Saturday, July 18, 2009

What Is Wrong With Sarah

--Sarah, from all that I can gather, hails from the more recent generation of what passes for conservatism now days. It's actually more in line with the sixties democratic party, and is not all that conservative.
And I'm not so sure she's ever contemplated the differences, or has had any reason to.
Think about it: when a Carter appointee, and speech writer for Walter Mondale, has become one of the leading voices of 'conservatism' without having changed his thinking, what does that tell you?
It tells me that, given the option, she would be pursuing the same big government idealism that has already failed the GOP, and shows no signs of relenting.

--Succeeding in Alaska doesn't necessarily prime one for success at the national policy level. By default, Alaska is culturally, geographically and economically isolated from the remainder of the nation.
Resulting in a political culture that by nature has a tendency to not be in tune with what the rest of us are up to, or faced with.
And is why nobody knew her, or about her, prior to McCain dragging her out of the darkness of the midnight sun.

--In order to govern effectively, a President with a solid ideological core doesn't need to know that much. But he would need to know, and have relationships with, the operators, insiders, and skullduggers who know how to make shit happen at the federal level.
And I've seen no evidence that she has these connections.
Despite that she does have the reasonable intelligence to succeed in life, and the skills to run a state such as her own, going national is a another game entirely, played with a wider array of rules on a more treacherous battlefield.

She's gotten a taste of that treachery in just the past eleven months, and found herself wholly unprepared, if not radically blindsided.
These attacks on her, and her family, could have been stopped in the first week if she was feared. But without an army of thugs and plumbers(no, not the 'Joe' kind), there was nothing preventing anybody from crossing that line, or being punished for doing so.

--Relative to the previous point, she's politically naive. There's a damn good reason seasoned politicians do not use Yahoo Mail

--She's not cut from the same cloth as those who usually tend to seek national office. She just may have entered politics with altruistic motives. A worthy attribute, to be sure, but one that is incompatible and counterproductive in the real world of the national stage, where the stakes are higher, the morality greyer, and there are built in contingency plans for every situation.
Evidence: her pregnant teen daughter, and the white trash loser she was dating. Nothing wrong here, from a real world, morality sense. But, when was the last time a prominent political family had one? Do you think they are all virginal before marriage? or, maybe it's just that the sheen on the family crest takes precedence over allowing embarrassing situations to come to light?

Personally, I think anybody who presents Sarah Palin as a viable alternative for a presidential candidate are deluding themselves. At this point, she's too bush league to succeed, and even if she was to actually become president, we would see a political disaster that would make Jimmy Carter look like Ronald Reagan.

As for those who just like her on a personal level and the positive things she represents, continuing to encourage her beyond her abilities will only do her further harm.

8 comments:

kr said...

Myself, I found amusing all the women of my acquaintance who declared and declared, prior to 2008, that they would vote for any woman, just because she was a woman ... but discovered that really, they wouldn't. (Of course, the excuses that John McCain was the top of the ticket and the opposing candidate was black, helped out with the integrity guilt.)

LIke I said, I thought about voting for them ... but I didn't.

But Gino, when was the last time we had someone you think was qualified to be the President actually get anywhere near the ballot?

I think electing an outsider (not necessarily Palin) might be interesting, because it would change all the rules in DC. They would have to (like Lincoln, like Obama, both political lightweights with pretty oratory skills, actually, when elected, and longshots when nominated) choose a lot of savvy advisors.

Gino said...

"But Gino, when was the last time we had someone you think was qualified to be the President actually get anywhere near the ballot?"

better question still: just what is qualified?

Mr. D said...

Well, we didn't elected a qualified person in the past cycle. That much is certain.

I think your views on Palin are pretty much spot-on, though. She's not dumb, but she wasn't ready for what she was up against and I don't suspect she will be any time soon.

Gino said...

thanks, mark.
although, i'm just a bit surprised so few have offered 2-cents of their own.

Robi1 said...

Ain't too much for me to add that hasn't already been said. Palin's a looker, no doubt, but not lookin' out of the window in the oval office...

Robi1 - out.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

I wouldn't necessarily agree, though you may well be right. A lot depends on what she does now.

As for how well she'd do as president? It seems as if the bar will be set very low. The best case scenario for Obama is that he loses his credibility early and is unable to accomplish much other than pretty words. If he actually gets what he wants, he'll be a historically bad president.

kr said...

Gino, I asked when was the last time someone *you* thought was qualified got close ... on purpose, I asked that. Because you are presenting why she shouldn't be elected, from your point of view ... But given who has been getting close to the nominations and who has been getting nominated, I'm curious where she rates.

Guessing (this should set you off ;) )
Ron Paul (questionable whether he was close to the nomination ;), but at least he got heard this cycle
Huckabee
Hillary (if you really rate savvy highly ;) )
McCain
Obama
Palin

now, were ANY of those people actually reasonable Presidential candidates, as far as you are concerned?

If not, then there is no reason to really knock on a Palin candidacy, because all potential candidacies are worthless.

I just don't think it's fair to knock on her as an unqualified candidate without stating what might make a substantially (as opposed to socially or politically) qualified candidate and without acknowledging that we can't turn out a substantially qualified candidate so "qualified" is a vacuous point of argument.

Is all.

(Nose tweak: See, I wouldn't have to talk so much if you'd listen better the first time ;). Men are always complaining about this ;). )

Anonymous said...

I am in complete agreement with you on every single point. I will also add that her temporary ideological/values switch during the presidential election REALLY rubbed me the wrong way, as someone who really appreciated her before she ran for Veep.