PeaceBang

28 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

1. Perhaps–but I think that there’s a lot more to it.

   Were Palin male… oh, let’s say this was Quayle. And that the GOP ticket had gone down spectacularly like it has, leaving the unnatural union of the different and contradictory core elements of the party starkly revealed. I think that the knives would come out then, too.

   Part of it’s the intraparty civil war that’s brewed up and is going to break out any moment now.

   Part of it is the incredible emotional discharge of an election that’s been going on for at least two years–but in some ways, for four. For Democrats, it’s elation and revealed itself in cities where people came out to dance in the streets, and where people in D.C. acted more like a dictator had fallen.

   The GOP lacks that outlet. They’re looking for scapegoats–plural–and Palin’s an obvious, easy, and well deserving one. If she’s as ignorant and self-obsessed and venal as the campaign’s suggested–and as the post campaign has hinted… and given that there’s a whole wing of the GOP that set up the benchmark for conservatism as supporting Palin for 2012 already… there are a lot of people who’ll be looking to take her down for a wide range of reasons.

   There may be a sexist tinge. But I think it’s appearing as a veneer to the larger picture. it’s not the explanation for what’s going on.

   You’re right–they Republicans have abandoned that solid front. Their primary hinted at it cracking up. The right wing blogs have hinted at it for months. This isn’t sexism. It’s just the opening movement of a crash and burn symphony in F-. Palin will get shredded. McCain will, too–because he chose her. And there will be others.

   Pass the popcorn. [::::passes Patrick the popcorn::::: - PB]

   Comment by Patrick McLaughlin — November 6, 2008 #

2. Everything that Patrick said! I laughed out loud and actually snorted a little when I heard “knowledgability”

   Comment by Angela in Ohio — November 6, 2008 #

3. Fox should be careful how they speak of the soon to be U.S. Senator from the great state of Alaska! After all, the Senate is a great place to gain “knowledgability”…
   Thanks for the post Peacebang

   Comment by Boston Unitarian — November 6, 2008 #

4. Seems to me that every institution or government on the brink of massive troubles these days throws a woman in near or at the top. That way when all collapses thay have a scapegoat…seems to be just a part of the process which is why its probably better to opt out of their strange and patriarchal ways and take our own path…

   Comment by Christine — November 6, 2008 #

5. I’m not sure Bush knows the nations that comprise NATO…

   Comment by Mars Girl — November 6, 2008 #

6. Looking at the current occupant of the White House should be enough to show that “knowledgibility” is not a necessary qualification for the office. Or even (if you are a Rove/Cheney operative) a desirable qualification. So don’t count Sarah Palin out.

   Comment by cindy, really — November 6, 2008 #

7. Thanks for sharing this PB! Very interesting stuff. I agree with Patrick that some emotional fallout is inevitable, but this doesn’t seem above board to me.

   PS. Hail Mary, football etc. means “bunt” should be “punt” to avoid the dreaded Mixed Metaphor.

   [Oh, I'll just keep it in there so ya'll can tell that I don't know the first thing about football!! - PB]

   Comment by Kay — November 6, 2008 #

8. You know, I think (I’m British, I don’t need to know) that I am in favour of the exact opposite of Palin’s policies.

   But, other than a little knowledge I’m not sure that she needs to do a great deal to be a serious candidate for the GOP nomination in 4/8 years time. She has personality, she can deliver a great populist speech, if you like her policies then there’s not much that time can’t alter.

   Of course I hope she never wins anything, but that’s because we’d disagree. Not because she will always be incompetent.

   Comment by a — November 6, 2008 #

9. PB, the GOP is eating its own. Like the arena in ancient Rome, it makes great, horrible, gory drama. Sexist? Of course! But then, Palin held views that were anti-feminist herself.

   Expect the long knives to come out. This is a political movement that survives on dividing people by creating wedges between groups that might find common cause in liberation–women, Hispanics, gays, African Americans. For the first time in my political lifetime, they have not been able to divide the American people against each other. They have this nastiness and backstabbing coming because that is the way that they have operated on the national stage for the longest time.

   Sit back and enjoy the political carnage.

   Comment by Larry Smith — November 6, 2008 #

10. Yeah, we see how deep the Republicans’ “feminism” runs. And, Patrick? I love the “Crash and Burn Symphony,” but I suggest that sexism is indeed one of the instruments in the orchestra — maybe the whole string section.

    Comment by Satchel Pooch — November 6, 2008 #

11. I think there’s plenty of sexism to go around, but I agree with Patrick: it’s not what happening here. One of my bosses (who spent considerable time in state government before returning to private law practice) predicted exactly the kind of circular firing squad the Republicans are now putting on for us. (For purposes of this conversation, Fox is an arm of the Republican party). And it’s also historically true that VP nominees on a losing ticket don’t generally get another bite at the apple (Exhibit A: Dan Quayle, who I’m embarrassed to admit went to the same college I did … on a golf scholarship; Exhibit B: Geraldine Ferraro; Exhibit C: Walter Mondale … I could go on. Notable exception: FDR.)

    And let’s remember, too, that all Gov. Palin had to do was say “No, thanks” when McCain called, and she could have probably gotten herself another term as governor; she might then have had a shot in 2016 on the presidential ticket. Now I wouldn’t bet on her getting elected dogcatcher in Wasila in a couple of years.

    And yes, she IS dumber than Dan Quayle. Dan couldn’t spell and I wouldn’t vouch for any intellectual curiosity, but I bet he knew that “Africa” isn’t a country. Quayle at least held press conferences and accepted coaching and preparation for his job. Sarah Palin is the worst kind of ambitious idiot: too narrow-minded to even understand what she doesn’t know.

    So let’s save our collective sexist outrage for where it’s really needed. I’m afraid I can’t muster up a lot of sisterly solidarity for Gov. Palin. Worthy of respect as a human being, yes. Worthy of any public office, no.

    Comment by DairyStateMom — November 6, 2008 #

12. @Peacebang: There’s a different theory posted at Daily Kos — namely, that the plutocrats who traditionally have run the GOP can’t afford to let the hoi polloi seize the reins. Since Fox is the means by which the plutocrats try to manipulate the masses, and since there’s obviously a civil war about to break out for the future control of the party, it makes sense that Fox would fire the first salvo.

    @DairyStateMom: My uncle Jim Cooper taught history at DePauw. He says Dan Q was a dolt even then — and not the standard by which to judge the school.

    Comment by fausto — November 6, 2008 #

13. we need to bunt her as fast and as far as we can

    That would be “punt”. Bunts don’t go far or fast.

    Comment by fausto — November 6, 2008 #

14. I’m with DairyStateMom: I don’t believe that the GOP turning on Sarah is due to sexism so much as their finally being able to admit what the rest of us saw & knew: she’s a frothy, glossy package with no substance, just tremendous ambition. Not being able to name the countries in North America? That’s sheer lunacy, and I think Palin deserves all of the brickbats that are being thrown. Her charisma, throughout the campaign, was wrapped around a nugget of vitriol unmatched in any previous political campaign — and I believe it was intentional, knowing, and masterfully manipulative.

    (Small example: in her aw-shucks down-home interview with People magazine, in response to a question about what she thinks of Obama, she trotted out a response along the lines of, “I admire the fact that he’s served three years in the Senate.” That’s passive-aggressive, and a smarmy overlooking of his OTHER years & years of political service. She seeks an opportunity for put-downs at ever turn.)

    I don’t mean to sound uncharitable, but I’ve seen plenty of women in power appear confident, or even strident or incisive — or yes, even “bitchy.” This is different: Sarah Palin was nothing but arrogant, and it pleases me to see her fall victim to her own hubris.

    Comment by Rev E — November 6, 2008 #

15. The long knives certainly have come out.

    Frankly, if today’s story that Gov Palin wasn’t aware that Africa is a continent proves to be true, I think the real issue remains not sexism (what else should we expect here, I mean…) but what in the world was Senator McCain thinking…

    We dodged something nasty, I think…

    Comment by James — November 6, 2008 #

16. I didn’t watch the video, but this says a lot of the same stuff that you’re saying the video says, and I find it fairly believeable.

    The stuff about the clothes and the French president sounds like a lot of miscommunications of the sort that happen when people are very, very busy.

    And having seen the Katie Couric interview, it’s pretty hard to deny that either (a) Palin refused to prepare for it (b) Palin doesn’t know very much about politics (c) Palin’s just plain dumb or (d) some combination of the above.

    CC

    Comment by Chalicechick — November 6, 2008 #

17. Good stuff, gang! Thanks! This has been incredibly fascinating. And I still don’t know what a punt and a bunt are.

    Comment by PeaceBang — November 6, 2008 #

18. Do you know what I think? I think that a faction of Republicans are attempting to throw her under the bus because they want to move on from the Palin chapter of Republican history as quickly as possible, and bring another (brighter) leader to the forefront. These may be McCain Republicans who were displeased with his choice of candidate and his decision to move further to the right than he had typically been in the past, in order to appeal to the “base.”

    Comment by Kate — November 6, 2008 #

19. It *is* fascinating to see Palin thrown under the bus. The neocons puppeteers can not stomach the thought of someone in office who would resist Cheney’s will.

    They thought they had another Bush - she is similarly intellectually challenged - but she doesn’t owe enough to the party leaders or their corporate supporters.

    Comment by MisSarah — November 6, 2008 #

20. I’ve been thinking about the bunt thing. If you’re referring to the cake, it’s “bundt.” Thanks to this blog, I’ve been thinking about that scene from “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” all day (as well as craving cake).

    Comment by Rev E — November 6, 2008 #

21. A punt is a short kick of a football. A bunt is a whack at a baseball with the side of the bat, designed to go low and maybe earn a base hit.

    My sports-loving mother would be proud of me. I know next to nothing about sports and am usually pretty pleased with that fact.

    Comment by martinet — November 6, 2008 #

22. One of the things you have to do in this world is to keep track of the people that you owe. - Utah Phillips

    Of course, brother Utah was referring to organizers like Lucy Parsons. But MisSarah raised the same point about Palin, and it was a good one–until late August, Palin didn’t owe anything to any GOPers outside of Alaska. If even some of these recent reports about her are true (shopping spree, ignoring campaign staffers, not talking to McCain), sounds like she kept acting like she still didn’t owe ‘em anything, even though they were the ones who put her on the nat’l stage. Hell, I’m kind of glad she didn’t kowtow to those Rove disciples, but I’m not surprised they’re lashing out at her now. You betcha.

    But there’s still a lot of underlying sexism to it, and some of us liberals and lefties who criticize her personally are drifting into sexism as well. It’s one thing to point out her lack of knowledge on things we’d expect a VP candidate to know, or her clothes purchases, or her way of talking to the press. But tying those in with stereotypes of beauty queens, divas, etc. should be obvious sexism; less obvious, but still sexist, is the assumption (possibly unconscious) of some McCain staffers, media pundits, and a few of my fellow liberals, that her flaws are gender-based, or that she’s an easier target because she’s female.

    Her lack of intellectual curiosity makes it tough to determine how intelligent or unintelligent she really is–much like Quayle, or like W. (Molly Ivins went to high school with W., and said he was not stupid–I can’t tell that, but I took her at her word.) It will be interesting to see what kind of candidate she makes in the future–her ideological, religious-right extremism will still infuriate me, but I wonder if she’ll communicate it more intelligently than she has the last couple of months.

    Comment by Eric — November 7, 2008 #

23. PB, there are no words for how much I love that you know EVEN LESS about football than I do.

    I agree with you completely about the sexism; even if that’s not the whole story, it’s a big part of it. Wearing either my Miss Conduct or my Harvard Business School hats, I’m shocked at the unprofessionalism of the Palin-blamers. Hiring is the boss’s responsibility, and the blame for a bad choice goes to the head honcho who made it.

    Comment by Miss Conduct — November 7, 2008 #

24. Hmmm. As someone with minimal interest in sports–but a little knowledge–I read bunt as punt… and know what PB thought she meant (sorta).

    I guess I’d say that Palin as bunt may be accurate if one goes back to the nomination. Unexpected, and it helped McCain get on base with the electorate. But then we got to see how ill-prepared and personally vindictive Palin is, and people looked at McCain again, remembered that he’s an old guy with dodgy health, wondered at his picking this ignoramus… and shuddered at the idea of her actually ascending to the presidency.

    I’m with James. Back in 2001, we learned that Nader’s “No Difference” rhetoric of 2000 was hideously, tragically wrong.

    Some people aren’t nice. Some people aren’t prepared. Some people aren’t capable. Incurious George has been a train wreck as president. Incurious–not interested–should be justification for the electorate to veto a candidate.

    What I know of Palin–aside from the stuff that’s reported, uncertain… possible…–is enough to justify the incredibly negative reaction of the voters to her. That’s not sexist.

    Personally, I think that Team McCain’s tapping of her was sexist. It wasn’t just that, but the immediate two-fer they were aiming for was the evangelical, fundamentalist base (which they in large measure got) and Hillary voters (particularly middle aged and older white women), who they seem to have believed were supporting Hillary because she is female.

    (The strong rumor, which seems entirely consistent to me, is that McCain wanted to tap Lieberman. That would have played very differently.)

    As I said, this is only the opening movement of the Crash and Burn Concerto–and yes, there’s absolutely a strain of sexism through it. There’s more to come, and it’s going to be ugly. There are going to be eruptions of racism and racism–and the circular firing squad never targets well; don’t stand too close. Shortly, they’ll begin paying attention to 2010’s election; the Senate seats that will be at risk or might be up for grabs. But the whole time, they’ll be looking at 2012.

    There’s going to be a struggle between the Palinists who’ve already declared “Operation Leper” (I kid you not; charming folks…)–for those who aren’t nice and supportive of Palin–and those who would support Huckabee (a far less incurious evangelical…). There’s going to be a quiet move to restore Romney’s standing. Jindal jockeying. And so forth. Playing for position in the post-apocalyptic Republican landscape that will exist after Bush finishes cratering… and it really sinks in to the public.

    In the meantime, look for all kinds of ~isms being played out. Sexism, racism, classism, and religious bigotry are all going to get played.

    Comment by Patrick McLaughlin — November 7, 2008 #

25. I think everyone is missing an important point. The people doing the insider sniping at Palin are professional campaigners, not office holders; they earn their living by helping politicians get elected. They just got a world-class beat down. They HAVE to blame Palin- they’d never work again if they let anyone think they really are that bad at managing a campaign. This is no different than a losing coach firing the quarterback, to continue PB’s analogy.

    Comment by Joel Monka — November 7, 2008 #

26. If we MUST have a sports analogy, then let’s make it accurate.

    If Gov. Palin is the quarterback, then by, shall we say, not rising to the occasion for not just one but two pretty polite interviews, then she fumbled the ball twice in the same game when it was 3rd and 10 on her own 10-yard line, and allowed two touchdowns by the opposition. So she got benched after that: no interviews, no press conferences, prepared speeches in friendly crowds. Unfortunately, firing her mid-campaign wasn’t an option. Or to pick another sport: perhaps McCain thought he was getting Dustin Pedroia, but he really got Manny Ramirez. Sending her back to Alaska is the equivalent of shipping Manny off to the Dodgers. And the voters did that.

    If we’re holding on to this increasingly strained analogy, McCain is the general manager here who chose a player woefully underequipped for the NFL, and he’s the one who got fired, by the American voters. Bosox equivalent: hiring my kid’s Little League pitcher instead of Jon Lester.

    This doesn’t mean that pointing out the quarterback’s inadequacies is ignoring the problem with the general manager who made a lousy hiring decision and put together a terrible playbook. The two aren’t mutually exclusive, and I’d bet my next month’s mortgage payment that there’s a tell-all book on the McCain campaign in the not-too-distant future (for a preview, see the Rolling Stone article on McCain and/or the New York Times Magazine piece on the increasingly frenzied attempts to sell McCain to the American public).

    In any case, I’m happy to take bets that Gov. Palin is going to have a tough time surviving the long knives in the national party and back home. One hears that she’s excited and looking forward to working with President Obama on a new energy policy for the country. Here’s a suggestion, Governor: don’t sit by the phone.

    Comment by DairyStateMom — November 7, 2008 #

27. FWIW, Newsweek does this “secrets of the campaign” thing, where they send reporters to hang out with the campaigns, but the story is embargoed until after the election.

    Those reporters don’t need to talk to embittered folks after the fact, they were there.

    They portray Palin as perhaps not as stupid as the McCain camp says, but every bit as tacky.

    CC

    Comment by Chalicechick — November 7, 2008 #

28. I think proper term for what’s happening to Palin is “being thrown off the dog sled.”

    I wonder how she’s going to get along in AK, where she supposedly was pretty good at crossing the aisle, now that’s she’s painted herself into a Real American Corner.

    Comment by Kate — November 11, 2008 #

Leave a comment