Kristol: The Left is Scared of Sarah Palin
William Kristol explains for the Weekly Standard why the far left is, in his opinion, scared to death of Sarah Palin.
The main reason Kristol gives is simple: ‘a working woman who’s a proud wife and mother; a traditionalist in important matters who’s broken through all kinds of barriers; a reformer who’s a Republican; a challenger of a corrupt good-old-boy establishment who’s a conservative; a successful woman whose life is unapologetically grounded in religious belief; a lady who’s a leader.’
In short, she’s successful, walking the talk both in public and private life, and someone who could actually change a lot, while being true to conservative values nonetheless. Additionally, it is not difficult to her to distance herself somewhat from George W. Bush’s presidency, since she played little to no role in setting the nationwide agenda.
A female, conservative reformer… with small town values.
That has to scare left-wing activists and the Democratic leadership in general.
I am a registered independant, I voted for Hillary in the NC primary
I will vote for this ticket; i love Palin
More executive experience than Obama and Biden
Beautiful family and family values and living them.
Small town American Girl
A hunter !!!!!!! yes I love it!!!!
A tax cutterLives as far away from Washington as possible, big plusCoruption fighter in her own partyA stong womenShe likes to fish!Big plus she is not from the elite ivy league snobs! God loving!!Life long member of the NRAGives birth to a baby which some women may have aborted - that is pro lifeThe more I learn the more I love her!!!Plus! Plus!The negative comments from the angry media and Dems is pushing me to send more money and I will begin knocking on doors todays for the McCain/Palin ticket!!!!!!!!
This choice was masterfull and just woke up an army of supporters who will now go door to door to make Palin the 1st women to become VP of the greatest country in the world.
John McCain just hit a grand slam out of the beltway, i was not going to note this ticket until I heard of this pick - guess what i just went online and sent them $$$$$
Yes, lets go with Billy Kristol. How many times was he right on Iraq?
Yes, those of us on the Left are shaking in our boots at the possibility of a Sarah Palin vice-presidency.
I mean, who’s more likely to take independent and moderate votes away from Obama than a conservative, pro-life, anti-gay, evangelical, creationist, red-state governor?
Her "small town values" may sell well in small towns…but most I suspect they won’t do as well in the big urban areas where most Americans now live.
Well, Tom and Rudi, perhaps you are right. But then again, perhaps your snobbery towards all those who aren’t from big coastal urban areas that has backfired on the left before might backfire again.
The fact of the matter is that while Palin does have some hard-right views, she has not made those a priority in her policies. Instead, they appear to just be rhetorical nods of the head. It will thus be difficult to cast her as Michelle Bachman Mark II. And to the extent that some Democrats overreach by snootily mocking her small-state background (as you keep doing, Tom), she only appears more attractive to some swing voters.
And Rudi, I think Kristol has been right on foreign policy as much as you have been. Which is to say, not at all.
But even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so your lame attempt to cross-apply old ad homs about Iraq to avoid responding substantively to a domestic political analysis is, well, lame.
So, I guess I’d have to mock myself then because I’m not from the coasts too, right? Really, is it that radical to say, "Hey, people who live in small towns have different views than people elsewhere."? Any more than saying, "Hey, people who live in big cities have different views than people elsewhere."? And last I heard, it was the big urban areas that were growing and the small towns that were shrinking. So it could be argued that the former are more representative of America’s views than the latter.
And she opposed gay marriage in Alaska, only reversing herself when the courts required her too? That seems to me to be much more than mere rhetorical support for hard-right ideas.
Yes, I think it is. I think it is irresponsible stereotyping to claim that people who live in small states are some kind of peculiar species that has incommensurate interests and/or less governing capabilities than the self-anointed urban elites. The idea that people from non-urban backgrounds should be presumptively disqualified from high political office is unbelievably offensive and will reduce the credibility of anyone who argues it, no matter how much you try to spin it.
And, even if true as far as it goes, your intellectually lazy urban/rural dichotomy ignores an important nuance anyway. The balance of voter power resides not in urban areas, but in suburban areas. People in these areas self-identify at least as much with rural voters as with urban voters, probably more.
Jason, And notice how Tom has tried to marginalize Palin by referring to her as ‘anti-gay’, although most Americans are against gay marriage; and as ‘pro-life’ even though there are just as many pro-lifers as pro-choicers. Most Americans are in the middle, I think, but Obama isn’t in the middle either (strike down a live born law just to get points with groups like NARAL). Her views about creationism, from what I can tell, have been distorted: she doesn’t believe it should be mandated in a science curriculum. I’m not sure how far she fully believes in creationism, I haven’t seen a good source on that. I think people on the left don’t have a good clue on what the center really is; even though Palin is definitely on the right, she may appeal to the center more than Obama does.
Actually, since the vice-president has no significant role in setting social or educational policy, I just don’t care that much about my disagreements with her positions in those areas. I also don’t care about Obama on abortion. And Tom’s points are just the predictable memes that are offered against ANY conservative Republican in these hyper-partisan times, and thus they have no hope of being effective outside of the realm of the already converted. I’m pretty sure that most of the lefties had their posts about McCain’s VP choice written long before they even knew who it was — they just did minor editing to fill in the name once it was announced.
Anyway, I don’t know for sure of course, but I think I am pretty centrist and the standard anti-conservative scripts are completely boring to me. I believe and hope that I am representative on this.
And I have to say that I’m disturbed by the turn the Poligazette has taken towards outright conservatism. Not the blog it was back in the day.
So this unrepentant liberal is going to say "Good bye" for good.
There was once a time when liberalism embraced the idea of tolerance for ideological differences and preferred wide-ranging debate to the single-note songs of partisan scripts. The fact that these are now so intolerable as to require your departure now says more about the decline of American liberalism than any decline on Poligazette. An ideology that is incapable of honoring its own philosophical roots OR standing up before even the most minor disagreements is rotting from within.
FYI, we retain at least two outright Obama supporters on staff, one who is positive towards both candidates (apparently it is more important to you that I hate the right people than that I like the right people), and only one major contributor who is "outright conservative" with regards to the 2008 presidential campaign (though not on some other issues). In short, your description is not only intolerant and petulant, but objectively false.
The fact of the matter is that while Palin does have some hard-right views, she has not made those a priority in her policies. Instead, they appear to just be rhetorical nods of the head.
And the other fact is that a VP has little influence over getting such things into law, especially when the opposition party has majorities on both houses of Congress. The time to worry (IMHO) is when any party holds both houses of Congress AND the White House. That never seems to turn out well.
Sarah Palin is almost utterly inexperienced in the ways of Washington and in international diplomacy. She lacks the hard edge that such work requires, and that comes from such experience. So does Obama. Obama basically feels that if you give a foreign leader a big hug, he will come around. He would have a *huge* learning curve if he took office. He’d come around, like Carter did, when he learned that there actually are evil people in the world who only respond to the proper exercise of military force. Biden would be of some use to Obama, but not much in military matters. Where Biden would be most useful is in getting legislation passed; he’s really a senior hand at that, and he would also know something about negotiations with NATO. But basically, Biden knows Washington. Only McCain, among the four on both tickets, understands the all-important area of the proper use of military force. He would need a zero learning curve to deal with Iran, and North Korea, and Venezuela, and Bin Laden. He has a very clear picture of how dangerous the landscape is out there. And the first duty of a president is to protect. I much prefer Palin having to learn the ropes under McCain’s tutelage, to Obama having to learn the ropes under Biden. McCain is the strong and sure hand. He can teach Palin, and by God, he has to. He can’t pull a "good old boy" and keep her in a back room someplace while he goes off and does all the negotiating. Not at his age, with his health history. He needs to have her bonded to his right shoulder, and have her in every strategy meeting, every military crisis meeting, on every phone call, in every inner circle. Because she will either take over from him if he dies in office; or more likely, due to what I think will be a good presidency on his part, and the most popular Washington figure since Jackie Kennedy on her part, she will succeed him as the first elected woman president. She has the stuff to do a good job — humility, faith, executive ability, moral courage, committment to the good of the country. She also realizes that government without a strong American family cannot succeed; and that means putting a stop to abortion on demand, and to gay marriage. As she showed, when she bucked Republicans in Alaska, the favored gay rights to couples for legal matters, hospital matters, etc. — but not the family. If you mess with the DNA of the family, we will have a catastrophe. I think she and McCain will win soundly because they provide us with something to believe in.
Palin plays well with the Republican base and with blue-collar voters. The base was not that keen on McCain, now very few of them will stay at home as Palin has really energised them. Obama had to distance himself from his own campaign’s initial lines of attack on Palin (small town mayor) as he could see that this was not going to do his chances in small towns or amongst blue collar workers any good. Palin is strong where the Obama campaign is weak. The “elitist liberal” (sorry can’t think of a better term) wing of the Democratic Party is a big turn off for voters. This wing hates Palin for being lower middle class, a working mother, not going to an elite college, coming from a small town, living in a small state, not being cultured, owning a gun, being a hunter and having a manual worker for a husband. Clearly there are large constituencies of swing voters that fall into each of these categories. If the “elitist liberal” wing of the DP goes on the attack against Palin on any of these issues prepare to watch Obama’s voter base shrink accordingly. Palin, in other words, is McCain giving the Democratic Party’s liberal elite enough rope to hang their candidate.
Tom: Disgust with partisanship is not the same thing as "turning toward outright conservatism."
Oh, and if you believe this blog has turned toward outright conservatism, go back a couple days and see Michael’s entry on the immigration raid.
I’d say it’s in a good balance. The fact that a lot of us have been labeled both liberal and conservative at times by commenters here might show this, haha.
A famous psychic predicted (ga freiman) predicted a year ago that a woman would be in the white house but not Hillary. He said she would be a brunette and younger than Hillary but he did not recognize her face. Could this be Sarah Palin? There are many possible ways a person could obtain the office of the President. You can see some of his predictions at http://www.gafreiman.com
"And she opposed gay marriage in Alaska, only reversing herself when the courts required her too?" (even though this quote does not accurately reflect reality; I have found no court ruling)
Oh, the horrors! A politician who follows and enforces the (state) constitutuion, even when it goes against her ideological views.