Palin/McCain
When my wife came home last night from a night out with her family, she shared an anecdote with me. Evidently, the topic of politics came up with her two sisters and Mother. One of my sisters-in-law remarked that there was no way she would vote for Obama and was glad Palin was added to the ticket. When asked why she was opposed to Obama, her primary objections were that he “won’t salute the flag” and he is inconsistent on all issues.
As I visted several customer sites this morning and went about my day, I asked several of the guys who I knew were politically minded and (scaling from mildly centrist or right leaning to full on evangelical Christian) what they thought of the speech last night and their thoughts on the general election.
I spoke with seven men, all college educated and in their late 30’s and each of them repeated the critique of Obama that he won’t salute the flag, will not say the pledge of allegiance, and he’s a muslim. Also, his wife hates America and they think he hates white people. With Obama as President, the blacks will be moved to the front of the line and the concerns of everyday folks like us will be put on the back burner. Also, he’s going to raise taxes and that he’s an elitist.
More interestingly, every single one of the remarked that until yesterday, they had no intention to vote for McCain and they either supported some other Republican or planned to sit it out. Now, with the choice of Sarah Palin, they’ll be voting for McCain and doing so proudly. This is the Palin Effect.
The GOP knew the base of the party was unenthused about McCain, that they were skeptical of his support of their beliefs, and thought he was too liberal. So, essentially, they leaned on John to not pick a VP of his choosing (Lieberman/Ridge) and instead choose this fundamentalist candidate. These people are really voting for Palin, not McCain, as she is the de facto lead of the ticket at this point. The GOP is framing the debate that this is a campaign between Palin and Obama as they keep driving the narrative of her executive experience and track record of reform.
Has this ever happened before? I mean, has a party ever nominated someone for the top of the ticket that they didn’t really like but instead nominated for VP someone who they wish was their Presidential nominee?
I don’t normally argue politics with people when I’m on the job as it’s bad for business. But, I did encourage them to look beyond the narrative the GOP was putting forth about Palin and to examine her record. Not her family, not her Mothering skills, not her personality…but, her record.
I laid out for them the following homework and I will lay out these talking points for you to use when someone tries to reframe the debate about Palin/McCain. Consider it a public service in fact checking, you know, things the “liberal media” should be doing instead of investing time in pointless drivel.
Republican Talking Point 1: Palin is on the side of families who are raising special needs children.
Fact: In the 2008 and 2009 budgets proposed by Sarah Palin, she recommended 62% cuts in special education funding as opposed to 2007, the year before she took office.
Republican Talking Point 2: She is opposed to wasteful government spending and earmarks. She’s fiscally responsible!
Fact: As Mayor of Wasilla, AK (Pop. 6700), she retained a lobbying firm who helped bring back $27MM in federal earmarks for her town. Also, when she became Mayor of Wasilla, it had a zero dollar balance on the debt side of the ledger. When she left? $20MM in the hole. As Governor in 2007, she requested 31 federal earmarks totalling $220MM. A real “fiscal watchdog” this one…
Republican Talking Point 3: She stood up to the good old boy network and is a Washington outsider.
Fact: Palin is actually quite a wily player in the Washington scene. She retained lobbyists who were formerly on staff of Sen. Ted Stevens to lobby Stevens and the Senate Appropriations Committee and donate tens of thousands of dollars ot his campaign and that of longtime Alaska Rep. Don Young. She testified on Capitol Hill numerous times to solicit funding for her town.
Fact: She also was a signatory to a 527 group established to defend corrupt Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens.
Fact: In 2006, she supported the $230MM bridge to nowhere and then retracted her support after being elected. Also, she kept the bridge to nowhere money and spent it on other stuff. Here’s what the people of “Nowhereville, AK” had to say about Palin. Also, Congress’ requirement that funds be spent on that bridge were removed before Sarah Palin became governor, so she didn’t tell anyone what to do with that bridge. Ugh.
Republican Talking Point 4: She has commanded the Alaska National Guard!
Fact: Uh, no she didn’t. And she has never issued one single, solitary order to them.
If the Democrats stick to issues when it comes to Palin, they’ll do alright. When it comes to McCain, take it to him like they did last week.
21 Comments
-
Advertisement
-
Latest
-
Sports Road Trip
Latest: Profiling OKC’s Ford Center – USRT roadie Day 2 -
Brian Castner
Latest: Al Gore as Skeptic -
Tom Schuh
Latest: Hometown News at Noon: Fri 11/20/09 -
The Goose's Roost
Latest: I Blame the Spotlight Guy -
Christina Abt
Latest: Question of the Day.....Jim Kelly for Coach??? -
BfloBlog
Latest: Kevin Maguire Open Thread: Bruins as Sabres -
Marc Odien
Latest: Calls for Parks Usage Input from Community Groups -
Eric Saldanha
Latest: Friday YouTube Nugget -
Bands That Jam
Latest: Phish | 11.18.09 | Detroit -
Colin Eager
Latest: Toilet Tuna
-
Interesting TweetsFollow Chris On Facebook
- Your Daily Homework
You need to log in to vote
The blog owner requires users to be logged in to be able to vote for this post.
Alternatively, if you do not have an account yet you can create one here.
Powered by Vote It Up
i just don’t know. the speech last night was pretty darn negative. her remark about the difference between a bulldog (or pitbull – i can’t remember) and a hockey mom is lipstick was perfect. that is exactly what she is – an attack dog for the republican party. all that talk of what the “opponents” are not going to do and not one sentence about what mccain/palin WILL do.
it breaks my heart to think that this election could possibly be lost because of bigotry that is so deeply ingrained in people that they can’t even see that is what it is. all the reasons educated whites raise to not vote for obama are just fronts for the underlying REAL reason. it’s sad that we haven’t come as far as we thought.
I am so sick and tired of hearing Obama folks trash this mother and woman. They are going to get a rude awakening from suburban working moms, hockey/soccer moms, rural areas and blue collar all around. I was a Hillary supporter and now a Palin supporter. The Dems, Palousi and Dean missed the boat entirely. Just because you nominate a black man does not equate to being qualified to be president. Hillary was by far the most qualified candidate. Since they trashed her and used the worse tactics ever — claiming not to trash her to her face while coaching their supporters to trash her and call them racist behind their back was truly ugly!!! (Obama played the race card – Not Clinton). As Palin so well noted in her speech “We tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.” Namely trashing rural people for believing in guns and religion will blow up in their face!!!. I can’t wait to watch the Deaneacs and Obama freaks go down — Big time…
Heidi
Interesting. I wonder why a suburban working mom would vote against her own self-interest like that. Just because Palin’s a woman?
Personally, I like to remember that this watershed moment by the Republican Party was crossed the Democrats a mere 24 years ago.
The most important aspect of Palin’s speech isn’t whether or not she is the real deal, it is the deserved dismembering she inflicted upon Obama and his un-American values. The last thing we need is a more invasive, growing government with no respect for the labor and property rights of individuals. If Obama wants to support society, let him do it with his own money.
Rebmann, I thought you were above calling someone with whom you disagree politically “un-American”. I guess I was wrong.
You claim to be a libertarian, but you’re just like the rest of the current crop of Republicans – casting a man with whom you disagree politically as an enemy of the people.
“no respect for the labor and property rights of individuals”. So loaded with double-meanings coming from you as to be, in the end, meaningless.
Heidi-
If you can come up with a single issue on which Palin and Hillary are of a like mind, I’ll give you a cookie. Sounds like you were supporting Hillary, and are now supporting Palin, for being a woman: pretty sharp politics.
Alan, there is a core set of “American” values spelled out by the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is based on the Lockean philosophy that places the protection of private property as the highest priority of a civil society. When a person proposes the confiscation of the property of others, that person can rightfully be described as an enemy, thief, criminal, un-American and many other terms. I use the term to describe Obama accurately, not pejoratively. Pretending to support the Constitution, yet throwing aside the core values enshrined in the document, is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Mike – So when she proposes the confiscation of 220mm of taxpayer dollars for her own state, that was “American”?
Pauldub, as I noted on my blog and my previous comment, my agreement witht the way Palin tore apart Obama does not equate with support for Palin. At best, the McCain/Palin ticket is the lessor of two evils, but not enough to attract my vote.
“Just because you nominate a black man does not equate to being qualified to be president.”
it is unbelievable to me that heidi actually believes that the dems nominated obama solely based on the colour of his skin. this is a sad state of affairs when there really are women in this country that will be lead by any old woman – no matter what her politics. clinton is the EXACT OPPOSITE of palin.
Who let the Canadian in? Colour of his skin?
I enjoy how people, as evidenced by Pauldub and Buffalopundits comments, assume that criticism of one candidate automatically equals support for another candidate.
I’m guessing that Mike, like myself, isn’t voting for either of these candidates. But by saying we oppose something in Obama’s platform, we gain the now scornful term of “Republican”.
It’s cute, but it doesn’t hold water.
@Rebmann, your constitutional theory notwithstanding (why not try going to the SCOTUS with that argument?) to equate “I disagree with this person’s policies” with “this person is un-American” is nonsense and really sort of gutter-diving.
@KevinP, I only assume that Rebmann is voting for Bob Barr, who is the libertarian candidate.
Why are the little gravitar thingies covering up part of the commenter’s name? Weird.
@alan, if you don’t believe that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution defines American values, then you have no values and laws and policies are subject to the political whim of the day. There are myriad examples of SCOTUS ruling inconsistently with the Constitution. Roe v. Wade being the elephant in the room.
One of the few protections we have left from bad law is jury nullification, a concept that is downplayed and sometimes outright denied by the courts.
There is no double meaning in that statement, it means exactly what it says. The only justifiable taxes on one’s earnings are for defense and services that benefit everyone equally while recognizing the ability of the private sector to more efficiently and economically deliver services.
An Open Letter to Senator John McCain and the Republican National Committee:
September 2, 2008
Dear Senator McCain and Mike Duncan, Chairman, Republican National Committee:
“Dear” is all you will get from me. By now you all should be in Minneapolis for your shindig that you call a “convention.”
I am an African-American, and I cannot hold back my anger any longer. It is a documented fact that the Republican Party before and during the Civil War supported and benefited from slavery. As a matter of fact, the Republican Party was started for the express purpose of defending slavery and holding down black people.
It is also a matter of record that the Ku Klux Klan was started by Republicans after the Civil War to terrorize and murder black and white Democrats in the South. Republicans hated the fact that many ex-slaves were serving in state and federal government. They also hated the fact that everyone of the ex-slaves were all members of the Democratic Party. All the white Democrats, before and after the Civil War, were sympathetic to the cause of abolition of slavery and of civil rights for blacks, therefore racist Republicans had no use for them.
The Republicans historically have been bitter opponents of the following Democratic initiatives:
• The 13th Amendment that abolished slavery in 1865
• The 1866 Civil Rights Act
• The First Reconstruction Act of 1867
• The 14th Amendment in 1868 that made all persons born in the U.S., including former slaves, U.S. citizens.
• The 15th Amendment in 1870 that give every citizen the right to vote
• The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 which was to stop Republican Klansmen to terrorized white and black Democrats
• The 1875 Civil Rights Act
• The 1957 Civil Rights Act
• The 1964 Civil Rights Act
• The 1965 Voters Rights Act
In every case, the white Republicans in the Senate, especially Senator Everett Dirksen, and in the House of Representatives fought passage of these laws in every turn as well as being compelled to give up their slaves after the Civil War. The Democratic leadership, especially Senator Robert Byrd who has always despised the Ku Klux Klan and who discouraged white Americans from joining that gang, fought very hard to have those laws passed. Democratic Senator Al Gore Sr., not only voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964, but he, along side of Senator Byrd, fought a 74-day filibuster by Republicans to defeat the legislation. The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Republicans (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Democrats (27 for, 6 against) the Civil Rights Act. In the House of Representatives, 61% of Republicans (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act and. 80% of Democrats, (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.
The Republicans have also opposed every Democratic anti-lynching bill to their shame. The Democrats have always been opposed to lynchings for decades.
For these reason, we black people deserve an apology from the Republican Party for the following:
• support of slavery, on record in their platforms
• support of the Dred Scott decision
• support of segregation and Jim Crow prejudice
• opposition to anti-lynching laws
• attempts to destroy black schools and colleges, and the burning of black churches
• efforts to defeat the Reparation Bill of 1866
• efforts to defeat every piece of Civil Rights legislation from 1863 to 1964
• efforts to have the 1875 Civil Rights Act declared unconstitutional
• support of the Ku Klux Klan, composed of entirely Republicans, and its vile and violent racist agenda:
• Republican participation in the lynchings of thousands of blacks.
History will also show the following:
• Eugene “Bull” Conner (the poster boy of American racism) was a Republican.
• The poll tax was a Republican institution.
• Black codes and Jim Crow laws were instituted by Republicans.
Africans Americans are even due reparations from the Republican Party since it supported and benefited from slavery as well as supporting KKK terror, racism, etc. The Civil Rights movement started because of the majority white racist Republican power structure in the South.
The Democratic Party, of course, has had its problems racially here and there, unfortunately, but it does not have the consistent racist legacy for decades and decades, stretching back to the early 1800’s as the Republican Party has had. The Democratic Party, in general, has always been supportive of and open and honest with African Americans throughout its history.
You Republicans have been very slick in ignoring and even hiding your racist past from black people. It is time for the Republican Party to come clean, tell the truth, and settle the debt.
Sincerely,
Brother X
@Rebmann, if the meaning of the Constitution was as set in stone as you say, we’d hardly need an adversarial legal system.
Very nice little speech Brother X. Unfortunately your generalizations render your assault on Republicans null and void. Also, judging past history through the lens of an evolved cultural framework does not yield an accurate view of history. I will cite one example for you – the poll tax. The tax applied equally on blacks and white. When this country was founded, property rights were of paramount importance to the guarantee of freedom and liberty. The view was that an equal tax was more likely to defend property rights from government assault. History has shown that to be correct. If we still had a poll tax, the government would not be confiscating such a large percentage of income from working individuals for nefarious purposes such as creating a permanent taxpayer supported poverty class in this country. In effect, we have traded innovation and opportunity for a minimal existence for many people based on government subsistence.
@Alan, there will always be a need for the legal system to protect disputes concerning property, contracts, etc.
Unfortunately, the legal system has been twisted and more often furthers the interests of the government, rather than protecting the individual.
Dear Brother X,
Perhaps it’s time to get your own blog.
Best of luck!
by the way – i’m not canadian (for now – we’ll see what happens in november) – i just enjoy using the “u” in words whenever possible. thanks for the compliment though.
The alleged “fact” repeated here about a 62% cut in special education funds was totally refuted by the Annenberg Foundation’s non-partisan factcheck.org, along with several other claims and rumors being spread to slime (their word) Gov. Palin.
Excerpt:
In full -
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html