House of Eratosthenes

Skepticism of Palin Growing, Poll Finds
By Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 2, 2008; Page A01

With the vice presidential candidates set to square off today in their only scheduled debate, public assessments of Sarah Palin’s readiness have plummeted, and she may now be a drag on the Republican ticket among key voter groups, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

I was just trying to remember I saw a headline similar to “Skepticism of Obama Growing” — since, I think it is fair to say, on more than one occasion skepticism of Obama has grown.

Can’t recall. Not a single example comes to mind. Can’t recall skepticism of Biden growing, either.

In early September, independents offered a divided verdict on Palin’s experience; now they take the negative view by about 2 to 1. Nearly two-thirds of both independent men and women in the new poll said Palin has insufficient experience to run the White House.

Obama was able for the first time to crack the 50 percent mark, albeit barely, on whether he has the experience to be president following Friday’s presidential debate, and the question is one of Palin’s central challenges as she prepares to face Biden in prime time before a national television audience.

We seem to have a lot of people who are deciding whether someone’s qualified to be President, based on performance in a debate. I wonder if they think that’s appropriate, or whether they’re being shoehorned into this behavior by the nature of the question being asked.

I’d sure like to see a poll about that. I’ve seen Presidents do an awful lot of things in my lifetime, and very few of those things have had anything to do with performance in a debate. About the closest thing I can think of, is giving a scripted speech, and I think most people would agree Palin has shown herself more competent than most in that department — certainly more competent than Joe Biden.

Now, if this was the Athenian Republic, and we were watching practiced philosophers “debate” in an amphitheater somewhere with accepted rules and protocols about what does & does not objectively count as a hit — intellectually, not emotionally — then, I’d say, the debate format would show more promise as a temperature-check about whether a candidate is “ready.” But…that isn’t what modern-day debates do, and I think most people understand that.

But you know what poll question would really count here? How much confidence do you have, Mister Voter, that the methods we use to pick our Presidents has some overlap with what exactly our country needs out of those people after they’re sworn in. I’d enjoy even more seeing that plotted across time, since about 1984. It’s at an all-time low, I expect.

And if that’s the case, there arises the necessity of asking these poll respondents if they think Palin is missing the intellectual acumen to actually serve as a competent President, or is missing the viable political aptitudes necessary to becoming one. Ah well, if it’s the latter of those, this slobbering Palin fan is more than ready to ‘fess up to having lost confidence in the last couple of weeks. But what would that mean, exactly?

And even that, has its problems. Sarah Palin is not a failure at the game of politics by any means; her approval rating, even cited by those ideologically hostile, is listed at sixty-four, seventy-three, or eighty-six percent. I’m pretty sure you’re not going to see a Governor Morgan Freeberg get an 86% approval rating, no matter what; not if he balances a budget, cures cancer, and kills a grizzly bear with a big knife all on the same day.

How are Joe Biden’s approval ratings in Delaware; are they eighty percent?

I heard an interview with Palin on the radio last night. She sounded pretty sharp to me.

I think I’m in the “let Palin be Palin” camp. Let her be herself, and she’ll do fine. Try to shoehorn her in to something else, and she’ll look awkward. People like her because of her approach, not because of her encyclopedic knowledge of what different reporters mean by “the Bush Doctrine”.

Dennis Miller mused yesterday that she hadn’t seen that kind of uneasiness on television since Katie Couric first went on the air. Ironic.

I heard someone say yesterday that she ought to come out and say “Hi there. It’s me, Sarah Palin. If you were expecting ‘Perfect’, I’m sorry to disapoint you. I’m not. If you were looking for an eloqutionist, that’s not me, either. If you’re looking for an anti-corruption reformer to go to Washington with traditional American values, I’m your gal.”

She would do well to keep this in mind:

If an eloquent speaker speak not the truth, is there a more horrid kind of object in creation?
– Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) British historian and essayist.

And this:

If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use the pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time; a tremendous whack.
– Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
- philmon | 10/02/2008 @ 09:51
uh.. regarding Dennis. HE hadn’t seen that kind of uneasiness… jeez.
- philmon | 10/02/2008 @ 10:13

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Skepticism of Palin GrowingThursday, October 2nd, 2008

Skepticism of Palin Growing
Thursday, October 2nd, 2008