Topic: The Mighty Cop: Prominent conservatives beginning to abandon Palin (Read 3521 times)

Copernicus · « **on:** September 26, 2008, 05:00:42 PM »

Prominent conservatives beginning to abandon Palin

Prominent conservative pundits are also questioning Palin's qualifications. These include David Brooks, David Frum, and George Will. The disastrous interview with Katie Couric seems to have started a lot of grumbling among conservatives, although there are still many who believe that she can do no wrong. And now Ed Schultz is reporting the following:

Quote

McCain Camp insiders say Palin "clueless"

Capitol Hill sources are telling me that senior McCain people are more than concerned about Palin. The campaign has held a mock debate and a mock press conference; both are being described as "disastrous." One senior McCain aide was quoted as saying, "What are we going to do?" The McCain people want to move this first debate to some later, undetermined date, possibly never. People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is "clueless."

Will Palin continue on the ticket, or will McCain be forced to dump her? I can't see how he can dump her, given the huge revolt that would cause from his newfound evangelical supporters.

http://naastika.blogspot.com/2008/09/prominent-conservatives-beginning-to.html

Copernicus · « **Reply #1 on:** September 27, 2008, 01:36:34 PM »

The phenomenal liability that Palin has become was no more evident than right after the first debate. Joe Biden was all over the place, doing his perceived "job" in the spin rooms. Traditionally, VP candidates are the "attack dogs", and Palin famously compared herself to a "pit bull" in lipstick. Well, she was a pit bull who was kept firmly in the pit. The McCain campaign is now desperately afraid to put her anywhere near a camera, where she might embarrass herself. McCain is flying without a copilot now.

cimics · « **Reply #2 on:** September 27, 2008, 09:35:13 PM »

Add this one from Kathleen Parker:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE :

Quote

Palin

Copernicus · « **Reply #3 on:** September 27, 2008, 09:53:27 PM »

I agree with you, cimics. It seems like I'm agreeing with you a lot lately.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #4 on:** September 28, 2008, 11:06:06 AM »

Palin didn't come off very well but she didn't get as far as she has by stuttering. They need to take the muzzle off. My suspicion is that beltway politicians are trying very hard to control the message because she is from outside the beltway and 'doesn't know how it works' inside the beltway. But her outside the beltway experience and approach is precisely one of her strengths in the eyes of many.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #5 on:** September 28, 2008, 11:11:42 AM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1-B-OyQ-KI

A good illustration of what I mean. Setting aside the content of Palin's remarks, which the commenters on this video seem unable to do, she is perfectly coherent and lucid.

Copernicus · « **Reply #6 on:** September 28, 2008, 01:56:56 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on September 28, 2008, 11:06:06 AM

Palin didn't come off very well but she didn't get as far as she has by stuttering. They need to take the muzzle off. My suspicion is that beltway politicians are trying very hard to control the message because she is from outside the beltway and 'doesn't know how it works' inside the beltway. But her outside the beltway experience and approach is precisely one of her strengths in the eyes of many.

Sntjohnny, I agree with your point that they need to take the muzzle off and let the chips fall where they may. I wouldn't characterize the "muzzlers" as just beltway types. These are professionals who have been working closely with her in mock interviews and mock debates. Her answers may play well with evangelicals and right wing ideologues, but that is not the crowd that they are worried about. They are worried about how she will be perceived by moderates and independents, who do not necessarily share your views on public policy. That said, I agree that keeping the muzzle on is hurting worse than it is helping.

McCain's performance last week was a disaster, but I think he regained some of his credibility in the debates, where he managed to hold his own with Obama and even get a few zingers in. He was too negative, and he made a mistake in not once looking at Obama or trying to engage him directly. I expect that he'll do better in the next debate.

Nevertheless, I see Palin as too toxic for his ticket. She is going to bring him down unless she can turn it around in the debate. I do not believe that McCain would have chosen her if he had vetted her properly, but he is now stuck with her. Right now, he is at one of his lowest points in both popularity and the electoral count. RealClearPolitics runs a composite poll that shows Obama beating him by +4.8 today. (It varies frequently as new poll numbers come in.) Counting just the states in which he and McCain are ahead, they give Obama 228 and McCain 163 [numbers corrected after sntjohnny's response below]. When they add those states where Obama has just a slight edge, it is a landslide--301 to 237. And that is giving McCain Indiana and Ohio, two states which I think Obama may eventually prevail in. The biggest recent swing shows Obama beating McCain slightly in North Carolina, of all places.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #7 on:** September 28, 2008, 02:05:35 PM »

"These are professionals who have been working closely with her in mock interviews and mock debates."

heh yea, beltway boys.

"Her answers may play well with evangelicals and right wing ideologues, but that is not the crowd that they are worried about."

I think this misses the point. Everything that I've seen on the left critical of Palin's performance to this point has to do with her style and delivery, not her content. We already know that the secularists and left wing ideologues will reject Palin's views. They are not attacking on the substance but the style.

"He was too negative, and he made a mistake in not once looking at Obama or trying to engage him directly. I expect that he'll do better in the next debate."

Always a matter of opinion. In my view, he wasn't negative enough. Although I agree that he could engage Obama more. I'd just love to see someone take it to Obama. With Palin we are only one heartbeat away- with Obama we don't have even that.

Copernicus · « **Reply #8 on:** September 28, 2008, 02:24:52 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on September 28, 2008, 02:05:35 PM

"Her answers may play well with evangelicals and right wing ideologues, but that is not the crowd that they are worried about."

I think this misses the point. Everything that I've seen on the left critical of Palin's performance to this point has to do with her style and delivery, not her content. We already know that the secularists and left wing ideologues will reject Palin's views. They are not attacking on the substance but the style.

But you miss the point that not all of these criticisms are coming from the left. They are coming from independents and pro-McCain Republicans, as well. And the criticisms have been more than about style. They have attacked the substance of her remarks, which have been confused at times and monotonously vague at others.

Quote

"He was too negative, and he made a mistake in not once looking at Obama or trying to engage him directly. I expect that he'll do better in the next debate."

Always a matter of opinion. In my view, he wasn't negative enough. Although I agree that he could engage Obama more. I'd just love to see someone take it to Obama. With Palin we are only one heartbeat away- with Obama we don't have even that.

I think that your instincts are wrong on the negativity. So far, all of the tracking that has been done with viewers shows that McCain scored low whenever he behaved in a disrespectful or mocking way. People want to see an honest exchange of views, not rhetorical posturing. But, more to the point, Palin's closeness to the presidency is precisely the point. McCain is a 72-year-old with some serious health issues. So people are looking at Palin's credentials very carefully.

Copernicus · « **Reply #9 on:** September 28, 2008, 02:33:13 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on September 28, 2008, 11:11:42 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1-B-OyQ-KI

A good illustration of what I mean. Setting aside the content of Palin's remarks, which the commenters on this video seem unable to do, she is perfectly coherent and lucid.

Thanks for the link. I watched her performance in that snippet, and I agree with you that her responses were coherent and lucid. The problem is that same-sex marriage and abortion are topics that she is comfortable with and knowledgeable about. She has given those subjects some serious thought, although I much preferred the replies of her opponents in that debate. The criticisms of Palin have not been about her articulateness, which is very good when she is speaking on familiar topics. The criticisms have been about her evasiveness, vagueness, and cluelessness on other subjects. She has been caught in outright lies, which she repeats after having been caught out (e.g. her support of the "Bridge to Nowhere"). She makes the preposterous claim that her state's geographical closeness to Russia gives her foreign policy expertise. She keeps repeating the same catch phrases when asked for clarification. Her problem is the perception that she doesn't know much at all about issues that a president will need to deal with. Nobody really thinks she can go head-to-head with Putin in a foreign crisis. He made chopped liver out of Bush, and Bush is more qualified than Palin.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #10 on:** September 28, 2008, 03:31:50 PM »

I think some 'negativity' will help expose just how shallow Obama really is. I'm just as interested in an exchange of views as the next guy but if anyone bothered to push Obama beyond his talking points we'd see the same sort of stylistic hemming and hawing people are complaining about regarding Palin. For some reason, no one wants to push Obama. McCain won't because it won't look presidential. The press won't because they're in his pocket.

I didn't mean to imply that it was only the left attacking the style. My point there was that this is all the left was focusing on for the very obvious reason that their disagreements on content went without saying. These 'beltway' people we are talking about are affectionately known as RINOs. In other words, the difference of opinion on content also goes without saying. These 'moderate' Republicans are precisely who conservatives view as the problem and precisely why McCain would never have won the conservative base apart from the Palin pick. It is these people who are now the ones coaching Palin...

It looks like we both hope that the muzzle will come off.

Incidentally, I am unimpressed by concerns about Palin's foreign policy credentials. She will have several years, possibly even eight years, to bone up on them. (How old is McCain's mother? How old is Byrd?) Obama will have had maybe 6 months. If foreign policy credentials are important at all, then it is indisputable that the McCain-Palin ticket has it balanced in the right direction, with the one needful of having those credentials 'on day one' is also the one in the Oval office. I don't suppose it is socially acceptable to hope that a President Obama dies early in office, too, so that someone with real foreign policy experience takes the helm...

Bush's problem has always been that he assumes the best in people. This is true for Putin... and Kennedy. The complaint is that he has always been too unilateral. The truth is that he has been too amenable. He kept Clinton's CIA director, he let Kennedy write the NCLB bill. But then few conservatives were every under the impression that Bush was a genuine conservative through and through, so some of that is unsurprising.

We conservative minded people want some conservative politicians willing to play hard ball for once. I for one have no expectation that this will take place under McCain, since, well, he isn't a genuine conservative.

David · « **Reply #11 on:** September 29, 2008, 01:03:01 AM »

So he doesn't represent you?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #12 on:** September 29, 2008, 07:23:25 AM »

Not impressively, no.

Copernicus · « **Reply #13 on:** September 29, 2008, 01:29:21 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on September 28, 2008, 03:31:50 PM

It looks like we both hope that the muzzle will come off.

Not quite. I don't really care what McCain does, because she is dragging him down either way. What I said was that muzzling her hurt more than it helped. McCain himself has expressed dissatisfaction with her "handlers" (aka her performance), and that is why she is landing up in debate boot camp in Sedona. If he hides her, then the press focus is about hiding her. If he "unleashes" her, then the press focus is on her gaffes and contradictions. It is really a no-win situation for him.

Quote

Incidentally, I am unimpressed by concerns about Palin's foreign policy credentials. She will have several years, possibly even eight years, to bone up on them. (How old is McCain's mother? How old is Byrd?)...

McCain's mother did not go through several years of torture, and women tend to live longer than men. So I am unimpressed with your longevity argument for a 72-year-old man who has recurring bouts of melanoma. Skin cancer can kill you quickly if it gets into the bloodstream, and they might miss it when it recurs next time. Palin could be sworn in as our next president.

Quote

...Obama will have had maybe 6 months. If foreign policy credentials are important at all, then it is indisputable that the McCain-Palin ticket has it balanced in the right direction, with the one needful of having those credentials 'on day one' is also the one in the Oval office. I don't suppose it is socially acceptable to hope that a President Obama dies early in office, too, so that someone with real foreign policy experience takes the helm...

It isn't socially acceptable to hope that anyone dies early. McCain's age and health status are serious issues here, however.

Obama has shown an in-depth knowledge of foreign affairs, and he has surrounded himself with excellent advisers. McCain has too often sounded clueless on foreign policy and out of touch. Basically, he seems to think that bluster and threats can work wonders for us, when it is clear that our military has degraded to the point that it can barely hold its own in either Iraq or Afghanistan. He has had a paid lobbyist of the Georgian government on his campaign staff. Sarah Palin, at least, understands the significance of the oil and gas pipelines that run through Georgia, even she doesn't understand the size of the Russian military force right next door to the pipeline. Putin and Medvedev understand both.

Quote

Bush's problem has always been that he assumes the best in people. This is true for Putin... and Kennedy. The complaint is that he has always been too unilateral. The truth is that he has been too amenable. He kept Clinton's CIA director, he let Kennedy write the NCLB bill. But then few conservatives were every under the impression that Bush was a genuine conservative through and through, so some of that is unsurprising.

I couldn't disagree more with just about every point in your last paragraph, but that shouldn't surprise anyone. I doubt that even you would have voted for Bush, had you paid more attention to the details of his life. Well, that is water under the bridge. The guy is a lame duck now, and we must now prepare to deal with the consequences of his disastrous presidency.

Quote

We conservative minded people want some conservative politicians willing to play hard ball for once. I for one have no expectation that this will take place under McCain, since, well, he isn't a genuine conservative.

Yes, well, you have got your hardball today. Strong-willed Republicans and weak-willed Democrats joined forces today to destroy the so-called "bailout" plan that could have kept our economy going. Now we all get to sit back and enjoy the consequences of stupid behavior. We will begin with the stock market tanking.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #14 on:** September 29, 2008, 01:44:23 PM »

"McCain's mother did not go through several years of torture, and women tend to live longer than men."

And yet it shows that John has some longevity in his genes. This seems like a ridiculous non-starter to me. How old is the guy currently number 3 in line for the presidency, Cop? How old is he? His age doesn't seem to have been a factor...

"Skin cancer can kill you quickly if it gets into the bloodstream,"

Lots of things can kill you quickly and younger men have died while involved in governmental duties. This isn't a very impressive argument at all. I don't suppose you have an 'ideal' age for a president sitting in the wings, do you?

"It isn't socially acceptable to hope that anyone dies early. McCain's age and health status are serious issues here, however."

And so is Obama's lack of experience. One heart beat away is better than none.

"Obama has shown an in-depth knowledge of foreign affairs,"

I disagree. I think the more important aspect here concerns judgment in foreign affairs. A 7th grader can get an A in geography. That doesn't make him knowledgeable about foreign affairs.

"and he has surrounded himself with excellent advisers."

So? When Bush did this he was insulted as being a moron else he wouldn't have needed the advisers. Are you admitting that Obama needs the help of advisers?

"McCain has too often sounded clueless on foreign policy and out of touch."

Partisan assertion. Partisans on both sides would do well to make points that can be supportable objectively and don't require a pre-existing perspective to make sense. Here experience is not the only criteria. A sense of history and cause and effect at the level of nations is just as important, if not more important. I believe that Obama fails this test... objectively.

"Yes, well, you have got your hardball today."

Nah. It would be hardball if the principle was out and stated with crystal clarity. The accusation is that the dems made it a partisan matter... better would have been to simply say that bailouts are a bad idea except under narrow parameters and in rare circumstances.

Incidentally, surely you don't mind if the stock market crashes? I thought you were a liberal, and hence that Big Business was the enemy. :) Or is it rather that you welcome the chance for the government to take over yet another industry and allowing some fat cats to stay fat is worth it? :)

Copernicus · « **Reply #15 on:** September 29, 2008, 02:08:35 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on September 29, 2008, 01:44:23 PM

Lots of things can kill you quickly and younger men have died while involved in governmental duties. This isn't a very impressive argument at all. I don't suppose you have an 'ideal' age for a president sitting in the wings, do you?

Recurring melanoma would not be in my ideal health profile, even in a younger man.

Quote

"and he has surrounded himself with excellent advisers."

So? When Bush did this he was insulted as being a moron else he wouldn't have needed the advisers. Are you admitting that Obama needs the help of advisers?

What scares me most about McCain is that he doesn't seem to think that advisers really matter. He likes to fly by the seat of his pants. Bush was known for surrounding himself with cronies and incompetents. "Heckuva job, Brownie!" Being able to choose good advisers is perhaps the most important skill that a president can bring to the job. Contrast that with Palin, who has few acquaintances in the federal government. She staffed her positions in Wasilla and Alaska with serious cronies. The joke was that her high school yearbook read like a "Who's Who" of her government.

Quote

"McCain has too often sounded clueless on foreign policy and out of touch."

Partisan assertion. Partisans on both sides would do well to make points that can be supportable objectively and don't require a pre-existing perspective to make sense. Here experience is not the only criteria. A sense of history and cause and effect at the level of nations is just as important, if not more important. I believe that Obama fails this test... objectively.

Partisan assertion. Look, most people just do not share your judgment about Obama. He clearly knows his way around public policy and the federal government. He has excellent political instincts, and he chooses his advisers well. I agree with you that a "sense of history and cause and effect at the level of nations" is paramount, but I am very confident that Obama has a greater sense of both than any of the other candidates, including Biden. That is one reason why Biden's bid for the nomination failed. He is not as good as Obama at convincing people that he can handle the presidency.

Quote

"Yes, well, you have got your hardball today."

Nah. It would be hardball if the principle was out and stated with crystal clarity. The accusation is that the dems made it a partisan matter... better would have been to simply say that bailouts are a bad idea except under narrow parameters and in rare circumstances.

An agreement would have been reached if McCain had not stuck his nose in the negotiations and emboldened the opposition. He more than anyone is responsible for the debacle. Bush and Paulson were phenomenally clumsy in the way they went about selling the package, but it was clear by the end of the day that their own party had stabbed them (and the country) in the back. The Democrats did not have the backbone to shoulder the blame for the bailout, and the Republicans had neither the brain or the backbone to do it.

Quote

Incidentally, surely you don't mind if the stock market crashes? I thought you were a liberal, and hence that Big Business was the enemy. :) Or is it rather that you welcome the chance for the government to take over yet another industry and allowing some fat cats to stay fat is worth it? :)

Don't be a fool. It isn't about stocks, but credit. Without credit, the markets cannot function. Businesses will fail and banks will go under. FDIC may not have the capital to protect accounts. People will be out of a job in the blink of an eye. We have all gotten so used to prosperity that we cannot imagine what a real financial crisis is like. Perhaps I have lived closer to the depression than you have, but this really scares me. I am not expecting a depression, but we are now looking at years of recession. The failure of that bill will cost us far more than its passage would have.

David · « **Reply #16 on:** September 29, 2008, 02:25:48 PM »

"Not impressively, no."

Then why vote for him?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #17 on:** September 29, 2008, 05:27:15 PM »

"Bush was known for surrounding himself with cronies and incompetents. "Heckuva job, Brownie!""

lol, right. Was that first term or second term? Was Colin Powell a crony or was he an incompetent?

"Partisan assertion."

heh I knew you would say that but I don't agree in this case. Obama opposed the Iraq war, despite resolution after resolution violated by Hussein. The lesson of history here is writ large in 1930 Germany and the continued violation of the Versailles Treaty. I could go on and on with examples. And just to be fair- the first George Bush didn't do the right thing either in the sense of not finishing the job then. See, that's objective. :)

"Look, most people just do not share your judgment about Obama."

See, that's not objective. Because if it was objective you wouldn't have said 'most people' and you would have said 'a lot of people.' The former is obviously not true while the latter is. Heck, even 20,000,000 Hillary supporters shared my judgment.

"Don't be a fool. It isn't about stocks, but credit."

You knucklehead, you were the one that brought up the stock market!

Quote

We will begin with the stock market tanking.

You're just too easy, Cop. Too easy.

"Perhaps I have lived closer to the depression than you have, but this really scares me."

lolol Again the argument from Age. Dude, I have as much experience with the depression as you do. Like you, my only direct experience comes from the tales my relatives shared about that time and reading about it. You grew up enjoying the fruit of those who really did appreciate what happened in the depression; your generation squandered it all on drugs and sex and rebelling against the generation that allowed you the freedoms wich you abused.

"I am not expecting a depression, but we are now looking at years of recession."

I don't agree. We're talking about a bubble and bubbles are better popped.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #18 on:** September 29, 2008, 05:30:32 PM »

Quote from: David on September 29, 2008, 02:25:48 PM

"Not impressively, no."

Then why vote for him?

First of all, you can never vote for someone who represents you 100%. There is no such thing as a thinking person agreeing 100% with any other thinking person. So you already have to prioritize. For me, the number one priority is abortion. It is a holocaust on a scale that dwarfs the jewish holocaust. McCain is the current best chance to end that holocaust and because of the magnitude of the matter, my hand is forced.

If you took abortion out of the picture I'd wager that many if not most Christians would simply bail out of politics altogether. I doubt even homosexual marriage would keep them interested. But the slaughter of millions of unborn?

And Obama in support of killing babies that survive the abortion procedure? Sorry, I gotta go against that.

David · « **Reply #19 on:** September 29, 2008, 06:48:33 PM »

"First of all, you can never vote for someone who represents you 100%. There is no such thing as a thinking person agreeing 100% with any other thinking person. So you already have to prioritize. For me, the number one priority is abortion. It is a holocaust on a scale that dwarfs the jewish holocaust. McCain is the current best chance to end that holocaust and because of the magnitude of the matter, my hand is forced."

How do you know McCain has any real intentions of doing anything about abortion?

"And Obama in support of killing babies that survive the abortion procedure? Sorry, I gotta go against that."

No need to apologize, friend.

Author Topic: The Mighty Cop: Prominent conservatives beginning to abandon Palin (Read 3521 times)