Palin's not the problem. It's McCain.

I honestly do not understand the "growing and serious doubts about Palin" storyline. I understand most Democrats don't like her, along with a certain subset of Republicans, but she's tremendously popular with the base - drawing huge crowds - and she is pretty appealing to at least this (formerly-)coastal, young, professional woman. What with the current state of the party and the lower enthusiasm for McCain among conservatives, I don't think McCain would even be *close* without Palin. I might have voted for him anyway (I do respect his personal character and experience), but Palin has been the reason I sat up and decided to re-engage in this campaign after utter resignation earlier this year.

There is also the factor of folks like myself, who are in no way 'excited' by McCain (or Palin), but who plan to vote for him as a vote against the Obamessiah. It is an error to confuse lack of excitement with apathy. I'm certainly not enthused about voting this year, but vote I will. And I have a feeling that there are a lot of other disgruntled conservatives like me that don't really figure into the polls.

Eddie,

Well, that's the storyline, certainly. But on your points:

1. I don't see where this is the case. She seems pretty intelligent to me.
2. She's been perfectly coherent explaining policies in her areas of experience, including energy, taxes and governing philosophies (as I've observed in watching extended interviews with her prior to the VP nomination and since, albeit with some stumbles), and seems to be a quick study in areas that she doesn't have as much experience in.
3. "Lies blatantly and repeatedly"? Where do you get this? About what?
4. "Tremendous affinity"? On what do you base this, the single questionable case of the delinquent brother-in-law trooper? She's hardly an old-school Kansas City (or, say, Chicago) political boss.
5. Governing principles seem to include restricting the scope of government, reducing taxes, and opposing corruption. Those kinds of ideas are part of conservatism, and are popular enough that they aren't why the movement is losing steam (I'd argue it's losing steam because of a lack of fidelity to those kinds of principles).

I do support Palin's pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-Second Amendment positions. Those aren't necessarily "marginalizing" positions except to those who disdain social conservatism or find it embarrassing that such issues actually can properly have resonance in the public square.

I also support Palin's commitment - probably stronger than McCain's (and of course orders of magnitude more than Obama and Biden's) - to lowering taxes/keeping Bush tax cuts in place, and appointing judicial conservatives (by which I refer to judicial philosophy, not policy preferences). My family includes small business owners who are likely to get slammed by Democrat tax hikes and massively problematic adjustments to the health insurance system. As an attorney, I have a hard time abiding the types of judges that Obama is all but certain to appoint to the federal courts.

Kirk -

Today: Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

So she doesn't even understand The First Admendment. That statement by Palin was/is completely embarrassing.

Today: Ronald Reagan's former Chief of Staff, Ken Duberstein, who was also a Sr. McCain Advisor in 2000, came out and endorsed Obama. Why? Sarah Palin.

Today: NYTimes/CBS Poll: 59% of respondents believe Palin is not qualified to be President. By election day, that number will be over 70%, based on the trendline. That leaves 30% who think she's is qualified. That's about George Bush's approval rating. So the people who think Bush is doing a good job as president are the same people who believe Palin is a real choice for conservatives.

That's just TODAY!

Here's a clue. You can't win a national election with only 30% of the people supporting you.

"...to give me one policy upon which they support Palin, other than abortion, gays, or guns."

1) Funding for special-needs children: they are people too and would qualify, in my humble opinion, as "the least of these" as emphasized by the Matthew25 Network

2) The Alaska pipeline: created jobs and stimulated the local Alaskan economy while coincidentally stimulating, rather than diminishing, the mating habits of the caribou, as a few animal-rights organizations were concerned about this

3) Lower taxes

4) Increasing benefits for small businesses

Not saying that I'm a huge fan of Gov. Palin, as I could easily list four policies I advocate for Sen. Obama, Sen. Biden, or President Ahmadinejad for that matter.

Palin is the only candidate in my lifetime that I have wanted to vote for - and she will be the first major party candidate I vote for for President. Also, I am NOT a social conservative, but a libertarian who happens to be ProChoice AND in favor of Gay Marraige. Personally, I don't think Palin is a raving social conservative any more than Obama is a raving radical leftie either, even though they both draw high support from their respective extremes.

She is, a sort of "Obama for the rest of us" type figure. In the same way his race is transformative, so is her mother-of-five "I'm just a normal person"-ness. In fact, it is much more transformative than race if you ask me - because that is a concept that goes back to Jefferson and Paine arguing with Adams and Hamilton. Palin is in that mold of the "yeoman farmer" who steps in for a few years to serve his countrymen and then goes back to his normal life again.

The crux of Palin's transformative role for the US is the idea that elected officials are people who represent US - executors of OUR will - making decisions that we should be making if we had the time to do it directly. Instead, the Hamiltonian (and somewhat Adams) view of it has dominated, where you have representatives in elective office to act as "experts" who are somehow fundamentally better at being human beings and therefore "lead" the rest of us to better choices than we ourselves would make for our own lives.

Yes, she is pretty green on the national scene, but that is the price you have to pay to not be corrupted by holding office for too long. I laid out my case in more detailed points here:
http://libertariansforpalin.blogspot.com/2008/09/libertarians-top-ten-case-for-palin.html

In terms of cause and effect, Palin is the only thing McCain has going for him right now. If Obama wins it will be the financial crisis and McCain's uneven response to it that did him in. Palin has sacrificed a ton in her personal rating to play the attack dog, and was poorly handled. That Couric interview could easily have been a 24 hour bad news cycle overwhelmed by all the follow up interviews - pretty much as has been the case for the last couple weeks.

Go back and look at Obama from 07 and see if you don't cringe when it comes to some specific policy position. Palin only had 1 month to cover what Obama needed 18 to get to. If she refocuses on who she was in AK before all this partisan nonsense intervened, she will be a force in 2012 - and given Obama's eerie similarity to Carter, I think we're going to need her.

Kimberly,
I don't know if that speculation was ever confirmed by the campaign, but it doesn't seem like the kind of thing a campaign is going to confirm anyway (except perhaps in a kind of veiled way). But your point is very interesting, one I hadn't considered-- would a lot of conservatives have sat this one out if, say, Pawlenty had been chosen? I don't really know the story behind that.

Pawlenty would have put Minnesota back in play, making McCain's path to 270 much easier.

Palin brought him NO states, and has put other states - Florida and Virginia - back into play, strictly because of Palin.

With Pawlenty, Minnesota, Florida, and Virginia would be closer to the McCain column than the Obama column. And Palin is the reason he's behind in all three.

Kimberly -

My apologies.

#1 Above should read: She increased the size of government in Wasilla.

Vern, if an ad is in fact a smear it may fall under anti-libel law.

Also, I like your suggestion that the media doesn't care about the first amendment. Do you think before you write?

Neither Palin nor McCain is the problem. The problem is George Bush. The past 8 years hvae been a complete disaster for our country. McCain/Palin only stood a chance if they flatly disowned and renounced Bush. The failure of the Republican nominee, whoever that might have been, to disown the Bush policies would doom that nominee.

That's all that went wrong with McCain's campaign.

I am a longtime independent who changed affiliation to Republican last winter in order to vote for Ron Paul.

I was really on the fence about who to vote for until McCain picked Palin in August. The woman is a complete disaster, and I cannot vote for the Republican ticket because of her. Her shockingly ignorant comments on the First Amendment today just take the cake.

So now I still don't know who I'm going to pull the lever for on Tuesday but it sure as heck won't be McCAin.

Perhaps--and I realize this is a bit of a stretch for some of you--perhaps McCain is going to lose not because of anything about McCain or Palin, but because of the overall circumstances. This is the year for the Democrats. We've got an immensely unpopular Republican incumbent, two wars, astronomical gas prices (until recently), and a 100-year economic disaster, with the stock market down by 40%. In short, all of the stars are lining up for the Democrats.

What is really remarkable is that election is as close as it is.

I'm not going to bash McCain or Palin after this thing is over.

There is no single answer to this question. It's voter by voter. I myself voted for Obama specifically because of the buffoonery of Palin. But others may have problems with McCain himself.

Reaganite -

Nice try. I don't hate Palin. Not at all. I do, however, think that she has been a disaster for McCain and the GOP this election cycle.

It IS possible to disagree with someone politically without hating them. Part of the problem with conservatism right now is the mentality that "If you don't agree with us on everything, you're not a REAL conservative."

Just today, Paul Migeroff, of Powerline, wrote: One can be a conservative and sit this election out (though that would be a bad decision). One can also be a conservative and vote for Bob Barr (also a bad decision). But I don't see how one can be a conservative, as that term is currently understood in common political discourse, and vote for a candidate who, according to the non-partisan National Journal, has the most liberal voting record in the Senate.

Again, not a good way to win elections. 30% isn't a majority.

I think Palin has been irreparably harmed by this campaign, and, as I said from the very beginning, it's McCain's fault, not Palin's. Palin had a real future nationally. Now? Not so much.

MargaretE says;
I agree whole-heartedly, Rob. I'm a conservative, for instance, who has completely stopped talking politics with friends and family, and who is perfectly content to let folks wonder who I'm voting for. In this poisoned political atmosphere, most conservatives I know are keeping a low profile. Open your mouth to say anything positive about McCain, and you're immediately attacked, ridiculed, and made to feel ashamed. It's vaguely frightening, actually.

Margaret,
Sorry you feel this way, (and were made to feel this way by those on the left politically), though I'm sure it's accurate. Please though, the next time conservatives hold sway politically, speak out loudly when people like Bush try to say that if you don't support him your a terrorist or that "if you're not with us, you're against us." It's just as frightening and disturbing for those of us on the left to get this treatment. Probably more so, since it was backed up by a President equating disagreement to engaging in terroristic acts, and that same President believe he had the authority to lock up US citizens indefinitely if they engaged in terroristic acts.

A couple of points:

1. On free speech (or any right) - the courts do not bring the cases on their own. You need plaintiffs. With the press too willing to fall over and fawn for Obama rather than take his censorship to court, the FEC and FCC actions will not be contested, thus, the first amendment becomes infringed. The fewer ACLUs, and CATOs and so forth to bring these cases, the more meaningless the legal principles become in practice.

2. On my vote - never voted for R or D ticket until this year. Ok, Palin is not the Prez choice (I actually thought about writing her in for Prez) but I'll count it anyway even this year.

3. On the issue of expertise, you have to distinguish between "elected officials" and government. Generals need to be experts at war, diplomats at foreign relations, scientists on the environment, and so on down the line. They all work in government, but are hired based on their skills at the issues, and are not what we seek in elected officials. Elected officials are our reps, even the president.

We make decisions all our lives without being experts. I recently had to buy a new roof for my house. I did not need to be an expert engineer to select a good roofer. The roofer needed to be the expert. Similarly, if I was going on vacation and wasn't able to select a roofer directly, and I wanted to appoint someone to select a roofer on my behalf I would not want a roof expert per se, but rather I would want someone who is an expert at my values - ensuring that they would make the same kinds of trade offs on price for performance and so forth that I would make when I talked to the various roofers.

Similarly, when a General goes before a President, I don't want someone who thinks they know better than the General (or me) how to fight a war (or negotiate a peace). I want someone who knows what I want out of life - what is worth fighting for, etc. That's not expertise on the issues, but a willingness to suppress your personal beliefs to do what the people would want to do if they were there to make the same call themselves.

The decisions that government makes are NOT objective, but entirely subjective. There is no right or wrong war, just wars that some would be willing to fight and others not. Etc. right on down the line.

Sorry, everything in my previous post from the italics to "And, thanks to the fly, we now know how neurexin works." should be italicized to indicate that I'm quoting from the article. Next time I'll take the time to look up html indent tags...

Funny how some folks are slamming Palin for her supposed lack of curiosity.

However, the BEST display of "incuriosity" we've seen in this election has been the media's treatment of the enigma whom the polls suggest this country is about to elect as President.

Last night (or Wednesday night) Charlie Rose on PBS was interviewing retired NBC anchor Tom Brokaw. Each remarked several times how little anyone knows about Obama and how on a whole host of issues we have no clue what he's going to do.

As if Charlie Rose or Tom Brokaw or anyone else in the MSM has shown any "curiosity" about the man behind the myth. They've invested more effort to sniff out the details of "Joe the Plumber"'s life than they have in checking out B.O.'s background.

I was just about to ask Eric from CA whether he was from AK or not. He sounds just like Lyda Green or Andrew Halcro. There's the undercurrent of obsessive haters out there, most of whom she beat and all the sort of insider hack that ruin government, that for me, just make her appeal even stronger.

As for Palin's future, there's simply no way someone with that much fund raising power will ever be a "footnote." Worst case scenario is she ends up as a kind of Howard Dean figure. Even her opponents are now writing pieces on how formidable a figure in politics she will be. And remember, before Hillary took a few years in the Senate, folks said the same about her being too polarizing to have any future. Here just 6 years later, she almost beat Obama by runing on "I'm the only one who's electable in the general election" appeal campaign.

EddieinCA,

Notice how the wingnuts turn to ad hominems when they can't refute your factual claim? Folks, everything Eddie has is factually true. You can do your own research and find this out yourself. You can also check out www.realchange.org and look at Ms. Palin's skeletons.

"However, the BEST display of "incuriosity" we've seen in this election has been the media's treatment of the enigma whom the polls suggest this country is about to elect as President."

OK, I wont vote for the media. Seriously, Obama's history has been delved into back to his school days. His Harvard class mates have been interviewed, his colleagues at U. of Chicago, his asociations with Ayers, Wright, etc. His every interview has been dragged out. Lots of debates and interviews. Even press conferences. There is not much left to know. He is a left of center politician, family guy, low risk taker, organization builder. He has a large circle of advisers by which you can judge his judgment.

On Palin's lack of curiosity, I made my usual due diligence effort. I was unable to find any public record of statements or writings on foreign policy. The one area where I believe a VP should be prepared is in foreign policy. The choice of VP candidates post WWII demonstrates that principle.

Palin's choice is really an indictment of McCain. It was a signal that he will hew to the far right of the party. That means increasing debt, loss of liberties, and reliance on the military rather than diplomacy to resolve differences. (See the latest where Petraeus wanted to meet with the Syrians but the administration said no?) A McCain administration will both validate the current one and invariably include some of those same people. As noted in the Esquire endorsement today, the Bush influence needs to be eradicated.

Steve

I have an entirely unscientific too-small sample of McCain-Palin supporters in my everyday life in the supposedly liberal capital of Texas, the woman who cuts my hair, the guy who raises horses across the road from my farm, people I see every day at the diner where I eat breakfast.

What they have in common that isn't evident in the commenters here (with good reason) is they are (1) Pentecostals who (2) lead lives that would never pass muster in another mainstream evangelical congregation (multiple spouses and public affairs, drinking problems, children out of wedlock, etc.) and (3) they are absolutely wild about Palin. Well, that and they all started using the N word in conversation, that is, in my presence, about two months ago.

It's precisely Palin's flaws that make her appealing to my small and statistically invalid sample of McCain-Palin voters. What appalls me is that these folks really are voting for a person who is "most like them," whereas I voted for someone I'm nothing like at all, but whom I thought would make a good President.

The thing is, the more Palin's inadequacies are revealed, the more she will appeal to her base. And that's scary.

What am I going to about it?

Nationally, nothing. Locally, I've told the lady who does my hair that I don't patronize people who use the N word. Which no doubt proves to her she is being persecuted and needs Palin in 2012.

It is odd how we want to bring people to national politics who are not part of the political elite, then blast them as not sophisticated enough to handle Washington.

Governor Palin may not be a perfect example of what Washington, the media, and the bumper-sticker elite thinks a "leader" should be. Perhaps she is "just average", but to my way of thinking that makes her more qualified, not less. I would rather have excellent "average" people in the Whitehouse and in Congress, than average (or below average) elites, which is what we have now.

JG
joelgainesshow.com

gmo2: "What's seems to be attracting people to Obama is that he says he will go beyond the party bickering and get things done for people."

That's a valid observation about the appeal of Obama. It is succintly expressed in his REPEATED pledge to give 95% of taxpayers a tax cut -- and stick it to people making over $250,000.

Obama's promise is a cruel hoax. The tightening polls tell us that voters are beginning to catch on to B.O.'s empty promise and his political con game of "bait and switch."

For one thing, older voters remember that Bill Clinton make a similar promise ("middle class tax cuts") in 1992 ... only to backtrack within weeks of getting elected.

And, secondly, the original threshold amount promised by Obama (only folks making more than $250,000 would face tax increased, Obama once claimed) has ALREADY been progressively talked down by other Democrats. Biden last week let the secret out of the bag when he said only voters making more than $150,000 would get stick with the bill. Then yesterday, it was NM Governor Bill Richardson who brought the threshold down to $125,000. It's only a matter of time before Obama and his people define "rich" as anyone making more than $60,000.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Will voters allow themselves to be suckered by this con man? We'll find out Tuesday night.

Problem for Republicans is that their base of 'Joe the Plumber Evangelicals' and 'Corporate Fat-Cats' is too small to win elections. If they drop the base they won't win elections either. This is a real CATCH-22.
This had been alluded to by Rod in posts about Rush Limbaugh's philosophy that the party ought to boot the 'non-Fat-Cat' and 'non-Plumber Evangelical' folks who don't have blind loyalty out of the tent.
That simply won't work after the advent of George W. Bush. Now less people are registered or identify as Republicans than did 8 years ago. (This may further complicate GOTV efforts Tues. for Republicans)
For all we've been told about being a right-center nation, I think the landscape will change drastically on Tues when you have states like Indiana and McCain's home of Arizona in play.
Palin's charm must not work too well if Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina are considering Obama.
Next time the Republicans wanna market somebody as folksy and salt-of-the-earth, they'd better not spend $180,000+ on the candidates make-up and wardrobe.
Because of how snarky Palin is (think cross betw. Rosanne Barr and Rush Limbaugh), she's more polarizing than Hillary. As far as Palin in 2012 goes, I say RUN BABY RUN!

Reaganite in NYC
November 1, 2008 4:08 PM
It's only a matter of time before Obama and his people define "rich" as anyone making more than $60,000.

It wouldn't bother me a bit if that happened.

Your Name
November 1, 2008 4:31 PM
I am SO LOOKING FORWARD to seeing John McCain's and Sarah Palin's photographs hanging in every Federal Building and Post Office in the country.

Where? in the WANTED section?

"This year it was Sarah Palin's turn to take the abuse. Next time it might be Mike Huckabee or Bobby Jindal ... or you."

A person with any modicum of common sense knows that there is a big difference between a Huckabee or Jindal and Sarah Palin. I would have had little problem voting for a ticket with either the former Gov. of Arkansas or the current Gov. of LA. Sarah Palin? Please! She's a lightweight. But then the Republican party bigwigs don't seem to have much in the line of common sense. Either Jindal, Pawlenty or Huckabee could give Obama a run for his money in four years. Because they have the brains to back up their mouths.

BTW: What do you call political speech that is just as incoherent said backwards as it is said forwards?

Answer: A Palin-drome.