Good Questions
Reasonable people can disagree about the nature of Palin’s difficulties. Some will argue that Palin just hasn’t had time to learn about government and policy issues. Others will argue she isn’t very bright. Others still may make the case that she’s just cracking under the pressure. But the cause isn’t especially important — reasonable people should agree that the Republican vice presidential nominee is way out of her depth, and has no business seeking national office.
At the risk of sounding impolite, Sarah Palin is embarrassing herself, her party, her ticket, and her supporters. The notion that she could be the leader of the free world sometime fairly soon isn’t just ridiculous, it’s terrifying.
Really, what is it the earnest Republican is thinking watching an interview like this? Does it give him or her pause? Does he or she cringe, but suppress the fear for the good of the party? Does he or she simply buckle in, get into a crash position, and hope the Republican ticket doesn’t screw the nation too badly?
Telling is how the internet conservatives are handling this. InsideCatholic’s last Palin blog post was two weeks ago, unless you count the bit on Monday about the guy who suppsedly hacked her e-mail account. Rod Dreher is in retreat at a very Star Trek-like Warp 8. 200 posts where a significant minority is stumbling over the talking point that Palin is better than Obama.
Reasonable people understand the bias in the Media.
Nancy,
If you were to have picked the Republican you thought was best suited to succeed John McCain should anything happen to him, would you have picked Sarah Palin?
I have seen people argue that she is more qualified than Obama. I don’t agree with that, but suppose she is. The people who say that believe that Obama is not qualified. Does being more qualified than someone who is not qualified mean you are truly qualified?
Would you like to see her as president in four months from now?
One of the interesting things is that McCain used to call the press his “base,” because he had such good relations with reporters, and reporters liked him. Now he’s running against the press.
“Does being more qualified than someone who [for sake of argument] is not qualified mean [Palin is] truly qualified?”
Good question.
Nancy, any thoughts here?
Nancy, Palin is dismissing herself by her own words. Can you show us how the questions she is being asked are biased?
Someone over on Vox Nova, an ordinary mortal like the rest of us, was defending one of Palin’s inept answers in an interview and said she just hadn’t learned how to deal with “mainstream media gotcha tactics.” He went on the give the answer he said Palin should have given. My question to him was, “How come you know how to deal with mainstream media tactics and she doesn’t?”
For good or ill, the world is run by C students.
“For good or ill, the world is run by C students.”
Best laugh I had for awhile. W step right in. I am uncomfortable with the constant bashing of Palin. She is fair game because of her vice presidential candidacy. While we should be as shrewd as serpents, do we all want to become Carl Rove?
Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker calls for Palin to withdraw:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=
Really, what is it the earnest Republican is thinking watching an interview like this?
One does admittedly get the same feeling of apprehension and dismay that intelligent Democrats surely have whenever Biden opens his mouth.
Clearly another example of media bias, Joe. Thanks for the link.
Okay, this is admittedly out there. I shouldn’t even be posting anyway -too much to do.
As anyone who reads dotcommonweal knows, I haven’t exactly been impressed with Palin all along. I’m not impressed now. But I don’t think she was any WORSE in this interview than she was in any of her previous interviews (Hannity, Gibson). So why are conservatives jumping now?
Here’s a stab at it. I think Palin’s function on the ticket was to be a living symbol of a conservative view of modern womanhood. She was there as the anti-Hillary, the Christian conservative woman, and meant to be a slap in the face to secular liberalism’s view of womanhood (just surf the conservative Catholic blogs, and you’ll find lots of this view).
So it really doesn’t matter to the base if she looks bad in front of a male interviewer –that’s not her job. It does matter, if she stumbles and falls vis a vis a woman from the other camp. This was where she had to shine. And she didn’t.
That theory makes no sense; Palin’s performance in the Couric interview was undeniably more incoherent.
Chris Orr at the New Republic has an interesting theory that seems on the money:
As Ross Douthat points out:
“With Gibson, she obviously lacked the knowledge one expects at this level, but she seemed to have a glib faith that she could bluff her way through.” Yes. She scared the hell out of me.
I actually think loss of confidence was a rational response on her part.
So I guess I see the interviews as equally poor.
From Cathleen: “Here’s a stab at it. I think Palin’s function on the ticket was to be a living symbol of a conservative view of modern womanhood. She was there as the anti-Hillary, the Christian conservative woman, and meant to be a slap in the face to secular liberalism’s view of womanhood (just surf the conservative Catholic blogs, and you’ll find lots of this view).”
Exactly, and I simply can’t understand why neither McCain nor the GOP could promote a more experienced example of this description such as Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas or even GOP women senators such as Olympia Snowe, Elizabeth Dole, or Susan Collins. Why? Because they’re not young, “hot” (I have friends who have used that word to describe her), openly devout, and mothers of many children (Correct me on that point if I am incorrect) .
McCain needed the Evangelicals back on his side. He alienated them with his campaign finance reform laws. He grabbed them back with Palin and they fell directly back in step. In many respects, it was a good strategy to win back short-term votes, but it could have negative long-term effects.
If Palin could get elected to the Senate and serve one or two terms before being selected to serve as she is now, she would display the competence that comes with experience. I am sure that she would be a more tempered candidate who would not look like a rookie in a world of veterans.
Good thoughts, which seems to come down to the fact that the learning curve is a flat line, or dipping. Since her nomination (a month ago now, and still no press avail!) she has been sequestered in a crash course, a la Eliza Doolittle. But, by George, she’s not getting it. I think if she had shown marked improvement people would have given her the benefit of the doubt, as most see her positively, in personal terms. She’d have come off as a quick study who you figure could learn a lot in a couple of years on the job. And I do wonder, as someone said, how much of that might be the fault of the McCain campaign for hiding her away, rather than having her come out in her Sarah Palin way and saying, “Hey, I’m no rocket scientist (or whatever) but I’m learning fast and besides, I’m really here to be a voice for the American people on XYZ…”
One does wonder what things would have looked like if the financial melt down had occurred 90 days from now. Palin would still have been sequestered, no doubt, but we would probably still be in the land of hot button moral questions where one is allowed to shoot from the hit and people are not so concerned about missing.
Now all the candidates are under a harsher spot light, because some of them will be leading the country shortly through an economic disaster that will still be with us for quite a while no matter what kind of bail out scheme Congress comes up with. Palin may look hot under the brighter lights, but not in a good way.
Here’s Katherine Lopez: catty Couric v. Palin.
“But I also watch these interviews and I cringe a little. That Russia answer with Couric. Oy. It was a loaded question to be sure. But I thought a certain governor of Alaska had told us this was a time for no blinking. For (Uncle) Sam’s sake. You’re Sarah Palin. You’re governor of Alaska. You’re the mom of five. You’re married to a tough guy. You can handle America’s Former Sweetheart. And yet, you didn’t. She may have come off catty, but you came off hesitant and unprepared. What happened to the pitbull? I see the lipstick.”
Cathleen — Lopez (do you have a link?) must have prewritten the bit about “She may have come off catty,” because in no way was Katie Couric “catty.” She was incredibly professional, even gentle — she stopped short of “deference,” sure, but that’s to her credit. She asked simple questions and noted, almost apologetically, when no answers were forthcoming.
I think it’s true that seeing Palin so undone by simple questioning from another woman has shaken up those who defended her till now, mostly (I would say) because there’s no possibility of hiding behind the “sexist” excuse. But I think the really important factor is the timing — as David G. said, this interview made it plain the Pygmalion treatment isn’t taking. Even those who defended the idea that she should be kept from the press for weeks, in order to prep her for prime time, are now wondering what the heck the people who were prepping her have been doing all that time. Even those who could overlook (for example) the nonsense about Russia being near Alaska, assuming it came from an unprepared campaign staff, must be stunned that, after all this time, they’re sticking to that story because they haven’t come up with anything better.
Interesting in all these comments is that no one seems to have noticed that we are talking about journalism. Has any of the journalists much political experience? Is any of them – to quote LBJ – competent to run for town dogcatcher?
It mostly sounds to me like clever college debating stuff. I think Mrs. Palin [and Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden [and Mrs. Pelosi] would be more sensible to eschew these kinds of infotainment. Let them talk to the voters, not waste their time nattering with the talking heads.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTUzNTM3MDk0MmI3ZWM1N2ZkZDAwZTFmMjA5Nzk3MWM=
There is no criteria for elected office except that outlined in the constitution.
Any candidate for elected office presents their experience, background and credentials for consideration to the public and the electorate makes a judgement as to suitability.
I realize that it is a bit different for the VP slot since the President makes the judgement. Clearly John McCain believed her to be qualified and so did the delegates at the convention who ratified the decision.
Populas locuta est causa finita est – at least as far as the qualification issue.
It seems to me that we would be much better served by entering into substantive policy debates around directions and implications that the parties propose for the financial crisis, current directions and misdirections in US foreign policy, current issues related to trade.
Besides I don’t understand why in the US the President is looked at like some kind of elected king. He presides over a cabinet (that he selects) who advise him. Yes he has to make the decision. But I would be interested to know who a President would select to advise him. Is he or she interested in hearing diverse voices, comfortable with dissent/difference? Ultimately the president does have to make a judgement and certainly the issue of judgement and that needs to be evaluated. Questions for candidates by journalists should be open ended ones like walk me through your decision making process – cite specficic examples, who do you consult with and why, etc.????
As for Palin, that issue goes to McCain’s judgement. Just as Biden goes to Obama’s judgement. But what would a McCain cabinet look like? An Obama cabinet?
Yes, I do agree with the Nat Review article that it was a tactical error to shield her from the press … it just makes the sharks hungrier. If she had been open and available and charming with them from the beginning, they might be treating her on a different basis.
The whole dynamic between her and the press is on the wrong footing for her and the McCain campaign – it seems that she does not know how to *handle* the press – to take control of the conversation, to make the press march to her tune rather than vice-versa. She needs to be the parent, and they the children … it seems as though it’s the other way around right now.
George D,
I wish I could say an Obama cabinet would bear no resemblance to a McCain cabinet. I don’t doubt it would be better, but better isn’t always good enough. Your argument about what qualifies a candidate to be vice president is entirely formal and mostly circular. Republicanes locuti sunt sed causa non finita est.
Matthew:
This whole Palin thing is related to your article on exuberant irrationality. The more Palin comes on the press, even if she flops, here popularity soars with those who like her. And if she soars, then she plummets even further with those who are already disposed negatively.
I think on balance it ends up being neutral. But maybe there is a political calculus out there that independents or some important consitutent is swayed negatively by increased scrutiny. Or maybe the McCain camp sees her negatives rise with more exposure and so they are containing it until the debate. I don’t know.
This whole Palin phenomena on either side pro or con just puts me in some kind of Boudillard styled hyper-reality.
Just give me a plain styled no frills, no sound bytes, boring debate about issues.