I mention this to put in perspective that we all kind of look at the Bush years now and go "how the fuck did that happen?", however a lot of people thought he would make a good president. They tend to forget the sputtering end of the Clinton presidency and that Al Gore ran a campaign in 2000 that made a log look lively. So yes, there was a certain degree of sense in him getting it in 2000. It was completely illogical for him to have won in 2004 since it was pretty clear he was an idiot by then, however that's getting off the point of this post.
The point is that details are beginning to leak now about Sarah Palin's biography, Going Rogue. And it's pretty apparent that if you ever wanted to see revisionist history at work to try and redeem your political fortunes, I suspect you would be hard pressed to find a better example than this.
That Palin is clearly not fit for higher office in the United States should have been pretty obvious in 2008. That she's considered a front runner for the Republicans in 2012 says more about the state of the Right in the United States than I care to dwell on. Even if she had went away, got herself better educated and prepared for a run in 2016, I might have some respect for that. Instead, she quit her job as governor and is making a pile of money on the speech circuit and writing this apparently inane book.
Politicians have never been shy about rewriting history to serve their own needs, so I guess one shouldn't fault Palin too hard for making the attempt. However, Palin has never exactly been one finely in tune with reality to begin with, one gets the feeling, so her lies seem especially odd. This bit, and I'm quoting from the Globe's story, is particularly....weird.
She writes at length about Ms. Couric. She says that the idea to meet with Ms. Couric came from McCain campaign aide Nicolle Wallace, who told Ms. Palin that Ms. Couric — also a working mother — liked and admired her. It would be a favour to Mr. Couric, too, whom Ms. Palin notes had the lowest ratings of the network anchors. Ms. Wallace said Ms. Couric suffered from low self-esteem. And Palin replied that she almost began to “feel sorry” for Ms. Couric.
She alleges that Ms. Couric and CBS left out her more “substantive” remarks and settled for “gotcha” moments. She writes that Ms. Couric had a “partisan agenda” and a condescending manner. Ms. Couric was “badgering,” biased and far easier on Ms. Couric's Democratic counterpart, Joe Biden.
One gets the feeling that Palin is never going to find a media outlet, outside of Fox News, that she can't blame for her own massive shortcomings as a political leader. The whole world is out to get her, after all. The fact that she blasts McCain, who lifted her from political obscurity should also give you some idea of the character and personality we're dealing with here.
I guess there is a segment out there who will believe this, that Palin's "folksy" charm means she's perfectly qualified to lead the United States despite the quite evident lack of intellectual curiosity. I would like to hope that most would see through all of this and write her off as a blip and bad joke in the history of American politics.
Bush idiocy managed to sneak up on some people. If you can't see Palin coming from a mile away, well, that's quite a set of blinders you're wearing.
Last Five
1. There is a war - Sean Panting
2. Everything to me - Liz Phair
3. She - Elvis Costello*
4. Double life - Matthew Good
5. Shore leave - Tom Waits
4 comments:
Our neighborhood was littered with McCain Pallin signs during the campaign. We live in the armpit of California with a heavy Republican constituancy. It was embarassing driving home each day. In this culture of Jesus and Nascar, I retain my Canadian status/sanity/clarity. Keep it real Townie! Paul
I disagree with the idea that it made sense for Bush to have won in 2000 - Gore did win the popular vote and then there was the florida botch. Apparently he left Texas in a mess financially and they were forced to cut drastically, that's the sort of history that was destined to repeat itself - and it did.
Aside from all that - where are stories about the house!?!? How's it going?
yeah, gotta disagree on george w. his previous career was a disaster. about the only good rationale I ever heard for him being a candidate was that he spoke spanish, and had made a real effort to bring spanish-speaking voters onside in texas (good politics demographically!). but nothing he had done until then made him a good candidate, except that the other republicans were worse! the rest of your analysis makes sense, but I don't think we need to see george as anything other than a weak candidate who basically fluked into power.
Bush was clearly a disaster in the making from the outset of the 2000 election.
The odd thing is, regardless of the mess he left in Texas, he was a much clearer headed thinker back then. There are Youtube clips of him in debate for the Governorship that showed him running circles around opponents.
The only thing that crept up on everyone in 2000 was the outcome afterwards. No one expected the Supreme Court to call a kidnapped election legit.
Regards,
etc.
Post a Comment