Vetting
Having been through the process of “vetting” prospective cabinet members, I can tell you it’s time-consuming, detailed, and thorough. I’d like to think the vetting of a vice presidential nominee would be more so – especially one whose odds of becoming president, should she be elected, are somewhat higher than that of the normal vice president.
Sixteen years ago, Bill Clinton’s “vetting” team asked me and other prospective cabinet members for (1) our tax returns, going back at least five years, (2) our bank records, (3) a detailed listing of our assets, (4) the names and places of everywhere we had lived, and the names and phone numbers of neighbors whom they could call about us, (5) a description of every job we had ever had, every client we had ever served, and the names of employers and clients with whom they could check, (6) the names of our family members, their ages, their occupations (if any), (7) a description of any civil or criminal investigations or prosecutions in which we had been involved (8) and – perhaps most importantly – “anything we should ask you about, the answer to which might cause you or the administration any embarrassment.”
It didn’t stop there. Investigators checked our answers, interviewed our friends and neighbors and former employers, asked for more records if uncertain. Agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation did their own background checks. Staff members of the relevant congressional committees, representing both parties, looked over the files and added questions of their own.
It didn’t even stop there. I recall two large, three-ring black binders containing passages from books and articles I had written that might prove troubling to some of the Senators. My vetting team suggested I be prepared to answer questions about them.
The process took well over a month, not including the Senate confirmation hearing. I don’t recall doing anything during that interval except responding to questions from the vetting team, the FBI, and oversight committee staffers, both Republican and Democrat.
Do you believe Sarah Palin was put through anything remotely like this before John McCain decided she would be his vice presidential candidate, and possible President of the United States?
Sixteen years ago, Bill Clinton’s “vetting” team asked me and other prospective cabinet members for (1) our tax returns, going back at least five years, (2) our bank records, (3) a detailed listing of our assets, (4) the names and places of everywhere we had lived, and the names and phone numbers of neighbors whom they could call about us, (5) a description of every job we had ever had, every client we had ever served, and the names of employers and clients with whom they could check, (6) the names of our family members, their ages, their occupations (if any), (7) a description of any civil or criminal investigations or prosecutions in which we had been involved (8) and – perhaps most importantly – “anything we should ask you about, the answer to which might cause you or the administration any embarrassment.”
It didn’t stop there. Investigators checked our answers, interviewed our friends and neighbors and former employers, asked for more records if uncertain. Agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation did their own background checks. Staff members of the relevant congressional committees, representing both parties, looked over the files and added questions of their own.
It didn’t even stop there. I recall two large, three-ring black binders containing passages from books and articles I had written that might prove troubling to some of the Senators. My vetting team suggested I be prepared to answer questions about them.
The process took well over a month, not including the Senate confirmation hearing. I don’t recall doing anything during that interval except responding to questions from the vetting team, the FBI, and oversight committee staffers, both Republican and Democrat.
Do you believe Sarah Palin was put through anything remotely like this before John McCain decided she would be his vice presidential candidate, and possible President of the United States?
posted by Robert Reich | 4:56 PM
96 Comments:
in my experience, the "Detectives" never get too far in their investigations of the "Sexy Librarian" before she start unbuckling their trousers...
...then she gets exactly what she wants...
John Holmes
It is hard to believe McCain did any real due diligence on Palin. Information about her involvement with a separatist group that wants Alaska to secede from the union, her Trooper-gate investigation for abuse of power, the personal challenges her family faces, and her inconsistencies over supporting the "Bridge to Nowhere" came to light very quickly. This on top of her paltry experience makes it hard imagine McCain could have made a more impulsive and reckless choice.
Definitely doubtful, considering that Governor Palin's town's local paper wasn't even approached by the Republicans. (Apparently some of their archives are online, but not all. And I would assume reviewing articles written about her would be the first natural place to start.)
Zoe Baird
Kimba Wood
Do you really want to start this discussion?
No. I do not.
Keep in mind that John McCain knew everything we know now. Do you think perhaps it was intended as a trap to make the Left look sexist?
Err, yes?
I haven't seen anything disqualifying for her, at least from a Republican point of view.
Pregnant kid? So what? Not a disqualification - the kid's getting married. It happens, and it's not really a reflection on her. Anyone who says it is hasn't been part of a large family.
Minor scandal involving family? Again, not really a very serious problem, unless it looks like it sticks, and it won't. There's just no meat there.
How about focusing on the fact that she doesn't believe in either evolution or global warming? You might get more traction. Or how about her recently getting a passport? Again, more interesting and relevant.
Look, I'm voting for the Democrat in the fall, but this Palin sideshow isn't helping... She seems pretty much like a straight arrow, who let things get a little messy, as they're wont to do.
Unless you've got a picture of her beating a kitten to death with a puppy, you really should let this go. Focus on what she believes, and what her experience is in foreign policy - that should be more than enough.
Speaking of vetting, to bad the dems didn't do that with Obama. what has he done . . . oh yea, a community organizer. That sounds highly qualified for a presidential candidate.
Jim Driscoll
Focus on what she believes, and what her experience is in foreign policy - that should be more than enough.
That is the purpose of vetting so that the MSM, bloggers and other chattering classes will have finished chattering by the time of decision and can focus on more important things.
This issue is that McCain did not properly prepare for substantial conversation but allowed fluff to be the first impression. It is not so much what is being said, but that is the first impression of a major McCain decision and his VP.
Once the first impression is made it is too late for serious discussion.
No, I do not believe Sarah P was vetted conscientiously in the way you describe. The reason remains to be uncovered.
Her process prompted me to think today that most likely Barack Obama has his own scientific pollsters. After the 2000 and 2004 elections, he'd be smart to, and I know he's smart. He needs to keep his eye on valid polling.
Then if there is any Karl Rove Diebold vote machine anomalies, or any monkey business with voting machines, he can decide what he wants to do after Nov 4.
Listen, everyone has character flaws and Palin certainly has hers. Our process tends to amplify these things in a way that can overshadow one's qualifications. However, it is her own party that has made a cottage industry out of character assassination so now she is fair game. The party of "values" now has to lower the bar a bit just to pass muster on their candidate.
One thing I find fascinating is if the McCain camp knew of her issues, why did they appear so flat-footed in responding to the release of them? This raises so many questions that I don't have time to ponder them here.
Once past the character issues though, I believe that she is not qualified to be commander in chief of the free world. Palin has been described as bright, charming and independent. So what, that also describes my wife but she isn't qualified to be president! Cheers
When the lady across the street from me applied for a job as a paralegal in the local U.S. Attorney's office, the FBI came to my house unannounced and interviewed me about her.
No, Sarah Palin was not vetted.
I realized today that given Sarah P's Bachelor of Arts degree in journalism, a BA degree is not sufficient for teaching high school. She'd be required to have a masters in journalism or education, and most states would require teacher certification. She is not qualified to teach high school or university level courses. She certainly is not qualified to be Vice President.
Yes I do think she was.
My question is was Biden actually vetted? How did they miss his son and brother about to be nailed for stealing? What if Senator Biden get wrapped up in this?
Blu,
Once past the character issues though, I believe that she is not qualified to be commander in chief of the free world.
Who is the current commander-in-chief of the free world? She couldn't do a better job?
Are you giving W a free pass because he's a man?
It sounds like vetting is similar to a top secret security clearance. These things don't take weeks, they take months. I think the public platform on choice/life is going to take it's toll on this family. SP should pass on the publicity and think about her family.
Dr. Reich, cc: Art Layman
Brooks'essay, "What the Obama Pick Says" hits poignantly part of the disappointment about McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as VP.
Namely, she's a photocopy of McCain's erratic, old-school Cold-War mentality and of his lack of understanding of complex maco economic and micro-finance. McCain pushed the Evangelical and Women's Lib pandering buttons. He has indeed again demonstrated poor judgement in vetting someone to offset his lone-ranger, shoot-from-the-hip and think later tendencies.
In direct contrast, Obama pragmatically and honestly acknowledged his relative weaknesses in foreign affairs and short experience in the halls of national government by selecting the vastly experienced foreign policy expert, productive legislative initiator and long-time warrior for the common man ... Joe Biden.
Brooks faintly touches upon a perhaps an even more important judgement failing of McCain. He selected a respectible unknown and unqualified novice (having met her only once) who is a step away from the Presidency should a possibly elected President McCain become incapacitated (Heaven help us)for any reason. This is an insult to all Americans in these most critical of times. The high standards for President/Vice President are being compromised if not openly flaunted.
As I said in an earlier post a week or more ago, watch McCain now try to imitate Obama's original approach of a balanced, equitable governing philosophy of Community and Individual by suddenly appearing to be a Father Teresa in the guise of a genuinely 100% converted social conservative. Would very much like to believe this transformation, but don't. McCain's (perhaps unconscious) slight-of-hand altruism is contradicted by most of his out-of-touch comments about the economy not the least of which is his continuing support of Bush's Tax Cuts going mainly to the top 10% of American households ... more of the historically Deficit Producing "TRICKLE DOWN" prosperity propaganda taken in by the misled working middle class.
Bob Herbert's writing in the NY Times, "Head for the High Road" has got our governing philosophy priorities right with a quote from Franklin D. Roosevelt concerning the perils to a nation of economic inequality:
"Liberty requires opportunity to make a living, a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to LIVE FOR."
Roosevelt's added words are equally prophetic today, "We are fighting to save a great and precious form of government, for ourselves and for the world."
As Mr. Herbert concludes, "Roosevelt's remarks resonate with the very meaning of America."
Obama/Biden get this. McCain/Palin have a dilly-dally governing philosophy in between ultra-conservatism and social-conservatism as they at heart remain in denial of how broken down and inequitable our social-economic system has become.
Indeed, as David Brooks alludes, the honorable McCain and company have no consistent governing concept for changing course in a globally fast moving world ... where cooperation, respect and mutual engagement are primary prerequisites.
What's scarier than Sarah Palin's values or even John McCain picking her is that quite a few Americans find her appealing as a leader, even with her wingnut views on creationism and abortion.
If McCain/Palin wins, the American people will get exactly what they deserve.
To Jim,
Nobody gets a free pass in my book, including the treasonous W. Cheers
If Joe Lieberman had bigger tits, he might be the VP pick
Vetting:
Let’s distinguish legitimate vetting from the assault on rights and privacy that masquerades as vetting. Vetting a vice president in a democracy like the U.S. would include the following: 1. Is the applicant an extremist that seeks to overthrow the government by non-democratic means? 2. Is the applicant associated with a terrorist group or organized crime? 3. Is the applicant susceptible to corruption or extortion?
If Sarah Palin and Joe Biden met this threshold then they’re qualified. Some of the things I’ve seen as qualifying criteria are downright silly or nothing more than personal preferences or judgments.
The ruling class elite has degraded this process over the years and essentially turned it into an activity designed to perpetuate their own power by focusing on conformity rather than independence of thought. And we wonder why things never change in Washington.
A quote from Salmon Rushdie seems appropriate:
"Rome did not fall because her armies weakened, but because Romans forgot what being Roman meant...O-Dream America, was civilization's quest to end in obesity and trivia?..."
Tom Hanna,
I believe my Harriet Meiers and Sarah Palin trump your Zoe & Kimba on both the dubiousness of their qualifications, the level of position they were seeking and the hubris of their patrons in thinking they could put one over on the American people.
McCain vetted Sara Palin with less thought than most people put into what they're going to eat for breakfast.
I think Philip Klinkner over at "PolySigh" had the best guess on this one: She's a rabbit. Besides, a VP should be picked for one reason only: Can he/she help you win any swing states? Nuf said. If John Kerry had picked then-Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) as his running mate, I'm convinced he'd be running for re-election right now. That's represents tangible electoral impact. People go on about whether the person is VP material or not in the abstract sense. At that level, it's just a crap shoot. Certain risks cannot be managed. If you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound.
A point well made is not necessarily a point well taken. Hey, denial and vacuum thinking is something we all do to some extent or another, it's just that right-wingers excel at this like no other group of people.
John McCain apparently wanted Joe Lieberman as his running mate - regardless how you may feel about his politics - one would assume he was pretty "clean" in respects to any vetting issues. But no! Carl Rove wisely shot this down, 'cause he's a Jew, and hence a Jesus Killer!!!!
Right-wing ideologues, reactionaries and all the other fundie types are capable of rationalizing ANYTHING; that's their most salient attribute. And whatever they do, they have Gods name to sign to it - and anyone else not of their ilk, they have Mr. Satan's name to sign.
Sorry. Sarah Palin? No vetting necessary.
To Dan, "Speaking of vetting, to bad the dems didn't do that with Obama. what has he done . . . oh yea, a community organizer. That sounds highly qualified for a presidential candidate."
Obama was not selected. He was elected.
Her only legal requiremaent is that she be a natural born American.
What I find odd is how She makes McCain look old when they share the stage. TV is a odd medium and the medium is the message in this case and I suggest it's not one that the Republican's had given enough thought about during the selection period other then the idea that she was a fresh face.
The vetting process used by McCain sounds very similar to what the Bush administration used throughout his term. People chosen for Iraq reconstruction, FEMA, and the Justice Department, to name just a few, were all chosen based on their political beliefs rather than their qualifications.
For those of us up here in Alaska many of the skeletons in Palin's closet were well known. They were usually overlooked, in part because the entire political outlook follows a different drumbeat from that in the lower 48
Anonymous,
Can you be very specific what exactly is "the entirely different political drumbeat followed in Alaska compared to the rest of America." ???
There might be another alternative...check out this candidate
http://www.inews3.com/topstory.php?id=416e6f6e796d6f75737c4d617474
Anonymous Matt
notsofast:
Can't disagree with your minimalist vetting criteria if the only objective is to make a choice for functional reasons. Unfortunately, as you well know, the choice is far more political in nature and can have political ramifications that could mean the ticket never gets the chance to function in the ultimate goal. For that reason the vetting process is expanded, normally, to try and capture the essence of every breath the potential candidate has ever taken.
Political reality operates far outside the bounds of common sense.
Matt:
I know Anonymous Matt. Anonymous Matt is an Internet friend of mine. Anonymous Matt is not presidential timber. ;)
Besides, the job doesn't pay enough for him.
McCain / Palin
"Grampa and Grandaughter" for 2008
This post has been removed by the author.
Hillary got a big boost when the media was perceived as dumping on her with an elite bias. I wonder if this is going to happen again with Palin. There's millions of independent, working class, non-ideological voters situated between the two coasts who will decide this election.
This topic of experience may be mute since people really want CHANGE, not more of the same by the same old people doing the same old thing. The world has changed and we don't need OLD experience.
WE NEED CHANGE, SUPID !!!!!
How am I sexist for wondering how a mayor could leave a town of 5000 people in debt to the tune of $20 million, or how a VP with a record of personal vendettas against public officials might act?
She hasn't written any books which might be troublesome for the McCain administration.
Elaine Leach
The modern Republican Party doesn't care about governing. It just wants power to enrich its friends.
Who cares about competence and service. Fool the people, get the power and screw everyone but your friends.
If McCain and Palin get elected, you can stick a fork in the good old US of A. We are done.
Wow. I can't imagine being under such intense scrutiny.
I think I would have cracked on that last question: “anything we should ask you about, the answer to which might cause you or the administration any embarrassment.”
"Yeah, on weekends I bludgeon vagrants to death. Is that a deal-breaker for you guys?"
Art:
But I'm a phenomenon!!!
AM
Matt:
I know! I know!
To the extent that you're a legend in your own mind.
Matt:
We both missed the boat.
While we frittered away all that time getting an education, we failed to get the message; JUST BE A HOCKEY MOM!!!!
Mr. Secretary,
The short answer is no. I could be more explicit, but I respect you too much sir.
An interesting question, Professor Reich (I hope the answer is 'no').
Art and Notsofast - what did you guys make of the Palin speech (and McCain speech, if its complete by the time you read this)?
Most reporters I saw thought that the speech was amazing. Maybe its because I'm extremely bias, but I didn't think she was a great speaker. For instance, even though much of Giuliani's speech was 'politics' ('politics' as in lies and deceit), i thought his dishonest presentation was much more well delivered and effective than hers. had Giuliani, or perhaps Romney been the VP, I can't help but think id be much more uneasy right now...
It is unfortunate for her that she slammed the media (not wise to make them your enemy that fast)and that she did not hesitate to stretch the truth.
Good post. This Sarah Palin choice is in line with the incredible self-indulgence American politics presents on every level. Apparently this nation no longer produces adults. We have become a nation of fools and disgusting narcissists!
I don't care if she murdered her brother-in-law. She is so much more interesting than Joe "the mouth" Biden. Come to that, she is more interesting than the other 2 in the race.
OK OK I ADMIT IT!!!! SHE IS SOOOO HOT!!!!
The problem remains though: it is the economy. And there is nothing to be done about that. Too late, too late, too late.
Dr. Reich,
Palin's address was what you'd expect ... full of boastful bluster with reason and truth thrown out the window.
Some examples as contributed by
Jim Drinkard, an Associated Press Writer in Washington:
PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending...and championing reform to end abuses of Earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress "thanks but no thanks" for that Bridge to Nowhere."
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support Earmarks for the town totalling $27 million. In her role as Governor for 20 months, Alaska has requested $750 million in special federal spending, the LARGEST per-capita request in the nation. She rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge going nowhere."
PALIN: "There´s much to like and admire about our opponent. But 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 reform -- not even in the state of Illnois senate."
FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. He was joined in this legislation with the respected RepublicanSe. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a much respected foreign policy voice.
In Illinois, he was the leader on two big contentious measures: studying racial profiling and requiring records of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.
PALIN: The Democratic nominee for Pres. supports plans to raise: income taxes, payroll taxes, investment income taxes, death taxes, business taxes, and increase the annual tax burden ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.´
FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded tha Obama´s plan would INCREASE after-tax income for MIDDLE-INCOME taxpayers by about 5% by 2012 or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain´s plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would RAISE after-tax income for MIDDLE-INCOME taxpayers by 3%.
Obama would provide $80 billion in TAX BREAKS, mainly for POOR workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for MINIMUM-WAGE workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains taxes and dividend taxes on the WEALTHIEST. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes ABOVE $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses earning more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
McCAIN: "She´s been a Governor of our LARGEST STATE, in charge of 20%of nation´s energy supply. I´m entertained by the comparison and I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the EXECUTIVE of the LARGEST STATE in America." (he said in an interview with ABC).
FACTS: McCain´s phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is Goovernor of a state that ranks SECOND nationally in crude oil PRODUCTION, but she´s NO MORE RESPONSIBLE for that resource than President Bush was when he was Governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she DID in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And whereas Alaska is the largest state in America qua territory, McCain could more easily have called it the 47th SMALLEST STATE in population
(670,000).
FORMER MA GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change allright -- change from a LIBERAL Washington to a CONSERVATIVE Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington -- throw out the BIG-GOVERNMENT LIBERALS, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin.
FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been Pres. for nearly 8 years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since Jan. 2007 have Democrats been in charge of the House and Senate. So
MIT ROMNEY's typical Republican pile of LIES I've already warned readers to expect. It's the standard charge that Democrats are the party of BIG GOVERNMENT and BIG SPENDING. Well, I've documented in 23 TABLES on this blog that just the OPPOSITE is true. Republican administrations since Reagan have added $7.5 Trillion to our national debt bringing it to an expected $9.7 Trillion at end of Bush's term.
Republican administrations have been consistently HIGHER in annual SPENDING since Reagan's time, including or excluding Social Security and Medicare. Republican adminstrations since Reagan have been far weaker in JOB GENERATION performance of economy, etc., etc.
To repeat over 75% of our national debt of $9.7 Trillion since 1950 has been generated in by Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. Exploding Defense spending and cutting taxes for top 10% of households not compensated for by increased Consumption have been a formula for MASSIVE annual Deficits under Reagan and Bush Jr. administrations. BUSH Sr. HAD to INCREASE taxes because of hufge debts piled up by Reagan's 8 years. Clinton brought back fiscal sanity by creating SURPLUSES, raising taxes, and controlling spending to less tha 3% increases annually. RESULT; over 2 million in new jobs!
I wonder how people like Romney will RATIONALIZE THOSE FACTS WITH MORE deception and outright LIES to the American public.
Last time Bush won because he mobilized the religious right while Kerry failed to mobilize the young.
In numbers, the young are far more than the religious fanatics.
Obama has done a hell of a job with the young. In my state, my sons signed up for the Obama campaign and they were not called back because they had plenty.
McCain had to win over either the young or the fanatics. The former crowd has shifted to Obama. He had no other choice but pick Palin. As a desperate warrior he know damn well that if you are headed towards defeat, you have to have someone, who is exceptionally qualified to take the blame.
The election has been decided. End of story.
Sarah Palin’s speech:
Red meat marinated in blood for the base. A very explosive presentation aiming to bolster a dispirited and disinterested gop. Gop history of its own with their first woman nominated for vice president mixing a stirring populist message and biting Obama critique. A very good and creative speech in structure…although maybe could have been shortened by 5-7 minutes and slightly less critical in tone. The speech was apparently written by one of the better speech writers in the business. Palin was very poised under such intense and remarkable scrutiny. A dynamic personality adding zest and life to an old John McCain. Stirring images of Palin and her family at the end against the backdrop of constant media curiosity and criticism. Only wish she was on the left….and she has that unique female characteristic of being able to rip someone while smiling and showing some negative emotion with a small facial gesture or nuanced body language. Get ready for this Joe Biden. haha
The National Enquirer has dispatched a number of reporters to Alaska to investigate a new "drama" of hers. An alleged affair with one of her husband's associates.
She is truly the gift that keeps on giving.
I do tend to feel sorry for McCain... poor guy.... to be humiliated like that in his age...
anonymous said...
"OK OK I ADMIT IT!!!! SHE IS SOOOO HOT!!!!"
hahaha well she aint no jessica alba but she beats the hell out of the other 3 candidates..she makes john mccain look 103 years old.
lol
I don't think she was vetted beyond she looks good and speaks well. McCain proved he doesn't care about this country but only about his own ambition with this choice. If she becomes president, he's dead and he could care less. While he's alive, she's just a veep who looks pretty while going to funerals; and the real side kick will be Lieberman as his Secretary of State.
Let's forget our entire current crop of candidates... and go "back to the past."
What experience did first-time-woman-VP-candidate Geraldine Ferraro have? None, except governmental work.
We didn't hear ONE word about that. Not one.
Why so much animosity now?? Have we all gone THAT far to the fringe extremes?
Mark, a lot came out about Ferraro and shady connections; and I voted Republican that election a lot because of it. So don't make assumptions. Mondale lost with that pick and likely would have anyway but he lost embarrassingly. Some people support their party no matter what, but I am not one of them and there are a lot like me. We vote what we believe will be best for the country. If Republicans in Congress had done that these last 8 years, they would not be disrespected so much. You can go beyond party loyalty, and when it's the Republicans who talk so much about patriotism, they are the first who should be capable of doing that.
aly k:
As a political speech I thought it was great, speaking objectively. Of course I found the subject matter, beyond her family, to be pure BS, as we all know.
Hillary has long been considered the champion female pit bull in the political arena. Sarah is making a valid attempt to wrest that title. She, and the whole women thing, brings up the interesting dichotomy of how do you deal with her in debate or plain campaigning.
We here a lot about women's rights to parity with men; about glass ceilings and breakthroughs; about equal opportunities. Does that equality extend to playing the game, in a heretofore man's world, by the historic rules. Should Biden or Dems in general take Sarah down behind the barn are we going to hear the squeals from females and sympathetic, likely Republican, males about how unfair it was to treat a women that way? We have made great strides in granting women a degree of equal standing but we still have this cultural, manners, problem that women are soft, gentle creatures and are to be treated under a different standard than a man in the rough and tumble world of competition. After all, most women are somebody's mother.
Don't get me wrong I am in favor of women's equality. I truly believe that we should have a woman at the helm as I have stated before. But politics, more than other competitions, is a dirty, vicious game and you can't be equal unless you can be treated as just another opponent. To her credit Hillary played with the best of men at their own game and was competitive but even she received support from those whining "that's no way to treat a lady". Being less seasoned and younger and prettier and a mother of small children, Sarah's bellowers will be much louder. You can't be equal if you hide behind qualifiers, modifiers that alter the age old rules. You can't play football in the rain if you and your followers can't stand to see you muddy.
My guess is that Dems can't afford to test the theorem.
Notsofast alluded to a fact we should all keep in mind. These speeches are written by speechwriters. There may be varying degrees of input from the deliverers but we generally never know about it, yet, there is a tendency to hear a rousing speech and associate it with the speaker when the words themselves may be completely unrelated to the speaker. Those veterans, experienced in developing and nuturing ideas, surely have much more input to the process. Their speechwriters tend to add only sophistication and some nuance. Novices often have to focus more on delivery. The ideas and words generally come from a senior hand with greater knowledge of the desired message. Clearly the way the McCain staff is shielding Sarah, her only job was to deliver the speech well and she did.
We also have to consider the wisdom of political staffs/advisers. Especially at conventions, the whole evening is scripted and the lead-ins are designed to feed the crowd and set them up for the closer. Giuliani did this well as I'm sure Huckabee and Romney did as well. All in all it's akin to a Broadway stage show with all the scenes leading to the finale of the heroine.
There can be little doubt, even though she was wearing lipstick, that Sarah was in pit bull mode last night.
The true irony here is that not only does Sarah have more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined she has more executive experience than Obama and Biden and McCain combined. If you could take a poll of those attending the convention and get honest answers, my guess is the vast majority would vote for flipping the slate.
Rain,
Very well said. That's why I'm an Independent and will go with the Democrats and Obama this time.
The two-parties are fundamentally self-destructive with their preoccupation on demonizing one other while doing little of value for the well-being of all Americans and our country. The result is that we are nearly bankrupt, and not just in money terms.
Aside from national security issues, the vetting process is mainly to protect the candidate from his choice embarrassing him to the point of losing. Therefore, why should one care if neighbors were asked their opinion of Sarah Palin and her family. If McCain didn't ask all the proper questions and skeletons come out of the closet, then it is McCain's issue to deal with and he will lose the election. But, if he is comfortable with her and believes that she won't have any embarrassing skeletons then why spend thousand of dollars going through the motions.
Before McCain picked Palin, I considered not voting for a President this year. Now I think I will get a campaign sign and just put her name in my yard. Oh - and I will vote.
I think it is great that she is not a Washington insider. She has the guts to stand up to corruption and get rid of it regardless of what others think of her. I wish there were more like her. The fact that she can negotiate with big oil and win by returning profits to the people of Alaska speaks volumes. It is unfortunate that she gets labeled as a pit bull or worse because of her aggressiveness. That same aggressiveness in a man and he would be labeled a fighter.
GO SARAH!!!! Finally a woman has broken into the national spotlight who is not bitter.
the last anonymous. You are going by what Sarah herself said. Does it sound like she's against earmarks when she got $27 million of them for her little town? Does it sound like she doesn't like big oil when her only concern was getting more payoff from them for the state? Before you decide someone fights corruption, maybe you should look at what they have actually done versus what they said. Even McCain will all his recent words on the subject has surrounded himself with lobbyists and has the Keating 5 scandal in his background where he was censured but not charged with a crime as some were. But then he has a wealthy wife and had less reason to be corrupt than a lot of others. These days it goes back to what Reagan said: Trust-- and verify. Politicians will say anything. The lies are believed if they are repeated often enough.
Jim: This is more basic than specifically making the Left look sexist, though that's definitely part of it. They get a bonus shot in at the media, to boot. But to your point, this is a simple narrative twist in a Choose Your Own Adventure book. A. Bring in a fringe rockstar to make the base froth, or B. go for independents with a level-headed centrist. McCain made his choice. We'll see how it plays out. In any case, it was a crapshot from Sen. McCrapstable.
A lot of the discussion on her vetting ignores a very important fact: she has already held a major public office for a significant amount of time. The governor of a state is subject to a huge amount of media scrutiny. All of the "unexpected scandals" that people are using as proof of a vetting gap were published in the Alaskan press. Troopergate was known, her political positions and governing history were known, Bristol's pregnancy was known... can anyone point to a single embarrassing fact that was neither public knowledge nor known to the McCain campaign when he selected her?
Cabinet members frequently have not been subject to intense media scrutiny before being asked to serve.
Last anonymous...You seem really knowledgeable, I've been researching this vetting stuff for a few days and this post and the comments are very helpful. Well, most of them. But I don't understand why you haven't done the research on Governor Palin's claims. How do you come to a conclusion that are true?
oops, sorry I meant the anon that rain addressed,
She is a babe, a pitbull. Last time McCain was this desperate he married Cindy. Thats enough precedence to base your judgment on important matters
Dr. Reich,
Thanks for the insight. I find the process you went through adequate from one perspective but wholly insufficent in a much more critical area.
In this blog post you provide no evidence of an interview process which led to your nomination. I would have assumed President-elect Clinton and a team of advisers would have spent at least a couple of cycles of several-hour interviews with you and other candidates. I would also think they would have had you run through a battery of tests administrated by an industrial psychologist to provide perspective to the interview results.
I consider your experience with the vetting process helpful in preventing or mitigating any political issues; but wholly insufficient in providing confidence you were the right person for the job.
Was there a rigorous interview process?
McCain didn't vet her and his campaign staff claiming that this happened are, of course, liars. Several prominent Alaskan politicians have stated that no one talked to them. It is insane that McCain would pass over well qualified Republican women (Snowe and Hutchinson come to mind)for this unqualified person. I shudder to think of her as president.
To answer your question, no.
But it wasn't an issue, because Sarah was never meant to be known. Sarah is an operative, a Trojan, a puppet. She was meant to submit to the story created for her, and do as she's told.
I find it chilling.
"No, Sarah Palin was not vetted."
Perhaps not. But the media is sure vetting her now. I wish they had shown one-tenth that determination in looking into Obama. Steve Sailer had posted numerous item on his website about the anti-white racism of Rev. Wright long before the Iowa caucuses. Yet the media waits till it's too late for Hillary to come back before vetting Obama. If the media had done it's job right Hillary would be the nominee today.
Wow, a Hillary supporter who reads the ultra-right-wing, racist Steve Salier. You were totally going to vote for Hillary! And not against her! I totally believe you!
" Troopergate was known..."--*was*? *WAS*? She hasn't testified under oath and is desperately trying to stall the investigation until after the election. The outcome of that particular abuse-of-power scandal is not yet known.
In my conspiratorial frame of mind (a useful place to be when talking about Republicans), I would say the McCain people minimally vetted Palin on purpose, so the media would have to do the heavy lifting, enabling McCain to run against "media elites," an easier target than Obama.
If the Democrats are smart (for a change), they will ignore Palin and drive home the dim prospects of "four more years of the past eight years." The Republican brand is toxic; feed the GOP its own poison.
You are scared that the Palin pick was a great one and its all slipping away for Obama.
The MSM has vetted Bristol Palin, is Obama next? Are we actually going to see him asked about Bill Ayers or Frank Marshall Davis?
If you're contemptuous of process and of the voters, you don't vet.
If you're a sucker for a skirt and nice legs, a glance is all the vetting you do.
...i particularly appreciate mr. driscoll's comments re: mrs. palin.
focus on the issues~and for a bit of comic relief~i could summarize a scenario from jon stewart where he shows bill o'reilly reporting with disdain the pregnancy of britney spear's little sister~even called the parents 'pinheads' and said her pregnancy was the 'parents fault'. then some weeks later he's seething because seemingly the media is paying way too much attention to the palin family's challenges. way too funny!
pregnant teens abound~let's keep it focused on the issues. as for whether the mcain choice was properly vetted? i am not sure we'll ever really know. what i do know is in an interview with the 'new yorker' magazine two weeks ago she was pleased to see alaska going more blue and leaning in obama's direction.
Desperate much?
My question is was Biden actually vetted? How did they miss his son and brother about to be nailed for stealing?
The deal never took place. This is really fun to behold. Shoe, meet other foot.
Must go. Got emails to go take viral.
hmmm....
indeed mr. biden's troubles are written about most everywhere. no secret about it. the lawsuit his son and brother are entangled in has been going on since 2007.
but if we operate by ms. palin's double standards, then truly this should all just be kept in the family~dont you think?
No way did he vet her. No way.
Sarah's husband Todd has been a member of the AIP (Alaska Independence Party), which advocates secession from the United States. The founder of this party expresses outright hatred of the government of the United States and its flag. He said that the fires of hell were like a glacier compared to his hatred for our country. Both Sarah and Todd have a direct association with this party. Sarah gave the opening speech at their convention this year (2008).
Now, maybe Alaskans just sort of shrug these guys off as the proverbial crazy uncle down in the basement, but I'm pretty sure that most folks down here in the lower 48 wouldn't be so understanding.
Apparently, John "I lived in a box" McCain thinks this person should be President of the United States? Really?
No way did he vet her.
I believe she's the distraction they've been looking for. They want her vilified, so that McCain gets a free pass over the next few weeks. There is no doubt in my mind that this is all going according to plan, they knew she was trouble, and they simply want the left to hit her hard. It makes us look bad.
As an independent woman for Obama, I think the Dems need to focus on who will be president. Let Joe Biden deal with her experience during the debates. If the Dems keep focusing on her, then they will be giving her more face time then a VP nominee should get. Also, I don't think the Dems are getting into enough details on the economy. They need to paint a better picture of moving the country forward to the future and the opportunities that Americans will have if this country gets away from old ideals and embraces new ones, like the Green Revolution.
Obviously, Sarah Palin was a rush pick after the Republican base balked at Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge.
She wasn't properly vetted because John McCain doesn't think the rules apply to him.
After reading all the 81 comments, my only comment is I'm very happy to read the remarks of intelligent beings in this country!
My thought are a compilation of many who've already posted, so I'll just say 'thank you' for the journal entry, and to those who've cared enough to write their very best! (Yes, intended to sound like something Hallmark would say)...
Obama would NOT pass an FBI Background Check so why is he qualified for running for president?
For a person that is more likely than most if not any other Vice President to become President, not vetting her is ominous to say the least.
To be fair, Palin is an effective politician. But, as indicated in previous blogs, her values are what counts. And from what we know thus far viewing from the left, it would be hard to tell the difference between an itemization of her values and those of Mr Bush.
So, despite McCain's efforts to appear to be all things to all people (at the expense of his integrity), shadowing him will be nothing less than the Bush "doctrines" embodied in a "pit bull" (as Palin implies about herself) ready to spring into action should the elderly McCain falter under the enormous pressures he would shoulder as leader of the free world.
Vetting?
Could Obama be vetted? If his history and previous associations were known, could he be vetted? Just a thought.
What upsets some people and myself is that John Edwards was not scrutinized the same way, with less experience. I realize that Sen. Edwards is not a "girl", but still.
All the smart and sophisticated people in the CIA did not see the Berlin Wall falling until they saw it on CNN. They did not anticipate 9/11. They advised that there were WMDs in Iraq. Even Pres. Clinton believed them. Smart people brought us Fannie Mae, Lehman Brothers, etc.
I have an IQ of about 140. I scored at least in the top 1% of my state bar exam. Smart people and their track record in public service scare me. Their hubris and their sense of being annointed make them dangerous.
Sen. Schumer was smart enough to take payola and forget about increasing the income tax rate for hedge fund managers from 15% to income tax rates. Sen. Biden was smart enough to take payola to allow credit card companies to charge loan shark rates.
McCain, right or wrong, has been a pain in the ass. Palin has stepped on a lot of toes. Obama gets along and goes along, in Chicago machine style.
I will take someone with character any day at this point.
mr reich god bless for fighting for the regular guy .lets face it the right wing was co-opted years ago .the shadow government is to blame.mr bush will go down as the worst president.his dad along with nixon and others were at a party at clint mirchesons house about a week before the removal of jfk in nov 63 mr bush should go right to f-ing jail for his thievery of the finaces of our country.
online Air Jordan shoes store,Cheap China Wholesale:Wholesale Nike Shoes, Wholesale Jordan, Wholesale handbags, Wholesale t shirts, Cheap Air Jordan, Cheap Air Jordans, Air Max, hoodies, Shox Prada Shoes
We Offer Cheap Jordan Shoes,Nike Air Jordan Shoes,Nike Shox,Jordan shoes.Wholesale:Jordans,Nike Shoes
I would love to see you up for a cabinet post again... any chance?
徵信, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 感情挽回, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信,
cheap wow power leveling buy wow power leveling cheapest wow gold CHEAP power leveling BUY wow gold CHEAPEST wow powerleveling WANGGONGwow goldwow goldffxi gilwow gold
thanks
in my experience, the "Detectives" never get too far in their investigations of the "Sexy Librarian" before she start unbuckling their trousers...
...then she gets exactly what she wants...
John Holmes
yoko foto thanks
Definitely doubtful, considering that Governor Palin's town's local paper wasn't even approached by the Republicans. (Apparently some of their archives are online, but not all. And I would assume reviewing articles written about her would be the first natural place to start.)
in my experience, the "Detectives" never get too far in their investigations of the "Sexy Librarian" before she start unbuckling their trousers
thanks
Post a Comment
<< Home