Get ready to hear the phrase “Sarah Palin didn’t even serve a full term as Alaska’s governor” over and over again, because it will among her opponents’ favorite refrains in the 2012 campaign, if she runs for president. She has just gift-wrapped, tied in a bow, and sent to Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, postage pre-paid, the perfect sound-bite encapsulation of her profound inexperience and unsuitability for high office.
In a word, or rather an acronym: WTF?
I have no idea what Palin is thinking in resigning as governor later this month, roughly 2 1/2 years before the first presidential primaries, but if her motivation is to “focus on a presidential run,” as the initial MSM conventional wisdom holds, it makes no sense whatsoever. I could understand choosing not to run for re-election in 2010, but resigning in the middle of 2009 in order to focus on the 2012 election?? What?!?
The “focus on 2012” theory is so implausible, and obviously self-destructive to the supposedly focused-on campaign, it makes me wonder if something else is going on here. Is there a health issue? Another ethics problem that was about to explode, which she’s hoping to sweep under the rug with this decision? Has she turned Andrew Sullivan straight and now they’re running away together? 🙂 Whatever it is, I suspect there is at least one additional shoe still to drop here. We shall see.
UPDATE: Conservative blogger Ed Morrissey, former Palin supporter, writes:
There’s really no excuse, and what Rich Lowry also calls her “terrible,” “rambling,” and “not at all persuasive” statement showed that. Unless there was a serious illness or a serious scandal, the resignation on the grounds Palin gave is simply incomprehensible. She has destroyed her own credibiity in a single day.
Actually, Ed, she never had any credibility to begin with. You just noticed its absence today.
UPDATE 2: Josh Marshall writes:
For the moment there’s no clear evidence of or explanation for some massive political scandal or bombshell that would have driven Palin from office. [But] the idea that Gov. Palin just up and decided for no reason in particular to resign her office little more than half way through her term, with a hastily assembled press conference and a rambling and histrionic speech, is just too silly for serious consideration. …
As with her speech itself, the tell is that the decision was apparently so rushed and sudden that there was not enough time to come up with a plausible cover story or to get out the word about what it was.
It looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Either Palin is resigning ahead of some titanic scandal (which should emerge in short order if it exists) or her resignation was triggered by an even more extreme mental instability than we’d previously suspected.
I’ve never understood the all the Palin love from the far right. Conservatives are desperate for a leader, especially one who can bring some fiscal sanity back to the national picture, but Sarah Palin was always a political farce.
The better angels of my nature are hoping that she is doing this in the best interests of her family. If so, it is a brave and admirable action.
A brave and admirable action about a year too late. If she cared about her family, she probably shouldn’t have run for veep, though I don’t blame her for doing so.
Sarah Palin has the “it” factor that is necessary to win presidential elections, that charm that works on a personal level that can distract people from otherwise significant flaws. Counting the current one, our last three presidents used it to shield away their relative inexperience against more credentialed opponents. What she needs is ideological heft, and that’s something she’s not going to have if she’s still considered a backwoods Alaskan. So it’s a viable plan, if indeed that is her plan, but with it is the significant gamble that she’ll be seen as a quitter.
My gut feeling, though, is that she’s tired of this. And this. And this (warning: that one gets a little creepy). And these attacks from the “tolerant” simply Won’t. Ever. Stop.
If the only way she can shield her family is to fall on her sword and cut short what might have been a promising political career, then I have no doubt she’d do it without hesitation.
Minor correction: Sarah Palin has the “it” factor that is necessary to win the Republican nomination (provided a sufficiently split field) and lose the general election in a Johnson-over-Goldwater-like landslide, which none of her die-hard supporters will see coming because, until the bitter end, they will believe their own hype and dismiss all polls, prognostications and sane commentary to the contrary as the product of liberal media elitism.
As a candidate for national office, Sarah Palin is, was, and always has been a joke. A terrifying joke, but a joke nonetheless. The dividing line between conservatives who can perceive reality and conservatives who are blinded by their own biases is the ability to recognize this obvious and immutable fact.
What she needs is ideological heft, and that’s something she’s not going to have if she’s still considered a backwoods Alaskan. So it’s a viable plan, if indeed that is her plan…
If indeed WHAT is her plan? To quit as governor and become a full-time presidential candidate? How does that give her “ideological heft” or allow her to throw off the mantle of “a backwoods Alaskan”? For that matter, how does it allow her to escape the scrutiny of the evil mean liberals who have the audacity to criticize her unfitness for office or notice that she’s demonstrably a pathological liar?
(In fairness, some of the attacks on her — and especially on her family — HAVE been unfair and offensive. But the bulk of the attacks that her defenders chafe against, particularly the ones against her, are in fact completely fair game, no worse than what any other national politican faces. The big difference is that Sarah Palin is a ridiculous drama queen who deliberately plays up those attacks because they fit into her narrative and allow her to perpetuate and expand her chosen front in the culture war. The attacks have HELPED her politically, at least with her base, by making her totally immune to any future criticisms, no matter how justified, because she has so effectively played the “it’s all the media’s fault” card).
Anyway, back to my point. If she has some “plan” whereby, instead of being governor, she pursues a position in the interim that would give her more “heft,” I could understand that. Like maybe running for Senate in 2010? But I think she’s specifically said she won’t do that. And I don’t see how simply running for president for the next 3 1/2 years gives her any “heft.” Republicans certainly didn’t buy the argument that Obama’s (effectively) two-year Senate stint followed by a two-year candidacy counted as “experience,” and I don’t see how Palin’s 2 1/2-year governorship followed by a 3 1/2-year candidacy is any different.
P.S. The snippets of her press conference that they played on the radio are truly horrifying. This woman wants to be president???
I keep wanting to give Palin a second look — not as someone I can support, but at least as someone I can respect — because I feel acutely the Palin Derangement Syndrome-like quality of my opinions about her. But sometimes first impressions are correct, and alas, this is one of those times. Nothing that’s happened since November suggests that Sarah Palin is any more suited for high office than I thought initially. She is who we thought she was.
Yes. Heaven forbid I’m blinded by my biases. My analysis should be more levelheaded and nonpartisan like, uh, yours.
By my first sentence I wasn’t guaranteeing Palin WOULD win in 2012 against Barack Obama; or ever, against any opponent at any time in the future; only saying that she has the je ne sais quoi that is a prerequisite to win a presidential election in the modern age. In other words, she may be Dan Quayle, but she is not Bob Dole. That much should be self-evident. I had thought it already was the first time I said it.
What Palin lacks, like Quayle before her, is gravitas. Or, since perception is reality in politics, she needs the appearance of gravitas to persuade voters, or at least voters more open-minded than you. Given that the GOP candidate in 2012 — whoever it may be — needs to flip only 3% of the electorate, give or take, that would by no means an impossible task for Palin to accomplish given three whole years to do it.
That said, I’m with Ace: if that is her plan, it won’t work. I think she’s savvy enough to know that, which is why I truly believe she’s abdicating the spotlight.
Fox News is communicating the message that Palin is leaving due to the unrelenting pressure from the public and press. Assuming that she is going to convince 50.1% of the voters to disregard her quitting on Alaska in electing her President, those voters will need to be convinced that the pressure in Alaska really was so great that they’d overlook it in entrusting her with the Presidency.
The only supporting evidence Fox provided this afternoon for undue pressure was David Letterman’s one-off, (sincerely apologized for) tasteless joke. Could be wrong, but I doubt swing voters will allow a single, apologized-for Letterman mistake to generate enough sympathy for 50.1% of the electorate to overlook concerns with her quitting.
It would seem as though she’s done, but the question is: does she land at Fox News to gin up the base? Is there room enough for her and Huckabee in that town?
Sarah Palin’s problem has never been that she’s a backwoods Alaskan. its that she’s blatantly unfit to lead a girl scout troop, let alone the country. As for shielding her family, considering she is the one who thrust them in front of her to further her political ambitions in the first place, I’d hardly hold her up as protecting her family.
All politicians face scrutiny and criticism from the media, their opponents, etc. Some fair, some unfair. The swiftboating that happened to John Kerry was far worse than what Sarah Palin faced. But if she whines about how mean the big bad media is to her everytime she is criticized or scrutinized, and no i’m not talking about people like Wonkette, I’m talking about when she tried attacking people like Katie Couric too.
She does not have the “it” factor to be President. She has the “it” factor to appeal to an ever increasingly distant religious-right neo-con wing of the Republican party. Clinton had the “it” factor, Reagan had the “it” factor, Kennedy had the “it” factor. Palin has the “ick” factor.
One would hope she knows she’s done. Because she is. There is no doubt. In the words of 1930s villains, “Its Curtains for You, Palin!!!!”
I mean, the only way you get more experience is by, you know, actually governing. Anything else will not do.
My guess is that she knows this, and is taking this all off the table for a while, for either benign reasons (I just don’t want to deal with it anymore!) to more sinister ones (SCANDAL! Sarah Palin created SWINE FLU! PANIC!!!!! PALIN PANIC!!!!)
In the uncharacteristically wide-open 2008 race for the Republican nomination, several other candidates emerged, in addition to Palin, who surely still desire the Presidency. If Obama’s stimulus finally creates jobs (uh….big if, that one), and his popularity is still strong two years hence, those other Republicans may have their eye on 2016.
For some 2016 will be their last chance due to age, including Mittens and the Huckster. Others like Jindal and Pawlenty might be young enough to make it to 2020, but the shelf life of Presidential candidates is usually shorter than that. There will also no doubt be new Republican faces in the next decade as well. The 2016 Republican primary should be a donnybrook – unless Obama is weakened in the next year or two, in which case the 2012 Republican primary will be a donnybrook.
All that said, what chance does Palin have if she just bled out into the water today? Even if her base somehow secures her the nomination in 2012, you would have to expect that the Huckster/Mittens/Palenty/Jindal, recognizing their clock running out and knowing a Palin 2012 win in the general all but assures her the nomination in 2016, will stab her in the back for the general in a way that makes Letterman look like a Boy Scout.
The tea leaves don’t look good for her Presidential aspirations.
One other thing – I agree with Mike Marchand on the it factor. Under different circumstances Palin’s “it” factor may indeed have been enough to carry her to the Presidency.
Just look at the comments at conservative blogs like the Freerepublic, or the Corner, or any of several others. You would think that Churchill had just left politics for many of those folks.
I don’t defend their position; my personal Palin view is probably closer to David’s than Mike’s, but its often the passion that Palin-types engender that gets them elected. Obama defeated McCain to a large extent because of the passion of Obama’s supporters; manning phones, getting out the vote, etc., etc., etc. McCain had no one at phone banks, no get out the vote effort, that’s a large reason why he’s a Senator today.
In one sense, its a damn shame that Palin wasn’t better able to manage her circumstances. She had what it takes to get supporters to volunteer at phone banks, pound the pavement, give money, etc.
All gone now.
Mike, I do not claim that my opinions are “nonpartisan.” I merely claim that they are correct, whereas yours are incorrect. I will say, though, that if I was merely motivated by “partisanship,” I would presumably have a lot more vitriolic things to say about *other* Republicans/conservatives. Whereas, in reality, many of the individual politicians I have historically tended to attack most vociferously are actually Democrats/liberals. My assessment of Palin is based on her specific personal traits, not her party or ideology.
I believe Palin lacks much more than gravitas. I believe she lacks the intellectual curiosity and capacity to serve effectively as president. Time and time again, she reveals herself to apparently have no thoughts more profound than a poorly worded sound bite. She makes George W. Bush and Dan Quayle seem like intellectual giants. And her constant stream of easily disprovable lies is incredibly disturbing. She makes Bill Clinton and John Edwards seems like pillars of honesty. At least their lies usually have plausible deniability at first!
Palin needs much more than 3% of the electorate to swing her way. You’re assuming she starts with each and every John McCain voters in her corner, but that’s obviously not true. She is not John McCain, who had significant natural appeal to moderates. Of course, she would also pick up some non-McCain voters, folks who couldn’t stand voting for a “liberal” like old Johnny Boy. But, all in all, I think Palin would start with about 40% of the vote, and I don’t think she would end with much more. She is an incredibly polarizing figure; most people have already made up their minds about her, one way or the other, and although he does have some political skills that are good for things like winning office in a small and peculiar state, supercharging rallies, and psyching up the national base, her particular set of skills do not include the ability to persuade wide swaths of moderate voters that she’s anything other than the vacuous mediocrity that she manifestly is. Sorry. Nope. Na Ga Happen. Never was. Certainly isn’t now.
This move is odd, even for Palin. I can’t help but wonder if there’s something else going on. It sets off my bull shit meter, much like Sanford’s “hiking” trip did.
I read one Democratic commentator saying that Sanford’s indiscretions and Sarah Palin’s crazy ass behavior is like Christmas in July for the Left. I have to agree with that. Their behavior is reaffirming my opinion that the Right is wandering around lost in the woods with no coherent platform and no strategy to stop the overwhelming force of Obama’s competence, energy and passion. Right now, the Right is pissing into the wind and conservatives like Palin and Sanford are blowing hard.
OK, I’m ignoring all of the vitriol being spewed about Gov. Palin, but one comment has me completely bewildered:
” the overwhelming force of Obama’s competence, ”
What exactly has Pres. Obama EVER done to be described as competent?
gahrie, if you’d take off your retard glasses for a minute, you’d be able to answer that question for yourself.
Obama’s campaign was one of the most impressive campaigns of our time. He beat two established household name candidates in Clinton and McCain to become president as an inexperienced guy with little to no name recognition at the outset of the campaign. Competent and effective.
He’s fulfilling campaign promises with surprising efficiency. He promised to withdraw the troops from Iraq and he’s doing so, in a matter that only the most partisan retard could object to, seeing as how he’s decided to stick with the previous administration’s withdrawal plans. He promised to put health care on the agenda and pass reform. While that hasn’t happened yet, we’re certainly all talking about how to best administer and establish a public option (aside from a few morons on the right who are talking about a wholesale single-payer system in a stupid attempt to distract from the main issue, which is how to control ballooning health care costs).
Obama promised action on global warming as part of his campaign and shockingly, the cap and trade act has already passed one house of congress. Who thought that was possible? Not I. But it’s been done.
In the meantime, Obama has developed a new and more promising strategy for our war in Afghanistan and we just had a major offensive there this past week. He continued Bush policies on the economy that have helped to stabilize the banking sector (ie TARP) and he pushed a stimulus bill that was passed with amazing speed through a slow-as-molasses Congress. You can piss and bitch about whether or not the stimulus has worked, but IMO, we won’t be able to judge that for another 6mo or so. In my neck of the woods, we’re starting to see projects funded by stimulus $ slated to begin in a month.
While you may not agree with Obama’s policies, there is no doubt among people who aren’t completely blinded by partisan idiocy that the man is an effective, efficient politician. He’s done more in 6 months than Clinton did in two years.
I personally think we’ve only just begun to see what Obama has in store for us. His reputation will deservedly sink or swim on the success or failure of his policies. But only a complete and utter idiot would declare the guy a failure already.
Oh, and he killed some pirates.
So anyway, my family was watching Evita tonight, at the end of which Madonna sings her farewell: “I’m always with you, I’m Argentina”. This made me think of the downfall of our own would-be Eva Peron today, and that perhaps Palin’s real problem was that, unlike Eva Peron, she “wasn’t America”.
Getting back to the it factor, perhaps David and others are right, Palin’s it factor only worked for a too-small subset of Americans. She wasn’t America. She sure wasn’t 21st century America. Her method of managing her public image was so 1970. 40 years ago much public information was essentially filtered through a handful of ultimately WASP-sympathizing sources. Its true that she would have faced a much more difficult glass ceiling in 1970 than today. If she made it through that ceiling back then? She might have done quite well.
Re: America today, its been widely reported that Obama is insanely self-critical, so when he says something unfathomably stupid like “cling to guns and religion”, he endlessly processes what caused him to do something so dumb, and comes out the other side a lot more polished. In similar situations, Palin blames the media – which might have worked in 1970, when the media was much more contained.
Can you imagine if this thread were a conversation in 1970, where the topic would be that 40 years hence a promising politician would implode in large part because she had no answer other than petty ad-hominems…for a gay British citizen typing furiously in his home office on his computing machine?
But that’s how it is in 21st century America. She wasn’t any good at it. Next.
I don’t think that Obama has flawlessly executed every single thing he’s done in the White House. He has room for improvement. But, for the most part, he’s taking us down the path he told us he would.
Oh, and he killed some pirates.
ROFL!
As I just wrote in an update, conservative blogger Ed Morrissey, former Palin supporter, writes:
Actually, Ed, she never had any credibility to begin with. You just noticed its absence today.
1) Start off with an ad hominen…nice.
2) I will grudgingly admit that Pres. Obama has shown an ability to win elections. But the Chicago machine and the obsequious press had at least as much to do with that as he did. And President Obama was being touted as presidential by the Left long before he ran for president. To say he had little name recognition is simply inaccurate.
3) On the war on terror he has not fulfilled his campaign promises, he has simply continued the policies of Pres. Bush. I challenge you to identify one significant change he has made. His followers expected an immediate withdrawal of troops. Instead he has followed the Bush timeline and strategy. They expected an immediate closure of Guantanomo. How much do you want to bet it’s still running this time next year, or perhaps been replaced with an identical camp somewhere else outside the U.S.?
4) I’ve lived in a country with nationalized health care and seen the monstrosity first hand. Have you? Why is it that people have to fly to the United States from countries with nationalized health care to give birth or receive basic health care?
5) President Obama has no claim to the Cap and Trade Bill. The Democrats in the House were solely responsible for writing it and passing it. Thankfully, it has almost no chance of passing in the Senate.
6) What is his new startegy in Afghanistan? As far as I can tell it is still more of “attack Bush and then do exactly the same thing he did”.
7) The stimulus bill has been a complete waste and a failure, even by the standards that Pres. Obama himself set forward. That is why we are already hearing about a second stimulus bill.
8) I have never said that Pres. Obama was a failure. One, I agree that it is far too early to do so, and two he has proven to be a very successful politician. (which is an example of damning with faint praise.) I merely object to the phrase competence. Every one of his “successes” was largely the work of someone else, and his record in the Illinois and nation legislature is best described as rest stops.
Mike, I do not claim that my opinions are “nonpartisan.”
No, but you strongly insinuated that mine weren’t, and if not, you used my opinion (such as it was; more on this in a bit) to springboard against the “conservative populism” boogeyman that I felt like you overstated 4½ months ago and still, evidently, do to this day.
I merely claim that they are correct, whereas yours are incorrect.
It’s very easy to win a debate against a straw man. I’ve yet to offer any opinion on Sarah Palin’s personal electability that’s not distilled doses of “conventional wisdom” offered in dozens of places across the political spectrum, including this very morning by Jonah Goldberg at NRO.
Whereas you have a reflexive, visceral dislike of her that you yourself admit teeters on the edge of delusional. Whatever.
I think, should Palin’s resignation be a foreshadowing of what she plans to do on the national stage, that she can win over some people by just convincing them that she simply wasn’t ready for prime time in 2008, but after resigning her governorship and [getting a law degree/writing a book/replacing Rachel Maddox on MSNBC/studying at the knee of Henry Kissinger/whatever] she has the credibility to mount a viable candidacy. Will it work? Probably not, but if that’s her plan it’s a valid one — not the best one, perhaps not even a good one, but it’s at least somewhat logically sound within the political realm.
But like I said, I don’t think this is a political move because it’s so obviously a bad one: how can she possibly reemerge on the national scene, be it 2012, 2016, or 2024 (she’ll be as old then as Hillary Clinton was in 2008) and argue that she has what it takes to be president when the pressures of David Letterman et al forced her to resign her last office? She can’t, which means she probably won’t.
It’s setting off Becky’s BS-o-meter because everyone is trapped into thinking this is a political move, when Sarah Palin is not and never has been a politician, which is precisely what her appeal always was in the first place. But it was a blessing and a curse: it’s what got so many “Joe Sixpack” conservatives to like her and what made wonks from both sides want to tear their hair out.
She entered politics because opportunities presented themselves and she made the most of them. It’s fairly clear that this is as far as she’s going to go politically, and even if it’s not, she has to deal with the relentless tsunami of hatred against her family. This is separate from the legitimate criticisms by the punditocracy and the expected jabs at her, which I think she can obviously handle (see her parry-and-thrust against John Kerry).
There’s simply never going to be a way to end that seething, bilious hatred. The frivolous complaints are going to ensure that she will get nothing else done as governor of Alaska again. Why not exit now and spare the people she loves from more tasteless affronts to decency?
In retrospect, though, she should have done this last Friday, when it would have been better camoflaged by MICHAEL JACKSON DEATHAPALOOZA ’09.
I’ve lived in a country with nationalized health care and seen the monstrosity first hand. Have you? Why is it that people have to fly to the United States from countries with nationalized health care to give birth or receive basic health care?
Black and white alert! Why is it that the right can’t admit that there are huge problems with the private health care industry? People are litterally dying because some bureaucrat says “sorry, we aren’t going to cover that.” The problem with for profit organizations is just that, they are FOR PROFIT. This is not a situation where people are picking and choosing luxury goods. If they don’t have health care, they are screwed. So the health care indsutry in this country is filled with examples of people being treated like dirt by their HMO’s.
See, there is a huge problem there and the free market isn’t fixing it. People want it fixed, and therefore the only option available to them is having the government help because again, the free market approach isn’t working.
Of course to people on the right that magically means we are going to completely nationalize health care and act exactly like Britain/Canada/etc.
Those solutions aren’t perfect either, anyone who doesn’t admit that is deluding themselves. On the other hand, there is a lot to like about them.
So rather than flying off the handle at the thought that the government might get involved, not take over mind you, but get involved, with health care, why not ask yourself why the private sector health care system isn’t appealing enough that people say to the government, “no thats ok, we’re good, thanks but no thanks”.
Again I point out that you want us to trust the government when it comes to things like not spying on its own citizens, etc. but not when it comes to health care. Its ridiculous.
David K:
You wrote: “People are litterally dying because some bureaucrat says “sorry, we aren’t going to cover that.” ”
And for perhaps the first time ever I agree with you. That is a problem. But do you seriously think the problem will get better when, instead of some mindless bean counter working for a private company competing for business, those decisions are being made by a mindless bean counter working for a government monopoly with ironclad job security is making the decision?
Take my situation. I have to have extensive work done on my teeth. We’re talking 20 thousand dollars plus. (I blame Mountain Dew) I have already used up all of the dental insurance I have for this year. When I tell my friends this, they immediately say “See, if we had national health care that wouldn’t happen.” (I have lots of liberal friends) What I have to explain to them, is that if we had national health care, I wouldn’t have the option of spending 20 thousand dollars for permanent implants, instead some clerk would decide that it would make more sense to pull the rest of my teeth and give me dentures for two thousand dollars instead.
President Obama has himself hinted of the rationing necessary under nationalized health care with his “old people” remarks.
“why not ask yourself why the private sector health care system isn’t appealing enough that people say to the government, “no thats ok, we’re good, thanks but no thanks”.”
Don’t look now, but they are. The “people” aren’t clamoring for nationalized health care, special interests are. Polls show two things:
A) Most people are happy with their health insurance
B) Most people who aren’t insured are that way by choice. By far the majority of them are either eligible for some current form of government health care but don’t register, or can afford insurance and conciously choose not to get it.
A) Most people are happy with their health insurance
B) Most people who aren’t insured are that way by choice. By far the majority of them are either eligible for some current form of government health care but don’t register, or can afford insurance and conciously choose not to get it.
Wow…you really are out of touch with reality aren’t you. Happy with their health insurance? Choose not to get it? You are living in a world full of lies gahrie, just because Limbaugh and Coulter say it does not MEAN its true, in fact it very often means its a lie.
And last time I checked we aren’t talking about government monopoly, but a government OPTION.
Again, so long as you aren’t willing to address reality, not right wing talking points, propoganda and lies, well then you’ll forever think that anything but what they tell you is wrong.
Thats not to say that the solution offered by the other side is perfect, certainly it could use some work, but when the opposition only offers garbage and lies to try and scare people into thinking big bad Obama is out to get them, well, those are not the kind of leaders I want.
David, don’t bother arguing with gahrie if he’s framing the problem in such a blatantly incorrect way. Since NO ONE is talking about nationalizing health care, you’re arguing against a mythical beast here. Obama is talking about creating a public option, not about nationalizing health care.
And let’s see here.
To claim that Obama had anywhere near the name recognition of Hilary Clinton or John McCain is intellectually dishonest. He had to overcome massive hurdles in that department and the fact that you think the Left (which crowned Hilary before discovering Obama) all knew his name is a testament to how competent his campaign was.
As far as Guantanamo, I don’t think any reasonable person expected that Obama would enter office and snap his fingers and close Guantanamo. He promised to close it. He’s started that ball rolling and I’m hopeful that by next year, the prison will be closed. That’s competent. Don’t confuse competence with immediacy.
I’ve lived in a country with national health care as well. So have my parents. We all think that having a public option is a good idea.
Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan involves a massive influx of troops there, a surge if you will. He promised to actually focus on the war in Afghanistan, which has now lasted longer than WWII. And he is. We just launched a major counter-insurgency effort there; most military analysts consider it the first real significant Obama military move. But again, don’t confuse Obama’s choice to use the prior administration’s timeline as evidence of some kind of fault. Competence involves looking at something and saying, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Why should he change plans when the original plans were fine?
The stimulus bill needs time to work and like I said, I’m giving it six more months. I’m not persuaded that it was the Savior of Our Economy that it was touted to be, nor am I persuaded that it’s a complete failure.
http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-democratic-health-care-plan-means.html
Becky: Barack Obama was *THE* rising star of the Democratic Party as early as 2004, when he gave a speech at the national convention while still just a state senator from Illinois. In 2008, he quickly emerged as the darling of the left who did not want to be led by another Clinton.
Also, the stimulus bill may need time to work, but that’s NOT how it was sold to the American people.
Mike, I think that among political nerds and some blacks, Obama was a rising star. But I think the vast majority of Americans hadn’t heard of him and those who had didn’t think he would be a major candidate in 2008. Moreover, conventional wisdom in fall 2007 was that Hilary was the inevitable nominee.
I agree that the stimulus was oversold to the American public but I’m not ready to deem it a failure.
gahrie, anyone can make a slippery slope argument. Does creating a public option put us on the slippery slope to nationalized care? It might. It might not.
But what’s your proposed alternative? You’re in a distinct minority, since more than 70% of Americans polled want a public option. The status quo is not working well for most American families. It hasn’t been for years and when the Republicans were in power, they did nothing. In fact, I’m still waiting for the Republican counterproposal that doesn’t involve maintaining the current untenable system.
I mean, the only way you get more experience is by, you know, actually governing. Anything else will not do
You know, like Obama, er wait. Nevermind.
In Palin’s July 4th Facebook comment, she described the media response to yesterday’s announcement as “predictable, ironic…and detached from the lives of ordinary Americans”.
It occured to me that Palin might be the first person in history to use the words “predictable” and “ironic” as consecutive adjectives to describe the same thing. This of course made me think of Alanis Morrisette’s famous misunderstanding of irony, and consider that there was something delightfully ironic about an incompetent wishing to be President while having no understanding of irony. But then I was facing a cosmic irony vortex, so I changed the subject.
After reading this post and the comments, I just want to say – thank you for starting your blog again Brendan!
She quit because she’s joining the WNBA.