Maydja look...I have avoided even mentioning until now that Sarah Palin resigned from governorship of Alaska, effective later this month. For sure I won't try to speculate about her motives and what she might be up to next. Frankly, my dear, I don't give ... well, you know the rest.
Already, of course, some blogs, left and right alike, are abuzz or agog, take your pick, that Palin might be trying to position herself for a run for the White House in 2012.
Who knows? She ain't saying ... yet.
But I have to say that James Joyner nailed it here, discussing one of Mark Halperin's Top Ten reasons that Palin resigned. Halperin says that if Palin wants to make a run for the White House in '12, she needs to raise money and establish some national/international-policy bona fides now.
To which James responded, "I’d say she needed to start about twenty years ago."
Exactly.
I recall way back in '03/'04 the right side of the blogosphere was abuzz with the rather idiotic idea that President Bush would throw V.P. Dick Cheney under the bus for the '04 race, selecting Condoleeza Rice as his running mate instead. Gosh, I laughed my head off over that one and wrote at the time that she'd be trying to box way above her weight. I'd say that Rice's tenure as SecState proved me right.
And so Palin. Nice lady, devoted mother, loves her country, politically conservative, etc. etc. etc.
But ready for the chief executive's office in only three more years? Not a chance.
Yes, I know that it can be argued - and was, last year - that she was actually more qualified for the presidency than Barack Obama, to say nothing of the vice-presidency. At least, said her apologists, she's actually been in charge of something. And while it was true, it was also irrelevant. Surely we have not, I pray, reached the point in our polity where who is the least unqualified is the new criterion for, perversely, being qualified!
In that light I cite another of James' posts, "Krauthammer on Palin," with this embed:
James closes,
Who knows? She ain't saying ... yet.
But I have to say that James Joyner nailed it here, discussing one of Mark Halperin's Top Ten reasons that Palin resigned. Halperin says that if Palin wants to make a run for the White House in '12, she needs to raise money and establish some national/international-policy bona fides now.
To which James responded, "I’d say she needed to start about twenty years ago."
Exactly.
I recall way back in '03/'04 the right side of the blogosphere was abuzz with the rather idiotic idea that President Bush would throw V.P. Dick Cheney under the bus for the '04 race, selecting Condoleeza Rice as his running mate instead. Gosh, I laughed my head off over that one and wrote at the time that she'd be trying to box way above her weight. I'd say that Rice's tenure as SecState proved me right.
And so Palin. Nice lady, devoted mother, loves her country, politically conservative, etc. etc. etc.
But ready for the chief executive's office in only three more years? Not a chance.
Yes, I know that it can be argued - and was, last year - that she was actually more qualified for the presidency than Barack Obama, to say nothing of the vice-presidency. At least, said her apologists, she's actually been in charge of something. And while it was true, it was also irrelevant. Surely we have not, I pray, reached the point in our polity where who is the least unqualified is the new criterion for, perversely, being qualified!
In that light I cite another of James' posts, "Krauthammer on Palin," with this embed:
James closes,
But I have to seriously question his observational skills for his next sentence:
You cannot sustain a campaign of platitudes and clichés over a year and a half if you’re running for the presidency.
Yes. You. Can.
Which is of course, correct, as Barack Obama proved. And as Dr. Phil might ask, "How's that worked out?" So if the Republican party finds itself willing to campaign simply on platitudes and clichés, then not only is this ---> the fate that awaits the party, it should await it.
I have to say I think Roger Simon hit the 10 ring:
I certainly agree with those who say the attacks on her were unconscionable, but I challenge her most staunch defenders to say that this is really the kind of person to lead us out of our Twenty-First Century malaise.So - all Palin, all the time? Nope, not here.
Posts
2 comments:
When she accepted the VP nomination, she knew she needed to bring her professional game up to another level, she never did. She knew that her family would get attacked as did Hilary and Chelsea before her (by even her twin maverick brother McCain in 1998), let face it she knew her family affairs would come out. But now she plays the victim card again, a card she played after those comical first extended interviews that we all enjoyed and SNL immortalized. But for the icing on the cake, she quits, because she does not want to be a lame duck governor, because the lawsuits keep coming, because it was the media’s fault, because seeing Russia from her house finally got to her, because its not fair that Alaskan’s paid her salary while she was running for the VP position, take your pick. So what does she tells us? Dear Mr. President, when things get tough, quit. Dear military men and women, if you are not having fun, quit. Dear son or daughter, if things are not going your way, quit. Sure, I agree when she first was introduced and gave a descent speech, sure the polls went up, but after the extended interviews, they went where they ended, down. She showed her true character, I real hope the book deal, Radio/ TV shows and the lecture circuits make up for what her party has lost by her actions. She may go down in history as the quitter that twittered.
it's taken a few days but i'm getting the feeling that to put it in chess terms , she's playing 6 moves down the board.she saw mate in 6 and decided on a risky move , and it appears her opponents haven't understood this. she's not a quitter, she perceived herself to be in a losing position and has tried to change this . Whether or not this will work ,time will tell.
Post a Comment