Election Response, Part III or Chocolate Milk and a Cookie

Abu Tulip writes:

Now, for the Republicans, just a few things I want to bring up.

1. Sarah Palin. I'd really like to know what some of you who live in America think of her, particularly her intellectual ability. She is constantly portrayed as of inferior intelligence, and I'd like to know if you who have followed things more closely agree. I personally am under the impression that she was never given a fair shake by the (mostly liberal) news media. Here's why:

First, most liberals tend to think all conservatives are stupid. Why? Because they disagree with liberals. The liberal view seems to be "my opinions are so obviously correct that anyone who disagrees must be either an ignoramus or have sinister motives." Look at how they view Bush (who got better grades at Yale than John Kerrey in the same classes at almost the same time), Reagan, Dan Quayle, etc.

Second, a strongly conservative woman is intolerable to liberals, especially when it comes to "a woman's right to choose." This was brought to my attention first when I read Dan Quayle's autobiography several years ago. He was often severely criticized and made fun of by the media. He believed it was because of his age; that it was somewhat acceptable for someone of the previous generation (Reagan, George HW Bush, for example). But since he was from their generation (baby-boomers) he should be liberal by default. Since he wasn't, he was a traitor. I think the same applies to conservative women now, and it part of the reason Palin was given such a hard time. This also applies to black conservatives, we just haven't seen many in national office yet (Powell and Rice are generally considered moderate, not conservative).

So, what do you think? Was Palin treated unfairly, or did she bring it upon herself?

2. McCain missed his chance. I really think McCain could have won it all by taking the risky move of opposing the bailout package. If he could have done it convincingly (which may have been difficult knowing his past support of such ventures), he could have been the great hero of the American taxpayer. His previous risky move (the Palin choice) didn't work out that well, so he should have gone for it.
Let me use an illustration. McCain was down by four points at the 20-yard line, 3rd and long with ten seconds on the clock. He threw for the end zone (Palin pick) -incomplete. 4th and long, five seconds on the clock, when the "meltdown" is announced and the bailout package proposed. Instead of throwing for the endzone again he ran up the middle. Three-yard gain and game over, Obama wins.

3. The Republicans don't really seem to get it. They are talking about how to become competitive again, but IMHO it's all just tactical, mobilization arguments. They don't realize that the Republicans have to offer something different, not "Democrat-Lite." They can't offer the American people free chocolate milk (of course it's never free, it's someone else's money) and expect to win when the Democrats offer free chocolate milk and a cookie. Me want cookie!!

The American people showed they want change by voting for Obama (even more wanted change but weren't sure about Obama). The Republicans need to offer more, and better, change than Obama does to win back the trust of Americans and put America back on its feet.

Comments, please!