Gene Expression: McCain is a maverick

Search this blog

Q & A

Books

Subscribe via Email

Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.

Sign me up!

« Where are the seculars? | Main | Atheist vs. Attend Religious Services Once a Week »

McCain is a maverick permlink

Category: Culture
Posted on: August 29, 2008 12:03 PM, by Razib

At least when it comes to choosing his VP candidate. Joe Biden as a "safe" choice; Sarah Palin is not.

Find more posts in: Politics

Comments

Of course!

Pick a woman with virtually no experience (certainly less than Obama) to grab the puma vote.

She might be a great president but she's about as qualified as me.

Posted by: Rob Jase | August 29, 2008 1:26 PM

She might be a great president but she's about as qualified as me.

...say more.... (about you)

Posted by: razib | August 29, 2008 1:32 PM

I, too, would like to hear about Rob Jase's political experience.

Posted by: bradm | August 29, 2008 1:52 PM

She was a beauty queen right? I think that's the only qualification that Mccain ever sees in a woman.

If there are actual "feminists" who are swayed by this, they should be taken out back and shot. Or at the very least, forced to never call themselves feminists again.

Posted by: Coriolis | August 29, 2008 1:52 PM

Note her views on the teaching of evolution:

http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/10/27/intelligent_design_and_the_ala/

Posted by: David Crotty | August 29, 2008 2:05 PM

Not every heavyweight necessarily looks all kewl on paper. But her address was pretty surprising. I would think a young nominee with a thin resume would come out projecting dignitas and precocity if they had them. Might she have held back for some reason? We'll see.

Posted by: Eric J. Johnson | August 29, 2008 2:07 PM

Yikes. Evolution is not a litmus test for me, but it is kind of key. For reasons not pertaining to science per se. Namely, I increasingly notice realism on the right and idealism on the left, but then on the other hand there's "creation science" and neocon foreign policy.

Posted by: Eric J. Johnson | August 29, 2008 2:14 PM

"realism on the right"? After 8 years of an administration that looked down on the "reality-based community"? Get real hehe.

Posted by: Coriolis | August 29, 2008 2:16 PM

she attends an assemblies of god christian congregation.

Posted by: razib | August 29, 2008 2:18 PM

Dang, google images turns up a b&w photo of her at 20 -- honey was bangin' for a poli sci type.

Posted by: agnostic | August 29, 2008 2:36 PM

I, for one, think it's nice that McCain invited his granddaughter to run with him.

Posted by: Woody Tanaka | August 29, 2008 4:17 PM

Well, at least she's not a homophobe:

Palin's first veto was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples.

Seriously, I'm taking what I can get this election cycle.

Posted by: Marc | August 29, 2008 4:30 PM

She got pregnant at age 43, found out her baby had Down syndrome, and decided to keep it. She thinks her baby looks "perfect." Yuck!

She should at least have had the decency not have had a fifth child in her forties.

(I think abortion is fine is used to abort babies with Down syndrome).

Posted by: an | August 29, 2008 4:32 PM

Groom the grandaughter for success?? At least she has held an executive position (albeit short)- something we have to be real and say that Obama has never done. Funny comparison - Young inexperienced history making guy with old experienced dude on the side (neither one ever having held an executive position) compared to the old experienced guy with the young history making lady on the side (one of which has had an executive position). Who knows, the lady may just be the most executive level qulaified person of the bunch!

Posted by: p n | August 29, 2008 4:45 PM

How much credibility should we give the Clintons when they attack her about experience? They think Obama is more than qualified now - and after soooo many times of saying... rather stomping, demanding, exclaiming... the exact opposite. I guess she is more than ready (or will be within the month using Clintonian standards)

Posted by: pete | August 29, 2008 4:50 PM

"How much credibility should we give the Clintons when they attack her about experience?"

Good question. How much credibility should we give McCain and his spokespeople after all their attacks over Obama's experience?

Posted by: cc | August 29, 2008 10:19 PM

"How much credibility should we give the Clintons when they attack her about experience?"

I was thinking about this, and decided that the more the conversation is about "Experience," the better for McCain. I'm guessing Obama will try to stay away from that.

Posted by: Bob | August 30, 2008 2:00 PM

Namely, I increasingly notice realism on the right and idealism on the left, but then on the other hand there's "creation science" and neocon foreign policy.

I wonder how many of the neocons are creationists? I think that there are probably very few. Since most neocons concern themselves mostly with foreign policy, it's rare to hear them discussing such things, but I will bet money that the original neocons, the ex-Trotskyites and Roosevelt Democrats, are pro-evolution. Especially the Trotskyites, since he supported eugenics.

Pick a woman with virtually no experience (certainly less than Obama) to grab the puma vote.

She actually has more experience than Obama. She has served in some form of elected office since 1992, whereas he has only been doing so since 1997. Of course, she's not at the top of the ticket, whereas Obama is, so this criticism really cannot be applied to her. But since you are, I'm assuming you would be more willing to vote for McCain if he chose Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld instead? They are "more experienced."

Good question. How much credibility should we give McCain and his spokespeople after all their attacks over Obama's experience?

Again, Obama is at the top of the ticket and will be running the show. Palin is not. Plain and simple. I would say that an attempt at comparison between the two is downright illogical.

Posted by: Arcane | August 30, 2008 2:34 PM

...but, all logic aside, that seems to be one of the primary attacks Obama is using against Palin.

I keep forgetting that this is politics and that all rationalism goes out the door when this subject is discussed.

This is why I turned off the DNC emotion-fest whenever it came on. With all the whiney and pathetic Democratic drones crying their hearts out over Obama or Clinton, it was too unbearable to watch. The convention truly became an bleeding heart emotion-fest.

Posted by: Arcane | August 30, 2008 2:39 PM

> "realism on the right"? After 8 years of an administration that looked down on the "reality-based community"? Get real hehe.

Mea culpa - when I said I "increasingly" notice realism on the right, I meant that my perceptions are changing, not that the world is changing. This administration has not been very realist, of course.

> I would say that an attempt at comparison between the two is downright illogical.

Hardly - both Palin and Obama could become president by 2012 based on our votes in 2008. Though Palin of course probably won't do so even if the GOP ticket wins, there is quite a significant chance that she will.

> The convention truly became an bleeding heart emotion-fest.

Quite. Even my Dem mom agreed.

Posted by: Eric J. Johnson | August 30, 2008 3:56 PM

Again, Obama is at the top of the ticket and will be running the show. Palin is not. Plain and simple. I would say that an attempt at comparison between the two is downright illogical.

Of course, "logically" the comparison doesn't wash, but only if we go by your "plain-and-simple" logic. Hopefully, most people reject the ludicrous premise that's the basis of this logic. I'm sure the Republicans are wishing we all do.

Among other things, a vice-president's role is to take over the office of Commander-in-Chief if the sitting president croaks. Let's say, just as an example, that he's 72 years old and has had four bouts of cancer. A distinct possibility, right? So, with that in mind, I - and hopefully most people - view a potential Vice President this way. Is this person qualified and competent enough to be president? That's the qualifications to look for in a vice-president, just as one would do for a president. Since, y'know, this person could be the leader of the free world in a heartbeat, that's all.

She actually has more experience than Obama. She has served in some form of elected office since 1992, whereas he has only been doing so since 1997.

Oh, I had no idea that doing political work meant only serving in some form of elected office. I'm sure that's news to George Herbert Walker Bush. Fifteen years of national political service before becoming vice-president, only four of them in elected office.

But you're right. She has had more experience in elected office than Obama. (I'm surprised you didn't throw in "executive" experience, but that spin's worn out by now.) But the bulk of her "experience" was mayor of a small town, population app. 5,000. Nothing wrong with that. It's a perfectly honorable position. But could someone tell me what bearing that has on leading the free world?

Thank god we may finally have a VP fully qualified on making executive decisions on how big "No Parking" signs should be!

Posted by: cc | August 30, 2008 5:30 PM

cc,
You're a died-in-the-wool Obama supporter and no argument will change your mind. Why did you bother typing that entire spiel? You're not debating... you're just arguing knowing full well nothing will change your position on this. If somebody blows your argument out of the water, you'll just find another way to spin it. Why are you wasting your time?

Posted by: Arcane | August 31, 2008 2:31 AM

I'm not debating, I'm arguing? Had no idea there was such a vast distinction!

Well, let's see what your definition of fine debating is. As you present your case, you categorize the other side as "downright illogical". You say - right at the outset! - your side of the "debate" is "plain and simple" and that if anyone has a counter-argument, "all logic" is set aside and "rationalism goes out the door." And why not, since they're probably "whiney Democratic drones" anyway? And now that you've met someone who doesn't back down so easily, you're going to avoid addressing anything else and turn and run with your tail between your legs. But not before one last parting shot, making the accusation that I know full well nothing will change my position on this... as if you've given any evidence in this discussion that you're so amenable yourself, ha! And all under the phony pretence that you're broad-minded and fair-minded while the people that take a different position from you aren't, and their "debating", "arguing" methods are proof of that. It is to laugh.

I guess I'll never know how someone who was a mayor of a tiny town and a governor for a year-and-a-half automatically qualifies them for leader of the free world, so I grant I did waste my time asking you that, since you won't answer. But at least I learned something. That is, people who love to posture on discussion boards as the "logical" and "rational" voice of certain matters can be counted on using tired defelction tactics and fleeing when they see they've met their match. Have a super weekend!

Posted by: cc | August 31, 2008 10:22 AM

Amazing how one-sided and uninformed many of us are!

Choose a side, justify the position, and don't see the reality if you can help it. There is some big evil person ruining all your fun, right? Maybe we need to address the real issue - not the Presidents, but the congress and senate. Every bill gets their vote, every budget is built with their interests stuffed throughout, and every war had superior majority acceptance and congressional support, so every failure is each and every one of our faults for voting in lame duck local leadership.

So many experts here, so many accusations, and I bet not one of us does too much beyond that...

Posted by: p | September 9, 2008 6:01 PM