(originally published at MWC News)

Lord have mercy.

What have we done? That’s what Voodoo Christians must be asking themselves. It’s one thing to pray up a storm. It’s quite another to make God’s dart hit the bulls-eye. In case you missed it, Focus on the Family’s self-appointed prophet-jester, Stuart Shepard, released a video on or about Aug. 8, urging Christians to pray for “rain of biblical proportions” in order to drown out Barack Obama’s climactic acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. I’m not saying the Lord had other plans. But as I write this, Tropical Storm Gustav is bearing down on New Orleans, or somewhere close. It could hit Houston or Panama City, Florida. Meanwhile, dozens of counties in that land of hanging chads have been declared disaster areas, thanks to floods which drenched the entire state last week. Seems smiting folks with rain and winds “of biblical proportions” is not an exact, um… science.

The media doesn’t realize yet that it is being played.  After telling the media, over and over, that experience matters, above all, John McCain has picked a shockingly unqualified running mate with absolutely zero foreign policy experience.  So far, the media has eagerly taken the bait, gushing about the boldness of the Palin pick and exclaiming over how it energizes the base while often failing to note McCain’s hypocrisy.

The Politico briefly mentions that “serious questions remain about McCain’s pick–exactly how much he knows about her and her positions, past and present, on key issues.”  That’s the understatement of the week.  Is anyone actually planning on asking McCain some of these questions?  Here are some I’d ask McCain?

• If a Vice President Palin were called on to assume the duties of the presidency, what foreign policy experience would she draw on in dealing with situations in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, China, and elsewhere?
• How many times did you meet with Gov. Palin before you named her as your running mate?
• What makes Gov. Palin the most qualified person in the Republican party to serve as vice president? 
• What has Gov. Palin done to advance women’s rights?
• Do you, and Gov. Palin, believe that women in the United States face discrimination?  Have you discussed this with the governor, and what is your plan to combat discrimination against women?
• As a senator, what legislation have you helped enact that responds to discrimination against women?
• Does your selection of Gov. Palin give us an idea of how you would decide important issues facing you as president?

That’s just for starters.

Here we go again.  It’s Labor Day Weekend, and a major hurricane is taking aim on the Gulf Coast.  Gustav is lining up to make a direct hit on Louisiana just as Katrina did three years ago.  The forecast is so grim, the Republicans are considering postponing their convention .  Apparently, they don’t want to share media coverage with disaster victims, and they don’t want to appear insensitive and uncaring to their suffering yet again.

No matter what happens, a major hurricane making landfall just two months before the election would thrust a number of issues to the forefront - most notably climate change, oil dependence, and the need to reform government bureaucracies.  Each party would put some heavy spin on these issues in an effort to blame the other party for the costs and the destruction that are incurred.

But there is one crucial topic concerning natural disasters that no politician will touch with a ten-foot pole, especially presidential candidates that want to win Florida or any other coastal state.  This topic is the absurd fact that our government continually spends billions of billions of dollars to help rebuild areas that are almost certain to get wiped out again.

Let’s start with Florida.  In 2004, the Sunshine State endured four direct hits from hurricanes, prompting Congress to appropriate $13 billion in taxpayer money to help residents rebuild.  And it’s not like those four storms were aberrations.  In the past eight years alone, Florida has been hit by more than 50 tropical storms and hurricanes that have caused $64 billion worth of damage.  People in Florida don’t talk about “if” another hurricane is going to hit.  They talk about “when.”  And they seem stubbornly eager to pick up the pieces and rebuild time and time again - on the government’s dollar.

And then there’s New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.  I spent the summer of 2000 in the Crescent City.  Back then, residents knew that a category 4 or 5 hurricane would fill up the city like a bathtub.  And when that happened, instead of saying, “Forget this, I’m going to move somewhere safer,” they summoned their pride and their courage, and they went back and they rebuilt - with the help of $116 billion from Uncle Sam.  One can only wonder what they are thinking as they watch Gustav threatening to knock them right back to 2005, and if they’ll show the same resolve to come back and rebuild should they be wiped out again.

It’s time for the American people to ask itself some tough questions.   Should taxpayers be asked to pay for rebuilding in areas that are likely to get hit again?  Should we tell people that if you choose to live there, you do so at your own risk?  Especially in this era when the climate is changing and tropical weather is getting more intense, it’s time for us to get over the hubris that tells us that we don’t have to listen to mother nature. 

After all, with the sea level rising, we’re going to have to vacate our coastal cities anyway.

Given the weak field of Republican vice presidential candidates, it was inevitable that McCain’s final decision would raise some eyebrows. The selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin did not disappoint. It did, however, add its own twist; instead of skepticism, the brows bear the mark of confusion. The befuddlement is almost palpable.

Still, no matter how unlikely it seems at first glance, further examination clarifies, and more than redeems, the choice. This is not to say that McCain’s found a gem, or that Dems rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of a Biden/Palin debate are jumping the gun. It simply means that, unsatisfied with the contestants in its tallest midget contest, McCain & Co. went out and found a taller midget.

Before I present my case for Palin as the right choice, I suggest you read Alex Thurston’s concise and crippling look at the Mav’s other options. If you already know how poor the crop was this year, continue apace.

• The Maverick and his Wing-Woman

An effective critique against McCain this election cycle has been that he is McSame, simply a continuation of the last 8 years of failed policy. It’s effective cause it’s true, but Palin as VP somewhat mitigates the force of the argument. She is a face that is ”both fresh and fierce.” In a sense (the geographical kind) she is the ultimate Washington outsider (unless, of course, Hawaii is further — I haven’t run the numbers). She gives pundits the opportunity to paint Biden’s ample DC experience as a liability, to paint him as the insider. Sure, it’s a weak counter-attack, but Republicans have effectively used weaker material in the past.

• Got Change?

Perhaps more importantly, and more obviously, Sarah Palin breaks up Obama’s monopoly on change in this election. Whichever side gets elected, we can claim a significant step forward as a nation. Also, as Ian pointed out, Palin may shore up some of those HRC supporters who lusted after a female in the White House.

• Grounding the McCain Campaign

The McCain campaign has reveled in its down-to-earth appeal, knowing the middle-class is key to any general election. It paints Obama as the out-of-touch celebrity, McCain as the humble war hero. But, with the recent attention given to McCain’s definition of rich, his ignorance of the palaces he keeps, and the transformation of his Straight-Talk Express to the No-Talk Jet, the appeal’s been tarnished. Palin’s the perfect spit-shine; She fishes. She hunts. She started her career as a sportswriter. Her eldest son Track enlisted in the army on September 11, 2007, and, in a perfect media moment, will be deployed to Iraq on September 11, 2008. Her husband is a champion snowmobile racer, and is often referred to in Alaska as First Dude. Lastly, as an added bonus for those who are worried that McCain would lose the evangelical flock, Palin is a conservative Christian who opposes abortion.

In short, for all her inexperience, Palin brings some formidable qualities to the table. Her selection is a nod to the reality of the American electorate in some key states and, once the dust clears, I think it’ll be apparent that McCain made the best of his limited options.

Like many today I watched in semi-awe as Alaska Governor Sarah Palin graciously accepted the position of John McCain’s running mate.

Television pundits explained why the Palin “package” is so compelling to conservatives. Palin is a (very) junior Republican who has already earned herself an excellent reputation for fighting corruption, as well as an 80+% approval rating as Alaska’s governor. At 44, she is the mother of 5 children, the oldest of whom recently enlisted and will soon be deployed to Iraq. She is a lifelong NRA member, a hunter, a high school basketball champion, and a former runner up for Miss Alaska. She is vehemently pro-domestic drilling — including in ANWR — and as one pundit suggested, possesses a “keen sense of the geopolitics of energy.” Palin’s background is thoroughly middle-class, and her high-school sweetheart husband is a lifelong union member.

There can be no doubt that Palin’s selection is purely tactical — a decision based more on image and balance than on substance and qualifications. Palin’s youth, beauty, and distance from Washington were all chosen because they directly counter shortcomings of McCain. Her indisputable conservatism in areas where McCain has appeared moderate — abortion, the Second Amendment, drilling — as well as her “strength” in domestic issues, balances nicely with McCain’s flip-flopping war-focused campaign.

Perhaps most importantly, Palin’s nomination and election would be hailed as breaking down barriers. Indeed, today’s “it turns out the women of America aren’t finished” speech made clear that Palin’s job on this ticket is to recruit as many former Hillary supporters as possible.

But what was disturbing today was how clear it became that Palin’s job is not only to recruit women, but to simultaneously promote conservative notions of how women should be.

Palin is in many ways the perfect “family woman.” She has given birth to five children, and (even today, while standing next to her new running mate) publicly honors her husband as the man in this world she admires most. Putting herself in contrast to Hillary Clinton and even Michelle Obama, Palin identifies herself first as a “hockey mom” who never had any ambitions to enter professional politics. Arguably the two most important appeals of her candidacy involve her sons: Due to her oldest son’s enlistment she is soon to become the most high profile Iraq mom since Cindy Sheehan. And last year when she learned she was carrying a baby with Downs Syndrome, she elected not to have an abortion — a move that crystallized her endorsement by the Christian Coalition. Moreover, after her son’s birth this April, Palin returned to work three days later without requesting maternity leave.

For all these reasons, Palin’s selection as McCain’s VP is offensive, not only because there are far more experienced women out there who perhaps don’t “look” as good, but because her personal choices as a woman — as a wife and as a mother — are about to be scrutinized and politicized in a way that can only hurt women.

Palin’s pro-life stance combined with her personal history subtly reinforces the idea that there is no acceptable excuse for terminating a pregnancy — that education, healthcare, employment flexibility, and the presence of a reliable spouse or partner are incidental in the decision to have children, and anyway, are available to those who work for them. More specifically, it sends a message to women that if they become pregnant they should have the baby — regardless of whether they already have 4 children, regardless of whether they have a career they’d like to advance, and regardless of whether they know their baby will have Downs syndrome.

Similarly, Palin’s selection sends a disingenuous and alarming message to American mothers — that even if it puts their son or daughter in mortal, daily danger there is no reason not to support the war in Iraq; that gun control is unnecessary; and that this country makes it easy for women with five children (including a five month old) to have a successful career and even, say, run for Vice President.

I have zero doubt that Sarah Palin is an intelligent, capable woman who is truly dedicated to reforming government and eliminating corruption. I also have zero doubt that she lives the life she chooses — that there is strength and independence in her convictions on abortion, guns, and energy, that she really does see politics as public service, and that she truly loves and admires her husband and every one of her children without concern for how it makes her look.

But her profound lack of national experience serves as glaring evidence that she has not been selected for her qualifications, her courage, or her brain, but for the personal choices she has made for her family and for herself as a woman. Quite frankly, conservatives have rewarded a woman politically for deciding to keep a baby and for sending her son to Iraq. For this reason, Palin’s selection is a great disservice to women — and further evidence of how truly destructive a Republican victory will be for American women.

As Ian Fried aptly observes, John McCain has selected a running mate who is two years removed from running a town with fewer than 10,000 residents.  Sarah Palin has zero experience in foreign affairs, has been governor for a year and a half, and is just 12 years removed from the Wasilla City Council. This is simply not a serious pick, but it fits perfectly into McCain’s approach to running a presidential campaign.

Barack Obama deftly skewered McCain last night by pointing out that he makes “a big election about small things.”  That’s a good way to describe a campaign that runs commercials featuring Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.  It is the height of irony for McCain to have claimed that Obama will do anything to win the presidency: in fact, that ought to be the McCain campaign’s slogan: “anything to win”.  McCain has changed his position on everything from the Bush tax cuts to offshore drilling and the religious right.  Was it Howard Dean who recently observed that the McCain of 2000 wouldn’t vote for the McCain of 2008?  Whoever said it, it is on the money.

McCain has said that we are in the fight of our life against Islamic terrorism, that the stakes have never been higher, but he chose someone who is clearly not the most qualified candidate to be his running mate.  Does he really expect Americans to believe that Palin would be the best person to deal with Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, the health care crisis, and the economy, should the circumstances require?  Is Palin the person best capable of keeping the country safe, if she is required to take the reins.  Of course not–it would probably be difficult even to find many Republicans willing to argue this.  This choice is not about governing, it’s not about picking the best qualified candidate.  It’s about smoke and mirrors, somehow trying to convince women that they ought to vote for McCain because he has a woman on his ticket, no matter what her qualifications or her views, trying to place a shiny object in front of the media that will distract them from a gaffe-free, brilliantly executed Democratic national convention.  To say that McCain’s approach is condescending barely scratches the surface.

McCain’s campaign is premised on his love of country, his supposed ability to put country first.  But how could someone who really puts America first be willing to take the chance that the nation’s security will be in the hands of someone who, just two years ago, was responsible for managing a small town?

McCain’s selection of Palin is about one thing, and one thing only: a calculation that the selection will help him win an election.  I believe and hope that calculation is wrong, but the fact that McCain made this decision, the mos important decision a presidential candidate can make, so cavalierly, so crassly, tells us more about McCain than anything else we knew before.

Before her role in fighting terrorism in Alaska as the current Governor, Sarah Palin served on the Wasilla City Council and then spent two terms as Mayor/Manager of Wasilla, Alaska. Not once during her service were the 5500 residents of Wasilla attacked by terrorists.  Since assuming the office of Alaska’s Governor almost twenty months ago, again no terror attacks have taken place in the state.  And in geographic size, it is a very big state. For this accomplishment she is clearly ready to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency.

But seriously now, with today being McCain’s 72nd birthday, and with his history with cancer, it is fair to consider whether a candidate for Vice-President would be ready to assume the the presidency should something tragic occur. In her remarks this morning introducing herself to the country as McCain’s Vice-Presidential pick, Palin emphasized her role in fighting corruption, as a reformer, and in taking on the “good ol’ boys” network. That’s all well and good, but fighting corruption in Alaska (population 670,053) is a lot different than tackling it in the United States overall (population 299,398,484).  But if Rudy Giuliani believes that you can’t be President without executive experience, then with her 20 months as Governor, he must believe she is more qualified for the Presidency than McCain.

As David Gergen said on CNN this morning — if McCain claims that the most important issue and challenge facing the next President is the fight against global terrorism, then this pick makes no sense. This pick takes the experience issue out of play for McCain, though he may not “get it” yet. And in the Vice Presidential debate with Joe Biden, we can guess who is going to come across as more ready to tackle foreign policy issues.

The choice of Palin is transparently an aggressive grab for the disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporter. And it may work with a few of them.  Palin herself, in her remarks in Dayton, mentioned the “18 million cracks in the glass ceiling” that Hillary Clinton made with the number of votes she received. But will those Hillary supporters be swayed when they learn of Palin’s staunch anti-choice record? Or her unwavering support for personal gun rights and against most gun control? Or that while running for Governor she supported the teaching of creationism in public schools? Hard to say.

The dynamics of the race now favor Barack Obama and Joe Biden.  Last night’s acceptance speech was glorious in tone and presentation.  Obama took John McCain on when it comes to national security issues, and said

If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament and judgment to serve as the next commander-in-chief, that’s a debate I’m ready to have.

With the selection of Sarah Palin, McCain may have decided he doesn’t want that debate.

UPDATE: The Obama campaign spokesman, Bil Burton, on the Sarah Palin pick:

“Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush’s failed economic policies — that’s not the change we need, it’s just more of the same.”

Today, August 29th, John McCain is celebrating his 72nd birthday by announcing his VP pick, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. In 2007 he similarly deflected from his annual age increase by officially announcing his bid for president, done via The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. 

Other past celebrations include the festive 2005 pastry-op with President Bush shown above (taken as New Orleans was getting Katrina’d) and a 2006 celebration spent on the yacht of Russian aluminum tycoon and Putin-ally Oleg Deripaska.

We at The Seminal wish the old warhorse a happy day.

Dems picked the right candidate. Nuff said.

The story broken by Dallas Morning News has gotten a lot of attention today. Here’s what others have been saying.

CNN:

A health care policy adviser for the McCain campaign told a newspaper reporter that nobody in the United States is technically uninsured, because everyone has access to hospital emergency rooms.

Think Progress:

Goodman’s analysis reflects a radical view of the state of health care in this country. Uninsured Americans are less likely to seek health care and more likely to die because of a lack of insurance. A 2002 Institute of Medicine Report estimated 18,000 unnecessary adult deaths because of a lack of insurance. The Urban Institute estimated that 22,000 died in 2006 for the same reason. Goodman apparently thinks they were “effectively insured.”

Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic:

Voila indeed. And why stop with health care? Imagine how easily we could solve poverty if we simply stopped measuring income and wealth. And global warming? Pshaw. Just stop measuring atmospheric pollutants and temperature. Really, the possibilities are endless.

and more from Cohn:

Remember, the McCain campaign would offer tax incentives that favor bare-bones coverage; it would also gut state regulations that mandate all insurers cover certain benefits. Most important, perhaps, it’s likely that the McCain health plan would lead many people with employer-sponsored insurance to give up or lose that coverage. While many people would also get new coverage on their own, through the individual market, the benefits would be skimpier–and they would be available only to relatively healthy people, since insurers screen for pre-existing medical conditions when they sell policies individually.

Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly:

This nonsense is surprisingly common in Republican circles. Last year, Tom DeLay argued, “[N]o American is denied health care in America,” because everyone can go to the emergency room. Around the same time, George W. Bush said the same thing: “[P]eople have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room.” In 2004, then-HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson said our healthcare system “could be defined as universal coverage,” because of emergency rooms.

Kevin Drum at Mother Jones:

This is, obviously, idiotic — though in an almost charming, movement conservative Tourette’s sort of way — but one wonders who Goodman thinks is going to be the payer of last resort for non-emergency care? Santa Claus?

Ezra Klein:

This is what we call a Kinsleyan gaffe: A mistake that reveals the truth. John McCain’s health care plan is, by the admission of his own advisers, not particularly interested in the problem of the uninsured. It doesn’t try and cover them or address their plight, and for a very simple reason: Conservatives in general are not interested in the problem of the uninsured. And why should they be? Health care is a market good, and not everyone can afford every market good, and if you distort the market thus to ensure universal access, you’ll probably do more harm than good. There’s even an “Anti-Universal Coverage Club” over at Cato for conservative brave enough to admit this truth. “To achieve ‘universal coverage,’” they say, “would require either having the government provide health insurance to everyone or forcing everyone to buy it. Government provision is undesirable, because government does a poor job of improving quality or efficiency. Forcing people to get insurance would lead to a worse health-care system for everyone, because it would necessitate so much more government intervention. In a free country, people should have the right to refuse health insurance.

Greg Sargent at Talking Points Memo:

The problem with this analysis, according to an expert quoted in the article, is that people without insurance are less likely to seek non-emergency-room care, which ultimately drives up the cost to the health care system.

Chris Bowers at Open Left:

Even though tonight is Obama’s big speech, it is time for progressives to ramp up another media narrative on John McCain. Check out his health care plan.

Diane Sweet at the Michigan Messenger:

Aside from trying to hide the plight of the uninsured from public view, Mr. Goodman’s stroke of genius is based on — apparently — not fully understanding federal emergency room regulations. The federal law passed in 1986 to prohibit ‘patient dumping’ gives everyone the right to emergency care, regardless of ability to pay. However, if you are not having an ‘emergency,’ they do not have to treat you. They may well refer you to a family doctor (something the uninsured often don’t have) or a community health care clinic or ‘urgent’ care center.

Once again, why would anyone actually listen to John Goodman’s advice on health care?

UPDATE:

Joe Klein at Time, too:

One of John McCain’s health care advisers has proposed a novel solution to the nation’s health insurance problems: stop counting those who don’t have health insurance, since anyone can get health care if they go to an emergency room. Therefore…everybody’s covered. To which one can only say: huh?

and the AFL-CIO:

Indeed, emergency rooms might see a lot more traffic under McCain’s health care proposal, as millions could be pushed out of employer-provided care and left at the mercy of the private market with high co-pays and a shameful lack of consumer protections. McCain’s plan would also tax the health care benefits workers get on the job. This all might be great for the insurance industry and its lobbyists, but it’s a terrible deal for working families.

(also on the NOW! blog)