Palin-bashing seems to be in vogue

Anyone else want in? It didn't take long this past week for the finger-pointing to begin. And many of the fingers were pointed at Sarah Palin (Wait, is that a new trend?) The media continues its onslaught and now has apparently harnessed the support of certain anonymous McCain campaign operatives (although we yet to see or hear who exactly these people are).

Regardless of one's feelings about Palin, I thought these two posts raised some interesting points. First of all, Matt Lewis put forward an interesting theory regarding the true identity of Palin's attackers. He contends that the attacks are not actually coming from true McCain loyalists, because to go after Palin would be to undermine the judgment of the very candidate they were attempting to promote to the electorate. Instead, they are coming from GOP strategists who are already lining up behind their candidate for the 2012 presidential race, under the assumption that Palin will also be running for president then. (By the way, there has been much talk about that, which is so premature as to hardly warrant our attention. She may be the best candidate in 2012, or it's quite possible that others in the GOP will make better candidates. There is plenty of time for speculation about that in the years ahead.)

Secondly, even though there are some on the GOP side who dislike Palin, Townhall's Amanda Carpenter shares the latest statistics from Rasmussen Reports, which paint a picture to the contrary. In fact, among Republicans, Sarah Palin garners a staggering 91% favorable rating.

There are those who think that Palin was the weight that sunk McCain's presidential ship, that she did more harm than good to his campaign. I couldn't disagree more. In fact, for whatever votes she may have cost him among the Independents and moderates, she more than made up for it by reenergizing the conservative base of the Republican party. Don't think so? Consider this: When's the last time this past week or even during the entire general election that you heard someone say, "Man, I can't wait for Joe Biden to become vice president?" They haven't, and for understandable reason. Senator Biden doesn't get everyone fired up, Obama did. On the contrary, it was Palin, not necessarily McCain, that unleashed the enthusiasm of the Grand Old Party.

You can be sure that she'll be back. The only question is, in what capacity?

UPDATE: Here's Michelle Malkin's take on the ongoing Sarah-smears.

Comments

[chris corwin]

"And many of the fingers were pointed at Sarah Palin (Wait, is that a new trend?)"

it is not a new trend — i seem to recall using the word "disaster" about Palin during her nomination acceptance speech, and the flood of palin bashing started there.

the media was full of "bashing" (or as some of us call it, "criticism") as soon as she entered the public stage.

i have read many opinions on this, and lots of conservatives seem to think that obama has not faced the same kind or level of criticism.

i'll admit: he has not.

that's because he has less about him that's worthy of criticism, and less that's so darn *easy* to make fun of.

i mean, first of all: she's dumb.

we can all see it.

katie couric's interview of her was painful to watch.

there's no getting around this: sarah palin is not a super smart woman.

she's of decidedly average intelligence, and perhaps even below average social awareness.

it was obvious from the beginning and as stories about her "divaness" come out its even more obvious now.

i mean, YIKES, this woman almost became president??

she's likable, and folksy and fun.

and not fit to govern.

*shrug*

for the record: i also am not fit to govern.

but i wasn't a major party's vice presidential nomination.

even if your vote against mr. obama comes down to "life issues" and it's basically "only" abortion and the gay stuff that you are concerned about, you still have to admit that the man is bright and a good leader.

and even if abortion is ALL you care about, surely you have to know, way in the back of your mind, that sarah palin was a scary prospect.

i agree with you, john, that palin may have gained more votes for mccain than she cost him, but i'll pull one of your tricks and admit that i think anyone who would move their vote to that ticket because of, and not just in spite of, her presence there was simply unwilling to be intellectually honest with themselves.

or unable, perhaps? our worldview clouds our perceptions, and none of us can see Truth, after all.

the under-educated and un-informed (willfully so, in many cases!) sections of our population are whom, by and large, liked sarah palin.

those with educations and the wherewithal to dig into these matters were scared.

also, she may well be the best candidate the GOP could send up in 2012 -- and that's because whomever they send up will be a throwaway, knowing full well that there's no chance obama won't win a second term.

its 2016 that matters and it's mitch daniels who will be running.

you read it here first.

[John]

Chris, I must confess it's difficult to know where to begin here. There is a part of me that wants to just let this alone and let the way you present yourself speak for itself. But then again, my high tolerance threshold has been breached, and the other part of me feels a certain need to address your many unfounded assertions about my perspective, and those like me, who share a viewpoint that is much different than yours (including a like/respect for Sarah Palin, as well as, a profound disagreement with President-elect Obama which extends FAR beyond simply moral issues like abortion and homosexuality. In fact, that you think "it's basically 'only' abortion and the gay stuff" that I'm concerned about means you haven't been reading this blog as closely as you need to be.) So, I will do my best to provide a very succinct response to just a few of the many issues that warrant attention here.

First of all, you write, "lots of conservatives seem to think that obama has not faced the same kind or level of criticism...i'll admit: he has not...that's because he has less about him that's worthy of criticism...." Chris, your inability to level *any* criticism at him is not because there is nothing worthy of criticism. On the contrary, as so many on both sides have pointed out, the list is long--his lack of experience, his questionable associations, his socialistic political philosophy, his extremely radical views on culture of life issues, his positions on the gay issues, even the manner in which he won his Illinois Senate seat, the list goes on....). The truth is, there is plenty to admire about the way he ran his campaign and the historical heights he has achieved. And I have been more than willing to call a spade a spade there. But there is also much to be critical of, if one is willing to actually see it. You don't seem to want to do that. So be it. But your inability there does not negate the reality.

You also wrote regarding Sarah Palin, "i mean, first of all: she's dumb...we can all see it...there's no getting around this: sarah palin is not a super smart woman. she's of decidedly average intelligence, and perhaps even below average social awareness." Is this based on actual evidence or personal bias? You may use your perception of her Katie Couric interview to make your case, but there is considerably more actual evidence to make a contrary case concerning her intelligence. (In fact, a recent report put her IQ in the 120's.)

But the thing that gets me most, Chris, is the disparaging things you have to say about all of us rubes who saw some very positive things (as well as, some things of concern to be sure) in Sarah Palin. How'd you put it again? "the under-educated and un-informed (willfully so, in many cases!) sections of our population are whom, by and large, liked sarah palin."

The fact is, the evidence simply does not support your assertion any more than one could say the same thing about Obama supporters. And the very fact that you would even suggest such a thing reveals much more about where you're coming from than any reflection on those "uneducated, un-informed" Palin supporters you are attempting to characterize.

There are a great many very intelligent, informed people who saw something in Sarah Palin that resonated with their core convictions. In fact, as Andy pointed out recently, among the four primary candidates in this race, she was the only one who was a true conservative. (And it was because of that, and not because of the folksy way she dropped her "g's" when she spoke, that generated increased passion for her candidacy.) You may disagree with those people, and that's your right. But to denigrate such people, simply because you see things differently, is another matter altogether. That's not high-minded, healthy debate on the issues as much as it is simply name-calling.

My purpose with the blog is to create a forum for genuine, fair-minded dialogue. Your analysis here does not support that effort. Don't get me wrong, I always welcome divergent perspectives here (and am also interested in having more people who disagree with me join our conversations). But the *way* we engage with one another is as important as the ideas we are attempting to promote.

Unfortunately, your approach to this blog in general seems to exhibit an intent that is less Dale Carnegie-esque than it is to simply promote yourself above others. You have once again managed to present your comments in a way that does more to harm your case than help it. I, like RA mentioned in a recent post, am also wondering what your purpose is here, because your current approach to posting seems to more often alienate people (even those who theoretically agree with your beliefs). Not sure why. But if the purpose is to be the thorn in the flesh that drives others on the blog to engage, you've accomplished that task handily. :)

[Abby]

My take on Sarah Palin is that she isn't dumb but may have not been prepared to be in the position she was put in when she was which would have made her a scary choice for the president. She is likeable yes- but her values were what was hard for me. To be honest I really wanted to like her because I would love to see a woman as VP or President but I couldn't get past her feelings on guns, the environment,etc.

And I agree John- Chris you are not helping the cause here. I agree with much of what you say...but could you please find a more polite way of saying it? (I too struggle with how to say things I feel without putting others down so I understand where you are coming from.)

[andy]

"- but her values were what was hard for me"

can you be more specific abby?

also, "may have not been prepared to be in the position she was put in when she was"

what makes you think this?

actual credible references would be nice.

[chris corwin]

@john:

> But if the purpose is to be the thorn in the flesh
> that drives others on the blog to engage, you've
> accomplished that task handily. :)

oh, good.

as it happens, that IS my purpose, almost always.

@Abby:

> Chris you are not helping the cause here. I agree with
> much of what you say...but could you please find a
> more polite way of saying it?

this i can try to do --- i was not aware that my comments sounded unpolite.

i tend to make dramatic statements that are intended to be so over-the-top that i thought it was obvious they are not to be taken at face value.

clearly, the humor and hyperbole has not been so obvious.

my bad.

i apologize for stepping on toes, and i hope everyone will accept that i intend no harm.

these are fascinating and complex issues, and part my charm is my ability to gloss over them with sweeping statements intended to boil them down into satirical bullet points.

:D

anyway, let me try to tease out some of the stuff i was trying to say:

level of education was a factor in the 2008 presidental election.

white people (especially women) without college degrees voted for mccain in much greater numbers than they did for obama. as much as 57% for mccain over 35% for obama.

those are "statistically significant" numbers, kids.

i did not state -- nor even imply -- that *everyone* who liked sarah palin as a VP choice is under-educated or un-informed: i stated that those are *are* those things tended to support her in much higher numbers.

there's a world of difference in those statements, i think.

however, i fully admit that "uninformed" was conjecture on my part, and was part of the hyperbolic scree: i don't think there were any actual exit polls where people admitted to being un-informed.

:/

as far as sarah palin's intelligence level: i'm far from the first person to point out that she comes across as less than... smart.

i'm trying to sort out what you meant by: " Is this based on actual evidence or personal bias?"

i say what i say about her based not on any bias against republicans in general, or women in general, or people who wear glasses, but rather on the answers to questions she gives in interviews that i've heard/read/seen, in addition to the debates and speeches and other such things.

so, i guess its based on "actual evidence" ?

perhaps she was simply woefully unprepared for these thigns, and isn't actually dumb.

in that case, the dumb part was accepting the role of VP candidate knowing she was woefully unprepared.

i wouldn't be able to answer many of those questions she was asked with much coherence, but again, i wasn't running.

and when it comes down to it, i would have been able to answer some of them better, really.

"all of them" is not an acceptable answer when one is asked what newspapers one reads.

sarah palin ought to have known that such an answer would make her look, bluntly, dumb.

answers such as that one are what led me to say of her: "she's of decidedly average intelligence, and perhaps even below average social awareness."

she's likable and funny and probably a fantastic mom.

but she answered questions about foriegn policy in ways that made me scared.

*that* is the stuff i was getting at, i thought in a mighty hilarious way.

i'll try to do better.

[John]

Chris, your brand of "humor" makes it difficult for people to thoughtfully and genuinely consider your perspective. Thanks for your willingness to attempt a different approach. I trust it will make things more palatable all the way around.

[Mandy Leech]

And a sigh of relief from all the bloggers in the land.....