What's Wrong with Sarah Palin

Those of you who follow my blog may find it curious that this isn't a positive post about Sarah Palin. But the posts I've written thus far in defense of Palin have been solely with regard to media bias, and I will continue to defend her against the left-wing establishment regardless of what I think of her as a politician.

I've remained pretty quiet about Palin as a politician b/c I've been absorbing the madness surrounding her rise to fame. I've also been listening intently to her when she speaks. I read her memoir, as you know; and I've now watched all her recent one-on-one interviews with the folks at FOX, which were very in-depth and unbiased, naturally. And here's the thing:

There's something missing with Palin -- and believe me, it pains me to say this. God knows the Republican party needs a leader, and of course I agree with Palin on many fronts. The problem with Palin is that all of her answers come in the form of generalizations about political philosophy. Generalizations that, quite frankly, I could make.

To some degree, as I've said before, I believe Palin is setting herself up as "one of us": a regular Joe(anne) as opposed to a big shot. And I like this about her -- in theory. But I also need my politicians to know more than I do, and I don't believe Palin does.

That is not to say she couldn't be an effective leader. Reagan was no intellectual either, but he surrounded himself with the right people. And, to be honest, the president doesn't need to have all the answers. Sometimes being an effective leader is knowing how to delegate.

Bottom line: I would welcome Sarah Palin on the political scene in all kinds of positions, but I wouldn't vote for her for president unless I was up against the wall and had no other options. Palin may be a viable option down the road, but she has a lot of work to do to ready herself for any kind of major role.

4 Responses to “What's Wrong with Sarah Palin”:

  1. Terro says:

    I think you have hit the nail on the head. Sarah Palin is great for rallying the troops, but she doesn't express her own ideas of substance. On the other hand, she did a very credible job as governor of Alaska, winning concessions from oil companies etc., so it's possible we're both wrong. I would in any case vote for her against anyone simply subscribing to a "progressive" or liberal ideology that will not restore our economy, nor reverse cultural decay.

  2. shevrae says:

    Since she's not currently running for any office, the argument could be made that now is EXACTLY the time for general statements on political philosophy. What good would it do to commit herself to a specific course of action, when the details could be so different in a couple of years (assuming she does make a run for president)? Then all the media would do is play soundbites of the policies she promoted now and say she was stupid for not knowing how things would change or call her a flip-flopper if something else makes more sense at campaign time.

    I like Sarah Palin, but I'm not putting any bumper stickers on my car yet. I am trying to keep an open mind about her until she decides what she's going to do and how she will proceed.

  3. I wasn't referring so much to her not offering specifics about what she would do if she were in office, I meant that she doesn't answer specific questions about past stuff.

    For example, in an interview with Beck (and this was a friendly interview, of course), he mentioned how Republicans have spend too much over the years and asked Palin which Bush policies she disagreed with. She couldn't answer and went back to her standard answer that "big government isn't good for America."

    This is just something I've noticed over and over again. Of course the Left charges that she isn't smart, but that's not how I'd describe it. Being smart and being knowledgeable are two different things -- though I would like both in any candidate.

    That said, I think all of this is moot b/c I don't believe Palin is going to be president anytime soon.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Somebody finally noticed what I have been noting regarding her for a long time. Practically everything she says is nothing more than a "crowd pleasing" generality. Whenever she is asked to offer something of substance, she evades the question and answers with one of her "clever" one-liners. Maybe she does not want to be taken seriously at this point - too much pressure perhaps. She could avoid the "stupid" label if she offered cogent thoughts more often.