Palin In Comparison: Sorry... Not A Maverick

I'm not usually one to be critical of women running for office or in public office, because I've seen the statistics, I know how much criticism women put up with, and I understand the barriers to running for office as a woman (through trainings like Emerge and EMILY's List). It pains me really to write this, but one of the things I learned in these trainings is that sometimes "going negative" is necessary when it's an effort to educate the public about information they should be aware of in order to make an informed decision about voting.  The purpose of this post is to inform people about the campaign strategies that are being attempted by the Republicans in this particular case.  That's it.  Disclaimer done.

First off, it's not like Sarah Palin is the first woman to be considered for VP or on a VP ticket.  She's not the first woman mayor or the first woman governor or the first woman to have five kids and serve in office (see: Nancy Pelosi).  Other people can call her an opportunist or an anti-feminist or a bad mother or whatever.  I don't feel like doing that because every situation is unique.  I do, however, feel like taking on this angle that she's somehow a 'maverick.'

Joe Trippi wrote an interesting piece yesterday that got the MOMocrats thinking about this strategy of McCain's and Trippi's probably right about this too.  He says the Republican "assault will be on what is now a strength of Barack Obama’s — his focus on changing a broken system in Washington," i.e. McCain will try to prove he and Palin are more ready to make change in our nation than Obama and Biden.  Somehow, McCain and Palin, whose records show that they vote well in line with Bush/Cheney are being painted as change candidates, when the real change is right in front of us with Barack Obama, whose platform is almost entirely about change.

Is change keeping kids out of preschool, adding more insurance companies, pandering to Big Oil, and reversing Roe v. Wade?  Or is change universal healthcare, improved schools preschool through college, green energy policies, and securing womens' freedom to choose?  That one seems fairly obvious to me, but it must not be clear enough for the McCain/Palin ticket.

McCain describes Palin as "someone with an outstanding reputation for standing up to special interests and entrenched bureaucracies" which supposedly excites him.  I guess if opposing all abortion in all cases including rape or incest is anti-bureaucracy, that could stretch as possibly counting since currently the law of the land is to allow it.  If being a maverick means teaching creationism in schools and calling it 'science,' then I guess Kansas was really maverick when it was going back and forth over that for about a decade.

Supposedly McCain touts that Palin has "taken on her own party at every turn," so can someone please explain to me why should they want to have her as their VP nominee?  If the Republicans want to take back their party - recreate the party of fiscal conservatism and small government, entrepreneurship and international leadership, then how does Palin even fit into that?  And if not being a Washington insider is all it takes to be in the maverick club, then doesn't that mean the vast majority of American people would also qualify, thereby making her no better than the rest of us?

Clearly there must be something about Sarah Palin in order for her to be elected to a City Council, Mayor and then Governor.  There's something about Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco, who presides over more people than Palin in the state of Alaska.  However, that doesn't mean she's ready to be in the second highest office in the country.  We have a lot of qualified leaders that McCain could have picked that are in line with the moderate American majority.  I believe I read that Pain's views on abortion alone are only the preference of under 20% of Americans.

One last thing: any comparison with Hillary Clinton beyond the fact that she's a woman who has run and served in public office is probably a stretch, so let's just not go there.  Hillary Clinton did put more cracks in the glass ceiling and if Sarah Palin seals up those cracks by reducing the credibility of women who want to run for office, the majority of Americans (51% of whom are women) will have an even tougher mountain to climb before our next chance.

I just left a City Council race kickoff event for a woman who is running as an experienced incumbent and I feel that she - as a civil engineer, mother, former commissioner and former mayor - has nearly as much experience as Palin and I wonder: how exactly was Palin vetted with one meeting before selected as a 'change candidate'/partner on the Republican ticket?  For many years, I have waited for the Republican party to come forth and find a reason to invite me to be a part of their party as a fiscal conservative, but Sarah Palin is not that reason.  If anything, she is pushing the moderate vote farther to the left, leaving us with nothing but Obama/Biden to have faith in.  How can the Republican Old Guard embrace her?

I can only hope - should whatever cajoling, vote rigging or manipulating may occur to elect her - is that she turns out not to be as bad as she's being painted to be.  Until then, Palin as Vice President, a maverick she will not be.  Look at the records: McCain and Palin represent more similarities to Bush and Cheney than Obama and Biden by a long shot.

Comments

[miteegirl]

There is nothing maverick about a Mayor who employees a lobbyist group to lobby for $27 million in earmarks for a town of 6700 residents.

[Roberto]

You should check this out as well then: http://joetrippi.com/blog/?p=2460

It has some real merit.

[Trisha]

I'm starting to get the feeling that Palin is worse than she first appears and McCain is going to - if he hasn't already - wished he hadn't picked her.