How right-wingers destroyed Sarah Palin


by Sid (Faisal)
23rd October, 2008 at 1:24 pm    

First Colin Powell, and now here’s Ken Adelman, a lifelong conservative Republican.

Why so, since my views align a lot more with McCain’s than with Obama’s? And since I truly dread the notion of a Democratic president, Democratic House, and hugely Democratic Senate?

Primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment.

When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I’ve concluded that that’s no way a president can act under pressure.

Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.

That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain’s main two, and best two, themes for his campaign—Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick.

I sure hope Obama is more open, centrist, sensible—dare I say, Clintonesque—than his liberal record indicates, than his cooperation with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid portends. If not, I will be even more startled by my vote than I am now.

As Republican heavy-lifters and arch neocons migrate over to the Obama camp, it tells us a thing or two about the McCain campaign:

That the recent and ongoing financial blitz was not the reason why McCain lost support. He lost support but because it exposed how utterly maniacal his behaviour progressively became in the midst of the crisis. Very unpresidential.

Secondly, as Mr Adelman shows, criticising Sarah Palin does not make you an elitist. Especially if you were one to begin with.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Current affairs






20 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. fugstar — on 23rd October, 2008 at 1:45 pm  

    something nasty could still happen between now and the date which would dramatically change the distibution of votes.

  2. Amrit — on 23rd October, 2008 at 2:16 pm  

    Unfortunately, yeah, I agree with fug and M J. Freedland in that ‘Palin won’t go away’ that easy…

    I think this sums it up, really. I can’t look at this without laughing:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/cartoon/2008/oct/08/palin.baby.seals

    An unsuitable Presidential candidate pairing – and subsequently overshadowing – himself with the Palinbot? Kinda proves what Adelman’s saying about them both, really.

  3. Refresh — on 23rd October, 2008 at 2:28 pm  

    So, the perverse thought Kulvinder has on that Insane thread has transformed into Palin clubbing McCain to death rather than bide her time waiting for a heart attack.

  4. El Cid — on 23rd October, 2008 at 2:46 pm  

    Yup. I kinda agree with this more than the earlier, similarly titled article.

  5. Avi Cohen — on 23rd October, 2008 at 6:40 pm  

    What a farcical article. Palin is the darling of the right and far from helping McCain is in fact laying the groundwork for her own run at the job in 2012.

    The right haven’t destroyed her they are building her up as the next big thing. She is the rights and neocons next George Bush.

    Mel Phillips can’t get enough of her!

    You don’t shell out a few hundred thousand in clothes on someone you don’t have a long term plan for. I mean they didn’t spend that much on the McCain wardrobe did they!

    The notion that she has been destroyed by the right is a poor analysis of the situation. She is being groomed for her own run in 2012 as the main ticket and that is obvious as other researchers have pointed out.

    Pailins own statements distance her from the route McCain has followed and the right have backed her in this. She is basically saying none of this is her fault and she wouldn’t have run the campaign like this. The right are backing her in this approach.

    She has nothing to lose, if McCain loses she critices the approach and if she wins she runs on the next ticket. Pailin was chosen by the right to keep McCain in check for their ideals and they are not going to ditch her so quickly.

    She is a $150,000 investment by the right and counting.

  6. Sid — on 23rd October, 2008 at 8:57 pm  

    You’re right Avi, I should have titled the article “How the Financial Crisis destroyed John McCain”. But I thought that that would have been too literal and overly prospective.

    What’s with the obsession with her clothing budget?

  7. Avi Cohen — on 23rd October, 2008 at 9:46 pm  

    Sid – What tipped McCain over was the financial crisis but in reality people were turning away from Bush much like they did from Thatcher and McCain, who isn’t too bad a person like Major suffered the after effects.

    Palin’s attempted run is well written about here:

    http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/10/22/is-palin-making-plans.aspx

    Jonathan Freedland also thinks this is possible:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/23/sarahpalin-uselections2008

    But at least one Guardian commentator thinks not:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/oct/23/sarah-palin-2012-election

    I happen to think she is another Bush in the making for the right and neocons. Thus Georgina Bush is born for the right to mould and run amok with.

    As regards her clothes – well it is a bit ostentatious (sp?!) to spend $150,000+ at a time when her parties policies have put many Americans onto the streets.

    The GOP, the right and the neocons have basically made Liberal a dirty word. Imagine the outcry if Obama spent that much on his wardrobe.

    Anyway I tell you the thing I hate about self-serving politicians is they never say sorry honestly or admit they are wrong. The people are suffering but do people like Blair, Bush etc. come out and say sorry. Hell no.

    When will politicians admit their failings? People are losing their homes, families are breaking up and we have people who won’t admit anything they have done is wrong.

    The Right and Left have been wrong and what we need is good centre politicians who will help people, honest folk who are willing to admit failure and mistakes.

  8. MaidMarian — on 23rd October, 2008 at 9:55 pm  

    Sid – ‘That the recent and ongoing financial blitz was not the reason why McCain lost support. He lost support but because it exposed how utterly maniacal his behaviour progressively became in the midst of the crisis.’

    I want to believe that, believe me I do, but it really feels like a stretch. It may very well be that Mccain would have imploded without a financial crisis. It may well be that Palin would have been found out without a financial crisis and it may very well be that the Democrats would have won in good times.

    That said, I struggle to believe that the Republican campaign has not been badly tainted by the widespread perception that a Republican White House has been responsible for much of that crisis. Maybe McCain would have lost support (maybe not) but the financial crisis was quite the catalyst.

    Of course Obama has played a strong hand well, so far at least, and credit to the bloke. But to say that the issue of Republican stewardship of the economy has been a non-factor is something I can’t accept.

    Avi Cohen (7) – Point taken, but…

    ‘People are losing their homes, families are breaking up and we have people who won’t admit anything they have done is wrong.’ Blair and Bush did not put a gun to anyone’s head and tell them to sign up to a 125% mortgage. You are allowing people to abrogate individual responsibilityt here.

  9. BenSix — on 23rd October, 2008 at 10:00 pm  

    Nitpick with the Newsweek link, Avi.

    It’s pretty clear that Palin was “groomed” by Bill Kristol.

    “Asked by Bill Kristol whether her boss should harp on Obama’s connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., Palin was quick to say yes–and remind readers that it was McCain who had decided against attacking”

    What this misses is that Kristol backtracked on this when it didn’t win any votes…

    “I disagree with all of the advice that McCain is getting. . . . You have to talk endlessly about the economy. These attacks on Obama on Bill Ayers and possibly Reverend Wright don’t matter. I don’t agree with that. . . . “

    It would be difficult for Palin – who attacked Obama for his links with Ayers and Wright – to criticise McCain for, er, attacking Obama for his links with Ayers and Wright.

    Then again, they’ve done worse.

    Ben

  10. Avi Cohen — on 23rd October, 2008 at 11:13 pm  

    MaidMarian – “Avi Cohen (7) – Point taken, but…

    ‘People are losing their homes, families are breaking up and we have people who won’t admit anything they have done is wrong.’ Blair and Bush did not put a gun to anyone’s head and tell them to sign up to a 125% mortgage. You are allowing people to abrogate individual responsibilityt here.”

    No they didn’t put a gun to anyone’s head but they also made sure that all the checks and balances which were part and parcel of the banking system were non-existant. Did they put in any regulations ot make sure the banks stayed viable, feck no. But now we have to pay for their bloody financial mess. So why can’t they admit they messed up.

    Your quick to highlight individual responsibility but what about responsibility of government which we paid a bloody fortune for and frankly it wasn’t there.

    BenSix – Look the crucial point here is that a group of unelected people in the USA are effectively grooming people they can control and putting them forward for positions of power. How can that be democracy?

    Effectively an unelected group of people has run US Foreign Policy for the past 8 years. They like the power and want more. Ambitious people are lined up to be their tools and people talk of democracy.

    The fact is that the neocons have manipulated the system to drive policy and through the dumbing down of the media are getting away with it.

    These vultures are riding candidates and jumping side to side in oder to carry on their influence.

  11. Avi Cohen — on 23rd October, 2008 at 11:18 pm  

    One other minor point when you see the Telegraph printing articles supporting Obama and highlighting how the neocons are manipulating the system of democracy to effectively try and create a dictatorship well then people you know something is really wrong.

    Frankly this woman is being groomed to do the bidding of a bunch of unelected people and much the same can happen here as they are using columnists to stoke tensions.

    Frankly it is bloody scary and I am suprised more people don’t talk out.

  12. MaidMarian — on 23rd October, 2008 at 11:36 pm  

    Avi cohen (10) – ‘But now we have to pay for their bloody financial mess…Your quick to highlight individual responsibility but what about responsibility of government which we paid a bloody fortune for and frankly it wasn’t there.’

    What an interesting comment.

    So what you are saying is that it is OK for people to mortgage themself to the hilt, take out endless credit cards, loans etc because it is the place of government to tell people what they can and can not borrow? Any overstretch is de facto the fault of government, not the person actually taking out the loans?

    I’m sorry, but no. Whatever role government has played here (and I am certainly not saying government has covered itself in glory) this, ‘we,’ you talk about are paying for the financial mess of individuals.

    I think that the far wider concern about regulation here is quite how the banks got themself into a position where they could point a loaded gun at society’s head. No doubt we have seen private benefit and nationalised risk. In saying that though I struggle to see quite what government could have done, particularly on mortgages. Can you imagine the headlines if, in 2001, Brown started strictly controlling house prices? The internet bile over Iraq would have looked tame in comparison!

    I respect that you clearly have strong views on this, but you are blinkered. Yes, I resent having to pay for regulatory failings, but equally I am not wild about having to pay for the poor borrowing choices of others.

  13. BenSix — on 23rd October, 2008 at 11:37 pm  

    “Look the crucial point here is that a group of unelected people in the USA are effectively grooming people they can control and putting them forward for positions of power. How can that be democracy?”

    Well, indeed.

    One of the better reasons for actively supporting Obama rather than merely thinking that he’s better than McCain is that Kagan and Scheunemann – both directors of PNAC – are giving the ageing one foreign policy advice.

    The world is a piece of putty in their hands.

    Ben

  14. Avi Cohen — on 24th October, 2008 at 2:22 am  

    MaidMarian – what you haven’t grasped is that the reason people were able to get those loans was because Govt allowed them to have the facility.

    If it was the individuals and banks fault then why is government paying if it wasn’t to blame? It is paying because it was to blame because it puled too much regulation to allow people to do what they did. Govt pulled the checks and balances in the system.

    If you don’t believe me, then:

    “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief,” – Mr Greenspan.

    The Govt relied on the banks to regulate themselves and by removing the shackles they let loose and when they whole thing collapsed the markets ran to the govt to bail out the system.

    Lehmans ran fine for over 100 years and then government reduced the regulatory controls, a bunch of peopel got greedy and a fine well established bank went tot he wall.

    But you say it is the fault of the individual.

    If individuals are wholly responsible for their actions then why do we need govt to ake regulatory controls and laws?

    Hey if Greenspan can adm,it to some mistakes then I am sure you can accept that!

  15. Avi Cohen — on 24th October, 2008 at 2:23 am  

    BenSix – Agreed wht is going on is scary and at the moment it apears Obama is the best bet. But you know what those darn neocons are changing alliances so who knows.

  16. Sid — on 24th October, 2008 at 10:47 am  

    That said, I struggle to believe that the Republican campaign has not been badly tainted by the widespread perception that a Republican White House has been responsible for much of that crisis. Maybe McCain would have lost support (maybe not) but the financial crisis was quite the catalyst.

    Well that “widespread perception” is not entirely fallacious given that a Republican government that has been driving, for the last 8 years. George Bush might wanted to seem disapproving, but it was too little and much too late.

    The financial meltdown has been a catalyst for the loss of support for McCain because, notwithstanding his manic behaviour during the time of the crisis, but also because he has in the past argued for a more de-regulated market, not less.

  17. MaidMarian — on 24th October, 2008 at 1:20 pm  

    Avi Cohen – Without wanting to prolong this.

    ‘Govt allowed them to have the facility.’

    No – private banks allowed them. You may well believe that government should have more say in how individuals conduct their financial affairs (fair enough to you), but you are swimming against the tide.

    ‘If it was the individuals and banks fault then why is government paying if it wasn’t to blame?’

    I imagine that government would dearly love not to have to pay for, as I described previously, socialised risk against private benefit. It’s just when faced with the stark chioce between banking collapse and bail-out I can see how government came to the decision to bite the bullet. Are you suggesting that the people do not look to government to step in in times such as the collapse of the banking system? What would you have Brown say, ‘yes, I know that many of you are facing reposession due to the recklessness of banks and individuals – I’m just going to do nothing.’

    ‘But you say it is the fault of the individual.’

    You are putting words in my mouth. At 12 I said, ‘Whatever role government has played here (and I am certainly not saying government has covered itself in glory).’

    And yes – I do attach a substantial protion of blame to those who borrowed recklessly.

    Best of luck to you.

  18. MaidMarian — on 24th October, 2008 at 1:22 pm  

    Sid (16) – I agree, that perception is a fair one, I’m not sure why you seem to think I disagree!

    All I was getting at though is that the economic crisis is not neutral, as the article suggests, in the election.

  19. marvin — on 25th October, 2008 at 9:06 pm  

    Of course you can’t really give credit to the left-wingers for Palin being crap. That’s their own making. The Republican party took a silly gamble on Palin and it back fired.

    Nearly everyone can be proud of Obama. But the hard right Palin ticket was an incredibly dumb move considering the antipathy to 8 years or Bush rule. And I think the Americans are just damned tired of being mocked mercilessly for their presidential choice.

  20. digitalcntrl — on 26th October, 2008 at 9:00 pm  

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.