Palin’s Presidential Future May Require ‘Pygmalion Project’ (Romneybots bash Palin again)

Bloomberg | 2009-11-20

[rabscuttle385]

Link only, per FR copyright rules

[CharlesWayneCT]

Most people appear not to have read the article, and just assumed that the title quote was Ron’s.

At least the freeper you reference did read the article, they saw the quote from “buchanon”, they just didn’t go back through the article to learn it was “bruce buchanon” rather than “pat buchanon”.

Remember when the MSM falsely claimed that Palin supported Pat Buchanon for President in 1996?

Pat claimed she raised money for him, Palin denied it.

Pat says nice things about Palin from time to time, but given that Pat is kind of toxic, it could be he just says those things to hurt her — it is always used AGAINST her when Buchanon supports her or says nice things about her.

[Bob J]

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

[EveningStar]

(Romneybots bash Palin again)

Where in the article do you find this?

[nathanbedford]

I agree entirely with your take on Sarah Palin.

There is no one on the political horizon who has the philosophical pedigree to match our conservative principles. More importantly, she is the walking embodiment of conservative virtue. Finally, as I noted at the time of her selection, the biography reveals that she was chosen not in spite of an absence of experience, she had adequate experience, but for what her biography reveals about her character.

On the other hand as you quite properly point out, it would be a grave error to nominate Sarah Palin if she is unready and unwilling to get ready to play the game in the big leagues. It is unfair to her and it is unfair to the conservative cause.

Immediately after the election I posted this reply about what I thought she had to do to get ready which only a code several posts that I had made even prior to the election concerning this subject which I call "forensic surgery":

I take your point about Reagan's improved performance in the second debate in which he was not expected to be force-fed a whole bunch of data. I think Palin's problem is 70 % presentation and 30 % substance.

First, I think she was unnerved by Gibson and by Couric. I know that sounds remarkable for someone who can come out of the backwater of Alaska and mount the national stage in front of the tens of millions of people and knock 'em dead at the convention. Nevertheless, I think she was terribly nervous in those two interviews and it undid her.

And talking about style, I think we should differentiate among the two kinds of exposure that a candidate endures. The first is the prepared speech. She is proven beyond doubt that she can deliver a boffo speech. However, in these efforts it is sometimes necessary, depending on the setting and the audience, to be formal and pedantic. She has not demonstrated an ability in this area yet and she must do so to acquire the precious "gravitas." At outdoor rallies she can literally let her hair down and let ' er rip and she will be wonderfully well received.

A second venue is the television interview Katie Couric or Meet the Press style. I believe that she can handle that experience better today but if you look at the last YouTube ambush by NBC news affiliate in front of the Turkey slaughter, you'll see Palin confident and unafraid because she is in her element. But you will also notice that she talked too fast and was a bit too earnest and smiled a bit too much. Her problem is not likability but weight. Those of us who love her will do so if she smiles a little less and those who hate her do so compulsively because of who she is, not what she says or how she says it. Palin must identify her target which is the mushy middle who will like her but must not be able to conclude that she is a lightweight. Therefore, her forensic coach should work on voice tone, pacing, pauses, and posture all with a view to adding portent. Additionally, she should have an inventory of handy phrases for each subject such as offshore drilling, Iraq or what have you. Procedurally, she should have an inventory of phrases ready to hand if she is put back on her heels which will kick up enough dust to get her out of a jam. These should be practiced and rehearsed so that she looks authoritative while she is shucking and jiving-all politicians shuck and jive the question is do you look good doing it. In Sarah's case, she always looks good, the question is does she looks smart? I think a forensic coach will play back tapes with a view to alerting her to her nervous gestures and betrayals of insecurity. She has courage but I think she is also a woman of decency and politeness so she does not instinctively leapt to the counterattack when somebody like Charlie Gibson misquotes her to spring a trap that she is a religious nut. She does not look the camera in the eye as though she was staring a Katie Couric and ask her why she did not ask such a question of Barak Obama. She must learn that the audience hates Katie Couric and knows what she is up to and will tolerate a lot of spontaneous pushback provided it does not appear to be whining. Finally, she must overcome the present negative image created by Tina Fey and Katie Couric. That is to be done by self- deprecating humor. Clinton got away with that after his disastrous convention speech by appearing on Leno and making fun of himself. It got Huckabee to the brink of the nomination. If I were Palin I would somehow raise the money to hire a stable of writers, two should do it, but one of whom at least should have some comedic skills.

Ronald Reagan used to wit and humor to skewer his adversaries who, like Mondale, were young and inexperienced.

[riri]

In short, she needs a little, just a little, Ann Coulter.

Good analysis BTW.

[grey_whiskers]

Bonus humor feature (based upon the movie, since Audrey Hepburn is petite, like Palin, and almost as much a goddess...):

Picture Sarah Palin plaintively crying out repeatedly in a cockney voice, "I'm a good gel, I am!"

GO SARAH!

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

We must not have Romney surrogates attack Palin, but it is OK to have a web site continually posting Palin surrogates attacking Romney. That’s different. All looks yellow to the jaundiced eye!

Were you here for the bug-zapper thread, by any chance?

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

But the worst thing of all is that the "destroy Sarah" campaign IS WORKING, and that fact means that such tactics will be deployed against any conservative with a chance of winning.

You're right. Now her book sales will NEVER match Dan Quayle's numbers! /sarc>

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Beware the Ides of Mitt! /Shakespeare>

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Send this to Conservatives4Palin or somesuch who will be able to get it to her team.

Better yet, don't.

They'll try to use your name and association to claim she is a racist.

Cheers!

[broncobilly]

I don’t know what you are talking about.

[nathanbedford]

They already did something analogous when they falsely reported that Sarah Palin was inciting violence and possibly even assassination and the evidence for that was that spectators were crying "kill him", allegedly referring to Obama. Subsequently it was confirmed that no such outcries were made. Nevertheless, the demagoguery had its effect.

It seems that it matters not whether the left has a plausible hook for its calumnies. When it wants to charge guilt by association it can manufacture the evidence or it can distort the facts.

Cheers.