Sarah Palin Saves Her Political Future

by Sean Hackbarth

Going into the Vice Presidential debate I worried about Gov. Sarah Palin. Since Sen. John McCain announced her as his running mate and her amazing acceptance speech I got caught up in her magical launch upon the American scene. Since then Palin has had shaky and poor interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric.

I care more about Palin as the future standard bearer for conservatives than I do for the McCain campaign. She connects with the grassroots better than any politician I’ve seen in my life. (Too young to appreciate Reagan as President.) I worried Palin allowed herself to be sheltered by a campaign too fearful of her making mistakes. A lousy debate performance would have burned into the public’s mind the notion of Palin as a joke. Palin would have been vaguely remembered as that governor who looked like Tina Fey.

Palin’s political future remains intact. She held her own against a highly-experienced, well-versed, and occasionally wrong Sen. Joe Biden. Palin didn’t look like a fool and didn’t make McCain look like the same for choosing her. On points Biden won. The guy rattled off facts left and right like he’s been a Senator for 30+ years. If you choose a winner based on expectations Palin won by being plain spoken and different from anyone in Washington. Her best attribute is how normal she appears.

Biden won when it came to knowing a lot about a lot of stuff. Yet Palin connected to the audience better. And she even dished it out a little. There were times when Sen. Biden smiled at Palin telling himself, “She got me. She’s good.” The woman has skills. Not shocking since she was elected as governor of Alaska.

I can’t see Palin as President yet, but I could see a time when she could be. It doesn’t matter if McCain loses in November Palin has the chance of leading the Republican Party and the conservative movement in 2012 if she wants to. Not bad for being on a national ticket for only five weeks.

Other reaction:

Save and Share:
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Diigo

8 Responses to “Sarah Palin Saves Her Political Future”

1

She held her own, missed opportunities to respond more strongly, hit some out of the park.

What I was most pleased with is that we finally got to see some of that pitbull. She bared her teeth a little and we got to hear some of _her_ and not some script (though each certainly had scripts to read from, and did so).

As far as winning, in politics facts are pretzel dough, twisted to fit one’s policy initiatives and ideology. And as such, anyone (outside of insiders) who listened/watched that ‘debate’ simply cannot know if any fact given by either was a straight shot. They can BELIEVE but they cannot know….. until all the post-debate analysis comes out.

And even then: be aware of the slant.

If there must be a winner, then let it be the peeps who get to hear the contenders for the most part unscripted.

A quick observation:

After crooning all night “change this”, “change that”, “change everything”, Biden then said, “I’ve been in the Senate for thirty years and anyone who knows me knows I’m not gonna change.”

oh, baby. He walked the bases loaded and, on this one, Palin went down looking.

2

Since then Palin has had shaky and poor interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric.

I didn’t watch them so I don’t know why you judge them as shaky and poor, but did the interviewers ask questions in the same manner that they would have asked them of Biden, or with an eye toward providing a gotcha moment?

3

She would get killed in a GOP primary by someone running to the right of her fiscally. Her fiscal conservatism is on very shaky ground.

Alaska is essentially a socialist state, they heavily tax the most profitable industry and then distribute those proceeds to the citizens of the state (which explains her popularity). On top of that Alaska is basically a federal welfare state, they get far more money per citizen from the feds in pork than they pay in taxes.

None of this suggests a real fiscal conservative.

4

>>>Alaska is essentially a socialist state, they heavily tax the most profitable industry and then distribute those proceeds to the citizens of the state (which explains her popularity).

Isn’t redistribution itself essentially socialist?

How is Alaska nay different from WI taxing the hell out of manufacturing (and everyone else) and redistributing “proceeds” through every nanny-state program known to man (including Doyle’s program to subsidize mortgages for illegal aliens)?

Better to give directly to citizens rather than dump it into fat, wasteful state bureaucracies.

>>>On top of that Alaska is basically a federal welfare state, they get far more money per citizen from the feds in pork than they pay in taxes.

About $1.83 for every $1.00 (2005), the bulk of which goes to military spending (given the logistics, doesn’t seem out of line) and Alaska Native expenditures.

5

If Sarah Palin was a fiscal conservative the first thing she would have done is work to repeal the Alaska permanent fund. The permanent fund is by far the most socialist program in the US. Nothing else is even close.

6

The American Mind persists in prognasticating and dreaming about the distant future. No one could have won money on TAM’s predictions so far, so why keep up the mantra about Governor Palin leading us into a bright new dawn? Get things right about yesterday, today, maybe three days hence, and you will deserve some loyal fans. Avoid walking into a wall with all this dreaminess about the next decade.

7

Erik,
It sounds like you would be happier over reading stuff at the Puffington Host. That is what you want right, somebody to echo your sentiments as a sort of affirmation of your dream world?

8

>>> The permanent fund is by far the most socialist program in the US. Nothing else is even close.

Well, lets see:

The US sells oil, timber, and mineral rights from US-held lands/territories. Wisconsin sells timber and mineral rights from state-owned lands.
Alaska sells oil.

The difference is that the Alaskan PF distributes equally to EVERYONE; old/young, rich/poor, left/right, tall/short.

The State of Alaska is makes a varying profit on it’s sales and distributes a percentage of that profit to each of it’s citizens.

That’s not socialism.

That’s free-market dividend distribution.

Can you say the same about the Feds or your state? II haven’t been getting any federal mineral dividend checks. Have you?

So which entity is really more ’socialist’?

Leave a Reply




You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>