McCain Distances Himself from Palin

December 14th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

In an interview with ABC’s “This Week,” Senator John McCain refused to endorse his former running mate Governor Sarah Palin for the Republican nomination in 2012.

When the network’s George Stephanopoulos asked McCain whether he hoped that Palin would become the Republican Party’s standard bearer in 2012, he refused to endorse her. “I can say something like that,” McCain said.

Stephanopoulos then pushed McCain by asking whether it was not strange that he endorsed Palin for vice president.

“Now we’re in a whole new election cycle,” McCain said. “My corpse is still warm.”

He went on to explain that there are a lot of other Republican governors who could play a vital role in the party.

Stephanopoulos was right to point out that McCain’s answer was strange in so far that he only endorsed Palin for vp weeks ago. He wanted her to become America’s president if something would happen to him. As such, it would make sense for him to speak positively about Palin for 2012.

McCain supporters could, of course, argue that the senator is right in so far that 2012 is four years off, and that someone else may win the nomination of his party then. Who knows, perhaps Palin will fall off the national stage pretty soon.

True, but he should have praised her nonetheless and indicated full support for her no matter what career path she chooses nonetheless. His reaction gives many the impression that he does indeed blame Palin to a considerable degree for his defeat which hurts both him and Palin.

McCain’s refusal to truly stand by Palin is an indication of his attempt to recreate a centrist image for himself, an image he had for decades, but which was destroyed during the Republican primaries and, especially, the national election. The ‘Maverick’ Senator from Arizona realizes that he lost the election partially due to the destruction of his centrist image and is, it seems, determined to get back that which he lost. One also notices that he has spent considerable time recently defending president-elect Barack Obama on a wide range of issues, especially on the Blagojevich corruption scandal.

The above all fits perfectly into the notion that McCain is trying to salvage his reputation as a centrist Republican, willing to reach across the aisle. Endorsing Palin would hamper this attempt somewhat due to her reputation as a hardliner, a true card carrying member of the Republican Party’s Christian conservative base.

As such, his reaction to Stephanopoulous should be interpreted as nothing more, or less, than an attempt of a man who lost the presidential election to restore his image and to continue being relevant in Washington, D.C.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. History Chaser
    December 14th, 2008 at 22:31
    Reply | Quote | #1

    If Senator McCain truly believes Sarah Palin was a drag on his candidacy he is deluded.

    There is ample evidence otherwise. I voted for him hoping he could defeat Obama. But I had serious reservations concerning his immigration policy.

    And if he could not win at 72, he sure won’t be able to at 76.

    I will not accept the old RINO’s. They are not the answer.

    Palin or Jindal in 2012. If either can survive the Primary.

    http://www.sarah-palin-2012.blogspot.com/

  2. tinker thinker
    December 14th, 2008 at 23:46
    Reply | Quote | #2

    McCain has always been about McCain, when it became OBVIOUS that Sarah was stealing his show,,, well you saw what happened.

    Sarah Palin rocks!

  3. republican
    December 15th, 2008 at 01:52
    Reply | Quote | #3

    Stop being delusional fellow Republicans.

    Sarah Palin is the biggest reason McCain lost this election, and of course, Bush’s inability to explain the Iraq War. McCain also lost because of the economy, even though it WAS the Democrat’s fault, Bush and McCain took the blame. He had won every single debate against Obama, but it did not matter, all Obama had to do was look calm and cool and pretend like he knows what he’s saying.

    Sarah Palin, I’m sure is a smart women, but when it comes to politics, she’s worse than my grandmother.

    Sarah Palin is horribly incapable of avoiding questions, giving a good answer, changing the subject without letting the interviewer realize it.

    Sarah Palin is incapable of giving a speech without sounding like a red neck to most city people (it’s not her fault I know), but it matters a lot to the average City people. Some people subconsciously cannot stand her voice, and that’s not her fault, but she needed to speak less “hyper” and more calm, maybe needed speech therapy or lessons.

    Sarah Palin is incapable of knowing facts of foreign policy. She couldn’t answer the question about what newspaper she read. She couldn’t answer the question about Hamas. She couldn’t answer the question about her foreign policy experience. These are serious flaws in a political candidate.

    Even dumb Joe Biden knew a lot more than her about policies, and was a better smooth talker than her. Even dumb 57 state Obama knew more about any issue than her.

    It’s over for Sarah Palin, her political career will never be in national spotlight again.

    Don’t get me wrong guys, I did not support those conservatives who bashed Sarah Palin DURING the election. But now that the election is over, she fully deserves every ounce of criticism.

    Just because McCain is more of a Moderate and did not win, does not mean Moderate Republicans are not the future of the Republican party, they are the future get over it. In fact, within a few decades, you will see the Republican party change its platform to : pro-choice, pro-evolution, more pro-civil-rights, pro-women-rights, maybe, maybe, even pro-gay-marriage.

    It’s inevitable, you can disagree with it all you want, even I disagree with most of it, but it’s going to happen, because they are the righteous positions.

  4. c3
    December 15th, 2008 at 04:40
    Reply | Quote | #4

    Michael couldn’t have been as McCain stated it. Isn’t it fair to state “c’mon we’re not in an election season anymore so ‘endorsements’ are inappropriate”. You know we complain about it becoming so much of a “horse race” and yet we get upset when someone won’t “pick a winner”

    Please all repeat after me:
    “Four years is a long time away”, “Four years is along time away”…

  5. Interested
    December 15th, 2008 at 06:42
    Reply | Quote | #5

    True, but he should have praised her nonetheless and indicated full support for her no matter what career path she chooses nonetheless. His reaction gives many the impression that he does indeed blame Palin to a considerable degree for his defeat which hurts both him and Palin.

    There isn’t a politician alive today that would endorse a candidate for 4 years down the road.

    it’s that simple

  6. Tom
    December 15th, 2008 at 07:00
    Reply | Quote | #6

    People,

    There is no way anybody, McCain included, can endorse anyone for 2012. That would be ridiculous.

    However, McCain has not supported Palin as he should.

    Without her, his campaign was totally toast with low turnout from conservatives: socon, libertarians, etc.

    The numbers are now showing that Palin helped McCain overall due to the higher turnout for the base which was far in excess of any independents who didn’t like Palin or the image of Palin that the MSM made.

    Palin could still be a national figure, but only if she pursues it very hard via focusing on national issues too along with her governor and family responsibilities.

    The day the GOP goes totally moderate is the day a third-party conservative party is born. There would be nowhere else to go.
    The key for the GOP is just what they are doing: Trying to rebuild and make the tent big for all Republicans, not just moderates.

    Think of it? What would be the difference between the Dems and a pro-choice / moderate GOP at the national level? No difference at all.

  7. republican
    December 15th, 2008 at 10:11
    Reply | Quote | #7

    McCain has praised Sarah Palin during election night. What more do you want?

    Are you that rabidly, extremist Conservative that you think McCain is less of a conservative or not a good Republican because he didn’t endorse Sarah Palin all the way in 2012?

    Are you that blind to say, that there isn’t many other great talented REPUBLICANS who will outperform Sarah Palin and her stupidity?

    Are you that blind to say that Sarah Palin actually did a good job, when she cost McCain the election (with help from SNL, Katie Couric; but it was Palin’s fault)?

    Conservatives come out even if it’s John McCain or Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush… There is no such thing as “high conservative turnout”, conservatives who stay home are less than 0.01% and they are rabid lunatics that give Republicans a bad name.

    Do you really think if McCain had picked Joe Lieberman, conservatives would stay home? When they know that if they stay home Barack Obama (extremely liberal) will take office with extremely rabidly liberal Joe Biden?? You must be delusional if you think conservatives are that easily convinced to stay home.

    The day the GOP goes totally moderate is the day that idiots like Barack Obama or Sarah Palin won’t get elected.

    Pro-choice vs pro-life is not an issue, it’s a non-issue for those people among us who are wrongly obsessing about it (seriously, if its pro-choice, how does it affect people who want pro-life? Isn’t that between them and God? Maybe God wants people to make a choice whether they should sin or not). Roe v Wade will never be overturned, if you think it will, you are delusional and primitive in your thinking, pro-choice is the future, it gives choice to those who want pro-life and choice to those who want pro-abortion, it IS the middle-ground.

    And hey, I will gladly stand up and defend someone’s right to pro-life, but you must begin to stand up for someone who decides that she wants to abort the child because she cannot take care of the baby.

    Pro-life is horrible for the Republican party, think about it? The more women who are forced to have babies and discouraged from aborting, the more badly treated or poor-family children who grow up on welfare and become Liberal voters. <— think about it!

  8. c3
    December 15th, 2008 at 16:49
    Reply | Quote | #8

    Gosh;
    I guess the Republican Party is rapidly becoming the old Democratic Party: taking down the “big tent” and scrambling for the “moral high ground”. The view’s great from up there but I’m sure its lonely.

  9. Karen
    December 15th, 2008 at 18:48
    Reply | Quote | #9

    McCain is just a little late at getting a clue about what American voters figured out before they voted November 4th. Why hitch your name and reputation to a 5-watt bulb when there are numerous 100-watt options?

  10. Rudi666
    December 15th, 2008 at 20:06

    McCain could have danced around this, reading between the lines it is McCain distancing himself from Palin.McCain could have said,”If the 2012 election were held tomorrow Palin would get my vote. But 2012 is four years away, let’s see how things happen over the next four years.”

  11. Interested
    December 15th, 2008 at 22:45

    Are you that blind to say that Sarah Palin actually did a good job, when she cost McCain the election (with help from SNL, Katie Couric; but it was Palin’s fault)?

    you’re acting like a Liberal. Blame everywhere. it was the McCain/Palin campaign that lost the McCain/Palin election. It was what it was, a combination of factors that was not enough to overcome.

    Obama had a more effective message.

    It’s simple as that.

  12. Katie
    December 15th, 2008 at 23:50

    I can’t believe how McCain and his staffers have thrown Sarah Palin under the bus! She was the only reason the popular race wasn’t as big of a landslide as the electoral! This is disgraceful! Maybe politicos don’t believe in her, but the American people do! And that is just what we need, someone who makes Washington scared! Come on Sarah lets shake things up!! Every day I look at my Sarah Palin calendar and I am inspired to fight! She will make it to the White House! (the calendar by the way, is on amazon, and is GORGEOUS!! it also makes a great gift!!) SARAH PALIN 2012!!

  13. MinnesotaMom
    December 16th, 2008 at 00:38

    Here is a woman who has been governor of a state that has very few people and has had a budget surplus to work with the whole time she’s been governor. She obviously hasn’t thought for a minute about foreign policy. And you want her to be president? We’re in the biggest economic crisis in most of our lifetimes. What the heck are you thinking?

  14. republican
    December 16th, 2008 at 08:19

    I agree with MinnesotaMom, although I don’t agree with liberals much, trust me when I say this:

    Sarah Palin is not even qualified to be senator.

    Although I suppose neither is Obama, but he got elected, so anything is possible, keep your dreams up. But I would rather have Bill Clinton run the White House than Sarah Palin and her lack of knowledge.

    The White House is where we pick someone who is qualified for the job. We need to STOP picking idiots like Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, Joe Biden… We need more people like John McCain who have experience.

    Perhaps McCain wasn’t the best speech giver, but he was one of the best Republicans since Ronald Reagan, and you cannot deny that without ignoring the facts.

  15. John Rohan
    December 16th, 2008 at 09:19

    Sheesh, people. McCain might run again himself in 2012, that’s why he can’t endorse anyone else. That’s what he meant by “my corpse is still warm.”

  16. c3
    December 18th, 2008 at 20:38

    This thread confirms that Sarah Palin is still “radioactive”

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.