Sarah Palin's poisoned chalice

As if Obama's faith (association with Wright! secret Muslim!) and political record (voted to let babies die! hates America! pals with terrorists!) weren't misrepresented and mocked. This is what politics & running for office gets you. It is not because Palin was female, or fertile, or attractive.

I repeat, WHO are the mainstream commentators saying all these many hateful things about Palin's children? Name names, prior to the election. Andrew Sullivan's weird theories of Trig's parentage don't even count, as they were about Palin.

And I do reserve the right to point out that someone who attends four or five colleges before receiving a B.A is not exactly serious about education.

Since you and Ross were both among the people who piled on her for not being very smart, for having poor academic credentials, and being "simple," I assume you include yourselves among the awful media elites who harmed Palin?

Going through your past writing on Sarah, you yourself were arguably pretty condenscending about her--once the glow of the original announcement wore off--and incredibly dismissive. You ultimately seemed to acknowledge you were only defensive of her because you thought she shared your values and hated seeing your own values criticized.

And "Free Iran" would you have invade Iran to "free" it? I voted for Obama and have never doubted my choice. McCain would have been a disaster. We'd probably around be invading Iran as we speak.

As someone who is not a fan of Palin's I do think that she was treated differently because of her sex and her class. However, I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to look down on her for being middle middle class (she's not working class). I want my first family to be of the 'elite' class in this country. Look at the Obamas and you see elite doesn't mean being to the elite. I want Ivy League educations and non-pregnant 17 year old daughters.

I was not a fan of Bush but at the very least one could say that he had an admirable family. I was never concerned about college drinking of the daughters. That's pretty normal stuff. But both girls went to good schools and behaved like nice, well brought up daughters.

Re: I want Ivy League educations and non-pregnant 17 year old daughters.

I went to an Ivy League school, and I can tell you that in addition to a lot of people who generally love learning and wisdom, there are a lot of people interested in nothing more than climbing to the heights of wealth and power and scr*wing over everyone they need to to get there. Top class education, much like politics, seems to have a higher than average proportion of all-around unpleasant people.

As for pregnant 17 year old daughters, just why is Bristol Palin's youthful experimentation with unprotected sex any worse than Mr. Obama's (and Mr. Bush also) youthful flirtation with cocaine? Unlike cocaine, sex is not illegal and does not generally lead to lethal car accidents or violent rampages. People make mistakes while they are young, it doesn't make them inherently bad people and it certainly doesn't make their parents bad people. As for Bristol's baby, at least he is going to grow up loved and well taken care for, which is more than a lot of kids in America.

I oppose nearly all of Palin's politics, with the exception of abortion and a few related issues, and I would not have liked to see her and McCain win. I didn't vote for them. But I think it's abhorrent to see her attacked for her number of children, her choice not to kill her youngest child, her parenting skills or her educational history. Give me a break.

I've read this through 3 times, and let it stew for a while, because each time I read it, my gut says something is wrong. I found it.

"All of this had something to do with ordinary partisan politics. But it had everything to do with Palin's gender and her social class."

I disagree.

Her gender only colored the details. And to a degree, it also is true of the "social class" aspect. I believe the real root of the issue revolves around culture.

What aspects? Her lack of pretense. Being plain spoken. Speaking in everyday terms that relate to the vast everyday population. And, above all, ignoring the culturally loaded media environment.

Remember the question about what she read? And she just said "all of them"? To a small subset of the population, that's "important". After all, you have be "in on" the latest greatest and most trendy and progressive of publications. I even recall Rod's commentary about how one could not possibly be fit for DC until they'd read a certain subset of publications for some time. It matters to the Beltway crowd which ones you read. That's part of how you are judged. I could not care less. Neither does Palin. Score one for having some sense.

But, oh my, the flap that generated here and elsewhere. Why, one cannot be "intellectually curious" and not know that there's specific publications you have to telegraph that you read so that others "know" the depth of your intellect. What effete snobbery.

YOu see, there's a common culture... and the culture of DC and certain other "metropolitan" centers. A rarified air of self delusional perception of intellectual superiority.

And anyone, be they atheist or Christian, male or female, black or white, rich or pauper, regardless of level of education, will be treated with precisely the same level of contempt and snobbery as Palin was for having the gall to intrude themselves into the rarified air where the "betters" know they have the right to govern, or at least be the doorkeepers to the reigns of power.

The Palin experience suggests the same thing for a woman politician of Palin's background and beliefs.

Let's examine two women of similar backgrounds, both born in middle class families, both college educated, both Republican, both largely pro-life, both of whom got a start on local TV news before entering politics.

I'm speaking of Kay Bailey Hutchison of course (and considering Rod lives in Texas, I'm surprised she didn't spring to mind immediately). Why does Palin get savaged while Hutchison is one of the top Republicans in the Senate and a contender for Texas governor?

Perhaps the thesis is wrong: perhaps Palin gets savaged not because she's a woman, not because of her beliefs, but because she's a trainwreck.

Scratch a bully, find a coward. Sarah Palin made her career out of regional bigotry and class-warfare resentment. She will never, ever be forgiven for her snot-flicking comments about how her supporters are "Real Americans" who live in "Real America". Who is Sarah Palin to attack so many other Americans, not to mention THEIR little children too? I guess a majority of Americans aren't "Real," since she lost; the very definition of elitism. She also supports the Iraq War, an INSANELY elitist position. She is an uppity, condescending elitist who is open in her contempt for the regions where most Americans live. Forget the red herring of her E! True Hollywood Story family drama: her frothymouthed rage against the majority of her own countrymen marked her permanently unfit for office.

I totally agree with Radley Balko. Thanks for posting the quotation.

I am so sick of Ditto-bots and Palin Zombies being so content and happy with their mediocrity and reversed elitism. So they end up victimizing themselves by accusing anyone who actually has a discerning viewpoint and brings out any of these inconsistancies as being "snobs" or "elitists" posing as conservatives. Boo hoo woah is me wah wah wah ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz.

I guess I don't get the the Palin was not too bright or curious stuff. As I stated the day of her pick she was going to have a quick practical learning curve. I also stated she was going to stumble. Her gaffes were nothing huge compared to what every hopeful did.

The reason they were ablee to recover was no one was paying attention two years ago over what they said at the KInights of Columbus Chicken Dinner in Iowa. That is why people go up there for a couple of years. It is a training ground for when people start paying attention.

I guess the solution to this is just pick people who have ran. But then we eliminate a good bit of talent.

And so I found myself where Ross and Radley Balko are today: believing that Palin blew it,

But do you at least acknowledge that you are also part of the media elite that was dismissive of her, at least in the eyes of her supporters? You commented that she didn't read the same things that other elites (you) read, didn't have the grasp of issues that elites (you) had, and couldn't argue the way elites (you) could.

People like Ross and you like to talk about media elites as if they are other, when in fact you are talking about yourselves. You are a media elite. So is Ross. And you were both part of the "Palin is too stupid" crowd that piled on Palin when she was no longer a convenient role model.

Of course I'm part of the media elite, and so is Ross. And so is Fred Barnes, and Charles Krauthammer, and Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh. So what's your point?

I don't criticize elitism per se, and don't see how any conservative could. Those who believe elitism has no place in our public judgments have no ground to stand on in defending the plaintiffs in the Ricci case. I, for one, want firefighters to be members of an elite. Same with soldiers.

I'll say again: I started out thinking well of Palin when she was first picked, and emotionally bonded to her when Andrew Sullivan and others began mercilessly attacking her. When she started speaking out on her own, I found it increasingly impossible to defend her as a plausible vice presidential candidate. Anyone, left or right, who wants to lead the world's most powerful nation has to have a certain ability to discuss issues and ideas relevant to the position. I don't believe Palin is that person. Neither, as it happens, am I -- but then again, nobody asked me to run for vice president. What a strange thing that some people conclude that because a politician comes across as likable and everyday, that they are competent to run the country. You wouldn't put somebody in charge of a business because she seemed like good people; you'd demand some real confidence that she was up to the tasks demanded of her. So why give Palin a pass?

What you, Davis, seem to assume is that because Palin is the embodiment of a certain conservative ideal, then it is impossible for her to fail. If you think that conservatives like me made a poor judgment about Palin, that's fine -- please trouble yourself, then, to make that argument. You are arguing fallaciously, though, alleging that Ross, I and other conservatives who turned on Palin only did so because we're bad people. That's argumentum ad hominem, a classic fallacy.

Tell me: what would Palin have to do or say for you to conclude that she's not suited for national leadership? If you can't come up with anything, that tells us something about the faith-based nature of your pro-Palin beliefs.

"Bottom line: Palin lacked KNOWLEDGE, not intellectual ability or smarts. She obviously has smarts. What she lacked/lacks was the KNOWLEDGE of policy. Other than oil and gas, she has no policy knowledge, and tried/tries to hide that lack of policy knowledge with cliched platitudes which lack any substantive meaning."

I suspect she had a tad more knowledge than Oil and Gas. As a Governor she brings certain knowledge to the table and perspective that lets say Biden does not.

jh -

How so?

I don't quite understand your argument. Are you saying that by being elected Governor, a person gains policy knowledge. Anyone who watched the Debates for Governor in Alaska knows that Palin showed a tremendous knowledge of Oil and Gas policy - yet lacked everywhere else. She won the governorship with personality and charm, not with policy positions. Her term as Governor did nothing to show a mastery or policy, nor did her run for VP.

So, I ask respectfully, what exactly are the policy areas in which Palin is knowledgeable?

If you can't come up with anything, that tells us something about the faith-based nature of your pro-Palin beliefs.

I'm nor pro-Palin. I think she was completely unqualified to be vice president and, from all appearances, even governor of Alaska.

I'm just trying to understand how you and Douhat seem to think your condescension towards Palin is on a higher road than "the elite mainstream media" and its condescension towards Palin. When you insinuate she's stupid because she doesn't read and can't answer questions and went to the wrong schools, why is that a more enlightened critique than those on the left who insinuated she was stupid because she went to the wrong church, had serious parenting problems, and appeared only to have a passing familiarity with the truth.

I and other conservatives who turned on Palin only did so because we're bad people. That's argumentum ad hominem, a classic fallacy.

So you'd also agree that those on the left--including Andrew Sullivan--and those in the "elite mainstream media" aren't bad people because they questioned the sincerity of her values and life story.

Andrea,

On a personal level, I kind of like her. As a pro-life person, I entirely approve of her carrying her Down Syndrome child to term and unashamedly showing him off at different events and of her standing by her pregnant teenage daughter.

Yes, yes. This makes sense. It hints at a core of integrity in the woman. And I do NOT think she's a stupid person. She does need to study up and become conversant with national issues, but I think she has the brain power to do that.

You don't need to go to Harvard to be smart.

I wanted to like her at first. Young, dynamic, from a rural mountian state like mine. I was hoping she would be a new Republican, concerned with good government and not with politicizing social issues. My honeymoon period was only a few days long, though, and then I soured so much that I decided not to vote for McCain, because of her and what his choice of her told me about him.

Davis, I am not certain that most people are calling her stupid; the pointed term is incurious, which is worse in my book any day.

Why would anyone think you have to go to Harvard or any other Ivy League school to be capable of governing? Of course they're fine schools and their major advantage is probably the networking opportunities they provide, but I think it's equally possible to get a fine education at a state university, most of which offer opportunities to study abroad, to get internships in government offices, or to work with fine minds. It's also possible to get a decent education at a ghetto school, provided you study and listen in class. Education is largely what you put into it and how willing you are to take advantage of the opportunities that present themselves. I live in fly over country and I suspect I knew more about foreign affairs than Sarah Palin did when she first ran for vice president, because I cared enough to read multiple foreign papers on-line and talk to people from different parts of the world, also on-line and had read the histories of different countries to try to figure out how they impact what is happening now. I have a B.A from a state university and I'm a reporter for a daily, but still small town, newspaper in said fly-over state. She started out in journalism too, but I don't think she was curious enough to do any of that. It had nothing to do with her not going to Harvard or being from Alaska.

Geoff G,

not that this matters, but kay doesn't believe that unborn children have an inalienable right to life. She believes that they have a contingent right to life. She may not want to see public funds support abortion but she has no desire to turn over roe v wade. thats what ticks off the media/ivy league elite about palin. that she believes (un-apologetically) that the rights of individuals are grounded in their nature and not in their will. While kay might have discomfort with the bloodiness of abortion, this just reinforces her credentials that the will is the ultimate arbiter.

as far as political skills, kay may be a fine administrator or legislator but she isn't perceived as a leader. Thats what counts, Obama had a limited legislative background and no administrative background but he was perceived as a leader.

One of the best pieces of advice I ever got was this: You're never as good as your best reviews, or as bad as your worst ones.

People who find themselves out in front of the public tend to get lots of good and bad reviews, and often they lose fundamental grasp of who they are, if they ever knew to begin with. That's how we wind up with celebrities, politicians and other public personas who become pathetic characterizations of themselves.

That said, Balko has it righter than Douthat. This is "the media's fault" only in that Palin herself bought all the hype about her, and then was stunned to learn that she's not all that after all.

Davis: The difference between Rod and Ross and the elites is that they were supporters of Palin out of the gate and then once she was galloping around the track and they saw her bum leg and lousy jockey their hopes were dashed, as were mine. The media elites as you so proudly want to lump us in with, insulted and condemned her before she even got out of the gate. To prove this you need to go back and look at the archives and see what was really said by Rod during the week of the convention and then after. Otherwise what has been said since the initial "Palin disillusionment” has no bearing now regardless of how similar it might sound to your "elites" that you so proudly lump us into. Just because I might agree with left-wing/progressives about some of the same reasons why I thought Sara Palin was a poor choice as McCain's running mate doesn't mean I agree with them on the issues or their political philosophy. But what your saying essentially is that it is, which is totally ludicrous and irrational. Common sense IE "noticing that Palin is a few bricks shy" is not the same as liberal and presuppositional elitism that mocks someone before they even open their mouth. The bottom line is your brand of reversed right wing elitism is just as ridiculous as the left wing snobbery that you’re accusing us of.

JG: Further, for Dreher to paint with such broad stroke and consider those like Limbaugh and Hannity as media elites like himself and Douthat is intellectually dishonest.

I don't say they are media elites "like" me; I say they are media elites. I live in a little old house in a gentrifying neighborhood in Dallas. Limbaugh lives in a mansion on Palm Beach. I don't know where Hannity lives, but those guys are vastly wealthier than I'll ever be, and certainly incomparably more influential as elite media figures. Face it, you can't make tens of millions of dollars a year and not be an elitist, whether you want to be or not. Having that kind of money, not to say fame, puts out in a rarefied crowd. I would suppose that Rush Limbaugh and Arianna Huffington have far more in common than either of them do with their average fan -- though many of those fans have a psychological interest in denying that difference.

Anyway, it's not condescending to Palin to criticize her per se; the nature of or the reason for the criticism may or may not be condescending. It is absolutely condescending to her to hold her to a more flexible (shall we say) set of standards simply because she is One Of Us.

I still think it's a matter of defining terms, and to me, the college dropout who earns millions of dollars annually and whose lack of a college degree is actually a point of pride in his biography, bolstering his fame as a self-made man, breathes just the same rarefied air as the Ivy League graduate whose educational background contributes greatly to his success. It's two different kinds of elitism, and different groups find one kind more or less appealing/inspiring.

I'll agree with you, though, that outspoken evangelical Christianity can, unfortunately, become a liability for any public person.

Someone -- maybe Booker T. Washington, I can't recall -- once said that because of prejudice, black Americans who wanted to get ahead in America would have to be better than good enough to withstand the things thrown at them in their ascent to the top. The Palin experience suggests the same thing for a woman politician of Palin's background and beliefs.

No, Rod. It says the opposite. Palin's problem was that she needed to be better than good - it was that she displayed on every occasion that she was less than mediocre.

Think. If the Obama children were older and one of them was pregnant, if Barack Obama had given an interview that displayed utter ignorance as drastically as Palin's one with Couric, if Barack Obama had run not only policy but solely on the politic of grievance and victimization - would he have had even the slightest chance at winning the nomination, much less the election, or ever coming near the presidency? NO. There is not a chance in hell. That Palin could get as far as she did despite her lacks is astonishing.

Read Ta-Nehisi Coates' post on Palin; it would be very informative to you.

Palin showed all the same flaws as Bush - unthinking fundamentalism, ignorance and incuriosity, a belief that she could not be wrong combined with an unwillingness to understand or acknowledge facts. At least part of the backlash against her, I believe, must have been based on people's horror that after 8 eight years under Bush the country actually remained foolish enough to risk someone who was exponentially worse.

Katherine said:

Think. If the Obama children were older and one of them was pregnant, if Barack Obama had given an interview that displayed utter ignorance as drastically as Palin's one with Couric, if Barack Obama had run not only policy but solely on the politic of grievance and victimization - would he have had even the slightest chance at winning the nomination, much less the election, or ever coming near the presidency? NO. There is not a chance in hell. That Palin could get as far as she did despite her lacks is astonishing.
==================================

Every speech, every statement, every interview, Barak Obama displayed incomprehensible ignorance, lack of understanding, and a radicalized agenda.

And he still does.

Palin just made common sense.

I think Balko has it right. She was dim, and also excessively attacked... though her buffoonery brought on many of the attacks.

rachel
July 6, 2009 10:44 PM
Incomprehensible ignorance?
======================

Yeah, how one can be that ignorant is hard to comprehend.

Unmet in contemporary electoral history, the "type" of continuing prolonged discourse Sarah Palin has provoked from the day she walked onto the national stage amazes. Until that day, Palin was a gorgeous, brassy, sexy lady; devoted wife, mother, and daughter; an unapologetic Bible believing Christian whose walk of faith was initially mirrored by a personal, pro-life decision; a woman whose educational pedigrees were not as stellar as the one to whom she was most often compared (interestingly, that was the President); and a successful and popular Governor of the State of Alaska. On the day she captured larger significance than even that very admirable and unique set of qualifications and blessings, she not only magnetized attention to her, but a state whose identity and utility has been rather ambiguous, ignored, or disconnected since its Seward's Folly days. (Consider its rich, untapped resources and key military location as but two examples.) By what many believe an untimely departure from her role as Governor, I suspect the unconventional Sarah's decision to vacate her elected role will still serve the state she loves - and by extension - and with apology to Hawaii - the lower 48.

Until Sarah Palin's best seller with Lynn Vincent is published, this prolonged discourse will probably stop just as suddenly as it appeared to those who did not follow her meteoric rise before. And The Atlantic Monthly may even one day publish an article akin to their April 1993 article about Dan Quayle: "Sarah Palin was Right!"

However, Palin will not retire into the same obscurity as Quayle. Like media's Rush Limbaugh, she obviously connects with ordinary Americans because they believe she cares in a very down to earth, honest way; she's likable; she's fearless fighting "big" whether it's big government, big oil, or big people in their own minds. She's young. And, as has been often stated before, she's not to be underestimated.

Leaders come in all shapes, sizes, and with varied backgrounds and IQs. No matter what we believe or state, positively or negatively, Sarah Palin is a leader. Until her next chapter of life emerges, I'd like to leave it at that.

Uh, JG, do you happen to be her publisher?

Unabashed spin aside, I think you do make a good point that Palin has become a sort of touchstone--I really can't think of a figure in recent history quite like her, although as so many have pointed out, she does perfectly represent a certain segment of the population of our country (so you'd think there would be a lot more Sarah Palins running around).

All of the Republicans I know made the decision to vote for Obama after they got a load of Palin. If she continues to stay in the public eye and exert influence within the party and becomes even more of a folk hero, I could see her truly leading a rift in the GOP, and new parties (urban fiscally conservative vs. suburban socially conservative) developing on either side of her. I really think that could be her cosmic calling, and it'll be interesting to see what happens next.

RSG
July 7, 2009 12:17 PM
The Palin love-fest just cracks me up. Then it scares the hell out of me. Ladies and gentlemen, lets go read real newspapers, maybe a book or two and turn off Fox News for a good 24 hours. Then come back and talk about Sarah Palin. PLEASE. You just look silly.
===================

Actually, that's exactly what YOU need to do. Stop listening to the twits who think they're the ultimate arbiters of opinion, the referees for the game of politics, and the gatekeepers of power. One of the people, not polished, not a professional liar, not a lawyer, just a homemaker and wife and ordinary working stiff became governor without hook or crook or falsity, and then for whatever reason we may never know, was asked to take national stage.

In one brilliant flash, in a chain of events so unlikely and so certain to not be predicted, this ordinary person, one of uniquely successeful governance and yet, without pretense or image, without a 'brand' and without having strategized for the aquisition of power, hit national stage and turned politics on its ear.

Those who consider themselves the referees of politics continue to shout their calls, unaware that she's not even playing the game. Millions of people who are suddenly now activists and LOUD aren't paying any attention to the self appointed referees either. Why should we? Their game is corrupt, crooked, and rigged. It produces the worst of all possible outcomes, and deserves to be trashed, and the players booted off the field.

So, pundit away. You'll just keep looking more silly by the day. The game you're calling isn't being played. And even more importantly... You neither comprehend nor recognize the game that IS.

Oh come on. How many newspapers have you read today--I've read much of the NYTimes, the Chicago Tribune, Slate, listened to the BBC and NPR and will probably scan the conservative dial this afternoon just for kicks.

What was the last book you read? All of them? Magazines? All of those too? I know, it's gotta be comforting that someone show intellectually stubborn, incurious and self-centered could find herself thrust onto the national stage. Maybe it gives you hope that you too can be famous some day without having to be able to communicate effectively, learn anything or study much. But know that you too will be unqualified for anything other than maybe a seat on a park board. I know many politicians like Sarah Palin. I see them all the time in the course of my work, on stages somewhat large and small. And they all share the same traits, they all represent their constituency in less-than-admirable ways.

Be on your way, Arrghh. May no one ever stand between you and your idiot box. And please, don't vote.