Why Palin is not at risk of being the Republican’s Messiah
Bookworm on Sep 11 2008 at 10:10 pm | Filed under: Barack Obama, Sarah Palin
Charles Krauthammer wrote a nice article tracking Obama’s swift rise and (probably inevitable) decline. In the section dealing with Obama’s peak moments, Krauthammer compares him to Reagan — and explains why the two men and the public’s reaction to those two men are completely different. If you substitute Palin’s name every time Krauthammer writes “Reagan,” you’ll see why we’re not at risk of turning Palin into a pathetic political Messiah:
The problem is that Obama began believing in his own magical powers — the chants, the swoons, the “we are the ones” self-infatuation. Like Ronald Reagan, he was leading a movement, but one entirely driven by personality.
Reagan’s revolution was rooted in concrete political ideas (supply-side economics, welfare-state deregulation, national strength) that transcended one man. For Obama’s movement, the man is the transcendence.
Which gave the Obama campaign a cultlike tinge. With every primary and every repetition of the high-flown, self-referential rhetoric, the campaign’s insubstantiality became clear. By the time it was repeated yet again on the night of the last primary (No. 3), the tropes were tired and flat.
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
5 Responses to “Why Palin is not at risk of being the Republican’s Messiah”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Gibson v. Palin…
The first aired part of ABC’s Charles Gibson interview with Sarah Palin had the air of an interrogation, taking aim at her experience and foreign policy knowledge. For Palin’s part,……
If you have trouble with Book’s link to the speech freezing midstream, as I did, (via ibdeditorials.com) you can try this link instead:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2JiYTc5OWEyYmRlZjY0ZTI1NjQ5OTU4ODgzMmM2YmE=
Krauthammer was extremely critical of the Palin pick for VP. The full text of the article makes it clear that he remains unhappy with Palin – viewing her as simply another Obama-like celebrity. But one that must remain airborne for only seven weeks.
I wonder, after her interview segments on ABC, and her further exposure to the national scene, if he will moderate his opinion any.
Nothing that I’ve seen, or read, or heard, including quite impressive responses in her first national interview (segments and editted takes) with Charles Gibson, nothing in all of this has changed my opinion. She’s the real deal. Impressive as all get-out.
Bookworm, I want to draw your attention to an article, written by Ron Silliman, an Obama supporter. This is an election analysis, and this might be the wrong thread in which to leave this link. Anyhow, I doubt that Silliman is one of your daily reads, but think you might find this interesting. See Ron Silliman Friday September 12, 2008 http://ronsilliman.blogspot.com/
Greetings:
Many years ago, when I was still a child, my father and I watched one of W.C. Fields’ movies, “You Can’t Cheat an Honest Man”. I was confused by the title and asked my father what it meant.
What he told me was that an honest man knows what he is entitled to and does need or want anything more.
This control of the greed impulse has stood me in good stead throughout my years, not only for my own behavior, but also as an assessment tool for the behavior of others.
Helen,
I know all libs are desperate to keep linking the two words “Bush” and “McCain” as closely together as possible, as does the author of your link.
The truth is, McCain votes a conservative line 90% of the time, not merely “with Bush”. And yet, he is vilified by conservatives because he’s not one of them. Where he departs, along that 90% line, he does so in advocating extremely important positions, especially on corruption and reform.
So – McCain, 90%.
Obama votes with the liberals 97% of the time. He has no significant accomplishments in the areas of reform, and change, and anti-corruption. But, hurrahs and hullaballos, he talks a great game. His most important attempts at reform and change in Chicago – attempting to improve the lives of the struggling poor – were total abject failures. Perhaps we shouldn’t be making fun of community organizers (agitators from outside the community). Perhaps we should be focusing on totally FAILED community organizers such as Barack Obama. Look at his decrepit collapsed playgrounds, his boarded up buildings, his co-group ACORN’s continued corruption. Ted Stevens is more powerful than ACORN, but in terms of how much they love corruption, there’s little to distinguish the two.
Obama’s always talked a good game and never really accomplished much of anything at all. I’m not leaving for Canada or Australia if he wins, but my goodness, do I fear his effect if he wins. As horrifying as were the things Carter did to this country, we could see, at the end of four Obama years, the kind of devastation that makes of Carter a gentle spring rain.
But the mainstream media will of course hide it, obscure it, divert attention from it, just as they’ve hidden his complete failures during all those years in Chicago.
They’ll continue to slant nicely towards the Democrats and hostilely towards the Republicans, as they have on Palin. It never ends.