To be or not to be-- or something like that

If you are writing a blog such as mine, which sometimes delves into politics, you faced a question when Sarah Palin burst onto the scene again. Do you write about her? It's not possible to ignore her presence and what it could mean politically when she is all over the right and left media. But how does anyone write about her critically (as in analytically) without being accused of being a hater? The poor lady is constantly being picked on by the mean lefties which only endears her more to the righties.

[Why the Palin "Hate Affair" will backfire].

To begin, I don't hate Sarah Palin. How could I? She's done nothing to me to cause me to hate her. I do have an opinion about her though-- one which has been only enhanced by her recent media appearances. Most people appear to have made up their minds about her-- either pro or con. So why take the heat for writing about her? I read a couple of different takes on that question (both from liberal writers) .

Palin's Ego Trip
or
Leave Palin Alone

Which didn't help at all as they had differing views. Of course, Andrew Sullivan had his opinion on her book: Deconstructing Sarah. Because he is fascinated by her complex personality and has pointed out her lies, he's listed by her under those haters. Then there was Frank Rich -- The Pit Bull in the China Shop with his take on what she means for 2012.

I also read opinions which added up to hoping she runs for president. They want to see the right wing totally destroy the Republican party, and think Palin is the fool tool to do it. Those writers are sure she's not very smart and will self-destruct hopefully not before she gets the nomination in 2012.

Personally, I don't like that idea because I have the opinion that we gain as a nation when we have two highly qualified candidates running for our highest office with different political viewpoints. That way no matter who wins, we are going to be okay even if the political direction in which they take us may be very different. (It would have appeared we would have that in 2008 until McCain chose Palin instead of Lieberman.)

But my reasoning in her case also has a practical level: we don't know she can't win if she gets the nomination-- [Nate Silver-- 10 Reasons that Sarah Palin could win]. And we don't know that she's dumb as some lefties hope. When you set a bar really low, it doesn't take much to top it. She could be dumb; but then again she might be intelligent but have been intellectually lazy because she has been taught that it's not Christian to be an intellectual and not necessary anyway when she is so gorgeous (which she is).

Her answers in any interview make her sound like someone who has very little interest in the details of policies. Cut taxes, you betcha. Do whatever the generals order, yep. Exactly how her lack of interest in details or consequences (she's had plenty of time to bone up if she had wanted to do so) will help her make policy decisions pretty well comes back to how well you felt G.W. Bush did in that office.

Palin's simplistic answers don't tell us if she knows much but do appeal to the right wing of her party-- especially the Christian right. They don't like lengthy answers, love pithy comments they can repeat, and they most definitely resent anybody who would talk like an intellectual which she most definitely does not. *big wink*

Here's the thing. If we, on the left, don't address why we don't see her as fit for the highest office, we are treating it a lot like John Kerry did when he couldn't believe anybody would think he was a coward since he had been to war, when he could have dodged it, and had been shot at. His logic went how could they think Bush was the brave one when he evaded going and didn't even fulfill his full service. Until Kerry was swift-boated, by men who weren't anywhere near him when he was in combat, he assumed people would know without him making his case. They didn't.

My reasons for not wanting to see Palin as anything more than a Fox TV show host like Glenn Beck (who she has said wouldn't be a bad running mate if she did run) are more about her character than her possible policy positions. It's interesting that the right wing talks about how important character is but often they seem to equate it only with sexual behavior rather than things like lying.

[Palin's lies].

From looking at her untruths, Sarah Palin doesn't seem to be the kind who lies to protect herself (not honorable but understandable) but basically what appears to be of the pathological sort: [How to recognize a pathological liar]

Have you ever known anyone like that? They lie when it doesn't matter. They lie to enhance their ego. They don't bother to keep track of their lies. In her case it's even more bizarre than the usual pathological liar because what she says can easily be checked through transcripts and video tape. Does she not worry about keeping her stories straight because she knows her fans won't bother to check or is there a more disturbing reason?

Does having someone with that character flaw in our highest office worry you? There is yet another character quality that should be of equal concern. She gets back at people who have wronged her-- even if they didn't but she thinks they did. She basically is a grudge holder and it's easy to see it through her record (for those who care to look), her book (no, I won't be buying it, just going by the excerpts online), her interviews, and her speeches.

We have had a few grudge holders as president (some say it's what Obama does but that has yet to be proven) and it's never good-- in either party. That kind of person will take personal umbrage and damage others to get their revenge. Politicians should rise above that kind of thing for the good of the country. They don't all manage it.

Why do you suppose liberals didn't like her when she ran for Vice-president? Because she has great cheekbones and liked to hunt in full make-up? That's funny but only an extreme rightie would believe it was the reason. She was running in a party that has positions we naturally would not like, but it was something more.

Not only did she (and does she) lie about the position of liberals on pretty much any issue you can name (death panels for a starter), but she ridicules and puts us down in the nastiest way from which she takes clear delight and gains power in doing.

Palin's rhetoric feeds the far right who think all taxes are bad, don't like any government, but have no clue what government does. She says what they want to hear which is that it's all (whatever it is) somebody else's fault, and they shouldn't have to pay anything for it. They were and are drawn to her like moths to a flame, loved it that the left didn't like her, and will avidly vote for her in 2012. The only question about whether she could win an election will be how the moderates see her by then.

Whether she could get educated into policy positions, that I don't know. Whether she's intelligent, that I don't know; but I do know she has some character qualities that could make her a scary president-- maybe the scariest ever. G.W. Bush didn't appear to do the grudge thing, and I don't know if he lied as much as was intellectually lazy and misinformed. I have a feeling when he lied though, if he felt he had to, he knew it. I am not convinced Palin does. If that doesn't worry you, it should!