Palin’s New Book Confirms: McCain’s communications machine was incompetent. Liberal McCain staffers had a hostility to her base and thus misjudged it. May have cost them the election.

September 30th, 2009 By: CFN | Tags:

palin

At my IUSB Vision site we have a category called “Palin Truth Squad“. You can see that we reported that the McCain campaign communications machine became more incompetent after the Palin announcement. It seems that Palin’s book is going to give us at least some of the details.

Later we reported that many of the McCain staffers were “David Frum” types like Steve Schmidt, that had previously overtly slandered religious conservatives and others in the Reagan wing of the party (LINK). Such people are mortified by Palin and by people such as Glenn Beck, John Gibson, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and even Brit Hume. This explains why McCain’s communications machine deliberately kept Palin away from Fox News and these other venues. They gave her a few moments with Carl Cameron at Fox, or perhaps she only did this after she went rogue, but at that time it was too little too late.

palin-silhouetteWhat McCain Campaign staffers did was let their emotional hostility of the Reagan wing of the party blind them to a clear asset that could have helped Palin to introduce herself to the country in a venue that would give her the opportunity to define herself clearly.

Palin should have been given interviews with Limbaugh and Hannity first, then Greta, Beck, John Gibson and then O’Reilly, Hume and Wallace so that Palin would have had the opportunity to define herself first and hone her interview skills with progressively tougher interviews in tougher venues.

To send a person who is new and undefined on the national stage to Charles Gibson and Katie Couric who set out with clear intent to destroy her (LINK 2, 3, 4) with much tougher gotcha questions than those two ever asked Edwards, Obama or Biden (LINK) was foolish because since those were her first interviews, it would be by those interviews that people would have their first impression of her. As a result the McCain Campaign forfeited its opportunity to define its own Vice Presidential nominee.

If Palin had done the interviews I mentioned first and then did ABC and CBS she would have been ready, but more importantly the American people would already have had a solid first impression and definition of Sarah Palin in mind which would have put her in a much better position for a hostile interview. The result would have been ABC and CBS looking like they were playing a mean spirited gotcha game to get her and those interviews would have ended up helping her with cross pressured voters with a few smart commercials taking shots at ABC and CBS.

This is not just communications 101 folks, this is communications for dummies.

The clincher? Research now shows that cross pressured voters and independents watch Fox News. They might not always agree with Fox but they do watch it so the McCain Campaign stayed away from the audience that the campaign needed to reach the most.

The Wall Street Journal has the first tidbits from Sarah Palin’s new book, Going Rogue:

Ms. Vincent didn’t reveal any details about the book, but did acknowledge it will describe Ms. Palin’s frustration over her treatment by the staffers she inherited from the McCain campaign after her surprise pick as the GOP vice presidential nominee last year. Ms. Palin was booked on grueling interviews with hostile reporters while talk-show hosts such as Glenn Beck couldn’t even get through to her aides. Mr. Beck tells me he was stunned when he picked up the phone one day just before the election to discover Sarah Palin was on the other end of the line. “She explained that she had been blocked from reaching her audience, so she was now ‘going rogue’ and booking her own interviews,” Mr. Beck told me. “I was thrilled she had burst out of the cage they’d built for her and we were finally talking.”

What is Palin to do next?

Sarah Palin should keep building foreign policy credibility with these overseas conferences and when the time comes she needs to start re-introducing herself to the Republican base and then to the American people.

The simple truth is that a sizable chunk of the base is dismissive of her because they were overwhelmed by the elite media and SNL slander that went almost unrefuted because Palin was kept away from non-elite media venues.

Sarah Palin should come up with a phrase or an idea that sets her apart from other Republicans rhetorically and make it hers. For example:  referring to the GOP as “The Party of Lincoln”, “What happened to the Party of Lincoln” or “Its time to bring back the Party of Lincoln”. It doesn’t have to be Lincoln (obviously) but it has to be something that distinguishes her from the Romney Brand and the Huckabee Brand that inspires trust.

Talk about real principles or virtues with some good foreign policy and macroeconomic details (avoid the word values because that word has baggage). Get practice in these venues and then move to moderately tougher ones. Since independents watch Fox Palin can kill two birds with one stone with a smart communications strategy. When the time comes to face the hostile NBC or ABC interview, Palin should go in bold, prepared and with one goal, WIN. She doesn’t have to be horribly tough but don’t etiquette herself out of the election like McCain did in the debates.

Cross posted at iusbvision.wordpress.com.

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. major tom
    October 1st, 2009 at 15:41
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Gotcha questions… like: What newspapers do you read?… What do you think of the Bush Doctrine?… Yeah… GOTCHA!

  2. CFN
    October 1st, 2009 at 16:39
    Reply | Quote | #3

    Tom, perhaps you should have read the links before you spoke as your premises are easily shown to be demonstrably false.

    There are SIX Bush Doctrines recognized by political scientists. Both Palin and Gibson named one. http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/hey-gibson-about-that-bush-doctrine-there-are-six-of-them-palin-was-right-again/

    And the questions – Compare for yourself:

    Charles Gibson questions to Obama vs. Palin vs. Edwards

    Obama interview:
    How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
    How does it feel to “win”?
    How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
    Who will be your VP?
    Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
    Will you accept public finance?
    What issues is your campaign about?
    Will you visit Iraq?
    Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
    What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

    Palin interview:
    Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
    Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
    Questions about foreign policy
    -territorial integrity of Georgia
    -allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
    -NATO treaty
    -Iranian nuclear threat
    -what to do if Israel attacks Iran
    -Al Qaeda motivations
    -the Bush Doctrine
    -attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
    -Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

    John Edwards:

    Gibson Didn’t Pound Edwards in 2004; Asked Him If GOP Attacks Made Him Mad

    GIBSON: You speak with such equanimity this morning. Didn’t they make you mad last night?

    GIBSON: Did you get mad, though?

    Oh Tom by the way, ABC didn’t edit out the best parts of the Obama/Edwards interview like they did with Palin.

  3. wilky
    October 1st, 2009 at 17:06
    Reply | Quote | #4

    Having seen interviews with Palin well before McCain picked her, back when Kudlow and Co. was Kudlow and Cramer, I largely agree with this article. One nit pick. Values only carries baggage with those that don’t believe in or have any. Speaking about American values will resonate with a majority of the country.

    Major Tom, it was not, what do you think of the Bush Doctrine? It was, what IS the Bush? And frankly, at that point I think only Gibson knew the answer he was looking for. Everyone had their own idea, and many didn’t mesh. Also, I’m pretty sure that I have not heard any candidate asked then answered what papers they read. She knew that he wanted to know if she read the media approved papers and there was NO good answer to that question. She wasn’t quick on her feet in that instance, but I admire the fact that she didn’t just do what Obama does, tell them what they want to hear.

  4. Dan Davis
    October 1st, 2009 at 17:19
    Reply | Quote | #5

    The Beltway set have worked as diligently as little Marxists to build their power base, which for them means a huge, interventionist government with permanance for their own jobs and plenty of jobs and perks to hand out to contributors during their endless tenure. The Reagan conservatism, as defined by it’s rhetoric, doesn’t have much use for permanent political positions and even less for powerful politicians. McCain still seems confused that the Republican base seems to be separating his type out from conservatives. The amazing thing is that Palin was chosen at all since she has always seemed to be shakily feeling her way toward a real small government mindset as opposed to the fake one the GOP has been fooling us with for the last 20+ years. Of course they didn’t like her, if they had I probably wouldn’t have.

  5. c3
    October 2nd, 2009 at 02:10
    Reply | Quote | #6

    McCain clearly could have run a better campaign. That’s never been a strong suit of his. His last couple elections in AZ have been slam dunks. I’m not sure any Republican candidate would have won in ‘08. Personally, I would have liked a different VP candidate but it wasn’t a big deal for me.

    Anyway, its all water over the dam.

    I assume Gov. Palin will have good sales. Pays better than Governor in Alaska

  6. section9
    October 2nd, 2009 at 03:56
    Reply | Quote | #7

    McCain ran a hideously bad campaign, and the people he assigned to Palin were some of the most wretched people in politics. The people who handled Palin probably will be lucky to work in national politics again. They were the Bush message machine people.

    You see how the Bush message machine worked out.

    Palin will do fine. She has control of her own message now, and in that environment, she’s always done well. He 2006 AK Gov Campaign was superbly run and on-message.

    She will surprise a lot of people.

  7. Bob
    October 12th, 2009 at 06:05
    Reply | Quote | #8

    Half of America has elected a far leftist into the White House. Are the other half of America going to vote a “far” rightist into the White House just to return the favor in 2012? (so to compensate the great shortcomings of the One administration?)

    We’ll find out in November 2010.

  8. Rachel
    October 30th, 2009 at 04:32
    Reply | Quote | #9

    The issue over Palin is the same issue the Republicans are dealing with now – moderates vs hard-liners. I personally view Palin as moderate right so it would make sense that the so-called RINOS would have it out for her.

    But the major issue that has deifies/demonizes her is that she almost helped beat Obama. It seems that the first African American presidential candidate was not going to lose unless something “great” shows up and here comes the governor of Alaska the possible first female Vice (ie substiutute) president.

    The major issue I have with the hardliners is they are more than for fiscal restraint. Many are social conservatives and see Palin as their messiah. They forget that she is not the so-con hardliner that they expect her to be.

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.