After the Pallin speech at the RNC, I was horrified at the tone and tenor of the speech, and dubbed it "The Politics of Sneer". Like many, I dismissed her as a lightweight, whose lack of foreign policy experience etc. would make her an easy target. I had barely even heard of Sarah Palin before McCain nominated her, and it was easy for me to dismiss her chances.
Although I continue to feel her policies and actions as governor (troopergate, the attempt to ban books, etc.) make her vulnerable to questions that challenge her on these issues, I have now seen another side of Palin, and feel it would be a grave mistake to take her lightly.
Follow me below the fold and I'll describe last night's C-Span broadcast of a 2006 Alaska Governor's Race Debate, starring Palin, Democrat Knowles, and an Independent whose name I don't remember.
Last night, as I was trying to sleep, I switched on C-Span just in time to watch (in its entirety) a re-broadcast of a 2006 Debate from the Alaska Governors' Race. Palin was seated at a small table, in between two formidable candidates -- Democratic Candidate (and former Governor) Knowles, and an Independent whose name I forget, but who was well-spoken and seemed closer to the Democratic positions.
Here's the link:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/...
The Debate, was a tough, well-moderated debate, with some tough questions for Palin and the others on issues such as stem cell research, abortion, and various local issues that I know nothing about (native subsistence hunting, etc.). I was actually impressed with the moderators of the debate who were far more substantive than the "gotcha" questions we've seen from CNN and the other "celebrity" anchors.
So this was the first time I'd ever seen Palin, other than her speech at the RNC.
And she was tough. She came across far better than her RNC appearance, in that she didn't have the smarmy sarcastic pitbull in lipstick thing going. Instead, she spoke forcefully and directly to the voters, without ducking the issues. She was unapologetically pro-life, even in case involving rape, although she did seem to consider an exception in cases where the life of the mother was at stake.
She had a way of taking the question and then speaking directly to the viewer rather than the moderator, which was very effective. She seemed intelligent, effective, knowledgeable, and tough.
On a couple of occasions, she called the moderator out on a couple of questions, saying she hoped he would ask her male counterparts the same questions. She was effective.
I believe Sarah Palin's policies and politics would be disastrous to our country. She is far to the right on many issues and her speech at the RNC shows that her ethics leave a lot to be desired. She outright LIED on the issue of the Bridge to Nowhere, and she smilingly parroted sleazy attacks against Obama, clearly happy to say and do anything to get elected.
We can and must challenge her record, her policies, and her politics.
But we must not underestimate her, or dismiss her experience, or think of her as a lightweight who will wilt under the pressure of a national stage.
Her debate performance in 2006 -- at least the one that I saw -- showed a tough, knowledgeable, intelligent woman. I disagreed with her on almost everything, but I don't doubt that she will be a quick study to the McCain campaign.
She is quick on her feet, tough, and charismatic -- those qualities make her a tough opponent.
My suggestion is that we stop challenging her "experience", which just plays into their argument about Obama, take her just as seriously as if McCain had chosen Romney or Ridge or anyone else, and start taking her on on the merits.
On the merits, she is vulnerable. But we can't expect her to fold like a lightweight. She seems to have BIG ambitions, and she is used to the public stage. We will need to focus on the decisions she has made, and the policies and politics she has practiced.
In my opinion, we need to bring the focus back more on McCain, and less on Palin, other than to point out her record of lies, distortions, and abuse of power.