August 2006 Weddings
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Setting up Palin for 2012?
The over-the-moon reaction by conservative commentators and activists to Sarah Palin's debate performance puzzled me -- until I came up with a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. Tell me if you think I'm right or wrong: For "movement" conservatives, the vice-presidential debate was less about 2008 than about 2012 and beyond.
Honestly, it was bizarre to hear intelligent, informed conservatives sing rhapsodies over a performance that was long on spunk but woefully short on substance. When Palin tried to answer Gwen Ifill's questions, as she did on the financial bailout, she got lost in the weeds. So she basically ignored the questions and retreated to her talking points -- embellished with enough mugging, eye-rolling, winking, smirking and all-around folksiness to choke a mule, or a moose. One candidate on that stage clearly had command of the great issues of our time. One didn't.
Palin did well, though, when the subject turned to energy. I didn't agree with her "Drill, baby, drill!" prescription for energy independence, because I think it can't possible work, but she did come across as if she knew what she was talking about.
It's not that conservatives heard a different debate. It's that they were focused on a different election cycle. The conservative movement is looking for its next Ronald Reagan -- its next charismatic leader with game-changing communication skills, bedrock conservative principles and, well, barracuda-like political instincts. Some on the right believe they may have found that leader in Palin. Smart conservative political analysts aren't under the illusion that Palin can turn this election around; only John McCain can do that, if he can figure out how. But remember that the "movement" conservatives' embrace of McCain is based on pragmatism, not passion. He's just not their guy.
Palin, they suspect, may be their gal. She wowed them in Minneapolis -- but then faltered so badly in her interviews with Katie Couric that conservatives wondered if she really had the right stuff. Thursday night, they liked what they saw. Especially heartening for them, I think, was the fact that while she didn't know beans about most of the issues, her facility and comfort talking about energy suggests that when she has time to get familiar with other issues she'll learn them too.
Under my scenario, for ideological conservatives it will be a pity if McCain loses to Barack Obama but not a disaster. If that happens, I can pretty much guarantee that Sarah Palin will be back four years from now. Somewhere, the "Palin 2012" bumper stickers are probably already being printed.
Honestly, it was bizarre to hear intelligent, informed conservatives sing rhapsodies over a performance that was long on spunk but woefully short on substance. When Palin tried to answer Gwen Ifill's questions, as she did on the financial bailout, she got lost in the weeds. So she basically ignored the questions and retreated to her talking points -- embellished with enough mugging, eye-rolling, winking, smirking and all-around folksiness to choke a mule, or a moose. One candidate on that stage clearly had command of the great issues of our time. One didn't.
Palin did well, though, when the subject turned to energy. I didn't agree with her "Drill, baby, drill!" prescription for energy independence, because I think it can't possible work, but she did come across as if she knew what she was talking about.
It's not that conservatives heard a different debate. It's that they were focused on a different election cycle. The conservative movement is looking for its next Ronald Reagan -- its next charismatic leader with game-changing communication skills, bedrock conservative principles and, well, barracuda-like political instincts. Some on the right believe they may have found that leader in Palin. Smart conservative political analysts aren't under the illusion that Palin can turn this election around; only John McCain can do that, if he can figure out how. But remember that the "movement" conservatives' embrace of McCain is based on pragmatism, not passion. He's just not their guy.
Palin, they suspect, may be their gal. She wowed them in Minneapolis -- but then faltered so badly in her interviews with Katie Couric that conservatives wondered if she really had the right stuff. Thursday night, they liked what they saw. Especially heartening for them, I think, was the fact that while she didn't know beans about most of the issues, her facility and comfort talking about energy suggests that when she has time to get familiar with other issues she'll learn them too.
Under my scenario, for ideological conservatives it will be a pity if McCain loses to Barack Obama but not a disaster. If that happens, I can pretty much guarantee that Sarah Palin will be back four years from now. Somewhere, the "Palin 2012" bumper stickers are probably already being printed.
Re: Setting up Palin for 2012?
Wow! I totally agree, and speculated something similar, but less thought out and less eloquent below.
What really makes me supsect that this is all about 2012 and not 2008 is the fact that SP seemed to take glee in turning the debate into the "Sarah Palin Fun Time, Wink-Wink Hour, Featuring Sarah Palin!" She was sooo, sooo, sooo syrupy and hammy with the camera. She wasn't just present, she was completely "on" in an entertainment, me-me-me sense. She didn't even do a very good job selling McCain; she missed chances to counter Biden when he slammed McCain's record. And she didn't focus on the McCain theme, which is expereince trumps change.
Plus, plus, and this is a big doozey, SP went to a cheering, roaring, debate paryt/town hall, and guess who wasn't even present (at least that I could see?)...McCain! Did you see Biden revel in a post debate extravaganza in his honor? I didn't. Why? Biden is there to do his job, stump for Obama; Palin was also there to do a job, repair HER image.
I think it's interesting that we don't see more female Republican elected officials out there stumping and spinning for her, and I wonder if that becoomes an issue later on in the party.
If I'm Kay Bailey Hutchinson, for example, I'm rolling my eyes and giving the "***, please" face if I'm asked to help make Sarah Palin the next great female leader of my party.
I completely disagree with this. ?Personally, I think if McCain-Palin doesn't win now she's done with politics at the national level. ?She might become a Senator from Alaska someday, but that will be the top of her trajectory. ?I think it's very rare to get two legit shots at the top of the ticket.
??
Deductive reasoning isn't a conservative or liberal attribute. ~epphd
my read shelf:
My sister suggested the 2012 idea to me and I thought she was a mad consipiracy theorist. And then I started to think the idea had some credibility. Then I tossed the theory out to my DH and he told me I was crazy using a similar line of reasoning to yeah4me.
I know Reagan got a second shot after losing the nomination in 1976 but I think there was a lot more substance there than Palin and CA governor vs AK governor gives many more opportunities to develop a political resume. I think Palin may end up being a Republican fundraiser darling, but I don't see her being nominated as President. I think the party knows it needs to bring more qualifications to the table than that.
I could see her becoming a Senator and running again in 12-16 years maybe. 2012, no way. She survived the debate on policy, but in no way could she survive the rigorous press and debate gauntlet in the primaries and general election that the main candidate has to endure, even four years from now.
"As of page 2 this might be the most boring argument ever. It's making me long for Rape Day." - Mouse
See, I have the opposite view - that had she NOT been chosen as VP nom now, she would be in a much stronger position in 2012. She is so grossly unprepared right now... but in four years if she remained 1/2 as popular as she is now she could have been a real contender. At this point, if she and McC win she will be the topic of SNL skits for the next 4 years, and if they lose I think she is completely discredited. I actually think this nomination is a big problem for her long term political future - unless she just stays in Alaska.
I am a runner, knitter, scientist, DE-IVF veteran, and stage III colon cancer survivor.