Politics Ombudsman: Sarah Palin

Apologies for the time in between posts, TWO has been summering on his yacht in Hvar (pictured above), and life is slow. And sensual.

But its time for a talk about politics.

I am thinking of a American female politician. She comes from a working class family, was active in the local school system prior to beginning her political career and attained national notoriety at a young age. She is a polarizing figure, a lightening rod for criticism and is loved by some and hated by others... even those in her own party can't always agree as to whether she is helping or hurting her party's cause.

I am speaking, of course, about rogue, lunatic politician Cynthia McKinney (here looking a bit like ODB).

Moving on, Sarah Palin is "still very popular" according to FoxNews. And this should be very troubling to the Republican Party.

Palin, as a leader, has some positives in her makeup: she has a blue collar background, is religious, tough, self-made politically and is not a career politician in the traditional sense. She has met with success as a Governor and is a physically attractive person - in fact she is probably the only American politician to win a pageant since Dennis Kucinich's 1958 Boy's Beauty Pageant victory.

But the driving force behind Palin's popularity has little to do with her own substance, rather its the result of a reflexive movement by Republicans to support her in response to Democratic attacks. Palin, as a Vice Presidential candidate was quite clearly attacked and treated far differently than a similarly situated Democratic candidate would have been. The treatment of her and her family by the media, particularly when juxtaposed against that of President Obama's and VP Biden's, was truly shameful. The wagon circling began almost immediately and her popularity skyrocketed as a result. In short, Republicans were supporting Palin to show their distaste towards what they perceived to be unfair media treatment.

And this can be very dangerous. While the vigor with which the liberal media attacked Palin's intelligence and experience may have been disproportionate and condescending, it doesn't mean that the liberal media was wrong. Frankly, an intelligent person doesn't answer a question like this. And a person with a working knowledge of national politics and economic theory doesn't sound like this. I actually cannot watch that clip - I get too uncomfortable, and TWO is rarely uncomfortable. Jack Cafferty is a liberal hack, but he is 100% correct when he says that "...that is one of the most pathetic pieces of tape I've ever seen for someone aspiring to one of the highest offices in this country." TWO has nothing personally against Sarah Palin (in fact she seems like a wonderful person), but no honest analysis can conclude that she is fit to be a high ranking politician on the national stage.

A related but broader theme (and one equally troubling) is the anti-intellectual movement among mainstream Republicans. Conservatism has a long history of intellectualism - from David Hume to David Brooks. But recently there has been a backlash against "liberal elites" such that a Republican with an elite pedigree suddenly risks no longer being an authentic Republican. Not only is this an obvious recipe for disaster for the future, but, in fact, it has already hurt the Republican Party: A Romney ticket (TWO was hoping for Romney- Kay Bailey Hutchison) easily beats Obama-Biden last November. But the Republican Party was scared by Romney's elite background and Mormon faith, so gave the country McCain-Palin -- and effectively Obama-Biden -- instead.

A large base of the Republican Party views themselves as thoughtful, intelligent conservatives and has no interest in aligning themselves with garbled words and muddled thoughts. And that puts Palin, and her popularity, at the fault line of the Republican Party. If the Republican Party goes in the direction of Palins and Bushes (as opposed to Romneys and Giulianis), I see poor results and possibly huge fractures within the party.

Palin has unfortunately become a 1 woman sideshow. She threatens the health of the party, and there is very little upside to her as a politician as she has demonstrated only a moderate understanding of national politics and an average intelligence. Palin's everywoman background and Republicans' resentment of Democratic attacks on her should not compensate for those huge deficiencies. Cynthia McKinney had blue collar roots and was attacked by Republicans, but Democrats weren't considering pushing her to the forefront of their party. Is Sarah Palin the Republican Cynthia McKinney? Not yet, but we are probably only a few crazy interviews and conspiracy theories away.

In conclusion, sometimes the criticism is right.

CSPAN Ombudsman: Ranking Presidents, Roxette

Who's the best?

In response to overwhelming public demand, CSPAN got 65 historians to take time off from their schedules to let Americans know which Presidents have been the best. A helpful article accompanies this with the breaking news that Lincoln is the top rated President. See also http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/16/presidential.survey/index.html .

I realize that we have somehow developed into a ranking society, where every show on E! and VH1 is a countdown of some kind, but the idea that a) Americans need their Presidents ranked for them and b) these rankings are definitive in any way is absurd.

As an indication of how silly this is, please read an actual excerpt: "....Bill Clinton jumped six spots from No. 21 to 15. Other recent presidents moved positions as well: Ronald Reagan advanced from No. 11 to 10, George H.W. Bush from No. 20 to 18 and Jimmy Carter fell from No. 22 to 25." Now read that again in Casey Kasem's voice, and replace Bill Clinton with Richard Marx, Ronald Reagan with Boy Meets Girl, Bush with The Bangles and Carter with Roxette, and this could be a 1989 American Top 40 transcript. But why are these Presidents advancing and falling? Either they were good or they weren't, but their performances haven't changed. What has George Washington done to deserve being dropped in the rankings? The explanation that "Today's concerns shape our views of the past..." by one of the historians does more to discredit the rankings than explain them... to judge Thomas Jefferson's presidency in light of, for example, the 2009 financial crisis, is the height of anachronism and revisionist history.

Second, and I won't go overboard in analysis here...but a couple of the rankings were very surprising. John F. Kennedy ranking 7th, ahead of Jefferson, Eisenhower, Wilson and Reagan is absurd. Kennedy was (tragically) only able to serve 3 years, and during that time did not have a particularly stellar record (see, eg the Bay of Pigs Fiasco). It is hard to defend his 3 year performance as exceeding that of so many well regarded two term presidents. Second, Jimmy Carter ranking 25th, essentially middle of the pack, is even more egregious. Jimmy Carter steered the country towards a period of high unemployment, low growth and dangerously high inflation. He received epicly low approval ratings and was internationally embarrassed by the Iran Hostage Crisis. Carter managed to win only 6 states and the District of Columbia in his 1980 reelection bid. However, Carter was ranked ahead of people like Richard Nixon (who, while far from perfect, served two terms and was popular enough to win his reelection in one of the greatest landslides in American history), Zachary Taylor (who had an effective Presidency shortened by death) and James Garfield (who only served for four months and didn't have time to lead the nation into ruin, like Carter did).

More importantly, I would like to announce that CSPAN will be teaming with VH1 to create the following jointly produced shows, to air on both networks:

1) Top 10 Totally Unbelievable Invasions. Hosted by Daisey Fuentes, historians rank various sneak attack military operations, from the fall of Troy to Quantrill's Raiders to Normandy as Michael Ian Black ("I mean, to the Germans, Eisenhower is like the anti-David Hasselhoff!!! And so is Omar Bradley!"), among others, provide commentary. Into and out of commercial breaks, the chorus to EMF's Unbelievable plays as the show's title graphic appears. From the actual show transcript...Historian: "After Ghengis Khan's invasion of Volga Bulgaria, he set his sights on Hungary, after physically crushing Russian princes to death under his eating platform" Sinbad: "DAMN!"

2) Top 30 Most Influential Christians. With quick cuts and Swizz Beatz tracks playing in the background, CSPAN/VH1 counts down through St. Augustine, various Popes, St. Peter and others. Spoiler Alert! Jesus falls one spot to #2 as host Giuliana Rancic explains that, quite simply, Jesus' name recognition has been diluted by the sheer number of Mexican boxers of the same name ("Dios Mio!" quips celebrity commenter George Lopez). Some Christian leaders attending a pre-screening have questioned Apostle Paul's #1 ranking, contending that Jesus is the central figure in their religion, but CSPAN/VH1 stands by its rating process.

3) All Access: 20 Most Controversial Supreme Court Decisions. Brooke Burke is all about controversy as she counts down an explosive list of court cases with comments from a star-studded group of celebrities. The list is comprehensive, from Plessy v. Ferguson ("That $#!* was %@#*@# up" - Ice T) to Roe v. Wade ("YEAH!" - Linda Perry) to, of course, Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah ("That ordinance was neutral but was improperly motivated and thus had to be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling governmental interest!" - Tracy Morgan).

In conclusion, Roxette is a severely underrated 80s band.