"While most politicians today focused their criticism on Wikileaks for releasing a quarter of a million classified State Department documents, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin instead took aim at the Obama administration for the leak," reports CBS News. The incident "raises serious questions about the Obama administration's incompetent handling of this whole fiasco," she disintermediated the "lamestream media" this afternoon via her Facebook page. (AP photo)
"Like George W. Bush, Sarah Palin has somehow turned a lack of genuine accomplishment, an absence of curiosity about the world around her and an apparent inability to communicate in complete, declarative sentences into a strong image of a plain spoken, no-nonsense, 'I'm one of you' populist," writes bemused Johns Hopkins Professor of Political Communication Dave Helfert, signaling to his Huffington Post readers that he is a member of the tribe. "Somehow," indeed. Where's your own intellectual curiosity, Prof. Helfert? If you're looking for engagement with "the world around her," try tuning in to the Discovery Channel Sunday nights for "Sarah Palin's Alaska." Instead, the author parrots the Journolist/Cabalist playbook:
The Republican establishment isn't going to have a lot of luck trying to bring her into the fold. She is not going to be muzzled, controlled or eclipsed. They know she wasn't trying to promote the Republican agenda with her somewhat bizarre Facebook endorsements. She was promoting Sarah Palin. Their only hope is to find someone who can shine as bright as she does, but with substance.
We guess it depends upon what your definition of "the Republican agenda" is, not to mention "substance." The HuffPo writer correctly senses the GOP establishment's Palinophobia but hasn't a clue as to what motivates Palin herself. It's the constitutional conservatism, stupid! As for us Country-Class rubes clinging to our guns and religion out here:
When they do focus on politics, they tend to make judgments using the same criteria they do on everything else. Does it make sense? Does it waste money? Is it going to make my life better or worse? Does it agree or conflict with my values? Do those people in Washington understand what's important to me?
Do YOU understand "what's important to me" sir? It's about something larger than ourselves, the Founding Fathers' exceptionalist vision of Governor Winthrop's Shining City Upon a Hill. We recommend Jedediah Bilah's must-read report of her exclusive telephone interview with Governor Palin as a palate cleanser:
She said “To study what has happened since then – especially in the 60s and 70s when a lot of women decided to hijack the term feminism – they hijacked the idea of women’s rights, and I believe that they started making women feel like they were victims, and that is a disempowerment. That makes women, especially our young women, feel that they are not capable, smart enough, or strong enough to take on all that life has to offer, unless somebody helps them out and does it for them. In this case – with liberals – unless government does it for them … Yeah, women do, I believe, have to work harder to prove themselves … It makes us better people and it makes us stronger and it makes success even more worth it.”
Has Sarah whetted your intellectual curiosity yet, Dave Helfert & Company? Jedediah concludes:
What has left a lasting impression on me from the interview is that Sarah Palin’s words – whether you agree with them or not – carry a realness that’s not common in the political world. Everything seemed entirely unrehearsed, and there was a spontaneity in her responses that reflected a desire to tell me what she actually thinks, not what she thought I wanted to hear. There was something raw about her patriotism, something blunt about her honesty, and something fierce in the seemingly casual way she talked about having taken on “the good old boys.”
Update: Michelle Malin Buzzworthy link!
Crossposted at Riehl World View, Cloven Not Crested and Liberty Pundits.
The only reason Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich, and Pawlenty still show well in the polls is because they are only polling Republican voters. As we know, most conservatives have fled the GOP since 2006 so the smaller the party gets, the richer it is with "party over principles" nose-holding "Republican uber alles" voters.
If you were to poll conservatives, I really doubt Rommey and Huckabee would should well at all and Pawlenty only looks conservative because he is a Republican in a blue state.
At some point, Sarah is going to have to recant her statement last week in her Hannity interview that she is running so long as the GOP leadership does not consider her to be a divisive distraction. If she wants it, she needs to go for it on her own terms. So far, she is signaling that she will accept the judgment of the Karl Rove Republicans as to whether or not she runs.
Posted by: Pasadena Phil | November 29, 2010 at 10:13 PM
Hoping all had a GREAT THANKGIVING!
Wishing all the very best.
Well, again, I have to try to express my differing view, to help a friend. I do admit to being potentially wrong. I do appreciate the devotion and the passion.
However, I remember well, when the hubris had grown to suggest Mrs. Palin was the sole source which debased Obamacare. It was as sign we are growing overboard.
We see the same overt play almost daily in regards to the Palin Franchise. I have to honestly say, just like the Fred Head fantasy, many placed all their ideals on an individual, dreaming and inflating a bubble about a Politician. It was a painful, but predictable let down for many of my friends and associates. I still offer as much caution as I can, probably because I don't want to see the let down.
Conservatism is all about seeing the reality, the humanity in all. I strongly disagree with Pasadena Phil. Only fools have run away from working within the GOP to empower the Conservative cause. The fashion has grown a very UN-Conservative obsession with a delusional anti-GOP mindset. It has ruined the credibility of many. Just like the US Government, we the PEOPLE make the Party. And those who play "populism" - class warfare against the GOP, to debase and divide for their own gain are simply lost. Mrs. Palin's resorting to the ugly "blue bloods" was a true regret. No serious Leader would ever offer such Public ugliness. The lessons of the Miller flop, the O'Donnell fiasco, the Angle weakness, etc., should not be ignored by many embracing a fashion. And I am someone who is all for encouraging more sound Conservative Candidates. But the substance is essential, and some are missing the facts. Pawlenty is indeed a Conservative. Center Right may not be the level of Conservatism Phil seeks, but that does not allow one to alter reality.
We have seen this denial long before, in the Reform, Minute Men, etc., offerings. I remember all too well, how the fashionable turned their back on the GIPPER during his Second Term, and we all lost in the long run.
The reality is, Mrs. Palin is a politician, a good one with Our Base, but not so grand outside it. She often expresses things like "I will only run if I am needed" as the typical ploy to all - just as she indicated she won't run if she is a "distraction". It is similar to the weak hiding behind Ronald Reagan's acting career to make excuses for a "reality tv show". These are signs of a very typical Political gamer - not the genuine honest offering from great leaders like GW or RR. Mr. Rove's constructive criticism was very sound, so are many of the questions being offered. Mrs. Palin could grow, but Mrs. Charen is quite right, she has turned down a path that is far from serious or building.
Perhaps the biggest symbol of the facade, (not personally) but politically, is the reality Mrs. Palin joined - embraced the disastrous Maverick Ticket, which was one of the most LIBERAL offerings in the history of the GOP. This Maverick Platform not only advocated for Cap and Trade Taxation, undermined-opposed many of the best offerings the Republicans provided in fighting the GWOT, it also opposed the Bush Tax Cuts. Mrs. Palin was a primary player in this failure.
In fact, having studied the Palin Record, being a fan - introduced long ago by the Anchoress when Mrs. Palin was a new Gov. in Alaska, I am still having a hard time finding a Sarah reference to the GIPPER - before the transformation to play the 'super' conservative. Sarah Palin was an attraction for Mr. McCain, not only for her image appeal, but because her true origins as a politician was in the moderate reformer - Maverick mold.
The problem is the Image-Identity game, which is a product of fashion. Just as I strongly warned about the disastrous offering of the Maverick, my instincts try to encourage a more objective view of the Celebrity. The desire to defend one of Our Own is admirable in the face of the ugly Democratic Partisans. But it doesn't mean we should not be dishonest with ourselves. Certainly for Conservative Women, there is a wonderful joy to see such a fine Celebrity - a truly nice American Female in the National Spotlight. I like Mrs. Palin and her Family personally. However, I urge more "feet on the ground", when contemplating this overt, irrational Celebrity Hype.
A prime example of this overt inflating, not matching reality, was Mr. Miller having been revealed as abusing a governmental job - having taken governmental aid. And a number of my own formerly favorite Pundits gave away their credibility on this one, offering the most juvenile anti-GOP garbage, all in the name of a very weak offering - turning 70% ACU Rated Republican Senator into the enemy, with some of the ugliest slander. It was terrible politics, and devoid of genuine reason-intelligence.
In fact, in the wake of the fashion in Delaware, many like LEVIN, went out of their way to slander other Conservative Pundits. It was a sign of utter insanity. And now we have another example today, a lesson for those once pushing this fashionable nonsense, seeing Ms. O'Donnell foolishly plugging for Hillary Clinton on ABC. How misguided they were:
“O’Donnell">http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/30/christine-odonnell-envisions-possible-hillary-clinton-sarah-pal/">“O’Donnell does like Hillary and took to her Twitter account to praise her handling of the WikiLeaks document dump. “You go girl,” O’Donnell tweeted.”
Real friends do not remain silent about these things. A true friend, (even if they are mistaken) tries to offer their best effort for those they care about.
Now, Mrs. O’Donnell is on track to be exploited by Democrats for a long time (encouraged by the Palin endorsement), and she seems eager to play the game. This is truly misguided. Remember all those who vilified the GOP over this? Remember the ugly slander of other fine Conservatives, by those who thought they were so brilliant, stuck on a supreme 'purist' fantasy?
Ms. O'Donnell is telling ABC, Hillary handled this fiasco well?
Oh my…
Does Ms. O’Donnell really think she can play the Democrats for a future career?
This is a disaster. And it also mimics some of the folly of Our Own, who still mistakenly view the Clintons as more moderate than the likes of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc.
Does Mrs. O'Donnell realize Hillary Clinton once tried to Nationalize US Health Care? Or hugged Nancy when Obamacare passed?
I suppose I offer tough love. Certainly some will hate me for it. Few will agree. But I offer it again with the best intent. I know I had the same response to the nutty, irrational, emotive, reactionary folly which grew after 2004, treating GW as a 'traitor'.
We must do better.
Thank you.
Posted by: Old Fan - Brooklyn | November 30, 2010 at 02:50 PM
Here is a fix to the mistake in the link above:
"O’Donnell does like Hillary and took to her Twitter account to praise her handling of the WikiLeaks document dump. “You go girl,” O’Donnell tweeted."
Posted by: Old Fan - Brooklyn | November 30, 2010 at 02:56 PM