The American Spectator

Mary| 12.23.08 @ 11:33AM

You're absolutely right, Mr. Klein!

Her interview w/Couric cannot be explained away by "gotcha question" excuses. It's embarrassingly off-point. And, as I've mentioned, her sin was not one of lack of knowledge, it was one of jejune coquetry.

I understand the desire to come to her aid because of the viciousness of Sullivan and his despicable ilk, but it's not a cause for excuse making or demanding less of her than you would someone else in her position. Should she not substantially improve her game, she will never gain my vote.

Now back to Lady Thatcher. I worked for a large telecommunications company a long time ago. It was the one and only time I've been part of a Union. I hated it. It was collective hell.

Anyone who tried to take a long view and take an interest in the interests of those, who in essence, were the ones making it possible for the worker to put bread on her table was ipso facto a traitor and pariah. In the end, to be diligent and circumspect, is to serve oneself. Why shouldn't I contribute to paying for my health care? When did not doing that become another godforsaken right?

After two years of working for the Company, we went on strike. I immediately started looking for another job, found one in another City and moved. Women (scabs!) crossed the picket line, and while there was no violence, I couldn't stand the invective hurled their way. These women were probably just trying to feed their kids. I'm amenable to the idea of a Union, but in fact, I despise their collective, stupid, inbred, tyrannical existence.

Robert Stacy McCain| 12.23.08 @ 12:30PM

Ah, that's setting the bar high, Phil! I'm happy to be reminded of Thatcher's greatness.

I'd actually thought I'd get more debate from you (and Antle) over whether 2012 is actually the best shot for Palin. It seems to me that, if she does not strike while the iron is hot, she'll risk being dismissed in 2016 or thereafter as "yesterday's news." This is essentially what happened to Jack Kemp. If Kemp had been willing to mount a primary challenge to Bush in 1988 or '92, it would have made all the difference in the world. Instead, he waited until '96, by which time the ship had already sailed.

Captain America| 12.23.08 @ 1:09PM

You are absolutely wrong, Mr. Klein et al!

History will find that Gov. Palin was the greatest benefactor of the ill fated McCain run for president.

How could I say that, you ask, given the lampooning and poo-pooing even from within the McCain campaign?

Here's why:

1. Gov. Palin benefited from experience for running for the highest office without having to defend herself in McCain's nuttiest policy proposals.

I can't state strongly enough the importance of experience--irrespective of the eventual outcome--in preparing for a future run.

2. She is now bulletproof. Sure Gov. Palin was the most popular pinata of the campaign but the dumpsters are laid bare, Bristol is still carrying her own baby, and Troopergate has been laid to rest.

3. Her popularity remains very high amongst those that matter. No other competitor (Mitt, Huck, et al) has the following that Gov. Palin has.

Comparisons with other figures such as Margaret Thatcher is always tricky business. In fact, O'Sullivan goes to great pains to point out that Thatcher established her Iron Lady stature once in office not before. John points out that Thatcher was perceived as a light-weight.

For those who consider Gov. Palin 8 years away from running for president, ask yourself, what was George W. Bush's experience before running for president? He was less prepared and less experienced in running for the highest office than Gov. Palin for the aforementioned reasons.

Captain America| 12.23.08 @ 1:14PM

Moreover....what was Bill Clinton's experience prior to running for the highest office? Less than Gov. Palin's experience.

Keep in mind that Clinton and W. were two-termed presidents. While favorability ratings tanked, they were both reelected.

Roy| 12.23.08 @ 2:16PM

Bill Clinton had been governor for about 10 years before running for President and "served" I believe as state AG before that.

Of course he had no foreign policy experience other than dodging the draft, but that matters to people when the media directs them to care and no other time.

Half Sigm| 12.23.08 @ 2:26PM

Clinton had an academic record demonstratings his high intelligence, went to law school (which I think is a valuable background for a president), he doesn't have a pregnant teenage daughter.

It's too bad his brain has been infected by the meme of leftism. He would have made a finde conservative.

Jack Bauer| 12.23.08 @ 2:35PM

Yawn -- the cocktail "Republicans" seem to be out in force. Or the Cocktail Repulican Against Palin, as their sad little organization is known as.

Unfortunately not many seem to know much about Palin, and virtually NOTHING about the magnificent Mrs T. Who was also utterly despised by the conservative intelligensia.

So let's just listen to someone who does:

Conservative Snobs Are Wrong About Palin/John O'Sullivan
Though regularly pronounced sick, dying, dead, cremated and scattered at sea, Mrs. Palin is still amazingly around. She has survived more media assassination attempts than Fidel Castro has survived real ones (Cuban official figure: 638). In her case, one particular method of assassination is especially popular -- namely, the desperate assertion that, in addition to her other handicaps, she is "no Margaret Thatcher."

Very few express this view in a calm or considered manner. Some employ profanity. Most claim to be conservative admirers of Mrs. Thatcher. Others admit they had always disliked the former British prime minister until someone compared her to "Sarracuda" -- at which point they suddenly realized Mrs. Thatcher must have been absolutely brilliant (at least by comparison).

Inevitably, Lloyd Bentsen's famous put-down of Dan Quayle in the 1988 vice-presidential debate is resurrected, such as by Paul Waugh (in the London Evening Standard) and Marie Cocco (in the Washington Post): "Newsflash! Governor, You're No Maggie Thatcher," sneered Mr. Waugh. Added Ms. Coco, "now we know Sarah Palin is no Margaret Thatcher -- and no Dan Quayle either!"

Jolly, rib-tickling stuff. But, as it happens, I know Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher is a friend of mine. And as a matter of fact, Margaret Thatcher and Sarah Palin have a great deal in common.

They are far from identical; they rose in different political systems requiring different skills. As a parliamentarian, Mrs. Thatcher needed forensic and debating skills which her training in Oxford politics and as a tax lawyer gave her. Mrs. Palin is a good speaker, but she needs to hone her debating tactics if she is to match those of the Iron Lady.

On the other hand, Mrs. Palin rose in state politics to jobs requiring executive ability. Her successful conduct of the negotiations with Canada, Canadian provinces and American states over the Alaska pipeline was a larger executive task than anything handled by Mrs. Thatcher until she entered the Cabinet and, arguably, until she became prime minister.

Mrs. Thatcher's most senior position until then had been education secretary in the government of Edward Heath where, as she conceded in her memoirs, she lacked real executive power. Her political influence within that government was so small that it took 17 months for her to get an interview with him. Even then, a considerate civil servant assured Heath that others would be present to make the meeting less "boring." Her main political legacy from that job was the vitriolic slogan, "Margaret Thatcher, Milk-Snatcher," thrown at her by the left because of a budgetary decision she had opposed to charge some children for school meals and milk. It was the single most famous thing about her when she defeated Heath for the Tory leadership in 1975.

At this point she became almost as "controversial" as Sarah Palin. Heath, for example, made it plain privately that he would not serve under her. And Sir Ian Gilmour, an intellectual leader of the Tory "wets," privately dismissed her as a "Daily Telegraph woman." There is no precise equivalent in American English, but "narrow, repressed suburbanite" catches the sense.

Mrs. Thatcher attracted such abuse for two reasons. First, she was seen by the chattering classes as representing a blend of provincial conservative values and market economics -- Middle England as it has come to be called -- against their own metropolitan liberalism. They thought this blend was an economic dead-end in a modern complex society and a political retreat into futile nostalgia. Of course, they failed to notice that their modern complex society was splintering under their statist burdens even as they denounced her extremism.

Second, Margaret Thatcher was not yet Margaret Thatcher. She had not won the 1979 election, recovered the Falklands, reformed trade union law, defeated the miners, and helped destroy Soviet communism peacefully.

Things like that change your mind about a girl. But they also take time, during which she had to turn her instinctive beliefs into intellectually coherent policies against opposition inside and outside her own party. Like Mrs. Palin this year, Mrs. Thatcher knew there were serious gaps in her knowledge, especially of foreign affairs. She recruited experts who shared her general outlook (such as Robert Conquest and Hugh Thomas) to tutor her on these things. Even so she often seemed very alone in the Tory high command.

As a parliamentary sketch writer for the Daily Telegraph (and a not very repressed suburbanite), I watched Mrs. Thatcher's progress as opposition leader. She had been a good performer in less exalted positions. But initially she faltered. Against the smooth, condescending Prime Minister James Callaghan in particular she had a hard time. In contrast to his chuckling baritone she sounded shrill when she attacked. But she lowered her tone (vocally not morally), took lessons in presentation from (among others) Laurence Olivier, and prepared diligently for every debate and Question Time.

I can still recall her breakthrough performance in a July 1977 debate on the Labour government's collapsing economy. She dominated the House of Commons so wittily that the next day the Daily Mail's acerbic correspondent, Andrew Alexander, began his report: "If Mrs. Thatcher were a racehorse, she would have been tested for drugs yesterday." She was now on the way to becoming the world-historical figure who today is the gold standard of conservative statesmanship.

But she has plenty of time, probably eight years, to analyze America's problems, recruit her own expert advice, and develop conservative solutions to them. She has obvious intelligence, drive, serious moral character, and a Reaganesque likability. Her likely Republican rivals such as Bobby Jindal and Mitt Romney, not to mention Barack Obama, have most of these same qualities too. But she shares with Mrs. Thatcher a very rare charisma. As Ronnie Millar, the latter's speechwriter and a successful playwright, used to say in theatrical tones: She may be depressed, ill-dressed and having a bad hair day, but when the curtain rises, out onto the stage she steps looking like a billion dollars. That's the mark of a star, dear boy. They rise to the big occasions.

Mrs. Palin had four big occasions in the late, doomed Republican campaign: her introduction by John McCain in Ohio, her speech at the GOP convention, her vice-presidential debate with Sen. Joe Biden, and her appearance on Saturday Night Live. With minimal preparation, she rose to all four of them. That's the mark of star.

If conservative intellectuals, Republican operatives and McCain "handlers" can't see it, then so much the worse for them.

Mr. O'Sullivan is executive editor of Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty in Prague, and a former special adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. His book, "The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister" (Regnery), has just been published in paperback.

Bob| 12.23.08 @ 3:32PM

O'Sullivan says:

"Mrs. Palin had four big occasions in the late, doomed Republican campaign: her introduction by John McCain in Ohio, her speech at the GOP convention, her vice-presidential debate with Sen. Joe Biden, and her appearance on Saturday Night Live. With minimal preparation, she rose to all four of them."

Let's see, the speech at the convention was written for her, she lost the debate according to the polling data, she made Tina Fey look smart, and she wore open toed high heels when she was introduced. Yes, indeed, the mark of a star -- let's say like Britney Spears????

Jack Bauer| 12.23.08 @ 4:23PM

BOB the palindrone speaks. Ass forwards and ass backwards.

The speech was written for her? Wow. What insight.

By the way, she beat the plagiarizing Biden (the man who spent 36 years rising without trace) hands down. Of course, he didn't pay people to write his speeches, he just lifted someone elses.

Let's see? No I don't think so BOB. Come back with something more intersting. Then maybe.

Alan Brooks| 12.23.08 @ 4:33PM

Her very credibility is at stake.

Bob| 12.23.08 @ 5:13PM

Jack, you said:

"By the way, she beat the plagiarizing Biden (the man who spent 36 years rising without trace) hands down."

Actually, all of the polling done that night, including Fox News, showed that Biden won the debate hands down. You can certainly have your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Regarding Biden, I don't like him and would not vote for him if he were at the top of the ticket -- even against McCain/Palin. He is not a mental genius and I disagreed with him on the Iraq war which should not have been fought. A position I hold in common with Pat Buchanan and the rest of the true conservatives.

Mary| 12.23.08 @ 5:17PM

As has already been pointed out, Bill "served" as AG and had been Governor for close to two terms. The speech he gave in '88, which glazed eyes over, did so because it was wonkish. Not only was he wonkish, he knew when to recognize a Sister Souljah moment. He knew that he and his team needed to be Eisenhower republicans. She probably knows that she and her team need to be Obama democrats. I don't think she's an ideologue. But I think her powers of persuasion are inadequate.

Admission here; I hate populism. I hate a rallying cry that devolves into a lowest common denominator type of thing. It leaves a collective after taste that makes me queasy. It has nothing to do with caste; I'm a peasant in fact and at heart. It has to do with a loathing of propaganda, and whipping up of crowds.

Both Clinton and Reagan were worldly. Sarah's specific talents, from what I know right now, are a command of the energy issue, and good negotiation skills. These are important, but I don't think they're sufficient.

She didn't beat Biden in the VP debates however much she may have championed her own style. Lastly -and admittedly only a guess on my part- her staff seems subpar. While I'd bet she's good at taking in other points of view at the negotiating table, I'd also bet she demands a kind of fealty that props up her insecurities.

And, I know this may not be fair, given her heroic heart and protection of Trig, but Obama sets as good, maybe even better, an example of solid, family life as she does. I think we've talked an awful lot about the scourge of illegitimacy and fatherless homes, maybe it's time to test whether a picture may be worth a thousand words.

I voted for McCain because of his biography. I never thought of him as a great thinker or a great legislator. His populism is the worst kind. It's always about getting at "the corruption" for him, even when there might not be any. He'll call for a person's resignation even before he's had the time to marshal facts and analyze the situation for himself. He did that when the economy tanked in September. He admitted long before that, that the economy was never his strong suit, and so you would think that in a moment of national crisis that sort of self-knowledge would make a person circumspect. Yet, he didn't have the guts to oppose a bailout that was needed because of incompetence and corruption. His return to Washington for the purpose of getting the action right on this crisis only resulted in him becoming the invisible senator.

Lastly, this a man who showed great honor and great love for his country under circumstances I can't even begin to imagine. He also abandoned his first wife. A wife, who by all accounts, stood by him and waited for him. Neither act cancels the other out, they are both indicative of the man, and revealed in his role as Senator.

Palin's brand of populism is different than McCain's, but I'm still no fan. Her speeches at the rallies did absolutely nothing for me because I've heard it all before. I've heard all of Obama's cant before too. I want more. A whole lot more.

All this said, I think Palin can win, and she'll have my good will and wishes if she does.

I'm only one person and my vote means nothing. AFAIK, no candidate has ever lost a race by a single vote. From here on in, even if I never vote again, I'm not voting for someone based on the reasons I voted for McCain. Part of the thought that went into my vote for McCain revolved around my suspicion and unease that Sarah was not ready to assume the presidency.

Chesterton said that it wasn't a case of Christianity being tried and found wanting, but that it was a case of Christianity being found too difficult and left untried. And in that spirit, I think if we demand more from our leaders we just might get it, and there's no time like the present.

Jason Smee| 12.23.08 @ 7:23PM

Mary,

I agree with much of what you said and I too regretfully voted for McCain. I disagree on the idea that she knows much about energy other than the simple idea that increasing supply to the marketplace results in lower prices. While I think much of this green collar jobs idea is a sham, smart energy policy relies on energy independence and ultimately renewables, something our oil companies have long fought (although listening to tv, you wouldn't know that).

Regardless, I'd love to see her run in 2012, that way we'll be done w/ her for good. She'd obviously get decimated in anything remotely resembling a debate w/ Obama and more importantly regardless of the current economic state (likely to continue getting a lot worse before it gets any better), Americans are likely to not want to change leaders midstream (sound familiar) thereby resulting in an even bigger landslide come 2012. By 2016, the economy should have sufficiently recovered (partially due smart policy decisions, partially due to natural business cycles) leading to another easy victory for the new democratic candidate (not as some right wing nutjobs would believe a soon to be constitutional Obama 3rd term).
As an intelligent, educated conservative individual, I am so far pleased w/ the early movements from Obama. If he lives up to his promise to govern using a pragmatic slightly left of center approach, our country may end up moving in the right direction. Should republicans continue playing from the extreme, they would quickly find themselves banished to a remote wilderness in American politics. I know nobody likes to hear this, but the only way to counter his popularity and to regain any strength as a party is instead of extremism and hostility it is to engage the new administration. There is a need to show a true level of cooperation while taking the president to task where we seriously disagree. Instead of a party ruled by fundamentalist extremists, the alternative should be pragmatism w/ a conservative bent. We must also fully embrace what a debacle the Bush admin was, willing to take blame for where we're responsible while simultaneously showing democrats where they're at fault and offer our roadmap for recovery. Unfortunately, I'm sure this will only fall on deaf ears, but look on the bright side: Bobby Jindal will only be 49 come 2020, and will still be a rather young 53 should this message take 4 years longer to set in.

Mary| 12.23.08 @ 10:35PM

Jason -

I appreciate your thoughts.

Regarding the energy issue, you may be right that she doesn't possess a thorough understanding of the subject, but I think she knows a bit more about it than just the issue of supply and demand.

I think Republicans should not be obstructionists, but also should not be shy of energetically distancing themselves from legislation they believe is unsound. Perhaps you're saying the same thing.

I wish Obama well, I really do. He has a lovely family, and I'm happy for his win in a way that surprises me. I feel a little bit of it for him, if you know what I mean.

The Country can and probably is moving left. And why not, if that is the will of the people? But, I'm not a girl of the left by even a smidgen. I don't feel at home there. The values there are not my values, and they never can be. But I do know that change is inevitable, and I accept that.

I'll continue to pay my taxes, and to remember the day of my Naturalization, when I took my oath of citizenship. I was 19 years old, and it means an awful lot to me.

President Bush certainly has a confused record. But it's exceedingly hard for me to forget that he was a president faced with 9/11. I think he did the best he knew how to keep us safe. And I think he succeeded.

To second guess what he should have done is not something I can bring myself to do excepting the following.

1) Restrain the callow tendency that led to "Mission Accomplished." 2) Recognize that Rumsfeld was a thorn in the side of the military and discharge him early on.

The first being cosmetic, and the second, admittedly, an idea born more of sense than actual knowledge.

He has repented for the Mission Accomplished nonsense. And I'm sure he doesn't see the Rumsfeld thing as I do.

He may have been the man we needed at that point in time, and perhaps history will reveal that one day.

Merry Christmas.

John Carpenter| 12.28.08 @ 1:52PM

It's astonishing that many of the people who voted Obama into office--a man so pathologically secretive whose unwillingness to provide college transcripts or a birth certificate would preclude from enlisting in the Army reserve or obtaining ANY security clearance--continue to obsess on Palin's interview with Katie Couric.

Even more remarkable is the jawdropping arrogance of those who believe Palin is a buffoon while Henry Kissenger and Bill Clinton have talked glowingly about her political ability and potential.

Enjoy the roast while it lasts. When Obama is exposed as a man who capitalized on mass hysteria and who body-surfed his way to the oval office on a wave of empty rhetoric and the promise of quixotic solutions to humanities problems, Sarah Palin is going to look like Indira Gandhi--who, by the way, confounded much more
politically savvy opponents with her innate mastery of populism.

Clearly, Palin's critics are oblivious to the fact that this woman thrives on their scorn and like the mythic fgure Anteus, grows stronger when thrown to the ground.

biniki| 8.28.09 @ 10:41PM

bikini
bikini swimwear