Contra James Vega

James Vega at The Democratic Strategist has posted six messages that he thinks Democrats should use to respond to McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. I think a couple of these are good strategy while most of the rest range from bad to terrible, so I thought I’d throw my two cents into the ring.

Vega:

1. Target Audience: Republican businessmen

Theme: “Palin – An irresponsible choice”

Narrative: Any 79 year old CEO of a major multinational corporation who appointed a successor who lacked any international experience at all would be judged by most businessmen to have acted in a terribly irresponsible way and possibly even be liable to legal action. McCain’s selection of Palin is actually a great deal more irresponsible and represents a profound and deeply disturbing failure of good judgment and thoughtful decision-making.

First off, McCain is 72, not 79. I’m sure Mr. Vega knows this so I’m not sure why he compared McCain’s choice of Palin to a 79-year-old retiring CEO’s choice, unless he’s trying to make McCain seem even older than he is. But that would be ageism and I’m sure that’s not the case.

If the Obama campaign still wants to run with the experience meme — I’ve cautioned against that here — then this is probably the best way to do it. Palin’s total lack of experience on foreign policy contrasts with Obama’s experience in the Senate and especially with Biden’s experience. But I still stand by my basic argument that it’s a bad idea to go for the experience factor at all. We’ve been saying all along that change, not experience, is what’s important in this election. Sen. Obama doesn’t have much more experience than Gov. Palin and no executive experience. Besides, do we really want a situation where our number one’s experience is compared with their number two’s? Think about it people.

Vega:

2. Target Audience: politically literate moderates and independents attracted to McCain by his past reputation for independence from the Republican “party line”.

Theme: “McCain to Moderates: Screw You”

Narrative: McCain’s final choice between Romney and Palin represented a clear choice between a relatively moderate, successful governor and businessman on the one hand and the candidate backed by both the religious right and the secular Rush Limbaugh right on the other.

If McCain’s fundamental political strategy were actually to win by earning the support of political moderates, then Romney was self-evidently the preferable candidate. McCain’s choice of Palin, in contrast, provides him with movement conservative foot soldiers for Election Day but represents a fundamental and irrevocable decision to ally his campaign with cultural conservatives rather than political moderates.

I actually think it would be better to make this about Palin vs. Lieberman than Palin vs. Romney. Like McCain, the Romney of today isn’t as moderate as the Romney of the past. He’s with the right on just about every issue, he’s to the right of McCain on some issues (like gay marriage), and the only reason he was rejected by the extremist right was the perception that he’s a flip-flopper and, regardless of what they say now, his Mormon religion. Besides, according to the New York Times it looks like it was more likely McCain would have picked Lieberman instead of Romney. But I won’t quibble. The point is that McCain picked a running mate from the extremist right instead of a moderate. If it really came down to Romney vs. Palin then McCain was deciding between two extreme ideologues.

I think this is probably the winning talking point against Palin. She thinks abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape and incest, and even in her own daughter’s case, anathema even to a lot of pro-life conservatives like myself. Bush, Cheney, and McCain all think there should be exceptions for rape and incest, so Palin is to their right on this issue. She thinks creationism should be taught with evolution in our public school classrooms, which means that she either thinks creationism is science or that religion should be taught in our public schools — both of which are bad. She supports abstinence only education even though there’s evidence that it’s not working. And Democrats should demand to know whether she supports the Federal Marriage Amendment. If she does, and I suspect she does, that puts her to the right of Cheney and McCain and squarely in league with Bush. More of the same, in other words.

Vega:

3. Target Audience: “good government” voters who were appalled by Bush appointees like Harriet Miers and Monica Goodling

3. Theme: “Sarah Palin is John McCain’s version of Harriet Miers and Monica Goodling all in one”

Narrative: Sarah Palin resembles both Harriet Miers and Monica Goodling — Miers, because she was entirely unprepared for the post offered her and was primarily chosen for her presumed appeal to the Christian right; Monica Goodling because, like Palin, she conducted purges against political opponents.

First off, let’s make one thing clear: Harriet Miers wasn’t “primarily chosen for her presumed appeal to the Christian right.” She was chosen for her presumed undying loyalty to Bush and, let’s not forget, she was recommended and defended by Harry Reid — once, twice, three times. Arlen Specter and Pat Leahy recommended someone who wasn’t in the appellate system. Conservatives hated the Miers nomination and were the main force in getting her replaced with John Roberts, a guy who was chosen because he was experienced and had a record of strict constructionism.

I think there’s some risk in going after Palin on these grounds. Calling her another Harriet Miers in the way that Vega does is just another regurgitation of the experience argument, and have I mentioned that’s a bad idea? The Monica Goodling comparison isn’t a good idea either because Palin’s ties to corruption are sketchy, at least for now, and without firm evidence of corruption it will invite Republicans to go after Obama on Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers again.

I do think we can throw Harriet Miers into the fray though, but in a different context than the one Vega suggests. Harriet Miers is another example of Republicans appointing women only because they’re anatomically correct. Bush was under a lot of pressure to appoint another woman to replace Sandra Day O’Connor, and instead of appointing a woman with O’Connor’s conservative pragmatism he thought that appointing any woman would do and appointed a crony who he hoped would be a loyalist on the Supreme Court. Democrats should point out that Harriet Miers was no Sandra Day O’Connor and Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton.

Vega:

4. Target Audience: Latinos and other immigrant groups

Theme: Latinos Beware – John McCain’s new friends would like to see you in hand-cuffs

Narrative: The embrace of McCain’s candidacy by the “movement” conservatives poses a major threat to Latinos and other immigrants. “Movement” conservatives include a substantial number of advocates of a national policy that would elevate the increasingly frequent raids, “round-ups” and deportations of illegal aliens that have been occurring around the country in the last year into an organized and permanent, large-scale and nationwide “round-up” campaign.

I think this is an interesting angle, especially in light of Laura Ingraham’s comment back in March that “[Sarah Palin]’s not for comprehensive immigration reform, I can tell you that. She’s sick to death of this immigration nonsense in the United States.” If that’s true, it would put Palin to the right of McCain and Bush on another issue and we could join it with the ones I already talked about above. But we need to pin her down on this issue and make sure she’s actually an immigration hardliner, otherwise it’s just guilt by association with “movement conservatives” and I don’t think that will work.

Vega:

5. Target Audience: The media

Theme: Palin is not an “ordinary hockey mom” — she is a full-time career woman with a 4 month old special needs child

Narrative: Whenever the press describes Palin as simultaneously an “ordinary hockey mom” who reflects very traditional values in her personal life and a also as a full-time career public servant who is fully prepared to meet the demands of the vice-presidency, they are presenting characterizations that are mutually incompatible. There are, in fact, a very substantial number of traditionalists — particularly among the religiously devout — who strongly disapprove of Palin’s decision not to stay at home with the newborn child. This concern is particularly notable in the discussions on many Christian web sites.

If the press is going to use the phrase “ordinary hockey mom” to describe Palin and to assert that she embodies traditional values in her personal life, the press has an obligation to also note that a very substantial number of traditionalists disapprove of her decision to accept McCain’s invitation to join his campaign rather than to remain at home with her very young child. Omitting this information significantly biases the coverage in Palin’s favor.

I think this is poison for the Democratic Party because it made my stomach turn and briefly made me want to rush right out and vote McCain-Palin. This argument is sexist and anti-religious. It also demonstrates that Vega knows nothing about the state of modern conservatism. Palin is a conservative feminist who, like many conservative feminists, manages to balance her strong commitment to family life with a career. Most conservatives have no problem with that and those who do are more sexist than conservative. Most faith and values voters have no problem with that and, again, those who do are more sexist than committed to faith and values.

Nothing will turn women off faster than for Democrats to get on TV and seem to side with sexists who think Sarah Palin should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Nothing will turn faith and values voters off faster than for Democrats to get on TV and argue that “the religiously devout” think women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Nothing will turn the Republicans and conservative independents that Democrats will have to reach out to if we want to win off faster than for Democrats to get on TV and conflate sexism with conservatism. And nothing is more likely to drive Hillary Clinton’s former supporters toward John McCain and Sarah Palin than to see the same Democratic faces on TV using the same sexist tactics that they used against Clinton.

This is the absolute worst strategy possible and we’ll use it at our own peril.

Vega:

6. Target Audience: All voters

Theme: “McCain – So desperate to win he has lost his moral compass”

Narrative: McCain’s choice of Palin provides additional evidence for the theme stated above and which is outlined in the article “How to Attack John McCain – What Rove Would Do.

I’m not sure I follow. I agree that McCain is desperate to win and has lost his moral compass, but I’m not sure how picking Palin as his running mate is an example of that. Was it an ideological choice that was meant to pander to social conservatives? Yeah. Was he dumb enough to think that picking any woman, no matter how ideologically different, would attract Hillary Clinton’s former supporters? Looks like he was. But I’m not sure I see how that’s an example of McCain losing his moral compass and I think this argument, at least as applied to Palin, is a non-starter.

I think in the long run our best bet is to go after Palin on the basis that she is to the right of a lot of Republicans, including McCain himself and even George W. Bush and Dick Cheney on some issues. She’s an extremist who thinks rape victims — hypothetically including her own daughter — should be forced to carry children of rape to term, who thinks creationism should be taught with evolution in our public schools, who thinks abstinence only education is the way to go, who might think that gay marriages and civil unions should be banned by the U.S. Constitution. If we can pin her down on a war of attrition against illegal immigrants, we can use that issue too.

But I think there are quite a few arguments here that are either non-starters, risky, or downright suicidal. The experience argument — with the possible exception of foreign policy — is at best a non-starter and at worst will draw parallels between our number one and their number two. The corruption argument is so far unproven and is a non-starter that could bring up Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers again. The Miers/Goodling comparison is risky because it relies on a combination of the experience and corruption arguments. A better Miers comparison would be the “McCain thinks just the plumbing is important”/”Harriet Miers was no Sandra Day O’Connor and Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton” meme I proposed. The moral compass argument is a vague non-starter. The worst is the sexist, anti-religious argument that conflates conservatism, family values, and faith with sexism and sides with the sexists on the matter. That’s political suicide right there.

I want to point out that all the arguments Vega proposed and I rejected were character-based. They go after Sarah Palin personally. The argument I agreed with, that Palin is ideologically extreme, is about issues rather than personal attacks and character assassination. Issue-based criticism is bound to resonate better with voters than character-based vitriol, and besides that it’s the best way for us to keep saying that Obama is the real agent of change in this election while McCain and Palin are more of the same (or in Palin’s case, even worse). That’s the winning message. The rest are losers and will either have no impact with voters or, even worse, have a negative impact.

Explore posts in the same categories: American Politics, Faith & Values, Social Issues

Tags: abortion, abstinence only education, civil unions, creationism, evolution, gay marriage, illegal immigration, john mccain, sarah palin, sexism

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.