Palin Whips the Base into a Frenzy
The decision to pick an unknown evangelical governor as John McCain's running mate has succeeded beyond Steve Schmidt's wildest dreams. Way beyond. Sarah Palin has perfect aim when throwing red meat to partisan crowds and whipping them into a frenzy to the point when people at rallies yell: "terrorist" and "kill him" about Obama. Then Palin can conveniently say she did not say that but the point is made anyway. Of course when this happens she could say: "Somebody grab that guy and drag him out of here. I don't want people like that at my rallies" but she never does. She winks and basks. The trouble for Palin and now McCain is that this frenzy has been widely reported and condemned and it is turning off crucial independent voters in droves. The featured commentary at intrade.com is about Palin, saying: "Rove's creation has turned into a mob baying for blood." Even leading conservative columnists don't like this. Kathleen Parker has called for her to drop off the ticket. The bettors agree that Rove III is not working. Ten shares of McCain stock cost $23 this morning. This means that if you are absolutely convinced McCain will win, you can invest, say, $23,000 now and collect $100,000 in 3 weeks if McCain wins.
The consequence of this whole campaign could be far reaching. If Obama wins and the exit polls show independents voted overwhelmingly for him, the pundits are going to lay the blame at Palin's high heels and advise the GOP to forget the evangelicals and run candidates with financial expertise (like Mitt Romney) in the future. Needless to say, the evangelicals, who finally got one of their own on the ticket.The Republican Party is going to have to do some serious self actualization if they lose as much as people think they will. This is going to be a near impossible task because how little reflection they are capable of. To admit that they could be wrong about something is tantamount to the end of the universe as we know it.
Do they really want people yelling 'terrorist' and 'kill him?' at rallies? I would hope not. I hope that some of you now realize what I have fucking been saying for the last eight years...it isn't the fringe element....IT'S THE MAJORITY OF THE BASE!!!
10 comments:
Hopefully the crushing defeat the Repubs are about to endure will cause them to rethink where the party has been the last 8 years. Bush has pretty thoroughly destroyed the Reagan coalition. A great quote from columnist Eugene Robinson:
There is an intellectual case to be made for the economic philosophy that the party purports to represent. I disagree with it strongly, but I respect its integrity -- in a way that this administration and the Republican leadership in Congress clearly did not. [my bold]
As he points out, it is a philosophy that Repubs only pay lip service to, not one that actually guides them.
Sadly for the country, 2009-10 will likely look a lot like 1976-77 (if not right on thru '79).
I am voting for the Dem for my Congressional district, for two reasons: 1) the Repubs are running the son of the retiring incumbent and 2) the Dems have a credible, conservative-Dem candidate (a very rare beast on the left coast).
But I am far from optimistic that much, if any good, will come from this election.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjM4NjFjZTc5MGJmMzkzMDE1NWUzZDlkOTEzOWUxMzQ=
Birk, seriously...from Michelle Malkin?
Juris, agree with you about lip service. The Republican Party is going to go through a radical change and I think it will look much different in four years...hopefully for the better.
I don't agree with you regarding 09-10 and 76-77. I can't say for sure what will happen but it's going to be better than that time period.
Good for you on CD vote. The Dems need to understand that if they want to make any headway they need more conservative candidates, like my guy here in MN-03 Ashwin Madia. The Dems should make themselves into the party of fiscal responsibility. Whether they actually will or not remains to be seen.
Whether they actually will or not remains to be seen.
You mean like the difference between word and deed amongst the Repubs? That is why I'm predicting a return to '76-77.
Oh, and about dismissing something merely because it came from the fingers of Ms. Malkin. There are times I actually agree with Ted Rall's perspective - not often, but I don't just dismiss something because he said/typed it.
The Republican party has been a tightly bound coalition of groups since the Reagan years: roughly speaking, consisting of pro-business groups, pro-gun/war groups, anti-abortion "family value" groups, and -- let us put this delicately -- the targets of Nixon's "Southern Strategy" who have become the anti-immigrant group as of late.
The last three groups are basically single-issue entities. They care nothing for the agendas of the other groups, and often hold them in contempt. In particular, I am often amused by men who clearly belong to the pro-gun/war and anti-immigrant groups (who often frequent strip clubs, tell lots of dirty jokes, read Penthouse, etc.) voting for the same candidates as the family values folks who roundly condemn all those things.
The genius of the Republican party, if you can call it that, is that for the last thirty years they have been able to convince so many people to vote against their own economic interests by turning their attention to hot-button issues like abortion, gay marriage, the disintegration of the family, etc.
The nomination of John McCain and then the selection of Sarah Palin is emblematic of the collapse of the Republicans. McCain, before his nomination, was despised by anti-immigrant Republicans because of his stand on immigration amnesty, by the family values folks for calling their leaders "agents of intolerance." I can't imagine this latter group is exactly thrilled by McCain's biography, which includes abandoning his first wife, marrying a rich beer heiress and essentially founding the Indian casino business.
Palin, supposedly a poster child for the right, is an embarrassing example of why their philosophies don't work -- her opposition to birth control has resulted in a child with Down Syndrome and her own daughter getting pregnant out of wedlock. Instead of being a powerful, intelligent and independent conservative woman, she's a conniving, vindictive harridan whose husband wanted Alaska to secede from the Union and who seems to be running the governor's office from behind the curtain. In the process she has ruined the careers of three men in the Troopergate scandal.
True Christians -- which many of the family values people are, and who make up a very big chunk of Republican votes -- are seriously considering what pro-life really means. Letting people die because they have no health care is not pro-life. McCain's never-ending war in Iraq cannot be considered pro-life. The death penalty, which the Vatican and many other religions have condemned, is not pro-life. The destruction of the environment -- industrial pollution of food, air and water -- is not pro-life. Climate change -- which will result in catastrophic storms, famine, expanding deserts, and mass migration which will ultimately end in more wars -- is not pro-life.
...to vote against their own economic interests...
I always have to laugh my ass off at this conceit - that YOU know what the "economic interests" of X are, better than X himself (substitute Kansas for X if you are Tom Frank). It's right up there with the Repubs claiming they hold the moral high ground on family values. You don't know shit about all of those [poor deluded] souls economic interests any more than you understand why they vote for other certain issues. That trope is the fig leaf you cling to in the desperate [and vain] attempt to avoid your ideological nudity.
I'm very much limited govt and pro-gun (in fact pro ALL of the Bill of Rights), but not pro-war, anti-abortion or racist. That doesn't fit your misconception about how I've voted (predominately) over the last 30 years. That isn't my problem asshole - it's yours. And you will never win my vote by telling me what a dumbshit I've been because I didn't vote the way you think I should have. Does that really come as a surprise to you? Honestly, the only thing that could cause me to vote for Repubs these days is the arrogant vapidity of the Dems/left.
Had the local Dems played the game like blk, and trotted out the usual LEFT-coast candidate for the House, I would've bit down hard and voted for the nepotist SOB the Repubs are offering. Thankfully I'm not left with Hobson's choice and can cast a vote without a sense of utter despair. If anything I will contribute to shattering the illusion that the Dems really are a big-tent and that the fucking morons of the left will have to swallow the bitter reality of their fringe status. That does make me smile at least a little.
That was awesome Mr. Imprudent.
Here you go markadelphia. In the end, you'll believe what you want I'm sure.
http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/Secret_Service_says_Kill_him_allegation_unfounded_.html
RLD, here was my original source for the "kill him" comment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR2008100602935.html
I also have a video of people shouting "terrorist" at a Palin rally if you would like to see it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/19/AR2008101901416.html
From the same source. I got some V too.
Post a Comment