B. — Monday, September 29, 2008 @ 10:25 am
Buckland,
Yes, but not all evasions are created equal.
And btw, I have never said that Palin was dumb. I think she is unprepared and has not given these issues sufficient thought. There is a difference.
BTW, I would note that you aren’t actually defending Palin, but rather deflecting the criticism to a question of media templates.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, September 29, 2008 @ 10:57 am
I, too, would not argue that Sarah Palin should ever be considered dumb. To the contrary, she has shown herself to be bold, determined, success-oriented, and willing to adapt to challenging circumstances.
I do not think, however, that she has demonstrated the sort of competence regarding national and worldwide issues a vice-presidential candidate needs to exhibit. This shows a lack of preparation and a fair amount of self-deception, but not necessarily a lack of intelligence.
Comment by Sarah K. B. — Monday, September 29, 2008 @ 11:56 am
I think, given the actual situation, that I can succeed with an even weaker defense, that concedes your point but makes it irrelevant. McCain was never going to win.
If the next Presidential term is as ugly as I expect it to be regardless of who wins, and if Obama wins, and if Republicans always nominate the most obvious choice, then attacking Palin as unprepared right now, in 2008, doesn’t help you because she still gets elected President four years from now. You need to convince everybody she’s unfixably stupid, then maybe you’ll only get Romney.
Comment by Aaron Armitage — Monday, September 29, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
she still gets elected President four years from now
A curious claim, I must say.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, September 29, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
Why, exactly?
Comment by Aaron Armitage — Monday, September 29, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
Aaron,
Well, I don’t see here as the most obvious choice, and she is doing nothing at the moment to position herself as a frontrunner.
Further, historically the losing VP candidate rarely (if ever?) comes back to be their party’s nominee the next go ’round.
Here are the last several:
2004: Edwards
2000: Lieberman
1996: Kemp
1992: Quayle
1988: Bentsen
1984: Ferraro
The 1980 losing veep nominee, Mondale, went on to be the nominee in 1984, but of course he had also been the sitting vice president.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, September 29, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
Dr, Taylor,
You’re looking at the wrong set of candidates. Here’s the list to consider in regard to a theoretical Palin ‘12:
Bush I, Bush II, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower.
Since 1952, every successful Republican presidential candidate has come into the race with major name recognition. The trend runs mostly in the other direction for Democrats (Carter, Clinton, Obama).
Comment by Ted Craig — Tuesday, September 30, 2008 @ 9:54 am
Ted,
I don’t see any analogy to be made between those candidates and Palin.
Bush I: veep of a highly popular president (not to mention one of the most impressive resumes of any candidate for president ever, just in objective terms: member of Congress, CIA Director, Ambassador to China, etc.).
Bush II: twice-elected governor of a large state, obvious linkage to Bush I after 8 years of Clinton
Reagan: governor of a large state, spent years on the radio and elsewhere building political capital. Almost won the nomination in 1976.
Nixon: Again, was the veep, amongst other things.
Eisenhower: victorious Supreme Allied Commander in WWII
So which one is Palin supposed to be?
Really: to try and compare Palin to any of these candidate is highly problematic.
(Note: Alaska is big geographically, but is a small state).
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, September 30, 2008 @ 11:26 am
Reagan.
She’s the person conservatives in the Republican base are enthusiastic about.
That being Governor of Alaska is less impressive than being Governor of California is a given, but doesn’t really matter. Even if conservatives liked Schwarzenegger, he can’t be President. The size of Alaska will matter less than the incumbent’s approval ratings. If I’m right to be as pessimistic as I am about the next four years, that’s already a lost cause.
Of course a President Obama can get a lot of slack by blaming everything on Bush, but that will only go so far.
Comment by Aaron Armitage — Tuesday, September 30, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
Aaron,
I must confess, it is this kind of argument that makes it difficult for me to take Palin defenders seriously. Yes, Palin is currently exiting the base, but where is the evidence that she is prepared for the roughly two-year (if not longer) campaign that will be needed to obtain the 2012 GOP nomination?
Beyond that, she has exited the base because a) they aren’t excited about McCain and desperately want to be excited about something, and b) she gave a red meat speech at the RNC. Beyond that, what’s the argument in her favor as a vp candidate, let alone as the heir to Reagan?
And it does matter that Reagan was from a large state, held the governorship for two terms, fought a hard battle for the nomination in 1976, as well as having a record for writing and giving speeches and commentary during a long career. That is supposed to compare to one speech at a convention + a partial term as governor of a small state and time in city government in a small town?
Such a comparison makes no sense.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, September 30, 2008 @ 8:33 pm
And where after Obama’s red-meat convention speech four years ago was the proof he was prepared to win the Democratic nomination in 2008?
But Illinois is bigger, etc. To a certain kind of political analyst, which it seems you are, a political situation has to have an exact precedent before it has a right to exist. But you’re wrong. It doesn’t matter if or how Sarah Palin matches any previous Republican nominee. It matters that she’s popular enough with the Republican base that the nomination will be hers if she wants it.
Comment by Aaron Armitage — Thursday, October 2, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
Look, regardless of what one thinks about Obama, it is impossible to make the argument that he hasn’t thought about the issues. To date, the evidence suggests that Palin hasn’t/
And, to be fair, Obama’s ‘04 speech was hardly a “red meat” speech.
To a certain kind of political analyst, which it seems you are, a political situation has to have an exact precedent before it has a right to exist. But you’re wrong. It doesn’t matter if or how Sarah Palin matches any previous Republican nominee. It matters that she’s popular enough with the Republican base that the nomination will be hers if she wants it.
Aaron,
You’re the one who had her with the nomination in 2012, and you were the one who proclaimed her Reagan-like.
Beyond that, however, it isn’t that I can’t conceive of something new, it is that I require some form of evidence to back the argument. You are not presenting a cogent, evidence-based argument. You are instead dealing in hopes and vague possibilities.
Yes, she is popular right now with the GOP base (although that is eroding). At the moment, being popular with the GOP base won’t be enough to win this year, and while she may be able to run for and win the nomination in 2012, there is no evidence to date that she has the requisite tools to accomplish that feat.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, October 2, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
You demanded that I identify which previous Republican nominee she most resembled. Which is a stupid demand that has nothing to do with anything, but I answered anyway, and in answering tried to redirect the conversation to something relevant, which is the fact that the base loves her, and that this is not eroding (certainly not after tonight). Sure, she spent a lot less time producing this result than Reagan had in 1980, and even if she starts running all but full time immediately after McCain loses, by 2012 she will still have spent less time than Reagan did. So what?
The Republican nomination in four years is hers if she wants it.
Comment by Aaron Armitage — Friday, October 3, 2008 @ 12:14 am
You demanded that I identify which previous Republican nominee she most resembled.
Well, no.
I asserted that it was a curious claim that she was automatically going to be the nominee (in #12 above).
You asked why.
I noted that the historical trend indicated that it would be strange for a losing vp nominee to be the party’s choice the next time around (#14).
Another reader (#15) asserted I was looking at the wrong list of candidates and named all the GOP winners–which made no logical sense, given the context, but I went with it. I listed the resume highlights of each candidate, and asked Ted which one she was supposed to be.
You then jumped back in (#17) and asserted: “Reagan.
“She’s the person conservatives in the Republican base are enthusiastic about.”
Not only is that hardly overwhelming evidence for your position, I never asked you directly (let alone “demanded”) that you make a selection.
And now you simply assert that “the base loves her” and that is enough to then assert “The Republican nomination in four years is hers if she wants it.”
You are hardly making a strong case. I can fully accept that, in your opinion, “The Republican nomination in four years is hers if she wants it,” but simply repeating your opinion isn’t an argument.
There is no evidence to suggest, at this point, that Palin has the talents and tools needed to run a nearly two-year campaign to get the nomination in 2012. Further, there is no evidence that she would not be seriously challenged by other aspirants, all of whom have been fund-raising connections and experience.
Palin can’t name her news sources nor any Supreme Court cases beyond Roe and her foreign policy experience is nil.
I would note, btw, that the “base” allegedly loved Fred Thompson. The “base” also was gung-ho (or so it seemed) for Phil Gramm many years ago.
Indeed, the GOP candidate this go ’round who was considered the least popular with “the base” was John McCain. Last time I checked, he won the nomination.
Also: the main reason, to follow on from that last point, that Palin is exciting the base, is that they aren’t excited about McCain and they want to be excited about something.
She gave one red meat speech, she’s pro-life and she didn’t blow the debate. This is supposed to be enough to propel her to the GOP nomination 2012? If so, the party is in more trouble than I thought it was.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, October 3, 2008 @ 7:01 am
To make it very simple for you: you win the Republican nomination by getting the most delegates to the Republican National Convention. You get delegates by having the support of Republican primary voters and caucus-goers. Now who participates in Republican primaries and caucuses? Right. Your strained historical comparison is, as usual, beside the point: this year the conservative vote was split between Romney and Huckabee, both of whom alienated a major part of the conservative movement. Are you seriously arguing that Romney as VP would have produced the same result?
It seems you ARE seriously arguing that because you personally feel that conservatives’ enthusiasm for her is unearned, it somehow doesn’t count. That makes no sense. It doesn’t matter at what length and in what detail you explain exactly why you consider it unearned. Earned or not, it exists.
You’re also getting basic facts wrong. She was asked to name a Supreme Court case other than Roe she disagreed with, not any other case at all. She negotiated a major oil pipeline deal with Canada, which is technically a foreign country. And no, the fact that someone came up with a stupid talking point about Russia doesn’t nullify the fact that she has more real diplomatic experience than the top of the other ticket. Not that the amount of foreign policy experience she has actually matters for the topic at hand, which is not, remember, whether you feel she’s qualified, but what Republican voters are most likely to do four years from now.
There are plenty of reasons Palin could run an winning campaign, starting with the fact that she beat a sitting governor and a former governor (yeah, I know, it doesn’t count because…). And yes, again, conservatives’ enthusiasm for her matters, a lot. It means that she will have a huge lead going in in terms of ground game and small donors. It means she starts out with higher numbers than the other candidates. These facts mean that big donors who are interested in backing the winner (because, to put it bluntly, they’re trying to buy influence) will give her more attention than other candidates. Unless the rest of the field very quickly narrows to one person, no other candidate will even come close.
Comment by Aaron Armitage — Friday, October 3, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
Aaron,
You ignored basically everything that I said. However, I will try to further my argument anyway.
Your basic argument appears to be: the past tells us nothing and that you like Palin, ergo: she’s a shoe-in for 2012.
However, you are also missing the fact that in 2012 there will be more candidates running than Palin to split up the votes in those primaries and caucuses–other Republicans, many of whom will also excite the base. If your contention is that she is the only member of the GOP who will pursue the nomination in 2012, then fine, your’re right: she’ll be the nominee.
At a minimum the notion that one can easily predict the political landscape in four year is a dubious one–which is the main reason I said your claim was odd in the first place and I have tried to explain why.
Indeed, the very fact of Palin herself, i.e., a politician who came out of nowhere (and whom you now like so much that you think she will be the nominee) undercuts your very argument, as no one would have predicted that she would be the veep nominee four years ago, because no one knew she existed. (Think about it: you are telling me that you know, right now, that Palin will be the nominee in 2012, yet the odds are that unless you are from Alaska, you yourself had not heard of Palin in 2008).
I stand corrected on the exact nature of the SCOTUS question, but my basic point remains intact. BTW, based on her convention speech it would seem that she disagrees with the Boumediene v. Bush (as does McCain) and yet she couldn’t conjure that one.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, October 3, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
After reading your first few paragraphs it’s clear to me you didn’t read my reply at all.
Comment by Aaron Armitage — Friday, October 3, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
As you wish.
I have tried to engage you on these issues, but I am not sure what else I can do. Since i directly conceded one of your points from the middle of your post, it would seem that I must’ve read something.
Mainly it seems you are unwilling to directly address my argument and instead wish to simply assert your position.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, October 3, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
I answered you almost point by point. You said I ignored everything you said.
I said, “Unless the rest of the field very quickly narrows to one person, no other candidate will even come close.” You absurdly characterized me as saying that she’ll be the only candidate.
Now you’re saying you’re the one who tried to engage and there’s nothing else to do? You’re right about the latter part.
Comment by Aaron Armitage — Friday, October 3, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
The line about her being the only candidate was sarcasm.
And no, you did not answer me point by point.
Really all you did was the following:
-Point about the GOP base votes in the primaries. Indeed, that is true. I am not sure how that bolsters your argument.
-You then pointed out that Huckabee and Romeny were factors in the race. As I noted, there will be such candidates in the future.
-I agree that I misstated the SCOTUS answer, but maintained it did not really change my point.
Again: your whole argument is predicated on the notion that conservative enthusiasm for Palin right now is guaranteed to sustain itself until 2012. Not only is excitement an ephemeral thing, you don’t know that political conditions four years in the future. And again: Palin herself is an example of how the unknown comes into these races every four years. Also, you have given no good reason why the historical pattern will be broken by Palin.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, October 4, 2008 @ 8:23 am
I see you finally got around to reading my post, but not to actually paying it enough attention that you could respond reasonably.
If this is how you “engage” you’d be better off if you just stopped.
So. You don’t see how people who love Palin voting in elections where she is a candidate is going to help her win. You do know what voting is, right?
You’re now reduced to arguing that something as surprising as McCain’s choice of her is going to keep her from winning the nomination. Well, maybe. The unexpected always happens, but you’re betting on it happening to one particular person and having one particular effect, when by definition you don’t know what it is. But we do know that Vice Presidential picks are made by one person and nominations are made by lots of people as part of a prolonged process. Which one do YOU think is more likely to be a surprise?
See, you’re making my argument as dogmatic as yours. You might reread my first post: I said “if… and if.. and if…”. You’re saying it won’t happen, period. You are the one claiming definite knowledge of the future, and I’m the one pointing out it isn’t necessarily going to be the way you say. But somehow the indeterminate nature of the future helps your case because you already know the effects that the unknowns are all going to have. Interesting.
Now, I also explain specific campaign advantages she has, and you ignored them. Or rather, denied that I ever said those things. You know, you’re not very good at this whole “conversation” thing. Maybe you should work on it. But I will repeat myself, and add a few more for good measure: volunteers, small donors, free media, buzz, and as a result of these, big donors. Yes, maybe she’ll wait so long she squanders these and then jump in at the last minute. (Are you happy? I qualified it. Of course not: you demand I “know” she won’t win and therefore “know” that something, anything, will stop her.) And again, candidates like Romney and Huckabee (and probably one or both of Romney and Huckabee themselves) don’t help your case: a large number of candidates favors the one who already has a connection with conservative activists and who will be getting lots of free media. The other candidates will be sucking up each others’ oxygen. Some number of Republican voters will have reservations about Palin: how is splitting them up three or four ways going to help you?
Comment by Aaron Armitage — Saturday, October 4, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
*sigh*
You originally stated:
f Republicans always nominate the most obvious choice, then attacking Palin as unprepared right now, in 2008, doesn’t help you because she still gets elected President four years from now.
I will concede that there was an “if” in the statement. However, I was basically making the assertion that it is unclear (at best) that Palin is the “most obvious choice” in 2012.
Indeed, as I said was:
You responded with:
I have been trying to explain why for quite a while now.
You state in the comment above:You’re saying it won’t happen, period.
I haven’t never stated that it was impossible that she will get the nomination, just that she is far from the most likely choice in 2012. My contention has been that it is a stretch to assert that she will be the nominee (or even likely to be) in 2012.
I said in comment 14:
That is hardly an assertion that she won’t get it no matter what.
What I have argued, consistently, is:
-It would defy the historical pattern.
-She does not have a true base of support to build upon into 2012. She could, perhaps, build one, but the fact that a lot of “the base” loves her at the moment simply isn’t enough. Again, the base loved Phil Gramm in 1996 and he didn’t even make to to Iowa and a lot of the base loved Fred Thompson, and we know how that turned out.
Some other point:
You state: You’re now reduced to arguing that something as surprising as McCain’s choice of her is going to keep her from winning the nomination.
Where did I say that?
You state: The unexpected always happens, but you’re betting on it happening to one particular person and having one particular effect, when by definition you don’t know what it is.
I am not sure exactly what you are saying here. All I have said about the unexpected is that Palin herself illustrates how difficult it is to project four years forward. She is the very definition of an unexpected surprise.
You state: I also explain specific campaign advantages she has, and you ignored them.
No, I discounted them. You whole argument is, as best as I can tell, predicated on the notion that a) she is popular right now with the base, and b) that that popularity will sustain itself sufficiently to take her to the nomination in 2012.
You state: But I will repeat myself, and add a few more for good measure: volunteers, small donors, free media, buzz, and as a result of these, big donors.
She doesn’t have a volunteer base or a donor base at the moment–they belong to the McCain campaign. These things dissipate after a given campaign and have to be reconstituted. Palin will not automatically inherent the McCain volunteers and donors and such from McCain. Indeed, many of them will end up working for/supporting other candidates in 2012. It always works that way. Indeed, her lack of experience on the national stage will make it difficult to create that infrastructure. This is not a slam, nor a criticism, just a fact.
Again, that is part of the point of comment #14–the losing veep nominee doesn’t simply take the foundation build by the top of the ticket and then add on four years later.
And back to comment #14: it has to count for something, and I think it is something you are ignoring, that the last time a losing veep nominee went on to win the party’s nod the next time was 1984 and then the nominee had actually been the Vice President. Nixon kind of did in in 1968, but that was after not running in 1964. He, too, was the VP. I honestly do not think that there is a case of the losing party’s VP nominee going on to win the party’s nomination the next cycle. I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying it is highly, highly unlikley.
In re “buzz”–that is ephemeral and is hardly enough to propel a candidate from one cycle to the next. And all candidates have, to one degree or another, access to free media.
You state: Are you happy? I qualified it. Of course not: you demand I “know” she won’t win and therefore “know” that something, anything, will stop her.
I demanded that when?
In re: Huckabee and Romney. I bring them up because what they illustrate is that in a situation where the nomination is open (i.e., there is no incumbent) then there will be a number of contenders for the nomination. if Obama wins in ‘08, then there will be a large number of GOP candidates in 2012. If Palin is one of them, then she will have to compete with them.
Also: Huck and Mitt are useful to illustrate that the candidates that “the base” supposedly prefer don’t always win (and you argument is that Palin is the candidate of “the base” and that gives her a likely shot at the 2012 nomination). Again, as noted already, McCain was not “the base’s” candidates, yet he is the nominee.
While it is true that I am not a Palin fan, my assessment of her chances of being the nominee in 2012 are not based on my preferences.
Would it make you happier if I stated that I also think that if Obama loses that it is unlikely he will be the Democratic nominee in 2012? I think he has a better chance than normal for a repeat, but I still think his chances won’t be very good.
It goes without saying that if McCain loses that he will not be the nominee in 2012 (but, I said it anyway ;).
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, October 4, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
I will concede that there was an “if” in the statement.
Astonishing.
However, I was basically making the assertion that it is unclear (at best) that Palin is the “most obvious choice” in 2012.
Because of a lack of exact precedents. But these aren’t court cases, so the kind of evidence you’re asking for is irrelevant.
You state: You’re now reduced to arguing that something as surprising as McCain’s choice of her is going to keep her from winning the nomination.
Where did I say that?
And then:
All I have said about the unexpected is that Palin herself illustrates how difficult it is to project four years forward. She is the very definition of an unexpected surprise.
Uh huh.
If you were logical, a general appeal to “the unexpected” would cut both cases, that she either is or isn’t the most obvious choice.
You state: I also explain specific campaign advantages she has, and you ignored them.
No, I discounted them.
Wrong. You said, “Really all you did was the following:” and did not mention them. Saying, in so many words, that I had not done what I had done. Unless in your private lexicon “really” means “all I care to interact with” rather than anything to do with reality.
You whole argument is, as best as I can tell, predicated on the notion that a) she is popular right now with the base, and b) that that popularity will sustain itself sufficiently to take her to the nomination in 2012.
Now, I know you read where I said, “Yes, maybe she’ll wait so long she squanders these and then jump in at the last minute.” So why should I take anything you say seriously?
She doesn’t have a volunteer base or a donor base at the moment–they belong to the McCain campaign. These things dissipate after a given campaign and have to be reconstituted. Palin will not automatically inherent the McCain volunteers and donors and such from McCain. Indeed, many of them will end up working for/supporting other candidates in 2012. It always works that way. Indeed, her lack of experience on the national stage will make it difficult to create that infrastructure. This is not a slam, nor a criticism, just a fact.
She is, once again, a person who beat a sitting governor and a former governor. And she doesn’t have experience at setting up a campaign infrastructure? Is that even meant to be taken seriously?
You seem to need to invent strawmen, being unable to answer my actual points. The point isn’t that she’ll inherit McCain’s network. The point is that her connection to conservatives now gives her a head start. If she chooses to take advantage of that head start, she will make it very difficult for any other candidate to catch up. Especially if there are many other candidates.
In re: Huckabee and Romney. I bring them up because what they illustrate is that in a situation where the nomination is open (i.e., there is no incumbent) then there will be a number of contenders for the nomination. if Obama wins in ‘08, then there will be a large number of GOP candidates in 2012. If Palin is one of them, then she will have to compete with them.
Also: Huck and Mitt are useful to illustrate that the candidates that “the base” supposedly prefer don’t always win (and you argument is that Palin is the candidate of “the base” and that gives her a likely shot at the 2012 nomination). Again, as noted already, McCain was not “the base’s” candidates, yet he is the nominee.
Everything wrong with this conversation in a nutshell: you make a fallacious argument, I answer the argument, you ignore my answer and merely repeat the original fallacy, I am obliged to repeat my refutation.
Here it goes again: Huckabee and Romney were chasing the same voters. You seem to be under the impression that having more conservatives in the race means that it was more likely that one of them should have won. Which would be an astonishing failure on the part of a poli sci professor, if true.
Palin starts with higher name recognition than virtually any possible rival, which means that other candidates are playing catch up. The more of them there are, the less able to compete with Palin any individual candidate is. And you need one particular candidate to beat Palin, not other candidates in general. You do understand why, don’t you?
Comment by Aaron Armitage — Saturday, October 4, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
Tell you what: if in four years she is the nominee, I will be more than happy to dedicate a post to how you were right.
And I am not being sarcastic.
I really don’t know what to say beyond that.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, October 4, 2008 @ 5:41 pm