Jul 4th, 2009 at 11:26 am
History’s Greatest Monster
Phoebe Connelly says what’s on everyone’s mind: “But really, isn’t the real takeaway that Palin doesn’t want to give the press freedom to enjoy a patriotic 4th merrily grilling without the distraction of our Blackberries?”
I think this is the aspect of Palin’s career that I respect most. Politicians whining about media elites are a dime a dozen, especially on the right, but Palin really put her money where her mouth is and found a way to disrupt a whole bunch of people’s vacations. It’s a pretty solid plan.
62 Responses to “History’s Greatest Monster”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Africa
Basketball
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Defense Budget
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Pakistan
Palestine
planning
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Sarah Palin
Science
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 4th, 2009 at 11:32 am
A word of advice to the left:
Palin isn’t crazy. And painting her as mentally unstable and/or idiotic through mockery won’t necessarily help in defeating her down the line. We tried that with Nixon leading up to ‘68 and Reagan leading up to ‘80, and it essentially backfired both times.
Maybe she plays the Goldwater role in ‘12 and we don’t have to worry about her anymore. But maybe not. And if not, we’re going to have to beat her down the road, and calling her crazy isn’t going to do it. Her schtick has power, and wise political folks ought to respect that power, not mock it.
July 4th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Nail on the head, Matt.
It’s not just journalists either. Palin has stolen more time from me and my lefty friends than I care to admit. I’d say, over the last 12 months, she has reduced my productivity by 5%, simply by doing such batshitcrazy stuff that I was compelled to surf the web for hours, late at night, trying to understand it.
She’s a right-wing kamikaze artist.
July 4th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Petey,
Reagan and Nixon were genuinely intelligent, informed people. Reagan had spent a couple of decades giving serious foreign policy speeches before he ran for president, articulating effectively and with a great deal of precision and evidence the vision of a “Rollback” strategy for the Cold War.
Sarah Palin didn’t know that George Bush had articulated a novel doctrine of pre-emption, and couldn’t think of the name of a politically-oriented publication.
That is not a fair comparison. No, you can’t beat Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan by casting them as stupid, but you can sure beat Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin that way.
July 4th, 2009 at 11:45 am
@Petey –
Appreciate the earnest advice, and sure — I respect the power of the moosekilling mommy shtick. It was a great shtick.
But really, Palin is not Nixon or Reagan. Nixon delivered a pouty speech after serving as VP for 8 years. Palin’s doing it after *failing* to complete one term as governor of Alaska. That’s a very different scene.
July 4th, 2009 at 11:58 am
to address petey first: no, the left didn’t try to paint nixon as crazy leading up to ‘68. the left, quite correctly, tried to paint nixon as a thug leading up to ‘68.
as for reagan, i don’t think “crazy” is the term (perhaps when he was california’s governor in the ’60s); more like “extremist” and “unprepared” and “ill-informed.”
i do think that palin has a core support group in the 15 – 20% bracket, and there’s very little she can do to jeopardize that, which makes her a key player in republican circles.
but what i meant to comment on was journalist narcissism: i happen to have work to get done today. i know lots of other people who have work to get done today. stores and hospitals and buses and all kinds of things will be operating today requiring people paid much less than journalists who can’t be “merrily grilling” today. so boo-fucking-hoo to the poor blackberry toters who are denied their day off.
July 4th, 2009 at 11:59 am
The media is free to enjoy the holiday, watch Wimbledon, hike the Appalachian Trail or whatever; Sarah’s not so important that we can’t wait until Monday to discuss her.
July 4th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Also, Petey, Nixon and Reagan both were good party members, making alliances and supporting others in their patient quest for the office. Palin has burned every bridge she’s walked across, back-stabbing mentors and allies as she goes. There isn’t much goodwill for her in her own party.
July 4th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Nothing the strange basketball metaphors in her speech? This blog has let me down.
July 4th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I would like to thank Ms. Palin for knocking MJ off the front pages.
July 4th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Yes BigY, it’s all about you.
July 4th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
“to address petey first: no, the left didn’t try to paint nixon as crazy leading up to ‘68. the left, quite correctly, tried to paint nixon as a thug leading up to ‘68. as for reagan, i don’t think “crazy” is the term (perhaps when he was california’s governor in the ’60s); more like “extremist” and “unprepared” and “ill-informed.”
The analogy is, of course, imperfect.
However, Palin is a perfect analog to Nixon and Reagan in one specific respect: all three have fattened themselves on the mockery of the left. The mockery makes them stronger and more powerful. It is their food.
July 4th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
But it is also our food.
July 4th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Sarah Palin didn’t know that George Bush had articulated a novel doctrine of pre-emption, and couldn’t think of the name of a politically-oriented publication.
Which is pretty sad when you consider one of her biggest backers as McCain’s VP was Bill “William the Bloody” Kristol.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I’ve tried, but I can’t take Palin seriously as any sort of political threat. I think the precise problem is that her shtick is just so obviously a shtick (and a poorly executed one at that). So outside the starburst crowd, the more people see of her, the less they like. Combine that with a notable lack of substance (you don’t have to call her dumb or crazy to conclude that she just isn’t bringing anything of note to the policy table), and I don’t see how she is a viable candidate for national office.
Reagan and Nixon certainly aren’t comparable. Nixon for good or ill certainly had substance, and while he may not have been likeable, at least he wasn’t a phoney (a crook, but not a phoney). Reagan was always likeable, and he was underrated in terms of substance by the time he got the presidential nomination.
And in any event, quitting the only job that at best marginally qualified her for national office before she completed even one term is going to be an insurmountable problem, even assuming it wasn’t a scandal-driven decision. I doubt she even gets the GOP nomination, and instead I think she will just become a Gingrich-like figure, hanging around as a major representative of the GOP for no discernable reason.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
However, Palin is a perfect analog to Nixon and Reagan in one specific respect: all three have fattened themselves on the mockery of the left. The mockery makes them stronger and more powerful. It is their food.
Seriously? Do you realize that the only part of the D.C. Republican “Establishment” that really likes her are the neo-cons? Do you ever stop to think why that might be?
July 4th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Her schtick has power, and wise political folks ought to respect that power, not mock it.
Sorry Petey: something’s just not right with her.
She can be crazy and politically dangerous. Lots of demagogues are. But I think this particular bit of batshittery — if you’re not going to run for re-election, quit! — is as likely to alienate her base support as it is to gather them to her side.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I doubt she even gets the GOP nomination, and instead I think she will just become a Gingrich-like figure, hanging around as a major representative of the GOP for no discernable reason.
Bingo!! And lets face it. She’ll be gone in another 10 years even if she does play a Gingrich role. Why? Because her appeal to Republican men is based on looks. But back to the GOP 2012 nomination. What do you think Huckabee, Pawlenty and Romney were saying to themselves yesterday? I am sure the thought, “Cut and Run” was running around their heads. Did any of those three quit before their term ended? As bad as Mittens is, did he cut and run from those awful gay lovin’, pinko commie liberal fascists? He didn’t. She’ll never hold elected office again. If she does, it will be because the other candidates were truly horrendous and even more out to lunch than she is.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
By the way, I agree that the one comment element between Palin and Dubya, Reagan, and Nixon is that she capitalizes to some degree on the resentments that define the GOP base. In other words, she is very much a Southern Strategy candidate. The problem is that is ALL she is, which probably wouldn’t have been sufficient for any of her predecessors, and certainly isn’t sufficient going forward in light of shifting demographics and ideological trends among young people.
And that is why she is actually far more dangerous to the GOP than to the Democrats. In a nutshell, the last thing they need is someone highly popular with their base who serves only to emphasize these aspects of their political brand.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Sarah Palin sure is strong and powerful now, isn’t she?
I saw plenty of people making this argument in September and October last year. In case you didn’t notice, the woman failed spectacularly. She was by far the most disliked of the four top candidates. They lost. From the insignificant spot of running mate, she dragged down the ticket – and all of this, while the Tina Fey skits were running.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
matt, i’m hoping you’re writing w/a dollop of snark here, otherwise, i’m w/the rest of these commentors.
who gives a flying rat’s patootie if the press has to work on the 3rd of july? the press are like garbagemen, only their job is to bring stuff (news) into our lives on a daily basis, not take stuff out of them.
it’s a 24/7 job. if you don’t like it become a sci-fi writer or something that takes talent. otherwise shut up and do your job.
and when i say “you,” i mean the general “you” as in “the press,” assuming you were being sarcastic/ironic in your original post.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
She can be crazy and politically dangerous. Lots of demagogues are. But I think this particular bit of batshittery — if you’re not going to run for re-election, quit! — is as likely to alienate her base support as it is to gather them to her side.
Why would it alienate her base support? Her base is the Christian Taliban. They’ll love her even more. It’s the saner part of the Republican party that will be alienated(if they weren’t already) and wonder WTF is she thinking.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
A further rebuttal to Petey is that Reagan was running against Carter. In 2012 Palin would be running against Obama. Obama is not Carter.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Except that was when the country was a lot whiter. The “Silent Majority” was in full effect. However, that is no longer true.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
DTM,
The problem is that it’s 2009.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle,
I obviously mostly agree with your 1:07 post, but the one thing I would note is that I have no idea who would win the nomination if it came down to her versus Romney in the final two. Obviously a sane GOP would reluctantly go with Romney, but that is just the sort of choice that may bring out their insanity.
That said, I’m assuming they will come up with someone respectable to run in 2012. As much as they like to flirt with the Buchanans and Forbeses, they always seem to end up going with the Doles. Their desire to have at least a chance of winning is just too powerful.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
The mockery makes them stronger and more powerful. It is their food.
Which is why, of course, Petey argues that it is always important for Democrats to look, act, and support Republicans (particularly southern whites, and especially Republican wars) in the hopes that once in office, they’ll be able pass health care reform.
The instant Tina Fey squeaked, “and I can see Russia from my house!”, Palin’s career was over.
and, damn, it never ceases to surprise me how some commenters get so self-righteous when they take MattY’s snark seriously.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Just Dropping By,
last year Petey invested heavily in the notion that Obama basically is Carter 2.0. Whether he still holds this absurd view, I don’t know.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
last year Petey invested heavily in the notion that Obama basically is Carter 2.0. Whether he still holds this absurd view, I don’t know.
The Petey never, ever, changes his mind. It is one of the defining characteristics of the Petey.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Just to echo Tyro’s implicit point: um, yes, it’s safe to assume that there’s some comic exaggeration involved when MY suggests that making journos work on Sat is what makes Palin “history’s biggest monster.”
The post is not really about journos, it’s about how inexhaustibly, entertainingly crazy she is. Except, see, he doesn’t say it flat out like that.
July 4th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Palin has basically given up on elected politics. It’s obvious that her lack of credentials and general cluelessness has no appeal beyond the wingnut base. However, she’ll be able to milk the devotion of the base via her “book”, a FauxNews TV show, maybe a “consulting” firm like Guiliani did after leaving office. Time to make the big bucks!
Where she is a political threat to Dems is her ability to draw crowds/dollars for other GOP candidates in future campaigns. It will be the GOP equivalen of getting Obama for your fundraiser.
July 4th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
“The mockery makes them stronger and more powerful.”
Or, as Eric Erickson might say: “If you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”
July 4th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Has anyone offered the theory that Palin, who knows nothing about politics except the value of spectacle, just thought that she could “capture the news cycle” by doing something out of the blue? This is the woman who wanted to give a vice-presidential concession speech, remember. Does she think that a bold, unexpected move will distract attention from the Vanity Fair article and the Letterman flap and get her positive press again? If so, is she simply unaware of what weird timing Friday July 3 is for that? I’m only being half-facetious here.
July 4th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
pooter123 the tedium troll compared Palin to Phylistine Schlafly yesterday, and for once I think he has a point: she could build a career as a niche wingnut whiner, in the same way that there are presumably one or two successful Western vampire romance novelists. Her influence outside that little subculture, on the other hand, will be pretty limited.
That is, unless the Palin family’s chiselling ways are about to come back to haunt them.
July 4th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Palin took 6 colleges, and 5 years, to get an undergraduate degree. She is thoroughly accustomed to getting into a situation, making enemies, and moving on (leaving the situation). The surprise would have been if she had actually lasted 4 years in a governorship. So far, she’s barely held it together, with family support and perhaps medication. But those meds may not be so easy to adjust as she gets older.
Thank you, John McCain.
July 4th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Why the timing? Someone threatened to expose Sarah’s E-mails to her boyfriend in Argentina…
July 4th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Idisagree with tedium troll’s comparison. Schlafly is a wingnut true but unlike Palin, she is an educated, high functioning one. In fact she went to Matt’s school for her masters.
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/10.18/11-schlafly.html
Oh, and here’s Ann Coulter’s mash note to Schlafly. Strip away the hyperbole (and wrongheaded policy), its still true that quarterbacking the opposition to the ERA (with both Houses and both parties on the other side) demonstrated that Schlafly knew how to run a railroad.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter071802.asp
July 4th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
But I think this particular bit of batshittery — if you’re not going to run for re-election, quit! — is as likely to alienate her base support as it is to gather them to her side.
Come on people, get a grip. She didn’t jump, she was pushed.
July 4th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
But those meds may not be so easy to adjust as she gets older.
I think you’re getting your headlines mixed up. Michael Jackson had the drug problem.
July 4th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Judd, I take it you haven’t watched the video of her address yet?
July 4th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
disagree with Palin as Reagan/Nixon
Obama as Carter 2.0 we can revisit in 2011
July 4th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
I think it was her “I’ll show’em” routine because Mark Sanford and Michael Jackson were getting all the headlines this week. I’m totally serious!
July 4th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Given how the Rep establishment hates her, I’m crossing my fingers for an independent Palin run in 2012, resulting in 10%-15% percent of the popular vote and the destruction of the Republican party for a generation….
July 4th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Palin’s zanier public appearances, including this last one, don’t make me think she is on drugs. Rather, they make me think she NEEDS to be on drugs, specifically anti-anxiety medication.
July 5th, 2009 at 7:15 am
Is there ever any Republican dumb and crazy enough where I / ‘the left’ won’t get lectured about how foolish we’re being for suggesting that he / she is dumb and or crazy?
July 5th, 2009 at 8:50 am
O. M. G.
Apparently no one informed der Fuhrer that history’s greatest monster had resigned. This isn’t going to be pretty, folks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IzNPEGWNos
July 5th, 2009 at 9:25 am
“Is there ever any Republican dumb and crazy enough where I / ‘the left’ won’t get lectured about how foolish we’re being for suggesting that he / she is dumb and or crazy?”
Sure. I think the mockery of McCain’s age in ‘08 was quite effective. Same with Dole in ‘96. But their political brands weren’t about feeding on the mockery of the left in the same way that more powerful Republicans like Nixon, Reagan, or Palin’s are.
Mock Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney all you want. That won’t help them politically. It’s only the resentful outsiders who get helped by mockery from the left.
July 5th, 2009 at 9:53 am
It’s only the resentful outsiders who get helped by mockery from the left.
Yes. See how well it worked out for Sarah Palin?
July 5th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Petey, why do you keep calling Palin a “powerful” Republican, on par with Nixon or Reagan?
Nixon was a two-term president, after being vice-president and one of the most powerful senators of his era. Reagan was a major celebrity, governor of the country’s most populous state, the leader of the rising faction of the Republican Party at a time when the Republicans were themselves rising into the majority, and also a two-term president whose coat-tails flipped control of the Senate when he ran as his party’s nominee.
Sarah Palin was elected governor of Alaska, served half a term, and then flamed out spectacularly on the national stage, ending up one of the most reviled bits of comedic fodder ever to seek public office in this country as she held down the bottom of a ticket that lost in a national rout. She’s less powerful than the Speaker of the Rhode Island House.
July 5th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Beware, joe, BEWARE!! Every time you mock her like that, she grows a little stronger. She may be a national joke now, but if you keep mocking her … well, I can’t be responsible for the consequences.
July 5th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
I’ve failed to see any analysis of her “resignation” as motivated by Palin’s Christianist vision of her political role. She spoke in dog-whistle phrases. What damaged her credibility with political observers was that she doesn’t have the chops to string ‘em together coherently. She had her four Republican buzz-phrases in order, but the “higher calling,” the “but that would be the easy way,” the “don’t need a title,” the declaration that her work is done and she’s leaving Alaska in good hands all tie in to her message (and conviction) that she is on a mission from God, has put in her time a disciple, and is now ready to march forth as a prophet.
July 5th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Of course her baser motive (”success” evangelism being what it is…) might simply be that negotiations for her Fox prime time show are done and she begins in September in the time slot right after Huckabee.
July 5th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
But of course Nixon, Reagan, and Dubya operated under a Republican brand that was not exclusively about resentment–they also enjoyed a brand that was strong on economic and national security issues. And those aspects of the Republican brand are now in tatters.
So again, that is one of the fundamental problems with Palin: she exclusively pushes the resentment button, and does nothing to inspire confidence in her ability to manage an economy or protect the nation’s interests. Hence, no matter how much mockery of her helps her attract the resentment crowd, it won’t do anything to expand her appeal broadly enough to become a serious threat to win a national election.
July 5th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
“Petey, why do you keep calling Palin a “powerful” Republican, on par with Nixon or Reagan?”
Because she’s good on TV, because she unhinges the left, and because her administration would be a profound nightmare for the country.
July 5th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Petey, you could apply those adjectives to the entire Fox prime time line up. Should we stop insulting Glenn Beck too, for fear of increasing his power?
July 5th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Because she’s good on TV, because she unhinges the left, and because her administration would be a profound nightmare for the country.
The first claim is false (Charlie Gibson? Katie Couric? The VP debate? The quitting speech? Did that not all happen on TV?), and the latter two have nothing to do with whether or not she is a “powerful” politician.
July 5th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Petey, next time you want to calm that Sarah is going to eat our lunch, read joe’s comment at 10:48. The only time that woman has strung two coherent sentences together since she hit the national stage was her convention speech, which, terrified me. I thought the game had changed.
But, no matter how they got her to deliver that speech so effectively, she subsequently showed that She.Is.Not.Smart. Every time she opens her mouth, I’m gobsmacked by the incoherence. Nixon was smart, and Reagan was coachable enough to sell greed and racial backlash as true American values. Sarah’s stupider than any politician ever to reach the national stage, and her appeal is exclusively to the 15% who truly believe the rapture is coming and hucksters like Ann Coulter. What ideas rattle around in that almost-totally empty head of hers are going to terrify everyone to the left of Bill Kristol and Pat Buchanan.
She is simply not a viable candidate outside the wilds of Alaska or the Republican primaries.
July 5th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
“But of course Nixon, Reagan, and Dubya operated under a Republican brand that was not exclusively about resentment–they also enjoyed a brand that was strong on economic and national security issues.”
Dubya didn’t run on resentment or on economic or national security issues.
He ran as a Bill Clinton who would only have sex with his own wife.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Dubya didn’t run on resentment or on economic or national security issues.
Oh sure he did. Starting from the end, on national security Dubya promised a humble, non-interventionist approach (he didn’t believe in nation-building and all that). On the economy he promised everyone a tax cut (no lockboxes for him). And then there was “compassionate conservatism”, which was about privatizing (including to churches) social services and also telling people they shouldn’t be blaming racism or general economic forces for individual problems (and thus at root was indeed a resentment-based idea).
That said, you are also correct that he promised to run a cleaner Administration, which among other things was understood to mean no presidential sex scandals.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:31 am
The MILF is a free agent! May she represent the San Fernando Valley long and well.
July 6th, 2009 at 9:45 am
The real danger of Sarah Palin is that she has set a new, low-bar for running for national office. For me the pucker-and-squint that she brought with her from the beauty pageant runway was like an ice pick in the back. Sure, you could hear her ambition roaring around in her empty skull like a mink trapped in a barrel, but it won’t always be thus. She’s opened the door to having a blonde, Fox news anchor run for president.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
“Petey, next time you want to calm (sic) that Sarah is going to eat our lunch…”
That’s not my claim.
Her chances of ever being President (like everyone else’s) are below 50/50. I’m personally hoping she gets the GOP nod in ‘12, since I think that’ll likely be a good Dem year.
My actual claim is two-fold: that’s she’s far more powerful than is the current lefty CW, and that the current lefty strategy of mocking her is far more likely to help her than hurt her.
She’s an incredibly dangerous figure, and folks ought to be long-term gaming how to deal with her. The current methods of dealing with her seem deeply wrong-headed to me.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
“The current methods of dealing with her seem deeply wrong-headed to me.”
She doesn’t need to be dealt with. She’s simply not smart enough to run a campaign that will get her anywhere near the support she needs to garner more than 30% of the voting public, even with unprecedented support from conservative media.
Let her run. If she gets nominated, she’ll be the most disastrous national party candidate in modern history.