The thing about Sarah, &c.

National Review ^ | 6/8/2011 | Jay Nordlinger

[Servant of the Cross]

I’d like to say something about Sarah Palin — but I first need to say something about Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel peace laureate who was the subject of my column on Monday. I promise that my point about Ebadi will relate to my point about Palin.

About a year ago, I was talking to an Iranian friend of mine, an exile journalist. We were talking about his countrywoman, Ebadi. I was kind of griping about her. I said, “You know, if she wants to oppose the Afghan and Iraq wars, fine. She can denounce them if she wants — plenty of respectable people do. But why can’t she say one word for the people who suffered terribly, for years, under the Taliban and Saddam Hussein?”

I think I went on this way for a while. When I was done with my little rant, my friend said, “But then she wouldn’t be Shirin Ebadi, she would be Jay Nordlinger.” In other words, she has the right to be the kind of person she wants to be, rather than the kind I would have her be.

A few nights ago, I was having dinner with another journalist friend of mine — an American, a conservative, like me. We were talking about Sarah Palin. And we were saying what we had both wanted for her: We wanted her to go back to Alaska following the 2008 presidential election. Be the best governor she could be. Bone up like crazy, on issues national and international. Emerge for the 2012 presidential cycle informed to the gills, but still with her lovely, fresh, irreplaceable charisma. Then sweep the world.

That’s what my friend and I wanted for Palin (and us). But she wanted the TV reality show, the move to Arizona, etc. Fine. Her life, not mine. But . . .

Don’t you hate it, sometimes, when people aren’t what you want them to be? When they are, instead, what they want to be?

Do you think Anthony Weiner will survive his scandal? Brazen it out? He certainly could. He could be holding public office for decades to come.

During “Lewinskygate” and impeachment, a lot of us said that this was a test of America, as much as a test of a particular man, Bill Clinton. The president used a 21-year-old intern for sex in the Oval Office (as I remember). There followed perjury, subornation of perjury, abuse of power, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, etc., etc., etc.

And the American people were basically cool with it. Oh, yes they were. Those of us who were not cool with it were denounced as squares, prudes, killjoys, shredders of the Constitution. Clinton seemed to get ever more popular. His party had a field day at the polls in 1998, the sixth year of his presidency, a year that should have been terrible for Democrats. And make no mistake: If not for the Twenty-second Amendment, he would have been elected to a third term. Hell, he might still be president today.

The American people are a lot like Weiner and Clinton: They just wanna get they freak on. And they don’t really mind whether public servants do. Such is life in a “post-moral” society. The “Sixties” — to use a broad, metaphorical term — have won.

I’m sorry, dear readers: I’m just not very gooey about “the American people,” sometimes. I think I’ve met too many of them — and that does not exclude those who travel in conservative circles, believe me. I might be in a cynical mood just at the moment. I’ll let you know when it passes . . .

Last week, I had a blogpost, titled “Wives.” It was a little reflection on Mrs. Anthony Weiner and Mrs. Bill Clinton. I said,

Many of us said, during 1998, that much depended on how the wife reacted. What would Hillary do? Would she stand by her man, or declare that she had had enough? She chose to do the former: making accusations of a “vast, right-wing conspiracy.” That saved him (although Ken Starr saved him too, by tipping him off about the dress). (For chapter and verse on this affair — all of Lewinskygate and impeachment — see Susan Schmidt and Michael Weisskopf’s Truth at Any Cost. It is the definitive book, so far as I know.)

A reader wrote me,

Jay,

The mom of that girl out in Seattle has just called Weiner out on the carpet. She said, “I’m really upset. I feel like he’s a person of power and influence, who can make a statement and make all this go away.” Another quote: “As her mother, I’m really upset.”

That reminded me of what I often thought during the Lewinsky scandal of 1998: Where’s the dad? If it had been me, I would have marched to the White House and demanded to see the president so I could punch him in the nose. I wouldn’t have gotten in. But I would at least have let the press know what a lowdown, no-good, rotten guy I thought Clinton was.

If that had happened, I think Clinton doesn’t make it past a week. What do you think?

I don’t know. Interesting point.

Note the contrast between the behavior of former congressman Chris Lee and the behavior of still-congressman Anthony Weiner. The first gets caught in a “social media” scandal, and immediately resigns. Weiner lies for a while, until it becomes impossible: and then determines to brazen it out.

The next House election is a long way off. Year and a half. Will people remember Weiner’s scandal at that point? Will it lend him cachet? “Edginess”?

This is perfect: “NBC News is hiring former National Public Radio chief Vivian Schiller, who left this year in the midst of a political controversy . . .” (Rest of the story here.) NPR, NBC, ABC, XYZ — does it really matter? Is it not all one club, so to speak?

(excerpt) [the rest is about music ]

[nhwingut]

She became a reality star...

Back handed compliment... nothing else.

[presently no screen name]

she can do no wrong and is our ONLY hope (um, no)

ONLY (um no)?? Share then what's on your mind - instead of critiquing posts.

[9YearLurker]

That’s a big, big point.

Even half serious watchers of Palin have to acknowledge that she’s nowhere near ‘stupid’, as the Dems, RINOs and media have made her out to be.

It’ll be interesting to see if Undefeated can lay to rest the claims that she’s unserious, unschooled, and unqualified, as well.

The reality-TV aspect of her personality and her folksy off-the-cuff speaking style do seem to me to be parts of who she is, peccadilloes such as anyone or any leader has. They endear her to some and put others off, but they are peripheral as to who she would be as a president.

[Servant of the Cross]

I believe that Cain, DeMint, West, Bachmann are equally capable of being a POTUS that conservatives would love.

And I do fear that in-fighting will split the conservative vote, playing right into the hands of the GOP establishment (and ugh, the Mittster).

[presently no screen name]

Well said! That’s not how it happened. That’s about as far as it can be from how it actually happened.

And so much for through and through conservatives - the MSM manipulates the truth. Since when is that tactic called conservative SOTC?

[FroggyTheGremlim]

"We wanted her to go back to Alaska following the 2008 presidential election. Be the best governor she could be. Bone up like crazy, on issues national and international. Emerge for the 2012 presidential cycle informed to the gills, but still with her lovely, fresh, irreplaceable charisma. Then sweep the world."

I don't know Sarah Palin, but I'll bet a weeks pay that was what she wanted to do too.

But the evil Rouse and other Obama operatives kept hitting her (and Alaska) with all those groundless complaints and lawsuits. None of them ever stood up, but they were quite hurtful to Palin, which was the intent.

So in the end, she sacrificed her future for the good of her state. Evil won.

God owes her. I hope He comes through.

[MEGoody]

I agree that Sarah had good reasons for resigning the office of Governor of Alaska. My concern is how that is going to be perceived by the American people if she chooses to run.

She'll definitely have to come up with a strategy for educating people on her reasons, then repeat it over and over so the voters finally get it. We all know she will be blasted about it repeatedly by the MSM.

[DJ MacWoW]

Those frivolous ethics complaints also cost Alaska $2 million. Palin wasn’t about to let Alaskan taxpayers foot the bill because she was hated.

[trisham]

The thing is, she didn’t just wake up one morning of a normal, routine gubernatorial term and say, “Hey, I’m tired of this. I want to go make money and do reality shows and buy a place in Phoenix.” That’s not how it happened. That’s about as far as it can be from how it actually happened....It’s incredibly irritating that I and many others saw that at the time, and still do, and others, some ostensibly as well or better situated to follow the story (like, let’s say, a senior editor of the American conservative movement’s magazine of record) still don’t. Or are willing to gloss over it.

****************************

Agreed. The author should have known this. Either he's misinformed or deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

[Servant of the Cross]

Good grief. 9YearLurker puts it well about the voters (independents and squishy-er GOPers) that Sarah Palin will also need to appeal to ... (upthread)

The reality-TV aspect of her personality and her folksy off-the-cuff speaking style do seem to me to be parts of who she is, peccadilloes such as anyone or any leader has. They endear her to some and put others off, but they are peripheral as to who she would be as a president.

Okay. For the record, Sarah Palin is my first choice currently (although 'what if' she doesn't run?) with Herman Cain a close second. I have posted consistently very positively about Sarah Palin. I agree that she did not quit, that she decided to attack in a different direction.

Sarah Palin, following her resignation: This is not the face of a 'quitter'. Look out libs!

Btw, you only prove my point that too many posts at FR are overtly thin-skinned about any perceived 'criticism' of Sarah Palin.(even if it may actually be a 'grudging' acknowledgment that Sarah's chosen path may be the right one and better than what the 'conventional wisdom')

[presently no screen name]

I see your rant as a 'anyone but Sarah'.

And I got a got a taste of what you consider conservative ea, yea, yea, yea .... blah, blah, blah, blah ....You paint NRO with too broad a brush - Andy McCarthy, Jay Nordlinger are conservatives through and through.

Manipulating news - nothing honest or conservative about that. I rest my case and thumbs down on your (um no) - in your push for 'anyone but Sarah'. It's an attempt at being subtle and it's a turn off - and more of a plus for SARAH as her enemies are trying the 'angel of light' approach since the outward trashing failed. Deception is repulsive to me.

[Matchett-PI]

"The American people are a lot like Weiner and Clinton: They just wanna get they freak on. And they don’t really mind whether public servants do. Such is life in a “post-moral” society. The “Sixties” — to use a broad, metaphorical term — have won. I’m sorry, dear readers: I’m just not very gooey about “the American people,” sometimes. I think I’ve met too many of them — and that does not exclude those who travel in conservative circles, believe me. I might be in a cynical mood just at the moment. I’ll let you know when it passes . . ."

As Fred Thompson said on Hannity's show last night [paraphrased], "To see how far down we've come in America today, contrast back in the days of Nixon when we asked, "What did he know and when did he know it?". Today we ask, "What did he show, and when did he show it?".

[presently no screen name]

you only prove my point that too many posts at FR are overtly thin-skinned about any perceived 'criticism' of Sarah Palin.(even if it may actually be a 'grudging' acknowledgment that Sarah's chosen path may be the right one and better than what the 'conventional wisdom'

No, it doesn't prove any point. First of all, it was not her chosen path. You out yourself with your owns words or too clueless to 'get it'.

Whose conventional wisdom - the MSM and the elitists? A LEADER is unconventional - not a follower of the pack.

And your 'thin skinned' intimidation label tactic is a tool of the 'angel of light'.

[9YearLurker]

I don’t believe Cain, West, Bachmann or DeMint has a prayer of being the nominee or the president. All good conservatives, but a first-term congressman, third-term congressman, a former pizza executive and a Southern white male senator are all poor picks for the GOP nomination. (A Southern white male senator who is a Democrat would be well positioned, to the contrary.)

Absolutely none of them have a whit of experience as an executive in government, which voters fairly look to as the best background for a president. Two of them have only run in a single (local) election, with one of them not even having made it out of the primary at that.

Cain is a good man whom I believe will flame out for his inability or unwillingness to address too many issues, other than saying he’d hire and listen to experts. West and DeMint likely won’t run.

None of them has been vetted in a national campaign before.

Bachmann has been supported and egged on by an Establishment looking to stop Palin, and for that doesn’t deserve an ounce of our support.

In another four years we would have lots of strong, seasoned, competitive GOP governors to consider. Right now Palin is IMO our only genuine, viable conservative choice. If she doesn’t run or do well, our best hope out of the mushy middle is Pawlenty.

That IMO is the hard reality of the 2012 race.

[9YearLurker]

I guess you could put me in the category believing Palin has her quirks and flaws like any human or political leader, but she is our best choice for the GOP and the country in 2012.

[presently no screen name]

Cain is a good man whom I believe will flame out for his inability or unwillingness to address too many issues, other than saying he’d hire and listen to experts.

He addressed one issue - He agreed with Barry that the bin laden photos should not be shown to Americans. Only the elitists got to view them, if they wanted to. He ain't getting my vote.

[Servant of the Cross]

That IMO is the hard reality of the 2012 race.

I agree with most of this. However, if Sarah Palin doesn't run, but backs any one of these other candidates instead, they instantly become electable. Having been a FredHead who was burned before, I'm not putting all my eggs in one basket again.

[NeoCaveman]

However, if Sarah Palin doesn't run, but backs any one of these other candidates instead, they instantly become electable.

If her mini-me isn't careful Sarah just might back TPaw, sending both Mitt & Michele packing.

[9YearLurker]

I hear you on the Fred-burning, I was there too. But I don’t think Palin’s backing makes any of those electable. It’s Mitt or TPaw in a walk against any of them.

[Servant of the Cross]

But I don’t think Palin’s backing makes any of those electable.

You could be right, but at this early stage of the race, I refuse to be so pessimistic. Too depressing. Besides, saying Herman Cain, Jim DeMint or Allen West isn't electable reminds me of the naysayers saying the same thing about Sarah Palin. Never say never. Saving the Country is too important.