|
Quick question for readers of Open Left: which person, after being introduced to the nation with some fanfare, ended up being a bigger liability to the GOP, Sarah Palin or Michael Steele? When Palin was introduced as John McCain's running mate there was a honeymoon period that lasted a couple weeks before she opened her mouth without benefit of a script. After the interview with Charlie Gibson her favorability ratings started a quick dive and soon (especially after the Couric interview) her negatives were higher than her positives. Any chance McCain had to win Independent voters was gone. When Steele was introduced there was similar GOP optimism for awhile. Like Palin, he was a rare non-white-male Republican who they hoped would help the GOP expand its base. Nationally he was just as much of an unknown as Palin was before her selection and many Republicans projected their hopes onto him. Like Palin, however, he seems to have a problem speaking without a script (such as the new revelations here). So much of a distraction as he become that he may be dropped as RNC Chair. Of course there was also talk of dropping Palin from the ticket. But, as many here pointed out, McCain was is in a no-win situation at that point. Keep her and he would lose the moderates. Dump her and he would lose enthusiasm, turnout and contributions from activist Republicans. A similar situation faces the GOP now only the sides are reversed. Keep Steele and try for moderates or dump Steele (and go with Katon Dawson) take a lot of bad press and give up, to some degree, on moderates. It's a no-win and it's just as fantastic as the McCain situation was last fall. Your take?
|
STATE BLOGS
