RU Experienced?
I am kind of amazed that the Democrats have decided to directly attack Governor Palin’s experience. Someone should remind them who they nominated for President.
In fact, I can see the GOP cutting an ad talking about how Sarah Palin made a difference in changing Alaska, and asking Barack Obama whether he’s done as much to change Illinois. The answer might well be: no.
I realize, of course, that she’s totally unqualified to be President at this point in time. If McCain were to die in February 2009, I hope Palin would have the good sense to appoint someone who is more ready to be President to be her Vice President, on the understanding that she would then resign and be appointed Vice President by her successor. (Lest anyone say that this is an absurd, unconstitutional or undemocratic scenario, recognize that this is pretty much what would happen in a Parliamentary system where, if the head of government dies, a successor is chosen by the party.) Palin is absolutely not ready to be President now, but that is a problem that is very easily dealt with if she is and the governing party want to do so.
And if McCain dies in February, 2012, who’s to say she won’t be ready by then? She’ll have had three years of being Vice President under her belt. She’ll have been a close observer of national governance and will be pretty familiar with the issues of the day. I think a very good case can be made that after three years as McCain’s VP, she’ll be substantially more qualified to be President than Barack Obama is now.
What’s the Vice Presidency for, anyhow? Arguably, it’s not for anything at all. There’s no need for a specific officer to be “President in waiting” without official duties; we could perfectly well have a system where, when the President dies in office, his party picks a successor, or the House elects a successor, or some other selection process, with the Secretary of State serving as interim President until the successor is chosen. In practice, the Vice President is usually selected for political purposes: to unite a divided party (Johnson, Bush Sr), to placate a particular faction unhappy with the nominee (Nixon, Kemp), to extend the reach of the ticket geographically or demographically (Bentsen, Edwards), and so forth.
The worst VP choice in recent memory was Dick Cheney, a man with enormous experience, fully qualified to be President – indeed, so much more qualified than the Presidential nominee that he was able to exert an undue degree of control over the Administration’s actions without due accountability.
Now, I’m not saying the Palin model is the best one. The best VP choice in recent memory was Al Gore, a great choice both politically and in terms of governance. He was fully qualified to be President, but was tempermentally suited to an advisory and advocacy role more than for the top spot. He both reinforced the narrative of the campaign and complemented Clinton in crucial ways. He was a good surrogate on the campaign trail and a good representative of the Clinton Administration when used as such, and he was an excellent advisor to the President. That combination is hard to come by, though, and most Veeps don’t fit that mold.
Palin fits a different model. She’s not a President-in-waiting; she’s a President-in-training. That’s what Quayle was supposed to be, and to the extent he failed it was mostly because of his own personal qualities. Based on what I know of Palin, she doesn’t have that kind of problem. President-in-training is also what Nixon tried to be (he was also clearly unqualified to be President when nominated for Veep), though I don’t know that Ike saw it that way. I don’t think Palin has his problems, either.
Bottom line: the Presidency is no place for on-the-job training. But the Vice Presidency certainly can be.
She’s an excellent choice. If McCain wins, he’ll have a whole cabinet of officials to help him run the government and advise him on vital decisions. That’s not what he’ll be using Palin for. And as a political matter, if the Democrats lead with the inexperience argument against Palin, they’ll be committing suicide.
UPDATE: A couple of additional points.
First, a qualified choice who placates a particular faction while being unsuited to the Presidency is manifestly worse than an unqualified nominee who seems to have the right temperament. It is a very good thing indeed Truman was Vice President when FDR died rather than Wallace, even though Wallace was clearly more qualified to be President in terms of his experience.
Second: Ramesh Ponnuru raises the issue of tokenism. Palin would not have been picked if she were a man. But some form of tokenism is the norm rather than the exception in VP picks. Most VPs are picked for political reasons, not because they would be good potential Presidents. Why is carrying a key state a better qualification than being a member of a key demographic group?
I don’t want to overstate my enthusiasm, by the way. I am, in fact, still undecided in this election (and at some point I’ll outline the basis for my indecision). But this is a good pick.
“I am kind of amazed that the Democrats have decided to directly attack Governor Palin’s experience. Someone should remind them who they nominated for President.”
Yes, they picked a US senator from one of the biggest states in the country. Amazing.
— sal mineo · Aug 29, 07:45 PM · #
I have trouble articulating this point, but there does seem to be a tangible difference between Palin’s brand of inexperience and Obama’s. I suppose I’ll give it a go:
a.) Despite her admirable reformist credentials, Palin’s “executive experience” feels a lot less applicable to the job of the presidency than experience in the Senate. Item 1 – she worked as a small town mayor before becoming governor, and even now has only been governor of a state for less than a year. Item 2 – governing Alaska seems like an exercise in parochial politics. Working on national legislation (and perhaps more importantly, crafting legislation from a national perspective) seems a lot more relevant to the presidency than Palin’s background. People talk about the crucial distinction between “executive” and “legislative” experience. There may be some truth to this, but there’s also a difference between Palin’s local background and Obama’s experience on the national stage.
b.) Foreign policy experience also seems like a big difference between the two. Again, Obama is no great shakes, but his Senate tenure does imply some familiarity with foreign affairs (I think one of his more significant legislative accomplishments was a non-proliferation initiative). We can argue over whether his speech condemning the Iraq War was politically courageous, but his objections to the invasion look, in retrospect, rather prescient. Palin, on the other hand, probably hasn’t developed a coherent, in-depth approach foreign policy. Given her background that’s not a black mark by any means, but I do worry that her outlook will be entirely defined by McCain’s uber-hawkishness and she won’t have a chance to find her own voice on the ticket.
As someone who breaks with McCain on foreign policy and civil liberties, I fear that Palin will become a belligerent echo chamber precisely because she lacks the type of experience necessary to engender a coherent political philosophy on issues not immediately relevant to governing an under-populated state.
Does that make any sense?
— Will · Aug 29, 08:08 PM · #
Sure…but you’re acting as if Obama and co. simply raised the issue of experience out of the blue, when the McCain campaign and his supporters have been wailing away on “experience” for sometime!
It’s not hard to see that the issue of Palin’s experience is ultimately about the internal logic of McCain’s critique of Obama. And I don’t think many people see the vice-presidency as some kind of presidential petri dish…if experience is an important issue then it’s an important issue.
— berger · Aug 29, 08:11 PM · #
But surely the critiques of Obama’s experience and the Presidency are of a different magnitude than those of Palin’s experience and the Vice-Presidency. The two offices are clearly not interchangeable.
— Blar · Aug 29, 08:28 PM · #
If McCain were to die in February 2009, I hope Palin would have the good sense to appoint someone who is more ready to be President to be her Vice President, on the understanding that she would then resign and be appointed Vice President by her successor.
Few politicians have the discipline to turn away from power when it’s handed to them. We should operate under the assumption that she would not do this. And I don’t see how anyone could force her to.
The worst VP choice in recent memory was Dick Cheney, a man with enormous experience, fully qualified to be President – indeed, so much more qualified than the Presidential nominee that he was able to exert an undue degree of control over the Administration’s actions without due accountability.
So if Cheney were Prez and Bush were VP things would be better? Seriously?
— Consumatopia · Aug 29, 09:11 PM · #
Yeah, Scoblic said it better than I could:
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/08/29/an-astonishingly-arrogant-v-p-selection.aspx
“Perhaps more important than the experience they embodied, these efforts demonstrate that Obama has a worldview.”
I think that’s the key point here. Obama has a coherent foreign policy. He also has a coherent approach to domestic governance, social issues, and civil liberties. Given Palin’s background, I think it’s fair to say she possesses some relevant (and impressive) experience on issues pertaining to social and domestic governance. Other than that, she’s a blank slate. And that leaves her vulnerable to absorbing some of McCain’s worst tendencies.
— Will · Aug 29, 09:12 PM · #
To be honest, this reminds me of the Miers pick.
— Ali Choudhury · Aug 29, 09:28 PM · #
This episode has really defeated me, because I thought that the rank hypocrisy of this nomination would be called out by my favorite Republican bloggers. Every one of Obama’s weaknesses, as identified by conservatives and blasted for over a year, are to be found in Sarah Palin. People who have laughed at, ridiculed and vilified Barack Obama for ages now turn around and apply absolutely none of the same attacks on Palin than they have applied to Obama.
And where are the principled conservatives calling bullshit? Nowhere. It’s a disgrace.
— Freddie · Aug 29, 09:40 PM · #
This is a stunningly inept blog post. I especially enjoy the wacky threes-company hijinx that ensue if she is called upon to serve in the wake of McCain’s incapacitation. Unsubscrib’d.
— stonelake · Aug 29, 09:50 PM · #
“I am kind of amazed that the Democrats have decided to directly attack Governor Palin’s experience. Someone should remind them who they nominated for President.”
How about this for an ad:
You talk about mcCain’s age, and his bouts with cancer. You run images of McCain having prolonged brain farts, looking old and pasty (green screen?).
Then you do a bio of Palin,expliaining that the state of AK had 600,000 people and the legislature meets 90 days a year. Images: pictures of the town she was mayor of 18 months ago.
Tag line:
“Apparently experience isn’t such a big deal after all.”
— cw · Aug 29, 09:52 PM · #
Apparently the salient characteristic McCain shares with Palin is a vindictive streak. Both have attacked subordinates and nursed grudges with unattractive fervor.
— dr · Aug 29, 10:33 PM · #
I think we should keep in mind that, while Obama is a one-term U.S. Senator, he’s not really that.
His presidential campaign “exploratory” phase began building its office in early 2005. In short, he got elected to the U.S. Senate, and since then has been an absentee Senator because he was busy running for president.
This is an exaggeration…but not markedly so. It remains true that his Illinois state-level experience represents the vast majority of his real U.S. political time in office.
Why, then, do people consider Obama “presidential” or sufficiently experienced? The answer is simple. The D.C. press corps has “felt” his presence in D.C. for the required duration of time. And why is that? Because since he started eyeing the top job in 2005, he’s been on “Meet the Press” and similar venues repeatedly. The press like that.
So what’re we left with?
One ticket is an old pol (with a novice running mate who has a decent amount of state experience).
The other is a novice with a decent amount of state experience (with an old pol for a running mate).
Result? Time will tell.
— R.C. · Aug 29, 11:10 PM · #
Really? I am to consider it within the realm of possibility that an actual human being would voluntarily appoint someone experienced so that they might resign the presidency of the United States of America? Yes? This is the plan? This is to soothe our concerns, then? And this does not make the person laughably unfit for the office, and does not make the man who chose her a cynic of the worst sort?
Yes. Excellent. This is a a very serious, well-considered, and also serious argument.
Noah, come on. Take a step back. This is embarrassing. If you’d hope/expect this would happen, then making her the VP pick at all is indefensible in the first place. Maybe Obama is indefensible as well, but as an argument for Palin this is utterly absurd. It completely fails the laugh test.
— bonk · Aug 29, 11:40 PM · #
I think Ezra Klein has a good point here:
“Watching the McCain flacks in a continual state of meltdown on CNN, it’s striking how swiftly their central defense of Palin is backfiring. When the anchors question her experience — 19 months in the Alaska statehouse, and before that the mayoralty of an 8,000 person town — they question Obama’s experience. Game, set, match? Not really. The problem for the McCain campaign, as Campbell Brown pointed out, is that Barack Obama doesn’t think four years in the US Senate and eight in the Chicago statehouse are insufficient. It’s the McCain campaign that believes Obama is inexperienced. But Palin is even less experienced. And it was the McCain campaign that chose her. The inconsistency is entirely internal to the campaign: It’s a contradiction of their message, not Obama’s.”
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=08&year=2008&base_name=the_experience_dodge
The Obama campaign doesn’t need to attack her lack of experience, this just gives them the perfect rebuttal to any future attack from McCain on Obama’s experience – which was formerly their strongest. Especially in light of McCain’s quote that he thought the most important qualification for a vice-presidential nominee was they they be ready to inherit the presidency at a moments notice. And yes, the idea that we can rely on her abdicating power to some unknown, future “more qualified” person in the event of something tragic is laughable as a defense of her astounding lack of experience with national affairs.
— Becker · Aug 30, 12:30 AM · #
This is the first story on google news:
“Palin defends readiness for top of the ticket”
— cw · Aug 30, 12:41 AM · #
As a purely political matter, the McCain camp can drop the experience charge against Obama anyway. It doesn’t need it. It can instead highlight Obama’s long association with various radicals, e.g. Wright, Ayers, Barack Obama, Sr., Stanley Obama/Soetero, etc., and contrast that with Obama’s carefully crafted post-partisan persona. You’ve got a war hero versus an Alinskyite leftist.
— Fred · Aug 30, 01:22 AM · #
The argument shouldn’t be about experience. It’s whether you have demonstrated the necessary leadership skills, temperament, ability under fire, and capacity to understand the most complex issues confronting the country to the satisfaction of your fellow citizens.
Lincoln, one of least experienced men to take office, turned out to be perhaps the greatest President. But he wasn’t an unknown. He’d taken clear positions on the great issue of the day, slavery and Union, and argued his positions in a series of prominent debates against one of the great statesmen of the day.
Barack Obama has presented his ideas and debated them with the best politicians in his party for the past eighteen months, in the glare of the national spotlight and with no room for error. Say what you will, but that tests you — as so many other, far more experienced politicians have proved. He has received the votes of over 18 million people, with many millions having volunteered to support his cause.
I’m sorry — but given that, it’s a stretch to say Sarah Palin is anywhere close to being as prepared as Barack Obama to be President. Given Senator McCain’s medical history, and his advanced age, the country can’t take the chance she’ll have to be President-in-training. The likelihood of her having to take off the training wheels sooner than she is ready is just too high. And that’s assuming she even has the character, intellect, or capacity to learn. Which is also unproven.
So McCain went from being the so-called “safe” choice to the riskiest with this pick. Not a wise move in this time of peril.
— mark · Aug 30, 04:25 AM · #
Putting aside the humor value of a child like Ezra Klein pontificating on the lack of experience in a woman nearly twice his age: How exactly is Palin less experienced than Obama? How many states has HE governed?
“Meltdown.” Whistling past the graveyard, son.
— Jim Treacher · Aug 30, 08:44 AM · #
“If McCain were to die in February 2009, I hope Palin would have the good sense to appoint someone who is more ready to be President to be her Vice President, on the understanding that she would then resign and be appointed Vice President by her successor.”
I’m sorry but after reading this sentence I couldn’t take any of your argument seriously. What are you talking about? The Speaker of the House is third in line after the VP.
Also your hope that she would have the good sense to appoint a qualified VP, resign, and then be reappointed to VP is one of the most absurd things I’ve heard. What is the point of having her as a VP in this situation? Why not just bypass her and have McCain tap the more qualified individual to be his VP? Of course people will counter that he’s tapping her so that he can be elected—fair enough—but I think many people will seriously doubt McCain’s judgment now that he would do such a shrewd thing when he is 72 and has had multiple fights with cancer.
— phi · Aug 30, 09:18 AM · #
Well, he was the successful executive of a campaign that dethroned the reigning power-family of Democratic party politics. An organization, I believe, that comprises more people than the population of Alaska.
— Erik · Aug 30, 11:15 AM · #
So basically you’re just admitting that he picked her pretty much to get elected, and would leave it for her to pick a more-qualified VP pick should he shuffle of the mortal coil? Isn’t that more than a little, um, circumlocutious?? As Sully said: Putting. Country. Last.
— bleh · Aug 30, 11:19 AM · #
Jesus, Millman. What happened to you? This post is not worthy of you — on a par with McCain’s choice.
— Luke Lea · Aug 30, 11:30 AM · #
Ok, you do realize that the Constitution has already laid out who will be president if the Pres and VP don’t serve, it is the speaker of the house, the president isn’t chosen by parliamentary procedure in this country. She can’t appoint the president, do you now know our Constitution?
— Teri · Aug 30, 11:53 AM · #
This is the defense of the pick? This has got to be the most pathetic piece of writing I have ever seen. It stinks of desperation. This is unworthy of you. As recently as March 2007, this governor of a state with soldiers in Iraq said that she “had been so focused on issues in the state that she didn’t know much about Iraq.” Shouldn’t you be ashamed of yourself by defending the mere idea that such a person would be within a stone’s throw from the presidency of the United States.
Policy has become increasingly inter-mestic, as country’s domestic policies have international implications and vice versa. In this environment, the Republicans are nominating a candidate with absolutely no history of a coherent foreign policy perspective. This is from the campaign that has impugned Obama’s motives and accused him of putting politics over country? Does this not reek of political opportunism and a crass attempt to lure women?
Aren’t you just being unnecessarily obtuse to compare this woman to Obama, who as a state senator predicted that the Iraq war would lead to “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences.”? This is the Obama who went against the likes of Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Clinton and came out unscathed. Could Palin have? You know this reeks of tokenism, hubris and desperation. We will forgive this as a brain fart since you’ve heretofore written more intelligent pieces.
— Gyude · Aug 30, 12:08 PM · #
This blog post is satire, right? Because otherwise, it’s a complete joke.
First of all, you do realize that a president can’t just “appoint” a vice president to fill the vacancy, don’t you? A president has to <i>nominate</i> someone, and the Senate — which, in this case, will be led by Democrats — has to confirm the candidate. This idea no doubt sends shivers up any Republican’s spine.
Second of all, our entire system of government is based on James Madison’s belief that human beings are not angels. One of its most fundamental principles, if not <i>the</i> most fundamental principle, is that people do not voluntarily give up power when asked. Likely any “promise” that Palin agreed to would be legally unenforceable.
Third, as you admit, “she’s totally unqualified to be President at this point in time.” <b>Then she has no right being the vice president of our country.</b> The entire <i>point</i> of the vice presidency is to have someone who is ready to be President <i>at this point in time.</i> Otherwise, it’s just pure politics.
Our country has too many problems and, like it or not, is too important on the world stage today, for McCain to play this kind of reckless, cynical game with the American people. He has shown an appalling, telling lack of judgment and seriousness.
This choice disgusts me. It’s Harriet Miers, but even scarier.
Putting. Country. Last.
— Jeff · Aug 30, 12:12 PM · #
I’m sitting here in Pennsylvania. Watching TV and on comes an RNC ad all about how Barack Obama is the “most inexperienced candidate ever”. The Palin pick by a 72 year old man with a history of cancer scares makes this ad the most ridiculously laughable ad ever to be run on TV. The McCain campaign and the RNC have taken that argument off of the table.
If Sarah Palin had ever demonstrated an INTEREST in foreign policy, I’d feel better. If she had put some thought or shown an interest in becoming Vice President, I’d feel a little better. As many folks have already stated, whether you agree or not, 18 million people have said that Obama is ready to be President. (This is a democracy after all…) Palin is untested and unvetted (McCain himself met with her, what twice in person???) This was a reckless, unserious pick that was DEFINITELY for POLITICAL purposes, not for the purpose of SERIOUS GOVERNING. This was to win the news cycle. How sad is that. Since Sarah Palin herself has said that she doesn’t know what the Vice President does on a day-to-day basis, she is most certainly not ready to be in NATIONAL politics.
Putting. Country. Last. INDEED!!!
— Tinare · Aug 30, 12:29 PM · #
You are still undecided? You’ll understand that I find that completely unbelievable. You’ve strung together such a comprehensive set of GOP talking points that the resulting incoherent and contradictory mess only indicates that you’ve decided to let others do your thinking for you.
Basically, you’ve decided that this election is as trivial as the GOP thinks it is. You are all in favor of identity politics, have no interest in the actual state of the world, and prefer to accept orders. You think a president in training is acceptable, and hope that in a specific period of time, she’ll be ready. That’s not a plan. This is Nixon-Agnew all over again, except with a skirt.
And let’s drill down. What is experience, exactly? What makes Obama unexperienced but Palin experienced enough? For that matter, what makes McCain experienced? Obama and McCain both have experience as senators. McCain has opinions on foreign policy, but he has no experience in diplomacy and not only has not indicated any strategic thinking but promoted one of the worst strategies imaginable. Obama has the exact same foreign policy experience, but indicated he though strategically back in 2002. Also, Obama has more varied experience in politics.
McCain has also not ever held a job, one that he had to apply for, interview for, and possible be rejected from. That’s a vital lack of experience. Yes, I know, McCain was POW. How does that make him experienced to be President? As a POW he made propaganda films for his captors, i.e. he broke under duress. Is that the kind of experience we want in the White House, my friends?
— The Third Policeman · Aug 30, 12:36 PM · #
In the end, the real test of a Presidential candidate’s leadership ability is the campaign. Obama just masterminded a campaign that started from nothing and defeated the formidable Clinton political machine——remember, the folks who beat the GOP twice, and while in office presided over the biggest economic expansion since the 50s. And along the way Obama pulled in something over $300M in contributions, so that for the first time in living memory the Dems have more money than the Republicans.
— jhh · Aug 30, 01:18 PM · #
The VP has one job: to replace the President if he is removed from office.
If she admits she can’t do that, she admits that she’s a fluff candidate picked to rally the base and peel off Clinton supporters. She’s inexperienced, but I doubt she’s stupid enough to do that.
— Hodge · Aug 30, 01:21 PM · #
Everyone:
Stop. Doing. This.
It’s the clearest case I know of the internet making people write like morons.
— Matt Frost · Aug 30, 01:22 PM · #
How about thus: Obama can now say that when McCain has questioned his experience and whether he would be ready on “Day One” he was flat-out LYING! How do I know? Because all along McCain has believed that someone with a couple of years in the state house in Alaska, and a couple of years governing the most remote, least advanced, and fourth-least populous state IS ready. A lie and an admission that McCain absolutely believes and has always known that Obama was ready but will say anything to win anyway.
BTW, Obama has been on national stage for four years, plus slightly more time in state house in much bigger state—and has orchestrated one of the most impressive presidential campaigns of our time, and has already inspired and earned incredible amounts of respect, both home and abroad.
— Jim C. · Aug 30, 01:24 PM · #
Obama’s experience is not the standard for American presidents since LBJ – generally, we have favored longtime senators or governors (preferably some combo of both, it seems). But his experience does echo the preferred combination of local-gritty and conceptual-broad. Moreover, Obama has demonstrated in his campaign management the most deft and even ruthless political skills in over a generation – we’ve not seen anyone with this management skill level since the days of real party machines. And that leaves a strong impression of competence that is particularly inviting after both the Bush 43 and Clinton administrations, which were notorious for bungling things (though Clinton at least had very good sense to take Rubin’s advice on focusing on the bond markets as the fundamental financial audience to get the economy very right). It’s an issue most pundits don’t delve into, but it’s what I hear on the streets – people have the sense that Obama, for all his flights of rhetoric, is actually a very deliberate and thoughtful person.
The choice of Palin plays into the character difference here – it emphasized McCain’s impulsivity and utopianism (in the sense of someone who acts first with little assessment of risk until the bitter accounting afterward). FIghter pilot personalities may be great for Presidents in movies, but it’s precisely the wrong temperament for President. MIght I suggest that the character difference shown in the choice of Veeps is that it highlights that McCain is an old guy trying to demonstrate he’s got game in the near term, while Obama comes off as the cautious guy who’s more focused on the the long term. It’s quite the opposite of the narrative the GOP has been trying to frame here – and the MSM has largely, btw, bought, for all of its liberal bias – but this move runs the risk of inverting that narrative to McCain’s disadvantage.
Oh, and it doesn’t help the GOP if this move ends up underscoring the GOP’s Babylonian Captivity by the religious right. That’s not the sign of a growing majority, but a sign of circling the wagons – what happened to the Democrats in the late 1960s.
— Liam · Aug 30, 01:26 PM · #
I guess this line of thinking should not surprise anyone, given the ease with which the current administration has shredded the constitution.
The mere idea of circumventing the constitution, bypassing the Speaker of the House, in order for the VP to “select” a more qualified individual to take the office of President is such utter rubbish as to be self-evidently crazy. Although it would, in fact, create an air of bi-partisanship as people from across the political spectrum took to the streets formenting revolution – no one, republican or democrat or independent, would long stand for such nonsense.
The nod to Governor Palin, an amazingly underqualified “Trophy Pick”, is so obviously gimmick wrapped in panic that once the novelty wears off (which is right…about…now) the idea that McCain takes leadership seriously will have become a punchline. All I can say to you and to the McCain-Palin ticket is good luck, and thanks for the chuckles.
Putting Country Last.
Indeed.
— Leaking Geek · Aug 30, 01:59 PM · #
The succession of power is documented in the US Consitution—have your read it? The power of appointment of the President in the case of a President and Vice President unable to serve is held by Congress, not the Vice President. The Vice President cannot “appoint” a new President, only Congress can.
— h · Aug 30, 02:13 PM · #
Ok, you do realize that the Constitution has already laid out who will be president if the Pres and VP don’t serve, it is the speaker of the house, the president isn’t chosen by parliamentary procedure in this country.
Actually, Millman is mostly right, in that after the veep becomes prez, a new veep is appointed and confirmed according to the 25h amendment.
Notice, however, something that I don’t think Millman took into account. There’s a huge ticking time bomb lurking in what I just said—appointed and confirmed. By both houses of Congress. Likely under opposition party control.
Under ordinary circumstances, we could expect the opposition party to bow to the wishes of the old VP in selecting a new one. But Millman’s implied understanding that Palin isn’t really ready to be pres until she gets some experience under her belt changes things dramatically.
— Consumatopia · Aug 30, 02:20 PM · #
“So basically you’re just admitting that he picked her pretty much to get elected”
What, Obama picked Biden in SPITE of the fact that he wants to get elected?
— Jim Treacher · Aug 30, 02:34 PM · #
Holy crap Millman, you’ve gone senile.
— Eric · Aug 30, 02:47 PM · #
Ummm. . . Obama has 12 years of Legislative experience, sits on the Foreign Relations committee, the VA committee, and many others. He has also the executive experience of running a VERY successful and efficient primary campaign (and has TONS of cash on hand, compared to the debt of ‘businessman’ Romney or Clinton). He has studied foreign affairs extensively and has proven judgement on world affairs. He has made shrewd judgements thus far compared to the rashness of McCain (“bomb, bomb Iran” and now this VP pick). Does anyone think that Palin would be more qualified than Biden to be President should something, God forbid, happen?
BTW, Obama is a Constitutional lawyer and taught Constitutional law, was a very successful community organizer, writes his own speeches and books, has debated on the national stage extensively, etc, etc.
Palin ran up a budget DEFICIT of 20 MILLION DOLLARS when she was mayor of Wasilla, AK- a town of 6500 people. That’s 3000 DOLLARS for every man, woman, and child.
Obama has proven himself ready to be President. . . even former Pres. Clinton agrees. He has the temperament and judgement and, unlike McSame, doesn’t make rash or political decisions.
Does ANYONE think Palin is ready to be President should something happen to McSame? Does anyone think she would be a thoughtful foreign policy advisor to whom McSame would even listen?
Is this some kind of JOKE?!?!?!?
— coulterfan · Aug 30, 02:49 PM · #
So she’s going to have the chance to break the glass ceiling if McCain dies but will then give the office up for a better qualified person?
Yeah, that’s going to happen. Women would love that.
— Royce · Aug 30, 03:03 PM · #
Fred, the “association with radicals” meme will only play with Republican true believers. People who don’t fall into that category have watched the convention and will watch the debates and see a reasonable sounding, well spoken man and they won’t buy the “Obama the Marxist” BS.
— gus · Aug 30, 03:23 PM · #
McCain seems smitten by Palin. I worry seriously about his impulses: his embrace of someone ideologically in tune with Rick Santorum, and his impulses for aggressive foreign postures. This choice makes me more worried about a McCain presidency.
The argument that the vice president does not need to be qualified to be president goes against everything I know about civics and our history. It used to be the VP was the runner-up in our election: clearly the original intent was to have a highly qualified person as next in command.
— Beth in VA · Aug 30, 03:39 PM · #
If Palin is manifestly unqualified to be president (and we all seem to agree on that), she has no business being vice-president, even if you can invent a Byzantine and unlikely scenario where she can avoid becoming president.
— Mike · Aug 30, 03:40 PM · #
mccain picking the palin is the gift that keeps giving…I haven’t laughed so much in years. I love it…ready from day one to pick someone who is actually qualified and then resign! country first, baby!
— Bryce · Aug 30, 03:52 PM · #
RU Insane? The kind of argument that equates Obama’s level of experience with Palin’s inexperience is only convincing to seventh graders or people with the mind of seventh graders. Schmidt/McCain might be making the cynical bet that there are enough Americans whose thinking has not progressed beyond that level, but I think they have miscalculated. I know people have tried to make a big deal about Obama’s inexperience, but isn’t it more about being qualified? Experience contributes to one’s qualifications, but it’s not the only or most important thing. Does any serious person question Obama’s qualifications at this point? Does any serious person think that Palin is qualified to take over if McCain dies?
Apparently Millman doesn’t think so. The whole resignation after appointing a successor pledge is a perfect example of the kind of intellectual knots a certain kind of conservative will tie himself up in to justify the absurdity of his positions. According to this guy’s idiot logic, Obama should resign on the first day of office so the more experienced Joe Biden can take over.
— Jack whelan · Aug 30, 04:36 PM · #
“Does any serious person question Obama’s qualifications at this point?”
So by definition, anyone who questions his qualifications is not a serious person. Neat trick.
“If Palin is manifestly unqualified to be president (and we all seem to agree on that)”
Who’s “we”?
— Jim Treacher · Aug 30, 04:50 PM · #
The VP has two constitutional responsibilities: break a tie vote in the Senate, and become president if the current one dies. The idea that Palin would step aside if McCain died makes a mockery of the office. If she would have no role besides garnering votes, then this truly is a token pick.
— ACW · Aug 30, 04:59 PM · #
Isn’t the appointment of a woman running mate to a Republican ticket, who later is expected by the conservative establishment to resign and appoint a more acceptable person to take over when the aging president can no longer serve, the plot of the Gina Davis tv show “Commander-in-Chief”?
— Michael Canfield · Aug 30, 05:02 PM · #
You are a fucking idiot. And my stupid comment is as intellectually robust as this ridiculousness. ‘She’s not a President-in-waiting; she’s a President-in-training.’ Actually, she’s still a Governor-in-training.
— Tim · Aug 30, 05:16 PM · #
This pick, and the lame arguments marshalled in support of it are further evidence that the Republican party is no longer fit to govern the country. I’m center-right, but until the Republicans stop getting so caught up in their own spin that they come across as completely out of touch with reality I’ll be voting Democrat.
Grow up!!
— Maggie · Aug 30, 05:24 PM · #
RU Kidding – She would appoint a qualified president, resign, and then get appointed back as vice president????? That’s your *%$^ plan of succession?!? Isn’t that like not even having a Vice President? And what happens if McCain keels over in a crisis, or is busy reading goat stories to kids when we get attacked by someone? Are you suggesting that an unvetted VP make a snap-decision and appoint some unvetted third party to take the wheel? Or are you suggesting that the McCain organization keep a “real VP” on ice somewhere but not tell us who it is because Palin makes such a prettier poster child? And what if it’s something that incapacitates him temporarily – how do you execute the plan in that case?
Hello!!!!! Remember the #%&^%$#%$# Constitution?!? Jesus! The GOP can not be allowed to lead again until you freaks have been kicked the hell out of party power. Period. Ron Paul’s got it right trying to change from the inside, but in order to rebuild – the current robber barons and retards must be burned out of the house. There has never been a safer choice than Obama, and next election we can start anew – with better leaders. If the party ship crashes we can get rid of them!!!
— Kent · Aug 30, 05:47 PM · #
Bush’s selection of Cheney is symptomatic of his problems as a chief executive. He chose a VP, and a Secretary of Defense with a like minded ideas and a strong relationship. He named a Secretary of State who was equally well versed, but not in their “inner circle” and a NSA who was his own tutor on foreign affairs, a scholar, but willing to buy into the Cheney-Rumsfeld worldview. The problem was that Bush himself lacked the capacity to mediate between these points of view and instead handed over all decision making authority to Cheney.
You can see a similar weakness in domestic affairs that took an opposite approach. He has there chosen lightweights… Ashcroft, Gonzales… and tried to put a friend, Harriet Myers on the Supreme Court though she was blatently unqualified.
Obama has clearly shown himself to be more the kind of person who seeks out the best and uses their expertise to formulate his own well thought out approach. Yes, Biden will weild a big stick on foreign affairs, but he’ll then put other heavyweights in State, Defense, NSA, people like Richardson, or Lugar or Nunn or maybe even Hillary and we’ll have the finest minds examining these issues and a brilliant man deciding a course.
Not only is Palin woefully unqualified at the national level, she has no relationship with McCain. Do you think she’d be in the situation room with him during a crises. Would she be part of his inner core of advisors. What if they turn out not to like each other or to work well together.
She might very likely be as unqualified in 2 years as she is now. And he ain’t getting any younger.
— Seth Berkowitz · Aug 30, 06:08 PM · #
i have a hard time believing that you’re still “undecided” in this race. it seems to me that no amount of mccain/palin being a bad idea (by your own admission) can dissuade you from explaining how they’re really not. if you’re going to pretend like the constitution doesn’t exist (don’t worry, you won’t be the first in recent memory to do so) and argue that a total lack of any qualifications for the second-most powerful person on earth is actually a good thing, own it!
if you’re going to vote for the republican dream team, just admit it. you won’t be alone, and then you and your friends at the corner can hang out and talk about what a good choice you’ve made.
— sarah · Aug 30, 06:49 PM · #
My feeling is that the choice of Palin stops McCain and Steve Schmidt from getting any traction on using Obama’s supposed lack of experience. However, they’ve been using that line of attack for a while and he hadn’t overtaken Obama in the polls, so they probably figured that the unconventional choice blunts Obama’s ability to paint McCain as a continuation of Bush. All this leads me to hope that the campaign might take a positive turn and focus on policy rather than tearing the opposition down. That would surely be better for everyone in this country.
— Ant · Aug 30, 06:56 PM · #
Millman’s idea, as an idea, is not utterly unprecedented.
Woodrow Wilson conceived of the idea in 1916, when he faced a tight re-election campaign that he expected to lose to Charles Evans Hughes while the US tried to stay out of World War I. In the event of a Hughes win, Wilson did not want to be a lame duck for 4 months, which would put the US in a difficult place at the time. So he planned to replace the Secretary of State with Hughes, have VP Marshall resign, and then resign the presidency himself, which under the succession statute in effect at the time would have made Hughes president, thereby averting a dangerous lame-duck interval.
Wilson could be a control freak, but not always, and in this instance, he put his control freakishness to use in purpose of what he thought would be good government, however at his own expense.
— Liam · Aug 30, 07:48 PM · #
“If McCain were to die in February 2009, I hope Palin would have the good sense to appoint someone who is more ready to be President to be her Vice President, on the understanding that she would then resign and be appointed Vice President by her successor.”
Wow. This is a post for the ages. Not in a good way, but still. Entries for the contest to define “pulling a Millman” are now open.
— calling all toasters · Aug 30, 08:46 PM · #
seen from abroad:
I mean, what has Obama governed in his life? He sat down in the Senate after been elected in ONE of the Illinois districts (he is not the ONLY Senator from Illinois…) for 100 days and then he started preparing the campaign… then you say…“2 years of campaign is a lot of experience”.. shall I conclude that John Edwards, remarkably loser presidential candidate for almost 10 years, had one of the best preparations for winning the democratic primaries? would you prefer Edwards to Obama or Palin? Also to my knowledge Obama does not seat in any of the important Washington commission.. I mean something like the Energy or Foreign Affair commission gives certainly a lot of preparation for tackling many issues… and you know why? because after 100 he decided to start the campaign..
sorry for my English
Dani
— Daniel · Aug 30, 10:55 PM · #
In 2012 Sarah Palin will be more qualified to be president than John McCain.
— redmanrt · Aug 30, 11:34 PM · #
Many, including Liam, express fear that Ms. Palin is devoid of all experience in the foreign arena. How quickly you all forget. What kind of experience did Bill Clinton have? Harry Truman? No person can know everything. That is why you have a State Department and advisers and ambassadors. Obama spent 143 days in the Senate. What is your candid assessment of his state of preparation? Objectivity compels the conlcusion that those opposed to Palin would scrape the barrel and find any reason to oppose McCain’s choice regardless of who she is. Palin is honest, intelligent, gutsy and unrestrained by convention. Who could ask for more?
— Mark Brinton · Aug 30, 11:38 PM · #
“Someone should remind them who they nominated for President.”
Um, we don’t need to be reminded. We’ve chosen the man who while in Illinois:
1) Co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation in Illinois, the Gift Ban Act. (1998)
2) Co-sponsored a prescription drug discount program for seniors and the disabled. (2003)
3) Co-sponsored a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation. (2003)
And while he has been in Washington he has:
1) Co-sponsored the Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act (2007)
2) Co-sponsored the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act (2006)
3) Co-sponsored the Obama-Feingold Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act (2007)
4) Supported the Protection Against Executive Compensation Abuse Act (2005)
5) Voted for the New G.I. Bill (2008) to give our veterans the same opportunities afforded to my Grandfather’s generation after WWII. McCain didn’t even bother to show up to vote.
6) Supported the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (2007)
This is what he has managed to do in just four years in the Senate. What has Sarah done? Just weeks ago, she admitted that she doesn’t even have a clue what the job of the VP is! Even you admit she is “unqualified,” which is an understatement, and yet you wonder why we have criticized her. Really, it isn’t about Sarah. I’m sure she’s a lovely woman, but as you yourself point out, she is totally unqualified to be VP. What does it say about McCain’s judgment that he would choose someone who is completely unqualified to be VP when he is 72, has had four bouts of cancer, and knows that there is a chance that he might not even be able to finish his first term if elected? How could he possibly think this woman is capable of running the US at such a critical junction in our history if, God forbid, something happened to him? Mrs. Palin may be a lovely person, but as a politician, she doesn’t hold a candle to either Obama or Biden. Does anyone here really believe that she could face down Putin? Or that she has the knowledge to fix the financial mess we’re in? If you are honestly going to suggest that her two years of experience as Gov. of Alaska, a state with a population of 600,000, gives her the necessary executive experience to lead this nation – especially given the problems we’re facing – then you’re deluded.
— Dawn · Aug 31, 02:31 AM · #
I am sure Palin has many admirable, outstanding qualities. But to compare her experience to that of Barak Obama is just silly. Obama has run a national campaign to be President of the United States. In doing so, he defeated an exceptionally strong establishment candidate. In doing so, he has had to develop foreign policy platforms and views. In doing so, he has been battle-tested on a national stage. If one is to criticize Obama on experience, then Palin deserves that criticism twofold. It seems to me that John McCain sacrificed his own principle that the most important criteria in choosing a VP is that they are ready to assume the Presidency on day one. Perhaps Palin is qualified to be Vice-President. But if she is, then Obama is too—without question.
— Buzz · Aug 31, 02:39 AM · #
This guest post is offered by pollster David Johnson, the president of Strategic Vision.
Sarah Palin may be one of the smartest tactical moves made by the McCain Campaign, and the Democrats should be very careful in their line of attack against her. Depending on how she is defined at the Republican Convention she could be a game changer.
Barack Obama is underperforming among female voters in the key states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin in our polling. In these states he is only leading John McCain by 2% to 3% among females, where traditionally there has been a double digit lead for Democrats. If Palin can help keep these voters in play and then energize base Republican voters, these states have the potential to flip.
The Obama line of attack against Palin may further alienate voters in these states. By attacking her as being a Mayor of a small town of 9,000, the Democrats open themselves up to charges of elitism and revive the “bitter” comments…. Remember there are numerous small towns of 9,000, or even less, in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Finally, by attacking Palin as being inexperienced the Obama Campaign may actually help bolster McCain’s own arguments of inexperience against Obama.
— SUE007 · Aug 31, 03:34 AM · #
There is no other job in the world that gives anyone experience at being President of the US. Ms.Palin is totally all American and has the guts to live her principles even if it its not convenient or easy, as opposed to someone who doesn’t respect our flag and spent 20 years in a Church whos paster preached damnation to the US. Did he agree with the paster or did he just not understand what was being said? Either way it scares me to death to think of someone like that being our leader. Experienced or not, she is the only one of the 4 that I feel comfortable voting for.
— Kelly Taylor · Aug 31, 04:03 AM · #
quote
“1) Co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation in Illinois, the Gift Ban Act. (1998)
2) Co-sponsored a prescription drug discount program for seniors and the disabled. (2003)
3) Co-sponsored a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation. (2003)
And while he has been in Washington he has:
1) Co-sponsored the Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act (2007)
2) Co-sponsored the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act (2006)
3) Co-sponsored the Obama-Feingold Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act (2007)
4) Supported the Protection Against Executive Compensation Abuse Act (2005)
5) Voted for the New G.I. Bill (2008) to give our veterans the same opportunities afforded to my Grandfather’s generation after WWII. McCain didn’t even bother to show up to vote.
6) Supported the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (2007)”
so as I said.. we all agree that he has never governed anything… nothing really executive..
He was a “legislator” in the State of Illinois before becoming a Senator.. his job was to promote laws at the Illinois state level.. I am not surprised he did something … it was clearly his job… nothing exceptional…
now let’s try to answer together this question.
what is the biggest achievement in Obama’s life?
what about McCain?
— Daniel · Aug 31, 04:59 AM · #
“There is no other job in the world that gives anyone experience at being President of the US. Ms.Palin is totally all American and has the guts to live her principles even if it its not convenient or easy…”
I like that. By that standard, I could be President.
— tomemos · Aug 31, 05:33 AM · #
Ahhhh, Noah, even the most addle-minded republican kool-aid drinker has to see a stark difference in the level of experience between Obama and Palin. The comparison itself is just disingenuous – Palin isn’t even in the same league. The difference between Palin and Biden is overwhelming. I’m looking forward to the debates – will the beauty queen cry when she’s dessimated publicly, or will she just pull out her moose gun and shoot her opponent. The comparison can’t even be made – the Palin selection is blatant pandering. I guess mccain is going to have to come up with a new campaign slogan because “Country First” just won’t cut it anymore – not with this pick.
— beller · Aug 31, 07:01 AM · #
“John McCain for all his white hair who represents the risky choice, while it is Barack Obama who offers cautious, steady, predictable governance.
Here’s I fear the worst harm that may be done by this selection. The McCain campaign’s slogan is “country first.” It’s a good slogan, and it aptly describes John McCain, one of the most self-sacrificing, gallant, and honorable men ever to seek the presidency.
But question: If it were your decision, and you were putting your country first, would you put an untested small-town mayor a heartbeat away from the presidency? David Frum
By McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin, he has put his Country last!
— Angellight · Aug 31, 11:42 AM · #
So let’s see, we elect someone with no experience and his blowhard sidekick to the highest office in the land over one that has ton’s of experience and has served his country valiantly because his sidekick lacks experience. Sorry I’m not sold on the Marxist POS the Dems have nominated.
Nosamaobama
— Vinman · Aug 31, 12:22 PM · #
Dick Cheney is one of the best who has ever served in the VP office. Thank God Al Gore was not (and will not be ever again) elected.Obama has a world view? Sure he has; whatever the Demo pollsters are telling him at any minute. He will spin on a dime whenever he is told to do so as he has no convictions. He is an empty suit.
— Tom Parvin · Aug 31, 01:30 PM · #