If only Sarah weren’t Sarah, She Coulda Been A Contender//UPDATE: John Podhoretz in Commentary
May 10, 2011
That’s the thesis propounded by Joshua Green in the June issue of The Atlantic.
The magazine, however, went with the classier title, “The Tragedy of Sarah Palin,” and illustrated the piece with the striking image above of Sarah in full presidential mode.
“But over the past few months, Palin has begun fortifying her profile by visiting foreign countries and delivering speeches that extol her record as governor, especially on energy, as she did in March to an audience of international business leaders in India….She seems to be reintroducing herself.”
Given that I’m presently writing the last chapter of THE ROGUE I’m not going to critique Green’s piece, though I’m sure some will take issue with his conclusion that Sarah was a great governor of Alaska, who accomplished extraordinary things.
I find it interesting that during his week in Alaska Green spoke to the same people I talked to two-and-a-half years ago about Sarah’s accomplishments as governor–Gregg Erickson, Pat Galvin, Hollis French, Les Gara–and came away with conclusions very different from those I reached and published in my 2009 Portfolio cover story.
I will say that I hope Howard Kurtz reads Green’s story. In the current Newsweek, Kurtz writes about the end of the Sarah Palin phenomenon in a piece titled, “Is Sarah Palin Over?”
Kurtz says she’s toast. Green says she just might be a soufflé only starting to rise.
Maybe Andrew Sullivan, formerly of The Atlantic and now with Tina Brown’s Daily Beast-Newsweek behemoth could moderate a Kurtz-Green debate on The Dish.
UPDATE:
Even Commentary compares Sarah to Daryl Strawberry.
Even while pining for what might have been, Podhoretz writes her off. But who will win his heart next?
Or can Sarah lure him back by offering lunch on the concrete block on Lake Lucille, the way she seduced his buddy Bill Kristol over lunch at the governor’s mansion in Juneau?
Posted in 2012, Andrew Sullivan, Joe McGinniss, The Rogue | 
Tags: 2012 gop candidates, ACES, AGIA, Andrew Sullivan, howard kurtz, joshua green, natural gas, newsweek, oil, palin for president, Portfolio, Sarah Palin, the atlantic, the daily best, the dish
27 Responses to “If only Sarah weren’t Sarah, She Coulda Been A Contender//UPDATE: John Podhoretz in Commentary”
“Sarah was a great governor of Alaska, who accomplished extraordinary things.” ????Like what????
$arah was the Worst Governor Ever (WGE), even worse than Frank the Bank (Lisa Murkowski’s father). ‘Open and transparent’ turned out to be nothing but smoke and mirrors. The corruption taint from $P and her BFF’s is ongoing. Now we are saddled with her less dramatic male doppelganger.
She was/is a total and absolute embarrassment to thinking/educated people in AK and everywhere in the US. I once was proud to announce I lived in AK. Now I mumble something and move on. Imagine the embarrassment when ordering something over the phone when they ask for address – Wasilla, AK.
Good Grief. Her India speech was to some business group and she holed up in her hotel and only went to a mall, not impressive to the locals. And Israel…what WAS that?
These so-called journalists know nothing. If they watched her ten minutes on FOX business they would know she does not understand how the oil commodities markets work so how can she really know dick about energy?
Souffle? Not likely.
Two rules on making a souffle – beat the fresh eggs at room temperature, and don’t jump up and down in the kitchen when it is cooking. Palin the egg has been left above room temperature since the “blood libel” idiocy in January, and she’s been jumping up and down in the kitchen ever since. Makes for a very flat, tasteless dish my dog might even turn his nose from.
“I feel your pain!”
Have you EVER smelled a rotten egg? Sure you could make a souffle out of rotten eggs, but you must have a bad sense of smell.
I use them for deer repellent.
Sarah Palin+Rotten Eggs. Separated at Birth?
I read Green’s article today and was gobsmacked. I immediately thought of your Portfolio piece which for the first time enabled me to understand what ACES and AGIA were actually about.
Methinks there is a concerted effort to rebrand Granny Palin. Elliott, Linkins and now Green.
I think so too.
Rehabilitated and spit polished.
It is too much.
They (whose money is backing them ) aren’t being very subtle about it either.
Truly disgusting.
Turd-polishing….I’m just saying.
And there is more.
What If Palin Had Run on Her Record?
” It’s ‘Palin’s History As Written By a Somewhat Sympathetic Liberal’ writes Hot Air’s pseudonymous Allahpundit, noting that the quest to contextualize Palin seems fruitless:
While Green’s piece may be a bit more sympathetic than, say, the dishonest sleaze put out by Michael Joseph Gross last September or what’s coming next from Joe McGinnis, it’s just the other end of the same continuum. In every case, Palin is a failure in need of explanation.”
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/05/what-if-palin-had-run-her-record/37536/
Just AGIA.
Are the authors rewarded when they write lies in order to keep Sarah relevant? Are they on some secret payroll or paid by SarahPac? Good grief, how do they look other authors in the face without running away in embarrassment and shame?
Souffle? lol, we all know what can happen to improperly baked and handled souffles. I’d compare Sarah more to a volcano experiment using vinegar, rising up, foaming out, sputtering and then fizzling out to nothing but used vinegar in a social experiment. Wait, maybe that’s not fair to vinegar, it has many good applications, whereas I see none in Sarah Palin.
Since Green’s assessment of Palin’s AK gubernatorial record is erroneous, I think I’ll stick with toast.
It doesn’t shock me that different journalists come away with different interpretations from interviews. Everyone has their own agenda as we have seen.
Ha! Perfect analogy! (I think she threw some cans at the fridge while jumping in the kitchen)
Those press reactions are certainly instructive.
Now I know where my brother-in-law gets his “raw political talent” meme about her. He’s a WSJ article clipper–bundles them up and sends them to us relentlessly. “Raw political talent” means, “we loved her frontier gal/uber mom Alaska-style narrative, didn’t want to dig deeper, and boy, was she fun to look at all dolled up at the RNC”. Hubba hubba.
I don’t see a Palin resurrection project as possible. But I do think some journalists are going to start writing about why they should be excused for missing the lede. They allowed this person to go forward unexamined and watched cynically as she flagrantly pushed all the previously forbidden buttons. And then pushed them again and again, just because she could. The Fourth Estate failed the country, and apparently, we’re going to now get the “in hindsight” and “what might have been” spin in order to excuse the failure of our press. Theirs was a serious and tragic dereliction of duty–that’s the only “tragedy” Green should have written about.
Sarah Palin raised taxed on oil companies, and increased the state operating budget by 35% in just 2 years.
She lied constantly: she and Todd eloped because she was knocked up, not to save her parents money like she stated in her book of fables. She supported the Bridge to Nowhere, and as governor even built- using a $26,000,000 FEDERAL EARMARK- a dead-end road to where the bridge would have joined Gravina Island.
http://www.propublica.org/feature/palin-admin-oversaw-26-million-road-to-nowhere-917/
Even the Heritage Foundation opposed her decision.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed061907b.cfm
She lied about hounding the Troopers to fire her ex-brother-in-law; she lied about state-paid travel for her kids, and had to pay the state back thousands of dollars. Until exposed, she failed to pay the IRS taxes on payments she received for living in her own home.
More importantly, she lied about having an “open and transparent” government. One of her first acts- as evidenced by emails by Ivy Frye and Frank Bailey- was to look for a way to evade the state email system and state servers, so she could conduct as much state business in secret. Hers was the most secretive administration in state history. They still haven’t released Palin emails requested in 2008.
Joshua Green either needed to speak with more people, or take the wax out of his ears.
Man, that Atlantic piece is a crock. The only thing the guy got right was her name. The ACES tax is the worst thing that ever happened to this state and has taken Alaska entirely out of the competition for new investment by the major companies. Exploration has dropped to zero because almost anyplace in the world is a better place to spend your money than Alaska. If you invest here, the state takes the profit away from you. Quite a bit of money is still being spent on the Slope because it has to be. End-stage field development is labor and capital intensive, but none of them are spending any money they don’t have to. They have enough oil there still that they can’t walk away from it, but they’re not spending any money to find new oil. The only exception is Shell, which holds leases on federal acreage outside Alaska’s taxing jurisdiction.
The ACES tax wasn’t entirely her fault. She proposed a tax that would have increased oil production taxes quite a bit, then the legislature (largely because the FBI was tossing their offices) doubled it. That is an economic disaster, the gift that keeps on giving.
There are many mistakes in the Atlantic piece. For one it was the personal income tax that was repealed, not the corporate income tax. That one is still a major source of revenue.
That business about the evil oil companies dominating politics is also a crock. They primarily keep their heads down; their lobbyists work hard behind the scenes, but the companies don’t participate in community or political life here anything like they did when I was at ARCO. I think that is a big mistake, but they have been bitten so many times that management likes to stay out of sight whenever they can. The contractors are very active, as they should be.
The gas pipeline wasn’t built because the price of gas was too low to justify the huge investment required. It came up enough in the late 1990s that the companies began spending money on plans and worked out a proposal with Murkowski, which died when Sarah was elected. She went ahead with her own scheme, which turned out not to be all that bad since it requires TransCanada to keep at it even if the open season fails, as it apparently did. TC is using 90 percent state money now, but that is probably the only way to keep the project alive at this point. Whether or not shale gas will kill it is an open question. I don’t think it will but it will be the companies that decide. Right now the price of gas is on its ass again, thanks primarily to shale gas, but what will count is their estimate of what it will be 10 years or so from now, when a pipeline could be finished. The companies seem to have backed away from their plans, but that is unclear.
Where does one begin? I read the article by Joshua Green and viewed a photo of Joshua right by the article. He looks a bit young and perhaps still a bit green. His writing skills are very good; the content of his article – not so much.
There was no mention of Mrs. Palin’s selection of her Commissioners. The Commissioner for the Department of Agriculture, a Wasilla school chum of Mrs. Palin was selected even though her only qualification for the job was her love of cows as a child. According to the reporting in the Anchorage Daily News at the beginning of Mrs. Palin’s term, one only had to look at the Wasilla High School yearbook to see her Commissioners. With few exceptions, none were qualified. The Commissioner for the Department of Corrections was a total disaster. I won’t even discuss the Mat-Su Dairy debacle. And if Mr. Green had taken the time to read the financial statements for the State of Alaska during Mrs. Palin’s tenure, he would have seen that both the debt level and spending increased significantly during her term.
Given the increased debt level and spending, Mr. Green might have taken a trip back through time and discovered that Mrs. Palin also increased debt and spending during her tenure as the Mayor of Wasilla. The city had very little debt when she became mayor and by the time she left, the little town was in debt for 22 million. That’s a lot of debt for any small town.
Mr. Green also might have mentioned that Mrs. Palin did not like living in the Capital and lived in Wasilla instead, commuting to an office in Anchorage. That might be okay were it not for fact that Mrs. Palin collected a daily per diem for living expenses while she was away from the capital. Who wouldn’t want to be paid for living expenses while living at home? Thankfully, that law has now been changed.
I am certainly not a reporter, but all this information was either well reported in Alaska or a matter of public record. I don’t live in Alaska; I have never lived in Alaska, but it wasn’t hard to get this information and so much more.
I am sure Mr. Green is a busy man, but it sure seems like he phoned this one in.
I read this in the wee hours this mornng and it both stunned and angered me. Although I wanted to respond, I could not trust myself to be either civil or responsible. Turd polishing aside, she is still a turd.
I don’t know Joshua Green and I’m not familiar with his previous work.
I have no idea what motivated him to write his Palin story. He’s apparently a full-time employee of The Atlantic, and the magazine paid for his research trip to Alaska, so it’s not a question of “phoning it in.” This is one of The Atlantic’s 20-25 major pieces of the year.
If I ever do find myself in touch with him, I’ll ask him where the idea came from to write a revisionist and selective account of Sarah’s tenure as governor.
One does, of course, attract more attention by going against the flow than by going with it, as only dead fish do, according to Sarah.
As Tom Brennan points out (above), there are significant mistakes in Green’s story. To say that the corporate income tax was repealed, when in fact it was the personal income tax, is not a minor error, especially when the repeal is so central to his thesis.
All I can tell you is that my account of Sarah’s tenure on the oil & gas commission (just one more job she quit, by the way) and my description of her governorship is far less adulatory than Joshua Green’s.
But, hey, he did his work and I did mine. I’ll stand by mine and I’m not going to start grinding an axe about his.
ACES is and has always been controversial. I’ve listened to both sides until my ears have gone numb.
In order to make his case–indeed, his whole story–Green chose to quote only those who told him what he wanted to hear.
But that’s what journalists do. I didn’t persuade Condé Nast Portfolio to send me to Alaska to write about AGIA because I was going to come back with a story that said, “Guess what? Sarah told the truth at the Republican convention when she said she’d gotten an Alaska natural gas pipeline built!”
No, the story was that she had NOT told the truth. Which, I think, my story conclusively demonstrated.
Would The Atlantic have sent Joshua Green to Alaska if he was going to come back and say, “Sarah Palin did a crap job as governor, just like everybody thought. I’ll write five thousand words about that?”
Never happen. The hypothesis–“Palin accomplished great things as Alaska governor, and nobody knows it!”–had to be proven. Otherwise, there’s no story.
It ain’t pretty, but that’s how journalism works. No page views in repeating what everybody already knows. Buzz comes when you go against the flow.
My question is who first pointed Green in that direction? And who else are they going to point in the same direction in months to come?
–Joe
As I look again at the “artwork” that accompanied this piece, I’m pretty sure that my long-time subscription to The Atlantic has just expired. I can deal with a piece of reportage which I think compromised. But that “portrait” goes down in the annals of propaganda which should not be overlooked.
Joshua Green may have visited Alaska – but it is clear he is not from Alaska.
If he was, he would not have been able to write such a misleading article, with so many errors by omission.
Green’s sloppily researched write up is a feeble attempt to cast favor on a half term half wit who is a pathological liar and a vicious mean girl, also too.
After reading the first 70 pages of Geoffrey Dunn’s “The Lies of Sarah Palin”, I’ve come to the conclusion that I never really had a clue as to who $arah Palin really was. In fact, she is far more deceitful, manipulative, petty and immature than I ever imagined. I happened to catch Chuck Todd’s interview with Green about his piece on Palin and all I could think is why is he repeating such obvious nonsense when the book released today reveals far more regarding the reality of Palin’s short-lived, disastrous gubernatorial career and her ugly ascent in the Republican party.
Joe, you hit the nail on the head when you question “who” is behind the story and “why” this story, at this time. However, I don’t think there’s any rehabilitating Palin’s image. Some politicians could recover but Palin is her own worst enemy and that is why it will never happen. She’s finished, unfortunately she has yet to realize it and is milking it for every last dollar.
Uhm, doesn’t theTransCanada gas line assume going over Native Canadian and other property that they just don’t (and probably won’t ever) have the right to do?
As a layperson, I just read that as a scheme to funnel money ($500million!) to certain people, just the way Sarah now has bogus foundations which set up and fold their tents just for the duration of her $100k speeches.
I wish I could credit the person who effectively summarized the who and why, but unfortunately I cannot find his/her comments. The who: the media. Why: because Sarah draws huge crowds which ups ratings thus increases revenue.
However, I would add that as the media’s profit making-machine Sarah is handsomely rewarded with free-press. And what appears to be a pledge of allegiance to the very, very wealthy well-connected political powerbrokers (the Koch Brothers, for instance,) and extremist religious leaders means raising millions of dollars at the drop of a hat is no problem for Sarah. So as long as the return on their investment in Sarah yields high dividends Sarah will reap rewards, enviable by any standard. Notwithstanding lest we forget all of which comes at the expense of everyone else, the planet and democracy, too.
Although Sarah is probably incapable of understanding what this means, there is no doubt whatsoever that the others do, but do not care — not where profit is concerned. Those who say otherwise, I would argue, are not paying attention or are ill-informed or are in denial. Still, either way it does not negate the fact that we are treading on unknown but extremely dangerous territory portends an uncertain future.
Granted the who & why are vital components in facilitating this unfolding drama, but play a minor role in the larger scheme of things. Our future is at stake. Time is of the essence. If we are to reverse this trend, we must do so as quickly as possible before the damage becomes irreversible.
A clarion call to action is being sounded. More importantly, will we heed it in time? is the question that ought to be asked, IMHO.
Last sentence should read:
But first we need to fully understand the who & why in order to grasp the gravity of the situation. IMHO.
I’m not sure that makes me feel any better, that Green was sent to do a particular story with a certain bent — regardless of the truth? Starting with Andrew Sullivan, I’ve been reading the posters at the Atlantic site for a long time. I’ve learned alot from all of them and even when I might disagree with their conclusions their posts helped me understand both their positions and the opposing positions better and that helped me to clarify my own position. Which I think is all good. But to write this big, important article and ignore the big picture, just leave stuff, important stuff, OUT? What I’ve always counted on when I read articles at the Atlantic site was that even though the bloggers may have a position they often present the other side’s argument and thoughtfully explain the flaws as they see them, arguing back to their own position. Andrew Sullivan doesn’t present only the facts that make his case. He’ll also present facts that support the other guy’s case. So seldom is anything black and white. Sullivan shows us the grays and then based on his analysis of the grays, makes a case for his position. As I think they all do. The more I think of this, the more disappointed I am in Green and the Atlantic. Are they becoming a partisan outlet? Are they sacrificing thoughtful discussions for attention getting headlines? To call Palin a reformer while in Alaska is just not true. IMO, even back then her actions showed her primary motivations were to choose personal benefit (via celebrity or settling scores) over wise decisions for the greater good. Think Mat Maid and the Ag Board, AGIA, ACES, excessive spending of public funds on family travel and per diem to live in her own house, ignoring the Juneteenth proclamation, troopergate, doing State business on non-State email accounts…we can all go on and on. (I particularly like the Mat Maid example as it removes the oil industry and the “good old boys” associated with the oil industry from the equation. It’s pure, manipulative, don’t let the facts get in the way of personal benefit Palin.) Those aren’t the signs of a reformer – they’re the sign of a greedy, vindictive person. Green states that she was our most effective governor but we just don’t see it yet. But how is effectiveness measured – by the number of bills she pushed through? Even if they’re bad for the future of our State? By the fact we currently are lucky enough to have a surplus (largely due to ACES and high oil prices, a factor the State does not control) – but because exploration needed to replenish reserves is now not considered economic by the oil companies, she’s sacrificed our long term fiscal future? IMO, Palin hasn’t changed – she’s been chasing after celebrity, manipulating the media and settling scores since she was mayor. She takes her cues from the grumblings of her public. That public is no longer Alaskans (we are SO been-there-done-that to her) but a national audience. Now she chases celebrity and personal gain by using her new shtick to appeal to them and what they grumble about. If their grumblings change – her shtick will change to keep them in her fold. No different from Wasilla or Juneau days. Green doesn’t get it.