PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

Off-topic: vice-presidential vetting

| No Comments


For Ted Frank completists, the latest GQ has a fun lengthy story profiling my short stint working for the McCain campaign assisting in vice-presidential vetting. The gimmick is that the reporter, Jason Zengerle, submitted himself to a vetting process so he could write about what it felt like to be vetted, and I agreed to engage in that live-action role-playing game; there's a sidebar that has me talk about likely vetting going on of supposed 2012 short-listers. (But just because the press is reporting that someone is on a short-list doesn't mean that someone is on a short-list. In 2008, the press consistently reported false positives and false negatives as fact, rather than speculation.)

I should note that the story exaggerates my importance for dramatic effect. I had no role in the development of the written questionnaire, and didn't send it to any 2008 short-listers; while I was the principal drafter and compiler of the Palin vetting memo, several other lawyers wrote first drafts of sections, and lawyers above me had final cut; and it was the pure happenstance that I was able to drop everything one August weekend that I had the role that I did have. And, while other campaign's vetting processes were also selection processes, in McCain's 2008 campaign, the vetters were independent from the political people selecting the candidate; they played the role of content aggregators, identifying pros and cons, and letting the political people make their own selection. So the "vetters" in McCain 2008 are not the "vetters" of 2000 or 2012, with the same word being used to describe differing concepts.

I'm also amused by the game of telephone that went on with respect to this story: questions about sex are a very small part of vetting, but because they're embarrassing and intrusive, they loom disproportionately large in the GQ story; because they're titillating, they loom even larger in coverage about the GQ story (USA Today; ABC News; MSNBC (which calls me a "Capitol Hill attorney"—again, the facts of the narrative are changed to make a more dramatic story)). And I learned that I look "altogether like a member of the Federalist Society."

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:

 

 


Isaac Gorodetski
Project Manager,
Center for Legal Policy at the
Manhattan Institute
igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Press Officer,
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.