Friday, November 13, 2009

To explain, Professor Althouse

You ask, why didn't Sarah Palin "have a say" in her media strategy? The answer is simple and obvious: It wasn't her campaign and it wasn't her staff.

John McCain and his campaign team called all the shots. When Palin balked at their bad advice, she was accused of "going rogue" and badmouthed by anonymous leakers who were, in many cases, the same staffers responsible for the botched strategy. When Palin complained about being unfairly disparaged in the media, she was then accused of "whining." She was cornered, trapped in a can't-win situation.

What happened to Palin was quite similar to what happened to Barry Goldwater in 1964: Democratic attacks on Goldwater were effective mainly because they were echoed by Goldwater's Republican enemies: "Hey, look, even Republicans say Barry's a dangerous warmongering kook!"

We are still three years away from the 2012 presidential election, and I am disappointed by Professor Althouse's effort to portray Palin as not merely unready for the presidency now, but so irremediably inferior as to be permanently disqualified for high office.

Obviously, statesmanship requires traits more weighty than the sort of personal charisma that generates intense grassroots enthusiasm. Otherwise Barack Obama wouldn't be so far along the path to becoming a 21st-century Jimmy Carter. Yet what other 2012 GOP presidential hopeful has a fraction of the grassroots enthusiasm that Palin would bring to the campaign?

The Republican "Anybody But Palin" Coalition seems willing to discard that grassroots enthusiasm, without which Obama's re-election is a near certainty. (If Mitt Romney couldn't even beat that notorious loser John McCain . . .)

Any Republican who disaparages Palin without suggesting a feasible GOP alternative can therefore be said to be objectively pro-Obama.

Ace of Spades and Conservative for Palin have more comment.


  1. Of course, Althouse is pro-Obama, or at least she was during the campaign. She's trolling for Memeorandum and Google traffic, plus a little Rule 4 action.

  2. Ah come on Stacy, leave Althouse our favorite dirty libtard pirate whore alone!

    I like Sarah Palin a lot, but Sarah definitely made some mistakes and not all of them can be blamed on "the other other" McCain staffers like the Bald Headed Daddy Warbucks Wannabee Steve Schmidt or his spider woman henchbitch Nicole Wallace(although quite a lot can).

    Meanwhile, talking about henchbitches:

    Palin Uterus Obsessed? Guess who wishes he was Tina Fey (in more ways than one)?

  3. I like Sarah a lot. I really do. But this is nonsense:

    Any Republican who disaparages Palin without suggesting a feasible GOP alternative can therefore be said to be objectively pro-Obama.

    Sarah is popular with the base, but has some high negatives. Can she overcome them? Yeah, perhaps. But that depends on Sarah Palin. I would not freak out too much about attacks at this point. It might actually benefit Sarah to be under estimated going in.

  4. Let's not forget that Ms. Althouse voted for Mr. Obama. Moreover, Mrs. Palin is wont to play her own game and confound her foes by acting counter to conventional wisdom.

    This is proper behavior for an underdog which definitely Mrs. Palin's role at the moment.

  5. "Any Republican who disaparages Palin without suggesting a feasible GOP alternative can therefore be said to be objectively pro-Obama."

    Hmmm ... I'm not a Republican, but there seems to be something wrong with that formulation.

    If someone warns you that your hair is on fire, are they "objectively pro-third-degree-burn" if they don't also stop, drop and roll for you so that you don't have to bother doing it yourself?

    Knock yourselves out, nominate Palin in 2012. But I repeat myself.

  6. I'm with Joe above. What is this "objectively pro-Obama" crap? That's the kind of thing that belongs strictly in sectarian Marxist-Leninist periodicals.

    Palin has a great many faults as a candidate, and the failure to recognize that is likely to be crippling.

    Anyway, who had ever heard of Barack Obama four years before he was elected President. Or for that matter, almost no one outside Arkansas knew anything about Bill Clinton in 1988 except that he had given a really disappointing speech. There is no reason why the GOP needs to be limited to the candidates who put themselves forward or were drafted into the mix in 2008. Maybe if Bob McDonnell does a good job for two years or Chris Christie turns Jersey's tax-saturated government around, one of them could be a potent candidate. After all, there's no rule about extensive experience in a major job or neither Obama nor Palin could have been nominated.

    Be creative. Think big.

  7. I think Althouse was a little harsher on 'Cuda than she needed to be to make her points. But that doesn't mean her points aren't good ones. That Couric interview was a disaster, and if all 'Cuda has to say about it is "The bitch set me up," well, that's no more of an explanation in this context than in others. It was 'Cuda who fumbled there, and even if it was a mistake for the coach to give her the ball in that situation, it wasn't the coach who fumbled. Plus, if she ever wants to get the ball again, she'd better not blame her fumbles on her coaches. I believe that last point is the one Althouse says 'Cuda is "dumb" for (apparently) still not grasping. Much as I want to see 'Cuda succeed, I have to agree with Althouse's point (if not her tone).