« NYT -- Front page Palin story was incorrect | Main | What Palin Needs to Say Tonight »


I am amazed sometimes, how well American businesses do. This is because the more I learn, from my career and from my graduate coursework, the more I realize that the average business, American or otherwise, is not planned, not effectively organized, and often seeks goals that make no sense. Yet an amazing number of businesses are successful in spite of all that. It's because if you have the right idea and work hard at it, you can succeed without having to be perfect. That is the message I want to make regarding the vetting of Sarah Palin. Some mistakes were made although in the main the job was done right, her enemies (including the media being incredibly obvious in its partisan support for Obama) have posed outright lies and smears in their attempts to attack her, and in the end the American people will figure out well enough who she is and what she stands for.

John McCain had a while to decide who he wanted for his running mate, just as Barack Obama had several weeks to make his decision. Both campaigns started with a blank sheet of paper, because the person they'd want for their VP selection would depend at least in part on the issues and conditions of the moment, which could not be foreseen. Let's begin with how Barack Obama chose Joe Biden for his running mate, The International Herald-Tribune' who calls themselves the 'Global Edition of the New York Times', is about as pro-Obama a media outlet as one could hope to find. They published an account of Biden's vetting on August 24, in which the paper reports that "his top advisers made a concerted effort not to disclose how he made his choice", that "Obama reached the decision ... while on a weeklong vacation to Hawaii. That week, Biden's strengths in foreign policy were highlighted by the conflict between Russia and Georgia, giving his prospects a further boost", showing that current events were a critical factor in the decision. The paper further observes that "Biden had some powerful patrons in his corner whose opinions Obama respected, like Rendell; Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the House Democratic caucus; and Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts". So, while Obama's team made a great noise about Biden's qualifications, the NYT-styled paper makes clear that Biden was primarily chosen to support an area where Obama saw a potential weak point, that Biden gained the top spot in large part because he had powerful friends in the Democratic Party, and that "what kind of partner I'm getting" was an essential choice. Few details about the actual vetting were released, except that the paper noted that "the vetting team sorted through Biden's financial statements, political statements and medical records".

Now, with that in place, the decision to select Sarah Palin may properly be considered and the lies from the Left dispelled through Obama's own standards. Senator Obama's campaign has admitted he decided on Biden as his running mate very soon before announcing the choice. That makes sense to me, but it blows apart the claim by some that McCain made a "last-minute" choice on Palin, especially since he made the announcement the week before the GOP convention even began. Lie number one shot down. Obama chose Biden for his foreign policy experience, a logical reason. But that means that choosing a female governor with a high approval rating in her state and a history of fighting against corruption is just as logical for McCain. The idea that McCain was acting emotionally or rashly is just lie number two, and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Obama chose Biden because he was politically popular with a lot of Democrats, including the union base Obama needs. That makes sense, but of course that makes it reasonable for McCain to choose a VP nominee who is wildly popular with conservatives, whose life experience and personal character are well-suited to attract women voters and independents. So the lie that Palin is less valid than Biden for what she brings to the campaign also goes quickly down in flames.

- continued -

Frankly, the Left has gotten pretty desperate in trying to find something to use against Palin. We're told she's "under investigation", but the people who started that slimy rumor leave off that the situation was one in which Palin's family was threatened, and the investigation has no statutory support for any potential action against Palin - it's purely political, which makes all the more sense when people find out that Palin fought against corrupt officials in both parties in Alaska, and reformers often make political enemies. We're told that news people going door to door in Alaska can't find anyone who was asked about Palin, but that's because vetting does not work that way. No one asked door-to-door in Delaware to see if Obama's people chased down Biden's old teachers or people he went to school with - that's just another lie because the media knew they were misleading folks in how they portrayed the process. What is happening is what we have seen before, what we have to expect - the MSM has chosen a team, and objectivity be damned. Ironically, that won't help them, and it could hurt their well-dressed if empty idol, Barack Obama.

If the media treated Sarah Palin the way way that they have treated Joe Biden, then it would be up to Palin to prove she was up to the challenge. Fluff just cannot be mistaken for muscle after a certain amount of time, and facades always fall when the wind blows. But it is a lie, and a stupid one, to pretend that Palin has not been vetted. As Bill Kristol pointed out last night, "The McCain campaign vetted Sarah Palin to the satisfaction of John McCain. He nominated her as his running mate. She is the governor of Alaska. She was vetted by the voters of Alaska". Fred Barnes pointed out the lies as well, saying "I have been keeping a list of the things that the media has come out with, at least some parts of it that turned out to be wrong, including [the] thing about the Independence party. She wasn't a member there, she was a Republican the whole time. She didn't back Pat Buchanan. She was vetted. When you read how thoroughly she was vetted, I am sorry they missed the House Speaker, but I think they hit everybody else up there. They spent days and days up and interviewed her for a long time."

Three facts have become obvious in the last few days about Sarah Palin:

1. She was properly vetted.

2. She does change the calculus of the election.

3. Judging from the reaction in the media and the Obama campaign, Joe Biden should be as worried as a moose in season.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (43)

Good post DJ.I'll ... (Below threshold)

Good post DJ.

I'll add that McCain hired Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr. to conduct the vetting process months before the choice was made. Culvahouse is an old hand at this game and a very well known figure in Washington legal and political circles.

McCain met Palin at a governor's conference months before the primaries were over and was impressed by her reform policies. As DJ mentioned, she went after members of her own party....now who does that sound like? Maybe John McCain?

Good job DJ. Palin ... (Below threshold)

Good job DJ. Palin is bait and MSM and Lib nutcases have taken the hook and run with it. If McCain has any chance at all, it will because of Palin.

The vetting shouldn't reall... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

The vetting shouldn't really concern anyone except the Republican Party. If it's satisfied that's all that matters.

She was McCain's choice, approved by the Republican Party, and that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Soooo....we shouldn't consi... (Below threshold)

Soooo....we shouldn't consider as voters whether or not McCain has the requisite judgment to be president using the manner in which he chose Palin as an example?

JFO's poor reading comprehe... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

JFO's poor reading comprehension rears its head yet again. The media should not pretend that the vetting of Sarah Palin was in any way less thorough or valid than the vetting of Joe Biden, JFO.

Your boy's looking more and more moose-like, but that's just too bad for you.

Congratulations, liberals/m... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Congratulations, liberals/media/Democrats.

You have accomplished what I didn't think was possible: You turned me, and millions more like me, into John McCain VOTERS.

Your disgusting, asinine, repulsive and offensive slanders, lies and slurs against Sarah Palin have turned me from being resigned to the strong possibility of Obama winning to someone who wants to shove your crap down your Keith Olberman-infested throats with a landslide for McCain.

When McCain announced Palin as his running mate, I thought, "Good choice. Now it's a race."

But after your repulsive treatment of Palin and her daughter and phony angst over "having" to report it, I want McCain-Palin to win and win BIG.

Your smug elitism and treating of a highly accomplished solidly blue collar woman as worse than trailer trash has angered me far more than the Bush-hatred ever has. Your BLAMING HER for the smears, lies, rumors and disgusting media and blog crap is just so over the top that I want her and McCain to win so bad that you'll be left breathless and sobbing for your mamas.

Sarah Palin could be my mother. She could be my wife. She could be my mother-in-law. In other words, she could be any one of the smart, accomplished and fabulous women in my life. When you smear, slur and slander Sarah Palin, you're doing so against women just like them.

Sarah Palin has accomplished more as a public servant than Barack Obama ever has. He talks about hope and change, but Palin really IS change: a veep candidate who comes from a solidly middle America background (figuratively speaking, not geographically) and who loves the things we love.

Does that mean she's the greatest thing ever, like the hoards of Obama supporters who cry at his speeches think--or Mr. Barack "We're-the-ones-we've-been-waiting-for" Obama?

Hardly. And I still have some problems with McCain. On MOST things, McCain is right. On some, he's very wrong--just like W. But if tapping Palin as his running mate is any indication of what kind of presidential decisions he'll make, I can very easily live with him as prez.

So take your hope and change and shove it where the sun don't shine, jerks.

You have made me and millions more like me madder than you can possibly imagine.

But god forbid she should b... (Below threshold)

But god forbid she should be our president.

And spare us the lie you are anything but a wingnut.

JFO, I must say that you tr... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

JFO, I must say that you truly, inspiringly even reflect and amplify all that America has come to expect from the party of Michael Moore and Nancy Pelosi.

Ahhhh DJ if only you preach... (Below threshold)

Ahhhh DJ if only you preach what you so sanctimoniously preach.

But unlike you I think you are both ignorant and dishonest, Whenever challenged you rarely if ever respond with anything other than a sanctimonious air of superiority.

In tier case at hand you reflexively responded to my comment which was obviously in response to the one above it. And though one may disagree with my point, it was, in fact, a point. Then when shown to be wrong, which is a regular occurrence here, you fall back on the tripe you just wrote.

In my mind that makes you both ignorant and dishonest.

oooopsss, of course I meant... (Below threshold)

oooopsss, of course I meant practice.

Re post #7 by JFO:... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

Re post #7 by JFO:

"But god forbid she should be our president."

In case you haven't been following it, she will be on the ticket for VICE-President. Get it?

"And spare us the lie you are anything but a wingnut."

Pot .. Kettle .. JFO.

JFO - I'm HARDLY a wingnut,... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

JFO - I'm HARDLY a wingnut, and you don't know me from Adam. The only applicable reply to your sophmoric claim is "I know you are, but what am I?"

Bye-by, JFO. ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Bye-by, JFO.

The problem for the left is... (Below threshold)

The problem for the left is that McCain's choice of Palin as his running mate has:

1. Taken away from what Obama planned as his spotlight moment, throwing the initiative to McCain coming off the Democratic convention and in advance of the Republican convention, at just the time that non-activist voters start paying attention;
2. Strengthened John McCain's weak position with two of the three wings of the Republican Party base1;
3. Given many disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters reason to vote for McCain rather than for Obama;
4. Increased his fundraising potential;
5. Chosen to groom a potential future president that the Democrats would have a harder time fighting than they would, say, a Pawlenty or Romney;
6. Raised interest in the Republican convention, again just when voters are starting to pay attention;
7. Thrown the media and the Obama campaign into quick-reaction mode, where the obviousness of the media's in-the-tank performance for Obama is clear to many independents who otherwise wouldn't notice the more subtle manipulation that the media tends to engage in.

In other words, the reasons the Democrats are upset is because Sarah Palin is a terrible pick for them. For the Republicans, her choice is fantastically good for the same reason that it is terrible for the Democrats. For the rest of us (those who, by virtue of not being partisan Democrats must automatically be wingnuts), its meaning is primarily at the margins. I am more likely to vote for McCain-Palin than for any combination other than McCain-Thompson, and it appears that there are a lot of people making the calculation that McCain-Palin is better than Obama-Biden. Of course the Democrats are terrified: they are scared, and justly so.

1The Rockefeller Republicans (socially liberal pro-business Hamiltonians) were already with McCain; the Reagan Republicans (socially conservative Jacksonians) and the libertarians (small government conservatives) were not very happy with McCain.
I think it is high time to ... (Below threshold)
A Stoner:

I think it is high time to start reviewing the 1st amendment.

I think there needs to be a law in place that states that all news corrections must be done in the same place in the paper from whence the original falsehood resided. Front page above the fold, using the as much space as the orignal story or as much as is needed to fully explain the error, whichever is more. Or on TV, it must be on the same program, and recieve as much time and from the original person reporting.

Liability needs to be placed on stories that have been found to be false. The degree of liability should be based on how much effort the original story had put into it to try and find the truth. Such as a story that was deliberatly thwarted by the entity that was the topic of the story would have near to zero liability if the person doing the story worked hard enough to get to the truth. While a story with obvious bias on part of the reporter trying to find any kind of dirt with no sources or proof would have total liability.

I understand that this gets into a really murky area, but the way the media is working now is completely out of the bounds of what free speech is intended to foster. The most read, most viewed media outlets are basically allowed to run completely slander with the worst case scenario being that they have to run a story on page zzzz9999 saying they made an error. Likely only a tiny fraction of a % of the original readers will ever see or hear of the correction and continue to hold that the original fictitious story is true.

"Joe Biden should be as wor... (Below threshold)

"Joe Biden should be as worried as a moose in season."

Do you mean "in season" in the hunter's sense, or in the biological sense?

Either way, Rance, it works... (Below threshold)

Either way, Rance, it works.

these are awesome<a ... (Below threshold)

these are awesome

Big Mac and the Cuda!

When it comes to vet... (Below threshold)

When it comes to vetting;


Tell me this guy is going to miss something, please.

If you ask the same folks w... (Below threshold)
retired military:

If you ask the same folks who are saying Palin isnt qualified to be President the following:

was Bush 41 qualified to be President
is Bush 43 qualified to be President
Was Reagen qualified to be President
Is McCain qualifeid to be President.

if asked I am sure that most would say no to all of the above. The only thing is 3 of the 4 have already proven they are qualified and have served in the office for anywhere from 4-8 years.

It doesnt matter if she was vetted or not. it doesnt matter if the press or the left does a colonoscomy looking for stuff. if doesnt matter if she was governor of california, texas and new york simultaneousy for 40 years while she raised 25 kids, coached 2 super bowl winners, won 8 world series, and founded a company that in 2 years went from a garage to taking over Microsoft, Shell oil, and AT&T.

They would still find fault with her and not vote for her Because of who she is.

The same reason they aren't voting for her now.

I said it before and I will... (Below threshold)

I said it before and I will add something. I hope the left keeps disparaging McCain on his age and cancer. Now also slamming an accomplished leader like Palen. You liberals are doing MORE for us then McCains campaign team. Thanks. ww

retired military... (Below threshold)

retired military

It all started with Big Al Gore losing. The Libernuts haven't gotten over it and never will. Which is how Big Al has been able to peddle his Global Warming stuff for roughly 100 million in his pocket while living exactly as he pleases.

I keep telling them (conservative and liberal) don't fall in love with a politician, they will break your heart and pick your pocket. Or, if they are like Clinton, LBJ, JFK and a host of others, they will Clintonize any female they can, unless they are Barney Frank. *grin*

This is not a lie</p... (Below threshold)

This is not a lie

It takes more interviews to get a job at Walmart then it does to be McCains VP. McCain hired her based on one meeting and phone a phone call.

Actually, yes Dave, that <i... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Actually, yes Dave, that was a lie.

Some mistakes were... (Below threshold)
Some mistakes were made although in the main the job was done right

The first rule in choosing a VP is do no harm. McCain broke rule one by undermining his experience advantage over Obama.

Another good post DJ.... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Another good post DJ.

If he's posting lies, can't... (Below threshold)

If he's posting lies, can't you let your readership figure out for themselves whether or not to believe them?

Based on the reaction* of t... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Based on the reaction* of the propaganda wing of the Obama campaign** to Governor Palin, I would have to conclude that she was very well and properly vetted and was the perfect pick.

*i.e., fabricating "scandals" then reporting on them-- outfreakingrageous!

**the "MSM"

Hyper,That's the p... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:


That's the policy at KOS & DU (and in the MSM for that matter), but I'm glad it's not the policy here.

DJ,Why are you try... (Below threshold)


Why are you trying to censor/silence me. My points are on topic.

What the right wing pundits... (Below threshold)

What the right wing pundits are saying when they don't think anyone is listening(its not just the left wing media):

Wall Street Journal columnist and former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan and former John McCain adviser, Time columnist, and MSNBC contributor Mike Murphy were caught on tape disparaging John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate.

"It's over," Noonan said.

When Chuck Todd asked her if this was the most qualified woman the Republicans could nominate, Noonan responded, "The most qualified? No. I think they went for this, excuse me, political bullshit about narratives. Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and that's not what they're good at, they blow it."

Murphy characterized the choices as "cynical" and "gimmicky."

"Palin is doing a heck of a... (Below threshold)

"Palin is doing a heck of a job as VP candidate. Leave her alone."

Remeber what happened to Bush when he said that about Brown. He lost his credibility!

The same can happen to all of the right wing pundits who are jumping to Palins defense.

But you'll still love the l... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

But you'll still love the left wing media that's fabricating "scandals" out of whole cloth, right Dave? No credability loss there, huh?

(Not that I think that you're right about the right wing pundits loosing any credability, btw.)

The same can happ... (Below threshold)
The same can happen to all of the right wing pundits who are jumping to Palins defense.


Says who? You?
By what authority do you make this assumption?
It is still a free country, yet.

Says who? You?By ... (Below threshold)
Says who? You? By what authority do you make this assumption? It is still a free country, yet.

Under the authority of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, you know the one that talks about "Freedom of Speech"? Yes it is a free country and I am excercising my freedom.


Your too far to the right to see straight. The general public is not getting taken in by the rights spin on Palin being qualified.

Soon Palin will have to answer questions from the media on national issues. If she blows it and comes off as not knowing anything, then all of you who are supporting her will also look stupid.

But you'll still l... (Below threshold)
But you'll still love the left wing media that's fabricating "scandals" out of whole cloth, right Dave? No credability loss there, huh?

The media, with the exception of some left wing blogs have been very fair in their dealing with Palin.

Palin still has yet to hold a press conference or take questions from the press(with the exception of a softball appearance on FOX). If she is innocent(Trooper Gate) she needs to let the press ask her questions.

Thanks for proving my point... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Thanks for proving my point, Dave. I knew I could count on you.

That's right Dave.Yo... (Below threshold)

That's right Dave.
You exercise your right of
freedom, but would do all you could
to shut down the people in this country
who remember how much freer it used to be.

Also, you have no idea of how stupid
you look/read when you come into someone elses
house and poop on the floor.

Just saying.

<a href="http://beltwayblip... (Below threshold)


McCain's national campaign co-chair doesn't think the media is being sexist towards Palin. People should call the McCain campaign headquarters and ask why they've allowed themselves to buy into this NYT-MSNBC-MSM-Communist Party rhetoric.

I've been listening to the ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

I've been listening to the talking heads for the last few minutes. It seems to me, their argument is that THEY didn't get to vet Gov. Palin, not that McCain didn't vet her. They're not saying that outright, but it appears to be their point and it appears to be what has had them all PO'd from the start. From that respect, I guess there really is a scandal here.

They've been left grasping at straws. Still ya gotta give them credit for what "news" they've been able to fabricate in the last five days.

Brian, because when I see p... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Brian, because when I see poop, I flush it.

Can't speak for your house ...

Dave: "My points are on topic."

No Dave, you posted inflammatory lies. I do not have to let you do that, and I will not. A difference of opinion is allowed, attempts to slime honorable people will get you canned.

If Palin was vetted, why di... (Below threshold)
Too Much:

If Palin was vetted, why didn't Palin mention she was going to be a Granny when she was first announced? I suppose you can argue privacy, but people would have been awfully curious in about nine months. I say, 'bs.' to being vetted. If you really support 'life', why not mention it in your first speech as a VP candidate. I say McCain's crew never knew until later and now are furiously attacking the press.

"If Palin was vetted, why d... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"If Palin was vetted, why didn't Palin mention she was going to be a Granny when she was first announced?"

Maybe because her being a GRANNY has absolutely nothing to do with her ability to be VICE PRESIDENT.

Did Biden mention he was a grandfather when he was selected?

What difference does it make if they are going to be granny, are a granny or never will be granny? Answer : it has the same relevance as your though process - NONE.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy