If nothing else, I hope Sarah Palin’s partisans come to realize that her supposed enemies in the media were a bunch of wimps compared to her supposed friends in the McCain campaign.
“Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast” … going after William Ayers before the campaign had made a final decision on whether to do so (how’d that work out?) … didn’t know Africa was a continent … “so nasty and angry at staff that they would virtually be reduced to tears.”
Stay tuned. I think we’re going to hear a lot more.
P.S. Robert is skeptical. Frankly, I am, too. The only thing this stuff proves for sure is that elements of the McCain campaign despise her.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In hindsight, how long will it be before McCain muses out loud that he really, REALLY wanted Lieberman on the ticket but his staff hijacked that idea too? Again, like I suggested previously, it’s really important to have decent staff who are going to do what is best for the campaign and not themselves.
Tony: Yeah. The worst that could have happened over the Lieberman pick was a floor fight, as the right-wing loons revolted. And you know what? That might have been the best thing for McCain in the long run.
And actually, thinking about it a little more, a Lieberman pick – and floor fight – would have been historic. However, it probably would have totally damaged the campaign too. Palin really did rev up the rank-and-file Republican base to support someone they never supported in the first place. The base was always suspect of him – the immigration bill, voting against the Bush tax cuts, etc. New Hampshire voters buoyed McCain this time around, like last time. But a good chunk of his vote – I would guess more than half – were indies who trend conservative in the state. The base, shockingly, wanted Mitt Romney, with little bits trailed off to Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul.
I’ve no liking for the neocon warmonger Lieberman as VP choice. Still, it would have been good to see Biden, who is Palin raised to a power, have the spotlight on his goofiness.For me, the good news is one of them lost. The bad, one of them won.Man, I do hope the Secret Service does a good job in protecting Obama. The thought of President Biden is terrifying.
Have you never been south of the Mason-Dixon line? Republicans nationally wouldn’t have voted for a Jew and ex-Democrat who is clearly mixed on the abortion issue on the ticket. If they didn’t trust McCain, they sure as heck wouldn’t trust Lieberman. And the Republicans can’t win without their base (see Bush 1, Dole, etc.).It’s vulgar commentary on the South, and I’m sorry to say it, but it’s true.
Here’s the link for the video of Cameron’s report on FoxNewsChannel.I suspect that people with an inordinate interest in watching video loops of car crashes in slow motion will probably start tuning in to FNC for the next few days and weeks. Cameron seems to have notebooks full of previously off-the-record material that he now thinks is on-the-record.
Hey Carl (or is it Karl?) we appreciate the good reporting. . . ;-)Liked the bit when Bill Reilly suggested that Vice Presidential candidates could be “tutored” on the *basics* like Africa is not a country etc.
What’s surprising to me is that Palin may have a few enemies within Fox News. That video is devastating.
McCain needed a VP pick who appealed both to the Republican base and to independents — I give up, who fits that bill?
Ani: Not a perfect fit, but I’d say Romney would have come the closest.
Dan, You don’t think Romney’s religion made him too unattractive to the base?
Mike_b1,And the GOP couldn’t win WITH their base.I think it would have been in McCain’s interest to take the opportunity to push the party back towards the center, and scold the base for moving itself to far to the right. McCain was in a position that he was damned if he did, damned if he didn’t; so why not do the Maverick thing and take the reigns of the party and try to reform it? Run from bush, run from ignorance, hate, and fear identity politics, and have a candid conversation with independents and the base. Obama would have still won due to revolt in the 20% of the rabid foaming conservatives, but the independent breakdown would been much different.He would have lost the Southern Christian base, but he would have been a loud voice for smarts and reason, and the leader in the first shot of the GOP civil war. And he’d have a moderate electorate on his side. At least then he’d have some credibility and a purpose after the election. As it stands now he’ll be moved to the side while the true conservatives screech from their soap boxes.Now We’ll see their base coalesce in their cocoon around the idea that McCain wasn’t conservative enough, and that Palin was undercut by a guy that never truly believed in the party. It’s good news for the Dem’s, but bad news for the country in the long run. The sooner the GOP base grows up and comes back to the table as serious adults, the better for the nation.
The republicans need to figure out whether they’re social conservatives or fiscal conservatives – they don’t seem to be able to focus on both at once (see the last 8 years for examples).Palin was picked to appeal to the social conservatives, but I think McCain’s team had some people on it who long for the Reagan days of faux fiscal conservatism. They resent having to pander to the loony fundies. Hence the now-public battles.
“If nothing else, I hope Sarah Palin’s partisans come to realize that her supposed enemies in the media were a bunch of wimps compared to her supposed friends in the McCain campaign.”From the sound of her “friends” in the media at FOX News Sarah Palin might be her own worst enemy. . .
Where can I buy a t-shirt reading “Wasilla Hillbilly?” I could alternate that with my “Tina Fey for Vice President” garment.
I urge all of you to read to the end of Dan’s “Wasilla Hillbillies” Newsweek link. There’s a quote from Obama on the debates and Brian Williams that’s hilarious.
Dan,I have always enjoyed your preparedness and insights offered on Beat the Press.(apologies for commenting here slightly off topic) Can you tell me what has happened with the rightward tilt of Emily Rooney?It has become apparent after watching her show for many years now that she’s shifted to the right. One sees editorial sympathies with Republicans and the right wing ideologues on nearly every single show. At one time the premise of her show was an examination of media and coverage of issues. No longer. Just for the thrill of it, why doesn’t she do a little research, and if she doesn’t feel up to it, get someone who will? That she poses as an experienced media hand while allowing right wingers to parrot long discredited talking points and not challenging anything that’s said? (11-06-08 Michael Graham, Michelle McMouthpiece..) What drek!I am sorry, a former fan, now seeing more clearly how uninterested you are in the facts while your show parades right wing liars, and provides them a platform to broadcast and legitimize their propaganda. How about a little accountability on a show that calls for greater accountability in media?Or maybe time for a new title?Dan, can you speak to this?Very disappointed,Ray MacDonald
Supposedly the GOP has sent an errand boy to Alaska to retrieve the skirts. That can’t be accurate can it? This doesn’t sound like it’s coming from McCain. Could Mitt have something to do with this nonsense:who else benefits from the trashing of Sarah?F’ Lieberman
Dunwich: I wish I’d bookmarked it, but I saw something somewhere suggesting that much of the Palin-bashing is coming from Romney people who’d joined the McCain campaign.And, of course, there are reports that the NYT story from last spring regarding rumors of rumors that McCain may have had an affair with a lobbyist 15 years ago came from Romney people.Ray: Emily Rooney is as non-ideological as anyone I know. If you perceive a shift to the right, maybe she thinks she needs to balance the increasingly shrill Dan Kennedy. 😉
Romney was too busy hunting varmints.
The reports that the Palin-bashing has been coming from former Romney staffers have been debunked many times over.I’m guessing you are citing the AmSpec article that quotes many anonymous sources saying that the Romney camp was trying to destroy Palin.It’s simply not true. And many other reporters have said as much.
And I appreciate Krembo’s intellectual contribution to the debate.