What's Smarts Got To Do With It?

America's favorite hockey mom, Sarah Palin, re-emerged onto the national political scene this week. She'll be out and about flogging her book "Going Rogue" in which she straightens the world out on what really happened during her run for vice president. Her plans include visiting as many Fox News interviewers as possible while otherwise staying out of big cities that may have actual high school and college graduates lurking about. You can bet she'll also steer clear of Katie Couric this time around.

There's speculation that all this PR may be a prelude to a run for president. This leads me to question just what attributes are important for a successful presidency. It isn't obvious that sheer intelligence ranks very high on the list.

In Palin's case, good looks and a snappy demeanor seem to be her chief positives. She also appeals to the far right wing with her social stances. No one is pushing her to run based upon her demonstrated intelligence. But is high intelligence really needed for the job?

Reflecting on some recent presidents, George W. Bush seemed to flaunt his lack of intellectual curiosity; yet he got re-elected. Ronald Reagan was a nice enough old guy who didn't exhibit much depth intellectually, but he's regarded as one of the most effective presidents.

Bill Clinton was a very smart guy who couldn't control his personal life. His presidency will forever be remembered more for his peccadilloes than his administration's accomplishments. Jimmy Carter was also thought of as a deep thinker, but his is generally regarded as a failed presidency.

It's obvious that Barack Obama has the intelligence and depth to impress, but it's way too early to say how his term in office will be evaluated.

While it's not clear that smarts are the most important facet of being a good president, you must have other talents to get elected. Most important are political skills. This includes: (1) being able to raise lots of money, (2) answer questions with well-rehearsed sound bites which appear to be spontaneous and (3), most importantly, make people on opposite sides of tough issues think you agree with each of them when, in fact, this is an absolute impossibility.

Palin's Victory Tour

I was all set to write about the wretched economic situation and Detroit's plea for a bailout. Then, out of the blue (or is it red?), up pops Sarah Palin and suddenly I'm right back in Palinmania.

 

Did you catch any of her "victory tour" this week? It seems to have started in her kitchen in beautiful Wasilla. There she was, being  televised to the world, orating in her peculiar vernacular, while simultaneously whipping up a batch of moose stew ( do you "whip up" moose stew?). I bet you thought it would be hard for her to walk and chew gum. Not for our hockey mom. She was as smooth as a fresh sheet of ice. 

Her week continued with interviews on CNN, NBC and Fox, among others. The tour culminated with a rousing speech to the gathered Republican governors in Miami, eager to learn from Palin just how the party would be reassembled into anything that might have any chance of winning a national election again in their lifetimes.

 

Wait a minute! Did I just say that the Republican party didn't win the last election? Oops, yes, that's what happened all right. Obama did win both the popular vote and the electoral college vote. That means McCain and, I assume, Palin, must have lost.

 

Well, then how do you explain Palin taking a victory tour?

 

You can't. Unless your logic flows like Sarah's syntax.

 

Just to remind you, here's an example of "Sarah Speech", as reported by Maureen Dowd last week in the New York Times:

 

"My concern has been the atrocities there in Darfur and the relevance to me with that issue as we spoke about Africa and some of the countries there that were kind of the people succumbing to the dictators and the corruption of some collapsed governments on the continent, the relevance was Alaska’s investment in Darfur with some of our permanent fund dollars."

 

I guess that's clear enough. Even George W. would be proud to have uttered that particular string of words.

 

Re-reading that little ditty, it's easy to see why she has garnered a 98% name recognition among the great unwashed masses. Yes, of course, they like the fact that she's a hard working super-mom; and her looks, ideas and logic are simply captivating. But, most of all, they can't get enough of her folksy way of speaking. Her fans say that they would feel comfortable with her in the White House because she's just like them.

 

As Sarah herself would say, "this should result in a loud shout-out to the country's educators that they'd better get on the ball and plow through those glass doors that may be open just a crack". 

So therein lies the lesson for today:  there's a new day dawning, and it's all about teaching our children to speak with a clarity that every "Real American" (not those wussy Northeastern and West Coast elitists) can understand.

 

Oh, and one more thing. The government would be crazy to throw any money into the coffers of the big three automakers unless it's part of a pre-packaged bankruptcy proceeding in which: the management is replaced; the labor contracts are renegotiated; critical suppliers are paid so they don't go bankrupt; the common shareholders are wiped out; outstanding bonds are converted to common equity; and the government money is injected as preferred stock or senior bonds.

Are We Becoming Bluer?

The good ship McCain continued to take on water this week. A potential tide-turning event was the third and final presidential debate on Wednesday. McCain heaved up a "Joe the Plumber" bomb in his latest attempt to change the trajectory of the campaign. This follows his previous failed Hail Mary attempts: choosing Palin as his VP and a temporary suspension of his campaign to rush back to D.C. to rescue the economy. But the focus on the scary economic mess rather than on national security continued to help Obama.

 

According to America's most respected newsman, Jon Stewart, all Obama had to do to win the last debate was refrain from jumping up and saying "Where are all the white women at"? The Chosen One resisted that temptation and thereby maintained his momentum.

 

More bad news for McCain was that a number of Republican luminaries, reading the growing pile of tea leaves, scampered off the ship. George Will, Peggy Noonan, David Brooks and Colin Powell all bailed out.

 

The week did have some positive moments for McCain and Palin. McCain won the hilarious battle of the roasts at the Alfred Smith annual dinner. He looked like the straight talking McCain of yore and was seen having fun for the first time in the last two years.

 

Similarly, Palin finally made her anticipated appearance on Saturday Night Live. The first of the two skits was pretty lame. The second skit, however, was clever. Amy Poehler, who looks like she must be at least 10 months pregnant, rapped out a tune that had Palin swinging in her seat. The Governor came across as a good sport.

 

All the polls say Obama and Biden (remember him?) are gliding to victory. At this point, their strategy should be to just play it safe, not get drawn into any nasty name calling, avoid any memorable gaffes and pray like heck that the Dow doesn't suddenly rise 3000 points.

 

Perhaps the best tactic at this point for McCain/Palin is to jettison all pretenses of serious political talk. They should concede the boring wonkish policy stuff to Obama/Biden. The populace can't really evaluate whose plan is better and will just blame the Republicans for the economic mess since it occurred on their watch.

 

Instead, MCain/Palin should continue to do comedy for the remainder of the campaign. This will pick up the voters who base their decision on whom they want to have a beer with. But even if they lose the election, both McCain and Palin will burnish their resumes and improve their chances for future gigs during the Republican diaspora. They should have lots of juicy material resulting from observing the Democrats' attempts at dealing with the economy.

Is The Spoof Better Than The Original?

My question of the week: is the spoof better than the original? Let me explain. 

For comic relief, 70 million Americans tuned in for the long anticipated Vice-Presidential debate last Thursday. Just prior to the debate, we were momentarily distracted by the news that the moderator, Gwen Ifill, had a book coming out and she would clearly benefit from an Obama win in November. This little tidbit perhaps neutered Ifill from acting like a moderator who might actually try to get the candidates to answer her questions. With this limitation, rather than the train wreck everyone was anticipating, it turned out that all three protagonists in the show did OK.

 

Ifill moderated moderately, Biden behaved and Palin projected power. Ifill's questions were clear and covered a reasonable range of topics. Biden controlled his impulses to actually debate Palin, instead focusing his remarks on how much he loved McCain and how wrong McCain was on every topic discussed. He finished off each retort with a broad smile, clearly indicating what a nice guy he is.

 

But the star of the show clearly hit her marks. Palin uttered every rehearsed line in fine cadence whether or not her response had anything whatsoever to do with the question asked. Ifill's limitations clearly helped Palin in that she faced no follow-up questions. Palin talked directly into the camera, ignoring the other two on stage, smiling broadly, and even winking from time to time. All this while never uttering the "g" sound at the end of her words.

 

None of this changed anything in the slightest, but it sure was entertaining.

 

After the original debate was aired, everyone waited for the inevitable Saturday Night Live spoof. First of all, to give them the credit they deserve, the SNLers are amazingly quick. It must be pretty hard to create that good a parody in only 48 hours. The Joe Biden and Gwen Ifill (Queen Latifa) impersonations were great. The Biden smile after denouncing McCain and the looks of disbelief of Ifill after Palin spoke were right on. But, as usual, Tina Fey nails it big time. She is such a tour-de-force that an un-cued observer might have trouble guessing whether it was Tina Fey on stage Thursday night and not some hockey Mom from Alaska.

 

The question of the week is really a toss up. If I had to decide, though, I'd say the original. As Palin would say, "you betcha", it's my acting that's more real.

Change Beats Experience: Palin is Perfect

With all the hubbub over John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential nominee, I was wondering how it became the norm for the party nominee to select his running mate. It certainly seems odd that after an incredible amount of time and money is spent to determine the Presidential candidate, the Vice President can be picked on a whim.

I found the answer in an article appropriately entitled: "Process of Selecting Vice President Evolved over Centuries. America’s earliest running mates often competitors rather than partners." It's a pretty good summary of all the stuff I used to know about this subject before my gray matter starting turning really gray. Do you remember that it wasn't until after Eisenhower in 1952 that the Presidential candidate unilaterally selected his running mate? I didn't.

Well, what about McCain's VP choice? It seems to me that the GOP pollsters must have determined that they were not going to win the election based on "Experience", or, to put it more directly, Obama's lack thereof. That means that "Change" will be the key factor.

This was a real problem for McCain. Obama says he's the Change guy, with his continuous chant that McCain is nothing but four more years of Bush. But McCain has always prided himself on being a maverick who goes against the straight line of his party to do what's right for the country. He's even compromised with the other side from time to time, acts which really ticked off his "Base".

So, the answer is to select another Change person who can also bolster his standing with the GOP Base. To McCain, apparently Palin is Perfect.

She's first and foremost a politician who changed the game in Alaska when she took on her own party's politicians for their egregious lack of ethics (and, in some cases, lack of legality).

Second, she's a she. Perhaps that will get McCain a few Hillary supporters, hoping that the women will overlook her political positions, which are almost exactly the opposite of Ms. Clinton.

Third, she's an Evangelical Christian and long term member of the NRA. What more could the lunatic far right wing of his Base want?

Fourth, just let those pesky Dems bring up her lack of experience. This forces them to explain just exactly how their number one guy has more experience than the GOP's number two gal. Here's how I presume McCain expects that debate to go: "She's run the largest state in the land, one of the smallest cities in the land, and a PTA. OK, now, it's your turn. Are you going to tell us again how Obama was an "Organizer" in Chicago for a few months. By the way, what the heck is an Organizer? And it was in Chicago. Sure sounds like a job Tony Soprano and his pals handled in New Jersey."

Will this strategy work? We'll have to wait to find out. It's a high risk, but possibly high payoff gamble.

I'll close with an old aphorism. If you don't like the question, change the topic. Whatever you think of his choice of VP, I think McCain did that pretty well.