As IF Times

link Why is Karl Rove taking shots at Sarah Palin and Christine ODonnell? – CSMonitor.com.

The same kind of affliction that savages the left also exists on the right.  That is to say, neither side are completely monolithic in their worldviews and certainly strong personalities within the groups will differ on specific philosophies.  While the left claim to represent the common working man, the truth is, the dominant figures are unabashedly elitist and have as much to do with the common man as sweet breads have to dough. 

When you have uber rich people like Nancy Pelosi, James Cameron, Warren Buffet, Al Gore and George Soros telling people how to best conduct themselves, it’s a head scratcher as to why people who are actually working class,  would identify with them.   As if Warren can identify with paying a mortgage or feeding the kids.  As if Al burns fluorescent bulbs in his villas.

While they claim the high roads of compassion and tolerance, their most vocal proponents in the media have never travelled them.  Many couldn’t find those roads with a box of GPS’s and a guide dog.  It’s great TV to watch the insane outbursts of a Joy Behar or a  Bill Maher or the more subtle guffaws offered by nonsensical people like George Stephanopolous or Katie Couric. 

But no doubt, many saner residents of the left cringe when someone who claims to represent them spouts off with some irrational outburst; Keith Obermann comes to mind.  As well, the antics of the Black Panthers and SEIU are sure to send lefties scurrying to hiding their membership cards.

On the other side of the political fence, conservatives no doubt grimace every time Meghan Mccain, with her valley girl lilt,  deigns to speak for the right.  At the moment, there is an obvious rift between the ‘established’ right, represented by Karl Rove and the ‘new right’, represented of course by Sarah Palin.  Conservatives like Rove have to be careful because much of the elitist accusations that have been thrust at Democrats apply to the GOP as well.  I wonder how Karl felt about Ronald Reagan in his time.

Rove, while certainly a political genius, has spent all of his life in this space.  The disdain he shows for upstarts such as Palin and Christine O’Donnell smacks strongly of  elitism.  Like the other side, he is in danger of proposing that politics become a club for professionals only and that common people need not apply. 

This kind of mentality is what led to the decimation of the Republican party and which perception lingers in the minds of voters despite the reality.  Not everyone can be a professional BS’er.  Occasionally people with real lives are valid candidates.  The last thing we need are two elitist parties.

link Poll: Six in 10 say Sarah Palin would be ineffective as president – On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2010 Election – USATODAY.com.

Not that this is surprising given the source of the poll.  CBS and Vanity Fair are not normally known for their unbiased reportage.  Nevertheless, let’s take the poll at face value.  Let’s accept that 60% do not think that Palin would be an effective President.  We don’t know exactly what the qualifier of ‘effective’ means. 

Does the measure of effectiveness mean the ability to communicate with the people?  If so, this flies in the face of observed events since Palin commands large boisterous crowds wherever she speaks.  She still dominates headlines whenever she makes a policy statement and she’s not even holding elected office.  Her messages are widely popular as manifest by the election of candidates that she endorses.  More importantly, she connects with the people at an emotional level with her simple, unconfused messages about values which resonate with Americans.  Her messages are consistent and do not contradict each other depending on her audience.  In addition, she does this without the famous teleprompter of another famous politician so renowned for eloquence.

Does effective mean the ability to run and administer a government?  She actually HAS done that and by all accounts, very successfully.  While the affairs of a single state do not equate with the affairs of an entire country, there at least is a track record of success and experience. 

Does effective mean the ability to negotiate the U.S.’s position on the international stage?  This issue may be a leap of faith, but given the rhetoric offered by Palin over the past 2 years on the national stage, it’s a fair guess that she would not be as accommodating to nations that are openly hostile to American interests.  It’s a safe bet that the interests of Americans would take priority over the wants and bleatings of some belligerent nation states.   It’s unlikely that there would be equivocation on the position of America on major issues involving its security.

Does effective mean the ability to restore America’s employment picture and to revive old industries and stimulate new ones?  That’s iffy, but in fairness, that unknown is faced by every President.  From the perspective of how jobs are created and what has made the U.S. the dominant economy for the past 80 or 90 years however, Palin’s capitalist views are more likely to nurture confidence  than the socialist, redistributive policies pushed by the present incumbent. 

Does effective mean the ability to rally Americans and restore the pride and confidence of a nation rather than cowering in regret and apology?  Again, a leap of faith, but judging by the present circumstances however, the bar there is set pretty low. 

Finally, according to the left leaning Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/29/AR2010082903848.html  the President’s approval rating hovers somewhere between 34 and 40 percent, about the same or less than those that approve Palin.  So therefore, as many people think Palin is as qualified as the President!  This is after showing the goods for 2 years.  I’d say the poll should read, “Palin equally qualified as the President”.