Replies

"What if we picked a candidate who recognized the MSM as our enemy and chose to openly go to war with them?"

I think that would be great; it would be ideal. Unfortunately, for someone to pull that off, they would need to be a master communicator.

When I watched the Palin/Couric interview, there were multiple opportunities that Palin missed to paint Couric as a shill for the Dems. But, she missed them - she was like a deer caught in the headlights.

If you a Republican at the national level and you don't understand that every interview you do will be hostile, then you ARE and idiot.

We need someone like Giuliani (not Guiliani himself). RG was a spectacular mouthpiece for the Republican party after the convention. Why? Because, as a lifelong prosecutor expected the unexpected and could turn tough questions around and score points against the interviewer and the opposition. He was masterful. I should add, Romney wasn't bad either - and I wasn't a Romney supporter.

Palin's a nice lady with a compelling back story. She also appears to be a successful state CEO and I'm glad she's a conservative but she just doesn't have the intellectual horsepower to compete on the national stage. If you can't beat Katie freakin Couric in the interview game, you just don't have what it takes. Sorry!

I personally think it is a little more difficult to beat Katie Couric or any interviewer for that matter when they edit their interviews before airing them and also meet w/ the other candidates foreign advisors etc. to sabotage the interview. Oratory and communication skills are easily obtained with practice if she decides to run for national office again - what’s harder to establish is character, charisma and conservative values. I like to give people the benefit of doubt before casting stones and assuming they are not capable. It’s times like those (for me personally) when I actually come out stronger and tougher to prove people wrong - she strikes me as the same type of person (but again that’s years away so we will see).

[Palin] also appears to be a successful state CEO and I'm glad she's a conservative but she just doesn't have the intellectual horsepower to compete on the national stage. If you can't beat Katie freakin Couric in the interview game, you just don't have what it takes.

I believe you're selling Palin short.

"Intellectual horsepower" isn't what you're looking for. You're looking for somebody who is a natural-born presenter, knows their subject and is passionate about it. To excel at this skill requires -- not IQ -- but practice.

I speak from experience -- in the conference room and in the media.

As a matter of fact, GWB probably has all the "intellectual horsepower" you could want. He's a graduate of Yale, has an MBA from Harvard (when it meant something) and was a supersonic fighter pilot (there are no stupid people flying supersonic jets). Inarticulate, yes. Unskilled at presenting, yes. But all the "intellectual horsepower" you could hope for. And, unfortunately, no amount of practice made him better at this arcane game.

In that sense, I believe that Palin has everything it takes to be an amazing presenter -- a deep knowledge of state affairs, a remarkable passion and a quick mind. In addition, she's quite engaging in a media, mass or personal environment. She needs only to gain more exposure to (and knowledge of) national affairs...plus practice.

Oh, and being dependent upon McCain's team for background and briefing -- and required to defend McCain's policies -- well, that didn't help, either.

I agree that Giuliani and Romney could both carry off an anti-MSM positioning. But Giuliani and the base are far apart on many issues. Romney is closer to conservatism, perhaps, but deeply distrusted by many people in the base (rightly or wrongly).

Besides which, neither was strong enough to defeat John McCain -- a palpably weak candidate.

In my opinion, conservatism would be best served by a new generation of leaders. And Palin would certainly be one of the people on my list (though not the only one).

First of all I don’t think Palin is an idiot or a fool, but she was certainly naive with respect to Washington cutthroat politics. In all fairness, what could be expected from someone that far away from Washington, DC politics while still being in the United States? She literally had days to come up to speed after her selection by McCain. I don’t know what McCain did to prepare her after their first meeting, and before her selection, but I doubt he did much.
On the other hand, her separation from beltway politics may have been her strongest attribute. Being a part of the beltway inner circle is hardly a recommendation for anything, except more of the same malfeasance and corruption. She also made the mistake of beating the same theme, ad nausium, in her speeches, instead of addressing contemporary National issues. After the first couple of speeches, we all knew just about everything we needed to know about her experience in Alaska. On the other hand, if she said anything really profound she would have upstaged McCain even more than she did.
That being said, I still like her, and if she has any notion of returning to the National stage in 2012, she needs to find a good mentor and start now to develop her knowledge of international and domestic issues, and she needs to learn how to turn the tables on the biased and contemptuous media. As you stated, she missed many opportunities to put the interviewers in their place, Couric included. She also needs to advance some of her thinking on contemporary economic issues from a national perspective, not from the perspective of a state rolling in oil royalties.
In my view, she comes across as being more honest and down to earth than any of the vile politicians from the Washington inner circle. I’d like to see her on the ticket in 2012, but only if she starts now to prepare herself for the role.