Saturday, July 04, 2009
I used to support Sarah Palin,
My big concern back then was whether she was ready to take on all the BS that comes with running for vice president: "The obvious question, magnified somewhat by John McCain's age, is whether she is ready to be president. Sarah Palin is a quick study. She's smart enough to attract smart people. She's smart enough to listen to them and learn from them. She's savvy enough to cut through the BS and smug self-importance that seems so prevalent in Washington." Further: "If she goes out there [at the VP debate] as simply who she is, Sarah Palin, not as some packaged, handled, media personality, molded to appeal to whatever focus group, then she'll knock the socks off of Joe Biden." Also: "I believe she'll stand up to the national good-ol'-boy networks, especially if they try to make her compromise her own principals. I believe she will always be controversial and will make a lot of enemies on the right and on the left as she gains more and more admirers like me."
I concluded my post with this: "...American voters should not make the mistake of underestimating this woman..."
But now, after her bizarre resignation just short of 3/4 the way through her first term, makes me wonder if, in fact, I overestimated her.
In her defense, no one, public or private, has ever had to face as many incredibly vile and vicious attacks on all fronts solely because they aspired to be vice president (and now maybe president). Eight months after the election, she's still being targeted practically every day in the national media with insults, innuendos, sneers, and insinuations. [Frankly, if I were Todd Palin, I'd have gladly gone on Letterman's show in order to get a shot at punching his lights out for what he said about their daughter.]
It could be that the recent Vanity Fair article was just the last straw. [This hatred seems even more vituperative because she somehow doesn't "deserve" to be the first woman president: first of all, she doesn't fit the uber-feminist mold; she didn't burn her bra in those women's libber demonstrations back in the day; she didn't graduate from a liberal east coast college; she won't kowtow to the political/media aristocracy; she doesn't have a "presence" in national politics; she was even a beauty contestant for chrissakes; but most damningly, she opposes abortion on demand. In other words, she's an outsider and has no business horning in.]
There's little doubt that she intends to remain a public figure on the national stage; possibly to run for president in 2012 or 2016. But the way the Alaska statutes are currently written, as governor, she'd be hamstrung at every turn by the extremely vague ethics rules that require full-fledged investigations for each and every citizen complaint. Most of the complaints filed against her have been filed by the same person one after another and have eventually been proven invalid, but at no small cost to the state to investigate them and to Palin to defend herself, over and over again. [One of the few valid complaints led to Palin reimbursing the state a total of $8,000 in travel costs for her husband and children - this, while Nancy Pelosi took a taxpayer-funded $57,000 vacation in Italy on her way to Iraq.]
I wonder, too, about how her family feels about it all, after spending the last year under a harsh spotlight. I can't imagine how I'd put up with it: every email, memo, and letter that I'd ever written and every comment made to my barber, grocer or dentist being dredged up and analyzed on the Sunday talk shows week after week. Then the vile treatment of her children, with the media even paying off her daughter's "in-laws" to dish whatever dirt they can dream up. Then there's the profound challenge of having to raise her special-needs son.
I'm wondering why she chose to make this stunning announcement on a Friday afternoon before a long national holiday? Did she expect this bombshell to slide by unnoticed? Or, contrarily, did she realize that in such a slow news-cycle, this announcement would get maximum attention?
Personally, I don't think she'll get very far in the primary battle if she tries for 2012. The incessant campaign of hatred, fueled in part by some of her own party's insiders, has succeeded in making her appear less capable than she really is. [I can only guess that this game of revenge by republican campaign insiders is intended to knock her out before she even runs, removing a major roadblock for their own particular candidates long before the primary battles begin.]
Still, when I voted for her for governor I expected her to serve out the entire term she was elected to (although I respected the fact that had McCain actually won the election she obviously would have had to step down from this post). But yesterday's announcement is frustrating to me. There's no doubt that her new-found notoriety made these last eight months in office a lot more difficult that they would have otherwise been. No doubt she expected this to only get worse next year, especially if she does try to play a role on the national stage. But that's just one of the many prices she should expect to pay as a governor and as a potential presidential candidate.
Walking out now just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If she can't multi-task as a governor, how could she handle the same pressures (and worse) as president? If she expects to earn the respect (and votes) from the 2012 electorate, she's going to have to prove to the voters (and now to me) that she wouldn't just cut and run if things got tough as president. Further, we voters have a right to expect our elected presidents to be ready to handle any and all family issues, while devoting their all to the demanding needs of the country.
But, probably my biggest concern is that maybe she has fallen victim to the focus group mentality that she professed to abhor just a year ago. It began to seem as if she had started playing more to the crowd rather than telling us what SHE really wanted to say. Instead of speaking from her heart, she started giving well-crafted speeches aimed at a specific target audience. And she is continuing to play to that same crowd.
In an odd way, even in this role she can be quite useful to the party, provided she can overcome this new negative. She will attract a certain type of voter who might previously have stayed silent. Regardless of her particular politics, she'll bring these voters into the system and they might just stay around long enough to vote for the eventual party nominee, which IMHO won't be Sarah Palin.
Ms. Palin's failure to complete her term, according to news reports, to "unite the country along conservative lines" does not at all fit into my old-time, understanding of what Conservative means.
Thanks so much for your blog. Wow! I'm still reading through, but here's why it's been so helpful for me: I'm taking up the cello at age 40 after a long absence from music. I played piano and clarinet as a kid, but have always loved the cello. I live in Kenai, and have found your comments about weather/trips to Anch. to visit Petr's/travel to Homer for lessons very helpful in envisioning what's in store for me. I'll be renting a cello from Anch soon. I know the rentals are not great instruments, but since I still sound like I'm skinning live cats, it will be OK. Any input or advice? firstname.lastname@example.org
Historically, "anti-elitist" movements have not been good for the arts, which we presumably both support. Shostakovich in particular was badly hurt by such criticism in the late 40s. Both on the right and left, people's careers have been ruined for having this label pinned on them.
Using the label elitist as meaning 'a well educated opponent' no longer has objective meaning in political discourse. Overuse serves only to make the speaker look jealous and spiteful.
If you want a pro-life president, I might suggest that your chances are much improved if you actually look among the elites for one.
This group jealously protects itself and viciously savages any outsiders that dare to step up. Entry into this group is not attained by intellect (far from it), nor merit, nor education, but by birth, wealth, and/or political connection, or in rare instances where you have the appropriate charisma AND you can "fit in".
I find little reason to think that Sarah Palin represents any such anti-intellectual "movement". But at the same time, the recent news has been filled with so much rabid hatred against her, I have to wonder if there isn't some sort of perverse counter movement afoot...
[BTW, I have never been a single-issue voter. I always vote for the candidate that I believe is best equipped to actually govern rather than the one who thinks he/she can simple pander for my vote. In fact, often my vote has gone to a candidate who took strong (and IMHO, sometimes even foolish) positions that were diametrically opposed to my own beliefs. I have voted in every election in my precint since I turned 21 (a year before the age was lowered to 18), supporting an eclectic mix of propositions, bond issues, and candidates from all the major and minor parties as well as more than a few "independent" candidates.]
Links to this post: