How does Sarah Palin exist?

2010 Election Landscape

So Sarah Palin appeared on Oprah today. I missed the show, but I’ve read some of the high(low)lights. I’ve also been paying attention to details of her new book, Going Rogue, which will debut atop the New York Times’ best-sellers list.

Palin says she is unsure whether she’ll run in 2012, and I don’t believe her. Can’t believe her. A. Because she was the vice-presidential candidate in 2008, and it’s pretty much the step most former VP candidates take. B. Because she has no job, and all this book talk/campaigning has to be leading somewhere. C. Because she’s insane.

C, I really mean. Sarah Palin is insane, and not merely because she denies Darwin and thinks global warming doesn’t exist and isn’t quite sure Obama was born in America and is convinced, when health care reform is passed, man in white lab jackets will come to steal her relatives.

No, Palin is insane because she literally sees herself as a savior of American values and decency. She mocks Obama for being The One, yet envisions herself as the standard bearer of what is right and just about the United States. She is a female, 21st Century version of Ronald Reagan, ordained by God and Jesus and Papa Smurf to guide us toward salvation.

I am scared of Sarah Palin, not because she’s particularly bright or reasoned or popular. I’m scared of her because people are sheep, and it’s easy to see the flock irrationally flowing her way.

22 thoughts on “How does Sarah Palin exist?”

  1. Big difference between Palin and Reagan:

    Reagan pretended to be a part of the religious right to further his agenda.

    Palin doesn’t know the difference.

  2. I don’t know how its easy to see people following her clarion call of batshit crazy inanity. According to a recent Gallup poll this is a woman with a 40% approval rating.

    While those are numbers Dubya would’ve killed for in the latter days of his administration, they’re hardly indicative of someone with a bright national future.

    She’ll run, no doubt about that…but its gonna be a trainwreck of Waterworld-like proportions. She has no support among the big money corners of the GOP, and social conservatives like Pawlenty and Huckabee are gonna give her a streetfight for that portion of the primary electorate.

  3. I normally don’t agree with your politics, Jeff, but you are right on this one — at least the first part. Palin is far more interested in her own image than the party she represents. She feeds off butting heads with the media and Levi Johnston, the ultimate media whore. Why a grown woman would bother with that pariah is beyond me.

    Just one thing, though: “I’m scared of her because people are sheep, and it’s easy to see the flock irrationally flowing her way.”

    Are you sure you’re talking about Palin and not Obama? If you haven’t noticed, and I’m sure you haven’t, it’s IDENTICAL.

  4. You hate Palin for the same reasons you love Obama. Both are empty vessels.The only thing that has changed is the person looking in the mirror.Good lord I fear for this country when people like you(who hate her) or people like her her are in charge.A pox on both of your houses

  5. I disagree most of the political posts on this blog, but Palin is a whack job. Her first speech to America was very solid, and since then she’s been conductor of a train wreck. That being said, she does have less failures than Biden! Yippee!!!

  6. She will run but she has little chance of winning the primary. When Democrats are faced with a formidable opponent, they run scared. That’s what happened with Palin in 2008. She spewed nonsense and they let her get away with it.

    In the primaries she will be dealing with other Republicans. When Republicans are faced with a formidable opponent, they go for the jugular. We saw that in 2008, as well. And we continue to see it with the way they have impeded health care reform. No hold barred, anything goes.

    This is the party of Karl Rove, after all. Palin’s GOP opponents will tear her limb-from-limb and eat the bones when they’re done.

  7. When was the last time a losing vice presidential candidate ran for president and won? FDR in 1920 ran for vp and lost. He was elected president in 1932.

    Let’s hope this streak is extended in 2012.

  8. The difference between Obama and Palin is light in day. Background, intelligence, education level, etc. Maybe it’s just me, but I trust the guy who went to Columbia and Harvard Law more than the woman who went to the University of Idaho to become a sportscaster.

  9. Sarah Palin exists because there’s a market for her – I really think it’s that simple. Similarly, the “people are sheep” thing obviously goes both ways.

    @StringerBell – Bush went to Yale and Harvard Business School…all in, more prestigious than Obama’s background. Doesn’t matter so much in that context, huh?

  10. @ Classicist – Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law and was the editor of the Law Review.

    Bush, by his own admission, was a “C student.” Not to mention a legacy at Yale.

    I’m not sure how Bush’s educational background is “more prestigious” than Obama’s.

  11. Obama was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. I’d say his background is as prestigious as GWB, if not more so, especially if you counter in the fact that Bush was a legacy at Yale and went to prep school nearly his entire life.

    So yes, it still matters in context.

  12. “Obama was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.”

    Despite never having published anything. And, please, name another president of the Harvard Law Review of any consequence. My point wasn’t that Bush is “more prestigious.” I rather attempted to demonstrate how ridiculous comparisons such as Palin’s education vs Obama’s are.

  13. Agreed. It is ridiculous to compare someone who matriculated at Occidental/Columbia/Harvard Law to someone who went to Hawaii Pacific/North Idaho/Matanuska-Sustina/U of Idaho.

  14. Alex, Obama was the product of international and private schools. He was able to leverage his time at Occidental, a relatively mediocre college, into transfering to Columbia at a time when Columbia’s selectivity was dramatically lower than it is today. I don’t want to be roped into defending Sarah Palin’s background, but the focus on Obama’s “background” as opposed to his actual accomplishments is silly. That’s all I was trying to say.

  15. I agree with Classicist — much of the criticism of Palin is rooted in elitist snobbery. Other criticism is rooted in crazed irrational hatred — like Jeff’s original post. Many during 2000-2008 referred to Bush derangement syndrome – but that was nothing like the fervor of Sept-Nov, 2008. I remember being on vacation when news of the choice of Palin broke, I got home 2 days later and things were crazy – the NYT was running 3 articles on her pregnant daughter on the fron page, RFK Jr. was saying her daugher was the mother of her Downs Syndrome son (stay classy RFK Jr.). Wherever I walked the streets in Manhattan and Westchester, people were chattering on the street how unqualified she was and how stupid she was. It was a bloodlust that was temporarily halted by a kick-ass speech in the convention. Palin stumbled herself several times during the campaign – but the attacks and the hatred (and the snobbery) started immediately. That I will always be sure of.

    By the way – last 3 Democratic VP choices — 1) a great guy who voted for McCain in 2008 and spoke at GOP convention. Lost his party’s primary in 2006, 2) a slimeball who had 4 years Senate experience but didn’t have nearly the same scrutiny as Palin about her qualifications. Later cheated on cancer-stricken wife and denied fathering a baby. Ran for President – came within a few thousand Iowa votes of winning that state’s caucus and possibly winning party’s nomination, 3) a gaffe-prone guy has voted wrong for much of his time in the Senate even according to conventional Democrat though (wrong on both Iraq wars). Don’t know if he is an asshole or just played that role in the 2008 campaign.

  16. @ Classicist: So is comparing any two politicians backgrounds silly? Not talking accomplishments here, strictly backgrounds. I mean at that point you can just throw it all out the window, which I don’t think anyone wants to do.

    @ Matt: So the NYT was off-base for reporting on Palin’s personal life, but Edwards is a slimeball because he cheated on his wife? Edwards’ personal life is fair game, but Family Values Sarah Palin’s isn’t?

    Also I like how Lieberman being a GOP lapdog qualifies him as being a “great guy”

  17. No, it’s legitimate to compare backgrounds. I will repeat Stringer’s original statement:

    “but I trust the guy who went to Columbia and Harvard Law more than the woman who went to the University of Idaho to become a sportscaster.”

    It’s about trusting someone because of his educational background. Are you seriously telling me you don’t have an issue with such thinking?

  18. No, I don’t *trust* someone more because of their educational background.

    But I do think intellect must be taken into account when discussing qualifications.

    Not saying that if someone graduated first in their class from Harvard and was a Rhodes Scholar it’s a no-brainer that they’ll be a great President…just that “elitism” gets a bit of bad rap sometimes.

  19. Alex – I am not saying someone cannot judge and draw a conclusion about Edwards or Palin based upon their actions – but the NYT coverage of Palin’s home-life (specifically, her daugher’s pregnancy) was overwhelming, prominent and immediate after her selection to the ticket. And in my mind, terribly unfair.

    The Edwards coverage was after he left the race.

    My Lieberman comment was tongue-in-cheek meant to poke a little fun at the your political side. But seriously, my respect for Lieberman has increased ten-fold in recent months — he really is doing and supporting what he thinks is right. He is hardly the GOP lapdog though; he caucuses with Democrats and at the end of the day usually votes with the Democrats. He voted against Alito – which I think is indefensible. But guided by principle, strong on national defense and foreign policy, I like him.

  20. @Alex: I see what you’re saying but mostly disagree. The quality of one’s ideas is what matters, not where you went to school. Ivy Leaguers haven’t cornered the market on thought and intelligence.

    My dislike of Palin has nothing to do with the University of Idaho. It’s about the fact that she was running for vice-president without any knowledge of important issues and no apparent capacity for high-level thinking.

Leave a Reply