Subsidies: When Convenient

The ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, Richard Shelby of Alabama, again made clear, in the committee hearing on Thursday, his opposition to any rescue plan for the American automobile industry. On Meet The Press on Sunday, November 16, 2008, Shelby was even more explicit:

We don't need government--governmental subsidies for manufacturing in this country. It's the French model, it's the wrong road, we will pay for it. The average American taxpayer is going to pay dearly for this, if I'm not wrong.

It is, it is a viable option, but the Big Three, they're going to have to save themselves.... The government cannot subsidize and should not subsidize jobs like this, and that's what the road we're going down is going to do.

And the government, at the end of the day, Tom, should not choose which companies are going to survive or not survive. We should let the market work that way. And it has...

However, according to the website goodjobsfirst.org (which was primarily concerned that the states' residents had not been well served by the subsidies):

In 1992 South Carolina ushered in the new wave of investment by foreign carmakers in the South by offering BMW a package that was ultimately worth an estimated $150 million. A decade later, the state put up an additional $80 million in infrastructure aid when BMW decided to expand its operations in the state.

In 1993 officials in Alabama lured a Mercedes-Benz facility, the first foreign auto plant in the state, with a package worth $258 million.

In 1999 Alabama put together a $158 million subsidy deal to land a $400 million, 1.7 million-square-foot Honda plant. In 2002 state and local officials provided an additional package worth $90 million, including $33 million in tax breaks over 20 years, when Honda decided to expand the facility.

In 2000 officials in Mississippi lured a $950 million Nissan plant with a $295 million subsidy deal. While the plant was still under construction, the company announced an expansion of the project that also involved an increase in the subsidy package to $363 million.

When South Korean carmakers Hyundai staged a competition for a $1 billion plant, various states put together bids, but it was Alabama that won the contest in 2002 with a package worth $252 million.

Commentators much made of the fact that when Toyota chose San Antonio, Texas in 2003 as the location for an $800 million assembly plant, the company had not selected the site with the most generous subsidy package. In another example of the fact that subsidies are not the most important factor in investment decisions, Toyota highlighted criteria such as access to the large Texas market for the pickup trucks that would be built at the plant. This is not to say that Toyota passed up all government assistance. The company received a package valued at $133 million, including $47 million in tax phase-ins and waived fees.


BMW, Mercedes Benz, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Toyota. Subsidies granted them by (respectively) South Carolina, Alabama, Alabama, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, states generally less gifted with revenue than otheras.

No one remembers Richard Shelby agonizing over the three subsidies given to (foreign) automakers by his state, Alabama. But he was the one who rhetorically asked (told) domestic automakers on November 13 "How do they plan to deal with current management, labor, cost and quality control, and product development shortfalls, which they know they have? How do they intend to reverse the continued loss of market share to foreign car companies?"

At Thursday's hearing, Senator Shelby declared of the domestic automakers "the firms continue to trail their major competitors in almost every category necessary to compete.” Senator Shelby knows how to help reverse the trend, as do his friends in Alabama. Unfortunately, he has made it clear he does not intend to do so, further making a mockery of the year's Republican slogan: "Country First."

The Palin Effect

In a column he describes as an "easy postmortem," syndicated neocon Charles Krauthammer of The Washington Post Writer's Group analyzed the loss of John McCain, attributing it primarily to the economic collapse. That collapse was especially destructive to McCain's candidacy because the selection of Sarah Palin to be the "heartbeat from the presidency" exposed the weakness of the ticket in addressing the economic crisis and of the vacuity of the "America First" slogan.

Krauthammer had criticized the selection of Sarah Palin for vice-president but adamantly endorsed the GOP ticket shortly before the election because he much preferred McCain to Obama, especially on the matters of national defense. In like manner, he notes now

Palin was a mistake ("near suicidal," I wrote on the day of her selection) because she completely undercut McCain's principal case against Obama - his inexperience and unreadiness to lead. Her nomination not only intellectually undermined the readiness argument, it changed the election dynamic by shifting attention, for days on end, to her preparedness, fitness and experience - and away from Obama's.

I obviously believe(d) the Illinois senator is sufficiently prepared, fit, and experienced to be President. This is one reason I always thought choosing the Alaska governor as the running mate for John McCain was a mistake. Unable, then, to harp on his experience (as I have on the Palin Blunder) and patriotism (yes, Obama is just as patriotic but doesn't have the P.O.W. experience to highlight), McCain went the economic route. But, as Krauthamer noted,

After all, if even Goldman Sachs was getting government protection, why not you? And offering the comfort and safety of government is the Democratic Party's vocation. With a Republican White House having partly nationalized the banks and just about everything else, McCain's final anti-Obama maneuver - Joe-the-Plumber, spread-the-wealth accusations of socialism - became almost comical.

It was even more "comical" than the effort of the Republican team to compete with Barack Obama on the issue of "change." Barack Obama not only represented change, was not only the embodiment of change, but was change itself. (Note the breathless headlines and commentary, suggesting the purge of our racist legacy, following his victory.) Krauthammer comments

McCain thought he could steal the "change" issue from Obama by running a Two Mavericks campaign. It was a fool's errand from the very beginning. It defied logic for the incumbent party's candidate to try to take "change" away from the opposition. Election Day exit polls bore that out with a vengeance. Voters for whom change was the most important issue went 89-to-9 for Obama.

No doubt Krauthammer's commentary, generally valid, was motivated in part by an effort to deflect blame from the man he claims "will be- he should be- remembered as the most worthy presidentail nominee ever to be denied the prize" (Hubert Humphrey, Al Gore, others; did I mention Hubert Humphrey?. But now comes more objective evidence of the mistake the campaign made just before the Republican National Convention.

Curtis B. Gans is director of the Committe for the Study of the American Electorate. He has concluded (pdf) that the percentage of eligible citizens turning out to vote in this election was at most 1% higher than in 2004, in part because the heralded jump in registration "was driven by Democratic and independent registration and that the long lines at the polls were mostly populated by Democrats." And he found three reasons for the decline in Republican turnout, including

John McCain’s efforts to unite the differing factions in the Republican Party by the nomination of Governor Sarah Palin as vice-presidential nominee was a singular failure. By election time many culturally conservative Republicans still did not see him as one of their own and stayed home, while moderate Republicans saw the nomination of Palin reckless and worried about McCain’s steadiness.

As expected, the selection of Sarah Palin galvanized the base- the Democratic base.

Palin, Blaming America

Back in her office in Anchorage, Governor Sarah Palin answered a few questions from the local media. Asked about sexism on the campaign trail, the former vice-presidential candidate alleged:




And so, that's a good question because I think that was a bit of a surprise on the national level is why, you mean, the other 49 states aren't quite there like Alaskans are? Well, come on, follow Alaska's lead and start allowing the equal opportunities and the equal treatment.

Once you get past the whining- is there anything this individual plucked from relative obscurity to have a 50-50 chance at the second highest office in the land doesn't complain about?- there is an interesting comparison between Alaska and the nation.

It's interesting, but not especially surprising, to hear Governor Earmark suggest that the United States of America is chock full of the bigots lacking in her state of Alaska. This is, after all, the governor (though not present) who addressed the 2008- yes, 2008- convention of the Alaska Independent Party, assuring it "Your party plays an important role in our state’s politics...... Keep up the good work, and God bless you." And the mayor who probably attended the 2004 convention of the party in Wasilla. That would be the party with the motto "Alaska First- Alaska Always."




The association with the Alaska Independence Party (and with a husband who earlier belonged to the party), remarks that the rest of America doesn't measure up to Alaska, and her constant invocation of the "Joe the Plumber" slogan on the campaign trail. Not just another Republican politician with little regard for the American people, but one who ironically, and cynically, ran under the banner "Country First."

The Unethical Sarah Palin

Since President Clinton's infamous (and, after innumberable reptetition, annoying) line, "it depends on what is is," we realize- or should- that politicians infrequently lie and regularly mislead.

So it is perplexing to me to hear Sarah Palin not only mislead, but lie, about the "Troopergate" report released on October 10 by the committee of ten Republicans and four Democrats. It was predictable that the McCain camp would question the motives of the panel, and campaign spokeswoman Meg Stapelton alleged "a partisan- led inquiry run by Obama supporters."

Prosecutor Steven Branchflower, who led the investigation, did find that Governor Earmark was legally entitled to fire the Commissioner of Public Safety, apparently for almost any reason that might suit her fancy:

I find that, although Walt Monegan’s refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.

But he found also

Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides
“The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.”

And the response of the vice-presidential nominee? Palin and Stapelton on October 12 took a five minute conference call with the Anchorage Daily News and two local television stations, with each of the three reporters permitted to ask one question with no follow-up. Here is the transcript, as provided by mudflatswordpress.com:

Palin: Hey, thank you so, Meg. Thank you so much. Thank you also to our local reporters up there in Alaska. Even hearing your names make me feel like I’m right there with you at home. It’s good to get to speak with you. Let me talk a little bit about the Tasergate issue if you guys would let me and, Meg, you want me to just jump right on in there?

Palin: Hey, thank you so, Meg. Thank you so much. Thank you also to our local reporters up there in Alaska. Even hearing your names make me feel like I’m right there with you at home. It’s good to get to speak with you. Let me talk a little bit about the Tasergate issue if you guys would let me and, Meg, you want me to just jump right on in there?

Stapleton: Sure governor, go ahead.

Palin: OK cool.
Well, I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing … any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that. Todd did what anyone would have done given this state trooper’s very, very troubling behavior and his dangerous threats against our family. Todd did what I think any Alaskan would do.
And he, Todd did what the state’s Department of Law Web site tells anyone to do if they have a concern about a state trooper. And that’s you go to the commissioner and you express your concern. And Todd did what our personal detail asked him to do. Bob Cockrell early on as I was elected and was asked are there any threats against ya, and Todd brought the concern as I did to Commissioner Monegan about the state trooper’s threats. He did what any – I think — any rational person would do so again, nothing to apologize there with Todd’s actions and again very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing.

(Stapleton invites the first question).

ADN: Governor, finding No.1 on the report was that you abused your power by violating state law. Do you think you did anything wrong at all in this Troopergate case?

Palin: Not at all and I’ll tell you, it, I think that you’re always going to ruffle feathers as you do what you believe is in the best interest of the people whom you are serving. In this case I knew that I had to have the right people in the right position at the right time in this cabinet to best serve Alaskans, and Walt Monegan was not the right person at the right time to meet the goals that we had set out in our administration. So no, not having done anything wrong, and again very much appreciating being cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity at all.

ADN: Have you read the whole report? (No response; Stapleton invites question from KTVA reporter).

KTVA-Channel 11: … The report that came out yesterday, do you think that the end result is partisan?

Palin: Yeah, I did think it did turn into a partisan circus to tell you the truth. Yes I did. You know from Day One it’s been the Personnel Board that clearly laid out in state statute there — Personnel Board deals with any issue of question regarding a governor, a lieutenant governor or an attorney general in the state of Alaska. What this legislative investigation — quote unquote — turned into was a political circus.

KTUU-Channel 2: Governor, so good to hear from you. Do you approve of the way that your campaign has handled themselves here in Alaska? We’ve had a lot of people voice concerns about what they call attacks of good people in our state while you are away.

Palin: Well I haven’t heard of any attacks on good people in Alaska from our campaign. If you have specifics there, maybe I could answer specifically. But no, in John McCain’s mission here, in taking the high road, as you’re going to see too with a lot of unfair shots he has taken in this campaign with some of his opponents’ supporters, McCain and I taking the high road, being positive. I wouldn’t support nor would I condone taking shots at any good Alaskans.

KTUU-Channel 2: Let me answer your question since you asked for specifics.

Palin: Sure.

KTUU-Channel 2: Walt Monegan was called “rogue.” How do you feel about that?

Palin: Rogue isn’t a negative term when you consider that in a cabinet you need a team effort going forward with a governor’s agenda. And our agenda has been to find efficiencies in every department and make sure that we are serving the people of Alaska to the best of our ability given the resources that we have. And remember I fought very hard to increase funding for state troopers so that we could fill positions there and goals not being met that included not being able to recruit and retain all the state troopers that I wanted to best serve Alaska. That could be characterized I think as a cabinet member who – it’s not a negative term I think — being rogue in terms of not meeting those goals.

Palin claims the investigation "did turn into a partisan circus," a curious charge from a public servant who first agreed to cooperate with the investigation, then after being nominated for V.P. changed her mind and refused to be interviewed. Branchflower concluded the Governor "abused her power by violating" the Alaska Branch Ethics Act. Nevertheless, the latter says "I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing … any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that." Not content to lie once, a moment later Palin remarks "So no, not having done anything wrong, and again very much appreciating being cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity at all."

Perhaps Sarah Palin believes that violating a state statue is not "unethical activity." Or perhaps lying has become second nature to her. In either case, the selection of the vice-presidential nominee continues to put the lie to the McCain-Palin slogan "Country First."

Now A Weak Argument

The Washington Post reported on Sunday, 9/28:

(Senior Advisor Steve) Schmidt said the campaign will press two arguments as forcefully as possible in the coming days. One is that Obama is not ready to be commander in chief and that, in a time of two wars, "his policies will make the world more dangerous and America less secure." Second, he said, McCain will argue that, in a time of economic crisis, Obama will raise taxes and spending and "will make our economy worse."

So McCain wants to argue that Barack Obama's policies "will make the world more dangerous and America less secure." Arguably, this would have been McCain's strongest argument to elect himself rather than the junior senator from Illinois. Only the 72-year-old (admittedly skin) cancer survivor should have thought about this before he selected as his running mate the author of these response the first four from the interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson, the last from the interview with CBS' Katie Couric):

On the perspective that she has of Russia's national security threat: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

On a possible Israeli attack (which the White House reportedly would oppose): We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

On whether she agrees with the Bush Doctrine: In what respect, Charlie?

On pursuing terrorists on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target. (A legitimate and debatable position held by Barack Obama- and opposed by John McCain, prompting the latter to retract his mate's statement)

On meeting with Iran: I've never heard Henry Kissinger say, "Yeah, I'll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met." (Stated, presumably, because she did not hear Kissinger say "Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran.....But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.")

It's painfully obvious: any guy who puts "Country First" and would like to argue credibly that his opponent would endanger national security would not have chosen Sarah Palin as first in succession to the Presidency of the United States of America.

McCain: Confused Or Self-Serving?

On Wednesday, September 24 John McCain decides to "suspend" his campaign (except for local and state offices, campaign surrogates, some advertising, fund-raising through his official campaign website, and Sarah Palin). Says he's rushing down to Washington (where he hasn't cast a vote since April) to save the country from financial collapse and, 26 hours later (following a speech, non-political, I'm sure, to the Clinton Global Initiative) , arrives in the nation's capital.

Meanwhile on Thursday, House Financial Committee Chairman Barney Frank, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, and a group of Senate Republicans and Democrats reach agreement, according to Politico, "on the framework for legislation authorizing the massive government intervention," as suggested by statements of GOP Senators Robert Bennett of Utah and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the latter close to the White House and representing Senate Republicans on the bill. Once in Washington, McCain attends a meeting with House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio and other House Republicans, at which an alternative plan is presented. McCain avoids commitment. President Bush convenes a meeting- requested by McCain- which is attended by McCain and a campaign aide, Barack Obama and a Senate aide, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Congressional leaders, and others. As {Politico's David Rogers noted, "the whole sequence of events confirmed Treasury’s fears about the decision by Bush, at the urging of McCain, to allow presidential politics into what were already difficult negotiations."

As ABC News has repoorted, House Republicans now have an alternative plan but "the group acknowledged briefing McCain on the plan, but Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., said that it was not a product of the McCain campaign and that the GOP presidential nominee had not endorsed it." Nevertheless, ABC News reports McCain has an alternative plan featuring "fewer regulations and more corporate tax breaks for businesses." This, of course, is largely what got us where we are now.

So the Repub presidential nominee goes to Washington, helps scuttle a rescue plan with the nation's economy in crisis, then refuses to commit to an alternative, and then changes his mind (though this is unconfirmed). This is grandstanding. It's not leadership. And it's not "Country First."

Palin And The Bush Doctrine

No portion of Sarah Palin's interview with ABC News' Charlie Gibson has received as much attention as the exchange on the "Bush Doctrine" which took place in the first of the interview's three segments. Here are the transcript and the YouTube video:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

In light of all the debate about whether Governor Earmark should have known what the "Bush Doctrine" is, I figured I would hunt down the doctrine as it was first enunciated. Apparently, the National Security Strategy was released by the White House on 9/20/02. In an article written in December, 2002, Keir A. Lieber, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame and Robert J. Lieber, Professor of Government & foreign Service at Georgetown University, argued that it contained four elements:

1. preemption, "use of military force against terrorists or state sponsors of terrorism that attempt to gain or use WMD." (This is inaccurate on three counts: a)not premptive war, but preventive war; b) the state does not need to be a sponsor of terrorism or attempt to gain or use destructive weapons; c)not "WMD," chemical and biological weapons- which, unlike nuclear weapons, are not of mass destruction- also qualify);

2. military primacy, apparently intent to build up military force sufficiently to deter any potential rival from attempting to compete with us;

3. a new multilateralism, in which "the Bush administration appears to reject the single-minded pursuit of multilateralism for its own sake; that is, as something inherently necessary for international legitimacy or morality;"

4. the spread of democracy, which "commits the United States to spread democracy worldwide and promote the development of "free and open societies on every continent." (This really is the core of "neoconservatism.")

Obviously, the Liebers write favorably about the Bush Doctrine- but then this was late, 2002, when it looked like Iraq and Afghanistan were going to turn out fairly well. And they make the philosophy look fairly complicated.

Nevertheless, the core of the Bush Doctrine has come to be known as principle #1, the euphemistically-termed "preemption." Here is George F. Will, in a column entitled "The Bush Doctrine at Risk," on June 22, 2003 (after it began to appear that our Iraq policy had sprung a leak) writing

And overshadowing the military achievement is the failure -- so far -- to find, or explain the absence of, weapons of mass destruction that were the necessary and sufficient justification for preemptive war. The doctrine of preemption -- the core of the president's foreign policy -- is in jeopardy.

And here and here is a YouTube video of President Bush arguing "we must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and contront the worst threats before they emerge"- and Senator McCain agreeing with him.

Unless Governor Earmark is a foreign policy intellectual on par with academics holding a Ph.D. in international relations (and maybe not even then), she, like Bush, McCain, Will, and most of us, would understand the Bush Doctrine to be about preemptive/preventive war.

She didn't. But I don't find that the most disturbing aspect of her answer, or rather, her process of fishing around for an answer. James Fallows, writing in atlantic.com on 9/12/08, captures the concern effectively:

What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.

She didn't know and, at least up till now, didn't care. And that is in an individual who hopes to be the first in succession to the presidency of the United States. And an individual who was chosen by an erratic 72-year-old who has put politics above country while cynically claiming "Country First."

Why Not McCain?- 5

Barack Obama had this to say in a speech yesterday to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which recently endorsed his candidacy:

Just ask your brothers and sisters at Boeing. Because while it was right for the Pentagon to cancel competition yesterday for the next generation of tankers, it was wrong for John McCain to reward two of the Washington lobbyists who worked against Boeing with jobs on his campaign.

Just ask the Machinists in Pennsylvania who build Harley-Davidsons. Because John McCain didn’t just oppose the requirement that the government buy American-made motorcycles, he called Buy American provisions "disgraceful."
Just ask the workers across this country who have seen their jobs outsourced. The very companies that shipped their jobs overseas have been rewarded with billions of dollars in tax breaks that John McCain supports and plans to continue.
So when American workers hear John McCain talk about putting country first, it’s fair to ask – which country?

Democrats.org lists other instances in which Senator McCain has expressed his contempt for American manufacturing jobs. Biased website, you say? So let's go back to Boeing, and these excerpts from an article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer of March 7, 2008:

The Air Force last week awarded the contract (i.e., a $35 billion contract to build new Air Force aerial refueling tankers) to a team of Airbus parent EADS and Northrop Grumman Corp., triggering a firestorm from Boeing advocates who said the victory by the European-led consortium ignored American national security interests and would cost U.S. jobs.
Boeing advocates say McCain was a major force behind the Air Force decision to ignore the issue of government subsidies to Airbus when the tanker contract was put up for competitive bidding last year.

The issue of European government subsidies for Airbus has been raised for years by Boeing supporters who claim that those financial breaks have allowed the Toulouse, France-based company to undercut Boeing's prices and thus gain market share in the global competition between the two aircraft manufacturers. (Both the U.S. and the European Union, which claims Boeing also receives subsidies, have filed cases with the World Trade Organization.)

Boeing advocates assert that those same subsidies helped European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. and Los-Angeles-based Northrop Grumman win the Air Force tanker project, with a value that could eventually top $100 billion.

Given a choice between his free-market principles (presumably suspicious of government subsidies) and awarding a lucrative contract with implications for national defense to a foreign-based consortium (and costing American jobs), the Arizona senator chose option B.

This lack of interest in the people of our country now has extended to his selection of a running mate- inexperienced, uninformed, and uncurious. Because when it comes to "Country First," John McCain just hasn't figured out which country.

"Country First?"

Representative Eric Cantor (R.- Va.) yesterday was on message, if divorced from reality, with his party's reigning talking point: "The theme of this convention is putting country first, and I know John McCain has a 20-year track record of doing just that ."

People change over the course of twenty years and John McCain arguably has changed more than most- almost minute to minute, in regard to his views, such as on gay marriage. But on his blog on National Review Online, former Bush 43 speechwriter said it best:

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?

Why Not McCain?- 4

Asked on August 31 by Steve Kroft why he selected Delaware Senator Joe Biden as his running mate, Barack Obama on 60 Minutes explained:

Let me tell you the reason I picked Joe Biden. Number one, he can step in and become president. And I don't think anybody has any doubt about that. Number two is that if I'm in the room making the kinds of tough decisions that the next president's gonna have to make, both on domestic policy and on international policy, then I want the counsel and advice of somebody who's not gonna agree with me a 100 percent of [the] time. In fact, somebody who's independent enough that can push back and give me different perspectives and make sure that I'm catching any blind spots that I have. And Joe Biden doesn't bite his tongue.

An ability to assume the powers of the Presidency. Independence. Willingness to question the President. Putting country first. Can John McCain claim the same of Sarah Palin?

Right- And Right About Palin

Now that I've posted about Republicans who have been exposed as hypocrites for supporting identity politics as long as the individual is a right-winger, I'll concede that there are conservatives who defy hypocrisy and decry the selection. Unfortunately, they are in the minority- and reports are that Palin already has boosted donations to the McCain campaign- but David Frum, Charles Krauthammer, and Heather Mac Donald are loyal conservatives who deserve recognition. Apparently, they are conservatives disappointed that John McCain is not putting "country first."

David Frum is a former Bush 43 speechwriter, a columnist for National Review Online, is associated with the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, and author of "Dead Right." Although conceding the choice of the Alaska Governor is "probably a shrewd one," he wrote in an article for nationalpost.com

The day that John McCain announced his selection of Sarah Palin was his birthday. His 72nd birthday. Seventy-two is not as old as it used to be, but Mr. McCain had a bout with melanoma seven years ago, and his experience in prison camp has uncertain implications for his future health.

If anything were to happen to a President McCain, the destiny of the free world would be placed in the hands of a woman who until the day before Friday was a small-town mayor.

Mr. McCain's supporters argue that he is more serious about national security than Barack Obama. But the selection of Sarah Palin invites the question: How serious can he be if he would place such a neophyte second in line to the presidency? Barack Obama at least balanced his inexperience with Mr. Biden's experience. What is Mr. McCain doing?

Frum concluded "So this is the future of the Republican party you are looking at: a future in which national security has bumped down the list of priorities behind abortion politics, gender politics, and energy politics."

Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist and Fox News commentator and wrote the following in his Washington Post blog:

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

A fellow at the conservative think tank The Manhattan Institute and contributing editor to City Journal (for whom she wrote this), Heather Mac Donald reminds her readers of her conservative Republican bonafides by contending "Of course, Democrats have been playing the identity-politics game to the hilt this election cycle; it’s what they do." Ideologically consistent, though, she explains

Washington Republicans have hardly kept themselves free of race- and gender-based decision making: one can think of many cabinet members and judicial nominations made on these grounds. But now they’ve gone all the way and introduced irrelevant chromosome considerations into the presidential race—the most important political choice in the land. And they have lost any standing to criticize Democrats for playing the race and gender cards.

MacDonald refers to Palin's "motherly qualities" as "admirable," but scoffs, eloquently, at their significance for governing:

But her maternal feelings are irrelevant to her executive acumen and knowledge of economic and geopolitical issues. Palin may have those attributes in spades, but if so, let’s hear about them, not her domestic relations.

MacDonald concludes "it’s a sad day when Republicans decide to match the Democratic predilection for chromosomal consciousness, since there will be no turning back."

This article, entitled Sarah Palin (R-Diversity), is an especially valuable read. It informs us liberal Democrats that occasionally there is intelligent, conservative commentary- and conservative Republicans that John McCain has embraced the concept that experience is to be trumped by the value of immutable, genetic characteristics.

Putting Gender First

Ronald Reagan wrote this about his (successful) bid for re-election:

But I think Mondale made a serious mistake when he picked Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate. In my view, he guessed wrong in deciding to take a congresswoman that almost nobody had ever heard of and try to put her in line for the presidency.... I don't know who among the Democrats might have been a better choice, but it was obvious Mondale picked Geraldine Ferraro simply because he believed there was a "gender gap" where I was concerned and she was a woman; I don't think they picked the most electable woman.

Reagan was decrying the identity politics he recognized in formulation of the Democratic ticket in 1984. And Joe Conason notes that The National Review in August, 2004 editorialized

The Democrats will attempt to project the issue as 'whether a woman can be Vice President,' a point the Republicans can cheerfully concede, returning to the question of whether this woman in particular should be the Vice-President ... Mrs. Ferraro is manifestly an affirmative-action nominee. She has been in the House only since 1979 and cannot be said, on the record, to be as qualified to be President, if necessary, as, say John Glenn, Fritz Hollings, Mo Udall, or -- George Bush.

Twenty-four years later, on August 19, 2008, another icon of the conservative movement, Rush Limbaugh, declared

To me, it is striking how unqualified Obama is and how this whole thing came about within the Democrat Party. I think it really goes back to the fact that nobody had the guts to stand up and say "no" to the black guy. Liberal policies are always going to end up strangling liberals, too. I think this is a classic illustration here where affirmative action has reared its ugly head against them. It's the reverse of it. They've ended up nominating and placing the top of their ticket somebody that's not qualified, who has not earned it. It's perfect affirmative action. And because all this guilt and the historic nature of things, nobody had the guts to say, "Wait a minute, do we really want to do this?" They do it, and then they start behaving in manners and ways that let us know that they know that they've goofed up with the choice. It actually has been somewhat fascinating to watch.

The Repub Party has created a cottage industry out of assailing affirmative action. Until Friday, August 29, 2008. That was the day that conservatives, who have made a cottage industry out of ridiculing affirmative action as "political correctness," began to praise the selection of Sarah Palin as the Vice-Presidential nominee of their party. This is Kenneth Blackwell, chairman of the Coalition for a Conservative Majority and former Secretary of State of Ohio (the state which discouraged 350,000 persons from voting for president in 2004 and so delivered the election to GW Bush.): “I think John McCain showed that he is ready to break through some of the glass ceilings that have existed in our political system with somebody that is principled and experienced." And Rush Limbaugh himself contended

It happens in the Republican Party. I knew that it would be the Republican Party that first had a woman who works at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.... They're attacking women. What's going to happen here is, ladies and gentlemen, the Democrat Party and their accomplices in the Drive-By Media are going to attack women when they start attacking Sarah Palin....Who's got the woman on the ticket, Ed? Your party or McCain's party? And Ed, you are a Democrat.

Michelle Malkin, George F. Will, Jonah Goldberg, William Kristol, Laura Ingraham, and Fred Barnes, who wrote "As a 44-year-old woman, Mrs. Palin adds desperately needed diversity to the Republican ticket." The list of conservatives who have praised this selection of someone unqualified reads like a who's who of pundits which previously couldn't contain its criticism of the Democratic Party for welcoming qualified women and minorities.

This is clearly not putting "country, first." It is hypocrisy, above and beyond what one has come to expect from the Grand Old Party.

Quote Of The Week

"When McCain says 'Country First,'- this country? Is that what he's talking about?"

Bill Maher on "Real Time With Bill Maher," August 29, 2008, regarding John McCain's selection of the inexperienced Sarah Palin as running mate

The Presidency: Serious Business, To Obama

I never commented on this controversial appearance by Hillary Clinton before the New Hampshire primary, which she (narrowly) won. The controversy resulted not from her words- which I thought significant- but by her apparent weeping, which I (and no one else) thought was rather insignificant. I was never (and still am not) sure whether her expression of sorrow was sincere, but believed then that her words were insightful.

And I believe that even more this afternoon, now that John McCain has chosen first-term Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. On that cold (winter in New Hampshire- it must have been cold) day in January, the New York Senator, eyes reportedly tearing up, said

Some people think elections are a game, lot's of who's up or who's down, [but] it's about our country , it's about our kids' futures, and it's really about all of us together.... some of us are ready and some of us are not, some of us know what we will do on day one and some of us haven't thought that through enough.

The inference about lack of experience was reputedly a slap at Barack Obama, while I believe the reference to "some people think(ing) elections are a game" was a knock on his supporters.

This was, I think, Clinton at her strongest- contrasting her experience with that of Obama. And I always had the impression that Mrs. Clinton and her supporters- in contrast with many of the supporters of the Illinois Senator- recognized the great stakes involved: not change, not history, not the amorphous "yes, we can," but rather the presidency of the most powerful nation on earth.

So what on earth was John McCain doing choosing to be a heartbeat from the presidency an inexperienced governor from a state practically bereft of agriculture, urban problems, or ongoing budgetary issues, arguably the most remote (geographically and otherwise) political jurisdiction in the country?

He was selecting someone he believes whose gender will appeal to disaffected female Hillary C. supporters; an individual as far away from evil Washington, D.C. as possible to reinvent the myth of McCain the Maverick, a guy dedicated to change; a right-winger to secure his base; and a politician who already has begun putting into effect his energy theme of "drill, drill, drill." Not putting "country first."

But not somebody who is remotely qualified to be President of the United States, if something tragic happens to the 72-year-old man who appears to forget from moment to moment what he thinks about any given issue. Pundits are asking whether John McCain has given away his most potent argument, that his adversary lacks the experience necessary for the highest office in the land. And this too is clear: the ticket, Obama-Biden, headed by Barack Obama now is the adult option. Only John McCain could have made this happen.