Noonan on Palin and phony populism

Rod, Just vote for Obama then. What's the big deal?

I suspect you will, and the justificatory post will be longer than your EO conversion post.

Kennedy was Palin's age when he died. No one expected it. According to Foreign Affairs: "Summary: Newly released records show that L.B.J., for all his political canniness and cunning, never managed U.S. foreign policy well-even excluding the Vietnam War."

We survived.

It sounds as if you'all are expecting McCain to kick the bucket whilst he is in office. Could happen...but it might not. His Mother is still with us. So Gov Palin might become President and a certain prowess with Foreign Affairs might become important.

Yeah...Bush has done such an outstanding job for us overseas... So what's a Governor to do? Get ye some experts. Surround yourself and listen to them.

It's incredibly disingenuous to expect one person to be expert at all things. And we delude ourselves if we think any of our elected officials are. Do we consistently elect lawyers because they act well, talk well, "spin" well??? What about a lawyer governs well??? Flip-flops are common as compromise is paramount. What other career field requires a person to set aside their convictions to defend to the best of their ability a person or concept they may violently disagree with?

But I digress...

In the event Gov Palin were to become President of the United States, she has any number of resources to call upon in the area of Foreign Affairs. And I do not doubt she will do so. She appears to be aware of her limitations.

After all, it isn't like she makes her living from writing about this stuff; or that she's had 30+ years experience with this stuff... Give her a bit of time...

Could any of you do better once the klieg lights are on you (and within 30 days...or less)?

If Biden was running for president and Palin was running for president the issue about foreign policy would have merit.

They aren't.

It doesn't.

I would be more comfortable if Biden was at the top of the Democratic ticket than I am with Obama.

Playing up or concentrating on foreign policy is done to try to discredit Palin. Why not the same concentration on Obama's lack of experience running anything?

I wish those who are so critical of the governor would exercise the same standards for Obama and his lack of everything except being able to deliver a good speech.

However, Palin is an easier target.

She went from the PTA to mayor to governor. Doesn't anyone assume that she learned along the way? Wouldn't the same be true if she became vice-president? Or is Obama the only one allowed to learn on the job?

And if you can pick on Gov Palin about Foreign Policy, why doesn't anyone pick on Sen Obama about his record in Illinois? Especially regarding his stand on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act???

Just the spin he has given his stand on this issue is enough to give me pause regardless of his stance on this issue!

Rod,

You have become what Andrew Sullivan was in 2004. Little by little justifying voting for a liberal while still claiming to be conservative. If you vote for Obama, with his record on abortion, then you are no longer a conservative. Please stop yourself before 2012, I would hate to see you desend into the abyss like Andy the rumor monger Sullivan.

Come home Rod, come home.

Oops, I meant descend.

I think you may be giving Biden WAY too much credit here. As Jonah Goldberg said on the corner last night, Biden gets his gravitas from expousing inaccurate bs gasbaggery with utter seriousness. If we had a media worth two dead flies, papers would have been filled with explanations of all the false claims/"facts" Biden used in the debate last night.

Not saying that Sarah's all that, but to paint Biden as knowledgeable on matters of foreign policy is to fall for a con artist, pure and simple. Biden seems to have taken the maxim "fake it 'till you make it" and decided that he could get by with just the first part.

I'm not sure the McCain campaign is aware of it--it's possible they are--but this is subtly divisive.

NO!! Ya THINK?? I'm sure that dear, sweet ol' sugarpuss John Sidney McCain would faint from horror if he realized his campaign was doing anything divisive!!

Sigh. Sarcasm off. Peggy Noonan's willed naivete has long exceeded anything Palin has been able to muster. Too bad McCain didn't select her as his running mate. She's vastly more well-informed than Palin, and I would assume she could write her own speeches, too. Ah well--poor Phyllis Schlafly never got appointed Secretary of Defense, much as she longed for that position. Nor did Jeane Kirkpatrick--another example of a truly able woman relegated to a staff position and kept out of the chain of command.

Speaking of whom, I found the following quote from Kirkpatrick while googling: No idea holds greater sway in the mind of educated Americans than the belief that it is possible to democratise governments, anytime and anywhere, under any circumstances... Decades, if not centuries, are normally required for people to acquire the necessary disciplines and habits. In Britain, the road [to democratic government] took seven centuries to traverse... The speed with which armies collapse, bureaucracies abdicate, and social structures dissolve once the autocrat is removed frequently surprises American policymakers.

Well, gosh all hemlock, why in the heck didn't they listen to her? I guess she made the mistake of not having enough kids on the hockey team. Another interesting bit of trivia about Kirkpatrick: one of her three sons is now a Buddhist lama--although the Dalai Lama does not recognize him as a reincarnated master. Thus karmic frustration descends from mother to son! Perhaps he's trying to make reparation through his devotion to Red Tara.

One reason I found her likable last night is that she seemed to agree with Joe Biden a lot of times, and I wondered about that. I found myself wondering several times during the debate why exactly she was supporting McCain's plans.

Today comes this article from ABC--the McCain campaign is having to correct her assertion that McCain supports the plan to allow bankruptcy judges to re-negotiate loans so people can stay in their homes. I guess when she heard Joe Biden explain it, she liked the idea, but McCain absolutely does not:

Palin Gets McCain Stance on Homeowner Protections Wrong
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/palin-misstates.html

So a few folks here are upset about the divisive populism they perceive in the McCain campaign. Even if it were true, how would it be any different from the divisive "class war" rhetoric we're getting from Obama-Biden?

Rod, you say: "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."

All-knowing and all-seeing "pundits" said those things about FDR in 1932, about Harry Truman in 1945, and about Ronald Reagan in 1980. They all turned out to be wrong.

Those pundits couldn't "imagine" FDR, HST and RR had what it took, and you can't "imagine" that Governor Palin has what it takes. Maybe the problem is the limited "imagination" of some pundits and other self-appointed experts.

Rod
My apologies you are correct that other sentence was personal. That was not my intent. What I should have wrote is your analysis of Palin, and also many other subjects, are deeply superficial, not that you are a deeply superficial man. Nevertheless, based on your superficial analysis you act.

A freeze-up in an interview may be troubling, but who knows what she was told by her handlers, or what CBS told her about the interview’s context. Perhaps Palin was told by CBS that it was going to be a one of those friendly “girlfriend” interviews. She did pretty well last evening.

Your criticisms appear to be a bit eletist. It is very very hard for me to imagine that anyone has the conceptual understanding to deal with complex anything these days especially foreign policy. So perhaps it is better to lend support to those who share your principles, and not undermine them?

You may take this personally but your cafeteria approach to issues seems to betray a lack of firm principle. I am not saying your immoral or bad, just that your analysis is akin to straining at gnats.

Rod,

I'd like you to explain a bit more your imprssion that Joe Biden exhibited gravitas in discussing foreign affairs. Biden belted out so many whoppers last night I lost count:

1. Back when we "kicked Hezbollah out of Lebananon" (Huh??) Biden says he argued for NATO intervention there and was rebuffed, so now Hezbollah "is back."

2. We spend more money in Iraq "than we have spent in 7 years in Afghanistan." Whoah! But he followed up that exponentially inaccurate claim with "Let me repeat that!" and said it again.

3. Biden repeated his stunning convention speech lie about Obama co-authoring major, bipartisan legislation to address loose nuclear weapons. In reality Obama's minor amendment to the Nunn-Lugar Act had all the substantive impact of a resolution proclaiming National Asparagus Month, and was even less controversial than that. It didn't even merit a news report at the time it passed by routine voice vote, but Biden continues to tell us what a major display of bipartisan foreign policy expertise it represents.

4. In Biden's world, Obama never advocated no-precondition presidential meetings with anti-American dictators, and anyway 5 former Secretaries of State agree with Obama's position. Obama did advocate that, his website says today that he still does, and the former Secretaries of State do not endorse that position.

Okay, even if we chalk up items 3 and 4 above to typical politician BS and evasiveness, the first 2 items are so far off they can't be spun as mere exaggerations.

Joe Biden is a likeable guy, but he has a very tenuous grasp on reality at times. I don't see how anyone can call his buncombe "gravitas" unless you're merely attracted to the authority and confidence with which he makes his often bizarre pronouncements. In otheer words, style over substance.

Since when did they presidential campaign become a race to the bottom? I for one wouldn't want to have a beer with the president or even the vice president. I want a president (or vp for that matter) that is smarter, better educated, and more worldly than I am.

We've had "joe six pack" in the oval office now for almost eight years, and look where we are as a nation.

By the way, the best example of Biden's phony "gravitas" came on the only Gotcha question of the night, when Palin was asked whether she agrees with Dick Cheney's view that the Vice President is part of the legislative branch rather than exclusively the executive.

Palin dodged the question entirely, and spoke about how she would approach the Vice Presidency, mentioning that she might preside more often over the Senate.

But the Professor Biden launched into a comically weird discourse in which he claimed that the Vice Presidency is clearly established in the Executive Branch under Article I of the Constitution, that the Constitution gives the VP no role in the Denate except to vote in case of a tie, and that Cheney's views are somehow related to the nefarious "Unitary Executive Theory."

This is all beneath stupid, but, hey, he said it with confidence and authority, so he must know what he's talking about, right?

Reality: Article I of the Constitution deals with the Legislative Branch, not the Executive. The Vice President's office is addressed in both Article I and Article II. Article I expressly authorizes the VP to preside over the Senate at any and all times, exactly as Pakin said.

And none of this has anything to do with the Unitary Executive "theory", which deals with the relationship between the President and the cabinet agencies which report to him.

These aren't reasonable people may differ on the interpretaion points. Biden was just flat wrong, and wildly so. And he's a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee!

But oh, the gravitas.

If you vote for Obama, with his record on abortion, then you are no longer a conservative.

Do most of the conservatives here agree with this? Is eing "pro-life" an absolute requirement for being conservative?

Unfortunately in this election "temperament and knowledge" are only available packaged along with "guile and arrogance", not to mention not understanding what is wrong with government or what to do about it. Sadly, I think McCain and Obama only differ in degree.

In regard to Governor Palin, can someone with real "people" experience but without a lot of direct experience in Washington or being "wise" in the ways of Washington be effective? Can someone who has a clear moral compass but is not "well traveled" still figure out what to do in a crisis?

You might as well ask if someone like a failed, single term congressman from a frontier community, who hadn't held office in 10 years, succeed as president of the United States. In the case of Abraham Lincoln, the answer was yes.

Is Gov. Palin another Lincoln? I don't know, but I would rather take a chance on her than the "wise" senators Obama and Biden. I know what I will get with them.

Dear Rod,

I'm not even going to bother telling you the reasons why I disagree with you, as that has already been belabored to no avail. I even see your point on a few minor issues. My question to you is, what good are you doing with this public bashing of Gov. Palin? She is the nominee and that will probably not change at this point. So as I (and many others) see it, you are only serving to undermine the ticket, and the worthy causes that you say you care about such as saving lives of the most vulnerable among us; the unborn. As an Orthodox Christian myself, I understand that the issue of the protection of the unborn (and when considering the positions of Obama, the newly born as well) is fundamental to our very faith and life. Consider our feast days.

In light of this, and the ramifications of potentially turning people from the McCain/Palin ticket; I implore you to reconsider the current tone, content, and trajectory of your posts. Thank you.

Do you really think our recent misadventures in foreign policy were due to a lacking of depth of the issue? What folks constantly forget about the Bush presidency and foreign policy was that it was Cheney and his crew of antagonists who ran it -- all deep experts in this stuff that got us where we are with allies and Iraq. Really, never has such a powerhouse of "international depth and expertise" screwed us so royally since McNamara and all the "best and brightest" led in Vietnam.

Contrast to say, Reagan, who was lampooned as a simpleton and even a warmonger for being so utterly devoid of nuance when it came to the cold war and foreign affairs. His was a massive success.

Palin would be the most effective foreign policy leader since Reagan for the same reasons - her ability to resist believing all these intellectuals and think about the issue the way the average American does.

High-priced fundraisers at expensive hotels and a meeting with a billionaire, but no time with the public. So much for the hockey mom being the voice of the middle-class. The only middle-class people she'll meet in Texas are the people who clean her hotel room and serve the food at the fundraiser.

Trenna, I would rather have Rod see and speak of the world as it is than try to lie to himself and spin the farce called Palin.

The whole problem with the country right now - on the left and the right - is that many people can't get out of their preconceived notions of what liberal and conservative mean. I see it in the comments here (Don: "I know what I'm going to get with Obama/Biden." - Do you know because you researched them? Or do you know just because they're from the Democratic party?).

So conservatives want to win so bad that they're willing to create their own fantasy world that will lower the bar of what we ought to expect out of our President and Vice President? That's putting "country first"? While you may not agree with Obama/Biden, consider that McCain/Palin would be far worse due to the complete lack of understanding, experience, and judgment on the ticket.

Do you really want a VP, potentially President, who speaks "folksy" and gives shout outs during a Vice Presidential Debate? Imagine the head shaking that would occur if our Founding Fathers were able to see the farce on stage last night.

What good is that going to bring to the country when other foreign leaders consider the US a joke? And they will. They already do with GWB at the helm. If you think getting McCain/Palin is going to make the US look stronger and is going to scare our enemies, then I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you.

Read the debate transcript. Palin is a farce. She spoke gibberish for half the time, avoided answering questions, and went into "wink, nudge, maverick" mode every other answer.

Wake up. If you don't like Obama/Biden, then don't vote for them. But when looking at reality, which I know is so hard for wingers, consider that McCain/Palin is disastrous to our nation, economically, internationally, and culturally. Vote 3rd party if you have to.

I think that charging a fellow countryman of wanting to surrender a war is one of the most disgusting slurs I can think of. I'm sick of hearing it.

Any conservative who ever said that to me would be in for a mouth full of knuckles.

Simon says: "Of course, an informed voter who pulls the lever for Obama cannot meaningfully claim to be pro-life, but that's not the same thing as conservative."

I would argue that one can certainly be pro-life and believe that neither party represents a genuinely pro-life position. The GOP's (and most of the right's) approach to abortion is limited to prohibition and abstinence. Other approaches are ruled out for cultural and ideological reasons: real sex education, wider distribution of contraceptives, universal pre-natal, post-natal, and children's health care, universal child care, reform of the adoption industry, etc. Sure, I understand the arguments that all these matters are "private", "family", and "individual". That's exactly the pro-choice argument. The question is: are you serious about saving unborn lives or not? Perhaps we lead the world in abortions because parts of us are unwilling to prohibit them and the other parts are unserious about preventing them. If we could reduce demand to negligible, what would eventually happen to the opposition to reducing supply?

There isn't space here to address whether a party that is pro-capital punishment, ambivalent on torture, and predisposed to make war can meaningfully be called pro-life. Suffice to say that I am informed, I am a Christian, I am pro-life, and I will be pulling the lever for Obama. I'm not sure if I would call myself a conservative. I used to but I'm not sure what the word means now.

I am a conservative, albeit an eccentric one, and I have voted for Obama/Biden. I very much consider myself pro-life, and am an Orthodox Christian. I believe, and have detailed my arguments for this here before, that it is quite possible that abortions in America are as likely to decline under an Obama administration as under a McCain administration. Primarily this is because I believe the pro-life movement will thrive as it is reminded that they will only reduce the number of abortions - they will only save babies - by focusing on influencing people, and the culture, at the level of the individual and the community and not at the level of the federal state.

Carry on.

Bless,
Doug

Kathleen Parker backpedals:

chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-kathleen-parker-sarah-palin-081004-column,0,4104765.column

Sarah Palin's bridge to somewhere

Kathleen Parker
10:59 AM CDT, October 3, 2008
WASHINGTON

What did they do with the other Sarah Palin?

I mean the one who bases foreign policy experience on the proximity of Russia to Alaska and who speaks cutely about Vladimir Putin poking his little head into American airspace. Where did they put her?

The Palin who performed so miserably in one-on-one media interviews was nowhere to be seen during Thursday night's debate with Joe Biden. Instead, the affable, tough, determined pit-bull-hockey mom presented to the GOP convention was back with a jaw-jutting, happy-warrior vengeance.

So, yes, I am relieved. I had been concerned that she would stumble badly and humiliate herself. No fair-minded person wanted that. In fact, she managed to control the debate in many respects by bridging from the question asked to the talking point she wanted to hammer.

She was often too cute by half -- winking and gosh-darning her way through the debate -- but she did what she needed to do. Among other things, she declared a populist war of Us vs. Them -- everyday, honest, hardworking Americans against Wall Street, greed, corrupt politicians, liberals and, of course, the media.

Poor Gwen Ifill was irrelevant -- a second-tier actor in Palin's morality play. Over and over, Palin skipped past Ifill, as well as Biden, to speak directly to the American people. I am one of you, she told them. And these people -- Democrats and the media -- are neither of us, nor for us.

And she said it in the nicest, gosh-darn way, bless her little heart. The GOP loved it, but did anyone else? Did Palin change hearts and minds? Probably not. My suspicion, bolstered by early polls, is that people left the debate with their original impressions intact.

To Democrats, she's still a dangerous lightweight, though possibly more so than they suspected because she is also a charming and effective manipulator. To Republicans, she's a bright light, a change agent, a reformer and a maverick who identifies with real people around the kitchen table.

With the very first question about the bailout bill -- was this the worst of Washington or the best of Washington? -- Palin went straight to her hockey mom narrative, though she switched to the more mainstream soccer field.

"As we try to figure out has this been a good time or a bad time in America's economy, is go to a kid's soccer game on Saturday, and turn to any parent there on the sideline and ask them, 'How are you feeling about the economy?' And I'll betcha you're going to hear some fear in that parent's voice."

Of course, if you go to a Starbucks today and ask the iPodder blogging on her Apple about Sarah Palin, you're gonna hear some fear in that person's voice, also. Betcha!

Palin's strategy throughout the evening was to avoid questions to which she didn't have answers and rely on the American people to like her so much they didn't care.

"I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also," she said when asked to respond to a Biden comment about deregulation.

Repeatedly, Palin moved the debate to her own territory -- to her record as a mayor and governor, her message of reform and, yes, that she and McCain are mavericks.

The governor of Alaska had an excellent night, there's no question about it, though the early debate polls showed Biden winning by a healthy margin.

Before we relax into giddiness or cynicism, however, it's important to consider that a debate differs from an interview in significant ways. A debate is a point-counterpoint exercise that allows little opportunity for probing or follow-up. An interview requires that a candidate explain an idea in depth and offer specifics.

The Katie Couric interview that was such a disaster for Palin -- and that prompted me to conclude that she was out of her league and should leave the ticket -- was awful precisely because Palin couldn't explain anything. For whatever reason, she couldn't even speak coherently.

The debate format clearly worked better for her because she could control her message and keep pounding well-rehearsed talking points. Does that mean she's ready to lead the free world should circumstances warrant?

That question remains. Right next to same question about Barack Obama. (empasis added)

It is amazing to me that the republican's see this ruthless know-nothing politician, who cynically (and somewhat clumsily) plays the "real folks" (and "cute beauty queen" for the guys)card as thier saviour.

Very sad guys. I'm pretty sure that Sarah will continue her descent outside her (unhinged) base.

Rod,
I really appreciate your even-handed analysis on Palin.

Joe Biden, from the transcript:

"[President Bush] insisted on elections on the West Bank, when I said, and others said, and Barack Obama said, “Big mistake. Hamas will win. You’ll legitimize them.” What happened? Hamas won. 

"When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, “Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.”

A proud recollection of statements that were never made about events that never happened.

Oh, the gravitas!

I will repeat this for anyone who doesnt get it. " NEVER in the history of politics has a VP nominee not had a press conference. EVER!!" if everyone that comes on here feels sarah palin is so qualified, I would invite you to show your support and DEMAND she have a press conference. If shes the "pit bull" you think she is, then whats the problem? Biden has done it, Obama has done it (even going to faux news with Blowhard O'reiily) but guess what?? SHE WONT DO IT.. Why? Take 1 guess . I predict the day she does a press conference is the day everyone who has this blind crush on her will see the light (of course the blind and deaf followers wont, but most semi-intelligent people will)

Her pick is a farce. And Mccains Judgement stinks for picking her.

Go ahead GOP, let her have a press conference. I dare you.show us we're wrong.

I will repeat this for anyone who doesnt get it. " NEVER in the history of politics has a VP nominee not had a press conference. EVER!!"

Really? Do us a favor and post a link to a YouTube clip from one of, say, Vice President John Adams's press conferences.

Or maybe you meant that "I will repeat this" in the same sense Joe Biden did last night when he passed along his bizarre non-factoid that we are spending more money in Iraq each week than we have in 7 years in Afghanistan.

If the facts don't fit your argument, just go ahead change the facts. And double down on the falsehoods. With an authoritative voice.

Oh, the gravitas!

More Biden Classics:

After being caught on video assuring an environmental activist that, "We don't support clean coal," and "No coal plants in America!" he cheekily explains last night that his remarks were "taken out of context."

No, they weren't, Joe.

But the man fibs with such reassuring gravitas.

I believe, and have detailed my arguments for this here before, that it is quite possible that abortions in America are as likely to decline under an Obama administration as under a McCain administration. Primarily . . .

this is because Obama intends to perform them all personally.

FYI, Per Palin's Itinerary:
Both McCain and Obama have also already met with T Boone.
Sorry if someone else mentioned that.
It's this year's ritual like yesterday's going to Bob Jones University or a Streisand fundraiser.

"Doug Cramer, if you think that laws against abortion are not effective in stopping abortions, you are dangerously deluded. "

Just ask those women who went to their graves seeking them in the back alleys and basements ....

siglaris: I envision an education campaign against abortion similar to the one that has taken place with cigarette smoking. 15 years ago, you couldn't walk into most offices and workplaces, let alone bars and restaurants, without a cloud of cigarette smoke hanging over you, and civil, rather than criminal penalties against abortionists.

Nameless one: Bernard Nathanson, who helped get Roe v. Wade passed and was one of the founders of NARAL, has admitted that the tales of "millions" of dead due to illegal abortion was greatly exaggerated in order to win public opinion over.

Doug Cramer: The law does convey society's approval by the very fact of an action being legal whether it be abortion or anything else. Therefore hearts and minds do follow the law and vice versa.

If you filled in the phrase "domestic violence" or any other behavior that used to be tolerated where you wrote "abortion" in your last comment, you'll see what I meant.

elmo, all i can say is you just keep on course with keeping the pro-life movement focused on overturning roe v. wade; you've been at it for most of my four decades of life without any results ... maybe i'll check back in when i'm 80 and see how it's going.

Elmo: On what basis do you assume that McCain will appoint judges more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade than those appointed by Reagan?

Which says nothing about whether or not the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade would have any impact at all on the availability of abortion in America.

Bless,
Doug

An honest conservative at last. I'm upper middle class (you know them elitists) and my family have voted for the GOP for generations, and no I'm not making this up, but I've had it with the Republicans who are being destroyed by dishonesty. Every day I open the newspaper there's a new shower of lies from the Administration and their allies in congress or intellectual dishonesty by conservative opinionaters some of whom have clearly lost their bearings. Noonan and Brook's dishonesty is huge. In the case of Noonan I put it down to the fact that she is having to protect her gigs after that recent bit of honesty caught on an open mike. Brooks I have long considered an intelligent phony who poses as an expert on the drinking habits of hunters in the upper peninsula of MI or NYC bar hoppers like me. There used to be a time when conservatives fought the dumbing down of America, grading creep in exams and so on, but now apparently it's party policy. Palin was quite simply awful and every poll showed it even Fox New's. She's an embarrasment to America, an embarrasment to the GOP, and most of all an embarrasment to John McCain who claims to love his country but chose this banal nonentity.

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.

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.

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?