McCain Camp: We’ll Tell You What You Need To Know About Palin
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, McCain, Media, Palin, RepublicansIf Palin can’t stand on her own two feet and face the exact same public vetting that Obama and McCain and Biden have gone through, how can any of you honestly tell me that she’s ready for this job?
Jay Carney from TIME weighs in:
According to Nicole Wallace of the McCain campaign, the American people don’t care whether Sarah Palin can answer specific questions about foreign and domestic policy. According to Wallace the American people will learn all they need to know (and all they deserve to know) from Palin’s scripted speeches and choreographed appearances on the campaign trail and in campaign ads.
That’s right folks. A McCain spokesperson actually said that the spin coming from their campaign is all we need to know about Palin.
Folks, not allowing access to Palin is a HUGE strategic mistake. McCain’s people apparently think they can run out the clock, but they’re just dead wrong. Because now the press will talk openly about how McCain isn’t allowing access to her and it will seem like they’re trying to hide something. And that will make people less comfortable with her. And people don’t elect folks they’re uncomfortable with.
And to that point, here’s Carney again…
Wallace’s bash-the-media exercise has its merits as a campaign tactic. It certainly rallies the base. But the base won’t lift McCain to 50% in November.
Indeed.
This entry was posted on Friday, September 5th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, McCain, Media, Palin, Republicans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Is this the same Time that has called McCain “bizarre” and a “prick” oh I’m sorry “prickish”…uh I mean “prickly”.
Yeah I think I’ll be wary of their ability to accurately summarize much.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:14 am
The comments were made on the Morning Joe Show. Sort of hard to deny that she said it since the video of it is out there now.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Yes, and of course she didn’t mean “People will get to know who Sarah Palin is through the course of the campaign.”
That would just be crazy talk, right?
Besides lets just let the media define Sarah Palin…you know normal folks like those at Slate (summarized by First Things):
“Some friends have written in to ask whether or not it’s hyperbolic to suggest that the left “hates” Sarah Palin, as I suggested yesterday.
“As an additional data point, I offer this essay from Salon. (http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/09/05/sarah_palin_down_syndrome/) The author begins by repeating the smear that Trig Palin is not the governor’s son, and saying that the rumor makes sense, before declaring glibly that he doesn’t believe it. But that’s not the worst part. The author, a medical doctor, claims that Palin’s decision not to kill Trig in utero is “a sign of her hypocrisy.”
“If this isn’t a symptom of deranged hatred, I don’t know what is.”
September 5th, 2008 at 11:51 am
I’m the Left. I don’t hate her. I think she’d be fine in the role she currently has. I think she’s most likely a great mother, hockey mom, wife, american, hunter, right wing advocate, you name it. She’s just not a great choice for VP when the candidate will be the oldest candidate to win on a first term. That’s not hatred, it’s concern.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:55 am
the complete statement that Rich Horton quoted - now who’s deranged?
We could ask, given that Palin had no doubts about seeing her pregnancy through, why she bothered to take a genetic test. Why not, as you might expect a woman in her position and with her outspoken beliefs to do, decline any testing or counseling? Of course, it seems very reasonable to want to know about the health of your baby and to have time to prepare (emotionally and otherwise) for a baby that may have a genetic disorder. But that doesn’t negate the fact that by having a blood test, Palin was given a choice about what to do.
And what she has chosen to do is fantastic. The love that she and her family have for Trig was clear in her speech at the Republican National Convention. It was inspirational to see a mother in a position of political power stand up for a child with special needs. But Palin was given a choice whether to have that child, something, if she had her way as a lawmaker, she wouldn’t give others. According to legal experts, should Roe v. Wade be overturned, some states could outlaw abortion for Down syndrome or other birth defects, and women wouldn’t have Palin’s choice.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Point one: if this is actually the McCain strategy, then it’s a really bad choice.
Point two: big if. What we’ve got is Time’s biased interpretation of Wallace’s words. I can’t see a modern campaign being so blatantly tone-deaf as this. And if Palin is actually the kind of person that her public persona projects, I can’t see her sitting in the background being “handled” for the next two months. If she does, the ticket is sunk.
Observation one: it’s interesting that the left is so fired up about the McCain-Palin ticket now. To paraphrase the bard, methinks the socialists doth protest too much. Even Stewart and Colbert dropped their usual humorous antics in favor of more direct, not-even-attempting-at-funny attacks on her especially. Totally their right, but it feels like the left is suddenly agitated about the race. Usually means good things for the Republicrats.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Your the exception then John. The hard-core lefties, hate her, because she is a threat. Plain and simple. Justin, would have MUCH preferred a Romney or Huckabee or Pawlety ticket - because it really wouldn’t have jeopardized the hold that the left has on identity politics. Which, I am no fan of identity-politics *when* it must sacrifice intelligence, principle and competence. The Palin pick was perfect because it is identity politics, but also bolstered the intelligence, competence and conservative principles of the ticket. For the Dems, id-politics was used at the expense of legitimate virtue, for the Reps, id-politics has merely supplemented political qualities regardless of her gender.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Palin is captivating, charming, and frankly, I wish she were my mother. But an election is about issues that impact us daily–and on at least one issue, I am concerned. McCain used the word “fight” in reference to trial lawyers, echoing Romney’s call for reducing damage awards at trail. I wonder if they even think about the billions of dollars in profits Merck made on Vioxx or auto and tire companies on defective tires. As with all “fights,” there are two sides. Over-curtailing tort awards allows corporations to make millions in profits on dangerous products with impunity. I am curious to hear Obama’s message on this.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
The McCain camp should put her out there as much as they can. She makes a positive impression on independent voters more so than Barack Obama or Joe Biden. She would do fine on morning talk shows, I wouldn’t be suprised if she improves the image of McCain/Palin by doing so, they certainly have the momentum after this convention. She’s got a lot of issues on her side too, like offshore drilling, and the whole family values canard.
She will have to account for earmark spending in Wasilla, but her answers can’t possibly be as craven as Obama’s answers on subjects like the surge in Iraq, abortion, capital gains taxes, or the Georgian war ect…
September 5th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Rich Horton and J Harden proving to be the hypocritical hacks that all Republicans seem to be.
Taking a VP candidate and trying to hide her from the press, while delivering prepackaged speeches and sound bites to shape her public persona is the very definition of creating celebrity. Seriously, to you guys, one speech makes a future president, but only if she’s in your party. When the press stands in the way of her coronation, we get all this faux outrage about the liberal media. Conveniently forgetting that for the past 18 months we’ve had every Obama smear openly discussed on every major network and 24 hour news stations.
Republicans really have nothing to run on. I dare either one of you hacks to tell me what John McCain is going to do to help this country out of the mess Bush put us in. I mean, for crying out loud, your VP candidate, with no discernable experience and no policy-making credentials, after only 5 days, is the savior of your party, but McCain’s handlers are so scared of her that they have to lock her away for a week so she doesn’t say anything stupid.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
J. - John is not the exception. I venture that John’s position represents the very center of this party. Dems have respect for this VP pick and have demonstrated it - she was the best choice given what McCain had to choose from, clearly. But that said, her extreme right wing “God wants us to win this war” stance, combined with her obviously very sheltered and limited experience level are cause for concerns. That’s all it is; and the concern is valid. Please take your own nominee’s advise and pull back the retoric. You are the reason we don’t want McCain to win, btw. More so than fearing McCain or Palin. We fear your types having the cultural leverage that you’ve abused for the past 8 years. I’d take McCain if the extreme right-wing bullies didn’t come with him.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Mike, you might want to adjust the timespan in your “abused for the past 8 years” line. For the past two years, Democrats in the House and Senate have taken a mandate for change from the voting public and squandered it on petty political theater. While it’s convenient to lump the two Bush terms together as if they’ve been some right-wing fairy tale, the plain truth is that the voters asked the Democrats to do something two years ago, and nothing has been done except a bunch of non-binding resolutions about Bush’s personal Iraq vendetta. There’s been no Republican “cultural leverage” for the last two sessions of Congress; if the current Democratic performance on the legislative side (a performance which both Dem Pres nom and VP nom were/are a part of) is any indication, how can we have anything except low expectations for Democrat spillover into the White House?
September 5th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I tell you what, I’ll jump on board and indignantly DEMAND that McCain throw Palin to the wolves (actually yipping, annoying, pee-on-the-rug puppies)…the minute that the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) give over the internal files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. These documents should adequately flush out the extent of the relationship between Obama, and his buddy and ideological mentor, the terrorist, William Ayers. Until then, whatever.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Okay, guess they already have. Throw her to the puppies - I’m sure Matt Lauer is going to eat her lunch.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Palin has been on the ticket for a week. I think I’ll give the campaign a little longer before I accuse them of “hiding” her.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
The CAN’T put her out there and in front of the media. As soon as she opens her mouth and espouses the right wing beliefs she holds most dear it is over.
She is on the wrong side of every issue that women hold important. She would ruin the one chance McCain has of peeling women away from Obama. As long as she doesn’t state those beliefs the misguided and gullible can ignore that she holds them.
They are trying to have their cake and pie. Get women, rally the conservative-base, and try to win. Double-edged sword, they want both groups and know if she opens her mouth they lose one.
And besides, talking about her lack of availability means that so many other issues get ignored. They win that one.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
@ExiledIndependent-
The only thing that gives the Democrats leadeship of the Senate is the two ‘independents’ who caucus with them, and one of those guys spoke at the Republican convention! The notion the Dems controlled anything over the last two years is absolute foolishness. They got to sit in the big chairs, but everybody knows they didn’t have the votes to overcome any of the policy disasters that GWB inflicted on us. It a farce. Now the Repubs are screaming “change”. Yeah - they’re going to change what? The political culture that they themselves have dominated? Great idea. Like I said, I love McCain, but the reason people like me have lost respect for him, is that we had to watch him pander the right-wing nut jobs who got us into this mess. Bring back the Bull-Moose party, and I might vote for him.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I tell you what, I’ll jump on board and indignantly DEMAND that McCain throw Palin to the wolves (actually yipping, annoying, pee-on-the-rug puppies)…the minute that the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) give over the internal files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. These documents should adequately flush out the extent of the relationship between Obama, and his buddy and ideological mentor, the terrorist, William Ayers. Until then, whatever.
–J Harden
Six minutes later
Okay, guess they already have. Throw her to the puppies - I’m sure Matt Lauer is going to eat her lunch.
–J Harden
I’m sorry, you said you would demand that McCain throw Palin to the wolves. That hardly reads like a demand.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I HEREBY DEMAND, BY THE POWERS VESTED IN ME, BY THE ONE TRUE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER THAT MCCAIN THROW THEIR SACRIFICIAL VIRGIN — er, no, scratch that — THROW THEIR SACRIFICIAL ALASKAN LIL’ MISSY UPON THE HIGH ALTAR OF THE MSM TO BE RAVAGED AND DEFILED BY THE LIKES OF JUSTIN GARDNER AND LIKEMIND DEMOCRATIC BEASTS. I DEMAND, I COMMAND!
I did my best gerryf - if you want me to - I’ll send an e-mail, too.
September 5th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Okay, gerryF, I wrote the e-mail. The only e-mail address that I could find was info@johnmccain.com. If you have another e-mail address please let me know and I will send it.
Dear Senator (Soon to Be President) McCain:
I waste an incredible amount of time on a liberal blog called Donklephant. I do this because I’m a sick, twisted individual that likes to make fun of the mentally handicapped.
Anyway, these people are going on and on and on and on about Sarah Palin and how she hasn’t yet granted an interview to some imbecilic, talking-head moron with the MSM. Will you please allow Mrs. Palin to be interviewed by Justin Gardner, the editor of Donklephant? Justin is quite industrious and a technically smart guy, but he has been permanantly damaged politically. I am certain that Mrs. Palin can hold her own in this interview.
I have already contributed to your campaign. I think this would be a very good way to “introduce” Mrs. Palin to a worthless demographic that will ultimately get too stoned on election day morning and forget to vote anyway.
Sincerely,
J. Harden
September 5th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Now that’s entertainment! Thanks for the multiple laughs.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
J Harden, i have to give you credit for that last post. Kudos.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Does anyone have an actual link to an actual quote from Nicole Wallace, or someone from the campaign regarding this? The summary from Time doesn’t feel like a “summary” to me. It feels pretty biased. I’m sure Nicole didn’t throw in the “or deserve to” bit especially. It’s hard to tell where the hard reporting stops and were the reporter’s sarcasm starts.
So I went looking for some first-hand evidence that this decision has been made by the campaign. The closest I can find is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1pK7Dda2kY
Although the guy does come across as combative, he never says (and repeats over and over that he is not saying) that Palin will not be interviewed. He appears to be just making the point that the media won’t tell them what to do. They will do what’s best for the campaign, in their opinion. Clearly, it’s best to have her do interviews (for the reasons Justin said), and I expect that’s what will happen. The guy seems to just want to make it clear who’s boss, for whatever reason.
(On the other hand, the guy makes the comparison to Biden not appearing on shows his first week either. However, clearly there is a difference, considering Biden is much more known, and regularly is interviewed by the national press. So that doesn’t really fly, but still, I don’t see any evidence that the campaign has made a decision not to allow Palin to be interviewed. I see evidence that the don’t like the press trying to tell them what they have to do.)
If anyone has any other direct evidence, please tell.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Sorry, I didn’t realize the time article did have the you-tube video. I watched the wrong video.
Yes, she clearly was dismissing the importance of the media. But I don’t think they will keep her from doing interviews. As others have said, that would be a stupid campaign policy. This woman was just trying to make a point about the media (and yes, she went too far), but it doesn’t seem to me she was announcing a campaign decision.