Palin: Game-Changer or Not?

Since I've been hearing oh so much about McCain's Veep pick, Sarah Palin, and some people I know asked me on my take before I knew much more than her new status. Now that I've gotten a fuller look at Mrs. Palin, I can make a judgment on the wisdom of McCain's choice.

I've heard all of the stuff about how this will appeal to Hillary supporters, and it will solidify the Republican base, which it apparently has (Should I be worried that Huckabee's enthusiastic army of evangelicals absolutely love her?). The "appeal to Hillary supporters" I'm not so sure about. Just consider that most of Hillary's hard-core PUMAs (few though they are), and probably most of her less hard-core supporters will probably take a look at Palin's stances on issues and immediately decide Obama is at least not as bad as the alternative. I discussed this in a previous post (see "Party Unity My Ass, My Ass").

Then there are ever so-soft rumblings of corruption and scandal around Mrs. Palin, despite the widely touted dissimilarities to most of the Alaska GOP. For instance, what did she do to earn indicted Senator Ted Stevens's endorsement? Few people have noted that she originally supported the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere", then dumped it like a dog turd when it became politically unpalatable. Is there any truth to allegations that she fired Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner when he refused to fire her former brother-in-law, an Alaska State Trooper? I'm not saying the evidence is definitive one way or another, but is there smoke without a fire?

Then her positions, which cater well to the GOP base, but do fairly little to broaden his appeal. She is pro-life, a major supporter of gun rights, anti-gay marriage (I don't care much about that, but it had to be said), and either an Evangelical or something close enough. She has little to no foreign policy, although she disagrees with the lack of a long-term strategy in Iraq, a lack Senator McCain appears to be just fine with.

One problem I have is that she is really, really not experienced. Before she was Governor of Alaska (her post for the last 18 months), she was the Mayor of Wasilla, AK, a large metropolis counting between 6,575 and 8,471 souls in its citizenry. Before that, she was on the Town Council. At least Obama has been a Senator for 2/3 of his term. At least Obama was an Illinois State Senator before winning the Senate seat. I will be brutally frank: the only thing that would potentially separate Sarah Palin from the Oval Office is the health and well-being of a 72-year-old (Happy 72nd Birthday, Senator McCain!) who has a history of melanoma. There is a very real possibility that John McCain would die before serving even one term. He needn't even die, just become incapable of functioning, for instance, if he had a severe case of dementia, or have some sort of other serious health event, like a stroke or heart attack.

I just don't buy all of this stuff that Palin is so wunderbar for McCain. Certainly it's an interesting pick. But just because it's interesting doesn't make it the right one.

The DC v. Heller Disappointment

The Supreme Court released its ruling in the "guns case," which is to say, DC v. Heller, today. And frankly, I'm a bit disappointed in their decision.

From what I have read so far (not much, as the combined opinions are 157 pages long), the majority's reasoning was, well, interesting. One might even say, creative. In the sense that Enron's fraud was "creative" accounting. Additionally, Scalia's opinion left several questions open. For instance, what standard does one apply to gun laws to judge whether they are in compliance with Heller? Scalia rejected the use of the rational basis test, but he did not say what standard would be proper. Next, does this ruling incorporate the Second Amendment to the states and local governments? Again, hard to tell, and this will probably require more court cases, more wasted taxpayer dollars, and an even more clogged court system. Thanks a million, Antonin!

I'm going to read the opinion within the next few days (I can't give you a specific date) and monitor the blogs, and get back on this. For now, check out RCP's posting of the candidates' reactions. I particularly agree with Senator Obama's response.

Appeasment, My Rear End

Senator McCain, President Bush, all of you people who are accusing Barack Obama of being an appeaser, in the model of Neville Chamberlain.

I have two words.

Winston Churchill.

Yes, the famous British Prime Minister who led Britain for most of World War II. The man who said "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."

Certainly he was no "appeaser." And yet these are words that are on record as having left his mouth- at the White House, no less! Could it be that it's not necessary to go to war to deal with a problem?

Moreover, could it possibly be that we might engage Iran and Syria in negotiations that could lead to something? Of course, we won't do unconditional meetings! I don't recall Senator Obama actually saying that he would meet with those countries without conditions.

If you're not convinced, I'll leave you with a final quote, one that maybe Senator McCain will be able understand, since he fought in the Vietnam War. It's from General William Tecumseh Sherman: "War is hell."

How Fares McCain?

Not as poorly as some had hoped or feared, in fact.

According to RealClearPolitics, his "RCP Average" in head-to-head polls against both Clinton and Obama (see here) is above both potential Democratic nominees' averages by 1% and 1.4%, respectively.

But before you McCain supporters start popping the corks on the champagne, consider this. The chart showing the fluctuations of the Averages shows that McCain has come off of a period in which both Hillary and Obama were beating him, and especially Obama. 1% and 1.4% are very slim leads, and the election is by no means decided.