Palin chosen for bad reasons

John Gazewood Albemarle County
Published: September 13, 2008

There are three messages we can learn from John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate.

First, he will run as a reform candidate. This is a hard sell, since during McCain’s tenure in a Republican-controlled Congress his party raised influence-peddling to new heights and his top campaign advisors are former lobbyists. Plus, McCain has voted with President Bush at least 90 percent of the time. Gov. Palin, as a fresh face, seems a perfect fit for this reform ticket, except the facts don’t support the reformer image.

Despite her statements to the contrary, she initially supported the Bridge to Nowhere and took the $223 million designated to Alaska for that project, hired a lobbyist to get federal earmarks when she was mayor and is now stonewalling a bipartisan investigation into charges that she abused her office for personal reasons.

Second, this was John McCain’s first executive decision. It was made at the last minute, with one face-to-face interview and minimal vetting, resulting in the selection of what presidential scholars have described as the least-qualified candidate to run on a major party ticket in the modern era. This shows us how John McCain would respond under stress — rashly, making decisions based on gut instinct rather than calm and cool consideration. We have had eight years of reckless decision-making; we don’t need another four more.

Finally, this decision shows that John McCain will do anything to win. There are many Republicans better qualified than Gov. Palin to be vice president. She does, however, serve to solidify his base, and potentially broaden his appeal. In short, it was a decision based on partisan politics, to help him win election. For this purpose, he has given us the most unqualified vice presidential candidate in modern history, one who, if elected, would be a heartbeat away from the presidency. He is gambling with our future so that he can win. Why should we believe that slogan, “Country First”?