As media outlets across the fruited plain float the notion that Sarah Palin hurt John McCain's chances of winning the White House, the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza will break with the herd on Sunday to dispel this nonsense.
Imagine that.
As the last of his "5 Myths About an Election of Mythic Proportions" slated for Sunday's print edition but already available at the paper's website, Cillizza parted with his fellow journalists who believe "McCain made a huge mistake in picking Sarah Palin":
Love her or loathe her, the data appear somewhere close to conclusive that Palin did little to help -- and, in fact, did some to hurt -- McCain's attempts to reach out to independents and Democrats. But just because Palin doesn't appear to have helped McCain move to the middle doesn't mean that picking her was the wrong move.
Remember where McCain found himself this past summer. He had won the Republican nomination, but the GOP base clearly felt little buy-in into his campaign. A slew of national polls reflected that energy gap, with Democrats revved up about the election and their candidate and Republicans somewhere between tepid and glum.
Enter Palin, who was embraced with a bear hug by the party's conservative base. All of a sudden, cultural conservatives were thrilled at the chance to put "one of their own" in the White House. In fact, of the 60 percent of voters who told exit pollsters that McCain's choice of Palin was a "factor" in their final decision, the Arizona senator won 56 percent to 43 percent.
For skittish conservatives looking for more evidence that McCain understood their needs and concerns, Palin did the trick. It's hard to imagine conservatives rallying to McCain -- even to the relatively limited extent that they did -- without Palin on the ticket. And without the base, McCain's loss could have been far worse.
For those interested, Cillizza dispelled some other myths being floated by media including "The Republican Party suffered a death blow" during these elections, and "A wave of black voters and young people was the key to Obama's victory."
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Oh well now isn't this just
November 15, 2008 - 18:36 ET by bigtimerOh well now... isn't this just precious....we get see this in print, some blogs or for that matter hear this sentiment via msm after the election is over...
Mighty gracious of them all...
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Palin is great - but I
November 16, 2008 - 13:03 ET by TruthMongerPalin is great - but I still did not vote for RINO McCain
We are GD serious people
GET THESE BASTARD RINOS OUT OF THE REAGAN PARTY RIGHT F*ING NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
About time.
November 15, 2008 - 18:44 ET by mizflame98Now, maybe the other newspapers will follow suit and stop having their political cartoonists post these smears.
http://www.msnbc.cagle.com/news/Palin2012/main.asp
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
Interesting assertion
November 15, 2008 - 19:12 ET by dscottInteresting assertion by Cillizza that no Repub could win this election. The premise of that assertion was W was to blame. I would submit that McCain did a crappy job of pinning the tail on the donkey (pun intended). All he had to do is point out Pelosi and Reid taking power in Jan 2007, broke their promises such as lowering the price of gas and that Barack Obama did as he was told. It was not W who was the issue of the last two years which tanked the economy, it was Pelosi Obama and Reid, as Tom Blumer calls the POR economy. Every time Obama called McCain the 3rd term of Bush's Admin all McCain had to do was pop the bubble with the truth, saying who broke their promises? Who didn't lower the price of gas? Who insisted on the drilling ban? Who? Who? Who? BARACK OBAMA, the order taking underling.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Every time Obama pinned Bush on McCain....
November 15, 2008 - 20:08 ET by superconMcCain should have pinned Reid and Pelosi on Obama.He sucked as a candidate.I could have ran his campaign better than his team did.How many times did he make you all groan and say"Oh man...come on"....?
His campaign was terrible and we need to admit that.Sarah Palin was the only bright spot of his whole campaign. She kept him out of landslide territory.It's true and we all know it.
you know what supercon?
November 15, 2008 - 20:16 ET by porpoiseboywe're lucky mcrino didn't win. i would hate to spend at least the next 4yrs cringing at every move that guy made after i mistaken voted for him....well, i really voted for palin using the statistic that he is 73 and that 30% of vp's become prez....but still.
"Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason" Ben Franklin
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
yes much better to have the
November 16, 2008 - 13:07 ET by TruthMongeryes much better to have the coming sh*tstorm blamed FULLY AND COMPLETELY ON THE DEMS NOW:)...
Bush was plenty RINO as well - spend spend spend...
GET THE RINOS OUT NOW
Palin Dynamics
November 15, 2008 - 19:13 ET by casel21One of Alinsky's rules is to ridicule your opponent. There is no effective recovery and people do not want to be associated with the object of ridicule, as it will apply to them as well.
The problem that the left/media will have in the future is that they won't have anything to ridicule. The flip-side of Alinsky's rule is that satire and ridicule are only effective at objects of power. Who are they going to satirize now?
As proven repeatedly by Rush, the most effective weapon on our side is humor and satire. I believe that the McCain ads about the One cut deeply. People were laughing at Obama's pomposity and arrogance. Unbelievably, it appears a large segment found no humor in those ad; that is scary.
If Palin has the fortitude and perserverance, which I believe she does, she represents a mortal threat to the moocher class -- the left and right intellectuals, the big city folk, beggar states like CA and MI, the Obama-pays-for-my-gas-and-mortgage crowd, and career polticians.
Ridicule Keeps People in the Herd
November 15, 2008 - 19:33 ET by allanfRidicule is a very effective tool, and it was used to perfection against George Bush and to a lesser extent Sarah Palin. Barack Obama could not be ridiculed in this election. But Reid and Pelosi had were big potential targets.
Obama effectively associated McCain with President Bush. McCain as DsScott pointed out, made a huge mistake not going after the two Democrats who could easily be caricatured, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Obama campaigned against Bush, McCain should have campaigned against Pelosi
.
I Bush Was Different Rule
November 15, 2008 - 19:41 ET by casel21Barney Frank should have been on the McCain ridicule list.
I think Bush came under a different Alinsky Rule: Demonize your opponent.
Who is DsScott?
The demon... Nancy Pelosi
November 15, 2008 - 20:27 ET by dscottThe demon...
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
I too have read "Rules For Radicals"
November 16, 2008 - 00:38 ET by Scout FinchAnd it's sad how a nation can be coerced into following one candidate over another based on nothing more than junior high teasing and mocking.
Myths = lies
November 15, 2008 - 19:22 ET by iveseenitallMany "myths" are being thrown about regarding Sarah.The libs believe at least some of them will stick. They've already gotten the Katie Couric interview accepted as proof of Sarah's incompetence, as they ignore Biden's numerous gaffs. As usual , libs know that if you repeat a lie long enough, it will become the "truth". It's an old commie trick. And it works. Remember Quale's "potato(e)"
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
In the summer of 2008
November 15, 2008 - 19:25 ET by IamTinmanIn the summer of 2008, there was little in John McCains campaign to even interest, much less excite conservatives. His stances on most issues were mostly centrist and he wasn't pulling anyone from the left. His only hope and a slim one at that was to get a lot of conservatives to get out and vote.
Sarah Palin did exactly that despite the knuckledraggers in the GOP and the attack dogs in the MSM who were terrified that their already crowned Messiah might be upset by a revitalized McCain campaign.
The Obama campaign and their hyenas in the media attacked Governor Palin with a ferocity not seen in a long time and still keep smearing her with stories that have long since been proved untrue. That speaks volumes about how they perceive her as a real threat in 2012.
Palin/Jindal 2012
I just LOVE how the idiot MSM...
November 15, 2008 - 20:26 ET by PrairieSkyspent the whole last two months of the election screaming from the rooftops how much Sarah Palin didn't help McCain, and in fact hurt him because according to them, she was such a green, stupid, unsophisticated hick from Alaska, when all of us out here in Republican/conservative land knew the exact opposite was true. Then, the minute the election ended and Obama won, the nattering nabob MSM'ers tell us that, well, maybe she really did help McCain.
This revelation along with (GASP!) others from the WaPo and other left-wing publications that, "Hey, it turns out that we were biased in favor of Obama during the campaign," just makes me sick.
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan~ January 20, 1981
Following McCain clinching
November 16, 2008 - 07:38 ET by BDFollowing McCain clinching the nomination in the early summer, I decided to sit out the election because I could not support McCain.
THen he picked Palin as his running mate and I came off the bench. I voted for the McCain/Plain ticket because Palin is a conservative and it would be likely that McCain could not do too much damage in four years before Palin would have her shot in 2012.
I am sure that I am not alone.
BD...No, you're not alone...
November 16, 2008 - 18:29 ET by PrairieSkyI was an extremely reluctant McCain voter...Once it was obvious that he had the nomination, I resolved to support him as he was the party's nominee. Neither voting for Obama (never in a million years!), nor sitting the election out were acceptable options for me.
McCain was never my first choice. But, like you, once Sarah came on board, for the first time, I was excited about the ticket, and thought that we might have a real chance at winning. But this was just not our year. A perfect storm of circmustances all came together at the right time for the Dems this year. The Republican brand is deeply unpopular on just about all fronts, McCain was just not a great candidate despite all of Sarah's great help in firing up the base, Obama rode the tide of Obamamania into the White House with the MSM's help, and to top it all off, the financial melt-down hit the fan at the worst possible time for the Repubs. Hindsight is 20/20, and when you add all that up, there is just no realistic way to see how we would have won this year.
Now's the time to begin the groundwork for 2010 and 2012. The party has to get back to basics, and has to remember who Republicans are and what we are about. All of our current leadership, I think, needs to go, and we have to return to conservative ideals and principles that have served us and the country so well in the past.
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan~ January 20, 1981
I decided to sit out the
November 16, 2008 - 18:40 ET by motherbeltI decided to sit out the election because I could not support McCain..
Yeah, Palin was a "sop" to conservatives in the GOP. I'm sure if hte thought he could do it without an open revolt, he would have preferred Lieberman.
And as soon as the election was over, McCain went back to his "maverick" ways, "reaching out" to Obama and the Democrats, and pledging to "work with" them!!!
Republicans (even the "maverick" ones) never, never learn!!
That Giant Sucking Sound Was the McCampaign Strategy
November 16, 2008 - 01:35 ET by L.N. SmitheeMcCain should have pinned Reid and Pelosi on Obama.He sucked as a candidate.I could have ran his campaign better than his team did.How many times did he make you all groan and say"Oh man...come on"....?
I'll give you a personal example: He missed a golden opportunity at the end of the last debate.
Bob Schieffer asked the both of them about how they would improve education in public schools. If McCain was as sharp as a nominee should have been, he would have framed his answer around the fact that Obama's only executive experience in his entire life was running the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where he served on the same board as William Ayers. What were the final results, $100 million in donations later? Static. No improvement in test scores (mostly because the changes had more to do with stealth social policy propaganda rather than proven learning methods).
Instead, McCain gave a wonkish answer having to do with school choice. Swing and a miss!
Your point is good about Pelosi & Reid. Nobody in the RNC seemed to want to remind the public that the same polls showing W. was among the least popular Presidents ever also gave all-time low ratings for the Dem-dominated Congress. At one point, Congress' approval rating was 9%, trailing far behind Bush's hovering around 20-25%. The MSM would only begrudgingly admit that. With millions across the nation watching the GOP convo, nobody even brought it up.
But then again, the GOP has for the last seven+ years acted as if it was beneath them to contrast itself with the Dems, and as a result, all hurried attempts to draw distinctions in the November elections sounded to the short-attention spanned like "desperation."
"Well, I've got nothing against the press...they wouldn't print it if it wasn't true..." -- Joe Jackson, "Sunday Papers"
I agree. My Yorkie could
November 16, 2008 - 18:46 ET by motherbeltI agree. My Yorkie could have run that campaign the way it was run.
the thing that burned me the most was his refusal to hit Obama with Wright and Ayers in the beginning; then bringing Ayers out at the end, when they could characterize it as a desperation move.
He took responsibility for every untoward remark made by any Republican, while Obama's surrogates were free to sling mud at will.
And he paid all his supporters back by reverting to kind as soon as the election was done.
There's more, but I'm so sick of it all I don't even want to talk about it any more.
My yorkie will help if you
November 16, 2008 - 18:52 ET by cocodrieMy yorkie will help if you need it.
I'll vote for your yorkie if
November 16, 2008 - 18:56 ET by cocodrieI'll vote for your yorkie if you put him on the ticket. He is conservative isn't he?
I voted for Palin. A whole
November 16, 2008 - 02:58 ET by niner-four-whiskeyI voted for Palin.
A whole bunch of people I know say the same thing.
Post it far, post it wide my friends.
No one has scared the dims more than Palin in a long, long time.
The reality is:
Palin is more like, "one of us" than "one of them".
The entire Democratic propaganda machine is held up by a one-legged stool that depends on portraying the Republicans as a bunch of "..them rich, old, white guys".
Forget the reality of Bush fielding not just one, but two African Americans to the highest appointed office in this nation. Remember that Colin was an "uncle tom" and a "house n-word" right up until the moment that he endorsed Obama.
Forget the reality of Obama fundraising, behind closed doors on Billionaire's Row in San Francisco (where the famous religion and guns quote got leaked out of). Forget the reality of Obama being the first presidential candidate to eschew the finance limits of the public campaign system, and going on to raise the most enormous sums of money ever recorded in a presidential campaign. Face it, the Democrats are ALL about rich old white guys.
Palin scares the pee out of the Democrats because she shatters the carefully crafted, media-complicit image of "us and them." They must destroy her with all due speed and by any means necessary.
For those that believe that
November 16, 2008 - 09:31 ET by Rush FanFor those that believe that the Bush administration damaged the Republican brand (President Bush may have bent it a little bit), John McCain would have crushed it had he won the election.
John McCain was more Democrat than Republican. He has always been more comfortable working with Democrats than his own party.
RINO MCCain's liberal Democrat policies would make any self-respecting Republican or conservative cringe:
1) Climate Change - with his utilization of a Market-Based Cap And Trade System and Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets And Timetables.
2) Energy - with his stubborn and senseless refusal to drill in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
3) Homeownership Resurgence Plan - with his plan to purchase failing mortgages directly from homeowners and replace them with "affordable mortgages".
4) Immigration - with his well-known comprehensive immigration reform (amnesty).
Additionally, McCain's attempts to reach out to independents and Democrats (as he always has) and ignore conservatives was a losing strategy. Rush Limbaugh notes that exit polls show that McCain lost independents and moderates 60 to 39%; moreover, 20% of conservatives may have voted for Obama.
Regardless of whether those polling numbers are accurate, the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza's contention that "the data appear somewhere close to conclusive that Palin did little to help -- and, in fact, did some to hurt" is just another liberals distorted analysis of data. If Gov. Sarah Palin had not been on the ticket, John McCain's loss to Barack Obama would have been a whole lot worse.
Don't be surprised if John McCain officially changes his party affiliation to Democrat before he retires.
p.s. For those who may be wondering, I voted for John McCain. It was the best of two bad choices.
-----------------------------------------------------
Republican John McCain has been a senator since 1987 and voted for seven of the nine justices currently on the court. Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia were appointed before his arrival. statesville.com
delete double
November 16, 2008 - 18:50 ET by motherbeltdelete double
Don't be surprised if John
November 16, 2008 - 18:50 ET by motherbeltDon't be surprised if John McCain officially changes his party affiliation to Democrat before he retires.
No way. If he switched, he'd be just another Democrat.
He's hoping to get his "beloved maverick" status back with the MSM.