Sarah Palin is a sinner. She has violated several commandments and thoroughlydeserves the savage beating that she is now getting from political mandarins and media elites.
If it were not for one simple fact, I would say she was through in politics. And that fact is that if the Republicans were picking a nominee today, they would pick Sarah Palin.
For an award-winning journalist/columnist, Simon is astonishingly naive to have written that second paragraph. If there's one thing that true, it's that the GOP is highly motivated to unseat Obama in 2012. The last thing Republicans want to do is rerun the 2008 election, which was unsuccessful.
Recall the 2004 race for the Democratic nomination; before Dean's infamous Iowa scream, Democrats were already coalescing behind John Kerry, not because of his plain vanilla liberal politics or (lack of) party leadership, but he seemed to be the most viable candidate with a chance to beat George Bush (in particular given John Kerry's honorable service and accomplishments in Vietnam). They correctly realized that despite Dean's innate appeal to highly motivated anti-war Democrats, even his earning Gore's endorsement, Dean would have been crushed in the 2004 election. Some suggest that Sarah Palin might be able to replicate Obama's strategy to the 2008 nomination, which focused on a highly-motivated base accumulating delegates in caucus states; I think it's more likely we'll see more of a 2004 strategy.
Obama did not have a track record, he had a 2002 speech opposing the liberation of Iraq which allowed himself to differentiate himself from the rest of the field, he was charismatic and articulate, and he was totally in sync with liberal political positions. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has the highest negatives of GOP candidates among Republicans themselves, particularly in the college-educated and the pro-business community, whom demand competency, detailed knowledge and straight talk, not defensiveness, bump-sticker rhetoric, and an unfocused speaking style.
There is also a lot of sympathy for her personally because of the Angry Left's personal attacks on her. Where Palin has lost me and others, from a personal standpoint, has been in her uncharacteristic use of politically correct victimization rhetoric, her repetitious accusations of "double standards" in response to legitimate criticisms, and the nature of her vindictive responses (e.g., firing people or accusing Letterman of being a sex pervert), which evokes memories of Nixonian enemy lists. But even people who are intrigued by her charisma and personal story (in particular, her decision to give birth to a Down syndrome child) don't necessarily believe a candidate whom resigned in the middle of a single term as governor will attract the moderates and independents needed to win back the Presidency from a popular incumbent in 2012, however popular she may be with the base.
We probably won't know, at least until the general election next year, what the framework will be for the 2012 election, but I would submit what I see as emerging factors: economic and job growth; competence and intellectual heft (to take on Obama in debates); the national debt; the footprint of government in our economy and daily lives; and de facto (not just lip service) bipartisan efforts. In essence, I see Sarah Palin as a mirror conservative version of Barack Obama, less intelligent or articulate and more polarizing. Both love political spin and symbolism, have populist streaks, are thin on actual accomplishments, and are incompetent and too lightly experienced for higher office. Sarah Palin simply doesn't match up well against Obama, and no matter how popular she may be with the base, people have already made up their minds about Sarah Palin. How does that translate into a winning strategy for 2012? In fact, McCain got a number of votes of people whom were among the 60% believing Palin was unqualified (cf. below chart); no doubt that she not only loses those, but also others not wanting to put into national office a quitter, a polarizing figure, or a defensive, vindictive personality whom chooses the wrong battles.
Palin's Resignation
The resignation of Sarah Palin, in my opinion, probably reflected her deteriorating effectiveness in her home state, particularly since the election: Sarah Palin always had a strained relationship with the state Republican leadership for the circumstances which eventually resulted in her gubernatorial election. The Democratic legislators loved her populist streak in raising taxes on the oil companies and reforms, but that had started to deteriorate over the circumstances of Troopergate and accelerating during the general campaign, when Sarah Palin burned some bridges.
The Troopergate allegation was that Sarah Palin dismissed public safety director Walt Monegan, her own appointee, over personal reasons (in particular, the Palin attempts to have a former Palin brother-in-law state trooper terminated). While the administration defended her decision on alleged performance reasons, the timing of the termination relative to a recent complaint filed against Palin and Palin's own description of the proceedings as "Tasergate" (Palin's former brother-in-law had used a taser on a 10-year-old because the boy requested him to do it) seemed to corroborate Monegan's complaint against the governor's termination of him as being motivated by personal reasons.
But Sarah Palin post-election has faced problems, many of them resulting from Alaskans feeling that their state's affairs have been getting short-shrifted by Palin's national ambitions. The state budget is in the red, hurt by plunging energy prices since the financial tsunami. State Democrats are seething over her playing the bad cop role during the fall election campaign. No doubt some state Republicans, unhappy with the way Sarah Palin propelled herself into the governor's mansion, are seeing an opportunity to settle some scores. The legislature denied Palin's recent choice for state attorney general, which is unprecedented. Palin wanted to refuse a third of the $930M offered to Alaska under the so-called stimulus bill, which Alaskans angrily saw as pandering to conservatives in the lower 48 at their expense. That was reduced to about a $28M veto for energy relief, and at last mention, the state opposition was confident they have to votes to override Palin's veto. Palin's approval ratings has dropped to the mid-50's--with possible further deterioration if the Alaskan economy didn't turnaround for the election next fall, suggesting more of a tight election, not a vindication for a politician with national ambitions (say, vs. Indiana GOP Governor Mitch Daniels' strong reelection by 18 points in a state where Obama upset McCain last November).
Sarah Palin is using the ethics complaints as evidence of a political conspiracy against her. There are a couple of general responses; first of all, Sarah Palin built a political career in state government using ethics charges. There's a blood sport in politics over exposing hypocrisy (for example, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, running on family values, having multiple mistresses). To paraphrase a common saying, "it's not personal--it's politics". It's not enough to suggest, as Sarah Palin does, that she did not receive any financial incentive for wearing a jacket bearing the insignia of her husband's snowmachine racing sponsor. She needs to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. There is a similar concept under the sexual harassment or nepotism policies of companies, which frown about perceived, not just actual conflict of interest which suggest the vulnerability to preferred access or actions based not on performance but personal relationships. The same thing is true about family members traveling or sharing hotel rooms of someone doing the government's business; in the private sector, arrangements are made in advance to separate business from personal expenses.
The fact that Sarah Palin seems tone-deaf about legitimate issues of perception, whether we are talking about the clearly improper contacts between Todd Palin with public safety director Monegan or these subsequent complaints, and assertions they are frivolous, conspiratorial complaints which cost the state money, shows lack of political judgment. Perhaps Governor Palin should look in the mirror before blaming others for state expenditures in investigating the complaints. For example, I seriously doubt that the only women's jackets for sale in Alaska had logos from her husband's sponsors on them.
Second, Governor Palin to a certain extent brought this on herself by maintaining tight-lipped instead of forthcoming about things like the financing of her political trips and the like. Some in Alaska suggest that filing complaints was the only way to get the governor disclose information she should have from the get-go. It is important for public officials to fully and proactively disclose information relevant to the public interest.
I am not surprised by Sarah Palin's decision not to seek reelection; to a certain extent, I think her national ambitions have limited her effectiveness as an Alaska governor. For example, Sarah Palin knows that federal spending in Alaska will come under scrutiny of fiscal conservatives during any future campaign, hence her recent push-backs on earmarks and the so-called stimulus bill, but this is contrary to the culture of the Alaskan Congressional delegation or state legislators whom have come to expect Uncle Sam's contribution to state spending or resent the fact that some states are worthier than others simply because of Sarah Pain's personal ambition. It's also difficult to see how she could reconcile with an emerging bipartisan coalition against her. (California Governor Schwarzenegger did after the failed proposition reforms but lost his reformer persona in the process.)
What I don't quite understand is the decision to resign. Her attempt to spin a resignation as virtuous in the aftermath of a decision not to seek reelection is pathetic. The fact is, the Palin resignation is causing a transition of state leadership during one of the worst recessions in decades. Even if you buy into the excuse of mounting legal bills and the like, there is little doubt about her ability to make a lucrative living on the lecture circuit, not to mention book, television, and syndicated column deals; these opportunities are not going to go away filling by finishing out the rest of her term. More worrisome, even if Sarah Palin is right in asserting she is being treated differently than anyone else with abusive frivolous ethics complaints, the last thing she would want to do is set up a precedent for chasing worthy public servants out of elective office.
Sarah Palin used a sports metaphor, claiming she's passing the ball to the lieutenant governor so he can score and win the game. Actually, Palin is not looking at the metaphor most Americans would identify with--the scrappy, spunky fighter whom never gives up, e.g., the improbable 1980 US American hockey team victory over the Russians or Daniel "Rudy" Ruettiger's unlikely quest to play in a Notre Dame football game, realized in 1975. Palin's resignation is more akin to a captain deserting a sinking Alaskan ship and its crew, on a surviver boat with women and children, or surrendering to the enemy without firing a shot: not the stuff of political legend.
There is no way to spin a politically damaging reputation of being a quitter. Whatever pressures there are in being a governor of a small-population state are trivial in comparison to being leader of the free world. This follows a rather erratic pattern of recent behavior, including vacillation in whether to attend a DC GOP fundraiser, with Newt Gingrich finally named to replace her as keynote speaker, only to find her show up, and of course the recent kerfuffle over a questionable Letterman Alex Rodriguez joke.
Palin and the 2012 Race
What was particularly puzzling to me, at the time I publicly urged McCain to dump Palin from the ticket last September, was why McCain was not aware of her Wasilla record in hiring a lobbyist to procure earmarks, the fact that she was essentially enacting windfall profits taxes on oil companies at the state level, while he was fighting windfall profits taxes at the federal level, how he didn't know Sarah Palin ran her 2006 campaign on completing the Bridge to Nowhere while he was constantly railing against it in the Senate, and Palin's hypocrisy in complaining about the state party chief doing political work while on the clock at the state energy commission while she had done the same thing as Wasilla mayor.
Nearly 60% of American voters at the end of the 2008 race (see exhibit below) found Palin unqualified to be President. Note that, despite the claims of many conservatives that Palin "beat" Biden in the VP debate, Sarah Palin did NOT get a bump from that event: "Randomly selected subjects on three other polls also show Biden winning: CNN/Opinion Research Biden 51 Palin 36 CBS Biden 46 Palin 21 Fox Biden 61 Palin 39." Let me make myself clear on this issue: I don't think a legitimate debate winner would have openly and knowingly disregarded the debate moderator and let several key opponent charges go by unanswered. (See the protocol in a recent miscellany post.) I think that the expectations were so low after Palin's unsatisfactory interviews with ABC's Gibson and CBS' Couric that the fact she managed to hold her own during the debate was a relief to the McCain campaign.
Recall the 2004 race for the Democratic nomination; before Dean's infamous Iowa scream, Democrats were already coalescing behind John Kerry, not because of his plain vanilla liberal politics or (lack of) party leadership, but he seemed to be the most viable candidate with a chance to beat George Bush (in particular given John Kerry's honorable service and accomplishments in Vietnam). They correctly realized that despite Dean's innate appeal to highly motivated anti-war Democrats, even his earning Gore's endorsement, Dean would have been crushed in the 2004 election. Some suggest that Sarah Palin might be able to replicate Obama's strategy to the 2008 nomination, which focused on a highly-motivated base accumulating delegates in caucus states; I think it's more likely we'll see more of a 2004 strategy.
Obama did not have a track record, he had a 2002 speech opposing the liberation of Iraq which allowed himself to differentiate himself from the rest of the field, he was charismatic and articulate, and he was totally in sync with liberal political positions. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has the highest negatives of GOP candidates among Republicans themselves, particularly in the college-educated and the pro-business community, whom demand competency, detailed knowledge and straight talk, not defensiveness, bump-sticker rhetoric, and an unfocused speaking style.
There is also a lot of sympathy for her personally because of the Angry Left's personal attacks on her. Where Palin has lost me and others, from a personal standpoint, has been in her uncharacteristic use of politically correct victimization rhetoric, her repetitious accusations of "double standards" in response to legitimate criticisms, and the nature of her vindictive responses (e.g., firing people or accusing Letterman of being a sex pervert), which evokes memories of Nixonian enemy lists. But even people who are intrigued by her charisma and personal story (in particular, her decision to give birth to a Down syndrome child) don't necessarily believe a candidate whom resigned in the middle of a single term as governor will attract the moderates and independents needed to win back the Presidency from a popular incumbent in 2012, however popular she may be with the base.
We probably won't know, at least until the general election next year, what the framework will be for the 2012 election, but I would submit what I see as emerging factors: economic and job growth; competence and intellectual heft (to take on Obama in debates); the national debt; the footprint of government in our economy and daily lives; and de facto (not just lip service) bipartisan efforts. In essence, I see Sarah Palin as a mirror conservative version of Barack Obama, less intelligent or articulate and more polarizing. Both love political spin and symbolism, have populist streaks, are thin on actual accomplishments, and are incompetent and too lightly experienced for higher office. Sarah Palin simply doesn't match up well against Obama, and no matter how popular she may be with the base, people have already made up their minds about Sarah Palin. How does that translate into a winning strategy for 2012? In fact, McCain got a number of votes of people whom were among the 60% believing Palin was unqualified (cf. below chart); no doubt that she not only loses those, but also others not wanting to put into national office a quitter, a polarizing figure, or a defensive, vindictive personality whom chooses the wrong battles.
Palin's Resignation
The resignation of Sarah Palin, in my opinion, probably reflected her deteriorating effectiveness in her home state, particularly since the election: Sarah Palin always had a strained relationship with the state Republican leadership for the circumstances which eventually resulted in her gubernatorial election. The Democratic legislators loved her populist streak in raising taxes on the oil companies and reforms, but that had started to deteriorate over the circumstances of Troopergate and accelerating during the general campaign, when Sarah Palin burned some bridges.
The Troopergate allegation was that Sarah Palin dismissed public safety director Walt Monegan, her own appointee, over personal reasons (in particular, the Palin attempts to have a former Palin brother-in-law state trooper terminated). While the administration defended her decision on alleged performance reasons, the timing of the termination relative to a recent complaint filed against Palin and Palin's own description of the proceedings as "Tasergate" (Palin's former brother-in-law had used a taser on a 10-year-old because the boy requested him to do it) seemed to corroborate Monegan's complaint against the governor's termination of him as being motivated by personal reasons.
But Sarah Palin post-election has faced problems, many of them resulting from Alaskans feeling that their state's affairs have been getting short-shrifted by Palin's national ambitions. The state budget is in the red, hurt by plunging energy prices since the financial tsunami. State Democrats are seething over her playing the bad cop role during the fall election campaign. No doubt some state Republicans, unhappy with the way Sarah Palin propelled herself into the governor's mansion, are seeing an opportunity to settle some scores. The legislature denied Palin's recent choice for state attorney general, which is unprecedented. Palin wanted to refuse a third of the $930M offered to Alaska under the so-called stimulus bill, which Alaskans angrily saw as pandering to conservatives in the lower 48 at their expense. That was reduced to about a $28M veto for energy relief, and at last mention, the state opposition was confident they have to votes to override Palin's veto. Palin's approval ratings has dropped to the mid-50's--with possible further deterioration if the Alaskan economy didn't turnaround for the election next fall, suggesting more of a tight election, not a vindication for a politician with national ambitions (say, vs. Indiana GOP Governor Mitch Daniels' strong reelection by 18 points in a state where Obama upset McCain last November).
Sarah Palin is using the ethics complaints as evidence of a political conspiracy against her. There are a couple of general responses; first of all, Sarah Palin built a political career in state government using ethics charges. There's a blood sport in politics over exposing hypocrisy (for example, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, running on family values, having multiple mistresses). To paraphrase a common saying, "it's not personal--it's politics". It's not enough to suggest, as Sarah Palin does, that she did not receive any financial incentive for wearing a jacket bearing the insignia of her husband's snowmachine racing sponsor. She needs to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. There is a similar concept under the sexual harassment or nepotism policies of companies, which frown about perceived, not just actual conflict of interest which suggest the vulnerability to preferred access or actions based not on performance but personal relationships. The same thing is true about family members traveling or sharing hotel rooms of someone doing the government's business; in the private sector, arrangements are made in advance to separate business from personal expenses.
The fact that Sarah Palin seems tone-deaf about legitimate issues of perception, whether we are talking about the clearly improper contacts between Todd Palin with public safety director Monegan or these subsequent complaints, and assertions they are frivolous, conspiratorial complaints which cost the state money, shows lack of political judgment. Perhaps Governor Palin should look in the mirror before blaming others for state expenditures in investigating the complaints. For example, I seriously doubt that the only women's jackets for sale in Alaska had logos from her husband's sponsors on them.
Second, Governor Palin to a certain extent brought this on herself by maintaining tight-lipped instead of forthcoming about things like the financing of her political trips and the like. Some in Alaska suggest that filing complaints was the only way to get the governor disclose information she should have from the get-go. It is important for public officials to fully and proactively disclose information relevant to the public interest.
I am not surprised by Sarah Palin's decision not to seek reelection; to a certain extent, I think her national ambitions have limited her effectiveness as an Alaska governor. For example, Sarah Palin knows that federal spending in Alaska will come under scrutiny of fiscal conservatives during any future campaign, hence her recent push-backs on earmarks and the so-called stimulus bill, but this is contrary to the culture of the Alaskan Congressional delegation or state legislators whom have come to expect Uncle Sam's contribution to state spending or resent the fact that some states are worthier than others simply because of Sarah Pain's personal ambition. It's also difficult to see how she could reconcile with an emerging bipartisan coalition against her. (California Governor Schwarzenegger did after the failed proposition reforms but lost his reformer persona in the process.)
What I don't quite understand is the decision to resign. Her attempt to spin a resignation as virtuous in the aftermath of a decision not to seek reelection is pathetic. The fact is, the Palin resignation is causing a transition of state leadership during one of the worst recessions in decades. Even if you buy into the excuse of mounting legal bills and the like, there is little doubt about her ability to make a lucrative living on the lecture circuit, not to mention book, television, and syndicated column deals; these opportunities are not going to go away filling by finishing out the rest of her term. More worrisome, even if Sarah Palin is right in asserting she is being treated differently than anyone else with abusive frivolous ethics complaints, the last thing she would want to do is set up a precedent for chasing worthy public servants out of elective office.
Sarah Palin used a sports metaphor, claiming she's passing the ball to the lieutenant governor so he can score and win the game. Actually, Palin is not looking at the metaphor most Americans would identify with--the scrappy, spunky fighter whom never gives up, e.g., the improbable 1980 US American hockey team victory over the Russians or Daniel "Rudy" Ruettiger's unlikely quest to play in a Notre Dame football game, realized in 1975. Palin's resignation is more akin to a captain deserting a sinking Alaskan ship and its crew, on a surviver boat with women and children, or surrendering to the enemy without firing a shot: not the stuff of political legend.
There is no way to spin a politically damaging reputation of being a quitter. Whatever pressures there are in being a governor of a small-population state are trivial in comparison to being leader of the free world. This follows a rather erratic pattern of recent behavior, including vacillation in whether to attend a DC GOP fundraiser, with Newt Gingrich finally named to replace her as keynote speaker, only to find her show up, and of course the recent kerfuffle over a questionable Letterman Alex Rodriguez joke.
Palin and the 2012 Race
What was particularly puzzling to me, at the time I publicly urged McCain to dump Palin from the ticket last September, was why McCain was not aware of her Wasilla record in hiring a lobbyist to procure earmarks, the fact that she was essentially enacting windfall profits taxes on oil companies at the state level, while he was fighting windfall profits taxes at the federal level, how he didn't know Sarah Palin ran her 2006 campaign on completing the Bridge to Nowhere while he was constantly railing against it in the Senate, and Palin's hypocrisy in complaining about the state party chief doing political work while on the clock at the state energy commission while she had done the same thing as Wasilla mayor.
Nearly 60% of American voters at the end of the 2008 race (see exhibit below) found Palin unqualified to be President. Note that, despite the claims of many conservatives that Palin "beat" Biden in the VP debate, Sarah Palin did NOT get a bump from that event: "Randomly selected subjects on three other polls also show Biden winning: CNN/Opinion Research Biden 51 Palin 36 CBS Biden 46 Palin 21 Fox Biden 61 Palin 39." Let me make myself clear on this issue: I don't think a legitimate debate winner would have openly and knowingly disregarded the debate moderator and let several key opponent charges go by unanswered. (See the protocol in a recent miscellany post.) I think that the expectations were so low after Palin's unsatisfactory interviews with ABC's Gibson and CBS' Couric that the fact she managed to hold her own during the debate was a relief to the McCain campaign.
I summarized the following intra-election campaign poll in my November 28 post: "An October 24 Newsweek poll showed her unfavorable rating exceeding her favorable, even though her likeability exceeded 70%. Her unfavorability rating exceeded any VP candidate (including Quayle) over the past 50 years. The poll asked Republicans/leaning if McCain was not elected, who they would be likely to support among listed candidates: Romney 35, Huckabee 26, Palin 20."
According to the latest Pew research report, "Palin continues to be a divisive figure among the general public, with about as many saying they have an unfavorable impression (44%) as a favorable view (45%) of the Alaska governor." There have been SEVERAL more recent polls taken before Palin's unexpected resignation: the late February CPAC straw poll had Romney 20, Jindal 18, Paul 13, Palin 13; the CNN poll in May had Huckabee 22, Romney 21, Palin 21; the Fox News poll in May lists Huckabee 20, Romney 18, Gingrich 14, Palin 13; today's Rasmussen poll shows Romney 25, Palin 24, Huckabee 22.
Now, to be honest, if this is the field in 2009, it's very clear where I stand: I wrote a September 28 post urging McCain to dump Palin and replace her with Romney. What is clear from recent polls is that Sarah Palin retains the highest favorability ratings among commonly cited contenders--but that hasn't translated into votes in potential straw polls. Nobody seriously thinks that Palin has the gravitas to compete with Obama one-on-one or to be President. It's also very clear that opinions in Palin are already formed; although her favorability numbers have improved marginally among Democrats and independents, they have also been drifting downward among Republicans.
Of the current candidates, it appears that over the past few months Romney has improved his standing among Republicans, lowering his unfavorable rating. I think Romney is a potential good fit in 2012; he has strong private sector experience and credentials of having served a full term as governor in a blue state, has experience with state-based health insurance reform, is well-informed, articulate and has a Presidential look, and can legitimately run on a Washington outsider platform. This is not to say Romney has the inside track. There's a lot to be said about Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, with his focus on metrics on taxpayer services and competent execution at state level and prior exposure to the federal government. There's also the possibility of a strong pragmatic candidate emerging (e.g., Rudy Giuliani or former NY Governor Pataki) if the conservative vote is fragmented. A dark-horse candidate could also emerge; for example, most of the candidates being mentioned would not have, say, McCain's strong military/foreign policy expertise. This could open up an opportunity for a General Petreaus or former Secretary of State Condi Rice to enter the race and/or be a strong contender for a VP nod.
According to the latest Pew research report, "Palin continues to be a divisive figure among the general public, with about as many saying they have an unfavorable impression (44%) as a favorable view (45%) of the Alaska governor." There have been SEVERAL more recent polls taken before Palin's unexpected resignation: the late February CPAC straw poll had Romney 20, Jindal 18, Paul 13, Palin 13; the CNN poll in May had Huckabee 22, Romney 21, Palin 21; the Fox News poll in May lists Huckabee 20, Romney 18, Gingrich 14, Palin 13; today's Rasmussen poll shows Romney 25, Palin 24, Huckabee 22.
Now, to be honest, if this is the field in 2009, it's very clear where I stand: I wrote a September 28 post urging McCain to dump Palin and replace her with Romney. What is clear from recent polls is that Sarah Palin retains the highest favorability ratings among commonly cited contenders--but that hasn't translated into votes in potential straw polls. Nobody seriously thinks that Palin has the gravitas to compete with Obama one-on-one or to be President. It's also very clear that opinions in Palin are already formed; although her favorability numbers have improved marginally among Democrats and independents, they have also been drifting downward among Republicans.
Of the current candidates, it appears that over the past few months Romney has improved his standing among Republicans, lowering his unfavorable rating. I think Romney is a potential good fit in 2012; he has strong private sector experience and credentials of having served a full term as governor in a blue state, has experience with state-based health insurance reform, is well-informed, articulate and has a Presidential look, and can legitimately run on a Washington outsider platform. This is not to say Romney has the inside track. There's a lot to be said about Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, with his focus on metrics on taxpayer services and competent execution at state level and prior exposure to the federal government. There's also the possibility of a strong pragmatic candidate emerging (e.g., Rudy Giuliani or former NY Governor Pataki) if the conservative vote is fragmented. A dark-horse candidate could also emerge; for example, most of the candidates being mentioned would not have, say, McCain's strong military/foreign policy expertise. This could open up an opportunity for a General Petreaus or former Secretary of State Condi Rice to enter the race and/or be a strong contender for a VP nod.
Simon's Attack on the Media, Pundits, and Strategists
Baffled by Palin's Resignation
Roger Simon mockingly lists the commandments that Palin has broken: "Thou shalt not surprise the media...Thou shalt not upset the pooh-bahs...Thou shalt pander to the few, not speak to the many." Whereas Simon concedes near the end of the piece that he doesn't believe "Palin is being crazy like a fox", he does a good amount of bashing Palin's critics other than the Angry Left. Given his high-profile with the Politico website and his credentials, I'm frankly astonished to see such a superficial piece from him.
To be frank, Simon hammered on some points I myself have made, independent of the media, pundits and strategists: her rambling speaking style, her limited appeal as a contender, and the nature of her resignation. In fact, I haven't seen many critiques like mine; Karl Rove and Mike Huckabee on Fox News Sunday have only offered mild rebukes to the decision. When, once again, others have sought to defend her, noting the constant stream of dismissed ethics charges, anonymous complaints of McCain campaign staffers, comedians, and the like, Huckabee sought to bring some balance into the equation, pointing out that as a multi-term Arkansas governor, he inherited a heavily Democratic-controlled legislature. [Sarah Palin inherited a Republican-controlled legislature, no state income tax, and a state rich in energy resources which has benefited from strong global growth over the last 2 decades.]
In fact, I submit many of Palin's problems are self-induced. After just months of having given birth to a handicapped child and with little background on national issues, Sarah Palin had to know the implications of accepting a position on the ticket--the heavy travel and appearance schedule, the interviews and debate, and public curiosity about her family and being the first Alaskan on a national ticket. She knew that the press would not be sympathetic, given an attempt by the New York Times to smear John McCain just months earlier with allegations of an affair with a lobbyist. Now I'm not suggesting that Sarah Palin is responsible for the smears from the Angry Left, but she is a grown woman whom knew better than anyone the fact that her life and the demands on her time would change forever once she agreed to join the ticket, her family would be in the spotlight, the short ramp-up time and her own limitations. Palin created political enemies on her way to becoming governor, running through incumbent GOP officials, and put her political ambition above the obscurity of being governor of a small-population state. It's disingenuous for her to play the "poor, poor pitiful me" card.
Moreover, as a reformer, Sarah Palin should have been more consistent; we are speaking of ideas like transparency and anti-nepotism/cronyism. We see Palin working outside of channels, e.g., doing state business out of her personal Yahoo email account (to avoid state record collection); we see her unelected husband sitting in on official meetings and directly contacting the public safety director (about officer Wooten) outside of official channels, appointing unqualified friends to positions, and generally restricting salient information (like the fact of her last pregnancy and her resignation) close to the vest, despite the impact of these matters on state leadership.
Whereas Sarah Palin has a point about limiting the exposure of her private life, there are a couple of relevant items which call into question her judgment. The first was her decision to fly back to Alaska from the lower 48 so son Trig could be born in Alaska, barely making it in time to the hospital; the second was Bristol Palin's becoming a national spokesperson in favor of teenage abstinence just weeks after giving birth to her first child and telling Greta Van Susteren that abstinence was "not realistic".
I do want to quibble on a couple of points that Roger Simon raised (beyond sticking to my guns on my critique of Palin). First, he accuses the allegation of Palin's being called a quitter a double standard because Bob Dole resigned his Senate seat during the 1996 Presidential campaign without similar questions being raised. I can't let that go unchallenged. Unlike Lieberman in 2000 and Biden in 2008 who were playing it safe by running for reelection as senator as well as Vice President, Dole did a virtuous thing by letting Kansas have a full-time senator while he pursued his unsuccessful bid to unseat Clinton. The fact is that Dole had won every primary since February and had clenched the GOP nomination when he resigned. There's a big difference between the position of senator and governor; there are two US senators for each state, but only one governor or chief executive of a state. The people of Alaska have a right to know WHY Palin has resigned now versus 10 months ago when she was running for Vice President; she made a contract to work for them for 4 years and it looks like she's bailing out in the middle of the worst recession in decades.
The second point I want to challenge is Simon's euphemism of Palin's undisciplined rhetoric as "plain-spoken". This is a blatantly false characterization of a person whose rhetoric is hardly sincere; where do we start? The fact she twisted a joke about Alex Rodriguez' promiscuous reputation to being one about statutory rape? That she called David Letterman a sexual pervert and said she wouldn't trust him around teenage girls, and then accepted his apology not personally, but on behalf of all the women Letterman's joke allegedly victimized? That she puts her teenage daughter in a prominent public role advocating her own position regarding sex education and then criticizes people for targeting her children? That she says dismissal of a public safety director was over his job performance but calls the inquiry "Tasergate", because Monegan refused to take additional action against her former brother-in-law?
