I have to admit it. I am thrilled to pieces about Sarah Palin being picked as Vice President on the Republican ticket. Like the millions of other conservative women in this country, I am pleased to finally be able to throw my support behind a candidate that represents a little of who I am and what I am about.
When Hillary Clinton was running for president, I had a lot of people ask me if I would support someone who had the chance to break through the toughest glass ceiling in our country. While I give Hillary all the credit that is due someone who got as far as she did, her politics were just way too far from mine to support her. So I really do understand when I read the comments made by her supporters that say they will not vote McCain/Palin just because of Sarah's gender. That is perfectly fine. I have thought all along her addition to the ticket was to court the vote of moderate women like me (psssst...there are a whole lot of us, by the way).
I won't vote for McCain/Palin just because of her gender either. I'll vote for that ticket, because she represents me and women like me. Not in everything mind you. She has a couple of beliefs that I don't particularly share and when writing this blog I will try hard to be impartial about, but for the most part, we see eye to eye.
I am going to make the purpose of this blog to report about Sarah and her time on the campaign trail. I am going to be posting on the rumors and the myths, the facts and the fiction, the triumphs and the disappointments, the strengths and the weaknesses. I invite all comments, negative and positive, as long as they are worded without profanity and with substance.
And So it Goes...
16 years ago
5 comments:
Unfortunately, Palin is a patsy.
Can you say, "Bob Dole 2, Electric Boogaloo"? (I've actually used that phrasing like three times this year, weird.)
Anyway, Bob Dole was chosen by the the Republicans as a throwaway nominee for the '96 election because Clinton was essentially unbeatable. He was (unfortunately) too popular and the economy was doing well. It's tough to beat out an incumbent under those conditions. Dole was chosen solely because he had been such a great work horse of the party and allowing him to run for President in a lost cause was his reward. Sounds crazy I know, but there's a lot of money involved in campaigns these days and he was given a great sendoff by the party for his contributions.
I can't help but feel the Republicans are doing the same thing in this election. Basically, they are sending an old war horse out to pasture in style as a thank you for years of service.
In a nutshell, I'm saying the Republicans have given up the fight on this election because they know the country is just sick of what they've endured for eight years.
So unfortunately, I see them nominating Sarsh Palin not because they believe in her, but becuase they want to move past the republican image of being an "old white boys club".
Their candidate choice (and the obvious reason he was chosen) did nothing to sway people from that image, thus the choice was made to nominate a nothing female candidate from Alaska. That couldn't hurt their campaign.
From here on out, they're going to focus on her and not the geezer in an effort to set themselves up for the next election, where, there will be two slightly past middle aged white candidates nominated, but only if they feel they have a chance at winning.
I have to disagree with you doc. If McCain had been allowed to pick Romney or Lieberman as had been expected, then the campaign would have been a throwaway. What his campaign lacked was energy. Unlike Bob Dole, McCain is not a favorite in his own party. Most of the old GOP warhorses see him as far too liberal for their tastes, and quite frankly, I was shocked when he made the cut. Of couse when you see the rest of the geezers that would have been in the running, there was nothing inspirational about them either.
The problem with Dole's campaign was that (1) his natural appeal was smothered by the GOP advisors, (2) his campaign slogan was "It's my turn" which can turn off even a staunch Republican the way that smacks of entitlement and, most importantly, (3) Jack Kemp, his own VP pick was working against him. Before you try to call BS on this information, remember that in 1996 I was still working in DC quite a bit and I had the pleasure of speaking with Bob Dole on numerous occasions through my work there. Also, in 1996 my dear hubby, as you know, worked for Steve Forbes' people. It was very commong knowledge at the time that Jack Kemp was deliberately sabotaging the Dole presidency bid because of his lucrative affiliation with a group called Empower America, later Freedom Works. A group that was, interestingly enough, funded by Steve Forbes. A meagre paying, low profile VP position did not compensate for the vast speaking fees that he could rack up as a Republican mouthpiece during the presidency of a Democrat. Kemp, while appearing to "help" Dole's bid by campaigning in the areas where he was the more popular candidate, actually was making a determined effort to overshadow his own running mate and paint him as stodgy and ineffectual. I need not remind you that it worked quite effectively.
This past week, after the initial shock wore off of the Republicans did something that the Democrats wouldn't do, I really started to dig around in Palin's political history. The thing is, I wasn't alone by far. You knew from our discussions that I would not support Hillary as a candidate, but I am so energized by the possibility of a President Palin in 2012. I live under no delusions about why she was picked. There were certainly many more qualified Republican women who could have been asked, but in reality, they would not have generated the kind of press that a little known governor (who looks a bit like a naughty librarian) did almost immediately. So it's not really what people are buzzing about. It's the fact that they are buzzing. There is, after all, no such thing as bad publicity.
Pat:
Clinton was beatable in 96. The fact that he polled less than 50% of the vote in the general election is a fairly good indication of that.
Dole was a bad candidate. He was the candidate because he called in ever single chit he was owed and was able to mussle the various state organizations into supporting him
Dole made the mistake of thinking
that all he had to do was get on the ballot and people would flock to vote for him. .
The democrats have made the same mistake this time.
This should have been the Democrat's year but leave it to the party of the Jackass to pick someone as unqualified and slimey as Obama.
This isnt a repeat of 96. This will be a repeat of 1988 (michael dukakis), 2000 (Gore) and 2004 (Kerry) The liberal wing of the Democratic Party has put forth another arrogant SOB for people to fawn over. Polling data show that it isnt working.
Sorry I removed my previous post, I wanted to edit something in the middle and didn't want to add it as an addendum in another comment.
Actually Charles, Clinton didn't get over 50% of the popular vote because Perot, as a third party candidate, took over 8% of it. Clinton smoked Dole head to head. Besides, we all know stealing a presidential election is about stealing the electorate, not the popular vote. Dole, or any other republican had no shot in '96, and the republicans knew it.
Don't worry Kim, I wouldn't call shenanigans on your information. Any of the information that I cannot confirm from memory, I trust is accurate, but none of the things you said are the real reason Dole didn't get elected. Dole FLAT OUT had no shot at beating Clinton. He (the republicans) simply did not have popular support at the time. I remember the outcome being inevitable long before November rolled around, and I was as disappointed as anyone that Clinton was elected. If Perot hadn't been running, I would have voted for Dole. Unfortunately, this is all opinion anyway. There really is no right or wrong. A lot of factors contributed to Dole's loss, I just feel the most important of those factors was the economy was simply chugging along too well for Clinton to be ousted. Go back and check your history, the current economy is always the leading factor that decides the switch from asses to elephants and vice versa.
As for Obama, I'm not sold on the man, but I would vote for him over McCain. If Obama doesn't get elected, it's not because he's slimey, (that's reserved for the Clintons thank you very much) it's because the American public really is too ignorant as a populace to identify with a more erudite candidate.
Four years as president ages people unnaturally. Look how rough Bush looks now compared to 8 years ago and similarly for Clinton before him. I can't vote for an autopsy that just hasn't been scheduled yet.
If McCain gets elected, he ain't gonna make it four years and Kim'll get her Madame President. Hehe, Our President's a Madame. After spending six months in Vegas I would have expected to be in more support of such a prospect...
I abstained last election. Voted for everything but President. There wasn't even a decent third party candidate to waste my vote on. I'm not sure I'm even going to bother registering this year. I think I'm finally going to join the majority in this country and just give up.
Post a Comment