Sarah Palin and the mutual loathing society

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The Republican presidential nominee, an Arizona senator, was a maverick, which was part of his charm. He spoke and acted impulsively, which was part of his problem. Voters thought his entertaining dimensions might be incompatible with presidential responsibilities. For example, he selected a running mate most Americans had never heard of and who had negligible experience pertinent to the presidency. This was 1964.

Barry Goldwater, whose seat John McCain occupies, chose to run with Bill Miller, a congressman from Lockport, N.Y., near Buffalo. Miller, Goldwater cheerfully explained, annoyed Lyndon Johnson. After the Goldwater-Miller ticket lost 44 states, Miller retired to Lockport, where he practiced law and lived in dignified anonymity until his death in 1983. Although he had served as an assistant prosecutor of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg and spent seven terms in Congress, no one suggested he should be considered for the 1968 Republican presidential nomination.

Yet Sarah Palin, who with 17 months remaining in her single term as Alaska's governor quit the only serious office she has ever held, is obsessively discussed as a possible candidate in 2012. Why? She is not going to be president and will not be the Republican nominee unless the party wants to lose at least 44 states.

Conservatives, who rightly respect markets as generally reliable gauges of consumer preferences, should notice that the political market is speaking clearly: The more attention Palin receives, the fewer Americans consider her presidential timber. The latest Post-ABC News poll shows that 71 percent of Americans -- including 52 percent of Republicans -- think she is not qualified to be president.

This is not her fault. She is what she is, and what she is merits no disdain. She is feisty and public-spirited, and millions of people vibrate like tuning forks to her rhetoric. When she was suddenly forced to take a walk on the highest wire in America's political circus, she showed grit.

She also showed that grit is no substitute for seasoning. She has been subjected to such irrational vituperation -- loathing largely born of snobbery -- that she can be forgiven for seeking the balm of adulation from friendly audiences.

America, its luck exhausted, at last has a president from the academic culture, that grating blend of knowingness and unrealism. But the reaction against this must somewhat please him. That reaction is populism, a celebration of intellectual ordinariness. This is not a stance that will strengthen the Republican Party, which recently has become ruinously weak among highly educated whites. Besides, full-throated populism has not won a national election in 178 years, since Andrew Jackson was reelected in 1832.

After William Jennings Bryan's defeat in 1908, his third as the Democrats' presidential nominee, this prototypical populist said he felt like the man who, thrown out of a bar for a third time, dusted himself off and said, "I'm beginning to think those fellows don't want me in there." In 1992, Ross Perot, an only-in-America phenomenon -- a billionaire populist -- won 19 percent of the popular vote. But because of the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes, he won none of those. In 1976, Jimmy Carter -- peanut farmer; carried his own suitcase, imagine that -- somewhat tapped America's durable but shallow reservoir of populism. By 1980, ordinariness in high office had lost its allure.

In 1968, George Wallace, promising to toss the briefcases of pointy-headed intellectuals into the Potomac, won 46 electoral votes with 13.5 percent of the popular vote. He had the populist's trifecta -- a vivid personality, a regional base and a burning issue. Actually, he had three such issues -- backlash against the civil rights revolution, social disintegration (urban riots, rising crime) and resentment of the progressive projects of Great Society social engineers (e.g., forced busing of other people's children).

Populism has had as many incarnations as it has had provocations, but its constant ingredient has been resentment, and hence whininess. Populism does not wax in tranquil times; it is a cathartic response to serious problems. But it always wanes because it never seems serious as a solution.

Political nature abhors a vacuum, which is what often exists for a year or two in a party after it loses a presidential election. But today's saturation journalism, mesmerized by presidential politics and ravenous for material, requires a steady stream of political novelties. In that role, Palin is united with the media in a relationship of mutual loathing. This is not her fault. But neither is it her validation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1703507_pf.html

[Danno 1,228]

<<<The latest Post-ABC News poll shows that 71 percent of Americans -- including 52 percent of Republicans -- think she is not qualified to be president.>>>

BUt rather, what if the pollster were to ask in 2012,

Q:Whose ideas are better qualified to govern the Country, Obamas or Palins?

I'm betting the numbers would be remarkable different.

These are often the choices people are left with on election day.

I voted for George Bush twice.... not because I thought much of Bush but because I thought so little of Al Gore and John Kerry.

I stand by those votes.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Danno

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

<<<The latest Post-ABC News poll shows that 71 percent of Americans -- including 52 percent of Republicans -- think she is not qualified to be president.>>>

BUt rather what if the pollster were to ask in 2012,

Q:Whose ideas are better qualified to govern the Country, Obama or Palin?

I'm betting the numbers would be remarkable different.

These are often the choices people are left with on election day.

I voted for George Bush twice.... not because I thought much of Bush but because I thought so little of Al Gore and John Kerry.

I stand by those votes.

Danno, what are your thoughts on George Will's basic point in this article, that a Palin candidacy would be a celebration of intellectual ordinariness?

[chri'stina 190]

I really don't understand why so many are still talking about Palin for 2012. Sarah Palin drives me crazy. Well, I guess in one way I can see why people like someone with a "I don't care what people say about me" attitude and claims to be different than the typical DC politicians that so many now don't like(I bet she isn't much different). But that doesn't mean she is right for being the President!

If she runs, she definitely won't win. I couldn't bring myself to vote for her. I am not sure who I would vote for in 2012 if she were the R, some independent person probably. I don't see myself voting for Obama. I am still registered R even though I have been wanting to go I for awhile, I keep forgetting.

[Danno 1,228]

Danno, what are your thoughts on George Will's basic point in this article, that a Palin candidacy would be a celebration of intellectual ordinariness?

Not sure that was the exact point he was making but it's true, that Bush had a MBA from Harvard (the only president to do so) and We were told how Brilliant Barack was, and it might be her potential Candidacy could be propelled by the "get the common sense" person in there, mood.

The truth is, nearly EVERY CONSERVATIVE.... or GOPer gets tagged with the "idiot" label by the left and their talking heads, at least it's been that way in my lifetime.

Ford

Reagan

Dan quail

Bush1

Bush 2

Of course we are always told how brilliant Leftists are, in fact can you name one supposed dunce on the left?

Even Carter was not branded a dunce.

Lets see.

Mondale

Dukakis

Clinton

Gore

Kerry

Obama

....not a slow on in the lot we are told.

Has anyone even seen the Mystery Man Obama's transcripts?..... we should just assume he earned his way into his top dollar schools and flourished, once there.

It's a template, nothing more.

[Danno 1,228]

I really don't understand why so many are still talking about Palin for 2012. Sarah Palin drives me crazy. Well, I guess in one way I can see why people like someone with a "I don't care what people say about me" attitude and claims to be different than the typical DC politicians that so many now don't like(I bet she isn't much different). But that doesn't mean she is right for being the President!

If she runs, she definitely won't win. I couldn't bring myself to vote for her. I am not sure who I would vote for in 2012 if she were the R, some independent person probably. I don't see myself voting for Obama. I am still registered R even though I have been wanting to go I for awhile, I keep forgetting.

The truth of it is, if you want to vote for someone who will win you will vote "D" or "R".

I too am drawn to some of the smaller parties, such as the Constitutionparty.com but lets get real, we have a two party system and it's probably for the best, would we want a president elected with like 32% of the vote?

[chri'stina 190]

The truth of it is, if you want to vote for someone who will win you will vote "D" or "R".

I too am drawn to some of the smaller parties, such as the Constitutionparty.com but lets get real, we have a two party system and it's probably for the best, would we want a president elected with like 32% of the vote?

I usually feel the same. I don't know if I could feel that way if it was between Obama and Palin.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I would like to see the GOP nominate someone serious like Gingrich or Romney. Make it a race we can be proud of rather than laugh at.

[Danno 1,228]

I would like to see the GOP nominate someone serious like Gingrich or Romney. Make it a race we can be proud of rather than laugh at.

We might agree... or not.

But we heard the same exact thing with nominating McCain yet his campaign was dead as any we have seen in modern history... until Palin came on board.

So the question is, WOULD YOU VOTE FOR THE TWO GOPer's you suggested?

When it comes down to it, I doubt it.

[Wyatt's Torch 45]

I too am drawn to some of the smaller parties, such as the Constitutionparty.com but lets get real, we have a two party system and it's probably for the best, would we want a president elected with like 32% of the vote?

That's the beauty of a minority government though -- the ruling party rules, to be sure, but they can't ram things through without getting a nod from the other parties. It enforces balance in leadership. It has worked quite well in Canada for the last few years -- the Conservatives are the governing party, and I personally think they're doing a great job. But if the Conservatives had a far right agenda, it simply wouldn't work, since the more centrist Liberals and the far-left-of-center NDP wouldn't support it. In other words, a multi-party system enforces diplomacy. Choosing between a mere two candidates isn't much of a choice.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I would like to see the GOP nominate someone serious like Gingrich or Romney. Make it a race we can be proud of rather than laugh at.

Romney is as gaffe prone as Biden, if not more.

I think it really is far too early to tell what the race will shape up to at this point. I'm watching regional races this year to see how both Democrats and Republicans shape out in light of the independent and teabaggers influence.

[Danno 1,228]

That's the beauty of a minority government though -- the ruling party rules, to be sure, but they can't ram things through without getting a nod from the other parties. It enforces balance in leadership. It has worked quite well in Canada for the last few years -- the Conservatives are the governing party, and I personally think they're doing a great job. But if the Conservatives had a far right agenda, it simply wouldn't work, since the more centrist Liberals and the far-left-of-center NDP wouldn't support it. In other words, a multi-party system enforces diplomacy. Choosing between a mere two candidates isn't much of a choice.

BUt doesn't that give you boring boring boring?

There is a reason Canada is "small potatoes" on the world stage and has an economy smaller than California.

[The_Dude 1,142]

BUt doesn't that give you boring boring boring?

There is a reason Canada is "small potatoes" on the world stage and has an economy smaller than California.

Ignorance defined.

[Danno 1,228]

Ignorance defined.

That hurt huh???

[The_Dude 1,142]

That hurt huh???

Danno, you're quite amusing. You continue on with your delusions.