In a seemingly self-contradictory column, Peggy Noonan raves about how great Palin was last night, but then crawls McCain's backside over phony populism. Excerpt:
We saw this week, too, a turn in the McCain campaign's response to criticisms of Mrs. Palin. I find obnoxious the political game in which if you expressed doubts about the vice presidential nominee, or criticized her, you were treated as if you were knocking the real America--small towns, sound values. "It's time that normal Joe Six-Pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency," Mrs. Palin told talk-show host Hugh Hewitt. This left me trying to imagine Abe Lincoln saying he represents "backwoods types," or FDR announcing that the fading New York aristocracy deserves another moment in the sun. I'm not sure the McCain campaign is aware of it--it's possible they are--but this is subtly divisive. As for the dismissal of conservative critics of Mrs. Palin as "Georgetown cocktail party types" (that was Mr. McCain), well, my goodness. That is the authentic sound of the aggression, and phony populism, of the Bush White House. Good move. That ended well.
Noonan seems to think that Palin's populism is authentic, and I suspect she's right -- but only populism as a matter of style. Noonan talks in her column about how extraordinarily serious the present moment is for our country -- unprecedented, even -- but I don't see how she squares that observation with giving Palin a pass for her upbeat performance. As I said below, I thought Palin really suffered by comparison to Biden in discussing foreign policy. She doesn't know what she's talking about, and while she avoided gibbering, I found her reliance on talking points, and accusing Biden of counseling "surrender," to be more than a little maddening.
A friend writes this morning that he can't believe after watching Palin last night flail on foreign policy, that I still have doubts as to whether she's capable of governing. Her foreign policy mediocrity is even more important, he points out:
And this is crucial because in domestic policy, the President governs collaboratively with Congress whereas in foreign policy the Executive Branch is largely a law unto itself.
Yeah. It is very, very hard for me to imagine Sarah Palin having the temperament and conceptual understanding to deal with a complex foreign policy crisis. Again, I don't think she's dumb. But I am nearly certain that given the very dangerous waters into which the ship of state is sailing, she is incapable of being a reliable captain if it came to that. Nearly.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Karen Brown: You raise excellent points. But a vote is not only a vote for one individual, but a vote against another. Even if everything you say comes to pass with McCain as president, Obama with his promises to preserve and expand access to abortion still wouldn't have gotten my vote or, thanks to likeminded voters, the presidency all because he promised to expand abortion.
In the case of a McCain flop on the issue (ie., he pulls a GHW Bush and nominates stealth prochoicers) prolifers would then be put on notice to throw our support around a real prolife candidate -- of any party-- next time around.
The problem is, they've been saying that for several.. well, decades now, with the exact same results.
If you keep saying you'll put your support behind the 'Real(tm) Prolife Candidate' (and I think we can all agree that McCain's record speaks for itself on that issue), and you keep ending up voting for the 'guy who talks the talk', because you think you're voting 'against' the other guy, you're going to keep getting the same results.
Hint, how many 'liberal' judges on the Supreme Court since RvW have been appointed by Republican presidents? From Nixon to Ford, from Reagan to both Bushes.
Its like the girl with the nice car that gets invited to the dance, because they want the ride, though they were promising they care about her, that they will be with her during the dance.. And then dumped when they get there. Because they got what they wanted and don't need her anymore. And she keeps falling for it over, and over, and over again.
They keep threatening that the 'next time', they're going to throw their support around the 'real' prolife candidate. Each time they end up with the one who talks the talk, because it gets them the votes, and does nada.
I don't think they believe you'll really go through with it.
It is a risk. Its a risk anyway, because Obama may very well win without you. And if you walk during a good year, the Republicans may win without you while you go to the 'Constitutional Party' or something.
But to vote for just the appearance of supporting your issue, especially since they have to know that even the most politically naive has to have noticed how little results there have been, especially since there have been periods of Republican control of Congress AND Presidency, it makes the voter look like they don't mind being played for suckers.
It has been 40 years. I think it may be time for the showdown. I don't mean words, either. I mean actions. A short term loss for a longterm benefit. To get the ones who truly support your positions onto the ticket.
If it doesn't work, well.. it isn't working now. In the end, how much of a risk is it, really?
Ms. Palin is far from what this country needs. Ms. Palin's answers in the Vice Presidental debate showed that she is very weak in finance, econmics and knows little about what ramifications her actions would have if she set policy.
Karen Brown: George W. Bush did appoint prolifers to the Court and he did oppose embryonic stem cell research. Because of him we are very close to a majority on the Supreme Court. Because of prolife conservatives he won reelection. McCain will do well to heed this even if he would only serve one term in order for the GOP brand to remain viable after he is gone from the political scene. The Republican National Committee, especially, doesn't want to disappoint us when we are so close to victory on this issue.
Well, as I said, you would be assuming he cared about the 'GOP brand' after he is gone.
He can't, on one hand, run as some kind of loner maverick, and on the other, be all that concerned with partisan prosperity after he's no longer in office.
And the RNC wants to win. If they are pretty darn sure (and after, once again, 40 years of it, they are) that no matter what, you'll vote for them, as long as they talk the talk, they are fulfilling their mission to win.
But, I'm not you. If you choose to fall for the same lines over and over, that's your call to make.
How many times ARE you going to say 'if they don't do it this time'? And how many would go with you if you really did decide this is the last time?
Once again, 'so close' is the PERFECT place for the RNC to be.
To win the issue is to, well, lose YOU. And hundreds of thousands like you. Far better to stay just a hair from a perceived victory.
Disappointment is exactly what they want to do. They just want to be sure it is blamed on someone else when it happens.
What possible political advantage is there to overturning Roe V. Wade as opposed to being seen as TRYING to do so?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.