Video: McCain declines to endorse Palin for 2012
posted at 1:59 pm on December 14, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Think how easy it would have been to throw her a bone without committing to anything, e.g., “It’s too early to be making endorsements when we don’t know who’s running or what the issues will be, but naturally she’s my preference going into it.” It would have made for an awkward soundbite three years from now if he ended up endorsing someone else, but endorsing someone else will be sufficiently awkward on its own terms that that soundbite would hardly make it worse.
Consider this another brick in the reconstruction of his centrist brand. (More on that in the next post.) Exit question: What exactly does he mean when he answers Steph’s point about endorsing her for VP just six weeks ago by saying, “Well sure, but now we’re in a whole election cycle”? What’s changed in six weeks, besides her usefulness to him? Click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Sorry, eh, but there are multiple pundits and historians that already have determined different definitions of what, exactly, that doctrine is/was. The term came from the pundits; it was never an articulated policy as a “doctrine” of the Bush administration. Not even the pundits have the same working definition of this so-called policy. Palin was simply attempting to pinpoint in what sense Gibson was using the phrase. If a person is expected to explain a position, it is wise to come to an agreement of the definitions under discussion.
(What’s with the lower-case usage? Are you going for the e e cummings political poetry recognition with this affectation?
onlineanalyst on December 14, 2008 at 4:51 PM
you’re right that it would be hipocrisy for the dems to ever call a republican’s associations into question again.
the trouble is that that didn’t matter this year, and it wont matter in the future because conservatives don’t go into journalism, and would have no audience if they did because “the base” suspects anything which doesn’t identify itself outright as conservative.
eh on December 14, 2008 at 4:53 PM
lazy
eh on December 14, 2008 at 4:53 PM
I take it lowandslow is quoting this report:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-23-palinspending_N.htm?csp=34
Well let me just say that this report is not entirely accurate .. not surprising from USA Today.
Here is a lie:
Two of the requests in that case came from surrounding counties in which Wasilla is not located, so the 27$ million, is once again a lie … Chris Wallace reported it on his program, I emailed him asking him to correct his story.
The FACTS remain that Palin has slashed the state budget and has halved the earmark requests to D.C. … in a state mostly OWNED by the Federal Government, she could legit. ask for MORE, but does not
and once again … over the summer the State could have spent BILLIONS because of the higher oil prices … Palin did not allow this too happen, now they have room to work with with the lower prices.
She has been in office for two years … he next budget is slimmer than usual … a non-fiscal conservative would simply run up deficits
joey24007 on December 14, 2008 at 4:54 PM
I hear ya eh. Spot on lowandslow.
joey, I’m not going to apologize for preferring that conservatism be smart and thinking. You like your conservatism dumb, fundamentalist, folksy and populist. I like it intellectual (but pragmatic) and idea driven. I’m a lifelong conservative. My wife worked in the Reagan administration. You strike me as a naive lightweight and come off as a lovestruck teenager.
dakine on December 14, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Regarding the Bush Doctrine … here is the man who invented the term:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
joey24007 on December 14, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Aahh, from the “If you don’t know the answer, dazzle them with Bull Sh!t school.” And look how long it took you to reply, must have gone to both the dictionary and the thesaurus. And now you will compare me to Gov. Palin and you and your compatriots will have a nice laugh. I am hoping that Allahpundit will post your definition so that we all will know of what we are to aspire.
Cindy Munford on December 14, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Congratulations on your wife working in the Reagan Administration …
Ronald Reagan was my uncle
joey24007 on December 14, 2008 at 4:56 PM
hmmm.. ya know…i’ll say no. unless its based on you not liking her ’style’ and delivery. Or perhaps its her fashions. Maybe your a ‘pantsuit’ feller instead of a ‘dress’ feller?
what policies do you differ with?
abortion? Taking on corruption? Her dedication to family?
What conservative philosophy do you take issue on?
Please.
As far as “Trying to play nice”.
Do me a favor and spare me the snobby threats, along with your childish take on conservatism.
They are both weak. Falling in line with the ‘metro sexual’ views of the left which I’m sure you embrace whole heartedly.
(And for the record…If you wish to NOT play nice..tis fine with me big boy…Bring friends.)
Handel on December 14, 2008 at 4:57 PM
For everyone who thinks Palin is a dummy and bombed her vp debates, I have an experiment for you. Yesterday I watched the entire Carter-Reagan debate from 1980. It was very, very interesting. Reagan did a good job, but I could see how people would say, “He’s just repeating memorized lines. He’s just an amiable dunce.”
Even more interesting is the fact that Carter spews the exact same nonsense that Obama spewed! I mean, right down to the promise of “9 million new jobs” in the renewable energy market! And so many of the issues they faced had to do with rising energy costs. They were arguing about drilling in Alaska, coal production, nuclear energy. It was deja vu all over again.
But my point about Palin is that she did a great job in her debate. She certainly did just as good as the Gipper. Carter did his best to portray Reagan as an extremist who was against minorities and “woman’s equality” (because he had support for the Equal Rights Amendment removed from the GOP platform — due to the work of Phyllis Schlafly) and he was a warmonger who wanted to project military force everywhere. Reagan smiled it all away and simply stated the facts about his record and Carter’s dismal record.
I was wondering if Obama would really be Jimmy Carter all over again, and this old debate video really gave me some indication of what might be in store for 2012.
You can view the debate videos here. Just go to the posters Youtube page to see all of the debate videos in order. I believe there are 11 clips total.
Another interesting little historical tidbit is the fact that the immediate response of the news media following the debate was that no one won! They didn’t think Reagan won it! They were just as stupid back then as they are now. They were literally stunned by Reagan’s landslide victory.
You can also watch the 1980 CBS election night coverage. Lesley Stahl was an idiot back then too! She ascribed Reagan’s victory to the Hostage Crisis instead of to his conservative ideas of lower taxes. Amazingly, it appears as if Dan Rather of all people actually figured out that the landslide was about, saying: “In the end it was rejection of the party and the liberal orthodoxy that had been in the command through the 60s and 70s. People Simply wanted a change.” Go figure, Dan got it right.
ramrocks on December 14, 2008 at 4:58 PM
BTW Open and closed primaries are determined at the state level by the respective parties. Work at your local and state levels to rectify the ridiculousness of having opposing party members determining the party’s candidate.
In PA, only those registered as D’s or R’s are eligible to vote in the primaries. I was an Independent when I registered to vote many moons ago. That designation changed when I realized that I had no voice in the selection of the candidates. I decided that the R’s spoke more for my political philosophy of conservatism, and I wanted a voice on who would run on the ticket.
In the general elections, I am free to vote for the person. I select the candidate who best reflects my positions, regardless of the party affiliation.
onlineanalyst on December 14, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Your bigot side is showing. If that’s how you feel about “conservatives” who aren’t like you, you’re neither needed or wanted.
Start your own party.
darwin on December 14, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Ronald Reagan instituted tax hikes as the Governor of California … by your logic he could never be President
oh and your little comment about “wealth-redistribution” of the oil profits makes no sense considering that she was just following the Alaska Constitution
you, as a conservative, appreciates public officials who follow the law, correct?
joey24007 on December 14, 2008 at 5:00 PM
i told you you wouldn’t satisfied.
eh on December 14, 2008 at 5:00 PM
joey, I’m not going to apologize for preferring that conservatism be smart and thinking. You like your conservatism dumb, fundamentalist, folksy and populist. I like it intellectual (but pragmatic) and idea driven. I’m a lifelong conservative. My wife worked in the Reagan administration. You strike me as a naive lightweight and come off as a lovestruck teenager.
dakine on December 14, 2008 at 4:54 PM
How can you be married to that ugly thing named Peggy Noonan?
Sorry i had to do it….
An Era of Hate on December 14, 2008 at 5:01 PM
take a look at the video of Reagan’s first debate against Mondale …
he is an actor
a dunce
doesn’t pay attention to detail
blah blah blah
these so-called “conservatives” around here would have been dumping on him as well
joey24007 on December 14, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Just got home from driving in this blizzard in NW Minnesota,so haven’t read any of the posts yet. But, FWIW, what a pig.
cjs1943 on December 14, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Although..on second thought. I’m guessing that your friends are similar to you in that they also have their rotund heads stashed snug as bug in their cushy tushy’s.
They would be walking into eachother and falling down…wouldn’t be very fair on my part.
Little like ‘cow tippin’, I would think….
>:)
Handel on December 14, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Dude! Really? Cool!
ramrocks on December 14, 2008 at 5:04 PM
I took a bit of a break to split some oak with a maul instead fo the splitter… Really makes you feel better.
Anyway, I was replaying McCain in my head and I think I see what happened. He is still harboring serious delusions of running in 2012. I think the “My corpse is still warm” statement is what did it for me.
That doesn’t change the fact that I think he was completely ungrateful in the way he handled that and some of the other incidents.
bullseye on December 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM
And again you are wrong. I am more than satisfied.
Cindy Munford on December 14, 2008 at 5:06 PM
McCain the traitor strikes again.
Go back to Sedona Mr. Potatohead.
omnipotent on December 14, 2008 at 5:07 PM
nah … I was just responding to Dakine’s claim that “his wife worked in the Reagan Administration
even though I don’t believe that the cleaning staff take part in Cabinet meetings
joey24007 on December 14, 2008 at 5:07 PM
You seem to have a hard time getting a grasp on fiscal conservatism and answering simple questions. Did she or did she not increase state spending by over 30% in the last two years and was she able to do this by imposing a massive windfall profit tax increase on the oil producers in her state?
As for your Alaska Constitution reference, are you willfully being ignorant? I’m talking about her “energy rebate” checks she handed out, not dividend checks from the Permanent Fund.
lowandslow on December 14, 2008 at 5:07 PM
They sure would! It’s really instructive for someone my age to go back and watch this stuff. I was barely out of diapers at the time, so I never got to witness this stuff first hand. It’s good to go back at see what it looked like before we knew the whole story. It’s suddenly clear why people like Chris Matthews are nervous about Palin. Very clear indeed.
ramrocks on December 14, 2008 at 5:07 PM
The people who run the “Our Country Deserves Better” PAC are all old Reagan people — from his California and his White House days. And, as everyone knows, they adore Palin.
I’ll betcha when her book is published one of her first stops will be the Reagan Library. Every Republican makes a stop at the Reagan Library for dinner and a book signing. It’s become a tradition. And I’ll definitely be there for that one, proud card carrying member of the Reagan Library that I am!
ramrocks on December 14, 2008 at 5:11 PM
joey, you’re an immature tool.
dakine on December 14, 2008 at 5:11 PM
I refuse to acknowledge her tax policy as “windfall” taxes
Larry Kudlow seems to like it and I don’t believe the oil companies will be leaving Alaska any time soon
BTW, for the 2nd time … her tax policies aim to end the C O R R U P T I O N that occurred between the oil companies and previous administrations … there are too many “conservatives” like you who can’t tell the difference between cronyism and capitalism
also for the 2nd time … the USA Today report has an obvious lie in it, I don’t regard articles that lie for political purposes as trustworthy
joey24007 on December 14, 2008 at 5:12 PM
ronaldo reganista the shamnesty guy? we’re talking about that open borders rino traitor?
eh on December 14, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Dakine … you fired the first shot when you referred to me as a “fanboy”
I had said nothing to you in an insulting fashion before you made that comment to me
you get the responses you deserve
joey24007 on December 14, 2008 at 5:13 PM
And Obama’s experience? Can you even say he was a on-term Senator, since he started running for President two years into the Senate term.
And he was running for President.
But let’s compare experience, if you’re up for it.
Palin had executive experience. Obama didn’t.
Palin cleaned up corruption. Obama somehow never noticed corruption.
Palin ran for office without the help of her party’s establishment, and won. Obama was propped up by the Chicago political machine. His opponents were forced out of the race, or sealed divorce records were leaked to create scandal.
Palin got things done in Alaska, notably the long-stalled pipeline deal. Obama was in the Senate during the building of the current economic problems, and … took credit for writing a letter about it. And if you look at the letter, it has nothing to do with anticipating a problem in the economy, and just expresses concern about the possibility that some people would have trouble meeting their mortgage payments.
Palin has a 70-80% approval rating as a governor. Obama … well, how can you describe a nonexistent record.
So the bottom of the Republican ticket was much better qualified than the top of the Democratic ticket. And we still get idiots murmuring that Palin wasn’t qualified.
theregoestheneighborhood on December 14, 2008 at 5:15 PM
and if you remember … after Palin was announced, the first thing the Obama campaign did was compare Obama to Palin!
He called her the mayor of wasilly
joey24007 on December 14, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Cindy Munford on December 14, 2008 at 5:19 PM
what does obama’s lack of qualiication have to do with palin’s lack of qualification?
yes. because palin lacked qualifications.
eh on December 14, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Please list the qualification you think she, or any candidate should have.
darwin on December 14, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Which is closer to the job description of the President?
A. Senator
B. Representative
C. Governor
If you answered anything other than C, you should not be allowed to vote
joey24007 on December 14, 2008 at 5:23 PM
It wasn’t a windfall profits tax. It was a severance tax, which is called for in the Alaska state Constitution. The people of Alaska own their natural resources. She actually put in place a truly brilliant tax plan which creates a win-win for both the people of Alaska and the oil producers. The tax rises only when oil production drops. As production rises, the tax drops. This plan has helped insure that the state is now in good shape financially with the drop in oil prices.
Your continued pounding of this windfall tax nonsense just shows that you have not seriously investigated her record.
As for the 30% thing. You can play all sorts of cute games with statistics. But the fact remains that she cut half a billion in spending and has reigned in the growth of government.
Your arguments remind me of Carter’s argument in his debate with Reagan. Carter pulled this same bull:
Carter even got a “30%” statistic in there! What is it with 30%? Is it just a nice figure to use to make up stuff because it sounds serious enough but is not too much to be suspicious. If you say “40%” someone might look it up because it sounds like a lot, but 30% is significant but not too crazy to be unbelievable.
Either way, Carter was full of it about Reagan, and you’re full of it about Palin. Judge her by the fiscal condition of state when compared to that of other states. She has been a good steward of her state and the unique challenges it faces.
ramrocks on December 14, 2008 at 5:23 PM
He doesn’t have time for that, it took him hours to come up with his definition of a “real” conservative. The man has to eat, you know.
Cindy Munford on December 14, 2008 at 5:25 PM
we have a winner
FACTS FACTS FACTS
joey24007 on December 14, 2008 at 5:25 PM
I guess cleaning up after people is some kind of insult now. You’re not so populist as others have alledged.
On the bright side, I expect a snappy comeback; you hold your own very well.
Yep, you just had to engage in an attack on a woman based on her looks. I am sure now, per the blowback I took yesterday, there will be a bevy of Republican men speaking out against your archetypical sexist attack.
The Race Card on December 14, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Franchise rights bedamned.
The Race Card on December 14, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Following a Constituion….has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?
and yet I hear this lady is a bumbling dolt /s
Red State State of Mind on December 14, 2008 at 5:27 PM
at least one full term in an office of national signifigance or equivalent private enterprise. and then there are qualitative concerns.
beauty pageant runner-up –> sportscaster –> mayor of town with a five-figure population –> half a term as governor of a sparsely-populated state + a demonstrated illiteracy about top policy issues doesn’t cut it.
eh on December 14, 2008 at 5:27 PM
McCain was not my first choice for president. But he won the primaries. Bringing Palin on board is what inspired many people to donate their time and effort to his campaign. She did a great job and he should be more thankful to her. By not standing up and defending her right away, made me lose a lot of respect for McCain. He defended Obama more than Palin. Shows the true man that he is.
texasconserv on December 14, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Modern invention called the internet allows users to research information..
Palin explains profits, ANWR, taxes and all that stuff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ys4HGbiONY
thank Al Gore when you are done
joey24007 on December 14, 2008 at 5:29 PM
lol … true
darwin on December 14, 2008 at 5:29 PM
alleged? what are you whining about now?
joey24007 on December 14, 2008 at 5:30 PM
I don’t believe Ms. Noonan is married right now. I will admit that there have been some unkind things said but please don’t go to PC after all he admitted that he was fibbing about being a relative of Reagan. You were treated very unfairly yesterday, don’t let it stick with you, your posts are great.
Cindy Munford on December 14, 2008 at 5:31 PM
ROTFLMAO! You predicted what he would write a minute before he did. You rock! That was awesome!
ramrocks on December 14, 2008 at 5:32 PM
it took me almost as long as it took you to write back that you couldn’t respond in substance because some of the words i used would have required you to go to a dictionary, and that pausing to try to understand it would have slown down your ducktalk anyway, so it must be a bucha librul bullsh*t.
eh on December 14, 2008 at 5:33 PM
I love you, you are now my favorite poster, evah!!!!
Cindy Munford on December 14, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Why not?
I do take exception to the constant cries of issue “illiteracy” though. Simply because she devoted the great majority of her time and energy concentrating on what she was elected for doesn’t mean she’s incapable of dealing with other issues.
I take it that she has learned her lesson though, and will now spend more of her time reading about issues that for the most part she has no control over. I’m sure the citizens of Alaska will love that.
darwin on December 14, 2008 at 5:36 PM
you know what amuses me? the “real” conservative i was writing to has so far been unable to mount a response.
Lulz!
eh on December 14, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Did Blagojevich shake him down, too?
ddrintn on December 14, 2008 at 5:37 PM
ooh, I like dem big word u use
and i loves it when you almost cuss, you is really cool, you has convinced me !!!
eh on December 14, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Red State State of Mind on December 14, 2008 at 5:38 PM
For some reason the rules changed for the Vice Presidency after Palin was announced and especially for Governors running for national office
The dems came very close to running Howard Dean for President … from a small state and unlike Alaska … Vermont’s governor has no real powers and is not nearly “important” to the U.S. as Alaska is in terms of energy
John Edwards? What were his qualifications … ambulance chaser to first term senator
joey24007 on December 14, 2008 at 5:39 PM
I will refer everyone to
There you will observe a legend in his own mind or a steaming pile of you decide.
We are not worthy of such an intellectual giant.
Cindy Munford on December 14, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Cindy, don’t jump to that concluson while you are riding this emotional high… there are an awful lot of really favortie-like posters evah here…
Red State State of Mind on December 14, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Is slown a word?
Cindy Munford on December 14, 2008 at 5:41 PM
no, seriously. it took me 45 minutes to provide you a thoughtfull four paragraphs of response. it took you 26 minutes to say “thats lubrul bullsh*it”. there’s no precise way to calculate this, but i figure it would have taken you the better part of the day if you were inclined to actually respond thoughtfully.
eh on December 14, 2008 at 5:42 PM
as a native of the great state of North carolina, I feel compelled to rush to John’s defense.
FIRST of all, if there was a great hair contst, John would nevah be “runner up”, and
SECONDLY, ” the ladies love him…”
Red State State of Mind on December 14, 2008 at 5:42 PM
I am sure that’s true but as you can see eh and I have connected. But I am done, I can only work on the negative for so long, not in my nature.
Cindy Munford on December 14, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Nowhere in my response did I call you a liberal. Spelled correctly or incorrectly.
Cindy Munford on December 14, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Fair point joey. Tell you what, let’s agree to disagree regarding Palin. I won’t childishly rag you about your affection for the gov, and you acknowledge that it’s okay to be conservative and have an unfavorable opinion of Palin. Does that work?
dakine on December 14, 2008 at 5:51 PM
dakine, Will you give your hated nemesis a chance in 2012(if she runs) to prove herself to folks like you during the primaries?
An Era of Hate on December 14, 2008 at 5:52 PM
red,i don’t know what to tell you. the admission about the dictionary, the aweful curseword, these are what cindy gave me to respond to.
it’s all good though. i impress her. she makes reference to my posts from last week and she’s chasing me all over this thread. i don’t know if it’s “love”, but it’s nice to be the focus of an infatuation.
eh on December 14, 2008 at 5:53 PM
My “affection” is political in nature so quit with that line
and you are allowed to have an unfavorable opinion of anybody you want
have a nice day
joey24007 on December 14, 2008 at 5:54 PM
true. you did not. i apologise.
eh on December 14, 2008 at 5:55 PM
I don’t know about Joey but I think it is great. Although I like Gov. Palin a lot and I will be interested to see what the future brings, I think it is early to lock in on someone. Now I still think that Senator McCain could have answered the question a lot better than he did and he would have had to commit himself to anyone.
Cindy Munford on December 14, 2008 at 5:55 PM
You’re the one who demanded how people could vote for Palin but consider Obama unqualified.
Then complained that no one dared to answer your question.
Now, you want to claim the comparison with Obama is irrelevant.
I didn’t bring up the comparison. You did. I even hinted that you might not want to go there (as in “But let’s compare experience, if you’re up for it.”)
I’ll try to say it more clearly, since you seem to have trouble following the argument. If you’re going to compare Obama’s experience to Palin’s, Obama will come up short.
If you’re going to ignore Obama and stick to discussing Palin — which would be much smarter for those attacking Palin’s qualifications — then you’re going to argue that Palin’s experience in 2008 is inadequate for her to run for President in 2012. But you’re creating new standards on the fly to attempt to exclude Sarah Palin.
And if you’re dumb enough to form an opinion of someone’s intelligence based on media reports, when there is a public record of achievement out there you could examine, then you’re not much of an analyst.
I’m fine with people who argue that there are better candidates, but I think they’re probably wrong. I’m especially sympathetic to the argument that 2012 is a long ways off, and we may wind up with a different or better candidate.
But she’s clearly not stupid, or liberal, or theocratic, or a shop-a-holic, or the other fairly obvious kinds of dirt thrown at her by political opponents and the media — but I repeat myself.
theregoestheneighborhood on December 14, 2008 at 5:56 PM
You don’t just have an unfavorable opinion of Palin, you use her to attack anyone religious, rural, or not as educated as you’d like. There’s a growing wave of animosity towards religion, Christians especially and those who aren’t urban or college graduates and you seem to be riding it.
darwin on December 14, 2008 at 5:56 PM
You sound concerned.
What did she do?
By the way, Charlie Gibson didn’t know what the “Bush Doctrine” was when he asked about it. That’s the problem with having an intern Google gotcha questions 10 minutes before the interview.
Jim Treacher on December 14, 2008 at 5:56 PM
[to dakine] high five.
eh on December 14, 2008 at 5:56 PM
eh: Your “education” exceeds your “intelligence”. Any attempt to unravel some sense out of those marshmallow fluff “thoughtfull (It’s spelled thoughtful, but spelling is not your forte either.) four paragraphs” leaves a reader scratching his head in confused dismay. My vocabulary is fine. Dare I say that it probably exceeds yours. Your challenge is to say what you mean in direct declarative sentences sans nebulous abstract concepts. Until you yourself understand what those concepts are, it is futile to place yourself in an intellectually superior position.
Are you a Paulbot? Or just very young?
onlineanalyst on December 14, 2008 at 5:58 PM
also, the man who coined the term had no particular issue with Palin’s response
joey24007 on December 14, 2008 at 5:59 PM
She was the most literate candidate in the one issue most crucial to our long term security – energy independence. I’m amazed that people just brush this fact aside. Did anyone happen to take a gander at those 1980 Reagan-Carter debate videos that I linked to in an earlier post? They were arguing about our energy policy back then, and we’ve made little progress on it since then. The price of oil fell because the Reagan administration was able to strong arm the Saudis into lowering the price of OPEC oil and the Trans Alaska pipeline hit a production peak in the 80s. Unfortunately the Valdez spill sent the movement for off shore drilling back because the environmental aftermath made everyone nervous about drilling. Reagan tried to get more nuclear plants built, but the Dems blocked them. We don’t have a comprehensive energy plan. That’s totally dangerous and it’s a total dereliction of duty on the part of our leaders.
Sarah Palin knows more about energy than anyone on either ticket. That alone qualified her in my mind. You’re worried because she doesn’t know the intricacies of the No Child Left Behind act? Well, here’s a friggin’ newsflash — read to your kids, make sure they do their homework, and volunteer for the PTA, and don’t cry to the federal government to fix everything in your damn life!
What is “informed”? She was “uninformed” about John McCain’s record and she couldn’t list more instances of his love of “regulation” to Couric. Well, I would be worried if she had his record memorized. She has said that Ronald Reagan is her hero and she thinks about him every day as she makes decisions as an elected official. I love the idea of an elected official thinking of Reagan every day. I would be not be happy with an official who thinks of John McCain everyday before making a decision.
And what else was she uninformed about? Oh, she couldn’t name a Supreme Court case other than Roe that she didn’t like. And keep in mind she was asked for a current case. She couldn’t say Brown vs. the Board of Ed or Dred Scott. This was a no brainer for Biden because he sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Palin later named some cases, but she couldn’t at the moment asked. Could any of you? Ed Koch was honest enough to admit that he couldn’t either. He actually defended Palin on this, and even went so far as to say that he really liked her (though he chose to vote for Obama).
You want to know something about Palin, take a look at what some of her crazy detractors say about her. The New Republic, printed one of the most outrageously over the top stories about her. This little tidbit stood out for me. Palin had asked the chief of police,
I’m sorry if I sound provincial, but I absolutely love that! I think it’s great! Even in a hit piece, they can’t help letting out little details like this that make her sound awesome.
ramrocks on December 14, 2008 at 6:00 PM
I don’t agree with a darn thing you say but you’re a good egg.
Cindy Munford on December 14, 2008 at 6:00 PM
One MORE reason to vote for her.
Kevin71 on December 14, 2008 at 6:03 PM
That’s great … and that’s what people like about her, she actually walks the walk, and not just talks the talk.
darwin on December 14, 2008 at 6:04 PM
right, but your response wasn’t essentially that palin was better qualified than obama, but that palin was qualified enough for the vp slot as compared to obama being at the top of his ticket. this is a perfectly reasonable counterargument if the two tickets are what’s being compared.
i prefaced with a clause meant to clear that away, which noted that palin supporters claim that the voted for mccain/palin as if palin were the top of the ticket. now when we’re talking of her exclusively as a top of the ticket runner, it’s even more clear.
palin and obama have formally identical experience. although one could argue that palin’s executive experience is better preparation than obama’s legislative experience, or that obama’s terms as state legislator and pre-carreer as a (ugh) “community organizer” in illinois are more substantial than palin’s terms as a mayor of a town in alaska and pre-carreer as a sportscaster, they’re identical.
neither are acceptably experienced.
eh on December 14, 2008 at 6:10 PM
philosphy precedes politics. if you don’t start there, problems arise.
that said, i don’t think what i wrote was particularly abstract.
spelling isn’t my strong suit. it doesn’t bother me. it usually provokes people with nothing to say to resort to argument by spellcheck, and anyone who sees that knows the person has nothing to say.
i’m not a paulbot, but i do think the mainstream was too rough and dismissive of him, and mostly for the wrong reasons.
eh on December 14, 2008 at 6:19 PM
McCain was Dole II.
Only his choice of Palin made him (after his Shamnesty stupidity and McCain-Feingold/McCain-Lieberman, ad nauseam) barely palatable to vote for.
Since failing to fight for the presidency he has proven his fundamental lack of sense almost daily.
Shut up and go push for Shamnesty II Mac.
profitsbeard on December 14, 2008 at 6:19 PM
People don’t vote for “experience”. They never have. Seriously, they never have. They vote for a leader with a vision. Obama was able to articulate a clear vision of where he wanted to take our country. Now, conservatives saw through this “vision” and knew it was nonsense. (And after viewing the Reagan-Carter 1980 debate, I’m more confident than ever that his “vision” was bull.) But the fact remains that Obama sold the public on his vision.
If Palin or any other politician is able to articulate a clear vision of where they intend to take the country, and if that vision sounds better than where we actually are in 2012, then they will win. Experience has nothing to do with it.
And by 2012, Palin will be so familiar to everyone that no one will question her “experience” just as no one questions Hillary’s “experience” to be Secretary of State. The experience argument wore itself out against Obama because he spent two years on the national stage running for president. People got used to the idea of him as president, and he had plenty of time to wear out the stupid gaffes he made over a two year period. Palin was thrown on the national stage in a 3 month span. Considering how short a time she had, she did an amazing job. She never made anywhere near the gaffes of Biden. Her only mistake was a poor interview with Katie Couric. That’s it. Since when does the conservative movement take it marching orders from Katie Couric?
ramrocks on December 14, 2008 at 6:21 PM
you too cindy.
eh on December 14, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Perhaps you didn’t notice, every person in America increased their spending over the last few years.
Something as simple as putting gas in your car cost you more than it did in 2006, before she was governor.
If you personally spent more money putting gas in your car, then you personally increased your spending.
So by your definition of spending increases, absolutely no one in America is really a true Fiscal conservative. I am guessing that includes yourself.
Anybody understanding just a smidgen about government realize that spending goes up every single year for a number of reasons.
Teachers get a raise ever single year. So… your spending on education costs goes up.
Law enforcement get a raise ever single year. So… your spending on public safety goes up.
Repair and replacement of snow plows in a very cold state, have gone through the roof in the last two years.(check the steel commodities for you proof on this)
You get my point. As long as costs continue to rise, spending has to rise with it.
Now Governor Palin could have cut teachers jobs, public works and public safety employees, and could have cut spending across the board for these needed services. But she better have a damn good reason for doing this when her state is rolling in dough.
The people expect these services because that is what they pay their tax dollars for. Cutting services when your state is rolling in dough and touting your fiscal conservatism does not really endear you to the people are supposed to be serving. Even those people that call themselves “fiscal conservatives”.
Have you ever gotten a raise?
If so, did you spend more money?
Perhaps you bought a new car because the old one was falling off its wheels. Well, then you are not a fiscal conservative.
The state of Alaska got a huge raise, because Governor Palin forced that raise from oil companies.
The people of Alaska were ripped off because their politicians were lining their pockets with oil money. The people of Alaska own their natural resources and should have been the ones getting those profits when the prices started to skyrocket.
Now you like to call that a windfall profits tax because she fought for every penny owed the people in her state. Most people in Alaska liked getting some of the money back that is owed to them.
Governor Palin got them their money and paid it to them with a big fat check. Good for her. It was about time for someone to come along and give the people what they rightly deserved in Alaska. She fought for every single penny owed the people of Alaska even though her predecessors let the people get ripped off.
A good sign of a fiscal conservative is someone who also stashes some of that raise away for a rainy day.
Something we should all do when we get a raise, especially if we call ourselves fiscal conservatives.
Governor Palin slashed and gashed over $500 million from the budget that her state legislators were demanding, even though they had the money to spend. They were trying to spend it all and she would not let them.
Still, she replaced a lot of things that needed replacing, gave state employees raises that they were due, invested more in education, health care and public safety projects. She put the people first.
So what is a fiscal conservative?
Governor Palin did this:
Stashed money into savings accounts for a rainy day
Fought for every single penny that is owed the people she serves.
Improved the services to the people that the state provides
She slashed and gashed the state legislators greedy lists of repetitive services.
If this is not fiscal conservatism to you, perhaps you need a reality check.
Unless you are spending the same amount of money that you spent in 1975, they you are not a fiscal conservative either.
kcarpenter on December 14, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Might I suggest that if you really think we shouldn’t compare Palin’s experience to Obama’s, then maybe you shouldn’t demand a comparison.
And my point in the comparison was that Palin was more qualified to be president than Obama, even though she was running for VP.
And of course, you are still talking about Palin’s experience as a beauty contestant, as a sportscaster, and as a mayor, as if they were relevant to the question at all. That would be like talking about Obama’s time as a community organizer and state senator, while ignoring that he had become a U.S. Senator.
Palin’s relevant experience would be her time as head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation commission and as governor.
For my part, I’m not interested in putting Sarah Palin on a pedestal. If she wants to be President, let her run in the primaries. She can’t win those unless she convinces others that she’s qualified. If someone else runs and beats her, then that person will have proven to be a better candidate.
But I’m not impressed by attempts to pre-emptively knock her out of the race with smear jobs.
She’s stood on her own feet in every election she’s run in so far.
theregoestheneighborhood on December 14, 2008 at 6:28 PM
YOU TOTALLY ROCK! Best post of the day. Thank you!
ramrocks on December 14, 2008 at 6:31 PM
At least on the blogs I read, more conservatives are blaming him than her for the loss. Don’t think he expected that, and I still think he doesn’t understand it.
Tanya on December 14, 2008 at 6:32 PM
This is how crazy I am, I post using Firefox which highlights misspelled words and look them up on IE.
Cindy Munford on December 14, 2008 at 6:34 PM
it could be that experience is irrelivant. obama’s election would certainly indicate that.
it could be, as someone noted before, that having ugly associations is irrelivant too, and obama’s win would indicate that as well.
something else we know though is the way people only know the bad things about palin and only the good things about obama.
that’s something conservatives don’t have on their side and wont have on their side in 2012 either.
instead, by then we’re going to have to make it clear and concrete to the public that we’re not the same party which they rejected 2008. annointing palin before obama’s even sworn in is like saying “we didn’t take sh*t away from that embarassing, catostrophic defeat you handed us. don’t vote for us in 2012, either.”
eh on December 14, 2008 at 6:34 PM
i’m not hip to the firefox. my brother hates me for it.
eh on December 14, 2008 at 6:38 PM
I use the google toolbar Spellcheck. Works like a charm! One click and you’re done.
BTW, remember when they hacked into Palin’s emails? Was I the only one who noticed that her casual emails to her Lt. Governor revealed impeccable spelling and grammar skills? Remember how everyone was shocked to discover that Reagan could write? When they published his last letter to the American people — the one in which he revealed that he has Alzheimer’s — people actually thought that someone else wrote it for him. Then Nancy Reagan published his love letters to her, and everyone was shocked to realize that he wrote very witty and clever letters. And then they published his radio addresses and other writings “In His Own Hand”, and the secret was out — Reagan wasn’t stupid after all!
ramrocks on December 14, 2008 at 6:41 PM
point taken.
i’m not trying to knock her out of the race. i’m trying to knock her off the pedistal she’s been placed on.
in the end, she deserves the same shot alan keyes gets every primary season.
eh on December 14, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Good. Sarah’s chances are better without McCain’s endorsement anyway.
Y-not on December 14, 2008 at 6:42 PM
I think in 2012, we won’t be the ones having to answer for ourselves. Obama will be the one having to answer. I think he’s going to have a lot to answer for.
It’s not even clear whether Palin will want to run in 2012. She might not. She might seek another term as governor.
The one thing the GOP must answer for in 2012 is the inability of John McCain to present a coherent economic vision. He couldn’t articulate a true grasp of economic principles. Neither could Obama really, but he promised more stuff and looked more confident and didn’t have an “R” after his name.
Seriously, eh, go watch that Carter-Reagan debate. It’s fascinating. I swear, it’s eerie how similar the situation was then to now. I mean, Carter even tried to raise the specter of Nixon in denouncing Reagan. We forget how beloved Carter was by the populace when he first took office. He was the candidate who promised, “I will never lie to you” after years of Watergate. The Republicans ran an old man against him — an extremist who couldn’t get half of the party to nominate him in 1976. Reagan had a lot going against him. Carter’s approval ratings were still good up until the very last month or so. But the economy was awful, and eventually his record caught up with him — even though people still liked him as a person. That could happen again. If the economy is awful in 2012, all bets are off.
ramrocks on December 14, 2008 at 6:52 PM
You know, you’re right. It is better for her. It’s also a great way for her to distance herself from his failed campaign should she run again.
ramrocks on December 14, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Anyone classified as a fool, moron or an idiot by Democrats and media gets brownie points from me.
Cindy Munford on December 14, 2008 at 7:09 PM
ramrocks,
I’m enjoying your comments about Reagan and Carter. I was recently out of college when I lived through those awful Carter years. It’s too bad too many of the voters developed amnesia or were unaware of what it was like.
You’re right about the similarities, although I don’t recall that Carter was surrounded by corrupt/terrorist/anti-American cronies the way Obama is. (Carter, however, has made up for it in his post-presidential years). Carter also was clueless about foreign policy and we had the Iran hostage crisis. The Dems are the same old song and dance team.
If you don’t know the site, you’ll really like Reagan 2020. Some of his speeches could be changed only slightly and they would fit the situation today.
INC on December 14, 2008 at 7:11 PM
You know, Ann Coulter was absolutely correct when she described McCain and “contumacious” and “stupid”.
ramrocks on December 14, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »