The Globe doesn’t explain, though, why Palin’s performance shouldn’t cause damage, shouldn’t be considered serious error.
On the financial crisis, Palin hammered the theme that McCain is best suited to protect the American people without addressing the fact that McCain has been an unwavering champion of deregulation. Without addressing the fact that John McCain’s most significant takeaway from the S&L crisis was the need for campaign reform, not banking reform.
Palin accused Obama and Biden of waving “the white flag of surrender.”
She repeated the canard that McCain never says different things to different groups despite indisputable evidence of a laundry list of his flip-flops.
Palin repeated the theme that her ticket would bring fresh, new, outside-the-beltway ideas when the top of the ticket has been in congress for 24 years.
It is unfathomable that these — and other statements — are not considered serious errors that cause damage. But, the Globe writes like there is some independent measure of what is or isn’t a problem, instead of acknowledging that the media can and do set the standard.
The Globe should explain why taking a significant position — on the most significant issue of the day — completely at odds with one’s record is not a problem. Why slandering your opponent with allegations of surrender isn’t a problem. Why lying about your ticket-mate is not a problem. Why pretending your ticket-mate is something he is not isn’t a problem.
The Globe chose how to characterize Palin’s performance. The Globe chose not to write that Palin’s performance was damaging.
Imagine an editorial that wrote that Palin’s baseless promises on McCain’s behalf, her unseemly accusations, her lies, and her fantasy-land depiction of McCain as outsider irreparably destroyed any credibility the McCain camp has.
Why the passivity?