If it is true you can measure the greatness of a person, by the greatness of their enemies, then Palin surely has greatness in her.
So what is it about Sarah Palin that drives liberals, some establishment Republicans and the media to the brink of psychological neuroses?
The amount of time, energy and venomous ink expended on this decent, God-fearing woman is almost beyond comprehension, witness the latest cover of Newsweek which is, by the way, about as patronizing and sexist an action as I have seen since, well, a couple of days ago when the liberal media took another round of shots at her.
Granted, my expectations from the American media have dropped over the years, but it is still getting kind of pathetic.
Let's cut to the chase.
Sarah Palin scares the heck out of the power elites for obvious reasons.
First, she is unpredictable, charismatic and fully her own person. Any politician who can bypass the gatekeepers of power is going to cause anxiety among the gatekeepers. Nothing new there, I suppose.
Second, she is conservative in a traditional, grassroots way that borders on populism. And populists, also, cause anxiety among elites – witness William Jennings Bryan, or Huey Long, or more recently Ross Perot.
Third, she is an evangelical Christian, which among the liberal establishment places her just above a Satanist (or perhaps below, who knows). She is the thing the feminist movement and the left-liberal establishment most fears – a strong, independent, right to life woman who thinks for herself.
Finally, she sells. Whether you love her or hate her, people are fascinated by her – her book is atop every bestseller list already, magazines from which she stares fly off the shelves, and people tune in by the millions to listen or watch her.
Here is the problem, from the point of view of one conservative who had high hopes for her – she is not ready to be president. I wrote some time ago before the 2008 election that Palin needed to deepen her reach as a thinker, analyst and communicator.
There is a tinny tone to her discourse that suggests a shallow grasp of some of the critical forces that shape the world in which we live and she might seek to govern. This is not a fatal flaw for a governor, a Senator or even a talk show host, but as a presidential hopeful who might run up against the political power machines of both parties and the media you had better be ready for prime time at many levels — temperament, grasp of issues, savvy on the national stage.
Palin is naturally gifted and smart, but that doesn't mean she has the depth or experience yet to lead the nation. Obama, in my view, is almost equally shallow, but he has a few things going for him that allowed him to succeed politically – he has savvy, and has mastered the art of saying little while appearing to be serious; he has a Harvard Law school pedigree that at least presents the appearance of weight; and he has had most of the media protecting him for his entire career.
Palin, as a conservative woman, will never get the benefit of the doubt. So she must cultivate the skills necessary to transcend the rancor that will always follow her, and endlessly reacting to gossip and petty attacks is not a good policy. Reagan rose above his detractors with wit, humor and presence – and we now know, based on letters and writings, that he was much deeper than the media ever gave him credit for. William F. Buckley, Jr. was simply smarter, wittier and more charismatic than the vast majority of media and leftists who came after him.
If Palin wants to be president, she would do well to start doing the heavy lifting on policy and history that will help her withstand the attacks, fair or not, that are sure to come. A little more time reading and thinking and a little less on the talk shows would, in my view, be a good thing. She needs to surround herself with the brainiest conservatives around for a year or so to deepen her reach.
But she is learning. When asked recently to judge Obama, for example, she was adept in answering that he was decent, talented, articulate and unfortunately misguided in his policies — right tone, right answer, very well done.
If it is true you can measure the greatness of a person, by the greatness of their enemies, than Palin surely has greatness in her, but she must continue to season if she wants to be successful long-term as a national political force. But if she just wants to have fun, well, have at it.






























“Øbama … has savvy, and has mastered the art of saying little while appearing to be serious…”
I understand that the Democrats have a written test, invented by Bill Clinton, for a White House job. One of the parts is, “In 400 words or more, say nothing, but sound profound.” Example: Although less than 400 words, but no less profound than the rest of his rhetoric, Clinton seriously proclaimed after the Rabin/Arafat talks, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall inherit the earth.” Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/blessed-are-the-peacemakers-but-what-do-they-leave-for-the-meek-than-the-falsely-modesty-meek-1525054.html
As we begin the 2010 campaign season; thoughts turn, not toward regaining strength in the House and Senate, but what may be in store for the Republican Party, Sarah Palin, and 2012.
George; you muse; "I wrote some time ago before the 2008 election that Palin needed to deepen her reach as a thinker, analyst and communicator."
You then continue; "There is a tinny tone to her discourse that suggests a shallow grasp of some of the critical forces that shape the world in which we live and she might seek to govern."
After watching the current Commander-in-Chief in action for the last year, I submit she could not possibly do worse. Obama's soaring rhetoric and lofty campaign promises have gotten us nowhere. He's 'doubled-down' on the supposed horrid deficits of the Bush era, has retreated on missile defense, thrown Israel under the bus, is on the cusp of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Afghanistan, and is conducting almost all aspects of domestic policy with a Chicago politician's 'take-no-prisoners' attitude.
Her largest weakness, as I see it, will indeed be the detractors in the media that will continue to go after her as lacking in gravitas. That being said, astute handlers can get her over those bumps. Plus she has a media friend. She did well in her latest interview with Bill O'Rielly, and would get much farther reach with Fox News than she ever would with CNN or MSNBC.
I believe that a pro-life, evangelical, strong willed female is exactly what liberals fear. The one thing she has to be careful of is 'shooting from the hip'. What I think her other races didn't really prepare her for was how to 'stay on message'. Other politicians routinely have a 'standard answer' they fall back on whenever an interviewer asks an out-of-bounds question or a question that has no pre-prepared answer. They may get accused of ducking the question, but what politician doesn't? Once she learns that skill, she's the death knell of the liberal presidential candidate.
[...] — feminism, gender roles, identity politics, faith, GOP establishment, working mothers, elites vs. provencials, sexism in politics and the media and Beltway politics vs. grassroots — the list could [...]
Bill:
Re: "George; you muse …"
Yes. Why is it that a conservative candidate has to have substance, but a liberal one has to have only "good intentions"?