03 September 2008

Who Is Sarah Palin, and What is all the Fuss?

McCain's selection of Palin for the VP slot has thrown the US political world into a turmoil. People who should actually know better are making quasi-pompous pronouncements about the choice without having done their homework. Such leaping before looking betrays a lazy mental complacency that does not do them credit. Who is Sarah Palin? Here is one close up viewpoint:
A very good friend, who is a lifelong Alaskan and one of the smartest people I know, offers this word of caution to those (yes, like me) inclined to take Sarah Palin lightly:

At the end of 2005, a close friend called to say that he begun writing speeches and talking points for a certain gubernatorial candidate.

"Remind me," I asked. "Who is Sarah Palin?"

I was dismayed at my friend’s choice of political entree. Why was he wasting his time on a relative nobody, trying to beat an incumbent governor (and former three term senator) in the Republican primary? It was utter folly. "Wait until the big money starts coming in for Murkowski," I said. "Wait until the party machinery goes to work on Palin. They will eat her for lunch."

Murkowski, for his part, expressed a similar view. "If I decide to," he said, "I will run and I will win. It's that simple."

The folly, of course, turned out to be my own (and Murkowski's), as Palin slaughtered the incumbent in the primary--posting a 30 point margin of victory--and went on to win the general (over a former Democratic governor) without seeming to break a sweat. She then quickly fulfilled an implicit campaign promise by slapping down ExxonMobil, BP, and ConocoPhillips in negotiations over a proposed Alaska natural gas pipeline, even though they, too, by all accounts, were well prepared to dine on her tender little frame. Not bad for a lightweight.

Listening to the Democratic leadership respond to John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate, one hears echoes of the Alaska Republican leadership from just a few years ago. Barack Obama’s spokesman, Bill Burton, put it this way: "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency." Former mayor? If you're going to skip over her job as governor and, before that, her job heading the commission that oversees production of the largest petroleum reserves in America, why not "former high school student"? Bah, what does it matter: She's just a small town mayor, just a hockey mom, just a beauty pageant queen. Palin has never shunned these belittling monikers, in part, I imagine, because the camouflage has served her so well. Soothed by the litany, her opponents tend to sleep too late, sneer too much, and forget who it is that hires them.

Watching Palin operate over the past few years has been like witnessing a dramatic reading of All the King’s Men. In 2002, Murkowski had interviewed but passed over Palin in selecting a replacement for the senate seat he vacated to become governor. In a grand act of nepotism, he chose his own daughter instead. Palin was tossed a bone: She chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which oversees the production of petroleum in Alaska. When she reported conflicts of interest and other ethical violations by another commissioner, she was ignored by Murkowski’s chief of staff and ultimately resigned in frustration. One can imagine how the quick double dose of corruption--insiders having their way with the polity and its resources--sickened the young Palin. It also fired a savage competitiveness that is not, perhaps, apparent at first glance.

What the Republicans missed about Sarah Palin then--and what the Democrats seem poised to miss now--is that she is a true political savant; a candidate with a knack for identifying the key gripes of the populace and packaging herself as the solution. That keen political nose has enabled her to routinely outperform her resume. Nearly two years into her administration, she still racks up approval ratings of 80 per cent or better. _Source
And much more at the link above. The sheer volume of uninformed pontification about Palin would fill the libraries of dozens of pseudo-intellectuals.

Pundits pontificate. They cannot help themselves. But investigators investigate before they opine. This would be a good time for investigation, for the wiser ones.

Does Sarah Palin have the "X" factor?

Why are leftists so afraid of Palin that they will violate their principles to attack her in the most sexist manner?

Can a mere facade like Obama close the sale?



"Lord Barry heal the bitter ones
Still clinging to their faith and guns
Hope for the change for the hope, of the change"
O Hail the Messiah, Lord Obama

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

4 Comments:

Blogger Will Brown said...

I suspect the opposition, Democrat or otherwise, hasn't taken it's last shot yet.

With the Republican campaign only now beginning an organised attack on Democrat positions and the candidate's themselves, I think the various Democrat supporters and contributors are fairly steadily going to begin advancing their own position(s) at the expense of the overall campaign. This will only contribute to any potential urge to violence that may exist among that party's general membership.

Sadly, there are enough non-Democrats (not all of them Republican - but enough) all too willing to accomodate such urges that I'm not looking forward to this coming fall/winter.

Thursday, 04 September, 2008  
Blogger al fin said...

Age of consent in Alaska is 16 years? I think so.

Anyway, I've lived in Alaska, and Alaskans would take to such a prosecution like a polar bear takes to an aggressive seal. It would be the death knell of any prosecutor who even thought about bringing charges.

Let's be realistic here. The lefty democrats who've hijacked their party are in a frantic tizzy. They're shooting blanks all over the media and looking like incompetent and hypocritical whiners.

None of this makes the media look good either.

Thursday, 04 September, 2008  
Blogger Will Brown said...

Al Fin said: Age of consent in Alaska is 16 years? I think so.

And here in Texas it's 17 - sort of. In California it's 18. All of which, I submit, only further supports my point. As it happens, all of the principal actors are in Minnesota at the moment. Anybody know what the legal standard is there?

The Alaska GOP (just for one example) old guard aren't limited to that state only and are almost certainly as aware of local perceptions as are yourself. How does any of that inhibit them from surreptitously aiding such a prosecution in another state?

Such a tactic could easily be made to work to the Democrats national electoral advantage. If they were willing to commit themselves to making this campaign about the relative moral/ethical positions of the two major parties. Given the recently demonstrated ineffectiveness of the "experience comparison" from their perspective, why wouldn't a change of emphasis they can largely control prove attractive to them?

Since both Obama and Biden have already publicly come out against using the families of candidates in such a fashion, they are free to "deplore" such tactics while enthuastically taking advantage of the opportunity nonetheless.

Somehow, I can't quite see the mavens and pundits of the GOP getting enthuasticly involved in any effort to oppose the "protection of children from adult predators". And you know that's exactly how such a contest would be framed by the MSM. Who, it has to be said, seem mostly more concerned with how they look in a mirror than anywhere else.

This is the sort of political opportunity the Chicago Political Machine would sieze without a moment's hesitation or qualm. It is also the type of circumstance Saul Alinsky spent the majority of an entire chapter in his book "Rules for Radicals" justifying and encouraging. What part of any of that wouldn't appeal to the Obama/Biden campaign (now Chicago based) and it's principal supporters?

Thursday, 04 September, 2008  
Blogger al fin said...

Will, I hope they do give it a try. The pompous audacity of such a prosecution might drive more voters away from the Democratic party than if Obama were found to be plotting to institute a one-party dictatorship once elected.

Look, even the idiots who run the US Democratic Party understand that there are practical limits on the actions they undertake in the drive to power.

If you spent more than about two minutes thinking about this possiblity, that would be at least 1:50 too much time.

Thursday, 04 September, 2008  

Post a Comment

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts
``