One of the problems with modern political journalism is that when something manifestly absurd takes place, as long as there are people willing to argue both sides, our top reporters feel obliged to treat it as deserving of serious debate.
Case in point: John McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.
Palin would be spectacularly unqualified for the job of vice president even if McCain were immortal. But the prospect of her suddenly being thrust into the leadership of the free world has got to leave everyone but the most loyal, talking-point-equipped partisans deeply chilled.
This is not a question of her politics. And it has absolutely nothing to do with her gender. It's not even strictly speaking a question of experience. Conceivably, somebody with even less experience than Palin could meet what everyone should be able to agree is a basic requirement for the office: That she or he has given serious thought to the national and international issues of our time.
Is there any evidence that Palin is anything other than an utter neophyte when it comes to issues such as Iraq, the economy, health care, and domestic and foreign policy generally?
Palin's lack of the most basic prerequisite for the job should be the dominant message of the news coverage. Instead, her selection was hailed as a "bold move," with her lack of qualifications relegated to the status of a Democratic complaint. Instead, the media establishment has let itself get drawn into a number of alternate story lines, some of them certainly quite fascinating, but none of them as essential.
What possible reason is there to nominate someone so lacking in gravitas for the vice presidency? In this case, of course, it couldn't be more obvious that Palin's selection has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with governance. Palin's gender and her hard-right credentials were clearly seen by McCain's top advisers as just what the campaign needed.
Whether that was a clever or suicidal political calculation remains to be seen. It's certainly looking more and more like it was a reckless one. But it doesn't just strain credulity -- it pulverizes it -- to suggest that she is the best and most qualified person McCain could find for the job.
It's a tremendous failure of political reporting that such patent spin from McCain supporters is being treated like a supportable position. By contrast, it seems to me that anyone suggesting that Palin was selected for anything other than political reasons should be considered presumptively a liar from this point on.
This is not a radical view. Here, for instance, is Richard Cohen on the Washington Post op-ed page yesterday:
Probably the most depressing thing about Palin is not her selection but the defense of it. It has produced a parade of GOP spokesmen intent on spiking the needle on a polygraph. Looking right into the camera, they offer statement after statement that they hope the voters will swallow but that history will forget. The sum effect on the diligent news consumer is a feeling of consummate contempt for the intelligence of the American people -- a contempt that will be justified should Palin be the factor that makes McCain a winner in November.
Even though the cable networks can find matched pairs of pundits to take opposite sides on just about anything, I can't help but think that the vast majority of political journalists recognize that there is something seriously out of whack with the Palin selection.
So it's time for our elite political reporters to look into their own heads and decide: Do you value what's in there? Or are you willing to report whatever people tell you?
This post originally appeared on the Watchdog Blog at NiemanWatchdog.org.
Follow Dan Froomkin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/whitehousewatch
That should be so very obvious looking back over the last eight years.
What they are really interested in is POWER.
They will do anything to get it.
Even selecting another Brownie.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Cheney/Bush have added that to the extremely long list of Constitutional violations.
When McCain dies, Palin becomes President.
Period.
If she wants a defacto President, then she must resign!
IF THEY DON'T PEOPLE WILL DIE TRYING TO GET OUT OF THERE.
It's not about experience.
It's not even about leadership.
It's about the direction they will take the country.
Served in the Illinois Senate for four years, then a US senator since 2004. The campaign started in late 2007 so I think there has been more than 4 months on the job. That is a McCain Campaign assertion.
I'd say that neither of them are 'overly' qualified, but only one wants to mindlessly continue the last 8 years of destruction, continue the "holy war" against Islam, and wants to force victims of rape or incest (or both) to carry the baby to term. You cannot determine this fact from each of their self-described "experience"...you can only elicit this from determining the quality of the work they have done during their experience (no matter how long or short), their political philosophies, and then what direction they believe is best for the country.
Experience has become a child's argument that stands in the way of real discourse over whether or not these people have any right to be PotUS. Many good AND bad presidents were similarly inexperienced than the current cast of characters. It is a false argument.
Last time I checked, the actual qualifications for President of the United States are:
1) You must be a natural born citizen
2) You must be at least 35 years of age.
3) You must obtain 100,000 signatures in support of your running for PotUS.
That's it! No required "government experience" whatsoever!
This idea of 'allowing me to define experience and then hold you accountable to my definition' is the height of subjective reasoning (read: arrogance) and deserves no place in any remotely intelligent debate.
Me thinks she has more ghosts in the closet that hasn't vetted yet.
BTW I'm a Frookin fan, I read him everyday in WaPo.
The best thing in WaPO
If he is killed in Iraq, would that garner her full attention to that issue?
Godspeed soldier!
By asking this question–you pander to the American public. Campaigns and the subsequent elections are never about getting good government. If they were–we probably would be electing people with solid private industry track records and not career politicians. Stop trying to fuel the fantasy. It’s full-out war in the battle to WIN, period and it seems like everyone in America knows it–except YOU. Strategically, this is a brilliant move by McCain–and you know it, a move that is designed to pull the strong support shown for Sen Clinton–just as the choice of gray-haired, moderate, foreign policy Biden was a move to pull support away from the Republicans.
Keep your eye on character and experience. I love to hear Obama speak–he is great and refreshing. But Obama has yet to suffieciently answer the nagging question of character—of why he would sit for 20 years in a church listening to the rhetoric of hate from Pastor Wright. He somehow has disassociated himself with that idealogy and as far as I can see–done so in order to—win the election—not because his sentiments aren’t there. Explore that in your next blog topic.
So qualification don't matter unless it is a Democrates who is running for office.
Ask John Mc Cain how many bills or laws he actually wrote !!!!!!!
The Think Tanks and Lobbyist wrote all the laws and Bills he has ever supported!!!!!!!
Know how to write a law, know how to write a bill and what part must not be chaged to preserve the integerity of the legislation is important.
So when Obama and Biden sit down to change how Washington works they can put it in plan easy to read english so everyone can understand.
They will not need lobbyist and think tanks to write their legislation for which causes more problems and loopholes. SO wake up America 4 more years of Bush or Change.