Radical Right Ramps Up PAC Now That Palin is On Ticket

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:38:00 PM EST
Tags: John McCain, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update: Sarah Palin's next interview will be with Sean Hannity.

Update: Markos:

We're going to win this thing the way campaigns are won -- by playing hardball. Politics is a blood sport. Republicans understand this and never flinch from flinging the sh!t. We won't win until we learn to fight back in kind. And I'm more than happy to get down in the mud with our friends on the Right so Obama doesn't have to.

Same here, although I think Obama should do it too.

****

Sen. Barack Obama runs against John McCain, and only John McCain, at his peril -- and ours.

Family Research Council Action waded ever deeper into the world of electoral politics on Friday with the announcement by Mr. Perkins of the formation of a new political action committee.

More....

The Family Research Council Action P.A.C. will provide endorsements and, in some cases, financial support to “pro-family” candidates for office across the country, according to Mr. Perkins. He said that the group would have a budget of about $250,000 for the rest of the election cycle and the committee today issued its first endorsements in dozens of House and Senate races.

The FRC is too clever to say it's going to fund McCain-Palin. They are touting their interest in down-ticket races, for now. But, as FRC chief Tony Perkins says:

The formation of the committee is another indication of the steadily growing enthusiasm among the conservative base for Mr. McCain’s candidacy, particularly after the addition of Gov. Palin to the Republican ticket, which Mr. Perkins said has “clearly changed the whole dynamic of this campaign cycle.”

Obama needs to stop walking on eggshells. Gov. Sarah Palin is a threat to Democratic values and principles. The race has become about her. He needs to deal with her views and beliefs and address what the radical right will demand if their support of McCain/Palin is successful.

I could care less about Bush III. I care about McCain/Palin I and I want our candidate to say what we all know: She's unprepared to be Vice-President, there's a fair chance, due to McCain's age and health, she could end up as President, she has zero foreign policy experience or legislative experience and her addition to the ticket will make McCain beholden to the radical right.

Palin's personal beliefs match those of the most extremist conservative wing of the Republican party.

No wonder Obama's backers are getting jittery.

So long as he continues to highlight McCain and Palin's campaign theme of change in Washington in stead of their beliefs, record and in Palin's case, lack of national record, he's putting the campaigns on equal footing.

“I’m glad that the debate now is all about change, and we are going to spend a lot of time talking about who can actually deliver change in Washington,” Mr. Obama said. “

I never cared about change in Washington. That's a big reason I didn't support Obama in the primaries. It's spin that means something different to everyone who hears it.

But I do care about Democratic values and our Supreme Court and preventing religious fundamentalists from having any clout in our Government.

Obama can wish this was a one on one race with McCain all he wants, but he won't make it true. He's already being slammed by those saying the biggest mistake of his campaign was not picking Hillary for VP. Even Palin's saying it.

He needs to say every chance he gets that Palin is no substitute for Hillary Clinton and opposes every value Hillary and Democrats stand for. He's our candidate, those words need to come from him.

He also should not have canceled his appearance on Saturday Night Live. Not with McCain-Palin spreading their lies and false advertisements all over the airwaves. Do you really think Sarah Palin or John McCain won't be featured every week on SNL and elsewhere until the election?

Indeed, in recent days, Mr. McCain has been increasingly called out by news organizations, editorial boards and independent analysts like FactCheck.org. The group, which does not judge whether one candidate is more misleading than another, has cried foul on Mr. McCain more than twice as often since the start of the political conventions as it has on Mr. Obama.

...“I think the McCain folks realize if they can get this thing down in the mud, drag Obama into the mud, that’s where they have the best advantage to win,” said Matthew Dowd, who worked with many top McCain campaign advisers when he was President Bush’s chief strategist in the 2004 campaign, but who has since had a falling out with the White House. “If they stay up at 10,000 feet, they don’t.”

For all the criticism, the offensive seems to be having an impact. It has been widely credited by strategists in both parties with rejuvenating Mr. McCain’s campaign and putting Mr. Obama on the defensive since it began early this summer.

McCain showed abysmal judgment in putting Palin on the ticket. More here.

Politics is about controlling your environment. The Dems need to get back in the driver's seat.

Update: See Bob Herbert in the New York Times.

(Big Tent Democrat disassociates himself the the views expressed here.)

< Racism as a Family Value | Obama On Offense - Against McCain, Not Palin >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Radical Right Ramps Up PAC Now That Palin is On Ticket | 35 comments (35 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by frankly0 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:31:55 PM EST

for the media, and of course the left wing blogs, its reputation on the matter of Palin and McCain is now in the dumps as far as the larger public is concerned. Basically, its credibility was squandered on attacks on Palin which, in the eyes of the public, simply didn't hold up to the actual person.

So when the media "calls out" McCain's campaign on its "lies" -- even when they are right to do so -- the typical voter simply filters it out as based on bias. There remains no "honest broker" on the matter of truth in this campaign, as far as the public is concerned.

All of which basically means that the McCain campaign can pretty much lie and distort to its heart's content.

How Obama wins in such an environment is not, let us say, obvious.

not the "typical voter" but the (none / 0) (#9)
by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:54:59 PM EST

typical Republican and conservative voter.

I'm ceding them to McCain. I'm trying to rally our base.


Suffice it to say (none / 0) (#20)
by frankly0 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 04:32:01 PM EST

that's not what the polls have shown.

Even unaffiliated voters, by a very good margin -- about 5 to 1 -- have decided that the media has been unfair not only to McCain but most especially to Palin.

When no one trusts the only parties who might be considered referees of the truth -- the media -- it's a war of all against all in controlling the message.

That's not a recipe for success for Democrats.


Wow, that isn't what that article said at all (none / 0) (#22)
by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 05:33:10 PM EST

but hey........whatever.


Oh, and right before the passage I (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by frankly0 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 05:53:08 PM EST

quoted, this is said:

Just last week a Rasmussen Reports survey found that 51% of voters believed reporters were trying to hurt McCain's running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, with their news coverage.

yeah, I read that too and that would be a 2% (2.00 / 1) (#29)
by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 05:57:12 PM EST

lead in voters who think that reporters were trying to hurt McCain's running mate....a 2% lead, I wonder what the margin of error is there?


: A 2% lead? (none / 0) (#33)
by frankly0 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 06:19:55 PM EST

what in God's name are you talking about?
Consider this quote again:

Among unaffiliated voters, 49% say reporters are trying to hurt Palin, while 32% say their coverage is unbiased. Only five percent (5%) say reporters are trying to help her.
The fact is that the numbers on one side of the issue absolutely dominate the numbers on the other. Obviously, as always, there are people in the middle who basically don't declare that they see bias one way or the other -- as often as not due to some ignorance of the issue, or simple lack of firm commitment. But everybody knows that there will always be this essentially uncommitted middle. Yet what people also understand is that there are all kinds of "leaners" even in the middle category -- and they are very likely to favor the extreme that wins out.
It is very, very rare to get numbers like 49% to 5% in a poll of an issue like this. It shows that there is a pretty enormous domination of one side of that issue in the public's mind. In such cases, it is almost always considered to be the best course to take the ratios of the extremes as most relevant, especially when those extremes represent a majority of the public when taken together.
If your reading of polls is so limited that you can't see that's how one needs to interpret numbers like these, and you think they can be dismissed because there a fair number of people who don't make a commitment, then I think you will never be in a position in which you will ever be learning anything useful from polls.
I think you've mostly just arranged your prejudices about polls so that you can hold onto what you want to believe no matter what.

And from another article (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by frankly0 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 05:56:38 PM EST

from Ras, this is said:

Among unaffiliated voters, 49% say reporters are trying to hurt Palin, while 32% say their coverage is unbiased. Only five percent (5%) say reporters are trying to help her.

Put it all together, and it's pretty much exactly the point I was making.


: No it isn't but okay (none / 0) (#30)
by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 05:58:04 PM EST

This is your world view.

From the article (none / 0) (#24)
by frankly0 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 05:50:19 PM EST

one reads this:

Interestingly, while 83% of Republican voters think most reporters are trying to help Obama, 19% of Democrats agree, one percentage point higher than the number of Democrats who believe they are trying to help McCain. Unaffiliated voters by a 53% to 10% margin see reporters trying to help Obama.
Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats say most reporters are providing unbiased coverage in the current presidential campaign, but only 20% of unaffiliateds and nine percent (9%) of Republicans agree.

yeah, I read that part (2.00 / 1) (#26)
by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 05:53:43 PM EST

about helping Obama but somehow the 5 to 1 feel the media has been unfair to the McCain/Palin campaign isn't in there. You can make up your own factualizations about what questions were asked but I don't have to encourage you.


And you're just (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by frankly0 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 05:59:05 PM EST

pretending that what I've said is not the pretty clear import of the passages I've quoted.

Go ahead and pretend, of course. It's a free country, and self delusion is part of that package.


I'm pretending nothing (none / 0) (#32)
by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 06:03:13 PM EST

You are pretending that unaffiliated voters were asked if the press had been treating McCain/Palin unfairly and that like 85% of them said yes.


: You're just confused (none / 0) (#34)
by frankly0 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 06:27:15 PM EST

There will always be a substantial number of people polled who just don't have firm commitments like this, and therefore won't plunk down for a position as "out there" as a definite claim of bias -- mostly their opinions carry relatively weight in determining where the public is on an issue.

One thing that would help (none / 0) (#21)
by mg7505 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 04:35:16 PM EST

him win is some visible surrogates who will go on the offensive. Joe Biden especially needs to get more media exposure.

It would be interesting to see what happened if Obama (but not his surrogates) ignored McCain/Palin completely, and just spent his time rallying the base around key issues like the environment (with Al Gore) or healthcare (with Hillary) etc. The nebulous talk about change and lobbyist-bashing might be necessary, but it isn't getting him any more votes. Maybe getting really specific re: issues would get this campaign back on track and make the media focus on something besides the Right's lies. Or maybe it's just too risky. As you said, the way to win this thing isn't yet obvious.


Anyone w/half a brain cell must (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by oculus on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:50:27 PM EST

know Palin is a right-to-lifer and probably also a war monger. People who like that sort of thing will vote for the McCain/Palin ticket.

exactly which is why (none / 0) (#8)
by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:53:51 PM EST

the pitch should be to Dems to come out in force and oppose it. Those voters are already lost to Obama. It's just a question of whether there are more of them or more of us who turn out to vote.

Fear is a powerful motivator, especailly when as with Palin, it's true.


: Effective attacks (none / 0) (#12)
by Coral on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 04:02:55 PM EST

In order to attack successfully, Obama campaign & supporters need to target the audience that can swing the election.
These are people in OH, MI, FL, CO, NV, NM, NH...etc. What will bring them to the polls to vote Democratic?
I'm not sure that attacking McCain/Palin as right-wing extremists is the most effective for this group (though it is effective for many sitting on the fence because Obama isn't progressive enough, etc.).
I think the economy -- and lies by both McCain and Palin and their terrible non-ideas on fixing the economy -- can be the most winning argument.

oculus (none / 0) (#23)
by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 05:36:12 PM EST

tracy in stunned silence............... So vocal?! I'm not used to you being so upfront of late.


It looks like the BHO folks (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by 1jpb on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 04:29:29 PM EST

are willing to draw vivid contrast. This is a new statement:

"We will take no lectures from John McCain who is cynically running the sleaziest and least honorable campaign in modern Presidential campaign history. His discredited ads with disgusting lies are running all over the country today. He runs a campaign not worthy of the office he is seeking," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

I, too, am in favor of blunt campaigning.

lol!~ sounds like they are just (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by nycstray on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 05:56:40 PM EST

taking the Hillary scripts and flopping in McCain's name. We heard this for months from the O camp aimed at Hillary (and Bill). Then when the race was over, it was like we didn't exist except to STFU and fall in line while O courted the Palin base. I don't think listening to Burton, David P and a few others spew the same lines at McCain is going to be effective. Acting like a fighting Democrat just might though. And some substance so when he hits the news they aren't showing him talking about McCain=Bad. And no more waffling. Might help build some trust that he trashed with his flips.


I'm not interested in (none / 0) (#35)
by 1jpb on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 07:36:32 PM EST

refighting the primary.

It doesn't bother me if you want to keep rehashing the primary, but I'm not going to respond.

I'm sorry if that sounds like STFU to you, that's not how it's meant.


It's not refighting the primary :) (none / 0) (#36)
by nycstray on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 09:18:27 PM EST

It's called "doin' the same d@mn thing" and I'm not sure it will work. We heard how scary, evil, divisive, dishonest and did I say EEEEEEVIL! Hillary was? Well, it works one time, especially when there is CDS on both sides. Now most of the PDS seems to be on one side, and that side is repeating the message. How soon before they come out with "Just not THAT woman!"? And a few others that are known all too well with the voters O needs to win?

He will prob still win, but he has made his life harder in this election, and if/when he does win, in office. If he manages to get a better message after a lunch with BC, lol!~, what does that tell ya?!


Well, I can take just one moment to go down (none / 0) (#38)
by 1jpb on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 10:09:31 PM EST

Memory Lane.

I, as a BHO supporter, was critical of HRC. But, I never thought she was evil or a bunch that other stuff you noted.

In fact, I don't even think McCain is evil. But, I do think that HRC would be a better president than him. For every HRC fault I've complained about, I can think of at least three McCain faults. And, I was for McCain in the 2000 primary--I donated and volunteered. So, it's not like I'm some sort of McCain hater.


: My apologies (none / 0) (#39)
by nycstray on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:12:28 AM EST

I wasn't referring to you specifically. It was a general opinion. :) What's interesting was my reaction as to how Hillary was treated. I wasn't keen on her running here. I thought side show for days if she won. Boy was I wrong! So seeing the MSM, blogs etc totally slam her without really 'seeing' her, p!ssed me off to no end.
Funny about McCain. I appreciated his attitude in 2000. Wouldn't have voted for him, but he did have spirit! And I can admire that (one reason I like Palin but would never vote for the ticket, spirit.) I will say though, I have to wonder which John McCain would rule if he gets in office. If for some reason he becomes President, he has nothing to lose with "his party". And Palin was an interesting choice because she doesn't tow the Evangelical line when governing.

Bill Burton doesn't get it, and that's one of (none / 0) (#37)
by Anne on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 09:44:16 PM EST

the reasons Obama's not getting any traction. Whining about the swiftboaters didn't help Kerry, and whining about mean John McCain isn't going to help Obama.

What Obama still is not doing - at least to the point people can be aware of it - is telling the American people what he's going to do, why his policies are the better ones; I can't be the only one who thinks that if Obama would put half as much energy and passion into telling us what he wants to be elected to do, as he does in complaining that John McCain is picking on him, he could probably have left McCain in the dust weeks ago.

Delivering a lecture that he isn't going to take any lectures from McCain, and scoring the sleaze and slime like this was an Olympic event, isn't going to galvanize the voters - and if he doesn't soon put people on his team who understand that, it's going to be election day a lot sooner than he is ready for it to be.


heh (none / 0) (#2)
by Turkana on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:24:13 PM EST

i love honest, vigorous debate- by blogmates!

fwiw- i'm with you, on this one.

: actually (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Turkana on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:25:41 PM EST

half with you...
i think you're both right- this IS about mccain's dangerous irresponsibility in picking palin, AND it's about bush iii.

I'm starting to think that Palin=Res ipsa loquitur (none / 0) (#5)
by steviez314 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:33:25 PM EST

That R2K/Kos poll already has her favorability #s at their lowest level and lower than the other 3 candidates.

The media is already doing its job. For how long, who knows? But too much push from the left, the right will complain again, and the media will get frozen again.

There must be some subtlety to attacking her. The blogs don't have it for sure. I don't think Obama himself should even mention her name. Not even Biden.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz really has done a tremendous job on this, and I think that's the level to keep it at.

I would love to see someone ask McCain though if he plans to put more thought into bombing Iran than he did in picking a Vp candidate.

: I respect Research 2000 (none / 0) (#11)
by WS on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 04:01:21 PM EST

but Daily Kos is um ... Daily Kos. What's the relationship between the two and how come RCP doesn't put it in their poll averages? RCP lets Rasmussen in so why not Dkos/Research 2000 of which Daily Kos, I assume, just attaches their name on it.

Good Points All!!! (none / 0) (#6)
by glanton on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:43:13 PM EST

And just as importantly, all the attacks on all the other fronts are still possible, even while at the same time pointing out the doctrinal shallowness of Palin.

A lot of people want to bury their heads in the sand at the charge that with Palin, McCain ramped up the Culture Wars, and declared Open Season on our civil liberties.

Unfortunate.

Semi OT, but could Palin return the 73 Million? (none / 0) (#10)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:59:31 PM EST

After all she says her state didn't need it or want it...

So put Alaska's money where your mouth is, Governor Palin

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has portrayed herself as a foe of pork-barrel spending, pointing in particular to her role in killing the $398 million "Bridge to Nowhere" between Ketchikan (pop. 7,400) and its airport on Gravina Island (pop. 50). I "told the Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,'" she said in her speech accepting the Republican vice presidential nomination. "If our state wanted to build a bridge, we were going to build it ourselves."
But Gov. Palin's administration acknowledges that it is still pursuing a project that would link Ketchikan to its airport -- with the help of as much as $73 million in federal funds earmarked by Congress for the original project.

: please post on the appropriate thread (none / 0) (#16)
by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 04:09:29 PM EST

this is about the radical right and Obama's strategy.

My post is gone (none / 0) (#14)
by 1980Ford on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 04:08:25 PM EST

Did I break a rule?

: yes,, it was off topic. There are (none / 0) (#18)
by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 04:10:07 PM EST

threads on that issue and open threads. comments must be on the topic we write about.