Steve Skojec

I like this Southern Avenger guy. He’s getting a spot on the blogroll:

When my friends on the hard Right complain about what they often call the “stupidity” of the average conservative, who finds some bizarre value in supporting John McCain this election, I always defend the rank-and-file Republican. I believe in their hearts, most of the folks voting for McCain simply want to do what’s right for their country, yet are constantly misled by political leaders and pundits, whether dimwitted or diabolical. One can only make decisions based on the information they’re given, and when all the information disseminated is wrong, it inevitably leads to wrong decisions. But while I maintain my faith in the basic righteousness of loyal Republican voters, the accusation that some are being dumb has increasingly become harder to defend.

The primary focus of Republican cheerleaders on television, talk radio and on the street are always the pitfalls of Barack Obama as opposed to the positives of their candidate, with the latest and gravest sticking point being that the Leftist Obama is for wealth redistribution and socialism, which of course he is. So is McCain.

[snip]

But plenty of conservative pundits and columnists expose the Leftist Republican Party all the time, which is exactly why they are never invited on FOX News or the Sean Hannity program. Writes conservative Paul Gottfried “The non-reflectiveness of self-described conservative Republicans never ceases to amaze me; and it goes well beyond the mental laziness and reliance on slogans that my leftist colleagues often ascribe to (what they like to call) ‘the dumb Right.’ But clearly McCain and his advisors understand this situation and play games with their ‘conservative’ voters in a way that Democrats would never dare to do with theirs. The rubes are still lining up to cheer ‘Sarah Barracuda’ and whoever is the current anti-Democratic presidential candidate.”

Gottfried is right. In an election year when many are wondering if Hillary Clinton supporters will support McCain simply to protest Obama, conservative Republicans are marching in lockstep to support a candidate virtually none of them were happy with before he won the nomination. What exactly did our current Republican president do, when he had Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate, to advance any conservative policies, whatsoever? What rational person believes McCain will do any better?

[snip]

I have defended the average Republican voter as simply not having the proper insight to know any better. Accusations of stupidity or being “the dumb Right,” were too harsh in my judgment, and in many ways I still believe they are.

But as such harshness continues to be shown towards those who refuse to support the socialist Obama or the socialist McCain by voting third party, whether it’s directed at Todd, myself or anyone else capable of the slightest independence in thought – it must be pointed out that any conservative voting for McCain is doing much worse than throwing his vote away – they’re contributing to the increasing socialist direction of this country by allowing those responsible to get away with political murder. A vote for Obama is a vote for the socialism – so is a vote for McCain. And in supporting either, you’re not doing the right thing for your country – you’re being duped by the very people most intent on destroying it.

A bit overdone, but nonetheless, the point about political dualism is well-made:

Carriere’s at his best when he’s being funny, but he still has a way with words when he’s being serious:

The shine is off. The Pollyanna set of the pro-life movement will be disappointed again by Canada’s Prime Minster Harper, like Americans may be who hoped in Palin.

But we have made an oracle of a whoremonger, and we are fools to persist. Rather, let this be for us inoculation against what liberalism may yet infect our minds.

Do not look to the State. It is only a procurer; a pimp. A pimp purloins one to pander to another; it is not there for leadership. Don’t look to it for answers.

Instead, let us remember, what we do not solve ourselves will not be solved. What culture we do not make will not be made. If we find public opinion to be misguided, we must be for it a guide. The State is not there for leadership.

It will not cure your ills. It will not keep you safe. It will neither educate your children nor care for your elders. It will not feed you. It will not clothe you. It will not be your guide.

Freedom beckons. Put on your big-boy pants, Good Citizen, and look to yourself.

Do you agree? Was it gotcha journalism? Are you convinced that she’s “ready, willing and able”? Do you think that just saying that their administration wouldn’t “lay the cards on the table” when dealing with terrorists negates the fact that Palin already, well, laid the cards on the table?

I’m not impressed with their PR strategy. Just pretending like there isn’t a problem (or that the problem is someone else’s) doesn’t make the problem go away. The McCain camp needs to stop blaming the media, and start holding itself accountable.

Media bias is one thing. Capturing foot-in-mouth disease on tape is another.

Newt Gingrich was on Glenn Beck’s program on the 25th, and he was talking about the bailout bill. He said something specific to that conversation which, taken out of context, very nicely sums up our overall dilemma in this country right now:

What I am saying is that under our constitutional system you occasionally get to moments when you get to choose between two really bad futures and you wish you had had better leaders and you wish they had gotten you to a choice of a good future, and the fact is this morning we’re in a place where we don’t have a choice of a good future.

That describes it all - the bailout, the election, the war in Iraq, the immigration issue, the economy, the deficit, you name it. We are in serious trouble, and we aren’t going to be electing our way out of it any time soon.

What will it take to fix it? I’ll borrow a page from Obama’s playbook and tell you that the answer is above my pay grade.

Ross Douthat seems to think so. His theory is an interesting one:

The most likely scenario, as of 3 PM this afternoon: The stock market continues to drop. Some version of the bailout passes in the next week. The American economy staggers into a recession, but passes through the storm without 1930s-style suffering; the Republican Party is not so fortunate. Even though most Americans claim to oppose the bailout [update: not anymore], the House GOP’s obstructionism is widely viewed as having worsened the economic situation; the fact that these are contradictory positions does not faze an electorate that wraps all of the country’s current troubles up, ties them with a bow, and lays them at the feet of the Bush-led GOP. John McCain loses by a landslide in November. The Democratic Party regains years or even decades worth of ground among the white working class, consolidates the Hispanic vote, and locks up a large chunk of highly-educated voters who might otherwise lean conservative. The much-discussed liberal realignment happens. And a politician running on a Ron Paul-style economic platform does very, very well in the GOP primaries of 2012.

The underlying theme here is more imminently frightening - despite the fact that the GOP was joined by 95 House Democrats in voting down the bailout plan, GOP “obstructionism” will bear the blame for the market’s nosedive yesterday, and whatever subsequent problems arise from the failure to implement an immediate fix.

This means that the election probably just got pushed back into the Obama column, making VP debate this Thursday potentially all the more damaging to the Republicans if Palin shows up as unprepared as she has to her media interviews. We already know that she’s incredibly weak on the financial crisis, so bet your bottom dollar that the moderator and Biden will go after her for clarity and specificity on that point, particularly if another, more agreeable measure doesn’t get passed in the next 24-48 hours.

Nobody seems to agree on what should be done. It’s a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don’t scenario, and it puts economic nincompoops like me into a tailspin when I try to settle on what my position should be. In the mean time, I’ve designed what I suspect may be our country’s new flag:

Whatever you think about the bailout, whether you believe it’s necessary or it isn’t, the American Bolsheviks must be immensely pleased. As we create our new socialist enterprise, who better to lead it, really, than Komrade Obama? I’m sure the voters will agree.

And yet I hope - dear heaven do I hope - that Douthat is right. We could certainly use a Ron Paul-style third party who actually succeeds in the GOP primaries next time. This time, it seems that the McCain window of opportunity is closing, and fast.

Jeff Culbreath has reached a (disappointed) conclusion about Sarah Palin, and he hits the nail squarely on the head:

There just isn’t any doubt at this point: Governor Palin is in way over her head. And Senator McCain had to have known this would be the case. His luring a good but unqualified woman - a woman, moreover, with serious responsibilities at home - into a bruising and cynical national campaign is inexcusable. Even more disturbing is the way she has been coached to bluff her way through interviews, pretending to have answers to questions she doesn’t begin to understand. It is impossible to watch this CBS interview without feeling acute embarrassment for her…

[snip]

Seriously, her dishonesty in this interview is systematic - not incidental to a particular question - and is evidence of personal corruption right out of the gate. She is not only corruptible, but she’s already internalizing the corruption of her handlers.

Now then, it seems that most politicians do this routinely. McCain, Obama, and Biden are experts at pretending to have answers they don’t have. Obama is so smooth he can make a journalist forget what the question was. So why pick on Palin?

I’ll tell you why. Sarah Palin is still an essentially honest person who isn’t good at telling lies. She averts her eyes. You can see the conflict in her face, you can hear the doubt in her voice, and it all betrays her words. You know her conscience bothers her and she’s going to feel terrible about this interview when it’s over.  Dishonesty doesn’t come easy to her … yet.  Perhaps a few more interviews like this one and she’ll get better at it.

But no! I don’t want this for Sarah Palin. I want Sarah Palin to go home, protect and re-build her integrity, and take care of her family and her state.

Dishonesty. It’s a tough word, but it fits. (It also can be applied to her “thanks but no thanks” comment about the “bridge to nowhere” in the stump speech.) Jeff is right - she doesn’t seem comfortable with deception, but she’s on the spot, and she desperately wants to give an answer that will take the heat off the fact that she just. doesn’t. know. the. answers.

Which us to another point - one I’ve been discussing with a friend today - why can’t politicians just be allowed to tell the truth? Jeff touches on this, posting a mock interview with a news network in which the candidate admits that they are still studying the issues.

In Palin’s case, that’s the kind of PR strategy McCain’s camp should have had from the beginning. Everyone knows she lacks experience - it’s manifest from the short amount of time she’s spent in politics. But what she appeals to - and still does, even after these horrible performances in the media - is the normal people. The people who root for her because at last, there’s someone they feel is really like them. Someone who doesn’t talk middle-class values from inside of a suit that costs as much as their car.

Would it be so bad if she were to say, on the issue of foreign policy (or economics, etc.), “You know, I’ve been deeply committed to running the State of Alaska for the last two years, and while I’m aware of many of these national issues, I don’t know all the details. That’s why I’m spending as much time as I can before the election getting up to speed on the most important challenges facing our nation. No Vice President, or President for that matter, can know everything about every issue. It’s why every administration draws upon the best experts and policy advisors they can to get the job done. A shift in focus from the state to the national level means a steep learning curve for me, but I’m up for the challenge.”

Could you imagine? Sure, the left would attack her, and say, “See - even she admits she doesn’t know anything!” But it would demonstrate honesty and integrity on her part and shore up her support on the right. It would keep the Average American’s B.S. detectors from going off whenever she opens her mouth and starts firing off mixed talking point messages, and she’d be in no worse situation than she is now, when she’s proving not only that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about, but she’s willing to try to hide that through a smokescreen of nonsense words.

I don’t know if it’s too late for a shift in direction, but if McCain wants to keep Palin from making the rapid transition from rising star to political millstone, he’d better consider it. He’s got nothing to lose.

Brian Saint Paul posts about the growing conservative concern over Sarah Palin at Inside Catholic:

While Governor Sarah Palin’s popularity continues among social conservatives and the Religious Right, a growing number of Republicans — including former supporters — are concerned.

Very concerned.

Palin’s interview with Charles Gibson was embarassing, though his obvious hostility provided a saving distraction. That wasn’t the case with subsequent interviewers: Sean Hannity was generally supportive and Katie Couric was neutral.

It didn’t help. Those exchanges were even more cringeworthy than the spot with Gibson. The problem wasn’t simply nerves — though she was understandably nervous. Rather, to put it bluntly, on a range of issues, she just didn’t seem to know what she was talking about. It was as if she’d memorized a dozen campaign soundbites that came tumbling out — regardless of relevance or coherence — with the first question.

[snip]

As Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria described it, “This is nonsense — a vapid emptying out of every catchphrase about economics that came into her head.”

And this opinion isn’t exclusive to the Left. National Review editor Rich Lowry found her performance “dreadful.”

[snip]

With Thursday’s vice presidential debate fast approaching, word is coming out from the McCain campaign that preparations aren’t going well. Populist/progressive radio show host Ed Schultz has been hearing murmers himself (and in case you’re inclined to dismiss him as a liberal propogandist, Schultz isn’t the only one getting negative reports):

Capitol Hill sources are telling me that senior McCain people are more than concerned about Palin.

The campaign has held a mock debate and a mock press conference; both are being described as “disastrous.” One senior McCain aide was quoted as saying, “What are we going to do?” The McCain people want to move this first debate to some later, undetermined date, possibly never. People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is “clueless.”

Ultimately, Thursday’s debate will reveal much. If Palin performs well, all the negative pre-event publicity will have so lowered expectations that she’ll be the clear winner. But if she turns out to be the empty power dress that some now suspect… we might end up seeing the landslide Obama’s people are cautiously predicting.

UPDATE (12:10pm): Things are not getting better for the McCain campaign.

The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz reports “the worst may be yet to come for Palin; sources say CBS has two more responses on tape that will likely prove embarrassing.”

Politico’s Ben Smith has more:

A source familiar with CBS News’ plans clarified that this is part of the “Vice Presidential Questions” series with Biden and Palin. The recorded segments are scheduled to air Wednesday and Thursday before the vice presidential debate.

In addition to those sources being cited by Saint-Paul, Rod Dreher weighed in last Thursday with his own disappointment:

Watch the Couric interview here. Couric’s questions are straightforward and responsible. Palin is mediocre, again, regurgitating talking points mechanically, not thinking. Palin’s just babbling. She makes George W. Bush sound like Cicero.

[snip]

I remember the morning I woke up in my college dorm room and went in to take my final exam in my Formal Logic class. I knew I was unready. Massively unready. And now I was going to be put to the ultimate test. I sat down in Dr. Sarkar’s class and resolved to wing it. Of course I failed the exam and failed the class, because I had no idea what I was talking about. I wasn’t a bad kid, or even a stupid kid. I was just badly unprepared, and in way over my head. Seeing the Palin interview on CBS, I thought of myself in Dr. Sarkar’s exam. But see, I was a college undergraduate who had the chance to take the class again, which I did, and passed (barely). I wasn’t running for vice president of the United States.

UPDATE: New Palin excerpt up, in which she discusses why having Russia next to Alaska gives her relevant foreign policy experience. I am well and truly embarrassed for her. I think she’s a good woman who might well be a great governor of Alaska. But good grief, just watch this train wreck…

“She makes George W. Bush sound like Cicero” is a classic - very quotable. I would be really surprised not to see that on t-shirts by the end of the week.

I don’t even have a position on this at this point. Every time I start looking at it I just want to reach for the Advil.

I missed this one last week, but found it today courtesy of the Southern Avenger:

The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics. Today, the efficient means to that end is government control of capital. So, is not McCain’s party now conducting the most leftist administration in American history? The New Deal never acted so precipitously on such a scale. Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism. Does McCain have qualms about this, or only quarrels?

On “60 Minutes” Sunday evening, McCain, saying “this may sound a little unusual,” said that he would like to replace Cox with Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic attorney general of New York who is the son of former governor Mario Cuomo. McCain explained that Cuomo has “respect” and “prestige” and could “lend some bipartisanship.” Conservatives have been warned.

Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.

It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

Emphasis, as they say, is mine.