Read to Take Over?

Abboud begins his post by noting the constitutional responsibilities of the Vice-President are to assume the Presidency if the President is unable to perform the duties of the office, and to cast tie-breaking votes in the Senate. He also highlights the following quote by McCain earlier this year:

The fundamental principle behind any selection of a running mate would be whether that person is fully prepared to take over, and shares your values, your principles, your philosophy and your priorities,” he said. “I think that’s the first and only real criteria for the selection of a running mate.

I agree with Abboud that these are the correct markers by which to asses her suitability to be President.

Record

The first of Abboud's arguments centres around Governor Palin's supposed lack of experience:

she has the thinnest resume of anyone to appear on a major presidential ticket since Jimmy Carter

This argument begs the question of what is the necessary experience to be President. To benchmark, Palin has been in politics since 1992, having served 4 years on a town council, 6 years as mayor, 1 year on a state regulatory commission, and 2 years as Governor. To find the magic line where one has adequate experience, compare, let us consider others who were considered for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency this election cycle.

• Barack Obama has been in politics since 1996, serving 8 years in the state senate, and then 2 years in the federal senate before embarking on his presidential campaign (he now has 4 years in the Senate).
• Hillary Clinton had served in elected politics for 6 years before running for President (she's served close to 8 now).
• Kathleen Sebelius was a serious choice for Vice-President having served 8 years in a state legislature, 8 years as state insurance commissioner, and 6 years as Governor.
• Mark Warner was considered a credible candidate for President and for Vice-President (before saying he did not want to be considered) and has served only 4 years as governor.
• Mitt Romney was considered a credible choice for President and for Vice-President and has served only 4 years as governor.
• Tim Kaine was considered a credible choice for Vice-President despite having served only 3 years as governor and 4 years as Mayor before that (a very similar resume to Governor Palin).

In terms of quantity of government service, Governor Palin falls in the middle of this pack, and ahead of Obama.

But perhaps we should consider quality? Fine, let us consider executive experience. Palin has 9 years of executive experience. Obama and Clinton have none. Sebelius has 14 years. Kaine has 7 years. And Warner and Romney a mere 4 years. Even John McCain has none. If we're looking at years of executive experience, Palin is in the middle of the pack again, and better than any of the other national ticket candidates, Obama, McCain, or Biden.

You could split hairs and argue that Warner and Romney have executive experience outside of government, but then Palin runs a commercial fishing business too. Or you could argue that being Governor is most similar to being President, but in that case, Palin's 2 years isn't much less than Kaine's 3 years, or Romey's and Warner's 4 years, and it's still more than Clinton, Obama, McCain, or Biden.

Maybe we should argue as David Frum does that fancy titles and positions don't matter, but achievements are what shows real experience:

Can we conservatives please stop kidding ourselves about Barack Obama's "qualifications"? Yes, if I had been a Democratic donor back in 2006, I'd sure worry about whether Barack Obama had what it took to be president. That was before he took on the toughest political operation in America, before he beat Bill and Hillary Clinton, before he won 18 million primary votes.

Obama's nomination was not handed to him. He fought hard for it and won against the odds. "Qualifications" predict achievement. Once you have achieved, it doesn't matter what your qualifications are. Who cares whether the guy who built a big company from nothing didn't have much of a resume when he started? But if you are applying to run a big company built by somebody else, the resume matters ...

Ok, fine. Palin has challenged entrenched and powerful superiors (her mentor on town council, the incumbent mayor, the state party chairman, the attorney-general, the incumbent governor of her own party) and every time has succeeded from a position of political weakness but ethical high ground. As mayor, she successfully cut taxes and managed to be elected the president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. As Governor, she's paved the way for new pipeline development, introduced new laws on ethics, and forced oil companies to accept new taxes. The other politicians I have listed above all have their share of achievements as well. I could list everyone's achievements, but to my impression, Palin's achievements in her short time in office are not out of line with the other candidates.

One can argue that Palin has governed smaller populations and find other qualifications to discount her experience. But all this is splitting hairs many times over. The simple fact is that in terms of quantity, quality, or achievements, Palin has a resume that's not out of line of what the other candidates who are widely accepted as credible Presidents have. At worst, she isn't far off someone like Tim Kaine.

Foreign Policy Experience

This brings us to the second part of Abboud's argument: that Palin lacks foreign policy experience. This is true. She has never conducted any significant amount of foreign policy. But then John McCain has never conducted foreign policy either and he's seen as a strong leader on national security issues. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Mark Warner, Mitt Romney, Kathleen Sebelius, Tim Kaine—none of them has conducted foreign policy. It's difficult to hold this against Palin, considering.

What Abboud probably wants to point out is that we have no evidence that she knows much about foreign policy. As he writes,

With most politicians who lack conventional experience, we at least have a record of them giving serious thought and having serious conversations with serious people about the issues of the day.

Sure. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because she hasn't spoken in detail about these (largely because it hasn't been part of her job to comment on them), it does not mean she doesn't have understanding and competence in the issues. She may not have dealt with them as much as a Biden or a McCain who've served on major foreign affairs committees, but neither had Romney, Huckabee, Bayh, Warner, or Kaine. Once they became national candidates, we learnt their positions (and in the case of Bayh, Warner, and Kaine, we still don't know—they only spoke of Obama's or Clinton's positions; never their own). I don't think we can hold Palin at fault for not having said much about foreign policy to date. Certainly, we can't assume anything about her competence on the issues. The only people who are likely to know are McCain and his vice-presidential nominee selection team. Until we have more information, we have to assume the knew what they were doing.

In summary, on the questions of political experience and foreign policy knowledge, Palin does not seem significantly worse, if at all worse, than others who've been considered for Vice-Presdent or President. While we certainly can't be sure she'd make a competent President or a good Commander-in-Chief, we really can't do much more for Obama, Biden, or McCain. If anything, she has a record of running governments successfully while Obama and Biden have no executive experience at all, and McCain's only executive experience is commanding a training and maintenance air squadron of the Navy over three decades ago which isn't clearly transferable experience. I don't think Palin's fitness to run the federal government is obviously worse than the other three national ticket candidates.

What Does the VP Pick Show About the Candidate?

Abboud argues that McCain's pick is a political choice rather than one that's appropriate for the role of the Vice-President. Instead of choosing Palin, Abboud argues

McCain could have made a daring choice. He could have defied his base and chose a pro-choice VP with national security credentials - former homeland security director Tom Ridge or Connecticut Senator Joe Liebermann, both of whom were rumoured to be on the short list.

I'm not sure what "a daring choice" has to do with Abboud's two stated criteria for a Vice-President selection: competence to assume the Presidency, and sharing the values, principles, philosophy, and priorities of the Presidential candidate. As a pro-life Senator, choosing a pro-choice candidate would run against the values, principles, philosophy, and priorities of McCain. As well, Ridge has never shown much drive to fight wasteful spending or reform government which is core to McCain's philosophy and central amongst his priorities. While Liebermann is with McCain on the most central issues, he's on the wrong side of McCain on almost everything else (hence being a Democrat). Not terribly good fits with McCain's values, principles, philosophy, and priorities.

Abboud continues

If he didn’t want to focus all on national security, he could have gone for a mold-breaker in another direction. Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, both highly successful businesswomen and McCain supporters, would have been groundbreaking in two ways. First, they would have been the first women on a GoP ticket, and second overall behind ‘84 Democratic running mate Geraldine Ferraro. Second, as career businesswomen, either one would have been the first non-politician on a major party ticket in over 50 years, President Eisenhower being the last.

Once again, the obsession with "mould-breakers" and "groundbreaking". Not the criteria laid out by Abboud earlier. Going for a candidate because they are a woman would be putting politics over good governance which is exactly what Abboud is opposing in this post.

He continues

McCain could have had a qualified, ground-breaking running mate. He could have bucked the party trend, showing real leadership and a real maverick streak.

Instead, Palin got picked because he wants someone who shares his values, principles, philosophy and priorities. In crass terms, he wants a mini-me. She got picked because she satisfies the neo-cons, and she can play well on the campaign trail, not because she can help govern.

The first part of that second paragraph is exactly right: McCain wanted someone who shared his values, principles, philosophy and priorities. McCain wanted someone who would continue something very similar to the McCain agenda were he unable to finish his presidency. That seems to me to be responsible succession: making sure that the policies and agenda the people vote for will continue.

The second part of the paragraph about satisfying the party base and helping campaign, etc. may well have been considerations as well. But the key it seems to me is that, as Abboud puts it, Palin is McCain's "mini-me". She's the one who'll continue his agenda.

Let me finish by briefly comparing this to Obama's selection of Biden.

The Obama campaign was premised on two principles:

1. That Washington needed change, and electing the same old Washington insiders like Hillary Clinton or John McCain won't change Washington. Real change, change one could believe in, had to come from outside Washington. And Obama was the relative outsider who could change how business is conducted in Washington.
2. Judgement matters more than experience when it comes to foreign policy. In particular, Obama had the judgement to know that the Iraq War was a mistake from the start, while the experienced hands like Clinton, Edwards, and McCain all got it wrong.

In choosing Biden, Obama chose someone who is a longer term Washington insider (36 years) than any of Clinton (16 years), McCain (26 years), or Edwards (6 years). As well he chose someone who did not have the foreign policy judgement to oppose the Iraq War.

Certainly Biden has some strong qualities: he will help complement Obama's perceived weakness on foreign affairs, he will attract blue collar workers that Obama has trouble attracting, and he will give Obama a strong campaigner and debater. But should Obama be unable to complete his presidency, he will leave the country with a President who's a Washington insider and has been part of the system that Obama claims doesn't work, and Obama will leave the country with a Commander-in-Chief that didn't have the judgement to oppose the Iraq War. That kind of succession planning won't leave the voters with what they voted for.