It's safe to assume that Sarah Palin's speech tonight will cue an exercise in Republican triumphalism. So long as she doesn't announce Alaska has seceded from the U.S., she'll be praised to the skies as an energizing/breath-of-fresh-air/straight-talkin' Maverickette. And, of course, you'll be hearing the term "laid to rest" a lot.
As in, "Woowee! That speech laid to rest any doubts anyone could have about her."
But of course, the speech will lay to rest no doubts whatsoever--her ability to read from a teleprompter is not in question. What IS in question is her experience, or lack thereof. Her ability to actually comprehend and command the complexities of running this country.
Or lack thereof.
How do we keep that issue front and center, tonight and going forward, in the face of the RNC's determined efforts to make a silk purse out of this particular sow's ear?
Not by tearing her down with personal attacks (which leaves room for a sympathy backlash), but by making a simple, neutral request:
"PLEASE, look at these numbers. Tell me you want to risk it."
As DemFromCT pointed out earlier today, there's a difference between liking Sarah Palin and voting for her. We need to underscore that difference-- essentially, to give undecideds permission to like her personally, but still to recoil from the notion of her as President of the United States.
We do that by making it less than an abstract notion. By stating the very real, very disturbing odds.
in Politico today,Alexander Burns highlights the hard numbers, looking at "the actuarial tables insurance companies use" :
According to these statistics, there is a roughly 1 in 3 chance that a 72-year-old man will not reach the age of 80, which is how old McCain would be at the end of a second presidential term. And that doesn’t factor in individual medical history, such as McCain’s battles with potentially lethal skin cancer.
“For a man, that’s above the expected lifetime at the present,” said Michael Powers, a professor of risk management and insurance at Temple University’s Fox School of Business.
Folks, it's not an abstraction that Sarah Palin might someday become president. According to the odds, there's a one in three chance that, if the Republican ticket is elected (and presumably re-elected), that she WILL become president.
A little more soberingly real than the old canard of "a heartbeat away," isn't it?
Of course, the odds are somewhat better for McCain surviving a single term: there's a 1 in 6.6 chance of his passing before Inauguration Day in 2013. But McCain himself has made it perfectly clear: if elected, he's going for the full monty. Again, Politico:
As early as 2007 there was speculation that McCain might pledge to serve just one term, in light of his advanced years. McCain ruled out that possibility in an Aug. 20 interview with Politico, saying simply: “I’m not considering it.”
Now, it's fair to note that these are actuarial trends, not clear-cut predictors of one individual. But group sampling is the only sort of statistical modeling we've got. And these are the numbers that drive the insurance industry--not to mention Social Security. Shouldn't these numbers enter into our decision-making as well?
The McCain campaign has been quick to dismiss age concerns, particularly by pointing out his 95-year-old mother, whose been duly trotted before the cameras. "I have good genes," the candidate says, and indeed Roberta Wright McCain is, as Anna Quindlen says, "still elegant and ambulatory, the sort of person for whom the expression "sharp as a tack" might have been invented."
But sadly, longevity isn't a trait that mothers can pass on undiluted to their sons. There's a reason why all statistical samplings for longevity are demarcated between men and women: the latter are almost universally more long-lived. The reasons for this are complex, and hotly debated. But the existence of the longevity gap is indisputable.
I hope Roberta McCain has many more years of vigor, just as I honestly hope John McCain lives to an equally ripe old age (wandering around his many houses, preferably). But if he does so, it will be because he's bucked even greater odds than his mother has.
Also, to accept the argument of having "good genes" means we must examine the case of the father as well as the mother. What of the senior McCain?
The senior McCain was John McCain, Jr. (the candidate's full name is John Sidney McCain III). He won the Navy Distinguished Service Medal, the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit and the Bronze Star, and famously served as leader of the U.S. Pacific Command during Vietnam.
He retired in 1972, at the age of 61. He died--suddenly, of a heart attack, on a military transport en route from Europe--in 1981, at the age of 70.
As Quindlen said, with prescience, way back in February:
Political operatives say that his age makes McCain's choice of a running mate particularly critical. But if you enter the process stressing a hedge against mortality or incapacity, shouldn't that suggest something about suitability for the job in the first place? The senator's pursuit of the presidency reminds me a bit of those women who decide to have a baby in their late 50s. The impulse is understandable, the goal possible. But, looking at all the facts, and the actuarial tables, is it really sensible?
Let me make this clear: I have no desire to wax morbid, or to "poke fun" at John McCain for his age. I'm not suggesting in the slightest that his advanced years makes his judgement inherently unsound, or that it automatically disqualifies him for leadership. What I am saying is this: the issue of presidential succession is not an abstraction. Not this time.
Personal appeal, and even politics, take a back seat to cold, hard numbers. When the swooning begins for Sarah Palin tonight, keep that in mind.
There's a 1 in 3 chance--or, if we're lucky, closer to a 1 in 6 chance--that electing her means putting her behind the desk in the Oval Office.
PLEASE, look at these numbers. Tell me you want to risk it.