Palin and identity politics

First, I excuse noone for bad behavior, especially the threats or "hate" mail.

On the other hand, Palin never ran for her position. That's the time to criticize, to choose. That choice was made for all of us, and it is the both the right and duty of the top of the ticket to make that choice in our system.

Sitting and grousing at the rules of poker, or whining that the dealer's an imbecile for handing you bad cards (if you think they are) is worse than worthless.

So is attacking Palin, your presumptive ally in DC.

Suggesting she should recuse herself for nothing other than you not liking her, and demanding it happen or you go home in a pique reminds me far more of grade school class election.

Parker, grow up and shut up. You're a fool to sabotage your own interests for petty stuff you CANNOT change and have no influence to change. Just remember that in just 1 and 3 years from now, you COULD be positive and proactive in choosing who runs for office and THEN your criticism is both useful and productive to the process of the republic's government.

I don't think Palin will ever be "ready" to be president.

It's clear from her interviews she has an extremely simplistic view of foreign policy. There are good guys and bad guys, and the only thing you need to know is to help the good guys and fight the bad guys. This is a dangerous view for a president to have. This isn't about knowing a bunch of facts, it's about the way you relate to the world around you. She's already in her 40s, and if she still has this attitude now, I don't expect her to fundamentally change.

Parker, grow up and shut up. You're a fool to sabotage your own interests for petty stuff you CANNOT change and have no influence to change.

That's right! Fall in line b*tch!

How do explain your post about how Palin didn't go to Europe when she was young? What is it besides an attack on her identity? The post basically was: "Palin didn't travel to Europe. Therefore she must be intellectually incurious, and therefore she can't be president." Obviously everyone who isn't well travelled is going to take that personally.

There are lots of reasons why someone might not end up going to Europe, and it's just totally unfair to read so much into it.

Here's how I read that post about Europe: You identify with Palin's background, but you transcended your background and you don't identify with her decision not to. That decision makes you think of her as one of those small minded people you contrasted your aunt to, and whom you left your boyhood home specifically to get away from.

Of course I have no idea whether this is anything like on base, but it is one possible way to interpret your writing, and it is probably the interpretation people who are taking what you say personally are making.

Here's how I read that post about Europe: You identify with Palin's background, but you transcended your background and you don't identify with her decision not to. That decision makes you think of her as one of those small minded people you contrasted your aunt to, and whom you left your boyhood home specifically to get away from. Of course I have no idea whether this is anything like on base, but it is one possible way to interpret your writing, and it is probably the interpretation people who are taking what you say personally are making.

It's not on base. Go back and read what I actually wrote. I said then, and I say now, that it's not Palin's lack of travel that bothers me; it's the apparent pride she takes in not having traveled that makes me uncomfortable. Big difference. I was also clear in that post that a) this is a minor thing, and b) it is by no means the case that travel broadens everybody's understanding (this is why I mentioned my elderly great-aunt who rolled her eyes at those snotty provincial relatives of ours who could talk about the price of tea in Kashmir but who couldn't talk to their neighbors about the weather).

Again: the reason I've become disenchanted with Palin has nothing to do with what's in her heart, but with what's in her head. Or rather, what doesn't appear to be in her head. Somebody sent me a YouTube video today -- maybe I should post it -- showing that Palin is a killer debater when she's talking about stuff she understands (e.g., Alaska politics and policies). My concern is that she's not interested or able to go beyond that. Just because you're a great state governor doesn't mean you have what it takes to be a great leader-in-waiting to the most powerful nation on earth.

Dear cranky,

You said, "On the other hand, Palin never ran for her position. That's the time to criticize, to choose. That choice was made for all of us, and it is the both the right and duty of the top of the ticket to make that choice in our system."

This is incorrect. Mrs. Palin is currently running for the office of Vice President, and elected position. The people get to decide whether to elect her or not.

Sincerely,

The Constitution.

From right out of school, Palin worked at a wide array of odd jobs, mostly manual labor, including fishing and the fish processing. It was backbreaking labor, with no benefits and dangerous to boot.

Nothing in Palin's background, from her parents living in Dillingham as school employees, to her life on her own before she got married, and then her life after being married, suggests the she had any significant amount of discretionary money or time.

That mirrors my own life to a T.

And if you asked me why I didn't travel the world tramping from place to place or on someone else's dime, my retort would have been that I had to work to eat, and the very notion of irresponsible and silly "self discovery" voyages of the supposed wonders of European culture seem both laughably self indulgent and irresponsible, as well.

So, with completely justified defense of my own life and my choices, I would quite proudly stand with her, in both her comments AND the attitude.

Other, wealthy, people may have had such a self-indulgent luxury. But someone had to be an adult and earn a living, rather than thinking my head would be healed of some mysterious malady while I chased what cannot be found around the world.

Speaking of the Constitution, in tonight's segment of the Couric-Palin interviews, Palin got led into saying that she believes in a "right to privacy" in the Constitution. Since abortion is one of her core issues, it would be nice if she could get the basic Constitutional arguments right, wouldn't it?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=31004

COURIC (to Palin): Why, in your view, is Roe v Wade a bad decision?

PALIN: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government...mandated..mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm in that sense a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life, that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see further embraced by America.

COURIC (to Palin): Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

PALIN: I do. Yeah, I do.

COURIC: the cornerstone of Roe v Wade

PALIN: I do. And I believe that...individual states can handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in in an issue like that.

COURIC: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?

PALIN: Well, let's see. There's..of course...in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are..those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know..going through the history of America, there would be others but..

COURIC: Can you think of any?

PALIN: Well, I could think of...of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a Vice President, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

COURIC: Thomas Jefferson wrote about the First Amendment, building a wall of separation between church and state. Why do you think that's (so) important?

PALIN: His intention in expressing that was so that government did not mandate a religion on people. And Thomas Jefferson also said never underestimate the wisdom of the people. And the wisdom of the people I think in..in this issue is that people have the right and the ability and desire to express their own religious views--be it a very personal level, which is why I choose to express my faith in a more public forum. And the wisdom of the people, thankfully, engrained in the foundation of our country is so extremely important. And Thomas Jefferson wanted to protect that.

I'm a liberal. Heck I'm a liberal liberal.

That said, the problem with Palin isn't Palin the person. She is what she is.

The problem is the marketing department of McCain Inc have tried to represent her as something else altogether. The noise that we're hearing is all about the collision of Palin they've marketed with Palin the person.

The casualties from that collision will be Palin and the McCain campaign.

Think about it. We have HDTV today. The stuff that used to be lost due to the lack of clarity in transmission gets through today. We have 24-7 news today. No insignificance anywhere. A blink can be a wink for days and vice versa.

Catherine in NY,
Why do you think she was "led" into agreeing with a right to privacy? I don't think much of Palin, but I'll defend her on this issue. You can believe in a right to privacy and not agree with how the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted that right to cover a right for women to choose about their own bodies. I say that as someone who is pro-choice.

From the portion you posted (I havent' seen it yet) it sound like she answered that question very well but couldn't come up with anything else she ever objected to by the US supreme court.

BTW, Alaska has a right to privacy enshrined in it's state constitution. I would be very surprised if it wasn't important to her.

Rod, I respectfully submit that you are critical of Gov. Palin for legitimate reasons, and I do not agree with all your criticisms. You are giving us your honest take.

The question is WHY are the MSM going after Gov. Palin. It has little to do with substance and everything to do with politics. If Gov. Palin had had an abortion and far left politics and D by her name, she would be getting treated totally differently by the MSM. By and large, the reason WHY she is being criticized by the left is very important and I respectfully think you are discounting that a bit too much.

Again, I have made this point before and Fred Thompson apparently makes in a column. If you compare the volume of Gov. Palin's gaffes to Sen. Biden's gaffes, there is no comparison. Honestly, imagine if Gov. Palin had said that FDR went on TV in 1929 after the crash. You think SNL would've ignored that?

Gov. Palin performed marvelously at her introduction and at the convention. She is not without skills. And come on Rod, she has been Governor of a very important state; she is infinitely more qualified than you cleaning lady. Here is a request: Do a post where you compare and contrast her qualifications to Sen. Obama's. It's true he went to elite schools, but how much real world experience does he have? Zero executive experience. Community Organizing (with ACORN) in Chicago is not exactly a business that leads one to clean hands and a path of virtue. It's possible I suppose, but not likely. Good grief - my longest post ever.

EddieinCA, I suspect her answer points to Lawrence. Whether she didn't know the name of that case or didn't want to inject sodomy into the interview is anyone's guess. But she answered the question as well as Biden. Biden basically said "that VAWA case. 'Cause I rock and so do women. That's right, I'm talking about you pretty lady." She basically said, "other 14th A cases that remove from the states political decisions more properly made there." Personally I would have preferred she answer Marbury v. Madison.

As hattio notes above, this interview does show that Ms. Couric doesn't know much about the right to privacy.

As I wrote before, Palin is a rohrshak. The few interviews she's given demonstrate her to be glib, but not terribly forthcoming on real information. The Hewitt interview was, to me, an embarrassment of nothingness.

So we are left wondering: Governor Palin claims to be an unchurched Christian, which Christian voices does she listen to? Bishop Spong? Chick Comics? Fulton Sheen? Pat Robertson? Pat Boone? It makes a difference, doesn't it?

Governor Palin claims to be conservative, but which kind of conservative thought does she follow? William Krisol? William F. Buckley? Pat Buchanan? Barry Goldwater? Ronald Reagan, or the "kinder, gentler" George H.W. Bush? Is she more like Romney or McCain, Huckabee or Guliani? These things matter, don't they?

We don't know because she won't tell us. It's not the MSM's fault, it's not McCain's fault, it is Governor Palin's responsibility to tell us who she is, and "hockey mom" just doesn't answer that question.

This is incorrect. Mrs. Palin is currently running for the office of Vice President, and elected position. The people get to decide whether to elect her or not.

Palin did not campaign to be on the ticket.

There was a process that picked Obama and McCain, but not Biden or Palin.

Grousing about them now is pointless. They ARE on the ticket, like it or not. You're going to have one or the other. I say, pick one, not punt.

Rod,

I think this is an interesting post and a good way to use the Palin story as a jumping off point to more interesting topics. One thought that occurs to me is how this election illustrates the implications of our arrival in the 21st Century Information Age. It seems entirely likely that we've created a form of national governance that does indeed exclude large swaths of the population as viable candidates for high office because of their identity.

Not necessarily their income; Obama, Biden and Palin are all pretty much self-made and didn't grow up with wealth. Not necessarily their race, gender, or political philosophy. But, yes, their cast of mind.

Here's something I wrote on a previous thread that seems relevant:

I think the offices we're talking about have advanced to the point that the only credible candidates will come from a narrow bandwidth of the beautiful range of ways that intelligence can manifest in humans. ...

We've created a civilization where government leaders simply must possess a certain skill set, rooted in certain shape of their mind, as much as a surgeon or bridge engineer must be of a certain type. At least, if there's any hope of them succeeding.

It is of a piece with the deeper cultural story of our society, as we come to grips with the implications of so willingly transforming our selves during the Information Age, where we all struggle to sip from the firehose of media, of data, of sensory and mental input.

"President Palin? Your speech on your policy recommendations regarding genetic manipulation of the unborn to (heal their deformities/twist their God-given form, wherever she comes down) has been moved up to 6. Here's your briefing book for the meeting at 3 with the Chinese regarding their unlawful cyborg bioweapon program. Katie Couric will meet you in the virtual reality room at 5 for your interview about the pending Supreme Court case determining the legality of job discrimination against lower income workers who haven't been able to afford brain improvement drugs. Scott will be back at 10 from his surveying trip with recommendations on how to move the last citizens out of New Orleans, now that Hurricane Rod has cleared the way for us to federalize the whole region for oil development."

Like it or not, the world a potential President Palin could inhabit in 6 years is one that will demand rapid information processing on the part of our senior political leader.

Bless,
Doug

Sorry, penumbra is singular, so I should have said that "there is a penumbra of rights", not "there are".

Cranky: "Palin neither cares, nor gets interested in "following" some ideological icon around. Same with religion. She's not evangelizing some ideology, as you're expecting her to do, because her "ideology" is not an ideology. It is simply learned life lessons put in play by rational people - just as mine is. ... Just like all the other Beltway types, you're unable to fathom a non-pigeonholed politician."

How do you know this about Palin, other than through projection and assertion? I haven't seen anything in Palin's record or behavior, or personal history, or public words, to suggest that her worldview has been created exclusively out of "learned life lessons", or as my grandma would say out of whole cloth. It seems just as likely that her thinking has been shaped by outside input: pastors, mentors, a few crucial articles or excerpts or historical documents at key moments in her life.

The question is, what has influenced Sarah Palin? We don't have much material to work from, which is why we're all spinning theories and projecting them. But I keep coming back to this quote from only 10 years ago:

"Sarah Palin, a commercial fisherman from Wasilla, told her husband on Tuesday she was driving to Anchorage to shop at Costco. Instead, she headed straight for Ivana. And there, at J.C. Penney's cosmetic department, was Ivana, the former Mrs. Donald Trump, sitting at a table next to a photograph of herself. She wore a light-colored pantsuit and pink fingernail polish. Her blonde hair was coiffed in a bouffant French twist. 'We want to see Ivana,'' said Palin, who admittedly smells like salmon for a large part of the summer, ''because we are so desperate in Alaska for any semblance of glamour and culture.'"

http://www.eandppub.com/2008/09/when-sarah-pali.html

Bless her, but I think that's the real Sarah Palin. Her worldview then was formed by outside influences - most likely TV and popular magazines. If I had to guess, I'd say Palin is probably a woman who engages with the world beyond her daily experience primarily through television.

There are non-ideological people, I suppose, although it depends on what you mean by "ideology." But I think Palin is as much a creature of her culture as most folks, and her years in that culture have not prepared her to lead the United States.

Bless,
Doug

Some interesting poll results:

'A week after a Rasmussen Reports survey discovered that by a ten-to-one margin the public believes the media are trying to hurt Sarah Palin, a new Rasmussen poll of 1,000 likely voters, briefly highlighted Wednesday night on FNC's Hannity & Colmes, determined "69 percent remain convinced that reporters try to help the candidate they want to win, and this year by a nearly five-to-one margin voters believe they are trying to help Barack Obama." Specifically, "50 percent of voters think most reporters are trying to help Obama win versus 11 percent who believe they are trying to help his Republican opponent John McCain" with 26 percent saying "reporters offer unbiased coverage." Even amongst Democrats, more think journalists are aiding Democrat Obama than Republican McCain: "While 83 percent of Republican voters think most reporters are trying to help Obama, 19 percent of Democrats agree, one percentage point higher than the number of Democrats who believe they are trying to help McCain." Most telling, "unaffiliated voters by a 53 percent to 10 percent margin see reporters trying to help Obama."'

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080911.asp#1

Double doggone darn you Rod, removing cranky's rant like that. I wanted to reply, dddddd, all over again.

Seriously the catch in his gate latch is he sees himself in Palin without acknowledging the part of Palin that's not in him. Palin has labored long and hard to get where she is today. She's been hooked on politics and poltical trappings since, when, 92?

Cranky can be the individualistic sort because he's not been involved in getting ahead, passionate even, about getting ahead in politics like she has.

So think about it. If your passion was to be someone on the political stage wouldn't you at least be studying for what has to come once you get there? Have you thought for a minute about what it's about besides having your name up there in lights?

This could explain the disappointment in Palin expressed by the likes of the press, even people in the business like Dreher. They're used to dealing with people who know the rules of the game and are good at it. Part of that is being literate about the topics being discussed.

Cranky has a good explanation of cranky. But Palin's no cranky. I've known crankys.

These are the choices:

John McCain and Sarah Palin

or

Barack Obama and Joe Biden

There are no others. No Iron Man or Supergirl is going to come to the rescue and bump Barack or Sarah off the ticket.

It's like those menus that say NO SUBSTITUTIONS. (And you know how well that played out in FIVE EASY PIECES.)

Nothing you think, do or say will change the above.

You cannot make Palin better, make her smarter, make her more "ready," or make her go away, and you cannot change Barack Obama from a liberal pro-choice leftist socialist friend of liberal pro-choice leftist socialist persons and politics.

Barring unforeseen events, this will still be the situation on November 4. If you start today taking aspirin every day in increasing doses, perhaps you will be able to stand the pain on November 5, because no matter who wins, you will still hate it, even though they're the only choices you have, and you know it.

Happy Rosh Hashanah and all that. Eat some honey cake.

Doug,
True enough

Cranky can be the individualistic sort because he's not been involved in getting ahead, passionate even, about getting ahead in politics like she has.

And your judgement of her is what? And what do you base this on?

How do you know this about Palin, other than through projection and assertion? I haven't seen anything in Palin's record or behavior, or personal history, or public words, to suggest that her worldview has been created exclusively out of "learned life lessons", or as my grandma would say out of whole cloth. It seems just as likely that her thinking has been shaped by outside input: pastors, mentors, a few crucial articles or excerpts or historical documents at key moments in her life.

How do I know this? Well... I've driven and walked the streets of Dillingham, eaten at the Muddy Rudder. Paid the painful prices at the AC, too. I've many a friend who has the same life experiences as her.

I've watched her candid video, the stuff where she's not in a political moment.

I know what her work has been, who she's done it with, and what it takes to survive and thrive at the life she's had before governor and mayor.

And I know that when she's asked a question, she doesn't policy wonk - it comes out straight from the gut. She reveals a dedication to her job in her words that isn't deliberate, just leaks out, and leaks out in spite of her.

I know that when she talks in unguarded moments, her comments reveal that her "ideology" isn't calculated. It's just her character. It in instinctive and natural.

I've been in small business, in one form or another, for more than 30 years. My job in many cases, has required me to size up people's abilities and sometimes their depth of knowledge, with little to go on other than a couple minute's talk and their eyes, so that I could help them. I've learned to trust my gut, because it has an excellent track record.

I do not expect you to trust my gut. Nor me. You don't know me. But I would expect you to open your eyes a little wider, absorb a little more, becasue you're seeing what you wish to see... not all there is to see.

And, oh, holy terrors, some crank said she went to see Ivana Trump and said Alaska generally lacks glamour.

That would be true. I know, I've seen the people, the streets, and walked them in Fairbanks, Dillingham, Togiak, Barrow, and so on.

These people are NOT who you think they are. They are different from you in ways you simply cannot understand without some life experience. They have lived a life very foreign to you. You cannot judge them by beltway rules and learn ANYTHING true.

Rod, what do you want from you? Your legit honest Palin take forwards the left's agenda so they gleefully put you on GMA and Larry King because it forwards their agenda. Here is my two cents as to what this reader expects from you:

1. Remember the Home Team. The home team is not the Republicans; it's not the conservatives; it's not the readers of this blog or your column; it's not Crunchy cons; it's not the Dallas Morning News; it's not Beliefnet. The home team is your family. Unfortunately, I have seen many folks not realize this in their careers until they got hit between the eyeballs with this fact. I've seen this first hand, and in some respects learned it the hard way. My home team is my wife and son. Not my company, not ideology, not even my friends. The home team is the people you would lay your life on the line for. Going on GMA and Larry King is good for your career and could lead to bigger and better things for you and your home team. So do it. And hey, let us readers know in advance so we can watch!

2. Give us your honest take. There are plenty of cheerleaders out there from both sides. I love your blog because I feel like here is prominent conservative writer and thinker who is actually a real genuine social conservative. For example, I like some of Jonah's writings but your old/new friend Jonah Goldberg was willing to sell us on protecting marriage at the drop of a hat. It's nice to have a real social conservative to read. A real social conservative in what some call the conservative intelligentsia is just what the doctor ordered.

3. Use your opportunities in writing and tv to advance the causes you believe in. I think it is fair to say that in some ways the media is using you to promote its goal. Utilize your opportunities to promote your causes especially the belief in God and His son our Savior Jesus Christ; the fact that we are made in the image of God; that human being have worth; that unborn baby human beings should not be killed in the womb; that we as a culture and a people seem surprised that when we try to run God out of lives and out of our communities that evil and sin run in.

AB: Nope, no important editors here. Just a guy working late kicking around ideas on the web, or maybe an engaged citizen who has followed the presidential race intently for two years. Or maybe just a crank, but hopefully not a cranky one.

Bless,
Doug

Chris, nothing's threatening. But Rod thought my response was somehow insulting or something.

You asked who she followed for her ideology. and was it important?

My answer was none and no

Same with her faith.

Basically, i'm saying that while a lot of people seem unable to get out of the beltway mentality and gotta know if you're a conservative of "x" persuasion or "y" persuasion, or if your brand of christianity is someone or other's vision.

Sadly, it seems that everyone here is content to measure the worth of a person's ability to govern by whether or not they SAY they read specific "Important" magazines. or whether or not they jump on all the hot button SCOTUS cases and can roll them off your tounge, as if they mattered a molehill to getting a job done.

I am utterly dismayed that people who supposedly hold the principle of doing the right thing for the country turn their back and run like lemmings the moment they can invent some flaw in the candidate on their side.

I once held hopes that real, genuine, moral, uncorrupted by beltway politics people could organize and be elected, and I've all but decided it can't be done. Even those on your own side of the political pursuasion will turn on you and anyone like "ordinary". Even the above ordinary, because they have elite worship syndrome.

The folly is breathtaking. We need only look at what's going on in DC to realize that no measure of "eliteness" and "political preparedness" means a damn thing. In fact, it seems to predicate breathtaking folly in word and deed, and seems to have completely destroyed every principle of American government and governmental restraint, as the people fawn in blind obeisance at the altar of "political wisdom".

Right now, that altar is expelling fermenting, warm, wet, flowing excrement in a literal volcano of stupidity...

And yet, they still demand all conform to the "vision".

It's almost enough to make one say "time to move to Alaska and join the secessionists".

On Palin's experience and qualifications:

americanthinker.com/2008/10/sarah_palin_and_the_experience.html

You pared my post. There was nothing crude, or unacceptable in honest debate. Why?