« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Vetting or fanatacism
Let's see. The list of stories of Sarah Palin's personal failures discussed here
o didn't oppose the bridge to nowhere
o didn't oppose earmarks
o tried to ban books in Wasilla
o fired the Wasilla police chief on inadequate grounds
o fired the Alaska State Police chief on inadequate grounds
And compare the stories of Obama's personal failures discussed on the Right
o didn't object to Rev. Wriight's sermons
o Rezko helped Obama buy his house
o was friends with Ayers
And the ones about Hillary
o too numerous to list
If sixteen years of attacks on Hillary couldn't prevent 18 million people from voting for her, or the Obama stories couldn't prevent him from winning the nomination, why think these criticisms of Palin will hurt her?
Put another way. How many black voters decided not to support Obama because of those attacks? Why think think that the number of women who will turn against Palin
will be any higher?
Certainly after ten days of Palin "vetting" there is no drop in McCain's polls.
When something doesn't work and you keep repeating it
that's not politics. It's fanatacism.
Lose the stories about Palin's Alaska misdemeanors. At best the make us look petty, at worst sexist. Her policies are fair game. We need to know what she might do
if , god help us, she becomes president. Forget about the
book she might have tried to ban in Wasilla.
Comments (10)
The fact that she would ban books are her policies. None of the things you point to as "vetting" items are personal. They are how she conducted herself in the only jobs we have to judge her on. They are perfectly open to debate.
By way of contrast, the shit you talk about with regards to Barack and Hillary are not reasonable items to discuss at all. They have nothing to do with the person's direct experience for the job or the observed behaviors as seen on the campaign trail. All personal criticisms of either democrat are in a different category than the items you offered for Palin.
That her family issues and whatnot should be off the table is one thing, but to say that her actual record as governor of Alaska and mayor of Wasilla aren't worthy of discussion is just sad and might explain why democrats keep losing presidential elections.
September 14, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to be suggesting that attacking your opponent doesn't work. If that were true, then McCain's attacks on Obama since July wouldn't have steadily eroded Barack's favorable rating. McCain's favorble rating (before Palin) didn't go up at all, Obama's went down.
As in any battle, you must attack your opponent. It does work. Just because you may not persuade your opponents support base doesn't mean you won't persuade others, and thereby, alter the outcome.
September 14, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are attacks and there are attacks.
Some work, some don't . The ones that don't work rather than persuading your opponent's base to cross over, persuade the others to support her out of sympathy .
I don't pretend that I can provide a rule for what works. But I'll provide one for what doesn't.Attacks based on personal characteristics ,for example TPM's use of an unattractive photo of Palin.
I've written before that Josh ought to ask his wife to vet his treatment of Sarah.
An even better illustration, altho I'm glad to say it doesn't apply here, was the rumor that Palin's Downs child was not her's but was actually Bristol's .
My daughter,a tough minded attorney-and like Sarah president of her PTA - who wouldn't even consider voting for a republican , spent yesterday soliciting for funds for Obama and has signed up to travel to Philly to go door to door for him. She likes the fact that McCain chose
Palin.
She's not going to cross over but someone less committed could easily be persuaded to.
And that's what we're busy doing.
September 14, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
As usual Flavius, your well intended post will draw only air, not even iron.
I tried to tell them way back when they were trashing Clinton that they're fanaticism only served to scare many of those who hadn't drunk the cool aid towards McCain.
I'd like to see the regular professional posters come out and take a stance on what you said. It's almost as if they're playing out of a playbook that says "Comment not" and "Recommend not" to anyone whose not on the team.
September 14, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who is steered to a candidate by anything other than what that candidate stands needs to think very seriously about what the privilege of the vote is for.
September 14, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
typo - what the candidate stands FOR. And post is in response to Redstate Leroy.
September 14, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
What? You answer your own question:
Why should we forget about her wanting to ban books? We now have an administration that has banned pictures of our sokdiers' coffins.
She lied about her stance on the bridge -- Bush told us he was a uniter, not a divider.
She fired several people for inappropriate reasons -- does the Bush Justice Department come to mind?
Fanaticism? This woman is Bush on steroids. Inquiring minds want to know. Let's face it. Anyone who hasn't made up his/her mind at this point really needs some facts. Why not supply them?
September 14, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Voters need to know what she'll do , not what she's done. Lakoff says
"Voters are smarter. Since they don't know what the situation will be in a couple of years it's rational to ask if a candidate shares your values....That is a rational thing to do".
The bridge to no where and Mayor Sarah's harvesting earmarks aren't values. They're trivial examples completely standard US political behavior. As is her carefully tailoring her denials so they're not exactly lies.
Her enquiring about banning books worries me but
(A) she didn't actually do it and (B) it won't worry the segment of the electorate Obama needs to penetrate.
I'm reminded of the republican attacks on Bert Lance for various perks he had been granted by the small town bank of which he had been president. I recall David Brinkley reading some of the charges and finishing with mock disapproval
"And he even used the bank's pick up truck".
Trying to have her child-tasering former brother- in- law removed from the state police force also is something that won't lose her a single vote.
A conservative commentator asked "Should she not to try to have some one removed from the state police when she knows he used a taser on a child?"
What I consider fanaticism is our side's redoubling our efforts to employ a failing tactic.
September 14, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see what you're saying, but since she is in a cocoon, what do we have to go on other than her previous actions?
Maybe after her next hard-hitting interview with Sean Hannity we'll have the nitty gritty.
Actually, past actions are a pretty good predicter of future behavior, but I do get what you're saying. I just don't see what is left to go on if her past official actions (even if motivated by personal reasons) are off-limits.
Even her most recent statements, which indicate a scarcity of knowledge about the world stage, and even about the US, get wiped clean by the media. Excuses such as, "Well, most people don't know the answer to that." For christ sake! Most people aren't running for VP!
Frankly, I thought the scariest part of her interview was when she was talking about not blinking when asked about accepting the nomination.
Substitute "thinking" for "blinking" and that is really her answer. We have had too many decisions made on gut instinct and held to steadfastly for the sake of being tough. What rational person would not have some thoughtful humility about running for Vice President?
She strikes me as someone who will shoot first and never ask the questions.
How do you propose we get that message out?
September 14, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kill her with kindness.
Fortunately I think she'll self destruct unless
we interfere with the process with personal attacks which rally support from women in particular who -as I've written before- are reminded of their ex and why he's their ex.
September 14, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment