« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Enough With The False Narrative About Palin’s Vetting

 

There has been ample discussion as of late about potential Vice Presidential candidates. A few weeks ago, I started to notice a theme developing – designed to discredit Sarah Palin and the amount of vetting that was done prior to adding her to the ticket in 2008. Nearly every MSM article about the topic suggested that the GOP nominee would be more cautious in their vetting process to avoid making the same “mistake” the McCain campaign made.

Initially, the propagation of this false meme was mostly limited to left-wing journalists with an axe to grind. Lately, it seems that some on the right (mostly Romney supporters who are still bitter that McCain picked her over Mitt) are seizing on the opportunity to pile on.

Here’s a prime example of what I’m talking about from one of Romney’s biggest backers. This individual writes for numerous websites, including the Mitt Romney Central fan site.

…Who ever Mitt Romney picks, the vetting process will be much more intense than in the past due to the shoddy vetting process the McCain team did with Sarah Palin….

First of all, the man is entitled to his opinion. However, given that his candidate likely has the nomination sewn up, you would think that he would have enough sense not to alienate supporters of Sarah Palin. Many of Romney’s advocates suffer from the same “tin ear” as the man they support.

As for whether Palin was vetted….you’ll just have to take the word of the man who personally was in charge of the team that vetted her. A.B. Culvahouse is a former White House counsel who had previously been tasked with vetting Supreme Court and Cabinet nominees. Here’s what he had to say about his interview with Palin in 2009.

….Culvahouse, O’Melveny & Myers’ chairman and the leader of the team that vetted Palin before Republican presidential candidate John McCain chose her as his running mate last summer, spoke about Palin this morning at the Republican National Lawyers Association’s policy conference at the National Press Club. During the vetting process, said Culvahouse, “Me and two of my most cynical partners interviewed her, and came away impressed.” Culvahouse added that Palin would “have been a great vice president,” and said that he told McCain exactly that.

So what was so impressive? Culvahouse said Palin hit certain, particularly tough questions “out of the park,” such as whether she was prepared to use nuclear weapons, and whether she would order the CIA to shoot Osama bin Laden even if it guaranteed civilian deaths. Culvahouse did not offer the details of Palin’s answers, but said, “She had a lot of capacity….”

Two years later, Culvahouse suggested that Palin not only exceeded expectations, but….

….People who are more experienced, more savvy–maybe some of them gave less savvy answers,” he says with a look that indicates he’s referring to some of McCain’s other VP contenders….

So, there you have it. I hope everyone will agree that it’s time to put this false narrative to bed. I expect it from Politico, but not from fellow Republicans who are now faced with the Herculean task of generating enthusiasm among the base of the Republican Party for Mitt Romney’s candidacy.

Cross Post

COMMENTS

  • ken58

    Sadly there are even some here at Redstate who are all too willing to blame McCain’s loss on Palin. One diarist here today let us know that Sarah Palin was a “catastrophic failure” in vetting by the McCain team. The real reason for the McCain loss was an inept campaign that kept Palin bottled up and refused to go on the attack against Obama.
    As Ronald Reagan once said, we need bold colors not pale pastels. Too bad our nominee won’t be Palin this year. The pale pastels of Romney will likely not be enough to defeat Obama regardless of whom he puts up as his running mate.

    • garfieldjl

      I wonder if McCain’s advisors were actually rooting for Obama.

      Fact of the matter is that the reason liberal women hated Palin was because she chose to have her son Trig rather than aborting him because he had Down Syndrome.

      • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

        ….she didn’t vote for the ticket.

    • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

      …would trade Romney for Palin in a heartbeat, but they may not be quite ready to admit it.

      • powertothepeople

        nt

        • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

          ….during a intense back in forth about Palin. I understand you don’t like her. That’s fine.

          • powertothepeople

            have stated on this site and the other many good things about her, so back up with your C4P BS that anyone that dares challenge Mother Palin is a hater.

            I simply know this site well, I know how a ton of people feel about her politically, myself included, and no, we would not want her in the position that Romney is now in. She is great at what she is great at, she sucks badly at what she sucks at.

            So to sum it all up, Bet you would be wrong…………..

          • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

            Not particularly interested in another flame war. If that’s what you’re looking for, you’ll need to search elsewhere.

            :)

          • powertothepeople

            it into a flame war, unless the flaming is in your perception.

            Simply stating that you do not speak for the majority of the site, you are wrong that most of us would rather her be in the position rather than Romney, and that one can respect the woman or even like the woman without wanting her as president. If those are fighting words, then you need to work on your temper.

            And you and I have never gone head to head on Palin.

          • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

            nt

          • rabun1016

            Frankly, I lost all respect for Culvahouse as a result of his work for McCain on the VP. I liked him when he was working with Howard Baker, but he blew it in 08. Not that Palin was a bad candidate, but she clearly was one who needed at least four weeks of intense prep and seasoning to get up to speed. It was unfair to her to drag her out that quickly and expect dim bulbs like Nicole Wallace to prep her. Very poor judgment on his part. The witness was simply “not ready for the courtroom” of America, and as a result Culvahouse lost the respect of many.

          • snowshooze

            Hey, you absolutely cannot help liking her. And I do.
            But she cost us a ton of money, taxed the daylights out of big oil, peed it all away… she is really loose with a dollar.
            But she sure kicks up some dust.
            No, I absolutely opposed some of the things she did here.
            But what she is doing now, well, nobody could do it better.
            I do not want her as President, or Governor.
            But as a cheerleader for values, and family, wow.
            She has brass somewhere.

          • checkmate2012

            since unfortunately the MSM has tainted her and broad-brushed her as an extremist, which she is on the right side :) I’d take her any day over BO. She’ll have to wait awhile for high office :(

          • snowshooze

            If she did, I would be trying to get her in for a mental examination.
            She has all the money she wants, total freedom of time, zero responsibility…doesn’t have or need a job..
            Don’t blow it!

      • The_Gadfly

        if I could choose whoever I wanted, I still wouldn’t want her to be our nominee. She has more sense than McCain and a better ear, but she still has shares his weaknesses – most prominently assuming that just because she thinks it is a good idea, it must be a primary tenet of conservatism.

      • RedWhite_and_Truth

        Not too late for her to start relentlessly pounding Dumbo’s pompous rhetoric into the dust… Oh, wait, she’s doing it any way. God bless her.

        Mittens needs to come out and strike back hard, immediately, right after B. Hussein makes his latest asinine statement. As it stands now, Mitts just lets the lies slide, day after day. We need a bulldog, now.

        If he won’t respond, at least unleash some attack dogs to go after the Usurper-in-Chief. C’mon, Mitt! Help us drag you over the finish line.

      • Change Jar Conservative

        would never pick her as the nominee over Mitt.

        I know too many very conservative Republicans who would not vote for her because they think she is dumb.

  • Tbone

    If I could hire President and I had her and those 3 to choose from it wouldn’t even be close.

    • 10ab

      Certainly NOT in a leadership role!

      • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

        You’ve gone down this road before. I like Finrod’s reply to you on April 3rd the best.

        Given your views posted here so far

        Finrod (Diary) Tuesday, April 3rd at 10:09AM EDT (link)

        You

    • snowshooze

      I’d go with Palin.
      She wouldn’t cower from nuthin’

  • northeastred

    are willing to defend Palin. She was simply a cynical choice by a desperate candidate to breathe life into the dismal reality that no Republican was going to beat a Democrat after the Bush years. I don’t blame McCain for the hail mary pass, but it would have been nice if, behind her looks, there was some depth. Palin was an embarrassment to the best of what the GOP can offer. No amount of “she was a respected mayor in Wasilla,” or “she answered some questions well with McCain advisors” is going to offset the reality of what she was and is. Great mother, great wife, great citizen….terrible choice for possible president.

    Let’s not let our emotions get carried away. If she was a Democrat, we’d be all over her as brainless and unqualified. Like Obama!

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      who defend Palin, including a front pager now and then. Might want to take a look here. I happen to agree with Ben and with Andrew Breitbart.

    • acat

      apparently you have bought the media narrative.

      I will note, by the way, that it is your lack of specific criticism that leads me to conclude your judgement is emotional, rather than factual.

      Was she *worse* than, say, Dan Quayle?

      Mew

      • northeastred

        Can’t we set the bar a little higher. Both Palin and Quayle were horrible choices. I don’t want to waste time trying to determine who was worse.

        And I’m just not one of those conspiracy types who go along with narratives of any kind. I get in a lot of trouble on these boards for not always making the most politically correct statements.

        I’d be happy to be specific about Palin, but I wonder if you’ve already made up your mind about defending her at all costs.

        But if not,

        1) She quit being a governor of a US State to cash in on her celebrity.

        2) Very little curiosity about the things her job, as vice president, or president, would entail. Aside from memorizing talking points and sentences, she just couldn’t be bothered. Politics, world affairs, etc. were boring to her.

        Those are my two big problems with her.

        • acat

          (hint: put “shriner becker palin” into the little search window in the top right corner and see what you find)

          I agree that her quitting was the wrong choice… but I do not agree that that she found stuff “boring”. I believe she was limited by having to stay in sync with the McCain campaign .. and that they left her hanging.

          This also fits with what campaign insiders have indicated was going on .. but contradicts the media narrative.

          Mew

          • northeastred

            But I don’t buy into the other narrative that she was merely not served well by McCain’s advisors. There were many options for her, after 2008, that would have led to her being in Romney’s place right now, getting ready to take on Obama in the fall. She could have been unstoppable, in my opinion. Even giving up the governorship, she could have done it. Three years of writing op-eds, meeting with advisors, engaging in policy….christ, she could have had a sense of humor about not being ready in 2008, but if she showed she was rising to the challenge, people would have gotten behind her and she’d even win in 2012. I’m sure some people must have presented this picture to her.

            Instead, she was hawking reality shows, pretending to be a candidate so that she could sell books, and that probably kept her away from home and family more than if she’d just buckled down and worked.

            In the end, I think it’s a good thing that she didn’t do this because it’s not who she is. And that’s fine.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            She could have done as Ronald Reagan did after being beaten by Gerald Ford, travel the country, learn things, meet people, speak and write about policy. She obviously never intended to run.

    • Flagstaff

      but I digress. She defeated him soundly in their debate.

    • rightlane1111

      I disagree with your entire post Northeastred. Question: What candidate can succinctly (AN IMPORTANT WORD HERE) question/policy, etc. and hit it out of the park?

      They, meaning the people currently running this government, blather on and on…probably trying to impress us to get re-elected…yet they never come up with a solution or even address the problem.

      Just one example: Read Drudge today concerning what is going on with Medicare and SS. In a decade…many hospitals will be out of business and doctors will not accept Medicare. So…if you are dying…and they won’t accept the money offered because it does not even cover expenses…or the docs are out of business…CAN YOU SAY DEATH PANEL?

      Energy independence…I think she knows what she is talking about…but the MSM paints her as an environmental extremist. The drilling footprint in Alaska is relatively TINY compared to what it will produce…and yet…PEOPLE IN THE NORTHEAST still don’t want windmills because is spoils their view…not to mention that there is NO WAY TO STORE THE ENERGY for a given amount of time.

      Palin will never be POTUS or VP because of the hatchet job that the MSM did on her and the people that are unable to “think” on their own (sheeples) follow along without question. Maybe when there is no gas left (natural or gasoline) they might figure out that the Right was RIGHT.

  • kaheo

    Why was she unable to name a Supreme Court case other than Roe vs Wade? Why was she unable to name any newspapers? Brain-freeze, I don’t think so.

    I agree that she may have answered vetting questions perfectly, but the questions were leading ones: Would you use nuclear weapons against our enemies? Of course. Would you order for Osama to be killed? Of course. Those seem like questions anyone would’ve answered easily, Democrat/Republican.

    I think Palin never followed National/Global politics and issues passionately like typical politicians before being nominee. Sadly she’s probably the same even today! The vetters, probably assumed otherwise(perhaps because she was a Gov), and I can’t blame them: I too would’ve made the same wrong assumptions given the urgency of the vetting process. If they had more time, I can bet they would’ve gone with someone else.

    The media picked up her lack of interest on these issues made the public aware of it.

    If someone can’t handle a Katie Couric interview, how can they handle being President and dealing with Congress filled with potential more vicious folks than Katie!?

    As someone said: She is a good mom, a conservative, but terrible Presidential/Governor material.

    • acat

      You have revealed your bias and gullibility for MSM talking points.

      Mew

      • kaheo

        of her being President. I have nothing personally against her.

        • acat

          I suspect neither jack nor squat. You don’t like her for the job, so you’re blaming the vetting for not agreeing with you.

          Mew

          • kaheo

            if not to alert the campaign of possible flaws in a candidate?

            I disagree with the notion that vetting was thorough. She was discovered to be flawed as a result thus my not liking her as a candidate.

            Why are you so confident/sure that the vetting was thorough?

          • acat

            dictate what you believe.

            You don’t like Palin, therefore the campaign was wrong.

            I disagree with your assessment of “flaws” – many of what were called “flaws”, after all, proved to be media constructs.

            Mew

          • kaheo

            is dictating your confidence about the vetting process.

            I’ve stated why I think the vetting was inadequate. You’ve said am biased and am wrong. I got that.

            Could you tell us why you think the vetting was adequate? Sounds like a fair question.

          • acat

            Your transparent dislike for Palin means the only “adequate vetting”, for you, was one that rejected her.

            Mew

          • kaheo

            I took it that you think that it was adequate, appropriate, sufficient. Are you now trying to distance yourself from defending the vetting process or just trying to have it both ways?

            If I read that wrong: Clear it up and give us your take on the vetting process?

            Again, this would seem like a fair question given I’ve stated my reasons on why I don’t think the process was adequate and why I wouldn’t support her as a candidate.

          • acat

            You have not stated any reason, other than “Palin is unacceptable, so the vetting must have failed”.

            Further, your reasons for why Palin is unacceptable are largely media constructs, and apply to her being POTUS, a position she was not running for. (I do understand that she overshadowed McCain)

            I don’t know whether vetting was adequate or not… but I do know that I had trouble articulating McCain’s positions in 2008… he was all over the map, and his reactions were frequently inexplicable.

            Mew

          • Tbone

            Anyone who complains about Palin’s vetting process conducted by people so stupid and vacuous as to be McCain campaign workers obviously has unrealistic expectations. Why blame Palin when it was the people vetting her that were idiots?

            What doubtlessly became rapidly and painfully obvious was that Palin was far superior in intellect and character than either they or their candidate. Hence, they conspired against her to the detriment of us all.

            John McCain proved to be nothing but a rank politician of limited ability, unable and unwilling to mount an attack against the filth currently occupying the White House. Palin was the highlight of his political life.

            People like you so easily show their own inferiority to her by the statements you make.

          • kaheo

            You seem to have confidence in the process or Palin at the least even though the vetters were idiots? And am the fool!?

            Acat: I stated that her responses in the Katie Couric & Dobson interviews showed that she was clueless on National as well as International issues. You disagree with me and that’s ok. We don’t have to agree on that. I could be just biased by the MSM gotcha questions like “What newspapers do you read?” and “What other cases other cases other than Roe vs Wade do you disagree with?”

            You’re unable to defend the vetting process or maybe you just don’t have an opinion on it but just can’t understand why someone would criticize it! I guess you want to have it both ways. Suit yourself.

            You also want to shift the debate to talking about whether McCain was a good or bad candidate/politician. A totally different issue but I guess it’s easier to blame McCain for Palin’s incompetence!

          • acat

            You are aware that the Couric interview was cut together from over 6 hours of tape, right? That’s on par with a doctoral dissertation defense, only Palin had much, much less time to cram, and was defending McCain’s dissertation, not her own.

            This applies to supreme court cases as well… what if Palin had said something about a major policy case – let’s take Wickard v. Filburn – and said something about States Rights. Does that represent setting policy for her nominal boss?

            I don’t read newspapers or magazines, I got tired of taking a red pen to the articles and underlining the liberal bias, and don’t blame Palin for not being able to name one.

            Clearly, kaheo, you dislike Palin. That does not, however, “prove” anything about the vetting process.

            Mew

          • Viet71

            Palin was well vetted and answered honestly.

            I’d vote for her based on her genuineness and her clear independence of the beltway power structure. She’s a gem. Such persons are excluded from modern-day politics.

          • acat

            I will say that she’s about the best of the current generation for finding the perfect catchphrase for bomb-throwing.

            “Drill, baby, drill”, “Death panels”, etc. etc.

            Mew

          • jbmstub

            could we combine them and let Mama Grizzly tear through the obstructions?

          • acat

            Seriously.

            Something in State kills brain cells.

            Mew

          • Tbone

            is an exceptional individual. She would not have the resume she has if she wasn’t. As such, her vetting was sufficient. It is you have no confidence in her vetting except you assume it is her fault when you ought to blame the McCain idiots.

            Palin makes you feel inadequate. That is obvious, she doubtlessly should. However, that is your problem. not hers. Don’t blame people for being better than you.

          • jbmstub

            have made up their minds and, like concrete, they are thoroughly mixed and firmly set. Trying to reason with them is a waste of time because they have made an emotion based decision. Our only hope is that others, who have not locked into one side or the other, will listen and draw a reasoned conclusion.

            My first vote was in 1980 for Ronaldus Magnus and ever since then I’ve voted for R only on the presidential ticket, even when it was w/ one hand because the other was holding the barf bag in case I lost it. In 08 I happily voted for Palin despite McCain. She was not perfect, no candidate was, but would have made an awesome VP and an even better POTUS. Certainly better than McCain, who was a perfect example of DC derangement syndrome.

            The hatred of Palin is an example of the power of the press to shape a narrative and even the thinking of otherwise rational conservatives.

    • ennaneko

      They hate what Palins stands for.

      She was a successful career woman who was married with children and espoused conservative values.

      She wasn’t a 50 year old childless feminazi on her 50th live in boyfriend living the “Sex and the City” lifestyle.

      The had to snuff her out before girls in conservative families got the wrong idea and looked at her as a role model… married young, had children, and worked hard to maintain a career.

    • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

      …and whether they were in fact “leading” ones? Furthermore, you don’t know how she answered them. None of us will never know, but it was good enough for a man who has vetted Cabinet and Supreme Court nominees.

      I think people should be more concerned about whether Biden was properly vetted, after he told Katie Couric that FDR went on television in 1929 to calm the American people after the stock market crash. Imagine if Palin had said something that stupid?

  • withaplum

    of Palin, asking the person in charge of the vetting process whether or not the vetting process was well done is hardly definitive proof.

    Hey, is it true that you really screwed up?
    Not at all, I did a great job!
    Oh, guess that settles it then.

    • acat

      Didn’t think so.

      Mew

      • withaplum

        I don’t have a dog in the Palin/Not Palin fight. At this point she’s ancient history.

        I just think that as a rule, if you want to know whether someone did a good job or not, they are usually not the best person to ask.

        Hey you were thorough with that vetting process right?
        Oh yeah, we did a really good job.
        Okay, great. Cause there’s been some concerns….
        No, don’t worry about it! We asked a lot of really hard questions. Don’t look at us, we did our job!
        Perfect, just wanted to make sure.

        • radicalrighty

          Watch how many points Romney gains in national polls when Palin formally endorses him.

          Sarah will be a formidable cheerleader / attack dog after the convention, and her supporters are legion.

        • tnfriendofcoal101368

          I hardly thing Sarah could have done worse than the current occupant of the White House. MSM vetting of Barack Obama:

          Chris Matthews: “I felt a tingle go up my leg” (side note: yes I did throw up in my mouth typing that).

          Rest of MSM: “SOLD, he’s vetted.”

          Now, we have an economy so stagnant 50% of new college graduates can’t find gainful employment, a Secretary of the Energy waxing nostalgic about 5 dollar per gallon gas, an Attorney General whose answer to border security is to give guns to Mexican drug cartels, and a Director of the EPA who endeavors to raise all of heating cost by persuing regulations that shut down every coal fired electricity plant while also attacking the natural gas energy with regulation aimed at reducing fracking. Yeah, I hardly think Sarah could be that incompetent if she tried.

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            I had spelled pursuing correctly though…

    • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

      …you’ve made here that you’re a liberal anyway, so who cares what you think.

  • withaplum

    All I really ask is that we conservatives hold ourselves to the same standards that we hold liberals. Accusing someone who points out the logical flaws in your arguments of being a liberal, and then dismissing him as such, is ridiculous.
    There is a theory that Sarah Palin was not adequately vetted. You’ve made a counter argument – that she was properly vetted. And you’ve offered a piece of evidence: statements from the gentleman in charge of the vetting process.
    Someone stands accused of doing a crappy job. You defend that person based on their statements that, “No, in fact I didn’t do a crappy job.” Well what else do you expect him to say? “Oh you’re right, I’m COMPLETELY incompetent! Thank you for pointing that out!”

    Hey, Secretary Chu, did you actually check out all those “alternative energy” companies you gave all that Taxpayer money to?
    Oh yeah, I checked them out REALLY thoroughly. They all check out. They’re great companies!
    Okay great!

    When I read something on here that I agree with, I tend to nod my head and say, yup, and post nothing.

    When I read something I disagree with, I usually post to point out what I disagree with.

    Now if you’re arguments can’t hold up against ME, here on redstate, what hope do you have when you wander out into the wide world to try them on actual liberals?

    Sarah Palin had a lot of good qualities, and a few bad ones. She would not be my first choice in a primary election, but it doesn’t seem like that will be a choice I’ll have to make any time soon.

    I don’t think we’ll ever really know if she was vetted properly. That entirely depends on what the McCain campain was looking for in a VP. I don’t know if there is any clear evidence that Palin helped or hurt the McCain campaing overall.

    What I do know is that YOU need to step yo’game up, or you’re gonna get run. WITHAPLUM OUT

    • RedWhite_and_Truth

      http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-4427157.html

      Mind you, this is the Communist Broadcasting Socialists network we’re talking about, not Fox News. They reported that McCain surged ahead of B. Hussein for the first time in the campaign. He went from 24% enthusiasm to 42% enthusiasm, from his own supporters.

      What is not discussed here, is McCain’s suspension of his campaign. Once he blinked and went back to Washington, McShame never recovered.

      Even today, some “conservatives” refuse to acknowledge Palin’s help. Got so mad at Huckleberry during his radio show the other day, when he had on some shill who said McCain threw a “hail Mary pass by picking Palin. He gambled, and lost…” and Huckster never corrected him on it.

      • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

        Who knew?

    • rightlane1111

      “All I really ask is that we conservatives hold ourselves to the same standards that we hold liberals. ”

      Did we…I mean…really. We didn’t hold liberals to any standard…otherwise Obama would not be in office today! Was he vetted? With so much information out there that is questionable…some of which CANNOT be mentioned on this board…why did we give him a pass? Where was McConnell…with his questions to counter this supposed vetting of Obama? Where was Boehner, who was the minority leader? Where was the entire House…Senate and House of Reps?

      It seemed that the lone wolf was Hannity…and he only went as far as his associations with known terrorists.

      Our representatives don’t hold Liberals to any standard..PROOF…WE HAVE OBAMA.

      • tnfriendofcoal101368

        As far as I can tell the only vetting of Obama was the thrill he sent up Chris Matthews’ leg.

        • tnfriendofcoal101368

          Yuck

      • withaplum

        WE conservatives rightfully point out the logical flaws, the faulty premises, the murky language in liberal thoughts. We should demand the same degree of clear thinking from people we agree with. If I wanted group think and sheep like obedience to the party line, I’d be posting at kos. :)

        I really dislike when people point to liberal hypocrisies as an excuse to sink to the lowest common denominator. We have the truth on their side, we shouldn’t have to play their game. And I won’t. Because once you stop examining your own beliefs as rigorously as you examine the beliefs you disagree with, you’ve lost your independence and soon enough your freedom.

        There are so many variables in an election that I think it is pretty much impossible to put a value on the individually. There are a lot of good arguments that Palin really helped prop up the McCain campaign. I’d certainly be willing to believe it. I think that in 2008 Obama would have beaten pretty much anyone with an R next to their name. Sometimes that’s the way it goes. I’m optimistic 2012 is going to be a different story.

        As regards vetting, I don’t think there’s any smoking gun that she wasn’t vetted properly. It’s not like midway through the campaign she was discovered to be a serial killer. My only point, and it REALLY is my only point, is that you can’t just take a vague quote from the guy in charge of the vetting process and say THIS SETTLES THE MYTH THAT SHE WASN’T PROPERLY VETTED ONCE AND FOR ALL.

        I feel a little bit like I wandered into some crossfire here. I really am not an anti-Palin person at all. I’m just into critical thinking.

        • acat

          And yes, this frequently does boil down to “If we can’t beat them, we will join them”.

          Mew

  • withaplum

    for a Moderate R (After all, in the Navy you must choose between the lesser of two weevils.)

    But I’ll do it with clear head and clear purpose. And I won’t back down from my beliefs for anyone, on the right or left. So if someone uses faulty logic to make an argument, even if I agree with them on most other things, I’m gonna say I disagree, and state my reasons. Iron sharpens iron, yada yada yada. I certainly won’t say, “liberals think its okay to lie, cheat and steal, elect radicals, believe their own hype, chase their own tails in rhetorical circles and try to bribe or shame anyone who disagrees with them. So that makes it okay for conservatives to do the same.” In the words of the immortal Kenny Powers “F— that noise.”

    • withaplum

      about the Reply To This button. Sorry ya’ll.

      • acat

        The ability to use the “Reply To This” button has been referred to as an IQ test.

        To your point, the trouble isn’t whether the vetting was acceptable.

        The trouble, as the diarist makes clear (at least to me) is that the mistakes made by McCain were not in selecting Palin – he would have lost by a much larger margin without her – but in the subsequent handling of Palin.

        They had conservatives fired up and eating out of their patrician hands .. and blew it by not getting Palin up to speed earlier and by not defending/supporting her after.

        The reason the meme that “it’s the vetting” is coming up is because it’s much easier for the same establishment that picked McCain to blame the vetting .. not to admit they blew their opportunity. This excuses them, y’see….

        Mew

        • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

          …arranging the 6 hours with Couric, condensed down to 15 minutes was a bonehead move by Nicole Wallace. Do that with just about any politician, and end up with a less than desirable result. I can assure you that Romney won’t be doing that.

          • Flagstaff

            Or not?

            Seems to me like the potential upside is small, and the potential downside is large.

  • Pingback: Hisako Willes

  • Pingback: Teddy Hartrick

  • Pingback: Google

  • checkmate2012

    Romney should shush them..who needs “support” from those against Palin. And for those that think McCain could win this time around, it was his lackies that muzzeled her and thus lost the election.

    Way to go for pointing out the truth rightwingnut2!

  • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

    Have been for years. It makes it much more difficult to get excited about pulling the lever for Mitt.

  • checkmate2012

    did you read my diary on “it’s as easy as apple pie”? It’s really an easy choice IMHO, but great post nontheless. Palin Rocks!

  • The_Gadfly

    It wasn’t the vetting process that failed McCain or frankly even McCain’s choice of VP. She ignited his campaign, and if he would have had the guts to stick with her, and more importantly, not let his handlers try to reshape her into a mini-McCain to be sent on suicide missions with the LSM, he would have done much, much better.

    I still don’t think either of them would have worked out particularly well for the country, but even I have to admit that compared to what we got, mere mediocrity would be a tremendous improvement.

  • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

    Although I disagree with your assessment, at least it was stated in a respectful manner.

  • snowshooze

    We would be having a lot of exitement right now.
    And nobody would remember Obama’s name.