Can Sarah Palin Be Remade Again?
Stuart Nachbar
July 15, 2009
The major difference between a politician and a pundit is that a politician has to answer the questions while a pundit gets to ask them. If Sarah Palin has any future in politics it would be as a host and pundit, not as an elected official and certainly not as any guiding symbol for the Republican Party.
I have confessed in prior posts that I did not vote for the Republican ticket, nor did I respect Sarah Palin as a vice presidential candidate; her limited intellect and overly folksy performances were a turn-off. But I did concede that her selection last fall made some sense from a telegenic/marketing perspective. Palin offered the right contrasts: conservatism, youth and populist appeal to help John McCain unify a Republican ticket. The presidential race did get closer after Palin came on board, but the economic news did their ticket in.
Conservatives always like a candidate who symbolizes rugged individualism; one only needs to look at their past enthusiasm for Goldwater and Reagan to view Palin as a potential soulmate to that aspect of the legacy.
What Palin seriously lacked was the intellectual heft to sway the most difficult of electoral targets, the undecided voter, into the GOP column. Palin might have believed that intellectual prowess was not necessary to become vice president, but her lack of it made her the butt of jokes.
I look at Palin's decision to resign as governor of Alaska and have to guess that it was done for one or both of these reasons: income or fear of further embarrassment.
I do not believe, for one minute, that it was about saving the State of Alaska from embarrassment. Palin was probably right; most of these ethics lawsuits appear to be frivolous or minor compared to charges brought against other elected officials. But if this was so, why did she simply quit and run?
Palin campaigned for the vice presidency as a candidate with a maverick streak and straight talk. If she believed that her accusers were lying, then why didn't she use her office as a bully pulpit? She has not been convicted of a crime. She was in no danger of being recalled. She had the charisma and national profile to fight broader battles, and possibly win re-election or a Senate seat.
I also have to wonder: why didn't a national conservative organization such as the Heritage Foundation come to her defense and raise money on her behalf? Conservatives do an excellent job of providing for the post-political careers of their retired and vanquished loyalists. Jack Kemp, for example, was a fellow with the Heritage Foundation after he retired from Congress. J.C. Watts became a successful lobbyist. Even Rick Santorum, who lost his Senate seat in a near landslide, has become a senior fellow at a conservative policy organization.
Palin plans to write a book and likely go on the lecture circuit. She'll make a lot of money and draw friendly audiences, for sure. But I question this move for reasons beyond money. Palin's book, once published, will be reviewed by the same media she disdains and she will be questioned on radio and television by those same commentators, too. Why, outside of money, would she put herself through that wringer again?
If Sarah Palin wants to remake herself then she should put herself into situations she can control. Let ESPN hire her to host a sport fishing show and share the beauty of her state with the nation. Or give her a talk show with a decent time slot where she handpicks the guests. She does not have the tolerance for ambiguity to be anything more than a unquestioned commentator. Don't laugh. Ronald Reagan got a lot of mileage, and a good income, from hosting General Electric Theatre.
The last vice presidential candidate who was considered an intellectual lightweight was Dan Quayle. But Palin makes him look like a Rhodes Scholar.
For one thing, Quayle had a respectable political resume before he became vice president. He had served two terms in Congress after defeating a eight-term Democrat, knocked off a popular Democrat (Birch Bayh) to win a Senate seat at the start of the Reagan Revolution and had gotten re-elected to a second term.
Quayle is credited as the co-author of the Job Training Partnership Act, along with Sen. Edward Kennedy. But it was Quayle's sponsorship that led President Reagan to sign it. Reagan would not embrace an initiative for new government spending that had no Republican support.
Quayle, like Palin, was young (43) and considered a fresh and telegenic face for the conservative movement when he was picked to run for Vice President. And he too performed well in front of friendly audiences. But he, also like Palin, made less-than brilliant remarks in front of the national media and become the butt of jokes; he's known as Indiana's most famous 'C' student after David Letterman.
But in the wake of Palin's resignation, I realize that Quayle's gaffes were far less serious-he was even vindicated for his comments about TV character Murphy Brown by the actress who played her-and he was on the winning team in his first national race.
After Quayle lost in his re-election bid in 1992 he never worked in politics again. He wrote three books; one, Standing Firm, became a national best seller. Only 47 when heleft office, Quayle now works in investment banking. Ironically, he too is on the board of a conservative policy think tank. Not bad for a man who couldn't spell potato.
But I doubt such a future awaits Sarah Palin because she quit and ran.
Stuart Nachbar blogs on education and politics at www.EducatedQuest.com. Read more about his new novel, Defending College Heights, at www.DefendingCollegeHeights.com
I have confessed in prior posts that I did not vote for the Republican ticket, nor did I respect Sarah Palin as a vice presidential candidate; her limited intellect and overly folksy performances were a turn-off. But I did concede that her selection last fall made some sense from a telegenic/marketing perspective. Palin offered the right contrasts: conservatism, youth and populist appeal to help John McCain unify a Republican ticket. The presidential race did get closer after Palin came on board, but the economic news did their ticket in.
Conservatives always like a candidate who symbolizes rugged individualism; one only needs to look at their past enthusiasm for Goldwater and Reagan to view Palin as a potential soulmate to that aspect of the legacy.
What Palin seriously lacked was the intellectual heft to sway the most difficult of electoral targets, the undecided voter, into the GOP column. Palin might have believed that intellectual prowess was not necessary to become vice president, but her lack of it made her the butt of jokes.
I look at Palin's decision to resign as governor of Alaska and have to guess that it was done for one or both of these reasons: income or fear of further embarrassment.
I do not believe, for one minute, that it was about saving the State of Alaska from embarrassment. Palin was probably right; most of these ethics lawsuits appear to be frivolous or minor compared to charges brought against other elected officials. But if this was so, why did she simply quit and run?
Palin campaigned for the vice presidency as a candidate with a maverick streak and straight talk. If she believed that her accusers were lying, then why didn't she use her office as a bully pulpit? She has not been convicted of a crime. She was in no danger of being recalled. She had the charisma and national profile to fight broader battles, and possibly win re-election or a Senate seat.
I also have to wonder: why didn't a national conservative organization such as the Heritage Foundation come to her defense and raise money on her behalf? Conservatives do an excellent job of providing for the post-political careers of their retired and vanquished loyalists. Jack Kemp, for example, was a fellow with the Heritage Foundation after he retired from Congress. J.C. Watts became a successful lobbyist. Even Rick Santorum, who lost his Senate seat in a near landslide, has become a senior fellow at a conservative policy organization.
Palin plans to write a book and likely go on the lecture circuit. She'll make a lot of money and draw friendly audiences, for sure. But I question this move for reasons beyond money. Palin's book, once published, will be reviewed by the same media she disdains and she will be questioned on radio and television by those same commentators, too. Why, outside of money, would she put herself through that wringer again?
If Sarah Palin wants to remake herself then she should put herself into situations she can control. Let ESPN hire her to host a sport fishing show and share the beauty of her state with the nation. Or give her a talk show with a decent time slot where she handpicks the guests. She does not have the tolerance for ambiguity to be anything more than a unquestioned commentator. Don't laugh. Ronald Reagan got a lot of mileage, and a good income, from hosting General Electric Theatre.
The last vice presidential candidate who was considered an intellectual lightweight was Dan Quayle. But Palin makes him look like a Rhodes Scholar.
For one thing, Quayle had a respectable political resume before he became vice president. He had served two terms in Congress after defeating a eight-term Democrat, knocked off a popular Democrat (Birch Bayh) to win a Senate seat at the start of the Reagan Revolution and had gotten re-elected to a second term.
Quayle is credited as the co-author of the Job Training Partnership Act, along with Sen. Edward Kennedy. But it was Quayle's sponsorship that led President Reagan to sign it. Reagan would not embrace an initiative for new government spending that had no Republican support.
Quayle, like Palin, was young (43) and considered a fresh and telegenic face for the conservative movement when he was picked to run for Vice President. And he too performed well in front of friendly audiences. But he, also like Palin, made less-than brilliant remarks in front of the national media and become the butt of jokes; he's known as Indiana's most famous 'C' student after David Letterman.
But in the wake of Palin's resignation, I realize that Quayle's gaffes were far less serious-he was even vindicated for his comments about TV character Murphy Brown by the actress who played her-and he was on the winning team in his first national race.
After Quayle lost in his re-election bid in 1992 he never worked in politics again. He wrote three books; one, Standing Firm, became a national best seller. Only 47 when heleft office, Quayle now works in investment banking. Ironically, he too is on the board of a conservative policy think tank. Not bad for a man who couldn't spell potato.
But I doubt such a future awaits Sarah Palin because she quit and ran.
Stuart Nachbar blogs on education and politics at www.EducatedQuest.com. Read more about his new novel, Defending College Heights, at www.DefendingCollegeHeights.com
Print
Email
