Much has been written about Sarah Palin’s effect on the elites, but Yuval Levin’s new article, in Commentary, still manages to seem fresh. You even have some somewhat basic, but insightful musings on the difference liberalism and conservatism. It’s a very long piece, so here are just a few highlights:
Her political style and priorities resembled McCain’s in a way that no other senior Republican elected official’s did. Her conservatism, like McCain’s, was more an attitude than an ideology: it was a kind of moralistic anti-corruptionism, obsessed with honest dealing and powerfully allergic to excess and waste…
What was the Palin episode really about? The answer has much to do with the age-old tension between populism and elitism in our public life, which is to say, between the notion that we are best governed by the views, needs, and interests of the many and the conviction that power can only be managed wisely by a select few…
In American politics, the distinction between populism and elitism is further subdivided into cultural and economic populism and elitism. And for at least the last forty years, the two parties have broken down distinctly along this double axis. The Republican party has been the party of cultural populism and economic elitism, and the Democrats have been the party of cultural elitism and economic populism. Republicans tend to identify with the traditional values, unabashedly patriotic, anti-cosmopolitan, non-nuanced Joe Sixpack, even as they pursue an economic policy that aims at elite investor-driven growth. Democrats identify with the mistreated, underpaid, overworked, crushed-by-the-corporation “people against the powerful,” but tend to look down on those people’s religion, education, and way of life. Republicans tend to believe the dynamism of the market is for the best but that cultural change can be dangerously disruptive; Democrats tend to believe dynamic social change stretches the boundaries of inclusion for the better but that economic dynamism is often ruinous and unjust….
She was, the Left-leaning Christopher Hitchens insisted, “a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus.” The Right-leaning David Brooks called Palin “a fatal cancer to the Republican party” because her inclination “is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely.”
Palin never actually boasted of ignorance or explicitly scorned learning or ideas. Rather, the implicit charge was that Palin’s failure to speak the language and to share the common points of reference of the educated upper tier of American society essentially rendered her unfit for high office….
Entry to the American intellectual elite is, in principle, open to all who pursue it. And pursuing it is not as difficult as it once was, at least for the middle class. Indeed, most of this elite’s prominent members hail from middle-class origins and not from traditional bastions of American privilege and wealth. They can speak of growing up in Scranton, even as they raise their noses at dirty coal and hunting season….
Applied to politics, the worldview of the intellectual elite begins from an unstated assumption that governing is fundamentally an exercise of the mind: an application of the proper mix of theory, expertise, and intellectual distance that calls for knowledge and verbal fluency more than for prudence born of life’s hard lessons.
Sarah Palin embodied a very different notion of politics, in which sound instincts and valuable life experiences are considered sources of knowledge at least the equal of book learning. She is the product of an America in which explicit displays of pride in intellect are considered unseemly, and where physical prowess and moral constancy are given a higher place than intellectual achievement. She was in the habit of stressing these faculties instead—a habit that struck many in Washington as brutishness.
This is why Palin was seen as anti-intellectual when, properly speaking, she was simply non-intellectual. What she lacked was not intelligence—she is, clearly, highly intelligent—but rather the particular set of assumptions, references, and attitudes inculcated by America’s top twenty universities and transmitted by the nation’s elite cultural organs.
Many of those (including especially those on the Right) who reacted badly to Palin on intellectual grounds understand themselves to be advancing the interests of lower-middle-class families similar to Palin’s own family and to many of those in attendance at her rallies who greeted her arrival on the scene as a kind of deliverance. But it is hard to escape the conclusion that while these members of the intellectual elite want the government to serve the interests of such people first and foremost, they do not want those people to hold the levers of power. They see lower-middle-class populists like Palin and their supporters as profoundly ill-suited for governance, because they lack the accoutrements required for its employment—especially in foreign policy, which, even more than domestic affairs, is thought to be an intellectual exercise. It is for this reason that Barack Obama, who actually has far less experience in executive governance than Palin, was not dismissed as unprepared for the presidency. Palin may have been elected governor of Alaska, but his peers in Cambridge had elected Obama editor of the Harvard Law Review. He is thoroughly fluent in the parlance of the college town, and in the eyes of the new American elite, Washington is the ultimate college town.
February 5th, 2009 at 8:22 am
What really distinquished Palin from McCain was that she was right on most all the issues. Without that she would have been a dud. Same as Reagan. First, one must share the same values as We the People and advocate policies that work.
February 5th, 2009 at 8:32 am
This is becoming the Sarah Palin site.
February 5th, 2009 at 8:44 am
was going to post that link somewhere in the comments. best political article i’ve read since the election. it really nails what happened w/ palin without taking sides. most commentators like to simplify things when in fact they are very complex. GREAT article. i think palin haters and palin fanatics alike will have to agree its a fair and interesting read.
February 5th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Very insightful article.
And posts like this about Palin are more than justified because- like her or not- she is an intriguing figure who elicits strong reactions from most everybody. WHY she elicits such strong emotion is an important question. I don’t think it comes from her policy positions per se. They are fairly mainstream Republican and right wing. I don’t think anyone can pin a position on her that at least 100 members of Congress wouldn’t share (once one has dispatched the scurrilous rumors about book burning and such).
So why the strong reactions? I think gender, charisma, and biography all play a part (and yes, she is easy on the eyes). But I think it rises above those individual elements which seem to form an iconic whole that is greater than the individual parts.
February 5th, 2009 at 8:57 am
I like Sarah Palin, a lot, but we can be so blind, she knows nothing about the war on terror, she knows nothing about the economy, she knows nothing about the Israel-Palestina conflict, she doesn’t know what papers she read. She is not ready for primetime, the only she’s got is charisma, nothing else.
SARAH PALIN IS NOT WHITE HOUSE MATERIAL.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:03 am
“This is becoming the Sarah Palin site.”
Agreed. Any stand against her incompetence or inexperience automatically turns you into a left wing troll who wants to see the GOP destroyed.
====
“SARAH PALIN IS NOT WHITE HOUSE MATERIAL.”
BINGO!
February 5th, 2009 at 9:06 am
I’m still looking for Romney front page posters on here.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:07 am
“because they lack the accoutrements required for its employment—especially in foreign policy, which, even more than domestic affairs, is thought to be an intellectual exercise. It is for this reason that Barack Obama, who actually has far less experience in executive governance than Palin, was not dismissed as unprepared for the presidency.”
An interesting quote. There is no question that the ever since, Mrs. Palin became VP candidate, many had an image of her as an anti-intellectual populist. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden (neither of whom have had any executive experience) got a pass for their buffoonery. While the Populist (whatever that means) label might be fair, there is no question that Mrs. Palin is far more intelligent than most people give her credit for. Is she the brightest person in the whole wide country? Even as a Palinite, I say absolutely not. However, at the same time, she is certain smarter than the average Joe American whether we admit it or not. Sure, her resume is not as long as Mr. Huckabee, Mr. Romney, Mr. Pawlenty and many others, but she is one of the best Governors in some time. People say, how can a Governor of a state with only a few electoral point be as smart as a Governor from a state with several electoral votes? These days, Some of the larger state Governors are certainly not the sharpest pencils in the box. I am not advocating full scale Populism by any means, but these days, elitism does not have a good track record. 20 years ago it would have been a different story, I certain do not want any old elite running the show.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:11 am
“I’m still looking for Romney front page posters on here.” Have you asked Kavon to hire you, Illinoisguy?
February 5th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Falz,
Without conceding your point about her lack of knowledge (I do think she knows a lot about those things). I think you might be missing the point here. The fault line between the “populist” and the “elitist” camps might be summarized as follows:
Populists would highly value virtue in their leaders- a strong and unshakable sense of right and wrong that reflects the best of traditional values. They would value wisdom- born of experience (and often a positive religious heritage)- over acquired knowledge of facts and figures. In regard to the Presidency, the facts and figures will all be provided by advisors and staffers. Loads of people in Washington are full of facts and figures and book knowledge. The UNIQUE quality in Washington would be the wise (as opposed to simply learned) figure who sifts through the knowledge of her advisors with the prudence and character developed in real life experience. Wisdom is valued over knowledge.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:13 am
“Any stand against her incompetence or inexperience automatically turns you into a left wing troll.” You for one Matthew K are not a Left-Wing troll, but you do have to admit that there are at least a few trolls that visit us.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:14 am
No, Ohio Joe, I know there are more qualified people than me to represent Mitt.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:15 am
“that reflects the best of traditional values.” MWS, while, more often that not, Populists in the western world do believe in traditional value, this certainly is not universal at least depending on one’s definition.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:19 am
#6 “Agreed. Any stand against her incompetence or inexperience automatically turns you into a left wing troll who wants to see the GOP destroyed.”
BS. I’ve seen relevant charges brought (sports complex, only 2 years as Gov of a small and isolated state, poor performance in interviews and debate, etc), and while some don’t agree they are deal breakers, I haven’t heard anyone say the questions were out of bounds. However, if you go into the bus brakes, Downs kid, alleged affair, book banning, and that kind of thing, you WILL get accused of being a liberal troll who’s being destructive to the party (because, well, you are). Honestly, there’s more than enough relevant material out there to go after. Why make enemies of her supporters, whose votes will be needed in ‘12? Beat them fair, and they’ll support almost any ticket that wins. Note that I’m not taking issue with you saying she isn’t WH material. It’s an opinion, and it’s one that it’s up to her to change.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:25 am
“charge was that Palin’s failure to speak the language and to share the common points of reference of the educated upper tier of American society essentially rendered her unfit for high office….”
Nobody ridiculed Palin for not going to Harvard – well, some may have, but most of her opponents really only gained ground AFTER she became the nominee, AFTER she demonstrated a complete lack of policy knowledge, and AFTER she made ridiculous statements in interviews.
====
“Sarah Palin embodied a very different notion of politics, in which sound instincts and valuable life experiences are considered sources of knowledge at least the equal of book learning.”
Which would be fine, if her instincts and life experiences were such as to qualify her for the position of President – but they weren’t. Her “instincts” are to make jokes when people want substance, and her life experiences might qualify her for her current position, but they are not those of a President of the United States.
John McCain had life experiences. Ronald Reagan had life experiences. Mitt Romney has life experience. Even George Bush, as Governor of the third largest state, had life experience. Palin’s experience in small-time, and hardly enough to qualify her for the most powerful and difficult job in the world.
====
“This is why Palin was seen as anti-intellectual when, properly speaking, she was simply non-intellectual. What she lacked was not intelligence—she is, clearly, highly intelligent—but rather the particular set of assumptions, references, and attitudes inculcated by America’s top twenty universities and transmitted by the nation’s elite cultural organs.”
I agree on most of this – but explaining WHY she is viewed (or is) the way she is does not dismiss the concerns. Again, I think this article overstates the degree to with intellecualism (or at least qualification) is based on the college you graduate from. If Palin had been the same in every way, except that she had sound policy knowledge, clear poltiical sense, and a strong resume to back up her request for the VPs Job, she would have been fine. Similarily, if Mitt Romney, a graduate of Harvard, had said and done the things Palin had, he would have been seen as equally bafoonish.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:31 am
“Democrats tend to believe dynamic social change stretches the boundaries of inclusion for the better but that economic dynamism is often ruinous and unjust….”
The latter half of this all-too-cute dichotomy is utter nonsense.
You wouldn’t remember that the greatest period of economic growth in our history came, very recently, under a Democratic president, as a result of his focus on establishing and maintaining the environment in which such growth could occur.
“Palin’s failure to speak the language and to share the common points of reference’
which is just a fancy and elitist way of saying that she didn’t know nuttin…
“she is, clearly, highly intelligent”
ah, no that is not clear at all…
“but rather the particular set of assumptions, references, and attitudes inculcated by
America’s top twenty universities and transmitted by the nation’s elite cultural organs”
horse manure. What she is missing can be found in ANY university – facts and knowledge about the real world. Curiosity and a respect for learning. I hold those values, and my college might not have been in the top twenty in my state.
“They see lower-middle-class populists like Palin and their supporters as profoundly ill-suited for governance, because they lack the accoutrements required for its employment—”
Accoutrements? Gee, I wish I were elitist enough to share this manner of speaking.
Palin showed no interest in learning about the world, and so she knew very little about it.
IT is downright bizarre to consider it “elitism” to decide that she is therefore not the most qualified to be a potential president.
What a throughly ridiculous article.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Kavon:
Thanks for having pro-Palin posts on your site. Far be it from a loose cannon like me to advice you, but I humbly request that you consider hiring a Pro-Romney poster (and maybe even a Pro-Pawlenty poster.) It is good to make the case for all leading contender. Not being a member of the country’s elite or being an owner of a Plumbing company, haha, I have limited resources, but I will give you a small donation if you tell me how one can donate to your site.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Tano,
What is it specifically that leads you to conclude that Palin disdains “curiosity and a respect for learning?”
February 5th, 2009 at 9:42 am
#16 “The latter half of this all-too-cute dichotomy is utter nonsense.”
No, the latter half seems a pretty accurate reflection of liberal thought. Are you saying that you don’t believe that rich guy in the mansion got rich at the expense of the working man? That has seemed to be a common theme, attacking the “fat cats” and demanding they “share the wealth.”
“You wouldn’t remember that the greatest period of economic growth in our history came, very recently, under a Democratic president, as a result of his focus on establishing and maintaining the environment in which such growth could occur.”
More nonsense. I’m not really sure Pres Clinton outstripped Pres Reagan (check growth of GDP, not of budget deficits), but that isn’t really my point. Under Pres Clinton, we experienced a boom (in reality, a bubble) in the tech center. That bubble grew very large during his Presidency, inflating the gov’t revenues beyond sustainable levels. We saw that bubble burst in the latter part of ‘00, and it completely collapse after 9/11. There was no creation of an environment that could sustain what was going on.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:42 am
“What is it specifically that leads you to conclude that Palin disdains “curiosity and a respect for learning?””
Could it be the MSM?
February 5th, 2009 at 9:44 am
“More nonsense. I’m not really sure Pres Clinton outstripped Pres Reagan (check growth of GDP, not of budget deficits), but that isn’t really my point. Under Pres Clinton, we experienced a boom (in reality, a bubble) in the tech center.”
BINGO!
February 5th, 2009 at 9:58 am
19
“Are you saying that you don’t believe that rich guy in the mansion got rich at the expense of the working man? That has seemed to be a common theme, attacking the “fat cats” and demanding they “share the wealth.””
First off, that is not the charge that Levin made, nor the one I responded to. He claimed that Democrats believe that economic dynamism is inherintly ruinous. It is an absurd lie. I can’t beleive that anyone can read that and maintain any respect for Mr. Levin. Because even if you believe that all Democratic policies are wrong and counterproductive, it is blindingly obvious that Democrats at least try, in their own way, to foster economic dynamism.
So to claim that we see it as inherintly wrong is just a lie.
More later, gotta run….
February 5th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Yeah, we need another Pro-Romney guy.
We used to have a couple.
Not sure where they went.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:12 am
This Palin-was-scorned-because-she-didn’t-go-to-Harvard nonsense is really stretching my patience.
The issue that people like David Frum, David Brooks, Peggy Noonan and I had with Sarah Palin was the fact that she’s proudly average, not the fact that she didn’t “speak the language of the elites,” whoever they are. If being “elitist” means that you’re proud to understand ideas, celebrate merit, and take on tough issues, then sign me up for the ‘elitist’ lobby. Sarah Palin just did not understand foreign policy or national-level economics.
It’s upside-down: not knowing what you’re talking about is a qualification, to you Palinbots, because, gosh darn it, she’s got “life experience” and she annoys the “elites”!
If national politics is only going to be a game of pissing off the elites, rather than accomplishing something, then count me out!
February 5th, 2009 at 10:14 am
#22 “First off, that is not the charge that Levin made, nor the one I responded to. He claimed that Democrats believe that economic dynamism is inherintly ruinous.”
I guess we’ll have to define “economic dynamism,” then. I maintain that economic dynamism is inherently impossible in an environment where everyone earns roughly equivalent sums of money. If no field pays you more than another, there’s no incentive to be particularly innovative (which takes patience and supreme effort), and with little innovation, there is no dynamism. Perhaps your definition isn’t the same as mine?
February 5th, 2009 at 10:14 am
The fact is that in order to be a leader of a country like USA you need to be some kind of intellectuals attitude. We like people who can relate with the average joe but that is not a qualification for the White House.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:15 am
#10= more proof that MWS is the man:
“Wisdom is valued over knowledge.”
Charles Murray speaks at length about this topic in his recent book “Real Education.” Although I don’t agree with all of his conclusions, I do agree with most and highly recommend the book to anyone interested in America’s future.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:28 am
“It’s upside-down: not knowing what you’re talking about is a qualification, to you Palinbots, because, gosh darn it, she’s got “life experience” and she annoys the “elites”!” I for one disagree with the whole premise that she does not know what she is talking about. In short, I believe that the image people have of her is not accurate.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:32 am
#17, there are two pro-Pawlenty FPP on this site.
Matthew Miller and myself. We’re just not pumping Pawlenty up this early in the process.
I agree it would be good to see the pro-Romney posters up their content. MattC is pro-Romney and posts here but the rest have gone silent.
It wouldn’t hurt to have another thoughtful poster who supported Romney in 2008.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Romney fan, I beg you, please stop trashing Palin (and Huck). I’m not totally closed to voting for your guy if he’s the nominee in 12, but the incessant attacks are beyond tiresome.
I’ve said it before, I think Palin, Mitt and Huck should start making joint townhall type meetings in the near future. It’s time for party, and national, unity. The Sunni versus Shia stuff has to end. Any chance we could find our nominee without destroying the other candidates?
Mitt onstage with Huck in places like GA, NC, SC, etc., actually agreeing on issues, would be a big help to Mitt’s future aspirations. The same would go for Mike with Mitt in UT, NV and ID.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Pawlenty has the potential to win me over.
It seems that “Sam’s Club Republicanism,” although a poor moniker, is less about glorifying the average than about trying to do what helps people through good governance. He’s not been a big government-style governor. There are a couple of black marks — raised fees on cigarettes and supports ethanol subsidies — but he’s mostly been good. If he’s good on foreign affairs, I could potentially support him as an alternative to the “Big Three” in ‘12.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:40 am
“Pawlenty has the potential to win me over.” We agree on something, haha. Another problem with Mr. Pawlenty is that he is behind in oranization. Does he even have a PAC?
February 5th, 2009 at 10:41 am
ARRRRG oranization should be organization.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:51 am
The only problem with Pawlenty is how white-bread he is. What a boring, uninspiring candidate.
No, he does not have a PAC.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Alex,
Odd that you should say that, because I’ve started to warm to Mark Sanford in the last few days (he gave a fantastic interview articulating the case against the stimulus). Hey, maybe you’ll end up supporting Pawlenty, while I’m supporting Sanford. Stranger things have happened.
Now back to Palin. It’s clear that you’ve distorted Levin’s argument, and the argument of the majority of “Palin-bots”. We don’t celebrate that Palin lacks knowledge in certain key areas. I’ve been pretty honest about Palin’s failure to discuss whole ranges of policy issues in a compelling way. But, the Brooks’ and the Frums’ and yes, you, take this failure not as a natural result of having been a Governor of an out of the way state for less then two years, but as some fundamental indicator about Sarah Palin’s capabilities, her intelligence, her curiosity, and on down the list. Levin nailed it: for the elites the problem isn’t that Sarah Palin is “anti-intellectual”, but simply that she’s a “non-intellectual”. Sarah Palin doesn’t have a steady grasp of issues she’s never dealt with, therefore she must HATE ideas. It’s ludicrous beyond belief. And what Levin, and what I, have argued, is that this sort of logical leap only occurs because Sarah Palin doesn’t belong to the “elite” club. Folks who do belong to the elite club can botch a foreign policy question or two, and the elites will chalk it up to inexperience. If you don’t belong to the elite club, anything silly you say is chalked up to borderline mental retardation, and knuckledragging, paste-eating, science-fighting, hickdom. There are STILL folks who insist- with absolute sincerity- that Sarah Palin didn’t name a paper she reads, because she didn’t know the NAMES of any.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:58 am
#24:
Alex, would you tell us then who was appropriately qualified to fill the Veep slot this cycle?
Let’s not forget, McCain was near the bottom of his class and is not widely regarded as an academic theorist of conservatism. Or did I miss some major policy monographs he produced while at a think tank?
Please also explain your conception of “merit” while you’re at it. I mean, she cut her own way in politics and won ever higher office. Are you now going to argue that she slept her way to the top?
February 5th, 2009 at 11:00 am
I thought the Democrats were the “touchy-feelly no-need-to-understand-the-issues-as-long-as-your-heart-is-in-the-right-place” party.
So now we are celebrating the fact that Sarah Palin is ignorant about National issues, isn’t curious enough to study them, but by golly she is smart, and her intentions are good? This is a good thing?
I could care less what education she has. When I look at Sarah Palin today, right now, I see a person who seems to be only interested in what is in front of her nose. She isn’t interested enough in National or International issues to study and understand them. She isn’t interested enough in the world around her to read up on current events. This is a good thing in a potential President? We should glory in willful ignorance?
I also see someone who becomes lost whenever there is no script to follow. I see a woman who just in the past week has made several amateur mistakes. If she is so smart, what about those?
These shortcomings can be overcome, but it will take time, effort, and resources to do it. I don’t think she has enough time to do it by 2012. 2016, maybe, but not 2012. I would love to be proven wrong.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:05 am
“right now, I see a person who seems to be only interested in what is in front of her nose. She isn’t interested enough in National or International issues to study and understand them. She isn’t interested enough in the world around her to read up on current events. This is a good thing in a potential President? We should glory in willful ignorance?” Again, I disagree with the premise.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:09 am
But OHIO, that is what I see. If you can prove me wrong, great. I am certainly willing to listen. It’s not like I’ve never been wrong before.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:12 am
#36 “Are you now going to argue that she slept her way to the top?”
Now, now, no need to be hyper-defensive on this. Alex, in no way, has insinuated that, and has in fact defended Gov Palin against some of the smears thrown at her (not on substance, of course, because he’s unimpressed with a lack of substance, from his perspective).
Gov Palin was called too early, and was overcoached by political operatives who didn’t like her in the first place. The pressure was immense, and thrust on her all at once. I don’t consider what I saw to be what she will look like in ‘12 (a review of debates done in Alaska showed a completely different debate style, and none of the “you betcha” lines). Because of that, I’m trying to keep an open mind about her, but I think she will have to be more impressive than the other candidates in order to impress me at this point.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Let me put it another way. I can’t think of another person would could go into a debate with Joe “the Gaffe-maker” Biden and end up making Biden look good.
And this is the star we should hitch our 2012 star to? Without any improvements whatsoever?
February 5th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Alex, would you tell us then who was appropriately qualified to fill the Veep slot this cycle? Let’s not forget, McCain was near the bottom of his class and is not widely regarded as an academic theorist of conservatism. Or did I miss some major policy monographs he produced while at a think tank? Please also explain your conception of “merit” while you’re at it. I mean, she cut her own way in politics and won ever higher office. Are you now going to argue that she slept her way to the top?
Stop accepting the false dichotomy. Obviously, my support for Sen. McCain had nothing to do with his educational background, but rather his grasp of the issues. He passed that threshold for me. Palin did not. When did I ever say a thing about Palin’s college education? It’s irrelevant, to me; academia is a farce.
As for who would have been a fitting veep, well, let’s see: Romney, Rudy, Thompson, and Huckabee were all qualified, from those who ran in ‘08. Gingrich, Perry, Hutchison, Ridge, Fiorina, and Whitman were all qualified. Doesn’t mean I like ‘em all. But at least they know what they’re talking about on some fundamental level. Palin was just utterly clueless on some issues.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:16 am
#37 “So now we are celebrating the fact that Sarah Palin is ignorant about National issues, isn’t curious enough to study them, but by golly she is smart, and her intentions are good? This is a good thing?”
I take slight issue with the “curious enough to study them” line. I think the issues concerning Alaska are not the same as those for the “lower 48,” and she had no real expectation of being on the ticket up until Sen McCain made his choice, and that’s why she didn’t already have a greater grasp of the issues. Now, if she runs in ‘12 and doesn’t demonstrate more knowledge, then I think that comment is fair.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:21 am
“The only problem with Pawlenty is how white-bread he is. What a boring, uninspiring candidate.”
Exactly, Pawlenty’s greatest strength, and weakness, is that he is so benign.
Another problem with T-paw, and Sanford, is that so many people are so excited about Palin, Romney and Huck. Why waste the pent-up enthusiasm for those three?
February 5th, 2009 at 11:21 am
I was not impressed with how slowly Palin got up to speed on national issues.
I’m not sure whether I blame her or if I blame McCain for not adequately prepping her before picking her.
Giving her a heads-up a couple months early may have given her a chance to prepare for the glaring national spotlight.
At this point Palin’s image is damaged. She has a lot of work to do before she rehabilitates it for higher office.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:23 am
if palin runs, she will have to campaign for nearly 2 years, and she will have to give 1000s of interviews and debate on national tv 15-20 times. she will have plenty of time to impress people and prove she is far more intelligent than the mccain campaigns presentation of her. no more overcoaching or bad mccain camp ideas. she will have her own campaign and her own message and more then 2 years to prove she is capable. if obama showed up 2 months before election day, most people would have said no way, he is not qualified. but since he had 2 years of exposure to sell himself, the public deemed him capable. she will have that same chance. if she performs, then her and romney are headed for a big fight for the nomination, if she flops, mitt will wipe the floor with her.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Richard.#43
As I said, I am looking at Palin, RIGHT NOW. What she is in 2012 is hopefully a different story.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Felz
We noticed that too.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:25 am
econ grad stud, I blame her: she should have had the intellectual curiosity, as a sitting governor, to have formed opinions on those issues in the first place.
Lord knows that any one of our front page posters — well, okay, almost any one — could have performed better than Palin in those interviews and in that debate.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:26 am
#47, fair enough.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Another problem with T-paw, and Sanford, is that so many people are so excited about Palin, Romney and Huck. Why waste the pent-up enthusiasm for those three?
Because enthusiasm does not an election win (remember Kristofer: HOW MANY OTHER REPUBLICANS ATTRACT A CROWD OF TENS OF THOUSANDS????).
February 5th, 2009 at 11:27 am
tim.#46
Yes, exactly tim. She will have to stand on her own two feet. She (and her fans) will no longer be able to blame McCain and his campaign for any of her shortcomings. She will stand or fall on her own.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Education is now a bad thing? Being well read, is also not good? I don’t want a rock star who lip syncs for president. I want someone who works, has paid the dues, is well up to speed – and has been for most of his or her life. I want him or her to be crazy smart. Not average. We have enough average. I want someone who’s personal life is excellent, along with his/her professional life. They DO go hand in hand. For me, the greatest measure of a person is what is going on in their home. a very wise man once said that failure in the home is failure in life. I want the total package. Success at home, success on the job.
Oops. Did I say something wrong again?
February 5th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Also, Mr. Levin — and presumably Matthew — says that Palin’s “life experience” helps qualify her.
What, exactly, is her special life experience..?
February 5th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Heil Hitler.
rep’cans are Nazi’s
February 5th, 2009 at 11:32 am
And by the way, Bristol getting pregnant wasn’t some freak accident. I absolutely blame Sarah Palin in part for that. Weren’t you ever teenagers, people? Teenagers aren’t stupid. They know what they’re doing, and it’s a result of the values they learned. The people that I hung out with in high school would never, ever, ever end up like that, or hang out with morons like Levi Johnson, let alone have sex with him. Why? Because the people I hung out with in high school were clean, responsible people, and so were their parents. Palin clearly went wrong somewhere with Bristol.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Ohio. I’m not a troll. I’m too tall for that. I’m also not an orge, nor a fairy. I’m a human. A mother. A wife. A daughter. A Sister. A business owner. A VOTER. Not a troll. I’m conservative, but not far, far right. I know what I want out of my government, just as I know what I want out of my personal life. I don’t care for Palin. Falz nailed it. She’s not White House material. And personally, I don’t want her anywhere near the White House, unless she’s purchased a ticket.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:32 am
#53 “Oops. Did I say something wrong again?”
No, only hinted at it. Someone who doesn’t know your commenting history should have no issue with any of it, though might be confused about what, exactly, you mean about her personal life. Comparatively, a very good comment!
February 5th, 2009 at 11:32 am
I think Tim was spot on in #46 (except the Romney part at the end).
February 5th, 2009 at 11:33 am
“I was not impressed with how slowly Palin got up to speed on national issues.”
Charles Murray is well known for positing the importance of IQ, it would be nice to know the IQ and standardized test scores of the candidates.
My IQ guesses:
Palin: low: 110, high: 120
Huck: low: 120, high: 130
Romney: low: 125, high: sky
However, I think if Huck had been the son of a Gov/CEO, instead of a fireman, he would’ve gone Ivy league and would have an MBA/JD. Huck’s a prolific writer, very curious, off the charts verbal ability…many signs of a high IQ. I think his IQ could’ve been nurtured to 130+.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Heil Hitler.
rep’cans are Nazi’s
Nazi’s what? What are they of Nazis?
February 5th, 2009 at 11:35 am
I fail to see a dichotomy that is false. What I see is one set of rather lax standards for the party to nominate a presidential candidate, and arbitrarily rigid standards that apply to the vice presidential nominee — of only the one party!
I really don’t care, quite frankly, whether Palin runs for the Presidency or not. If she does, I don’t know whether I’ll back her or not. What I find offensive is the arbitrary post hoc arguments mustered against her. Even though I’m not a Bush fan, the same type of arbitrary arguments heaved at him from the opposite side made me talk like a Dubya fan.
I didn’t buy the cheaply intellectualized, thinly disguised Bush hatred masquerading as sophisticated argument against him. And I don’t buy the same weak crapola vomited up against Palin.
As I see it, McCain, Obama, and Biden were acceptable for having been amongst the inside-the-Beltway aspirants who had built careers around their aspirations. Palin clearly lacked this establishment background, and so she was singled out as the Rorschach test for what is unacceptable in national office.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Alex,
All the kids I hung out with in High School had free will.
Most came from decent to very strong Christian homes and learned all about responsibility, etc….
Almost all of them did things that could make themselves (or someone else) pregnant. Often the difference between the “good” ones and the “bad” ones was who got caught in the luck of the draw. Parents who think all they need to do is tell their kids how it is are terribly naive. Even dilligent parents with otherwise good kids can wind up in that situation. EVERYONE makes mistakes. Even our kids.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:39 am
The same standard I hold for everyone, including McCain, Gingrich…. anyone. If your personal life reeks, your professional life won’t make it up. If you cheat on your spouse – regardless of your sex, religion or party affilation, you will cheat on me.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:39 am
I fail to see a dichotomy that is false. What I see is one set of rather lax standards for the party to nominate a presidential candidate, and arbitrarily rigid standards that apply to the vice presidential nominee — of only the one party!
Um…I didn’t support Obama…either way, don’t justify a wrong with a wrong.
The false dichotomy is “down-home wisdom vs. higher education.”
February 5th, 2009 at 11:39 am
#56 “And by the way, Bristol getting pregnant wasn’t some freak accident. I absolutely blame Sarah Palin in part for that. Weren’t you ever teenagers, people? Teenagers aren’t stupid. They know what they’re doing, and it’s a result of the values they learned.”
Alex, why did you go there? Good people do dumb things, and sometimes hang out with the wrong people. This isn’t a reflection on their parents (ok, superparent may be able to keep kids on the straight-and-narrow, but to blame bad parenting if they screw up?). One could absurdly extrapolate to use this as a reason to disqualify Mry Giuliani, since his kids didn’t like him. Same thing for Pres Reagan (yes, I know you aren’t coming at this from a primary reason to oppose her, but COME ON!).
February 5th, 2009 at 11:41 am
I can’t believe Alex brought up the pregnancy. I don’t hold that against Palin. Although I do sort of hold it against McCain, I don’t think he did much vetting before making his choice.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:44 am
“Yes, exactly tim. She will have to stand on her own two feet. She (and her fans) will no longer be able to blame McCain and his campaign for any of her shortcomings. She will stand or fall on her own.” I do not disagree, if she screws up Alaska and cannot convince people that she is not up to the task, I won’t join her camp despite being a Palinite ideologically. So far, she continues to be a good Governor, people will just have to judge for themselves, but she is going to have the chance to prove herself and the last Ras poll shows that people are open to supporting her.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Also, thanks Joe for calling for a pro-Romney front page poster. I know there used to be some way-back-when but I haven’t seen one in a long while.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Alex, why did you go there? Good people do dumb things, and sometimes hang out with the wrong people.
I’m not saying Palin isn’t a good person. I know good people who are unfit parents. Just as there are good people who are unfit presidential candidates. Being well-intentioned isn’t always good enough.
This isn’t a reflection on their parents (ok, superparent may be able to keep kids on the straight-and-narrow, but to blame bad parenting if they screw up?).
Bad parenting is one factor of several. However, I will say that I know several parents who are hardly ’supermom’ who somehow managed to instill the values in their kids from ending up in such situations — and they were all fairly moderate in their parenting styles, by the way.
One could absurdly extrapolate to use this as a reason to disqualify Mry Giuliani, since his kids didn’t like him.
I’m not using it to “disqualify” Palin. It’s just food for thought. I don’t like my dad, but he can still, perhaps, do his job well (not sure if he does; these things are often linked). I turned out well in spite of my dad, though, because my mom did an amazing job raising me.
Same thing for Pres Reagan (yes, I know you aren’t coming at this from a primary reason to oppose her, but COME ON!).
Are you saying that I am completely off-base? That there is no evidence that Palin is anything other than an amazing parent? Kids just don’t freaking get pregnant as teenagers by accident. It’s not common among families like Palin’s. The average pregnant teenager is poor, or the product of a single parent, very usually an ethnic minority — the odds of someone like Bristol Palin becoming pregnant at 17 are incredibly low. In my mind, there was some sort of reason for it, and Sarah’s parenting was probably part of it.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Do you guys remember the radio commercial that says “Fair or not, people judge you by the words you use,” and then goes on to sell tapes that would expand your vocabulary?
I think there is a similar tendency to judge people not just by the words they use, but by the pace, tone, and cadence of their speech. Obama is actually great example of this. He comes across as quite intellectual in large part because of his cadence, which I assure you is either a habit born of his educational background, or carefully practiced to help him achieve in life.
But pay close attention to HOW Obama speaks. He stretches and contracts the pace of his words in an atypical way that makes it sound as though he is seeking an extraordinary precision in his words, and that he is probing in his mind through a vast storehouse of information. It is a common practice among people considered “intellectual,” and is quite easy is generally just effected.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:50 am
MarkG.#62
In point of fact, I didn’t like either McCain, Obama, or Biden. I didn’t think anyone of them were up to being President.
I was extremely excited about the Palin pick. I loved that first week, capped off with that fantastic convention speech. “The election is over!”, I trumpeted to everyone I knew. The lady was awesome!
Then Palin began interviews and other unscripted moments. I saw a woman who struggled to put together a simple sentence. I saw a woman who was shockingly ignorant in national and international affairs. I saw a woman who wasn’t interested enough current events to keep abreast of them. I saw a woman who thought cutesy would cover up for a lack of depth. Shtick only works when it masks really depth. Unfortunately for her, I could see little depth in her.
Yes, I agreed with 90% of her stances on things. But no way, no how was she ready for President.
Some of the blame has to lie with the atrocious handling of her by the McCain campaign. But you cannot put all of it on them. Some of it has to lie with her. She was, quite simply, not ready for prime time.
I still vote for McCain. But I certainly wasn’t very enthusiastic about it.
I am more than willing to give Palin another look in a couple of years. In the meantime, I will be watching for the good and the bad.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:51 am
I can’t believe Alex brought up the pregnancy. I don’t hold that against Palin. Although I do sort of hold it against McCain, I don’t think he did much vetting before making his choice.
McCain and his team did no vetting. From my sources, McCain wanted Lieberman but his aides would have none of it, so Palin was a consensus alternative choice. They bought into some stupid “maverick of Alaska” narrative that just wasn’t true. The pregnancy, in all likelihood, was a complete shock to them.
We do have pro-Romney front page posters; however, none of our active ones are specifically supporting him in 2012. I’m doing some searching for new contributors, so I’ll try to find a Romney supporter.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Mac,
That was a great idea in #30. Townhall discussions (I wouldn’t make them competitive debates), could really help bring life and unity back to the party, as well as give it a sense of purpose and direction.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:54 am
“Because enthusiasm does not an election win.”
After ‘08 it’s a bit of surprise to see anyone say that enthusiasm doesn’t win elections. It’s the ability to generate enthusiasm that puts boots on the ground.
Huck and anyone (or anyone and Huck) is the difference between me (probably)just voting GOP and me getting involved in the campaign. I know a lot of others feel the same about Mitt and Sarah. I think Mitt and Mike are our best bet.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:56 am
74
Thanks MWS,
McCain and Huck did that very thing (Townhall meeting)in Sioux City and it went over very well.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Oh the irony. A former Rudy supporter complaining about the choices Palin made. Its not nice to know that you’re friends were clean and responsible ( who knew having sex was dirty) but where I come from its considered irresponsible to cheat on your wives.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:56 am
After ‘08 it’s a bit of surprise to see anyone say that enthusiasm doesn’t win elections. It’s the ability to generate enthusiasm that puts boots on the ground.
Obviously, I meant that enthusiasm alone does not an election win.
Sarah Palin might get 30% of the electorate REALLY, REALLY, REALLY excited, but you still need 20% more to win an election.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:56 am
marK,
“Then Palin began interviews and other unscripted moments. I saw a woman who struggled to put together a simple sentence. I saw a woman who was shockingly ignorant in national and international affairs. I saw a woman who wasn’t interested enough current events to keep abreast of them. I saw a woman who thought cutesy would cover up for a lack of depth. Shtick only works when it masks really depth. Unfortunately for her, I could see little depth in her.”
I think you overstate the case, but the point is taken. The question is how much of htat was Pain, and how much of that was being an overcoached, wrongly coached rookie who was thrust into a degree of scrutiny and attention (from an extremely hostile media) at a speed and degree NO ONE has ever experienced before. That’s why I think everyone needs to see what she does when SHE is running the show.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Oh the irony. A former Rudy supporter complaining about the choices Palin made. Its not nice to know that you’re friends were clean and responsible ( who knew having sex was dirty) but where I come from its considered irresponsible to cheat on your wives.
Having sex isn’t dirty. There’s quite ample evidence that Levi Johnson isn’t exactly a clean kid, and I’m going to put 2 and 2 together here and assume that the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy were all very irresponsible.
It doesn’t disqualify anyone. People make mistakes, and most of the blame ultimately rests with Bristol.
Also: can you understand why we pro-choicers squirm when we see situations like this? A dumb 17-year-old kid and her boneheaded 17-year-old husband…parents? Oh my God. This is what early-term abortions are for, okay?!
February 5th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
73 – Thanks Alex. It was pretty clear he wanted Lieberman, and that combination might have flipped a blue state or two any other year, but not against “the One.” I’m not sure who he should have picked. Being a Romney supporter, I’m inclined to say Mitt, but on the other hand, I’m glad he didn’t go down with that ship.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Alex. spot on. I don’t allow my daughter to date. She’s not old enough yet. Dating at 14 is asking for problems. Her birth mother was 13, when she was born. She was allowed to date at 12. My daughter is 14, and drop dead gorgeous. She has boys asking her out already. At church, I see boys crowding around her, so I can only imagine her at school! She tells them she’s not allowed to date until 16, and she is not allowed to have a boyfriend AT ALL. Her standards are high, and will remain high. She knows HOW to get babies. She also knows the best way of preventing babies – not having sex before marriage. All my daughters know this. And they have set goals to acheive that. Acutally, it’s pretty easy now for them. They’ve already made the decision to only date boys and marry men who honor and respect them. My sons are being raised to love and respect girls and women. They too are being taught that sex is for marriage. And honestly? I can look them all in the eye and tell them that their father and I did not have sex until we got married. That’s pretty important to us. Maybe not for everyone, but for us it is. If my daughter makes a mistake and turns up pregnant, youbetcha it will be partly my fault. Dr. Laura S. has an interesting stat. Children of stay home moms have a lesser chance of becoming pregnant than those with working moms. Time and place, time and place, she said.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
“Sarah Palin might get 30% of the electorate REALLY, REALLY, REALLY excited, but you still need 20% more to win an election.”
The other 20%+ will come around due to the hard work of those excited 30% plus the inevitable mistakes and problems that will occur over the next 4 years.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
“the odds of someone like Bristol Palin becoming pregnant at 17 are incredibly low.”
Could be. But I happen to be a believer in free choice, which means you have the choice to mess up, even if you come from a great family. And people from good families often sow their wild oats as teenagers. My Dad came from a good two parent middle class familly, and up as a drug dealer his late teen years, and then came back on the straight and narrow and has since lived a good clean life. Palin may have been a bad parent or she may have not been, point is there’s no way to know, and to because of that to bring up her kid is reprehensible, and it makes me madder for Bristol’s sake than for Sarah’s.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
#70 “Are you saying that I am completely off-base? That there is no evidence that Palin is anything other than an amazing parent? Kids just don’t freaking get pregnant as teenagers by accident. It’s not common among families like Palin’s. The average pregnant teenager is poor, or the product of a single parent, very usually an ethnic minority — the odds of someone like Bristol Palin becoming pregnant at 17 are incredibly low. In my mind, there was some sort of reason for it, and Sarah’s parenting was probably part of it.”
What I’m saying is that this is an inappropriate way to go after her. Yes, I know and acknowledge this isn’t your specific goal with bringing it up, but in a time when the GOP needs to rally all factions together in order to regain some relevance in the future, it ain’t helping. Anything that isn’t helping, as the GOP needs to progress, is hurting.
As for where Gov Palin ranks on parenting? I don’t think any of us can judge that one, but I’d say it’s been pretty good, but probably not perfect. None of them appear to be delinquents (unless you count the pregnancy, which I don’t particularly; if you count the rumor about the bus brakes, you’re a whack job). They all appear pretty happy. We don’t live in that house, so we don’t really know. It’s a whole lot easier to criticize these things when you don’t have children in the house.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
80 – I’m not really comfortable with suggesting Bristol’s (or any) baby would be better off aborted just because the parents are irresponsible. Her mom is the freaking governor, I think they’ll get by alright.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
25
“I maintain that economic dynamism is inherently impossible in an environment where everyone earns roughly equivalent sums of money.”
Oh geez Richard, what planet are you living on? Can you name me one person, let alone one Democrat, who has ever come close to advocating that everyone is society earns the same?
Levin is addressing Democrats, and specifically Democrats who are engaged in the political process. It would come as quite the shock to people like Bob Rubin, or Warren Buffett, that they are pushing pay equality, or that they are averse to economic dynamism.
Sheer nonsense.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
MWS.#79:“That’s why I think everyone needs to see what she does when SHE is running the show.”
Precisely…and so far this past week, it has not looked good. First she allows the news cycle that claimed she was in favor of the stimulus package. She should have jumped on that immediately. Then there was that totally avoidable rookie mistake of telling the GOP she had too much pressing business in Alaska to come to their retreat, and then she promptly heads to the Alfalfa dinner to hobnob with Obama at the same time.
Now the first mistake was not entirely her fault. Something happened and she didn’t react quickly enough. This can be corrected.
The second mistake was worse. It was a totally, completely avoidable mistake. All she had to do was tell them that she didn’t want to go to a partisan event. They would have understood. Now, her fellow Republicans will be second-guessing her word from now on. Stupid, stupid mistake.
She can’t keep doing these sorts of amateur mistakes for too much longer.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
I don’t see anyone arguing for one over the other. Yet I do see a real dichotomy between propeller-beanied, know-it-all academicians and those with real-world experience. It’s the dichotomy that divides theory and practice.
Anyhoo, as for the claim of obliviousness, incuriosity, anti-intellectualism, excessive folksiness, or whatever we’re calling it these days — anyone have a theory for why she backed Steve Forbes?
February 5th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Can anyone imagine Sarah Palin allowing Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to concoct a ’stimulus plan, which displays such poor discernment as to what truly ’stimulates’ the economy at all, which stimulants work in a ‘multiplicative way’ and which don’t, and which items should not be there at all because there are part of normal business anyway? Can anyone imagine Sarah Palin seekin bi-partisan support without allowing the opposite party any initial input? Can anyone imagine Sarah Palin seekin bi-partison support by meeting with the opposite party and arrogantly telling them that ’she won’ and insulting them to their faces by telling them who they should or shoukld not listen to?
February 5th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Alex
Try John Cronyn over at Committedtoromney.com for a good, balanced Romney-ite.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
#87 “Oh geez Richard, what planet are you living on? Can you name me one person, let alone one Democrat, who has ever come close to advocating that everyone is society earns the same?”
That’s the natural culmination of class warfare. Start by artificially propping up wages on the low end (minimum and living wage, anyone?). Then start putting pressure on the top end (Pres Obama’s already started that with the bailout cash). Keep pressing until there’s too much pressure built up inbetween to go further. The natural progression ends at wage equalization.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
#80,
“Having sex isn’t dirty.” It sure is when you are cheating on your spouse. BTW I do happen to agree with you about Palin’s poor parenting in regards to Bristol. But if you were really gonna be honest here, you would admit that Rudy cheating on his wife was a much bigger error in judgement.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
“Also: can you understand why we pro-choicers squirm when we see situations like this?” NO!
February 5th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
92
No Richard, it is not the “natural progression”. It is the construction of an absurd strawman by people who have no reasonable argument.
And there is no “class warfare” either, except in the fevered imagination of rightwing propagandists.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Genecar.#90:
Yup, sure can. The President cannot dictate to Congress what goes into bills. The President can write proposed legislation if he chooses, but Congress has absolutely no obligation to consider it. They could use it to line bird cages if they so desired. So if Nancy Pelosi wants to concoct a ’stimulus plan’, she can, and there isn’t a blasted thing the President can do about it.
By the way, Harry Reid cannot concoct any sort of plan dealing with revenue. All those have to originate in the House. He can mark them up when they arrive at the Senate, but he cannot originate them.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
(corrected version)
Genecar.#90:
Yup, sure can. The President cannot dictate to Congress what goes into bills. The President can write proposed legislation if he chooses, but Congress has absolutely no obligation to consider it. They could use it to line bird cages if they so desired. So if Nancy Pelosi wants to concoct a ’stimulus plan’, she can, and there isn’t a blasted thing the President can do about it.
By the way, Harry Reid cannot concoct any sort of plan dealing with revenue. All those have to originate in the House. He can mark them up when they arrive at the Senate, but he cannot originate them.
Unfortunately, yes, yes I can. Palin has been making a number of rookie mistakes lately, including lying to her fellow Republicans so she can hobnob with Obama and the elite at the Alfalfa dinner. So if she could do that, why should I believe she wouldn’t make the same mistake Obama made?
This is why Palin has got to get a handle on these sorts of mistakes.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
37
“I thought the Democrats were the “touchy-feelly no-need-to-understand-the-issues-as-long-as-your-heart-is-in-the-right-place” party.”
Huh? How could anyone think that?
All Democratic presidents have been intense policy-wonks (for better or worse) – Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama.
Republican presidents have tended to be, shall we say, less engaged in the actual thinking through of policy matters (what? – there are folks in the basement of my White House who are selling arms to the Iranian mullahs, and seeking to overthrow an elected government in Central America, in direct violation of US law?? – who knew?)
This glorification of the mediocre that constitutes the Palin buzz is nothing new in Republican politics. Wasn’t the primary rationale for electing George Bush that he was the kind of guy you would prefer to have a beer with? (and that he promised not to get a bj in the Oval Office)? As opposed to boring old Al Gore who just wanted to drown you in facts and theories and all that intellectual stuff?
Palin is the obvious and inevitable end-point of the modern Republican war on intellectualism, on excellence in governance, on curiosity, diversity, science – anything that might threaten to move one beyond the limits of currently accepted dogma.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Anyhoo, as for the claim of obliviousness, incuriosity, anti-intellectualism, excessive folksiness, or whatever we’re calling it these days — anyone have a theory for why she backed Steve Forbes?
That is true, and that is encouraging to me.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
All Democratic presidents have been intense policy-wonks (for better or worse) – Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama.
I’ve never seen Kennedy, Carter, or Obama as policy wonks. LBJ and Clinton, for what I know, were pretty engaged policy thinkers. But Kennedy, Carter, and Obama? Seriously?
February 5th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
yes, seriously.
Carter was perhaps the most wonkish of them all – in his case I think we have a clear example of someone so detail-oriented and obsessive, he got lost in the weeds and lost sight of the big picture. And that is what most Americans came to sense about him, which is why the utterly aloof and detached Reagan seemed like a plausible alternative, at the time.
Obama does not seem to be prone to getting lost like that, but he certainly has thought about and engaged on the full range of issues that confront the presidency. That is why so many people have confidence in him, despite his lack of experience. He clearly has thought through all these issues – whether you agree with his take on them or not.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Oh, and Alex, for the sake of fairness and all that, I should say that I thought your comment #24 was right-on and perfectly expressed.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Carter’s just a dumb agenda-driven hack, to me. He got lost in the weeds, alright.
Most recently, he blamed Israel for the Gaza War. Aye!
February 5th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
#101 “And that is what most Americans came to sense about him, which is why the utterly aloof and detached Reagan seemed like a plausible alternative, at the time.”
Pres Reagan “utterly aloof and detached?” You MUST be talking in a policy sense, because people connected with Pres Reagan on a personal level.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
104
yes Richard, we are discussing wonkiness – policy engagement.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
“Carter’s just a dumb agenda-driven hack”
What the heck does that mean? Carter is objectivly not dumb. You may disagree with the guy’s politics, but that is a whole ‘nother matter. He graduated 10th out of 820 in his class at the Naval Academy, and was a star protoge of (later) Adm. Rickover in the fledgling nuclear sub program in the fifties. Before his dad died and he went home to run the farm.
Agenda driven? Like there has ever been a president who lacked an agenda? Or there should be???
February 5th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
I mean that he’s more interested in ideology than in getting to the heart of issues and making things work.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
107
Alex, that is very much YOU that you are describing.
Carter, to the contrary, is very much interested in getting to the heart of issues – especially the Arab – Israeli conflict. Something he knows a hell of a lot about, and has already made enormous contributions to.
All you do is to take one side in the conflict, and then push the agenda of that side to an absurd degree. That does nothing to advance the prospects of a peaceful resolution – to the contrary, all you really do is give aid and comfort to the extremists on one side.
That is ideology. What Carter does is move things in the direction of eventually achieving peace.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
The peace of submission.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
The peace of the Hatfields and the McCoys.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
109
Oh really? Did the Israelis “submit” to the Egyptians in the peace treaty that Carter helped broker?
What is with you rightwing nutjobs, that you seem to hate the very prospect of finding solutions to conflicts, so that people can find a way to live in peace together. Do y’all really WANT there to be endless conflict? As there would be if you follow the types of policies Alex would push?
February 5th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
“Do y’all really WANT there to be endless conflict? As there would be if you follow the types of policies Alex would push?” Oh please, not this again.
February 5th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Apparently, there are two options, according to Tano:
1) Give Hamas control over all of Israel, forcing them to “go live somewhere else.” (Hell, why do they even NEED their own nation, anyway?)
2) You are for endless conflict, you bloodthirsty b@stards!
And yes, Tano, I know you haven’t suggested the Israelis be forcibly relocated, but that’s all that Hamas has put on the table (or just kill all the jews and take their land, like Mohammed told them to). PM Abbas at least appears to want an agreement, and isn’t encouraging Fatah to lob rockets and hide amidst the civilian populous and lie about fatalities so they can scream bloody murder and pretend to have the moral high ground.
February 5th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
gee Richard, is such an obscene distortion the best you can do?
When have I ever made any comment that showed any sympathy for the extremist aspirations of Hamas? That would be never. But you figure that you can lie about my position nonetheless?
The far right of Israel is every bit as absolutist as is Hamas. They dream of a “Greater Israel”, from the sea to the river, with no Palestinians present, or, if present, without citizenship rights (else there be a non-Jewish voting majority). Is that your position? Should I ascribe such a position to you whether or not you hold it?
Your comment is truly a monstrous lie. For I have been the one, in these discussions, that have pushed for the advancement of a peace process – something that very explicitly goes beyond the two options that you claim I envision.
It is my opponents in these discussions, nearly everyone here, who have claimed that anyone who even advocates TALKING to the major actors in this conflict is beyond the pale – that basically whatever the far right in Israel wants (which is everything) they should have. And the Palestinians should just shut up and / or go away.
“PM Abbas at least appears to want an agreement, ”
yeah, but unfortunatly, no one in the Israeli government seems to want an agreement, because they have done everything imaginable to undermine Abbas, and to provoke Hamas by violating the cease fire.
February 5th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Tano, your view on this is so twisted around that I have no idea where to begin. However, I’d like you to reread my comments in #113. I specifically pointed out you didn’t point out forcible relocation (I also implied you never agreed with Hamas, but never said that directly). My point is that Hamas is in an all-or-nothing stance, and staying on a path of eternal negotiation inevitably leads to option #1. No amount of talking to them is going to change that view (they are willing, after all, to strap bombs to their very own children and blow them up in the hopes of killing an Israeli). In comment #111, you then accuse GetReal of advocating “endless conflict” (yes, I realize you did it in the form of asking him if that’s his goal, but that’s certainly how it came off), hense option #2.
Tano, if I thought there was a real way to end this peacefully and would end all of the suffering, I’d be all for it. I just don’t see it going the route you want to go. All I see is prolonging the inevitable and extending the suffering. Your intentions and motives are the best, but good intentions would certainly pave this path.
February 5th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Now, I am not going to say Palin performed perfectly in any of her interviews but she did perform well in her debate!!! I still say that you can easily argue that Palin was asked questions that were unfair and even inaccurate portrayals of facts…the Gibson interview for example. I do think that Palin explains herself, after the fact, sometimes better than she does when she was asked the question…I think she actually over thought the questions during the interviews like a chess player will over think a move. Time will tell how she does…right now she has my support…unless Rudy jumps in again…but I don’t see that as a likelihood. One fact is…no other potential candidate has the charm that she has to go toe to toe with Obama.
February 5th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
The US should remain neutral and uninvolved in the Palestinian conflict. It’s not our fight and it’s none of our business.
February 5th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
JR.#166:“I still say that you can easily argue that Palin was asked questions that were unfair and even inaccurate portrayals of facts…the Gibson interview for example.”
I am sorry. I have zero sympathy for Palin in this area. Unfair and even inaccurate portrayals of facts are a fact of life for GOP office holders and seekers. You either learn to handle them, or you don’t. A GOP Presidential Candidate who can’t won’t make it. Period.
She has two (if she runs in 2012) or six (if she waits until 2016) years to learn how to handle them. If she can’t pick up that skill, she is toast. T.O.A.S.T. Toast.
February 5th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
To Mark:
I don’t buy the idea that the President can’ influence the construction of a bill like the stimulus programme. You maight be correct in a strict constituional sense. But if he has any real experience, he would have been in there influencing the content and process. Ss for Governor Palin supposedly lying to the Republican retreat folks, give us a break. She said that she could not leave Alaska for partisan events. That did not mean that she could not leave Alaska in pursuit of he duties as Governor of Alaska. Needless to say the guy who said ” she lied to us” is anonoymous.
February 5th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Genecar,
Nowhere did I say that a President cannot influence the writing of legislation. What I was responding to was the comment that Sarah Palin would never “allow” Nancy Pelosi to concoct any given piece of legislation.
No President has that kind of authority. The Congress can concoct whatever they want. The only power a President has is to sign it or veto it. If he chooses to veto a bill he doesn’t like and Congress overrides the veto — game, set, and match to Congress. So much for not “allowing” Congress to enact laws that he doesn’t like.
February 5th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
As to your second concern, no she did NOT say she couldn’t leave Alaska for partisan events when first asked by the Republicans to their retreat. She said she couldn’t come because of urgent state business, period. If she had said the former, there would have been no problem. They would have understood completely. But she didn’t.
I’m sorry, but the excuse of “I’ll be washing my hair that night” doesn’t fly anymore because people will check up on you to make sure you really ARE spending that evening washing your hair. White lies will kill you in politics.
This is a beginner’s mistake made by a beginner. Let’s let it go at that. The future will show if she has learned her lesson.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
“All I see is prolonging the inevitable and extending the suffering. ”
What do you see as “the inevitable”?
Look. this isn’t rocket science Richard. Hamas is a political organization. Whether or not the leadership is ever willing to modify their position is almost irrelevant. Political organizations exist, even in non-democracies, at some level as a function of their popular support. A majority of Palestinians believe that some kind of a peaceful settlement is possible. A minority are attracted to voices like Hamas’s. If it came to be that nearly everyone in Palestine had a sense that a peaceful future, with self respect and self governance and justice were possible, then support for Hamas would dissapate. Just like support for Likud fades whenever the possibilities for peace are on the rise. Just like support for Democrats or Republicans waxes and wanes as a function of the changing circumstances.
Of course there is a real way to settle this dispute. It is blindingly obvious to everyone. It is essentially the understanding that was reached at Taba – before Sharon halted all talks. It is also the settlement negotiated privately in the Geneva Accords of a few years later. Everyone knows that this is the solution. Hamas has support because there are plenty of indications that the Israeli government is not willing to actually sign on to that agreement. There reluctance and inability to even being moving some of the West Bank settlers, for instance. Their unwillingness to even stop the growth of the settlements.
And sure, the Israeli hardliners have ample reason to distrust the Palestinians as well – because of the things that Hamas does.
So that is the reality. Peace is possible, the outlines are clearly in view. The impediment is the existence ON BOTH SIDES, of hardline jerks who use any instance of bad faith from the other side as a reason to refuse to advance toward peace. People who are driving the downward spiral, instead of trying to establish a positive spiral.
And the utterly clueless rightwingers in America, who seem unable to do anything except encourage the extremists in Israel – all of you guys are very much part of the problem, contributing nothing to any possible solution.
February 6th, 2009 at 5:23 am
#122 “What do you see as “the inevitable”?”
The elimination of either Hamas or Israel. The two cannot exist in tandem.
“Of course there is a real way to settle this dispute. It is blindingly obvious to everyone. It is essentially the understanding that was reached at Taba – before Sharon halted all talks. It is also the settlement negotiated privately in the Geneva Accords of a few years later.”
Anything “blindingly obvious” has already been tried, Tano. What you fail to realize, Tano, is the pattern going on here. Months and years of negotiation, with promises of peace in sight. One or two hangups occur, then everything collapsed. I remember agreements reached and begun, then bombs detonated and rockets fired. It’s not coincidence, it’s planned.
What’s really sad is that the Palestinians and Hamas are being used as pawns. Other gov’ts in the region want Israel gone, but don’t think they can defeat them in open warfare (they have long memories, and ‘67 makes them wary). Instead, they funnel support to groups like Hamas, who spread propaganda throughout the area to keep the fire of hatred burning against the “apes and pigs.”
February 6th, 2009 at 11:48 am
“It’s not coincidence, it’s planned.”
I dont disagree. That was part of my point. There are anti-peace hardliners on both sides – Palestinians who will send a suicider, or Israeli leaders who will drop a bomb on a civilian neighborhood in the middle of a cease fire, or a prime minister in waiting who will violate the peaceful agreements in place regarding holy sites in order to provoke a the extremists on the other side.
Yes, there are people doing evil – working against peace, on both sides.
My larger point is that you conservatives here in America are blind supporters and enablers of those extremists on the Israeli side.
And the right’s most obnoxious quality is that whenever anyone calls you out on this support for extremism, you pretend that the critic is himself supporting the extremists on the other side – which is a lie.
“What’s really sad is that the Palestinians and Hamas are being used as pawns. ”
That is condescending horse manure. An attempt to deny the legitimacy of the Palestinians claim. They were driven off the land they lived on for centuries. Their reaction over the past half century is exactly the same as your reaction would be if such a fate befell you. They have been forced by cruel reality to accept the fact that much of their historical land is forever lost – but they demand what is left of it.
Although Barack came close in 2000, the Israelis have never offered a peace settlement that gave the Palestinians a viable state on the land they are entitled to. The parameters of such an agreement are obvious, as I mentioned above. Until such a deal is reached, until the Israelis come to agree to it – and take on their own settler movement, then the conflict will continue.
The Palestinians are not pawns – they are fighting for their legitimate national rights. If you can’t understand that, then you dont understand the first thing about the conflict.