The "Let Palin be Palin" dodge

Everything that Sanchez and other critics have said about Palin is true of Obama, yet he's going to win big. Shouldn't that piss conservatives off more than Palin's gaffes?

O: That's just not true, and Sanchez addresses it here:

"At the end of the day, Palin is still basically a local TV news personality. Give her a prompter loaded with punchy zingers, and she’ll deliver it smoothly and with verve. It’s when she’s forced to get interactive that she runs into trouble. This is, of course, more or less the line conservative have long been pushing about Obama: He’s great with a prepared text, much more uneven in debates. Obama’s problem in that context, though, seems to be a lingering professorial tendency to want to think through his answer in realtime, covering all the angles as though the exchange were some sort of Socratic inquiry, when a well-packaged talking point would better fit the bill. This, to put it as mildly and kindly as possible, would not appear to be Palin’s problem."

Obama has a lot of problems, but genuine doubts as to whether or not he has any creative intelligence at all is not one of them.

Bless,
Doug

obababama wrote: "Everything that Sanchez and other critics have said about Palin is true of Obama, yet he's going to win big. Shouldn't that piss conservatives off more than Palin's gaffes?"

Obama, unlike Palin, has clear well-considered opinions on the issues of the day, and is able to express those opinions forthrightly and persuasively when asked.

I can't help but wonder, if she is a clueless as everybody claims, what exactly did McCain and his staff see in her in the first place? They had to have talked to her, extensively, before they nominated her. At least I would hope that would be the case. Maybe they thought that she would get the same pass from the press that Obama is getting because she is a woman? They should know that rule only applies to "authentic" women, and nobody left of center can ever be truly authentic. But, maybe, they aren't called the stoopid party for nothing.

I'll give you one- she comes off a lot better in the 2006 Alaska Governor's debate than she has recently. Here's a Youtube link (I'm at work, so can't see this, but it was working a few weeks ago).

http://tinyurl.com/4cg9gw

I'll add that I felt the criticism when McCain first announced was unfair and was ok with everything up to the Couric interview (including the Charlie Gibson interview, which I thought she handled well). But the Couric interview and the news that she's been taken off the hustings to do debate prep has made me lose a lot confidence in her.

Some of the suggestions on how her introduction to the campaign could have been handled did have merit. She could have called friendly national radio shows in the first week or so; Hannity, Rush, and Mark Levin would have calmly shepherded her through favorable questions that would have allowed her repeated chances to learn how to express the background and positions she needs to know to sound conversant down pat. She could have broadened that experience by appearances on local tv, long before she ever appeared on an unfavorable national show. That horse is out of the barn now, though. She's going to have to be calm, confident, and sound informed in a way she just has not yet managed or the criticism is going to metastatize.

Everything that Sanchez and other critics have said about Palin is true of Obama, yet he's going to win big. Shouldn't that piss conservatives off more than Palin's gaffes?

First, it's not true. Obama did an extended interview with Bill O'Reilly, who is a far more hostile questioner than Couric, and he didn't make a joke of himself. Really, since Denver, he's been better than the experienced, salty Joe Biden when it comes to gaffes. Maybe the Biden pick was inspired for that reason alone.

Second, even if what you're saying were true, as a conservative, I'm pissed because this selection was all about identity politics. There were other more qualified candidates who would have served McCain far better than Palin, but they were pushed aside because they didn't have a uterus. We're not supposed to play that game. That's what the left does. And McCain is now paying for it, as he has to ride shotgun when his quota queen is being interviewed.

"Obama, unlike Palin, has clear well-considered opinions on the issues of the day, and is able to express those opinions forthrightly and persuasively when asked."

Joel, has Obama ever had to answer challenging questions? I'm not eve talking about silly questions like "Who's the foreign minister of Southern Bovistan?" I mean question like "Who do you think is more responsible for the current credit crisis: George Bush or Barney Frank?" with follow-ups about Democrat opposition to regulation of Fanny Mae/Freddy Mac and his relationship with Raines and Johnson.

Furthermore, why is no one doing a gaffe-by-gaffe comparison of Biden and Palin? Frankly, Palin is a details genious compared to the man who remembers Roosevelt's appearance on television in 1929. I'm not denying Palin's flaws, but they scare me much less than an Obama/Biden presidency and a culture that would make the latter probable.

If Sarah Palin was always this bad, she wouldn't have defeated an incumbent governor in a primary and then been elected governor of Alaska. But, she accomplished both things. Therefore, she can do better than she is doing now.

obababama wrote: "Joel, has Obama ever had to answer challenging questions?"

Why yes, he did an interview with that flaming liberal Bill O'Reilly just a couple weeks ago. I'm sure you can find it on YouTube, and maybe even compare/contrast his performance with any of Palin's interviews.

For that matter, he has also done dozens of conventional press conferences with both local and national media, and has never embarassed himself like Palin does every time she leaves the teleprompter.

Biden is a guy who knows what he's talking about on most subjects but occasionally misspeaks. Palin is - well, it's hard to tell whether she knows what she's talking about or not because she can't seem to even form complete sentences on her own. Watch the Couric interview again before disagreeing with me on this point, or any other interview that she's given in the past three weeks.

Mr. Dreher,

I have no desire to defend Palin by discrediting you or any other of her critics. I am not a Palin fan really, never have been, but I do believe that this time will pass (what politician doesn't have an extraordinarily rough time at some point?) and that she still brings a good record to the ticket. I say record because that is precisely the reason I still support her, albeit, without the same fervor as some; she has a record worth supporting. If the question is "was she thrust into the national spotlight too soon?" then my answer is yes (something I actually believed at the time of her nomination). But if the answer is "do her recent embarrassments detract from what she brings to the ticket (a strong record of reform (badly needed), a commitment to conservative principles of limited government (badly needed), a strong commitment to life (badly needed), an excellent working knowledge of energy (badly needed), etc.) then the answer is absolutely yes! It is her record that keeps people like me supportive of her nomination. I understand completely your reasons for being down on her (not meant negatively), but with all due respect, I believe you are taking too negative an outlook.

One more thing…her recent stumbles could actually be a positive in the long run considering the timing. If she went into a debate with Biden not have working hard to shore up her weaknesses then she would probably be eviscerated. All the heat she has taken lately (deservedly) should force her to hit the books hard, so to speak, and make her debate performances much better, and the debates are of the utmost importance at this point.

Thanks for doing what you do on the blog!

P.S. Hugh Hewitt is playing an interview with Palin he recorded and it seems pretty solid.

With all due respects, Doug, you're asking a different question than Rod is asking, and one that is much more difficult to answer about a politician who has only recently come into the national spotlight. I think Rod's question has the debate tape as a potential answer. Yours requires a lot of reading People magazine or googling Palin's old life, and it's simply easier to read all of Obama's books to find out these answers about him. (What's Biden's favorite folk tale, by the way?)

There's also an unfair quality to your question, since your discounting of her resume could disregard an innovative policy proposal that actually became law. I'd offer that her windfall profits oil tax was innovative for the arena she was working in, especially given the politics of the state.

In the end, though, you've set a very specific and possibly revealing standard. She's obviously lived an expansive life; she's been a beauty queen, gone to college in different states, hunts, snowboards, and has helped raise a family, all while being elected to ever higher office. None of this automatically qualifies her to the Vice_presidency, but the fact that she has lived this life without me being to easily Google the evidence you seek does not automatically disqualify her.

Joel,

The O'Reilly interview was pathetic. Obama's handlers have made sure that he is never placed in an uncomfortable position. Again, no serious scrutniy. You can't honestly be claiming that Obama has undergone anything like Palin's hostile scrutiny in the mainstream media?

"Profoundly incurious and therefore manipulable."? It's too soon to make such sweeping judgments of her character, I think.

"...profoundly incurious..." Enough said. We've been here before.

I continue to like her. She seems decent, if ambitious, and pretty well grounded in Protestant, back-country virtues, which is refreshing. She can be charismatic and has a good delivery, playing to the strengths in her personality. Her record in Alaska suggests both a certain toughness and an independent streak.

I'll give the skeptics this much: She doesn't seem to know a great deal about things she hasn't needed to know up to now, such as the Federal Reserve and Pakistan, and although I don't think one can fairly evaluate her curiosity, she's probably not an avid reader of either political philosophy or foreign affairs. To the extent she is thus removed from the Ivy League consensus, it has a positive as well as negative side.

The real question is whether she can take her considerable political talent, charisma, and energy, and learn what she needs to know to be VP, and if McCain goes on to his reward, President. No doubt she'll do fine at state funerals, ribbon-cutting, and ceremonially presiding over the Senate. Whether she would be able to deal with Putin, Sarkozy, and their compeers is in question, as is her ability to resist the melamine-filled formulas of the neocons.

In fairness, though, Obama can spout the polysyllables and project gravitas, and perhaps he's read more Montesquieu than Palin; and Biden's a fixture (maybe one of those singing fish, but a fixture)--they both happen to be dreadfully wrong about almost everything important. In politics, you've always got to ask the question, "Compared to what?"

I'd recommend transcripts of the interviews be relied upon rather than watching the interviews. On paper, her answers really aren't that bad. Certainly no worse (regarding the information provided) than answers that Biden, Obama or McCain would provide. It's obvious, particularly in the Couric interview, that Palin is being questioned in a way that other candidates aren't. Couric was more interested in quizzing rather than interviewing Palin.

"What are the pros and cons of that approach?"

What is she, a jr. high civics teacher?

Where Palin failed was not in her answers, but in confidently refusing to provide any specifc answers and opting instead to stick to her talking points and to speak in generalities. When the reporter keeps probing you go on the defensive. There were a number of times in the Couric interviews where Palin could have (and should have) thrown a few jabs. These bad interviews are due to her lack of experience in providing interviews to national pundits. I don't think you can draw anything from them other than that she needs a few more of them under her belt.

As to what makes her a credible VP candidate:

1. She's hot.
2. She likes guns.
3. She's pro life.
4. She wants to drive polar bears to extinction.
5. She likes Jesus.

Were our system of government intended to enlist statesmen to serve the common good, the Palin pick might be problematic. Since I haven't seen an electable stateman pursue the highest office in my lifetime, I'll take bikini girls with machine guns over the usual suspects any day.

I like Palin, but I don't think she's qualified. I dislike McCain even more intensely now for putting this decent woman in this situation. McCain is just a god-awful candidate.

Well, since her Wikipedia page used to say she had gay friends, I'd say that was one thing you could call "more to her". As a conservative and legally married gay man, it does matter to me that a candidate has some exposure to gay people. The problem there is that no gay friends of Sarah Palin have surfaced so whatever was meant by the reference to having gays friends was, it would be nice to know if that relationship informed her judgement of gay people on a human level.

We are in the middle of a grand economic crisis and we cling to things that provide us with stability. When you look at the most stabilizing institutions in our society, marriage has to be at the top of the list. In November same-sex couples in California find themselves having to not only deal with the looming economic crisis, as a tiny minority they must watch as voters decide if the stability of marriage is not an option to citizens who pay the same tax dollars as any other citizen - gay citizens. We find a moral question being implemented as the law of the land and it is truly a case in which a moral determination will have a negative economic effect.

I'm 55 years old and profoundly deaf. My spouse of 25 years is 85 years old and profoundly disabled. I'd like ask Gov. Palin if she is in favor of creating conditions that make the lives of gay people unstable. I'd ask her friends for an insight into her thinking on this matter but, so far, we don't know who they are or if they even exist.

Unfortunately the Palin interviews make clear that Forrest Gump was at least an independent thinker compared to Palin and definitly had more curiosity. Nobody needs "to make up nasty things about her" - open your eyes. They are in plain sight.
However, where is the proof for your assertions about Obama? What makes him irresponsible?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cranky wrote:
"As for the wisdom and "knowledge" you want Palin to have...
It would be better to have Forrest Gump in office than the yokels you want.
Y'all make up every nasty thing you can about Palin, but yet ignore the fact that Obama is consistently deliberately irresponsible, and has a fear of decisionmaking and action so intense it has ruled his life as a public servant.
You guys boggle the mind."

Isn't Obama the one who said quite openly that he would bomb targets in Pakistan without notifying the Pakistani government?

How do people keep messing this up? Obama said that if we had actionable intelligence on high-level al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan and Pakistan refused to act, we would. Now you can argue this approach all you want, but please try to be honest about your arguments. I know it's hard, but at least make an effort. Pretty please.

However, where is the proof for your assertions about Obama? What makes him irresponsible?

Oh, something about refusing to so much as mention the bailout at first, and then never taking a stand on what should be done, and instead, focusing on such pandering nonsense as "CEO Pay limitations" and voting "present" and never, EVER, EVER attempting to lead, just follow the polls...

It's Willie all over again. The man who could find within himself the courage to risk only one thing... Monica.

Obama has yet to act with one iota of courage, or exert something called "leadership", instead, his every move is calculated to avoid it.

If you can't see that, well, yer blind.

It, btw, is the normal modus operandi of the Beltway types you love more than life itself.

Watching you on CNN, Rod, I have to say you made a heck of a lot sense to me. There's no way anyone can be tutored to Presidential status in 30 days or less, no matter how fresh the breath of air she may be.

Con - Who is Julian Sanchez and why is his opinion so important? Are you quoting an expert on Sarah Palin here? You say there's nothing there; you may be right..but then, how did she get elected governor? Are you saying Alaskans are stupid?

Not to make excuses for her, but consider this: National politics is a shark tank even on good days. She's about to step in. The press is not pro-McCain, so they might be even sharkier than normal. As a veteran politician McCain knows this, and he doesn't want his nominee eaten alive, so his team circles the wagons, in spite of the criticism. At some point she has to normalize and find her stride in communicating with the sharks, but I don't blame her for being extremely cautious. What you see as nothing-there may in fact be lingering caution.

Watching you on CNN, Rod, I have to say you made a heck of a lot sense to me. There's no way anyone can be tutored to Presidential status in 30 days or less, no matter how fresh the breath of air she may be.

Nobody can be 'tutored' to be president. Ever. Not even 50 years in federal offices means a single thing. High IQ, academic standing, speaking prowess... all utterly useless.

Only courage and character matter.

It troubles me that certain people think a good education is a liability. This flies in the face of a thousand years of western history and culture. People have strived for the best education so that they have the skills to make impact in their societies, either for profit, altruism or the love of knowledge and truth.

Where does this anti-educational bias come from? Is that those who espouse it are themselves lacking education and are intimidated or resentful toward others that have more education? Do they just not understand the role of education in preparing people to make good decisions?

People with good educations tend to rise to positions of authority and prestige because they deserve to, because they know more, they communicate more effectively, they are equipped to better understand complicated problems. Education provokes the individual's curiosity and makes him/her more able to assimilate new information.

Sarah Palin's education or lack thereof does matter. Questioning her lack of worldly knowledge is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

Employers are more likely to hire someone with an advanced degree from a world-class university over someone a lesser degree from a weaker institution. This is because they know educated people will do a better job. Why is choosing a President different?

A sample of Palin’s writing -- from the NY Times, January 5, 2008:

Bearing Up

By SARAH PALIN

ABOUT the closest most Americans will ever get to a polar bear are those cute, cuddly animated images that smiled at us while dancing around, pitching soft drinks on TV and movie screens this holiday season.

This is unfortunate, because polar bears are magnificent animals, not cartoon characters. They are worthy of our utmost efforts to protect them and their Arctic habitat. But adding polar bears to the nation’s list of endangered species, as some are now proposing, should not be part of those efforts.

To help ensure that polar bears are around for centuries to come, Alaska (about a fifth of the world’s 25,000 polar bears roam in and around the state) has conducted research and worked closely with the federal government to protect them. We have a ban on most hunting — only Alaska Native subsistence families can hunt polar bears — and measures to protect denning areas and prevent harassment of the bears. We are also participating in international efforts aimed at preserving polar bear populations worldwide.

This month, the secretary of the interior is expected to rule on whether polar bears should be listed under the Endangered Species Act. I strongly believe that adding them to the list is the wrong move at this time. My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts.

The Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group, has argued that global warming and the reduction of polar ice severely threatens the bears’ habitat and their existence. In fact, there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable future — the trigger for protection under the Endangered Species Act. And there is no evidence that polar bears are being mismanaged through existing international agreements and the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act.

The state takes very seriously its job of protecting polar bears and their habitat and is well aware of the problems caused by climate change. But we know our efforts will take more than protecting what we have — we must also learn what we don’t know. That’s why state biologists are studying the health of polar bear populations and their habitat.

As a result of these efforts, polar bears are more numerous now than they were 40 years ago. The polar bear population in the southern Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s North Slope has been relatively stable for 20 years, according to a federal analysis.

We’re not against protecting plants and animals under the Endangered Species Act. Alaska has supported listings of other species, like the Aleutian Canada goose. The law worked as it should — under its protection the population of the geese rebounded so much that they were taken off the list of endangered and threatened species in 2001.

Listing the goose — then taking it off — was based on science. The possible listing of a healthy species like the polar bear would be based on uncertain modeling of possible effects. This is simply not justified.

What is justified is worldwide concern over the proven effects of climate change.

The Center for Biological Diversity, which petitioned for the polar bear to be protected, wants the listing to force the government to either stop or severely limit any public or private action that produces, or even allows, the production of greenhouse gases. But the Endangered Species Act is not the correct tool to address climate change — the act itself actually prohibits any consideration of broader issues.

Such limits should be adopted through an open process in which environmental issues are weighed against economic and social needs, and where scientists debate and present information that policy makers need to make the best decisions.

Americans should become involved in the issue of climate change by offering suggestions for constructive action to their state governments. But listing the polar bear as threatened is the wrong way to get to the right answer.

Sarah Palin, a Republican, is the governor of Alaska.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/opinion/05palin.html?ex=1357189200&en=e1ec986d8e0cda3b&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

A sample of Palin’s writing -- from the NY Times, January 5, 2008:

Bearing Up

By SARAH PALIN

Assuming she wrote it all herself, she can hold her own, it appears.

I'm absolutely furious with John McCain.

He presented Sarah Palin to the American people a few weeks ago like an unexpected gift. What a surprise! The ribbons and packaging were dazzling but when we opened the box it was empty.

The very fact that we are having this discussion is telling. Palin "supporters" defend her by saying she really isn't a blithering idiot. Now how did we ever get that idea?

I follow national politics closely but I never heard of Sarah Palin before McCain selected her as his running mate. Since then I've tried to learn as much as I possibly can about her. Two of her three "interviews" have been so disastrous that Palin is now on the verge of being little more than the butt of jokes. SNL writers didn't even have to "write" for the Tina Fey skit...they used Palin's actual words! I still can't believe that she tried to defend her statement that she has foreign policy credentials because Alaska is close to Russia. People have mentioned Joe Biden's gaffes. Well, I don't think you will ever see a tape of Biden repeating a gaffe. Palin apparently doesn't even have a clue as to why it wasn't a perfectly good answer.

Sarah Palin may have sparkled in Alaska but on the national stage she has literally melted before our very eyes." I am afraid, very afraid because John McCain certainly didn't put his "Country First" when he picked Sarah Palin.

I promised not to comment on this again, but this is an open invitation and it's the last thing I'll have to say about it.

First, to those showing off examples of her writing, I'd be willing to be that was a ghostwritten column -- as are 90 percent of "guest op-eds" written by established politicians with staff. Obama does it, too, by the way; they all do it. And good for them! Employment for writers! Yay!

To Rod: look, I hope you won't take this as questioning your professional credibility, but I think you would have to admit that it's been dizzying to watch your transformation from being ready to "lock and load" in some culture war militia commanded by Sarah Palin a mere three weeks ago to a new position of "Run away! Run away!" over meandering statements in a few TV interviews.

Incidentally, I don't have a passport, either, and it's not because I'm some nativist boob or because I'm "incurious" or whatever. I'm certainly not anti-intellectual or anti-education, but I don't see an Ivy League pedigree or the fact that someone has traveled to Europe as anything to either cheer or sneer. You went to France? Good for you. Obama went to Harvard? Awesome.

I've met some really smart Ivy League grads, and some shockingly stupid ones. I've known wonderful people who traveled abroad, and others who simply wore it as a badge of snooty honor. I myself had best friends as a child including an Iranian, a Saudi Arabian, and a Nigerian -- without ever leaving my hometown. I hope to travel abroad some day, but it hasn't been in the cards for me in my life yet. I'm 37 years old.

I stand by my multi-point "memo" of every strength Palin brings to the ticket. I watched past interviews of her on CNBC and Newsweek and other places, I'd seen her speak before, and I expected more out of her than what she's shown in the Gibson or Couric interviews. In fact, the contrast between these interviews and past interviews is striking and quite unexpected.

I've seen this before with other politicians, and it looks to me like a case of nerves and being over-managed. It's not a case of not understanding complex issues, but rather a syndrome of trying to do instant recall on the precise messaging the campaign handlers have crammed into her head. I never saw Palin as the sort of glib smooth-talker Bill Clinton is, but she always seemed comfortable in her own skin and in front of cameras heretofore.

Kathleen Parker wrote: "Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there's not much content there."

Okay. And the point is? How is this any different from, say, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Mitt Romney, John Kerry?

So the "let Palin be Palin" hue and cry is not some "dodge"; it's a real expectation based on past experiences with past politicians. The expectation is that if the geniuses in the McCain campaign will back the eff off and give her some breathing room and allow some experimentation with venues, she'll do better.

I also wish the McCain campaign would let her pivot in her messaging away from idiotic bloviating about being able to see Russia from Alaska to something more along these lines: "You know, I'm not a foreign policy think tank expert or an academic. I certainly don't know the nuances or detail of every foreign policy issue. In fact, that's not my job nor should it be my job. I'm not a human supercomputer. Americans don't need policy wonks sitting in the oval office or in the vice president's office. They need leaders. And some of our best presidents have been people from small towns with common sense and guts, not traveling jet-setters, so I make no apologies for only recently getting a passport. With 50 states and 300 million people spanning a continent, I've always been frankly fascinated with the complexity of the United States. I haven't even had a chance to visit all 50 states in the union yet. I don't make any claims about being a foreign policy expert. I've been a leader and an executive. And that's what I'll be as vice president."

I do think the whining from the media in Washington and NYC for a "press conference" is the equivalent of asking for a lab rat for a merciless vivisection, and I don't think the campaign is under any obligation to serve her up for that. I've worked in newsrooms in Washington and elsewhere, and I've listened to the way these miscreants describe Republicans, the radical views many of these reporters and editors hold and the leftist agenda they're prepared to advance at any cost. Given all of that, I think it's a ridiculous suggestion that Palin is somehow obligated to immolate herself in front of the media for their satisfaction. Bill Maher is fond of "new rules" - so how about this one? Republican candidates are not obligated to subjugate themselves before a mainstream media that is openly hostile to their worldview. The media establishment has demonstrated this past decade that it is openly hostile to a center-right perspective, so there's no need to kowtow to this establishment.

That said, Thursday night will end all of this speculation in either direction. I'll be watching like everyone else.

In any case, it appears to me at this point to not matter much either way. McCain botched an opportunity with the suspension of his campaign, botched his messages on the economy for a week before that, and managed only a draw in his first debate with Obama. The electoral college map, the trends in the battleground states, the drift of the polls, do not look good. Barring a major shift in the campaign, this is simply Obama's to lose, and the advantages Palin brought to the ticket have been overshadowed by "it's the economy, stupid" taking over the narrative with an intensity we never saw in '92.

I'll be voting for McCain-Palin. I think this ticket represents the best interest of the country. I could say that I'm going to vote for McCain-Palin out of pure spite against the very real elites and very real leftist haters in this country, but that's not really true. Certainly, I take my vote as a citizen very seriously. There's much more to it than that than I have room to explicate here, but my own disgust for the American Left is certainly a tipping-point motive.

And after watching sleazy "journalists" like Andrew Sullivan (the 21st Century's Walter Winchell) swim in the gutter for weeks even as they claim in Orwellian fashion to being guardians of the truth, let me just conclude by saying that there's very little (short of Palin being revealed to secretly being a reptilian alien) that is going to change my mind at this stage.

If Democrats can vote based on emotions and resentments -- and they do this all the time, in nearly every election -- then I certainly can too. Only I will only be basing merely part of my vote on emotion, as opposed to all of it.

Cheers.

But let me add, Rod, that the suggestion that someone who doesn't have a passport is just lacking in intellectual curiosity -- well, that's kind of rapidly turning me into a fairly resentful person one might describe as an anti-intellectual "incurious" nativist boob. The Scots-Irish in me is bubbling up, and it's making me ready to metaphorically "spit some beetnut in that dude's eyes," (e.g. the MSM elites) to quote a country song that has only recently taken on more resonant meaning for me. Another line from that song: "The interest is up and the Stock Markets down."

Both Sarah Palin and I have worked as professional writers for broadcast media. As for myself, I too have strong opinions, I can be coherent and persuasive, I read well and confidently, but put me in an editor's meeting and I am not much of a leader. Sarah Palin's writing about polar bears indicates she can put together a cohesive argument about a parochial issue. She talks tough like many Alaskans do. It is a place for tough people, after all.

I have read several blogs by Alaskans who say she is very Bush-like, a divider, not a uniter, not too interested in following the will of the Alaskan people on issues like moving the state capital or hunting wolves from airplanes. What is motivating her? Is her apparent strength actually obstinacy? She "didn't even blink" before accepting the nomination and I suspect she has just one or two issues (overturn Roe v. Wade?) and will prove to be inept at the rest, like our current leader.

Finally, if Palin is indeed being coached and over-prepared, she is certainly not showing leadership by doing the bidding of her handlers. In interviews, she sounds so bad it makes me certain she needs them. Not a good place for her to be...

to all the anti-Dreher posters -

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Is that the best you could do? Are you intellectually incapable of transcending the ad hominem? Grief. If I were Rod, I would consider laughing at you, but seriously.

On the palin issue, I never bought her nonsense from the start. From an outside, non-partisan (or anti-partisan) perspective, I saw quickly that whatever her family story, whatever her supporters think about her "being like them", she is neither fit nor ready to be on a national ticket yet. Any negotiations involving her and another country's representatives will end badly for us. From a practical standpoint, McCain should have chosen someone better suited for the job.

Illegitimi non carborundum, Rod. That's bad Latin (as I'm sure Roland could wincingly point out) but a good sentiment. Disagree with some folks, and the first switch they find handy to beat you with is "You're not a real man!" (Or woman, depending on which one they assume you aspire to be.) I'm sorry this ugliness is directed at you. Ignore the tantrums. And rest assured that I, your friendly neighborhood jackbooted revolutionary, will never deploy such language against you even if you do a 180 and find yourself swooning for Sarah again. ; )

(I'm tempted to burst into a rousing chorus of "I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay," but that might send the wrong message. . . . )

Sig, the image of you in lumber jack boots doing that rousing chorus is going to tilt me into a good mood today - bless you, and a virtual plate of hot steaming fry bread being psychically transmitted as we speak!

To me, an inveterate though haphazard reader and data addict, the most puzzling thing about Palin was her response to Couric's question about which publications have informed her views.

COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?
PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media—
COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.
PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.
COURIC: Can you name any of them?
PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.

She makes stuff up all the time--why couldn't she at least think of the names of a couple of news magazines--even if she hadn't really read them attentively?

If I'd been asked such a question, I could have at least remembered the names "Time" and "Newsweek." Though actually I only read those two in the dentist's office because they aren't very informative. Just off the top of my head, I could say "National Review," "The Weekly Standard," :"The Economist," and "Modern Age." Not to mention "The New York Times" and "The Wall Street Journal" and my local papers in print editions. The "Frankfurter Allgemeine" on occasion. And, of course, with the wonders of the internet, one can read news from elsewhere online--"The Times," "The Guardian," "The Washington Post," "The Boston Globe," etc. As well as many science and technical publications and websites to get informed about things like polar bears, global warming, and energy independence. I'd be blowing smoke if I claimed to have regularly read and digested all of these, of course. But it would have been a better grade of smoke than "a vast variety."

True, Palin doesn't have as much time to fool around as I do. But she could at least have mentioned a couple of names. Her answer leaves one thinking that maybe she has never read anything. Kind of like the lunkhead who was tutored by C.S. Lewis, and when asked if he'd actually read any Greek drama at all, replied jovially, "Well, try me on a few names, and I'll see if I get onto anything."

Ha! "beetnut" was a typo! I do know better, but that's some pretty funny stuff.

As for the rest of it, fair enough, although I'm waiting until after Thursday.

For the record, your new post on that email you got from the guy claiming you're not a Christian, well, that was not me, in case anyone is wondering.

That is not true. There were many, many potential VP's at the time have a uterus.

None of those women were seriously considered. The closest was Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who had her own identity politics problems.

Thank you, Jim H. Good to see you here. And I'm pouring virtual honey on that frybread even as I type. Yummy! ; )

I'm from Delaware, Joe Biden's home state, and I have to say that although he has a respectable record in the Senate, many of us here make fun of him. He's a nice man, but he has a nasty habit of opening his mouth first and thinking second. (Remember his comments last year about Dunkin Donuts? Or his weird plagiarism of Neil Kinnock back in the 80s? Or all his gaffes on the campaign trail recently -- talking about how HRC would have been a better vp pick, referring to a "Biden administration," talking about FDR on television, etc.?)

So, if we're going to pick on Sarah Palin for her gaffes -- and I agree that there have been a large number over the past month -- let's look at Joe Biden's gaffes, too. The fact is, neither of the vice presidential candidates really seem to be impressive, and both presidential campaigns probably could have chosen better.

"profoundly incurious"

This is such a typical criticism toward those on the Right. It's an assertion meant to undermine, patronize, and discredit conservatism. I've seen these exact words before many times. The presupposition is always liberals are smart and conservatives are dumb.

This is ironic to me, considering a person's starting place is always liberalism. It's an intellectual choice to be conservative, and liberalism can be boiled down to one word: emotional.

It's definitely not an intellectual venture.

Ugh. And more ugh.

I was initially all excited about Palin, whom I hoped would be a new breed of smart conservative not beholden to party politics, who would govern with common sense and integrity. And perhaps had she been left alone in Alaska to mature, that's what she would have been in ten years.

But while I like her immensely as a person, and I would certainly vote for her to run the PTO, or maybe be First Selectman of my little town, or something along those lines, I do not think she is in any way prepared to be Vice President, especially in these...er...interesting times. She is just really floundering right now. I don't know if she's suddenly second-guessing herself and thus suffering from nerves, or if she really hasn't got a clue. Either way, it does not bode well.

Now, if McCain was someone else altogether (Ron Paul?) I might well overlook Palin's deficiencies. But I was not pleased with McCain as a candidate already, so when you add things up you still come up minus. Now, I know it is quite likely that McCain will not drop dead in two months, but he IS old, and he HAS had cancer, so you get my drift. The chances of him dying in office are a lot greater than if he was a healthy 55-year-old guy.

Then again, I don't think Obama is in any way prepared to be President, though he is good at giving lots of speeches. More importantly, he is just waaaaaaaay too far to the left for my taste. And Biden is just another liberal Democrat who is pretty much the opposite of hope and change. There is just no way I could vote for Obama.

So I guess I will still vote McCain/Palin because I sure can't vote Obama, and hope that Obama will win and screw things up royally and thus both the Democrats and Republicans will implode and be replaced by new parties, ones which we are not ashamed to be affiliated with. Or else civilization will collapse, in which case we'll be too busy acting like Mad Max to care about politics any more.

That is all.

While Palin may actually be smart, well-read, cosmopolitan, philosophical, possessed of a higher-than-average intellect, etc., the problem, IMO, is that she has not said or written anything that would suggest that she is. I.e., the problem is as much what she HASN'T said or demonstrated as what she has said or demonstrated.

If only she spoke Spanish and French, or read ancient Greek literature or could or would converse on Plato's REPUBLIC, etc.

Rod -

I have a hard time believing that Gov. Palin is a dim bulb. I think the 10/2 debate will prove it. She does quite well on the stump and other unedited venues. I do think she is uncomfortable with female interviewers, her body language with Charlie Gibson was much better than with Katie Couric. The advice I would give her for tomorrow night is to see Gwen Iful as a basketball opponent, tonight is the championship game, play accordingly. As to foreign relations, seems her opposite number, the Premier of Yukon, finds her well informed and diplomatic. Granted, Yukon is a Canadian Province - and - Pray Tell, who has Sen. Obama negotiated with, Mayor Daley perhaps? -S-

This is simple - instead of putting her in front of Liberal Interviewers who hand her a pop quiz with the intention of crushing her, let her say what she believes in - which is why I am going to vote for her - God, Guns, rollback of Infanticide, American Oil, Strong Defense, Conservative fiscal policy.

Palin's a sitting duck . Yes she won an election for the Governorship in Alaska , but what does that really say ? A sparcly populated State with an isolationist attitude , a marriage with big oil , and a disdain for the lower 48 . She's got a momsy charisma , the slang of a been thru the mill mom...been there done that , about the same as 100 million other American Moms . She hasn't got aclue about the issues facing the nation , foreign or domestic . She might as well have been the mayor of D.C. but less in touch . I'm sure she's a great Mom and an honest person [that is honest as a politician can be ].
When you haven't studied , cramming doesn't work .Nerves will wipeout any memorization . "Being herself " is all she's got . Proving she is qualified to be one heart beat away from a 72 yr old Pres .? No way .

Her only hope is a blundering Biden , known for inappropriate remarks , and himself not being anywhere near the sharpest knife in the drawer .
I can think of a hundred other much more qualified women in this country McCain could've picked , but McCain blundered in his attempt to win Semi-Feminist , -anti-abortion , religious right women voters .

The only way Palin makes a good showing is if Biden shoots himself in the foot .

But Hey , dumb-as-a-rock vp running mates have made it before ...both Dems and Gop .

And given the way this country votes , she just might make it , in spite of herself .

Anything goes ....but be prepared to CRINGE in front of your tv sets .