David Frum takes this Matthew Dowd column giving Palin friendly advice for how to be more presidential, and boils it down to the essence, identifying the character flaws that will keep Palin from becoming president. It's really well done, and incisively diagnoses what's wrong with Palin's personality -- that is, the things she has to overcome if she hopes to be president.. For example:
RECOMMENDATION 5[quote from Dowd's column]Think accountability. Yes, bad things happen to good people, and it isn't fair. But voters don't want to hear all the excuses of why an interview didn't go well or which other person was responsible for a bad decision. Americans want presidents who accept blame when things go wrong. They are tired of their leaders and institutions not admitting mistakes, learning from errors and making improvements.
[Frum:]Implied problem: The candidate is unable to learn from her mistakes. Plus she's a big complainer.
Having read "Going Rogue," everything Frum says makes perfect sense to me. A note to readers: commenting on Frum's post, please refrain from the Palinista reflex to question Frum's motives, or to say he's a neocon elitist jerk. Focus on the specifics of his analysis. Is he right that Palin is a whiner who can't learn from her mistakes? Are the rest of his conclusions correct? And if not, where does he go wrong? That's a much more interesting thread than saying, "Frum's a RINO, therefore he must be wrong."
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Liam, I agree that there was a creepy aspect to flying in Levi, although it admittedly was a difficult situation to handle and get the balance right. As a candidate, you didn’t want to make it seem as if you were covering up the situation with the unwed, pregnant daughter or denying what had happened. It was to your benefit to have it appear as if all would work out, the couple was in love and planning to marry (as we then read), and that the family was working through the situation much as other families have. Yet I still remember going “oh, oh” when I saw the scenes of Levi arriving at the convention.
I felt badly for him and for Bristol at the time. I just didn’t have a sense that all the publicity would help the young couple nor did I pick up on from watching the coverage a strong sense that they actually might wed, which they ultimately didn’t. (Probably for the best, as it turned out, better to split before marrying than struggling to make a go of it when it was unlikely to work out.) Something just seemed off to me as a viewer at home. Seeing McCain greet Levi so demonstrably at the airport and watching the teens at the convention seemed a little creepy to me due to their youth and their seeming inability to say, don’t flaunt us. But keeping them totally out of sight wouldn’t have been possible, either. Tough situation for the kids.
As to reading newspapers, consider what Palin told Sean Hannity this week: "I read Newsmax and the Frontiersman and Wall Street Journal and everything online. I absorb the news via many, many sources." I have no idea why she said “everything online.” There’s an enormous amount of news online and I don’t see how she reads “everything.” Palin seems to have a tendency to exaggerate when she extemporizes like that. Either she’s speaking in shorthand without clarification (meaning “everything I have time to read”) or she gets nervous (even with a sympathetic, soft-ball questioner such as Hannity) and flubs what she meant to say. Something else to work on.
If all the criticisms leveled against Sarah Palin are accurate, that would place her somewhere in the upper quartile among American polticians in their fitness to serve as President. The American poltical class is squalid. Perhaps she'll rise above it, perhaps not. But please, don't give in to damning her in comparison to her peers. Compared to whom???
A sage said some years ago, perhaps it was Peggy Noonan, that liberals prefer Q&A and debates, while conservatives like thematic speeches. I think that's true. It's why liberals are forever demanding debates. Sarah Palin and other conservatives should pursue venues congenial to them, as liberal pursue venues congenial to them. Play her own game, not theirs.
And don't underestimate Palin's popularity with ordinary citizens fed up to the eyeballs with the political class in America.
Dennis Larkin, I disagree with your assessment of the political class (which I don’t see as monolithic by any means) and your placement of Palin among politicians in fitness to serve as President. There are many who have run for President (successfully or not) whom I see as way ahead of her in terms of qualifications. We seem to be using different criteria. However, I recognize that I am as unlikely to persuade you to look at it from my perspective as you are likely to persuade me to accept your take. To each his own.
You say liberals like Q&A and debate and conservatives like thematic speeches. Where do you see independents? I’m one, and I lean more to the former than the latter. I say that because a debate is more likely to reveal whether a candidate has specific policies in mind than a speech, which, depending on what a speaker thinks the base is looking for, often is little more than feel-good sloganeering. That’s not to say candidates don’t dodge questions or give canned answers, but their choosing to do so tells you something, right there. Also, we bneed to see how candidates handle themslves outside a bubble composed of "friendlies."
One aspect of Palin's story got almost no media attention is the damage Palin's rise would cause her family. To me, that is a huge indicator of her unfitness for office.
Palin claims she knew of Bristol's pregnancy, yet decided to pull her entire family (including the pregnant, underage daughter) into the media storm. If she didn't think her child's pregnancy would be an issue, she is both woefully naive and miserably incapable of anticipating events. Based on that, she showed she lacks the intellectual skill needed for the job.
If she knew the media storm would invade her child's life, but opted for the job anyhow, she's a terrible cynic and an awful mother. Cripes, as politically calculating as Bill and Hillary Clinton were, I don't think either one would ever throw Chelsea under the bus for the spotlight.
Indy,
I don't know where to place independents, as to Q&A or speeches. I know what I would prefer. I would have debaters bring one questioner apiece with their biases obvious to all beforehand. It is a ruse to claim that presidential debate questioners, e.g., are unbiased and merely seekers after the truth. I like English journalism, where if you work for the Guardian we know your politics, and if you work for the Telegraph we know them as well. Too much posing in American politics. If your side has the tacit support of the evening's questioners, your chances are greatly enhanced.
The broad outlines of American law and policy seem not to change with the departure of one Pary and the arrival of the other. The political class is largely agreed on much. Maybe it's because of the ability of the courts to overturn law based on the vote of a few lawyers wearing dresses. Maybe.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.