In the August issue of Vanity Fair, Todd Purdum does a bit of a hatchet job on Sarah Palin.
I was looking forward to reading Purdum's piece, expecting some serious analysis of the Palin phenomenon, and an exploration of how she fits into the future of the party leadership. Instead, Purdom rehashes the old beefs about her being a Prima Donna, her Baracuda nature when confronted by objectors, her unwillingness to be coached in the run-up to interviews ..and prior to her debate with Biden, and her Troopergate involvement.
Purdum quotes Walter Hickel, who helped Palin get elected governor of Alaska in 2006 as saying "I don't give a damn what she does" and mentions Palin's disloyalty (my word) to John Stein, another guy who helped her when she was a fledgling politician.
That's not exactly a unique Palin characteristic though. Many politicians have parted company with former friends in the arena, simply for political reasons. And there are many politicians, our present president included, who have put differences aside and allied themselves with people they dislike intensely. That's just politics.
There are several mentions of her willingness to lie, and her ability to play both sides of the fence when discussing things like Bridges to Nowhere (which she was for before she was against) and $900million in stimulus money for Alaska (which she badmouthed, prior to accepting all but $28million.)
Nothing really new there either.
Purdom spoke to several McCain campaign staffers whose eye-rolling could be felt in their remarks about Palin. I found myself wondering, if there was such a visceral dislike for Palin in the McCain camp, who in the name of god convinced McCain to choose the Alaska governor in the first place?
I personally found Governor Palin to be a novelty VP choice by McCain, and didn't (still don't ) understand what all the fuss was about. Purdum wonders if Palin would have captured anyone's interest if "she looked like Susan Boyle." A very cheap shot I think.
Palin is pretty, and possesses obvious intellect, but an intellect that is limited to issues that the Governor sees as important to her. She was not, is not, and will not ever be ready to serve as a national office holder. It's one thing to be able to excite a bunch of people at a pro-life rally in Evansville, Indiana...something entirely different to appeal to a rapidly growing wave of voters who consider themselves centrists.
Sarah Palin has zero chance in 2012 of carrying New York, Illinois, California, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Minnesota,.. perhaps even Florida. John McCain is much more centrist than Sarah Palin, and McCain lost all of those states to Obama.
Does the GOP actually think that the party needs to move even further to the right? McCain was as close to a moderate as the GOP could manage this time around, and if they hope to have a prayer in 2012, they'll need someone with even broader appeal to the middle.
That is not Sarah Palin.
Palin was able to energize an otherwise depressed base in '08, and can be credited with making the race interesting toward the end, but the collapse of the economy spelled McCain's doom. I wondered prior to Wall Street's meltdown if Mitt Romney, a skilled businessman and successful governor would have been a wiser choice of running mate for McCain, and I'm sure given the benefit of a crystal ball McCain would have picked someone (probably Romney) with real demonstrable management skills.
But, politicians can't predict the future. McCain's Hail Mary pass was able to momentarily stop the GOP bleeding, but upon closer examination, and despite efforts by campaign management to shelter her, Sarah Palin was ultimately exposed as a political lightweight, at least on a national level. Nobody thought John McCain, or Sarah Palin, could solve the nation's financial crisis, nor even offer up sound ideas for leading the US to financial recovery. More tax cuts for the rich? That's not a popular view at the moment, nor does it seem like a tax policy that will return to popularity anytime soon.
Which is I'm mystified that the Republicans still see Palin as one of the faces of the future of the party. Her (McCain) handlers were able to keep her many shortcomings hidden for a short period, were able to carefully craft her exposure, but if they plan on nominating her for president in 2012, the klieg lights will only get brighter, and for a much longer period.
Pro-life, pro-guns, and pro-creation (if you'll pardon the pun) may be the core issues for people like Sarah Palin and our resident BotF knuckle draggers, but they are not the critical issues to most Americans, which is why Obama got 9 million more votes than anyone in the history of American presidential elections.
365-173 was the final tally of the electoral college in 2008. If the GOP hopes to make a dent in that shortfall, they'll need to appeal to middle America. Purdum does very little analysis of that problem facing the Republicans, choosing instead to mock Palin about things we already know.
McCain's people are very willing to trash Palin, but, like Purdum, for all the wrong reasons. All politicians are ruthless double-dealing Prima Donnas. If Republicans have any political savvy left in the party, and that looks doubtful, they'll stop slamming Palin, quit flipping around trying to decide who the real party leader is, and formulate a plan to recapture the votes of the middle third.
The GOP needs to soften their positions on the issues on which Sarah Palin remains rigid if they hope to have a chance in the forseeable future. The GOP should not see Sarah Palin as the fresh new face of the party, not because of Troopergate or wardrobe extravagances, not because she has a weird family, but because, based on the zeitgeist in America, she has no chance of getting elected. She's too far to the right, at a time when the hard right politician is becoming an endangered species.
I'm not sure if the GOP is dead, but they're currently acting like they haven't got a clue.
