A Plan For Palin, A New Contract With America?

Wow, my first co-post!

Joe,

We are advocating she lead the fight to take back Congress in 2010. Not run for president.

Joe,

Huckabee doesn’t have the national standing that Palin has. Nor can he draw the crowds and grab America’s attention.

Palin isn’t running for office, she’ll be campaigning for congressional representatives and senators.

You have valid points, but their for Huckabee’s run at the presidency, not for taking back Congress.

I like Sarah Palin because she is a regular person, and she isn’t a regular politician. Cf. the YouTube of John Edwards working on getting his hair just right for an appearance, or, even worse, Barrack Obama transferring out of my alma mater because he needed a “bigger stage.” In other words, he was already planning to run for President when he was still a teenager. People like that scare me, if only because it is so clear that they are driven by personal ambition than by any concept of serving others. Those kinds of people (and they are found in both parties) are a challenge to both faith based values and to a republican (note the lower case!) form of government.

Palin is the modern day Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. She has been snatched out of obscurity to appear on the big screen. As I said, I like the fact that she isn’t a professional, poofed up, packaged politician, who tries to make everyone think that she agrees with them. Barrack Obama has been quoted as saying that he has a “gift” of being able to do that, a gift that I find repulsive, not because of his positions, but because he finds that sort of skill to be a positive.

But, having said that, we get poofed up pols because that’s what the public buys, unfortunately, or, at least, that’s the perception. Yes, Mitt Romney, John Edwards and Hilary Clinton failed, but Barrack Obama succeeded and the perception from the chattering classes is that is the aura that’s required.

Some argue that the priority for processed bread politicians comes from “main stream media” and their liberal biases, but I think there’s more to it than that. Main stream media clearly did not like either Bush, for example, and they love Clinton and Obama, but all four ended up getting elected. This makes me believe that the public sees being a smooth talking politician as a minimum criteria for holding public office. The press likes to talk about maverick politicians, but they don’t get elected very often (and when they do, there’s almost always an unusual circumstance.) Perhaps you’ve seen the putdowns of Palin as “trailer trash,” not looking or acting like a “real leader.”

So can Sarah Palin survive in national politics without becoming an ‘every hair in place’ politician? I hope she can but I fear that she doesn’t have the internal fortitude to ignore the sniping from outside the Republican base. As “Mr. Dooley” wrote over 100 years ago, “politics ain’t bean bag.” It’s a blood sport, always has been, always will be, which is one of the reasons I choose not to play myself. Perhaps she can channel Margaret Thatcher, the “green grocer’s daughter” who became Prime Minister and saved Britain from becoming Argentina. Remember how Ronald Reagan would respond to vitriol with a small smile and saying “Well, now there you go again….”

Palin can not succeed by becoming an attack dog, even in response to what will undoubtedly be heavy personal attacks. That’s not presidential but it’s also not what the country needs.

Patrick Duffy,

I agree with you 100% of what you wrote.

The mainstream media certainly has it out for Governor Palin.

The main point of the posting is that Governor Palin can make a significant contribution towards taking back one or both chambers of Congress and that as a lightning rod for all the open seats.

Joe Hargrave,

I know it is popular on both sides to assume the media has an political agenda (amazing how they can be so far-left and far-right, depending on who you listen to, at the same time!), and I’m sure it does. I definitely pick up a cosmopolitan upper-class liberal ‘bias’ from most reporters and anchors.

But the media will generally treat people the way people treat it. Yes, some candidates and political figures will have to work harder than others due to the biases. But it can be done. John McCain had a great relationship with the press before he started playing the role of “angry conservative” to play to the base. Palin practically declared war on the media before the media even knew who she was at the convention.

With all do respect, that’s a load of crap. First of all, you’re denying human nature. It’s clear that 90% who work in the media are self admittedly liberal. SO you suggest that they do not act in a biased fashion, unless the subject objects to their transparent lack of objectivity? That’s just not true. The media bias is deep and transparent and it doesn’t matter what the target does. Case in point Bush’s administration was never hostile towards the media and yet was subjected in latter years to massive bias.

The press was friendly with McCain because he was seen as a moderate, his major sin was going up against Obama, and then bringing in a solid conservative to take the cake. Frankly, they didn’t really go after him anyway, they ignored him (see the coverage on his trips abroad vs Obama’s) which is far worse.

So its a dreadful loop, but I do believe it starts with the candidate (or figure or whoever). The right-wing base doesn’t like the press – having the press hate you gives you right-wing street cred. Will anyone deny this? Will anyone deny that the day Wolf Blitzer is gushing over your speech or your interview is the day a significant number of potential conservative voters tune out?

We conservatives like a skeptical but unbiased press. We don’t like to see them gush over anyone frankly, and if a liberal media person gushes over you it’s obvious that you have said something they like, which is probably a bad sign. For example, since Chavez likes Obama’s position on Hondura’s impeached president being returned to power, it’s probably a bad sign.

The problem is that most of the country isn’t THAT conservative, Matt’s statistics aside. “Conservative” may mean any number of things (I identify more with conservatism today than I ever have in my life). I think the segement of the population that really hates the media a priori is a) not big enough to care about placating, but b) loud enough to make it seem to potential candidates that they are big enough to placate.

So what? It’s not about hating or not hating the media. The only point I made about media bias is that the Palin overcomes it by getting press wherever she goes. The coverage tends to let the message out, and the vile reactions from press pundits become transparent to the conservatives and moderates.

So, I think cultivating a healthy relationship with the press corps and the anchors, instead of an oppositional attitude for the sake of impressing your buddies (which is what it really seems to come down to), goes a long way. McCain used to know it, Huckabee knows it, any successful politician figures it out. The first aggressive and overconfident, and then later closed-off, defensive Palin strategy with the press was absolutely disastrous. If she does want to be a serious political leader, this childish game has to end.

As I said, this is not about antagonizing the press, so much as antagonizing the Obama administration to throw them off their stride, and make their true positions more obvious. Heck, even Helen Thomas has started attacking them for their deceptive actions.

Also…

“The media bias is deep and transparent and it doesn’t matter what the target does. Case in point Bush’s administration was never hostile towards the media and yet was subjected in latter years to massive bias.”

Notice you say, “in latter years”. The relationship deteriorated for a number of reason, but you have to admit, so did the relationship between the Bush administration and the majority of Americans. His approval ratings were abysmal in the ‘latter years’ – why kind of press isn’t going to reflect that in some way?

The truth is that in the beginning Bush, like McCain, got alone with the press corps. Bush knew how to tell a joke and lighten the mood. He was quite affable with reporters. But as the war dragged on and the administration became more defensive, the media pounced. This always happens – it never pays to be defensive and combative with the media.

And, like I also acknowledged, because of the bias, some people have to work harder than others. Conservatives have to work harder than liberals. I don’t deny the bias, I don’t deny its influence, I just say, it isn’t insurmountable.

Morning’s Minion,

I will resist the temptation to point out how ridiculous Palin is, and how she really knows nothing about policy,

Awesome, thanks for demonstrating the vileness of the response from liberal/leftist/progressives.

but I do want to take you to task for the this statement “substantially increased spending and enlarged the government to the detriment of our freedoms.”

(1) How much is spending and the deficit set to increase over the medium-term and how much is attributible to Obama’s discretionary policies as opposed to the effects of autmomatic stabilizers, cyclical changes in tax elasticities, and the dymanic effects of Bush’s 3 major deficit-enhancing measures (war, tax cuts, medicare part d)?

(2) The single largest item in the federal government is military spending (which accounts for almost a quarter of total spending). Do you support cutting this drastically to reduce government and enhance your “freedom”?

No. Military spending, and foreign policy spending only infringe on our rights in so far as we have to work to pay for them. Conversely domestic programs almost always involve additional infringements on our liberties.

(3) What freedoms are you talking about exactly?

Freedom from government tyrany. A government that is big enough to see to all you need, is powerful enough to take all you have.

(4) How does this notion of freedom fit with the Catholic notion of freedom which is less concerned with individual automomy and more with serving of what is good and just?

Perfectly. If the government takes so much of my income for entitlement programs and various other waste, I am not free to give any portion of it to worthy causes, such as caring for my family, seeing to the needs of the Church and effectively aiding the poor.

Also, the type of government influence your glorious leader is pushing is often immoral (condoms in the schools, funding of abortion etc.).

John Henry,

She is disliked by a fringe of Democratic leftist and some Republican elitists.

Matt,

While you raise some interesting points; don’t you even find it the least disconcerting that she is incapable of even thinking on her feet, which I would think would be a necessary attribute for someone serving the highest office in the land?

Media bias is a strange animal… Almost as strange as legal bias.

Law school was a surprising thing to me because I did not suspect that virtually EVERY law professor is a far left leaning wack-job and that the majority of them lean far to the conservative end of the spectrum when it comes to economics and private property. This is to say that law professors, and to a lesser extent, lawyers in general, tend to be socially leftist and rightist on economics.

I raise this point because I think the same can be said of the vast majority of the media. On the one hand, they desperately need and seek advertising dollars which prevents them from reporting on economic abuses that would push away advertisers and, on the other, they are overwhelmingly rampant social liberals so their affinity is to liberal causes such as homosexual “rights,” abortion on demand, destruction of institutions, and secularization.

Joe, with respect, the GOP can grovel for positive attention all it wants and it will never be more than a punch-line on late-night TV. We cannot count on and should not court the media as the Dems do. Our vindication lies in actually being RIGHT about the value of traditional institutions, controlling expenses, minimizing government interference, and championing Americanism in the world.

NOTHING sells like being right.

Donald,

Puhleeze! Palin is NO Ronald Reagan.

Pay respect to the memory of the man — especially in our current times where his name is being soiled by the like of folks who’ve even drawn comparison between he and Obama, a Pro-abortionist fiend.

Donald,

“She demolished Biden…”

As much as I detest Biden, just which debate are you actually referring to here?

This is becoming an amusing exchange of irrelevancies. If someone will tell me who is going to win the World Series in a few months, I would be grateful for the information. It will surely be better based than most of the verbiage about 2010 [much less 2012].

It is interesting to read the term “trailer trash” applied to Mrs. Palin. It happens [accidentally, believe me] that I do know a fair number of reporters and “media people”, having lived in NYC for 70 years. One unmistakeable characteristic is the effort to avoid being taken for “lower class” or “suburban”.

Becoming a member of the Century Association is taken as a summum bonum. It is astonishing how many boys from Brooklyn have made the effort to go to Harvard.

It must surely be apparent that the puffed-up hairdo’s of the television commentators [of both sexes] bespeak an emphasis on appearances. It’s OK for women because “a woman’s hair is her glory” [St. Paul].

Matt: “thanks for demonstrating the vileness of the response from liberal/leftist/progressives”

Matt, from your answer to my questions, you are steeped in liberalism. Yours is an undiluted form of that individualist ideology so condemned by the Church in past centuries. Catholism is about unity, the inherent one-ness of the human race united in communion, and that implies we look out for the common good, not our own individual self interest. In other words, we are persons before individuals. If that’s your position, defend it, but stop pretending you are something you are not.

On Palin — I really hope your precious Republican party nominates her. Please do — you will almost guarantee an Obama landslde. But I should not be so smug. This is no joke. Rather, it really reflects poorly on people who embrace a leader one is is no unfit for leadership, judged by temperament and (most importantly) by ability to understand the basics of policy. If this is democracy, then I’ll take monarchy, thank you very much.

“Rather, it really reflects poorly on people who embrace a leader one is is no unfit for leadership, judged by temperament and (most importantly) by ability to understand the basics of policy.”

I have to agree. Palin is just embarrassing. It saddens me to think that the future of life and family issues could be tied to her performance as a candidate or a party leader.

However, if by 2012 she cleans up her act, maybe receives some coaching on how to interact with the media, stops the ridiculous attempts at being “folksy” (one wink and I’m done), displays some sort of progress on economic thinking beyond the standard, discredited, and absolutely annoying platitudes about taxes and government spending, and is able to articulate the pro-life case beyond “I would choose life”, then, we’ll see.

Joe, I think you are failing to apply your formula for politics to the GOP.

If I understand you correctly, you are articulating the fairly well established common wisdom of being inclusive in politics. To assume a common metaphor for this, you are suggesting that the “umbrella” of the GOP must be broad enough to invite in those who share views on social causes that are further afield than opposition to abortion and those whose economic interests embrace a robust role for government in providing for the poor and disadvantaged. (I take this from the present discussion and other posts and comments of yours that I have read. If I got it wrong, please correct me.)

However, it is precisely for this reason that you should be happy to have Sarah Palin in the fold.

My wife did not donate a dime or in any way work to get a candidate elected until Gov. Palin entered the race. Frankly, she was a bit “ho-hum” about even going to the polls for John McCain. It was Sarah Palin’s ability to speak plainly and to the issues that my wife truly cares about that woke her up and excited her about the 2008 race.

If you truly believe that the GOP umbrella needs to be broader then there must be a place for the “folksy, honest” people under it.

Oh… And Matt… Speaking of the inarticulate and snarky, have you read what you have written?

I will speculate that the difficulty that Gov. Palin had last fall is attributable largely to her history. Only a modest minority of those who have been on national tickets in the last 70-odd years have had any history as candidates or office-holders in the realm of local politics, and those that did (e.g. Hubert Humphrey and Spiro Agnew and Harry Truman) generally hailed from metropolitan counties and had hundreds of thousands of constituents. Robert Dole cut his teeth in small town and rural politics; however, he has all but admitted his party affiliation was a function of personal ambition and he stood for election as county attorney in 1952 in lieu of setting up shop in private practice. Gov. Palin is thus nearly alone among those on national tickets in recent decades whose political education and interest concerned the sort of commonplace concretes that local officials (most particulary small town mayors) deal with. It is doubtful, given her background, that she is the sort who invests a whole mess of time in conceptual thinking about matters for which she is not palpably responsible at that moment.

So, what you had was this woman who had a considerable measure of experience in the realms of hiring, firing, budgets, capital improvement projects, public education, the commercial fishing business, the intersection of state government and the oil business, &c. being asked questions about matters she (one suspects) had not had much occasion to think about because it was not her job to do so. Someone else might have spent their spare time cogitating (intelligently or no) on aspects of the federal tax code or the interminable wars between Israel and the Arab states; Gov. Palin’s hobbies run to hunting and sports.

Ronald Reagan had (by the time he entered office) some serious intellectual deficiencies. While he may have been less intelligent than Gerald Ford or George Bush pere, he had an interest in political ideas and in the schema of policy that they lacked. Robert Kuttner referred to him as a ‘hedgehog’ – a man who held self-consciously to a short list of principles he knew how to apply in assessing policy. I suspect if carefully questioned, Gov. Palin would reveal herself to be unlike either Gerald Ford (a political professional who enjoyed the daily business of political life but had no well articulated convictions and little demonstrated ability to think outside of whatever box the accumulated history of policy had placed him in) or Ronald Reagan (the conviction politician): someone with a strong (if not articulated) cultural-political orientation that colors her reactions to things but also someone whose interest is very much in the tangible world around her, not in abstractions like ‘the Soviet threat’ or ‘the free market’.

(memo to ‘e.’, when you have under your belt 21 years raising kids and 12 years running public agencies, you are not properly dismissed as a ‘pin up girl’).

“Ronald Reagan had (by the time he entered office) some serious intellectual deficiencies.”

No wonder the man was virtually responsible for reshaping the face of the whole known world then, ending the Cold War, amongst many of other notable & historic feats the man is famously known for (and rightly, too).

Don’t get me wrong; the man certainly had his failings. Still, there is nothing in Palin that even remotely resembles any of his more endearing qualities (with all due respect to Donald, of course).

“However, it is precisely for this reason that you should be happy to have Sarah Palin in the fold.”

I don’t see why. Palin mouthed the same tired old rhetoric about taxes and government spending during the campaign. She contributed nothing new or original to the American political debate. What did she do except talk tough and wink for the camera?

All of the tough talk about taxes and government spending is absolutely toxic. I’m sick of it and the majority of Americans are sick of it. Most Americans think the rich should pay more, that progressive taxes are just, that there should be some redistribution of wealth – and absolutely reject the retarded notion that any such redistribution amounts to “socialism”.

Personally, I put the integrity of society and the common good above any notion that we are “punishing success”. It is the collective labor of the entire world that makes wealth possible. Good ideas and good management are absolutely worthless without dedicated labor. Everyone who plays a role in making this society function should be able to live in it with dignity and comfort, even if it means a few less billionaires. And that is exactly what Pope Benedict argues in CV, when he says:

“The world’s wealth is growing in absolute terms, but inequalities are on the increase. In rich countries, new sectors of society are succumbing to poverty and new forms of poverty are emerging. In poorer areas some groups enjoy a sort of “superdevelopment” of a wasteful and consumerist kind which forms an unacceptable contrast with the ongoing situations of dehumanizing deprivation. “The scandal of glaring inequalities” continues.(22)”

It is an unacceptable contrast, and until Palin or some other GOP candidate says it and believes it (Huckabee doesn’t even say it as candidly as I think he should), I and millions of others will continue to tune them out. We’re done with it, see? Done with the “rich people make the world go ’round so they deserve everything”. It isn’t envy. It’s a legitimate desire for justice and fairness necessary for the functioning of an orderly society, and I thank God our Pope proclaims it from on high.