Posted on 11/13/2008 5:37:07 AM PST by 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.
So what is the History in the election of a man with darkened skin?
Mediocre compared to what I expect out of a presidential candidate.
Was Ronald Reagan a lightweight? I don’t think he went to an Ivy League college, and even broadcast Cubs game, faking the play the play back in the day. Did he drop out of college to football to pay his bills?
And i am old enough to remember being told by the MSM that Reagan was the sure loser against Carter if he was nominated. The he beats the crap out of Carter and Mondale.
She has some obvious skills but is still partly a diamond in the rough. i do not understand some FReepers blatant disrespect for a good woman. Freepers shouldnt let the MSM nominate their POTUS candidate. And even the Country clubbers may warm up to SP if in 2012 or 2106 whenever if it looks like she can win it. I never thought such a naiive do-nothing Marxist like Obama could win. Give us a few terrorist attacks and maybe any GOP candidate can beat him. Or maybe Jindal will be the man, that’s fine too.
So how does Barfsack Okenyan stack up next to Palin as a presidential candidate, in your opinion?
I wouldn't let him take out my garbage, personally.
Obama's New Government Media Machine (ABCCBSNBCCNNFOXNYTimesWASHPOST) poured millions and millions of dollars worth of negative advertising (disguised as "reporting") into an effort to destroy Palin.
Advertising works, that's why companies buy it. Many of those talking smack about Palin have got the media's hook sticking through their gills, and they don't even know it.
I ditched my cable TeeVee a couple of years ago, so I was relatively unscathed.
Shhhhhh! The New Democrat government might hear you, and put it on top of their agenda.
I'm expecting amnesty before 2009 rings out. The Democrats don't intend on being out of power ever again.
Basically, the fact of Bush in office drove them to insanity and treason. After watching how Obama's media suicidally trashed Palin, I realized what was going on during Bush's entire term.
The overt treason started after 9/11. The Democrat Party suppressed airing any video of 9/11 through the use of its media arm. This was to deprive the Republicans of a potent weapon in elections.
The fact that this decision also put us in jeopardy as a nation makes it treason, but hey - it's all about power for them.
Next, the shadow government media relentlessly attacked the decision to go into Iraq, and continued the attack after we went in, causing the deaths of many Americans and Iraqis.
More treason.
Finally, the media threw the election to OKenyan, and will continue to prop him up no matter how bad he screws it up.
Mark my words - when it becomes necessary, we're going to see footage of 9/11 up on the TeeVee screens so fast it will make your head spin. When the Democrats need it to stoke the sentiments of the mob, all those "considerations" that they whined about all through Bush's presidency will go out the window.
It's not where you go to school; it's what's in your head.
Reagan displayed at a great deal of intellectual curiosity in depth with regard to public policy questions long before he ran for president. Have you read transcripts of his radio shows? They are on par with the best of W.F. Buckley's writings.
Well I am not a Reagan scholar, but the MSM line on RR was very similar to SP. Reagan had been a governor longer and the MSM was not nearly as partisan, but things like
“Killer trees!!!” by Jim Brady mocking some RR statement
“in RR’s deepest thought, you couldn’t get your ankles wet”
and so on
My recollection is very much opposed to yours. RR was in many ways similar but he was 65 when he ran the first time.
Honestly, it is incredulous anyone would say he was an intellectual
resounding victory?....he got a little more than Bush and Bush never got a "resounding victory"....if you listened to the msm Bush squeaked by and had no mandate and just how was Bush going to appease all those other Americans who voted against him.....
for the 6/1 money advantage and the absolute msm in his pocket, b.o. should have been able to do a 90% sweep of the electoral votes..
infact, if it wasn't for those 200,000 illegal votes in Ohio, Bob Barr in a couple of states, and suspicious votes in other states,McCain being McCain, McCain might have won....
What galls me is all the liberals telling us to shut up and support the President when what they said in 2000 was 234813810983190832109382109381089183013 times worse about Bush than anything said about Obama.
Not being ready for prime time, a democrat mantra by the way, didn’t stop Obama from getting elected. In fact, I think Sarah was much more qualified than O.
Perhaps, but in the case of RR, there is ample evidence of his intellectual depth, despite the MSM ignoring it.
http://www.amazon.com/Reagans-Path-Victory-Selected-Writings/dp/0743227069
With SP, there's nothing there.
Honestly, it is incredulous anyone would say he was an intellectual
Having read his collective writings in the book linked to above, I think it is incredulous that anyone would deny it.
I'm more optimistic on this. Many of the new seats the Democrats picked up, both this year and in 2004, were picked up by blue dogs, whose views on immigration tend to be more conservative.
We have the blue dogs to thank for amnesty failing the last time Bush, Pelosi and Reed attempted to ram it down the American people's throat.
How many times have you seen a fool elevated, while someone else is left behind.
Perception is often fickle.
.
***234813810983190832109382109381089183013 times***
Are you sure it wasn’t more like 983295421501093757431654315801435442576 times?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.