McCain aides deny discord with Palin

The Washington Times ^ | November 8, 2008 | McCain aides deny discord with Palin

[TN4Liberty]

So are they calling Carl Cameron a liar?

If the quotes were patently false, wouldn’t a little outrage be expressed by the men quoted in the article?

[ChetNavVet]

Thaks for posting,
I’m mad, seriously.

Message to MSM, leave her alone...

I’m serious...

Unless you think it’s cool to further loose viewiership / paper subscriptonage...

[garbanzo]

Are you suggesting a conspiracy or multiple falsifying reporters?

Specifically, the "bathrobe/towel" story came from Newsweek. Someone is lying - either Schmidt is CHA or the Newsweek source is lying or the Newsweek reporter is lying. Given that no one from the McCain campaign is making on-the-record comments and Schmidt is, I think it's a possibility the "bathrobe/towel" story is fabricated.

[bluecollarman]

Really, I never thought I would not watch fox news but I haven’t watched anything except some stock reports since the Cameron piece. I am a much happy camper.

[Gondring]

Or that it was a bathrobe, and Schmidt is saying the towel story is wrong.

[Gondring]

Well, there might be Clintonesque denial going on. "The towel story" might be wrong...it might have been a bathrobe as previously reported.

To me, that wouldn't be a scandal, but some felt it was.

[Gondring]

Blame Game : Et tu, Palin? | Palin 2012

[garbanzo]

Or that it was a bathrobe, and Schmidt is saying the towel story is wrong.

While a possibility, he seems to be denying the story altogether, i.e. "categorically untrue". Or he likely would have added more detail if were a bathrobe instead of a towel. The towel story came from somewhere, it was published in Newsweek and one of the participants denies the story on the record. Either someone puts their name to the story or we have to look at the possibility of fraud.

[garbanzo]

Secondly, like the Steven Glass incident, it features a Republicans-gone-wild theme that plays in the press that may reduce scrutiny over sourcing by editors.

[Old Retired Army Guy]

Carl Cameron needs to name his source.

[chief_believer]

funny... and true.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

The question remains. Where is John McCain publicly and personally denouncing these slanders?

McCain couldn't stand the slightest personal criticisms of his opponent and made a point to rebuke anyone who dared to express personal fear or loathing of Obama YET remains silent about these smears of his running mate.

McCain is a snake for letting this happen without comment.

McCain did not deserve a running mate with the class and personal appeal of Sarah Palin.

[chief_believer]

I agree. Let’s destroy the future job prospects/openings for future campaigns by flushing out this ‘unnamed source’.

Moreover, Carl Cameron is an idiot. He was so excited about telling this ‘unnamed sources’ story that I could almost see his eyes.

[nathanbedford]

Since before this election I have been concerned about the rift between the social conservatives in the fiscal conservatives even venturing that is the bedrock problem of the conservative movement today and one which, when no accommodation can be found, will continue to frustrate conservative/Republican electoral chances.

I invite Freepers attention to the comments at the foot of the article by "Republican cannibal" who claims to be a conservative although he might just be a troll. If a conservative at all, these words show that he is a fiscal conservative who is clearly embarrassed by social conservatives:

Please will the GOP offer up true, fiscally conservative candidates that understand issues and have innovative solutions. The McCain-Palin ticket lost its keel and puttered around in circles as we "Real" American conservatives looked on in desperation.

Clearly, Palin is fiscally conservative although I concede there is a strain of populism which bothers me to the extent that the oil companies ought to be taxed because they were making too much money. However, on balance, it is futile to argue that Palin is not a qualified fiscal conservative. Why then the visceral reaction by this alleged conservative?

Whatever his motivations, his comments reveal a moat in the party which threatens utterly to divide conservatism as the opposing sides begin to look at the moat as an ocean. If we are to find a way out of the wilderness we must find an accommodation between these two wings of the party, just as Ronald Reagan did. Here is what I wrote before the election which I offer now as a possible bridge over the moat, hopefully not a drawbridge. I have emphasized the comments I think are most relevant to Republican cannibal's remarks: I believe that the big battle in the party will not be between conservatives and moderates but between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives who are primarily libertarian. Both flavors of conservatives find common ground in strong defense. Fiscal conservatives are generally not as enthusiastic about Second Amendment rights, but the issue is not a dealbreaker. Social conservatives are almost universally fiscal conservatives but not all fiscal conservatives share social conservatives concerns about abortion and the ancillary issue of the morning after pill, education, religion in the public square, homosexual union, stem cell research, and pornography, marital fidelity as a prerequisite to public service, and evolution.

I consider myself to be a social conservative with a pesky libertarian reflex. In other words I am ferociously opposed to abortion but I am less exercised about what homosexuals are doing to each other in private. I am very concerned about the war being waged against Christians by our own governments but I'm not very exercised about adult pornography. I recite all of this because I think the way I resolved my apparent dilemma is the way everybody should do it: look for the victim and protect him. The classic arguments in support of legalizing alcohol, drugs, prostitution and gambling all point to the "absence" of a victim so the traditional conservative bias towards individual liberty weighs very heavily. But I sure see a victim in partial-birth abortion so I don't give a damn about the mother's convenience. Indeed, I see no reason to grant exceptions to prohibitions against abortion for incest or rape because those circumstances do not justify victimizing innocents, that is, to kill babies. Life of the mother exception, to the contrary, makes sense to me because one can identify the mother now as a victim. So if all conservatives would only just do as I do, (you know, be as reasonable as Henry Higgins and I) which is to weigh the balance in behalf of an identifiable victim but otherwise to respect individual liberty, we would find much overlapping common ground upon which to build long-lasting compromise.

If social conservatives would accept formulations of public morality the organizing principle of which is the protection of an identifiable victim rather than the vindication of a moral precept, fiscal conservatives and libertarians would be much more comfortable in the party. Fiscal conservatives, for their part, must go to bat for Christians when they are embattled by the secularists who would rob them of their faith through the arm of government. Fiscal conservatives owe Christian conservatives one more consideration, they must stop their smug condescension and their eye rolling whenever Christians express their faith in public. Consider for example the execrable figure of the son of William F. Buckley Jr. abandoning the McCain/Palin ticket for ill disguised abhorrence of Palin's faith. This is probably the last kind of bigotry that is socially acceptable in America but it must no longer be acceptable among conservatives. Buckley claims that he is a "small government conservative" but I claim that no matter how small his government, he is no conservative at all but something quite alien to us.

If the conservative movement is to be salvaged, this dichotomy will have to be resolved either along lines that I suggest or some other way. The alternative is a further splintering of the party and that would be very, very unfortunate.

[CanadianMusherinMI]

nothing scandalous about a bathrobe, unless they make it one.
seems cindy mccain was comfortable wearing a robe around her room and did not mind her daughter posting it on her blogette http://mccainblogette.com/postings/102708_0718.shtml. (bottom 4 pictures)
why? because it is no big deal. we see more skin on prime time tv! if sarah was in a towel or robe why is this news? dont these morons wear bathrobes or shower? maybe that should be the scandal!!

[Old Retired Army Guy]

Carl was had. His mistake was to believe what he was told without checking it out.

[ChetNavVet]

Exactly, TN4Liberty, I feel (after knowing what I know about the lady, and yes I heard about her more than a year ago)’ Venom, pure venom spouted by the left, attacks and lib Lies (or should I say ‘foamed at the mouth enthusiasim?) and all spewed out to dicredit a great person? No I’ll take her own words in her own voice for what this super cool person stands for, any day of the week. any day.

I can almost garuntee(sic) that I could approach SP and say “I think you kick a$$ you’re a cool chick, and she would not blow me off, mayhaps She’d challange me, about what I meant about the word “chick”, and even if she did, She’d let a dolt like me off the hook, because she’s just a good person.. She’d be super cool, and sugesst that I should be reading an English is your friend Book or something.

[Soliton]

So are they calling Carl Cameron a liar? If the quotes were patently false, wouldn’t a little outrage be expressed by the men quoted in the article?

Carl Cameron is a weasel like O'Reilly. He gets more publicity repeating rumors as fact, than just reporting what he actually knows. O'Reilly was just trying to coerce Palin into coming on his show.

[Soliton]

Cameron travelled with the McCain team. He was on the plane. He got Stockholm Syndrome and was used by some as a willing mouthpiece for their smears.

Major Garrett seemed to suffer from the same problem traveling with the Obama team. He smiled the whole time he spoke about how upbeat and positive and confident everyone was on the BO campaign.

I think both got to think of themselves as somehow being campaign insiders and abandoned journalistic skepticism as a result.

[~Vor~]

"Carl was had. His mistake was to believe what he was told without checking it out."

And because he so badly WANTED to believe those rumors...