Sarah Palin and McCain's good ol' basket

Watching Sarah Palin last night, I couldn't help but wonder how her family would have been be able to afford health care had she not been governor. A child with Down Syndrome and an unemployed and pregnant 17-year old daughter, would break any middle class family.

For that, it was interesting to me that she has never broached the issue of health care. Instead, she has been using her family to prove points about abortion and conservatism, as seen by the religious right.

It became more apparent after yesterday's convention episode that McCain's choice for running mate was to appeal to the crowd that brought Bush into office. It did not matter what Palin's record was, whether or not she really fought the "big ol' boys" network, big oil companies, earmark spending, etc. All these claims are being disputed. 

Picking the Alaskan governor, to quote Karl Rove, was a "campaign decision", not a "governing decision". 

Proving this point is lack of any real information on Palin on the official McCain website. Apart from a photo, a title claiming "a fresh perspective", and a transcript of the press conference that announced her to the world (which she re-recited last night), there is little information about her or her "record".

McCain hopes the people will supply the narrative. Many will indeed, and she will surely be a polarizing but eloquent figure, proving to be a good Republican answer to Obama when it comes to presentation skills. But unfortunately for McCain, many will rely on the "elitist" and "evil" media as the Republicans like to call it, for more information about her. What I found so far isn't encouraging. Palin comes across as someone who uses her children to draw "conservative" voters, and who has extremely wild and worrying views on science and evolution. Her speech last night was mostly combative, though impressive in style. Ironically, it was her who accused her opponent of being all talk.

So what about health care?

Both Palin and Guiliani, the stars of last night's performance, failed to mention health care or McCain's health care plan. They spoke about terrorism, the need to attach "Islamic" to the term to make it sound more realistic, and McCain's courage eons ago as a soldier. McCain will fight for us, etc. But can he help pay my health care bill? I don't need a socialist solution. But what I don't appreciate is a plan that will make it worse for me.

Affording health care is one of my main concerns. My employer's justification for raising premiums every year, and making HMO plans extremely expensive for families, sounds a lot like McCain's plan to "Restore Control To The Patients Themselves." In fact, both my employer and John McCain use the same language. What this means, simply, is that patients will no longer have access to plans that pay 100% of the bill. Families have to pick plans that pay a certain percentage, and that force you to pay out of pocket until you meet a deductible. Kind of like car insurance plus you still have to fork out 20% or more of the total bill. So, if your wife has a baby, expect not being able to afford the hospital bill. If you get cancer, good luck.

Unlike Obama, who provided tons of details on this issue on his site and during his speech, McCain doesn't seem to think it's worthy of details. Obama might be taking it to the socialist extreme, but there's at least a solid plan to discuss.

I wonder if Palin's pregnant daughter will wed her presumably unemployed boyfriend AFTER giving birth. It makes sense. Let mommy take care of the bills while she's governor/running for VP.  And how will the "families of special needs children" find a friend in Washington (as she proclaimed) if they elect Palin, given what McCain is proposing?

It gets worse with McCain's plan.  His alternative to the "expensive" (wonder why!) employer-based insurance is to pay insurance companies directly through a "tax credit". So your employer is off the hook, your paycheck is the same, and your private health care provider gets richer. So no to big government, but yes to corporations feasting on my hard work and penalizing me for having children, healthy or with special needs?

I wonder if McCain, and Palin, know that doctors and hospitals in this country charge patients more than they end up getting paid by insurance companies? We, the middle class, get no "negotiated rates".

There are other issues, of course. Foreign policy might be one of them, and in the past, I have criticized Obama harshly for uneducated statements on Lebanon. Guiliani made a strong case, but he is not the VP, Palin is. And I don't buy what Cindy McCain said about Alaska's proximity to Russia making Palin experienced in national security. Like Guiliani said, we can't afford "on the job training". This applies to Palin too.

I don't know how many will be willing to forgive McCain for failing to present the people with a real governing team. We are simply being asked to place all our eggs in his good ol' basket, to wish him long life and good health (and health care), and accept Palin as a necessity to get him elected.

Comments

[Max Power]

Funny how Obama's experience and the Democrats decisions making as well as their acolytes in the media was never questioned and they ended up with the ticket they end with. Your argument would have a leg to stand on if the Dems picked a legitimate ticket themseleves. Palin's experience surpasses the experience of Obama at the top of his ticket. Obama's VP choice is suspect and worse than McCains. Other than that, you have made the argument that should of been made about Obama in the primary.

Did you really expect specifics during a convention?

Also, McCain hasn't presented his speech yet, how about you wait to bury McCain until he makes his case and launches his policies regarding whatever he's going to do.

[Jeha]

Hypocrisy is the order of the day in those things, especially on "internal" matters such as health care, neither party really has a good plan. The republicans are too close to big insurance firms to force any change on that issue. The democrats' proposals are far better than those of republicans, but they fall far short of what is really needed. Such issues will become ever more critical as genetic testing spread wider.

Maybe it is best proponents of health care reform focus first on the state level, where they reform is easier. Then again, nothing would have prevented a Democratic dominated congress congress to force the issue on the President. But they too know that any health care reform would also involve changes in the legal tort regime, but they risk losing their support among trial lawyers.

[JAS]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/03/1338894.aspx

See the Wasilla insider post ABOUT SARAH PALIN by Anita September 03, 2008 10:10 PM

[Vox P.]

A refreshing perspective !

[Doha]

AK,

I really like your argument on health care.

Listen, Republican hypocrisy with regards to family issues runs deep and I experienced it first-hand when I worked for the gov't. In a US-EU seminar on women's participation in the labor force, a conservative expert (woman) invited to speak on behalf of the Administration, criticized those who ask the gov't to enact family-friendly laws that help women re-enter the workforce after having children, such as providing quality part-time jobs, longer maternity leaves, etc.

That expert has 7 children and used herself as an example of how women can be successful in the workforce and have large families. Only that she was a White House economic advisor and she had a nanny or two to take care of her kids while she concentrated on success in her career.

For those who cannot afford nannies, don't tell me that EVERY WOMAN has not benefitted from family-friendly laws and from companies that think of creative ways to retain their female workforce.

At any rate, yesterday's speeches were empty on the economy as well.

[Caveman]

None of this speechifying is about communicating a solid plan, it's about throwing a pep rally to energize the base. The Democrats' celebrity-infused gala of fakery served the same purpose. Trying to analyze any of the tightly-scripted vacuity of convention bombast is like trying to describe the hairs on Nasrallah's beard - that is, you're wasting your time even looking at it if you don't like it already. Just stick to Lebanon and the Middle East as a subject; you'll make more sense and get fewer comments like this one.

Congratulations on becoming a U.S. citizen, by the way.

[Caveman]

None of this speechifying is about communicating a solid plan, it's about throwing a pep rally to energize the base. The Democrats' celebrity-infused gala of fakery served the same purpose. Trying to analyze any of the tightly-scripted vacuity of convention bombast is like trying to describe the hairs on Nasrallah's beard - that is, you're wasting your time even looking at it if you don't like it already. Just stick to Lebanon and the Middle East as a subject; you'll make more sense and get fewer comments like this one.

Congratulations on becoming a U.S. citizen, by the way.

[R]

disclaimer: I am not American.
request: Plz hold off the its non of you business stuff.

anti-disclaimer: If you are not lebanese,
question: then what the hell are you doing here?

now for the niceties: Nice post AK and congratulations on the citizenship and for venturing into new topics.

On to business: I don't envy the choice that pro-democracy Lebanese Americans have to make. On one hand, you want a president that can provide a modicum of support to the crap-infested March 14 movement in Lebanon - if only to keep HA at bay. Obama has tried to address that issue but is not convincing and is untested. However, come to think of it, nothing guarantees that McCain is a sure thing.

On the other hand, after 8 years of a republican presidency with (insert all the valid complaints here), its pretty clear that an alternative may not be a bad idea. Not to mention that if you are even slightly left leaning, then 4-8 more years of republican rule might be disastrous.

[Jeha]

R,

I am not too concerned about Lebanon on the medium to long term. For once, the fundamentals are on our side, and we're far stronger than we appear. However, that is not to say that the short term would not be messed up, since we lack leaders.

In the United States, I feel the optimal option is obvious.

The fact is that Congress and maybe even the Senate are likely to fall to the Democrats. I think it is best to have a president who belongs to another party, to keep extremes in check; Congress can force the issue on Healthcare, the president can push towards more school accountability and less trial lawyers, and the Senate can effectively block any clones of Scalia or Myers...

Then again, I'm only a (cynical) Lebanese who has grown to fear strong central powers.

[R]

Jeha,

Typically, I would agree with you about checks and balances, but if was American, I would give a democratic president the mandate to govern for a couple of years to reverse some of the trends that we've seen, and if I don't like what I see, vote accordingly in congres. I think right now the democrats need to be given a chance... but whats the point of hypotheticals, I am just interested in observing the process at this point...

[AK]

Caveman, welcome back. You never heard me telling you to stick to US politics whenever you offered your opinion on Lebanon or Iran. Frankly, your advice is insulting and patronizing. I am not stupid, and had you understood my point, you would have seen that I wasn't merely talking about the "speechifying" aspect of the campaigns. Your judgment disqualifies 99% of all US political blogs.

Everyone here is welcome to voice their opinions, whether they're citizens or not.

[Doha]

Caveman,

It appears in your comment as if you are the one dispensing (or bestowing) US citizenships on folks. I like your use of vocab: is this for intimidation purposes?

Plus, we don't need you to educate us on the American political system...and what political conventions are for. AK probably knows more about that system than 3/4 of those attending the RNC.

You're so extremely patronizing, it's disgusting! Stick to your own blog; it's way better for you (just so you could preserve your fragile sanity)!

[meefblog]

I didn't like that the "red meat" speeches on Wednesday night seemed to trivialize the value of legislative experience in qualifying a candidate for the presidency. Giuliani and Palin both attacked the Obama ticket for offering no executive experience. I believe Giuliani's words were, in fact. that Obama "has never led anything. Nothing. Nada."

Fine, Obama and Biden haven't served as mayor of America's most famous metropolis (NYC), or one of its most backwater towns in one of its most backwater states (Wassitcalled, AK). But instead of mucking about in local politics, which are important to the nation as a whole, they have engaged in the affairs of national government. Is presiding over a police and fire budget more important to a potential president than debating contentious issues that impact the entire country?

Aside from this substantive failure in the GOP rhetoric, they inadvertently (or shrewdly, as few seemed to notice) marginalised the professional record of their own candidate at the same time! John McCain went from naval officer to representative to senator, with no stint in between as mayor of Poedunk, AZ or governor of Arizona... so how is he free from the "taint" of Washington? Why does he get a pass, just because he bucked convention and authority on a handful of issues?

I was excited about the McCain-Feingold Act the first time around, but the version that finally became law had been gored of all its truly revolutionary value. This 2008 campaign season still saw record fundraising and spending by all the candidates. Special interest money still seeps in, so what good did McCain's most visible success really have? Sure, we get the joy of hearing "I'm so-and-so and I approved this message" every five minutes during campaign season. Joy.

I'm not anti-McCain, I'm really not. I've followed his contributions in Washington since the 1990s, when an army colleague from Arizona first turned me on to his "straight talk" approach, but this campaign has failed utterly to deliver the kind of well-articulated strategy I feel is necessary to recover from the past eight years.

[Caveman]

Doha, AK - BURN! I see the shortage of thick skins and surplus of short tempers on parade today. Sorry, I do a lot of writing in my work that has to be fairly direct in tone and purpose (due to the nature of the audience), and it has affected my tenor of late. I meant nothing personal. Anyway, I enjoy your blog, AK, because you focus on an area in which I maintain an intense personal - not professional - interest, and it surprised me that you would descend to the level of absolutely everyone else in the blogosphere and talk about American campaign issues - which, as you can probably tell, is an issue I detest in general because of the amount of white noise out there. You have demonstrated on many an occasion that you are better than that.

My comment remains, and it is what it is. Military commanders like to say that no plan survives first contact with the enemy; Presidents McCain or Obama are likely aware that neither of their promises on Convention Night were worth very much in the grand scheme of things, because the day after inauguration day the real battlefield emerges. But these things must be said, because the supporters expect something. I only intended to infer that there are better targets for analysis than this.

And I say again, congratulations on your new citizenship, which was undoubtedly not bestowed by me, or anyone who even knows me. Take care and get some rest.

[George]

Are we all aboard the USS Ship of Fools?

The first time I read this quote, I thought it was dangerously true.

Then I really started pondering it and thought how would this apply to American lives/careers? Let's look at it again to see how absurd it is.

-You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after 143 days of experience.

-You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of being a surgeon.

-You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143 days of experience.

-You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after a 143 days of experience.

-You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience.
BUT....
'From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate.
That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working.
After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of A braham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan. .....143 days?

We all have to start somewhere. The senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is - a start.

AND, strangely, a large sector of the A merican public seems to feel comfortable with this and campaigning for him.

We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet some are OK with this for the President of the United States of America ?

Come on folks, YOU are not voting for the next
American Idol.