Glenden BrownHow’s that Daring VP Choice Working out for you John?
Let’s review: In three days Sarah Palin has managed to rack up a slew of scandals and controversies:
• Troopergate - the abuse of her power to get a former brother in law fired
• Bridge to Nowhere - she claims to have opposed it but she’s on record supporting it
• Pregnant Daughter - her 17 year old unmarried daughter is pregnant (I heard whispers the father is 24)
• She was a member of the Alaska Independence Party in the 1990s - a radical right wing political party in Alaska advocating fro Alaska becoming it’s own nation
• Palin: “If Pledge Of Allegiance Was Good Enough For Founding Fathers, It’s Good Enough For Me” (Original source here.)
That’s in three days. This has been her honeymoon with the press. It hasn’t been pretty.
At Kos, there’s a post speculating whether or not she bows out or John McCain asks her to bow out. It has, as of this time, over 1400 comments. At mydd, Jonathan Singer writes:
With such a near constant flow of uncomfortable news about Palin, it’s no wonder some in the establishment media (and also the not-so-establishment media) are beginning to ask whether Palin will endure on the GOP ticket or if, like Tom Eagleton before her, she will be replaced with another choice deemed to be less risky.
Such speculation is fun, but distracting.
Going back to the Tavris and Aronson’s book Mistakes Were Made (but not by me) and their discussion of cognitive dissonance and how it drives us to not change course midstream even when we should, I think it’s fair to say John McCain is unlikely to ask Palin to step down. It’s possible, yes, but I don’t think it’s probable.
McCain in 2000 was maverick-y - he criticized the Religious Right, he fiercely challenge George W. Bush. And he was savaged for his troubles. Step by tiny step for the last 8 years, McCain has compromised with the base of the Republican party. He has kowtowed to the Religious Right, he has supported Bush’s policies on torture, he has slowly but surely compromised his core values in the quest to win the Presidential nomination. Choosing Palin wasn’t the first step in his journey to personal compromise, it was the end of many. Palin suits John McCain’s self-image as a maverick and reformer (but like him, is a mainstream Republican - just to the right of Attila the Hun on social issues, completely open to using her office for personal vendettas, corrupt and shameless). John McCain has already been on TV defending Palin - saying great things about her and her judgement. John McCain might ask her to step down - it’s possible. I just don’t think it’s probable. The more the “attacks” on her mount, the more fiercely McCain will defend her. McCain was strong-armed out of naming his first choice for VP. The Powers That Be (PTB) in the Republican Party wanted someone who could unite the party and in Palin they got it (though she was probably not their first choice, either); Palin is an acceptable candidate with clear and unimpeachable conservative credentials.
Palin, for her part, seems unlikely to step down. She strikes me as someone who dig in and fight to the last. The more fiercely she is criticized the more she will cling. The fact that she is in no way ready for prime time seems to me a factor in making her hold on.
The PTB in the Republican Party might well step in and but an end to the bloodletting. I’d guess Karl Rove and his team are weighing the options. Step in and remove Palin get someone else - anyone else- who is ready Prime Time, not Jerry Springer. This action brings its own set of problems and risks - not the least of which is that John McCain might well fight them and it could easily erupt into public view. That divides the party. They could pressure Palin to step back of her own accord. She might not accede to the requests. Either way, if Palin leaves the ticket, it is a PR nightmare - creating the impression of a party in chaos and at war with itself. So, they might say, Okay, we go on the offensive and try to get ahead of the Palin-mess. It’s a good strategy, one they’ve used before to great success. Problem is it might not work. The public’s first impression of Sarah Palin has been negative. Fighting the scandals just drags the story out. So that leaves them another option - sit back and wait until the mess goes away on its own and the media moves on. There’s no guarantee that happens but it hopefully minimizes the damage and allows the stories to fade away. Then they set about rehabilitating her public image. Time is against them on this option but it allows the creation of a narrative like Clarence Thomas’ - she had the worst the liberal media could throw at her and she’s still standing. It rallies the base to her defense and makes her look tough. The biggest challenge remains the question of whether or not the scandals fade fast enough. Troopergate doesn’t look like it’s going anywhere fast and her pregnant daughter is unlikely to vanish any time soon, either. I’m sure there are other options.
Any course of action that results in Palin leaving the ticket has other downsides - it makes John McCain’s judgement look bad. It undoes any positive spin her presence added - and runs the risk of alienating women (even more than they already are) from the GOP. McCain has been running on judgement and experience and his first really major chance to demonstrate his judgement was choosing his VP. If that choice goes down the gurgler his judgement looks pretty shoddy. There is one option that might work - McCain and co dump Palin and then say, more or less, she misrepresented herself and we had to make a hard choice to dump her in the name of good leadership. It’s not easy to spin, but it might work.
Chris Bowers lists 7 specific Palin scandals and problems. Are there more out there? This seems like more than enough but the oppo-research hasn’t even started. For instance, we don’t know the details of how the town of Wasilla tried to recall her from her Mayor’s job (it had something to do with screwing up a town recreation center building project).
Palin might just benefit from the not so latent sexism of the mainstream media that’s convinced if Joe Biden doesn’t handle her with kid gloves he’s being mean. But all indications thus far seem to point to the fact that she’s a small town girl, a small town pol, a crooked one at that, and she’s in over her head and there’s no fast and easy way out. In one episode of Battlestar Galactica, Adama says something like “Sometimes you gotta roll the hard six.” John McCain tried his darnedest to roll the dice and get a good number and it’s looking like he rolled craps.
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:10 am
There’s also the $40 million in federal funding earmarks Palin got for Tiny Town, AK. But now she hates earmarks. Oh, and her close ties to Ted Stevens.
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:58 am
It’s awesome to see Obamaphiles going against Obama and continuing to talk about Palin’s “17 year old unmarried daughter” who ” is pregnant.” With every word that is spoken against the wishes of the Obamessiah, salvation is ever more less likely. Keep the cause going, Glen…
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:08 am
Okelberry - You’re right. We should focus on the real scandals of Sarah Palin - the abuse of power and corruption, the fact that she’s so culturally conservative she doesn’t know that the pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist and that the words “under God” were added in the 1950s; the fact that she favors teaching creationism in public schools instead of science. We should focus on the fact that she’s been governor less than two years and she facing an investigation by the state - maybe she’s not much of a reformer after all.
We should focus on her ties to a secessionist political party. And we should focus on her blatant dishonesty concerning federal earmarks (she was a big fan not so long ago and now she’s VP candidate, she’s opposed). Maybe she’s not so much prinicpled as convenient.
I’m starting to wonder if by the time the whole truth about this woman comes out, you conservatives won’t wish we’d talk about her kids.
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:12 am
Poor Okelberry. Reduced to petty partisan sniping, whining and name-calling in the wake of the disaster named “Palin”. The girl is pregnant. It’s out there. Mentioning it among a list of all the other stuff that hasn’t gone quite “right” isn’t exactly an affront.
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:18 am
This all goes to John McCain’s fitness to be president, and the right’s death grip on the GOP. McCain wanted to pick Joe Lieberman for VP, but the right organized an anti-Lieberman campaign and threatened a revolt at the convention. Karl Rove pushed hard for Mitt Romney, but McCain hates to be pushed. So he made a snap decision and went for an un-vetted beginner.
Bad decisions made in haste and secrecy. That’s a McCain presidency preview.
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:22 am
Richard - and that to me is the real nub of the issue - under pressure, after having six months to choose, McCain made a bizarre, un-vetted choice and now it’s biting him in the tuckus. That inspires confidence.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:00 am
I agree Glenn, most every point you have made that speaks to her political leanings is completely fair game. But keep up the personal attacks against her family and you’ll likely be looking at the continuation of the Republican hold on the White House. Obama knows this, why don’t his followers simply listen to him? I just don’t think liberals can help themselves…
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:07 am
Richard:
Are you suggesting that if Palin is attacked, personally, then people will feel more compelled to vote for McCain? Kinda goes against the Rove playbook, eh?
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:30 am
I think the pick was indicative of a party in disarray. They needed someone with the proper conservative credentials to satisfy the restless Christian Coalition base. For their own good they should have picked someone like Huckabee.
The Republicans didn’t actually need star power - they needed a solid, reliable religious (yet non-LDS) conservative to complete the ticket. Perhaps choosing Palin over Huckabee (or other moral-majority pick) was a play to Western states like Colorado and Montana where Democrats are gaining ground. Still, it seems a huge gamble.
To suggest that Palin is a maverick requires a curious logical twist. What she did was out-flank her Alaskan Republican allies in an unrelenting pursuit of personal ambition. She out-Machiavellied them, breaking the 11th commandment by exposing their corruption…for the purpose of personal political profit. In that sense I suppose she is a maverick - perhaps sly rogue would be a better term. Some voters actually enjoy supporting someone who can play the game; she’s sure to energize them (forget that this is exactly what we *don’t* need right now).
Dostoevsky made the comment “One reptile will devour the other. And it will serve them both right, too.” Nothing could be more true than what is happening in today’s Republican party.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:33 am
Glen, I am so pleased that Palin is driving you guys nuts. In fact, I recommend that you spend every waking moment obsessed with her.
Here is the real point in repsonse to anything you guys or your pals at the Daily Kook have to dredge up on Palin: does any of it really matter to voters in November?
My guess is, once again, you’ll go to your political graves swearing you were right all along…while the rest of normal America gets on with its business…leaving your kind completely and utterly irrelevant…again.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:43 am
Paul– The Palin controversy is highly relevant to voters because the Republicans want to paint Barack Obama as a risky choice for President. John McCain is far riskier, and his reckless VP choice has brought that issue to the forefront of the campaign.
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:08 am
Richard, my point is that you and I can disagree in our opinions about the “relevancy” of Palin’s purported misdeeds, but ultimately it’s in voters’ hands.
No doubt you and I would have disagreed over the relevancy of Clinton’s actual and purported misdeeds, but voters decided what was truly relevant to them.
I have a guess about their feelings toward Palin, as you do, but you and I are not “average” voters.
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:34 am
Paul:
When Palin is on record saying the Iraq war is a task from God, you can bet your bottom dollar that I and many, many others will remain obsessed with her. America needs far fewer idiots in Washington of the mold of W.
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:52 am
The latest– Palin linked to Jack Abramoff.
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Mush ahead, Albert!! So much muck to rake, so little time!!
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Yes, bury your head Paul . . . Okelberry needs company.
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Ah, Don, ya old lovable teddy bear…maybe we will finally have an age old question answered:
If the Daily Kooks discover muck in the forest of politics as usual, and nobody cares, is it really muck?
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Paul:
Does it bother you in the least that a potential future leader of this country actually thinks the Iraq war is a task from God?
Try and think outside the box - e.g., don’t constrain your answer to Sutherland Insaniac dogma.
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Keep plugging your ears Paul and keep repeating the mantra, “It’s all muck. It’s all muck. It’s all muck. It’s all muck.”
Eight years of that will probably do you some good. But please, do rejoin us in 2016 for the election of President Clinton, m’kay . . .
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Palin, who the McCain campaign touted as more qualified than Barack Obama and Joe Biden to run American foreign policy, was first issued a U.S. passport in 2007. In her whole life, she has traveled to four foreign countries: Germany, Kuwait, Canada and Ireland (the last was a refueling stop).
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Richard,
Your comments are offensive to women! ;)
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Albert…okay, okay, let’s see…I’m thinking, I’m thinking…uhhhh…NO. Neither did I mind when Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, and Reagan invoked the name the of God in our wartime behalf. I know you don’t like the whole “God’s on our side” thing, but hey I’m one of those crazy religious wackos!
Don…Hillary in 2016? She’s done. Four years of McCain…and then eight years of either Palin or Romney. Hillary will be way irrelevant by 2024.
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Albert, yes I am saying that the more you attack Palin’s personal life the more people will be drawn to support her. This will especially be true of women who may see statements about whether she can be VP while raising her kids as sexist.
You don’t have to go far to prove my point. Look how people rallied around Bill Clinton when they perceived his personal life was under attack. No one cared that he broke the law and lied under oath. Did that whole thing make you more or less likely to support Bill?
If not careful, many women voters, even Democrats may find her sympathetic under the blog barrage. Already the cable news networks are bringing on female Democrat after female Democrat to make my point for me. Even G. Ferraro is now talking about making the switch and CNN the other day had an entire negative section on left wing blogs unfairly attacking Palin and starting defaming rumors… When CNN starts taking a position on something you can be sure the more moderate Democrats are soon to follow.
Let me ask you something, if Chelsea Clinton had been asked whether or not she used birth control or if she ever had an abortion, what do you think the reaction of the public might have been? Or maybe it would be something more subtle, like asking Hillary about menopause during her presidency. How would you have reacted? More than likely Hillary would probably be your nominee today.
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Paul,
Your math is off.
But you do bring to mind an interesting question for 2024. Will the Republican Party will be ready to elect a Mormon president by then? Good luck with that. I’m thinking Romney would have been better off as a Democrat. Who knows? Maybe by then he’ll have flipped again . . .
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Oh sorry Don…2020. Thanks for pointing out my mistakes…I know you are relcutant to do such things. :)
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Paul,
I just wasn’t sure if you really meant 2024 or if you really meant only four years for McCain. Why only four years for McCain? Do you really think he would not seek a second term?
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Dang! Just warms my heart to see our right-wing friends squirm and twist and squirm some more when trying to justify Palin’s readiness for the WH.
Paul and Richard O., you guys crack me up!
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Don, I don’t think he’ll be alive for a second term. :) He can barely think and move now.
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
That’s encouraging . . .
Don
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Okelberries,
You crack me up. Maybe you have too many kids.
The behavior you describe is infantile. But I’ll take your word for it. If thats how Republicans really think, than I suppose that could explain lots of stupid things ya’ll do and say.
How does it go, “I like Sarah Palin even more because democrats pick on her.”
…a truly informed, patriotic way to make political choices.
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
And a truly informed, patriotic way to tell the troops: “we care, we really do.”
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Little Big Leak.
It appears the McCain campaign has leaked the idea that Palin will withdraw after the convention and McCain will replace her with…
What a clever plan to distract the media from the October surprise.
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Senator Orrin Hatch was interviewed tonight, and his view is that Sarah Palin’s family is nothing special– according to him, every American family goes through this experience (having a teenage daughter get pregnant).
Well, teen pregnancies have gone up during the Bush administration. The latest study says 1/3 of girls in the United States get pregnant before age 20. More than 435,000 babies were born to teens between 15 and 19 years in 2006, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Cliff said:
This is a pattern. This administration is getting famous for bringing forth ridiculous people for important positions who make less ridiculous people look OK.
Bernie Kerik was shown to be a virtual gangster and was replaced with Michael, (of the devil), Chertoff. Harriet Miers was out there for a painful couple of weeks before being replaced with Judge Roberts for the Supreme court. These are two examples brought forth by a commenter named “plunger” on BradBlog, but I thought of one more. Henry Kissinger lasted for about one day as head of the 911 commission before the walking conflict of interest Kean took over.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:45 am
Glen as an independent it completely amazes me. Does everyone get their talking points from Kos? Do any of you have a completely independent thought?
Why are liberals so threatened by a conservative woman?
Why is Karl Rove even in this conversation?
She is called a rediculous choice, but the Democratic candidate uses running his election campaign as a reason to be president - What?
Unbelieveable that the president is blamed for teen pregnancy going up. The facts are this societal trend has been growing for over 20 years. Notice no one and I mean no one either side wants to talk policies? It is all personal attacks. It is like listening to a buch of 3 year olds griping to each other. Each saying ‘he did it to me first’.
Our petiness is ruining this country, not one political party. Stick to policy. Lets have fair debates on that. Stop writing to see yourself.
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:09 am
Scott - Let’s review.
Sarah Palin has been governor of Alaska for less than two years and she’s already under investigation for abuse of power. The issue isn’t her gender - it’s that she’s abused her office for personal purposes. Abuse of power is intimately connected to policy - it shows that she is willing to place her personal agenda ahead of what’s good for the public. How would that apply in all kinds of situations? What kind of judgement does that demonstrate?
She supports teaching creationism in schools. Not science, creationism. There are no respectable scientists who support creationism. It’s a religious theory and has no place in science class. That’s bad policy.
Her quote about the pledge demonstrates a shocking lack of historical knowledge. Do you want someone who doesn’t even know American history making major decisions? What other glaring pieces of knowledge does she lack and how does that affect decision making? Does she - as some conservatives are known to claim - believe the Constitution is sacred? If so, how does that influence her decision making?
She’s been affiliated with an openly secessionist political party in Alaska. Do we want someone who thinks it’s okay for states to secede running the country? I can only imagine what Abraham Lincoln might say.
She supports abstinence-only education despite the fact that it doesn’t work - and look at her own family and you see it doesn’t even work in conservative families. That’s bad policy. The overwhelming body of research demonstrates that abstinence-only education is a waste of money. It does not create the desired policy outcomes. That’s bad policy.
Palin is anti-choice - simply stated she believes if a female becomes pregnant, she doesn’t have the right to make her own choices about whether to carry the pregnancy to term or not. That’s bad policy.
Palin is a religiously correct choice and a bad one. She’s demonstrated shockingly bad judgement and corruption even though she’s been governor less than two years. Her policy positions are at odds with the majority of the American people - who are pro choice, who support comprehensive sexuality education, who think you shouldn’t use your public office to punish ex-in-laws, who think religion doesn’t belong in science class.
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:02 am
Glenden,
You’ve probably already seen it, but there is a slew of great shit coming out on Bristol the Burlesque Queen, and the expert sex advice from the worlds’ greatest authorities on sex; Republicans and evangelists.
Go Bristol!!!!
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:42 am
Hey Cliff -
I hadn’t seen Elizabeth Austin’s take on it. It strikes me as cogent:
I like that model - if you say your status as a soccer mom or hockey mom or devoted husband and father/mother is relevant to your political career, you are saying your family’s behavior and status is relevant and you are inviting us to consider it. Bill Clinton, for all his pecadillos, was consistent. Yes he cheated on his wife but he didn’t run on a platform of ending marital infidelity.