In my line of work, I deal with a lot of liars. Some professional, some amateurs. Some lie out of necessity, like the defendant who simply can't admit they were wrong, and some lie as a matter of course, like the lawyers with whom everything must be in writing. There's one thing they all have in common:
If you see a dirty trick work, you will see it used again.
And so it has come to pass that the political machine Karl Rove built has found itself in a tight spot and nominated a thinly-qualified women with no national reputation to one of the most important positions in government, a nomination that, for the moment, has blunted surging liberal momentum, shored up conservative base support, and changed the terms of a debate the Rove machine was losing.
Last time, it was Harriet Miers, who turned the Supreme Court nomination process on its head; before her, Bush was a below-50%-approval President with a Senate margin too thin to overcome a filibuster who was being pressured to replace the first woman on the Supreme Court, a moderate Republican, with another moderate, preferrably a woman. The ranking Democrat and Republican on the Judiciary Committee both recommended the nominee be pulled from outside the federal appellate courts, which had been packed for decades by conservative judicial activists.
She had no national reputation, no experience as a judge, and failed to complete the basic Judiciary Committee questionaire. Once nominated, there was never any serious effort to get her confirmed by the Senate. But by the end of the fiasco, the gender discussion had been completely reversed, with Laura Bush chiming in that Miers was the victim of sexism. Just as importantly, she was an evangelical who was expressly promised to the right wing to be for overturning Roe v. Wade, receiving prompt support from right-wing kingmakers like Dobson. Most importantly, by the time her nomination was withdrawn, the debate had moved from gender and politics to a single issue: experience.
Completely contrary to the initial requirements of all the power players -- including Specter, Leahy, and Clinton -- Miers was replaced by Samuel Alito, an appellate judge with a proven track record of conservative judicial activism considered unacceptable by most Democrats in the Senate. It didn't matter: a Democratic filibuster was thwarted by the Gang of 14 (including John McCain), and Alito was confirmed with a margin below that needed to thwart the filibuster.
It was, in retrospect, an impressive play: with essentially no political capital available, Karl Rove had replaced a moderate female justice with a right-wing activist male justice by changing the debate to remove the essential terms (female moderate from outside the federal appellate courts).
And so they came to mid-August 2008, when Obama had locked up the nomination, Hillary Clinton had started vigorously promoting Democratic unity, and McCain had become terminally locked 5-7 points behind and slipping, despite endless attacks on everything from Obama's religion to his patriotism. In a time when the vast majority of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, McCain's policies are effectively the same as those of the least-liked President since polling began in 1938 and his primary position is the indefinite extension of an deeply unpopular war.
To top everything off, McCain's party is slowly splintering between business-minded, pro-choice 'Rockefeller' Republicans wary of poor economic stewardship and social-activist, anti-choice evangelicals who deeply distrust McCain. A rightwing VP would shore up the base, but would probably lose just as many centrist and independent voters; a moderate VP would shore up McCain's lingering reputation as an independent, but completely alienate a base tired of years of more promises than action. 'The center cannot hold.'
There's ample conservative and liberal analysis out there that the Palin pick was "bold" or a "risk" or a "gambit" or an "act of desperation," depending on your affiliation. But one question has been unanswered: why would McCain disregard the advice of Karl Rove and pick, without any vetting, a candidate with extensive baggage due to be revealed just before the election?
Because McCain's bold or reckless or mavericky? No.
McCain fired Weaver, his longtime strategist, and replaced him with Schmidt, a Rove protege, for a reason: to have access to every underhanded play in the book, to do anything to win. The Rove machine was hired to think big.
And here's the big answer: Palin, like Harriet Miers, has a limited purpose. She's not the real candidate. She's there to change the terms of the debate.
Like with Miers, very few people have come out in favor of her as an actual Vice President (here are supportive conservatives nonetheless calling her "totally unqualified"). She never expressed any real interest in governance or foreign policy until a week ago. But that's not what she's there to do.
Like with Miers, the debate has changed. McCain blunted the media momentum of a speech considered among the finest of any convention, watched by 15% of America, more people than the Olympic opening or the American Idol finale. He shored up support with a conservative base that, for whatever reason, hates and distrusts him (bringing Dobson back in the fold and $7 million overnight in the process), turned the "historic campaign" theme on its head, and shined a new light on Obama's biggest weakness, that he's the most inexperienced Presidential candidate since Lincoln (which, frankly, shows how "experience" isn't everything it's cracked up to be).
But, like Miers, few think she could prevail in the end, and polls have already found her a potential liability. The combination of being inexperienced, unknown, female, and holding extreme political positions looks like it's simply too much for people to swallow. And that's okay:
She'll be gone before the election, replaced by someone with a national reputation, with more experience, who will immediately receive favorable media treatment.
It's too early to speculate on who that might be -- the decision will be electoral, based on who best improves McCain's chances at the time. Keep in mind, base voters tend to be fired up in advance, while swing voters leave their decision until the time of the election. Now that the base has been reassured and the opposition ensnared with the bait, I see two possibilities just before the election:
- a switch to a political moderate who, on position alone, can pull moderates and independents in swing states;
- a switch to a well-liked conservative who will have the benefit of entering the election with minimal time for either the opposition to mount an attack or the media to scrutinize.
Tom Ridge (pro-choice, Pennsylvania) would fit the former, Mike Huckabee (evangelical, well-liked) the latter. Given the context, and the crowd we're dealing with, I'm leaning towards the latter.
The best defense in these situations is a strong offense. To me, it seems the Obama campaign should have two goals now:
- Creating a reigning storyline now that McCain's choice of Palin reflects the clearest exercise of his judgment to date. If she falls because he was too rash or didn't do enough investigation, he should take the blame.
- Making the campaign about the issues and about John McCain. McCain has been blatantly "lying" about Obama's policies and about Palin's past positions. It's an easy opportunity to prevent McCain from touting his old "straight talk" reputation, weakening his support among swing voters.
Will their gambit work? I don't know. I do know that, if it does, it'll be shame on us.
Posted on September 2, 2008 by Maxwell Kennerly
