WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
“Some people claim that there’s a woman to blame”
Now that Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin has returned home to Alaska, she’s striking back at critics within the McCain campaign who blame her for the GOP ticket’s defeat, calling them cowardly for speaking to reporters anonymously. As for her being touted as a demanding diva, Palin said that all she ever asked for was “a Diet Dr Pepper once in a while.”
Allies of the governor have also come out in her defense.
McCain adviser Nicole Wallace, who some initially thought was leaking the nasty comments about Palin, defended her on NBC’s “Today” show this morning: “She is, perhaps, the most un-diva politician I’ve ever seen.”
Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., in an interview with Fox News, said, “She’s the one that energized the base, she’s the one that got the crowds out. … She’s the one that comes out of this without any scars and now they’re trying to give her some. John McCain should come out and say, ‘This is ridiculous,’ and set the record straight.”
So why hasn’t Sen. McCain done that?
back to top122 Comments to ““Some people claim that there’s a woman to blame””
“So why hasn’t Sen. McCain done that?”
Duh! Because McCain’s first impulse is to only graciously defend liberals and Democrats.
Report comment as offensive
Indeed, Sarah did energize the far-right of the party. Fortunately the rest of America said “no thanks”.
There are at least 5 substantial factions within the Republican party:
1. The religious/social conservatives (Dr. Dobson, et al).
2. The libertarian conservatives (led by Ron Paul).
3. The traditional conservatives (fiscally conservative, non-interventionist in foreign policy). Think Pat Buchanan.
4. The moderate conservatives (socially liberal, fiscally conservative). Think Olympia Snow.
5. The neo-conservatives (expansionist foreign policy, socially moderate). Think A.E.I.
We all get the pleasure of watching the factions slug it out for the next few years. They had already started fighting before election day. I’ll be glad to hold their coats
Just as the Democrats couldn’t win with just their far-left base, the Republicans can’t win with just their far-right base. You have to be willing to be more inclusive. The conservatives in England appear to have learned that lesson. It’s meant moving away from the far-right social issues and more toward the middle - which is where most people reside in a modern democracy.
Yes, Sarah commands leadership of the far-right faction in the Republican Party at the moment. Leaders come and go. In a few years it could be someone else leading them. I just know that if they aren’t willing to reach out and compromise with their fellow Republicans (and even with independents), the party will remain in the minority for the foreseeable future.
Report comment as offensive
Anlir,
It was not about Palin either way. The top of the tickets are always what drive elections. The fact that Sarah Palin is enormously liked by a wide spectrum of Americans does not make her a “leader” yet. She will need to perform and that is how it should be.
Report comment as offensive
Anlir,
Trust me, McCain didn’t lose this election because he was too conservative. More likely it was just the opposite. And if conservatives ever abandon the “far-right” issues such as abortion and fiscal conservatism (esp. abortion), they’ll never win another election. In fact, they’d probably be replaced by the Constitution party in two or three election cycles.
Why doesn’t anybody ever call liberals (like Obama) “far-left”? He was much, much, much, much farther left than McCain was right.
Report comment as offensive
Anlir, the conservative base was rather ostrocized by the media and the GOP. John McCain was an inclusive Republican but not a partisan. The problem is that only partisans win elections and Obama proves that perfectly.
Report comment as offensive
It’s funny to watch Anlir pretend that she knows more about conservatives than conservatives themselves.
Report comment as offensive
CNN news last night was reveling in the Republican meltdown. One commentator said that he wanted to plaster his walls with Republican misery. He said he was marinating in Republican backbiting like a delicious sauce.
This is all sad to see, but the liberal media is digging as low as is humanly possible.
Report comment as offensive
Because he lost.
His gamble didn’t pay off. Why should he spend any more time on her?
Sad.
Romans 8:28
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Report comment as offensive
As the song continues (and McCain should grab a microphone for this one): ” . . . it’s my own d**n fault.”
Report comment as offensive
Maybe at the 2nd debate when he wandered aimlessly and looked like he was looking for his lost dog, Mr. Puddles, he was really just lookin’ for his lost shaker of salt?
In any case, he’s now going to be wasting away in Margaritaville.
Report comment as offensive
The GOP meltdown is a good thing. We need two vibrant parties in this country, and at this time the GOP is in complete tatters. They have to hit bottom, and they are almost there. This should be a rebuilding time, and hopefully there will be some realistic reflection going on that will allow them to come back to the center where the American people live. If the GOP cuddles up in the corner with the extremist fundamentalist right wing of the party (think Palinistas and Bushies), they are in for a long wait to return to relevance.
As for the rift between the Palin and McCain camps? It’s sad that McCain picked such a woefully unprepared candidate, and put the nation at great risk should he have won. Thank the Lord that did not happen. But, I’m not surprised there is this rift. There were more than a few times she contradicted McCain’s platform on the stump, and even once referred to the ticket as Palin-McCain.
Hopefully she will go away and the GOP will not be lured into following her down that dead end. There isn’t time.
Report comment as offensive
Obviously John McCain is not a member of the far-right of the party. That’s what he picked Sarah Palin for. A fair number of Republicans were appalled at the selection and expressed their displeasure of it. It wasn’t just Democrats who were opposed to her.
The religious/social conservatives should be ostracized. In their current formation, they’re a plague on the Republican Party and it’s historical “big tent” philosophy. There is no doubt that the religious/social conservatives are a significant presence in the party and even control some of the levers of power. But they have succeeded in alienating the other factions, particularly the libertarian faction. They need all their factions plus the independents to put together a winning ticket.
Look, the Democrats have gone through these same fights over the last 8 years (longer, really). We’ve got our own factions. But when you’re out of power long enough and you want to win badly enough, you stop fighting each other and go to work expanding the party. That’s what the Democrats did, and that’s why they won. Sticking your head in the sand and demanding that it be “your faction’s way or the highway” will not bring you victory. It will, however, bring you frustration, anger, and defeat. That’s all I’m saying.
I warned y’all that the “Karl Rove” brand of politics was not going to work anymore because the American people wised up to it. Sure you can win a few elections by dividing people and turning out your base. But eventually people grow weary of the politics of division and demonization.
It’s appropriate that CNN, etc. cover the Republican in-fighting. They certainly covered the Democratic in-fighting. I remember in 2000 and 2004 when the news media covered the losing Democrats and wondered if they could ever get their act together and win another election. Karl Rove was crowing about how he had found the magical formula for installing a permanent Republican majority. My, my, my - how things change
But take heart - there is a way forward if you’re willing to take it.
Report comment as offensive
A clip from CNN in which Palin defends herself; note she calls her anonymous accusers unprofessional and then calls them jerks. Also she seems confused about Africa, now she thinks its both a continent and country.
Now Palin is not responsible for McCain’s defeat. He seemed to be heading in that direction before he selected her. She did generate some enthusiasm for the ticket and energized the base. The momentum could’ve carried them to victory but two things happened — the Katie Couric interview and McCain’s response to the economic problems.
And the fun still hasn’t stopped on Late Night
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es7wpmdvXOk
Why doesn’t anybody ever call liberals (like Obama) “far-left”? He was much, much, much, much farther left than McCain was right.
The American mainstream political spectrum is fairly narrow. Both Obama and McCain are right of center with Obama closer to the center.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
Mind you, if you and others continue to insist Obama is a left wing radical intent on the redistribution of wealth, I wold remind that 52% of America agree with him and thus he should govern further on the left.
Report comment as offensive
“note she calls her anonymous accusers unprofessional and then calls them jerks”
Hey, I had a bunch of girls calling me a jerk for telling the truth yesterday
“Also she seems confused about Africa, now she thinks its both a continent and country.”
Like I said: we are very lucky Palin-McCain lost. Scary to think what could have been.
Report comment as offensive
I can’t argue with the assertion that the Palin choice backfired. She proved to be exactly the person we expected her to be. The McCain advisors had to know that she would make centrist Republicans run straight into Obama’s arms. They hoped, however, that she would energize a sufficient number of evangelicals to offset the loss of centrist Republicans.
In an ironic sense, Palin was too successful. She energized evangelicals to a greater degree than anyone ever expected. At the same time, she offended centrist Republicans more than anyone ever expected. In the end, an ultra-energized far-right base could not offset the resulting loss of centrists.
That explains McCain’s Indiana loss. In McCain still did reasonably well in counties where a significant number of Republicans are social conservatives (e.g., Hancock county just east of Indianapolis). But in places where few Republicans are social conservatives (e.g., Indianapolis), McCain was hammered. Indianapolis has more registered Republicans than Democrats, yet Obama secured nearly 2/3 of the vote in Indiana’s capital city. Thus, Obama won Indiana because about 40% of Indianapolis Republicans voted for him over their Party’s ticket.
I’d guess that Palin caused this. That’s why this moderate Republican voted for Obama.
Report comment as offensive
RPN wrote; “It’s sad that McCain picked such a woefully unprepared candidate, and put the nation at great risk should he have won. Thank the Lord that did not happen.”
Instead, America picked a woefully inexperienced candidate (far less experienced than Sarah Palin) and put the nation at great risk in dicy times. But we can trust the Lord nevertheless.
Report comment as offensive
#12
Well, at least Anlir’s memory isn’t as bad as Musing’s.
I don’t necessarily agree with him on all his points, but I am pleased that he DOES remember, that the Democrats already went through this in the last 8 years at least as bad.
Does anyone really like the Neocons? I can’t think of anyone.
Social Conservatives — many of them — would have stuck with the Democratic party if it hadn’t cold shouldered them and gone for a platform that completely shut them out.
I don’t think social Conservatism caused a problem.
Seriously, McCain was TOO non-Conservative. Bush wasn’t politically conservative enough, and — honestly — he didn’t do much for the social conservatives either. He may have BELIEVED the right way, but he really didn’t do much.
You do have to be partisan to win. So I don’t agree with Anlir there. I guess you just have to pick which issues to be partisan with. Some issues will get you kicked in the butt. Others will work for you.
If the economic meltdown hadn’t happened, McCain would have won (so the polls tell us). So, if I were a Democrat, I wouldn’t be crowing too loudly (Anlir, hasn’t, btw, so let’s give him a little credit here. Musing and RPN, on the other hand….) And, the fact that we COULD have won had the economy not tanked tells us that we’re not completely out-done here…not at all. But, had the Republicans in office behaved like real conservatives, then maybe the economy wouldn’t have tanked.
Or maybe…well, the economists will analyze it to death, and we probably won’t really know until we’re a bit away from it all.
Report comment as offensive
Again, I point out, the polls showed that Palin did exactly what the McCain campaign wanted her to do. They had taken the lead…significantly…until the economy tanked.
The polls all show this.
Report comment as offensive
EVAN wrote; “I can’t argue with the assertion that the Palin choice backfired.”
You couldn’t argue very well for that assertion either.
EVAN, there is zero evidence that Palin made centrist Republicans run straight into Obama’s arms. That’s ridiculous. McCain himself is the ideal candidate for so-called “centrist Republicans.” If a “centrist Republican” could not vote for McCain, then there is no one on earth they’ll find who fits their bill better.
Clue: McCain was the top of the ticket. Palin only offended partisan leftists (and there are a lot of those these days).
McCain lost because he is a “centrist Republican.”
Report comment as offensive
There was indeed a GOP melt-down and failure.
Solution–listen only to the deceiving gloating media “experts” and leftist ideologes and the Obamunists for advice on how the GOP can fix the poroblem…
…NOT!!!
Report comment as offensive
Obama was an extremely partisan Democrat and McCain was a “centrist” Republican.
Which one won?
Only partisans, left or right, win with the American electorate. All the rhetoric about disliking partisanship is mostly disingenuous. Americans like those who take a side and don’t try too hard to play the middle.
Report comment as offensive
The thing Republicans seem to be forgetting is that there is a huge “independent” body of Americans who swing back and forth in these elections. You need them to win. They may be registered as Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, but they vote based on the person and the circumstances. They are not slaves to either party. The bottom line is that Obama captured them and McCain didn’t.
It’s the considered opinion of many folks that the choice of Sarah Palin cost McCain the election. She was too “mavericky” for people (and frankly, not qualified in most American’s opinion). McCain made a rash decision in picking her, which instead of showing him to be a “maverick”, showed him to be of unsteady judgment. Obviously there were other things that cost him the election. But many folks believe that if he had chosen someone like Lieberman he could have put together a winning ticket.
I know that the conventional wisdom among the far-right is to blame this loss on the media. But I really think people know in their gut what they think about a candidate, and they just weren’t comfortable with Palin. Yes, people like a “populist”, but they like one who is knowledgeable and knows how to deal with the media. It was just a bridge too far for people to put her in such an important job.
I liked McCain at one time and would have even considered voting for him, depending on whom he chose for his running mate. Even a year ago I was favorably disposed to him and would have not been upset if he was elected over a Democrat. But then he shed his “maverick” image, became a slave to the far-right of the party, and adopted the “Karl Rove” brand of campaigning. In the end he proved to be too unsteady and mean for me (and apparently for a lot of Americans).
Report comment as offensive
Joel’s analysis is totally off base.
Obama won by appealing to the “middle” of the American populace. He did not run as a classic liberal Democrat or a partisan politician. I know the far-right is convinced that he’s a died-in-the-wool liberal. (Some of the crazies are even calling him a “Socialist” or a “Communist”).
But if you listen carefully to what he actually says, he’s a moderate-liberal. His answers are cautious and tempered with reality (as opposed to ideology). I think both the far-left and the far-right will be disappointed in how he governs. If anything, he’s in favor of what works, no matter where the idea comes from.
But seriously, it wasn’t his party affiliation or his policy prescriptions that won him the election. It was his ability to connect with people and inspire them. He’s very much like Reagan in that way.
But enough about Obama. This thread is supposed to be about Sarah Palin.
Report comment as offensive
Joel Mark,
I can’t agree. I fact, the latter portion of my previous post cites Indiana voting numbers that support the argument. Moreover, I work with wealthy Republicans every day, and grew up in a Rockefeller Republican family. Most folks in my social network are Republicans. Guess what? Nearly all of my friends, co-workers, and family voted for Obama. And we all have one reason: Palin and her uppity band of social populists.
MCain may have been at the top of the ticket. Nevertheless, Palin was the more visible part of the ticket.
You also miss the point that genteel Republicans care as much about social standing as marginal tax rates. We will certainly pay higher taxes under Obama. But we can rest assured that we played no role in electing a VP who thought that Africa was a country and couldn’t recite the three signatories to NAFTA.
Report comment as offensive
KRM,
Sara may not have been the most experienced choose he could make, but she was Second on the ticket.
BO has less experience and he is going to be president!
What do you say about that?
Report comment as offensive
Lest we fool ourselves and think we have made something happen or not happen, remember in the WORD, it is very, very clear Who it is Who promotes. Keep the faith. Revival is coming.
Report comment as offensive
TRS- 18
I hate to break it to you, but Palin’s numbers were tanking well before the financial meltdown….
A=Approve
D=Disapprove
NO=No Opinion
Net=Difference between A and D
DATE A - D - NO - Net
9/11: 52 35 13 +17
9/12: 51 37 12 +14
9/13: 49 40 11 +9
9/14: 47 42 11 +5
9/15: 47 43 10 +4
9/16: 45 44 11 +1
9/17: 44 45 11 -1
9/18: 42 46 11 -4
That’s a net loss of 21 over one week….
There are links to several polling sources showing the same trend here….
Report comment as offensive
TRS,
I’m “seasoned” enough to know that what goes around comes around in politics. If Obama and the Democratic congress don’t perform, they’re gonna get punished in 2 years and 4 years. (Congress is already pretty much in the “pokey” with the American people anyhow). People always blame the ones that are running the show, fairly or not.
Whenever a new party takes over, there’s always this huge beginning, followed by the “Great Letdown”. And then the other party gets to gloat and say “See, we told you!”. And then the American electorate will weigh in in the next election.
…And the wheel keeps turning.
Report comment as offensive
EVAN-
Thanks for your most thoughtful input. It’s welcome around here.
Report comment as offensive
RPN,
I’m not talking about Palin by herself. (You and other people like you, along with the media, helped to bring her down to Earth a bit.)
But, according to what I’ve been reading on lots of sites (not Conservative) McCain was projected to win until the economy tanked.
And, that was with all his many faults, and all the many other reasons that people had to go against the Republicans. The economy does appear to have sunk his chances.
Report comment as offensive
If anything, he’s in favor of what works, no matter where the idea comes from.
******This would make me very happy, if true.
Report comment as offensive
They are not slaves to either party. The bottom line is that Obama captured them and McCain didn’t.
******I agree with this.
Obama was very appealing. He is young. He is smart. Our allies like him. He appears to be a good family man. He seems to approach things with a calm head.
And, so I have argued. If I didn’t pay any attention to the issues (or only a little attention) then *I* would have voted for him. As a person, he ran a much more appealing campaign than McCain did.
Report comment as offensive
Lloyd- “BO has less experience and he is going to be president! What do you say about that?”
An extremely thoughtful, intelligent, articulate, thinker with knowledge about the world and different religions, the humility to ask questions before acting, and the commitment to earn a doctorate and teach constitutional law.
Or someone who thinks seeing Russia is foreign policy experience and Africa is a country, was blessed by a witch chaser, has unresolved ethics scandals, went hog wild buying clothes with the RNC credit cards, charges the tax payers for staying home from work, thinks dinosaurs and people lived at the same time, winks at us in a serious debate, spent 6 years in 5 different colleges to earn a journalism degree, thinks rape victims shoudl be forced to have rapist’s and child abusers babies, can’t name a single newspaper she reads, answers direct questions with jibberish, and necessitated the RNC sending a lawyer to get their clothes back?
Sounds like we made a great choice!!!
God Bless President-elect Obama!
Report comment as offensive
In other words, unlike Musings “the whole American people have changed where they stand,” I think that many, many people simply voted for the most appealing candidate.
My mother chose not to vote for Obama, even though she’s a Democrat. She and my dad voted for McCain, after being life-long Democrats. But, they are Conservative Democrats, and Obama’s policies drove them nuts.
But, even my mom said, “Why couldn’t the Republican party have picked someone younger whose neck didn’t look like a turkey’s?”
She and I both know this is shallow, but look at who people are today…Brittany Spears, Paris Hilton — we’re far more into celebrities and their lives than into issues.
Of course, there were lots of people who did vote on the issues, but I truly believe that a lot of people voted for Obama because he was more appealing. That’s that “swing” crowd, some of the ethnic crowd, and those who think that young is somehow better.
Then you take a Republican party where many Christians voted third party rather than “hold their nose,” a tanking economy, people tired of a war and tired of the “reigning party” after 8 years, and you get a 53% swing to the Democrats.
It’s easy enough to see. We don’t have to go on about people changing their heart values, or America swinging Left. We just have to look at people and at circumstances.
If the Republicans can field a good-looking, charismatic guy next time, and the Democrats don’t do a really excellent job, then we’ll see it swing Republican once again in 2 - 4 or 8 years.
No more old men. No more “dough-faced” white boys. And we’ll see a swing in the middle votes.
This doesn’t mean that I don’t take Anlir seriously and people like him. Or people like me seriously. But there are an awful lot in the middle that swing with a pretty face, their pocketbook, and what they ate for lunch.
Report comment as offensive
#33
As usually…a bunch of swill and half truths. The honorable thing to do would be to retract half of what you wrote and stop posting the drivel. But, on you go, and on, and on. Do you wonder why regular posters finally go nuts??
Report comment as offensive
But seriously, it wasn’t his party affiliation or his policy prescriptions that won him the election. It was his ability to connect with people and inspire them. He’s very much like Reagan in that way.
******Exactly. (I hadn’t read this yet.)
Report comment as offensive
Palin scared the bejeebers out of tens of millions of Americans in both parties. And they held McCain accountable for trying to foist her off on them as being qualified.
Even today she did nothing but blame the media for a)reporting that her own campaign’s aides had called her all kinds of names, b)reporting that the RNC is investigating her wardrobe malfunction and c)existing.
She hasn’t a clue. And America found that out.
Incidentally, the utter hypocrisy that characterizes CCR involvement in politics is best illustrated by the complete aplomb with which they greeted the news that her unwed daughter was pregnant by a punk rock tattooed sluggard. I can only imagine the howls and 24/7 barrage of sanctimony and pseudo-socio-political analysis which would have greeted the news that one of Obama’s kids, had they been older, was in the same sad condition.
Rather interestingly and, I thought, courageously, one of the WMB bloggers followed that revelation up with some pretty uncomfortable numbers about CCR kids’ sexual activity. But nobody much wanted to engage that topic.
Don’t look now, but that is the generation that voted most heavily Democratic.
Report comment as offensive
RPN
BO thinks when Russia invades a country, that county should show restraint.
If someone invades America, should we show restraint to them?
Report comment as offensive
Lloyd-
You must have missed the results of the investigation released this week. Georgia was the aggressor, not Russia….. I can dig for it if you like.
Report comment as offensive
I can only imagine the howls and 24/7 barrage of sanctimony and pseudo-socio-political analysis which would have greeted the news that one of Obama’s kids, had they been older, was in the same sad condition.
******Probably from the usual suspects.
Yet, this blog is chock full of other people, other Christians, who do not behave this way. There are lots of us.
Yet, you and Anlir, both get carried away telling us that we are ALL at the extreme. It gets tiring.
Should I start posting about the “flaming homosexuals” and how they behave and paint the two of you in with that crowd?
I doubt that either you or Anlir fit with that crowd, and I don’t fit (nor does Kim, or Karen, or Pauline, or Make It Man, or many others) into your little box you’d like to put us in.
Just because some yell louder (or dress more outlandishly and put on affectations), doesn’t mean they speak for everyone.
As for Palin, I don’t honestly *know* what I think about her. I was so terribly upset with RPN’s concerted attacks on her, and the poor way the media treated her, that I didn’t have time to really learn any TRUTH about her. I still don’t know much.
She makes me uneasy. Certainly not because of her religion, since I grew up sharing the same one. I think it is even crass to mention it, unless it specifically has caused her to do something endangering to America…and it hasn’t.
The clothing has been explained. It may say bad things about some in the Republican party (as if the Democrats don’t have their own problems in this area!), but I don’t see a real problem with it. I rather wonder why clothing doesn’t come under fair use, since posters, commercials and other “showy” but little substance things do. If a poster or a candidate needs an update…so what?
I doubt that the “Africa as a country” has much more merit than Obama’s “57 states” remark.
I don’t know much about NAFTA myself (although I could have guessed), and I happen to be quite intelligent.
I do think that she was likely not ready to come out and play in the really big crowd yet. And, I do think that the McCain campaign would like to make her a scapegoat, and that’s not fair.
I doubt she’d be ready to run in 2012, but she might make a good senator then…or not. I just don’t know the REAL Sarah Palin.
Obviously, she’s a lot better than RPN paints her, because 80% of Alaskans like (or liked…who knows now) her. That’s an amazing approval rating. I’d bet its unmatched in most other states.
But, did she perform well overall? No. She didn’t. But, there were a lot of things that could have caused that: too much handling, not enough handling, too little time (she should likely have been “groomed” for a much longer period of time), and such.
I’d like to know more about Sarah…sans political snarkiness before I made a decision about her.
I honestly didn’t even think about her when I voted. I voted for McCain, and not particularly because I liked him, although I greatly respect his war record. I didn’t agree with Obama on the issues.
There. How’s that for a straight up honest post? Hopefully, I can get some straight up, thoughtful answers in response.
I’ve seen Anlir do it. I’ve seen Arcadia do it. I know CoyoteBlue can do it.
Let’s see who else.
Report comment as offensive
Lloyd-
Sometimes I wonder where you guys get your “news”
Report: Georgia May Have Sparked War With Russia
and
Georgia Claims on Russia War Called Into Question
And you of course DO know John McCain had Georgia’s lobbyist on his staff, right. Think about it….
Report comment as offensive