Thursday, June 11, 2009
Political Mayhem Thursday: Post-Haircut Thoughts About Sarah Palin
OK, enough about juvie life without parole (though if you want to read my written testimony, you can get to it here).
Instead, I'd like to reflect on something I stumbled on in yesterday's Washington Post. It appears that Sarah Palin is starting to cheese off some establishment Republicans by failing to keep track of invitations. Most recently, she was invited to be the keynote speaker at a big GOP fundraiser this week. Apparently, she did not respond for a while, then her staff said she couldn't come. Then, after they booked Newt Gingrich to give the keynote, she said she could come.
The gist of the Post's article was that Palin isn't keeping track of things, and thus is unqualified to be President.
I think that is ridiculous. A president typically gets a large enough staff that the staff can take care of the invitations and schedule. Sure, as governor of a lightly-populated state Palin probably is not used to the crush of attention she now enjoys. Still, if she was elected, this would be taken care of by people who are good at scheduling.
There is, of course, a reason that Palin should not be President, and that reason is that too often she doesn't seem to know what is going on in the world, and often loses track of what she is talking about in mid-sentence. Eloquence and knowledge are good things, especially in a President of the United States, and there is a bare minimum below which we should not troll. Palin is below that line. No one else can take care of that vital part of the President's base of knowledge and manner of speaking in the way they can scheduling.
Comments:
<< Home
Every piece of discovery that I receive has Sarah Palin's name on it. I still haven't gotten used to it yet.
I stole this thought from some conservative talking head, but his idea was for Palin to immerse herself in the culture of the foreign policy think tank. She should (number one) study until her head explodes. She should (number two) travel in and out of Washington very quietly, sitting around tables at seminars very studiously nodding and soaking in the intellectual atmosphere of this element of policy making.
What no one can take away from Governor Palin is her natural talent for politics. She is better than almost anyone of her generation at speaking directly to voters. She doesn't need to refine that element of her portfolio. Her opponents underestimate this asset at their own peril.
But she does need to boost her confidence on substantial issues. And there are no shortcuts. She can only do that by tackling and mastering substance.
What no one can take away from Governor Palin is her natural talent for politics. She is better than almost anyone of her generation at speaking directly to voters. She doesn't need to refine that element of her portfolio. Her opponents underestimate this asset at their own peril.
But she does need to boost her confidence on substantial issues. And there are no shortcuts. She can only do that by tackling and mastering substance.
WF--
I agree with you on both points. There is no doubt that Palin has political skills, something we see in Obama and saw in Reagan. The difference is that she is not nearly as knowledgeable as either of those men (or women like Hillary Clinton). Reagan's diaries revealed a man who seems to have done something like that what you suggest (given his lack of foreign policy background), and who had a deep and nuanced view of world affairs, though he did not always reveal that in public.
I agree with you on both points. There is no doubt that Palin has political skills, something we see in Obama and saw in Reagan. The difference is that she is not nearly as knowledgeable as either of those men (or women like Hillary Clinton). Reagan's diaries revealed a man who seems to have done something like that what you suggest (given his lack of foreign policy background), and who had a deep and nuanced view of world affairs, though he did not always reveal that in public.
I agree that Palin's lack of knowledge, and lack of a depth of knowledge, about current issues is a disqualifier for her--and also that she would have to remedy it by assiduous study of the issues, as Waco Farmer mentions.
My distinct sense, though, from watching Palin in interviews, or in reactions to her interviews, is that she's not at all concerned about her lack of knowledge of issues. I don't think she cares that she doesn't know enough. Maybe I'm wrong, but if that's the case, inmy mind that's inexcusable in a candidate, or in a president.
My distinct sense, though, from watching Palin in interviews, or in reactions to her interviews, is that she's not at all concerned about her lack of knowledge of issues. I don't think she cares that she doesn't know enough. Maybe I'm wrong, but if that's the case, inmy mind that's inexcusable in a candidate, or in a president.
# posted by 
: 2:38 PM
: 2:38 PM
Prof Osler:
Not to be too self-referential, but I compared Palin to Reagan back in the giddy days of September (see below). My opinion hasn't changed much. In short, she is very young and a work in progress.
Extended Excerpt from 9-08:
Disappointment: Most of us were secretly hoping (or maybe not so secretly--maybe some of us were actually starting to believe) that Sarah Palin really was a Republican David....
The Interview [with Charlie Gibson] was a warning that victory is within sight (to quote one of her now famous stump speech lines), but the battle remains intense and indeterminate. Even worse, Palin may be something less than a storied champion with perfect political pitch and irresistible charm in every respect, in every venue, for every occasion.
Governor Palin has limits.
If you had watched her gubernatorial debate back in 2006 (archived here on C-SPAN), you were probably not too surprised by the Gibson interview. Palin is good enough meeting the press--but not flawless. From the Alaska debate you get the sense that Palin is not quite comfortable sitting across the desk from hostile reporters (and they are hostile), but she soldiers through it--and, the good news, as indicated by her success at the polls and her astronomical public approval ratings, her wide fan base accepts this less impressive component of her political package and votes for her anyway.
In that vein, it is instructive to remember that our hero, Ronald Reagan, had similar hardships with a disdainful media. If you remember RR as the perennial master of the Washington press corp, refresh your memory with this 1966 clip from Meet the Press [not embedded].
Like Reagan, Palin faces a press corps that judges itself morally and intellectually superior. At the same time, the mainstream media sees the insurgent new face from the West as dangerous in two respects: a dissenter regarding the enlightened progressive status quo and an appealing fool with the potential to mesmerize the ignorant masses hailing from the backward hamlets of Red State America.
In the end, Reagan triumphed against these forces aligned against him and intent on "exposing him" (an amazing accomplishment when we consider he was virtually on his own--no conservative talk radio, no FOX News, and no conservative blogosphere). We should not forget, however, Reagan occasionally stumbled in his direct engagements with the press, sometimes looking red-faced and confused. Who could blame him? The sincere Westerner faced a relentless and ruthless parade of reporters looking to make a name on the carcass of Ronald Reagan. Nevertheless, he found a way to speak directly to Americans, going over the heads of the antagonistic press.
We have known Palin for a fortnight. She may or may not prove to be a Ronald Reagan in the fullness of time. However, it is unlikely that she will be Reagan, circa 1980, during this election cycle. She is more likely to be Reagan, circa 1966 (although we can certainly hope for Reagan, circa 1976).
Bottom Line: We cannot place our fortunes solely in the hands of Sarah Palin. We need John McCain and, more importantly, the Republican grassroots to bring us home. Sarah Palin got us even. Because of her, we now have a chance. We cannot expect any more than that.
Sorry for the crazy long comment (FYI.the original link: http://bosqueboys.com/index.php?itemid=1856
Not to be too self-referential, but I compared Palin to Reagan back in the giddy days of September (see below). My opinion hasn't changed much. In short, she is very young and a work in progress.
Extended Excerpt from 9-08:
Disappointment: Most of us were secretly hoping (or maybe not so secretly--maybe some of us were actually starting to believe) that Sarah Palin really was a Republican David....
The Interview [with Charlie Gibson] was a warning that victory is within sight (to quote one of her now famous stump speech lines), but the battle remains intense and indeterminate. Even worse, Palin may be something less than a storied champion with perfect political pitch and irresistible charm in every respect, in every venue, for every occasion.
Governor Palin has limits.
If you had watched her gubernatorial debate back in 2006 (archived here on C-SPAN), you were probably not too surprised by the Gibson interview. Palin is good enough meeting the press--but not flawless. From the Alaska debate you get the sense that Palin is not quite comfortable sitting across the desk from hostile reporters (and they are hostile), but she soldiers through it--and, the good news, as indicated by her success at the polls and her astronomical public approval ratings, her wide fan base accepts this less impressive component of her political package and votes for her anyway.
In that vein, it is instructive to remember that our hero, Ronald Reagan, had similar hardships with a disdainful media. If you remember RR as the perennial master of the Washington press corp, refresh your memory with this 1966 clip from Meet the Press [not embedded].
Like Reagan, Palin faces a press corps that judges itself morally and intellectually superior. At the same time, the mainstream media sees the insurgent new face from the West as dangerous in two respects: a dissenter regarding the enlightened progressive status quo and an appealing fool with the potential to mesmerize the ignorant masses hailing from the backward hamlets of Red State America.
In the end, Reagan triumphed against these forces aligned against him and intent on "exposing him" (an amazing accomplishment when we consider he was virtually on his own--no conservative talk radio, no FOX News, and no conservative blogosphere). We should not forget, however, Reagan occasionally stumbled in his direct engagements with the press, sometimes looking red-faced and confused. Who could blame him? The sincere Westerner faced a relentless and ruthless parade of reporters looking to make a name on the carcass of Ronald Reagan. Nevertheless, he found a way to speak directly to Americans, going over the heads of the antagonistic press.
We have known Palin for a fortnight. She may or may not prove to be a Ronald Reagan in the fullness of time. However, it is unlikely that she will be Reagan, circa 1980, during this election cycle. She is more likely to be Reagan, circa 1966 (although we can certainly hope for Reagan, circa 1976).
Bottom Line: We cannot place our fortunes solely in the hands of Sarah Palin. We need John McCain and, more importantly, the Republican grassroots to bring us home. Sarah Palin got us even. Because of her, we now have a chance. We cannot expect any more than that.
Sorry for the crazy long comment (FYI.the original link: http://bosqueboys.com/index.php?itemid=1856
Sarah Palin is not dangerous. She is ineloquent an stupid. She can not convince smart people to follow her. I fear much more the eloquent and stupid, or as some people call her, Madam Speaker.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 4:10 PM
: 4:10 PM << Home
