Sarah Palin and the conservative movement
I saw a discussion on another blog about how Sarah Palin could transform the conservative movement. I wanted to bring it up here, and see what some of Crian’s regulars have to say about it.
This is not a post Crian would have started; it’s from a conservative point of view. It’s about where conservatives are, and where they could be.
McCain’s pick of Palin has the potential to be transformational, IMHO.
The party faithful, especially women, were pretty much resigned to being in the wilderness for the next few years. We saw the party dragged down by folks like Tom DeLay and Duke Cunningham, who valued power and money over fiscal responsibility and principle. Of course, the Democrats do it as well, routinely, but Republicans expect that. Our appeal is based on prudence and responsibility, and when that goes out the window, we’re screwed. We can’t compete with the Democrats on promising manna; they’re the professionals, and the voters know it.
Republicans tend to view the war as a serious enterprise, vital to the future of freedom and to public safety. We have a president who understands that, but his limited political capital led him to spend it on the war effort. He didn’t have the means to fight for fiscal responsibility.
McCain is a party contrarian. He’s stuck his thumb in the eyes of the faithful on many occasions, and that lowered his standing among them. But he’s also strongly opposed to the sort of soft, casual corruption that wrecked the GOP. He’s strong on fighting Islamofacism. That made him acceptable, barely. Conservatives would have preferred someone younger, and less contrarian, but most would hold their nose and pull the lever for McCain.
The choice of Palin changed that, and changed it in a big way. Here was a woman politician who was smart, tough, and family oriented. She has a record of fighting the in-dealing that has tainted the party brand. She’s inexperienced, but her record so far shows achivement and talent. She’s not a lawyerly wonk, and has the ability to talk directly to the public.
The energy and enthusiasm she has generated in the party is stunning. Women have always been the heart and soul of the GOP; they have always been the foot soldiers who made the calls, organized the schedule, knocked on doors and made things happen. The GOP has always relied on volunteers, and most of them were women.
Now those women have a candidate who thinks like they do. She talks like they do. She likes men, and likes it when they act like men. She’s proud of herself, her husband and her kids.
And when the left erupted in an orgy of vituperative attacks, conservative, middle-American women saw it for what it was. They’ve seen, and felt, the contempt that lefty elites have for them and what they value.
Palin has the potential to be the vanguard of the new conservative movement. It’s not based in evangelical Christianity, although it respects that. It values hard work, ethical choices and practical solutions. It’s anchored in the middle class, and middle America.
This movement makes the intellectual right uneasy. Conservatism is supposed to be about making the hard choices. There’s a whole canon of philosophy. Palin doesn’t come from that world. She’s not interested in debating Burkean ideas.
But she could hold her own in a debate with Buckley, and will wipe the floor with Joe Biden. She’s not a lawyer. Like most of us, she distrusts lawyers and lawyerly ways. She’d rather go fishing with her husband and kids.
She’s one of us. And she has the potential to inspire a lot more like her.
September 21 2008 02:43 pm | American Politics
September 21st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Like most of us, she distrusts lawyers and lawyerly ways. She’d rather go fishing with her husband and kids.
Yeah. That’s why she’s using every lawyer the McCain campaign has to get her and her husband out of testifying in the Troopergate scandal–the scandal she previously said she would cooperate with in settling.
So that’s dishonesty No. 1.
You can talk up Palin all you like, but the facts are that except for the base, the rest of America has taken a harder look at her and said, “Thanks, but no thanks.” She has the lowest approval rating of the 4 candidates.
We’ve found out in a matter of days after her debut that she did NOT say NO to the Bridge to Nowhere, that she was for it before she was against it, and that even after being against it, took the money anyway. This is a fact.
We’ve found out that as mayor of Wasilla, she left the village millions of dollars in debt (it had none before her administration) for a sports facility that was built on land whose title was in question at the time and that is still in litigation. Not fiscally responsible there.
We’ve learned that upon becoming mayor, she tried to ban books she found personally offensive–that’s something totalitarian regimes (see Soviet Union, Cuba, Taliban) do on a regular basis. Her instincts were horrifying (and unAmerican) there–what would she have done next? Have a good old fashion book burning party? (See 1930s Berlin.)
She believes in Creationism–that the earth is 6,000 years old, and she believes that goofy belief should be taught along side Evolution. This should disqualify her immediately. As this nation faces enormous difficulties in the 21st century, the last thing we need is someone who is stuck in the Middle Ages.
She doesn’t believe in a woman’s right to an abortion–choice, but her cheerleaders say her teenage daughter “chose” to keep the baby she’s carrying by her teenage boyfriend. When abortion is not an option, there IS no choice but to keep the baby–and force your daughter into a teenage marriage–with a kid whose Face Book profile showed him saying “f**k” every other word and that he was in a relationship, but did not want marriage. What sort of family forces marriage on 17-year olds? Idiocy.
Last time I checked, field dressing a moose and fishing with your husband are not qualifications for being the potential leader of the free world.
She got a passport in 2007 and traveled out of the North American continent for the first time in her 44 years. That shows a lack of curiosity about the world–just what we need in a leader.
And as far as your insults about elites go, that’s been something the Right has used for decades. For reasons unknown to millions of us, the Right believes that undereducated, incurious, radically religious people are better equiped to lead this country than those who have used their brains to attain a rigorous education, have an understanding of how the world works, and who do not look to a deity to solve real problems, but who use their knowledge and reasoning to do so.
As for holding her own in a debate with Biden, the McCain campaign has already said that that debate would have to be narrowly controlled so as not to make her look too naive and uninformed. IOW, instead of a debate of free-flowing ideas, she needs special conditions so the American people don’t see how much she is lacking.
If she were as smart and informed as you say, there would be absolutely no need to make special concessios to her in the vp debate. None. A real pitbull doesn’t need lipstick to make it look like it means business–Palin, however, does.
She has yet to stand in front of the media without scripted questions and discuss complicated issues–and that is because she can’t.
Shame on McCain for using this woman to shore up his standing with the base.
He’d rather win an election, and lose his honor.
September 21st, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Shaw,
The charges you lay at Palin’s feet have either been disproved, or are malicious exaggerations. And yes, I’m imputing malice on your part. The truth is out there, and you’re either ignorant of it or you’re deliberately lying.
In any case, why not address what I wrote, instead of rehashing DKos posts?
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:02 am
Or perhaps she’s a tool of the neocons…
Neoconservatives plan Project Sarah Palin to shape future American foreign policy
Neoconservatives whose influence had been waning in Washington have hitched their colours to rising star Sarah Palin in a bid to shape US foreign policy for another decade.
Comments by the governor of Alaska in her first television interview, in which she said Nato may have to go to war with Russia and took a tough line on Iran’s nuclear programme, were the result of two weeks of briefings by neoconservatives.
Mrs Palin was identified as a potential future leader of the neoconservative cause in June 2007
Her case as John McCain’s running mate was advanced vociferously by William Kristol, editor of Weekly Standard
Many believe that the “neocons”, whose standard bearer in government, Vice President Dick Cheney, lost out in Washington power struggles to the more moderate defence secretary Robert Gates and secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, last year are seeking to mould Mrs Palin to renew their influence.
Steven Clemons, of the New American Foundation think tank in Washington, a chronicler of the ebb and flow of neocon power in the White House, bemoaned the appointment, saying Mr Biegun “will turn her into an advocate of Cheneyism and Cheney’s view of national-security issues.”
Read the full article here:
After several attempts… it does not seem I can post any links here. The full article can be found by searching here: telegraph.co.uk
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:45 am
RR,
I use this guide when I want to add in links. I can do it off the top of my head now, but when I was just learning (a few weeks ago) it was very useful.
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:49 am
Unless, of course, the neocons have conspired to code into Wordpress something that rejects progressive links…they’re evil, very evil, and notice I did not mention the name of the SUB (supreme evil being). That’s because invoking his name kills all debate. And I’d like to see this thread get a bit longer.
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:08 am
Gordon,
That’s not good enough. You don’t say which of my charges have been disproved or are malicious exaggerations.
However, I can give you evidence to back up my charges from FactCheck.org. When you are able to refute what FactCheck.org reports, with quotes from Alaskan newspapers, please give me the link, and I’ll read what you have.
You can impute all you wish, but that doesn’t change what is true.
Here is what my source says:
“Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was a hit with the party faithful at the GOP convention, but some of her claims were amiss. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee also delivered a few faulty remarks.
Palin claimed to have stood up to Congress on the subject of the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” the Gravina Island bridge in Ketchikan, Alaska, about which we wrote last November.
Palin: I told the Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks,” on that bridge to nowhere.
This is not the first time Palin has cited her choice to kill the bridge in 2007 as an example of her anti-waste stance. It’s true that she did eventually nix the project. But the bridge was nearly dead already – Congress had removed the earmark, giving the requested money to the state but not marking it for any specific use. Palin unplugged its life support, declaring in 2007 that the funds would not be used for the Gravina bridge.
When she was running for governor, however, Palin expressed a different position. In 2006, the Ketchikan Daily News quoted her expressing optimism and support for the bridge at a Ketchikan campaign stop.
Palin, 2006: “People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,” said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth. … Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she “would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.”
Palin also answered “yes” to an Anchorage Daily News poll question about whether she would continue to support state funding for the Gravina Island bridge if elected governor. “The window is now,” she wrote, “while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.” It was only after she won the governorship that Palin shifted her position. And even then, it’s inaccurate to say that she “told the Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks.’” Palin accepted non-earmarked money from Congress that could have been used for the bridge if she so desired. That she opted to use it for other state transportation purposes doesn’t qualify as standing up to Congress.
The bridge reversal is not the only matter throwing doubt on Palin’s credentials as a government waste reformer. Watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense has reported that the small town of Wasilla, Alaska, which had not previously received significant federal funds, hauled in almost $27 million in earmarks while Palin was mayor. (McCain has explicitly criticized several of the Wasilla earmarks in recent years.) To help obtain these earmarks, Palin had hired Steven Silver, the former chief of staff for recently indicted Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, as Wasilla’s lobbyist.
And Palin continued to solicit federal funds as governor. A request form on Stevens’ Web site shows that she requested $160.5 million in earmarks for the state in 2008, and almost $198 million for 2009.
Source:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html
September 22nd, 2008 at 3:39 am
Thanks for the tip Gordon. I should have tried that, but haven’t had problems putting links in comments elsewhere.
Neoconservatives plan Project Sarah Palin to shape future American foreign policy
SUB?….. which one?? So many these days. ; )
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:22 am
Only the most brainwashed rightists will think that Palin will win a debate with Biden, though the corporate media will make such a claim. The corporate media always say that Republicans win debates and never make any gaffes. Facts to the contrary are routinely censored.
September 24th, 2008 at 2:13 am
You’re right, RR, they’re everywhere! And man, do they get pissed off if someone mentions another SEB in their presence. Personally, I suspect there’s a befouled diploma mill somewhere profiting from this.
Libhomo, does believing that Palin will win the debate make you a brainwashed rightist, or do you have to be a rightist, then brainwashed, first?
In any case, I believe that Republicans do indeed make gaffes. For example, there’s the time McCain lskjrov nonadsfol irnvone nnos ks lnave sldkn sleint and of course, everyone knows about when he ldgn ltinsmd sliidng dlkntnes skkrnn ienaotn tleing.
I’m sure you can think of other examples!
September 24th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
She likes men, and likes it when they act like men. She’s proud of herself, her husband and her kids.
Could you elaborate on this statement, please? And do it without using silly sterotypes of how men “act.”
PS. The Palin effect has been negligible on McCain’s campaign. The base loves her, but she hasn’t “electrified” independents nor right-leaning Democrats, voters McCain needs in this election. And apparently she hasn’t helped McCain in the swing states.
In fact, she has the lowest approval ratings of the four candidates.
And the latest debacle of keeping her in a press-free bubble enforces the perception that she still isn’t ready to answer questions on any sort of serious issues. Now that she’s met a handful of foreign leaders (and Henry Kissinger) she thinks that has beefed up her foreign policy creds?
Fortunately, the majority of Americans see through that bit of theatrics.
September 24th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Shaw, I’ve known quite a few heterosexual women who don’t like men, and/or seem to be dedicated to eradication of masculinity in the men they know. On the other hand, I know quite a few women who love men, and who prefer their men to act like men, rather than spineless puppies. I suspect you know some of these, too. Simple enough?
The base, who you seem to think is negligible, wasn’t much interested in voting this time around. They weren’t fond of McCain. This has changed, and in a way I wouldn’t have thought possible. And her choice caused a swing of 20 points among white women. That’s enormous, and almost unprecedented.
When the base is energized, they volunteer, give money, and talk to their friends. And all of the lefty attacks, and media sneering, reinforce that energy. That means not only support for McCain, but down the ballot as well. Did you notice that the Republicans are drawing even on the generic ballot, after being down double-digits just a few weeks ago?
Please, do keep up the rumor mongering, and the lying about her record ( Charles Martin is keeping score; he’s up to 93 last time I looked). Keep up the attacks on her family. Please do ask anyone you know in Hollywood to speak up against her. It’s working wonders. And tell your boss Karl Rove that his evil plan is ticking right along. (Note to humor impaired: the preceding sentence was a joke.)
As for a press-free bubble, that’s a pretty good description of Joe Biden’s campaign plane. Poor guy delivers a solid gaffe per day, and no one is there to report it.
And I’ll worry about how many press conferences Palin has held when you worry about how many Obama has held.
September 24th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
all she is is a shoe model - she cant talk lol
September 24th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
RDB,
I just clicked over to your site for the first time, and I can promise, I’ll be back when I have a few more minutes.
Shoe model…yah, right you are!
September 26th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Anyone who watched the Couric interviews with Palin and didn’t come away with cold terror in the pit of his/her stomach is living in a fantasy world and being dishonest with him/herself.
Her answers to soft ball questions showed that she has no depth of information on the vital issues that would face the person who is supposed to be able to step in the president’s shoes should something dire happen.
She looked painfully inept, and really dumb–especially in her nonsensical and rambling answer to Couric’s question on Russia.
COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We– we do– it’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is– from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to– to our state.
Palin may have been a mayor of a village and may be a governor of a small (population) state and perform her duties adequately, but that does not translate into giving her any sort of experience that is required to be the number two spot on a national ticket.
McCain chose Palin to boost his anemic candidacy–and it worked. She brought interest and excitement to his campaign. But now that Americans have had a really closer look at her, it turns out she got the base excited, and that is all.
The voters McCain needed (independents, Reagan Democrats, Hillary PUMAs) aren’t moving toward him.
McCain made a cynical choice–he put himself first, not the country.
Now he has to live with it.
September 26th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
yep. to thinking iraq was responsivble for 911 lol