attacks

The Republican party has gotten very good at attacking Barack Obama. When the election season began, he was regarded as a political god—Oprah called him “the One,” young people flocked to his rallies, and Obama managed to defeat the powerful Clinton family with just a smile and a speech.

 

Since then, the Republicans have changed all that. They have not been kind to Obama—McCain has released some blistering anti-Obama ads, the conservative media has expertly punctured Obama’s change rhetoric, and the Republican National Convention has been all about bashing Obama. One line of conservative attack attempts to portray Obama as a messianic, inexperienced celebrity. This is perfectly acceptable—one can disagree with it (I don’t), but it is based on fact. Another line tries to paint Obama as an elitist un-American. This isn’t acceptable.

 

I have always thought that the elitist label, as applied to Barack Obama was a) unfair, and b) irrelevant. The charge seems to rest on only a few Obama statements: there was the “have you seen the price of arugula at Whole Foods” line delivered in Iowa (a state without a single Whole Foods store), and the “bitter/clinging” controversy. To be honest, I can’t get too excited over the “arugula” line—Obama has money, and criticizing him because he buys expensive food is seems dangerously close to class warfare.

 

As for the “bitter” line (summarized: bitter Americans cling to guns and religion), it was monumentally stupid, but not beyond the pale. It is basically a standard Democrat talking point—conservative Americans are uneducated rubes. An unfair assessment, to be sure, but hardly something unusual.

 

 I happen to agree that many Americans are bitter, but rather than clinging to guns or religion, I think that most clinging Americans cling to protectionism or “change.” These statements are not proof of some overriding elitism on the part of Barack Obama.

 

And even if they were, is elitism such a bad thing? Both John McCain and Barack Obama are probably far smarter than most Americans. (Disagree? Remember, one out of four Americans can’t identify the United States on a map). Why must they pretend to be regular Joes who just happen to be running for president? John McCain is rich, and Barack Obama graduated from Harvard. Both candidates should be proud of these things, not smeared as elitists for them.

 

Some would argue that Obama’s (or McCain’s, depending on who’s making the argument) elitism ensures that he cannot appreciate the struggles of ordinary Americans. No presidential candidate can, since no presidential candidate can be an ordinary American. Presidential candidates are, almost by definition, wildly successful and rich men. The better candidate is the more competent one, not the one who can better fake being “in touch” with ordinary Americans.

 

A far more insidious charge, in my mind, is the accusation of un-Americanism. Obama is a poor presidential candidate—but his life story cannot be described as anything other than inspiring. He did what conservatives have spent decades advising minorities to do—he worked hard, got through college, and became a successful man. And this despite being born into an extremely difficult situation—a man caught between two races, two countries (remember, Obama spent much of his childhood in Indonesia), and two families. It would be a tough situation for anyone to overcome—yet Obama overcame it, and flourished.

 

He has carved out a good career in politics, written two books (okay, they were both memoirs; maybe he’s a little self-centered, but still, that’s more books than most people have written), raised a beautiful family, and provided all Americans with an inspirational story of determination. Obama’s life is far from un-American; on the contrary, it is a quintessential American success story.

 

Barack Obama is the enemy—but conservatives should ensure that their attacks on him are ethical. John McCain says that it is better to lose an election than to lose a war—and perhaps is also better to lose an election than to unfairly smear a candidate. There are more than enough legitimate arguments against Barack Obama to win the election.

On Friday, John McCain introduced Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Palin was (and is) relatively unknown, and no one could know which lines of attack the Left would use against her. Four days later, though, we know how the Democrats plan on attacking Palin—and their attacks happen to be very weak. 

 

There are three Democrat attacks against Palin: the criticisms of her maternal life, the inexperience charge, and “Troopergate.”

 

Complaints about Palin’s maternal skills center around the pregnancy of her teenage daughter Bristol. This is a particularly despicable tactic—the private life of Palin’s daughter can have no possible bearing on the campaign. These smears are wholly irrelevant, and there is really nothing else to say about them.

 

Another facet of the “bad mother” smear is the notion that Palin shouldn’t accept the nomination in order to preserve the privacy of her pregnant daughter. But by that logic, any candidate with a family shouldn’t be involved in politics. Attention comes with the territory—it is unfortunate, but the truth. And the notion that Palin can’t take care of her children while running, as some have charged, is just silly.

 

The inexperience argument is a bit more nuanced. I’m not sure that anyone could argue that Palin is very experienced—ten years as mayor of a small city and less than two years as governor do not make for a very seasoned candidate.

 

On the other hand, she is probably more experienced than Obama is. She has been in elected office longer—she began her time as mayor of Wasilla a year before Obama became a State Senator. And while mayor of Wasilla is only a part time job, it involves more governing than serving as a State Senator—which is also a part time job.

 

Apparently, everyone has forgotten about Palin’s service in the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which she chaired from 2003-2004. It is responsible for overseeing oil and gas drilling and production in Alaska, and her work in this organization ensures that she is familiar with every detail of energy production in Alaska. She is an expert on oil drilling (at least as it relates to Alaska), a fact that cannot be repeated too often.

 

And Palin’s Alaska governorship experience is much greater than Obama’s Senate experience. Obama has spent nearly half of his Senate time running for President, while Palin has had to actually spend time governing in Alaska. Palin has more executive experience than anyone else on either ticket—and the presidency is in the executive branch.

 

Of course, it isn’t hard to be more experienced than Barack Obama, and having more experience than Obama isn’t exactly an automatic qualification for the presidency. So is Palin qualified? Yes, but just barely. She has much more executive experience than any other candidate running. Granted, she is simply the best of a bad lot in that regard, but the fact remains that she is still the best. And her governorship of Alaska, while brief, was effective—her approval ratings hovered in the eighties. Palin is not the most experienced candidate ever, and she would be much better with a little experience—but she is (barely) experienced enough.

 

“Troopergate” probably could do the most damage to Palin if it pans out—but it is a long shot. Apparently, Palin wanted Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan to fire her former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, which he refused to do. Later, Palin fired Monegan. Monegan claims that he was relieved because he wouldn’t fire Wooten. Palin denies this. (More on this story, though there isn’t much more, here).

 

Not a terribly damning story for Palin, and this story probably won’t go anywhere. Using this lame “controversy” as an attack, as many Democrats have done, is a sign of desperation.

 

Democrats have three avenues of attack against Sarah Palin. One is offensively irreverent (the Bristol pregnancy), one is a legitimate if flawed criticism (experience), and one is simply grasping at straws (Troopergate). Liberals can’t seem to find a reasonable narrative against Palin—a sign that she was a strong pick for McCain.