Saturday, July 04, 2009
More thoughts about Sarah Palin:
- Perhaps as much of a third of Republican voters (maybe equivalent to about 10% of the total electorate) would run through a brick wall for her. Other than President Obama, I don't believe there are any other politicians on the scene today who engender that kind of personal loyalty in that kind of volume, almost at the level of pure chemistry. (The Obama loyalists would actually talk to the brick wall, and then either walk around it or hope that it would fall on its own).
- A manifestation of that loyalty is presently observable in the comments sections of most righty blogs over the past 24 hours or so -- any original post (made by bloggers with pretty solid conservative credentials) that can be construed as even slightly negative regarding Sarah Palin or her future political prospects results in a string of quite intense responses. I do not believe that Sarah Palin would want a great deal of internecine warfare and bloodletting to flow from her decision to step down from her office of Governor of Alaska.
- The population of Alaska is 686,293. The population of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania (in suburban Philadelphia, where I live) is 778,048, and the senior Montco executives are three elected county commissioners who campaign in a fairly straightforward and local meat-and-potatoes fashion. Looking at it solely from the standpoint of scale and media intensity, there is little chance that campaigning in Alaska for a statewide office can prepare you for running in a national campaign in the present day. Sarah Palin could be the toughest woman in the world, and could have listened to all of the warnings that McCain campaign advisers gave to her prior to her agreement to run on the ticket, but I don't think she could have imagined the vitriol that would be directed at her. Furthermore, she couldn't have imagined that the vitriol would continue after an unsuccessful campaign -- did the late Jack Kemp suffer such slings and arrows in 1997?
- I can't speculate on why Sarah Palin resigned, or what she plans to do, but if all she does in the near future is secure her family's financial future, and campaign for certain politicians in the Lower 48, that's not so bad.
I don't think she could have imagined the vitriol that would be directed at her.
It was unprecedented. We've had some genuine goofballs run for VP in the past, and none were attacked a viciously as she was.
The media crossed the Rubicon this time.
Sarah said it was in the best interests of the people of Alaska that she resign (1) to save them the costs of frivolous ethics complaints (18 to date) and (2)the loss of her full attention as she seeks her career advancement. It was the right thing to do. Remember Bob Dole? He resigned his senate seat to run for President.
She is honest and a true public servant. She will now have time to devote to her family (for which she was previously criticized) and to her interests in politics, if any. At least now she can earn enough to pay legal fees incurred defending those baseless ethics complaints.
Democrats, and you moderate republicans, have you no shame?
The media crossed the Rubicon this time.
Exactly. The media went way overboard on Sarah Palin. Here is a suggestion for some justice. Instapundit linked to an article by Cynthia Yockey: The bullies will multiply unless we get David Letterman fired. Cynthia Yockey’s article has some very concrete suggestions on how to do so.
(Instapundit labeling, not Yockey’s title)
Good points, especially about the vitriol of the attacks against her (it revealed something truly sick in our body politic) and the overreaction by some of her fans against those who voice any criticism or doubt.
I don't know what she'll do in the future -I'm not sure even Sarah knows, though her message today on Facebook is intriguing- but I do know she represents the kind of person we need more of in politics, and I'll be terribly sorry if this means she's been driven out. It also lays bare the tremendous gulf between the political class (including the commentariat) and the average American.
I don't think anybody could have predicted the staggering amount of venom, and the sheer intensity and lack of civility, with which it was hurled against her.
I have fairly serious reservations about Sarah Palin myself, but looking at what the press and the upper-middle-class urban elite (from both parties) have done to her, I conclude that here is definitely somebody wronged, whose wrongers should be ashamed.
Hatred of the intensity provoked by Sarah Palin is a manifestation of fear and envy.
The loudest, vilest, most obscene attacks on her have been launched by media and political figures whose personal and sexual self-esteem is suspect.
An attractive adult with an apparently healthy sex life is understandably a threat to those like Letterman and Matthews, who find humor in pedophilia and who confess to sexual arousal at the sound of their favorite politican's voice.
I am old enough to remember the feminist movement of the 1970's. At that time, we feminists imagined the attacks a female candidate would face when running for high office. Sarah Palin has faced all those types of attacks. Attacks against her clothing, intellect, education, family and personal decisions. They even attacked her children and her special needs baby!
In the 70's we were told that these attacks would come from the conservative right. Instead they came from the 'tolerant' left.
With no recriminations from the feminists or any 'defenders of women or diversity.
An attractive adult with an apparently healthy sex life is understandably a threat....
What the freaking hay does it matter whether she has a healthy sex life or not? And how would you even know? Because she has five kids? Because she looks like someone who enjoys sex? So did Bill Clinton!!
BTW, Sanford's wife had four sons. Does that mean she has a healthy sex life too?
You guys all need to grow up. That or get a life. Or both
anon at 10:39 writes: *those like Letterman and Matthews...who confess to sexual arousal at the sound of their favorite politican's voice."
Oh that's too funny. Clearly, you haven't been paying attention to the giddy reaction of the male conservatives on the subject of Sarah "the MILF" Palin:
I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America.
Comparing Montgomery county office to statewide office in Alaska based on population is a bit naive. Let's put aside the MAJOR differences in power and responsibilty that there are between running a state and being another anonymous county official and just look at these facts:
No county officials--indeed no official in any other statewide office--is as intertwined with a foreign country as AK is with Canada. No other state is as close as AK is to THE cold war enemy. No county official has the right or responsibility to deploy the national guard. no county officials have any say in the way national elections are conducted i their states. No other state in the union has the natural resources that AK does and all the complications and benefits that go with that.
There is more to her than meets the eye.
Syd - That's Rich Lowry's writing over at NRO, correct? Which, I beleive, has been bounced around the blogosphere, with people trying to figure out if Lowry thinks that winking = sexual come on. I don't think he is old enough to remember the 1950s (nor am I, but I've seem TV shows from that era)! Also, I don't have the data break down in front of me, but my guess is that Sarah Palin enjoys nearly as much support from conservative (and heterosexual) females as from males.
Anon 3:46 - I think we basically agree as to the scope of the responsibilities of a governor vs. county commissioners. The intention behind using the sentence, "Looking at it solely from the standpoint of scale and media intensity, there is little chance that campaigning in Alaska for a statewide office can prepare you for running in a national campaign in the present day," was to isolate just the campaign aspect of what Sarah Palin had gone through in winning the Governor's job in Juneau (defeating Tony Knowles in 2006 by 114,697 votes to 97,238 votes), as compared to running for a national office, where north of 100,000,000 votes are cast. I regret if that was unclear.
The assaults, smears, defamation of Sarah Palin are sui generis. They exceed Nixon, Bork, Clarence Thomas combined.
Why ? Well the evolution of the Democrat party into a totalitarian party is complete, and the evolution of the political and ideological left into a totalitarian movement is complete. Literally anything is justified to achieve and hold onto power.
The next action phase for them is violence. They will make a move towards a Chavez style seizure of power. Just give them time.
Unfortunately the only "effective" opposition party, the Republicans, are completely clueless, feckless, spineless. They refuse to recognize that we are in a deadly serious political war that can only result in either freedom or totalitarianism.
Anon 6:49 - I don't know, Nixon was pretty frickin' hated, both in terms of intensity and duration. It started before he was even Ike's VP, when he took down Alger Hiss, and people on the left never forgave him for that (setting aside that Hiss was guilty, according to Soviet archives). Heck, he's dead and buried and they still hate him with a passion, if they are old enough. With Sarah Palin, we've seen it compressed into 10 months and amplified because of the much more intense media technology. Let's give it a decade or so before we knock Nixon out of the #1 slot.
As to your violence point, do you really think the "them" you speak of really has the stomach for that? Wouldn't they have to staff that out? To whom? I have a hard time believing that police or FBI are going to willy-nilly exercise tons of stupid warrants issued by judges out of some political agenda. Judges can get Nifonged just as easily as DAs. It one thing to throw every vicious word you can think of at a female politicain. It is another thing altogether to start using force. You could take that whole paragraph about violence and subtitute a "right wing" name for Chavez, and it would read like many other such paragraphs written on lefty blogs during the Bush administration. Anyway, I'm not too worried about Sarah Palin coming to harm -- I understand she's a pretty good shot, and so is her husband.
There are three front running theories for the reason Palin resigned-to free herself up for a Presidential bid, to avoid a scandal, and for personal reasons (i.e., tired of the personal attacks on her and her family, family illness,etc.)
I'll suggest a fourth possibility that is unlikely but consistent with the few known facts and her personality.
North Korea is threatening to shoot missiles in Hawaii's general direction. The interceptors for these missiles are under Palin's immediate command, but ultimately under DOD control. I can see Palin resigning if the DOD's orders are to not intercept missiles headed in Hawaii's vicinity. She could not state that as the reason because it would eliminate any deterrent effect the interceptors would have. Being the defense hawk that she is, and rightly seeing that she would be blamed for not launching interceptors, she'd in an untenable spot if a North Korean missile was launched at Hawaii and no interceptors were launched.
Palin did this before. She resigned her position on an Alaskan ethics panel when she noted wrongdoing but was unable to disclose it. She resigned to take on the corruption from the outside.
Again, pure speculation. Isn't that what blogging's for?
If Sarah Palin can't take the heat in Juno, I have two words for her: Hillary Clinton.
Sarah Palin in her own words whining about Senator Clinton.
Fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it. You gotta to plow through that. You have to know what you're getting into -- which, I say this with all due respect to Hillary Clinton, and to her experience and to her passion for changing the status quo also -- but when I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or you know maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, 'man that doesn't do us any good' -- women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country, I don't think it bodes well for her, a statement like that. Because, again, fair or unfair, it is there, I think that's reality, and I think it's a given. I think people can just accept that she is going to be under the sharper microscope. So be it. I mean, work harder, prove yourself to an even greater degree that you're capable, that you're going to be the best candidate, and that of course is what she wants us to believe at this point. So it bothers me a little bit hearing her bring that attention to herself on that level.