First Thought: "Oh my god, he's right!"

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

McCain provides the basic policy trajectory of a third Bush term, and Palin provides the biography of a folksy pro-life "reformer with results" governor of a large, oil-rich reliably Republican state in the West–it is pretty close to the Bush/Cheney ticket in reverse, isn't it?
The Palin choice was essentially a bow to current movement orthodoxy, but what does that mean after eight years of Bush?  What Ross said last year remains true today:

Since the Republicans' stinging defeat in the 2006 midterm elections, Bush's distinctive ideological cocktail—social conservatism and an accommodation with big government at home, and a moralistic interventionism abroad—has similarly been derided by many as political poison. The various ingredients of "Bushism," it's been argued, have alienated fiscal hawks and foreign-policy realists, Catholics and libertarians—in short, everyone but the party's evangelical base.

    But someone must have forgotten to tell the GOP presidential field. If you consider how the nation's most ambitious Republicans are positioning themselves for 2008, Bushism looks like it could have surprising staying power.

Aside from warring against the dreaded earmarks, the McCain/Palin ticket does not propose a radical break with any of the elements of Bushism that Ross describes.  McCain has succumbed to the demands of the movement and the party, but the movement and party have themselves imbibed so much of Bushism that McCain did not have to give up much of anything, except his personal preference for a ticket with Lieberman that would have been entirely obsessed with militarism and war.  In the warped universe of Bush Republicanism, McCain/Palin was the relatively moderate alternative to the extreme Lieberman option.  In truth, by choosing Palin McCain made more of a statement of continuity with the last eight years than if he had chosen any of the other people frequently named as possibilities.  Naturally, given the Bushist habit of abusing language, this is being presented as a clean break and a fresh start.  Rhetorically, McCain and Palin have aligned themselves as the enemies of the status quo, while Obama and Biden are setting themselves up as the steady preservers of establishment interests.  In reality, however, McCain and Palin are reformers every bit as much as the invasion of Iraq was a war of self-defense.

From here.

This is not happening. Not not not! ^{_{denial is just a river in Africa! JUST a RIVER!!}}

I suppose we can hope that most people have figured out Bushism doesn't work. But I think the new face will fool most folks.

[Swatopluk]

What? I thought the US were ruled by the Democrats in the last 7+ years. I hope you don't want to tell me that Bush jun. is a Republican?

[pieces o nine]

What? I thought the US were ruled by the Democrats in the last 7+ years. I hope you don't want to tell me that Bush jun. is a Republican?

Not just any old Demoncrats -- Liberal Elite Demoncrats!


At least that is what Fox is reporting that I should decide...

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

The GOPher engine has succeded in (mis)characterizing their opponents not so much to stir the people in the middle* but to convince the ones on the fringe that didn't vote in previous elections that their Way Of Life (TM) is In Danger (R) if so and so is elected.

*the goal with the middle (or so-called independents) is to turn them off so they don't vote.

[pieces o nine]

Too true, Zono.


My mom's friends are now giggling that the desirable ticket would be Hillary Clinton/Sarah Palin "because they couldn't do any worse than the men have". It kills in her circle, every time, and is a joke cover for the overall apathy and ignorance for most of them.

They think this is spectacularly witty, but it makes me wail, gnash my teeth, rend my garments, sit upon sackcloth and ashes, and act surly. I keep asking, "Why would you even joke about giving the power for so much potential for damage to someone because they 'wouldn't be any worse than' their predecessor?"

[Pachyderm]

"giving the power for so much potential for damage to someone because they 'wouldn't be any worse than' their predecessor?"

Isn't that how all elections are decided? Policy? Manifesto? Who cares, lets give old X, Y or Z a chance. Can't be worse, can it?

[Griffin NoName]

It's common on appointment panels. Can't agree between the two best candidates? Appoint the third one who no one wants.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

"Why would you even joke about giving the power for so much potential for damage to someone because they 'wouldn't be any worse than' their predecessor?"

Isn't that how all elections are decided? Policy? Manifesto? Who cares, lets give old X, Y or Z a chance. Can't be worse, can it?

That's how the very bad get their jobs, ask how bad the Weimar Republik was before Hitler got the job, or how bad Venezuelans thought they had it before they appointed Mr. Chavez to it. I even remember about 8 years ago a guy in the comments of a news site regarding the uprising of the FARC in Colombia saying exactly that ("why not give them a chance, they can't be worse than..."). People tend to forget that it can ALWAYS get worse.