Althouse: "Has Sarah Palin 'gone rogue'?"

October 21, 2008

"Has Sarah Palin 'gone rogue'?"

Asks John Dickerson.

63 comments:

ricpic said...: Sarah's trying to rescue McCain from his no enemies on the left instinct.; 10/21/08, 10:17 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: She wants to win.

It isn't clear that McCain wants to actually win given the namby pamby campaign he is running.; 10/21/08, 10:19 AM
Bissage said...: A little bit of rogue would go a long way to take the pallor out of McCain’s face and accentuate his cheekbones.; 10/21/08, 10:21 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Palin is out for Palin. She's probably positioning herself for 2012 and putting some distance between her and McCain and let him take the heat for the November drubbing to come.

Ironic that, given that her ineptitude has really sunk the McCain campaign.

Don't look to Palin for loyalty, though she demands it, herself.; 10/21/08, 10:28 AM
Salamandyr said...: She's doing her best to help McCain out, by putting him in his comfort zone, letting him do what he does best.

Which is fighting with Republicans.; 10/21/08, 10:30 AM
Heather said...: Yes, her attacking Obama his not helping at all. The polls are tighting up for no reason what so ever.

Palin 2012; 10/21/08, 10:31 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Polls always tighten up before elections. But, as General Colin Powell said, McCain's judgment looks terrible by selecting the very unqualified Sarah Palin for his VP.

By all means, Palin for Republican Nominee, 2012. Works for me!; 10/21/08, 10:36 AM
Darcy said...: Perhaps. But it's a good look on her. Hell, everything looks good on her.; 10/21/08, 10:37 AM
Shanna said...: I think this is a fun idea, but overblown. I mean, it seems silly that VP candidates should have to pretend to agree 100% with the top of the ticket when everybody knows it's not true.

Even on Team Maverick, a vice-presidential candidate's job is to agree with the candidate at the top of the ticket.

Maybe they should take a look at what Bidens' been saying lately.

BTW, they should totally start calling themselves "Team Maverick".; 10/21/08, 10:37 AM
Bob said...: So who's working harder to sink their respective Pres campaign - Sarah or Joe? She's got sharp elbows and the VP is traditionally the pit dog job. But there's also more authenticity about her and so she's a bit more blunt (or less nuanced if you prefer) than the beltway pros. She's also new to the national stage and she can be more honest. It will help her in 2012 positioning should the ticket lose.; 10/21/08, 10:38 AM
Henry said...: Well this is funny. In just six comments, we have matched the spread of opinions in the linked article.

My own opinion is that Dickerson's question is trivial. Much bigger things are affecting the polls than Palin's opinion about Jeremiah Wright.; 10/21/08, 10:38 AM
Brian Doyle said...: I mean, it seems silly that VP candidates should have to pretend to agree 100% with the top of the ticket when everybody knows it's not true.

Especially when everybody also knows the ticket is doomed.; 10/21/08, 10:39 AM
MadisonMan said...: When was the last time the VP candidate on the losing ticket won the Presidency four years later? Has that ever happened?

Granted, how the VP is chosen has changed in the past 200+ years, but I think that's a high hill to climb for Palin if McCain loses.; 10/21/08, 10:44 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm pretty sure she's never said McCain was unqualified to be Pres, the media would really make a big deal out of something like that.; 10/21/08, 10:46 AM
George M. Spencer said...: Oldest play in the book.

Veep takes the low road, Prez takes the high road.

But McCain does needs more pizzazz. NPR played a clip this morning...He was saying, "If I become President...." And the crowd starting angrily yelling at him, "When! When!" And he replied, to their cheers, "When I become president....."

The votes to win are there. He has to fire up his afterburner and go hell for leather.; 10/21/08, 10:46 AM
Simon said...: "Is she putting her own political self-interest ahead of her running mate's?"

One must hope so. Doing so at this point can scarcely harm the McCain ticket's chances (as DBQ alluded to), and will be helpful for the next campaign.

Alpha's claims aren't to be taken seriously. The idea that Palin has sunk McCain is deeply counterintuitive and wholly incongruous with polling data, and the claim that she is unqualified is preposterous, both points I've explained in comments passim ad nauseum. The left's sudden embrace of Colin Powell and Ken Adelman as allies vis-a-vis Palin is faintly hysterical, in one sense of that word, and their remarks about Palin have been entirely hysterical in the other sense. I had thought that Adelman in particular was a clearer thinker, but if he chooses to go gladly into that good night being thought of as a colossal idiot, so be it.; 10/21/08, 10:51 AM
integrity said...: Palin is playing the role she was hired to play, but the people directing her are clueless and have made her and themselves look bad. A really ineffectual game is being played, they should talk about policy.

Palin 2012 is a fun idea though, if that's what she is up to. Watching the repubs destroy one another over her would be even funner.; 10/21/08, 10:54 AM
Darcy said...: I've been thinking about that too, Simon. If she is such a loser for McCain, why are they still hysterical? I mean...why not sit back and enjoy the view?; 10/21/08, 10:55 AM
Heather said...: I mean...why not sit back and enjoy the view?

You mean like I do with Biden?; 10/21/08, 10:57 AM
Heather said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/21/08, 10:57 AM
garage mahal said...: Clearly going even more negative is what's called for here. Palin calling Obama a terrorist and the First Dude comparing him to Charles Manson hasn't gone far enough. More hate please!; 10/21/08, 10:59 AM
Simon said...: Something else to consider: Althouse intimated the other day that McCain may be constrained by the desire to burnish his legacy. I'd suggest that McCain might not want to go all out because if he loses, he has to go back and work with these people. He has to be pals with them. He wants to be invited to the Al Smith dinner and be treated as a buddy by these people. Palin suffers none of these handicaps; she doesn't have to go back and work with these people, and she doesn't care what they think of her. A commenter hit the nail on the head the other day: part of Palin's appeal is that she is one of us and she will take the fight to the enemy. Palin doesn't care if they don't invite her to the Al Smith dinner to lob softball laugh lines at the enemy and make nicy-nice in a way that makes you wonder how adverse McCain really is to Obama. She isn't part of the beltway elite, has no interest in joining it, and that gives her a level of freedom that McCain may not be willing to give himself.; 10/21/08, 11:00 AM
Simon said...: integrity said...
"Palin is playing the role she was hired to play, but the people directing her are clueless and have made her and themselves look bad."

That much I agree with. Instead of keeping her away from the press, it would have been a wiser strategy to have her all over friendly and neutral media. As I said at the time, that would have uncoupled the claim that she needed to take questions (which is fair) from the claim that she needed to take questions from Obama's MSM surrogates (which has a far lower valence).; 10/21/08, 11:05 AM
KCFleming said...: Obama hardly needs to worry, what with ACORN's massive voter fraud ongoing and uncontested by any prosecutors or the DOJ, who are more interested in crushing reports of voter fraud than voter fraud itself.

So what difference does it make?
Remember, in certain countries 99% of the vote goes to one candidate. One day, us too.; 10/21/08, 11:06 AM
TMink said...: "given that her ineptitude has really sunk the McCain campaign."

Hee hee hee.

I can only laugh AL. It is interesting for me if you really think that or are just taking a cheap shot because you are so partisan.

So what is it? Delusion or insult?

Trey; 10/21/08, 11:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Wait a minute. If a VP candidate's job is to agree with the guy at the top of the ticket, why does anyone give a damn whether or not she holds a press conference?; 10/21/08, 11:29 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Wow. do you guys actually think Palin helped the campaign? Or are you just playing the part?

We've got a long list of Republicans saying the Palin pick was a serious issue in their criticisms, and often abandoning, McCain. for Republican Ken Adelmen, it as the "last straw."

George Will and others have described her as unqualified or not prepared to assume the Presidency if the cancer-stricken McCain falls.

Cristopher Hitchens asks of this nomination "What does he take me for?"

The polls show her negative shave shot way up as people got to know her better. From 29% in September to 41% now. And rising.

The woman is a laughingstock. But even a laughingstock as their laughingstock supporters.; 10/21/08, 11:34 AM
Keith said...: While it has been terrifically entertaining/amusing to watch the Republican party melt down this election cycle, the dogfight in 2012 between Romney, Palin, Huckabee, and Jindahl will be even more high-larious. 'Cause, you know, that Palin is a pitbull! She's ferocious, I tell you!; 10/21/08, 11:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Thank heaven some one on that ticket has a pair. I like to watch politicians who are willing to fight for what they believe in. So far, that's mostly Palin, and occasionally McCain.; 10/21/08, 11:41 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: If a VP candidate's job is to agree with the guy at the top of the ticket, why does anyone give a damn whether or not she holds a press conference?

To see if...
* she can address pressing issues of the day without a script.

* if she is knowledgeable and qualified to be President.

* she can answer questions about her background relevant to being VP or President (such as support for a secessionist/traitorous party, Bush-like cronyism in her time as Governor, her insults to urban America, etc, etc)

* she thinks she is above accountability and need not answer to the American people or press.

The McCain campaign has entered their judgment on all these questions, by keeping her in a protective cocoon for fear the American people will learn even more about her.

BTW, she has the lowest favorability polls for any VP candidate on record, including Quayle.; 10/21/08, 11:47 AM
Simon said...: AlphaLiberal said...
"Wow. do you guys actually think Palin helped the campaign? Or are you just playing the part?"

I don't understand how you can seriously challenge that. Look at the damn polling graphs! Think about the day (indeed, weeks) after Obama's acceptance speech: what was the primary focus of the news, and what would it have been if McCain had not picked Palin? The reality is that McCain's selection of Palin was the best possible thing he could have done, and that is not vitiated by the subsequent drop in the polling numbers. You can't ask Palin to do the impossible; you can't ask her to be immune to a vicious campaign by the entirety of the media to discredit her; you can't ask her to keep poll numbers up when McCain makes dumbass mistakes such as his handling of the "crisis" that depress his numbers. That some individuals have chosen to throw a hissy fit over it - including some who are smart enough to know better - is of no moment. The bottom line is that Palin is the only reason McCain's still in this thing, and if he wins this thing, he ought to get up every day and kiss her ass, because she'll be the reason he did.; 10/21/08, 11:54 AM
Simon said...: AlphaLiberal said...
"she thinks she is above accountability and need not answer to the American people or press."

She doesn't need to answer to the press. It was a tactical mistake by the McCain campaign not to delink these and have her talk over the press directly to the people. All that keeping her cocooned did was increase the pressure and give the media the chance to distort and drive her public image.

"BTW, she has the lowest favorability polls for any VP candidate on record, including Quayle."

Wow! Gee, can't imagine why that would be after two months of the press hounding her and blaring to anyone who will listen what an appalling person she is (not true), how she's unqualified (not true), and so forth. Repeat a lie often enough and loudly enough and it becomes true. Tell you what, we'll take out saturation ad coverage with your picture asserting that you're a child molester, and in two months take a poll to see what the general public thinks of you. How do you fancy your chances?; 10/21/08, 11:58 AM
TMink said...: Al asked; "Wow. do you guys actually think Palin helped the campaign?"

No. I do not think that Governor Palin helped the campaign. The data shows that is what happened. It is about the numbers dude, facts. Not opinion. It does not matter what I think about it, what matters is that I accept the facts about it. Or not in your case!

That is why so many people here ignore you. You are long on opinion (very predictable opinion) and criticism but invisible when it comes to facts.

Google the polls since Palin. The facts are there. Opinions are nice, but facts are IMPORTANT.

Trey; 10/21/08, 12:00 PM
TMink said...: Great minds think alike Simon!

Sadly, so do mediocre ones!

Trey; 10/21/08, 12:01 PM
Simon said...: As for Adelman - Alpha, the last time Ken Adelman got behind something, it was the Iraq war, and it was his judgment that it would go just fine. I don't know specifically what you said about Adelman's judgment at the time, but I can guess. Hilarious that now, Adelman gets behind Obama (and against Palin), and thinks that's just fine, and suddenly you're citing him as some kind of fine paragon of judgment! His take on Palin is, with all due respect, absurd. It doesn't even rise to the respectability of being wrong, and I think it is deeply unfortunate that he has chosen to stain his reputation this way. He was wrong about Iraq and has since admitted it; he is wrong about Palin, but unfortunately, will probably not have the opportunity to recant.

I also suggest that, like General Powell, Adelman - who would otherwise be high on the Lithwick Commission's list - has been offered immunity.; 10/21/08, 12:02 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I do find it interesting how those on the left, from AL through the author here, try to analyze someone like Gov. Palin and those who support her. Something akin to an anthropologist trying to explain a lost tribe in Borneo.

Simon has it right - McCain is blowing the election because of advanced Senatoritis. He is too worried about alienating his Senatorial friends across the aisle to take the fight to the enemy.; 10/21/08, 12:06 PM
Jon said...: Alpha Liberal said: "BTW, she has the lowest favorability polls for any VP candidate on record, including Quayle."

CNN's poll released yesterday, has Palin's favorable rating at 52%, unfavorable 41%. I kind of doubt that's worse than Quayle.; 10/21/08, 12:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Madison Man:
"When was the last time the VP candidate on the losing ticket won the Presidency four years later? Has that ever happened?"

When's the last time a black man with 143 days in the Senate became president? Has that ever happened?

Transformational candidates maybe?; 10/21/08, 12:53 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Did the post title make anyone else think of this Rogue? Now that would be awesome.; 10/21/08, 12:58 PM
Chris said...: If McCain can't even keep his running mate on track, how's he going to handle Congress, the Senate - even his own cabinet? Major failure of leadership.; 10/21/08, 1:20 PM
Rose said...: A little disagreement is a BEAUTIFUL thing! We do not need people to march in lockstep. Much as I love McCain, I am coming to love her even more.; 10/21/08, 1:31 PM
MadisonMan said...: Rogue would be a good running mate, but Psylocke would be better. Or Destiny! Know the outcome before the vote!; 10/21/08, 1:34 PM
Unknown said...: I think she's gone tharn.; 10/21/08, 1:52 PM
mccullough said...: Say what you will about Palin, but the VP debate was second only to Reagan-Carter in 1980 in terms of viewership and SNL drew its biggest ratings in 14 years.

I don't think people were tuning in to watch Biden or Brolin.

So she's more popular, for both friends and foes, than Obama.

You know that makes Obama furious. You just know it.

In terms of her negatives, the fact that her life was picked over for a straight month might have something to do with it.

Also, a lot of people might like her but might not want to admit it.; 10/21/08, 2:22 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm wondering when McCain ever had a chance of winning?

Seriously.

Every Republican has the albatross of Bush's unpopularity hanging around their necks.

McCain, during the primaries, was a dud as a fund-raiser. He's now dependent on the Republican Party to pay for his campaign. (Thus, the lack of campaigning in Michigan.)

Meanwhile, Obama is still breaking fund-raising records.

If McCain had picked another Veep, he'd be further in the hole and everyone would still be piling on him. There's no way Romney would be McCain's VP. Any established Republican with a hope of being President would not want to be McCain's VP. McCain was cornered into picking an unknown. Okay, maybe he could have picked Christine Todd Whitman. Not that she has any problems hanging over her head.; 10/21/08, 2:35 PM
blake said...: She's clean. She's articulate. She's a dream come true.

--What Joe Biden wOuld've said were he a Rep; 10/21/08, 2:49 PM
blake said...: When was the last time the VP candidate on the losing ticket won the Presidency four years later? Has that ever happened?

I don't know if it has, but the problem with trying to figure out trends from the Presidential race is that it's such a small pool of data.

When was the last time we had a Senator vs. Senator race? When was the last time a first-term senator captured the nom--I mean, one in mid-first-term? When was the last woman with a serious shot? (Certainly not Ferraro.) Black man? (Certainly not Jackson.)

Granted, how the VP is chosen has changed in the past 200+ years, but I think that's a high hill to climb for Palin if McCain loses.

Maybe. Unless she's seen as a...rogue.; 10/21/08, 2:52 PM
Synova said...: Even on Team Maverick, a vice-presidential candidate's job is to agree with the candidate at the top of the ticket.

I'm sure someone else has already said this but... why?

When we started out, the VP wasn't even someone that the President picked. Why is it assumed that the VP has to be a yes-man for the Presidential candidate? Why are we supposed to think that's better?

He picked her because she's conservative and he's not (for one thing) and is she supposed to then pretend that, "My views are whatever Senator McCain says they are." Huh? I've no doubt that when he asked her, she asked what her "job" would be and stated right out that she wasn't going to agree with McCain in public (on drilling in ANWAR, certainly!) when her views were different.

If (and I don't assume it's true) it really was McCain's campaign that dictated who she should talk to and what she should say during the first few weeks... it may be that someone out and out decided that they should just let her do what she choses to do because the result could hardly be worse, after all.

She's not running for team mascot.

She's running as the candidate with executive experience.; 10/21/08, 3:22 PM
Palladian said...: "Meanwhile, Obama is still breaking fund-raising records."

Obama's good at getting other people's money. Right now he depends on people to give it freely. When he has the violent power of the State behind him, he'll take it by force.; 10/21/08, 3:34 PM
mnotaro said...: It scares me to think of what the lefty illuminati politicians will come up with and where it will take our country with their over liberal views in the years to come.; 10/21/08, 3:56 PM
Cedarford said...: Shanna said...
I think this is a fun idea, but overblown. I mean, it seems silly that VP candidates should have to pretend to agree 100% with the top of the ticket when everybody knows it's not true.

Agree. The demand for 100% solidarity is Marxist, and something that certain dominant Presidential candidates have tried enforcing on their VP picks (FDR, LBJ, Reagan) on the idea that the slightest "deviancy" undermines the head of the ticket.

Sometimes this is amusing as when Humphrey denied he was a puppet of LBJ and a slave - then tried 6 years later to "be his own man". Or Bush I's insistance on being named Reagan's VP pick that he was "always pro-life".

As long as the VP doesn't substantially undermine a major policy of the head of the ticket, they should have latitude to disagree on points. It makes Palin more authentic...and makes McCain appear more of a secure man that he is not threatened by his underticket disagreeing with him on certain issues.

******************
She's right on robo-calls. They piss people off, even those in the same Party. They are scripted at a 6th grade level meant to be understandable to the borderline moron - and piss the rest of us off.
Another "hit" I wish Palin or some other person on the ticket would make, is on the fake "push-poll" from a campaign worker or hired telemarketing company.

They start with reasonable questions, then get into the "did you know" that "Candidate X beats his wife, hates puppies, and wishes to surrender America to criminals" and "how do you feel about that??" follow-up questions.

I made news 14 years ago when I wrote the local paper that I was so annoyed at spending my time answering what I thought was an honest poll that morphed into a dishonest "push poll" - that I was voting for the candidate's opponent, who I detested. The story got lots of local letter comment, and was also picked up on TV. Both Congressional campaigns denying they used "push-polling".

Of course, I'm more mature now. I learned not to take political or "polling" calls. I just hang up, now.; 10/21/08, 4:14 PM
Icepick said...: What I want to know is has Jope Biden gone rogue? Probably not - it's probably just that he's an idiot. But I'd still like confirmation!; 10/21/08, 5:05 PM
former law student said...: Gov. Palin's just gettin' all Mavericky in there and also too, the Great Ronald Reagan.; 10/21/08, 6:48 PM
integrity said...: Palladian said...
"Meanwhile, Obama is still breaking fund-raising records."

Obama's good at getting other people's money. Right now he depends on people to give it freely. When he has the violent power of the State behind him, he'll take it by force.

Aren't we being a little bit melodramatic? What kind of demented image of him have you painted in your head? Geesh.

I've been sending him $50/week for the last 7 weeks. And one time I got a t-shirt for giving.; 10/21/08, 7:27 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: I've been sending him $50/week for the last 7 weeks. And one time I got a t-shirt for giving.

You paid $350 for a t-shirt? That stinks.

Reflects well the actual return we'll get from handing over more money to the government though.; 10/21/08, 7:38 PM
Synova said...: And then there's the money that's not part of his "campaign" like the "Vote for Barack Obama" thing I got today in the mail from the "League of Conservation Voters."

All in all... people can do with their money what they like. It's their right. I recognize that even as I wonder what else could be done with that much money. And it does reflect support.

Even so, you KNOW how spending at those levels would be portrayed if it were a Republican outspending the Democrat two to one.; 10/21/08, 9:27 PM
hdhouse said...: Sarah is just being Sarah. A wierd little nitwit.; 10/21/08, 9:35 PM
hdhouse said...: Simon said...
AlphaLiberal said...
"Wow. do you guys actually think Palin helped the campaign? Or are you just playing the part?"
I don't understand how you can seriously challenge that."

Simon, how did you get so deep in this nitwits panties?

You look at the polls. Her negatives are higher than Bush's as an "asset" to McCain.

I work with a bonzo who in the face of evidence simply makes up his own numbers...fake surveys, 2+2=3 type of thing. Please don't you do that too.; 10/21/08, 9:40 PM
Simon said...: Harry, with all due respect, the polls quite clearly show a McCain campaign taking on water and getting ready to sink until Palin came aboard. If McCain still fails, you're really asking why Palin couldn't single-handedly bail out the Titanic, aren't you?; 10/21/08, 10:58 PM
reality said...: "We've got a long list of Republicans saying Palin was a serious issue in...abandoning, McCain.

Ken Adelmen
George Will
Hitchens

The polls show her negative shave shot way up as people got to know her better. From 29% in September to 41% now. And rising."
.
.
Yup, that's serious all right. That's, let's see...one...two...three votes lost!

But there's this obscure (and no doubt terrifying) fact that the farmer outside Madison has the same voting-weight as the airhead in DC...and that beltway plastic-people are very few, while normal-folk voters are very very many...

It seems that some have completely missed THE core point about Palin.

Her popularity is specifically BECAUSE those (pseudo) conservatives that you consider so important/relevant ARE saying 'iccky!'.

In other words, it's because she's NOT of them, nor favored by them.

In a related vein, I think the Dems have far overestimated the importance of Dem v. Rep this time; or to put it another way, far more voters than ever before understand clearly that dem/rep is a scam; that all of DC and the media are the same club of elitist sociopaths. Thus, the 'change' that people really want isn't from one chicago-machine empty suit to another; but from DC-in-general to somebody DIFFERENT.

McCain doesn't give much of that; but Palin gives LOTS of that.

For an interesting take on the respective VP selections, this Asia Times essay is worth reading...

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JI03Aa02.html

It's clear to regular voters that we've -already- had 40 years of constant shift towards the 'progressive' socialistic agenda of concentration of power in ever larger government, and that the result is today's huge mess; so it's plain to most folks that it simply DOES...NOT...WORK.

Also, that quoted polling data on her 'poor' rating includes, I believe, obamaphiles as well; so it's rather meaningless.

Since obamaphiles don't vote for non-Obama tickets no matter what, their media-programmed hate of Palin means nothing.

The last -relevant- numbers I've seen (about a week ago in LA Times, as I recall) show her 'strong approval' rating at 35% vs. just 21% for Biden's.

(please recall that the valid comparison IS to open-mouth Joe, not to Obama)

Further, recent estimates of Dems voting the Repub-ticket are running 5-12%; most of whom are women, most of whom are voting for Palin more than they are McCain.

Even 5% is a lot in a race like this.

(the 5% is from 538.com, an extreme pro-obama site but with pretty robust mathematics; albeit based on the usual misleading commercial polls)

Every other estimate I've seen, especially regarding PUMA's, is considerably higher.

I caution against relying on ANY data found in the large media; as it is increasingly corrupt.

A good current example is the attendance reports on Palin rallies, such as the one in CO this week that was MSM-reported at 11,000 while actually drawing in excess of 20,000. That lack of honest reporting has been pretty consistent throughout her tour.

Speaking of polls...the latest Battleground chart I saw today ("if the election were today, how would you vote") showed a statistical TIE, O-48%, M-47%, 6% undecided.

And the data indicates that 'undecideds' will vote 4:1 against O.

And that's with Obama outspending McCain over 400% (!) and rising; and with almost all national media blatantly in his camp.

I suspect that the massive registration-fraud by Obama's Acorn is a partial cause of the pollsters using the unusually skewed D/R 'likely voter' proportions which have misled Dems so badly.

That self-inflicted delusion may cause quite a bit of surprise and upset amongst Dems over the next 2 weeks.

Personally, I'm libertarian, so I don't have a dog in this hunt; but it does startle me to see 'liberals' consistently fail to 'get' the essential resonances and dynamics of both the election and the widening sociocultural fault-lines caused by liberals themselves which underlie it.

Without any real empathy or sense of fellowship for fully half the country, they miss the essence of Palin's solid acceptance by so many.

That derisive attitude and lack of respect for conservatives, rural people, and non-academics isn't a fault-line that's going to be healed by this election; no matter how it turns out.; 10/22/08, 6:19 AM
Pat R said...: the McCain camp has been sending mixed signals since it's inception... Sarah Palin can't even keep up with John McCain's endless wavering between "straight talker" and crooked politician; 10/26/08, 3:43 AM
Broken Hearted Rupublican said...: Palin clearly was chosen for the bubba and bible thumper vote. It's clear even in our own party. I have never been so asheamed of my party after 50+ years of voting.
We have bred hate and a level I cannot remember. We have fogotten truth, and blatently vomited our morals. The democrats deserve to win. Republicans have lost the true values of our party and haggled it with a bag of vengeance beans and anry rice. This meal will sit cold and unwanted.; 10/26/08, 5:07 AM
blake said...: Wow, Broken Hearted Republican talks just like a Democrat!; 10/26/08, 4:08 PM