GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin Loses the New York Times Litmus Test

by Dan Bloom

WASHINGTON,DC(RUSHPRNEWS)10/04/2008 -- The New York Times uses its unsigned editorials, which are separate from the newsroom, to discuss matters of vital importance to its readers and the nation. A team of editorial writers meets daily, and they talk about future topics to write about.

One editorial writer is assigned to write a particular piece on a specific issue, and the editorial appears the next day or a few days later as an unsigned editorial.

This is how newspapers operate. The news operations cover breaking news and trends. The editorial board writes unsigned editorials that are the voice of the paper.

So when the New York Times recently discussed the recent Biden-Palin debate, the unsigned editorial did not mince words about Ms. Palin's apparent unsuitabilty for higher office, although the paper did not criticize her current job as governor of the great state of Alaska.

She's a good governor. Loyal Alaskan. But does she have what it takes to assume the position of Vice President of the USA? And, God forbid something happens to the president during her term in office, to become the President of the USA? In these times?

Listen to what the editorial writer says. Listen carefully.

"We cannot recall when there were lower expectations for a candidate than the ones that preceded Sarah Palin's appearance in [last] Thursday night's vice-presidential debate with Joseph Biden. After a series of stumbling interviews that raised serious doubts even among conservatives about her fitness to serve as vice president, Ms. Palin had to do little more than say one or two sensible things and avoid an election-defining gaffe.By that standard, but only by that standard, the governor of Alaska did well. But Ms. Palin never really got beyond her talking points in 90 minutes, mostly repeating cliches and tired attack lines and energetically refusing to answer far too many questions."

There's more: "Senator Biden did well, avoiding one of his own infamous gaffes, while showing a clear grasp of the big picture and the details. He left Ms. Palin way behind on most issues, especially foreign policy and national security, where she just seemed lost. It was in those moments that her lack of experience - two terms as mayor of a tiny Anchorage suburb and less than two years as governor - was most painfully evident. "

The Times editorial writer then noted: "One can argue (and her supporters will) that Ms. Palin is a newcomer and can't be expected to know all of the wonkish details, that what matters is the image she projects. Except, anyone who is running for vice president in these very dangerous times needs to have detailed knowledge."

And here's the Times editorial writer's sober conclusion: "In the end, the debate did not change the essential truth of Ms. Palin's

candidacy: Mr. McCain made a wildly irresponsible choice that shattered the image he created for himself as the honest, seasoned, experienced man of principle and judgment. It was either an act of incredible cynicism or appallingly bad judgment."

As newspaper editorials go, this is one is direct and to the point.

Some readers, of course, will disagree with the Times' point of view, while others will applaud its brave stance in calling the game as it sees it. Sarah Palin is certainly a good human being and a popular governor of her sparsely-populated state, but does she have what it takes to serve as a vice president of the USA, if the ticket she is on wins the election in early November? The Times editorial writer implies she is way out of her league, and that McCain stumbled when he chose her as his running mate without ever really getting to know her beforehand.

These are dangerous times. They call out for leaders, not smiling hockey moms with folksy chatter. Sarah Palin says a lot about John McCain. He's not saying much about her anymore. Game over.

-----------------------------------