Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
November 16, 2009
POLITICS: Losing the Rabbit Ears

I haven't watched Sarah Palin's Oprah interview yet, but the Anchoress has and is unimpressed, specifically regarding Palin's attitude towards her media antagonists (including the AP, which assigned 11 reporters to come up with some fairly flimsy "fact-checks" of Palin's book):

I know Palin is a tough, frontier spirit, and that serves her well in many ways, but she needs to learn to delegate the punches, so that she can remain above the fray, or she will never get past this guarded, watchful, overly-cautious and defensive vibe that rang out of her like waves from a tuning fork on the Winfrey show, today. She has to know that someone else will throw the punch for her, and she has to learn to be okay with that.

Read the whole thing, as she's got more on the topic. This is one of the emerging critiques of Palin among people on the Right who are more or less sympathetic to her: she's a natural politician who connects well with people (obviously an Oprah interview is going to be mostly about the personal, not hard political issues; those interviews will be another day), and she's been horrendously mistreated by the media, and yes, George W. Bush provided an object lesson in what happens to people who never push back at critics or the media, but at some point, she's not going to go to the next level politically until she learns to let go of a lot of the criticism and let it wash over her.

We've seen with Obama what happens when a thin-skinned candidate gets through the election with minimal scrutiny and only in office really has to respond to criticism, with the result of demonizing individual critics and TV networks, using crude sexual terms like "teabagger" to describe ordinary citizens upset with his policies, taking the rostrum of the House to call his critics liars over a bunch of legislative provisions that were subsequently amended to acknowledge those criticisms, organizing campaigns to try to dismember organizations like the Chamber of Commerce that stand in his way, etc. By 2012, Americans are going to want a candidate whose response to critics is not Obama's style of peevish vendettas. If Palin wants to challenge Obama, she will have to convince people that she's not just tough enough to hit back, but sometimes tough enough to smile and take a punch.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:20 PM | Politics 2009 • | Politics 2012 | Comments (18) | TrackBack (0)

She is a lying ignoramus, with neither education nor work ethic.

But, please, please nominate her in 2012.

Posted by: magrooder at November 16, 2009 8:51 PM

Part I

I lived in Anchorage from 1999 to last March. She is attractive, charismatic, blue collar, and hyper ambitious. I've met her and stood next her several times interacting with civilians and soldiers. I'll giver her credit for standing up to the entrenched GOP standard in 2005 but it was a cadre of white haired clueless senior citizens, ironically, just like the very individual that elevated her to her current fame.

Posted by: splinter at November 16, 2009 9:20 PM

Part II

But she is dense, redneck, white trash. Trust me when I say Wasilla is every bit any small town you'll find in Arkansas, Iowa, Ohio, you name the rural state. But never underestimate her skills or drive. I mean really, who in the GOP is going to have an advantage on her? You people will be desperate for a conservative, attractive candidate. Despite their contradictions, that's Mitt and Sarah. Can't wait. Can't wait.

Posted by: splinter at November 16, 2009 9:22 PM

Liar-the new meme from lefty masters. Still trying to find out what she lied about. Always fascinating that lefties can never utter it about Dems.

Ignoramus- of course, just like Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan,Dan Qualye, GWB-they are all idiots and every Republican Conservative for the rest of your life will also be idiots-I just saved you a lot of time having to get your orders from the home office.

No education-she has a college degree,but since it is not from a lefty Ivy league school I guess that doesn't count.

Nor work ethic-from a person who voted for Obama-a man who never accomplished anything as a legislator, who voted "present" on tough issues in the Illinios Senate, who didn't show up for almost 50% of the votes while in the US Senate and while a Senate sub-committee chairman-chaired oh yeah-exactly zero meetings.

Posted by: dch at November 16, 2009 9:24 PM

I don't sympathize much with Palin's politics, but I do sympathize that she's been treated unfairly. But being treated unfairly is part of the game, and she hasn't shown any signs she's going to overcome that. I can't see how she can possibly remain viable as a national political figure, despite some qualities that are appealling.

Posted by: Jerry at November 16, 2009 9:50 PM

Compare Palin to Obama to paint her in a positive light -- OK by Crank. Compare Obama to Bush in the same way, and Crank cries foul. Frick you, Crank...

Posted by: JesuspulledmyCrank at November 16, 2009 10:01 PM

LMAO @ dch: Talk about a false dichotomy. There's a huge difference between graduating from an Ivy League school and spending six years at five colleges to get a four year degree. Never mind that none of the schools she attended have a reputation for academic rigor or, and this is much more important, that there is no evidence Palin performed particularly well at any of them.

There are plenty of incredibly bright conservative voices out there, but Palin is far from being one of them. If she ever holds a press conference and actually answers challenging questions directly, perhaps she will change opinions out there, but there seems little chance of her having the courage to do that.

Posted by: S. Thompson at November 17, 2009 1:19 AM

Al Gore's collegiate transcript (including the divinity school that he flunked out of) appreciates the higher standard that you have for Sarah Palin. You guys always need lower standards for yourselves, seemingly.

// If she ever holds a press conference and actually answers challenging questions directly //

Barack Obama's teleprompter has no comment, except to say "still not ready to answer questions on Afghanistan, the war of necessity".

Rove! Halliburton! Torture!

Posted by: RW at November 17, 2009 9:17 AM

Palin LIED when she said she told Congress "thanks, but no thanks" for the bridge to nowhere.
She wasn't even governor at the time the project was scrapped.

I'm sure that won't satisfy a "deep thinker" like yourself who still thinks Saddam Hussein threw the weapons inspectors out of Iraq* during the run-up to the war.

* That was one of W's lies in the run-up to the war. You know W, he's the guy you said didn't lie during the run-up to the Iraq War.

BTW, studies show listening to others when they point out lies works better than sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating "Na na na na I can't hear you!!" over and over again.

Posted by: Berto at November 17, 2009 12:56 PM

Berto, you might want to review the facts.

Posted by: Crank at November 17, 2009 1:00 PM

Fact: Congress killed the earmark, removing itself from the picture, thirteen months before Palin took office.

Here is a quote from her on 9/21/07:
Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.
As Palin said on 9/21/07, Congress had little interest in spending money on a bridge.
She didn't tell Congress anything. In fact, it was the opposite. Congress told her.

Reviewed and verified. Next!

Posted by: Berto at November 17, 2009 1:20 PM

Crank and dch,
I can fully understand that you might not know about these lies. Bush and Palin told them each more than once.

Here are the real questions:
Why would Palin and Bush tell these same lies multiple times? Why did they think they could get away with lying to the American public?
The answer, my friends, has everything to do with the mainstream "liberal" media and how they have abdicated their role in America's representative democracy.

Posted by: Berto at November 17, 2009 1:25 PM

We're 10 months into the presidency of Black Jesus and you're complaining that the press wasn't tough enough on Sarah Palin?

What color is the sky in your world?

Posted by: RW at November 17, 2009 3:32 PM

I hope to Holy God that the GOP nominates Palin in 2012. It will destroy the Republican Party now and forever. Please, nominate her.

Posted by: steve at November 17, 2009 4:31 PM

You're obviously late to the thread. dch, said he was "Still trying to find out what she lied about."
I pointed it out for him, and reminded him this was obvious 14 months ago.
Believe me RW, I think it's ridiculous that I have to point out things that were obvious years ago too. But that's the nature of arguing with people like dch and Crank, who think Democrats and Republicans are just two sports teams and their actions --which are criticized or justified depending on the D or R after the actors name---don't effect the citizens of this country and the world over.

The press is terrible. You want to know why politicians lie and feel they can do so without any repercussions? It's the mainstream media. Want to know how W got ANY public support for the 2 un-necessary and disastrous wars? It was the media cheering them on, amplifying the government's pro-war propaganda, and acting as if Colin Powell had shown any proof of Iraq WMDs or the supposed danger Iraq had imposed on the US during his ridiculous presentation to the UN in January 2003.

As for "Black Jesus", he's doing a terrible job (not Reagan/ W terrible, but he's not helping the people enough nonetheless). The fact that he didn't even try to nationalize the banks, investigate the massive fraud the financial corporations perpetrated on the global economy, and push for regulations on the industry so that they could never bring the world's economy to it's knees ever again speaks volumes about who owns the guy.
Clue: the same ones who own the media.

So instead the media will waste time on the words of a know-nothing like Palin, and arguing over whether Obama show's too much reverence when he bows to leaders of other nations.

Posted by: Berto at November 17, 2009 6:06 PM

// Believe me RW, I think it's ridiculous that I have to point out things that were obvious years ago too. //

The rest of us find it peculiar that we continue to point out that communism (especially to its defenders) has failed wherever it's been tried. Of course, those who are too inept to take care of themselves still find it appealing...

Posted by: RW at November 18, 2009 7:45 AM

So true about communism failing whenever it's been tried. Same with conservativism. Most recently 1981-2008.

Of course those who believe backing "-isms" is like backing sports teams will close their eyes whenever their "-ism" is shown to be the disaster it is because, you know, go team!

Posted by: Berto at November 18, 2009 12:45 PM

BTW, I agree that America's bankers and the entire financial services industry find communism (for the rich only) to be appealing.
That's Conservativism in a nutshell: privatize the profits, socialize the losses.

Posted by: Berto at November 18, 2009 12:53 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg