Sarah Palin’s Seized And Perhaps Lost Opportunities

Daniel Larison, a writer for The American Conservative magazine, thinks conservatives are falling into a trap:

With all respect to Gov. Palin, who delivered an effective stemwinder that had a number of amusing lines in it, the conditioned responses that conservatives are having to Palin’s speech is frankly depressing. For all of their complaints and criticisms about McCain’s deviations, conservatives are now falling into line even more pathetically than usual.

As they say on the internet, read the whole thing.

She does seem to be getting a tad more press coverage these days than old what's his name..?...oh yes...Obama...

I wonder if he's getting jealous? To quote sexists, "Looks like we may have a cat fight on our hands"....lol...

The thing about Palin is she does circles around Obama in the "tough" arena. If I had to pick one to square off with Putin, for instance, Palin would be my choice between the two.

Meanwhile, Obama sits strategically quiet, just like when Hillary was getting raked over the coals for being female and daring to hold high office. His silence is screaming. Of course he's in a bit of a bind though. If he chooses to defend the attacks on Palin, it looks like he's endorsing her. If he chooses to join in the attacks on Palin, it looks like he's a sexist and will therefore alienate all those votes that will tip the scale. If he remains quiet about the whole affair, he looks impotent and risks shrinking back even further as "a man of inaction" in the eyes of the world..

What to do? What to do?

I offered the remedy before. The majority of americans are anti BigOil and pro-alternatives that don't cause greenhouse problems, (like all fossil fuels including natural gas), that are safe, (not like nuclear) and that are sustainable (like solar, hydro, wind, hydrogen and geothermal). Americans know the 21st Century overhaul of old energy technology means scads more new jobs. They know scads more new jobs means a boost to the economy, and the preservation of american $$ that might otherwise go to the Middle East in oil purchases. They know a boost to the economy means stabilization, prosperity and well-being.

Ignore the TV commercials BigOil is pumping out....including the T Boone PIckens ads...the loveable old fart who wants to still drill and use the other greenhouse gas: natural gas..., the commercials about "safe" nuclear reactors (terrorists, mark your maps) to run mere steam turbines.."clean" coal...yeah, clean coal....that belches out up to 80% more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere than petrolium combustion..

We could, if we wanted to, in a pinch, like the one we're in with global warming, that isn't a myth but an icecap-melting stark fact, rapidly implement alternatives to carbon-spewing gases and coals in a heartbeat. If it was a matter of national security, which it is, we could turn the boat around overnight. BigOil wants you to think the task is hard, that it will "take a lot of time". The facts are that it won't if we make up our minds to have it quickly. Getting us to be discouraged and slowly make a transition is getting us be complacent again. That's why gas prices are falling...to lull us into a false sense of security..

If I was Obama, I'd wait for the dust to settle after the debut of the untouchable Palin (Obama, even your surrogates won't do because everyone knows by now that they reflect your offscreen opinions). Then flatly ignore her as anything at all and let Biden deal with her one-on-one...qualification to qualification. The queen always beats the king in chess. Let your bishop go after her. Then go after BigOil and alternatives thereto like a pit-bull on steroids; go after the very foundation of the GOP platform and watch their ticket tumble.

You've got this one pivot of leverage where others are shut down to you Obamabots. Let's see what you do with it..

I agree with Silhouette. The Democrats have an advantage on energy. I hope they're smart enough to make the case.

But I disagree about comparison of politics to chess.

After all, chess has rules.

The issue for Palin will be how she performs after the RNC. Clearly she can give a good speech. But, as Joe pointed out, she looks as empty on substance as she did when first selected. She looks even LESS qualified for the VP job now that she missed a big opportunity to show herself as a serious person and not somebody for talk radio.

This was true for Obama too. The speeches were great - far more inspirational than Palin's drivel (but hey, Palin didn't write the speech). It was the small-scale events where he answered voters' questions that won over the voters. It was his campaigning in Iowa that put him where he is, not a few speeches.

She didn't get anything close to a home run.. tho she does get a base hit for pronouncing nuclear right... I broke the whole speech down over at http://www.debatetherace08.com with what she SHOULD have said.. but I guess the truth is too much of a stretch for these republicans.

Don't worry. Palin will win them over too. Disarming charm should't be the thing we vote for. It should be issues with substance.

The american public is tiring of empty rhetoric, meaningless handshakes and toothy smiles. We are broke, BigOil is out of control and our weather is freakish and scary...and wars loom abroad. Moreover, we know that all those woes are linked by one common thread: our irresponsible reliance on fossil fuels.

The turning point of this election will be addressing this tired and cynical voter base where they really care. Everyone I know is snapping off their TV sets. It was fun watching Obama mimic the "i have a dream" thing...but now the confetti has been swept away and all we're left with is some BS glamour contest between the two prima-donnas. "Disgusted" is a word that doesn't begin to sum up what the american public is with this campaign.

Elrod,

Short term memory loss?

Obama didn’t get near the press for interviews in his entire campaign. The press mentioned that fact numerous times, but apparently you missed it.

Do you believe Obama wrote his convention speech on the back of an envelope on the way to the stadium?

When Barak is not behind a teleprompter, he’s a stumbling, unsure bundle of ummms and ahhhs. I know the mind likes to block out unpleasant experiences, but Saddleback still happened.

Panic tends to cloud the mind.

Yes when America gets to know more about her and how her only policy differences from Bush is that she more strongly supports Creationism and anti-Choice policies, the independents will warn right up. As Sil said, we are broke, so there is no more important way to show leadership than bashing Barack Obama and the media. That puts food on the table.

Seriously, I'm feeling very comfortable (not quite cocky, though) any other year, those sorts of identity politics would make it a done deal. People are scared, they're dealing with the repercussions of not looking at the fine print (Bush, mortgage crisis, gassing up the SUV), they're going to look closely to see what's in it for them. McCain needs substance tonight. "Hey, who ya gonna trust?" is not a winning slogan this year.

I'm not unbiased, but my perception is that the entire evening, capped by Palin's speech, was way over the top. Not for the Republican base mind you, but for the other 80% of America.

Palin's speech suffered from what preceded it. The billionaire former governor of Massachusetts decrying East Coast elitists in one of the worst political speeches of the election season... The former mayor (and occasional cross dresser) of New York City whining about cosmopolitanism... And the fact that Giulliani stepped on the bio video that would have helped soften Palin's image before she launched into petty, snarky and blatently bald lies and distortions about the Democratic ticket and her own record. And why was a four month old Down Syndrome infant being passed around in that hall?

I have to say, it's exactly what I expected of them. It's the same old movie, trotted out every four years by the Republican Party, just with a different narrator. No policy, no ideas, just attacks.

And my friends, that's not change we can believe in.

Yesterday I said some nice things about Governor Palin. Today I am tempted to take them back. The lip curled snarl just turns me off to no end (W's version of it is what made me start to listen to the other side as well.) Yesterday some of the more conservative posters made a plea for understanding the other views, and I can accept that, but when the Republican party equated education and reason with "elitism," they have jumped the shark for me.
BTW, whenever I see someone on the left (on TV) mention troopergate, bridge to nowhere, Wasilla's 22 million debt, the person on the right brings up Bristol Palin's situation. It seems the right is more guilty of exploiting Bristol's baby situation by using it to distract from corruption issues. Note to Gov. Palin, if you wish to protect you kids, don't use them as shields.

Kathryn FTW!

What a difference a week makes. From a GOP perspective, down is now up and up is now down.

"The issue for Palin will be how she performs after the RNC."

Absolutely, and even more important (along with McCain's speech and that speech's effect on the current momentum) is how McCain does after the RNC.

The debates -- I can't wait for them. But from next week until then, what can we expect? Meanwhile, it's up to McCain to complete the picture: "Back in the fight!"

Kathryn, don't be delusional, even if you have deluded fans backing you up. Palin's speech was great, better than expected.

I spent only a short time on the road at lunchtime, but it was long enough to "bridge" (or "connect," I.e., span enough time to listen to the last of one and the first of the other of) two lefty radio* talk shows. (I was going to listen briefly to Limbaugh to check for gloating, but didn't bother because of the second lefty show's content.) The first, Stephanie Miller, was typically childish and stupid, continuing to generate into an amateur-obnoxious-they-think-it-is-good-comedy FM shock-jock smart-ass show. (The only thing of value, even in my neutral sense: Miller's nickname for Palin: "Caribou Barbie," the VP chosen by "Grampy.") Thom Hartmann, who can be ridiculously illogical at times like so many lefties, often can be okay, and today he was fairly calm, even if wrong about this and that, and at least some of his callers were halfway sane. One caller and Hartmann's response (an example why I listen to his show when I can) was good: She knew that Palin's speech would appeal to many Americans, and her response wasn't to whine and lie and attack (as has been done embarrassingly and disgracefully by people on this site as well as elsewhere, such as on other lefty radio programs today), but promptly to make another US member-of-the-ordinary-public donation to the Obama campaign that she was currently following by going to a local Obama campaign office to offer her voluntary assistance.

Like it or not (so many of you can't face the truth today), Palin is good, her selection really moved McCain *** and so much of the US public *** out of the doldrums (simply hoping to survive the coming storms and prevail in the end), and her speech was good (the attacks on it and on her today are stupid, stupid, stupid when not worse).

The thing to do now is wait and see how McCain does -- even if he fails, all is not lost given how good Palin has been -- and then wait for the glow to fade starting next week, when Obama returns on the nation's radar screen and the real fight begins.

Just a word of warning. In 2000, Gore had re-election handed to him; Bush was the desperation candidate by the GOP. The election was foretold all the way throughout the year. That is, until the debates, when Gore managed to repel people and Bush beat him. Bush, beating someone in the debates! At that point, the public sensed, "Hey, Bush can actually win this!" That momentum never ended and Bush won in the end.

We're seeing something equal and much greater happening this week, in a positive sense on the GOP side with Palin, doing more this year to remedy the concerns so many people have with McCain. Up to Palin's selection, Obama seemed likely to win.

Now it's not so certain, and once the glow of the initial reaction to choosing Palin and the surprisingly good GOP convention (we expected a funeral session and a pitiful bit of bleating, little else) is behind us, we'll see how much stronger this change to the election and its likely results is. But it's bad news for the expectant Obama fans. Maybe that explains why so many Palin attackers have stooped so low.


* Lefty radio has been a failure up to this year. This year lefty radio has finally achieved some measure of success. This cannot be ascribed solely to the Obama celebrity phenomenon (which has a broader buoyant effect on liberal Americans than just with the election prospects his November -- Obama remains the leader at this time, even with a surprisingly good and improved GOP ticket and convention). It is related to a boost liberals have this year because of disenchantment with the GOP and conservatives overall, continuing beyond the big Thumbs Down, a big no-confidence vote against the GOP and conservatism, in 1996. Note that McCain's choice of Palin has erased much of this, at least currently (briefly remains to be seen).

"Palin's speech suffered from what preceded it."

I waited and watched the last and the best. Huckabee and Giuliani both gave unexpectedly, surprisingly good speeches. That is a fact, whether lefties like it or not. (They can't take shots from an obviously higher road -- as I was told earlier today, "Giuliani honorably and calmly skewered the Messiah. That doesn't play well in Lefty-Land...")

"Panic tends to cloud the mind."

Palin is a winner, with substance that appeals broadly to Americans, not merely PC and feel-good style. No need for fake Greek columns adorning TV screens showing the person speaking in a contemporary entertainment-oriented environment, either. (Those TV screens with Greek columns -- Real Americans [tm] should throw hammers at them...)

Palin is a winner, with substance that appeals broadly to Americans, not merely PC and feel-good style.

What substance?

No need for fake Greek columns

Ahh... that kind of substance...

You'd be funny if you weren't serious about all the crap you're spewing.

"Elrod, Short term memory loss?"

He's just struggling (and failing) to deny Palin's splendid success, in his own way, as are many today.

Quoting a text message I just got in reply to a remark I sent about the frantic lefties today:

"I can imagine. If Johnny comes marching home with a serious performance, Leftyville is going to be desperate to find any way to rehash Keating 5."

Hopefully you'll regain or recover some measure of self-control and dignity and corrected behavior next week, Chris. [sigh] Wait and see how things are after this week's glow fades.

DLS,
After months of mocking Obama for being good at giving speeches, you seem to be simply swooning over a certain speech from last night.

Glad to see you're consistent.

It is interesting to see all the varied reactions to the Palin speech on the internet - and it seems that the opinions divided very sharply along partisan lines. If you were already predisposed to like Palin, then she scored the hockey hat trick, hit the home run and scored the winning touchdown all in one. If you were already predisposed to dislike Palin, then it was a mean-spirited, sarcastic substance-free speech that exposed the bitter anger and nervousness underlying the party at the moment.

But the point is, there is very little middle ground. Palin played it up to the home team, feeding the red meat to the party faithful and republican diehards. All she has managed to do is to further solidify the conservative vote behind McCain (and to a much smaller extent further solidify the liberal vote behind Obama).

But what Palin's speech did NOT do was reach out the the thin sliver of middle-of-the-road voters that the republicans need to win the election. Palin managed to shore up the support of the 40-45% of republican voters out there, and of course angered the 40-45% of Democratic voters that were not going to vote for her anyway. But in the process of veering to the hard right, she has probably turned off the 10-15% of the voters in the middle that either party needs to win the election.

It's an inauspicious beginning. The jury is still out (after it has been less than a week since 98% of Americans had even heard her name for the first time), but unless she manages to somehow reach out to the middle-ground moderate sliver of the electorate, McCain's ceiling will remain in the mid-40% range.

The one thing that disappoints me the most coming out of last night -- it looks like we're in for two months of increasingly partisan bickering and sniping. Palin signalled a move to the hard right, and that's the way it's gonna play. Sure, I expected a partisan fight, but it looks like it's going to be more deeply divided and nastier than I had hoped. Sigh.

I did not watch the speech (working), but it sounds like it hit a lot of good cords. But, one speech is not a campaign, and I still think there is some serous negatives that being a good speech-giver cannot overcome (of course, that is what Hillary thought!)

It is amusing to me to see those on the Left that said Obama's strength of inspiring the Left base through his speeches, and that were also woefully short on substance, especially in the beginning, now claim that trait is a negative.

The point of all this? The same point I try to make over and over - all of us, especially here and other blogs, are overall partisans, not the 'centralist' and 'moderates' we like to think of ourselves, and we filter and criticize and accept and condemn based on those biases.

Make Palin a Democrat (and give her the 'correct' positions), and she would be worshiped as the idealism of the Modern Women of the Democrat's ideals. But make her the Republican she is, and she is shamefully neglecting her family to run for office.

But the Left, and the Feminist Movement in particular, showed their true colors back in the days of the Clinton scandal.

All political groups and affiliations are nothing but collections of whores and pimps.

"The conventional wisdom is that she hit a home run"

It was a triple. We expected extra bases from a VP choice but figured (not knowing her that well) that a double would be likely, but she hit a triple. (Not sneaking to third base when nobody was looking, as some might be motivated to claim afterward.)

What we expect from McCain is a triple, though a double is likelier than a home run if he doesn't get three bases.

"simply swooning"

Wrong again. Surprised at how well she did (as did Huckabee and Giuliani), definitely, as were so many others. Defending her successfully against unwarranted and unhinged, often hateful attacks, yep, no doubt about that, too.

It puts more pressure than ever on McCain to do well and we just have to wait and see (the odds are against it, and McCain's appearance after Palin's speech last night was clumsy, which reminds us of those odds, but you never know -- more miracles can happen lately).

Good last comment, Austin. There's a lot of stuff I could go into, but what most caught my attention was your discussion of feminist attacks on Palin and criticisms that she should stay at home to raise children. You can probably find pretty much anything on some political blog and if not, it'll be in the comments, but the general impression I've had from feminist postings are: 1) The attacks from some on Palin leaving the home to be governor are sexist and dumb but 2) Palin can make this choice because of life circumstances (her first dude has been able to spend time at home, etc.). Will she support policies which allow all American women to pursue careers like she has (child care, extended maternity leave, equal pay, living wage, etc.) or oppose them, meaning that only some Americans will be able to follow that path? For many women working out of the home, they are required to work 2 and 3 jobs and are not able to provide the care that Palin's family can.

Seems overall fair to me.

paca, the reaction you describe is a bit less hypocritical than what Austin described, but I'm still at a loss as to what policies that Palin favors are meant to prevent other women from choosing responsible men to father their children? I mean, I don't oppose safety nets (esp to make sure that children don't pay for the poor planning of their parents) and I don't see any evidence that Palin's that much of a libertarian either, but isn't there SOME aspect of individual responsibility there?

Of course, individual responsibility is the beginning of everything, CStanley. Agreed totally there. But surely... wow, I've rewritten this sentence 6 times. Let' see....

It's not as if everyone who has a strong personal support system is responsible and everyone who does not is irresponsible. Which is obvious. As everyone knows, there are a lot of jobs that do not pay enough to keep a roof over the head and pay for child care. And apparently a good number of women who are being paid less for the same work as their male counterparts. (The oft-repeated charge is that McCain voted against an equal pay bill, but I haven't researched the specifics to know what's going on.) There are abusive relationships that must be escaped, and domestic violent rates are high enough that it's not a trivial number.

The point is simply that Palin has a strong family and a well-paying job that allows her to pursue what she wishes, which is how we'd want it for everyone. However, many are not in that position. There are some things that government can do such as legal protections, adult education, and more that can help the less fortunate (some who are less fortunate due to irresponsibility and some who are just less fortunate)? Will Palin support some of these programs or no?

Because we continue to pay for today's failings tomorrow. The kids who join gangs in part because they never see the parent who works 60-70 hours, etc.

Sorry, duplicate removed.