Monday, September 29, 2008

Where does the McCain/Palin Campaign Go From Here?

Wow,

I think we're in trouble here. And when I say "we", I don't mean republicans, I mean Americans. I've been a McCain supporter/ Obama basher for a short while now. All the time trying to educate my friends on why this Obama character will not be good for our country. But unfortunately, it looks like his opposition is showing a level of confusion and ineptitude that will allow Obama to waltz into office and begin the further descent of our nation. Never mind the possible no-show for the debate from last week, I'm talking about Sarah Palin.

Like many conservatives, I was pleasantly surprised by McCain's VP choice of Sarah Palin. I thought that she brought a great fervor to the campaign that would draw in a portion of Americans that was desperately needed- in fact two specific groups- right wing conservatives who don't like McCain and might not have voted, and women. She's truly free from legitimate controversy- and when I say legitimate, I'm talking about all the bull that the liberal tabloid press has been digging for. Now I'm not saying that it's untrue, but to think that politicians do not do things to further their own personal agenda is asinine. And in a small town, it truly is like Mayberry.

It really is unfair the amount of crap she's taking. I'm ok with criticism, but the vicious criticism is just plain barbaric and very typical of democrats. The CBC Network recently apologized for such an attack. Sandra Bernhardt got away with what Michael Richards and Dog the Bounty Hunter and Don Imus couldn't.

But what I'm talking about is her performance over the past few weeks including her recent Katie Couric interview. Now right or wrong, it's all about perception and my God, I perceived her as clueless. Or if not clueless on topical knowledge, then clueless on the proper way to answer the types of questions asked of her so as not to make her look bad. Have you ever been in a conversation with someone and you realized that that person (or maybe you) has no idea what they're talking about, and rather than defer, they start rambling. And at that point you've sort of tuned out of what they're saying. That's what I see in Palin. But the problem is, she needs to speak- we need to get to know her, but she doesn't know enough to speak intelligently.

Is she intelligent? Is she articulate? Is she likeable? Absolutely. But she's just not ready for prime time. Can she get ready on the job? Sure. And I'd much rather have the co-pilot in this scenario than the pilot. But our pilot is old, and their pilot is young. If you see two dudes in literal pilot uniforms on the tarmac and one is 40 something and black and the other is 70 something and white, I'd guess that 9 out of 10 would pick the young black pilot. But put that older co-pilot with the black guy and the attractive female copilot for the old white guy, and you'll see that drop to perhaps 5 out of 5. But ask those copilots about flying a 747, and you'll know right away if they are qualified to fly it.

Unless the McCain/Palin campaign is planning to pull off the ultimate bait and switch, sandbagging, sneak attack move, then we're done.

And here's another thing. I live in a town of 25,000- surrounded by about 35,000 county residents. I could find nothing about grass roots McCain/Palin campaigning. I sent an email to the McCain/Arizona campaign department... and I've heard nothing back from them. Not giving me much confidence in their organization skills. I hate trying to volunteer but then getting either rebuffed or ignored.

4 comments:

SMG-Lance said...

"She's truly free from legitimate controversy..."

Well so much for that, eh?

What are your thoughts on the Alaska commission's abuse of power ruling? Given that the investigation was underway before Palin was tapped by McCain - and - given that Palin was on record as "welcoming" the investigation prior to her vp candidacy, are you able to see the commission's bi-partisan (mostly GOP) verdict without prejudice(in terms of it being "legitimate") or did the ruling register to you as yet another unfounded attack?

Just looking for some common ground...

George A. Easton said...

actually, i see it more as her exercising her position to right a moral wrong. although she may have been found to have abused her authority, she saw that nothing was getting done and she wanted it corrected. when she saw that the person who was supposed to handle it wasn't doing his job, she leaned on him. when a person of power wants something done, he/she has one of their midlevel underlings do the dirty work. that way, when asked if they had any direct contact, they can say no and not be lying. i'd chalk this up to ignorance on her part. however, i still believe that since her objective was not to defraud or benefit from the outcome, it was more of a moral issue. and if the allegations of the trooper were true, would you want a person like that carrying a gun and enforcing the law?

SMG-Lance said...

Well good stuff, George. If we're going to focus on "morals" we can't look past denial of fact.

And, not to hammer away at one point in a great post, the question was whether you thought the controversy was "legitimate", which I asked about because Sarah Palin once thought it was legitimate (she "welcomed" the inquiry), but now that she's running for VP, she evidently thinks it no longer is.

People in power do all sorts of things they shouldn't. Sometimes it's for the right reason (like not turning dogs and hoses on peaceful protesters), sometimes not (breaking into private property to spy on Americans).

But either way, we live in a world with rules and without them, we have no system, no way to govern and no way to hold people accountable.

When We elect someone to execute those rules we also expect them to follow them. If they (and we) decide those rules don't suit the game, then we act within the rules to CHANGE the rules -- not simply ignore them whenever our "morals" dictate we should. For 8-long years, We have a President and Vice President who believe in the exact same premise: The same laws "give" them so much power, do not and cannot "restrict" their power -- even though the Constitution says that in No Uncertain Terms.

Look where that's led us, George.

When public servants (any worker actually) "choose" not to follow the rules for 'personal' or 'moral' reasons all it does is open the door for others come behind them break the rules as well -- and where in the world would that leave us?

Now I'm not solely focused on Palin's abuse of power. In the scope of national issues, we're only talking about one incident, involving one job and one or two people. What I AM focused on is how public servants like Sarah Palin (and many others) go out and campaign on "bringing reform" and "ending corruption" while a group of her own piers and party members say she's part of the exact same problem.

It happens, I know, but the even more disturbing part is how, when faced with a clearly written, non-partisan (remember, 8-GOP & 4-Dems) repudiation of her actions, that same public servant both refuses to admit what happened and convince us the report doesn't say what we all know it says. She looked into the camera and said she was "cleared of any wrongdoing"

In my book, that's called lying to yourself, which is your business unless you work in government - in which case it's called lying to me.

I don't let my own kids do it and I certainly won't accept it from anyone in Our government.

That report says what it says and the least I feel she could do is say "I disagree", state her reasons why and then move on with her life. Instead she looks us in the eye and tells us we don't understand English and leaves good people like yourself behind to make excuses for her. This says a lot more about her, McCain and their "morals" to undecideds like me than she or John McCain may ever care to know...

http://download1.legis.state.ak.us/DOWNLOAD.pdf

George A. Easton said...

lance,

i wrote out a long reply but my browser crashed on me late last night. so if you're really undecided, what are your reservations about each candidate? are you a republican or democrat historically? i was leaning towards obama for a time and i feel that i've educated myself enough to be somewhat dangerous. i don't like obama mainly because he wants to essentially socialize our country. i don't make over $250k, so i would benefit from obama's plans, but would they really benefit the country as a whole? will his iraq plan really improve our image in the world? would he be able to protect us from terrorism if he diverts funds to more (very muchly needed) domestic programs? will he instill a pride in america that will help our country in attitude, financial stability, growth and safety? will americans be better off with him? will corporations send more jobs overseas? will mccain be able to do fix this? the short answer in my opinion regarding mccain is "no", but i believe that obama's platform would do more harm than good in the big picture. and i believe that mccain's intentions are noble and he truly wants the best for america- not his party. but he's just too damn old, and palin is not someone i'd want for vp. so i'd rather have mccain in 2000 or huckabee, or romney, but we've got our two choices and mine is mccain.

but i will never profess to be right on everything. i know plenty of definate voters for each candidate, but my whole objective was to open discussions with undecideds like you and truly learn from each other why you are undecided and what would tip you towards one candidate or the other. my half sister is furious about one of my anti-obama posts, but i'm not one of these ignorant (unfortunately predomonantly mccain) supporters who calls him a terrorist or unamerican. my wife has a coworker who doesn't like mccain because he makes stupid faces during debates... and she doesn't like obama, she just dislikes mccain. and we've had too many elections like this that tend to divide our country. it's people like you who could shut the door for obama or bring mccain back into the race.

i'm disgusted by the one-sided media and the vast split in our country regarding the two candidates. in california if you're a mccain supporter you're crazy. if you're in texas and you support obama, you're crazy. when all is said and done, there will be a lot of angry people who will hate the winner. that sucks. if mccain wins, the coasts will use the media to cry outrage- people like madonna, keith olberman, sandra bernhardt will never shut up. but if obama wins you'll get it more from the common man- and there are a lot more of them. it's one thing to dislike a candidate because he's a democrat or republican, but if you start hating the president because he's black or has a foreign name or supposedly associates with bad people, then we will have flat out hatred for him- and i'm talking 25-30% of our country. just watch some youtube videos of the hardcore anti-obama people- there is flat out hatred for him.

i'd like to think that my dislike of him is on a higher plane, but who am i?

i appreciate your dialog lance.