Settings
About Us
Categories
Search
Archives
Links
Miscellany
Fascinating. This reflects abysmally on John McCain as a leader.
There’s a reason we don’t elect senators to be president, and it has to do with the fact that the average senator couldn’t lead his way out of a wet paper sack. I suspect we’re about to relearn that.
Posted by Apollo in Conservatism, Politics
Agreed, though I’d ad that this is hardly a glowing endorsement of a certain governor, either. And while I assume this is exaggerated by bitter tempers, this is very disheartening (if not disturbing):
These things sound like they have a small kernel of truth to them, which has been stretched beyond imagining. The bit about Africa, from what I’ve read, sounds like the kernel of truth is that there was once a confusion between “southern Africa” and “South Africa,” with Palin thinking a staffer meant one but the staffer meaning the other. Palin grew up in the 1980s, when South Africa was a major issue in the American press (and she was a journalism student); absent hard evidence, I find it difficult to believe that she genuinely didn’t know that Africa was a continent, not a country. This sounds like a momentary confusion that has been blown out of proportion.
The other bit – that she didn’t know the difference between state, federal, and municipal governments – I flat out refuse to believe. This is the rumor that actually makes me disbelieve all the others. She was a mayor for a lengthy period of time, and she’s been a governor for two years. For all the milk it sucks from the federal teat, Alaska is one of the states that is most protective of its rights. Absent hard, confirmed evidence, I simply refuse to believe this rumor. There may be some small kernel of truth, where she was confused about a particular power or something, but I’m going to say that the rumor that she categorically doesn’t understand the difference between the three layers of government is nothing more than a lie from a bad liar. One would have to think that she is someone of stupendous stupidity in order for one to believe this, and she doesn’t have the record of a stupendously stupid person.
And the bit about the bathrobe? Grow up! Personally, I’d have donated to the campaign for the privilege of knocking on Sarah Palin’s door and having her answer in her robe. But that’s beside the point. The bathrobe bit is a fatuous “complaint” from someone who is very bitter and wanting to lash out. Like the state/federal/municipal bit, the fact that this “complaint” is circulating makes me disbelieve all the other complaints.
What the hell has Palin done to earn such loyalty?
What the hell has she done to earn such scorn? She seems to be a decent person who was attacked beyond any proportion to what she deserved (and vastly beyond any proportion to what the other three candidates received). It’s still considered acceptable to peddle lies about her (see: Hitch, and anyone else who goes on about her and creationism).
She’s been a good governor, she’s charismatic, and she did a significantly better job of expounding conservative principles than McCain did. She’s a reform-minded conservative who has actually accomplished things, at a time when we desperately need such people.
And, ultimately, what’s happening now is simply scurrilous. McCain was the one who thought she was the correct pick, and these staffers thought the whole country should trust McCain’s judgment as president. If she was a nitwit unworthy to hold office, they had a moral duty to quit the campaign and tell us about it back then, because that would have reflected terribly on McCain’s judgment if he picked a moron to be vice president (see: Biden, J.).
Instead of anyone standing up back when it could have made a difference and cued the public into how serious the problem was, all we get now are unsubstantiated rumors from anonymous sources who are plainly trying to diffuse responsibility from themselves. I’m not so much loyal to Palin here as I am opposed to having rats in my party. These are unsubstantiated rumors, that objectively reflect just as badly on the rumormonger as on the rumorsubject, from anonymous sources who are playing CYA at the expense of someone else’s reputation and political future. Moreover, as I said, some of these rumors strike me as mostly or wholly unbelievable. These aren’t even good rumors.
I don’t want these people involved in future campaigns. And it reflects poorly on McCain that they were involved in this one.
There are at least three related, but separate issues here:
1) Was Sarah Palin an unqualified ignoramus? If so, who should get the blamed for her nomination?
2) Was the conservative adulation (and liberal abhorrence) of her justified?
3) Should we take the anonymous McCain staffers’ comments at face value?
As for 1A, we don’t have enough information and probably won’t for a while yet. If she is, then the only fair answer to 1B is “John McCain.”
For 2, I believe both were completely unjustified.
For 3, I’m employing a lot of the same skepticism as Apollo. The other thing that struck me as near-unbelievable was that she didn’t know who was in NAFTA: this from the Governor of the only state separated from the lower 48 by another country? My suspicion is that these accusations are blown out of proportion, but that there’s something meaningful underneath.
1A) Not as qualified as I would have liked. 1B) John McCain
2) Neither was justified and yet its the Republican pronouncements that she is the future of the party that scare me more.
3) I think skepticism is always healthy but in the face of her public responses when confronted with hostile situations (Couric Interview, lack of press conferences, the debate) I think these claims are certainly within the realm of possibility.
What I think angers me the most about Sarah Palin is that she represents everything that is pushing me out of the Republican Party. Her anti-intellectual/anti-elitism is particularly grating seeing as how I’m one of those coastal, cocktail party attending, smart people she heaps so much scorn on.
1) For people who are successful governors, I think we should employ a presumption that they are, at least, not morons. I’ve seen no evidence that she’s a super genius, but I’ve also seen no evidence that she’s an idiot. Absent solid evidence, the basic principles of democratic republicanism weigh in favor of giving her the benefit of the doubt.
2) Yes. There was a vicious cycle: conservatives started off liking her, which made the left attack her, which made the right defend her, which made the left attack her more…pretty soon, some formerly respectable people were speculating on the parentage of her children (sorry to keep bringing it up, but I don’t think we should let ourselves forget about it; it’s the lowest thing I’ve seen in politics, and it was done by some fairly mainstream people). When the attacks got that bad, conservatives got locked into a total defense of her, partly because they originally liked her and partly because so many of the attacks were so far beyond the pale. Legitimate criticism got lumped in with illegitimate criticism because the ratio of the latter to the former was too high (I’ve heard more about her tanning bed than I’ve heard about Obama’s drug use; there was more coverage of her clothing than of the millions in illegal donations the Obama website accepted). The level to which she was defended was understandable, if not justifiable. The level to which she was attacked, however, was neither.
3. The question is, “What is the meaningful underlying fact?” Since Palin has proven herself competent in her previous life experiences, and since these rumors are anonymous and unsubstantiated, I think fairness has to weigh heavily in her favor. When someone comes on tv with their name on the screen and makes these accusations and answers questions about it (like “why did you continue to think that John McCain should be president when he picked someone unqualified for this position?”), then we’ll have some evidence on which a sound judgment can be based.
For people who are successful governors…
Does Palin actually have enough of a record to justify calling her “successful”? Competent I can completely buy, but I’m not sure anyone who’s been in office for less than two years can be called successful.
There was a vicious cycle…
There absolutely was and I don’t want to downplay that. But the adulation was as much a factor of her rabble-rousing and identity politicking as an understandable defensiveness.
When someone comes on tv with their name on the screen and makes these accusations and answers questions about it…then we’ll have some evidence on which a sound judgment can be based.
Fair enough.
One other point: regardless of where the truth in all of this lies, the fact that we are debating this should underscore what a lousy idea it was for McCain to have chosen such an unknown VP candidate at such a late date. The fact that this is only crystallizing now doesn’t say much for me, either.
Jamie,
Regarding “anti-intellectualism”, I think this post explains some things as well as they can be explained. It’s really good, especially #5, which I think is a southern trait that non-southerners frequently don’t understand.
Tom,
I don’t think the problem was so much in selecting an unknown, but rather in selecting an unknown without taking enough time to prepare her and to prepare a coherent framework for people to understand her. There should have been a below-the-radar effort to prep her beginning in June, instead of telling her she was it two days before announcing the pick. This was the classic seat-of-the-pants decision making we’d expect from McCain. It wasn’t the wrong decision, necessarily, but it was the wrong way to go about it.
In defense of my continued support for John McCain, I’ll point out that Obama just flat out made the wrong decision in picking his VP. Which is what I’d expect from Obama: he goes about the decision-making process in the correct way, but just consistently manages to make the wrong decision.
In defense of my continued support for John McCain, I’ll point out that Obama just flat out made the wrong decision in picking his VP.
No disagreement from me. One of the great ironies of the Palin thing is Obama completely got away with nominating a total kook to be VP.
When the left and the Republican Establishment i.e. the incumbents including McCain and his entourage start attacking the likes of Palin – then we know we have a future winner.
Folks – go read your history of one R. Reagan (R – CA) and see what was said about him when he launched.
Palin is going to be around whether the educated elite like it or not. She resonates with those who vote as opposed to those who just expound.
Biggles, what has Gov. Palin since her election that has given you so much faith in her? I’m asking this out of genuine curiosity, not snark.
Tom,
I think the best way to gauge whether a governor in a state I’m not familiar with is successful is to determine what people there think of her, not only in absolute terms but also in comparison to the state’s normal political expectations. I’m not in complete grasp of the relevant issues in my state, so I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on Alaska pipelines.
That’s why I think the number one thing a governor can offer as a sign that she might make a good president is a reelection. This may have been my biggest reason for disliking Romney: he didn’t even give Massachusetts voters a chance to tell us what they thought of him. Palin’s sky-high approval numbers in Alaska tell me she’s doing some things right; a resounding reelection in a couple of years will establish her as a legitimate presidential contender.
Though, honestly, after this year I’m sure there’s any longer a floor on the amount of experience required to be president if you can just inspire people.
Well if most governors taxed their states largest companies and cut their citizens a check with the revenue they’d be popular like Palin too.