This past election there was a lot of energy created in the choice by John McCain to have Sarah Palin as his running mate. What do you feel was the reason for this choice and how do you think she was qualified to be the Vice President. Could you please be factual with your replies to save time.
I believe she was the choice for one reason; it was the only other option that could draw votes...two minorities running one on each side. I don't think we really knew her; she was coached and instructed by the Mc Cain camp so much that she could not be herself. And I think it was pathetic to slam her the way the media did; she had the countries interest at heart...look at what the end result delivered us!
According my knowledge there is not need qualification to be even president. The president's duty is to protect our country from enemies and protect our Constitution. President duty is not to build socialism or run the country. We are able to take care of rest if we have a full freedom.
You have to be at least 35 and a native of the United States, other than that its an open game!
The last thing Obama has done is protect the US Constitution. George Washington would be ashamed of him.
It was because I am beautiful and down to earth. I also know how to get lots of money to build a bridge that goes nowhere. You know you love me dontcha.
1. Experience: As a Governor she was responsible for the state of Alaska.
2.Fiscal: She was responsible for billion dollar budgets.
3. Administrative: She had over 10,000 people reporting to her.
4. Plus: Not a politician
5. Empathetic: She could Identify with common man or Women
6. Ethics: Fought and drove out corruption from her own party
7. Smart: Very Intelligent
8. High Energy: As a mom with a demanding job, she could juggle all her children,Job,go to Soccer practice, and joined her husband in his hobbies
9. Negotiator: Negotiated very lucrative contracts that kept Alaska in good shape.
10. Security: Maintained high level missile defense being only 25 miles from Russia mainland/
Barock Obama, none of the above
BUT she is conservative, which means that liberals must absolutely hate her and dehumanize her in a manner usually reserved for wartime enemies. This is particularly true of so-called feminists who find their beards and shaggy armpits bristling with rage over the idea that they might share a gender with such a terrible monster.
I think she's hot! ...wait (thinking about it)...yes, hot
I guess I am the only one in the dark. Maybe it is too much of a fiery topic.
I can tell you what appealed to me when they announced her as the VP candidate. She was a regular person, a typical citizen, a mom with kids and a family that was new to politics and seemed to be more like the middle class working person I am then a career politician. She seem honest and sincere if not up on all the issues of the day. That gave her a lot of appeal, but what endeared her to the public even more was the attack unleashed upon her by the media! It was unprecedented given that the media seemed to ignore questions about Obama and his associations and his beliefs and inexperience!
She and President Obama represent some new blood. I think Americans have had enough of the same-o, same-o!
I based my opinion on the stuff that has come out of her mouth...personally, what I have heard her say, not what others have said she said... The media had nothing to do with it.
I view her as a mean, nasty person...
I know! I hate that attitude in liberals too!
I don't like mean, nasty people whatever their political beliefs.
I had trouble with the idea of an American President talking in tongues!
I know! I was teasing! I'm sorry, I can have a very sarcastic sense of humor. If you're not sure please ask. The comments like,"hoser", were in reference to a couple of Canadian comedians who really liked beer.
So if I'm a liberal you think I have a nasty and mean attitude.. hmm.
NOOOOOOOOOO! You're my fantasy girl! I know you are as sweet as a piece of blueberry pie!
(Unless that is sarcasm)
So maybe we should not generalize so much?
Oh, you rather prefer socialism, ha? You do not see anything yet.
I think McCain lost any credibility he might have had by choosing someone so incompetent and shallow as his running mate. Let's face it he was desperate and used her to gin up the base and divert attention from the Democratic National Convention. He then pretended to believe she could take over as President in a heart beat even though she had no foreign policy experience or knowledge of the world - shame on him!
Shucks, Bill Clinton chose a tree-hugging hypocrite with a silver spoon in his mouth as his running mate, and he managed to win twice. There was a precedent for McCain to follow.
And Obama had foreign policy experience? He served on a couple committees, but he didn't even serve out his entire term in the Senate. He quit during his first term. At least Palin could see Russia from her house.
But we can all be thankful that Obama graced us with Joe Biden!
I think Sarah Palin is loved by so many because she has made a sucessful life for herself without the benefit of money. She personifies the Woman's movement by actually doing things herself unlike Hillary Clinton who would be nobody if not for her husband.
Its a shame when I read things about her from other women who could never do half as much as Palin has done but somehow feel superior. As far as dumb things said by inexperienced politicians does anyone remember this gem? "Cinco de Quatro" Barack Obama. I guess that Ivy League education wasn't so great afterall.
Sarah Palin defies the imagination. There is no explanation.
Sarah Palin is a woman who lives in Alaska, hunts (as do most Alaskans), commercial fishes for Salmon (as do most Alaskans) and happened to land herself a cushy job that wound up bringing her fame and fortune. I, personally, think the woman has some serious vacancy issues in her head. How many woman, in this day and age, have babies at the same time as their child is giving birth?
I don't know, how many? Is there anything wrong with that?
All of them. It's no longer a taboo, kids just don't care anymore what their parents or adults think; and parents are beginning not to care either.
"Could someone please explain the Sarah Palin phenomena"
Oh no, don't tell me there's more than one....?
She is the antithesis of everything people dislike about John Kerry.
Well, as to the above, she's actually improved remarkably in appearance with age. Back then she was just a chubby girl. Her eyes...both back then and now...have always really bugged me, though...and nothing to do with looks.
Palin's phenomenon and appeal can partially be explained by the realization that her fans really don't care at all about politics or policy. I just read that among Republicans, Mike Huckabee is the most roundly liked for his policy beliefs and personality/integrity. That is among Republicans who are looking for a candidate WITH a platform. Sarah Palin scores well with the 'base,' or people who are generally AGAINST things, especially Jerry Falwell religious social conservatives. This latter group especially has it in for former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, as well as most liberals.
Another way to look at it is that instead of looking for someone most qualified to do the job they were elected to do, this group is instead viewing things in a very narcissistic fashion--the "She's just like me! Or my cousin Jackie!" phenomenon. Supposedly it's called anti-elitism, but actually, it's nothing but low self esteem. Equality and believing anyone can grow up in America to be president (the American Dream) does NOT mean anybody can be president despite their qualifications. There is far, far too much of this kind of belief going around.
Another article I read was by a western state politician who said that the West (especially the rural west) appreciates leaders like Palin...those with little background, but lots of 'gumption.' And since I've been out here...I do find that to be true, as well. Who was it that said, I believe, with Dan Quayle that he was "a lightweight from the West?" There is so much of it going on here, just in a general sense...where people just do not have the background for whatever job they are attempting to do...I mean in the business world, too. Broadly speaking, I believe it to be a disastrous approach, enough to make me want to pull my hair out some days. I remember reading stuff cited by McCain's staff that Palin never had a real work schedule, etc....and then people ask how all those Palingates and ethics problems occurred and if they were real. Ha! I guarantee you, yes they were.
One thing is for certain. If the Republicans (those who really set policy...the actual leaders) ever want a chance in hell to recover the presidency in the next election, they'd do well in disregarding Palin (and most, I have read, are already doing that). They would absolutely hand the ticket over to Obama; she is that divisive of a figure. They are smart(enough, lol): It will never happen.
You think she's chubby in that picture? Wow.
LOL. One's face actually slims a bit as you age. Yeah, I personally prefer how she looks now...her cheekbones are more prominent, and a person's face just...'matures.' I dunno. Like Liz Hurley has said, its the difference in attractiveness between a puppy and an adult.
Just a personal opinion. I think that of most beauty pageant types, actually. Real beauties mature and become even prettier.
It was not a pro-anorexic statement at all, lol.
If that's what you take from the above, you might have just a bit of a reading comprehension problem. But that's OK, .
All is fair in ridiculous partisanship, isn't it?
"Partisanship" and "ridiculous" are synonyms now?
Huh. Guess I need to check my Thesaurus....
The grammatical construction does not suggest a synonymous relationship at all. Must be your attempt to read something into it there...though it does not work, logically.
Now what would you expect from an e-LITA-ist? Huh? We do have atil, here, though, performing antonym activities.
Just out of curiosity, why do you keep saying "bye-bye now" but you don't go away?
I'm thinking it's just shorthand for: "Bye-bye FOR now."
Actually, I'm pleased that Lita's monitoring this thread--because I'm about to present a viewpoint regarding Sarah Palin that I've not seen written elsewhere, and I wouldn't mind her (Lita's) take on said viewpoint:
I'm one of those who rejoiced at the choice of Sarah when I first heard about it last fall. My immediate reaction: "Brilliant!" That didn't mean I was blind to the fact that it quickly became obvious she was trying to survive the ocean depths without having first learned to swim and to pack her shark repellent.
My mental "fork in the road", however, is that I actually dare to suspect she (Sarah) is capable of being educated--that her smackdown in her first go-round in the Big Time was a product of ignorance rather than genetic intellectual limitation. That said, it seems to me quite possible that we could see a New and Improved Sarah Palin in 2012 who bears an uncanny resemblance to a seasoned professional worthy of a title shot (to put it in fight terms, and the race for the Presidency of the United States is most certainly a title fight).
True, even that (remote??) possibility does not guarantee her ability to forge a voting coalition capable of gaining her the Oval Office or, for that matter, the Republican nomination. But it would definitely make things interesting.
The anti-suit or anti-elite trend is I believe more widespread than USA. Latin america has gone back to socialist leaders because they became disillusioned with austere measures and lack of egalitarianism in World Bank/IMF policies of last quarter of 20th century.
Here in my country in Caribbean the delegates selected a populist leader for the progressive political movement which had been traditionally led by lawyers and intellectuals. They rejected the Ph.D. challenger with middle-class profile because they wanted someone like them, in my opinion. She (the populist leader with mass appeal) is brighter than Palin but it's the same story. They r in opposition now.
I believe it is more than a self esteem issue. The upper and middle classes have let down the masses, so the masses will seek to take back power in a symbolic way. Just look at Latin america.
Yes, she is a symbol. Of what, I'm not sure, however. I just see her 'candidacy' as an extremely negative thing. And I know, actually, that there isn't much of a chance she is going anywhere politically...our long, basically...vetting process before the American public (the actual public...not the loud people here on Hubpage forums) has proven that. She's simply not viable for anyone reasonable...liberal or conservative.
The mainstream conservatives are doing their best to distance themselves from her politically (McCain certainly has)...while perhaps still maintaining a use for her with the 'base' if necessary.
So it is your political analysis that John McCain is a "Mainstream Conservative"? I am not an expert on politics but from what I have seen and heard of John McCain conservative would not be a word I would use to describe him.
But Palin really is a conservative, she knows that you cannot spend yourself out of a recession and you cannot add 40 million people into a "government option" insurance policy and not add to the deficit.
She may never reach the office of President and maybe she doesn't care, but she certainly is a role model for young ladies who want to be leaders.
The riddle of these populist candidates, the topic of the thread. Very difficult to solve.
My theory: Populist leaders are not always characterised by intellectual giftedness. People are looking for a champion, not a scholar, to go tilt against yon knight. History has shown too that the best politicians are not necessarily from rocket scientists IQ pool, but the most shrewd.
I am shocked that the greatest democracy on earth could have such a candidate as Palin. But it could be that American 'base' knew something...
My secret theory on Palin. This thing was all cooked up for Obama to win. Over to you conspiracy theorists.
Mmmmm. Well, given McCain's age and performance, it did look a little like he was a place holder... However, I don't think his actual disrespect and certain anger witnessed towards Obama could have been faked.
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. I feel the reality is actually the opposite of what you are inferring...at least in our election..our public was tired of being hoodwinked by the Republican party, which is basically unethical at this point in its history. Obama has both political savvy and intelligence.
Sarah Palin really has neither, but was propelled to the national stage by miscalculated interests. And the so-called 'base' in America in not a very large group. They are, however, kind of loud, lol. And controversy loves print!
I bet she believes so. I cannot imagine she would so fiercely defend a case she deems unethical. Well, people believe in many weird things, invisibly super being for example. Her belief is no worse. Not better either I would think.
Some people like to read, write, and think about things, Misha. And not leave short remarks whining about other people on the forum all of the time.
If so many words threaten you, it really isn't my problem. You are welcome to 'try' to debate my point of view...in fact, I welcome that. However, I'm aware you don't/can't vote, don't read newspapers or watch TV, so I'm not sure that you'd have that much to say (?). So I suppose it is much easier to just pretend to understand the tenor of the conversation and walk in and call people stupid on occasion.
Which is fine...of course, it looks like what it is.
Absolutely Lita. Some people just like to write what they read, without thinking.
I wonder who does it all the time. Any names?
Absolutely Lita. But where did I say that? And what was your problem again?
Religion is useless to debate, yours is no exception.
I know that this is a foreign concept to you Lita, but I think. Try this for a change, people may start listening to you.
Would appreciate a link to me calling anybody stupid. Otherwise you are a liar.
I see what I said obviously got to you. And you prepared another equally ridiculous response (it is not a debate...it contains basically nothing but un-clever one-line falsehoods). I'm really NOT worried about a thing you relate, Misha. In fact, I pretty much can tell absolutely everything is the opposite of what you say by how you say it.
I've never been interested in talking to you period. You know, it was Pam who brought me to this site in the first place. I read her stuff, and by that token was impressed with the site. I thought: a cool place for real writers. And I still hold her judgment in high regard. She's right about you.
Ridiculous. Do some research and then get back to the topic.
What does looks have to do with policy. That is your concern, right?
I'd say that a person's stance on policy when they run is less important than what they do when they're in office, wouldn't you agree. Look at how much President Obama has backed off what Candidate Obama promised. Honestly it'll be interesting to see how it goes between Palin, Rommey and Huckabee. Those seem to be the front runners today. But like with Mark Sandford, it could be here today, gone tomorrow. On thing I think you do too much of is link the Republican Party with religious fanatics. That would be like a conservative saying that the entire Democratic Party is made up of groups like ACORN and SEIU which totally ignores the Blue Dog Democrats and other factions within the party.
Everyone does that. Why do you think so many politicians strive for the "everyman" look. People are more likely to pull a lever that gives you power if they do that. Likewise that's why broad terms like "hope" and "change" are used. Those aren't policy terms, those are words used to make people think that a particular candidate supports that person's version of "hope" or "change". I'd suggest that those people need to read up on Aesop's fables.
Ah, now we get into some territory in which we pretty much disagree. You seem to think that people are defined by their job description. That's not entirely true.
Besides what sort of "background" prepares you for a life in politics? Well working for the Mob might be considered on the job training, but in reality representatives are supposed to use reason and common sense to guide them when representing the interests of their people as a whole, not just the groups that got them into power.
Again, I'd like the hard data please. Your emotions run kind of high when you talk about Palin, kind of the way mine does when I talk about the Clintons.
It's the Republican leadership which is the problem. One of the reasons so many Republicans got behind Palin was that she wasn't very connected to the national leadership of the Party. Or at the very least she wasn't seen as having many connections to the leaders. This was important as the Republican leadership made as much of a hash of things as the Democratic leadership when they lost control of Congress. I'd say that if the Party really want's to be an effective force in the next election, they'll have to run as conservatives or (dare I say) libertarians, rather than whatever the Democratic party runs.
I think something's wrong with my computer. I keep hearing something like a cat being stepped on and there's a green tinge to the screen. Oh well...
Anyway, the fact that NY/LA/SF/Cambridge-type liberals (but nobody here of course) don't understand how or why someone like Palin appeals to 'normal' people (despite all the silly theories they can cook up) represents one of the greatest threats to maintaining democrat majorities. It is closely related to the arrogant overreaching of the current administration and the likes of Pelosi, Reid et al.
Simplistic analysis and stereotypical viewpoint....as well as behavior. But to be expected.
I cannot imagine how you CANNOT be embarrassed with yourself.
I don't think we should be engaging in unproductive behavior like questioning reading comprehension skills and calling each other "ridiculous."
Can you explain the existence of Fox News viewers?
If Dick Cheney shoots a friend in the forest, and no one from the media heard the shot, would water-boarding still not be considered torture?
This freak show you've started will melt your eyeballs.
lol And what have you heard about McCain, 'miss'? Curious.
I've never heard a girl or young woman much say, "young ladies."
Your grammar appears to be improving, though. That's a good thing.
What is that supposed to mean? I call my sisters young ladies.
I'm really more curious about your take on John McCain and why he is not a "mainstream conservative."
He is against torturing prisoners. This puts him outside of the conservative camp.
OH! That might be it. Of course! Plus the 'rogue' or 'maverick' PR label. I forgot. What is the name of Palin's new book?
He described himself as a "maverick" and was known for often alienating conservatives with some of his actions in the Senate.
Informed people who have been paying attention (which of course you must be) know this about him.
Really? That's odd, but what conclusion are you trying to draw by that observation?
And what does THAT have to do with the topic of this thread?
lol. And ban some books, fire some librarians, consider personal vendettas an adequate way to run a governmental office, know that teen abstinence is a way to prevent unwanted pregnancies, don't pay for those nasty rape kits for victims as a way of forwarding your pro life agenda, fund the building of your house on public money, pray over witches, cut out from the tough public service job when the goin' gets rough and take the Rupert Murdoch book deal.
Do I hear a "Hell, yeah!" ?
Do you have a comment, or are you just going to post pictures? It would be more interesting if you commented because I'm more interested in your views than in silly pictures.
I see nothing has changed with the forums. Really mature people hanging onto every typed word lol.
Welll...LDT and I had a good debate for a couple nights. But you know: They get just keep getting let out of jail after banning, SP.
Aren't you going to read me my rights, and give me my one phone call?
I'm gone to bed. You can stay there think I'm going to get into name calling now.
Google 'international banking elite'. Thats all you'll hear from me apart from my rank and serial number.
You been here too long you have lost your sense of humour.
I guess your humor is too sophisticated for the likes of me.
The bye-bye is usually directed at trolls, ghost, but I'll answer your considered comments, since you took the time to actually say something.
I don't think so. I think leaving her last political job was a deal breaker. Think she's going for the money. I don't think she has the necessary intellectual curiosity or even interest in pursuing the highest office in the land. So she's right to go for the money.
And yeah, politicians (and everyone else) have been known to remake themselves. They usually do start with some decent qualifications, and although imperfect, are usually not quite SO imperfect. They make mistakes and move beyond that. Palin basically imploded. I can see her on TV as some kind of right wing talk show host...but that is about it.
Anyway, it is what she stands for that is the really scary thing. And despite what people see on Hubpage forums these days, the majority of the American people will never be interested in her really out there mixing of fundamental religion into government, among other frightening notions. Thank God.
I know she scared the gumboots of many Australians and New Zealanders who are watchers.
I think a lot of countries like mine have a strong interest in American political outcomes, but when Palin got up, I know many of us were just gob smacked!
There's a good reason the 'foreigners in the real world' - type liberals ought to be afraid of what someone like Palin stands for.
Gosh, that sounds ominous. Care to elucidate?
It is ominous for the democrat party because the people who do NOT look down their nose at someone like Palin are the people who the Obama-type liberals dismiss and disdain (when they acknowledge they exist at all). You know, the backward little people who "cling to their guns and religion" and who don't consider a degree from an Ivy League college the ultimate measure of human worthiness, etc.
There are a lot of such people, and you don't have to bribe them to go vote with cigs and booze (after registering them dozens of times) and an arrogant, overreaching government usually doesn't go over well with them.
I think Huckabee has a much better chance. He's smart, funny, well read, and a "regular guy." I love his tax plan. He's a little too far right for me - I'm more of a moderate - but as a person, he's extremely likeable.
I admired Palin before she was the VP pick. After I learned more about her, however, I felt she was too erratic. The lack of experience was another problem and one that Obama shared. The shortcoming is now evident in the POTUS.
I don't understand the Palin OR the Obama phenomenon. It seems that people either love them or hate them, or that they love to hate them. lol. It's because they're "different" and not your typical DC politicians.
I read many political sites, including conservative, moderate, and liberal ones. Palin has a surprisingly large, devoted following. As a moderate conservative, however, I hope she doesn't get the GOP nomination. I don't think she'll stand a chance with independents, or with moderate Republicans, for that matter.
That said, I do think she was treated unfairly by the MSM. Ironically, that just endears her more with her followers. Hillary was also maligned by the MSM. Maybe it's a case of misogyny?
You know it's funny but after reading throught the responses from many of you I hear a class distinction issue that was a basis for the groundswell of support for her. Was that the salient factor in her popularity?
I felt she had the ability to inspire but lacked the tools to lead. She had a complete lack of knowledge of foreign affairs as well as an up to date understanding of national affairs. I agree she was sort of blindsided by the question posed to her of whether or not she agreed with the Bush Doctrine. The question could have been framed better.
But is it because we could relate that gave her a pass on her ability or preparedness to run the country.
But what does "class distiction" really mean? If anything? Monetarily speaking, for instance, I believe Palin and say, Obama, to roughly be about on the same level.
No, in my estimation, she simply wasn't that bright...or to be generous, "lacking in intellectual curiosity." A deal breaker for the highest office in the land...and an embarrassment to our country.
It isn't about Ivy League education (though that isn't a bad thing either). She could have gone to the University of Oklahoma or something, completed her degree (s), doing well, and been articulate and not just 2-dimensional and basically, a big lie, and would have been fine in my book as far as "class." No, I don't think it is as simple as to slap a class distinction on it.
I think McCain chose Sarah Palin as a running mate because he knew it was one of the only ways he could interrupt the momentum Obama had going after his nomination speech and those huge crowds. And it did interrupt that. Normally, the next day news cycle would have been ALL about Obama and this historic nature of the nomination and so forth--geez even Pat Buchanan was all tingly the night it happened--but because Palin was announced the next morning the entire news cycle was about McCain.
That really helped him.
I think lots of social conservatives identify with Sarah Palin, both men and women, but she's a divisive figure precisely because her appeal is purely on a personal level and to that base. I don't know if dividing the nation that way can work in the same way it did for Rove and friends. I hope not. I do think we need to move beyond that, because our problems are common and they are huge.
Misha, why don't you answer for yourself instead of Lita?
I don't think she needs you to speak for her.
What? Are you talking to me Pam? Watta pleasant surprise!
Sorry, I don't really care what she needs. It is just my perverted way of whining about other people behavior on forums. You know, some people write hubs about that. I just prefer forum posts. Much better targeted that way I would think.
I've never heard you say much of anything except that someone else is stupid or delusional. Or going to end up in a concentration camp. Or whatever.
I guess that's admirable in your world, but it's not what the person who started this thread was asking for.
From a European perspective we were amused... obviously Mz. Palin was more than a strange phenomenon, we were all wondering if the republicans were trying to lose, although she was at least nice to look at.
Having a bad day? Uh-oh...
Won't even going to pick it up, help yourself. My antelopes just left me some laundry to do, I'll be back when I'm done with the chores.
I'm having a great day. I just don't consider you a friend anymore. I trusted you when I first came here, and now I don't. You attack people instead of discussing ideas. All I see you do is attack and occasionally flirt. I don't talk to you because you say the same nasty things over and over again. What am I supposed to say? Oh, thank you Misha for insulting me again?
I was married to a Hungarian so I get it. You think you're tough but you're just being a jerk. In the U.S., it's not so admirable, that behavior.
Wow, if you write such things on a good day, I don't even want to think how your bad day may look like. Poor thing
If anybody is attacking people here, it is you. I won't even bother replying to the crap you wrote.
Everyone likes the circus, and most people it seems like the clowns best. Sarah Palin is a two-dimentional phenomenon, and she attracts people who want others to do their thinking for them. Unfortunately, these peole can also vote, thus bringing down the combined intelligence factor of the American electorate.
Dear GOP: Bring us a real candidate and stop with these actor wannabes!
Because most of her supporters support her for identity politics alone; they never seem to mention any of the issues whatsoever.
Ironically, she was chosen by her svengali Bill Kristol because she could be spoonfed policy positions. She was a blank slate and was proud of the fact that she doesn't think things through ("I didn't even blink").
*sigh* And how do you know that? Of course you don't.
*sigh* Maybe you should read the comments of her supporters in this thread alone.
Why bother when we have professional mind readers to tell everyone what hundreds of thousands of people they've never met think and feel?
No, she would be a Liberal if she wanted to attract people who want their thinking done by a higher political power.
In response to the posts about ethics, both parties are neck-deep in corruption. Until we get rid of lobbyists, that will never change.
Here here habee!
Mentioning ehtics and the slime on the hill in the same sentence sets up a misnomer don't you think?
I don't get it. There are plenty of Republican women in office that have a lot going for them she is not one of them. I do agree that we as a country were looking for something new but do not have a clue why she was picked as McCains running mate. Actually I do, she is more conservative to balance out him being a moderate.
Wow. This thread went the way of the dogs (should have known). And among some, who, incidentally, don't seem that informed of 'their' own party's workings.
From the Washington Post:
Steve Schmidt, John McCain's chief campaign strategist in 2008, said today that a Sarah Palin presidential nomination in 2012 would be “catastrophic” for the GOP. Is this controversial?
I can’t count the ways in which she is a poor candidate. She’s a terrible strategist, having inexplicably resigned before the end of her first term. She's a capricious handler of her public appearances and the press. She picked a fight with David Letterman, of all people. People give her credit for having a unique brand of political charisma, but she needs prepared texts lest she go off the rails. (Remember her farewell speech as governor? Or the unbelievable one before that announcing her resignation? George W. Bush is a veritable William F. Buckley by comparison.)
But here's the thing that rankles me most: As David Brooks, Kathleen Parker and others have pointed out, Palin draws strength from a side of the Republican Party that is hostile to, as Michael Gerson put it a few weeks ago, the very idea of ideas. (Her allegiance to that constituency was reconfirmed this week with the news that she pumped out a 400-page memoir in a mere four months. How insulting to those she expects to read the book.) Surely the GOP has more to offer than that. No wonder so many mainstream conservatives have rebuked her.
But even if you set all that aside, Palin still is undeniably one of the most divisive characters in American politics -- across the political spectrum and within the GOP. When Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses, Republican strategists worried that his Southern-fried populism would split the party if he won the nomination. On that score, Palin is far worse. She would tear the party to pieces.
And all over the net and the press:
http://news.google.com/news/more?um=1&a … Kc3mnvSibM
Several years ago, columnist and former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan commented on the phenomena that the press tended to be vested in "Reagan as moron" rather than "Reagan as wise man." She said that most in academia tended to see Reagan through the eyes of Clark Clifford who labeled Reagan "the amiable dunce."
Noonan's response to the incessant promotion of "stupid Reagan" was that Reagan was intelligent, but that his intelligence was not of the academic variety. Reagan believed in what he had experienced in life and tended to operate off of it. He wasn't a great reader of books that were mostly theoretical. Furthermore, he tended to not read books on technical political analysis, but rather books on history, specifically the history of war. Reagan had a sufficient grasp of the history of war, sufficient enough to know that whenever any new, formidable weapon was developed, a defense of that weapon followed. This is what led him to think about a defense against the nuclear weapon long before becoming president.
In spite of the fact that Reagan was highly creative and imaginative (he practically had a photographic memory), because he did not cozy up to the cognoscenti (like, say, JFK), he was DOA--"dumb on arrival."
Palin suffers from the same treatment. Questions like "I just don't get Palin" are case-in-point. Like Reagan, she is very intelligent, but her intelligence is based more on her experience than on the theories of John Rawls. This causes her some problems, but they hardly disqualify her from being the Republican leader in the next presidential election.
I see what you're saying Bib, as I have personally known a number of extremely intelligent and successful people who have little or no academic experience or ability. Intelligence does indeed take many forms. However, I would still be far more impressed with Sarah Palin if she were able to structure her responses to questions more coherently. In debate she's far from impressive.
Unfortunately in debate she was terribly scripted by her handlers.
I know that prior to McCain naming Palin as his running mate I was very much on the fence as to who I would vote for. His choice clearly was one of a party prioriized candidate and not the maverick he claimed in his campaign rhetoric. Had he been truly a maverick he would have made his preference for Lieberman known and taken the heat for it. Either way he was a bitter pill to swallow.
The two party system gave us two candidates to choose from that were not too savory and because of this we can't cry with either one because of our short sightedness. I always think it is a shame when I go to the poles and have to choose between worse and worse.
Oh yeah, that would have worked out great...
I'm writing from the UK so I don't have a particular political axe to grind here. We saw Palin on various news programmes, and I was sufficiently interested to watch a number of further clips on youtube. I had trouble following her reasoning on any single topic. I was dismayed by the way she had difficulty in completing sentences without losing her drift. America's leaders affect what happens in the world. I want to have a clear idea what they're about.
I agree with you that Palin needs to do better on the presentation. But, for all of its importance, I am more interested in the substance of the governing than in its presentation.
Palin might have been a "party prioritized candidate" but she was not merely that. The party can't win with Liberman; he's not a conservative. The recent experience of the Republicans is that when they run moderates, they lose. Palin is perceived to be a conservative. I'm not saying that just becuase Republicans run conservatives, they win de facto. But what I am saying is that when they run moderates and liberals, they definitely lose.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Palin's responses are not atypical of most politicians though. It's just that hers are under the microscope. If the statements of Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer were put to equal scrutiny, they would be shown as equally vacuous.
In the end, character is the most important element of leadership. And, based on what I've seen to this point, I trust her character.
Having said that, the appearance is that Palin's intelligence consists mainly of her personal experiences. But she needs to ground her governing in the lessons and experiences of the nation. Her governing has to be rooted in our experiences, not just hers.
That's not quite true. Reagan was a university trained economist. That's why one of his first acts was to slash the income tax on America's top income bracket from 70%! to 35%. We all know what happened, after all the same thing happened in 1946, the economy took off. Of course he then made the mistake of appointing Greenspan to the Federal Reserve, but to be fair, in his writings to that date, Greenspan was a hard monetarist.
Reagan came to loathe nuclear weapons when he learned about Project Ryan, a covert action by the KGB to determine if Regan was going to use nukes against the "evil empire". When appraised of this, Reagan was reportedly shocked that the Russians thought he was capable of launching a global thermonuclear war. It was about this time that he began meeting with the Russians in an attempt to destroy the nuclear weapon forces of both nations, once and for all. It was Reagan, not Gorbachev, who floated the arms reduction idea. Hardly the kind of man the liberal media portray as standing all steely-eyed ready to push the big red button.
What really pissed the liberal media off was the fact that Reagan was right and they were wrong. Thus began the campaign to make him seem senile and stupid. It's interesting to note that the media, back when they pretty much controlled the airwaves, had a power back then that is lacking now. Thanks to the Internet, stories that would have been buried in times past, now make it to the people. It's kind of like watching what happened in Eastern Europe in the 1980's happen here today.
I personally hope the GOP does run her in 2012. If you thought 2008 was a rout, you ain't seen nothing yet.
She does seem to like a certain kind of man, so maybe y'all have a chance.
That's a different question, Ernest. But the title question was to explain why she's popular.
this has probably been said, but she has tons of
sex-appeal, I've heard so many comments about it
You simply are not her type of guy, Earnest. That could be why.
edit* Trust me, it's a good thing.
Don't tell me you didn't hear all the comments about her "hotness" during the Presidential campaign?
I did hear all that, i guess I am immune to her charms.
by Alem Belton6 years ago
These supporters of Sarah Palin must know something I don't know, if so please enlighten me. Otherwise all I have seen from this women is incompetence. In my opinion, this women might be the most unqualified...
by cooldad6 years ago
I blame Hilary Clinton for this. Hilary created the benchmark for political female "hotness" or "not-so-hotness". And when Palin crashed the scene, everyone suddenly thought she was a...
by Leta S8 years ago
Currently under 13 ethics investigations...McCain and staff now full-on against her.Aren't you glad we voted Obama in?
by Stump Parrish6 years ago
http://www.alternet.org/story/149522/is … her?page=2Mark Green in the Huffington Post declared Palin's candidacy, and even perhaps her future as a pundit dead. He wrote:Because she has not shown any of the...
by LBMod6 years ago
The tragedy this past week in Arizona has drummed up all sorts of emotions and fears in the American public as well it should. What happened to the victims of that heinous act of senseless violence is horrifying, some...
by Ghost327 years ago
There are a "few" posts in the forums indicating the posters' firm beliefs that Sarah Palin's book is an effort to (A) make money, (B) settle scores, (C) suck in those of us foolish enough to believe she's a...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.