About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Better political columnists, please

July 07, 2009 6:56 pm ET by Jamison Foser

Politico's Roger Simon, suggesting Sarah Palin is the victim of some sort of double-standard:

But you can see why some in the media were shocked and dismayed. Imagine abandoning your office! Imagine quitting and deserting the voters who elected you!

Though this is what Bob Dole did in 1996, didn't he? Dole resigned his Senate seat to run for president. I remember it. I was standing right there when he did it. And I don't recall anybody accusing him of being a quitter.

Well, I do.  But even if I didn't, it wouldn't take long to find that example: it's the second result you get when you search Yahoo for "Dole quitter."

Besides, the comparison is insane.  Dole quit the Senate so he could devote his full attention to the last few months of a presidential campaign in which he had already wrapped up the Republican nomination.  Sarah Palin quit Alaska's governorship to ... to do what?  The Republican nomination won't even be decided for three years.  She hasn't said what she's doing next.

So the two situations are pretty much nothing alike.  And people did call Dole a quitter.  Other than that, Roger Simon's suggestion that the situations are the same and that nobody called Dole a quitter is spot-on.

More Simon:

Doesn't she know that the highest form of political communication today is to exactly regurgitate a speech written for you by a speechwriter who has crafted, vetted and polled every phrase, line and word?

But listen to Palin. Listen to how "rambling" and "disjointed" she is. Once upon a time in American politics, this was known as being "plain-spoken," but that time has gone. An entire industry of political consultants has grown up to make sure politicians are never plain-spoken.

Oh, come on.  Nobody is criticizing Palin because her quitting speech didn't soar like Mario Cuomo's 1984 Democratic convention speech. They're criticizing her because her speech didn't make any sense.  She wasn't "plain-spoken," she was nonsensical.  She mixed metaphors.  She denounced the "quitter's way out" while quitting.  She claimed to have explained why she was quitting after having done nothing of the kind.  Her speech was marked by circular logic, an aggressive hostility to the English language, and a stilted delivery that suggested she was struggling to remember the proper order of a series of disjointed phrases -- except that it turns out that was the way she wrote the speech.

If Palin had been "plain-spoken," people would have known what she was saying -- why she was quitting, what she was doing next.  That's an essential element of being plain-spoken.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by shaggles (July 07, 2009 7:21 pm ET)
      1  
      It's funny how the right go out of their way to both forgive any verbal missteps Governor Palin makes as being plain-spoken, folksy and non-contrived and point out any that Vice President Biden makes (sometimes when they aren't even missteps) as wacky, loose cannon ramblings. Now there's a double standard for you.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 07, 2009 7:27 pm ET)
        1  
        The reason is simple. Palin is stupid, and they have to try to go to bat for her to help her out. Biden is smart, and shouldn't make those kinds of mistakes in the first place.

        It's the same point Obama made during the interview with Jay Leno when he was wrongly chastised for mentioning the Special Olympics. Everyone who participates is cheered on like Sarak Palin. Those who can compete in the Quadrennial Olympics has a thick enough skin to be vriticized for their mistakes.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 07, 2009 7:28 pm ET)
             
          I don't know what "vriticized" means. I meant "criticized," of course.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by bilbo_dies (July 07, 2009 8:00 pm ET)
         
      But listen to Palin. Listen to how "rambling" and "disjointed" she is. Once upon a time in American politics, this was known as being "plain-spoken," but that time has gone.

      Uh, I know that I am "only" 54 but; I don't think I can remember a time when someone who gave a speech like this was considered to be "plain spoken". Crazy, on drugs, disassociated from reality, etc but; I don't think "plain spoken" would figure in there anywhere.

      I will giver her a break, even though I think she is the anti-christ.
      Maybe she cut a deal with the justice department and is spilling her guts on some "crazy" stuff some "over zealous" campaign worker was involved in, that she found out about.
      Maybe the Russian mafia has put a hit out on her (I mean, she can see Russia from her house, she knows what is going on) and this is the first step before entering the witless (I mean witness) protection program.
      Come on, there has to be some reason why she would quit as governor a year and half early. Or, maybe not.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (July 07, 2009 9:03 pm ET)
         
      Simon's article is one of the silliest I have read in a long time. Palin's term ends in 2010 which leaves her plenty of time to lose the election. And should a governor with 2 1/2 years in office constantly call herself a lame duck? Is there any move she could make that would be considered just dumb and not a brilliant plan to foil the city slickers?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by kfraz43 (July 08, 2009 12:42 am ET)
         
      I'll give Simon this much - if you've read more than two of his articles, you can't figure him out. There's an intelligent guy in there somewhere, but it's protected by an contrarian smartass. I like the intelligent guy - but if I wanted a smartass I'd just flip over to Fixed News.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by kfraz43 (July 08, 2009 1:00 am ET)
         
      And by the way, for the one MMfA reader who didn't get it: Palin's resignation was Step 1 toward the "Ultimate Victim 2012" campaign. She quit because she's "tough". She bailed because of the "frivolous" charges of ethics violations. The media had it out for her from the start. NOTHING in her political life has been her fault, and yet NOTHING is exactly what she has finished in her life.

      I will find it the most perfect irony if the party who criticizes Democrats as lazy and unemployed designates this farce as their nominee for President in 2012.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mattcable250650 (July 08, 2009 1:00 am ET)
      1  
      I read an article on Palin somewhere today where she sings the praises of small government and how Republicans need to "return" to that principle. Sorry, but I attended college in Washington DC from 1978 to 1982 and it was absolutely crystal clear to me in 1981, years before David Stockman wrote Triumph of Politics, that all of this Republican concern and respect for the idea of small government was just so much hot air. Anyone who seriously believes that any Republican will do anything to shrink government is living in a fantasy world.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by oscar the grouch (July 08, 2009 9:32 am ET)
           
        There is no incentive for any politician of either political party to "shrink" government. It's all about power and the desire to win elections. And to win elections, one has to "buy" votes by expanding influence.
        Report Abuse