Several days after Senator McCain selected Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, about the only way to come up with some new and distinctive commentary on the choice would be to postulate the theory that Karl Rove made the selection and that it was a brilliant tactical move.
Gov. Palin has been carefully spun as absolutely not being Rove's pick; but if she were, the story that she wasn't would bolster Senator McCain's carefully crafted image as a Maverick and that is the major selling point as far as the Republicans are concerned.
The Alaska governor has brought up the qualifications issue which again sounds like it has Karl Rove's fingerprints (15 yard penalty - mixed metaphor) all over it because it is possible that after a prolonged debate about the experience of all four major figures involved in the election process, Sarah Palin could in late October be suddenly replaced on the ticket with someone whose credentials can not be questioned (such as Jeb Bush?).
Liberals have been quick to point out that Sarah Palin sounds like a fine example of the quota style of preferential treatment and that is a very stealth way to point out that Senator Obama may have benefited from the quota system.
Sarah Palin, besides providing a heckuva potential boost to Tina Fey's career, has been a very pleasant way of distracting voters' attention away from things such as the search for Osama, Victory in Iraq, the menace of the Iranian nuclear program, and the situation in Ossetia and isn't that what a Karl Rove wedge issue would be designed to do?
Tangential considerations such as will the Palin family values help revive interest in and the sales of Erskine Caldwell's novels, are also helpful in turning the voters attention away from things such as the question: Is a $10 billion dollar a month war adding to the deficit?
If the easily distracted commentators on television can be lured into obsessing on perceived embarrassments to the Republican party such as teenage pregnancy and/or trooper gate, for a month and a half, by mid-October replacing her on the McCain ticket would cause jubilation among liberal bloggers. Sarah Palin could be replaced, just as Thomas Eagleton was dropped from the Democratic ticket in 1972, by a much wiser pick. The bloggers would crow that they had brought Sarah Palin down, but would their joy be short-lived if she was replaced by Jeb Bush?
Voters have been brainwashed into believing that if they hear it on Fox News, it must be true and so it is very unlikely that this column will convince anybody that it is very possible that Karl Rove selected Sarah Palin to be cannon fodder for pack journalism, knowing all the while that she would provide a temporary wedge issue and then ultimately be forced into a noble sacrifice after the turmoil reached unmanageable levels of hysteria. That will distract attention away from Iraq for quite some time and isn't that the key to a Republican victory in November?
If Karl Rove maneuvered events and made a very deliberate selection of Sarah Palin, how difficult would it be (See "Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over For Bush," by Eric Boehlert) for Mr. Rove to get his good pals in the journalism world to run talking points about the various aspects of the Palin nomination, such as inexperience and quotas, that he may have conveniently suggested? Haven't they always done the bidding of Karl Rove and/or George W. Bush? Why assume they wouldn't answer the call one more time?
If name journalists have been duped, in the past, into doing a dog and pony show for the Republican power cabal, would any such transgression then leave them vulnerable to future manipulation via the threat of exposing their past compliance?
Is the high priced talent asking the Alaska Governor about her assessment of Ahmed Chalabi or are they doing the high school journalism giggle and point routine about family matters?
Big hint? Given the remarkable coincidence of how often Bill O'Reilly's analysis coincides with the strategy of Karl Rove, it was interesting for the proponents of the premise of this column to note that on Tuesday, September 02, 2008, the No Spin Zone was defending Sarah Palin, but leaving open the possibility that unquestioning loyalty to Palin, might have limits and that some astounding revelations (about trooper gate?) might open the possibility of taking strong evasive action (dropping her from the ticket?) after the conclusion of the National Convention, but before the election is held.
Isn't it rather harsh to think that Karl Rove might be that devious and premeditated in his strategy? Obviously using anyone as a target for a journalism feeding frenzy is a drastic move, but isn't there an old adage that everything is fair, in love, war, and politics? If Palin is forced to step out of the picture, wouldn't the journalists have a field day with the up-North cliché of throwing someone to the wolves rather than resorting to the more hip "under the bus" aphorism?
Wouldn't the admission that he had made a big mistake be a great way to differentiate himself from George W. Bush, who doesn't think the economy is worth worrying about because there's no problem?
Has any other pundit seriously suggested that Palin may be a Rove gambit? Why must all punditry these days be homogenized and generic? Could it be that they are all working from the same Karl Rove press release?
William Faulkner has said: "To live anywhere in the world today and be against equality because of race or color is like living in Alaska and being against snow."
Now, the disk jockey will play Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf and we will sled on out of here. Have a "don't look back" type week.
