Wednesday, September 03, 2008
The New York Times forgets about search engines, again
While we're waitin' for Palin, feast your eyes on the words of the editors of the New York Times in 1984 on the nomination of Geraldine Ferraro:
Where is it written that only senators are qualified to become President? Surely Ronald Reagan does not subscribe to that maxim. Or where is it written that mere representatives aren't qualified, like Geraldine Ferraro of Queens? Representative Morris Udall, who lost New Hampshire to Jimmy Carter by a hair in 1976, must surely disagree. So must a longtime Michigan Congressman named Gerald Ford. Where is it written that governors and mayors, like Dianne Feinstein of San Francisco, are too local, too provincial? That didn't stop Richard Nixon from picking Spiro Agnew, a suburban politician who became Governor of Maryland. Remember the main foreign affairs credential of Georgia's Governor Carter: He was a member of the Trilateral Commission. Presidential candidates have always chosen their running mates for reasons of practical demography, not idealized democracy. One might even say demography is destiny: this candidate was chosen because he could deliver Texas, that one because he personified rectitude, that one because he appealed to the other wing of the party. On occasion, Americans find it necessary to rationalize this rough-and-ready process. What a splendid system, we say to ourselves, that takes little-known men, tests them in high office and permits them to grow into statesmen. This rationale may even be right, but then let it also be fair. Why shouldn't a little-known woman have the same opportunity to grow? We may even be gradually elevating our standards for choosing Vice Presidential candidates. But that should be done fairly, also. Meanwhile, the indispensable credential for a Woman Who is the same as for a Man Who - one who helps the ticket.
Remarkably solid reasoning, coming as it does from the editors of the Times.
This argument over Sarah Palin's experience is totally disingenuous, partisan from some -- the Times, to be sure -- and rank sexism from others. By the standards of history, she is equally as fit for the job of vice president as numerous of her predecessors on national tickets of both parties. The standard now put forth by the press -- "is Sarah Palin the most qualified?" -- has never been the basis on which running mates are selected, and never will be again. It is a standard that has been engineered for the instant case for one purpose only: to advance the electoral prospects of Barack Obama. You know it, and -- worst of all -- they know it.
CWCID: Andy McCarthy, via Glenn Reynolds.
2 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Sep 04, 01:21:00 AM:
Of the fifteen US Senators who became President, there is only one whose resume included none of the following: military, US vice president,US cabinet, state governor, US House of Representatives.That would be Warren Harding.
(If one excludes House of representatives from the metric, you still come up with only Harding.)
That experience also describes Senator Obama.
Not illustrious company for Senator Obama.
Sources: link above + Wikipedia.
By 
John Thacker, at
Thu Sep 04, 01:29:00 AM:
We may even be gradually elevating our standards for choosing Vice Presidential candidates.
I believe that this would be the only riposte that they could fairly offer. VPs Gore and Cheney have simply elevated the standards for choosing a Vice Presidential candidate. Cheney is the model now, apparently.
