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 Dispatch From Alaska: Palin? Really?

THE PLANK AUGUST 29, 2008

Dispatch From Alaska: Palin? Really?

Charles Wohlforth, a lifelong Alaska Democrat and occasional TNR contributor, gives us the word on Palin from up north.  

I first met Sarah Palin just after she'd been elected mayor of the little town of Wasilla, Alaska, in October 1996. My first impression was that she didn't seem up to the job.

I had written a Frommer's travel guidebook about Alaska (I live in Anchorage and was on the Municipal Assembly here at the time). In the book, I frankly described Wasilla as a place to skip, "the worst kind of suburban sprawl of highway-fronting shopping malls and gravel lots."

Wasilla boosters were furious and a local media debate erupted. A good many people came in on my side: Wasilla, with a complete lack of community planning, is truly Alaska's least attractive town. I went to speak to a luncheon at the area's visitor's bureau, and that's where I met Palin.

She came across, to be charitable about it, poorly--incapable of more than a big smile and a limp handshake. Maybe she was nervous, or her mind was elsewhere--but on that day, she couldn't even hold up her end in a light conversation.  

I eventually came to see her appeal when she ran unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor in 2002. She projected an authenticity and freshness that was very appealing in a state saddled with a corrupt oligarchy of pro-oil Republicans. For Alaskans of Palin's generation (she's 44), the last few years have been a political coming of age. Younger candidates have smashed the state's company-town politics. Palin was among the first to take a stand. Having been in the right place at the right time, with that amazing smile, she shot upward in a way no one has ever done before.

The idea of her being a potential president, however, is laughable. That is to say, at our house this morning, we literally were belly-laughing when we heard the news that John McCain had chosen her. I wouldn't be surprised if the audience she spoke to at McCain's announcement was the largest she ever addressed. Alaska politicians don't use teleprompters. There rarely is an opportunity to orate to more than a hundred people.

Running for governor two years ago, Palin didn't have firm stands on issues, and in debates, she displayed discomfiting shallowness. A moderator had to ask her three times to clarify her position on the critical (for us) issue of indigenous hunting rights. Her victory was simply a vote for change.

In Juneau, while she's known for being uninterested in day-to-day governing, she's chosen a good team to run the state. She's also taken good care of her popularity, which has remained high thanks in part to the comparison with her fellow Alaskan politicians--some of whom have been carted off to jail in the FBI investigation of oil industry corruption in Alaska politics.

Now she's facing her own scandal: Troopergate. In July, Palin fired the beloved commissioner of Public Safety, Walt Monegan, without meaningful explanation. Monegan said he had resisted administration pressure to fire a State Trooper who was in a bitter child custody battle with Palin's sister. Palin first denied the pressure, then released evidence, including a recorded phone call, that backed up Monegan's story. The legislature, which isn't exactly Palin-friendly, hired an ex-prosecutor to investigate.

Senator Ted Stevens's son Ben once referred to people from Palin's Anchorage suburb as "valley trash," and the trooper scandal recalled that image. It was Clampett-style politics.

By most objective measures, she isn't ready to be a single heartbeat away from the presidency. The image of McCain and Palin on stage this morning looked a bit like a graduation picture, of father and daughter. It reminded me as well of the elder George Bush and Dan Quayle.

On the other hand, Palin did well in her speech. She always comes across as likeable on camera. Maybe that's all it takes.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 31 comments

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

31 comments

God help us.

- ethelfrog3

August 29, 2008 at 6:52pm

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

I lived in AK from '04-'07. I second everything he says about Wasilla and Palin, though I know less than he does. And I suspect McCain picked her in a panic after seeing the continual wall to wall coverage of happy good-looking likeable family action on display at the dem convention - including Chelsea, whose childhood looks he'd insulted brutally.

So yeah, likeability suddenly shot up as something he needed but quick, and he acted from the seat of his pants and poof, picked this person nobody knows, he'd only met once, and he won the news cycle but lost credibility in two things: his "country first" motivation - Obama said he wouldn't question it, but the rest of us certainly can - and in his judgment, an issue Obama raised glancingly but memorably in his speech.  Now that word has been underlined by this act.

- psantillana

August 29, 2008 at 7:05pm

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

It's terrifying, but for far too many conservatives, a lack of qualifications in like-minded candidates simply *doesn't matter.* Just raising the issue is, to them, elitist. Just recall Harriet Miers. Even if Sarah Palin's only stint in public office were as mayor of Wasilla, there would still be a chorus of conservatives, and many pundits, saying she would make a fine vice president. (Remember the argument of W supporters in 2000? - you just surround yourself with the right people...)

- hueylong

August 29, 2008 at 7:12pm

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

I wonder if McCain in choosing her was also looking for a pliable and easy to control running mate--a yes-woman rather than a leader. I know little about her, so I am curious to see how she performs in the campaign. She certaintly is no Joe Biden. Perhaps his pick was based on a desire to further court women voters, but is the Republican deck really that shallow that he had to go for Palin?

- DawnCandace

August 29, 2008 at 7:33pm

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

Well, what does an Alaskan know about Palin anyway.  We had it on good authority that she is the Commander of the Alaska National Guard.  AND she has negotiated with the Russians and the Canadians.  And, she has as much exective experience as Theodore Roosevelt - or is Millard Filmore?  

I'm sold, no matter what an Alaskan "journalist" might say.  What do Democrats know about politics anyway?

- icarusr

August 29, 2008 at 7:47pm

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

"On the other hand, Palin did well in her speech. She always comes across as likeable on camera. Maybe that's all it takes."

On the other hand, Obama  did well in his  speech. He always comes across as likeable on camera. Maybe that's all it takes.

- jacobt1

August 29, 2008 at 7:47pm

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

"Senator Ted Stevens's son Ben once referred to people from Palin's Anchorage suburb as "valley trash," ..."

Yea, and his patrician father is under indictment or soon to be for corruption:

"On July 29, 2008 Stevens was indicted by a federal grand jury on seven counts of falsely reporting gifts. The charges relate to renovations to his home and to more than $250,000 worth of gifts he has allegedly received from VECO Corporation.[45][46] The indictment followed a lengthy investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for possible corruption based on his relationship with Bill Allen, an oil service company executive, who has pled guilty to bribing Alaskan legislators, including Stevens' son, former State Senator Ben Stevens. The IRS and the FBI had searched Stevens' home in Alaska on July 30, 2007.[47] On July 31, 2008 Stevens pled not guilty to the charges in a federal district court, and he requested that the trial be done before the 2008 election.[48][49]"

en.wikipedia.org/.../Ted_Stevens

Sara Palin fought the corrupt Republican machine in Alaska and won. Could this be why the spoiled brat Ben Stevens hates her so much?

Give me a break.

If she were a Democrat you would all be cheereing her.

What a bunch of hypocrites!

- jacksondyer

August 29, 2008 at 7:49pm

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

DawnCandace said:  "I wonder if McCain in choosing her was also looking for a pliable and easy to control running mate--..."

This is what was said about the choice of Quayle and guess what Bush Sr. won. Who remembers Dukakis now?

Did anyone here him speak at the Demos convention?

- jacksondyer

August 29, 2008 at 7:51pm

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

Since John McCain announced Sarah Palin as his VP pick, we've had quite a bit to say here at TNR

- Anonymous

August 29, 2008 at 7:59pm

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

The choice of Sarah Palin confirms that McCain plans to continue at least one of W's major policy initiatives--the appointment of hacks to positions of power in our federal government.

- jtrummel

August 29, 2008 at 8:19pm

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

jackson, if you have something positive to say for Palin other that she beat the power structure, please tell us. I'm looking for something to imagine hanging her hat on, and so far I haven't found it. All ears.

- tomeg

August 29, 2008 at 8:36pm

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

I'm sorry, but was Christine Todd Whitman unavailable? I mean, look at her creds-

--Former governor of a real state

--Worked for Bush until she left out of frustration about the politicized and corrupt Administration

--Ran the EPA (Hel-LO key campaign issue!!)

Honestly, I don't get it. There are plenty of competent women Republicans. Somewhere Whitman is shaking her head and rolling her eyes.

- sdcrippen

August 29, 2008 at 8:36pm

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

"If she were a Democrat you would all be cheereing her."

Give me a break.  Democrats are as good as you can find at slicing up their own.  Just look at the Hillary Clinton vs Barack Obama invective in this forum for the last 9 months.

If a Democrat reached this low in the pool for a running mate, we'd be incredulous.

- sdemuth

August 29, 2008 at 8:37pm

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

"Sara Palin fought the corrupt Republican machine in Alaska and won. Could this be why the spoiled brat Ben Stevens hates her so much?"

Maybe he thinks she's ungrateful:

tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../palin_ad_starring_ted_stevens.php

- aculimic

August 29, 2008 at 8:40pm

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

sdcrippen: I had exactly the same thought.  A Whitman choice would have raised McCain in my estimation considerably.  But Whitman does not constitute a pander to the far right.  McCain has lost his bearings.  Kerry's "senator McCain" vs "candidate McCain" dialectic was right on.

- sdemuth

August 29, 2008 at 8:40pm

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

tomeg said: "jackson, if you have something positive to say for Palin..."

Yea, she is smart and a heck of alot better looking than Joe  Biden.

"other that she beat the power structure"

well, the post quoted one of the members of that corrupt power structure.

- jacksondyer

August 29, 2008 at 8:44pm

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

Don't compare this to Quayle.  Bush Sr. was running as sitting Vice President of the most popular and successful administration in 25 years.  He didn't need Quayle as a gimmick, he needed a known social conservative to help shore up his one fundamental electoral weakness -- his strained relations with the social and religious right.  Quayle was dumb as a doorknob but he perfectly satisfied a real political need.

Despite ambiguity in the polls, McCain is in a substantially weaker situation than was Bush Sr. in 1988.  Rather, like Walter Mondale, who faced similarly negative fundamentals, McCain decided to gamble on a gimmick in a vain attempt to win favorable news coverage for a "daring" VP pick.  Unfortunately, both chose as his gimmick pick a woefully unqualified individual.  The fact that both Ferraro and Palin are women is not remotely the issue  The relevant issue is that both were/are shallow tokens -- had McCain picked any unknown and woefully unqualified mayor of some mid-size city of 500k people (which is likely a more involved job than governor of AK), no matter what marginalized group to which that person might belong, it would still have been a dumb, mindless and transparent gimmick.  And like Mondale's pick of Ferraro in 1984, McCain's pick of Palin will backfire stupendously.  Unlike Bush Sr., neither Mondale nor McCain could base his candidacy on being part of an incredibly popular and successful sitting administration.  Therefore, they had to justify their candidacies on personal qualities such as judgment, experience and integrity --  justifications directly undermined by their decisions to go with such woefully inadequate gimmick picks for VP.

- aharris61

August 29, 2008 at 8:47pm

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

Question about the 1984 campaign (I'm too young to remember it):

How did Reagan deal with Ferraro? Attack her? Ignore her? Praise her?

- AlanSP

August 29, 2008 at 9:34pm

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

aharris61 said:   "Don't compare this to Quayle.  Bush Sr. was running as sitting Vice President of the most popular and successful administration in 25 years."

No compare it to Nixon Agnew or to...............

People don't vote for the VP they vote for the P candidate.

The fact that the Obama compaign is attacking Palin so fiercely shows how desperate they are to score points.

- jacksondyer

August 29, 2008 at 9:37pm

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

I didn't hear Obama or his campaign say anything negative about Palin.  Most of the rest of us are actually challenging McCain's judgment on this selection, rather than "attacking Palin so fiercely" as JD suggests.

- purcellneil

August 29, 2008 at 9:55pm

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

JD, I agree with your comment that if Palin were a Democrat I'd be praising her.  But why is that hypocrisy?  She's a Republican, and now the second body on the ticket of the party we're hoping to show the door come November.  It doesn't seem -- from my partisan POV -- that now is a good time for extolling Palin's virtues, and it doesn't seem to me that I'm being hypocritical for wanting my party to win and tailoring my comments to that end (in election-related contexts, at least).

Regardless of who wins, if it turns out that Palin fought a good campaign, I for one will say so.  If I think that Palin was part of a lying, smear-oriented campaign on the lines of 2004, I'll say so too.  But for the moment, there's an election on, and while I recognize some potential talents in the woman, I don't feel obligated to make it sound as if I'd vote for her.

Just fyi -- I wish she was a Democrat.  That's straight up.

- ironyroad

August 29, 2008 at 10:00pm

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

Alan, I don't remember either, but Ferraro did not come on the heels of a feminist saga like Cllinton's. The Hillaristas have sharpened our sensitivity and the slightest perceived provocation will cause that reservoir of resentment to spill over. Sorry for the mixed metaphor. And of course, we all have noticed that the Republicans have been fiercely championing the idea that Hillary was dissed by Obama.

- Idefix

August 29, 2008 at 10:06pm

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

Gosh, so many Palin threads, I don't know where to comment.

Anyway, FWIW, I never thought I would write this, but I am convinced now that McCain would have been far better off picking Romney or Pawlenty.  Palin is a story that will last about 24 hours, then quickly become a bore, unless she makes a big screw-up.  She is pleasant and interesting, but not compelling, and has enough skeletons either intellectually (creationism?) or politically (a Buchanan supporter?) or legally (an investigation underway) to make Republicans *hope* that she's yesterday's news.  Her speech will probably be competent but pedestrian (can you imagine her leading a crowd in a chant a la Gore or Schweitzer?).  If the questioners even begin to do their job, she will not impress in her debate, even if she doesn't blow it.  She will quickly become an afterthought, one that does not speak well of McCain.  Her only qualifications are her ovaries and her appeal to the far right.  That might help McCain a little, but not much, and her negatives may well prove to outway any political advantage she brings.

- timteeter

August 29, 2008 at 10:07pm

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

Her outright lie about telling Congress "thanks but no thanks for the bridge to nowhere" is getting played without question tonight.  All the better to embarrass her on Sunday when some smart ass interviewer quotes her from newspaper stories, memos or (lets hope) videotape, pushing it up until the Dem Congress made clear it wouldn't pay another dime, and then her telling her constituents that she had to scale back her requests but will try to get the bridge in the future.  I mean if you are going to lie about something so inherent to your own shallow myth, at least preserve some plausible denial.  Bidden learned that lesson in 1988 -- I guess she'll learn it soon.

- aharris61

August 29, 2008 at 10:35pm

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

Jackson, the implications for the election and the implications for after the election (should McCain win) are separate issues.  On the former, you're right that very few people going to vote for or against McCain directly because of Palin (though I do think the pick could have some indirect impact by forcing him to alter his message.  Whether that's good or bad for him depends on if/how he alters it).  On the latter issue though, the Nixon/Agnew comparison is far from comforting.  The only thing that kept Agnew from becoming President was that his own corruption forced him out before Nixon (not implying that Palin is corrupt).  With Quayle, too, the nation was fortunate that George Bush stayed healthy while in office.

- AlanSP

August 29, 2008 at 11:12pm

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

jacksondyer has persuaded me. Vote Republican, the choice is clear. A vote for Obama is a vote for treason, a vote for McCain is a vote for patriotism. The choice is clear, the intellectual and experiential heft is all to the GOP, Obama and Biden are little beyond a pathetic  footnote. A bona fide conservative white woman is worth a hundred thousand times a benighted Black and paleo-liberal side-kick. McCain doesn't even need to campaign, ditto Palin. The election should be moved up to September 5th. The American people know enough now, why wait? Why drag out the negativity? We have our President and Vice President. (In addition, there should be a strictly Christian, military inauguration. The Apocalypse is coming. Jews and infidels, convert or die, your time is running short. Up with whiteness, down with color. God be praised forever!

- tomeg

August 29, 2008 at 11:38pm

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

jacksondyer: "Sarah Palin fought the corrupt Republican machine in Alaska and won. Could this be why the spoiled brat Ben Stevens hates her so much?"

Ben Stevens' disdain for "Valley Trash" long predates Palin. It was just a snotty famous-father's son looking down on the bumpkins up the road. And I still don't understand why Ben Stevens has not been indicted yet.

DawnCandace: Sarah Palin is absolutely not a "yes-woman".

- JEFF FREY

August 30, 2008 at 12:58am

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

She may not be a yes-woman about things that she has some expertise in, whatever that may be, but she is pretty uninformed about the Iraq war her son is fighting and she seems pretty content to leave it all to grandpa simpson:

andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.../in-over-her-hea.html

- psantillana

August 30, 2008 at 1:35am

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

Friends:

Let me spell it out for you.  The folks who really run the GOP love "virgins" in Washington D.C. because they are so easy to control.  After the post-election buzz wears off, and he/she walks into the real world of power and decision-making, one where consequences happen, then the virginal need "help."  That's when the good ole boys step-up to offer a helping hand (see Cheney, Rumsfeld and Lobbyists).  They are always willing to help.  Here we have a reversal of the Bush-Cheney Axis of Evil.  Grandfatherly John will tutor little Sarah much like the Dick tutored his pupil.  When old John drops dead or becomes ill in his first term, the GOP wet dream is complete.  Count on the American people to love Sarah because she's a celebrity and well, she looks good.  And of course, she loves Jesus, and in the end, that's all that matters.  Were she to become president (and odds are good that she would), Sarah and her prayer partners (Ralph Reed, James Dobson, Tom DeLay et al. will pray for us while the Republicans prey on us.  Zeus help us.

- Randyandy

August 31, 2008 at 8:16am

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

Jackson -

Weren't you the one who spent all year criticizing Obama for being too inexperienced to be president?  And now you're a Palin supporter?  Who's the hypocrite here?

The problem isn't that her background suggests that she is too inexperienced to be president.  The problem is that McCain's decision to put her on the ticket reeks with cynicism, and by all accounts, he doesn't know enough about her to determine whether she is qualified.  Furthermore, unlike Obama, who has been scrutinized for almost two years as a presidential candidate, Palin will have only been on the scene for two months before the election, so we won't be able to make an educated decision about her qualification either.

For those reasons, she's a terrible pick.

- odanuki1

August 31, 2008 at 5:31pm

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

"Honestly, I don't get it. There are plenty of competent women Republicans. Somewhere Whitman is shaking her head and rolling her eyes."

This selection had nothing to do with picking a competent Republican woman - the many qualified candidates around this country must be insulted and incensed, even though I am a Democrat, I am insulted for them.  I don't agree with Elizabeth Dole on the issues, but there is no question she could take over if John McCain keeled over one day.

This was entirely about Palin's ability to breed, stay in a small dress size and pander to the mullah wing of the party.  Not to menton her having no idea what's she's doing so the same ghouls running the country now can simply stay doing so while "mentoring" her.

It's disgusting.

- Wandreycer1

August 31, 2008 at 7:40pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close