Palin, Palin, Palin
With her new book and her new book tour (including a cozy-but-wary chat with Oprah), Sarah Palin has certainly managed to be in the spotlight lately.
The fierce rage Palin inspired (and still inspires) was first and foremost a class war (see also this), and secondarily about academic credentials and mannerisms, all of it helped along by a media all too willing to spread lies about her actual record and positions, and to grant her the most hostile of interviews edited in the most damaging possible ways.
Now, although the sides have become entrenched—Palin-haters vs. Palin-lovers—Palin occupies a strange hybrid position in the public eye. At the moment anyway, she’s no longer running for public office. In fact, she no longer has a public office. Palin is now officially a celebrity, getting the celebrity treatment. Thus, the Oprah interview, which could never have happened during the campaign, because Oprah was an Obama partisan. If Oprah is interviewing Palin, it means that (for Oprah, at least) Palin represents no threat and no danger.
So, has Palin been permanently marginalized in terms of her political future? I certainly can’t answer that question. But my gut feeling is that, as they say in the campaign biz, her negatives are too high, and I think they will probably remain so.
The problem for the Republican Party is that, so far, it has a dearth of charismatic and exciting candidates. There is a tendency towards boring grayness, which might work very well for governing but doesn’t usually win elections on the national level. America goes for surface charm, and if we didn’t know that already, Obama’s 2008 victory should have sealed that knowledge for us.
Palin is charming—and I believe her to intelligent as well, although her brand of intelligence is less academic than most running for national office these days, and more on the order of common sense. But Palin’s charm is of a type that infuriates many people, and the press has uniformly been about as vicious to her as to any politician I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. Therefore, I don’t think the Republican Party would do itself a favor if she were to be nominated for either President or Vice-President in 2012.
She’s not my candidate of choice, but I don’t share the disdain for her. Every time I see Palin, however, I’m struck by how extraordinarily different she is from every other politician of the day. She seems to me to be a throwback to a time before candidates had been trained to smooth out and homogenize all their quirks and idiosyncrasies, a time when they didn’t speak in bland platitudes but used language that expressed their special sensibilities and history.
Harry Truman comes to mind (as it often does for me with Palin). But could the unsophisticated, decidedly un-academic, and definitely idiosyncratic Truman could have been elected in this day and age, even with the head start of having inherited his first term on the death of his predecessor? I’m not at all sure.
Two days after then-Governor Palin had been chosen by John McCain as his running mate, and the general patten of harsh criticism of her had already been set (it was only to get worse), I wrote a piece with some words I would like to quote now, because I see no reason to change them:
The biggest difference [between Obama and Palin] is that Obama is of the Left and Palin of the Right. That he speaks as though he’s a reformer but was deeply in league with and assisted by the corrupt Chicago political machine of his own party, while she fought against the corrupt politics of fellow Republicans in her own state and won. That her admittedly meager high-level political experience is of the executive sort, while his similarly sparse resume contains only the legislative type. That she is a woman of action and he a man of words. That she chose to have her Downs baby and care for it and he fought to allow babies born alive after attempted abortions die. That he is inordinately fond of weasle words, contradicting himself, and the repetitive hum of “ummm;” and she (in the little we’ve seen of her) seems direct and straightforward.
Obama trumps Palin in the category of academic credentials, if you like that sort of thing. I’ve never noticed it has much to do with whether a President is effective or not, or even especially smart in terms of what one might call horse sense.
Palin has similarities not only with Obama. Her personal vibe is a bit like that of Harry Truman. Although he had a much longer pre-VP tenure in national political life than either candidate (twelve years as Senator from Missouri) he, like Palin, was a folksy down-to-earth plainspeaking rural sort. He even wore the wire-rimmed eyeglasses, although they didn’t look as good on him as they do on her (and Truman bears the distinction of having been the last President who didn’t even go to college).
Now that we’ve seen more of both Palin and especially of President Obama, the comparisons only seem to go more in her favor—for example, just for starters, she’s not pretending to be a moderate while actually having a far Left agenda, nor is she planning to make the United States weaker and more vulnerable on the world stage.
[NOTE: Plain Speaking was the name of a so-called “oral biography” of Truman, written many decades ago. Even though Palin herself is far from plain in the physical sense, it strikes me that her own “plain speaking” is one of the things that so riles her opponents. Palin’s speech is plain in the sense of unsophisticated, and plain in the sense of clear and blunt and direct, very much unlike Obama. And I find it amusing (although perhaps irrelevant) that if you scramble the letters of “Palin,” you get “plain.”]
Neo,
Thanks for invoking “Plain Speaking”, long a favorite book of mine. (It should not take the place of a good history book on the Truman years, but it’s a wonderful introduction to the man himself and the people who worked with him.)
For the record: you ask if Truman could have been elected today, even with the built-in advantage of succeeding to the Presidency. But please remember that, although Truman won in 1948, it was very much a near-run thing, even then. (And Truman’s hokey country-hick image were very much an issue then, particularly in contrast to his predecessor, the ever-charming and debonair FDR.)
I wouldn’t count out Mrs. Palin just yet. She has tremendous power to shape the public debate, and she knows it. (Remember the “death panels”? She caused a nationwide furor, and a change in the proposed legislation, with ONE FaceBook post.) She also seems to understand what “public service” means… and if she sees the same dearth of Republican leadership that you do, she may well feel an obligation to step into the void.
I have a feeling we’ll see a lot of her between now and 2012… and I look forward to it. She’ll be helping Republicans get elected in 2010 — and, based on the results of that, her future may be bright indeed.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Neo,
You said you think Palin has too many negatives for her to run. That may be true to most of the electorate, but I can’t help wishing she was in the WH now, and not Obama. What a different government we would have.
physics guy: I wish the same. No contest.
First: being POTUS is not the be all end all (not that anyone said it was, but just as a reminder). It’s AMAZING the way Palin has affected the conversation with a Facebook account.
Second: though much anti Palin animus comes from feminists and leftists, much also comes from Washington insiders – including the condescending “Meet the Press” types of pretentious commentators.
Palin is the ultimate outsider. You’d have to relocate to the North Slope to get much more outside than Wasilla – and no families live on the North Slope. The insiders criticize her for not having the knowledge of an insider. This is silly. If she had the knowledge of an insider, she would BE an insider.
Palin’s opportunity is to demonstrate the truth: she is a learning organism. Althouse said Palin is “dumb” b/c Palin did not, last fall, recognize the treachery of the McCain staffers who would stab her in the back. Althouse fails to recognize that Palin is an outsider and a learning organism: she learns, she advances, she learns, she advances, etc. A President needs to know who he/she is (re principles and beliefs) and be a learning organism. Palin is this, and has opportunity to demonstrate it to the electorate.
I am not over concerned about Palin’s positive/negative rating. Many say she is defined in the public eye. However, I believe much of the public does not know her: she has opportunity to be redefined in their eyes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Separately, re Repub Presidential candidates:
I believe Repub candidates have charm and are simply too unknown. This will be rectified: the electorate will come to know them. Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty: it’s true they don’t have military medals and war stories in their backgrounds. Still, they are clever conversationalists, would be engaging over beer, and know their way around a BBQ grill. These guys are not stiffs, and we ought be careful about blithely buying into the media preferred narrative that they are. Some of the bias in that narrative is coastal bias against the midwest. I don’t spend … really any time at all being concerned about coastal bias against the midwest. Still, it exists, and it exists in the “bland” narrative being sold about Romney, Huckabee, and Pawlenty. These guys all enjoy a good ribald story; and they all have more guts, and more understanding of life and of humanity, than either a WaPo reporter or a Meet the Press condescender – especially better than a David Brooks who: worshipfully allowed Barack to fondle his thigh, then worshipfully wrote about it.
You know who is a stiff? Bobby Jindal. And I’ll vote for him for President the instant he runs for the office. He is the most glorious stiff ever, and he is cleaning up Louisiana like it has NEVER been cleaned up before. Ever. My brother lives in Baton Rouge, and he and his friends LOVE Jindal. Louisiana, quietly, has likely been the most corrupt state in the history of the U.S. Louisiana politics is a web of corruption, and has been for a century. The money amounts of an Illinois or a New York do not flow through Louisiana, yet what money does flow through there has always been heavily susceptible to being embezzled and to being directed to cronies. NO ONE has ever made progress in cleaning up Louisiana like Bobby Jindal is doing right now.
I would be open minded to giving her a second chance, but she doesn’t get it by default, or for free, she has to demonstrate an interest for and capacity to govern on a national/global stage. We’ll see what she says and does in the campaign to come, and weight that against her opponents.
If I could whisper in her ear, I’d tell her to set her celebrity wattage to the max and then start selling the goods. So far she’s in the first stage. I’m hoping hard there will a second.
As a born Alaskan, even though I now live in ultrablue Seattle, I’d love to see Palin run and win in 2012. I don’t see it happening.
The press reaction to her won’t change, sad to say. And her decision to abruptly resign from the governorship was weird, even to this supporter.
Most importantly, a huge number of women (like my wife) will never ever vote for her because she dislikes abortion. The fact that it would be politically impossible for even the most firebreathing anti-abortion partisan to outlaw abortion in this country is irrelevant. She is a woman, she is against abortion, she cannot be allowed into the White House. Period.
I’ve been saying for quite some time that as long as the Republican Party has an anti-abortion plank in their platform they will never get a majority of women. The they-want-to-control-my-body fear is just too great.
I have to chuckle. Alaskans refer to the rest of the United States as “Outside”. So if she were an insider, she would be from Outside. 🙂
I keep hoping Judd Gregg is leaving the Senate in 2010 to running for POTUS. Favorite son candidates used to be the norm, now they never happen. But this is the one spot I can see it working, with NH having the first primary.
Side note: I love NH having the primary, and think a small state is the way to go for first primary, but there is an unfairness. Electing Judd Gregg would go a long way toward making it up to the rest of you guys.
re Palin’s resignation as Governor:
It was outside the box strategic thinking, it was smart, it was ballsy. “L’audace, l’audace, toujours l’audace!”
Palin took care of Alaskans. She was hamstrung as governor, and therefore Alaska was hamstrung. For the remaining months of what would have been her legally hamstrung and lame-duck governorship, Alaska is better off without her in the office.
Palin took care of her family: cashing an opportunity to earn, for the first time ever, millions of dollars. It was an opportunity which might not have come around again.
Palin is more viable as a candidate: can speak out and take actions which she could not have taken as Governor.
Her resignation as Governor is a nice indication of her capability as a gutsy strategic thinker and actor.
The reaction to Sarah Palin is truly surreal. David Brooks, as talk show panelist dismissed her as a “talk show host”. Clearly not presidential material. Perhaps if she had the proper background, you know maybe an actor or community organizer, she would possess the bona fides! But why does Sarah Palin really inspire such fear and loathing from the left? It’s because she is the embodiment of Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. I’d vote for her in a cold minute. She was the only side of the McCain/Palin ticket that ever inspired my confidence.
You know that, and I know that (or at least it’s an explanation I’ll accept), but come campaign season it’ll get played as “she doesn’t even have the integrity to stick to her job” and other such BS.
gcotharn: I hope you’re correct, because I do worry about the “bland” thing. I think the vast middle that doesn’t pay much attention to policy is swayed by personality a great deal. And the media, despite the low esteem in which it’s held by many people, still influences a great many others (including many of those middle folk).
Adrian: I think Brooks didn’t like her because she doesn’t have the proper crease in her pants.
AVI: I’m a Gregg fan as well. I keep saying that to people, but most have never heard of him. I somehow think he has no intention of running on a national ticket, either. Have you any information to the contrary?
I believe the main reason for the deep seated rancor the left has for Ms. Palin is that she does not share their self loathing for America.
To top that off she hunts and fishes. She CHOSE to have a downs syndrome baby rather than having an abortion.
I don’t know what she will do or how she would do in another campaign. But it will be interesting to watch.
Good thing for Obama Truman wasn’t around to see that bow to the Emperor.
I still puzzle why feminists hate her. I’ve tried many paradigms, and the one that seems to fit the best goes back to some fundamental notions. Palin has what women want – a man. Feminists (in general) will never have that; what they get are males, and typically only for a period of time. Palin has not just a man, but one who is happy to devote his life for her. I can’t think of too many feminists in America who have what Sarah Palin has. And they hate her for it.
Brain Lovely,
Married women favor Republicans.
Non-married women have favored Democrats.
This has been the case for decades.
I believe it has more to do with how busy most women are and how much they could care less about “politics” as in my coworker.
She doesn’t pay attention until 2 weeks before election. She voted for Obama.
She couldn’t answer a NUMBER of questions about history, the way Congress works, who appropriates, economics, etc. She votes for the popular candidate (conventional wisdom).
This is especially true with the young also.
Until you get mugged, start a business, have a family and get married – many of the nations issues are irrelevant to you and when you finally do evolve, gain common sense politically and gain wisdom you end up seeing that yes – what is good for the country is more:
1) personal responsibility
2) national security
3) economic opportunity
4) lower taxation versus stifling taxation
Palin understands all of this and has wisdom and experience that ∅bama may never gain. He closes off alternative point of view and may never actually run anything with success. He has TOO MANY YES MEN.
It is through failure that people learn. Palin has a strong chance of learning and adapting to become a national leader. I hope. She was presented with challenges that were unfair yes – but have solutions to them.
BTW Brian, she resigned for a good reason. I applaud her courage. If you want the reason I will give it to you. You have to be ready to hear it.
Myself, I don’t care re electability in choosing a candidate. I am not a campaign advisor or a political “scientist” (how I despise that self-defined identifier, a stealth cloak to convey objectivity while being Leftist). Being a fence straddler to win elections means you are always lying, conning some voters.
The feminine host that is pro-abortion single issue is the same group that mothers little lap dogs, hates guns, favors gay marriage, wishes you a Happy Halloween and Happy Holidays, and is generally squeamish.
Palin has earned my profound respect. She has most of what real men (well, maybe just me!) find desirable in a lifelong spouse. And I have mine!
Palin is charming–and I believe her to intelligent as well, although her brand of intelligence is less academic than most running for national office these days, and more on the order of common sense. But Palin’s charm is of a type that infuriates many people, and the press has uniformly been about as vicious to her as to any politician I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. Therefore, I don’t think the Republican Party would do itself a favor if she were to be nominated for either President or Vice-President in 2012.
She frightens them out of their wits. They will NEVER willingly allow her to attain higher office, will do anything it takes — smears, lies, undeserving ridicule and all the rest of the MSM’s bag of dirty tricks — to keep her away from the Whitehouse.
Liberal female pundits go absolutely nuts when her name is mentioned. I saw Eleanor Clift on The McLaughlin Group almost fall out of her chair and foam at the mouth a few months ago when one of the other participants offered not praise but only a mildly positive observation about Palin.
But even many opinion-makers on the Right turn up their nose — George Will, Peggy Noonan and David Brooks among the most prominent. They have their own kind of decadence, different perhaps than the Left’s variety but still there, a type of decadence that over-intellectualizes the issues and calls it ‘nuance,’ that much of the time spurns simplicity and directness in favor of unneeded complication. And they do not enjoy provincial accents.
But many DO like Sarah Palin, including myself, and she may yet have a chance to influence the politics of our time, indeed, already has.
Many advise her to “bone up” on the issues and that is probably good advice but I don’t think her skills and charisma are properly utilized by striving to be able to spout wonk-ishly at will during hostile interviews. Almost single-handed she was recently able to get legislation rewritten on the subject of death panels, euphemized by the duplicitous Democrats as “end of life” counseling. She used the internet, not political office, to get her message to the public and that example may point to her unique way to influence politics.
Just to keep it simple, I’m with adrian. I’d vote for Palin in a NY second. My problem, as I’ve said before, was with McCain – who has all but disappeared since. Holy Mother of Pearl – how did he get the nod?
Her negatives come from two unfair interviews. The one by Katie Couric was edited to damage Palin. The other was clearly a hatchet job with questions intended to embarrass. She was interviewed in a manner unlike the pitty pat interviews of Obama and Biden. I think that the more she appears in public and projects her own persona, the more favorable she will be received. Right now I think the nomination is hers for the taking if she plays her cards right.
One of the things that seems to keep cropping up is her decision to resign as Governor of Alaska.
Considering she was having to use her personal funds to defend against a constant stream of ethics charges as silly as her holding a fish up at a competition or wearing a coat with a logo on it tells me she had good reason to remove herself from that position if she wanted her agenda to move forward while protecting her family.
Would any of us put our personal political career ahead of keeping the family funds in the bank to feed and clothe our kids?
From what I understand, now that she’s out of the office her Lt Governor has assumed the office and Palin’s original policies are still be implemented.
In the meantime, she’s free to work the public and create her own image now – completely free of the McCain handlers.
She is not hamstrung with a public office that she continuously has to return to, and she can spend as much time in the lower 48 states as she wants as a private citizen without anyone having grounds to criticize her.
All in all, it seems to have been a smart move for her – which probably just irritates her critics all the more.
Her withdrawel reminds me of a description of a dogfight in Vietnam between an F4 Phantom Pilot and a NV Mig.
At one point the F4 pilot gunned his engines and used his superior speed to withdraw a few miles from the fight instead of continuing a losing tactic with the Mig.
After pulling out a few miles, the pilot then returned on his own terms, implemented his own tactics, and shot the enemy pilot down.
I see Palin as pursuing a very similar tactic. She withdrew, everyone got a breather, and now she’s back and she’s on her own terms.
It’s up to her what she makes of this opportunity of course, but her negatives can be reversed – especially as The Won continues to implode.
It may not be a matter of her not having high negatives in 2012, so much as it is a matter of her having negatives that are not as *bad* as those of Obama at that time frame.
Scottie wrote, “Considering she was having to use her personal funds to defend against a constant stream of ethics charges as silly as her holding a fish up at a competition or wearing a coat with a logo on it tells me she had good reason to remove herself from that position if she wanted her agenda to move forward while protecting her family.”
Also, she had courage to return the state back to Alaskans.
She and HER STAFF were spending 80% of their time dealing with the attackers (ethics charges).
To remove herself as the reason the people’s business wasn’t getting done was the ultimate in courage and humility.
To the haters. They don’t get that.
My hat is off to Sarah for doing what was right
I’m with Neo on this one and believe Sarah will ascend to a position of celebrity fund raiser and political operative for conservatives. However, I don’t think at this point, she is POTUS material however we may spin her resignation as governor of Alaska. Still I’m open to changing my mind. By the time we get past 2010, there will be fresh, tough candidates we’re ready to get behind to help clean up the many messes Obama leaves behind.
It is early days yet. There is no question that the “intelligentsia” are going to fight her tooth and nail. On the other hand this country has an awful lot of smart, savvy folks who do not follow the lead of the elites. I doubt the she will ever gain the support of the GOP establishment; and she said today that she did not support third party movements.
I don’t presume to know what her ultimate goal is. I do know that right now she is a valuable vehicle to focus attention on issues. She also drives the left crazy, which is a good thing.
As to the attitude of women toward her. My wife and most “mature” women I know love her. One daughter, the flaming liberal delivery room nurse, cannot stand her. I cannot get a coherent answer from her as to what the objection is. Strangely, to me at least, it apparently has to do with abortion. Interestingly enough, if I understand correctly, Palin advocates only common sense limitations on abortion, along with a campaign of education to limit the practice. Liberal women, even nurses who love to deliver babies, seem to have a visceral, mind-numbed, reaction on that issue.
Palin redefines the word empowerment. For the left, the word means raising hell till you get the government to do something for you because you’re a victim. For Palin, it means seeing how much you can do for yourself or with your neighbors. With her small town background, she understands bottom-up America better than anyone out there. She knows how to tap its strength.
I agree that she would have a very hard time getting elected, but that doesn’t bother me. If she can just get the people we elect to pay attention to middle America and if she can get middle America to demand that they do, then she will have given us a lot. If she can break the hold that the radicals have on social issues and initiate honest discussion instead, then she will move the country forward. She may actually be a stronger force outside elective office because she will be able to reveal her good-natured small town common sense without worrying about protocol or alienating voters.
Oldflyer Says:
November 17th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Bingo. Admittedly, I have limited experience along these lines, but I know exactly the “visceral reaction” you speak of. Most young single women hate Palin with a burning fire. It seems that for many single women, abortion is the issue that trumps everything else. I think they would turn the government over to a supreme dictator without a moment’s hesitation, as long as they were guaranteed the right to abortion on demand.
But then, on the next breath, they’ll be bleating their support for some moronic program, because it’s for the children.
Farther along, I’ll know all about it. Farther along, I’ll understand why.
Maybe these young women think that abortion is the answer to all the complex probems of sexuality, relationships, and motherhood vs. career. They have been told all their lives that they can have it all and they probably have a hard time facing the fact that they can’t. There will always be the road not taken.
I would never want to go back to the days of coat hanger abortions by desparate women, but I can’t accept totally unrestricted abortion up to the due date and without parental knowledge for teens. The tone of the current debate keeps us from facing important underlying issues.
Back to Palin: The Anchoress has a post on her Limbaugh interview with some good links. Check it out
“Therefore, I don’t think the Republican Party would do itself a favor if she were to be nominated for either President or Vice-President in 2012.”
Agreed 100%. I love her, and think what happened to her during the campaign and what the left is doing to her now is terribly unfair, but it is what it is. We have to live in the world of political reality, and the fact is that she is unelectable as president.
br549 asks why McCain got the nod.
I believe it is because in Republican primaries it is winner take all, but Democrats get delegates proportionately.
I haven’t had time yet to read all the comments here, but I look forward to doing so.
Meanwhile, I’ll just say that I grew up hearing from my (genetically Republican) family that Truman was a low-life, crude, gutter-talking scum. Having read a bit of Plain Speaking and all of David McCullough’s Truman, I should say that he was certainly a great man and probably a great president. I don’t know for sure that Palin is in the same league. But based on what we know now, I’m not prepared to rule the possibility out.
I think you’re all missing the obvious.
Palin isn’t hated so furiously by Democrats because she’s unelectable.
The opposition, indirectly, is telling Republicans that Palin is the most viable candidate.
Republicans just made the terrible mistake of nominating a candidate deemed palatable to Democrats, John McCain.
The most successful Republican president of my lifetime, Ronald Reagan, was loathed just as ferociously as Palin by Democrats.
Palin is the most viable candidate the Republicans can field. Since she is a woman, she can attack Obama directly. McCain refused to even try, out of fear of being labeled a racist.
Take off the blinders, folks. Palin isn’t hated because she’s ineffectual. Democrats fear her. They know an enemy capable of defeating Obama when they see one. Why can’t you see this, too?
She’ll run. She’ll win.
Sorry, but I remember Reagan. It was the first American campaign I watched. I see the same echoes.
Not only will she run and win — but — I’m betting money right now — from beginning of 2011 now she’ll be the real force in American politics, as national energy accrues to her and obama is marginalized and ignored.
Don’t think women hate her — even many pro-abortion women. Smart women like her. A lot. It’s the insecure people who don’t. But that will all be moot when time comes to elect her.
Unfortunately there’s sometime to go. And it will get worse before it gets better.
Do not misunderestimate Palin’s chances for the GOP nomination and election as POTUS in 2012.
A party’s nomination goes to the candidate with the support of the party’s base, in this case conservatives. Palin already has this.
The election goes to the candidate with the independents and/or moderates. Palin is steadily gaining with them while Obama is losing them.
See Rasmussen’s polling of likely voters.
As to the media’s conduct toward Palin, besides their partisianship, what infuriates them most is how she is not letting the Almighty Gatekeepers determine her place or progress. She keeps jumping the fence. Despite their best efforts she keeps on keeping on, getting her message out, scoring hits upon the Democrats.
That the terror and loathing are beyond reason points to the irrational fears that Palin generates among some women. What could those be? Until those affected name their fears, the topic remains toxic and taboo.
Palin might end up as POTUS, because things could change a lot and in unpredictable ways. But whether she runs for that office is not the most important thing about her.
For what it’s worth, I think she’s great. She’s a fighter, and that what we need. Give her a chariot, and she’s our Boudicca.
I LOVE Sarah. She will be a power in this country even if she doesn’t run for President. I think she can influence things regardless of where she is.
Sarah Palin may still lack a little polish. She’ll get it quickly enough. But if she’s smart, she won’t get too much; politicians end up covered with so much polish that there’s nothing inside anymore.
In the next six to eight months, Sarah Palin will get a serious following among conservatives. I have no doubt about that. What I am hoping is that she makes a good impression on the so-called independents, the ones who swing elections. Once they’ve seen her, they’ll start to realize that the media’s outpouring of hate and scorn is just that. It can still swing an election over a few months, but people are catching on and over a year or more it won’t work the way it used to, especially when people realize that the media was in on the Obama Con. It will reach the point where the most damaging thing the media can do is ignore her. But Fox won’t. Talk radio won’t. And word will get out on the internet.
Women become blinded by the abortion issue because at their deepest heart they know it is a wrong.
Look — I’m not going to get mired in an argument. My objection to it is NOT religious. It is simply that it is a life and a human life. No woman ever gave birth to a cabbage. It might be convenient, etc. But it is never done because the fetus DESERVES it. We know that. Human beings are inately “moral” as far as the growth/health of humanity goes. We know mass murder (which is what is going on) is wrong. We all know some woman who never fully healed from her abortion (mentally. And usually refuses to admit it.)
At the same time women are told day and night that if abortion on demand vanishes, they will not be able to have jobs, and the whole bag of nonsense.
The effect of the pill — women controlling their fertility — has been transferred to abortion by leftist narrative. (No, I don’t know why. But they hate all humanity, I think.)
So these poor girls who believe this by fiat think that they have to keep supporting something that — looked on squarely — nauseates them. Something that feels “dirty” and “wrong”.
Guilt causes them to hate anyone who opposes abortion on demand. Guilt and self loathing.
How do I know? I was one of these women. Realistically, the pill gives women all the control they could want. The fail rate is negligible and people who truly don’t want children can “double ensure.” NO ONE but the more insane people oppose abortion to save the mother’s life or in cases of rape and incest (which are negligible, statistically. Also for the record, as a mother, none of those are a choice I’d want to make. It’s not that obvious. The child isn’t guilty. And as for killing your child to save your own life… it goes against if not motherly instinct, then the centuries of conditioning in our society. We’re trained to give our life for the next generation.)
So in the end, abortion rights are so essential because… Because the left have made it the symbol for female liberation. And because it is not logical it’s non-arguable.
This is why all politicians have to genuflect before sacred abortion rights. Not just not condemn it, but … applaud it. Evil demands to be applauded. It knows it’s evil. It has no self respect. So it needs all the signs and symbols of external consequence.
Palin has charisma – in fact, about 100% more than her nearest competitor and more than the plain-speaking Truman. I’m hoping she will become more like Teddy Roosevelt soon.
Like candiate Obama, Palin has demonstrated that she can reach and influence people from all economic and educational classes. But where Obama is a a cool soothing and lying enigma, Palin is a forthright, direct, and honest down to earth person. This was clearly apparent during her VP speech. I could care less about parsing her ‘type’ of intelligence or bracketing whether she is a doer or thinker or is a linear or circular thinker. She has charisma. Now that might not be enough to put her in the presidency, but it’s step and a half ahead of even Jindal. Her ‘negatives’? They can be turned to positives with a little skill and I think that’s probably what’s happening now. Regarding that, I’m talking about generating a sympathy factor for her as a vulnerable victim of a dishonest MSM.
I see good conservative instincts in her and a growing will to make a difference in our political life. And as Thomas implied above, her natural gifts and challenges are not unlike what Reagan had and faced and we know where his gifts and challenges carried him. I want to see some other center and center-right candidates emerge, but I like the jibe of the 2009 Palin. As Thomas also said, the democrats know a true threat when they see it and that should be the measure of Palin. They are telling us that it would be a mistake to underestimate her. We need to listen.
Can anyone help me with this? My colleague tells me Palin believes in Usher’s date (i.e. the earth was formed some 4,000 years BC). Anyone confirm or squelch this story? With a citation? Thanks. F
I absloutely adore the lady, and wish her the best. I think she’s great for the country in whatever path she chooses. Her demonization by the Democrats and their subservient media was the final straw for me. After decades as a Democrat, I made the switch.
I hope she’s got a good team behind her, to help her deal with the desperate vitriol that’s surely to come.
Portia: Great comment.
Personally, I don’t have a strong opinion either way regarding abortion. In my earlier comment, I was remarking mainly about the small sample of women who I actually know.
(One case in particular left an impression on me. The mere mention of Palin’s name provoked a reaction not unlike what I would expect if I had called her a very nasty word. I was really taken aback.)
That, and the fact that 70% of single women voted for Obama. But on the other hand, I think that ridiculously lopsided figure can at least partially be laid at the feet of the media, both for their unabashed cheerleading for Obama, and their over-the-top demonization and ridicule of Palin.
JohnC Says:
November 18th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Nooooo! Not Teddy Roosevelt! He was the first Progressive president. (See “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg.)
I’m hoping Obama will prove to be the last one.
rickl: I had a similar experience with a co-professional. Here was a very intelligent and highly educated woman who thought and behaved outside of the box in so many ways. She is a maverick in the work we do and loved for it. I just happen to mention one day that her independence of spirit and mind reminded me Palin in some ways. She immediately took offense as if I had called her a nasty name. Took off for Africa to do fieldwork a week or two later and made it pointy point not to leave her email address with me. Shame on me. I lost a like-minded colleague whether she can see it the parallels or not.
please forgive the minor mistakes above
Ok. I’ll buy that rickl. Correction – I’m hoping Palin will not be like TR at least in terms of continuing the progressive line.
The day after Sarah’s speech at the RNC, the lefties in our NYC office said, “Did you see Palin’s speech at the convention last night? We [Dems] are so f****d.”
And that’s a quote. Her charisma, her happy warrior persona, her infectious love of country, scare the willy out of them.
I see a way forward for her, and I think she’s taking it. She’s going around the lickspittle media and taking her message to the public directly: the Winfrey appearance was huge. (In fact, I’m amazed Winfrey agreed to it, as she worships the Zed.) The more the citizens get to see her and judge her for themselves, the better they’ll like her — and the less weight the class snobs/leftists’s slander will have with them.
RE abortion: Gotta disagree with Portia on the emotional underpinnings. It’s all about not being treated like breeding livestock like we used to be. With no say in who will be allowed to fertilize our precious eggs. And our lives endangered by self-righteous, powerful men. And the men getting off the hook, always. These are the sources of the powerful emotion about abortion: and the Dems know how to play all that like a Stradivarius.
But the way things stand in the law and the ideas of the citizenry, the re-criminalization of abortion is highly unlikely. That’s the irony. Both sides are fighting like wildcats over something that’s unlikely to materially change.
As I understand Palin’s position whilst governing Alaska, she didn’t move to outlaw abortion, but took a more libertarian stand. Dunno if that’s true.
I for one would love to see her as Prez, but with MUCH better handlers, girlfriend.
F,
Somebody told me you beat your wife. Can you provide a link that proves you don’t.
Signed,
Loving American with clarity
Run Palin as VP (again), but with Allen West if he wins in Florida in 2010 (Obungler only needed a couple years in congress to get elected, so it shouldn’t be a problem)… I kid you not!
Ask yourself which of the currently mentioned Republican candidates for president would you drive 50 miles to see in person. For me Sarah Palin is the only one. I’m guessing her book tour will reveal I am not alone in my view.
The media beat on Reagan incessantly. He was a joke and a lightweight for them until they pronounced him senile. That’s just what they do to show how superior they are.
“Ask yourself which of the currently mentioned Republican candidates for president would you drive 50 miles to see in person. For me Sarah Palin is the only one. I’m guessing her book tour will reveal I am not alone in my view.
The media beat on Reagan incessantly. He was a joke and a lightweight for them until they pronounced him senile. That’s just what they do to show how superior they are.”
You said it, Mr. Frank. She is electrifying. I can’t wait for a chance to pull the lever for her.
I love it when I hear that Sarah Palin is “divisive”. Yeah, sure — and the man with the God-damn-America preacher and communists crawling throughout his administration is just all Mom and Apple Pie, a great uniter.
Personally, I think Sarah Palin would clean Obama’s clock in 2012 — she’d give him a real Reagan-style beating.
A lot of people on the right take their cues a little too much from the MSM. Why? The MSM is *dying*, and they’re presently finishing themselves off.
Most importantly, we must remember the truth underlying Evan Thomas’s comments in 2004: the Democrats need the MSM to win; the GOP wins despite the MSM’s best efforts to destroy them.
Obama *couldn’t* have gotten elected without the help of the MSM. Nor could Bill Clinton have pulled it off, nor Carter. John Kerry would have been *destroyed* without the MSM’s help.
Think the MSM was sleeping during the elections of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II? Not hardly — they did all they could to drag their statist losers first over the finish line, and still they came up short.
So now, knowing all this, when they tell me Sarah Palin is divisive and stupid and all the rest, why the hell should I listen to them?
I don’t see why I ought to think anything other than what common sense tells me: the MSM hates Sarah Palin because she scares the living crap out of them, because they know that if the American people get an honest, unfiltered look at her, they’ll vote for her in a heartbeat.
Period.
The media has wised up since Reagan’s era. Oh sure, he was attacked. But it was gentler, less viscious, less coordinated – and they blew it. Incredibly, the “lightweight” and genial but of very average intelligence, “former actor” (his years as Gov of California were ignored) and who was often shown with the Chimp co-star in photos – somehow, inexplicably, got elected anyway.
So they learned. The propaganda message had to be ramped up, amplified, made more uniform – and hammered upon – 24/7. The new model? Dan Quayle. To this day, most people who were around then – even most republicans I know, are still under the impression that Quayle was a total and complete Idiot. A virtual moron.
Based on lies. Repeated until they became the truth.
IMO, Palin has been Quayled. She will forever be pegged as the woman who “unjustifiably quit” when the going got tough; who said she can see Russia from her porch; who kills wolves from a helicopter for FUN; who is a “christianist theocrat” who thinks the earth is only 4000 years old; who banned Harry Potter books as mayor; who “got revenge” on some cop who divorced a relative; who “used” her kids/son-in-law/baby as “props”; etc.
Just as when all you got were blank stares if you threw back Boy Wonder’s “lack of experience” at libs when they would toss out HER inexperience…..so too – it does not MATTER, if other politicians have WORST crap in their background (friendship with Bill Ayers, anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?), or how much of the dirt on her is FALSE….
Facts don’t matter. What matters is the narrative. It’s always about the narrative. The larger “truth.”
And she has been Tina Feyed into becoming Dan Quayle…..to too large a percentage of the populace – as far as her becoming POTUS – at least in 2012. Later? Perhaps.
When Palin was first nominated, I found her an exciting candidate and an exciting speaker. I generally agree with this November 2008 article that she was largely responsible for bringing the GOP very close to victory that year.
Today, I would say I have mixed views on her. So that I wont be repetitive, I’ll just post the following link to one of my previous comments to one of Neo’s prior posts regarding Palin:
http://neoneocon.com/2009/07/09/palin-thread-of-the-day/#comment-115888
Those who underestimate Sarah Palin are buying into what the media has dictated that we all should think of her. It almost feels like a childhood peer pressure sort of thing. “I don’t like the new girl do you”? They have declared permanent open season on her and her family is fair game as well.
But, what they like to ignore is the fact that she is the voice of the people, working people such as those who attend the town hall meetings and tea parties. She shares the same beliefs as the “common folk” and expresses herself sincerely without grandiose flowerly foolishness, which is what so many of us appreciate about her. I think she thrives on challenge and the office of Governor was no longer a challenge and had become a sort of trap to contain her and punish her with all the bogus ethical complaints filed against her. She boldly sprung the trap. I feel better just knowing she’s out there speaking her mind from her heart, pissing off prissy, condescending intellectuals, academics and the Obama admin. She is a refreshing blast of arctic air. 🙂
Hating Sarah Palin is all about class warfare. She is of the middle-class and therefore a threat to our American aristocracy. Frankly, we need more like her. The elites are in the process of destroying this country and we need all the middle-class common sense we can get. Our betters however, want us to continue in our role as a silent, bottomless pit of funding, to be diverted into everyone else’s pockets – or worse still, simply wasted. Sarah Palin’s popularity is a sign that the middle-class will no longer be silent. I expect that new found voice to become louder and louder. Regardless of Palin’s fate.
My hope (perhaps unrealistic) is that Palin throws all of her support behind one of the current “dark horses,” such as Mitch Daniels or Thune – and campaigns for him, and bucks the GOP DC insider candidate. But does not run herself in 2012.
The national GOP needs an enema. Supporting the stimulus loving, Obama buddy Crist in Florida, when a more conservative Rubio could also beat the dem; that Scollazza or whatever her name is in NY – who received a lot of National GOP dollars…..etc.
I don’t think the party can win in 2012, no matter HOW bad the economy is – with the same-old-same-old crop of losers — Romney, Huckabee, et al.
No more Newt Gingrich would also be a good start.
I’d like to see a GOP ticket along the lines of Mitch Daniel – Bobby Jindal. CONSERVATIVE being the focus over “Republican,” since the last time the GOP had control, they too turned into big spenders. Competant governors who know how to balance a budget, and how go to the church of God Bless America, instead of God Damm Amerikka.
With Palin playing the role of cheerleader and fundraiser; being a keynote speaker at the 2012 GOP convention. Perhaps running for (and winning) a US Senate seat. Building her cred, and reputation, for a potential run in 2020. She’ll still only be in her 50’s, right?
Hey a guy can dream, can’t he.
Asians
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Are-Asian-voters-swinging-Republican-70290582.html
It is a pity that Palin’s critics have not looked at her actual accomplishments. She single-handly took on and destroyed the corrupt Republican leadership in Alaska. In contrast, President Obama surrounds himself with corrupt Chicago cronies and has never shown any willingness to tackle corruption.
She also negotiated the deal that will bring Alaskan natural gas to the lower 48. She had to deal with the oil companies, native tribes, the Canadian government, the Feds and the Alaskan political establishment to bring to fruition something that had been stalled for 40 years. That took executive skill of the highest order. In contrast, Obama’s biggest project in Chicago was the Annenburg challenge, which spent around $50 million and accomplished nothing.
She obviously understands the relationship between energy resources, geo-politics, national debt, trade and security. Obama is utterly clueless on such vital issues. There is no way short of repealing the laws of physics that America can get the energy it needs from windmills, solar power and other “green” sources, but Obama is wasting billions of our dollars pursuing alternative energy.
I hope she runs. My non-religious, pro-choice wife wants her to run.
Southern James: your argument above makes a lot of sense to me, although I’m not as pessimistic about Palin as you seem to be. Thanks. A couple of things though: 1) I understand the power of tags (factually based tags or lying tags), I know how hard they are to overcome once set, but Palin is no Quayle who proved to be a bit of a moron. Plus, the political context with the radical Obama administration is very different thing from the Bush 1 and Quayle context. We’ll see if the negative tags stick to Palin. I hope not. And 2) Palin is 45 I think. So, that would put her in her late 40s in 2012.
Baklava: I didn’t make myself clear — I don’t believe the criticism by my colleague. I just want to be able to reply to it. If it turns out this was a calumny planted by the MSM I want to know that and be able to respond accordingly. If Palin believes in Ussher’s date, I guess that defense doesn’t work. As for beating my wife, you can believe what you want. F
“Those who underestimate Sarah Palin are buying into what the media has dictated that we all should think of her. It almost feels like a childhood peer pressure sort of thing. “I don’t like the new girl do you”?”
Yup — that’s it exactly.
And…
Re “My hope (perhaps unrealistic) is that Palin throws all of her support behind one of the current “dark horses,” such as Mitch Daniels or Thune – and campaigns for him, and bucks the GOP DC insider candidate. But does not run herself in 2012.”
I’ve had moments where I felt this way. But let’s see how brightly Palin’s star burns before we make the final call, eh?
Flashback:
Just a year (maybe less?) before he ran for POTUS, Obama said during an interview that he wasn’t ready for the job. When asked about his decision to run in 2008, with not even two years in the Senate, he quoted his father’s advice:
“Strike while the iron is hot.”
No kidding.
If the iron is hot for S.P. in 2012, that’s when she should strike.
And really, does anyone think she would do anything other than a spectacular job as POTUS?
And like I said above: I think she’d clean Obama’s clock, Reagan-style.
“Palin is no Quayle”
Indeed she isn’t, and won’t be, no matter how hard the MSM tries to make her Quayle 2.0.
If Sarah Palin runs in 2012, she’s gonna *stomp* The One so bad, he might just suffer that breakdown David Thompson’s predicted for him.
F: I think one of the problems with lies about a person is that it’s hard to prove they’re falsities. If Palin never mentioned Bishop Ussher’s date (his name has a double s, by the way), you won’t be able to find a quote where she said “I do not believe that the universe was created in the year BC four thousand and….” etc.
It used to be that people asserting a person said something had to prove that the person did say it, not the other way around. But alas, the times they have a-changed. If you Google Palin and Bishop Usser, all you’ll find are websites that ask the question about what her views are, but nary a relevant quote from Palin except the one where she says teaching creationism in schools shouldn’t be banned (see #5 on this list). As best as I can tell, the assertion that she believes in Ussher’s formulation comes from a quote from Matt Damon.
Re “I think one of the problems with lies about a person is that it’s hard to prove they’re falsities.”
We can deal with the MSM’s lies, and the lies of the Hollywood leftists — remember, this ain’t 1980. Hell, in terms of how much things have changed on the media landscape, *2000* might as well be a lifetime in the past.
The media is changing rapidly, and with the right candidate (hint-hint), we’ll *smash* these statist sleazebags.
On a related note, just try to imagine the kind of ads Sarah Palin would run against President Obama. The lines she’ll drop that the MSM won’t be able to block out.
Ask yourself: can President Obama withstand scrutiny? Could he survive even a *tenth* of the probing and prodding the most run of the mill GOP candidate must deal with as a matter of course?
It’s amazing, if you look back at Sarah Palin’s speech from the GOP convention, how dead-on accurate she was in her warnings about then-candidate Obama. She didn’t pull her punches, and she scored, huge. Just like she did with her perfectly fair, off-the-cuff characterization of Obama as a man who’d spent much of his adult life “palling around with terrorists”?
Palin scored, and could’ve kept scoring all day long, but the McCain camp wouldn’t fight to win. And why? Personally, I think John McCain has a Robert Jordan complex — but I know for sure that he didn’t get the MSM’s intentions, and how screwed-up he’d gotten trying to keep in their good graces over the years.
In short, Sen. McCain might be a decent man, but he’s a dinosaur of dinosaurs.
Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has been landing body blow after body blow on the current Congress and Obama — from her Facebook page.
So how do you think she’d manage against Obama, standing on a national platform?
F,
Sigh….
Logic.
Signed with clarity,
Baklava
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/sarah_palin_gives_oprah_winfrey_her_best_ratings_in_two_years/
Webutante Says:
November 17th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
..
However, I don’t think at this point, she is POTUS material...
Let me put it this way.
How about the flaming bozo currently occupying the White House?
Is HE POTUS material?
–
Paul in Houston,
Being one of 22 Republican governors made her one of the top 22 contenders in the country to be POTUS in my mind.
∅bama being Senator for 1/3rd of his term and voting present 45% of the time (not even no or yes) and having no legislation of his own to put up to the American people and say see this is what I championed..
… and having the wrong economic ideas (taxing during a time of recession)
… and having the wrong ideas for National security
… when’s that recall election happening. We need to recall the President like we recalled Gray Davis in CA.
Palin had the right economic mind set and the right mind set for national security.
She accomplished things that Alaskan governors haven’t accomplished for YEARS.
She took a sad campaign and made it exciting and closer than it would’ve been.
She courageously gave the state of Alaska back to Alaskans. She made it not about Sarah but about Alaska. She didn’t think it was right that 80% of her staff’s time was spent on ethics charges. I think she is noble and good for stepping down.
I would’ve done it also. Alaska deserved better than what it was getting. She couldn’t let the lazy negligent drive by’s win and adversely affect Alaska like that.
That my friends. That is POTUS material. Thinking about the people, the state and the country before herself.
What we have now is a narcisist in chief. It’s all about him.
The problem for the Republican Party is that, so far, it has a dearth of charismatic and exciting candidates.
That’s not the primary problem of the Republican party.
Therefore, I don’t think the Republican Party would do itself a favor if she were to be nominated for either President or Vice-President in 2012.
The Republican party has no problems not doing favors for itself. Scozzafava. Popular sentiment demanded the nomination of real representatives, not political whores that sell themselves to either party or platform or big business/big pharma.
It’s the Republican party that is deciding that supporting such real candidates does themselves no favors. Of course, when their objective is to be liked by their DC compadres, like a former Reagan speech writer, then it certainly puts them at odds with actually representing conservatives.
Baklava, people wish to sit in the center and only bet on a horse if it looks to be winning. That is what makes them followers, and not leaders. Which is why they voted for Obama. They wanted somebody to tell them what to do. They didn’t want to figure it out themselves. So they voted in somebody to take care of things, like a Mafia enforcer or old ROman dictator.
This applies across the Democrat spectrum, whether we speak of John Scalzi the science fiction writer or former Reagan speech writers, or Reagan’s biological son, or the son of that great conservative book writer.
As best as I can tell, the assertion that she believes in Ussher’s formulation comes from a quote from Matt Damon.
That’s not a bug, Neo. That’ s a feature. When people are this susceptible to propaganda, illusion, and deception, then they will be even easier to manipulate into rage at their sudden betrayal. All wars are like this. Including the psychological battlefield.
It doesn’t matter what people believe in the end. All that matters is that they believe what you tell them to believe. Curiously enough, that’s quite compatible with liberty. And in point of fact, rulers and leaders have always had to be more cunning and deceptive than their totalitarian enemies to win. In cases where they were not, like in FDR, millions suffer needlessly.
One thing I am sick and tired of hearing and that is Palin is inexperienced. C’mon, face a little reality. Obama is the first sitting senator who has been elected President since I don’t know when. There is a good reason for this. Senators do not come with executive experience, as we are seeing everyday with the dithering and insecure Obama, blaming everyone for his faults and failures, and whose only seeming positive ability is to campaign and give purty speechifying. Clinton was a long term governor of an incredibly small and inconsequential state, Arkansas. What international policy experience did Clinton as governor of that state have? Was Clinton grilled about his international inexperience coming from such a small state (without even having energy to add to the debate) during his first run at the Presidency? No, of course he wasn’t. Nor was Biden criticized for knowing little despite sitting in the Senate taking up space all those years. Was Gore, during his Vice-Presidential stint, criticized for his son getting caught smoking mairjuana, an apparent failure in his parenting skills? (“Gore was caught smoking what appeared to be marijuana by school authorities at St. Alban’s School. Al III was suspended as a result of the incident. While the story appeared in the foreign press, the story was suppressed in the US media. London’s Daily Telegraph charged, ‘The crusading American media and Washington’s political elite have closed ranks to protect Vice President Gore from embarrassment over his teenage son’s indiscretion.'” ~ Source: James Bovard, “Prison Sentences of the Politically Connected,” Playboy; July 1999.) No of course he wasn’t. But Palin has been ridiculed and mocked because her daughter had the nerve to get pregnant and {GASP} keep her ‘punishment’ baby.
The hatred of Palin is based upon a misogynistic double-standard, pure and simple. Burning bras may have been good theater in the 1960’s, but it was all sound and fury signifying nothing when it comes to breaking through the pink ceiling. The sad thing is is that it is the braying supposed feminists who are some of the most vile and vicious attackers of Palin on a personal, not political, level. Just makes one feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn’t it?
RickZ wrote, “The hatred of Palin is based upon a misogynistic double-standard, pure and simple”
Oprah herself even asked how she could be president and have a family (I don’t have the exact quote).
Does ∅bama not have a family???? Geez. The idiocy.
Google news has been caught retitling articles.
this time thousands was changed to hundreds on the same AP article…
so they may be programming to switch headings on palin articles.
I am sick and tired of hearing and that is Palin is inexperienced.
I think Palin if she chosen to be secretary of state will be much preformed and set that Hilary Clinton. HC looks very week unstable and shadow sectary of state for united state.
Btw, did Palin sun came back from Iraq? or still there?
sam? HUH????