Palin 2012?

BenjAii

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The Republican's Faustian pact with US fundamentalist Christianity means that's a non-starter.

America is a two party state, and a Republican Party that snubs the Christian fundamentalists hasn't got a hope.

So as wacky and weird as it looks to a large proportion of America (to say nothing of the rest of the world) it will have to pander to their agenda to have any chance.

Palin has a real gift for communication, in the mold of Ronald Reagan, however she seems to have a strongly mendacious streak that I suspect will be her undoing, her inability to reach beyond the Christian core notwithstanding.

oscarBravo

BenjAii wrote: »

Palin has a real gift for communication...

Did you even see the Katie Couric interviews?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not sure how much preparation you need to answer the question "what papers do you read?"

I don't think Palin is dumb; and if she does continue on that national stage, I think we can expect her to become a lot more savvy in how she handles herself.

I wouldn't describe her as dumb, but to say she has a gift for communication is hysterically wide of the mark. Apart from when she's delivering prepared lines, she can't seem to assemble a coherent sentence.

Leaving Couric aside, did you see the toe-curling interview at her home with Greta Van Susteren? Again, rambling and incoherent throughout. She's many things, but a gifted communicator she ain't.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not only did she fall on her face during the Couric and Susteren interviews, but did likewise during the Charlie Gibson interview.

I also remember seeing a side shot of her with flash cards behind the podium during the vice presidential debate, flipping through them trying to come up with some of the prepared answers. This was no high school debate or beauty queen contest where they ask you questions and you issue prepared answers. All that winking at the cameras might have worked then, but not for the Office of the Vice President of the United States. Terribly amateurish of Northern Exposure Palin.

Had she been elected, I'm sure Putin (or some other world leader) is not always going to let her see the questions in advance before he "drill baby drills" her on the public forum. And Joe the Plumber or Six-pack language will hardly gain respect on the world diplomatic stage. She was not only the laughing stock of Jay Leno, but also the world community.

I truly will miss the Palin gaffs, along with her $150,000 shopping spree in posh stores that do not exist in the State of Alaska, especially when she spent half of it ($75,000) on one day in Neiman Marcus. There's an accomplishment indeed! Neiman Marcus opens at 11.00AM and closes at 10.00PM. Now, if she spent the entire day there (which, of course we assume she didn't), she would have 11 hours to shop, try on clothes and accessories, have tailors fit and mark her up, running from department to department, without food or a potty break, and would have had to spend $6,818.18 USD per hour! Wow! I'm impressed! I bet Joe the Plumber would have been too! You betcha!

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why should that matter? "Jeez Katie, I don't read papers, I get my news from the internet. But you didn't ask me specifically about the internet and there's clearly no room for manoeuvre in such an important question....em, all of 'em."

I do agree that Palin has a flair for delivering a prepared speech, and I think she could come across more articulately and coherently had she time to inform herself and do more interview prep. But she was an unknown, untested entity hurled into the media spotlight at the end of August, and campaign postmortems show that the chaos that ensued was not entirely Palin's fault. Having said that, I think McCain should have gone with his instincts and chosen Joe Lieberman.

This sort of excuse doesn't fly, she was campaigning for US VP, not county councillor in Leitrim. There was a massive team behind McCain to make the campaign work as well as possible, to suggest she wasn't getting interview prep, daily briefs, practise, whatever was necessary is just short-sightedness, which implies that the McCain campaign was not run well; cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Palin does have the unfortunate tendency to babble when she becomes nervous, and yes, she was rambling and incoherent. But I see this as a sign of a nervous neophyte, not necessarily of a terminal halfwit, which is how the media chose to represent her.

Shouldn't she be able to think on her feet? If she babbles that badly at an inoffensive question from Couric and have to be saved by Big Daddy McCain in a later interview, passing off her inadequacies on "left leaning journalists" and "gotcha moments" then what hope is there for the future? What hope is there if she had to face a real crisis? She'd be like a headless turkey.

P.S. I wonder how long before Palin is investigated for fraud/larceny/funding misappropriation? There seem to be more and more stories about this, not just from the campaign but issues in Alaska such as setting up an secure email service.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

donegalfella...
I cannot speak for Brian, but I am very "relaxed" on this sunny afternoon in Southern California, listening to some tunes and sipping a grand cup of java in one of my favourite coffeehouses. I would hope in your response to this thread that you too were "relaxed?"

I was merely answering the topic of this thread based upon the only thing we have to judge her future elective performance upon: her past performance. Not some speculative notion that she may go through a profound change, a metamorphosis, per se, and transform from a weird Northern Exposure caterpillar into an attractive and electable butterfly in 4 years.

This metaphor I feel appropriate in terms of what I have seen of the US presidential election process. All show and no substance! Whomever stages the best show wins at the box office and gets the Oscar!

BenjAii

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure how much preparation you need to answer the question "what papers do you read?" I wouldn't describe her as dumb, but to say she has a gift for communication is hysterically wide of the mark. Apart from when she's delivering prepared lines, she can't seem to assemble a coherent sentence.

Leaving Couric aside, did you see the toe-curling interview at her home with Greta Van Susteren? Again, rambling and incoherent throughout. She's many things, but a gifted communicator she ain't.

I would disagree. Her talent is to directly connect with a certain section of the American electorate in a way few very politicians ever succeed in doing.

The fact it was her the crowds turned out for and not McCain illustrates that.
To these people her embarrassing interview gaffes will be turned into a badge of strength, in fact such is the strength of anti-intellectualism amongst this segment of the electorate, it will make them like her more.

For all her faults, you have to acknowledge her ability to speak for a large number of American conservatives and her connection to them, is a rare gift in a politician.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

BenjAii wrote: »

I would disagree. Her talent is to directly connect with a certain section of the American electorate in a way few very politicians ever succeed in doing.

The fact it was her the crowds turned out for and not McCain illustrates that.
To these people her embarrassing interview gaffes will be turned into a badge of strength, in fact such is the strength of anti-intellectualism amongst this segment of the electorate, it will make them like her more.

Yes, but it also serves to drive off any Republican with an ounce of sense, disgust swing voters, and remove (by fear) any thoughts Democrats might have about their own candidate and jumping ship. The kind of bile that was coming out of that campaign was not healthy, IMO.

BenjAii

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, but it also serves to drive off any Republican with an ounce of sense, disgust swing voters, and remove (by fear) any thoughts Democrats might have about their own candidate and jumping ship. The kind of bile that was coming out of that campaign was not healthy, IMO.

You're right, but that is the Faustian pact I was referring to earlier.

As the US is a 2 party state, the Republicans must have all types of conservatives in their tent if they are to win. So as much as moderate, or independent swing voters may abhor the Christian fundamentalists and the vulgar populism espoused by the shock jocks and Fox, the Republican party can't do without those votes.

The difference was that before candidates just played to these segments of the electorates, but were not themselves from it. Now with the likes of Palin & even Huckabee that has changed.

It's very hard to see any Republican candidate representing that sort of conservatism being palatable outside that section of the electorate.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

My point is that you have absolutely nothing to refer to if not the candidate's prior performance, if you want to assess their future potential, all else is pure speculation. You criticized me referring to Sarah Palin's campaign in an earlier post, as if it was time to sweep it under the carpet and forget it? What else would you refer to when attempting an educated guess as to her 2012 presidential office prospects? Astrology? Reading tea leaves or crystal balls? From a rational standpoint, we only have the history of her past to estimate her future (excluding Deus ex machina).

If we go back further into the histories of the two mentioned in your post for comparison purposes, Palin and Obama, there are both similarities and significant differences.

• They are similar in that they were both rather publicly obscure before this election.
• They both rose from relatively humble beginnings.

But there are significant differences in their histories, too.

• Palin shifted from college to college, never distinguishing herself like Obama during those formative years.
• Obama during interviews has exhibited his brightness and understanding of many complex issues, while Palin has been mediocre at best, often stumbling over simple questions like "What papers do you read?"
• While the Republican campaign tried to limit Obama's public service to the last 4 years in the US Senate (which you mentioned), they continue to belittle his 8 years as a State of Illinois Senator, pointing to when he voted present (which was only 3% of the time out of roughly 4000 votes by him). In comparison, Palin was Alaska's governor for only 2 years, Oil & Gas Commissioner for one (which she quit), and mayor 1996-2002 (of the extraordinarily small town of Wasilla, Alaska, population 5,469 in the 2000 US Census).
• Illinois politics are certainly more attuned to what goes on in the nation than the issues of a very isolated State of Alaska, allowing for Obama to gain an appreciation of the issues facing the nation, than Palin, who now returns to her obscure state.
• Obama and Biden worked well together during the presidential campaign from start to finish, while infighting between the McCain and Palin camps became evident in the last weeks before the election.

This list of differences could go on, but the point is that Palin exhibited a lot of drive, but average intelligence and inadequate knowledge for an office that demanded both drive, superior intelligence and knowledge to solve complex national and international problems. While she may improve her knowledge base, if motivated to do so, I doubt that she would ever be any brighter than "C" average Yale student GW Bush, who has left the country in an economic mess, warming the seat in the Oval Office for 2 terms playing war games, and pointing back to the Clinton administration as if Bush had no responsibility during the past 8 years to anticipate or mitigate the current economic meltdown in the US.

In some ways the Palin Wasilla era is similar to GW Bush national era, if we look how she left her 2 terms as mayor of tiny Wasilla in debt ($20 million), and GW Bush almost doubling the federal deficit of the Big US (from $5.7 trillion at the end of Clinton to what is approaching $11 trillion by 20 January 2009).

I had always heard that the Republicans had fiscal responsibility as a plank in their past political platforms, and they always criticized the Democrats for "spend, spend, spend," but Wasilla Mayor Palin and GW Bush have demonstrated just the opposite in action by leaving their 2 term offices in greater debt than when they assumed them. Now that's history, not speculation, and the only thing of substance we can refer to when attempting to assess Palin's bid for 2012.

Manic Moran

They are similar in that they were both rather publicly obscure before this election

More so Palin, though people had been rumouring about her as a possible person to keep an eye on over a year ago.

Obama, on the other hand, was anything but obscure before this election. He may not have received much press on the Irish side of the Atlantic, but you can go back to his initial US Senate runs to find talk of Presidential aspiration. Some quick cartoon examples.

October 2006, over two years ago.


August 2004, before even the Bush/Kerry election, and before he became a US Senator


NTM

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RedPlanet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not really, he garnered more votes than George Bush did, the election was called by the Supreme Court.

1790, the population of the entire United States was only 3.8 million? That only 11 towns and cities in the nation had a population larger than today's Wasilla? Or that the country's largest cities of New York and Philadelphia were approximately the same size as today's Drogheda and Dundalk? Did this make George Washington any less of a president?

Do you really think it's appropriate to compare 1790 with 2008?
That is ridiculous. George Washington's legacy was made during the Revolutionary War, his presidency was a bit of a disaster.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Surely if Gore won the popular vote in Florida he would've gotten the Electoral college and thus the election? Come on its been eight years, admit that the election was stolen!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

donegalfella...
You continue miss the larger point about how history is the only thing we can consult when attempting to address Palin's 2012 potential, and continue to cherry pick my posts, often out of context, avoiding things factual that may not agree with your position, like the below comparison between Sarah Palin and GW Bush regarding their lack of fiscal responsibility when the chief executive of their respective offices. In both cases, Bush and Palin entered office with considerably lower public debt, and after 2 terms in office, both left it with extraordinary public debt (relative to each governing body's size). Not exactly the Republican mantra of fiscal responsibility so often proclaimed by them in words, but in these two cases, not in action. And only in actions can we truly assess Palin for 2012, not by winks, prepared speeches, or the opinions of her apologists.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

My point is that you have absolutely nothing to refer to if not the candidate's prior performance, if you want to assess their future potential, all else is pure speculation...

In some ways the Palin Wasilla era is similar to GW Bush national era, if we look how she left her 2 terms as mayor of tiny Wasilla in debt ($20 million), and GW Bush almost doubling the federal deficit of the Big US (from $5.7 trillion at the end of Clinton to what is approaching $11 trillion by 20 January 2009).

I had always heard that the Republicans had fiscal responsibility as a plank in their past political platforms, and they always criticized the Democrats for "spend, spend, spend," but Wasilla Mayor Palin and GW Bush have demonstrated just the opposite in action by leaving their 2 term offices in greater debt than when they assumed them. Now that's history, not speculation, and the only thing of substance we can refer to when attempting to assess Palin's bid for 2012.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Don't put words in my mouth when trying to make your point. When did I suggest this? Where? Find a quote on this thread where I put down the land of my birth? Quite to the contrary, I think that the average citizen of Ireland is quite a bit more informed about domestic and international affairs than the average US citizen (and certainly more informed about the world than Sarah Palin evidenced during the campaign).

Manic Moran

In both cases, Bush and Palin entered office with considerably lower public debt, and after 2 terms in office, both left it with extraordinary public debt (relative to each governing body's size).

Before addressing this, are you referring to Alaska or Wasalia? There are problems with the above statement in either case. The former being that she's not had two terms, and the latter being that Wasalia's financial situation was better after her term ended compared to when it began: The increase in debt being more than countered by increases in assets and income.

NTM

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

This is what you originally said:

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Where did I "suggest" this? This is putting words in my mouth. There is no comparison between the land of my birth (Rugadh i Gaillimh me'), and the extraordinarily isolated culture of Alaska. Nor did I infer that in the slightest, but you did to erroneously make your point.

To reiterate my earlier post to this original comment made by you, which you once again elected to ignore, I find the average citizen of Ireland better informed than the average citizen of the US (as well as terribly uninformed Sarah Palin, based upon her obvious ignorance of US domestic and world issues displayed during the Charlie Gibson, et al, interviews). Her running for the second highest office in the US was a sad joke, and an indictment on the poor state of American politics in general.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ireland is not remote nor isolated from world politics or the generation of wide-reaching ideas, very unlike Northern Exposure Alaska and its tragically uninformed former VP candidate Sarah Palin, so your example is a gross error.

I go to university in the US, and our very "Irish" Newman was credited with the ideological foundations of such institutions in his "Idea of a University." I transferred from Trinners before now attending USC in So Cal, and the historic library there in Dub is one of the best to study the evolution and impact of culture on the West. During the Dark Ages, Ireland was at the forefront of the preservation of knowledge, when religious nuts in other parts of Europe were burning scholars at the stake along with their manuscripts. So don't remotely compare "Ireland" with Alaska when talking isolation, because there is no comparison.

Given a different example (which you failed to provide), certainly someone can learn something about the world from an isolated community, but it's not easy, not typical, and often incomplete, especially if "books and magazines" (per a Sarah Palin interview comment) are all you have up until you're 44 years old to learn from. A friend of mine who is an HM Consul with the Brit foreign service rather eloquently assessed the flaws of magazine and book learning by saying that such a person would not have an "appreciation" for a foreign culture, and would completely miss the mark when attempting to interact with them. Furthermore, unless she read widely, which was not evident from her comments, she would suffer from the ethnocentric view that a vast number of Americans suffer from when reading their school books.

Not exactly a commendation for Sarah Palin as a VP candidate in 2008 or a presidential candidate for 2012? Palin was so isolated from developing this "appreciation" of foreign cultures that she did not have a US passport until age 43 (now age 44). And if her past behaviour (her history) is any indication of her future performance regarding the acquisition of an "appreciation" of cultures outside of isolated Alaska (and ethnocentric USA), she will not be prepared for the highest office in the United States in only 3 years before the 2012 campaign begins (even if she claims she can see Russia from Alaska).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Raven.

I always felt that Sarah Palin was thrown in at the deep end in the recent campaign. She certainly didn’t deserve the unnecessary, appalling abuse that was hurled at her, and I have to admire her spirit in standing up to it. It reflects more on the hurlers in the ditch rather than on the lady herself.

I doubt if Sarah Palin will ever become President, but I think she might appear in some political role in the future.

However, Obama is another kettle of fish:

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I totally agree with this and I have felt this to be the case from day one.

Manic Moran

Ireland is not remote nor isolated from world politics or the generation of wide-reaching ideas, very unlike Northern Exposure Alaska

A bit of a non-sequitor, that, isn't it? There's no reason to believe that the average Irish person is any more aware of what goes on in Alaska than the average Alaskan knows what's going on in Ireland.

At the larger level, there's no reason to believe that the average Irish person knows any more about what's going on about the US than the average Alaskan knows about what's going on in the major countries of Europe. (The problem affecting the Alaskan is that there is no real Federal European government to keep track of: an American trying to keep track of Europe needs to keep a hold of dozens of governments, and will probably only focus on the big ones like UK, France and Germany).

Simply bandying stats about passport percentages in the various countries as is commonly done proves little. Americans just have less need of them. If you want to go anywhere in Europe more than 200 miles from your home in Ireland, you need a passport. Skiing trip? Passport. Sunbathing on the beach? Passport. Want to go where they speak French? Passport. Want to go where they speak Spanish? Passport.

On the other hand, an Alaskan can go several thousand miles without need of one. Want to go skiing? No passport for Colorado. Sunbathing? No passport for Hawaii. French? Until this year, no passport required for Qubec. Spanish? Until this year, no passport required for Mexico. You could get from the Carribean Islands to the South Pacific with a US Driver's license. And that's not counting the several millions of Americans who go live in other countries like Japan, Korea, Germany, Australia etc for a year or three without a passport because they're in the military. I think you'll find Americans tend to be a lot better travelled and aware of the outside world than you give credit for.

NTM