This should fairly well put the kabosh on any talk of her running for the presidency in 2012 — being a talking head on Fox will provide too many opportunities for creating campaign video for opponents and will probably require her to stake out divisive territory in order to garner ratings.
While I believe she is smarter than the MSM portrays her, this is going to be like rubber-necking at a highway wreck. We know it’s wrong but won’t resist watching the disaster. Move along people, nothing to see here…
Her book gave her significant traction in the mainstream media and the Fox gig will keep her name in the forefront for quite a while. Handled properly, she will have a soap box from which to pick and choose the issues that she covers and the kind of prepping and coaching that then candidate-Obama received.
All in all, this seems a smart move for her in that it opens doors and leaves all options on the table. Frankly, those who dismiss her out of hand are missing the very kind of objectivity that is supposed to be the hallmark of the progressive mind.
This is a great move by Palin. She’ll cement her status as a not-very-smart, not-very-serious person, expand her base to include far more brain-dead, Fox News-watching idiots, and get Fox some higher ratings, while she’s at it.
Did you come up with those prejudices all by yourself or did you have them spoon-fed to you?
You make yourself too easy a target.
No, sir. I came up with such “prejudices” from observing, listening to, and reading Sarah Palin over the past 1.5 years, and Fox News and its viewership over the last decade.
“I look forward to helping others – to fight for our state and our country, and campaign for those who believe in smaller government, free enterprise, strong national security, support for our troops, and energy independence.”
The tragedy is that you hold so many millions of your fellow Americans in such low regard.
We build your bridges, grow your food, and fight your wars. We take every bit of overtime we can get, go hunting on Saturday, and are in church on Sunday.
Your elitism and arrogance is what I find so disturbing.
You will no doubt take this reply as a challenge rather than an honest rebuke. That is a mistake because it is precisely the prejudices that you display so unabashedly that make “salt of the Earth” candidates to appealing.
The tragedy is that you hold so many millions of your fellow Americans in such low regard.
We build your bridges, grow your food, and fight your wars. We take every bit of overtime we can get, go hunting on Saturday, and are in church on Sunday.
And some of you – not all – hold millions of your fellow Americans in low regard as well, by sneering at people who live in cities, talking about yourselves as “real Americans,” etc. So get off the high horse. You may not be elitist, but you’re as arrogant as imaginable.
G-Veg: Honestly, that’s the best you’ve got? Employing base stereotypes about Fox News viewers, construction workers, farmers, soldiers, workers who take overtime, hunters and churchgoers? For shame. What a sad display of pettiness.
Nate,I have a son-in-law named Nate, who is also a Palinophobe. I hope you’re not him. I am a Fox listener and am not brain dead.
in fact i can keep you from becoming brain dead if you come to my ER—and have done so , many times in my 30 year career.
Like my son-in-law, you are probably very smart, but I prefer wise. Just think of the Presidunce that we now have
Nate, what do you expect? There is nothing else to defend Sarah Palin with except hollow culture war symbols. Forget the lies, ignorance, vindictiveness, and slogans-masquerading-as-wisdom, I obviously dislike Sarah Palin because I’m elitist. If requiring a certain level of knowledge and judgment out of my national leaders makes me an elitist, then I’m an elitist. If a distaste for buffoonery, mangled speeches, and hokey appeals to emotion makes me an elitist, then yes. I am an elitist.
The sad part is that the elitist charge is more civil than Bernard Goldberg’s charge that I don’t like Sarah Palin because she didn’t abort her baby. Bottom line being, Bernard Goldberg can go walk in front of a Greyhound.
“rankly, those who dismiss her out of hand are missing the very kind of objectivity that is supposed to be the hallmark of the progressive mind.”
Count me as one who dismisses her, but I don’t dismiss her out of hand. I dismiss her because others have catalog her lies, distortions and false statements. I’m willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt (campaign trails can be grueling and tiring, and the mind will say things that it doesn’t mean to), but we are waaaaaaay past that with Palin. ( and personally, I thought she *needed* that wardrobe makeover from Sak’s, and I really don’t care if she billed the GOP for it. Any woman knows the value of looking good as a political statement).
I really have no idea why she has such a hold over large parts of the population. Is it because she is so convinced that God has a plan for her? Is it her smart looks? If someone could explain why she is good for the country as a politician, I’m happy to hear it.
S.Palin may learn a thing or two.
Like what the vice president does, the role of the Federal Reserve Bank, and why North Korea and South Korea are two different countries.
She has indicated that she’ll decide what to do regarding the Presidency after the 2010 elections, and hasn’t made a decision yet. In the meantime, she is increasing her visibility and showing voters (especially primary voters in the GOP) her positions on the issues.
pe: FWIW, Intrade seems to disagree with your punditry–her odds went up with the announcement.
Interesting. I spent maybe 10 minutes going through a bunch of the other option positions, and the results were fascinating. I should do so more often.
PE: Sorry but Palin already has a place to showcase her “positions” on the issues (otherwise known as regurgitating GOP talking points regardless of context or relevancy). It’s called Facebook. And of course it’s where all serious civic leaders publish their thoughtful policy analyses.
Sarah Palin does not care about being President. At all. She cares about maintaining a vice grip on the interest and admiration of a good 20-40 million Americans who care solely about fighting a culture war against the [ephemeral concept of] “liberals”. As long as they love her, stoke her ego, and put money in her pocket, she could give a rats ass about winning elections. Actually governing the country is not something she nor they are remotely concerned with.
Just over a year ago, the doubters thought that she was done for. Now she’s written a best-seller and is going on Fox News.
Brilliant move. While I believe that she was an incredibly effective governor, pre-nomination, and could be good in politics, she also has good ideas and isn’t afraid to call out Republicans. Give her a few years to develop herself, burrow down and learn more about national issues, and she’ll be a force.
Ronald Reagan wasn’t “my president” at the time – but in retrospect he was an effective leader. I find the public almost visceral reactions to Palin to be eerily similar to the public reactions to Ronald Reagan. A lot of the same criticisms – he was done politically after losing in the primary election to Ford – he was retarded – he was stupid – he was a joke – no one of a serious mind would/could take him seriously – he was ignorant of basic issues – (said you could recall ICBM’s). At the time being a young and smart college student I could mock him for hours and yet he beat the crap out of Carter and then won a second term.
Fox gives Palin the opportunity to reintroduce herself to the public, to keep her face in front of the public, and depending how she handles it, an opportunity to tailor her image and let more people become comfortable with her, and to gain experience in front of the camera.
What I don’t understand is people who don’t understand or get Palin’s appeal – she has “it.” What is “it” – the same thing Reagan had – the ability to connect to everyday people, the ability to speak to people who don’t live and die politics or who don’t like politics – the camera likes her just like it liked Reagan. Like Reagan she strikes people rightly or wrongly as not just another professional politician.
While some may oppose her on the issues – I don’t think that explains the visceral reaction that she engenders in many. I think consciously or subconsciously many who oppose her – recognize that she is a major threat – that she has the ability to connect to people more so than any other prospective presidential hopeful at this time. People wouldn’t spend so much time, energy, and capital attacking her if they weren’t afraid of her and didn’t perceive her as a threat. I can tell you that all the attempts to make her out to be a big joke aren’t working in fly over country. And she didn’t get to be governor or a VP candidate by being a complete idiot. She didn’t get a successful book out and get on Fox without having something on the ball.
I don’t know that I would/could support her as a candidate, heck I voted third party last election – but I do know that people seem to be consistently underestimating her just like they underestimated Reagan.
“We build your bridges, grow your food, and fight your wars. We take every bit of overtime we can get, go hunting on Saturday, and are in church on Sunday.”
As a veteran and Christian, I find this insulting. I’m sure there are plenty of bridge builders, farmers and hunters who do, too.
Just over a year ago, the doubters thought that she was done for. Now she’s written a best-seller and is going on Fox News.
I don’t think any of her critics doubted that she could (a) affix her name to a best selling book (given how well conservative books sell and how popular she is among some conservatives), or (b) go on Fox News.
Brilliant move. While I believe that she was an incredibly effective governor, pre-nomination, and could be good in politics, she also has good ideas and isn’t afraid to call out Republicans. Give her a few years to develop herself, burrow down and learn more about national issues, and she’ll be a force.
Most American women hate her. Her base seems to be (1) conservative men, and (2) a subset of conservative women who harbor deep resentments. That’s about 25 percent of the electorate, tops. In any event, a protracted campaign will only confirm (a) how intellectually unequipped she is and (b) how extremist some of her view are. Plus, she has some pretty bad corruption scandals and other skeletons buried in her Alaska closets.
She has a great future on Fox News and no future as a national politician.
As for mack’s comment, it is true that the left often underestimated Ronald Reagan’s abilities and intelligence, but it’s also true that anyone who takes a look of what Reagan was doing and saying from the early 1960′s on can see that he had a pretty good understanding of at least some issues and was no dumbbell.
Palin is much more like Dan Quayle (simply completely in over her head) than Ronald Reagan. And Quayle’s promoters (including Bill Kristol, who now promotes Palin) were constantly touting his alleged brilliance too. Once he left the vice presidency, however, his political career tanked.
And Quayle doesn’t even have the scandals and the quitting in the middle of the term problems that Palin has.
Wow, getting that one media degree at 8 different colleges finally paid off for Sarah.
I jest, Fox is a perfect venue for her. She is the best liar that money CAN buy. CHA-CHING!
Well, Quayle couldn’t connect to himself let alone other people. And Quayle never engendered the kind of hate/anger or affection that Reagan did or Palin seems to. Quayle was also never a serious candidate for national office on his own (not saying that Palin is a viable candidate at this point – just that she could raise money and has a base to run a “serious primary campaign”). The only similarity I can see between Quayle and Palin is the contention that they are stupid – but that is a standard attack on republicans – ie, Ford, Reagan, GW Bush, and Palin – exceptions to a lesser degree – Bush sr., McCain, and Nixon. But frankly I don’t really know Ms. Palin – time will tell for me. I only see that she has the ability to reach people and connect to them – some of the people she gets to, like her and some really dislike her, but you know she is in the room. Me, for what it is worth, I don’t find myself attracted or repelled by her – mostly I am entertained by the constant storms that follow in her wake – highly entertaining. Though my opinion undoubtly will change given a pending election should she be a candidate and then the issues are important.
I am showing my age here, but the political figure whom Sarah Palin most calls to my mind is another would-be populist, former governor. George Wallace is remembered most colorfully for his resistence to integration; however, I suspect that his actions in that regard were motivated more by opportunism than by racism. (After losing the 1958 Democratic primary election for governor, wherein the NAACP supported him and the KKK supported his more successful opponent, Mr. Wallace famously vowed never to be out-segged again.)
Both Mr. Wallace and Ms. Palin railed against elitists; each exploited cultural divisions and pandered to the “less sophisticated” side of the gap. Their speech patterns bear some obvious similarities–droppin’ Gs and such. Each has appealed to the lower angels of human nature. Each is a polarizing figure that has had passionate supporters and has had strident opponents whose reactions have been visceral.
Governor Wallace eventually repented of his racial pandering, and he was elected to a final term as governor with significant black support. One wonders what the future holds for Ms. Palin.
Of course, there is a major difference. George Wallace completed four terms as governor.
Every thread on every website I check in on seems to have a Palin thread anytime the woman does pretty much anything. From her initial selection for VP, to people telling us how her book is a waste of time and won’t sell, and now the Fox News Commentator gig.
It always (as here) includes the obligatory posts about how “ignorant”, “unaware” et. al. she is (and all of her supporters of course) about world events and about “critical issues” as defined by pundits in general.
I lived through it, being well into voting age, and think the Reagan parallel actually comes closest to describing things. He was raked repeatedly over the coals for his “ignorance”, “simple minded view of the world” and when he confronted the Soviet Union he was declared a “Suicidal Nuclear madman”. My favorite were the repeated reports of him falling asleep in cabinet meetings.
I find it ironic that an amazing number of people will foam at the mouth over how no one should ever take Palin seriously, instead of just ignoring her as irrelevant. It’s almost like some people don’t trust the citizens to find out for themselves and do the right thing with out their knowledgeable, preferably ivy league guidance.
Maybe someone can explain to me why they just don’t trust the average citizen to do the right thing?
Not to worry folks, after all no one watches Fox News anyway, right? So in the end it won’t matter. These ratings books on my desk must all be misprints.
i like how people who rail against “elitists” are elitist themselves.
to paraphrase: normal people shouldn’t listen to elitists like you, they should listen to me…and i’m not elitist at all even though i went to the same schools with the same majors, speak in the same way, live in the same areas and make essentially the same arguments.
i’m seriously beginning to think use of the word “elitist” is shorthand for “i’m a political hack who likes to pretend that i’m better than you”
Dilan Esper, I am fascinated by trying to reconcile the two parts of your statement that “it is true that the left often underestimated Ronald Reagan’s abilities and intelligence, but it’s also true that anyone who takes a look of what Reagan was doing and saying from the early 1960’s on can see that he had a pretty good understanding of at least some issues and was no dumbbell.”
My memory, or a quick look at news articles in the 80s, shows that the left did not just underestimate Reagan’s intelligence in the sense of grading him a C- when he was a B+, but that they largely called him a D/F. Most of the left described him as a total “dumbbell,” or, in the famous Clark Clifford phrase that most of the left adopted, an “amiable dunce.”
So if “anyone” who took a look could see that he was not a dumbbell or dunce, what blinded the left, or at least the not-insignificant portion that adopted the “dunce” view? Did they not take a look at the evidence at all, or did they look and filter it so heavily that it came out distorted? Or did they know that it was inaccurate and just lie for propaganda effect?
(FWIW, I, for one, bought into the dunce view in my misguided youth. But once I saw otherwise, about Reagan and other things, the effect was that I did not just mildly change views, but I lost all respect for all the lefties who had such distorted views. It took till years later to become as cynical about the GOP, too.)
” I can tell you that all the attempts to make her out to be a big joke aren’t working in fly over country.”
Perhaps she is expanding fly-over country both east and west? Its probably a bit premature to try to chart her trajectory. She’s only 45, and could be a factor in the next six presidential elections.
Even as a resigned governor, she managed to throw a huge monkey wrench into health care this past summer with her facebook postings about “death panels.” She went around the established media and was quite effective.
Look, it’s simultaneously possible to believe that (1) sometimes people on the left assume that conservatives who are NOT dumb actually ARE dumb (and they did this with Reagan), and (2) some conservatives actually ARE dumb.
I think that squares the circle with respect to Reagan, Quayle, and Palin.
Maybe someone can explain to me why they just don’t trust the average citizen to do the right thing?
We do. See: Election, Presidential, 2008.
(In re: Palin)
Randy says:
Finally, we’ll get the latest results of the Iditirod.
January 11, 2010, 6:54 pmCrunchy Frog says:
And the biathlon.
January 11, 2010, 6:59 pmguy in the veal calf office says:
Interesting in a gossipy “Simon Cowell to leave Idol” way, interesting in a wonky Jonathan Gruber-is-a-paid-for-hack way, interesting in a “no duh” Mark McGwire admits to steroid use way, or interesting in a “its news that actually matters”, like the discovery of a global climate model that correctly predicted this year’s cold spell, way?
January 11, 2010, 7:00 pmDisintelligentsia says:
This should fairly well put the kabosh on any talk of her running for the presidency in 2012 — being a talking head on Fox will provide too many opportunities for creating campaign video for opponents and will probably require her to stake out divisive territory in order to garner ratings.
January 11, 2010, 7:08 pmOrin Kerr says:
Guy,
I was thinking, “interesting in that it tends to suggest that she’s not planning to run for office” way.
January 11, 2010, 7:11 pmzuch says:
It was Gawd’s will and plan all along. And seems strangely appropriate.
Cheers,
P.S.: Randy, Todd Palin races snowmobiles, not dogs (the Iditarod is a dog race). Dogs are for tree-hugging lib’ruls. Real men burn fossil fuel.
January 11, 2010, 7:14 pmMark Field says:
What’s the over/under on when she resigns?
January 11, 2010, 7:25 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Perhaps Randy was referring to the fact that the Iditarod is headquartered in Wasilla.
January 11, 2010, 7:31 pmsashal says:
she certainly has her advantages:
she gives old white guyz wood, and that is a shrinking demographic.
So, yes the humanity has a chance to survive RW America losing it’s mind.
It is (this craziness) temporary and will last about a third of an average life span
January 11, 2010, 8:01 pmPoohPoohBear says:
While I believe she is smarter than the MSM portrays her, this is going to be like rubber-necking at a highway wreck. We know it’s wrong but won’t resist watching the disaster. Move along people, nothing to see here…
January 11, 2010, 8:47 pmJK says:
Well John Stewart’s life just got a lot easier.
January 11, 2010, 9:05 pmG-Veg says:
Actually, it strikes me as a very good move.
Her book gave her significant traction in the mainstream media and the Fox gig will keep her name in the forefront for quite a while. Handled properly, she will have a soap box from which to pick and choose the issues that she covers and the kind of prepping and coaching that then candidate-Obama received.
All in all, this seems a smart move for her in that it opens doors and leaves all options on the table. Frankly, those who dismiss her out of hand are missing the very kind of objectivity that is supposed to be the hallmark of the progressive mind.
January 11, 2010, 9:11 pmNate says:
This is a great move by Palin. She’ll cement her status as a not-very-smart, not-very-serious person, expand her base to include far more brain-dead, Fox News-watching idiots, and get Fox some higher ratings, while she’s at it.
January 11, 2010, 9:43 pmG-Veg says:
Nate,
Did you come up with those prejudices all by yourself or did you have them spoon-fed to you?
You make yourself too easy a target.
January 11, 2010, 9:56 pmNate says:
No, sir. I came up with such “prejudices” from observing, listening to, and reading Sarah Palin over the past 1.5 years, and Fox News and its viewership over the last decade.
January 11, 2010, 10:15 pmEH says:
“I look forward to helping others – to fight for our state and our country, and campaign for those who believe in smaller government, free enterprise, strong national security, support for our troops, and energy independence.”
–Sarah Palin, Resignation speech, Jul 3, 2009
January 11, 2010, 10:17 pmrpt says:
Why did it take so long? Follow the money.
January 11, 2010, 10:28 pmSarah Palin News says:
How about the news from “Game Change” that Sarah Palin’s vetter was the not entirely orthogonal to the Volokh Conspiracy Ted Frank?
January 11, 2010, 10:34 pmG-Veg says:
Nate,
The tragedy is that you hold so many millions of your fellow Americans in such low regard.
We build your bridges, grow your food, and fight your wars. We take every bit of overtime we can get, go hunting on Saturday, and are in church on Sunday.
Your elitism and arrogance is what I find so disturbing.
You will no doubt take this reply as a challenge rather than an honest rebuke. That is a mistake because it is precisely the prejudices that you display so unabashedly that make “salt of the Earth” candidates to appealing.
January 11, 2010, 10:40 pmbyomtov says:
The tragedy is that you hold so many millions of your fellow Americans in such low regard.
We build your bridges, grow your food, and fight your wars. We take every bit of overtime we can get, go hunting on Saturday, and are in church on Sunday.
And some of you – not all – hold millions of your fellow Americans in low regard as well, by sneering at people who live in cities, talking about yourselves as “real Americans,” etc. So get off the high horse. You may not be elitist, but you’re as arrogant as imaginable.
January 11, 2010, 11:07 pmNate says:
G-Veg: Honestly, that’s the best you’ve got? Employing base stereotypes about Fox News viewers, construction workers, farmers, soldiers, workers who take overtime, hunters and churchgoers? For shame. What a sad display of pettiness.
January 11, 2010, 11:10 pmOKE E DOKE says:
Nate,I have a son-in-law named Nate, who is also a Palinophobe. I hope you’re not him. I am a Fox listener and am not brain dead.
January 11, 2010, 11:11 pmin fact i can keep you from becoming brain dead if you come to my ER—and have done so , many times in my 30 year career.
Like my son-in-law, you are probably very smart, but I prefer wise. Just think of the Presidunce that we now have
leo marvin says:
Where do you stand on humility?
January 11, 2010, 11:28 pmOrin Kerr says:
Nate, G-Veg,
Be civil or I’ll ban both of you.
January 12, 2010, 12:00 amMatthew Bilinsky says:
Nate, what do you expect? There is nothing else to defend Sarah Palin with except hollow culture war symbols. Forget the lies, ignorance, vindictiveness, and slogans-masquerading-as-wisdom, I obviously dislike Sarah Palin because I’m elitist. If requiring a certain level of knowledge and judgment out of my national leaders makes me an elitist, then I’m an elitist. If a distaste for buffoonery, mangled speeches, and hokey appeals to emotion makes me an elitist, then yes. I am an elitist.
The sad part is that the elitist charge is more civil than Bernard Goldberg’s charge that I don’t like Sarah Palin because she didn’t abort her baby. Bottom line being, Bernard Goldberg can go walk in front of a Greyhound.
January 12, 2010, 12:14 amBrian K says:
doesn’t quite mesh with:
…
it all makes sense now.
January 12, 2010, 12:17 amRandy says:
“rankly, those who dismiss her out of hand are missing the very kind of objectivity that is supposed to be the hallmark of the progressive mind.”
Count me as one who dismisses her, but I don’t dismiss her out of hand. I dismiss her because others have catalog her lies, distortions and false statements. I’m willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt (campaign trails can be grueling and tiring, and the mind will say things that it doesn’t mean to), but we are waaaaaaay past that with Palin. ( and personally, I thought she *needed* that wardrobe makeover from Sak’s, and I really don’t care if she billed the GOP for it. Any woman knows the value of looking good as a political statement).
I really have no idea why she has such a hold over large parts of the population. Is it because she is so convinced that God has a plan for her? Is it her smart looks? If someone could explain why she is good for the country as a politician, I’m happy to hear it.
January 12, 2010, 12:18 amElliot says:
It appears Palin continus to chart her own course. Good for her.
January 12, 2010, 12:25 amrpt says:
Fox News is an independent course? It’s where she was headed all the time. Lots of money for no work.
January 12, 2010, 12:35 amAllan Leedy says:
That event based in Wasilla, I think, is the Idiotirod.
January 12, 2010, 12:50 amsputnik says:
S.Palin may learn a thing or two.
January 12, 2010, 1:03 amLike what the vice president does, the role of the Federal Reserve Bank, and why North Korea and South Korea are two different countries.
pe says:
Orin,
FWIW, Intrade seems to disagree with your punditry–her odds went up with the announcement. http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/index.jsp?query=2012+Republican+Presidential+Nominee+%28others+upon+request%29.
She has indicated that she’ll decide what to do regarding the Presidency after the 2010 elections, and hasn’t made a decision yet. In the meantime, she is increasing her visibility and showing voters (especially primary voters in the GOP) her positions on the issues.
January 12, 2010, 1:20 amBruce Hayden says:
Interesting. I spent maybe 10 minutes going through a bunch of the other option positions, and the results were fascinating. I should do so more often.
January 12, 2010, 1:46 amMatthew Bilinsky says:
PE: Sorry but Palin already has a place to showcase her “positions” on the issues (otherwise known as regurgitating GOP talking points regardless of context or relevancy). It’s called Facebook. And of course it’s where all serious civic leaders publish their thoughtful policy analyses.
Sarah Palin does not care about being President. At all. She cares about maintaining a vice grip on the interest and admiration of a good 20-40 million Americans who care solely about fighting a culture war against the [ephemeral concept of] “liberals”. As long as they love her, stoke her ego, and put money in her pocket, she could give a rats ass about winning elections. Actually governing the country is not something she nor they are remotely concerned with.
January 12, 2010, 1:47 amStuhlmann says:
The obvious question is, “Will Palin go blond to fit in with the other women on Fox – the gold standard, I believe it’s called?”
January 12, 2010, 3:58 amEricPWJohnson says:
Interesting all those democrat operatives still working campaigns and being anchors, contributors ad naseum, but with Palin another standard is set
January 12, 2010, 8:18 amtheobromophile says:
Just over a year ago, the doubters thought that she was done for. Now she’s written a best-seller and is going on Fox News.
Brilliant move. While I believe that she was an incredibly effective governor, pre-nomination, and could be good in politics, she also has good ideas and isn’t afraid to call out Republicans. Give her a few years to develop herself, burrow down and learn more about national issues, and she’ll be a force.
January 12, 2010, 8:41 ammack says:
Ronald Reagan wasn’t “my president” at the time – but in retrospect he was an effective leader. I find the public almost visceral reactions to Palin to be eerily similar to the public reactions to Ronald Reagan. A lot of the same criticisms – he was done politically after losing in the primary election to Ford – he was retarded – he was stupid – he was a joke – no one of a serious mind would/could take him seriously – he was ignorant of basic issues – (said you could recall ICBM’s). At the time being a young and smart college student I could mock him for hours and yet he beat the crap out of Carter and then won a second term.
Fox gives Palin the opportunity to reintroduce herself to the public, to keep her face in front of the public, and depending how she handles it, an opportunity to tailor her image and let more people become comfortable with her, and to gain experience in front of the camera.
What I don’t understand is people who don’t understand or get Palin’s appeal – she has “it.” What is “it” – the same thing Reagan had – the ability to connect to everyday people, the ability to speak to people who don’t live and die politics or who don’t like politics – the camera likes her just like it liked Reagan. Like Reagan she strikes people rightly or wrongly as not just another professional politician.
While some may oppose her on the issues – I don’t think that explains the visceral reaction that she engenders in many. I think consciously or subconsciously many who oppose her – recognize that she is a major threat – that she has the ability to connect to people more so than any other prospective presidential hopeful at this time. People wouldn’t spend so much time, energy, and capital attacking her if they weren’t afraid of her and didn’t perceive her as a threat. I can tell you that all the attempts to make her out to be a big joke aren’t working in fly over country. And she didn’t get to be governor or a VP candidate by being a complete idiot. She didn’t get a successful book out and get on Fox without having something on the ball.
I don’t know that I would/could support her as a candidate, heck I voted third party last election – but I do know that people seem to be consistently underestimating her just like they underestimated Reagan.
January 12, 2010, 11:51 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Agree with Mack.
eta: Mostly.
January 12, 2010, 12:43 pmFloridan says:
“We build your bridges, grow your food, and fight your wars. We take every bit of overtime we can get, go hunting on Saturday, and are in church on Sunday.”
As a veteran and Christian, I find this insulting. I’m sure there are plenty of bridge builders, farmers and hunters who do, too.
January 12, 2010, 1:43 pmDilan Esper says:
Just over a year ago, the doubters thought that she was done for. Now she’s written a best-seller and is going on Fox News.
I don’t think any of her critics doubted that she could (a) affix her name to a best selling book (given how well conservative books sell and how popular she is among some conservatives), or (b) go on Fox News.
Brilliant move. While I believe that she was an incredibly effective governor, pre-nomination, and could be good in politics, she also has good ideas and isn’t afraid to call out Republicans. Give her a few years to develop herself, burrow down and learn more about national issues, and she’ll be a force.
Most American women hate her. Her base seems to be (1) conservative men, and (2) a subset of conservative women who harbor deep resentments. That’s about 25 percent of the electorate, tops. In any event, a protracted campaign will only confirm (a) how intellectually unequipped she is and (b) how extremist some of her view are. Plus, she has some pretty bad corruption scandals and other skeletons buried in her Alaska closets.
She has a great future on Fox News and no future as a national politician.
January 12, 2010, 2:22 pmDilan Esper says:
As for mack’s comment, it is true that the left often underestimated Ronald Reagan’s abilities and intelligence, but it’s also true that anyone who takes a look of what Reagan was doing and saying from the early 1960′s on can see that he had a pretty good understanding of at least some issues and was no dumbbell.
Palin is much more like Dan Quayle (simply completely in over her head) than Ronald Reagan. And Quayle’s promoters (including Bill Kristol, who now promotes Palin) were constantly touting his alleged brilliance too. Once he left the vice presidency, however, his political career tanked.
And Quayle doesn’t even have the scandals and the quitting in the middle of the term problems that Palin has.
January 12, 2010, 2:25 pmDEO says:
Wow, getting that one media degree at 8 different colleges finally paid off for Sarah.
I jest, Fox is a perfect venue for her. She is the best liar that money CAN buy. CHA-CHING!
NEXT stop QVC!
January 12, 2010, 2:35 pmSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
Is there any respected commentator or consultant who has gone on record saying that Palin could win against any credible Democrat?
I have been a Reagan/Kemp/Will/Krauthammer conservative for a while, and I think/fear that Palin embodies the end of the party.
Is Fox going to change their slogan to, “we get mavericky, you decide”?; or, maybe, “fair, balanced, and (wink) mavericky”?
January 12, 2010, 2:41 pmmack says:
Well, Quayle couldn’t connect to himself let alone other people. And Quayle never engendered the kind of hate/anger or affection that Reagan did or Palin seems to. Quayle was also never a serious candidate for national office on his own (not saying that Palin is a viable candidate at this point – just that she could raise money and has a base to run a “serious primary campaign”). The only similarity I can see between Quayle and Palin is the contention that they are stupid – but that is a standard attack on republicans – ie, Ford, Reagan, GW Bush, and Palin – exceptions to a lesser degree – Bush sr., McCain, and Nixon. But frankly I don’t really know Ms. Palin – time will tell for me. I only see that she has the ability to reach people and connect to them – some of the people she gets to, like her and some really dislike her, but you know she is in the room. Me, for what it is worth, I don’t find myself attracted or repelled by her – mostly I am entertained by the constant storms that follow in her wake – highly entertaining. Though my opinion undoubtly will change given a pending election should she be a candidate and then the issues are important.
January 12, 2010, 3:05 pmJohn Herbison says:
I am showing my age here, but the political figure whom Sarah Palin most calls to my mind is another would-be populist, former governor. George Wallace is remembered most colorfully for his resistence to integration; however, I suspect that his actions in that regard were motivated more by opportunism than by racism. (After losing the 1958 Democratic primary election for governor, wherein the NAACP supported him and the KKK supported his more successful opponent, Mr. Wallace famously vowed never to be out-segged again.)
Both Mr. Wallace and Ms. Palin railed against elitists; each exploited cultural divisions and pandered to the “less sophisticated” side of the gap. Their speech patterns bear some obvious similarities–droppin’ Gs and such. Each has appealed to the lower angels of human nature. Each is a polarizing figure that has had passionate supporters and has had strident opponents whose reactions have been visceral.
Governor Wallace eventually repented of his racial pandering, and he was elected to a final term as governor with significant black support. One wonders what the future holds for Ms. Palin.
Of course, there is a major difference. George Wallace completed four terms as governor.
January 12, 2010, 3:06 pmDonP. says:
I’m getting the popcorn out.
Every thread on every website I check in on seems to have a Palin thread anytime the woman does pretty much anything. From her initial selection for VP, to people telling us how her book is a waste of time and won’t sell, and now the Fox News Commentator gig.
It always (as here) includes the obligatory posts about how “ignorant”, “unaware” et. al. she is (and all of her supporters of course) about world events and about “critical issues” as defined by pundits in general.
I lived through it, being well into voting age, and think the Reagan parallel actually comes closest to describing things. He was raked repeatedly over the coals for his “ignorance”, “simple minded view of the world” and when he confronted the Soviet Union he was declared a “Suicidal Nuclear madman”. My favorite were the repeated reports of him falling asleep in cabinet meetings.
I find it ironic that an amazing number of people will foam at the mouth over how no one should ever take Palin seriously, instead of just ignoring her as irrelevant. It’s almost like some people don’t trust the citizens to find out for themselves and do the right thing with out their knowledgeable, preferably ivy league guidance.
Maybe someone can explain to me why they just don’t trust the average citizen to do the right thing?
Not to worry folks, after all no one watches Fox News anyway, right? So in the end it won’t matter. These ratings books on my desk must all be misprints.
January 12, 2010, 3:33 pmBrian K says:
i like how people who rail against “elitists” are elitist themselves.
to paraphrase: normal people shouldn’t listen to elitists like you, they should listen to me…and i’m not elitist at all even though i went to the same schools with the same majors, speak in the same way, live in the same areas and make essentially the same arguments.
i’m seriously beginning to think use of the word “elitist” is shorthand for “i’m a political hack who likes to pretend that i’m better than you”
January 12, 2010, 4:06 pm» The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Sarah Palin Signs on With … RWPS says:
[...] See the article here: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Sarah Palin Signs on With … [...]
January 12, 2010, 4:28 pmQuestion for Dilan says:
Dilan Esper, I am fascinated by trying to reconcile the two parts of your statement that “it is true that the left often underestimated Ronald Reagan’s abilities and intelligence, but it’s also true that anyone who takes a look of what Reagan was doing and saying from the early 1960’s on can see that he had a pretty good understanding of at least some issues and was no dumbbell.”
My memory, or a quick look at news articles in the 80s, shows that the left did not just underestimate Reagan’s intelligence in the sense of grading him a C- when he was a B+, but that they largely called him a D/F. Most of the left described him as a total “dumbbell,” or, in the famous Clark Clifford phrase that most of the left adopted, an “amiable dunce.”
So if “anyone” who took a look could see that he was not a dumbbell or dunce, what blinded the left, or at least the not-insignificant portion that adopted the “dunce” view? Did they not take a look at the evidence at all, or did they look and filter it so heavily that it came out distorted? Or did they know that it was inaccurate and just lie for propaganda effect?
(FWIW, I, for one, bought into the dunce view in my misguided youth. But once I saw otherwise, about Reagan and other things, the effect was that I did not just mildly change views, but I lost all respect for all the lefties who had such distorted views. It took till years later to become as cynical about the GOP, too.)
So what gives?
January 12, 2010, 5:15 pmConnie says:
Uh, I think that final word should be “farce.”
January 12, 2010, 5:44 pmElliot says:
Perhaps she is expanding fly-over country both east and west? Its probably a bit premature to try to chart her trajectory. She’s only 45, and could be a factor in the next six presidential elections.
Even as a resigned governor, she managed to throw a huge monkey wrench into health care this past summer with her facebook postings about “death panels.” She went around the established media and was quite effective.
January 12, 2010, 6:02 pmDilan Esper says:
Question:
The answer is that the left was wrong.
Look, it’s simultaneously possible to believe that (1) sometimes people on the left assume that conservatives who are NOT dumb actually ARE dumb (and they did this with Reagan), and (2) some conservatives actually ARE dumb.
I think that squares the circle with respect to Reagan, Quayle, and Palin.
January 12, 2010, 6:15 pmtorrentprime says:
Maybe someone can explain to me why they just don’t trust the average citizen to do the right thing?
January 13, 2010, 9:16 pmWe do. See: Election, Presidential, 2008.
(In re: Palin)