The Way the Wind Blows

William Kristol, today in the NY Times:

And Obama supporters can’t get too indignant about Palin’s inexperience. She’s only running for the No. 2 job, after all, while their inexperienced standard-bearer is the nominee for the top position. And McCain doesn’t need a foreign policy expert as vice president to help him out.

[…]

The Palin pick already, as Noemie Emery wrote, “Wipes out the image of McCain as the crotchety elder and brings back that of the fly-boy and gambler, which is much more appealing, and the genuine person.” But of course McCain needs Palin to do well to prove he’s a shrewd and prescient gambler.

I spent an afternoon with Palin a little over a year ago in Juneau, and have followed her career pretty closely ever since. I think she can pull it off. I’m not the only one.

William Kristol, last week in the NY Times:

If not Pawlenty or Romney, how about a woman, whose selection would presumably appeal to the aforementioned anguished Hillary supporters? It’s awfully tempting for the McCain camp to revisit the possibility of tapping Meg Whitman, the former eBay C.E.O., Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, or Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska. But the first two have never run for office, and Palin has been governor for less than two years.

William Kristol is not obliged to keep consistent views of the things he discusses. He’s a man very committed to conservative ideas, and it would make sense that he try and spin the narrative in the ways best suited for to the goal of ensuring conservative governance. He’s not required to hold the same belief from one week to the next – or even from breakfast to dinner. I do wonder, however, how the New York Times can justify giving one of their most prominent columnist jobs to someone with a nasty habit of false statements and who can’t hold a consistent opinion from one column to the next. The Times should obviously present opinions from all over the political spectrum – but I think they owe to their readers to pick columnists who aren’t simply presenting the most recent talking points, no matter how they may differ.

I’m also surprised that Kristol dismisses the idea that people would worry about the experience of a vice presidential pick by a seventy-two year old man with a history of cancer. Dick Cheney has certainly changed our views of the vice president’s office, but the primary responsibility of the office is still as a designated president-in-waiting. Obama never subscribed to the notion that he was inexperienced. That was and always has been a conservative talking point. The fact that McCain choice a woefully inexperienced running mate doesn’t reflect poorly on Obama.

And finally, perhaps this is just me, but doesn’t the phrase “fly-boy and gambler” signal dangerous recklessness and arrogance? Isn’t that the last kind of person we’d want in the White House?