D.C. elites pronounce Palin a "negative influence in national politics"

"We hear it through the media," Sarah Palin replied — perhaps presciently and with the soupçon of an eye roll? — in October of 2007 when Charlie Rose asked earnestly "Do you know what President Bush's energy policy is?" during a roundtable with two distaff governors (Palin and Rose above). "You're presuming there is one," chimed in then Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano good naturedly. In those pre-gotcha-interview days Palin more than proved her gravitas, holding her own on energy and other issues, and all was taken in good humor.

"Seventy-nine percent of Washington elites believe Palin is a 'negative influence in national politics' while just 15 percent find her to be 'a breath of fresh air,'" according to a new Politico poll that defines said elites as "those who live within the D.C. metro area, earn more than $75,000 per year, have at least a college degree and are involved in the political process or policymaking." We're talking here the "GOP Blue Bloods and the politics of envy" that we've been flogging since August 29, 2008, but it's nice to see a brand new poll supports our gut reaction way back then:

Outside the nation’s capital, however, more than twice as many believe she has had a positive impact on politics, while 50 percent see her as a negative influence.

"Palin is a populist-oriented phenomenon drawn heavily from lower middle-class voters, but she also deliberately comes off as anti-intellectual and anti-Washington, so it is no surprise she does not play in the Beltway,” said Mark Penn, CEO of the polling firm Penn Schoen Berland, which conducted the survey for POLITICO. “Elites almost everywhere are turned off by her and some of the very things she does that attracts her core support."

She's definitely anti-Washington (a huge part of her charm to us Tea Party types), but "deliberately comes off as anti-intellectual"? Puleeze. From Day One (again, August 29, 2008), the dogs that be have been nipping at the Mama Grizzly's heels, swooning in horror at her lack of "intellectual curiosity," when in fact it is their own lack of intellectual curiosity that tells a tale. Which brings us to Charles Krauthammer, a long-time favorite of ours like Bar Bush now revealed to be in contempt of folks like us.

Our first hint was Krauthammer's dismissal of Sarah Palin's potential VP candidacy that same August 29. As rumors swirled of John McCain's possible choice of running mate, Krauthammer pontificated that the Senator from Arizona should pick someone "safe" like Fred Thompson, whom we adore, but as we blogged back then:

Our sis will remind us that we have a heart too soon made glad, but the Governor of Alaska gets our girls-just-wanna-have-fun juices flowing. Sarah, get your gun! 

Then came Krauthammer's fuddy-duddy dismissals of her gravitas in the last period of time and now, the denouement, discovered by twitterfriend Heather Hunt of the blog Connecticut for Palin:

Reagan’s reasons for changing his mind about Gorbachev were “ignorant and pathetic” columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote. He added that no one should be surprised that Reagan had lost his head because “it was never weighted down with too many ideas to begin with.”

Charles Krauthammer is not one of us.

Update: Cubachi has a meaty must-read on the subject:

What policy has Palin not engaged in? She exposed Obamacare’s destructive policies that includes “death panels.” Krauthammer objected to her tone and even claimed she was wrong. When in fact, Palin was right and it was indeed proven that the bill did remove the right between patient and doctor, and leave panels of bureaucrats deciding whether or not a patient receives treatment.

Update II: Da Tech Guy's Blog links:

Of course the beltway consider her a negative influence, she has helped lead a peasant’s revolt that threatens their ability to feed at the public trough.

Update III: Maggie's links.

Crossposted at Riehl World View, Cloven Not Crested and Liberty Pundits.

Comments

[chickelit]

Great post. I refuse to be labeled "anti-intellectual" just because I favor Palin.

Happy Birthday BTW!

[hrh]

Thanks for the shoutout!

But it's Heather, not Helen ...

Tho I'd love to have her Emmys, Oscar, and bank account!! ;)

And thanks for pulling out the Charlie Rose interview. I often refer back to that.

And with Napolitano, too, what a hoot!

Also note, that in the Charlie Rose Green Room interview, Palin again mentions both a running author, George Sheehan, and C.S. Lewis.

[RefudiateObama2012]

And don't forget it was Krauthammer who told her to leave the room after her "death panel" essay, and then proceeded to write almost exactly what she wrote.

The problem with CK is that no one at FNC has the balls to stand up to his sanctimonious rantings about her. Apparently, CK's words are not to be debated.

[thirteen28]

Thanks for this post. I've long objected to the idea so prominent on the right that Krauthammer is some kind of conservative oracle, when really he's just an elitist phony. Let's not forget his suck up to Turbo Tax Timmy (labeling opposition to his confirmation as "unserious"). Even worse was hishis colossally idiot Weekly Standard cover story proposing the NetZero Gas Tax (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/949rsrgi.asp), which shows he's more than full of the same social engineering impulses that animate liberals. Seeing what he wrote about Reagan doesn't surprise me in the least.

Charles, we'd like to have a serious conversation about Palin and other 2012 hopefuls ... so I suggest you leave the room.

[Murray]

I echo these comments about the smug CK who appears to be talented at word crafting and gathering of his facts but does not demonstrate much true depth e.g. any of his works stand up to Liberty and Tyranny by Levine? Not even close, ever. Palin has a way of exposing these closet Rino's and other elists. We are better for it.

[Danger Girl]

I watched the CR interview the day it aired. It was my first exposure to Palin. My observations at that time: she has charisma & loads of charm, but no intellectual depth. Her answers had NO Gravitas, they were lighthearted, shallow, and even evasive. She was not knowledgeable in this interview, nor well-spoken. When asked about Education her response was about Energy.

Fast forward to 2010 -Palin is STILL not a clear thinking leader, she has some straightforward views but views are NOT solutions - witness Obama's Presidency. She offers NO substantive common sense solutions to serious issues . Repeating "we need common sense solutions" isn't a solution.

It would appear that Palin's supporters are as thin skinned as she is-- say what you will about CK, but attacking Barbara Bush, who has earned the right to her honest opinion of anyone INCLUDING Palin, proves that you, like Palin, can't take the high road & be gracious or respectful of Barbara Bush. Can't this 'Potential President' EVER handle criticism instead of reflexively lashing out? Can't you do the same?

And why is Palin NOT allowed to be critiqued by anyone? Are you so afraid that legitimate criticism will derail her? According to you - any one questioning her inability to put forward solutions is a "hater". I treat Palin like I treat ALL potential candidates and ALL politicians - I ask demanding tough questions and I want to hear intelligent, well articulated, well thought out answers which outline intelligent, well thought out SOLUTIONS to our very serious problems.
I have yet to hear that from most politicians, including Palin.

Palin blames Bush for "economic policies that were in place that got us into these woeful economic times" Like the Bush tax cuts, Sarah? The ones she supports? Idiocy like this is unacceptable from Palin, as it would be coming from ANY GOP politician. Why should I settle for less with Palin than I would with Pence, Ryan, Boehner, Romney, Thune and Obama? Why would you? You sound more like 'groupies' then serious thoughtful voters.

You lay claim that Palin is an "everyday common folk American" BS! Everyday Americans are struggling in the real world & UNLIKE Palin are NOT part of the theater going on in our politics right now. Her slickly produced, over polished, and packaged tv series does not reflect the life of a 'common everyday American". How many of How many of you common everyday Americans HUNT and KILL the food YOU eat? How many of you common everyday Americans write books that offer little, and then do endless book signing tours? How many of you common everyday Americans have a tv studio set up in your extravagant home? How many of you common everyday Americans get paid $100K to speak at events? How many of you common everyday Americans fly in private planes at someone else's expense?

Palin has a 50% negative rating in poll after poll, with her ONLY positive ratings coming from Fox News viewers.

She is a political celebrity, with little political credibility, and right now she will not come close to winning in a General Election against Obama. And I do NOT want another four years of him - so perhaps Palin should spend far less time being a rock star/celebrity and far more time sitting in her home in Alaska, boning up on issues and providing us with well written, well articulated SOLUTIONS to our challenging issues. Anyone can criticize Obama, but a serious potential contender needs to offer up intelligent SOLUTIONS. When Palin can do that and when she can rise above the theater going on in politics today - then she will earn my vote, and likely the votes of millions of true honest hardworking struggling common everyday Americans.

[Danger Girl]

Re: Cubachi & Palin's speech on Quantative Easing:

The speech had several well documented errors and was transparently obvious that Palin was reading a well written script but not one that she authored.Therefore it brings to question how knowledgeable she is on the subject. Angelina Jolie can read a well written script, she can greenlight a film project and by fiat creates jobs, but is she Presidential material?

Speechwriters tweak content, they don't write an entire speech with content that the speaker will recite but has little knowledge about. There were several proven errors in her speech that were argued with facts, but rather than admit that she made a mistake in her fact checking, she went on to defend the errors -- if you state the Sun rises in the West in error, don't defend the error, admit the mistake. While Palin didn't write that speech on QE, she is responsible for ensuring the veracity of what she puts her voice to.

Her bogus argument played out in the WSJ proves that that is not only reactive & unable to admit her own mistakes but UNKNOWLEDGABLE about the subject she spoke on.

And while Palin is voicing one side of the argument -arguments have to hold their weight, not just be the conservative version of the liberals standard baseless arguments or worse be arguments that Palin herself cannot discuss intelligently without have a pre-written speech or talking points scripted for her. Reagan was a man of deep thought who understood the complexities of what he spoke about and acted on. Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan.

[hrh]

Knock yourself out, Danger Girl.

So. Who's your boy? On whose behalf are you knocking yourself out to take Palin down?

Your comments are full of undocumented hearsay and your own opinions. But nice try.

Guess you haven't read America by Heart, have you?