Posted on 11/21/2008 7:19:12 PM PST by Mobile Vulgus
We have gone through the first round of internal recriminations with the recent excoriation of Governor Palin by those “unnamed” McCain staffers. But, as we all know, Gov. Palin was the subject of heated debate even among Republicans long before the election. One common complaint was that she was the "worst" VP candidate pick "ever." But, was she really?
A look at recent history can only serve to deflate that ridiculous claim. There have been far worse picks than Gov. Palin and only the extremely emotional state of mind that this past election ginned up could obscure the historical record. Two of those picks in particular make Palin's choice rather inspired by comparison.
In the first case George Wallace's pick of general Curtis LeMay for his vice presidential pick in 1968 was a disaster and in the second George McGovern's pick of Thomas Eagleton for his in 1972 was even worse -- both were far more disastrous than Palin's. There was some speculation in the media that Palin would suffer Eagleton's fate, but the situations of the two just don't bear any resemblance at all...
Read the rest at Publiusforum.com...
I’ve got an old spare sense of humor out in the garage that you can have...
If this is your sense of humor then you can keep your spare. Just saying.
Change "minor star" to major star and "many thousands" to MILLIONS and I will agree with the author.
The only factor in the election that prevented an Obama landslide was Governor Palin. But if the liberal northeastern establishment bigwigs such as Christy Whitman and her RINO ilk have their way Palin will be sidelined and silenced, and the party will resume it's long slow slide into irrelevance as the token opposition party, which in reality doesn't oppose anything except conservative principles of governance.
No! The worst VP pick was Reagan’s Bush the Elder. The gift that keeps on giving...higher taxes, bigger gov’t, clinton, shrub, obama...
Tee He He
She wasn't running for President. She would have had time to "grow" into it, as the saying goes. And, as her personal history clearly demonstrates, she is a quick study and applies herself diligently to master whatever skills and knowledge she needs to achieve her goals.
Palin would have been much better if she had been a better speaker. She spoke in a way that made her sound as if she shouldn’t be taken seriously.
George W. Bush would have been much better if he'd been a better speaker. He speaks in a way that makes him sound as if he shouldn't be taken seriously.
Bush, on the other hand, had eight years to demonstrate his will and determination to overcome his obvious shortcomings, and he failed miserably. He chose to stay "above it all", refused to get his hands dirty and engage his ruthless domestic enemies by defending either himself or his policies, and thus allowed them to redefine what successes he did have into "failure" in the public's perception.
The result of his personal failings is that most of the good he managed to accomplish is now going to be be undone and swept away by the enemies he refused to confront. History will show that his "new tone" was actually the bell tolling the death knell of the Republic...
however, SHE WAS THE BEST OF ALL THE CANDIDATES RUNNING ...THE BEST...THE MOST GENUINE, THE MOST INVIGORATING...THE MOST BELIEVABLE....SIMPLY THE BEST....
I usually vote Republican, but my wife, daugther and son always vote Democrat. This year was the first time that all 4 of us voted Republican, and it was thanks largely to Gov. Palin. My wife now says that she will never for Democrat again because of how Palin was treated.
I believe Gov. Palin brought in far more votes than she lost. It was McCain himself who lost the election, him and his rather pathetic campaign people.
Without her McCain would have lost every state!!
She was the most qualified of all 4 candidates!
Are you a time traveler's, my calender says it is November 21, 2008, you had better reload if you are trying to hit 2013.
Conservatives associating with the Republican Party viewed Sarah Palin positively, but manifold enemies surrounded her. McCain forces granted her such selective influence as seemed to increase daily polling numbers. According to Republican elites the era of Ronald Reagan implementing the thoughts of William F. Buckley was over, so maintaining conservative credentials meant fighting a political Cold War. Any show of principled action demanded extraordinary energy, cunning, and often insubordination. She had to fight battles within the campaign as severe as any against the Democrats or the media.
Sarah Palin was fated to follow a downward path similar to Ike Eisenhower’s in relationships with the party elites. When Republicans chose Ike, Harry Truman said they would eat him alive. Truman foretold Ike’s principle compromises, even as Republican leaders maintained Ike’s proven character was vital to reverse ever-diminishing Republican Party influence. In the same manner Sarah Palin was the only hope of rallying the base as the last time the Republicans ran an inspiring campaign under Reagan.
Ike’s first major principle abandonment came when Joe McCarthy denounced George Marshall as a Communist. General Marshall had promoted Eisenhower over hosts of more senior officers, and supported his assignment as commander of the D-Day invasion. Ike decreed McCarthy would not board his train in Wisconsin. Ike would also present a tribute to Marshall in Milwaukee. First aides, through supposed miscommunication, allowed McCarthy on the train. Political aides then not only dissuaded Ike from delivering the tribute, but also convinced him to appear with McCarthy in speeches. Eventually Ike would participate in political lies surrounding the U-2, completely stifling the character and principles of the man leading allied troops on D-Day.
Sarah Palin’s conservative stature was under continuous assault because of McCain’s addictive fawning for media, and liberal approbation. She can now help in the fight to build a party whose motto is not, “Vote for us. We are just as good as the Democrats”.
The worst choice was RINO McCain. He’d have made a good candidate for the rats though.
What he said.....
The left are so hateful..it’s not enough that they won, that they’ve literally taken over the government..they still want to keep destroying our side. They will NEVER be happy because they are unhappy with their own lives. Got a call from a relative living in Australia. HATES BUSH. Says that the press in Australia keeps telling them that Bush has ruined the world. Everything is Bush’s fault. You’d think he’d be happy that his man won. But no...they’ll never be happy..
If I were your kid I would SLAP YOU!
If I were your kid I would SLAP YOU!
Ahem..this should be a thread ender
Admiral Stockdale !
It is disgraceful for an American to even ask this question. Thank you for letting me know of a publication to ignore.
I agree. McCain was a flawed candidate from the outset; perception was: he was a hotheaded, vindictive and petty old man who didn’t pay much attention to his constituents, even if he did make nice during the campaign. And he gave us Campaign Finance Reform. AND he tried to give us up to 100 million illegal aliens thru amnesty. I’d like to see REAL Immigration reform, but that was just crazy. Give me Sarah any day!
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.