Republicans selected both McCain and Palin for strategic reasons, and then they proceeded to eagerly undermine those strategic reasons.

McCain was selected as a “maverick” – someone not in thrall to the Bush Agenda and more “moderate”, who would appeal to Independents.
Palin was selected to appeal to women, and the disaffected PUMAs more specifically – and also to add charisma to the ticket.

Instead, the Party pushed McCain further and further to the Right until he became little more than a Bush clone who actually served. He no longer appealed to Independents. Palin failed miserably with women – she decreased female support for the ticket – and those PUMAs turned to be mythical or Republicans in disguise. She was good at getting sexually-repressed conservatives to fantasise over a married grandmother, but that does not qualify one for office particularly.

Palin did, however, resonate with the crazy faction of the Party: the birthers, racists, secret-Muslim-spouting, Obama-as-Antichrist-proclaiming types who are attracted to a cult of personality. These are the people that the Party Managers wanted to keep out of sight as they tried to present a unified image of rationality and security. Since they were dismissing Obama’s support as a cult of personality, they really didn’t want such a thing to appear on their side of the ticket.

What we are seeing now is the schism between the traditional Party bosses and the “energised base” that they have manipulated for decades. There is no longer a unified message from, or a top-down power structure within, the Republican Party. That has been their great strength, and it is gone. Non-Republicans can scarcely believe it, but stories such the one OW linked to keep cropping up and a faithful segment of the GOP keeps on defending her strenuously.

Palin has the potential to strip away a third of the Republican’s strength, with another 30% of its ranks already disaffected over any given issue. She brings no new demographics to the Party, and creates deep divisions among the existing Party constituencies.
And yet Republicans can always be counted on to rally around this ticking time bomb in their midst.

So yes, Palin does intrigue a lot of people outside of the echo chamber. That doesn’t mean they will vote for her. It means they are waiting for that ticking time bomb to explode in the Party bunker.

So since I don’t, in fact, think I’m “better” than “conservatives”, I’ll just go back to giving as good as I get, thanks very much.

If you want to preach civility as a universal good I suggest you start with your own speech and that of those who are on your side in the various debates here. It will be much more impressive, and nobody will think you’re simply being a partisan tool, as they do now.

Because instead of rolling over for the High Broderist definition of ‘bipartisanship’ which operationally is closer to that of Karl Roves’ they went for an approach that (gasp!) is actually effective in getting what we want.

Yes, but only halfway.

Is that what you’re saying, that liberals should act better than “conservatives”?

If I concede that to you would it make a wit’s difference?

If you think you are better than “conservatives”, then yes, you should act better than them. You do the former, and not the latter. Not complaining, just asking where exactly that fits into your definition of liberalism.

Maybe you’re right, maybe we should act better than you guys.

Is that what you’re saying, that liberals should act better than “conservatives”?

I’m still wondering if it ever occurred to you to ask any of the well-known spokesmen for the right to tone down their rhetoric a bit during the Bush years?

Sullivan is a fiscal conservative and watched the Republicans under Bush double the debt (as Republicans have done for the last three Republican Presidents).

Sullivan is a military conservative, he unquestionably supported the Republican’s Iraq War and it took him years before his sense of critical inquiry recovered.

(Other right wingers still haven’t looked at the Iraq War Lie objectively, it was “rah, rah” cheerleading with NO critical inquiry into the changing rational for being in Iraq.)

Sullivan is a smaller government conservative and watched Republicans expand the size of government by massive proportions and he watched Republicans expand the POWERS of government by massive proportions (sadistic torture, war crimes, illegal surveillance, indefinite detention, and the evisceration of core Constitutional protections including the ancient principle of Habeas Corpus enshrined in the original text of the Constitution).

Sullivan is also a ‘keep your government out of my personal life’ conservative and watched Republicans repeatedly try to use the powers of a larger government to regulate his personal decisions.

Sullivan, is NOT a traditional social conservative nor is he a traditional religious conservative. Traditional social conservative and traditional religious conservative are in turn NOT smaller government conservatives. Both groups legislate personal decisions and use the power of large government to force personal decisions (the freedom to choose your consensual partner and the right to make your own reproductive decisions).

Between Sullivan’s failure to be a ‘traditional’ social conservative and ‘traditional’ religious combined with Sullivan’s critical inquiry into the war he supported and his conservative rejection of the expansion of government and expansion of government powers, led to him in turn being rejected by faux-conservatives that have completely warped what ‘conservatism’ means.

Conservative right winger Andrew Sullivan’s real sin to the right wingers that now repudiate him is that Sullivan thinks for himself and that’s a cardinal sin to right wingers.

Right winger Sullivan expected more from Republican McCain, Sullivan expected a serious person be picked for the vice president, someone who was informed and capable of learning.

Instead what he got was an uninformed person who celebrated ignorance, used deceit as a natural political weapon, and supported an expansion of government into his personal life.

And when Sullivan spoke his mind and didn’t follow the leader, he was cast out of the faux-conservative circles that now control the right wing.

But I expect that the right wing will learn to love Sullivan again (eventually) because the current President is giving Sullivan a growing list of complaints and Sullivan isn’t someone who keeps his opinion to himself.

Say what you want, at least he knows the Constitutional duties of the Vice President.

I would’ve let up on Mike Allen after his second dodge of the question, so I’ll agree he was an asshole there, but that wasn’t my point in linking that. That and I don’t know the first thing about doing a radio interview. But you hate Ziegler, you hate Limbaugh and you hate Fox News, so why is it necessary to emulate them if they’ve failed and embarrassed conservatism like you say they have?

Your knowledge of conservatism’s roots and thinkers is impressive, I mean that, but tell me why taking the Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals approach is what seems to define liberals today.

I guess its because we’ve been reading too many right-wing blogs, and listening to Fox News and right-wing radio, and we’ve picked up their bad habits.

Did you write to Rush Limbaugh and tell him he should tone it down a bit during Bush’s eight years?

Yes Dennis, I admit you’ve got us right where you want us. Like all moonbats I am baffled and confused and fearful about Sarah Palin’s ability to whip the dead-enders into a frothy lather of indignation.

I don’t think that way at all, Wilbur. I just don’t think you guys are acting like you just won, or that your party has the upper hand that it does. It’s like it’s still 2005 with you and you’re still under Republican rule, there’s really not all that much change in the tone and comfort level of the typical liberal blog comments. The same anger, that same snarkiness, the same meanness. Please tell me what explains that phenomenon other than fear.

As for whether the category of 28%-ers is based on any objective evidence, well, yes it is. Among this evidence is the fact that according to every major polling source the Palin selection was a demographic disaster for McCain. She was a drag on the ticket among every group aside from the ca. 28% of the hard hard right. So no, we’re not quite shaking in our boots yet.

As for Purdum’s article, I’d say it’s worth a healthy dose of skepticism, on account of the unnamed sources and the obvious bent toward the scandalous and salacious, but I’d be pretty surprised if there weren’t some substance to a lot of the unflattering things said about S.P. therein. Much of it rings true with the evidence that’s already out there. I don’t think it would be as damaging to Palin, though, if the right weren’t up as up in arms about it as it is. I probably never would have read it if Jay here (forget which one) hadn’t been bawling about it.

Oh no, I never thought that.

Once again, shorter Dennis

Was Purdum’s article grounded in fact or objectivity? Go back and read the quote Jay Tea posted of Bill Clinton describing Purdum’s use of unnamed sources and how he uses them to fit his narrative. And if you have the time or inclination, listen to this audio of John Ziegler interviewing Mike Allen of Politico about why he called Palin’s interviews a ‘circus act’, then couldn’t explain why he said that.

I have no misconceptions that she’ll ever get close to the White House other than possibly on a tour, but it does amaze me at how the media and the liberal left focus so much on her and how they struggle to define her in their attempts at marginalization. The same way they do Fox News.

No matter what you think of her, if Hillary had some of the same appealing characteristics and natural political talent as she does, taking away the good looks even, she’d be our President right now. And you’d have not one negative word to say about her, either.

I suppose there were some liberals who supported Hillary mainly because she made wingnut heads explode, but not many.

none of them are ever grounded in fact or objectivity

On the contrary, my low opinion of her ability and character is based on nothing but concrete and broadly-agreed-upon fact, whereas your high opinion of her seems to be based on nothing but partisanship and an adolescent crush.