Waiting for Sarah Palin
There is a sort of kabuki theater going on between GOP stalwarts and the media right now over Sarah Palin. That her appointment completely undercuts McCain’s “experience” argument has caused otherwise sane Republicans to make fools of themselves by arguing that her leadership of the Alaska National Guard qualifies as national security experience, that her “executive experience” is more important than anything Barack Obama, Joe Biden – or, by implication, John McCain – has under their respective belts. The most absurd defense of her is that Alaska neighbors Russia – or even better, sits astride the North Korea missile pattern – and so she’s learned “by osmosis” about foreign policy.
I watch GOP bigwigs and pundits make this charge and I think to myself: “These guys obviously don’t believe this for a minute.”
Meanwhile, just about every two hours a new revelation emerges about Sarah Palin’s past – some of it unrelated to her character and ability to serve (Bristol’s pregnancy, Todd’s DUI), and others directly relevant (lying about opposing the Bridge to Nowhere, championing earmarks despite McCain’s assertions otherwise, firing people who don’t serve her personal agenda in Wasilla and Juneau).
The media feeding frenzy is made more urgent with the news that McCain’s team vetted Palin so late in the game, and with very little consideration for her political affiliations. Did they know that her husband belonged to the fringe far right Alaska Independence Party as recently as 2002, and that she delivered a warm welcome message to them this year? Did they know that she sat in church and listened to the leader of Jews for Jesus actually praise Palestinian terrorists for attacking “unsaved” Jews? Yes, she seems to have her own Reverend Wright and William Ayers in her background; did the McCain team know of this?
But Sarah Palin herself has been remarkably silent since her selection. She delivered three well-received speeches (except for the Hillary Clinton references, which have been removed). She is clearly articulate and energetic on the stump. But she has not held a single interview with the media and has been so sequestered at the RNC that she even gave up a chance to address Phyllis Schlafly’s organization.
Tonight the kabuki theater will continue. Sarah Palin WILL deliver a good speech, with passion and poignancy. The content of that speech – undoubtedly developed by the McCain team (not out of the ordinary for a convention speech anyway as we saw at the DNC) – will be tailored to McCain’s new message of reform. And the right-wing delegates in the hall will love every second of it.
If the media acts “pleasantly surprised” by any of the above, they are merely participating in the kabuki dance. It would be a shock if she pulled off a snoozer, or gave an off-message far-right speech, or the people in the XCel Energy Center reacted tepidly. This isn’t just “expectations setting.” It’s reality.
But that moment of theater still won’t tell us anything about Sarah Palin. A media-savvy politician knows how to give a good speech. Just like with Barack Obama, the proof was beyond the large-scale speeches, and in the more thoughtful responses to questions from voters and from the media. Obama is a bit more halting in these settings, and he often seems to think out loud. For some, it’s a sign that Obama doesn’t know what he thinks; for others, it’s a sign that Obama takes questions seriously. Either way, we have some idea what his thought process really is not through his large scale inspiring speeches, but in his interactive moments.
After tonight, we will still be waiting for those interactive moments with Sarah Palin. I have criticized her not for her inexperience but for her lack of engagement with national and international affairs. She will not prove me wrong tonight by reading a speech. She could prove me wrong, however, by answering questions unprompted. We will still be waiting after tonight.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
44 Responses to “Waiting for Sarah Palin”
Given McCain's proclivity to play the tables, is it any surprise he's turned this into an upside down crap shoot?
He' s turning American politics into casino night.
That's a risk with 300 million dots on the dice and he's going to snake-eye it.
Better odds on the roulette table imho.
Elrod,
This is just the type of muddled thinking that happens after you spend a sleepless night, tossing and turning, worried about your impending humiliation at the polls.
Placing your last hope on some slip-up in an interview may give you something to cling to, but it’s not healthy to keep your depression bottled up.
Let us help you through this. We’re a community and we care.
One comment here, then I'm off to work: The comparisons made by Palin's defenders to Obama are more theatre. There has been a great deal of opportunity to find out exactly who Obama is over the many years he has been involved with politics and community, and in fact the man has written two books. He's been vetted inside and out, turned upsidedown and shaken – anyone who has been paying attention knows who he is and his level of experience. But who and what is this Sarah Palin who just popped onto the scene? It's a legitimate question, not an attack, and expecting answers to that question is not only perfectly appropriate, but is absolutely necessary. Yes, Palin will give a good speech; she has been cramming and has been coached and told exactly what to say and what not to say. There may be personal flourishes, but they will be safe and homespun. And what will that speech tell us about Sarah? It will tell us that she can make a good speech, and that will most likely be the extent of the comprehensive analyis from the MSM. So… why is the GOP afraid to let Palin out and speak off the cuff? Eveyone else has had to.
One comment here, then I'm off to work: The comparisons made by Palin's defenders to Obama are more theatre. There has been a great deal of opportunity to find out exactly who Obama is over the many years he has been involved with politics and community, and in fact the man has written two books. He's been vetted inside and out, turned upsidedown and shaken – anyone who has been paying attention knows who he is and his level of experience. But who and what is this Sarah Palin who just popped onto the scene? It's a legitimate question, not an attack, and expecting answers to that question is not only perfectly appropriate, but is absolutely necessary. Yes, Palin will give a good speech; she has been cramming and has been coached and told exactly what to say and what not to say. There may be personal flourishes, but they will be safe and homespun. And what will that speech tell us about Sarah? It will tell us that she can make a good speech, and that will most likely be the extent of the comprehensive analyis from the MSM. So… why is the GOP afraid to let Palin out and speak off the cuff? Eveyone else has had to.
The four stages of political denial:
1. It's impossible.
2. You don't have a shred of proof.
3. You only found proof because you're evil.
4. So what.
Works for all sides!!
PS, whichever stage you're at, don't forget to also blame the media!
The four stages of political denial:
1. It's impossible.
2. You don't have a shred of proof.
3. You only found proof because you're evil.
4. So what.
Works for all sides!!
PS, whichever stage you're at, don't forget to also blame the media!
The closer we get to Sarah Palin, the more I'm questioning McCain's judgment.
She recently gave a speech to Alaskan high schoolers in which she spoke of how it was “God's will” that we invaded Iraq and how its”God's Will” that we get the Alaskan pipeline built. Next, we will hear that its “God's Will” that the faithful go to the polls to elect the McCain/Palin ticket!!!!!!
The closer we get to Sarah Palin, the more I'm questioning McCain's judgment.
She recently gave a speech to Alaskan high schoolers in which she spoke of how it was “God's will” that we invaded Iraq and how its”God's Will” that we get the Alaskan pipeline built. Next, we will hear that its “God's Will” that the faithful go to the polls to elect the McCain/Palin ticket!!!!!!
You think she'll handle every interview and press conference just right? You are naive. Nobody does that. She needs to do in the next 60 days what Barack Obama did in the last 18 months: ask Americans who don't vote on identity politics (blacks already supported Obama and Christian fundamentalists already support Palin) to gain confidence in both this woman's ability to step in, and in McCain's judgment in selecting her.
The start has been inauspicious indeed. If you think I'm the one who's nervous, you need a little help. I keep wondering if this gift is for real.
You think she'll handle every interview and press conference just right? You are naive. Nobody does that. She needs to do in the next 60 days what Barack Obama did in the last 18 months: ask Americans who don't vote on identity politics (blacks already supported Obama and Christian fundamentalists already support Palin) to gain confidence in both this woman's ability to step in, and in McCain's judgment in selecting her.
The start has been inauspicious indeed. If you think I'm the one who's nervous, you need a little help. I keep wondering if this gift is for real.
Palin doesn't try to use running a campaign as an example of Executive experience, she doesn't have to, she has real executive experience. If running a campaign was valid executive presidential experience the democrats should kick Obama to the curb and nominate his campaign manager who actually runs the show.
Palin doesn't try to use running a campaign as an example of Executive experience, she doesn't have to, she has real executive experience. If running a campaign was valid executive presidential experience the democrats should kick Obama to the curb and nominate his campaign manager who actually runs the show.
define “real executive experience” for a Governor running a state with the population of San Bernardino… Or grabbing earmarks and pork, then as governor poo-pooing such things. And for only 16 months. that's a lifetime in moose years I hear.
Or maybe it's her forceful Abstinence only agenda- that worked out real well for her daughter.
Maybe she oversaw some road building for Ice Road truckers- oh wait she was a cheerleader for Stevens' Bridge to Nowhere “infrastructure” before she said “no thank you”. This was between 2003-2006- a noticeable gap in her resume pre Governorship. And maybe she'll listen to those AIP whackos who want to seccede from the Union…her husband was a card carrying member. Do we really want that kind of treasonous pattern in the White House- isn't this nation divided enough?
hypocrisy abounds
define “real executive experience” for a Governor running a state with the population of San Bernardino… Or grabbing earmarks and pork, then as governor poo-pooing such things. And for only 16 months. that's a lifetime in moose years I hear.
Or maybe it's her forceful Abstinence only agenda- that worked out real well for her daughter.
Maybe she oversaw some road building for Ice Road truckers- oh wait she was a cheerleader for Stevens' Bridge to Nowhere “infrastructure” before she said “no thank you”. This was between 2003-2006- a noticeable gap in her resume pre Governorship. And maybe she'll listen to those AIP whackos who want to seccede from the Union…her husband was a card carrying member. Do we really want that kind of treasonous pattern in the White House- isn't this nation divided enough?
hypocrisy abounds
Leonidas—
The GOP has underestimated Obama from the get-go. Just about every analyst from Rove to Kristol handed the race to Hillary.
He picked the campaign manager, right? And major decisions had to meet with his approval? Looks like you are still underestimating Obama's abilities.
Leonidas—
The GOP has underestimated Obama from the get-go. Just about every analyst from Rove to Kristol handed the race to Hillary.
He picked the campaign manager, right? And major decisions had to meet with his approval? Looks like you are still underestimating Obama's abilities.
I would just add that she has much more experience than the pervious man nominated to be VP by the democrats, John Edwards. He had only been a senator for 3 years, running for president for some of those years, before he was nominated to be the VP, after even having a shot, a long shot, at the presidential nomination. Republicans should mention that a few times following the convention.
I would just add that she has much more experience than the pervious man nominated to be VP by the democrats, John Edwards. He had only been a senator for 3 years, running for president for some of those years, before he was nominated to be the VP, after even having a shot, a long shot, at the presidential nomination. Republicans should mention that a few times following the convention.
“……ask Americans who don't vote on identity politics…..”
Good luck with that.
As you have figured out, people who vote issues, party, policies and the like will get you to about 45% on election day. Identity politics puts candidates in the White House.
• People identified with Reagan – he was one of them.
• Bush 41 was iffy, but Dukakis just couldn’t connect.
• Clinton was a master at identity politics.
• Bush 43 was “everyman” as opposed to the wooden Gore and effete Kerry.
You stick with the issues (although the left is wrong on those too). Obama can still get into the White House whenever the tour is running.
“……ask Americans who don't vote on identity politics…..”
Good luck with that.
As you have figured out, people who vote issues, party, policies and the like will get you to about 45% on election day. Identity politics puts candidates in the White House.
• People identified with Reagan – he was one of them.
• Bush 41 was iffy, but Dukakis just couldn’t connect.
• Clinton was a master at identity politics.
• Bush 43 was “everyman” as opposed to the wooden Gore and effete Kerry.
You stick with the issues (although the left is wrong on those too). Obama can still get into the White House whenever the tour is running.
I agree with elrod- she can talk a good talk, but the real test is how she can answer questions by the media and how she can let the rest of America know what she believes in.
Seriously, how can anyone support Palin if we do not even know her position on Iraq, since Iraq affects our citizens, our economy and our security (and is one of the most important issues of our time)? Can anyone tell me Palin's position on Iraq? Does she support Bush's timeline to withdraw from Iraq or does she support McCain's “stay until we win” position, even though McCain can not even tell us what that victory looks like?
As the Republicans love to remind us about Obama, feel good speeches are different than substance. But that's exactly what they are doing with Palin- feel good speeches while keeping her from discussing whatever few positions she may have.
What the Republicans try to keep out of the discussion on Obama is that Obama has substance. He has written books, has an extensive website with his positions and has been vetted by pretty much everyone who wants to over the years. And we all know Obama's position on Iraq (whether you disagree with him or not).
So again, what is Palin's position on Iraq? Let's start with the basic questions first on Palin's positions. Once we get to know Palin on a few of those then we can try to find out her positions on less important issues like CAFTA, NAFTA, her beliefs on school vouchers, etc.
So I think camp McCain will try to milk her image and “freshness” as much as possible and continue to keep her away from situations where she would need to answer questions about her positions until she has been properly trained.
I agree with elrod- she can talk a good talk, but the real test is how she can answer questions by the media and how she can let the rest of America know what she believes in.
Seriously, how can anyone support Palin if we do not even know her position on Iraq, since Iraq affects our citizens, our economy and our security (and is one of the most important issues of our time)? Can anyone tell me Palin's position on Iraq? Does she support Bush's timeline to withdraw from Iraq or does she support McCain's “stay until we win” position, even though McCain can not even tell us what that victory looks like?
As the Republicans love to remind us about Obama, feel good speeches are different than substance. But that's exactly what they are doing with Palin- feel good speeches while keeping her from discussing whatever few positions she may have.
What the Republicans try to keep out of the discussion on Obama is that Obama has substance. He has written books, has an extensive website with his positions and has been vetted by pretty much everyone who wants to over the years. And we all know Obama's position on Iraq (whether you disagree with him or not).
So again, what is Palin's position on Iraq? Let's start with the basic questions first on Palin's positions. Once we get to know Palin on a few of those then we can try to find out her positions on less important issues like CAFTA, NAFTA, her beliefs on school vouchers, etc.
So I think camp McCain will try to milk her image and “freshness” as much as possible and continue to keep her away from situations where she would need to answer questions about her positions until she has been properly trained.
After she is tutored on foreign policy by Bush's aides, she will become aware of the foreign policy 'postions” the WH, RNC and McCain camp want her to hold.
After she is tutored on foreign policy by Bush's aides, she will become aware of the foreign policy 'postions” the WH, RNC and McCain camp want her to hold.
You missed the first part of my statement. I said that if you ONLY rely on identity politics, you lose.
It so happens that Barack Obama has a HUGE identity politics following among African Americans and among young people who see him as a real post-Boomer politician. If they actually vote – and so far they have – Obama gets a massive boost. All of that is BEFORE he appeals to those who are neither under 30 nor black.
You missed the first part of my statement. I said that if you ONLY rely on identity politics, you lose.
It so happens that Barack Obama has a HUGE identity politics following among African Americans and among young people who see him as a real post-Boomer politician. If they actually vote – and so far they have – Obama gets a massive boost. All of that is BEFORE he appeals to those who are neither under 30 nor black.
Actually, Obama did set up his whole campaign apparatus. He set the tone, hired the right people and kept people on message. David Plouffe is a genius, no doubt. But leadership comes from the top.
Heck, when you're governor, you already have a bureaucracy to run the state government on autopilot if necessary. Alaska's legislature only meets 90 days a year. The Governor in a sparsely populated state like Alaska is more symbolic – showing up to boost local events – than a hardcore administrator. Remember, her ethics bill that she signed was written by Democrat Ethan Berkowitz (running for Don Young's seat). She had the good sense to sign it. But that's the extent of her reformer cred. And after scandal-plagued Frank Murkowski, she'd be stupid not to sign it.
This is the Lemonade Stand Fallacy: You can run anything if you know how to run a lemonade stand. No you can't.
Actually, Obama did set up his whole campaign apparatus. He set the tone, hired the right people and kept people on message. David Plouffe is a genius, no doubt. But leadership comes from the top.
Heck, when you're governor, you already have a bureaucracy to run the state government on autopilot if necessary. Alaska's legislature only meets 90 days a year. The Governor in a sparsely populated state like Alaska is more symbolic – showing up to boost local events – than a hardcore administrator. Remember, her ethics bill that she signed was written by Democrat Ethan Berkowitz (running for Don Young's seat). She had the good sense to sign it. But that's the extent of her reformer cred. And after scandal-plagued Frank Murkowski, she'd be stupid not to sign it.
This is the Lemonade Stand Fallacy: You can run anything if you know how to run a lemonade stand. No you can't.
Elrod,
You do know that African Americans make up only 13% of the population and that they have voted overwhelmingly for democrats in the previous elections.
This is not a new group. Sure, you’re going to get an increase in the black vote, but at what expense.
The democrats, media and Shaun are on a mindless quest to piss off the 54% of the population that is female. Doesn’t the left get tired of shooting itself in the foot every election cycle?
Elrod,
You do know that African Americans make up only 13% of the population and that they have voted overwhelmingly for democrats in the previous elections.
This is not a new group. Sure, you’re going to get an increase in the black vote, but at what expense.
The democrats, media and Shaun are on a mindless quest to piss off the 54% of the population that is female. Doesn’t the left get tired of shooting itself in the foot every election cycle?
I really hate to find myself agreeing with jwest, but the reality is the Democratic Party has captured 90% of the African American vote for President for a long time, so there is not a huge gain to be made there.
Among the young (another strong Obama demographic), while he polls well with them, under 30 voters are notorious for not showing up come election day.
I still see a tight race, and there is a lot of support for Obama outside traditional Democratic strengths, but they need to make sure to keep those in the fold.
Of course, it helps when you opponent makes critical mistakes like the Palin selection.
I really hate to find myself agreeing with jwest, but the reality is the Democratic Party has captured 90% of the African American vote for President for a long time, so there is not a huge gain to be made there.
Among the young (another strong Obama demographic), while he polls well with them, under 30 voters are notorious for not showing up come election day.
I still see a tight race, and there is a lot of support for Obama outside traditional Democratic strengths, but they need to make sure to keep those in the fold.
Of course, it helps when you opponent makes critical mistakes like the Palin selection.
It used to be that Republicans were the party black people voted for–the party of Lincoln. The key marker for that change was the passage of the voting rights act of 1964. Democrats became the party of civil rights. Republicans became the party of white anxiety and resentment.
I suppose this is no longer 100% true. But it remains true enough in the absence of any significant outreach by Republicans.
People vote in favor of what they perceive to be their own interest. In the aggregate, 90% (I don't know if this figure is accurate, but I imagine it's close) of black individuals perceive the Democrats as the best choice.
Some might think this presents an opportunity for Republicans to peel away some percentage of black voters. In a closely divided electorate, there is probably some advantage to doing this. I think it would necessarily have to be a long (or medium) term project.
But I imagine there are also short term disadvantages. One would be risking the loss of anxious and resentful white voters.
There is a culture-wide status quo as far as race goes. I think it's an open question as to which side truly benefits.
It used to be that Republicans were the party black people voted for–the party of Lincoln. The key marker for that change was the passage of the voting rights act of 1964. Democrats became the party of civil rights. Republicans became the party of white anxiety and resentment.
I suppose this is no longer 100% true. But it remains true enough in the absence of any significant outreach by Republicans.
People vote in favor of what they perceive to be their own interest. In the aggregate, 90% (I don't know if this figure is accurate, but I imagine it's close) of black individuals perceive the Democrats as the best choice.
Some might think this presents an opportunity for Republicans to peel away some percentage of black voters. In a closely divided electorate, there is probably some advantage to doing this. I think it would necessarily have to be a long (or medium) term project.
But I imagine there are also short term disadvantages. One would be risking the loss of anxious and resentful white voters.
There is a culture-wide status quo as far as race goes. I think it's an open question as to which side truly benefits.
Actually it goes back to FDR and the New Deal. After 1964 Nixon dealt a death blow to having Black Republicans by using the Southern Strategy.
Also more Democrats voted against the VRA than Republicans.
* Democrats: 47–17
* Republicans: 30–2
It's mainly that instead
House: 333–85
* Democrats: 221–61
* Republicans: 112–2
Actually it goes back to FDR and the New Deal. After 1964 Nixon dealt a death blow to having Black Republicans by using the Southern Strategy.
Also more Democrats voted against the VRA than Republicans.
* Democrats: 47–17
* Republicans: 30–2
It's mainly that instead
House: 333–85
* Democrats: 221–61
* Republicans: 112–2
Krit11 wrote:
“Looks like you are still underestimating Obama's abilities.
reply edit reblog “
Looks like your underestimating the judgement of the American people. Its a very tight race and with so many conditions in the political landscape in favor of the democrats, Obama is underperforming and McCain overperforming. That should really make you wonder why.
Krit11 wrote:
“Looks like you are still underestimating Obama's abilities.
reply edit reblog “
Looks like your underestimating the judgement of the American people. Its a very tight race and with so many conditions in the political landscape in favor of the democrats, Obama is underperforming and McCain overperforming. That should really make you wonder why.
Leonidas– Did you mean McCain is overperforming???
There are still plenty of older white folk who doubt that a black man can run the presidency. Obama has that uphill battle as well as remaining racism among Southerners. Also, recent events in Georgia and McCain's willingness to tout his days as a POW are working to his advantage.
Leonidas– Did you mean McCain is overperforming???
There are still plenty of older white folk who doubt that a black man can run the presidency. Obama has that uphill battle as well as remaining racism among Southerners. Also, recent events in Georgia and McCain's willingness to tout his days as a POW are working to his advantage.
Good catch, yes I did mean to put overperforming, he is far exceeding the overall performance of his party, while Obama is trailing the performance of his party significantly. To me that says McCain is a strong candidate and Obama a not so strong one. With the political landscape howver it becomes a close race. Had Bush not left a bad taste about the GOP with some, McCain would be leading Obama by a significant margin in my opinion, maybe 15 points or more.
Good catch, yes I did mean to put overperforming, he is far exceeding the overall performance of his party, while Obama is trailing the performance of his party significantly. To me that says McCain is a strong candidate and Obama a not so strong one. With the political landscape howver it becomes a close race. Had Bush not left a bad taste about the GOP with some, McCain would be leading Obama by a significant margin in my opinion, maybe 15 points or more.
I agree with Leonidas about McCain overperforming.
But I'm not sure that's a good thing if you're a McCain supporter, since–before the bounce–the race was close to a tie, with McCain a point or two down.
John McCain came into this race with a lot of advantages. He was already well known. He had a reputation as a maverick. He has a compelling personal story of heroism. He was popular with independents. There was a sense among some that he got gypped in the 2000 primaries. He was known to be funny on television.
He should be way ahead of Obama. But he's not, because of the disastrous leadership of his party for the last eight years.
I agree with Leonidas about McCain overperforming.
But I'm not sure that's a good thing if you're a McCain supporter, since–before the bounce–the race was close to a tie, with McCain a point or two down.
John McCain came into this race with a lot of advantages. He was already well known. He had a reputation as a maverick. He has a compelling personal story of heroism. He was popular with independents. There was a sense among some that he got gypped in the 2000 primaries. He was known to be funny on television.
He should be way ahead of Obama. But he's not, because of the disastrous leadership of his party for the last eight years.