« Discussion Topic: Hunters Robbing Hunters | Main | Chad Love: Hunters with Hangovers? »

October 27, 2008

This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Field Notes at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes.

Chad Love: If McCain Loses ...

As we get closer to election day  and the dismal  poll numbers keep rolling in for the McCain-Palin camp, it  might be time to start looking past the election. Hollywood certainly is.

From hollywoodreporter.com :
As  campaign  managers for Sarah Palin plot last-minute tactics to get her  elected,  Hollywood bigwigs are convening strategy sessions of their own.  Their goal:  finding the ideal on-air vehicle for the vp candidate if and  when she exits  politics.

Love her or hate   her -- there doesn't seem to be much middle ground with Palin -- the   44-year-old hockey mom has captured the public imagination in a way no   politician has since, well, Barack  Obama.

But as  more and more polls cast doubt on the  McCain-Palin ticket, producers and  agents across the entertainment world  are discussing possibilities for  capitalizing on her fame, ranging from  an Oprah-style syndicated talk show to  a Sean Hannity-like perch in  cable news or on  radio.

So  here's an  idle thought: In the long run would it actually be better for  us if McCain lost? Think about it, what's the favorite pastime of  millions of American lemmings, I mean citizens? That's right, killing  brain cells in front of a TV. Regardless of questions concerning her  qualifications for VP, you  can't deny she's tailor-made for television.  As a vehicle for getting the hunting/shooting cause into the national  dialogue where it  belongs, this potentially beats the hell out of her current candidacy. 

Why? Because a McCain-Palin administration would be nothing like a Bush-Cheney administration. Despite the campaign rhetoric, Sarah Palin's role is going to revert right back to to what the VP's was before Dick Cheney entered the office: ribbon-cuttings and attending the funerals of third-world potentates. And really, what good is that going to do us?

But a Palin talk show? Priceless. It has the potential  to project a pro-hunting, pro-firearms image to millions of people. So  let's say for the sake of argument that McCain loses and Palin gets snatched up by a network. You are now the executive producer of her forthcoming  show. What will be the format and what will be the topics? How would you  present Palin to the world?



I think we have plenty of conservative talk pundits. She's doing a good job as Governor in Alaska, why not stay there and continue?
I believe that she'll be a viable national candidate in the future. We'll need those also. After "The Messiah's" inaugeration (God forbid), I'm forecasting Depression, rather than Recession.


I don't see Palin trying to push her pro-gun/pro-hunting agenda on any news/talk/entertainment show she may/may not do.

Why? It won't sell to the masses and that's the demographic you have to reach to make CASH.

I'd say IF McCain/Palin loses, it's back to Alaska to finish her term as the Gov and/or maybe a run for the Senate.

But you never know, the lure of easy money and people kissing your butt would be mighty tempting.




Not so fast Chad! Some of the polls are showing a rebound for McCain-Palin! I would not go so far as to predict the outcome of this election! I also would guess that Vice President Palin would still be a great spokesperson for hunting and firearms ownership! Further I doubt that a Vice President Palin will be relegated to a Dan Quayle-esque role of cutting ribbons, misspelling the names of common tubers, paying respects to two-bit foriegn leaders and the like; the women who swing the election to McCain-Palin will not allow that!


One other small (good) point of a Obama presidency, that will keep another CLINTON out of office for at least eight years. (Obama would run for a second term). I feel she would ruin this great country of ours. (second amendment, hunting rights, more taxes, etc)


I agree with the others that think she could become a viable Presidential candidate in 4-8 more years. Hope she sticks with it. Liberals would love to see her enter the media and stay out of politics. Reminds me of a supplier we had. They hired our guy who persistently gave them the most trouble. Philosophy was, if you can't beat them, hire them.


Palin as a viable prez candiate in 4-8 years? Thanks, I needed that laugh. Hate to break it to you, but she has forever sealed her fate as unintelligent. I don't always agree with republicans, but they can offer something better than her.


Honestly Anthony - the "unintelligent" label was frequently hurled at Reagan. It didn't stick to him, as it was proven time and again to be untrue, and it won't work against Palin. Reagan was a prolific writer and held consistent, highly regarded ideas about the proper role of limited government, the Constitution, and the ability of man to live life in pursuit of his own interests, absent the meddling hand of government. Palin shares those beliefs. She and her husband demonstrate those beliefs on a daily basis.

As to Mr. Love's query, perhaps Palin's next role in public life should be that of a public speaker or commentator, as Reagan did while touring the country on behalf of GE. Suggestions by the popular culture weenies at hollywoodreporter that she become a media star proves their tunnel vision. In the U.S. perhaps 10 million people might watch a popular show on TV on a single night. To me, that stat indicates that 290 million do not.

(It is encouraging to see Mr. Love moving in the right direction, away from the plastic soul-sucking life of celebrity rags and into the real life of flesh, bone and steel where the Palins reside.)


I would put her and Elizabeth Hasselbeck into a Paris Hilton/Nicole Ritchie type show and have them travel the land and goof on liberals like Borat or Ali G.

Because stuffed shirts, liberal or conservative, need to be exposed.

But she'd be a terrible senator - she is too ambitious and needs to be the Big Kahuna.


i think macain palin will win! however lets asume they don,t.we will have to survive two years of commies in the house,senate and as leader of the not so free world obama scary i know. we will however have something double the size of the reagen revelution or the contract with america two years later!! Rich you said that at least a clinton would not be in office i disagree.do you not see the danger we are in?not just the 2cnd amendment but the whole constitution!! we would be better off if they both moved to france, but these days i,l take a clinton over a obama anyday.atleast we know what we are getting in a clinton.Barack hussein obama is a steath canidate who votes present most of the time.What is he trying to hide?I hope we don,t find out!!! If he does win we should all buy a brand new gun while we still can.


If Obama wins, the Democrats will have an unprecedented amount of power. That is, the White House plus supermajorities in both houses of Congress. Thus, the liberals in Congress could pass anything that they want, which would be rubber stamped by Obama. This is especially true if the Democrats get sixty seats in the Senate. There would be no accountability, no oversight--like having the fox watch the chickens.

Here is some of what they have in store.

-From the 8-13-08 Democrat Party Platform Report: Reinstate the assault weapons ban. Their current definition is any semi-auto rifle. The Brady gun banners have endorsed Obama and have indicated this as a priority. The last time we had a Democrat president and a Democrat controlled Congress (under Clinton), the first thing that they did was pass the so-called assault weapons ban (because they looked military). Now, their definition of assault weapon includes any semi-auto rifle. Obama supports the ban, as do many liberals in Congress. The liberals will go here first because this issue only affects gun rights people, whereas the economy affects more people. Thus, they could pull this off with little effort.

-Tax small businesses and corporations. The small businesses will either be forced out of business, lay off workers, or raise prices. Similarly, the corporations will have to make the same decisions, plus they will have less for things like R&D and innovation. Obama loves to demonize the corporations, failing to admit that they create jobs and get the economy moving.

-Of course, military spending would be cut big time, and there would be another terrorist build up. Recall that Clinton had a chance to get Osama and didn't, after the first bombing of the World Trade Center.


I have been through many election where the polls are manipulated to favor the democrat. For instance, four years ago the polls kept saying Kerry was winning in Virginia. The media was even saying on election day that the exit polls had Kerry winning Virginia. As we know, he lost by several points.

In the present case, the media is in the tank for Obama so they make it look like he has a lead. Some of the polls count registered voters, rather than likely voters. We need to get out and vote. Don't let the socialist Obama experiment go through.


I just found out about Sen. Steven's conviction. I guess that puts the kibosh on her appointing herself as his replacement. I don't see how he can be reelected next week. In the event that McCain/Palin lost, I was hoping that she would take that seat. There are 535 members of congress and at least 525 of them are effete snobs. I would hope that she would clean up that place like she cleaned up Alaska. I'm still hoping for a miracle next Tuesday.

Walt Smith

McCain/Palin will win because America is getting tired of obama's constant comparisons of Bush/McCain being the same. Americans are finally realizing that obama never voted outside his party and they are also realizing that Bush had his hands tied in his second term with the dems controling both house and senate. I also am intrested as most of Americans as to when obama will turn up with his birth certificate from Hawaii. Or will he ignore the demands from states asking for it???

Boogie Bear

I'm proud to vote for Obama for President. I'm tired of America being the laughingstock of the world. We are no longer the world's superpower. We don't need a leader that is still under that delusion.

And for all of you people out there that are up in arms (pardon the pun) about "He's going to take our guns away!!!"- just think: Haven't we had Democrats elected President before? (The answer is yes.) Have any of them taken away your guns? (The answer is no.)

Palin is not the brightest bulb on the tree, which would make her perfectly suited to a media position.


according to obamas web-site his thoughts on gun control are as followed. No concealed weapons except for retired police officers or military persons. No fully auto-matic except for police and military use. public cant posses them because they are designed to kill people not animals (which is true) carrying hand guns is protected under the constitution so that will also be allowed. To me that all doesnt seem bad. You all have to remember that gun control in a state issue not a federal issue and he said he would not change that. So if you are concerned with this talk to your congressman or woman or your senator.


or your governer


For someone to refer to Sara Palin as "not the brightest bulb in the tree" then tell why they're voting for Obama, is inane! The only one who makes Obama look bright is Biden. Obama would be the happyman at Wallyworld if not for affirmative action.
Please note: No one is laughing at us since Saddam stretched a rope. Even Khaddaffi in Libya disarmed because he was afraid of us. With support from Congress, we would've disarmed more countries.


Boogie Bear and CTB did you both eat the same STUPID pills this morning, or were you born that way!? The Supreme Court decided that Gun Control is NOT strictly a States Rights issue! The UNITED STATES Constitution (the document against which all laws through out the land are tested) states UNAMBIGUOUSLY that The RIGHT of THE PEOPLE (that'd be us!) To Keep and BEAR Arms Shall NOT be Infringed! Lyndon Johnson, James Carter and Slick Willy Clinton ALL pushed anti-gun legislation. FDR - giveaway Democrat of all Democrats - signed the Gun Control Act of 1933! The Second Amendment is NOT about hunting. It IS about WE THE PEOPLE having the RIGHT to OWN and BEAR the means to defend ourselves against agressors and enemies, criminals and despotic would be dictators!

Whew Take a breath SA!

Stepping off my soapbox!


I grow tired of hearing this same old rhetoric that I've heard since the dawn of time in every election season from both Republicans and democrats. Once this election is over we can get this blog back to a hunting blog rather than a forum for conservatives to complain about and attack democrats. On the flip side I am also tired of hearing democrats defend themselves on this blog against republicans. In all reality bureacratic inertia is in full effect so nothing is going to change no matter who is elected anyway. That's the way it always has been and always will be in a two party system. In January we're still going to see a two front war, a horrible economy, no health coverage for many U.S. citizens and the same guns on the shelves of stores no matter who is elected. We'll also still be a democratic nation [no communism or fascism] where we'll all enjoy the same rights that we've always enjoyed The sad fact is that on this blog all people seem to care about is guns anyway. Let's just hunt and talk about something else other than politics for a change.


Why come onto an obviously political thread with that comment?
The truth is that if Obama is elected he will have a lot of his supporters demanding that he sign gun control legislation; he's already indicated that he will. He makes no bones about his distaste for guns, gun owners and gun rights.

As to the post above which opined that the US is no longer a SuperPower. Detest him and us as they may; when George W Bush called on all the world economic leaders to come to the US for a Summit they all came! No other world leader has that kind of pull!

The two party system is not a good vehicle for rapid, profound, change. That is not a bad thing right now, knee jerk reactions to short term situations should not be enacted as long term solutions. Would it be a good thing to have viable alternative candidates and parties? I think it would. Not so much for that rapid change as for a better representation of all of We The People!


i think all the candidates suck eggs


i think they all suck eggs


silverarrow, if its not a state issue why can you carry hand guns in some states but not in others. nice speech by the way. If you need a fully auto-matic rifle to protect yourself than you might want to consider moving from wherever you live. If not than stop bitching already. And when the economic leaders came together it was the G8 convention. and bush didnt just summon them with his mind powers like you like to think. They are all part of that commitee, or call it what you will and they have meetings. they dont just drop everything and come when bush calls. You think russia and china care about what bush thinks or says.

Micheal Jackson

VOTE OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!he wants to take your Worthless Gun Toys Away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!P.S. Hunting = No Sport


If you read what I wrote above in full you would have seen that the Court did not deny that the states do have some say in gun carry issues (on a purely Constructionist basis they should have but that wasn't going to happen). For what it's worth I own only one semi-automatic rifle and that is a .22. The idea of banning any type of gun in order to aleviate crime is just wrong-headed. We haven't banned cars to stop drunken driving, we have increased the consequences for doing it.

In my last post I wasn't talking about the G8 Summit but the meeting which came a couple of weeks later at the Whitehouse.

Our Blogs