Sarah Palin is a formidable political force, but during her speech she made mistakes that, if not corrected, will limit her appeal and her campaign's ability to win.
For most of her acceptance speech, Sarah Palin was on fire.
She was bright, tough, witty. She wove humor and pathos into her speech, delivered her lines with skill and demonstrated that she is a formidable political force.
She spoke over the media to the American people. She demonstrated a strong grasp of energy policy and gave John McCain a rousing endorsement.
But she also made mistakes that, if not corrected, will limit her appeal and her campaign's ability to win.
First, on occasion she overdid the attacks on Senator Obama. Several of her lines were brilliant, particularly when she contrasted her experience with the Senator's. Fair game. The reference to the overdone staging at the Democratic convention when Senator Obama accepted the Democratic nomination was also funny and useful. Referencing Obama's comments about working class Americans clinging to their guns and faith also hit the mark, because it directly addressed Obama's actions and words.
But after a while, her criticism of Obama started to sound more like resentment than fair critique. Gratuitous lines about him parting the waters and healing the nation, for example, sounded personal and are best left to Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, not the next Vice President. And for good reason: the American people will tire of it, as they tired of Robert Dole relentlessly attacking Jimmy Carter in his acerbic way back in 1976. After all, accusing Obama of being hailed as one who can heal the nation is a backhanded compliment — and actually speaks to the Senator's appeal.
Remember the Reagan lesson — humor works best not as a barb laced with poison, but as a velvet glove that serves a higher purpose.
Second, she should temper her populist rhetoric. Yes, Washington is broken, but again, the Reagan lesson is relevant. Don't make enemies simply for the sake of making enemies. In her zeal to portray herself as a reformer, Palin at times sounded naive. Like it or not, she and McCain will have to work with Congress if they hope to make progress on key legislation. To assume that they will be able to go directly to the American people assumes they have won a mandate — and she and McCain haven't won anything yet but a chance to lead. Populist reformers inevitably flame out — see William Jennings Bryan and Jimmy Carter — if they are not shrewd enough to work toward achievable goals.
Finally, her attacks on the media, while understandable given their recent coverage, should be tempered. Reagan rule again — don't make enemies for the sake of making enemies. It is fair to raise questions about media coverage, but the most successful tactic is to be above the media — and to treat them less as an enemy and more as an occasional nuisance.
Remember how Reagan would slyly nod and smile at Sam Donaldson and pretend he couldn't hear his questions? That was a brilliant bit of theater, and even Donaldson came to admire Reagan for how adeptly but gently he put the media in its place. The American people sided with Reagan because they could see how good natured and decent he was. The media looked mean attacking him. The Republicans should not allow themselves to think that attacks on the media will win them popularity long-term. McCain and Palin can aspire to Reagan or Dole and Agnew. The choice is clear. Both of them need to be presidential.
Finally, the Republicans need to remember that John Kennedy was an elite, Jimmy Carter was inexperienced in 1976 and Bill Clinton ran against two war heroes.
The American people will elect the ticket that they feel best understands how to address the tough issues facing the nation, and who will have the savvy and the wherewithall to get things done. They could care less, at the end of the day, about petty political jealousies or media resentment. They want a president who is larger than such issues. This election will be decided by a few percentage points. Remember Reagan. Attacks are best left to talk radio and ads, and for good reason — they are no substitute for leadership.
shadroui@yahoo.com
Read more articles by George Shadroui
I think you're nitpicking. Keep in mind that this was the party's national convention - this is the time to preach to the choir and invigorate the base. Which was very important considering that the base has been luke warm at best on our party's headliner. If you think Palin is just an attack dog lacking in substance, make sure to tune in when the vice presidential debate is aired.
Also, keep in mind that the Obama camp were down right assholes during and after their convention, shredding Palin literally within minutes of her announcement as a candidate - before she had even taken the stage in Ohio. Combating nasty attacks with pacifism has been the default position for Republicans for the past 12 years, and it hasn't gained them any moral high ground with the public. Failing to respond to attacks is perceived as a tacit admission to the accusation, or otherwise a lack of testicular fortitude, neither of which the public respects. Appealing to conservatives and conservative values is not a strategy Republicans should shy away from - again, a lesson learned (or mis-learned) during the last 8 years. Becoming weak-kneed and going more "centrist" or making more "compromise" is what lost Republicans the congress in 2006, whether the party acknowledges or realizes it or not.
Long story short: I hardly consider Palin a compromise between "attacks" and leadership.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | September 5, 2008
Someone needs to take the case of corruption to the American people and let them pressure the politicians. I, for one, am sick and tired of politicians bowing down to the media. Perhaps if Reagan had been a little less likable to the press and pushed a little harder, the spending during his administration wouldn't have been so out of control. We, the American people, need an advocate and McPalin is and excellent choice.
Comment by hvance | September 5, 2008
Jeez, lighten up!
Comment by wallyqc | September 5, 2008
Yes, well, it is idealistic to imagine a scene from a Frank Capra movie unfolding in our nation's capital. And I hope you are right that Ms. Palin and a President McCain can press their case. But it is also fascinating to me that the American people clamor for a cleansing of government until their own services are threatened. They demand that the President protect the nation, but then give him a 30 percent approval rating when war turns out to be, lo and behold, difficult. Our conservative brethren have slammed the president for spending, but fail to acknowledge that most of the deficit is the direct result of trying to win the war on two fronts against our enemies. So I am simply suggesting that reality is more complex than a campaign speech and that to be effective in their efforts to reform, the new administration will need allies in Congress and the media, but particularly in Congress. Because, and you can bet on this, if all McCain does is veto bill after bill — he will simply ensure his own unpopularity and he will, see Gerald Ford, lose the election to the next reformer who promises he or she can change Washington and undo gridlock. The candidates who do best as elected officials are those who inspire, not those who simply rail against the other. That is really my main point.
Comment by George Shadroui | September 5, 2008
reply to George:
A man's reach should far exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for? If our political leaders are to be held accountable, then we need a person out of a Frank Capra movie, not the same old same old garbage. The American people will respond to a leader.
Comment by hvance | September 5, 2008
McCain stays above the media resentment and does much less railing against his opponent than Obama does. Palin certainly inspires above anything else, and her barbs against the enemies are righteous and appropriate.
This is a cold civil war of ideology. There's no making nice. McCain will not just veto the leftocrat crap but he will make the perpetrators famous for the attempt. Reform will out the bad guys. The American people will fix the gridlock as the truth emerges.
Lets hope the right side wins. Its easy to see the light except when clouded by incessant disinformation and mindless ignorance. Lets be intellectual. Lets be conservative. But lets not be meek.
Comment by compugor | September 6, 2008
A few points:
First, Palin is not the top of the ticket. McCain is already known as a person who will reach across the aisle.
Second, Palin was hammered mercilessly by the press and liberals for days before her speech. The huge crowd that tuned in for her speech was there, at least partially, to see how this "woman" would react. And as the last few days (and if you watched the pillorying of Hillary Clinton, months) have shown-there is a double standard in this country. If Palin were Reaganesque, she would be dubbed a boring school teacher/librarian type, a pushover and weak. Reagan could use those tools because of his age, his resume, and his gender. Palin has none of those advantages.
That said, I do agree with your point that she cannot remain in this mode and continue to help the ticket in the same way. She has answered her critics. If she continues to be nothing but an attack dog, then she will lose the momentum she brought and be seen as nothing but a shrill harpy. But based on what little I've read and seen of her, I don't believe that will be a problem. Within a week or two, as soon as she's brought up to speed on what's going on at the Federal level, I expect to see very real and substantial debate points from Gov. Palin. She's not there for window dressing…
Comment by JWnTX | September 6, 2008
I fail to see the double standard as it applies to Governor Palin, because the personal issues about which she has been "pilloried" were raised pre-emptively (in theory) by the McCain campaign, and the issues pertaining to her record as a politician are, we can all agree, fair game.
I'm more interested in what this choice says about Senator McCain's judgment, temperament, and intellect. For starters, I question the Governor's conservative credentials. She certainly appears to have had her hand in the earmarks till, there are questions swirling about her ethics in government, and her interest in increasing government in people's private lives is frankly unnerving. What is it, exactly, that makes this candidate a viable conservative? Do we really - really, ladies and gentlemen - want a "pitbull with lipstick" in the number 2 spot? Is that what this dialogue has come down to?
Comment by gentlewomanfarmer | September 8, 2008
to gentlewomanfarmer:
Yes we do need a "pitbull with lipstick". Have you not noticed how conservatives are pushed around by the street fighters of the left? Our election should be about the issues. A perfect candidate has never run nor will ever run. It is up to us as Americans to put the best person in office to lead us for 4 years. We need this pitbull to tackle the good old boy system in Washington where corruption has been running rampant for decades. Sarah is the voice that McCain needs to bring to us, the people, where Washington needs to be cleaned up. Yes we could be totally civil and look down at the pitbulls of the left, but I for one am one proud guy to finally have one on my side.
Comment by hvance | September 8, 2008
To hvance:
I appreciate your viewpoint and agree that our government needs reform from the inside out; it's just not at all obvious to me that Governor Palin's current words and past deeds are in alignment, and I fear that discrepancy.
Comment by gentlewomanfarmer | September 9, 2008
To Gentlewomanfarmed:
Palin like all people isn't perfect. She did do a lot of reform in Alaska or why would the state legislators be in such an uproar? I live in Alabama and I see it here. If someone here in our state "gets out of line", then the money people see to it that this person will be brought down, financially, reputation-wise, politically just to name a few. I see it as a badge of honor that Palin is wearing by taking on these special interest groups. As for the discrepancy that you note above, how would Obama's past deeds and his intended future deeds be good for our country. His speeches are well given, that is conceded, but a lot of people can give a speech being for world peace, eradicate hunger in the world, free (ho-ho) health care, better education, etc., etc. Noble ambitions to be sure but not without money. It is that fact that he so surreptitiously avoids. The class warfare is a good tactic for the uninformed but you and I know that higher taxes are never the answer. This is where McCain & Palin can come into play by cutting the pork out of government and then putting those savings into those programs mentioned above. Unfortunately, our politicians are driven by what is good for them first and for America second if we are lucky. By parties in congress should be driven out of office.
Comment by hvance | September 9, 2008