Yeah, yeah, I know. You probably want me to lay off Sarah Palin already. But considering how much I dislike the idea of a John McCain presidency (to say nothing of the terror of The Annointed One) and how the rest of the conservative establishment is doing just fine taking on Obama, I want to take a look at little miss perfect, in detail, because I just have this hunch that she’s not the wonder-child some of us want to believe she is.
I keep thinking about the level of opportunism a real “social conservative” would have to possess to not only put family second behind a political career, but do so in the service of Crazy John McCain. The choices seem stunningly simple to me - either she agrees with McCain the important issues, and is therefore a more palatable version of him, or she’s willing to sell out on her strong disagreements to get her chance in the spotlight.
Neither bodes well.
So when I saw this article on Salon.com - a known liberal outlet - I struggled to know what to think. The description of Sarah Palin here jives with what my dark, cynical self seems to think would have to be the sort of person making political calculations of this sort. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe not. You decide:
Before Sarah Palin decided to run for the Wasilla mayor’s office in 1996 against incumbent John Stein, the Palins and Steins were friends. John Stein had helped launch Palin’s political career, mentoring the hockey mom during her 1994 run for City Council, along with veteran council member Nick Carney. Stein’s wife, Karen Marie, went to aerobics classes with Palin.
But when she announced her candidacy for Stein’s seat, vowing to overturn the city’s “old boy” establishment, a different Sarah Palin emerged. “Things got very ugly,” recalled Naomi Tigner, a friend of the Steins. “Sarah became very mean-spirited.”
The Wasilla mayor’s seat is nonpartisan, and Mayor Stein, a former city planner who had held the post for nine years, ran a businesslike campaign that stressed his experience and competency. But Palin ignited the traditionally low-key race with scorching social issues, injecting “God, guns and abortion into the race — things that had nothing to do with being mayor of a small town,” according to Tigner.
Palin’s mayoral campaign rode the wave of conservative, evangelical fervor that was sweeping Alaska in the ’90s. Suddenly candidates’ social values, not their ability to manage the roads and sewer systems, were dominating the debate. “Sarah and I were both Republicans, but this was an entirely new slant to local politics — much more aggressive than anything I’d ever seen,” said Stein, looking back at the election that put Palin on the political map.
There was a knife-sharp, personal edge to Palin’s campaign that many locals found disturbing, particularly because of the warm relationship between Palin and Stein before the race.
“I called Sarah’s campaign for mayor the end of the age of innocence in Wasilla,” said Carney.
Even though Palin knew that Stein is a Protestant Christian, from a Pennsylvania Dutch background, her campaign began circulating the word that she would be “Wasilla’s first Christian mayor.” Some of Stein’s supporters interpreted this as an attempt to portray Stein as Jewish in the heavily evangelical community. Stein himself, an eminently reasonable and reflective man, thinks “they were redefining Christianity to mean born-agains.”
The Palin campaign also started another vicious whisper campaign, spreading the word that Stein and his wife — who had chosen to keep her own last name when they were married — were not legally wed. Again, Palin knew the truth, Stein said, but chose to muddy the waters. “We actually had to produce our marriage certificate,” recalled Stein, whose wife died of breast cancer in 2005 without ever reconciling with Palin.
“I had a hand in creating Sarah, but in the end she blew me out of the water,” Stein said, sounding more wearily ironic than bitter. “Sarah’s on a mission, she’s an opportunist.”
According to some political observers in Alaska, this pattern — exploiting “old-boy” mentors and then turning against them for her own advantage — defines Sarah Palin’s rise to power. Again and again, Palin has charmed powerful political patrons, and then rejected them when it suited her purposes. She has crafted a public image as a clean politics reformer, but in truth, she has only blown the whistle on political corruption when it was expedient for her to do so. Above all, Palin is a dynamo of ambition, shrewdly maneuvering her way through the notoriously compromised world of Alaska politics, making and breaking alliances along the way.
[snip]
“The idea that Sarah shook up the state’s old-boy network is one big fantasy, it’s complete bullshit,” Halcro said. “She got all this public acclaim for throwing people who backed her under the bus — but she only did it after they became expendable, when she no longer needed them.
If true, it’s entirely possible that McCain himself may be Sarah “Barracuda” Palin’s next expendable step on the path to glory.
Or, this could be an article full of people with sour grapes for reasons of their own.
We report, you decide.
Being that I grew up in a small town in MN I have to say I don’t want to trust what the article says. People in small towns love to gossip and spread lies and rumors. Maybe it is sour grapes.
However, I do know that the evangelicals can be very crazy and puritan in mind(my aunt/cousin are and they also live in a small small town in Alaska), so maybe the article has some truth to it.
Either way, I’m sticking to the facts of what she has done and to me those outweigh and say more than what this article purports, which seems to be more of her personality, not what she has done.
Even if she is an “opportunist”, are you saying that her intentions are evil or wrong? Maybe they are good? Couldn’t a woman who has a good heart and a will to want to do good be an opportunist? Maybe I’m missing your point too. Sorry.
You? Struggled to know what to think? C’mon.
“We report, you decide.”
When did that start being your motto, Steve? Sour grapes? Reasons of their own? Sound familiar?
Now, that’s suspect…
Even if she is an “opportunist”, are you saying that her intentions are evil or wrong?
Sarah, Steve’s “dark, cynical self ” would have it no other way. I don’t think he believes in good when it comes to things political, especially things McCain/Palin for which he shows the greatest disdain (and things contra Barack Obama - nothing. Telling, huh.). Just check out the false, absolutist dichotomy he himself purports (an either or, have you):The choices seem stunningly simple to me - either she agrees with McCain the important issues, and is therefore a more palatable version of him, or she’s willing to sell out on her strong disagreements to get her chance in the spotlight.
Yet, maybe Steve is wrong. As he says, “You decide.”
I also find it telling that Steve’s “in detail” search to destroy “little miss perfect” - “wonder-child” - something no one has purported on this blog (yet another straw man) - leads him to the front steps of Salon.com. What kind of “in detail” search is that? I can get this kind of “hunch” waiting in line at my local grocery store. This is not true Palin-tology.
While the “rest of the conservative establishment is doing just fine taking on Obama”, Steve’s “dark, cynical self” tacitly supports the Obama underground by attempting to expose Sarah Palin with the likes of “fair” Campbell Brown and Salon.com.?!?!?!
I got a “hunch” that Steve’s “dark, cynical self” truly shines through in this blog worthy of the National Inquirer.
Perhaps that’s where he got his new motto: We report, you decide.
Ludicrous.
Peter, do you ever stop to ask yourself whether the words you’re using are making any sense, either separately or (perhaps more importantly) strung together in sentences?
Then again, I expect nothing less.
I would love the opportunity to vote for a candidate whose conservativism was a cynical put-on. Holy smokes. Try Canada. Everything here is the reverse, at best.
I dunno, Steve. Whatever else it is, t’s not journalism–there’s no evidence Talbot even tried to get the other side.
A defeated foe in a race over a decade ago and a convicted felon are the star witnesses, and both are taken at face value. Lionized, even, in the case of the former. Wasilla has a newspaper with archives–he could have checked to see if there was anything to the stories being spun out by Stein.
Is she a sharp elbowed campaigner? Certainly. All successful politicians are. But if this is all Talbot has, it makes for pretty thin gruel upon which to base a charge of anything. “Look at the ‘Christian’ hypocrite, slashing her way to power.” Right in the wheelwell of the Salon reader base, confirming them in their comfortable prejudices.
Dale,
Fair enough, although I don’t think anyone reads Salon expecting journalism. They expect bias.
Just like I expect it when I read NRO, TAC, or Inside Catholic.
I am just hoping to piece together enough information to get an accurate, non propagandized-image of the GOP’s “last hope”. If she survives the scrutiny and comes out clean, more power to her.
But the scrutiny should come just as hard from the right as from the left, if with more decency and charity. We’ve been burned so many times by false hope candidates, I want to know exactly the kind of person we’re dealing with.
When I was first exposed to her, I thought, “opportunist”. That impression has waxed and waned since, but hasn’t gone away. A certain amount of opportunism is necessary to make it in politics, so I don’t begrudge that if it’s outweighed by other, more positive qualities.
If, on the other hand, it’s a “do what it takes to get the job done and treat people as expendable” opportunism, that’s a problem.
I suspect we’ll find that she’s somewhere between those two extremes.
That said, my big gripe remains - she runs with McCain and supports his policies, and social conservatives (even those who support McCain) hold their nose around him, so how can she be perceived to be a real social conservative, unless she’s just using him to get into power?
Isn’t this sort of an either/or proposition? Either she’s a sellout OR she’s a user? Or am I too tainted by my “I won’t go near McCain with a ten-foot-pole” position?
I’m sorry, GOP partisans, what Steve’s relating here is very much worth our consideration, even taking into account the leftist biases and agendas of its sources.
Anyone insinuating that Steve is assisting the Obama underground by raising these issues, given his explicit mention of “the terror of the Anointed One,” is making an unfair accusation. At worst, this might be true by way of unintended consequence … and then only if the left-wing blogosphere were to pay any attention this way (highly unlikely).
I find a certain fundamental credibility in the detractors’ portrait. For one thing, the picture of the Governor emerging from accounts by supporters and detractors alike is uncannily reminiscent of my own experience, over nearly a decade’s time, with someone I once knew, whom I trusted as a close friend, only to be betrayed after I became “inconvenient.” The personality dynamics, the polarized experiences of those who knew her, all of it … now with the Governor, it’s “deja vu all over again.”
Hardball by an avowedly amoral leftist, while despicable, is nonetheless something to be expected. But when a self-professed conservative Christian engages in similar behavior, it takes on enhanced odiousness on account of its disonnance with the person’s public image, which is demonstrated to be a lie.
The consistent theme emerging from the Governor’s supporters and detractors alike is of her uncanny ability to sell herself. Look at the campaign stump videos, listen to interviews with supporters, all of it. What exactly are people sold on? Her resume, yes; positions attributed to her, yes … but most of all, to her as a person. And, honestly, this is no different from the cult of personality surrounding Obama.
Let it be known, I have personally apologized to Steve for my recent comments in this thread. While I meant them in jest to try and challenge his presentation, I can see that they come across as personal attacks. That was not my intention. I apologize.
“And, honestly, this is no different from the cult of personality surrounding Obama.”
Sorry, Somerset76, but I reject this wholeheartedly. Palin is being treated like a rock star. What Obama’s fans do is positively creepy:
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODQzZTc0NTE4ZWVmOTgwMGExOTUxNjM1MGY3YWY1MTk=
Throw in the Greek temple at the convention and the already-minted President Obama coins ordered by the Democrats, and you’ve got a five-alarm fire of messianic overtones to his campaign that you don’t find in the GOP’s reception of Palin.
Steve:
All right, I have no problem with that, in principle. But my lawyer’s instincts to cross-examine lead me to dismiss what essentially is an affidavit in support of Obama.
I think your real complaint isn’t so much with Palin as with McCain:
“That said, my big gripe remains - she runs with McCain and supports his policies, and social conservatives (even those who support McCain) hold their nose around him, so how can she be perceived to be a real social conservative, unless she’s just using him to get into power?”
I think this is your real problem with Palin. Let me try to tease this out with a question: What is your impression of Sen. Sam Brownback, a staunch and unwavering supporter of McCain since the failure of his own presidential bid?
No, she is not being touted as “the Messiah.” But the difference is merely one of degree, not substance.
One can cut through all the spin on both sides, look at her prior record dispassionately, and see that whatever her stated personal convictions along conservative Christian lines, there is very little evidence of any of this influencing her public policy actions. She’s already had to temporize some of her previous statements on some issues in national interviews. In fact, she was already doing some of that in her prior bids for statewide office.
This can be rightly attributed to the fact that a conservative Christian cannot win elections today being up-front about their beliefs … the culture is too far gone for that now. But it begs the question: if one can’t be true to one’s convictions in the political sphere, why run?
Here’s one more thing: she personfies an unmistakable shift in what people consider a “Christian conservative”: an issue Steve is dead right in raising in previous entries on this subject. She’s the first person from “Generation X” to make it to big-time politics, and the culture that we Xers grew up with (she’s a year older than me) has been a definite influence on that shift in perspective.
I think this is your real problem with Palin.
It’s part of my real problem with Palin. Probably the biggest part. But not the only one.
I said it before, and I’ll stick with it - choosing politics over family leaves a bad taste in my mouth, stay-at-home-dad compromise or not. It was one thing to be pro-life and give birth to her son during her term as Governor; quite another to take this step, which is a much more substantial commitment. We’ve argued this ad nauseam here, but suffice it to say this continues to stick in my craw as evidence not only of out-of-whack maternal priorities, but opportunism.
I also am unimpressed with her ability to articulate positions, rather than simply to make stump speeches. If Obama’s lack of experience is a disqualifying factor, why shouldn’t hers be? I’ve got a kid who can’t even talk yet who has been walking this earth longer than Palin’s been in high-level politics. She’s an impressive woman, but nobody gets up to speed that fast. I wouldn’t feel comfortable voting for her if she were running for president based on her inexperience. Would you? She seems, like Obama, to be mostly style and very little substance. (The difference is that she is, I think, quite capable of substance if given time to mature in the political arena.)
Finally, the McCain thing. Yeah, she’s billed as one of us and yet she’s willing to run with one of them. Him specifically. The guy I knew I could never vote for the first time I saw him in the GOP debates in 2000. I couldn’t run with McCain if I were in her position; and even if I somehow thought I could if it meant a shot in the future, I’d feel compelled to constantly qualify our disagreements.
She seems supportive of McCain’s vision of big government, bad foreign policy, aisle-leaping politics. She won’t let their differing opinions on ESCR get in the way of their relationship (what’s a few thousand murdered embryos among friends?) How is she not McCain’s little sister? Or the trophy veep?
And if she really does disagree with McCain on all the hot-button issues Buchananites like me care about, why does she seem so happy to be with him and support his every word?
Let me try to tease this out with a question: What is your impression of Sen. Sam Brownback, a staunch and unwavering supporter of McCain since the failure of his own presidential bid?
I have never been a fan of Sam Brownback. I have never supported him, never considered him particularly viable as a candidate, and never thought him to be a strong Catholic force. I think he’s a Republican before he’s a Catholic. In fact, I called him out on it when he backed down and removed the language recognizing the Holy Father’s defense of human life from the the senate resolution welcoming Pope Benedict to the U.S., simply because Barbara Boxer pushed the issue.
I am, of course, a cranky purist, but I don’t like how much our Catholic politicians compromise in this political system - or for that matter, how much the system seems to force them to.
As Somerset said - if one can’t be true to one’s convictions in the political sphere, why run?
Oh, and when I said, “quite another to take this step, which is a much more substantial commitment,” what I mean by that is that it was only the right thing to do for a mother to give birth to her child, even though she was the governor. That wasn’t, for a pro-life woman, a matter of choice.
Accepting the VP slot, however, was entirely voluntary, and entails an even larger commitment of time and energy than being governor of Alaska does.
I long ago gave up looking for anything but lies to come out of places like salon.com. Steve, I think you are looking for something to justify your dislike of Palin and belief that she is wrong to be a mother and VP candidate.
Would an opportunist be open to life at 44, be open to bearing a child with Down’s Syndrome? Great political scheme huh?
Why not just stick with your original position that you don’t like having a mother with young children as VP candidate, unless you are looking for another rationale because you don’t believe that is enough.
Mary,
I’ve already re-iterated my reasons for concern, and they cross several subject areas, as I said. I actually think that taken as a whole, they begin to paint a picture of who the real Palin is. That picture is still incomplete.
As for your assessment of Salon, of course you’re entitled to your opinion, but I’ll read a piece from anywhere and make my own judgments on whether its believable or not.
Given our vastly different views on McCain and Brownback, I think further discussion on this will be unprofitable. I already have one strained relationship with a left-wing buddy of mine and I don’t care to add another to that list.
Truly sagacious, Dale.
Dale,
I’m assuming that in my case, the implication isn’t left wing. To me, Palin and McCain are to the left of me, not the right.
No, Steve, I’m *not* accusing you of harboring left wing sympathies. I’ve lodged some accusations in my time, but none quite that stupid.
Okay - this is over the top. Corny.
Steve wrote:
“I’ve already re-iterated my reasons for concern, and they cross several subject areas, as I said. I actually think that taken as a whole, they begin to paint a picture of who the real Palin is.”
You’re right Steve, I had no idea that she ran for Mayor against a man whose wife she went to aerobics with. And then the woman died and they never reconciled. Yeah, real political insight there on that one. I guess there really is no honor among those who attend aerobics together. My faith in humanity and Sarah Palin have taken a severe hit, knowing that she could do this to her aerobics partner. Thank God for Salon.com.
Are you kidding me?
How many opportunists live in Alaska and run for the PTA????
I think you are operating on emotion and the conditioning of having lived in the beltway for too long.
Mary,
Feel free to show me her political record and policy positions articulating what she’s going to do to bring about an end of abortion in America, protect the borders from immigration, reign in our increasingly disastrous foreign policy, and deal responsibly with the ever deepening U.S. financial crisis.
I actually would love to have something to believe in, rather than feeling as though she’s our Obama - all style and no substance.
Did you watch her interview with Katie Couric? It was painful. She may be the loveliest woman that ever walked the state of Alaska, and that doesn’t mean she’s the solution to our ever more drastic problems in this country.
Because she was “active in the pro-life movement” in her past and has a beautiful family is not a sufficient reason for me to believe she’s anything other than a showpiece for the rapidly declining GOP.
Of course, on the other hand, she actually could be everything we’ve ever wanted - but I’m looking for evidence that she both HAS been and WILL be that. Cozying up to John McCain is not a great way to earn my confidence in that regard.
palin appealed to to the conservative women, and a few men but to anyone with intellect she only mildly umused us.
on a different note…
i am no fan of obama’s and his “picks” so far; do not advocate “change”.