You Have To Be 'On' All The Time

I remember running for Secretary of State in 2005 when this thought first occurred to me. I remember the scene well, if not the precise location. I was driving up to LaPorte, wearing the monkey suit, and I needed to stop for gas. It was a small town on 421, and I stood out like a sore thumb. It was 95 degrees outside, on a Saturday, with everybody else wearing shorts and casuals, and I'm wearing a business suit and tie, with the wingtips. I was so used to wearing it that I thought nothing of it. A man came up to me and said, "You running for President or something?" I'm sure I had the deer-in-the-headlights look for a moment until I could tell him that I was running for Secretary of State.

President? That threw me. Anything can throw you, if you aren't 100% prepared. I knew at that moment that I would have to be 'on' every minute of the remainder of the campaign.

So, Sarah Palin weighed in on Paul Revere's ride. The partisan Democrats are having a laff-fest. The Palin supporters are going crazy trying to defend, and going so far as to revising the Paul Revere page on wikipedia.



I have a degree in history. I focused on the Revolutionary War period. Here's my take:

1. Paul Revere never would have said, "The British are coming". Revere was British.
2. Revere was arrested by the British authorities and questioned. He apparently did tell them that the colonists were ready to use and protect their store of arms. Is that a warning? I think it could be construed either way.
3. Revere probably didn't ring any bells or fire any shots. The accounts tell of one church ringing its bell.

So, I think Palin was factually correct on warning the British about the intent of the colonists, 'Warned the British that they weren't going to be taking our guns'. Wrong about 'Ringing those bells' and firing shots. For either side to say she was entirely wrong or entirely right is off-base, and probably just reveals the bias of the claimant.

She certainly had the deer-in-the-headlights look about her, though. I still don't get what Palin's appeal is to the Right. I first wrote about not getting her allure back in Nov 2009, and I still don't get it.

Anybody can screw up. Obama's '57 states, with one to go- Alaska & Hawaii', ranks high up there. I know as well as anyone that you have to be 'on' all the time, and that it is draining hard. But the frequency of Palin's gaffes, and the almost constant deer-in-the-headlights look? Wow.

Update: A very great article on this subject appeared in CNN. It is written by Kenneth Davis, author of the book, 'Don't Know Much About History'. Per Davis:

The truth of Revere's ride, the long road to American independence and the real people behind that extraordinary moment is a far more compelling narrative of intrigue, courage and a life-and-death battle for power than the "bedtime story" version most of us recall from half-remembered third grade poetry.

But we prefer holding onto a tidy scenario of pride and patriotism that is neither accurate nor memorable, if we remember at all. Instead, we settle for ignorance, as periodic surveys of American knowledge of history routinely prove. Or we cobble together a sketchy narrative combining fact and fiction to comfortably fit our political agendas.

That is sad. And dangerous. It is sad because history is compelling, fascinating and instructive -- if we tell the real story.

But it is also dangerous when people "cherry pick" pieces of the story to suit their purposes, when the foot is cut to fit the shoe. A sanitized but incomplete, or worse, wildly inaccurate, version of history can be cited to support just about any political stand. Like scripture, the words and deeds of the Founders, mixed with bits and pieces of American mythology, are trumpeted to support positions on every issue from individual rights, states' rights, gun rights or gun control, to taxes, immigration, public prayer and, most dangerously, taking the nation to war.

When American history is gutted, innocently, ignorantly or deliberately, the outcome can be deadly.

That's what I was going on about- the 'gotcha' politics, the hyperbolic response, and the mugging of history by both left and right.

A Replacement For George Carlin?

I snickered when I read the CNN politics page link teaser, "Sarah Palin Gets Vegas Gig". No, she isn't doing stand-up, even if her candidacy for VP seemed like a Neil Hamburger routine. But no, she's addressing the alcohol industry at a convention. From the CNN report:

Washington (CNN) - Las Vegas and alcohol probably aren't the first two things that come to mind at the mention of Sarah Palin, but the former vice presidential candidate is about to change that.

At least that's according to Craig Wolf, the president and CEO of the Wine and Liquor Wholesalers of America, who announced Tuesday that Palin will keynote the group's annual convention and and expo in Las Vegas in early April.

"Governor Palin is a great supporter of America's free enterprise system and understands that industries like the beverage alcohol industry play a key role in driving our national economy. We're proud and honored to welcome her as a speaker," Wolf said in a statement. "We expect she will share with the convention attendees her analysis of the current political environment and her vision for America's future."

If she were such a great supporter of truly free enterprise, she'd get up before them and let them know that she finds the wholesaling laws to be protectionist and generating a needless, inefficient monopoly for middlemen.

I know that would be bad form, taking their speaking fee and then bursting their bubble. But hey, just saying. I guess maybe the reason Palin appeals to conservatives is that they don't understand liberty.

What Is Palin's Allure?

I don't get it. If you can't hang with Katie Couric in an interview, etc., how do you translate yourself as big-stage political material? Are conservatives that desperate? Apparently, yes they are. A thousand lined up in Noblesville, one town north of me, to get 30 seconds of face time and a book signed. From the Indy Star report:

Best-selling author Sarah Palin pulled in the parking lot of Hamilton Town Center in Noblesville at 5:40 p.m. to a crowd chanting her name.

"Sarah, Sarah, Sarah ..."

She got off the bus holding her youngest son, 19-month-old Trig. At the podium, she thanked everyone waiting in the rain for her arrival. People had initially been in line starting around 7 a.m. today to get 1,000 wristbands, used to limit the number of people getting books signed. They lined up again about 3 p.m. to prepare to enter the store. She called them good hard-working Americans, the people from whom she wrote her book "Going Rogue."

I can see going if you gave money during the Presidential run, although if I had, it might be to demand answers more than anything.

But really, what's the allure? I remember the Couric interview, where she said in essense that the bailout had to be done. That's a deal-killer for me, straight away. I don't get how 'conservatives' can be so excited about a fiscal liberal. Is it that her other 'conservative' bona fides simply cancel out everything else with so many Republicans? I just don't get it.

Buchanan Has It All Wrong

Pat Buchanan is whining about a double standard being applied to the candidates. He cites the treatment of Sarah Palin as his proof.

The media cannot get enough of the "Saturday Night Live" impersonations of Palin as a bubblehead. News shows pick up the Tina Fey clips and run them and run them to the merriment of all.

Can one imagine "Saturday Night Live" doing weekly send-ups of Michelle Obama and her "I've never been proud" of my country, this "just downright mean" America, using a black comedienne to mimic and mock her voice and accent?

I take it a different way. It says to me that women have come to treated be on par with men in the political arena. Well, white women. White women have come to be treated on par with white men.

After all, everybody knows that white men run this country. White men in high places have been subject to ridicule in media, and especially on SNL for years, thinking all the way back to Chevy Chase's bumbling Gerry Ford routine. White men in high places, and now white women in high places, are all subject to spoof, satire, send-up, and all manner of piss-taking the media is capable of- because it is safe to ridicule them.

When the New Yorker ran a cartoon of Michelle in an Angela-Davis afro with an AK-47 slung over her shoulder, New Yorker editors had to go on national television to swear they were not mocking Michelle, but the conservatives who have so caricatured Michelle and the Messiah.

Is there a media double standard? You betcha.

Nah. It just means that white women have made it. They are fair game for ridicule. No more kid gloves. And it isn't strictly partisan, because as we note with the first Tina Fey send-up of Palin, there was what? Yes, a matching send-up of Hilary Clinton. So, it isn't partisan at all. Sure, Biden's an idiot who lets loose with just as much absurdity as Palin. It's just that Tina Fey is a dead ringer and hilarious as Palin. Who's a dead ringer for Biden who would be funny? Besides, the media doesn't regard black politicians as being on par with white politicians. Obviously. Or they would send 'em up.

That will change soon, or should. After all, a black man is going to be running things pretty soon. I eagerly await the satire.

Oh, Smaller Government?

(Broadview Hts, OH)- As I listened to the Palin speech, and the Giuliani speech last night, the biggest thing that caught my attention were statements that this Republican ticket would result in smaller government, lower spending, and lower taxes.

Now, why should that be believed?

Sure, the Democratic ticket is going to increase spending, increase the size of government, and raise taxes. But, is that any reason to believe that Republicans won't do the same? It is what was done under the Bush Administration. While in the Senate, John McCain was writing legislation like McCain-Feingold, not legislation that would eliminate a bureaucracy or department, not legislation that would cap spending, not legislation that would significantly cut taxes.

It galls me endlessly that Republicans campaign like fiscal libertarians, and then govern like pale Democrats- except in the last eight years, where Republicans made Democrats look like a collection of Friedmans and von Miseses. Last night's speeches did nothing to reverse this. 

So, Sarah Palin's a bulldog. That's nice. Dennis Kucinich is a bulldog, and gives one hell of a speech. So what? It's about policy, and I just couldn't find it convincing.

Libertarians On Palin

(Fishers, IN)- Now, for the libertarian take on Sarah Palin. My own is that this was a cynical ploy by McCain, simply selecting due to identity politics. I don't care about identity. I care about policy. So, from that standpoint, it's unlikely to be a great pick, and that says something to me about McCain and his 'leadership' and executive methodology.

From Cato-At-Liberty:

Comparing her experience to Biden borders on ridiculous. Since when do libertarians find encouragement in government, much less someone who has spent 36 years in Washington funding programs like Amtrak and prosecuting the drug war? Link.

And, in another post:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has a mixed record on taxes and spending. She’s clearly erred on a few fiscal decisions during her tenure as mayor of Wasilla and as governor. Palin seems to operate from a small government mindset, which makes her few heresies on economic issues puzzling.

Palin has come under fire for supporting the “Bridge to Nowhere” in Ketchikan before she was against it. Aides said the cost of the bridge soared from $223 million to almost $400 million, prompting her to consider alternatives. Link.

From Radley Balko:

By far the best thing Palin’s done thus far is get the usual suspects to don the others’ clothes. That is, the left’s screaming “affirmative action!” while the right’s screaming “sexism!” And both are doing it with a straight face. Makes it fun to be a libertarian.

and

Yes, Palin’s political resume is thin. That’s a plus in my book. “Experience” tends to mean “knows the ways of Washington,” which generally means more of the same old crap. If David Broder has praised you in one of his columns, you’re probably part of the problem. Frankly, I wish Obama had picked someone less “experienced” than Joe Biden, a guy that embodies everything loathesome about Washington. I also like that Palin’s not a career politician, and doesn’t genuflect before powerful interests. On the other hand, it doesn’t bode well that she has a history of also applying that same kick-ass-and-take-names style of governance to, for example, trying to ban books from the public library that she finds offensive.

From Reason's Matt Welch:

Sarah Palin is many interesting things, but she is decidedly not anyone who has done a single thing in her life indicating preparation to lead any kind of "transcendent" foreign policy challenge. In an election that will be fought over the issue of war, where McCain has noisily accused Barack Obama of putting politics before country on the issue of most import, it is McCain who is guilty of just that charge with the selection of perhaps the least-qualified candidate for vice-commander in chief in modern U.S. history. Choosing Palin makes for potentially great politics, but it makes a mockery of McCain's claim to be the national security adult in this race, especially considering that if he's elected, he'll be the oldest first-term president in American history.

Would John McCain, a genuine American hero, place his own political ambitions ahead of the good of the country? Indeed he has, at least according to an authority as knowledgeable on the subject as John McCain. In all five of his books he repeatedly warns us of precisely that tendency. "The worst decisions I have made, not just in politics but over the course of my entire life," he writes in Hard Call, "have been those I made to seek an advantage primarily or solely for myself."

There was initial excitement for some libertarians (not me), as Palin is a lifetime member of the NRA, but the more we learn, the more we find that she's a Republican, and not a Libertarian, for meaningful reasons. The commitment to smaller government only goes so far.

Quick Thoughts on the Palin Pick

(Broadview Heights, OH)- The first thing I thought was, "Oh, come on. Michael Palin is British". But, I could get behind a Python for elected office. At the very least, he would be funny, and the satire of what a governing Python finds would be every bit as enlightening as it would be made hilarious.

This pick isn't funny. It's cynical. I know- all is fair in love, war, and politics, and this is a strategic pick just as sure as picking Biden was strategic in shoring up Obama's foreign policy shortcomings. But picking a candidate just because she's female and attractive? That's an abandoning of policy and worse- for some, it makes the election to come to this: Shall I vote based on the color of one candidate's skin, or, upon the gender of another?

Is that progress? No more than a sharp stick in the eye promotes long-range vision.

I observed quick hits on Palin's lack of experience. Well, nothing really prepares one for being President. CEO of a multinational corporation comes closest, for my money. But McCain, Obama, and Biden all have 100% less experience as an executive- because they have none. Palin does at least have executive branch experience, even if it can be counted the way an infant's life span is counted- in months.

I'll have a Libertarian round-up on Palin, just as I had for Biden.