Palin: "She's touchable."
Wednesday September 3, 2008
Categories: Republicans
Just back in Dallas from St. Paul. On the flight back, I sat next to a woman I'll call Jane. She was 55, a resident and native of a small Minnesota town north of the Twin Cities, and headed to...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Rod,
I have a great deal of respect - even admiration - for what you do & what you think.
That said, I am just stunned at the way in which you have omitted some things about Palin:
she raised taxes as governor
she supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it
she pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor
she thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God"
Help me understand how any of these are good things for a person who self-identifies as a conservative ?
"She's touchable." Very Peggy Noonan.
Oooh, Peggy Noonan, honey, make sure the mic is off next time:
According to a Politico story (with video tape!):
“It’s over,” said Noonan, and then responded to a question of whether Palin is the most qualified Republican woman McCain could have chosen.
“The most qualified? No. I think they went for this — excuse me — political bullshit about narratives,” she said. “Every time Republicans do that — because that’s not where they live and it’s not what they’re good at and they blow it.”
Murphy chimed in:
“The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical.”
Isn't this the same sort of projection for which you were recently mocking the 'Obamatrons'?
If abortion is your sole political issue, and if you believe criminalizing abortion is the overriding purpose of all governments in all time, Sarah Palin is probably for you. But sudden disillusionment often follows sudden infatuation among those on the borderlines of the voting public.
Yes. Both parties should be ashamed.
"Touchable"?!?!
St. Sarah (or is it "Mother Sarah") is certainly being well-positioned for her upcoming electoral martyrdom.
This is downright - can I say this? - messianic!
"And the whole multitude sought to touch Him, for power went out from Him and healed them all." + Luke 6:19
"Then He said to Thomas, 'Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.'" + John 20:27
Lord have mercy.
Doug
Watcher, in fairness to the observation by Matt, he was referring to a taped segment in which both Murphy and Noonan were candid about their views on Palin when they thought they were off mic (has no one learned anything from Jackson?) - these are two respected Inside the Beltway Republicans, not DNC operatives.
Regardless, I listened to the taped segment, and found it very ordinary. Two Inside the Beltway types, both conservatives of a kind, airing their views for another Inside the Beltway type. There has been plenty of this from all sides, including not a few Inside the Beltway conservatives who aren't thrilled with the Palin pick and have been much more open about their disdain than Murphy or Noonan.
I've talked to a few of them myself, and I find they don't get it. If there was ever an indication for me about how much distance lies between me and D.C., these conversations have been more revelatory than anything else.
I think McCain picked Palin more for her independence, pro-reform stance and maverick style than anything else. There was nothing cynical about it at all -- it's the Inside the Beltway crowd (from both parties) who are deeply cynical.
It is indeed a Mrs. Smith Goes to Washington story. Tonight is going to be a nail-biting, thrilling and hopefully deeply satisfying moment in American politics for those of us who have supported Palin.
I've got no use for [McCain], but I sure like [Palin]. She knows what it's like to be a real person. It kind of opens me up to what [the Republicans] have to say."
I can really respect where Jane is coming from in the leadup to the above quotation; she seems like a decent person.
Having said which, this is a reason to vote for a ticket, the POTUS candidate of whom you don't even like??!!
Can we offically call Palin the Republican Lightworker now?!
Yes, it does seem like Sarah Palin is someone who would be fun to have a beer with... just as W seemed more real and down to earth than Al Bore.
When people imagine that a public figure is "like" them, is it because they imagine that he or she actually shares their worries and hardships, or is it because they feel flattered and assuaged by their display of a "common touch"? Such a politics is ultimately about gaining therapeutic comfort.
Here's something I don't get.
If McCain's motives in choosing Palin were primarily about her ability to govern, and not political gamesmanship, why didn't he pick Huckabee? What positives does Palin bring that Huckabee wouldn't have brought?
And obviously, picking Huckabee would have guaranteed a well-vetted pick, and spared Bristol Palin her public spotlight.
Any thoughts?
Doug
I might add that this is an interesting article on some of Sarah Palin's actual decisions and actions when she was mayor. In case anyone's interested in what she actually did, rather than how touchable she is.
I think McCain picked Palin more for her independence, pro-reform stance and maverick style than anything else.
Posted by: Houghton | September 3, 2008 5:14 PM
We'll have to disagree on this one. It seems clear to me that she was picked to shore up support amongst anti-abortion crowd in the Religious Right.
"When people imagine that a public figure is "like" them, is it because they imagine that he or she actually shares their worries and hardships, or is it because they feel flattered and assuaged by their display of a "common touch"? Such a politics is ultimately about gaining therapeutic comfort."
Is it? Or, is it about being understood, and not talked down to by a bunch of elitist snobs?
I don't think anyone can point to a place where I uttered nasty slurs or personal attacks against Sarah Palin or her family. However, perhaps we should keep in mind that hers is not the only family that may suffer as a result of this campaign. If we elect a candidate who is not fit for the office, we are putting all American families at risk. Palin is proud that her first-born son is going to Iraq. Good for her. Maybe there are some of us who would prefer not to send our children to die in an undeclared war with no exit strategy--the aftermath of an attack on Iran, for instance. My daughter is in Nablus right now--a volunteer, teaching English to Palestinian refugee children. I'd just as soon Sarah Palin, with her vast expertise on foreign policy and her enthusiasm for the End Times, didn't get her blown up. My niece is on a destroyer en route to the Middle East. I'd just as soon Sarah Palin and her mentor, John McCain, didn't throw her life away on a misbegotten fight for oil.
I feel entirely justified in asking questions about whether these people know what they're doing, and whether they are being honest with the public about their future plans for us and our children. And dammit, I want a better answer than "Oh, you're just meeeeeean! And besides, she's cute and can shoot a gun!" Since when is it cynical to demand rational answers to relevant questions about the fitness of a candidate for the highest offices in our government? Is this a representative democracy or a beauty contest? If Sarah Palin is a legitimate professional politician, she should be happy to provide answers, rather than hiding behind the skirts, if I may use that expression, of Republican handlers determined to present her as Miss Congeniality.
It is interesting, by the way, how liberal-leaning publications can turn on a dime. Take what they wrote about Palin last year - they just seemed to think she was fabulous:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/42534/page/1
"In Alaska, Palin is challenging the dominant, sometimes corrupting, role of oil companies in the state's political culture."
"It's no coincidence that two of the nation's most popular women governors come from frontier states (Arizona and Alaska were the 48th and 49th, respectively, to join the Union) without established social orders that tend to block women from power."
"Palin, too, earns high marks from lawmakers on the other side of the aisle. During a debate earlier this year over a natural-gas bill, State Senate Minority Leader Beth Kerttula was astounded when she and another Democrat went to see the new governor to lay out their objections. 'Not only did we get right in to see her,' says Kerttula, 'but she asked us back twice—we saw her three times in 10 hours, until we came up with a solution.'
---
Okay, see how that works? I just want some intellectual honesty from the Palin detractors here. Last year, Newsweek portrays her in glowing terms and finds people to say nice things about her. This year, the media tries to pick her family apart, suggests she's a right wing loony, and selectively quotes from her political enemies.
Has anything changed from last year's portrait and this year? Well, yes. She is now the enemy. That's all.
This choice was never about cynical game-playing by McCain. It was about his core, his gut. It was about challenging the dominant paradigm in Washington. He's always been a maverick, and even as he been absorbed into the Washington way, he has fought against it. This choice was about reviving his love of country, and shaking things up. It has done that, and will continue to do that.
Introducing Sarah Palin: The Light-bringer.
Honestly, Mr. Dreher, I used to respect you at least for recently having the nerve to be a curmudgeon about these things. And I kept reading your missives despite your increasingly shrill posts about Obama being some kind "messiah" like figure. I admit that the more extreme Obama supporters could be grating, and, hey, we're all big boys and girls
Now we're talking about how wonderfully touchable that Palin is, how she radiates honesty, gosh durn it. But hey, that charming personality and smile and cool biography really trumps that experience, amirite?
I'm disappointed in how very little it took for you, after the inter-election years, to slavishly go back to the same party that disappointed you after 2004.
You seemed to have remembered everything, and learned nothing.
DU
You know, anonymous, most of the commenters here this afternoon have been making an effort to elevate the dialogue. I hope I speak for the majority of commenters here when I say that "anonymous'" attempt to drag us into the gutter, slimy and troll-like as it is, fails.
"She's touchable"
That my friends, is worth more (politically speaking only) than all the experience in the world. Bill Clinton had it in spades.
Denton, how far will such anger at the elite go? The problem with such anger and resentment is that, once unleashed, it is difficult to stop or moderate. Should people be ready to ruin the country, economically, militarily, environmentally, in order act out their anger at a snobbish elite that doesn't "share" their values? I don't think that I am exaggerating here - the problems our country faces are quite severe and unprecedented, and nurturing resentments and grievances will prove to be the greatest obstacle to getting through this difficult period in our history.
Last year, Newsweek portrays her in glowing terms and finds people to say nice things about her. This year, the media tries to pick her family apart, suggests she's a right wing loony, and selectively quotes from her political enemies.
Has anything changed from last year's portrait and this year?
Last year, she was the governor of the 47th largest state. Now, she wants to be the vice president of the U.S. It's one thing to be a big fish in a tiny, frozen pond with only two significant newspapers. It's another thing to be "the one" who is going to save the GOP and the country and make everything pure and wholesome. You expect more scrutiny, and you are getting it. Instead of accepting her promises, they are being dissected and truth-tested.
If the kids are off limits and not to be used for political purposes, is scheduling a meet and greet between John McCain and the kids on an airport tarmac really the best idea? IJS.
Neil
Adam: That my friends, is worth more (politically speaking only) than all the experience in the world. Bill Clinton had it in spades.
True, but (whatever you think about his personal failings) he had more experience than she did and actually governed the country well.
And that still doesn't make "touchability" a good criterion for voting.
"She's touchable. There's political wisdom in that. I'm just sayin'."
Isn't this identity politics? Isn't this the wisdom that got us Bush? That he's one of us? That we could have a beer with him? I have to admit I fall for this too. I find myself thinking that it'll be great to have a president like Obama who has struggled with student loans, who understands urban life, who grew up bouncing around the world like I did. But I think this is a temptation that we should try to resist, not celebrate as "political wisdom," or rally around someone just because he or she seems authentic (real like us) or shares the same skin color, education, sex, class, etc. I realize this is idealistic and know we can't completely escape identity in our politics, but it has become so all-consuming that it's scares me where this is headed. I'm beginning to see why democracy scared Aristotle so much. It wasn't simply that he thought the rabble would take over, it's the overwhelming temptation to forget the common good. When our political wisdom simply means supporting leaders with whom we identify, we stop looking for wisdom in our leaders.
John E., there's no question in my mind she shores up the pro-life support. In fact, that was on my list of "24 reasons" several days ago that I posted here.
I'm talking about what would have motivated McCain. It's all pop psychology and speculation of course (but so is the "he's just being cynical" meme). There were other "safer" pro-life picks he could have made.
He went with her because of her can-do, maverick, Western style matched his. Primary reason. Secondary reasons that happened to have great benefits? Absolutely.
I changed "political wisdom" to "political power," which is what I really meant to say. I don't think there is a lot of wisdom in identity politics, and you're right, we should try to resist it. What I learned from listening to "Jane" talk for the last hour of the flight to Dallas was why a politician like Palin appeals to voters like her. Not two days earlier, I'd talked to a guy who'd moved a few years ago to Minnesota, and who was wisecracking about the people of the state for voting for Jesse Ventura. I laughed to, as I laughed when he first got elected governor. But listening to Jane made me understand why a Ventura -- and a Palin -- appeals to them. They feel like they get condescended to by elites, and these politicians appeal to populist instincts.
The point of my post was simply to share some reportage, and to give some insight into the kind of people that Palin speaks to, and for. The more people dump on her for class reasons, the more people will rally to her side.
"Touchable"?!?! St. Sarah (or is it "Mother Sarah") is certainly being well-positioned for her upcoming electoral martyrdom. This is downright - can I say this? - messianic!
You know perfectly well that the meaning this woman was trying to impart to me is "Sarah Palin seems like a real person, not like a politician." Cut the crap.
This adulation of Sarah Palin is kind of disturbing, especially coming from so many who denounced everyone inspired by Obama as "worshippers."
Some on the right have lost all reason in their praise of Palin, calling her "the best choice," going really too far in their praise of her--kind of an insult to all great women the GOP has to offer, both in the Senate and business leadership, like Olympia Snowe, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and McCain's national co-chair, Meg Whitman.
"If the kids are off limits and not to be used for political purposes, is scheduling a meet and greet between John McCain and the kids on an airport tarmac really the best idea?"
Good question. What about sending Chelsea on the campaign trail? What about parading Obama's kids around the stage at the DNC?
At the risk of seeing my post deleted, your co-passenger scares me because she's exactly the kind of moron that shouldn't be allowed near a voting booth. She didn't care for McCain, but now that he's giving Palin a chance to save his butt in exchange for an essentially powerless job (provided McCain doesn't die) she wants to vote for him. That's all it took, hunh?
It isn't just that you can fool some people all the time, it's that a lot of people WANT to be fooled. By going for this empty bit of symbolism, Palin's pals have demonstrated that they are worthy of the kind of contempt they get from the bi-coastals.
"You know perfectly well that the meaning this woman was trying to impart to me is "Sarah Palin seems like a real person, not like a politician." Cut the crap."
Rod, sauce for the goose. I recall saying the same thing to you - many times, and never using such a foul word - regarding your own twisting of various comments about Barack Obama.
Doesn't feel quite so nice to be on the receiving end of being accused of being a gullible political naif, does it?
And anyway, I no longer believe I know "perfectly well" where you're coming from. Your writing and general online disposition since the Palin selection has been very disturbing to me, as it obviously has been to others on this board. I didn't think you would be so easily taken in, and so willing to use all of your notable linguistic gifts in service of a politician's personal agenda.
I am very disappointed in you.
Lord have mercy.
Doug
"Touchable"?
When I first saw Rod's post, my first thought was the scene in the 1987 Kevin Costner movie The Untouchables, where one of Eliot Ness's "untouchables" (played by Charles Martin Smith) is trapped in an elevator by one of Al Capone's men and killed. When Ness finds the body in the elevator, he sees that killer has written, in the victim's blood, one word: "Touchable".
Touchable, indeed.
Rod: You know perfectly well that the meaning this woman was trying to impart to me is "Sarah Palin seems like a real person, not like a politician.
Yes, but is that a reason to vote for someone? As has been pointed out several times by now (and I'd agree with it) Bush came off more as a "real person" than a "politician" than Gore or Kerry either one did, which is part of why he got elected twice. We saw how well that worked out. So now we want to do it again?
"She's touchable"
That my friends, is worth more (politically speaking only) than all the experience in the world. Bill Clinton had it in spades.
Posted by: Adam | September 3, 2008 5:26 PM
So many one-liners there, so little time.
I remember when Rod was beating the drums for probably certifiable Boddy Jindal. She makes Jindal look like Thomas Jefferson.
New York Times, July 3, 1984:
"Where is it written that only senators are qualified to become President?... Or where is it written that mere representatives aren’t qualified, like Geraldine Ferraro of Queens?... Where is it written that governors and mayors, like Dianne Feinstein of San Francisco, are too local, too provincial?... Presidential candidates have always chosen their running mates for reasons of practical demography, not idealized democracy…. What a splendid system, we say to ourselves, that takes little-known men, tests them in high office and permits them to grow into statesmen.... Why shouldn’t a little-known woman have the same opportunity to grow?... [T]he indispensable credential for a Woman Who [sic] is the same as for a Man Who [sic] – one who helps the ticket."
"She's touchable"
Apparently so. One of Rod's favorite news outlets, one that he has praised in several columns, is running an article about Sarah Palin's affair with her husband's business partner. I look forward to Rod devoting as many columns about this as he did to the Edwards affair.
This just keeps getting better and better.
I was one of those Minnesota Ventura voters in 1998. It was absolutely a vote against politics as usual as much as a vote for Jesse. That it only lasted one term neither surprised or saddened me, but the point was that Skip Humphrey and Norm Coleman just did not get that we the people were pissed at both of them, or at least enough of us in a 3-man race. I think they learned their lesson. If Coleman didn't, he has Al Franken to deal with this year.
In that vein, what Palin's candidacy means to me is that we aren't playing the same s###/different election game as we always seem to do. Is she unknown? Well, ja, but do your homework then. Do your homework on Obama, too. When I actually read the link Rod provided of his speech on the NYT last week, instead of just watching, my enthusiasm dipped considerably-- as written, it came across as weak liberal talking points that have been around since I was a yungun. Change? Not hardly.
BTW, I just downloaded the new Google Chrome, and I'm typing this on it. Verrrrry smooth. Nice streamlined format. I may still use Mozilla Firefox for my academic stuff, but this is great for general purpose. Internet Explorer is toast.
What on earth does being 'touchable' have to do with being VP?
I mean, not like you're going to be touching her once she's VP. The Secret Service would kick your butt, and rightfully so.
Is it only women who have to be 'touchable' in their political personas?
Has any male candidate ever been described (well, positively) with the word 'touchable'?
I don't think anyone would ever use that word for any VP I can think of in recent memory.. (And given the photos I've seen of people from the 1800's on back, I don't know if you can call ANY of them 'touchable' looking.)
"Where is it written that only senators are qualified to become President?..."
Actually, given the history of presidential elections, the voters seem to have decided that, for the most part, senators are not qualified to be president.
One of the real historical oddities of this election is not the fact that, for the first time, neither major-party ticket consists of two white men; but the fact that, whoever wins, a sitting senator will be elected president. The last time that happened was in 1960. Before that ... I really don't know who the last sitting senator elected president was before JFK. I think we might have to go back to the 19th century.
***
OK, I just Googled it. Harding was a sitting senator when he was elected president. But he's the only other one. Period. No one else has gone directly from the Senate to the White House.
There were other men who had served in the Senate who became president (e.g. Truman, Nixon), but they weren't sitting senators at the time they became president.
***
Every election cycle, a number of senators always put themselves forward as candidates for president. But historically the voters have shown a marked disinclination to elect a senator as president, preferring to elect governors.
"If the kids are off limits and not to be used for political purposes, is scheduling a meet and greet between John McCain and the kids on an airport tarmac really the best idea?"
Good question. What about sending Chelsea on the campaign trail? What about parading Obama's kids around the stage at the DNC?
Absolutely. I nearly had my head ripped off on another thread for suggested that, if you don't want your kids to be used as fodder by your adversaries, then you yourself shouldn't exploit them for political purposes, either. If kids are to be off limits for criticism, they should also be off limits for boosterism.
OK, I just Googled it. Harding was a sitting senator when he was elected president. But he's the only other one. Period. No one else has gone directly from the Senate to the White House.
Kennedy?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.