Sarah Palin has the Democrats in pants-crapping hysterics

As the world no doubt by now knows, John McCain picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, and her selection has the Democrats in a drawers-soiling panic.

Democratic strategist Paul Begala put up a short, poorly-written hit piece on CNN's website, and I'd like to go over his reasoning just a bit.

John McCain needs what Kinky Friedman calls "a checkup from the neck up."

Oh, cute. Let's start off with some hip jive, man, 'cuz we're all cool cats, here. Dude, leave the funny to people who are, you know, funny.

In choosing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, he is not thinking "outside the box," as some have said. More like out of his mind.

Wanna bet? If the selection of Sarah Palin was that bad, there wouldn't be so many Democrats looking like deer in the headlights right now.

Palin, (I had to add the comma--great editing, CNN) a first-term governor of a state with more reindeer than people, will have to put on a few pounds just to be a lightweight. Her personal story is impressive: former fisherman, mother of five. But that hardly qualifies her to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Pot? Kettle? I love it when the Democrats trot out the "experience" card. Barack Obama's political career, his experience, consists of a few state legislative terms and, so far, three years in the Senate. Besides, there's a whole lot of people in this country who think people who "lack experience" as politicians are exactly the kind of people who need to be sent to Washington. HopeyChangey, and all that.

For a man who is 72 years old and has had four bouts with cancer to have chosen someone so completely unqualified to become president is shockingly irresponsible. Suddenly, McCain's age and health become central issues in the campaign, as does his judgment.

Again with the unqualified bit, and now we're into lobbing some "irresponsible" tripe, all the while bashing on McCain's age. "Oh, oh, McCain's old and feeble, and his mind's slipping, and that lady doesn't know what she's doing, so we have to elect a young, virile man with no experience in the executive branch whatsoever." I guess Obama's not courting the AARP vote.

In choosing this featherweight, McCain passed over Tom Ridge, a decorated combat hero, a Cabinet secretary and the former two-term governor of the large, complex state of Pennsylvania.

Now we get to the reason I decided to pick on this goober's whining little rant -- the list of folks who the Democratic political strategist thinks the Republican should've picked. To say that his motives might be questionable is an understatement worthy of a particularly cynical Englishman. First, he says McCain should've picked Tom Ridge. Hello, dumbass? Ridge is pro-choice, a big no-no for Republicans in the South. Yeah, they should just alienate a huge portion of their voter base right off the bat. Plus, as the first Secretary of Homeland Security, he won't likely be too popular with libertarian-leaning Western Republicans, either. Ridge is a fine example of "the establishment," and that's exactly what the Republicans don't need (and precisely what the Democrats had hoped for).

He passed over Mitt Romney, who ran a big state, Massachusetts; a big company, Bain Capital; and a big event, the Olympics.

Oh, please. Here, the Democratic strategist tries to convince us that Mitt Romney is more qualified to be the chief executive, when he well knows that The Ken Doll is about as inspirational and exciting as a blank sheet of notebook paper.

He passed over Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas senator who is knowledgeable about the military, good on television and -- obviously -- a woman.

While I like Kay Bailey Hutchison, Palin is the better pick. Why? I'm gonna enjoy this a bit -- Palin has more experience in the executive. See? I can do it, too, only in this case, it's actually relevant. Hutchison has also been indicted for official misconduct and records tampering, in a case where it was alleged that she used state employees and equipment for campaign purposes. I'm not at all familiar with the case, and won't comment on it, other than to say it's an obvious problem for a presidential election. Mr. Begala obviously thinks his readership is too stupid to look these folks up on Wikipedia.

He passed over Joe Lieberman, his best friend in the Senate and fellow Iraq Kool-Aid drinker.

Lieberman is an "Independent Democrat" who still caucuses with Democrats. For a Republican who has been accused of being a moderate Democrat, to pick Lieberman would be political suicide.

He passed over former congressman, trade negotiator and budget director Rob Portman.

Who?

And he also passed over Mike Huckabee, the governor of Arkansas.

What? No list of credentials, reasons McCain should've picked Mike Huckabee? No, this one was thrown out there for really no reason at all, like Mr. Begala was sitting in front of his keyboard thinking, "I need just one more to make it complete." Mike Huckabee won a couple of primaries early on, but got more and more soundly beaten the longer the campaign went on. The bottom line here is that very many Republican voters seem to want to think their candidate is a man of faith, but they don't want an overly zealous person, either. His comment, contained in the linked article, about changing the Constitution to bring it in line with "God's standards" is, to say the least, problematic. My first question: God's will according to whom? Baptists? Catholics? Muslims? Jews? Pagans?

For months, the McCainiacs have said they will run on his judgment and experience. In his first presidential decision, John McCain has shown that he is willing to endanger his country, potentially leaving it in the hands of someone who simply has no business being a heartbeat away from the most powerful, complicated, difficult job in human history.

And now we get to the money shot, where Mr. Begala tries out the tactic that the Democrats accuse the Republicans of abusing: fear. He says that McCain has blown this call big-time, and is putting the country at risk in doing so, and finishes with the tired old "experience" argument again. Well, fine, if he insists on defining the discussion that way, so be it.

John McCain has the experience in spades, and Obama does not. Obama has no executive-branch experience whatsoever, while Sarah Palin does, and has proven her mettle in that job. What experience Sarah Palin lacks -- and she has been involved in politics longer than Obama, albeit on a lower level in part -- she can pick up on the job, as it were.

So, Mr. Begala, to pose a question from the perspective of your basic argument: Which makes more sense: hiring a guy with years upon years of experience and who has a green but promising assistant, or hiring a guy with very little direct experience who happens to have an assistant who's been around a while but is a speech plagiarist with serious foot-in-mouth disease?