The mainstream media has been out to destroy Sarah Palin from the moment she was named the VP nominee by John McCain. In the process, the minstream media has driven the final nail in its own coffin, whether it realizes it or not. Now both the mainstream media, and some supposed McCain supporters, are trying to suggest that McCain's recent slide in the polls proves that Palin is an embarrassment. Is it possible for people to get any more stupid than these people? I don't think so.
Has anyone really paid any attention to Palin in the last week, other than the mainstream media with its agenda that will not quit (the agenda to destroy her)? Nope. This economic mess, and the disgraceful grab for Federal power disguised as a Wall Street bailout (bad enough as that is, in itself), has consumed everyone. O one paid attention to the Couric interview, or anything else Palin said or did. Oh, you can say a little bloom is off her rose, but even that has little to do with what she said or did, and nothing to do with the Mccain slide.
As to the McCain "slide", that is a matter of polls, which the mainstream media is gloating over. As I have told you in the past, whether I "like" the result of an individual poll or not (an area where I differ from Rush Limbaugh, and where I am correct--as usual), polls are meaningless (not to mention evil things). You should not pay attention to them (exactly what is the mainstream media saying either you or candidates should do because of a poll, and does not the very question indicate why polls are evil things with which you should not cooperate).
Nevertheless, the mainstream media is obsessed with polls (the only way they know how to cover an election, other than advocacy for their own agenda). Too many others are, as well. Those people have tended to "blame" Palin for McCain's recent "slide"--including some supposed McCain/Palin supporters with an agenda of their own. Hogwash.
When the economy turned even more sour than it was, with this "crisis", McCain was going to suffer--especially if he failed to react in a way that indicated he was on top of the situation.
Despite an ineffectual response by Obama to the economic crisis, including endorsing the Bush Wall Street bailout that the public hates (Obama now clearly running for Bush's third term), McCain failed to take advantage.
What did McCain do? He flailed around, proving to everyone what everyone already knew (but which is fatal when the economy comes front and center): Proving that McCain has no consistent philosophy--not core principles and "values"--when it comes to economic matters. McCain is strong on certain kinds of spending, but does not really oppose Big Government. McCain will say he likes free markets, but consistently uses rhetoric that suggests government should control free markets. McCain just has no consistent message, as distinguished from Obama's consistent. leftist message of more regulation and Federal Government control and intervention). That all became more than obvious as McCain tried, and failed, to put out a message on the recent economic criis.
First, McCain tried to be against government bailouts. He opposed a bailout of AIG, and then reversed himself as soon as Paulson and Bernanke said we could not afford it. His reaction to the bigger, socialistic bailout of all of Wall Street was tepid from the beginning (as was Obama's, but Obama was always going to come down on the partisan, leftist side in the end). McCain was talking about the "corruption of Wall Street (hardly free market rhetoric), and yet supporting a bailout. When House Republicans, albeit in more of a show than anything else--partially because of lack of support from people like McCain, tried to stand up for conservative principles, McCain bailed (as he always has with conservatives).
Then McCain failed to take his own advice, and mine (failing to take mine is always fatal). In the most recent debate, McCain correctly criticized Obama's proposed "policy" of threats (Presidential and public) to Pakistan. McCain correctly said that the problem with such threats is that you have no options when your bluff is called. "Invading" Pakistan is hardly a good option.
What did McCain do when democrats became increasingly partisan on what was a Democratic Paulson bailout bill to start with? He did not react by calling the Democrats on their partisanship. He did not push back hard on the Dmeocratic attempt to "blame" what was mainly a Democratic/government created housing "bubble" on "deregulation" (a Democrat Big Lie). McCain did nothing to counter the Democrats, even though Obama was doing and saying little himself. McCain let Democrats totally control the "debate" (as did Republicans in the Senate and, of course, President Bush). Republicans, including McCain, were on the right side of public opinion by merely upholding those conservative principles that McCain was advocating when he opposed (initially) the bailout of AIG. The cowards blew it. They, except for the House Republicans who really could not get their message out, ceded the battlefield to the Democrats.
Realizing what was happening, McCain decided on that grandstand play of "suspending" his campaign and returning to Washington Problem: McCain had no real "plan" of his own in mind, and little influence with House Republicans (other than the ability to make them invisible by failing to support them). McCain evidently expected to arrive at Washington and claim credit for a deal--any deal, with no McCain economic philosophy behind whatever deal would finally result. McCain also requested taht Obama "postpone" the debate, and even suggested holding the debate in place of the VP debate (a mistake so obvious that a 5th grader would not make it--Is McCain smarter than a 5th grader?--since it suggested no confidence in Palin, whose own confidence seems to be eroding some in the face of lack of confidence from McCain people).
I said in my entry at the time ("McCain: Statesman or idiot") that McCain could only get away with this if he had the courage to follow through. He had to come to Washington with something in mind, and he had to follow through on his cancellation of the debate. Otherwise, he would be revealed as someone pulling a stunt, with no real concept of what needed to be done. It was like Pakistan. When Obama refused to cancel/postpone the debate, what was McCain to do. He had to follow through on the "threat", or the threat would be revealed for the empty gesture it was. McCain blinked. Obama did not. Worse, McCain let Obama dominate the "news" cycle over the next few days before the debate. McCain failed to attack the obvious partisanship of the Democrats. He failed to support the House Republicans. He revealed himself as being basically and completely unable to control or influence what was happening. McCain did not insist on being part of the negotiations, because he did not want to be aligned with the House Repubicans. He went down to Mississippi with his tail between his legs. That was exactly what I advised him, correctly, that he could not afford to do once he made such a big deal of how important in was for him to be in Washington rather than debating. Now, as with the bailout bill itself, I hink the public would have been with McCain on the lack of importance of the debate. These debates are not important, and McCain could have challenged Obama's failure to appear with McCain in that series of town hall meetings proposed by McCain. But McCain caved, as I had said he could not afford to do, once he took his stand.
Meanwhile, Obama is still on the wrong side of the bailout, with the economic crisis rendering his whole economic "plan" of taxes and spending completely insane. But now is McCain to take advantage of it, with no consistent position of his own. McCain may manage to lose this election to an empty chair (the mere words of Obama, which the Amemrican people mostly no longer believe).
Nope. Palin has nothing to do with this. If you assume that she has not been as much of a positive factor this last week as she could have been, that--maybe--cost McCain one tenth of a single percentage point in support. Nor is it a matter of having the "advice" of, say, Romney. If McCain wanted Romney's advice, he could get it (whether Romney is VP nominee or not). This is all McCain's baby (not Palin's), and he blew it. McCain has been unable to develop a consistent position on the economy, even with the public ready to embrace the conservative idea that it is essential to allow free market failure for the "rich" as well as the poor.
This lack of a coherent, consistent position may be fatal to McCain, and he has only himself to blame (cetainly not Palin). No sane person could have expected Sarah Palin to win the election for McCain on the economy. Now I have confidence that Obama can still lose this election. I have no confidence that McCain has what it takes to win the election. He certainly has not shown it this last week, and that explains the "slide" in McCain's support.