Bring It On!

The Vetting of Sarah Palin: The GOP Celebrity Gambit

September 5th, 2008 | by Windspike |

The Days of Leadership By Faith Over Fact - perfected by the W, Rove and Co - are over. Yet, the McSame campaign has foisted enough mojo on the GOP faithful to make an Evangelist faint. So, instead of the buying the insipid rhetoric spilled out over the anticlimactic GOP convention, we must examine whether McSame and his Gal Pal Palin are qualified to do the job based on their actions thus far.

Indeed, actions speak louder than words - Don’t tell us. Show us that you will be good for America, if you can, by doing good things for America. If the vetting of Sarah Palin is an indication of how good the McSame administration will be going forward, there is large room for improvement and plenty of evidence as to why we should not trust them to do the job.

Remember how easy it was for the W, Rove and Co. to fondle their way around the intelligence to prove we needed to invade Iraq? I’m sure that was a complicated boondoggle. If McSame and his cronies can’t even find a Veep candidate with less blemishes than Palin, we are in for deep, deep shit under a McSame/Palin administration and some dangerous decision making.

Take a look at this news, I just discovered in an email from a friend:

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin attended five colleges in six years before graduating from the University of Idaho in 1987.

In almost all the college admissions programs I know, Palin would have a terrible time getting into graduate school with that track record. Five schools in six years? That is a clear indication that there is something up with Palin, something amiss in her ability to accomplish difficult tasks and sticking with them. Some one who cannot last more than a few semesters in any one school is a clear indication of some one with many issues, let alone five different institutions in as many years.

Does this fact cast a pall of suspicion over her qualifications to do the Veep Job? For me, yes. Even more important, it says to me that the McSame modus operandi is to not do a thorough job and make hasty decisions based on politics over qualifications. Certainly, his decision to select Palin was a, cold, hard ball, intentionally political one. Had he really thought he was putting “Country First,” I can think of a dozen or so other Veep candidates in the GOP that would have been better suited for the job. Instead, they traded quality for celebrity. But I thought they were anti-celebrity, clearly demonstrated by their ruse to taint Mr. Obama as such.

So, why are the GOP not outraged here? Perhaps they are caught up in the “Celebrity” of Sarah Palin. I would challenge those who are thinking Republicans - and even those who believe Reagan was a better President than George Washington - to conduct their own diligence on Palin. As to if she is truly qualified for the job of Veep? I don’t think so. As to that she has elevated herself to Celebrity Status, most definitely. If the Cult of Celebrity is not a reason to vote for a President (according to McSame and his army of propagandists), it should be likewise for Vice Presidents.

Should we vote for a vice president that, perhaps, has dropped or been kicked out of four colleges before actually finding a sympathetic institutions from which to graduate? I don’t think so.

Who should we put in the next advertisement next to her for her comparison? Like they painted Paris Hilton next to Barak Obama, it would be Palin next to….I don’t know….who should we put there….

Blog on friends, blog on all.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 22 Responses to “The Vetting of Sarah Palin: The GOP Celebrity Gambit”

  2. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 5, 2008 | Reply

    “Celebrity Gambit” indeed! Although I hardly think it can be said that Sarah Palin made herself into a celebrity. Indeed, until one week ago, almost no one outside of Alaska had ever heard of her. No. I’d say it was the media and blogosphere, particularly with their lies about Palin’s baby, Trig, not being Sarah’s baby but her daughter’s and their lies about Sarah having been a member of the Alaska Independence Party and the silly spectacle of women’s liberationist liberals, who used to say that women could have it all, career, riches, power, fame and family, fretting about how poor Sarah could possibly even think of taking on the task of running for vice-president and single-mother-supporting liberals tsk-tsking at Palin’s unwed 17 year old daughter being pregnant.

    THAT, my friend, is what has made Sarah Palin such a celebrity and drove about 40 million Americans to view her acceptance speech, very nearly as many as viewed Barack Obama’s acceptance of the Democratic presidential nomination; not Sarah Palin herself. The media frenzy around Sarah was so pitiful and fraught with foolishness and outright lies, Americans wanted to find out who could have sent supposedly responsible reporters and commentators into such a tail-spin of idiocy.

    Apparently, according to a new poll, some 58% of Americans liked what they saw and heard and approve of Sarah, warts and all. They got a look at her, not the caricature that had been being painted about her to them for nearly a week, and they saw that she looked like them. Her family looked like theirs. The problems she and her families have faced and are facing are like those that they themselves and their families face. It ain’t everything, I grant you, but for now it does seem to have been enough.

    Now I am not one among those 58%. I won’t yet say I disapprove, either. I’m among the “wait and see” crowd. Wait and see what becomes of the so-called “trooper-gate” investigation and wait and see how she acquits herself before reporters, unscripted, answering questions of national and international importance and concern.

  3. By Windspike on Sep 5, 2008 | Reply


    You may be right about waiting as the trooper situation plays out. I don’t think we will know much about it until after November, however, given that the GOP has friends in high places that control the executive law enforcement agencies.

    I’m curious to see how she answers the difficult questions that face her, if she ever opens herself up for an interview that hasn’t been carefully scripted.

  4. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 5, 2008 | Reply


    I expect, that is if she ever hopes to garner my support, that there will be appearances, apart from the v-p debate, that there will be appearances on the Sunday grist-mill shows. She’d better and she’d better have knowledge about more than just Alaskan oil and natural gas and drilling in ANWR to talk about. I already know that she knows about those things but there are lots of other things that a person who might be sworn in to the office of President of the United States one day needs to know.

    The person at the head of the investigation in Alaska, though, is not a Palin fan. I don’t think the investigation will be deliberately delayed unless it is by Palin herself delaying it and that will be as bad or worse than a bad outcome from the investigation, at least as far as I’m concerned.

  5. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 5, 2008 | Reply

    Truth be told, though, given the recent polls, I’m not sure that Palin/McCain ‘08 ticket wouldn’t beat an Obama/Biden ‘08 ticket if the election were held today. Palin’s favorability numbers, after all the bogus and not so bogus attacks upon her this last week, are higher even than Obama’s. I look for the GOP to start printing up ‘Palin/McCain ‘08: Soccer Mom for Prez!’ bumper-stickers any time now.

  6. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 5, 2008 | Reply

    Heh! John McCain’s acceptance speech drew a larger viewing audience than Barack Obama did, according to initial Nielson ratings reports. What sort of bizarro alternative reality have we dropped into? It’s like we’ve entered the Twilight Zone or something. God has Obama got to be pissed. I mean, I thought Americans were tired of Republicans, had had enough of the corruption, the wars, the economy etc., and so forth?

    A young, intelligent, photogenic, rhetorically superior speaker fashioning himself as a post-racial, post-partisan, centrist agent of change we need and can believe in goes up against an old man and an experience-deficient woman with the hint of corruption hanging over her own head and the old guy of the ‘Party of Corruption’ pulls in the largest audience and his inexperienced vice-presidential running-mate very nearly ties the Obamessiah’s audience numbers????? Freak out!

    And the polls are showing the two camps within margins of error. All I can do is shake my head. What is happening in this country? Don’t they know Obama’s the One?

  7. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 5, 2008 | Reply

    And before Obama surrogates go with their plan to drop the Eagleton name (i. e., the McGovern pick whom he later dropped) around, they might want to look at Palin’s favorability numbers relative to Obama’s own favorability numbers and their surrogates get laughed off of whatever Sunday political talk show they happen to be on.

    The Dems will be dropping Obama from their presidential ticket before McCain will be dropping Sarah Palin from the GOP ticket.

    The only possible monkey wrenches might be if (1) the ‘trooper-gate’ investigation finding show Palin having improperly used her office or (2) she just totally washes out between now and the end of the Vice-Presidential debate, revealing herself to be on a par with her Down Syndrome baby Trig as a potential fill-in president. Dropping the Eagleton name ain’t gonna do it, guys. Get a clue and get an argument that’s going to resonate with the American people because, at the moment, the American people are lovin’ Sarah Palin.

  8. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 5, 2008 | Reply

    Here’s a link that I forgot to put in the above comment.

  9. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 5, 2008 | Reply

    For a lengthy list of wacky rumors that have been revealed (many of them just out and out lies, others just worthy of a weary “Who gives a shit?) see the amazing job of vetting that msm and various other lunatic sources whose stories have, at one time or another been completely disproven, click here! If you have believed any of them at any time, you might be a liberal. If you have thought ANY of them should have been grounds for rejecting Sarah Palin (putting aside your revulsion of four to eight more years of Republicans in the White House) please let me know which ones.

    One can only marvel at the utter stupidity of the last week of serial nonsensical speculation and gotcha politics that passed for a “responsible” job of vetting John McCain’s vice-presidential pick. This has, though, been the single most entertaining (for me) and pitiful (for liberal bloggers and liberal media reporters and commentators) week I can recall in decades. Truly. I’m not kidding.

    Next thing will be Andrew Sullivan, last person on earth to not be convinced that Trig is indeed Sarah Palin’s baby, will file a freedom of information act demand for affidavits of the attending nurses and delivering doctor at Trig’s birth…just so we can all relax and move on. Andy, you are one strange dude but ya gotta love tenacity. Okay, tenacity tinged by utter idiocy but tenacity in pursuit of stupidity nonetheless! Go, guy!

  10. By Paul Watson on Sep 6, 2008 | Reply

    And of course Republicans would never do that (Obama’s a Muslim), would they? It would be scandalous if people resorted to attacking a candidate through their friends and family (Reverend Wright), wouldn’t it? Or possibly calling on a party to actually stand by what it claims to believe (sex outside wedlock is bad and the fault of poor parenting). No, those things are obviously things the GOP would never do.

    This is, unfortunately, what passes for politics.

  11. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 6, 2008 | Reply


    Well, in any case, Sarah Palin had better change her mind again and decide to cooperate fully with this investigation. That’s all there is to it. This is the real deal and I am repulsed that Palin would not cooperate. There’s only two reasons that I can think of for that: she’s afraid that, in spite of being innocent, that the investigation report will come out with a guilty charge because the woman at the head of the investigation is a political enemy or she’s guilty. In either case, stonewalling the investigation is a bad idea. If she’s guilty, she should have told the McCain campaign no and why for the good of the Party. If she’s not guilty, the best way to appear guilty is to refuse to cooperate with the investigation. The best way to show oneself innocent is to cooperate by bringing forth evidence, such as there is and by attacking the credibility of testimony against one and by putting forth a credible narrative that shows the evidence to be consonant with one’s innocence. This is serious business and it must be approached seriously, straightforwardly and honestly. It’s the only way I, and I suspect, most Americans, can be confident that Sarah Palin isn’t guilty of the serious charge of misuse of official power for personal interest. In this case, the interest being to punish Palin’s sister’s asshole, abusive husband.

    Now I have no liking for the husband. Evidence seems clear that he’s an abuser and has no business being a state trooper. If Palin thought he should be fired, I agree with her: he should have been.

    But if Palin removed her brother-in-law’s superior BECAUSE that superior refused to fire the brother-in-law, that will be a black-spot that I could not overlook in good conscience. If she removed the superior for some other valid reason, Palin should be okay.

    I cannot account for why THIS is not the avenue of attack by Democrats and other Obama backers. Every time I opened my mouth, were I an Obama surrogate, I would be reminding people that Palin is under investigation and I’d would fill in enough of the details to cast suspicion on her and make sure everyone knows that Palin has decided not to cooperate with the investigation. I would, of course, say that we all should wait for the report to come out but wonder, out loud, why, if Palin is innocent, would Palin not simply cooperate with the investigation. If she’s innocent, I would end, why she should have nothing to worry about. This would, of course, place worry in the minds of Palin supporters.

    I suppose I would also have to say that no one defends the brother-in-law, who seems to be a particularly unsavory character. I would probably have to say that I don’t think such a person should be a state trooper. But, I would, also have to say, that doesn’t justify an abuse of power such as has been alleged in the case of Sarah Palin. That would be corruption and, I would sadly have to say, there’s already been enough corruption in the Republican Party…

    Why this is not the substance of attack, I can’t imagine. Instead we get, well, what we’ve gotten. That would be the difference between an entertaining week for Republicans and a seriously damaging week for Republicans. Maybe the Democrats really don’t want to win, after all. Or don’t know how. I’m not sure which is worse.

  12. By Paul Watson on Sep 6, 2008 | Reply

    You have a good point. Possibly because the husband is such a sleazebag, the Democrats agree that he should have been fired and think the public wouldn’t think a process violation was that big a deal. You know that’s how it would have been spun. I mean, it’s not as if there aren’t prior examples with the torture/detention without trial issues that Republican spin doctors don’t think the public think process is a big deal.

  13. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 6, 2008 | Reply


    That could be but I do believe it would have been a better strategy than the one they followed. The foolishness of the attacks on Palin is shown, also, I think, in that they seem only to have rallied people to her, make them like her more, identify with her more closely rather than, as the attackers surely would have hoped, driven her from the ticket before or shortly after the convention, thus embarrassing McCain and the Republicans, driving down McCain’s polling numbers by placing doubt in the electorate’s minds about McCain’s fitness for the presidency and driving people to Obama.

    Point being, it appears to have done just the opposite from what was planned. In short, the attacks were not just stupid because so many of them proved upon even cursory examination by right wing bloggers to have been provably false and others to have been true but in the final analysis irrelevant in the electorate’s minds but because they were counterproductive.

  14. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 6, 2008 | Reply

    Get your “Palin-McCain ‘08: Socker Mom for Prez!” bumper-stickers and campaign buttons now! They’ll be valuable some day! Sa-rah! Sa-rah! Sa-rah!…

    It seems that lefty vetting of Sarah Palin has managed the unimaginable: they’ve turned a virtual unknown into a rock-star class celebrity in one week. Record time, I’d guess. Not exactly what they’d hoped to do.

  15. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 6, 2008 | Reply

    I think the best policy for Obama boosters to have followed would have been to ignore Palin altogether. By the time she was to speak at the convention, she’d have still been an unknown and it would have been very difficult for Republicans to generate much interest, let alone excitement for a speech by an unknown governor of Alaska in the face of a virtual black-out in the press about her. Sure it wouldn’t have been responsible of the press but “responsible” is hardly the word that comes to mind to describe what the press has been engaged in since McCain announced his v-p would be an unknown gal from Alaska.

  16. By Windspike on Sep 6, 2008 | Reply

    Unfortunately, Palin is like crack. She’s hard to lay off once you have a dose, I suppose. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel. There enough fodder to really make one scratch their heads over the decision to pick her. Clearly, it was political over qualifications that drove the decision.

  17. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 6, 2008 | Reply

    One might argue that picking Obama was a political over qualifications decision, too! After all, Obama’s experience is on the slim side, too. Actually, I read that, sometime after delivering his famous speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, he was asked if he would run for president in 2008, his answer was no. He felt he didn’t have the experience to run so soon. This seems to have been Joe Biden’s opinion, too, during the primary season just last, too so, apparently, Obama and Biden are both agreed that Obama is not experienced enough to run for president for 2008! ;-)

    On this issue, I agree with them both, 100%!

  18. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 7, 2008 | Reply

    Sarah Palin: Celebrity? Yeh. Okay. But that’s not the important thing to understand about why Sarah Palin is such a threat to the Democrats. The important thing to understand about Sarah Palin is this:

    She didn’t have to prove she was “of the people.” She really is the people.

    Willie Brown, San Francisco Chronicle, September 7, 2008.

  19. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 7, 2008 | Reply

    Great line!

  20. By manapp99 on Sep 7, 2008 | Reply

    “I think the best policy for Obama boosters to have followed would have been to ignore Palin altogether.”

    I agree with this line Craig. However the nature of Democrat politics is attack. They have spent 8 years attacking the GOP and more specifically GWB. Even though that is how politics is played and some attack is clearly warranted, you have to be careful about where to draw the line. Look at how Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have used the attack Bush and GOP method for the last two years and where their popularity ratings are.

    The left has pushed the “I hate the GOP and George Bush” theme so much that they risk alienating the middle. When they took the attack so fiercely as they did to Sarah the public saw it as over the top and pushed back. They should have been more gracious to the newcomer and then they may have been seen as fair. They chose to try and force her out with relentless attacks and it backfired so far. It still may work but so far it has only helped the McCain team. IMHO

  21. By Paul Watson on Sep 7, 2008 | Reply

    Just curious, but which party decided to swiftboat the opposition? Which party declared that anyone who didn’t support the President was a traitor? which party declared not wearing a lapel pin made someone unpatriotic? Which party thinks that supporters of the other should burn in Hell (trick question that, I admit, but only one party openly states this)?

    Your implication that somehow the Democrats are the only ones who’s political nature is attack is rather shy of the mark, wouldn’t you say?

  22. By manapp99 on Sep 7, 2008 | Reply

    Paul, this line from my post:

    “Even thought that is how politics is played and some attack is clearly warranted, you have to be careful where to draw the line.”

    shows that I understand that attacks are part of politics. I believe that the Dems and the MSM overshot the mark with Palin.

    I have used the example elsewhere of Lazio attacking Clinton in the NY senate race. This backfired on Lazio and he lost.

    I am not so sure that the swiftboat attacks on Kerry did not do the same thing. Overshoot the mark. I think there was a real since of Kerry being picked on because of the swiftboaters. I know the left attributes these attacks to his demise but I am not so sure they were what did it. Kerry’s own words after he came back from Vietnam were just as damaging to his image as the attacks by his fellow sailors. IMO.

    Once again I am not saying that attacks are relegated to just the left but that the attacks on Palin have so far backfired.

    Polls so far bear this out but if something does stick then it could turn real fast for the Dems.

  23. By manapp99 on Sep 7, 2008 | Reply

    Sheesh. Sense not since.

Post a Comment