« Rudy’s Logic – McCain’s Executive (In)Experience
Memo To Governor Palin: Boffo Speech, But You Got The Lipstick Analogy All Wrong »
Quote Of The Day: The GOP’s Heart Belongs To Sarah Palin
The political Quote of the Day comes from Josh Trevino who was at the GOP convention and writes about Vice Presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech. He starts out by noting how disappointing the Republican convention was — up until Palin’s “electric” appearance:
Know this: every cheer you heard on television was magnified a thousandfold in the great hall. She was quite nearly perfect, faltering only when stepping a bit too quickly over her own applause. She slid the knife into her opponents with a sly deftness — how delicious it will be to see her up against the groping, pompous Senator Biden! — and she presented herself with a disarming candor. Her diction was that of the upper Midwest, and her demeanor was of the stern but friendly mom. She invoked the memory of Harry Truman, and if there was presumption there, there was also truth. Sarah Palin is all up front, and we saw her this evening in full. Neither nervous nor quick, neither stricken nor strident, she led the crowd along with a confident cadence, till, at the end, they were in her hands.
When she finished, they cheered.
When John McCain emerged, they cheered louder.
When he commented on her greatness, they cheered loudest of all.
But it still wasn’t all picture-perfect:
The stage design was crude and inept. Mercifully inapparent on television was the absurd and awful PowerPoint slideshow that played on the jumbotron behind her. Over and over, we saw: the Washington Monument, Old Faithful, Mount Rushmore. The stage upon which she stood looked like a cheap dance club — black plastic rimmed with a glittering hot pink stripe. Meanwhile, in the crowd, functionaries could be seen openly passing out pre-printed “handmade” signs, and spotting the repeats was too easy.
Worst of all, in the long run, is the difference in enthusiasm between that for John McCain, and that for Sarah Palin. This evening, the Alaskan Governor could form an army from her faithful legions. John McCain is more uncertain. The Arizonan, in his few moments on stage, was squeaky and halting where she was firm and compelling, and his war-crippled movements went poorly with her practiced grace. Suddenly, unexpectedly, the bar for him tomorrow is set not by his opponent — but by his surprising, surpassing running mate.
We here at the RNC, this evening, are not so much Republicans … as we are Sarah’s people.
Palin seemed to be saying what Republican delegates and the party’s base wanted to hear, the way they wanted to hear it said, with the energy and style in which they have longed to hear it articulated. And Palin had this additional plus: she is perfect for the television age.
The bottom line:
Expect money to now pour into GOP coffers and into enough Republican funding mechanisms so all the previous talk about a Democratic funding advantage starts to fade. If the race was close before, it’s likely to be closer now as some balking Republicans come home with the support and wallets.
The question now: as the McCain ticket moves into the general election, is it going to go for another 50 + 1 election “mobilization election” where its goal is to electrify its base and get just enough votes to prevail or is it going to try and appeal to moderates and independents as well and seek a broader kind of victory (and governance)?
Will the campaign remain heavy on the mockery, sarcasm and zingers and personal characterizations or will there be more a substantive offering of alternatives on issues such as the economy? Is it correct what a McCain strategist recently said: that, in the end, issues aren’t what matter to voters?
Question for the Democrats: how do they respond to Palin and are they ready to do so? The success of her speech and, ironically, the controversies still swirling around her, guarantee she will get extensive news media (print and broadcast) coverage as she stumps for votes. And, as last night showed, she knows how to take advantage of it.
Meanwhile, there is an irony in Election 2008. In eight (or four) years could the country see a Clinton-Palin presidential race?
Cartoon by Riber Hansson, Svenska Dagbladet, Sweden
36 Responses to “Quote Of The Day: The GOP’s Heart Belongs To Sarah Palin”
If you didn’t connect with Sarah Palin last night, you must be from Mars. If you didn’t think the voters connected with Palin, you must be Shaun.
I know that a lot of people on this board would like the election to be about the issues, but that’s not where this is going.
Democrats are going to vote Obama/Biden
Republicans are going to vote McCain/Palin
This election is going to be won in the soft middle, and the soft middle identifies with Palin. Identity Politics – you’ve got to love it.
Palin will be attracting huge media and crowds wherever she speaks while the 527s unleash a sh*t storm on Obama with the Rev. Wright campaign. McCain/Palin will be on offense while Obama/Biden plays defense.
Dream on jwest. The middle is rarely moved by mockery alone. The middle wants substance. Maybe not policy wonkery, but they want some substance. Identity politics has already been factored in on both sides: Obama gets universal support from blacks and McCain/Palin gets the typical huge support from white evangelicals. Her appeal to non-conservative women is mixed at best. Some like her spunk, for sure. But others think she was snide and condescending. My wife thought she looked like she was running for class president at times.
No, I did not “connect” with Sarah Palin. I was insulted by Sarah Palin. When she mocked community organizers she showed her own elitism – in perfect Wasilla, Alaska they don't need community organizers. But in the real world where jobs are disappearing community organizers step in and do what government fails to do. Maybe in the Republican world community organizers means some sort of ghetto poverty pimp. I have no idea what they think it means. But I can say for sure that you have a LOT more responsibility and accountability as a community organizer in the South Side of Chicago than you do as a part-time mayor of a small town.
You buy it or you don't.
If you don't–and I don't–you wonder what made it so special.
That she can tell a joke?
Elrod,
I guess you’re right. Sarah Palin’s insensitivity probably hurt us with the pro-community organizer vote.
On the plus side, she locked up soccer moms, single mothers, blue collar workers and solidified the base.
Trade offs are part of politics.
You left-wing fools. Quit substituting your fiction for the facts.
Palin has been a great surprise to Americans and well received. Her appeal is in no way limited to the “GOP base” or the Religious Right or social conservatives or hard-core partisans. That real appeal from her great speech last night was in fact multiplied a million-fold throughout the USA as Americans watched and listened last night.
You are fools _and_ hypocrites if you try to portray her and her speech as mere imagery and symbolism — especially when that is what has been the “foundation” of Obama's campaign all along that you have denied, including his gimmicky Greek columns and Super Bowl Nuremberg Rally American Idol extravaganza spectacle-speech.
If this country is really divided 50/50 the way it seems to be or has been in the last few elections, McCain now has his 50. I can only hope the moderate Republicans and Independents will be suitably appalled at McCain's judgment in picking so unqualified a VP. They will also be expecting a bit more policy and factual accuracy from Palin. She lied about her record on the Bridge to Nowhere and her heavy abuse of earmarks as both mayor an governor. Voters who actually check facts and do their research will not be won over. But she certainly will capture those Republicans who vote “with their gut” based on personality. In actuality, she is NOT a maverick or reformer: she simply used the reformer label to run against corrupt Republican pols. When it is politically expedient she will be a reformer. She is actually an opportunist and her stance on issues changes to suit the mood of the public–just like McCain has done for his presidential campaign. She's a good fit with him in that respect. One can only hope that the well-informed Independents are as appalled as some of the establishment Republicans by Palin as VP.
I agree with jwest's comment on trade-offs, and I'd say that's a pretty good trade for the GOP side.
I'm becoming more and more intrigued by the 'community organizer' reactions. I guess I have to ask what people think that phrase means, because I think there are a wide variety of interpretations. Some, like T-Steel in another thread, assume that a community organizer is someone who is extensively involved with volunteer, NGO organizations. The more I think about it, the more I realize that part of the disconnect between conservatives and liberals here is that when we hear community organizer and hear what that specifically meant on Obama's resume, we're not seeing someone who built houses for Habitat for Humanity. Obama's community organizing, from what I can understand, involved making connections with some influential politicians to try to foster projects on the South Side of Chicago; and don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with that per se either, but I've seen some descriptions of the results of those particular projects that weren't exactly positive, and some signs that there were some corrupt Chicago croneys involved and some of the projects were more about lining pockets than really creating positive changes in those neighborhoods.
Of course, If Senator Obama was not running a 50+1 electoin he would be ahead with a huge margin. Yet, Senator obama wants to hold onto as much of his Democratic base as possible.
It is hard for a Democratic candidates who wants to give the teachers unions, big labor, and the public sector everything it wants as an agent of change. maybe if the Democratic party could get over wanting to go back to the high tax, big government days of the 1960's, they could really talk about change.
I enjoyed Palin's speech for what it was… revving up the Republican base. Some of her comments were outright lies and the little I know of her positions (and McCain's) I dislike and won't vote for her, but she is spunky and appeals to (as jwest accurately says, “soccer moms, single mothers, blue collar workers and solidified the base”. Though that appeal is because of her image, not her actual policies (because we still do not know where she stands on many issues).
Oh, and as far as the mayor/community organizer analogy. I loved it. It riled up the base, but it is a misrepresentation and disingenuous….. it's sort of like me saying to my twin brother, “While you were in diapers I was earning a living”. If you take any two people you can compare one more favorably if your willing to use any facts about those people.
A truer Obama/Palin comparison is this: after college (but before law school) Obama was a community organizer . After college Palin was a TV sports reporter. She held several jobs before becoming mayor, just like Obama held several positions before being US Senator.
If one compares what Obama was doing at the same general time of what Sarah was doing….. while Obama was working with community groups and then in 1984 he was helping steelworkers who had been laid-off in Chicago, Palin was Miss Wassila (in 1983) and then the runner up in the Miss Alaska contest. While Obama was out there actually helping jobless workers, Palin was busy putting make-up on, wearing swimsuits and looking pretty.
It was a great one-liner but completely disingenuous, just like a lot of what she said.
Stockboy, regarding your remark about the disingenuous comparison, would you also agree that it was an equally disingenuous comparison when Obama claimed that his running his campaign with a larger staff than that of Wasilla indicated that he had a greater amount of executive experience, when of course the more accurate comparison would have been between running a campaign and running the state of Alaska (which of course has a much larger staff and budget than a presidential campaign?)
+1
Republicans usually don't let those pesky facts get in the way.
chris, partisan factcheckers are rarely trustworthy. Just offhand I can see a few points on which those factchecks need to be factchecked: Obama did write two memoirs (Dreams of My Father and The Audacity of Hope) and on the tax issue regarding Palin's sister and brother in law, quite obviously in that example the couples taxes will go up as business owners under Obama regardless of whether their income tax from salary is in the range that will be affected.
Oh, and we all know that after Obama was a community organizer he went to law school, was president of the nation's most prestigious law journal, graduated magna cum laude. Then he taught constitutional law, and went into politics.
Meanwhile Palin eventually became a small-town mayor (leaving the city with a deficit, even after raising sales taxes) became governor of a state with less than a million people (most large cities have larger populations) and has various scandals and investigations going on about her abuse of power. She's a popular governor, but I would be too if I raised taxes on oil companies and gave that money directly back to the people in my state. She's only been governor for 18 months so that's slim experience…. and we don't know what effect her policies will have on the state of Alaska…. hopefully she doesn't leave Alaska in the same state as she left her town after being mayor.
Something I found on Wikipedia…. she was a 20% owner of a company in Alaska. That company was dissolved by the state of Alaska in 2007 for failing to file its biennial report and paying licensing fees….
And she wants us to trust her judgement as VP?
CStanley,
If you want to nitpick, the Audacity of Hope is not really a memoir and is more of a manifesto. And you can read his plan for Small Businesses here.
But I'm glad those were the only mistakes you found.
Those were the ones I found immediately, without even trying, Chris. LOL
And oh, I'm sure it'll go over great with the conservative base if we clarify that Obama's second book was actually a manifesto. That's much better!
CStanley,
Yeah… I know conservatives are afraid of big words. Here's the definition:
A public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions, especially that of a political party
Excuse me, my latte's getting cold and I still have so much arugula to eat.
CStanley–
Which lies are the “partisan factcheckers” wrong about?
What, no community organizing today, Chris?
(relax, people, it's a joke.)
George: I named two in my comment.
CStanley–
Only those two, then?
Read this.
CStanley, that's a good point (concerning the disingenuous remark), even though I didn't hear it I will take your word for it, I have no reason to doubt you and you are careful about such matters. Though I will point out that Obama created his organization and hired great managers from scratch, which both Dems and Republicans praise for its competence. I seem to recall that one of the ergular commenters on here made more or less the same observation (about Obama creating his campaign from the ground up) a couple days ago… I wish I remembered who it was.
Oh, and one other thought … what counts more, running an medium-sized organization successfully or running an organization (of any size) ineptly?
GS: Nope, here's the next debunking:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/200…
I was actually in the midst of reading over the PDF budget documents that Hilzoy's piece linked to, and was puzzling over where they got the 65% number anyway, but then this popped up on memeorandum and I realized it's a moot point since that criticism was based on the former governor's budget recommendations and had nothing to do with Palin anyway!
Oh, CStanley,,,,
That was, admittedly, an error–one that Hilzoy had already apologized for.
Come on: do better!
Chris, thanks!
CStanley, another thought I've had running in my mind related to the whole disingenuous thread…. While watching the Dems convention last week I couldn't help but notice that many of the speakers (I will admit that I didn't see many, but I saw all the prime time ones) kept a good tone and generally went after Bush and McCain. (Though Bill C. was more “partisan” and made a couple comments about “republicans” rather than just Bush/McCain.) I made a note to myself to see how the Republicans would compare this week… I haven't been very successful watching all the prime time speeches and I really wanted to see Bush's speech.
Last night I forgot to notice whether Palin went after the Dems or Obama/Biden. But as I recall she didn't go after Biden at all, and didn't really go after the Dems. She did go after Obama. Which is what I would expect and leaves her (with respect to this particular aspect) on an equal footing with Obama. (Though I think she was much more unfair to Obama than he was to Bush/McCain, but I am struggling to set my own pro-Obama and anti-Bush views aside and see things objectively on this aspect. But my sense is still that Palin lied and distorted the record more than Obama.)
I recall Rudy and Lieberman being much more partisan (meaning they went after Dems in general) than their peers at the Dem convention (who mostly stuck with an anti-Bush/McCain approach while not attacking Republicans in general).
So I'd value your views (or anyone else's views) on this, if you care to comment. The first aspect being “fairness”: was Palin more fair in her attacks on Obama than Obama was with his attacks on Bush/McCain?
The second aspect being the partisan tone of the conventions… which convention attacks the other party more? Do the Republicans go after the Dems in general? Do the Dems try to limit their attacks to just Bush and McCain, and not go after Republicans in general? Or vice versa?
Sorry that the thread is gradually straying away from the original posting… but I see the broader point you're making about disingenuous and I agree that it is worth examining.
Stockboy: My general take is that both parties use negative narratives against the other, but most people notice it a whole lot more when they disagree with the negative narrative and see it as an attack on 'their side'. Sometimes the attacks take on a more personal tone, while other times it's more pure ideology- but honestly, from blogs like this one, I definitely get the impression that Dem leaning voters have a double standard, and I assume that many of them just don't even notice all the negative rhetoric from the Dem candidates (or presumably, they think it's not unfair because it's true- even though it's all a matter of opinion and viewpoint, not some absolute truth) while the GOP voters that I know seem a bit more realistic (kind of a 'that's politics' kind of mentality.) That's obviously my own experience, and your mileage may vary as they say.
George: you must be joking- I need to 'do better'? Hilzoy's assertions of unfactual statements are hers to defend. To her credit, she backed off of one that was completely incorrect (though no explanation as to how such a huge error was made during a 'fact checking' exercise.) That leaves, what, about 5 other claims, of which I've already unravelled two. Most of them are matters of opinion anyway- what constitutes a 'major piece of legislation', are his two books memoirs or not, is John McCain consistent or not. Really the only one of her charges which stands up to the light of scrutiny is the Bridge to Nowhere issue- and everyone already knows about that and it is impossible to think that we won't hear Sarah Palin have to defend her claims about it at least 50 times between now and the election.
One more thing, Stockboy, on the negative narratives. Keep in mind that to conservatives, the government is often considered a source of many problems rather than a solution, while the generic leftist narrative is that government protects the little guy from the big guy (conservatives, to oversimplify it, see the government as a necessary evil but an opportunity for big govt advocates to pretend that they want to help, but actually take advantage of people who are vulnerable.) So naturally, the negative narratives of the left vs. right tend to be about the evils of corporate America, and the negative parts that they insert about govt officials have to do with them being in bed with those corporate interests. When you look at the right vs. left though, it's strictly about how the liberal candidates are attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of voters, so it comes across as more of a character attack on the Dem politicians.
You're the one who brought them up as debunkable, aren't you?
Keep those goalposts moving, CStanley!!
And the accusations of treason? The insinuations that Democratic men are gay and Democratic women are lesbians? The charge that they aren't really American?
Quoting CStanley:
The number one best selling book in America is pushing the lie that Obama is a secret Muslim.
The editor-in-chief of the company that published it is none other than Mary Matalin, a long-time Republican operative and advisor to both Bush presidents.
Which side is pulling the wool, CStanley?
CS: “My general take is that both parties use negative narratives against the other, but most people notice it a whole lot more when they disagree with the negative narrative and see it as an attack on 'their side'. Sometimes the attacks take on a more personal tone, while other times it's more pure ideology- but honestly, from blogs like this one, I definitely get the impression that Dem leaning voters have a double standard,…”
CS, you started really good there and I'd agree. It's much easier to see an attack on “your side” than it is to identify an attack on “the other side”. As we've debated in the past, I've seen that in action and even today in the off-hand remarks of posters here.
Like Jazz, I appreciate that you just don't spew out talking-points and actually try to engage in a conversation, even in the face of adversity.
However, you fail to recognize that the rest of your post is a prime example of not seeing the attacks by “your side” at “their side”.
CStanley, thanks for the comments and your thoughts.
I very much agree with your statement, “My general take is that both parties use negative narratives against the other, but most people notice it a whole lot more when they disagree with the negative narrative and see it as an attack on 'their side'.” and this is why I struggle to be objective and I know I fail at times…
This statement of yours is probably the most interesting, “When you look at the right vs. left though, it's strictly about how the liberal candidates are attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of voters, so it comes across as more of a character attack on the Dem politicians.”
I say it's interesting because my rabidly pro-Bush brother and his wife are convinced that all politicians (including Bush and McCain lie). Yet they can't stand Obama because they are convinced he is really a “closet Muslim” and will advance black causes at the expense of whites. I've always wondered how my brother's family can be for one candidate and against another candidate if my brother's family believes that both candidates are lying. I think my brother's family is against Obama not because of his “lies” (as my brother's family perceives, not actual lies) but against Obama because he has a whole different agenda, related to a persona of his character (his being a Muslim, etc. and that persona is built on lies) ans is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. That once elected Obama will pursue some deeply hidden agenda.
So deeper down for my brother's family it does seem to be about character (and I know that honesty is a character trait, but let's leave that as a neutral for this case, since both candidates are seen to be lying). But at the very heart of the matter, once one peels away all the layers… it's ultimately about Obama's race and the fear my brother's family feels about having a black family as the First Family and leaders of the country.
I don't know if any of that made any sense…. but I think your comment about “character” is true and it helps explain why some people are willing to accept some candidates over others, even though both candidates are seen to be lying. Never mind that the “character” aspect doesn't have a basis in fact… it's how people perceive a candidate that counts. And sometimes (as in the case of my brother and his family, they want to perceive a candidate a certain way so they will only listen to things that support their beliefs. It doesn't matter that it may all be hogwash… because at the end of the day it is how they vote that will decide who is president.
Thanks again.
“McCain now has his 50″
Palin regained it for McCain, who has been failing to pull 50. Prior to choosing Palin my question was how high into the sixties Obama would be potentially likely to go, and if McCain would descend below 40 per cent total vote share (popular vote). As of now, the McCain campaign is viable beyond mere “survivor” and “lesser of two evils” status and could possibly do well, better than Dubya did after Gore lost to him in the debates. Palin's speech (and the two headliners before her) were definite, positive successes (and did well to put the other side in its place, deftly and soundly). The McCain campaign now has strong momentum (it remains to be seen how much is sustained after this week). Even if McCain flubs and deflates things tonight and afterward, the campaign now is stronger than Dubya was against Gore after Dubya won the debates and his winning in 2000 was suddenly seen as seriously possible by the public. It is even more so now, already, with the McCain campaign. That (and the defiinite GOP success, something not seen before, so much that the Obama campaign has been neglected this week by the media) seems to have generated a lot of desperation driving a lot of misbehavior today by the other side.
George: no, Hilzoy brought up those matters from the speech as debunkable, and I'm pointing out that some of her points in rebuttal were false and some were just using opinion rather than fact.
Chris, the smears that you bring up are matched by “Republicans are greedy”, “Republicans are racist”, “Neocons plan wars of conquest”, and gee, what was it Harry Reid said about Bush enjoying the troop casualties? Honestly, I can't for the life of me understand the selective outrage among some here- why can't we just admit that there's stuff that's beyond the pale that comes from both sides?
Rambie, George: I was elaborating on what I see as the core narratives of each party- not espousing either one or commenting on who 'pulls the wool over the public's eye' more frequently. My point is that the narrative for conservatives is that big government advocates are the ones we need to fear in that regard. All politicians actually do pull the wool over the public's eyes as far as I'm concerned.
Which brings me to Stockboy- yes, I've known some people like that, and also the other side of the coin, people who completely buy into the fear of greedy corporation fatcats allying with the GOP. In both cases, I think that emotion is overtaking logic, but then also that, as you say, we all have to decide which lies are acceptable to us or alternatively have the naive belief that certain politicians are actually completely honest and above board.
CStanley, thanks for the insightful dialogue and for taking the time to wade through my mind and thoughts…. very much appreciated.