SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Palin's Unintended Admission

JONATHAN CHAIT NOVEMBER 24, 2010

Palin's Unintended Admission

BY NOAM SCHEIBER

[Guest post by Noam Scheiber:]

Well, as long as we're highlighting nuggets from the recent Robert Draper profile of Palin, here's my nominee for most telling:

“I am,” Sarah Palin told me the next day when I asked her if she was already weighing a run for president. “I’m engaged in the internal deliberations candidly, and having that discussion with my family, because my family is the most important consideration here.” Palin went on to say that there weren’t meaningful differences in policy among the field of G.O.P. hopefuls “but that in fact there’s more to the presidency than that” and that her decision would involve evaluating whether she could bring unique qualities to the table [emphasis added].

Wait, what? Isn't Palin supposed to be the Tea Party candidate in the GOP field? As such, aren't there potentially enormous policy differences between her and some of her rivals? For example, from what I gather, she's very much against Obama's signature health care law, whereas Mitt Romney championed a close relative of the law when he was governor of Massachusetts. Likewise, Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, another presidential hopeful, has mused about the utility of a value-added tax; Palin is almost certainly against that. As the Tea Party standard bearer, Palin would presumably want to rein in the Fed's cherished independence. I'm guessing more establishment Republicans like Romney and Daniels would be reluctant to climb on board that train. Etc., etc.

Obviously, the issue here isn't a lack of policy differences. The issue is that Palin doesn't feel comfortable elaborating on them--even though most would play to her advantage in the GOP primaries--because she doesn't feel remotely comfortable talking policy of any kind. And, if I'm reading her correctly, she has no plans to get more comfortable talking policy. In case you needed more evidence that Palin is laughably unfit to be president, this would seem to be it.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 16 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

16 comments

...The issue is that Palin doesn't feel comfortable elaborating on them--even though most would play to her advantage in the GOP primaries--because she doesn't feel remotely comfortable talking policy of any kind... Exactly!

- basman

November 24, 2010 at 3:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bush II was so good at lowering expectations that when he debated or went to Europe, he was considered a success because he was expected to be much worse. Palin's plan is to make people feel sorry for her to the point where they begin to root for her. Pure genius.

- Nusholtz

November 24, 2010 at 4:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Bush II was so good at lowering expectations that when he debated or went to Europe, he was considered a success because he was expected to be much worse. Palin's plan is to make people feel sorry for her to the point where they begin to root for her. Pure genius." Is that how far the US has degenerated? As Ross Perot said, "That's sad, just sad." I would say she's a joke but there doesn't seem to be a punchline.

- tnmats

November 24, 2010 at 4:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tea Party-ism is a politics of resentment and paranoia, but it is also a politics of hysteria. (Doubtless I will be charged with being sexist, but offhand I can't think of a more apt word that would not be considered sexist.)

- Tgossard

November 24, 2010 at 6:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TGossard: the TEA Party-ism is anything BUT a politics of resentment and paranoia, although there is a lot of ANGER. Looks like Chait's blog has descended into juvenile name-calling.

- K2K

November 24, 2010 at 8:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The punch line is that Sarah Palin will go nowhere in 2010 and then her fifteen minutes will be up.

- liberal reformer

November 24, 2010 at 10:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- My comment on a J.C. piece applies here: For two years the Palin script has only relied upon anticipation & expectation. She stokes uncertainty because she lacks substance and must manipulate the mood of the audience. Suspense is generally defined as apprehension about what is going to happen. When she fills in the blanks the mystery is solved and her story ends. As long as enough people care about what isn't there, she'll be selling tickets to her show.

- michaelg

November 25, 2010 at 11:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait's critique of Palin here is weak. He bases this whole post on a reporter's paraphrase of what Palin said. Maybe she actually said something savvier, with more wiggle room, but the reporter stated it more starkly ("there weren't meaningful differences"). Without seeing her actual words, I wouldn't draw any conclusions from this.

- jaltcoh.blogspot.com

November 25, 2010 at 1:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry: Scheiber's critique...

- jaltcoh.blogspot.com

November 25, 2010 at 1:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Meanwhile she thinks our allies are in North Korea and we should stand by them. Help.

- Sophia

November 25, 2010 at 3:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Too harsh by half, Jon. Palin can talk policy. She's just saving herself for bilateral talks with "our North Korean allies."

- AaronW

November 25, 2010 at 4:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Whoops. Didn't notice you'd beaten me to it, Sophia.

- AaronW

November 25, 2010 at 4:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No problem Aaron, some things SHOULD be repeated in case people are tempted to vote for this lady. I never thought I'd find myself in agreement with Barbara Bush!

- Sophia

November 25, 2010 at 4:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, to be fair, "My opponent and I agree on the vast majority of things" is kind of standard boilerplate for primary elections. I remember Obama saying it a lot about Hillary Clinton, esp. about their health care plans. Which is funny, because the sliver of difference between them was about the individual mandate--which now, seems like a pretty big deal. (Albeit one that Obama was happy to change his mind on once he got into office--and frankly, it seemed pretty obvious to me that he always would.)

- ulexamp

November 27, 2010 at 12:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- During Primary '08 Inc., it was clear Obama and Clinton agreed on 90-95% of the major issues. So? He shifted the focus, an example was the line he used, “What we are lacking now isn’t good ideas.”. I will be curious to see if the top tier in the GOP primary will seek separation from each other by highlighting or contrasting ideas. Perhaps Palin and Mitt or Huck and Newt won't shine that light, but I suspect there are policy differences similar to Primary '10 Inc. (AKA winners and losers).

- michaelg

November 28, 2010 at 4:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jaltcoh: "Without seeing her actual words, I wouldn't draw any conclusions from this." As someone who has listened to Palin more than once, I can assure you her actual words are unlikely to be as clear or well-considered as the reporter's paraphrase. She and we should be thankful when she is not quoted directly. Neil

- purcellneil

December 2, 2010 at 8:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close