Is Sarah Palin Going To Be Going, Going Gone?
If John McCain’s Trainwreck Express can make it through the next few days without going off the rails, then running mate Sarah Palin probably will survive.
But if the revelations continue to roll in — from Palin’s thuggery as a small-town mayor and big-state governor, that she couldn’t even operate a car wash without running afoul of the law, her problematic religious affiliations, to the lack of vetting until after the fact to perhaps the most important determinant, Barack Obama’s widening lead in the polls — then she will join Thomas Eagleton as half of the answer to a political trivia question that will stump future generations: Who are the two vice presidential nominees who were forced to withdraw?
One thing is for certain: Palin will not withdraw voluntarily and the extreme right wing of the Republican Party will fight tooth and nail to keep her in the game.
Party elders not in the thrall of Phyllis Schlafly and James Dobson understand that McCain’s candidacy already is crippled by his own lackadaisical performance on the stump and twin albatrosses glowering on his shoulders by the names of George Bush and Dick Cheney. They further understand that his White House bid probably has been dealt a fatal blow if the polarizing Palin isn’t bounced quickly because the notion that she will attract disaffected Democratic women in droves is silly and McCain cannot come close to winning on the backs of religious extremists and people turned off to Obama because of his perceived inexperience and skin color.
(An aside: Isn’t it just extraordinary that Bush, the titular head of the party and, by the way, president of the United States, is considered to be so toxic that he was relegated to phoning in to the convention a brief homily to McCain that concluded before the networks went to prime-time coverage?)
These elders will tell McCain of Palin’s own toxicity in no uncertain terms.
If McCain doesn’t acquiesce and tell Palin that she is to withdraw, almost certainly by using the cover story that she has concluded that her family, especially her special-needs son and pregnant 17-year-old daughter, have to come first, then the damage will be even worse. This is because it will take nanoseconds for McCain’s refusal to do what will be widely-viewed as best for party and country to leak out, and for most people “maverick” is not synonymous with “willfully stupid.”
The bottom line is that as some pundits (myself included) who have been around the block a few times knew, it was pretty much inevitable that Obama would begin to pull away from McCain as the summer doldrums ended if he didn’t make any big mistakes or picked a loser as a running mate.
McCain, of course, has been running-in-place in the polls since forever. He hasn’t made any big mistakes, but he hasn’t been able to make any inroads. And now he has chosen a running mate so awful that she is hiding from the press, the sycophants at Fox News are left to bloviate about “distracting questions about her qualifications,” and not even a Gulf Coast hurricane and his own party convention can blow her off of the front page.
In the end, Palin’s fate may well come down to the polls. A commanding Obama lead will further panic those party elders and swing-state incumbents whose asses already are in a sling, and it’s a good bet that Palin will be sent packing.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
48 Responses to “Is Sarah Palin Going To Be Going, Going Gone?”
[...] Voice says that Sarah Palin’s nomination for Republican Party’s vice-presidential slot is in jeopardy: Party elders not in the thrall of Phyllis Schlafly and James Dobson understand that McCain’s [...]
Shawn,
With all due respect, this is not Daily KOS, you must have dialed a wrong number.
Of course, Shawn is partially correct but does not take it far enough. There is no good candidate for VP for the Republicans just like there was no really good candidate for President. All of them have huge amounts of baggage and none of them have delivered leadership and ability in the past.
However, Shawn just does not take it long enough and discuss the situation as it appears: that the Republican party is about to finish its death spiral and that the U.S. will soon be a one party state.
I guess as long as there is McCains wife and Palin, the left of center pundits do not have to think about reconcile the disjointed policy positions of the Democratic party. Does Shawn really think that making 20 million illegal aliens citizens will raise real wages or lower energy consumption?
I disagree that Palin will be yanked. If that were to happen the election would be over. It would be an ADMISSION that this pick was a disaster, which is worse than the disaster on its own.
The GOP is stuck with her. She appeals to the hard-core Christianist base in ways that McCain never did. They will try to turn her into some reformer moderate and peel off Independent women. It won't work because, well, Independent women aren't stupid and they've seen people like Palin in their own lives.
Meanwhile, the Palin pick rallies Democrats – including especially Democratic women – to Obama. The virulent anti-Semitism and far-right extremism of some of Palin's associates will turn off wavering Democrats every bit as much as Ayers and Wright turned off wavering Republicans to Obama.
The eight point lead by Obama-Biden over McCain-Palin shows that the Dems left a good impression via their convention. That bounce was the accumulation of good performances turned in by both Clintons, Ted Kennedy, and of course, Sen. Obama himself. Now, the GOP is doing the same, with solid speeches by Fred Thompson and you-might-as-well-be-Republican Joe Lieberman. Expect an excellent speech tonight by Gov. Palin, and a best-yet performance by Sen. McCain to close, and we'll be looking at a four point Dem lead by Saturday. Things will tighten further as the little dust-ups around Palin don't stick, and conservatives rally around the “underdog” GOP ticket with new vigor. Can you say horserace?
Elrod is correct.
The GOP will stick by Palin because most conservatives agree with her ideology and many want a woman on the ticket to try to pick up Hillaryites. She is pro-NRA, pro-drilling, pro-life and anti-tax. The fact that she uses her interpretation of “God's will” in her political speeches will appeal to the base as it turns off the rest of us.
Yes, we're 'stuck' with a candidate who energizes the base (which every political analyst would have thought impossible in this election cycle) and has the potential to close the deal with some independents as well.
If that's being stuck, I'm in!
This 'Harriet Miers' meme is nothing but wishful thinking, but I guess you guys have to hold on to something.
CS- Just remember- she energizes the base, as she simultaneously turns off the Independents and moderates that McCain needs to overcome Obama. There aren't many moose to hunt in the wilds of DC! LOL
I'm noticing lately that the more effort taken to learn about Palin, the more information that is discussed, and the larger the question looms about her abilities, the more her defenders start referring to the conversation as “attacks”. This seems like a typical photographic negative sort of reaction from the right after they've exercised poor judgement. I think the intent is to portray her to the not-so-well-informed demographic of voters as a “victim”, and the dems as mean old so and so's.
kritt, by definition, independents are a varied bunch. I believe that you make the mistake of presuming that all of them are turned off by the same things that turn off you personally.
JS- Yes,Gov. Palin is a victim of the vast left-wing conspiracy–LOL!
There is at least one theorty that the Republican Establishment wants McCain to fail miserably so that he will become irrelevant. Part of the theory is the bad advice and the bad strategies that McCain has taken. I wonder if Palin can be worked into the meme that what is left of the Repubilcan Establishment wants him to fail.
Christine– Ok— I agree- she will turn off some independents- there are many who are much more conservative than the present administration.
Shaun,
There’s a big difference between “been around the block” and “going over the edge”.
If your partisanship wasn’t blinding you to the obvious, you would be curled up in the fetal position, slowly rocking back and forth.
Palin’s pick locked the election for McCain. The only variable that was ever in question was if the base was going to get behind his campaign. This is the same base that won elections even when the democrats were in mouth-foaming frenzies in 2000 and 2004.
Now, with independents and disaffected democrats up for grabs, Obama knows he’s already lost. Democrat elders are now trying to form a strategy to limit the defeat to something respectable as opposed to a 49 state blowout.
Start early by forming a support group to help you through the next few months.
“Now, with independents and disaffected democrats up for grabs, Obama knows he’s already lost. Democrat elders are now trying to form a strategy to limit the defeat to something respectable as opposed to a 49 state blowout.”
Which explains why Obama has widened his lead in the polls, right?? For the first time he has topped 50%–following the selection of this far-right wing nut.
When are conservatives going to realize that their ideology is out of step with mainstream Americans???
When they start losing elections.
jwest, that's at least the second post you've made today that is nothing, zip, nada but sarcasm. What this says is that your ability to make a coherent argument has broken down and that all you have left is ad hominem BS.
So what are the odds on Obama being withdrawn and replaced by a democratic presidential candidate who is better qualified and doesn't have the same controversial connections (Rev Wrigth, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, etc.). Id put them about the same as Palin being withdrawn, ie. not a chance in hell.
Shawn's piece is nothing more than a hit job. So much for his “moderate voice”.
I sincerely doubt Palin will be replaced. For one thing, that would be suicide. Second, with whom would they replace her? From reports of the difficulties McCain faced in his selection process, it appears that his other top choices would have pissed off one faction or another even more than Palin. Third, I think it's quite possible she will be able to weather the current storm. I'm not certain of that of course, because only in the past few days have reporters descended on Alaska. It's hard to say what, if anything more, they will find. If it's not much, then there's not enough. Then it's up to Palin to prove herself. And I think it's quite possible she can do that. However, if they keep her hidden and off-limits to the press, the press isn't going to react well.
So, when is the deadline for the presidential/vice presidential candidates to amend their applications and have the names changed on the ballots? Presumably once this deadline has passed the campaigns won't change their candidates or else they risk votes for their candidates as being ineligible….
I would say that McCain will get a slight bounce from the convention, and if they are going to decide to bounce Palin, and it's a BIG if in my book, I honestly don't think they will do it, but if they do decide to pick another VP, it will be within the next three weeks. And it will probably be someone like Pawlenty or maybe Hutchinson….
Replacing Palin would piss off the conservative groups McCain is trying to court and make him look incompetent. They are stuck with her.
Leonidas makes an excellent point.
What are the chances Obama will step down and allow the democrats to pick someone with a chance of winning?
Have any of you on the “center-left” wondered where the 527 ads are that highlight Obama and Rev. Wright? Maybe the folks on the right have forgotten about him. Or maybe, the right wingers know that Obama’s 20 year relationship with Wright would be easily explained and that Wright’s views on America aren’t so far out of the mainstream that it would matter.
Ya. That’s the ticket.
Or maybe, just maybe, the right has done the near-impossible task of holding all these groups back until Obama was the official nominee. It could be that after the convention, these groups will unleash a campaign that will insure every person in the country sees Barak joined at the hip with Rev. Wright and his views in a decidedly unflattering way.
Let’s wait and see which scenario plays out.
SBSF, this article answers your question about how a candidate can be replaced: At any point before tomorrow night, McCain could simply replace Palin. But once she formally accepts her nomination, he’ll no longer have the power to do so unilaterally. According to Ben Ginsberg, the former general council at the Republican National Committee, Republican rules stipulate that the 168 members of the national committee would need to ratify any replacement to make it official.
jwest—
If Obama had no chance of winning he wouldn't be polling at over 50%, lol. He wouldn't have been able to raise more than 50 million in the month of July. He wouldn't have been able to singlehandedly bring down the Clintons. Get real.
J Spencer: what exactly is the coherent argument being presented against Sarah Palin?
That she doesn't have enough experience (even though in years her record is similar to Obama's, but instead of spending most of that time running a campaign for the White House she's actually been governing a state and dealing with energy policy?)
That her relative inexperience undercuts McCain's argument against Obama? (Even though no one seemed to object to the fact that picking Biden, the ultimate Washington insider, completely undercut Obama's change message?)
That she has a normal family, and unlike a male candidate she's expected to stay home with the kids instead of taking a demanding job (even though it's the Dems who've always argued the opposite?)
That she is involved in a 'scandal' (which appears to be about her firing someone who held a position that served at the governor's pleasure, and if it did have anything to do with the firing of a state trooper then why in the world shouldn't that trooper have been fired for threatening to shoot Palin's father over a family dispute? Good luck getting the public to get outraged about that one.)
That some of the local political establishment didn't like her (guess what- that's the very essence of a reform politician- unlike Obama who was taken under the wing of the Daley establishment in Chicago.)
That she has socially conservative values (how many exaggerations are we going to see about her pushing for creationism to be taught in schools, and banning of contraception education in schools, before someone notices that no one ever links to any actual verification of her real positions on these issues when they make these claims?)
That her family, like every other, is imperfect and that somehow the traditional respect for children of candidates has now gone out the window? (good luck with not having that one backfire on you too.)
You'll notice that I had to make the arguments for you guys before I could rebut them, because most of the anti-Palin posts have been based on emotional screeds without actually making any coherent arguments. But since you asked, I went ahead and listed the presumed arguments against her, and you'll notice that I had no trouble at all making the counterarguments.
CStanley: what exactly is the coherent argument being presented against Sarah Palin?
I'd say there are two themes that tie things together: (1) Palin is very conservative, and; (2) she hasn't been honest about herself.
CStanley, you have it partly right, but conveniently spun to your POV. Keep your eyes and ears open and stay tuned. The jury is still out… except for the those folks who don't believe proper vetting is necessary.
Rico: “Palin is very conservative.” And the problem with that is? People who disagree with conservative policy certainly have every right to oppose her on those grounds, but I'm missing where it's scandalous for the more conservative of our two parties (at least ostensibly) to have nominated a conservative candidate for VP.
“she hasn't been honest about herself”. What has she been dishonest about?
JSpencer: As for spin, since I presented both sides of the argument I hardly think I deserve that accusation (esp since every post here only gives the spin that opposes Palin, with very little supporting evidence for that POV.)
jwest: Have any of you on the “center-left” wondered where the 527 ads are that highlight Obama and Rev. Wright? Maybe the folks on the right have forgotten about him. Or maybe, the right wingers know that Obama’s 20 year relationship with Wright would be easily explained and that Wright’s views on America aren’t so far out of the mainstream that it would matter.
That's a good point, and everyone has to know it's coming. But even there the Palin pick complicates the picture, though it's unclear to what extent at this point.
[...] [...]
Anyone want to make a betting pool on how many hit pieces Shaun will post tommorrow?
I'll take 3.
CStanley, the “problem” with Palin being conservative is that a lot of people aren't. McCain won the nomination because he wasn't “too conservative”. In terms of being dishonest…
1. She was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it. Her claim that she told congress to stuff it is blatantly false.
2. She was for earmarks before she was against them. She even hired a member of Abramoff's team to lobby for earmarks for Wasilla.
3. She wasn't exactly the breath of fresh air to Wasilla politics that she claims, and she left the town in a financial mess
4. She was a close associate of Ted Stevens, arguably the “big Cahuna” of Alaska's corrupt politicians before she was against him. She served on his PAC. And without his support it's unlikely she would have been elected governor.
5. She's not really a tax cutter — she raised taxes at least as much as she cut them.
Everyone thought Huckabee was a breath of fresh air, too. But then some of his more extreme views started coming out and the more moderate voters left him. That, as I see it, is the danger with Palin.
Btw, I think there are more than enough serious concerns about Palin's character and contradictions with her positions without creating distracting arguments around her family, either pro OR con. That said, when she herself makes family values an issue then she has opened the door to whether or not she walks the walk or only talks the talk. Should that be a primary focus? I don't think so. My own concerns with Palin have to do with her 1.) extreme ideology & 2.) her extremely limited experience. When the 2 are combined, there is more than enough reason to want a proper vetting. As we've seen though, her fans in ideology are willing to give her a pass – regardless of the vetting results, and before her character has been thoroughly explored.
Ricorun, thanks for the link! Though I didn't know, I wouldn't have expected McCain to be able to replace Palin unilaterally. I would have not have guessed that 168 members of the national committee would need to approve it.
But I still think it's unlikely McCain will replace her. If 168 members of the national committee need to approve it, then the chances are almost zero.
CStanley: what exactly is the coherent argument being presented against Sarah Palin?
Personally I'd like to know anything about her position on the Iraq War (to begin with) and the other important issues that Americans believe are important.
How can you be “for” someone if they have no positions on the most important issues? You can certainly be against them (for lack of knowledge).
It's like you or anyone of us standing up and saying, “Vote for me” though no one knows your positions. Actually, come to think about it, many people on here probably know more about you (and other commentor's positions including my own) on the Iraq War, healthcare, education, etc. than they do about Palin's positions.
Stockboy, I have no problem with people who are reserving judgment on Palin until they know more about her stance on issues. Take a gander at the headlines here and on many other blogs today though. Are they reserving judgment? Are they really issue focused objections that are being raised?
Leonidas: I'm not sure I want to make bets because it seems possible that some <ahem> editorial meetings might take place among the TMV staff between now and tomorrow.
For now, though, it's like watching a round of limbo: how low can they go? LOL
StockBoySF,
You make an excellent point. I made a similar comment yesterday.
The personal stuff about Palin is filling the vacuum left by the fact that she has virtually no national and international policy stances.
Maybe if the McCain camp weren't shielding her from interviews, we might get to know what she stands for.
Right now, we've got:
1) More oil drilling
2) I hope the Iraqi occupation is following God's will and that we have an exit strategy
3) Give Alaska more Federal money
4) No abortions under any circumstances
Ricorun, your assessment of why McCain won the nomination reflects the typical misunderstanding that liberals have of the average American voter. US voters have drifted a bit to the left, but not nearly as much as you guys seem to think they have. And despite the attempts to fearmonger about the boogeyman of the religious right, most Americans aren't buying it.
But you know, go ahead and run with your ticket, the most liberal that your party has ever put up, and we'll see how that works out for you. If Obama/Biden do win though, keep in mind that they started with a 15 poiht advantage due to the dissatisfaction with the current administration. If they win by a small margin, it certainly doesn't prove a mandate for a liberal agenda.
As for the 'lies' of Palin, I still see a list of he said/she said, until more information comes out one way or another. And I fail to see how most of those things would be any more egregious than any of the flip flops by the other candidates on both tickets.
Chriswww and company: if you are really that interested in her policy positions, there's a good bit of coverage of her at beldar.org (including some links to video of her debates in the Alaska governor's race, showing that Biden ought not to get too overconfident.)
CStanley,
I did some scans of the Palin related posts and I'm not seeing much as far as national or foreign policy. Please help me out…
Thanks for the link CS. I don't think Biden is likely to make the mistake of being overconfident, since he already has the burden of having to pull his punches. If Palin's debate skills are halfway decent, then the debate might be more interesting than I would have suspected.
CStanley: Ricorun, your assessment of why McCain won the nomination reflects the typical misunderstanding that liberals have of the average American voter.
Actually, I got that impression from both my conservative friends and my time on right wing blogs over the past year or so. Quite a few people I know were disgusted when he won the primary, and vowed not to vote for him for that very reason — he wasn't conservative enough.
At any rate, you initially asked what I thought the coherent argument being presented against Sarah Palin was. And I believe that going forward it will be what I said: she's too conservative and she's hasn't been very honest. But I agree that whether it works or not is by no means clear. Also, I do agree that getting too aggressive about her personal life is likely to backfire. And Dems should not be overconfident about anything. There is a long way to go between now and the election.
Rico: OK, we're mostly in agreement then. The thing about the ideological part is that it's no different with any candidate selection- you make one group happy but anger another, and the winners are the ones who figure out the right balance. We'll see how it goes with Palin, but right now, everyone I know who's Republican is energized by the pick.
Chriswww- I'll answer your question with another question. What was Bill Clinton's foreign policy experience in 1992? The absence of that is true for every governor, and some of them have gone on to become very successful presidents.
CStanley,
You're trying to reframe the debate. I want to know Palin's views on national and foreign policy, not her experience forming them.
What does she think about Afghanistan? Pakistan? Universal health care? Torture? Iran? The national debt? The collapse of the dollar? National infrastructure?
As I mentioned, Chris, I think there's nothing wrong with withholding judgment until you know more about her stance on issues of importance. Presumably the debate will clarify the finer points, but I would imagine that her acceptance of McCain's invitation to be his running mate means that she's comfortable with his platform, so I can't imagine that her own views are too far from his.
CStanley: “I have no problem with people who are reserving judgment on Palin until they know more about her stance on issues.”
I agree with you… this is what I said,
“Personally I'd like to know anything about her position on the Iraq War (to begin with) and the other important issues that Americans believe are important. How can you be “for” someone if they have no positions on the most important issues? You can certainly be against them (for lack of knowledge).”
I understand how people can reserve judgement on someone they don't know, or how people might choose to be against someone (on the side of caution) they don't know. But I don't know how so many people can so enthusiastically support someone whose positions they do not know. That's my beef. What are we getting with Palin? We know a few of her positions but not nearly enough.
You also ask, “Are they really issue focused objections that are being raised?”
I would say, “No” because Palin has not bothered to tell us what her positions are on most of the important issues facing the country.
Sorry if I wasn't clear in my first post. Thanks for the dialogue.
Chris, “You make an excellent point. I made a similar comment yesterday. The personal stuff about Palin is filling the vacuum left by the fact that she has virtually no national and international policy stances. Maybe if the McCain camp weren't shielding her from interviews, we might get to know what she stands for.”
Thanks. It's been one of my sticking points and it's causing me a lot of frustration that I can't look at her positions more closely…. So far I don't like what I see from Palin on the issues, or her judgement. And I am distrustful of anyone who wants to hide things. I've had enough of our leaders hiding stuff from us and I see many of those same traits in McCain and Palin. i believe that if a candidate can't be forthcoming on where they stand on issues, then that candidate feels that it would be detrimental to their chances of winning.
Having said that I also can't help but wonder if what I'm feeling towards Palin is what many people feel towards Obama. But I keep coming back to the fact that Obama graduated with honors from law school, has worked with people who have lost their jobs, he has taught constitutional law, and has worked his way up in politics, debating national issues with friends, opponents, colleagues and crowds of all sizes over the years. Whereas Palin may have 18 months of governor under her belt, but she doesn't have the substantial body of thought and years-long voting record that Obama has on issues that matter to most Americans. No one knows Palin's positions, including herself because she's never thought about most of the issues substantively (at least that I can determine).