John McCain and Sarah Palin: Like Two Peas in a Pod — Not Anymore
Jan 29th, 2012 | 25 responses
Of course two people — even if they were once on the same ticket for president and vice president of the United States — can, three years later, change some of their views and root for and endorse different candidates in the GOP presidential primaries.
It happens to the best of us, and in the best of families, including husband and wife — just look at James Carville and Mary Matalin …
Thus it should not be surprising to see, today, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, John McCain, fervently endorsing Mitt Romney for President and his running mate, Sarah Palin, just as enthusiastically endorsing Romney’s opponent, Newt Gingrich.
When John McCain picked Sarah Palin to be his political soul mate, he said she would be the right partner to help him “stand up to those who value their privileges over their responsibilities, who put power over principle and put their interest before [the people’s] needs,” because, in McCain’s words: “She is exactly who I need, she’s exactly who this country needs, to help me fight — to help me fight the same old Washington politics of me-first and country second.”
In return, when accepting “the privilege of serving with a man who has come through much harder missions … and met far graver challenges and knows how tough fights are won — the next president of the United States…” Sarah Palin heaped honor upon honor and accolade upon accolade on her newest idol, John McCain.
Our nominee for president is a true profile in courage, and people like that are hard to come by.
[::]
And then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things. They’re the ones who are good for more than talk … the ones we have always been able to count on to serve and defend America. Our nominee doesn’t run with the Washington herd.
Again, no surprise and nothing wrong to see these two who once would change the nation with their common ideals endorse different presidential candidates — both candidates are, after all, Republican and both claim to be Conservative.
It is, however, interesting — to say the least — to see and hear how viciously each attacks the other’s candidate or, in the case of Palin, the “elite establishment,” an establishment her former hero and soul mate is — willingly or reluctantly — a part of.
John McCain blasted Newt Gingrich the other day, saying: “The fact is he was a failed speaker and was not sent back. He could not have been re-elected as Speaker of the House and his leadership style was a major factor in giving him lack of support for re-election as speaker.”
According to CNN, McCain also accused Gingrich of “encouraging an explosion of earmarks that ultimately led to corruption in congress and for having a leadership style that would be problematic as president.”
In a January 19 robocall in South Carolina, McCain ripped Gingrich as being “dangerous”:
Newt Gingrich has experienced a lot of backlash over the last few days for his attacks on capitalism and Republican principles, and rightfully so …He must have forgotten that Republicans stand up for free enterprise and a strong work ethic.
[::]
Newt Gingrich should know better than to use the dangerous anti-capitalism rhetoric used by the Democrats. He’s using talking points straight out of Barack Obama’s campaign playbook… It’s finally time we sent him a strong message — this behavior is unacceptable.
On her part, Sarah Palin on her Facebook page fiendishly attacks the “Cannibals in [the] GOP Establishment” who have “adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent” thereby explicitly or implicitly attacking her mentor and not-so-maverick-anymore, part of the “Republican establishment,” John McCain.
Using some of Gingrich’s now infamous dog whistles, Palin calls the GOP opposition to Gingrich, “nothing short of Stalin-esque rewriting of history … Alinsky tactics at their worst … This is why we need a fair primary that is not prematurely cut short by the GOP establishment using Alinsky tactics to kneecap Governor Romney’s chief rival.”
And Palin — probably the least vetted vice-presidential candidate in American history — says that, while she respects Romney (and his success), there are serious concerns about Romney’s record and his conservative principles: “The questions need answers now… We need to vet this.”
Finally, the “unvetted one” accuses the GOP establishment, while not sufficiently vetting Obama, of “using every available microscope and endoscope – along with rewriting history – in attempts to character assassinate anyone challenging their chosen one in their own party’s primary.”
As I mentioned before, I find it highly interesting and amusing that two people who only three years ago were as alike as two peas in a pod in how the GOP was going to change America, to take America back (from …?), have now become such estranged bedfellows, ripping each other’s candidate and their very same Party apart.
Just musing.
Image: Shutterstock.com
25 Responses to “John McCain and Sarah Palin: Like Two Peas in a Pod — Not Anymore”
Palin was a campaign choice, not a governing choice. McCain wanted Lieberman, but Rove wouldn’t allow it…well, those that Rove represents. For some reason Romney was out of the question, not sure why, personal issues maybe. Palin was a perfect outsider..hot little thing to get the soc con hearts pumping. McCain took a massive risk that paid off until the economy crashed.
The two never had anything in common.
She’ll help Newt in the South…where he really won’t need help anyway. She will hurt him in more moderate states.
Good points, ShannonLeee
Palin and McCain were never two peas in a pod. They were poorly matched and Palin was chosen purely because of her demographics. Choosing Palin was a callous and irresponsible act by the GOP who thought they were seizing the moment while instead choosing a wholly incompetent candidate.
DG, has got it right about Palin and john.
But how about the saner people that are endorsing Newt, like Fred Thompson?
This pretty much comes down to which is more credible, the endorsement of quite possibly the most incompetent candidate to ever run for a national office in this country or the endorsement of the man who previously picked quite possibly the most incompetent person to ever run for a national office in this country to run for vice president four years ago. Are we to believe that one became more competent by signing books or that the judgment of the other dramatically improved by chanting the mantra “Build the damn fence?”
This is would all be funnier if it was a slapstick movie and not the very best one of our major parties could do to try to help the country out of the mess that they made.
Hi Merkin,
My post was just addressing the ridiculous “my candidate is good, yours is bad” battle presently going on between McCain and his previous running mate/soul mate.
However, you’re spot on in questioning the credibility of both.
There were several very good movies from ‘yesteryear’ that tried prevent the possibility of whats happening today by showing the American People what would happen if we weren’t careful, here’s but two:
Unfortunately one of the right’s primary objectives for the last 50 years is to re-written history.
Is it any wonder that these two classics (‘War and Peace’ quality in both depth and scope) have been all but forgotten.
“What are you smoking?”
Right back at ya frisky.
Merkin, your use of the word, “slapstick” is appropriate. I have to believe most voters see it as such by now as well. I can’t help but wonder who McCain would pick if he could do it over again. Palin was his downfall… better his than the country’s though.
“McCain is the reason we have Obama. Romney will be the reason Obama wins a second term.”
ROFLMAO…. I thought it was the Republicans who voted in the primaries and caucuses who choose McCain as the best possible candidate to go against the Democratic nominee (who many thought up until late in the game was going to be Hillary). I somehow missed that Obama choose his opponent (McCain) to stomp. My bad.
The party of personal responsibility takes no responsibility for the actions of the people they endorse and vote for.
read the commenters rules about not attacking writers or other commenters. Your choice to follow TMV rules or be banned.
Also, when a person is banned and tries to come in under another pseudo, they will be banned again immediately. It’s up to each commenter. The rules are there to keep this a civil place for all the many commenters who are civil.
I agree that McCain originally chose Palin purely for political expedience. Her good looks didn’t do Republicans any harm either.
I have never considered Palin to be anything but an opportunist who attempts to influence public attitudes as it suits her’s or, in general, most unbalanced conservative’s ideological talking points.
Does she really think that Democrats are the ones most adept at using, “the politics of personal destruction to attack opponents?” It still amazes me how she invents democratic fiends who, among other things,are supposedly eager to pull the plug on granny. she cheerleads for the “righteous,” indignation of conservastives by employing an endless series of outrageous and repugnant lies. Who does she think she is kidding?
On the other hand, McCain has at times, actually exhitbited ethical viewpoints concerning topics like, Congressional ear marks, the use of “enhanced” enterogation on POWs, and most recently, (on Meet the Press,I believe) condeming the Supreme Court for essentially handing down an irresponsible and stupid verdict in “Citizens United.”
Since McCain seemed to sell his soul by using political front groups to shamelessly attack Obama in the 2008 elections–by employing, quite frankly–outrageously negative television adds that rarely displayed any respect for the truth, I find it reasuring to think that, unlike Palin, he has actual scruples that he thinks are sometimes more important than politics.
In a nutshell, as other writers have commented, Palin was chozen as a running mate merely to garnish extra votes in an election that party leaders had become desperate to save. To McCain, this seems to be all that she really represents, and I doubt he has ever seriously considered many of the political talking points, that she uses so effectively to stir up the ire of a frustrated following. Thank God John McCain still sees little value in being an opinionated rock star like Palin!
It seems you could switch out McCain and Palin for Gore and Lieberman and tell a very similar story.
“McCain seemed to sell his soul”
yes, he did… sadly, he did.
It could be that the primary process and runaway handlers/advisers/party pressure, brings out the worst in candidates. The procedure is too long, awash in too much money (as John has pointed out) and ultimately leads to a compromised candidate forced to say many things, including promises, he either doesn’t mean, believe in, or will forget upon winning the nomination and then the presidency.
I still believe McCain is one of the good guys in politics and even if he were a Dem I would say that.
dd
For once, we’re on the same page!?!
Palin may be the most obviously fatal VP choice, but there’ve been others, over the years, that did no good whatsoever for the Presidential candidate – and for the reasons you stated.
Palin was the direct result of letting Mr. Limbaugh influence the GOP’s national slate. From the time he first discovered her, she was his pick, and the party (and McCain) knuckled under.
I wish I still believed that Duck. His behavior after the election has been very suspect. I used to be a BIG McCain fan, but I think he told the party lie so many times that he now believes it.
I’m with ShannonLeee.
In 2000 McCain would have been a shoo-in against Al Gore. Democrats were supporting him during the primary (and not for the reason that some of them are supporting Gingrich either). The country wanted McCain because he was not ‘The Party Man’. That is the same reason that the Republican Party did NOT want him.
Somehow in the next four years John McCain seemed to have sold his soul. He started supporting all of GWB’s stuff, no matter how horrendous. That was when I began wondering about him. When, in 2008, he ran and won the nomination, I was certain that he was thrown under the bus by the GOP.
Let’s face it, a drunk monkey might have been able to defeat a Republican nominee in 2008 so long as the Democratic Party was supporting it. 2008 was to be a political death sentence for any GOP candidate unlucky enough to win the nomination. McCain took the role–possibly because the actually thought he could win or possibly because it was likely to be his last real chance (given his age).
I’m with dduck, still like McCain.
dduck I’m afraid you’re standing alone on this one. I voted for McCain because I thought he was more moderate than Obama and also because he had been willing to take a stand even when it went against his party.
Since 2008 he has turned into just another politician who will say whatever it takes to get elected – the exact opposite of the independent thinker he ran as in 2008 and before. For me he has been a big disappointment.
DG, just as Greta Garbo said it. Sometimes you have to be alone.
I think McCain has been over-rated for a long time. I also suspect that many of his liabilities have been overlooked and glossed over because he’s so highly respected for his POW experience. After being treated so abysmally by his own party back around the time of his own South Carolina primary I think something snapped. He seems to run hot and cold anymore, sometimes he makes sense, sometimes he doesn’t… a little like some of his fans.
“a little like some of his fans.”
That’s me, all right.
Referring to Gingrich’s over-the-top attacks on Mitt Romney (where Gingrich calls Romney a “liberal,” for gun control, for abortion, for gay rights*, etc.) John McCain just said on CNN that Newt would next call Romney “a Communist.”
The way this “debate is going,” it would not surprise me.
* “for gay rights,” Wow, that should be Romney’s death knell
I am also with Duck about liking McCain. I think he lost in 2000 because, well I don’t know. But he changed in the next election, because he had to. McCain knew he wasn’t going to get the nod unless he veered right. But as far as republicans go, I agree with him on far more issues than I disagree. And compared to many of his colleagues, he is a pretty good guy.
Slam, the country doesn’t want “good guys”, they want bull**** artists and populists. You have to be consistent, right or wrong, to your party’s current platform, and beholden to the big buck slingers.