Smearing Sarah--Is it really all Palin's fault?

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | November 13, 2008 | Jacob Laksin

[SJackson]

It is an inescapable rule of politics that defeat breeds recrimination, and the bitter aftermath of the 2008 election is no exception. Hardly had Barack Obama swept to a resounding victory on November 4th, than anonymous insiders in the McCain campaign began feeding political reporters a too-convenient-by-half theory to explain the electoral rout. In brief, it was all Sarah Palin’s fault.

Most sensational in this vein is the claim that Palin’s supposed intellectual deficiencies were one of the downfalls of the campaign. Thus, in the past few weeks alone, McCain aides have accused Palin of being so politically clueless that she could not name the participating nations in the North American free-trade agreement and so geographically unlettered that she did not know that Africa is a continent and not a country. Even Palin’s family has become an object of internecine derision, charmlessly described by one disgruntled McCain advisor as “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast.”

Palin’s putative ignorance is but one of the flaws that allegedly undid the McCain campaign. If the mudslingers are to be believed, Palin used her ascendance to the Republican ticket as cynical self-promotion. In the days leading up the election, whispering from McCain aides gave rise to the notion that Palin had “gone rogue” and was seeking the limelight at the expense of John McCain, a narrative that was repeated without scepticism by a press eager to see the worst in the popular Alaska governor. In countless news stories, McCain aides were quoted calling Palin a “diva” out for herself, an ideologue “who takes no advice from anyone,” even a crazed “whack job.” As if this were insufficiently damning, one unnamed McCain aide lamented that Palin “does not have any relationships of trust with any of us.” Given the daily barrage of defamatory leaks against her, this complaint was all too credible.

But the rest was dubious at best. For the record, Palin has said that her comments about NATO and Africa were quoted out of context. The Africa charge turns out to be a hoax. In any case, it’s hard to see why Palin's gaffes merit the significance that has been attached to them. On a campaign stop in Oregon this summer, Barack Obama famously claimed to have visited “fifty seven states” and insisted that he still had “one left to go.” Joseph Biden, a one-man compendium of political faux pas, offered this history of the Great Depression in September: “When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’” It was an interesting account, all the more so given that Herbert Hoover was president during the Great Depression and televisions were not made available to the mass public until the late 1930s. That the indisputably bright Obama won the election handily suggests that such gaffes are not a reliable indicator of intelligence – let a lone a convincing explanation of why McCain lost.

It is likewise difficult to lend credence to claims that Palin went “rogue.” This charge seems largely based on Palin’s telling a reporter that she disagreed with McCain strategists’ decision to suspend the campaign in Michigan in the first week of October. It may well be that the strategists were right on the merits. McCain ultimately lost the state by 16 percentage points and some 800,000 votes. But if a determination to keep fighting for votes in the face of adversity is now to be considered a sign of a vice presidential candidate’s unfitness, it has to be asked why the running mate exists in the first place.

If McCain aides’ disdain for Palin has garnered such popular notice, the reason seems to have less to do with the substance of their animus than with the fact that it flatters the prejudices of the Palin’s critics on the Democratic Left and anti-populist Right. For her services to the McCain campaign, Palin has been mocked as an intellectual lightweight and faux-populist, tarred as a religious fanatic and a secessionist, dismissed as a McCarthyite demagogue and declared nothing less than the enemy of reason. In the New York Times, David Brooks wrote that she “represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party,” a charge echoed in the Economist, which accused her of “bringing out the worst in her party.” A marginal but much-noticed chorus of “Obamacons,” including most prominently Christopher Buckley, son of the late William F. Buckley, publically turned against McCain for no other reason than a felt dislike for his vice presidential pick.

No mystery surrounds the Left’s hatred of Palin. She energized a Republican Party that was at best halfhearted about its presidential nominee, attracting thousands to her rallies (a late October rally in Missouri brought out at least 13,000 Palin supporters, numbers rivaled only by Barack Obama himself) and almost single-handedly nullifying Obama’s expected poll bounce following the Democratic National Convention. It bears remembering that the one and only time that McCain pulled even with Obama in the race was after Palin’s addition to the ticket. One wouldn’t expect Democrats to admire these achievements. Less clear is why the McCain’s campaign operatives should find them so blameworthy.

Unless, of course, the idea is to deflect blame from their own missteps, of which there were many. In a politically unfavorable year for Republicans, McCain’s occasional policy incoherence – in one presidential debate, he unveiled new spending programs within minutes of promising a spending freeze – and his erratic behavior amid the recent financial crisis, when he needlessly suspended his campaign, only complicated the unlikely task of a McCain victory. Indeed, absent the grassroots enthusiasm generated by Sarah Palin, McCain’s margin of defeat may well have been larger than seven points that it was.

The truly strange aspect of the anti-Palin blowback from inside the McCain campaign is not that it has emerged – one wouldn’t expect the architects of an ineptly run campaign to do anything so drastic as accept responsibility – but that it has gone on as long as it has. Whatever the flaws of John McCain the presidential candidate, John McCain the man has never been one to evade responsibility. He could prove it again by standing up for a woman who did far more to make his campaign competitive than the aggrieved strategists now determined to blame her for its failure.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See #16....it is equally likely that the smears were engineered from the Left to sow disruption in the Republican camp....

[GOYAKLA]

I hope you saw the: /sarc ...I was not SERIES!

[Tempest]

It’s not Sarah’s fault at all. It’s the animals surrounding her.

[af_vet_rr]

McCain lost because of McCain. If it weren't for Sarah, it would have been a landslide for Obama.

It was a landslide for Obama - he got around 70% of the electoral votes, almost 8 million more votes total, and he picked up states that had been Republican. It's hard to get much more humiliating than that, without going back to Reagan.

She was on a ticket that lost by over 200 electoral votes to a guy with "Hussein" in his name, and that has associated with lots of sleazy people. She will probably end up replacing Stevens, but don't look for her in 2012. The GOP leadership made it clear what they thought of her by making her go through all of her clothes. I was not a fan of her's, but I'm as disgusted as her dad was when he spoke about the clothing crap, but I guess the GOP wanted to let her know who runs things in the party.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Just posted:

MSNBC retracts false Palin story; others duped

[Nonstatist]

She will probably end up replacing Stevens

Stevens is gone, he's lost to the Democrap (most probably). We're all off to the wilderness for a while, with an incoherent semi-senile loser/RINO "leader" in competition with a neophyte token female Govenor with 1 year under her belt. And nary another soul in sight.. What fun.

[purpleporter]

“but don't look for her in 2012. The GOP leadership made it clear what they thought of her by making her go through all of her clothes”

Well the GOP leadership will not decide Palin’s bid for the 2012 nominee, HER FOLLOWING will. AND judging by the MASS APPEAL, she should have it locked up.

In fact her many post interviews are indicative that she knows full well by STAYING in the spotlight will ensure her strong chances at being at the top of the ticket.

GO SARAH!!
VOTES 4 Women!!

[rintense]

I think you’re wrong. The GOP will be shook up and taken over by a youth movement. And Sarah Palin will be part of that. She won’t go to the senate, period. Oh, and if there isn’t a youth movement within the GOP, forget about the GOP altogether.

[curiosity]

Obviously Palin is getting treated unfairly.

However, that does not change the fact that she's a very mediocre choice for VP and is clearly unqualified to be president.

Her popularity in our party right now makes me fear for its future.

[TAdams8591]

Why because she's middle class?

Sarah needs to do some historical reading and boning up on the issues, and she'll be fine. She's got four years to do it.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Now that's a new one,....how is it done?"

Large wrenches.

[Wonder Warthog]

And the landslide would have been far worse without her. You Palin bashers give me the pip. Why not go register as Democrats and spend your time over on DU??

[Paul Ross]

However, that does not change the fact that she's a very mediocre choice for VP and is clearly unqualified to be president.

Mediocre compared to who? McCain? The crazed anti-conservative "Gang of Twelve" backstabbing "maverick"? Tim Pawlenty? The McCain acolyte? Let me tell you, as a Minnesotan...his brown-nosing to try and get that selection for himself is dis-respected by ALL real conservatives in this state. ALL.

He has NO shot at the Big Ticket. He is done.

As for Romney, it appears that he is also fried. His Bain Financial company's treasonous moving of 3Com into China's clutches...finishes him once and for all.

And obviously Newt is toast. His blatant waffling around trying to triangulate on a palatable plate of issues for "the center"...and his notorious divorce ended it for him.

So who is left? Huckabee? Maybe, but he has his own past to reconcile.

Duncan Hunter would be a RESOUNDING YES...but Wall Street appears dead set against a man that actually would restore the country and limited government.

So we will have to somehow fund him WITHOUT any such support...and likely AGAINST whomever they and Rupert Murdoch settle on as "their guy".

Sara Palin has been a breath of fresh air. Sincerity. Conservative principles. Honesty. And courage.

A courage which was amply demonstrated in her fantastic conduct as Alaska Governor, and all during the short two months of a vicious national campaign against her.

She has shown she "gets it" about energy policy. When McCain didn't. She gets it about illegal aliens. McCain and the W and Senate RINO herd didn't. She gets it about the trade deficit NOT being good for the economy...nor acceptable. She gets it about needing a strong defense.

Now that she is out from under the campaign umbrella... It would be interesting to see her take on McCain's notorious opposition to building more F-22's or our own Air Tankers to replace the aging fleet of KC-35s...or his opposition to the need for far more Navy ships.

Her popularity in our party right now makes me fear for its future.

Our party? OUR PARTY? Which party would that be? Clearly you can not be talking about the GOP, as "your party".

We conservatives are taking it back.

As Ted Nugent shows the way...

[af_vet_rr]

Well the GOP leadership will not decide Palin’s bid for the 2012 nominee, HER FOLLOWING will. AND judging by the MASS APPEAL, she should have it locked up.

Money and connections is what decides all of that. Money pays for the advertising, etc. The typical voter is not like you or I or anybody else that cares enough to read or post online. They are too heavily influenced by the flashy commercials. That's why we ended up with people like George W. Bush or John McCain instead of Conservatives. With McCain, a lot of the big money donors decided he was safer than a Mormon or a Christian like Huckabee and that he would appeal to a broader audience. When you get that kind of money involved, you can take a last place candidate and push them to the forefront.

Maybe Sarah can prove me wrong, but the big money donors are not going to support her - they shy away from candidates from losing tickets. There hasn't been a losing VP candidate who went on to win a later election since we moved to the Presidential candidates choosing their running mates in the '40s and '50s. You have to go back to FDR to find a losing VP candidate who eventually became President, and FDR was from a time when VP candidates were selected by the conventions and not by the Presidential candidate..

[af_vet_rr]

I think you’re wrong. The GOP will be shook up and taken over by a youth movement. And Sarah Palin will be part of that. She won’t go to the senate, period. Oh, and if there isn’t a youth movement within the GOP, forget about the GOP altogether.

The youth broke for Obama in numbers too large to rely on as far as the GOP is concerned. She also has no national experience and no national organization. No national experience and no national organizaation means she will be lucky to get Giuliani's numbers.

Another problem is, she has to renounce her support for amnesty. It's understandable that being in Alaska, she doesn't have the same hatred for amnesty that many of us do, but the base as a whole is against amnesty. Until she does that, the conservatives will not be willing to put their money and their votes behind her. I don't see her doing that, given that the GOP is pushing the Hispanic vote (even though they lost many of those votes to Obama).

[curiosity]

Sarah needs to do some historical reading and boning up on the issues, and she'll be fine

The fact that someone in her age (mid-40s), and in her position has to bone up on these things is a strong signal that she's just not cut out for the job.

It shows she lacks curiosity and passion about public policy and political philosophy. In other words, it means she's a lightweight, and I don't want someone like that to be president.

[Wicket]

I would have voted, holding my nose, without Palin. With Palin I voted enthusiastically, and I’m sure there were many who would have stayed home without her. The armchair quarterbacks should get a grip and shut the heck up.

[af_vet_rr]

And the landslide would have been far worse without her. You Palin bashers give me the pip. Why not go register as Democrats and spend your time over on DU??

You've made some very intelligent posts in the past, so it's a little disappointing that rather than respond intelligently, you resort to personal attacks.

As for Palin, I and most Conservatives will not support her in any kind of VP or Presidential run until she publicly takes back the comments she made in support of amnesty. I think she could make a good Senator, but I'll never vote for another pro-amnesty ticket again.

Amnesty will destroy the GOP and conservative ideals by adding millions of Democrats to the rolls, and it hurts our nation as a whole by saying our borders don't matter.

[af_vet_rr]

And the landslide would have been far worse without her. You Palin bashers give me the pip. Why not go register as Democrats and spend your time over on DU??

You've made some very intelligent posts in the past, so it's a little disappointing that rather than respond intelligently, you resort to personal attacks.

As for Palin, I and most Conservatives will not support her in any kind of VP or Presidential run until she publicly takes back the comments she made in support of amnesty. I think she could make a good Senator, but I'll never vote for another pro-amnesty ticket again.

Amnesty will destroy the GOP and conservative ideals by adding millions of Democrats to the rolls, and it hurts our nation as a whole by saying our borders don't matter.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

LOL!