One would have thought that no Republican would be able to drive pundits toward the edge of sanity as deftly as George W. Bush used to, but Sarah Palin has surpassed him. She is as hated by the Left as viscerally as Bill and Hillary were by the Right. She’s the latest in a string of conservative targets: Reagan, Bush, now Palin—all cast successively as rightwing bumpkins du jour.
Some of the horror is political, or claims to be. Andrew Sullivan, one of Palin’s most relentless critics, attacks Palin in the name of conservatism. She is a radical masquerading as a conservative. She’s unscrupulous, and a racist too. If Palin runs for President in 2012, Sullivan predicts, it will be ugly: “She will play the race card powerfully, often and repeatedly. . . . She will make the Willie Horton ad look like happytalk.”
Not content to attack Palin’s positions and tactics, Sullivan resorts to conspiracy theories and long-distance psychoanalysis. Trump, er, that is, Sullivan is a longtime un-birther, demanding proof that Palin is mother to her Downs Syndrome son Trig. Only in April of this year, following the publication of a lengthy Salon investigative piece, did Sullivan grudgingly concede that it might possibly be probable that Palin carried and gave birth to her own son after all. Sullivan has described Palin as “clinically deluded,” paranoid and vengeful, “psychologically unhinged.” She aims “to win power by a populist appeal, backed by a virulent Christianism” and leads a movement that aspires “to smash existing institutions and to ‘fundamentally restore’ the American status quo before the Great Society, and even, the New Deal.” Lust for destruction is “the core of today’s ‘conservative’ movement”—thus says the “conservative” defender of same-sex civil marriage.
I’m here to assure the Andrew Sullivans out there that America has nothing to fear from Palin. Even if she becomes leader of the free world, she will cause barely a ripple in the surface of American culture. It’s not just that her views are widely shared, or that she demonstrated uncommon courage, vision, and competence during her time as governor of Alaska. She’s no threat because she swims so easily in the eddies of the Zeitgeist. Rightwing she is on political hot buttons, but culturally she is as cheerily, effortlessly postmodern as they come. Palin is not a threat to the American way of life. She is the American way of life, a.d. 2011.
She’s one of us in so many ways. She gets confused about history for one thing—which side Paul Revere was on, for instance. And she has trouble remembering what she reads, as she revealed in the odd 2008 interview with Katie Couric. She misuses phrases like “blood libel” picked up from somewhere and never fully understood. She says we need to win the war “over in Iraq and Iran,” you know—a sweep of the arm—over there. She mangles English as amusingly if less frequently than Bush, but has the charming chutzpah to defend her misfudiations. Of course, every public person makes gaffes, but Palin’s gaffes and gaps and jolly self-defenses are so insular, so American. She is so us.
But she is us mainly because of the blobby mix of politics, celebrity, media, and pop culture that envelops her entire existence. The “blob” metaphor comes from Thomas de Zengotita, one of today’s most perceptive observers of our “mediated” culture and politics. We are surrounded by flattering appeals for our attention, too many to take any of them seriously. And we are producers of media as well as insatiable consumers. Our every move gets tweeted and FB’d, every event photoed or filmed and instantly uploaded for the world to see. Events still happen, but almost before they have stopped happening they are being represented with cell phone cameras or by CNN’s professionals. The blob begins to envelop life. We were there for the McDonald’s beat-down of the cross-dresser. It happened to us too. In mediated society, earlier distinctions between public and private, reality and representation, substance and style melt into a single mediated mess.
Palin didn’t create the blob, but she is fully at home there. Everyone who has paid the scantest attention can see that the “Lamestream media” is her lifeblood. She has her own reality TV show, a slot on Fox, and a best-selling score-settling autobiography. She creates a frenzied media wake every time she moves. We know her kids by their first names, like characters from a sitcom. What was that interrupted bus tour? The beginning of a Presidential run? A pseudo-event? A family vacation—in a flashy luxury bus decorated with American flags and a page from the Constitution? All and none, and nobody can do it better than Palin. Nobody else would even try. How American is that?
Palin’s celebrity, like all celebrity, illumines everyone around her. Bristol dances on Dancing with the Stars, with Sarah and Todd cheering from the stands. Catching a glimpse of the Palins on the show was my first clue to Palin’s pomo normalcy. Of course, any self-respecting twenty-first century family-values American is going to leverage a Vice Presidential bid to get her daughter a place on a popular TV program, where she can rip off her partner’s shirt and writhe sexily on the floor. Or, maybe, leverage her daughter into a position as spokeswoman for an abstinence campaign, another Bristol celebrity spot. Bristol is rarely far from the media. She puts in a guest appearance on a TV show, gets her picture to the covers of magazines, and has just released a juicy tell-all memoir at the ripe age of twenty. Levi (we all know who he is) is about to come out with his own tell-all-the-rest.
Writing back in 2005, de Zengotita saw Clinton as “Blobster-in-chief.” “Can the political get more personal?” he queried as he recounted the Lewinsky affair. Riding a mediated wave, Palin—who in politics and personal character is vastly different from Clinton—has answered his question with a resounding Yes.
Andrew Sullivan can relax. The world after the very conventional Mrs. Palin will be the same blobby world she inherited, only more so.
Peter J. Leithart is pastor of Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow, Idaho, and Senior Fellow of Theology and Literature at New St. Andrews College. His most recent book is Athanasius (Baker Academic).
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
The sense of the depth of the responsibilty of what the role entails seems to be not there - more like a grown up cheerleader , cheering for whatever one is assigned to cheer for !
Hope many others would recognise same soon enough , to leave room for a good solid candidate !
Ya, she is a real saint for not aborting her baby, or giving him up for adoption when she saw he wasn't "normal." Spare me.
unfortunately, abortion is legal, in our country, therefore someone who chooses not to have one, deserves tremendous credit. This does not rise to the level of sainthood, certainly, but it does rise to the level of courage and moral goodness.
True, abortion in the case of Down Syndrome is the norm, but until such time (if it ever comes) that society considers it *wrong* to carry a Down Syndrome baby to term, not just acceptable to abort it, I don't see that opting not to have an abortion is worthy of extravagant praise. To make it so is to send a message to other women pregnant with Down Syndrome babies that unless they are heroic types, it's perfectly understandable for them to abort.
Most of "us" wouldn't make a good president.
The author has described qualities of a great political commentator, not a good president.
"She gets confused about history for one thing—which side Paul Revere was on, for instance."
Whether she mispoke or actually was confused - and yes, it was blown out of proportion - the problem was more her subsequent inadmission that she'd done either.
This is a major character flaw that has plagued many of our recent leaders in the Executive branch in particular - and yes I think including the current one - an active reluctance to admit any mistake, except in the most politically useful circumstances, and often with a subtle change in blame. It is hardly a character trait to be brushed off as insignificant.
And she has trouble remembering what she reads, as she revealed in the odd 2008 interview with Katie Couric."
No, she balked - badly - at the question. Her answer was absurd. If however she truly had trouble remembering what she reads *regularly*, then this is also not a good quality for a would leader.
She misuses phrases like “blood libel” picked up from somewhere and never fully understood.
...She has the charming chutzpah to defend her misfudiations.
These are not good qualities for a President. And this is a truly odd essay. Palin is 'just like us' because our culture has all collectively lowered the bar?
There is just one thing that should be remembered about Sarah Palin - she is smarter than 999 out of any 1,000 people in politics and the MSM. Thomas Sowell is smarter than everyone, so he out matches her; Victor Davis Hanson may, as well...but you won't find too many others who actually do.
She's running intellectual rings around everyone - and doing it so well that even her critics don't notice it, even if they have to wit to understand that they might not know as much as they think. We have seen this before, by the way - the man's name was Ronald Reagan.
The media were wrong about Revere; distinguished historical scholars have come out endorsing Palin's statement regarding Paul Revere.
Experts back Sarah Palin’s historical account
"Sarah Palin yesterday insisted her claim at the Old North Church last week that Paul Revere “warned the British” during his famed 1775 ride — remarks that Democrats and the media roundly ridiculed — is actually
historically accurate. And local historians are backing her up"
bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1343353&srvc=rss
Even NPR confirms that Gov.Palin was right about Revere (interview of professor Robert Allison Chairman of history dept Suffolk university Boston)
"BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.
Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did."
npr.org/2011/06/06/137011636/how-accurate-were-palins-comments-on-paul-revere
"She misuses phrases like “blood libel” picked up from somewhere and never fully understood."
Sarah Palin was right; there is nothing improper using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations.
SARAH PALIN’S history of executive and leadership positions:
1996 - Elected Mayor of Wasilla
-
1999 - Reelected Mayor of Wasilla
-
2002 - Elected as President of AK Conference of Mayors by fellow mayors in the state
-
2003 - Appointed by Governor(and fmr Senator) as Chairman of AK Oil and Gas Agency(A major leadership post in the state’s most vital economic field and industry)
-
2006 - Elected Governor
-
2007 - Elected Chairman of Interstate Oil and Gas Compact, a multi-state/intl group focused on energy development
-
2008 - Nominated by GOP as Vice Presidential nominee after being selected by party’s Presidential nominee
-
BARRACK OBAMA’S history of executive and leadership positions pre-presidency:
-
-
That pretty much sums up my point.
Anybody that thinks Sarah Palin is not capable of being a great president, may have their mind changed by reading about her accomplishments. She not only stood up to corrupt Republicans, she fired, fined, and jailed them. She not only stood up to big oil companies, she beat them at their own game, and brought them in line. “Conservatives4Palin” has a lot of information. Also, her book, “Going Rogue,” and apparently the new documentary film, “The Undefeated.”
Don’t judge her, at least until after you do research. If there is someone better to be our president, please tell me who.
Palin, like Reagan before her, has a lot of press about being dumb, inaccurate, and in the low cultural mainstream. (Reagan, after all, was better known as a Hollywood B actor and for GE Theater than as ex-governor of California).
Interesting what 20/20 hindsight can do. Even more interesting is which people at the time had the correct assessment. Não é?
'could have been written by Frank Rich...'
Funny how this is viewed as a complement to Leithart.
And may I remind Leithart that Ronald Reagan had dumber children than Palin. What is she supposed to do, forbid her adult child to dance on T.V.? This is why you never get your way. You make the perfect the enemy of the good.
I do think she 'deserves credit' for not aborting her baby in the sense that remaining slim in a food culture such as ours is more difficult than staying slim in a culture where food is scarce. It doesn't make her a saint but it reminds others of their inadequacy, hence the vitriol.
Palin is ordinary in the sense that Reagan is. Taking jobs the elite find beneath them and yet be in a position to be president. And blaming a politician of being drenched in the PC swamp is like blaming a pig for playing in the mud. Even Bush bought into the whole 'religion of peace'. But because we wanted him to be perfect, we got someone worse in Obama.
I don't know of anyone who actually hates her -- I think most people just think she's a joke.
Other than, all that is done here is attack Dancing with the Stars and other such pop culture fads. I don't recall any Biblical condemnations of public dancing, but I did see some scantily clad woman the couple times I watched, never watched Bristol, though, so I think I'll give Bristol a pass for that one. The most damning thing on Gov. Palin is her daughter's out-of-wedlock child, which her daughter has repented of the sin involved there, so I'll give her a pass for that one too. As far as Palin's mangled English, like it or not, in the age of texting and Twitter, the types of language Palin uses is simply the way we communicate when we only have 140 characters. The rest of it is media hype, media hype I used to believe until the fact the media was attacking her for something I knew she was right about (Revere), and the email dump gave me an even higher opinion of her.
Which is why I hope that somebody other than Mrs. Palin can carry the standard against God-King Obama next year. In my eyes she fails the test in the former for resigning as Governor just as an investigation against her was about to get underway, and in the latter for showing a near total lack of ability to think on her feet under fire (i.e., during Charlie Gibson's infamous 2008 interview). I do not want anyone of either sex or any color who freezes up in those situations carrying the nuclear football, or making decisions about anything else that actually matters.
Obviously the slander against the Governor swayed some individuals who apparently lack enough independence of thought to possess wisdom, a characteristic the Governor possesses in abundance. The Governor’s honesty in refusing to go along with Alaskan Republican community’s default corruptions, the humility to resign for the good of her state, her “genius of the gut” displayed in defeating many an agile attacker in public debate, her ability to coin resounding phrases, her clever ”thinking-outside-the-box” at every turn are all more important than being the “most intelligent”, a phrase that has seems top have a very unsavory definition as used in these comments and on the essay.
I am disappointed in Peter J. Leithart’s essay and most of the comments typified by Bret's comment “The simple fact is, being president is hard. It requires someone who possesses a strong intellect. Palin may possess one, but thus far, I haven't seen any credible evidence to support it. “ These comments presented together are disconcerting and reveal that these writers lack the wisdom needed to be worthy voters not Governor(sic) Palin’s wisdom needed to be an effective president
I simply don't get the same impression with Palin. Perhaps she will show otherwise. But I've seen no evidence that she has a well thought out political philosophy. What principles would she follow, for example, in dealing with foreign policy? Reagan, had a clear idea of how he would interact with the soviets, based upon well thought out views, regarding the importance of human freedom. Perhaps it lacked a sophistication, that some intellectuals would bring, but it was serious, and based on sound moral principles.
Palin certainly doesn't strike me as dumb, or immoral. But has she seriously thought about the US, and its goals vis a vis foreign policy? How would she decide to go to war, as opposed to rigorous diplomacy, for example? How would she decide whether to form alliances, with different countries? Should her administration be guided entirely by Adam Smith, or Milton Friedman, with respect to economic policy, or should she take a pragmatic approach, and adopt, say, Maynard Keynes's ideas, if she's convinced they would help solve an economic crisis?
As far as I know, she's provided no evidence that she's seriously reflected on these issues. Reagan, agree or disagree, had clear ideas on these issues, and stood by the implementation of these ideas, such as tax cuts, in the early part of his presidency, when the economy was in a recession. Would Palin do the same? It's hard to say, because she hasn't provided, at least as far as I can tell, enough insight into what governs her decisions to know.
They seem to be quite unfair.
Peter Leithart is the author of many good books, including Miniatures and Morals: The Christian Novels of Jane Austen, a book that deserves much praise for its original insights into Austen's novels. In that work, he was up to the task, to compete with the countless volumes of Austen analysis already out there.
Unfortunately, in this article, Mr. Leithart brings up nothing new about Sarah Palin. It doesn't seem as if did any original research, either. Commenters on this page have already pointed out, for example, that Mrs. Palin had it right about Paul Revere. And was she so wrong about the "blood libel" attack on her?
What is original about Mr. Leithart's piece is the way he uses the damning-with-faint-praise approach. He makes sure to summarize the best (or, rather, the worst) of the attacks on Mrs. Palin, throws in several gratuitous swipes at one of her daughters and even that daughter's former boyfriend, and then for good measure brings in Bill Clinton and his lewd behavior with Monica Lewinski to argue that Mrs. Palin too makes the personal political. With friends like that . . .
May I offer some ideas for future essays about Mrs. Palin?
Apparently she reflects the American Zeitgesit, Mr. Leithart argues. Does that include her principled and unwavering pro-life beliefs and actions? Please explain.
Her supporters praise her optimistic view of the spirit of America. Is this an accurate label for her philosophy? Please explain. For extra credit, compare and contrast her attitude with that of Ronald Reagan's.
Or, for an easy assignment, write a review of her two books that explores both her writing style and the contents.
For a more difficult assignment, describe a possible future for America under a President Palin. Feel free to propose either a positive or a negative scenario. Each assertion must be accompanied by known facts gleaned from Mrs. Palin's history.
And finally, an assignment for the adventurous writer -- examine the reasons why men in particular, of both the Right and the Left, feel compelled to publicly analyze Mrs. Palin in a degrading way that no other American female politician has been analyzed. The assertions in this essay must be accompanied by supporting material from a modern academic theory, like that of Freud, Germaine Greer, or Grouch Marx. Only primary material will be accepted; this rule excludes the writings of any New York Times op-ed columnist. For extra credit, include a short discussion on the possible influence of the writer's own gender on the answer to this essay question.
With Palin you wouldn't get the Ivy League credentials but you would get someone with the moral integrity to respect the lives of everyone, even the least among us.
What made her such an exceptional governor was that moral integrity, not sophistication, which is exactly what we need in a President. What infuriates and frightens her detractors is her habit of actually living a life that corresponds to the traditional values she genuinely embraces. Genuinely! How refreshing! Refreshing to some of us anyway. That is exactly what is so horrifying to the the Ivy League sophisticates who have worked so long and hard at undermining those values. Of course they viciously mock her. She is their worst nightmare, as actions really do speak much louder than words. She is a threat to all the godless social engineering that Barack Obama personifies. This personification is why they worship Obama, experiencing thrilling tingles going up and own their legs as they do so. Sarah Palin is a genuine threat to the atheocracy the godless ruling class has imposed upon us. This is why they demonize her.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2732107/posts
POLL: Palin, Romney Take Lead Among Iowa Conservatives As Early Race Tightens
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2732097/posts
If Sarah Palin Gets in the Race, She Will be the Candidate to Beat
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2732070/posts
Jobs Report: OK, Now You Can Panic
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2745829/posts
Palin can ‘snap her fingers’ for money, run and beat Obama, warns GOP expert
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2731881/posts
1) Many misread my article. Gordon Hackman and Judy Warner got the point most clearly, though, contrary to Hackman, I was writing about Palin herself, not merely illustrating a general point.
2) To Nathan: Sure, dancing is legal. But would you be smiling and cheering if your daughter was on Dancing with the Stars? Not me. That Palin did smile and cheer strikes me as a failure of discernment, and a revealing one.
3) It's funny how quickly the discussion turns populist. One doesn't have to be Ivy League to find our celebrity culture disquieting. I'm a Reagan fan, by the way.
4) Palin a threat? The burden of my article was to argue the opposite. The undertow of contemporary culture sucks a lot of people under. Palin jumped in, and she's not swimming against the current; she's being carried by it.
Can Palin pull herself from the media/celebrity culture tar baby, and scrape off the goo? I hope so. Until she does, she'll be neutralized by the blob.
If it weren't for the ATM conspiracy, there would be a lot more jobs, maybe not for those who speak Austrian, but for many, many corpsemen.
Mr Leithart is absolutely correct to skewer our populist media culture. I used to watch mostly PBS documentaries and Masterpiece Theater on t-v, because that was all my antenna could bring in here in rural Kentucky. Then, under pressure from my teenage sons, who felt out of step with their classmates, I subscribed to cable t-v. My wife and I have since been struck speechless by some of the crudely salacious "entertainment" that is vomited forth from these pornography mills. It may very well be that Palin is unwilling to take a stand against the vulgarity of our mass commercial culture because it would tarnish her credentials as a populist.
Its interesting to note that if someone writes something about American politics they get lots and lots of comments, but to have someone write something theological or philosophical the comments are far less. It kinda shows where you Americans have your priorities.
I feel little desire at this point to join the singalong by rehashing / attempting to justify my own reaction to Sarah Palin. Keep on trollin', folks.
From a conservative blogger:
With Palin we get the worst of both worlds. We get the tinny appearance of a hardline right-winger, with the gun rhetoric, the lust for killing animals, and all the rest of it; and we get the concrete actuality of a feminist liberal who has allied herself with the homosexualist lobby. On the level of symbols, Palin is a rightist; the right loves her for it, and the left hates her--and hates all conservatives--for it. On the level of reality, she's a social liberal. All that right-wing excitement, all that left-wing fear and loathing, all that passion tearing our political society apart, and it's all about nothing, it's all about an illusion.
Why do I say that Palin gives us the worst of both worlds? Because with her we get the redoubled liberal demonization of conservatives as dangerous extremists, and we get the actual transformation of conservatism into social liberalism.
A discussion on Palin from amnation.com/vfr:
LA replies:
Yes. The liberal mainstream media sees the statement "Islam does not belong in Germany" as horrible and wicked, while serious opponents of Islam in the West see it as inspiring and hopeful. But both groups are operating under an illusion, for the simple reason that Friedrich didn't say it.
How many of our controversies today are just like that? Take Sarah Palin. Many conservatives absolutely love her, because they see her as a "real conservative," while people on the left absolutely loathe her, for exactly the same reason. But both sides are wrong, because in so many ways Palin is not a real conservative. For example, the left thinks that she's a Torquemada on abortion, when, in reality, she has never proposed any restrictions on abortion and has always expressed her opposition to abortion in terms of her personal beliefs while indicating tolerance for people with different beliefs.
Similarly, many liberals, amazingly, have called Palin a white racist, while some race-conscious conservatives have considered her at least a representative of whiteness. In reality, Palin has never emitted the slightest hint that she opposes the current liberal racial order or would do anything as president to undercut it.
Thus the whole passionate, hate-filled fight between left and right over Sarah Palin is based on illusions, driven by overcharged but misleading symbols rather than by anything real.
In the same way, every time some European political figure issues some patently equivocal statement criticizing multiculturalism, the left reacts in panic, and the right reacts with joy, both sides believing that the rule of multiculturalism has been rejected and is imminently threatened, when in reality, multiculturalism is deeply ensconsed in Europe.
What is the underlying reality that creates the susceptibility to these and similar illusions?
The left psychologicially needs a conservative enemy who threatens to defeat liberalism. The right psychologically needs a conservative champion who promises to defeat liberalism. In reality, no such conservative leader exists today; in reality, there is nothing on the scene today that poses an immediate threat to the reign of liberalism. But both sides, for their own internal reasons, need to believe that the reign of liberalism is threatened, and so they believe it.
Daniel S. replies:
I would wholeheartedly agree with that assessment. The way liberals spend their every waking minute attacking and demonizing "conservatives" like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'reilly as if they were some sort of real threat to the reign of liberalism. In turn, the bulk of self-described conservatives rally around these same figures as if they were the saviors of America who would, like a sort of modern Republican St. Patrick, drive the snakes of liberalism from our shores. The truth is that Palin, Beck, and the rest are not any sort of threat to the dominance of liberalism, because they are themselves infected with a mindset very much shaped by liberalism.
I count this website as one of the best Catholic websites and to see some supporting Palin makes me sad. She's a capitalist, libertarian or a narcissist at least or a celebrity at most. She's possesses no substance and the reason the media hates and is obsessed with her is because they are so far-left they think liberal "conservatives" are far-right!
it is both stunning and ironic to read the subtle and not so subtle ad hominem against one of the few who have, and continues to so ably, man the gates of our Republic against the ever pressing hun, their hoard and their.
may God continue to confound your enemies, mrs. palin.
In the jaded and critical part of the country that I live in, such manifestations are called, "dumb." Contrary to Pastor Leithart, I think it is preferable that my leaders be "smart." By which I mean that they can carry on a conversation that I would expect a sixth grader to manage intelligently.
Although I live in a rural area, I fail to understand the Palin supporters' glee with her drill baby drill mentality. The destruction of whole mountain tops to extract coal, the contamination of billions of gallons of fresh water with salt for drilling or worse contaniments for fracking, seem like last resort measures, especially in view of our potential for wind, solar and bio-mass energy generation.
I find the idea that making life tougher for the average citizen by cutting back education, food aid, medical care and other needed and long-standing domestic programs uncharitable. Most of the programs in place have been there in times thick and thin and to blame the recession or the deficit on them is, well, dumb.
Worst of all Palin's glorification of military policies that send our soldiers abroad to fight needless wars for no other reason than the flexing of American power is bloody murder.
Sarah Palin's political unsuitability and personal shortcomings are what make her an unsuitable candidate for the Presidency. It is a matter of prudence and integrity, not the political rohrschach test Pastor Leithart implies.
These lines... "She gets confused about history for one thing—which side Paul Revere was on, for instance. And she has trouble remembering what she reads, as she revealed in the odd 2008 interview with Katie Couric. She misuses phrases like “blood libel” picked up from somewhere and never fully understood."
all these are pure baloney.
Sarah Palin was not confused about Paul Revere.... if Peter would take his head out of the sand he could check and see that a number of historians agreed with Sarah Palin. She apparently knows more about this than the comic book rendition that Peter relies on.
As for what she reads... well, if Peter can't figure out what a pile of cow poop that whole episode was with Couric, then there is no hope for him.
Blood libel.... well that was absolutely correct. Too bad Peter.... nice try at spinning that one into something it wasn't. Ask Alan Dershowitz if you don't believe me.
It appears Peter is lost.... lost in the false narratives of the liberal media and hate spinners.... too bad... for he is then just another deluded dolt who trys to convince us that he knows who Sarah Palin is and fails terribly.
And for your information Peter, when Sarah Palin becomes President.... she will change the system so dramatically for the better that even the left will have to thank her. There will be a massive upheaval of the corrupt and evil Washington establishment.
She is one of "us," us being a stereoptypical representation of our cultural development at this time in history. What that says about us as a people is more disturbing than what it says about Sarah Palin. She's attractive and photogenic. She loves the spotlight. She understands how to manipulate the media and further her career as a celebrity. In that, she is very clever and successful.
But don't think for a second any of her success as a media darling has anything to do with her desire for public service. She is simply using this platform for her own benefit. Toying with the media and granting this Newsweek interview confirms that--She doesn't really have anything to say in the interview that we don't already know, but she gets more exposure and has more photos taken of her as a regular person from Alaska. She is one of "us." Not a buttoned up politician in a $1200. suit. A regular gal. A mom, even. This image that she is promoting of herself is directly contrasted by the well heeled intellectuals in DC who dress, um, professionally. She is promoting herself as the girl next door, who, by the way, could run the country if she wanted to.
Is this the portrait we want painted in the white house next to Jefferson and Lincoln, is this how far we have come? I think not.
I hope not.



The simple fact is, being president is hard. It requires someone who possesses a strong intellect. Palin may possess one, but thus far, I haven't seen any credible evidence to support it.
We need someone beyond what average Americans are capable of, intellectually, to be president. That's nothing against average Americans. They're decent, hard working people. But for leaders, we need more than average.