Yesterday, I put forth an argument that McCain may have tanked the election for the good of the country and race relations. 
Perhaps the current finger pointing at and trashing of Palin is nothing more than a smoke screen to avoid the inconceivable chance that McCain tanked the election from ever coming to light.  Why would those that worked for McCain trash his choice for VP at this time.  Everyone is looking for reasons how and why McCain lost the election.  Yes, the economy sucks right now, but there was little difference in their solutions.  Both were going to give huge subsidies to companies via the bail out.  Yes, there would have been a better chance at a tax break for all under McCain, but unless the Democrats would go along with spending cuts, tax cuts may never have happened.  We still can't get the Bush tax cuts extended! 

Palin had become our Obama.  A fresh face, conservative rhetoric and a strong personality, not a stodgy Washington insider.  Is it too hard to calculate that this diversion would have us defend Palin instead of questioning McCain's campaign performance?  Besides, politicians know better than anyone that the public has a short memory.  (See Murtha) It was proven by Obama that short of pictures of him molesting children or as a transvestite prostitute that his supporters would defend him at all costs, even dig in deeper.  But consistent attacks by McCain about the issues put forth in my last post, would have pulled some of his support and could have carried the election.  Palin is a conservative voice for the future.  A couple of years of speaking engagements would remove any doubts about the current charges of incompetence, and the McCain people know it.

Staffers don’t what to be the reason for, or associated with, any loss, but certainly not one in which the candidate himself thought it best not to win.  “Blame the inexperienced girl, she can overcome it in a couple of years”.  We can even explain it away later, that “we were just tired from a long, hard fought battle and were lashing out.”  It would be counter productive and a “black mark” (no pun intended) on the Obama election if it was learned or even considered that McCain did tank the election, which he would not want to have happen (Country First).  The press would be all over him, damage the party, hurt the country, escalate the discourse on race and the conservative cause.  Throw out Palin, the conservatives will defend her! 

The press, talking heads and pundits may never dig into my hypothesis, but it makes no sense for what is happening to Palin.  Polls have proven that she was not a detriment to the ticket.  She wasn't in the main stream media enough to be a detriment.  By saying that they were holding her back because she wasn't knowledgable enough, reflects the incompetence of McCain's decision making more than an indictment against Palin.  On the stump, what did she say that caused news that was a detriment to the cause?  I can't think of any that would have been an election breaker.  Everything she was saying was what we wanted McCain to say himself.  The charges they are making against her would not have been learned anyway because she wasn't being asked questions by the press.  So why bring it to light?  The McCain crew's charge she hurt the ticket because she wasn't knowledgable, but if she was knowledgable she would have helped the ticket?  Contradictory at the least. 

The silence of McCain on all of this raises questions.  Why not defend her and take responsibility for the loss.  Then he would have to give his explanation of why he lost, raising questions about why he didn't do more if he thought he could win by using damaging information against Obama.  If he agrees with the charges, then his decision on selecting her creates doubt and he could lose the respect he has at this time.  It seems that everyone believes that no Republican could have won with this economy and Bush's approval ratings, so we give McCain a pass. 

The coming days may only create more questions as to why Palin is being thrown under the bus.