In the absence of some sort of scandal about to come crashing down on her head, I simply don’t know what to make of Gov. Palin’s resignation. I can buy the argument-just-that if she is going to be campaigning intensively for national office, it’s in many ways a more honest thing to step down than to neglect the duties for which she is currently being paid by Alaska’s taxpayers. That makes her value-for-money, not a quitter.
However, if the reason she is resigning now is indeed a run in 2012, it looks wildly premature. Her base is already in the bag; she now needs to convince the skeptics that she could be an effective president – and the best way to do that would have been to make a good job of running Alaska, to shed the flakiness, and, dare I say it, to read up on a few things. She’s an intelligent person, and she’s an individual who has been treated to a degree of media vilification that goes well beyond any reasonable norm, but she has yet to demonstrate that she has what it takes for the White House. Doing the rounds of the rubber chicken echo chamber (there are no metaphors that I will not mix…) to the hosannas of the faithful is not the way to go.
As for whether yesterday’s news represents just the latest stage in a wider ‘crack-up’ of the religious right, Heather, I doubt it: Sarah Palin is Sarah Palin is Sarah Palin. Sure, she appears to be a somewhat religious woman, but, unlike, say, Mike Huckabee, I never detected a great deal of evidence that she had much interest in imposing those specific views (or their derivatives) on the population as a whole.
Finally, we should not be afraid of candidates with the populist touch. In the end, it’s what a candidate says that should count, not how he or she says it. If it takes a bit of aw shucks to defeat Obama-a clever populist in his own right-in 2012, so be it.
I don’t know what Sarah Palin’s real religious beliefs are, nor how strongly she holds them, but her base regards her as a very, very, very deeply committed Christian whose entire life is directed by her faith. As a poster on another site commented yesterday: “Sarah loves the Lord, and that’s enough for me!” Time and again her fans cite this as the number one reason they support her: she’s a devout Christian. Whether they’re projecting this onto her because they need desperately to believe it’s true is another matter. I’m certain some of them believe that she and she alone can lead the nation back to “righteousness”.
It’s true that there’s nothing wrong with having the populist touch. But there’s a difference between being a populist and being a yokel, and, fairly or unfairly, Sarah Palin has been cast as a yokel. I don’t know whether she can overcome this–and, more to the point, I’m not sure she WANTS to overcome it. She might see the yokel image as the key to success. If so, I think she’s overestimating the number of people (voters) who will buy it.
However, if the reason she is resigning now is indeed a run in 2012, it looks wildly premature. Her base is already in the bag; she now needs to convince the skeptics that she could be an effective president
I think that we can all recognize that one of the benefits that comes from experience is that we learn from our mistakes. An intelligent person will take steps to modify future conditions and actions so that mistakes aren’t repeated.
Governor Palin came into office with a history as a reformer. As she took office, the Republicans in the State Senate, having won a majority, with 11 seats compared to the Democrats’ 9 seats, experienced a schism where 6 of those Republicans entered into a coalition with the 9 Democrats, thus leaving only 5 Republicans sitting as Republicans. So, when you read that the Republicans in Alaska are against Governor Palin you see the power of entrenched interests fighting back against the reformer and the lengths that they’ll go to.
As we’re all enjoying our rank speculation, let me throw a suggestion into the hat, and that is, Palin is intent on creating her own power structure within the Republican Party because during her tenure and during the campaign she witnessed existing power structures and she didn’t like what she saw. If she helps to elect candidates to office then she has the ability to pull said politicians into her orbit.
As you say, it may be too early to start on the 2012 road, but it’s not too early to start aiding the efforts of those who are running in 2010. Further, with Presidential campaigns now so expensive, the need to raised $500 million to a $1 billion is going to take a lot of time. Lastly, the Republican Party is suffering from a severe lack of enthusiasm and Palin is known to draw crowds you are not JUST TRUE BELIEVERS. Sure, some folks might attend to see a “circus act” but if they attend Republican or Tea Party events, then they have the potential of being brought on board, whereas if they can’t be bothered to attend or participate in Party activities, then it’s near impossible to bring them on board.
I have yet to see any indication, despite Andrew’s assertion, that Sarah Palin is an “intelligent person.” Indeed, my fundamental problem with Palin is that she simply doesn’t seem very smart. One can use sugar-coated euphemisms like “intellectualy incurious,” or “poorly versed,” as many liberals did to describe George W. Bush, but in Palin’s case I’d say “dumb” comes much closer to the mark.
It’s not oxymoronic to say someone is an intelligent Christian-right Republican; I’d say Mike Huckabee easily makes the grade. Sarah Palin assuredly does not.
I think she’s had enough of having groundless “ethics complaints” filed against her (and which she has to pay to defend against out of her own pocket BTW) and having her family members mocked, trashed and abused by the MSM. I think she’s out for good.
Well, she appears to be moving full speed ahead into Joan of Arc/La Pasionaria/Aimee Semple McPherson territory. The AP has the full text of the message she posted on her Facebook page today: she’s pursuing a “higher calling”–uniting the country for conservative values.
She claims to have done more in her partial term than other governors do in two full terms. She complained about being misunderstood by the press.
The interesting part is that she said she made this “prayerful” decision after months of consultation with the lieutenant governor. But the lieutenant governor claims he didn’t know a thing about it till yesterday.
As you will soon find out, Governor Palin is not out of politics. She is simply setting out to build a power structure of her own — whether inside or outside of the GOP is too soon to tell.
Many Sarah-phobics wish for some huge scandal or ethics problem. It is their dream come true, to chase away their nightmare. Ain’t gonna happen, dearies.
The only question is how big the Sarah phenomenon can grow. At this point, Palin’s resignation seems to have set her back even among her closest following. The 2012 presidential race seems unlikely to happen from here, but you never know how much can change in a few years. Obama is certainly looking very shaky at this point.
If her intent is to form a third party and thereby insure permanent minority electoral status for conservatives, then yes, I’m a Sarah-phobe. If her intent is to become a commentator or speaker commanding hefty fees, then I wish her well in her entrepreneurial activities.
Sarah Palin: crazier than Syd Barrett on an acid trip.
Has a nice ring to it, I’ll loan it to her campaign for her next run.
Can’t say whether or not Sarah has a political future, but would anyone care if she looked like, say, Senator Barbara Mikulski? The glam factor in Sarah’s appeal is the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
If she thinks she’s going to take her so-called “base” to a different electoral space, then I, like Susan, cannot wish her well. But I wish her every success if she’s going to capitalize on whatever it is that attracts crowds. But around what will she rally them? The bumper-sticker sentiments that have been her stock and trade?
Being good-looking is a help in almost any endeavor. I think Sarah’s female fans see her as an idealized version of themselves: a hockey mom who’s smokin’ hot! (Have you ever SEEN an actual hockey mom? Some of them look as if their fathers mated with an armored personnel carrier.) Her male fans probably fantasize about her. And I think a lot of the crazed hatred directed at her has some sexual component.
The third-party possibility is a real worry. If she has the country’s best interests at heart, as she says she does, she’ll work within the Republican party to bring it the best of whatever it is she has to offer. If she ties to lead some kind of Peasants’ Revolt, then I’ll start to wonder if she’s an operative of the DNC.
Being good-looking is a help in almost any endeavor
i think this helps more with males than with females. note that in general electorate palin’s popularity dropped a lot in sept. of 2008 because of a massive swing down among women. remember that the best-looking women in hollywood often end up as love interests in male action films, while attractive, but not drop-dead, women tend to get the top spots as leads in female oriented films.
True about the films. And Hillary Clinton was more popular among women voters than men voters. To me looks don’t matter in a candidate, which I realize of course is what everyone says when asked about the matter.
It’s fine with me if Sarah is the new Marilyn, love her or hate her because of it. What really bothers me is if she wants to be the new Joan of Arc.
It’s fine with me if Sarah is the new Marilyn, love her or hate her because of it. What really bothers me is if she wants to be the new Joan of Arc.
for conservatives worried about palin being the 2012 nominee, it is important to remember that unless you’re talking an incumbent president the nomination of any given person is probably a low probability at this point. i.e., mitt romney might be the *most* probable, but the chances are that it will be someone else is very high (so romney could have a 10% chance of being the nominee, which might be the largest value of any the ones on the radar now, but 90% chance that will still be someone else). so no worries about sarah. OTOH, john mccain’s win in 2008 shows that if conditions align properly with the mix of other candidates than a small plural majority can pull it out.
also, remember how well guliani polled before the primaries?
I’m not worried about her being the 2012 nominee of the Republican party; I’m concerned about her being a spoiler as the nominee of some third party.
Sheesh. Are you guys sure you’re posting on the right web site? You sound more like politer version of the HuffPo ranters. Can you name for us any actual conservatives that openly deny any religious belief and/or eschew any truck with the “religious right” wing of the conservative movement? . I didn’t think so.
I think it’s the religious right that’s eschewing the non-religious right and the part of the right that may be religious but doesn’t make a career of it.
Can you name for us any actual conservatives that openly deny any religious belief and/or eschew any truck with the “religious right” wing of the conservative movement?
barry goldwater
milton friedman
george will
norman tebbit
f. a. hayek
Karl Rove.
Ken, in my state, voting (even if it’s for selectman) is generally a process of looking at the list of candidates and trying to determine which of them is the least appalling, so I’m used to that. I’d prefer otherwise, but I play the hand I’m dealt.
The thing about Sarah is that she’s become–to her most avid supporters–not a political standard-bearer but a cult figure. (Actually, without knowing it, they’ve invested her with the qualities of a pagan goddess rather than those of a traditional Christian woman.) If she forms a third party, or even if she doesn’t, but her supporters refuse to vote for anyone but her, that could change the political landscape forever, and not for the better.
If there was a scandal coming down the pike, resignation would be the worst tactical move, as it’s a useful chit in plea bargaining. Guessing right now, I think she got tired of the hassle (her husband may have even managed to finally assert some control over her) and decided to do what she should have back in August of 2008, get out of the national limelight.
You’ll know that Governor Palin has become a destructive force when the mainstream media and effete internet pundits start to support her. When the country club do-nothing pseudo intellectuals — legends in their own minds — start to coddle Palin the way they have coddled Obama and the Pelosi congress, then you will know that she has become dangerous to our liberties.
Alice, I don’t think there’s any danger of the mainstream media and the effete internet pundits ever coddling Governor Palin. As for the country club do-nothing pseudo-intellectuals, they’ll be too busy hunting for Jungian archetypes in the collected works of John Cheever to bother.
The MSM is adept at exploiting the, um, features of republicans’ religious beliefs as endangering people’s, I mean women’s freedoms, while ignoring facts like Obama’s love of black liberation theology as directly opposed to white men’s freedoms, especially their ability to compete for jobs based on merit, as we saw in the Ricci case.
Nice try. How many of these people you’ve listed are active politicians and capable of building a politically successful, , secular conservative electoral movement?
what kind of moron are you? this is a weblog, not a “political movement.” i guess all the libertarian weblogs should shut down too.
I assumed that she struck some sort of lucrative TV deal and is leaving to make a ton of $$.
@Susan
I don’t think that’s likely to happen.
I happen to like Sarah Palin, but as a “kingmaker-at-large” for the GOP rather than its presidential nominee.
Ever since the election I’ve had my doubts that Palin is really game for a grueling, 2+ year-long presidential campaign in a hostile media environment. Her resignation as governor would seem to confirm this. But given her fundraising prowess, it seems to me that any candidate she were to endorse – in congressional and presidential primaries alike – would instantly become the frontrunner and odds-on favorite to win the Republican nomination in his/her campaign. Conversely, any GOP incumbent who gets the cold shoulder from Palin may not be much longer for Capitol Hill.
1.) Palin as a kingmaker = those who were aided by her efforts a.) talking her up, b.) influencing her thinking and c.) aiding her education.
2.) Conventional wisdom is merely a reflection of what has worked in the past and in no way is a statement of fundamental principles. If Palin successfully bucks conventional wisdom, as Obama has done, then conventional wisdom changes to reflect the changed conditions which can lead to success. If Palin fails, then conventional wisdom wins the day and remains conventional wisdom for a while longer.
3.) If Palin starts delivering more substance, then many people will enjoy playing the fair-minded critic and proclaim to all that they’ve changed their position on her. If she remains unchanged in her public interactions, we see a Conservative Cult of Personality figure battled a Liberal-Socialist Cult of Personality figure.
4.) Palin’s governing instincts have a lot of appeal to many people, and as Obama’s governing instincts start to worry more people, the swing can only benefit her and those she lends her support to.
5.) She took the battle to Obama in the last election and delivered more forceful blows that did McCain or any other male proxy that I recall. When Palin was delivering political punches I thought that they were far more damaging than those “with more intellectual substance” such as Romney. I find that there is something about her style in political combat which is more visceral than what I saw from any other politician, both Democrat and Republican, in the last election cycle. I think that this style has been noted by others and explains, in part, why many on the left has such a visceral distaste for her and why many on the right hold her to a level of esteem that isn’t warranted by her demonstration of policy mastery.
Over the next 3 years she can unleash on Obama in a more vigorous manner than he can retaliate in return, in that it’s very difficult for men to be as aggressive against women as women can be against men, and any response only serves to elevate Palin’s status to someone who is worthy of a Presidential response.
6.) If Palin is a blank slate who hasn’t already formed her opinions on national and international issues, then I’m baffled why the scholars with conservative political sympathies aren’t making efforts to bring their perspective to her attention. Isn’t better to shape someone like Palin rather than searching the wilderness for someone who already has adopted your perspective? If she’s not a blanks slate, then outreach efforts to engage her on various issues will require her to defend her positions or to modify them. Most every politician of national stature probably has a blackberry filled with advisers, but with Palin new to the national game, I’d imagine that her support team is thin. What a great opportunity for up and coming conservative academics to get in on the ground floor.
Do you think she actually wants the help from conservative scholars? I’m asking in all seriousness. Given how violently many of her followers have attacked conservative commentators for offering the mildest, most well-intentioned criticisms of her words and deeds, maybe she’s been persuaded that she doesn’t need any help from “intellectuals.”
If Palin is a blank slate who hasn’t already formed her opinions on national and international issues, then I’m baffled why the scholars with conservative political sympathies aren’t making efforts to bring their perspective to her attention. Isn’t better to shape someone like Palin rather than searching the wilderness for someone who already has adopted your perspective?
No, not really. If she has taken up your opinion only five minutes ago, what’s to say she won’t drop them five minutes later?
TM, I really do respect your sticking by Palin. I think it’s a sign of loyalty, but there’s a point at which loyalty sort of morphs into dependency. If the GOP is dependent on one person, a person who hasn’t even completed a term at running the state, then the party is good and fucked. That’s it. There’s not much point in going on. Let’s just go fishing.
Challenge to TapirBoy:
Do you consider Capt. Zero /Obi-won, “smart”/ And upon what basis have you made that determination? I’ve seen nothing which indicates the Indonesian posuer has anywhere near the smarts that Sarah P. exhibits!
Speaking with an “Aw Shucks” inflection does not reflect on one’s intelligence, just as smoothly orating from a teleprompter signifies nothing!
Do you think she actually wants the help from conservative scholars?
What do I think? I don’t know what she thinks, but I think that she should be tapping that resource. There is a wide variety of conservative thought on national issues. I think, but again I don’t know, that she may have disagreement with some current models of thought held by prominent conservative intellectuals but may find more agreement with other models of thought. I think that she’s a gut-level politician who isn’t yet articulating her political ideology. What she’s done is delivered the goods. She ran on anti-corruption and kicked ass, even at risk to her personal ambition. She boosted the royalty rate on oil extraction because she, as Governor, was the steward of Alaska’s resources, thereby acting in the interests of the citizens and against the oil companies, even when this entailed fierce Republican resistance. I don’t think that she has articulated the political principles that are driving her, but I believe that Alaskans have inferred from her actions and accomplishments that whatever is driving Palin to govern as she has is something that also appealed to the majority of Alaskans, that is until many liberals in Alaska put allegiance to President Obama over state interests and decided to block her initiatives.
If she runs in the primaries she won’t be able to rely, unlike Obama, on platitudes. Everybody is right on that. We made exceptions for Obama because his was a historic journey that appealed to so many voters who were willing to relax their critical faculties to aid the man in his journey. Keep in mind that Obama was noted last week as saying that his advantage over Palin is that he had six months of studying policies and working on position statements and talking points. Palin will get hammered by her primary competitors if she doesn’t, 2 years hence, have a well thought out vision of the world and a specific plans for what she wants to accomplish. I have no doubt that if Obama was dropped into Alaska energy politics and wildlife management issues, and other Alaska-centric issues and forced to engage full-throttle from the get go, that he would be seriously disadvantaged, and come off looking Palin-like if the Alaska media took the attitude that he didn’t represent what Alaska politicians are supposed to be about. However, from what I’ve observed of her Alaska performance before she came to national prominence, I don’t see any reason that she can’t get up to speed. Yes, I think that she can walk and chew gum at the same time. This is where I disagree with all of the DEFINITIVE DECLARATIONS about Palin’s congenital stupidity. If I’m wrong and she engages in the primaries as a slogan spewing cult figure, having had 2 years of time to prepare, to build alliances, to seek out schools of thought that resonate with her principles, then that’s when, with evidence in hand, I’ll concede to the prophetic pundits of today, that you were all right.
Given how violently many of her followers have attacked conservative commentators for offering the mildest, most well-intentioned criticisms of her words and deeds, maybe she’s been persuaded that she doesn’t need any help from “intellectuals.”
I think that these Palinistas are simply playing mindless team sports. Palin’s their gal, right or wrong, and they’ll defend her, well, just because. Further, I think that they’re super sensitive to the criticism directed at her because of the double standard that’s applied to her. This blind support doesn’t do her any favors, and the criticisms are accurate. I’ll speculate, like most every commenter, and throw my projection into the following observation – I think that she is seeing the battleground clearly and does see the need to to bone up on the intellectualism, but that she rejects some of the contemporary manifestations of Republican politics. I think that the best thing she could do is surprise her critics with a book that delivers a coherent vision of principle, politics, and policy. Further, if she gets to influence the Republican Party platform, I believe, though I can’t back this with evidence, that the platform will be different from what it’s been in recent campaigns. That’s my gut feeling after having watched her in action. YMMV. I don’t think that she’s an ordinary politician, you guys may be right and she is a buffoon, but to me, the more parsimonious explanation is that she holds to a more principled position and, amusingly enough, she exploits that principled position to her benefit. This tactic isn’t standard operating policy for most politicians and it confuses the conventional wisdom. You can throw troopergate as a rebuttal and I can craft you a narrative which explains troopergate as a development that arose from trying to get a bad officer, and those who protected him, out of positions of authority, while at the same time fulfilling a personal goal of sticking it to her ex-BIL. I can’t fault her for wanting to get a bad cop off the streets, even if there was a personal grudge underlying the issue. The same dynamic is at work with expensesgate. In fact, the same dynamic is in play with her resignation. If she’s a quitter, then so too is Obama, Clinton, Biden, Napolitano, Sebeilus, etc. Palin took the principled route, she didn’t want to shortchange the voters by holding onto office and neglecting her duties. You know what, I actually think that this is the principled position. Sure, it opens her up to the charge of being a quitter, but I’m comfortable with the judo maneuver of using such an attack against some of her opponents and playing up on her principled position while casting them as dishonorable. Frankly, while I see how personal ambitions are protected when politicians stay in office while concurrently devoting their time to seeking higher office, I don’t see how the interests of the State are advanced when a politician is willfully neglecting the duties of office in order to pursue their personal ambition. With her resignation Palin isn’t playing by the rules, but I can’t fault her for advancing State interests before her own interests (here too, though, she also benefits, as per above.)
If the GOP is dependent on one person, a person who hasn’t even completed a term at running the state, then the party is good and fucked. That’s it. There’s not much point in going on. Let’s just go fishing.
Here’s the thing. I’ll reserve my judgment on this issue until later in the primary season and general campaign. I see no need to declare that the Republicans are good and fucked 3 years from now, or even next year, simply because of the public perceptions of Palin today. That doesn’t make sense to me. I’m content to let the process play out, in other words, giving everyone, including Palin, enough rope to hang themselves. Romney and Pawlenty and others aren’t going to concede to Palin simply because she has rabid followers. They’ll strangle her with her own rope if she gives them a chance, and if she does give them the opportunity to move in for a political kill, then she deserves the fate.
Absent Palin though, today, I don’t see anyone on the horizon who can go toe to toe against the sitting cult of personality that the Democrats have heading them. Over time Obama’s negatives will go up, and the small government and clean government message that Palin delivers will increase in appeal. Further, just through circumstance, Palin’s influence as a kingmaker will grow, in that unlike 2008, when 23 Republican Senators, compared to 12 Democrat Senators, were up for reelection, the 2010 elections will feature 18 Republicans versus 18 Democrats, and the 2012 elections will feature 9 Republicans versus 23 Democrats plus Lieberman. The odds of Republican breakthroughs in 2010 and 2012 are greater than the recent past because the terrain experienced in 2008 was very unfavorable in terms of the Bush factor, the number of retirements and the sheer exposure of Republicans to reelection, and that this coincidence is going to help Palin, or any of the other prominent Republicans who lend their support to candidates, but probably mostly to Palin if she is the one who is the biggest crowd getter. Many people will assume cause and effect and thus perceptions will change. Here again, Obama is an example of perceptions changing because of results that were delivered that had little to do with Obama himself.
As for the dependency issue, I agree with you, but the trouble is that I don’t see inspiring candidates emerging on the right. Whether Palin inspires you, or me, or other factions of the conservative movement, can’t be the deciding factor in light of the fact that she inspires so many. The way I look at this issue is by calculating expected values, in that I judge the number of fans and detractors that a candidate has and the depth of support or derision that attaches to the candidate. For instance, Romney may have the same level of support as Palin, but my take is that the depth of feeling for Palin is larger, and that enthusiasm trumps derision, in that enthusiasm develops into volunteerism and voting, while derision mostly manifests into the withholding of votes, and here too we can draw lessons from the Obama-McCain matchup. In fact, the problem extends to the Democrats as well, for they’re very dependent on Obama’s appeal, in order to get people out to vote. How many are really advancing the position that the country swung left because we suddenly saw liberalism and socialism in a new and wonderful light?
Sure, it opens her up to the charge of being a quitter, but I’m comfortable with the judo maneuver of using such an attack against some of her opponents and playing up on her principled position while casting them as dishonorable
I just saw this Palin quote in the news:
Frankly I can’t see how Senator Murkowski comes out the better in the exchange. Being the beneficiary of nepotism and also being guilty of abandoning her position, but in this case the driving factor is personal ambition. At least Governor Palin can plausibly point to state interests being served by her decision. For a dumb ox like Palin to pull a switcheroo like this must be a miracle, huh?
Also, I love the notion of her dragging all of these reporters up to the middle of goddamned nowhere, Dillingham, Alaska, in order for them to get her on the news.
“She’s an intelligent person” – honestly, what’s the evidence that she is? Doesn’t the fact that you have to point that out show that she isn’t? No-one bothers saying that Obama is intelligent…
Doesn’t the fact that you have to point that out show that she isn’t? No-one bothers saying that Obama is intelligent…
I’m not quite grasping the logic underlying this argument. Let me try it out with a couple of examples:
1.) Doesn’t the fact that pointing out Obama was born in the US shows that he wasn’t. No one bothers saying the Palin was born in the US.
2.) Doesn’t the fact that pointing out Obama is a Christian shows that he isn’t. No one bothers saying the Palin is a Christian.
Hmm. It’s not working for me. I must be missing some logical component that is working as an unstated premise in your argument. I know, how about, when a smear becomes a perception, then a defense against the smear can be interpreted as evidence that the smear is really the truth. You know, only those guilty of a charge would bother to defend against it.
Palin was effective in moving her gubernatorial agenda forward, as well as her personal career, in the realm of Alaska politics. She accomplished a great deal of her political agenda, she brought to fruition a pipeline deal that eluded her predecessors, she mastered the policy details of the oil industry, wildlife management, natural resources management, etc that are pertinent issues of Alaska governance. Mastery of these issues should be taken as prima facia evidence of intelligence just as much as being able to read from a teleprompter those speeches written by the aids of a presidential candidate. The fact that Palin was not up to speed on national issues is not sufficient evidence to declare her unintelligent any more than Obama not being up to speed on the arcana of the oil industry or wildlife management issues would be sufficient cause to label him a dolt. People would presume, based on his prior demonstrations of competence that he would get up to speed on these Alaska-centric issues in due time. Palin has prior demonstrations of competence that made her a competent and accomplished player in Alaska politics, so why should Palin be judged by a different standard than that applied to Obama?
There were plenty of cracks made about Obama being the Chauncy Gardener of American politics. I suppose the same could be argued about Palin. Either she’s the luckiest dolt in politics, or there is a method to her madness. I swear, reading all of the punditry directed at her it seems that not a one of these pundits had every played chess or read military strategy or thought about the strategies that play out in team sports. All they seem to do is offer analysis on how going off-script is bad. If Palin is being blocked in her initiatives in the Governor’s office then this works to Obama’s advantage. If, in some future square off between the two, he can point to 70 ethics violations that would have been tagged to Palin if she served out her full term, then that works to his advantage. If he can point to her inability to pass legislation (which is blocked by his democratic allies in Alaska) then that too works to his advantage. If every time she leaves the state to speak to Republican groups in the lower 48 she is tagged with more ethics violations, then trapping her in Alaska works to Obama’s advantage. All of the punditry seems ignorant of the tactic of sacrificing a pawn in order to open up the board by neutralizing the traps that have been laid down by an opponent. All these commenters focus on is the craziness of sacrificing a pawn, or a bishop if you want to increase the importance of her sacrifice in relation to the strategic gain.
Either Palin is a ditz and resigned on a whim or she analyzed the situation and saw either strategic or tactical advantage by doing so. If she showed the ability to analyze, and saw matters that escape the analysis of most of the punditry, then, to me, that seems to be an expression of intelligence. The test will come over time as we see whether her effectiveness and stature increase or decrease. Judging the success of a strategic campaign on the opening move seems to indicate that there is a lot of biased and unintelligent commentary taking place. Funny, huh? All of these intelligent pundits and commentators judging a campaign based on the opening move rather than on the conclusion of the game.
Taranto on Palin saying something stupid but when Obama and Biden express the identical point, they’re expressing “intelligent” policy statements.
Now, I have to wonder why Palin is tagged as stupid when the criteria for judgment doesn’t seem to be the content of her foreign policy statement. Something else, in this case in particular, is leading to the perception of stupidity. My guess is that it is her delivery and emotional bias on the part of observers. She seems to trigger an intellectual snobbery in a lot of people and these critics cling to their bias, and most interestingly, these paragons of reason and intellect, throw analysis overboard when they form many of their criticisms. That’s what’s throwing me for a loop.
It’s the way she says it. The same was true of Bush. Whatever he said, it HAD to be stupid because he wasn’t a smooth talker. Note that Richard Cheney, as far as I know, has never been called stupid. Diabolical, yes. Evil, yes. But never stupid, because he’s an extremely good speaker. He sounds intelligent. So the default accusation of congenital idiocy doesn’t work in his case.
That said, if Palin decides to seek national office, I hope she works not only on developing intellectually grounded and coherent foreign and fiscal policies, but on ridding her speech of the hick locutions and grammatical solecisms to which she’s prone. It’s possible to speak informally, even colloquially, and still sound intelligent and informed. Shedding the hayseed image may cost her a few votes–but she’ll gain a lot more if she does.
I think many Americans harbor the secret fear that if President Sarah Palin paid a state visit to say, France, the dialogue between her and Sarkozy (or whomever) might go something like this:
Sarkozy: Welcome to Versailles, Madame President.
Palin: Hey, Nicky, good to see ya. Gosh darn, this place has a lotta mirrors.
Sarkozy: Ah…oui, madame. Certainement.
re: bush & intelligence. he has the same problem has his father, who if i recall correctly graduated phi beta kappa from yale in 3 years with an econ degree. gw’s IQ as evidenced from SAT scores is probably around 125, though his grades indicate a lot of laziness.
If you extrapolate IQs from SAT scores, Bush was considerably more intelligent than Kerry, whose combined SAT scores were 1190. That is not a distinguished number. G.W.Bush was lazy; Kerry, I think, had to work hard to maintain that C average. Another two markers for Kerry’s overall dullardness are that he has no sense of humor whatsoever and that he takes himself extremely seriously. The majority of intelligent people do neither.
there are people who overperform their IQ, ad people who underperform. bush & gore were in that category as evidenced by their grades. but to be fair to both they were both to the manor born, so hey would always be successful as long as they maintained a minimum level of academic competency. it seems guliani and bill bradley were two guys who overperformed their native endowment in intelligence (both in the 1000-1100 SAT range). george h. w. bush seems like an example of a smart guy who wasn’t lazy to boot who sounded less intelligent because of verbal issues in delivery. clinton, though smart, seemed smarter because of his verbal smoothness. someone like joe biden, who is smart enough to pass the bar, but not really that smart, can convince stupid people he knows what he’s talking about by spitting out lots of facts he’s absorbed. but to the non-stupid it’s pretty clear that the facts are either wrong or mish-mashed in an incoherent form which indicates no deep comprehension as opposed to superficial memorization.
seems that in terms of raw IQ hoover, nixon and carter are probably tops in the 20th century.
Sarkozy: Welcome to Versailles, Madame President.
Palin: Hey, Nicky, good to see ya. Gosh darn, this place has a lotta mirrors.
Sarkozy: Ah…oui, madame. Certainement.
This imagined conversation isn’t out of the bounds of possibility, but if the cost for French cooperation with the US is that we appeal to their vanity and sense of superiority and in return we get their cooperation at the UN in bringing about a future Cedar Revolution, or a reduction in French farm subsidies, etc., then I’m content with gaining in substance what we lose in style.
in all honesty, palin is good looking enough that i think that any president of france would be impressed. i suspect she’s even lazier than george w. bush (there are mixed reports about how intellectual lazy bush really is actually), and probably has less native intelligence, but i think he sets the bar rather low, and she’ll beat that. huckabee is probably no brighter than palin in g, but has a better gift of gab, so he isn’t pilloried for being dull, though he’s cut from the same creationist social conservative mold. also, his background (in terms of close relatives) is arguably far more lower middle class than palin’s, but since his near relations seem to be better in terms of bourgeois values he hasn’t gotten as much flack (though who knows what would have happened if he was nominated VP).
It’s possible to speak informally, even colloquially, and still sound intelligent and informed.
I’d suggest you find her televised gubernatorial debates and see if she comes across as a hayseed. In fact, when she was pitted against Biden in the televised debate, a man of vast experience and an expert in foreign policy, I thought she met the threshold of “sounding intelligent and informed” even with her unique style and quirks of delivery, and in that debate she gave as good as she got. That debate was certainly no blow-out for Biden, which it should have been if he was pitted against a hayseed no-nothing from the sticks.
By my estimation, her principal error was in accepting the VP invitation from McCain before she had prepared herself for national presence. To me, that’s now a sunk cost, so I don’t really dwell on an error that can’t be undone. Now, that fairly, might be considered an error in judgment but the flipside is, that at the time the decision had to be made, she was probably told that all of the blank spots in her knowledge base could be filled in short order. Look, Obama is clearly learning on the job, and that was evident to McCain’s people even during the campaign, so if he could learn on the job as a President, why would it be an issue for Palin as VP to learn on the job while McCain filled the Big Seat. She, and McCain’s team, probably focused on her strengths rather than her weaknesses. In hindsight they all made a bad decision, but a bad decision that reflects more on stylistic grounds than substantive grounds, for if we gave credence to the substantive issues we wouldn’t have elected Obama, a man with no executive experience, little foreign policy experience, a man who has trouble speaking coherently without a teleprompter, etc. In the arena of style, this area of weakness gave critics another characteristic to fill in the portrait that was being painted of Palin. A narrative was being crafted for Palin and the McCain team, and Palin herself, gave the opposition material in support of that narrative. To her credit, Palin wanted to go after Obama more forcefully, to paint a more solid narrative around him, but was leashed by the McCain team because McCain wanted to be the noble opponent more than he wanted to be the victorious opponent.
Palin’s problem, which you allude to, is that she favors extemporaneous speeches too much and should, like Obama and most politicians, rely on scripted remarks read off teleprompters. This one simple change in tactics will provide immense benefit in terms of improving her reputation for public speaking.
i think that bush’s monomania about message discipline probably tamped down his verbal flubs. i believe almost all legal trained people sound smarter than they are because they’re so good at extemp chatter. it’s part of the lawyer’s job to sound fluent enough on any topic to fool stupid people, which is great prep for being a politician.
i suspect she’s even lazier than george w. bush (there are mixed reports about how intellectual lazy bush really is actually), and probably has less native intelligence,
I don’t really have a position on this point. Choosing politicians is a process of selecting on a number of issues, a number of bottom lines. In terms of intelligence, my bottom line is that I’d prefer having a not so bright politician who is better grounded in key principles than I would having an intellectual superstar who is grounded in failed ideology and thinks that his iterations of policies will fare differently than past failed policy iterations grounded in the same ideology. IOW, Obama comes across as a smart dude but he’s wrong on most everything, while Palin comes across as average but her decisions produce better results. That’s a trade-off I can live with if I can’t get my top choice of solid intellectual grounding combined with a solid ideological underpinning.
Secondly, if Obama wasn’t in the WH my analysis of Palin might be different. Again this comes down to strategy. In a battle, when the division of soldiers across the field from you is armed with anti-tank weapons you shouldn’t be sending your division of tanks or division of infantry to do battle with them – that’s when you call in for an artillery barrage or the air force to carpet bomb the enemy. IOW, if John Kerry was in the White House, I’d probably say Republicans go with Romney. If John Edwards was in the WH, I’d probably favor Coburn. Right now there is a charismatic liberal in the WH, so I can’t see the sense in pitting Mr Boring (Romney) against him, or Mr. Nobody (Pawlenty) while I see a lot of sense in pitting Mrs. Charisma against Mr. Charisma. Further, the attacks on Palin are immunizing her and are already showing a developing sympathy factor while new material will continue to develop against Obama for the next 3 years.
romney needs a voice coach. he has the look, but he needs to work on delivery. but in any case, if history is a judge the winner of the nomination process in a field without a real incumbent or dominant brand is going to be someone we aren’t talking about (e.g., as in 1992 when clinton won).
romney needs a voice coach. he has the look, but he needs to work on delivery.
I preferred Romney over McCain and I agree with you that he has the look but his delivery is weak. Now, even if he amps up his delivery, my gut reaction is that it won’t do much good, in that, as others have noted, what Palin has can’t be taught and what she lacks can be addressed. I don’t think that Romney, or any of the other aspiring contenders hovering on the fringes at the moment, have the talents of Palin and I don’t subscribe to the position that they can learn to energize a crowd like she does. My recollection is hazy, but I don’t recall any VP candidate getting the ratings Palin got for her convention speech or her debate performance. Sure, some folks were tuning in to see a hoped for trainwreck but that can’t be the sole explanation for her ratings.
if history is a judge the winner of the nomination process in a field without a real incumbent or dominant brand is going to be someone we aren’t talking about (e.g., as in 1992 when clinton won).
A good possibility, but historical conditions usually need to match up in order to produce similar results. I’ve never seen a Palin-like phenomenon before- a failed VP who only months after the election is occupying so much mindspace and is considered by many the de facto challenger to the President. If she launches an “I told you so” tour and her campaign predictions about Obama hold true, then that really works to her benefit and she improves the odds of defying historical precedent.
re: romney, i think the mormonism is really going to create a ceiling which will prevent the grassroots mobilization necessary. so i think my point about delivery is irrelevant actually. as for palin, i respectfully think you’re kind of smoking crack, just as you accuse her critics of doing. she isn’t that popular and her occupation of mindspace is equivalent to britney spears outside of her base. you’re right that she elicits strong emotions as it’s obvious few people are objective about her. but it really doesn’t matter. it will be interesting if you’re right, but i really doubt it.
i await the 2,000 word response 😉
i respectfully think you’re kind of smoking crack, just as you accuse her critics of doing. she isn’t that popular.
I’ll revise my opinion on her popularity when I see Romney or Gingrich or Pawlenty draw a crowd of 20,000 to a speech in a small town, anytime in the next month or two will do.
lol. awesome comeback. this is why i like analyzing data…. 🙂 we can go back and forth contending that the other is full of shit as is the norm in most political discussions. no one can gainsay a personal impression.