Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The New Yorker On McCain's Choice of Palin

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 12:01 PM
Original message
The New Yorker On McCain's Choice of Palin
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/09/15/080915taco_talk_hertzberg

Let It Rain
by Hendrik Hertzberg September 15, 2008



snip//

With the selection of Sarah Palin, McCain completes the job of defusing the enmity (and forgoing the honor) he earned in 2000, when he condemned Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as “agents of intolerance.” His motives in choosing her were entirely tactical and mostly—the mot juste is that of Mike Murphy, once McCain’s top political aide, overheard by an errant microphone—cynical. Besides placating the right, those motives included the short-term goal of preëmpting the weekend news cycles that might otherwise have been devoted to reviewing Obama’s triumphant Democratic Convention. The price that McCain paid, and that could sooner or later be exacted from the nation, was the abandonment of what he had repeatedly called his overriding requirement for a Vice-President: someone who would be ready to take his place at a moment’s notice—“you know, immediately.”

According to Time, Palin’s acceptance address was drafted—by a former Bush White House speechwriter—before she was chosen and then retailored to fit her. Like almost every major speech at that Convention (Mike Huckabee’s being an exception), it substituted sarcasm for humor in its sneers at Obama. “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities,” she said. “Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights,” she said, a little chillingly. “Listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or even a reform, not even in the state senate,” she said. This last was simply false; Obama’s legislative record, both in Illinois and (given its brevity) in Washington, is impressive. (Also, it’s McCain whose books have been “authored.” Obama wrote his.) But the speech was well crafted and more than competently delivered, with even its most mean-spirited lines accompanied by perky smiles and wrinklings of the nose. McCain’s gamble, though shockingly irresponsible as an act of potential governance, is, for now, a political success: Palin attracted close to forty million television viewers, the crowd in the hall went wild for her, and a Rasmussen poll taken immediately afterward showed her with higher “positives” than any of the three men on the national tickets.

After that, it was inevitable that the Presidential nominee’s acceptance speech would be an anticlimax. But, if it did not excite, neither did it disgust. McCain was gracious to his opponent—“I wouldn’t be an American worthy of the name if I didn’t honor Senator Obama and his supporters for their achievement”—and his call to “comfort the afflicted” and “defend the rights of the oppressed” sounded interestingly like a community organizer’s job description. The speech contained only one serious falsehood: the charge that Obama would “force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.” It was withering in its rhetorical critique of McCain’s own party. “We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption,” he said. “We lost their trust when we valued our power over our principles.” He promised to bring Democrats and independents into his Administration. He acknowledged the pain of America’s sinking economy. But the sketchy solutions he proposed were indistinguishable from George W. Bush’s.

At the end, McCain peered not into the future but forty years into the past. His retelling of his experience as a prisoner of war in Vietnam was powerful, and the lesson he drew from it—that it caused him “to learn the limits of my selfish independence”—was the very opposite of Republican boilerplate. But its backward-looking orientation—at one point, McCain described where he was when he learned about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor—underlined his age and, with it, the recklessness of the most important decision he has made as a candidate.

The speech made clear that it will not be enough for Obama and the Democrats simply to equate McCain with Bush. If McCain wins, he will, almost certainly, “change the tone,” as Bush promised, falsely, to do eight years ago. In certain details, McCain may even change the policies, though there was little in his speech to encourage that hope. But he is seventy-two years old; if he is elected and reelected, he will be in his eighties by the end of his second term. If he does become our next President, then all of us, believers and nonbelievers alike, had better pray for his health. ♦
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. "Agents of Intolerance suck the Big One." - McSame 2000
Edited on Wed Sep-10-08 12:07 PM by SpiralHawk
"Agents of Intolerance sucked back then, but if you put some lipstick on that kind of anti-American, hate-spewing, fear-mongering piggishness in 2008, it is kinda cool and All-Republicon Homelander. Smirk."

- McSame
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tulsakatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. when he said.........
"We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption"


When he says that they gave in to temptations, it makes it sound like it wasn't really their fault.

As we all know, people make choices.......they just have a very bad habit of making the WRONG choices!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 02:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC