Republican Affirmative Action: Presidential Fail Edition

Shocker political subtext of 2008:

Incompetent female figurehead picked by misogynist political party for superficial reasons unfairly scapegoated by also incompetent campaign professionals.

WTF else was going to happen?

As I've said before, the Palin pick exemplifies exactly what Republicans really believe affirmative action is all about. That getting more women in the workplace, for example, is purely a matter of finding people with the requisite gonads to fill a job - hopefully ones that aren't too uppity, and definitely not ones that are unhappy with the status quo. If they screw up, well, isn't that just like a woman?

And if the pool of applicants was therefore thin, ie, there aren't many sane-seeming black people as bigoted as Alan Keyes or as self-loathing as Michael Steele, hey, look at their skin, yeah? What more did You People want? And it was hard to find a woman who was contemptuous enough of other women to satisfy the GOP base. The party faithful would have none of the qualified but insufficiently heartless Hutchisons or Snowes, so we HAD to go with someone a McCain staffer now characterizes as a Wasilla hillbilly.

And that's ... Palin's fault?

Look, these people have been campaigning for the presidency for two years straight by now, and this won't be their first national race. They've been in politics for a long time, including, and especially, McCain. Palin's the governor of a small state, unknown even to national Republican leaders, and joined the campaign on a lark a couple months ago. (And if someone affiliated with Obama had ever referred to the Palin clan as "Wasilla hillbillies" ...) Is it remotely possible that McCain and company couldn't have figured out she wasn't ready in advance if they'd done their bloody jobs and spent a few days asking her questions and investigating her background?

Imagine the cringe-worthy moments they could have spared the nation if Palin had gone through a vetting as tough as the typical middle management interview process.

I mean, consider my parents. They're nice people, more or less typical Los Angeles natives and there's nothing wrong with that, but neither of them is qualified to be the president-in-waiting. Nor are they qualified to handle nuclear reactors, pilot planes, work on deep sea drilling rigs, file court briefs or perform brain surgery. I'm sure they'd tell you so themselves. Anyone who said otherwise would prove themselves automatically less qualified to staff and run a presidential campaign than Palin was to be vice president.

That's a low bar to crawl under. Then consider that the job of the executive branch includes setting regulations for people who do handle nuclear reactors and pilot planes. Shiver.

The whole issue should rightly come back to the seemingly endless parade of newspaper editorial endorsements for Obama that mentioned McCain's judgment in selecting Palin as one of the biggest knocks against him. McCain picked her. McCain's vetting team, such as it was, picked her. Then they brought her out in front of the country and swore to God and everybody that she was ready to be the understudy for the most powerful role in the world.

What were they thinking? That's the big question. Their incompetence is the real story. Not some distracting yarn about the woman who supposedly shopped the campaign into the ground.

I'll grant that the wardrobe amounts were excessive. Offensively so. But is that seriously the most damning thing about the running mate of a man who wears $520 loafers, the man whose wife's outfit for one night at the RNC cost $300,000? Not the White Pride barnstorming? Not the McCarthyite desire to sort out the supposedly fake Americans from the real ones? Not the incessant lying about her record and that of her opponents? Not the callous indifference to the suffering of others? Is that all they've got, that Palin was vain about her clothes and talked as if George 'Shop or the Terrorists Win' Bush had been her history teacher?

Hell, by Bush's lights, wasn't that whole $150k shopping spree just a big middle finger in Osama bin Laden's face? We may have lost our homes, our jobs, our fellow citizens, our global approval/credit rating, a few buildings, eventually a whole city, and our Constitutional rights, but we still have our capitalist designer stores, m*f*er, so take that!

The Republican Party is going to spend a long time in the wilderness if they can't figure out what really went wrong here. Good riddance.

Tags: John McCain, Presidential election 2008, Sarah Palin (all tags)

Comments

44 Comments

Re:

Very nicely said!  Thank you.

by Rob McC again 2008-11-06 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin critics

I just wish one of those guys had gotten a pic of her in the bath towell

by hddun2008 2008-11-07 04:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Palin critics

No need to be mysoginistic.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-11-07 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Palin critics

How in god's name is that misogynistic?

by pneuma 2008-11-07 05:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Palin critics

Calling for semi-nude shots of the female candidate? I know it wasn't meant to be misogynistic and I wouldn't for an instance imply that hddun2008 is a sexist person, but the comment was a little out of line.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-11-07 05:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Palin critics

I don't think it was out of line at all. It was a joke.

One of my biggest complaints with hardcore feminists is that they see everything through a lens of patriarchal oppression. They call sexism so often that it loses all meaning.

Female fans of Obama nearly ripped his clothes off in one documented instance. People finding other people attractive is neither surprising nor sexist in any way.

Treating Palin any differently because she is a woman is what is sexist. I'll admit, she's hot - at least until she opens her mouth. And for the record, my mother in law has quite the fantasies about Biden. We wouldn't call her a sexist for wanting to see him with his shirt off, would we?

by pneuma 2008-11-07 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Palin critics

The fact that it was a joke doesn't mean it wasn't out of line. There is such a thing as an inappropriate joke; the humor status of a remark has nothing to do with it.

If there were calls for male politicians to parade around shirtless but not female pols, then yes, that would be sexist. As it is, no, it wouldn't be, but it would still be crass. It's worth noting, though, that I said misogynisitc, not sexist. I'm not talking about gender discrimination, I'm talking about the hightened sexual lens that one gender gets and the other doesn't.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-11-07 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Palin critics

Newslfash: men like to see women naked much more than women like to see men naked. That isn't misogyny; it's biology.

by pneuma 2008-11-07 11:36AM | 0 recs
Hardcore feminists

Yes, clearly the problem is that we see sexism too often, not that sexism is pervasive.

Be a person, not an ostrich.

by Natasha Chart 2008-11-07 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin critics

I heard many comments from women (not necessarily on MYDD, but in person) who would swoon at John Edwards looks. These people are not saints. We can ogle them just like anyone would ogle a celeb. I personally do not think she is that hot. But I would not mind seeing that towel shot myself.

by Pravin 2008-11-07 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Palin critics

Have you see Naylin Pailin yet? heh

by Pravin 2008-11-07 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Affirmative Action

But still, it's tacky fun to read that the GOP is sending lawyers to pick up Palin's $200,000 wardrobe malfunction.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/6/ 184118/638/816/656160

Yeah, they're the yahoos who hired the bitch because she took a pretty picture, but c'mon, Palin also turned out to be a wicked witch ugly boss who forced her underlings to put some of the glad rag crap on their own credit cards.

Which the assholes in charge wouldn't have given a crap about if she'd won them the election.

But still, it's tacky fun to watch 'em destroy their own Frankenstein monster. Which may spare us from them trying to revive her in 2012.

by judybrowni 2008-11-06 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Affirmative Action

The correct term is Wassillabilly.

by judybrowni 2008-11-06 10:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Affirmative Action

BREAKING: Every morning Palin would read her press clippings, AND THROW A TEMPER TANTRUM.

But the Fox reporter held this info before the election was over, of course.

Pile on, boys, pile on! There has to be some excuse for your awesome failure: the witch Palin threw a curse on you all.

Let's see if she floats!

by judybrowni 2008-11-06 11:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Affirmative Action

Bitch: plays into the idea that aggression, passion or resistance from women is inherently inappropriate.

Witch: plays into the idea of women as sneaky and untrustworthy manipulators, and is insulting to people who are members of nature religions.

Ugly: ties women's failures to the ultimate 'failure' to be sufficiently attractive in the eyes of others, a prejudice made manifest in the way women get paid more when they're attractive and hassled more if they're overweight.

I understand the temptation to unleash on people we don't like, and I say that both as someone who felt that the Palin pick was deeply insulting and as someone who sees nothing especially bad about swear words in general. However, I think it's unwise in public political speech to perpetuate words tied uniquely to perceptions of women's actions as illegitimate whenever they deviate from being smiling, yielding, agreeable, polite and docile. It does not help us.

And regarding your comments in follow up about the 'proper' way to call someone a hillbilly, that's exactly the sort of regional essentialism that the Republicans have accused Democrats of for decades and which they themselves exploit in their talk of "real" Americans.

There are people who grew up and lived their whole lives in cities who are as bigoted and uncouth as anyone you could think of. There are people who grew up dirt poor in shacks and then went on to do great things.

I didn't grow up in a shack, but my mother's maiden name strongly indicates that I'm descended from English serfs, and I'm glad that I live in an era where origin isn't always a hammerlock on destiny.

by Natasha Chart 2008-11-07 12:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Affirmative Action

Great article, and thanks for this comment.  I cringed at the use of the word "bitch."  I find that I need to be pretty conscious of how I speak about women, particularly political women, to avoid sexist words.  I'm glad others are, as well.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-11-07 02:36AM | 0 recs
I agree with your point, but not with the way

you call in "affirmative action," republican style.  Unfortunately, your argument plays into the myth that affirmative action gives preferential treatment to unqualified minorities.

What the repubs did in picking Palin was not affirmative action, but raw, sexist, cynical identity politics.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-11-06 09:14PM | 0 recs
You make a good point.

You're correct to say that what I described up above isn't affirmative action, but the Republican caricature of it. I would hope it was clear to anyone who read through that I'm opposed to hiring anyone who isn't qualified for a job, but do support policies that lead people to expand the number of people whose qualifications they'll consider.

And I think people do get the difference. Considering that the Democratic electorate was very tightly split during the primaries, and that self-identified Democrats voted overwhelmingly for Obama, the only possible conclusion is that a lot of people who liked Clinton because they thought she was qualified (many of whom were glad that finally there was a woman under consideration) rejected Palin because she was found wanting under the same criteria.

On the other hand, we've long operated under the idea that it was fine to run everything by giving preferential treatment to unqualified white males, eliminating all their potential competition before they even got to try. The image in the mind of someone in high office being, naturally, an older white male is what gives rise to the myth that someone who doesn't look like that has automatically suspect qualifications. And that myth did not originate in the minds, nor is it the fault, of all the people who are excluded from power and legitimacy by its existence.

And considering that Obama did better among whites than Kerry, I have great faith that this myth is dying out more in the minds of white people with every passing year.

But the fear of the unqualified minority is really a fear of competition, a projection of the nagging worry that you yourself are unqualified, a measure of insecurity. If white men in particular can still manage to get themselves elected to office after the general public has gotten used to the idea that women and people of other colors are perfectly capable of holding the same positions and had access to the same opportunities, then they will at last be able to rest easy that they got where they are on their own merit.

by Natasha Chart 2008-11-07 12:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Affirmative Action: Presidential Fa

'Barnstorming' the white vote was a pretty popular pastime more than once in this election cycle.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-06 09:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Affirmative Action: Presidential Fa

You never quit!

by Steve M 2008-11-07 02:11AM | 0 recs
HER incompetence should be the story

McCain and his campaign team are history.  Let them slink away in peace and defeat.  Look to the future.

Don't be protective of this ruthlessly ambitious, cartoonishly ill-informed, lying, ethically challenged, crazy git.  Let's keep her frozen up in The Great White North (coo-loo-coo-coo coo-loo-coo-coo), home of an electorate willing and eager to reelect a convicted felon (apologies to the good Democrats of Alaska, The Anchorage Daily News and the final vote count).  

If the Republicans want to cut each other to bits, you should grab a bag of peanuts and some ju jubes.

by mboehm 2008-11-06 11:17PM | 0 recs
Re: HER incompetence should be the story

I would certainly hope that my descriptions of her as incompetent, ignorant, racist and indifferent to suffering aren't read as an encomium to her.

Yes, she was horrible, and you can see through the archive of my writing the last couple months that I've not been kind to her. But McCain, the people who ran his campaign, and the people who covered for it, were ultimately responsible.

I venture to say that most of us wouldn't know how to act in Palin's circumstances. While we'd probably make very different mistakes, I wouldn't have been any good as a veep candidate, myself - and I wouldn't trust the judgment of anyone who'd try to tell me otherwise, because they'd clearly know less than I do re the demands of the position.

Palin is the culmination of a Republican idea that landed 20-somethings in Iraq's Green Zone and tasked with jobs like 'set up a new stock market', saddled the country with people like Monica Goodling who think their oaths of service are to the president instead of the country, and gave us Heckuva Job Brownie: the idea that ideological compliance is a reliable, independent predictor of technical competence.

It's a pernicious and stupid idea and the people who believe in it need to own its failures.

by Natasha Chart 2008-11-06 11:57PM | 0 recs
you're right, McCain/Schmidt

and a few East Coast Republican pinheads were ultimately responsible but my only real point is that you used Natasha Power to pump some bullets into a corpse - the McCain campaign.

   

by mboehm 2008-11-07 01:20AM | 0 recs
it's easy to be wise now

about the awfulness of McCain's VP pick, but I remember at the time that a lot of people were very worried that it might be effective, especially after he had a big 2-week bump in the polls.

As well as criticising McCain, I think great credit has to go to Obama for the disastrous way it turned out. First, the successful DNC and his great speech may have panicked McCain into making a "hail mary" pick once it became clear he wasn't going to be allowed his beloved Lieberman. Second, you may recall that the Obama campaign put out some kind of knee-jerk critical response the day Palin was picked and Obama actually went out of his way to criticise that criticism and said some mildly complimentary things about Palin. After that, the campaign went silent on her and concentrated their fire on McCain - I don't recall any directly critical comments from the campaign or the candidates, even when it became painfully clear how weak a candidate she was. It was brilliant: they simply "let Sarah be Sarah" and day by day, week by week her ratings gradually sank until it was clear she was weighing down the ticket and a major headache for team McCain. Admittedly, nobody probably anticipated just how bad she was going to turn out to be, but I think this strategy was chosen to make sure he avoided the impression of "picking on a woman" which might alienate those Clinton supporters so recently won over at the DNC. Again, this may look obvious with hindsight, but at the time many people were baying for the campaign to attack her more - and most politicians will feel tempted to attack directly when they perceive weakness.

Obama is so effective because he applies a constant pressure in the right places and does not let up. Eventually, McCain cracked under that pressure and started making serious mistakes.

by al1 2008-11-06 11:24PM | 0 recs
that's right

Obama ignored her and let her self destruct.  Judgment.  Again.

by mboehm 2008-11-06 11:34PM | 0 recs
Re: it's easy to be wise now
These comments are very spot on. I would only ad that the "biased liberal media" ran hours of coverage on her--her clothes, her background, her family,etc. Jeez, I am a Democrat but I have heard so much about her that I know the names all of her kids. I still can't tell you the names of ANY of McCains kids....go figure. How much time did the networks and the cable news give to Joe Biden's views-remember in 2006 when Biden and Senator Richard Lugar went to Iraq and came back with a plan to bring peace, stability, and bring an end the war...none of that ever came up but we got to know that Palin's underage teen daughter was:
  1. having unprotected sex
  2. was unmarried and pregnant
  3. the baby's father had to drop out of High School at 18.
Geez GOOD RIDDANCE to all of those smucks!!!
by hddun2008 2008-11-07 04:36AM | 0 recs
I agree with this post, but

I think the root of the problem for the GOP is the abortion issue. I am working on a piece about this to post in the next day or two.

There was some logic to picking a woman running mate, so people could "make history" by voting for McCain as well as for Obama.

Why were so many qualified and competent Republican women passed over for Palin? Only because McCain was considered insufficiently anti-choice by the base and couldn't afford to pick a running mate who was anything less than 100 percent anti-choice.

Abortion worked well for the GOP when they just pulled in the single-issue voters without giving them any real power to select the nominee. Now that the anti-choice interest groups have de facto veto power over anyone on the ticket, the GOP operates under big constraints that hurt them with educated voters and suburban moderates.

by desmoinesdem 2008-11-07 12:27AM | 0 recs
True

The problem is with their positions, which are unpopular and extremist. Just like their problem with Bush is that his policies made people's lives worse and they were tired of them, not that they disliked him personally.

To steal the phrase: It's the suffering, stupid.

But it's harder to find a woman who has absolutely no empathy whatsoever for the sufferings of other women than it is to find a man with the same lack. Though I would point out men aren't excluded from this antipathy and that Colin Powell himself is pro-choice, so would similarly be disqualified from a national ticket. He got in a lot of trouble during the early days of the administration for saying things about reproductive health that sounded sensible. I seem to remember there was a big flap.

So I'd say yes, you're right, but I'd modify that to say that anyone who doesn't agree with them on a variety of sexual politics concerns (LGBT rights, full sex ed, birth control and family planning, intimate violence, etc) gets disqualified. They are people who, and I mean the radical anti-abortion faction of the right, take an unseemly keen interest in other people sex lives and the enforcement of gender 'norms' that haven't been fully operative for multiple generations now.

Gender norms, I would point out, that they criticize in other societies as evidence of backwardness. I don't regard it as any kind of coincidence that many of the people most exercised by the idea of hijab are the same people most intent on selling control of women's bodies as pro-woman, or even feminist and liberating. It's the people yelling loudest in opposition to dhimmitude that would most like to impose its gender equivalent at home.

They know, deep down, that most people would rather make their own damn decisions.

That's why full LGBT equality threatens them so badly. They want a world where predetermined roles and duties entirely define family and sexual relations. If people are allowed to just up and walk away from that model without any adverse consequence, the logic of insisting on it for everyone falls apart, and so does the rationale for their attempt to equate religious dogma with the certainty of the law of gravity.

I mean, sure they talk about love and dignity, but whose idea of love or dignity is to say that gay people should reform themselves and marry straight people - one person who will never be sexually pleased in partnership with someone who'll always know deep down that they aren't sexually pleasing - that's their idea of a social triumph. It's deranged from the perspective of wanting people to be happy, but perfectly sensible if your main interest is in preserving ways of doing things and consider the import of the individual as minimal.

Women usually have the most to lose in a system where men have all the major choices about reproduction and families. They therefore are the most important people to keep in line and it starts with the most life- and autonomy-altering thing that happens to most women, childbirth.

I should also probably write a post about that. I've been biting my tongue in public for months and find that it's unfortunately become a habit.

by Natasha Chart 2008-11-07 01:15AM | 0 recs
Re: True

Today's Republican Party does not realize that the public's ideas change, sometimes drastically and suddenly.  The shift toward gay rights is one example.  Prop 8 notwithstanding, more people now than ever before support, at the very least, a "live and let live" policy regarding homosexuality.  Not good enough yet, but light year's better than things were even a decade ago.  The Republicans don't understand this and think that trotting out the same stances as 1980 is going to win when people (particularly young people) have changed.  That's why Republicans have a HUGE youth problem.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-11-07 02:42AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with this post, but

I feel like there's a larger issue, the fact of the GOP having gone too far in the direction of doing the bidding of the evangelical movement.  But I guess you're right in that at the end of the day, abortion seems to be their only real non-negotiable demand.

Obama accurately tapped into the zeitgeist by campaigning on the notion that Americans are tired of the culture war and tired of arguing over the same old issues.  Now in reality, we're still probably just as extreme in the sense that Obama couldn't have gotten away with picking an anti-choice VP, he won't be picking any anti-choice Supreme Court Justices, but he still managed to talk a good game.  

There is an alternate universe in which McCain told the base "look, you know you can trust me on life, but we need to win this election first," chose Joe Lieberman (ugh) as VP, and ran with some actual moderate policies instead of just saying "maverick" a lot.  We know he really did want to pick Lieberman.  Now, if he had done that, would the evangelical leadership have just walked out the door and said "okay, we'll lose this election, but they won't dare to say no to us the next time"?  Maybe, maybe not, but the fact is that McCain wasn't willing to play that game of chicken with them.  And if he wasn't, it's hard to imagine who else in the Republican Party will.

by Steve M 2008-11-07 02:41AM | 0 recs
Throw an anchor to a drowing GOPer

...and a busted compass for their wilderness experience.  Maybe we can send Lieberman in after them.

Now, if a tree falls in the forest, will it please land on Boehner's head.

Speaking for myself, I'm gonna happily kick these bastards when they're down - I'm following RudePundit's lead.

by mydailydrunk 2008-11-07 12:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Throw an anchor to a drowing GOPer

Great, they'll have the same partisan ammo we had in '06.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-11-07 05:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Affirmative Action:

I've no idea what the point of this diary is in the post election world!

by orionwest 2008-11-07 12:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Affirmative Action:

It's about how the story of what happened gets told. It makes, I think, at least some difference.

by Natasha Chart 2008-11-07 12:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Affirmative Action:

The winner of an election always has their own spin on why the other side lost.  The Democrats got lucky the economy went down when it did and took the Republicans with it.  Americans vote out of fear: when they fear terrorism they vote Republican, when they fear the economy they vote Democratic and when they have nothing to fear idiots like Bush get elected.  

by orionwest 2008-11-07 12:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Affirmative Action: Presidential Fa

Orionwest - I think that you need to see the post not from the angle of just the election, but the perpetuation of sexism in  politics. Everyone on the right initially said that Palin was good for the women's movement - which many of us knew was a complete fallacy because she was being used as a prop. Well, in the end she is again being used as a prop and being thrown under the bus to some how divert culpability away from the people who really fucked McCain - the past 8 years of the Bush administration and the McCain campaign itself.

McCain didn't lose this election in the past 2 months when he picked Sarah Palin for completely ridiculous reasons, slash few reasons at all. He lost it a long time ago. I think Natasha is simply trying to re-frame the debate and make sure that Democrats don't join the ranks of the Republicans in blaming Palin for the GOP loss or denigrating her in ways that are uncalled for.

Don't fight sexism with sexism is what I think this conversation comes down to.

by Superspy84 2008-11-07 02:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Affirmative Action

I've been coming around the last couple days to the point of having some sympathy for Sarah Palin.  I mean, is she really any more ridiculous than most of these other clowns?

Sure, she's often incoherent and seems to have no clue about a wide range of policy issues.  But have you looked at the rest of the Republican Party lately?  Tell me, is it worse to have no clue what the Bush Doctrine is, or to believe that government revenues go up when you cut taxes?  But somehow the latter is a "mainstream" sort of cluelessness, so only we on the left go around mocking it.

What's worse, Palin winking at the camera during a debate, or George Bush going "heh heh heh, need some wood?"  Realistically, Palin is just Bush all over again, with the exception that she actually had to accomplish stuff in her career for herself.  Bush said a great many things as a candidate that made no more sense than the stuff Palin said this year, but somehow the mainstream didn't end up treating him as a joke the way they treat Palin.

What accounts for the difference?  Maybe gender, but I'll throw out a couple other ideas.  First is the fact that after all these years, the mainstream has finally come around to understanding that we were right all along to be mocking Bush.  Palin is the same kind of joke as Bush, but it took eight years for everyone to finally be in on the joke.  (In other words, if Bush hadn't been a disaster already, maybe people are like "sure, why not put this clueless, folksy person in charge of the country," just like they were with Bush.)

The other issue is class, particularly among the cocktail-party crowd in the media that always loved to call Bill Clinton "bubba."  George Bush comes from this wealthy political dynasty and thus gets some measure of instant credibility even though he deserves none.  Whereas Palin, haw haw, she's just "trailer trash" so everyone can go to town on her.  I'm not really defending her but if anything, this is where the double standard lies.  And it's the big reason why she was the perfect vehicle for the GOP to play the "politics of resentment" game yet again with their base.

by Steve M 2008-11-07 03:08AM | 0 recs
You nailed it

the elitists of the right are open about their elitism (think Broder and company....and his comments about Bill Clinton having NO RIGHT to be there.....while never, ever questioning W).

Palin's gender played a part but was not all of it.  Quayle was a male dufus who was basically chided by the press but not openly mocked as badly as Palin is.   W was ridiculously dull and nonsensical at times and was protected by the press for years.
To this day, the press will openly mock Bill Clinton, but is still afraid to mock W.  We will see after W leaves DC if they change. I doubt it.  Palin, like Clinton, is an easy target because there is a portion of our society who really do worship the "blue blood" mentality and hold in contempt people who do not learn to be elitist in their attitude.  Never mind that Clinton is brilliant and Palin is .....not brilliant.  Both are trashed for being "bubbas".....a false generalization for sure.

I resent Palin because McCain's people mocked the importance of gender equality.

by Jjc2008 2008-11-07 05:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Affirmative Action:

This mess comes straight down on John McCain's shoulders. No matter how the apologists try to spin this he had the choice yes or no, and he chose yes.  He made a disastrous choice, and the American people made a great choice.

Let me leave you with this little pearl of wisdom:

Victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan.

by rduckham 2008-11-07 04:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Sarah Palin 2012

 Serious consideration should be given to taking a page out of Rush Limbaugh's playbook and supporting, in any way we can, the idea that Sarah Palin's future and that of the GOP are conjoined. You betcha I hope this pitbull/soccer-mom rises rapidly to lead the Republicans down the drain, also.

by QTG 2008-11-07 04:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Affirmative Action:

Good analysis.

Once again the Republican party selected people based on ideology regardless of their qualifications to actually do the job.  McCain himself showed a disturbing lack of knowledge on so many subjects for someone who has been in Washington so long.  Even my son who pays little attention to politics noticed McCain kept saying "I know how to do that...." or "I know how to fix that...." and never gave even a high-level hint at what his plans were.

I remember noticing during the Republican primary debates that most of the questions were on ideological stances and very few were about detailed plans.  "How do you feel about....?" questions.  It was a sharp contrast to the Democratic debates.  "What will you do about....?" questions.

by GFORD 2008-11-07 04:53AM | 0 recs
GOP quote attribution practices

(And if someone affiliated with Obama had ever referred to the Palin clan as "Wasilla hillbillies" ...)

Then the GOP will just simply attribute it to Obama or someone near him. Hell, if they could take the wit and wisdom of Dan Quayle short of the potatoe and jam it in the mouth of Al Gore...

by Dr Squid 2008-11-07 05:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Affirmative Action


I think the Palin flareup and implosion was a good thing to come out of this campaign.

The Palin nomination put antifeminist pseudofeminism into the limelight and to the public test.  Trial by fire, so to speak.  The result was indeed epic fail.

Palin couldnt maintain it under scrutiny and we saw the schizophrenic result.  On the one hand, she went somewhat feminist i.e. out on her own fairly honestly laid out merits to the small extent she dared to once Katey Couric blew up the center of her faux superior antielitist pose.  On the other hand, she mostly fell into classical prefeminist behavior patterns of revenge by credit card shopping, backstabbing gossip, and using her looks and her children as pawns in power plays.

Republicans played this card; it lost.  It is a losing play from here on out.

by killjoy 2008-11-07 06:08AM | 0 recs
another theory

Here's a slightly different theory on their failure to win:

comic strip

by MtnFrost 2008-11-07 07:44AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads