Tuesday, September 30, 2008
that didn't take long
It was fun while it lasted.
Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.
That Russia answer with Couric. Oy. ... I’m not where my friend Kathleen Parker is — wanting her to step aside to spend more time with her family and Alaska — but that’s not a crazy suggestion. She's right to say that something’s gotta change.
... When I watch these interviews, I see a woman who looks like she’s stayed up all night studying and is trying to remember the jurisprudential chronology of privacy vis-a-vis reproduction, the war on terror, and public figures (add 12 more things, described in the most complicated way possible, to the list to be more accurate). She looks like a woman who’s been cramming talking points and great Matt Scully lines and Mark Salter-McCain war stories and Steve Schmidt marching orders into her head since that first plane ride from Alaska.
though at least this latter, in the best recent republican tradition, blithely dismisses the need for comprehension and proposes that the candidate be "freed" to... make a fool of herself without having crammed talking points? it isn't clear.
If Sarah Palin is John McCain’s secret weapon, let her go, whoever is holding her back. And, frankly, if it turns out that the “authentic” Palin of rallies and the Republican convention is just good speech delivery in a woman with some good spirit, I want to know that sooner rather than later. (Mitt’s still available. Someone in Washington who can actually run a business and knows something about the economy will come in handy once the federal government owns the U.S. banking system.) But if the Palin we know and love and have projected our hopes for sanity in American politics is the real Sarah Palin — then come out from the shadows, woman. You’re the one who is going to win this election. Be yourself. Otherwise, what’s the point?
at least there's recognition here that palin is a pretty but empty vessel into which republican voters desperate for good news have poured a lot of projection and imagination. that investment explains much of the ridiculous behavior of grassroots republicans in the immediate aftermath of her selection. she's been parchment on which the party has tried to write some "political bullshit about narratives". and she's gradually being exposed as what she is, at least to those who still think about their politics.
when such a virulent publication as NRO is on damage control even before the first (and only) vice-presidential debate, then it's obvious that sarah palin should fall on her sword for the good of the party, even if it is probably too late -- in light of an unfolding financial disaster acting as the cherry atop the eight most incompetent years of executive stewardship in the 230-odd year history of the nation, preserving the electorate from its own stupidity -- to save the republican ticket from the landslide defeat now brewing. she clearly should never have been selected and stands as a timeless indictment of john mccain's judgement.
i spoke today with another thoguhtful dyed-in-the-wool conservative -- one who more closely affiliates himself with the republican party than i do -- who simply isn't voting republican this year. it's his hope that the wilderness will break the stranglehold of neoconservative, jacobin, fascist, utterly ungrounded and deeply unrealistic politics which now renders the party unfit to govern. that's my hope too.
clinton and reagan both had opposing-party congressional majority in one or both houses of congress for 6 of their 8 years in office - resulting in negotiation and compromise for legislation and executive signature.
bush the stupid had same-party majority congress in both houses from 2001-2006. for the first time in recent history, the republicans (with neoconservatives) dominantly ruled our executive and legislative branches. and there was inadequate bipartisanship, compromise, and negotiation.
imho, these 6 years of 2001-2006 contain many of the foundations of our damage today. in the tone of mass disenchantment with the repubs/neos - with all due respect - what do you think?
and isn't the damage too big to fix, at least without some major pains and adjustments, somewhere?
"there are few like us - and few like us." - stephen decatur
------ ------- ------
Post a Comment