What We're Not Hearing from John McCain and Sarah Palin

Jeralyn Merritt reports that some topics were noticeably missing from the McCain/Palin appearance Saturday in Colorado Springs.

All of the speakers . . . made it clear that Colorado (and El Paso County in particular) are critical to the November election. Yet they ignored the elephant in the room: the conservative social issues of abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage, and even abstinence-only education.

It was a smart move. The evangelical voters are already aboard the McCain-Palin ticket. The McCain campaign didn’t need their issues being replayed on the evening news, potentially alienating non-evangelical female and independent voters.

Emphasis mine. If that's right and it's a calculated move (and what's not, in politics?) then it strikes me as a very shrewd one. McCain seems to be getting a bounce among white women, a key demographic. These are many of the same voters who would likely be put off to learn that a McCain/Palin administration would take away their right to choose, would restrict available methods of birth control (because, according to a policy-watching friend of mine, if pregnancy begins at conception, then any form of birth control that interferes with implantation of a fertilized egg, such as the pill, the patch, IUDs, the Nuva Ring, etc., will be considered abortion; more on that subject here) and would make it harder to reduce unwanted pregnancies in America by teaching abstinence-only reproductive health education in schools.

Fortunately today the facade is beginning to crack just a little. A CNN poll shows that men and women have differing views on Sarah Palin's readiness to lead, with a majority of women stating that Palin is not ready to be president (her sole Constitutional duty as VP). And yesterday showed that the regularly repeated, McCain/Palin lies about the Bridge to Nowhere are finally being flagged by almost every major news outlet, albeit not aggressively enough.

McCain seems to know that his poll numbers are dependent on the popularity of his co-star. That's why the American public has had little opportunity to hear anything directly from the mouth of Sarah Palin. It will be worth listening very carefully over the coming weeks for what we don't hear from the McCain/Palin campaign. The issues they don't aggressively stump for may be the ones that affect us most.

First Jackson Browne, Now Heart

In no uncertain terms, Heart wants their music back.

The rock band Heart have [sic] lashed out against the Republican party after their song Barracuda was used twice to introduce vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. "I think it's completely unfair to be so misrepresented," singer Nancy Wilson told Entertainment Weekly. "I feel completely fucked over."

Strong language, to say the least. The Guardian article (and the NYT, and the BBC ) reports that McCain spokesperson Brian Rogers insists that the campaign "paid for and obtained all necessary licenses" prior to using the song. Interestingly enough, both the British papers explain that, based on U.S. copyright law, use of the song is covered under a blanket fee paid by the convention venue, in this case the Xcel Energy Center. The NYT article makes no mention of this. Based on that note, it sounds specifically as if the facility is licensed to use the song, not the campaign or a specific organization such as the RNC. It will be interesting to see if Sarah Palin continues to march to the beat of the well known rock song.

More from Heart singer Nancy Wilson: "[Barracuda] was written in the late 70s as a scathing rant against the soulless, corporate nature of the music business, particularly for women ... There's irony in Republican strategists' choice to make use of it there."

McCain/Palin '08, John Hughes Style

From a friend of a friend (thanks to SK for photo permission):

“He’s very popular, Ed. The sportos, motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, waistoids, dweebies, dickheads - they all adore him. They think he’s a righteous dude.”

Did Sarah Palin Ban Books?

The skeletons keep marching out of the closet. This one, perhaps, will be among the more mundane, but Michelle Malkin, conservative mouthpiece and obnoxious, partisan trash talker, was awfully quick to jump to the defense.

Palin Derangement Syndrome strikes again. This time it’s hysterical librarians and their readers on the Internet disseminating a bogus list of books Gov. Sarah Palin supposedly banned in 1996. Looks like some of these library people failed reading comprehension. Take a look at the list below and you’ll find books Gov. Palin supposedly tried to ban…that hadn’t even been published yet. Example: The Harry Potter books, the first of which wasn’t published until 1998.

FWIW, the first Harry Potter book was published in England in 1997, but not in the States until 1998.

Malkin debunks the claim as an easy crib of a generic list of books censored at one time or another. Interestingly enough, though, she also links to this ADN piece confirming that Palin did inquire in 1996 about censoring books. Malkin, by the by, argues that this is a non-starter because no books were actually banned. But after refusing to entertain discussion on censoring any titles, the librarian was asked to tender her resignation. She refused and was bolstered by an outpouring of public support.

Malkin's ruse is to distract us with the generic list of books, which I agree comes up shy as "evidence." But that only takes our eye off the books themselves, and not the claim that Palin put pressure on the local librarian, Mary Emmons, to ban the books.

From the Rocky Mountain News:

At the time, Emmons told the local paper, The Frontiersman, that Palin asked her on three separate occasions about removing objectionable books. Emmons refused to censor any books.

Three separate occasions? The Rocky couldn't come up with any titles, but this sounds like the evidence that Malkin wants us to believe doesn't exist that Palin at the least exerted considerable pressure to ban books in Wasilla.

The librarian, Mary Emmons (now Mary Baker), is currently on vacation and not taking question, according to the Rocky (print version).

McCain Campaign Denies Enquirer Rumor

Did the McCain campaign really deny a rumor about Sarah Palin published in the National Enquirer?

I'm starting to think these guys want to lose this election. Thanks to the over-the-top response, Schmidt & Co. practically guarantee that this gets triple the air play. Howard Kurtz gets it right:

The mainstream media might well have ignored the unsubstantiated allegation, as they did for eight months in the Edwards saga. But the McCain's team quick response in defending the Arizona senator's running mate had the effect, intentionally or otherwise, of giving the story more prominence.

McCain Hires Tucker Eskew, Prepares to Get Ugly

It's pretty obvious to me that the McCain campaign is getting into a desperate corner. If voters interpret campaign management as a sign of potential executive management skills, then Obama will run away with this thing in a landslide. Fortunately for McCain, there's still a lot of time left, relatively speaking, to set the ship right. Unfortunately for McCain, there's still a lot of time left for the whole spectacular cruise to go under before our eyes.

That's why I am exceedingly uncomfortable with the McCain camp's hiring of Tucker Eskew to dig them out of the ditch they're in.

The Obama camp has had the luxury these last couple days to sit back and watch the McCain/Palin ticket erupt in controversy. Joe Biden really hasn't even had a chance to slip up and say something honest--er, I mean, tactless--about the current state of Republican politics. That fact right there has laid to rest one of my chief concerns since Friday, namely that the public would cotton to Sarah Palin and see Joe Biden as a big old chauvinist bully, even before he really got started. Right now, McCain is defending himself and his choices against every brand of incompetency argument. Even from Republicans. As we all know, if you're playing defense, you're losing.

Eskew may change that dynamic. Hopefully, the media will know enough not to bite, whatever the next anti-Obama attack will be. Especially with the McCain camp cutting journalists for asking real questions, anything that comes next will be deeply stained with a lack of credibility. But I'm not so optimistic. When Karl Rove launched a whisper campaign in 2000 that the maverick senator from Arizona had fathered a "dark skinned" child, Eskew put his firm to work making the push poll telephone calls asking voters if they would vote for a president suspected of fathering an illegitimate, black child. (McCain and wife Cindy adopted a Bangledeshi child in the 1990s.) That was enough to put Bush over McCain in South Carolina in 2000.

McCain was livid back in 2000, and understandably so. But I guess he's gotten over all that. After all, it's just politics, right?

Palin Refuses to Testify in Troopergate Investigation

From the White House to the Alaska State House, dirty politics and bad faith dealings signal corruption, obstruction, and obfuscation. Palin can't stall indefinitely, but the McCain camp is probably betting she can stall until after November 4.

How will the voting public respond to a VP candidate who refuses to testify? Stay tuned.

Hilzoy on the Palin Pick

This gets it exactly right, and is the point Democrats cannot afford to lose sight of:

"As far as I'm concerned, the story about Sarah Palin is what John McCain's decision to make her his running mate says about his judgment."

McCain Earns Mileage on the Back of the Palin Family

John McCain says he knew about Bristol Palin's pregnancy before he asked Sarah Palin to be his vice president.

That means one of two things: A) He's lying and only learned of it shortly before we did, or B) He knew about it, talked it over with his strategists, and decided the American people would respond well to a campaign family that rallies together in times of trouble. Which means he sees political opportunity in all this.

So which is worse? That he may not have known, or that he's hoping to earn mileage among working class voters on the back of the Palin family's private matters?

Campbell Brown on Tucker Bounds

One begins to think the McCain camp may not have realized the media might ask real questions. Campbell Brown grills McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds. H/T to Siun. The best thing I can say for Bounds is that he pulled out of the tailspin at the very end, managing to get his message in against Obama, although he never answered the question about any single decision Palin's ever made as commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard.

Behind My One Alaskan Friend's Surprise Over Palin

This and especially this help explain an Alaskan friend's shock early Friday morning.

Two thoughts on these two links, just off the top of my head.

1) The radio clip is astonishing for revealing Palin's lack of political sensibility. Did she actually say "We'd be honored to have you guys" after all that? Listen to the clip. I'm afraid she did.

2) After watching the news clip, Walt Monegan doesn't come off as angry, vengeful, or agenda driven. Throughout the entire newscast, he seems to sincerely consider questions and answer straightforwardly. There's not even bitterness, just matter-of-factness and a certain befuddlement about the whole situation. All of which leads me to believe the guy's not lying (but I'll heavily couch that statement in all the qualifiers that should accompany 90 seconds of YouTube newsreel).

Palin Pregnancy Scandal?

This is mind bending. Even as a scurrilous rumor, even as mere speculation, even as left wing nuttery (nevermind that it's coming from Sullivan, one of my favorite writers on the right). Truly mind bending.

Marc Ambinder on Palin Pick

UPDATE: It slipped me when I posted this, but Ambinder seems confident that the Troopergate probe will leave Palin unmarred. "She's under investigation by an ethics board (the bad guy here will not turn out to be Palin.)"

Not sure how to take that, or what Ambinder knows that the rest of us don't, but it's worth keeping track of.
__________

Marc Ambinder asks and answers:

Is the pick good for the Republican Party?

Absolutely. Even if McCain loses in November, the GOP's new standard bearer will be a younger working mother from outside Washington and not a rich businessman with perfect hair from Massachusetts. McCain may have saved the GOP at the expense of the campaign.

His one-man Q&A piece is insightful in a pro/con sort of way. Definitely worth a read.

Frank Rich on McCain's Pick

Frank Rich:

The main reason McCain knuckled under to the religious right by picking Palin is that he actually believes there’s a large army of embittered Hillary loyalists who will vote for a hard-line conservative simply because she’s a woman. That’s what happens when you listen to the TV news echo chamber. Not only is the whole premise ludicrous, but it is every bit as sexist as the crude joke McCain notoriously told about Janet Reno, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.

That's pretty good, actually. The "TV news echo chamber" in particular, because it highlights the undue emphasis the news media give to the notion of division in the Democratic Party. And Rich demonstrates a deft touch to swiftly link the inherent sexism behind the Palin pick to the same brand of bad judgment that drove McCain to tell the beyond-the-pale joke about Chelsea Clinton, which any serious, professional politician--not to mention decent human being--would have known better than to indulge in. McCain's got kids, for crying out loud, yet he has not demonstrated appreciation for which topics are off limits in politics. That's because nothing has ever been off limits for John McCain. And watch for the Obama campaign to methodically highlight this aspect of the Straight Talk Express in coming weeks.

Write-in Votes for Hillary?

More on Hillary loyalists (which term is a bit misleading, because a loyalist would honor his or her leader's requests and back his or her leader's candidate, but that seems beside the point to a small handful of Dems). From the NYT:

Lynn Hackney and Kim Hoover might perfectly illustrate the emotions of those whom Ms. Palin counts as “not finished yet.” They had gathered 20 equally passionate Hillary supporters at their home in Washington on Tuesday to watch Mrs. Clinton’s speech. “The Kleenex was flowing,” said Ms. Hackney, who declared the speech “brilliant.”

Thursday, when 38 million Americans watched Mr. Obama’s speech, they watched a movie, “The Squid and the Whale.”

No matter what Mrs. Clinton urged, they cannot support Mr. Obama.

“To go against Hillary is not easy for us,” Ms. Hackney said. “We don’t take that lightly. We just don’t think he has a message. We don’t think he’s good for women.”

"We just don't think he has a message"?! Is she kidding? Has she listened to a word he's said? I think no. Or else she would understand that Obama's message is that common purpose unites us, common concerns connect us, common decency passed from citizen to citizen ("I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper") results in uncommon community achievment, and that with those common threads between us America becomes a richer, stronger, healthier nation. And, oh yeah, George Bush's Washington isn't working for America.

And I suspect she didn't really listen with open ears to Clinton's speech, either, because Clinton once again made the case for Obama--and even to those who could not hear praise for Obama, Clinton most certainly made the case against McCain. If these voters think they're doing Hillary a favor by writing her name in on the ballot this fall, then they are extremely disillusioned. Hillary Clinton stands to be a much more effective senator under a President Obama than President McCain. Her opportunities to do good work in the world--in any capacity--increase under a President Obama and dramatically decrease under a President McCain. Her chance at effectively improving health care access for all Americans is, to be sure, only even possible under a President Obama, and not even remotely likely under a President McCain.

And those 18 million cracks? Do Hillary's most hardened supporters think that Hillary Clinton and Democratic women nationwide worked this hard so that a woman could slip through the glass ceiling only to overturn Roe v. Wade, amend the Constitution to restrict the freedoms of American citizens, promote creationism in public schools, de-list polar bears from the Endangered Species Act, ignore modern realities regarding the need for gun control, drill her way to cozy relations with big oil at the cost of energy independence, and (based on the look of things in her "Troopergate" investigation) abuse her power for personal gain?

“It’s not about being bitter for Hillary,” [Ms. Hackney] said. Still, “I think the Democratic Party took women for granted in the primary, they didn’t step on sexism when they should have, and I can’t support them.”

Her phone, she said, began “burning up” when Mr. McCain announced Ms. Palin as his choice. “The fact that he went out on a limb to pick a woman, I’m very impressed by that.” She says she is not sure she can vote for a Republican, and will most likely stick to her plan to write in Mrs. Clinton. But, she said, “It’s opened my eyes to at least pay attention.”

Ms. Hackney and Ms. Hoover: A write-in for Hillary is a vote for McCain, plain and simple. Ask yourselves this: Do you really believe you'll be better served by an anti-choice, anti-equity, anti-progress, anti-peace, pro-establishment Republican of the most bitter, most entrenched, and most cynical stripe?

The Politico on McCain's Pick

Vandehei and Harris get it right: 6 things the Palin pick says about McCain.

I like this:

Politicians, even “mavericks” like McCain, play it safe when they think they are winning – or see an easy path to winning. They roll the dice only when they know that the risks of conventionality are greater than the risks of boldness.

And this:

There is no plausible way that McCain could say that he picked Palin, who was only elected governor in 2006 and whose most extended public service was as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (population 8,471), because she was ready to be president on day one.

Nor can McCain argue that he was looking for someone he could trust as a close adviser. Most people know the staff at the local Starbucks better than McCain knows Palin.

Emphasis mine. There's also this:

The fact that McCain only spoke with Palin about the vice presidency for the first time on Sunday, and that he was seriously considering Lieberman until days ago, suggests just how hectic and improvisational his process was.

And more to come, I'm sure.

John McCain, Meet Sarah Palin

Steve Benen points out McCain's departure from his own SOP by picking Palin: the candidates don't know each other. See especially Steve's note at the bottom of the post about McCain's extra careful announcement of her name. Here' the clip. Don't let the two minute tag scare you away; the reference comes right at the beginning. By my estimate, McCain could have been opening the envelope to say "And the winner is . . ."

Sobering.