Ok, If you haven’t already, please read BrianR’s
excellent post, The
GOP: Still "Out to Lunch"? Next, read the comments, as that’s really
where this all started. Then read this
post. Finally, please comment and put in
your 2 cents.
In response to some of the comments at BrianR’s blog,
in no particular order:
A. “Let's see. She was nothing
but McAmnesty's election beard. She resigned her FIRST term as governor
mid-stream, in a state that has a smaller population than the city of Los
Angeles. She got outtalked by Katie Couric, she of the brain that's smaller
than her size-A cups. Palin has to refer to notes written in the palm of her
hand, like a 6th-grader cheating on a test (Hello? Presidential teleprompter,
anyone?). She's still on record as being prop-amnesty.” Humorously, I note that the
detractions you use are mostly the ones that both the left and the RINOs
use. Careful of the company you keep
there ;)
B. To address
just one of those detractions, it is helpful to contrast her with The Big
O. The Big O is a slave to his
teleprompter for even the shortest of speeches; Palin writes 6 words on the
palm of her hand. When the Big O gets
called on the teleprompter, he gets testy but continues to use it; when Palin
gets called on the hillbilly palm pilot, she deftly turns it into a joke (Hi
Mom!, Loggers rock!, etc.). And, while
we’re on the subject, let’s not conflate the use of a teleprompter to read a
scripted speech with 6 words comprising 3 bullet points. I have no problem with anyone using
notes/cards/teleprompters, but that’s not the issue, is it? It’s the utter reliance on one of those
tools. In other words, if Palin had
written the text of her reply down the length of both arms and read them word
for word, you’d have a point. Her use of
a single note card, in the form of her hand, doesn’t demand a comparison with
Obama and his teleprompter; it demands a contrast. In addition, politicians spend enormous
amounts of time to appear like one of the populace. The Big O looks particularly awkward when he
attempts it. Palin effortlessly, in this
case with a few words on a hand, looks like a "commoner." If we see her in a flannel shirt or driving a
truck or holding a rifle, we know she's not just using campaign props. On a side note, I’m guessing Jan Brewer is
wishing she had jotted down a couple words on her hand for her debate
with Goddard.
C. I don't know
that she's the best that the Republican party can come up with, but she's
better than most of what's already been offered (Romney, Huckster, Pawlenty,
Gingrich, etc. At this point I would not
vote for a single one of those guys). I
do like DeMint, though I find it interesting that he seems to endorse whoever
Palin endorses), and, as you've said in the past, there's a good chance that
person who ends up getting the nomination is someone no one is talking about
atm.
D. re: Tea Party spokesman. First, I don't think, as An-Lib said, that
she has arrogated that role for herself (and if she did, I'd have to give her
Machiavellian style points). Many politicians
(and pundits) have tried to get at the head of that train; none that have tried
have, and most of them aren't even allowed on the bandwagon. For whatever reason, a good portion of the
Tea Party has elevated her (and Beck) to that status. I find it somewhat ironic that some of us
have no problem lecturing RINOs to respect the Will of the People when they
select an anti-establishment conservative in a primary instead of the RINO, but
will then lecture those same voters
about their selection of a spokesperson or party leader. Ed said, “What's really funny is watchng the GOP realize that there
is no way they can coopt the Tea Party, because it is so decentralized.” And, yet, there sits Palin at the head of the
Tea Party. Question: Has she coopted it, or is she there because
she hasn’t tried to?
E. I don't know
that she thinks of herself as a Kingmaker, but I do know that others are
thinking she has that role or is on the way to having it; her endorsements of
Haley, O'Donnell, and Miller, and the effect of those endorsements, have
solidified that thinking. Whatever the
case, I do think she is, to a large degree, driving the political narrative
(e.g. "death panels").
Whenever she says something, what she says becomes the topic of
conversation for the week.
F. She’s a
celebrity. Well, yes, but she’s a
political celebrity. She’s not a movie
star or a lead singer for a rock band. To
write her off as a mere celebrity of the George Clooney type is to misunderestimate
her. She’s not a celebrity dabbling in
politics, but a politician who has become a celebrity and is using that
celebrity for political purposes. Someone
might point out that Obama was a political celebrity, too. True, but he is of the 15 minutes of fame
type. He was rocketed to unprecedented
heights, but his capsule has re-entered the atmosphere and it’s burning up at
an alarming rate. On the other hand,
people were saying Palin’s 15 minutes of fame were up two hours ago and have continued
to say so. They might be right at some
point. It has been said that even a
broken clock is right twice a day. But I
won’t hold my breath.
G. “ What the hell is this whole essay about?” I don’t know, but it seems like most of the
comments are about Palin. Somehow she’s
managed to hijack the narrative again ;)
H. AnLib asks, “Isn’t loyalty to principle more
important than paying back political favors?”
I think that’s something most people would affirm. But what if it’s the wrong question? What if personal loyalty is one of your
principles? Even when it costs you? What if you have two competing principals,
one personal and one political? Which
one should trump the other? Your
personal code of conduct? Or your
political philosophy? I would imagine
the two seldom come into conflict, but I don’t think it’s ultra rare either,
particularly in politics. Sometimes people
answer that political principals come first.
This is often seen in the debate over abortion. Palin has evidently decided that personal
loyalty was more important than political ideology. I won’t fault her for that; it’s a decision I
may well have made myself. The fact
that, more often than not, she’s endorsed the anti-establishment tea party
candidate, even when it was not the “popular” thing to do, should count for
something. The Delaware race in
particular would have been an easy one to say, “I think Castle is the most
conservative person we can elect here at this present time,” and cave to the
establishment in hopes of another sure Senate seat. If we lose that seat, Palin will take no end
of flack for her endorsement of O’Donnell.
Will the same people harping on her McCain endorsement be out defending
her when that happens? Or will they
shrug with a well, whatever, never mind kind of attitude?
I. A final observation. People keep saying that Palin is dumb,
inarticulate, lucky, etc. It’s amazing
how someone so brainless can pinball their way through life despite the overwhelming
opposition from the machine. It’s easy
to conceive of someone who isn’t that bright getting to heights they have no
reason for being at when there is little to no opposition. But I’m not sure how she has waded through
all the hate, slander, and ridicule to get to where she is, which is, quite
possibly, the pinnacle of the U.S. political world. Obama and leading Democrats have to address
her. Establishment Republicans have to
address her. Tea Party candidates must
thank her. The leftist blogosphere must
attack her. The conservative blogosphere
must argue about her. An army of
Americans from every walk of life has formed up behind her. It’s simply amazing. As an aside, when I say “have to” and “must,”
I mean “compelled to.” Now, I don’t know
if she can, or even should be, president, but I don’t know that I would bet
against her. As Eric Croft has noted “The political landscape here is
littered with people who have underestimated Sarah Palin.”
Aight, I’m
sure I got something wrong in there somewhere, so: Let the flame war begin! Or something.
Whatever.
Oh, and check
these essays out when you get a chance:
The
Palin Card by the Great Doctor Zero
Has
Sarah Palin saved the GOP? By Paul Goldman in the Washington Post