Not an impulse pick, honest

By BJ

Earlier today the Washington Post put out a story quoting some folks from the McCain campaign claiming that Palin had been thoroughly vetted by the campaign and was not in fact a impulse, spur-of-the-moment choice.

Well, whoever was doing the vetting certainly didn't turn over all the stones, so to speak.

On Saturday, a Democrat tasked with opposition research contacted the Huffington Post with this piece of information: as of this weekend, the McCain campaign had not gone through old newspaper articles from the Valley Frontiersman, Palin's hometown newspaper.

How does he know? The paper's (massive) archives are not online. And when he went to research past content, he was told he was the first to inquire.

"No one else had requested access before," said the source. "It's unbelievable. We were the only people to do that, which means the McCain camp didn't."

Add to that, this little nugget.

The campaign of John McCain has sent a staff of eight people into Alaska to conduct background checks and vetting on Governor Sarah Palin.

Word is they have have eight rooms reserved at a Wasilla hotel.

On the bright side, I can't wait to see the partisan faithful come up with excuses for why careful, considered vetting of a VP candidate is no longer important. Their flip-flop on the experience question came fast enough to cause whiplash, not to mention saying something else about them and McCain.

We all know that modern political campaigns choose their issues from the cafeteria line, after market-testing them, and then having them professionally framed. Rarely, though, are we offered such a clear and unarguable example. How could anyone truly believe that Barack Obama's background and job history are inadequate experience for a president, and simultaneously believe that Sarah Palin's background and job history are perfectly adequate? It's possible to believe one or the other. But both? Simply not possible. John McCain has been—what's the word?—lying. And so have all the pundits who rushed to defend McCain's choice.

Comments

[smintheus]

The lack of vetting is becoming more and more apparent. As I say in a post at unbossed.com, the question we ought to keep hammering home is: What does this tell us about how McCain would manage the presidency?

I'm afraid, instead, what we'll get is endless and unproductive speculation on blogs and in the trad media about whether Palin will step aside.

[Reality Fungus]

You're complaining of lack of vetting?

Who was the idiot in charge of vetting Joe Biden, the guy who made sure the interests of the credit card companies were given priority over the interests of the citizens whom the new bankruptcy laws were supposed to protect?

Do you think that might have something to do with the fact that Biden's son was a lobbyist for MBNA, the nation's largest credit card issuer?

Do you think the fact that Brack Obama received money from Biden's son (so much for 'no more business as usual) played no role in Joe Biden's selection?

Don't you think that Biden should have recused himself (if there was no connection) from the position of VP so as to avoid the appearance of impropriety?

What do you think that says about Obama and the vetting process?

Glass houses, you know?

[BJ Bjornson]

Fungus, Biden's problems were and are well-known. None of the candidates for VP on either side are perfect, all bring their unique problems. There is still nothing in Obama's choosing of Biden that doesn't show considerable forethought and acceptance of what he brings to the ticket, both good and bad.

For McCain to only now show the kind of interest in digging into his VP choice's background, shows he didn't make the kind of considered decision he should have. It's an appalling lack of judgement on McCain's part.

[smintheus]

Perhaps the height of absurdity came yesterday in an interview with Chris Wallace, in which McCain said he'd been following Palin's political career as a reformer "for many, many years". She's been governor for all of 20 months.

[Reality Fungus]

"For McCain to only now show the kind of interest in digging into his VP choice's background..."

Based on what evidence do you make that remark? How do you know that McCain is only now digging into his VP's past? Based on an anonymous blog rumors?

Further, chances are the candidate shared more secrets with the McCain people than they did with WAPO- a paper that employs only stringers in Alaska.

If you're looking to establish a credible reputation, you are sure going about it the wrong way.

[BJ Bjornson]

Fungus,

Thanks for proving that you didn’t even read the post. The WaPo didn’t make the claim that McCain didn’t vet the candidate. If you bother to actually read the post, you’ll note that the WaPo is the one carrying the story that he did. And, as you say, they don’t exactly have people on the ground in Alaska.

Now, the people on the ground in Alaska, on the other hand, are the ones reporting that the McCain campaign is suddenly deciding it needs to do some research.

Further, regarding the Palin telling McCain more than they told the media, the whole point of vetting a candidate is to check out their stories, because as John Edwards most recently proved, taking a politician at their word is a good way to find yourself being blindsided.