sarah palin

I referred to it this past weekend, but I wanted to be sure I clarified a portion of Kentucky Republican senatorial candidate Rand Paul's episode given Sarah Palin's recent defense of Paul.

Palin was trying to make the case, like she did after her horrible interview with CBS's Katie Couric, that the media is out to get candidates, looking for "gotcha" moments. Thus, according to Palin, Rachel Maddow conspired to get Rand Paul to flip-flop all over the place in his appearance on her show last week, which set this debacle into action.

Yet, Frank Rich notes this is a fallacy. Again and again, long after its passing, Paul is on record as saying he is not behind the Civil Rights Act:

With Rand Paul, we also get further evidence of race’s role in a movement whose growth precisely parallels the ascent of America’s first African-American president. The usual Tea Party apologists are saying that it was merely a gaffe — and a liberal media trap — when Paul on Wednesday refused to tell Rachel Maddow of MSNBC that he could fully support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But Paul has expressed similar sentiments repeatedly, at least as far back as 2002.

The more the Democrats can use Paul to represent what the GOP is increasingly representing in American politics -- the idea that no government is better than any government -- the better shot they have at avoiding a major beating at the polls come November, especially if Democrats are successful in mobilizing pro-government Millennials. This is why people like Fox analyst and ex-Bush adviser Karl Rove phoned Paul at the end of last week begging him to cancel his scheduled appearance on Meet the Press.

How does one know when a politician isn't up with the times? I suspect there are a number of devices that get to this metric, but one might be looking for someone harping about the nation being "center-right."

John McCain, of 2008 "Country First" fame, appeared with Sarah Palin yesterday to speak to a crowd of Tea Partiers. While Palin continued to gloss over the constant references to violent acts in her exhortations to teabaggers over the past couple days, McCain railed against health insurance reform, vowing a repeal of the newly-passed law.

When McCain spoke, he responded to President Obama's speech yesterday, in which Obama defied Republicans to campaign on a platform of repealing the health care reform law, in light of the various benefits included within it. "And my attitude is, 'Go for it,'" Obama said.

McCain declared: "We're gonna 'go for it,' an we're gonna repeal this bill. We're gonna stop this spending."

McCain also said: "Our answer is, yes, we're gonna 'go for it,' and we're gonna get it, and we're gonna restore the government back to the people of this country, because this is a right-of-center nation, and this president is governing from the left, and it will not stand."

When I finish reading that, the question that immediately pops into my head is... "What happens if it does stand?" What happens if people like this health insurance reform, given that a majority of Americans had already liked the bill's individual previsions or believed they weren't liberal enough? What happens if the world does not end? More broadly, what happens when the entirety of the nation's most diverse generation ever comes of age and is largely politically active, expressing its left-leaning viewpoints?

I think this all comes back to many members of the GOP and the conservative fringe being unable to zoom out and view these events over the long-term. We saw this with McCain himself in his poorly-run campaign in 2008 -- the difference between tactics and strategy. Yes, Obama faced some trouble with the Rev. Wright controversy, but he gave a forward-looking and eloquent speech that muted much of the criticism. Yes, the McCain campaign was enjoying success in its portrayal of Obama as a celebrity political novice that summer, but because it wasn't rooted in anything, the McCain camp apparently didn't think anything of choosing a mayor with frighteningly little experience as their vice presidential nominee. Yes, health insurance reform has had its troubles, and while the GOP was responsible for many of those Democratic struggles, their refusal to do anything other than saying no left them without any input whatsoever. And now, there's this call for repeal, a move to take away all the benefits given to 32 million people. A conscious choice to choose the student loan industry over young Americans.

As the GOP leans more to the right, its rhetoric closer and closer to a boiling point, it will increasingly place itself in untenable political positions. The GOP chooses to live in the moment, ignoring the political realities around the corner. Contrary to John McCain's wishes/statements, this is no longer a center-right nation. As the Millennials come of age politically, their size and pro-government/socially liberal positions will tip the country to the left, a la the 1930s.

So, again John -- what happens if it does stand? What's the contingency plan?

I've not been shy about critiquing those who work in journalism within the Beltway for getting lost in their bubble. Many times these journalists will construct realities or political narratives that don't exist or simply aren't true in the rest of the country.

We should first distinguish between the prognosticators who make the stuff up, and the reporters who objectively report the bullshit.

We have an example of the former today, as David Broder argues that Sarah Palin should be taken seriously. Calling Palin "a public figure at the top of her game -- a politician who knows who she is and how to sell herself," Broder paints Palin as a populist hero, someone capable of leading the romanticized teabaggers to a climactic victory over the oppressive government and Glenn Beck-haters everywhere.

So epic!

Broder might want to revisit populism's root word and his newspaper's polling operation, though. Unfortunately for Palin and Broder, people aren't buying it. Not even the GOP. So says the Washington Post.

Although Palin is a tea party favorite, her potential as a presidential hopeful takes a severe hit in the survey. Fifty-five percent of Americans have unfavorable views of her, while the percentage holding favorable views has dipped to 37, a new low in Post-ABC polling.

There is a growing sense that the former Alaska governor is not qualified to serve as president, with more than seven in 10 Americans now saying she is unqualified, up from 60 percent in a November survey. Even among Republicans, a majority now say Palin lacks the qualifications necessary for the White House.

Palin has lost ground among conservative Republicans, who would be crucial to her hopes if she seeks the party's presidential nomination in 2012. Forty-five percent of conservatives now consider her as qualified for the presidency, down sharply from 66 percent who said so last fall.

Among all Republicans polled, 37 percent now hold a "strongly favorable" opinion of Palin, about half the level recorded when she burst onto the national stage in 2008 as Sen. John McCain's running mate.

Keep in mind this is all after Palin's spike in visibility.

I'm not sure how this developed in Broder's brain, but the evidence is clear -- people (even conservatives) aren't buying into Palin's message. It's unfortunate that Broder continues to be one of the leading voices in Washington punditry.

It's no secret that the Republican party as a whole has been behind the curve on the use of Social Networking. We saw it the most during the 2008 election and now they are struggling to catch up. The Democratic party has become a powerhouse of youth and new media.

As the Democratic Party thrived on the new media frontier, the Republican Party stayed behind. The McCain campaign didn't hire a resident blogger until June 2008.
The McCain campaign was based on old-media approaches to politics -- which made sense on one level, since its candidate was in his 70s. Few Republicans knew how to use social media to the party's advantage. The danger was that a GOP mired in old ways of communication would become obsolete.

But then Sarah Palin came along. Palin's encounter with the old media was a disaster. Her interview with Katie Couric went badly. Tina Fey's impression reduced Palin to a cartoon. Palin needed a way out.
By necessity, she's found a way for the Republicans to adopt social media. She has more followers on Facebook than any politician except President Obama.

Could it be that Sarah Palin is going to be the one to go rogue on the GOP and bring them into the 2.0 age? Strangely enough it could be. Sarah Palin may be a terrible candidate but the 2008 election skyrocketed her to pop culture stardom. During the campaign she didn't stand a chance with old media, mainly because they asked questions that were logical, but on Facebook and Twitter she could say as much as she wanted no matter how wrong, off base, or false it was. She quickly found a domain where the people couldn't interrupt what she had to say, and if she didn't like something said on her post she could delete it and block them. Life was good.

These platforms allow her to speak directly to her supporters. Palin's experience with old media during the campaign soured her on the old ways of doing things. As she put it in her debate with Joe Biden, she wants to speak to the American people without the "filter" of the mainstream media.

And it seems to be working. In August, in a single Facebook post, Palin did more to shape the debate on health care than any other Republican politician. (I'm referring, of course, to her charge that the Democratic health care bills eventually could lead to government rationing of medical care through "death panels.")

Then, in October, Palin led the way in national Republican support for the insurgent candidacy of Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate in November's special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District. One Facebook post from Palin endorsing Hoffman started a cascade effect in donations and support that resulted in liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava's withdrawal from the race and Hoffman's razor-thin loss to Democrat Bill Owens.

Meanwhile, Facebook allows Palin to burnish her policy credentials with foot-noted, op-ed length essays on health care, cap-and-trade, government spending and much else. Step by step, Palin is showing other conservatives how to use new media and social networks to their advantage. And no one seems to care.

Scary isn't it? Could the former Alaskan Governor and VP candidate made world famous by Tina Fey on SNL really revolutionize the GOP? Could the party of 'No' become the party of 'ya betcha'? Probably not but one thing is for sure, no matter how far behind the GOP falls on social media Sarah Palin will be there, oddly enough, showing them all up.

CNN Article quoted.

Oh man. Those pesky prank calls. A radio station in Quebec, Canada did the dirty work, posing as French President Nicolas Sarkozy:

Shouldn't someone who is running for the second highest office in the United States be able to tell this is a prank?

This can't be good for John McCain's temper.

Over the past few weeks we have seen the McCain campaign flailing, as the economic crisis has forced its way into the political dialogue, forcing McCain and the Republicans to talk about an issue with which they have absolutely no credibility.

We've seen the outcomes expressed in a few ways. We've all seen Obama skyrocket in the polls, as voters have been more impressed and comfortable with his approach to the economy -- perhaps because he understands it. Here is a graph from Open Left yesterday of both candidates' support in an average of four tracking polls (Gallup, Rasmussen, Hotline, R2Kos):

We've also seen the revival of the dream of capturing a filibuster-proof 60 Senate seats thanks to a surge in Democratic support. Races in Georgia, North Carolina, Minnesota, and Oregon are trending heavily blue.

But it's the implicit that truly shows the enormity of the last few weeks in this campaign.

Like the effects of McCain going negative so early. Marc Ambinder gets it:

One worry for Republicans is that McCain has already gone too negative too quickly; you never pull out the strongest punches against your opponent until the very end; it's hard to get tougher than the kindergarten ad... or over-the-top statements about Obama not being fit to lead.

McCain's advisers, perhaps thinking they were listening to their inner-Karl Rove, have already waged the character war in May, June, July, and August. It knocked Obama on his heels for a while, but he and his campaign survived. How do you top those blistering attacks from earlier this summer? Apparently, if you're Sarah Palin and the McCain campaign, you start pounding even harder on the character message, even if it means 1.) citing a source you've disparaged as a pro-Obama advocacy organization, and 2.) exaggerating the scope of the story to make it fit your shrinking narrative. One problem with this approach for the McCain campaign is that Americans have already seen and heard this ad nauseum, and so, to them, it's boring. The other is, unlike the past couple elections, the Democrats are organized and ready to strike back:

The economic crisis could actually be the catalyst of the downfall of the "Nixonland" politics of cultural resentment that reigned for the past forty years. Todd Beeton from MyDD hits the nail on the head here:

So far throughout this entire election cycle, remarkably, we've seen facts and rationality win out over fear. Will that continue over the next 30 days? It's clear that Palin's reference to plural "terrorists" (no comment, of course, from the McCain campaign on who these other terrorists Obama is "palling around with" are) and her evocation of racial cues in her speech yesterday are intended to make people fear Barack Obama, to portray him as "the other" but for that strategy to work, they need the nation to be its old 2004 self. Again, too bad for John McCain, not only is the country in a much different place than it was just 4 years ago, but the left is far better organized with a media infrastructure that has been able to effectively hit back against such attacks in real time. This isn't 2004 anymore.

Todd is right on all of those points, especially when we examine Palin, who just may be the best representative of Nixonland politics since the man himself. Talk about playing up cultural resentment, fear in ordinary, everyday Americans -- Palin's last month and a half of practice at this traditional brand of Republican politics has made perfect. But, again, it's 2008, and it's not working this year. In an economic crisis, it turns out lipstick, hockey moms, and Joe Six-packs aren't what they used to be.

I'll go further than Todd, though, and argue that another significant reason why 2008 is so different than 2004 is the presence of Millennials in the electorate. Jerome Armstrong interviewed Michael Hais and Morley Winograd, the authors of Millennial Makeover, in April. One of the questions Jerome asked Hais and Winograd dealt with the positioning of Millennials in the electorate -- were enough of them able to vote to actually make a difference?

Only third to half of the Millennial Generation will be eligible to vote in 2008. Wouldn't that point to 2012 as the election where this generation will have its greatest impact? On the other hand, if you look at the years of realignments, 1828-1860 was 32 years, 1860-1896 was 36 years, 1896 to 1932 was 36 years, and 1932 to 1968 was 36 years. Now, it's been 40 years since 1968. And we could be looking at 44 years if it winds up being 2012 for the realignment.

Certain fundamental demographical facts about Millennials make it likely that 2008 will be the realigning election. There are currently about 100 million Millennials ranging in age from 5 to 26 years old, making it America's largest generation. Millennials now comprise about one-third of the U.S. population, a percentage that will only grow in coming years as members of older generations pass from the scene. Given the fact that many Millennials will not yet be able to vote this year, it is certainly true that the full force of this huge generation will be most strongly felt in elections beyond that of 2008. Nevertheless, we argue that Millennials will have a decisive impact this year. This will be due, in large part, to the unity of the Millennial Generation. Millennials, unlike Gen-Xers and Baby Boomers, are not sharply divided along gender, racial, or ideological lines. Moreover, a clear majority of Millennials identify as Democrats, while the two next older generations are divided fairly evenly between the two parties. Assuming that the Millennial Generation retains its unity, it should provide the decisive balance between the more sharply divided older generations in 2008 and beyond.

Historically, realigning elections occur when a new group of voters enters the electorate in significant numbers for the first time and their unified attitudes tip the balance of power decisively to one party or the other. Keep in mind that in American presidential elections a 53/47 victory is considered decisive. Consequently, a realigning generation's numbers don't have to be overwhelming to cause this outcome. Normally, in the subsequent national election after the realignment, this shift in party fortunes and policy attitudes is ratified by an even larger victory for the newly dominant party. For example, Franklin D. Roosevelt won big in 1932, but the New Deal realignment was reaffirmed in a much larger landslide in 1936. Richard Nixon won relatively narrowly in 1968, but he won in a landslide in 1972, reconfirming the electoral shift to the GOP. Whichever party wins in 2008 will do so clearly, and then will likely win a landslide victory in 2012, bringing with it a mandate for sweeping changes in policy that will be debated intensely in the years between the first victory and the second.

Emphasis added. I think we should also remember that Millennials not only are more unified in their political preferences than previous generations, but they're also more serious -- more meritocratic and pragmatic -- in their approach. They want the best product for its money. There's clearly a job that needs to be done, and rebuilding the country is going to take a huge effort. Millennials, an optimistic, can-do, collaborative generation, want someone who's willing to take on the challenge and prove their competence in doing so.

So when we revisit the latest McCain campaign strategy, is this mold of young voters really going to be convinced that the best hope for our country during these troubling times is the candidate who won't even talk about it?

Not only is this campaign slipping away for McCain, but he's quickly becoming a Herbert Hoover -- the candidate who tried to push away and resist destiny; the candidate who maintained that deregulation was the best way to go; the candidate who said the fundamentals of the economy are strong; the candidate who was the weakest on using the latest technology of his time; the candidate who just didn't understand.

It's not 2004 anymore, John. Things are changing.

In Thursday night's debate, Sarah Palin told America that she favored dropping assets connected to the Sudanese government within the state's large investment fund as a means of protesting the genocide occurring in the country. But, of course, she was misleading.

ABC News looked into this claim, and found out that she was -- shock! -- against divestment until it was politically convenient for her to be for it.

The Gara-Lynn Sudan Divestment bill was reviewed in February at a public hearing. A Palin administration official testified against it:

"The legislation is well-intended, and the desire to make a difference is noble, but mixing moral and political agendas at the expense of our citizens' financial security is not a good combination," testified Brian Andrews, Palin's deputy revenue commissioner, before a hearing on the Gara-Lynn Sudan divestment bill in February. Minutes from the meeting are posted online by the legislature.

The minutes are here in case you're interested.

It took some time, but Palin finally came around to it, even if it was very late in the legislative year.

Gara said that after it was clear the bill had stalled, he and others pressed the administration directly on Sudan divestment.

"We were outraged," Gara recounted. "We went to the Commissioner of Revenue and said, 'What the hell are you guys doing? This is genocide. We're going to keep pushing this until we divest."

Two months later, at the end of the legislative session, the administration softened its position. Appearing before a Senate committee which was considering a companion measure to Gara's bill, Palin's Revenue commissioner, Patrick Galvin, stated the administration supported such a measure, though it hoped to amend the bill to allow for investments held indirectly, for example in index funds.

And Palin is supposed to appeal to the youth vote for the GOP?

Thanks to WireTap, here's how passionate youth feel about the ongoing genocide in Sudan:

Three years after the United States classified the situation in Darfur, Sudan, as a genocide, students are still organizing to make sure the crucial cause doesn't get ignored. In April, two thousand white-clad activists played dead in Boston Commons for five minutes of silence. In December, thousands of students worldwide fasted to raise money to fight rape in the African region. STAND, a student anti-genocide coalition, helped organize those events and hundreds of others this year. Students have been signing petitions, lobbying representatives, staging events -- anything to keep Darfur in the news. And the coverage has paid off. Companies have started divesting in ventures that support the government that allows the genocide to continue, and awareness is at an all-time high. As long as the violence rages, so will the activism. "The world has been slow to act to protect the people of Darfur," said STAND student director Scott Warren, "so students across the globe will be taking protection into their own hands."

Don't play politics with Sudan, Ms. Palin.

I've never heard of Anderson Analytics before, so take this with a grain of salt, but in a poll of 1,000 students, they found that Sarah Palin's presence on the ticket did not help McCain draw support among college students generally, or among young women attending college:

Stamford, CT (PRWEB) September 30, 2008 -- According to the Anderson Analytics GenX2Z College Poll, 60% of college students (ages 17-34) prefer Senator Obama while only 25% prefer Senator McCain.

Interestingly, the choice of Sarah Palin does not seem to have helped McCain much among female college students. Females were significantly more likely than their male counterparts to prefer Obama (62.9% of females vs. 55.4% of males preferred Obama while only 23% of females vs. 28.4% of males preferred McCain).

The overall 34% youth vote difference between the two candidates is larger than what has been reported in earlier polls among youth. To benefit from the lead, Democrats need to ensure that these students actually visit the polls on Election Day.

I'm looking forward to tomorrow night's debate. Each new Katir Couric interview with Palin that comes out is another nail in the GOP coffin. All Biden has to do is sit back, direct his attacks at Bush and McCain, and say as little as possible. Sarah Palin will self-immolate during the 2 minute response periods when she won't be able to rely on straight talking points (or look foolish doing so).

What I've been reading today...

• A Politico piece looks at the meltdown's impact on student loans.
• An extremely large coalition, Election Protection 2008, is now on the scene this fall to protect voters rights.
• Obama continues his ascent in today's Gallup tracking poll; he now leads McCain 50-44.
• Barack Obama's going to debate camp in Florida this week.
• MyDD has the details on the unveiling of a Voter Suppression Wiki. Check it out.
• My home state (Ohio) is in the middle of trying to make itself more marketable for businesses, but there seems to be no mention of a lightrail system or other infrastructure discussions that would go a long way toward approaching their goal.
• Paul Rosenberg at Open Left looks at all facets of the Palin Plunge.
• A nice summary of the youth outreach effort this year by Peter Dreier at Huffington Post.
• The Guardian looks at student organization on American campuses.
• Usher co-authors a piece with Tom Nelson, also at Huffington Post, on service-oriented Millennials coming together with members of the Silent Generation and older Boomers, to make a difference.
• McCain adviser: We'll balance budget by 2013, even after bailouts. That's not budgetary policy we can believe in, my friends.

Here on Future Majority we have talked about the new school of evangelicals, the political shift of young evangelicals, and Obama's young evangelical outreach. McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate has reinvigorated the discussion of what is going to happen with young evangelical voters.

Obama's relative strength with young evangelicals was causing a lot of distress among the crazy conservative elder evangelicals. An article on Jusiper quoting one of these evangelicals shows just how freaked out they are:

This generation is not the "Joshua" generation, it is the "Judas" generation. They are not Christians, they are devils. The Church should hang its' head in shame that we have produced generation after generation of apostates who have disgraced the name of Christ by sniffing after devils like Obama like animals in rutting season. Fortunately, our Lord is a mighty God who can conquer Satan and these minions of his regardless of how few true believers remain.

Young evangelicals haven't been lock-step with their older counterparts. Surveys have shown young evangelicals as more accepting of homosexuality, and that they are not single-issue voters on abortion issues, but also are concerned about the war in Iraq and social justice.

McCain's selection of Sarah Palin was supposed to energize the evangelical base, seeing as though she believes that a few thousand years ago people were dinosaur hunting instead of moose hunting, yet it appears that the reaction of young voters to Palin is mixed.

It seems that young evangelicals are starting to split into three camps, similar to the philosophical split of the country: conservative, progressive, and moderate. While the conservative evangelical youth are more excited about the Republican ticket with Palin, the progressive-leaning evangelicals aren't nearly as impressed. To them, Palin's selection undercut McCain's claim to be "country first" and independent-minded.

One of the wild-cards being talked about is the effect that Bristol Palin's pregnancy will have on young voters. Some think that it will help young voters relate to the ticket, which frankly I think is stupid. I think a possibility is that young evangelicals who have actually remained abstinate may be turned off by it.

The point is that even with Palin on the ticket Obama has a good chance at pulling a significant portion of the young evangelical vote. With McCain effectively giving up on young voters and Obama doing significant outreach to both youth and evangelicals, we have the opportunity to succeed by putting in superior effort.

What are your thoughts on Palin's effect on the evangelical youth vote? Share in the comments.