Before you think this is a criticism of Mr. Halcro - it isn't.
Yesterday, Andrew Halcro, a former award-winning member of the Alaska House of Representatives, the owner and operator of Avis Alaska, an independent candidate for Alaska Governor in 2006, and a political commentator/blogger extraordinaire, today made a prediction about Sarah Palin's route in 2010.
He thinks she will bail, and not run for reelection.
Andrew provided a very-well written (the guy can really write), considered, and logical justification for his belief.
Without simply cutting and pasting his verbiage (it's better written than mine, and you can use the link above to go read it yourself), here it is in a nutshell (forgive me for paraphrasing, Mr. Halcro):
Because of her failed 2008 vice presidential bid, coupled with her unrelenting quest for national media attention ever since, Sarah is now kind of between a rock and a hard place.
A run for reelection to the Governor's Office will repeatedly bring up this question from her opponents, the press, and the Alaskan voters:
Will you, Sarah Palin, commit to serving your full 4-year term as governor, and not drop everything to run for president in 2012?
If Palin answers "Yes," then her right-wing evangelical/conservative base across the "real" America will get the message that she is no longer interested in being president, and they'll find someone else to focus their adoration on.
If she answers "No," then in all probability, it will cost her the race. It would merely prove the case that Sarah's focus isn't on Alaska and Alaskans, but instead on her own political ambition.
If she answers "Yes," and then runs for president anyway... she'll be crucified as an obvious liar, just another sleazy politician who will do or say whatever it takes to get elected. Not a good way to kick off your bid for the Oval Office.
So, based on the above scenario (the logic of which I agree with wholeheartedly) for Sarah Palin, Andrew Halcro is of the opinion that Sarah Palin will not run for reelection, but will instead focus her attention on the White House in 2012.
(Now, Mr. Halcro went into a lot more detail than I did here, and pointed out other reasons why a Palin reelection bid may be doomed to failure anyway - but that's not germane to my point.)
Here's my point.
Andrew Halcro's conclusion is the product of sound, logical reasoning.
So why, in the title of this post, did I say it is flawed?
Because his conclusion is rational. It's logical.
That IS the flaw.
My observation is that reason, logic, and good political sense have little to do with Sarah Palin these days.
Jaunting off to speak to the anti-abortion crowd in Indiana in the final 72 hours of the legislative session made perfect sense to her.
Launching a "preemptive" media attack on the teen-aged father of her grandchild and his family became a top priority.
Picking an unnecessary fight with the legislature over Kim Elton's Juneau Senate seat was more important than Juneau actually having Senate representation.
Choosing for Alaska's attorney general perhaps the most divisive personality she could find (whose legal acumen barely rises to mediocrity) because he agrees with her cultural viewpoints was more important than looking for the best and brightest.
So while I like your logic, Mr. Halcro...
Reason can not be applied to explain the irrational.
"Logic" and "Sarah Palin" should probably not even be used in the same paragraph.
Just sayin'.
Yesterday, Andrew Halcro, a former award-winning member of the Alaska House of Representatives, the owner and operator of Avis Alaska, an independent candidate for Alaska Governor in 2006, and a political commentator/blogger extraordinaire, today made a prediction about Sarah Palin's route in 2010.
He thinks she will bail, and not run for reelection.
Andrew provided a very-well written (the guy can really write), considered, and logical justification for his belief.
Without simply cutting and pasting his verbiage (it's better written than mine, and you can use the link above to go read it yourself), here it is in a nutshell (forgive me for paraphrasing, Mr. Halcro):
Because of her failed 2008 vice presidential bid, coupled with her unrelenting quest for national media attention ever since, Sarah is now kind of between a rock and a hard place.
A run for reelection to the Governor's Office will repeatedly bring up this question from her opponents, the press, and the Alaskan voters:
Will you, Sarah Palin, commit to serving your full 4-year term as governor, and not drop everything to run for president in 2012?
If Palin answers "Yes," then her right-wing evangelical/conservative base across the "real" America will get the message that she is no longer interested in being president, and they'll find someone else to focus their adoration on.
If she answers "No," then in all probability, it will cost her the race. It would merely prove the case that Sarah's focus isn't on Alaska and Alaskans, but instead on her own political ambition.
If she answers "Yes," and then runs for president anyway... she'll be crucified as an obvious liar, just another sleazy politician who will do or say whatever it takes to get elected. Not a good way to kick off your bid for the Oval Office.
So, based on the above scenario (the logic of which I agree with wholeheartedly) for Sarah Palin, Andrew Halcro is of the opinion that Sarah Palin will not run for reelection, but will instead focus her attention on the White House in 2012.
(Now, Mr. Halcro went into a lot more detail than I did here, and pointed out other reasons why a Palin reelection bid may be doomed to failure anyway - but that's not germane to my point.)
Here's my point.
Andrew Halcro's conclusion is the product of sound, logical reasoning.
So why, in the title of this post, did I say it is flawed?
Because his conclusion is rational. It's logical.
That IS the flaw.
My observation is that reason, logic, and good political sense have little to do with Sarah Palin these days.
Jaunting off to speak to the anti-abortion crowd in Indiana in the final 72 hours of the legislative session made perfect sense to her.
Launching a "preemptive" media attack on the teen-aged father of her grandchild and his family became a top priority.
Picking an unnecessary fight with the legislature over Kim Elton's Juneau Senate seat was more important than Juneau actually having Senate representation.
Choosing for Alaska's attorney general perhaps the most divisive personality she could find (whose legal acumen barely rises to mediocrity) because he agrees with her cultural viewpoints was more important than looking for the best and brightest.
So while I like your logic, Mr. Halcro...
Reason can not be applied to explain the irrational.
"Logic" and "Sarah Palin" should probably not even be used in the same paragraph.
Just sayin'.
7 comments:
I think you a right on all accounts.
Halcro is an excellent writer and he makes a very compelling logical argument which is quite flawless.
You are also correct that Palin and logic or even just sensibility are mutually exclusive. Palin shall do as she pleases without regard for anything besides her own desires.
I hope Halcro is your next governor. He's smart enough to do a very good job. He be a huge improvement over Carabou Barbie.
Git,
While I think Halcro can write, I also disagree with him on several key issues.
He ran as an independent last time (and may have been the reason Sarah won the 3-way race - he siphoned off a lot of moderate votes that may have instead gone to Tony Knowles, the DINO in the race), but there is no doubt that Halcro is a Republican in spirit, if not in name.
Of course, he's a very moderate Republican, understands the concept of decent public policy, and unlike the person occupying the office now, can actually think.
So Republican and all, Halcro would be far, far more acceptable than Sarah.
Actually, I'm hoping we have a real Democrat run - one who is also a viable contender.
Right now, Bob Poe (who is also a DINO in my estimation) is running as a Democrat. Not great, but still better than what we have now.
There is also a guy by the name of Rob Rosenfeld running, and he sounds like an actual Democrat... but he is an unknown.
There are rumors that Ethan Berkowitz (who ran for Congress against Young in 2008) is considering throwing his hat in the ring.
I hope he does.
I see the left is still has their childish obsession with Sarah Palin intact.
Gabriel, what you may see as a childish obsession held by the left, is actually informed concern held by those who are actually being "governed" by the woman in Alaska.
Gabriel,
Thanks for your comment.
My "obsession," as you put it, with Governor Palin is NOT because I'm a member of "the Left."
My concern with Governor Palin is that she is my Governor, and she is both stupid and inept.
Additionally, she has presidential aspirations. That alone is distressing.
Since you're from South Carolina, I think you might want to focus on problems closer to home.
Your own governor is a pretty classic case of the Right Wing Stupid™.
Sarah Palin is a rational actor. It's just that her rationale is so insane.
AMEN!!!! I couldn't agree with you more. I came upon this Palin resignation story late in the day so I haven't been able to get all of the details yet, but from what I have seen and read about Palin since last Fall what you say is right on the money. Mr. Halcro is giving her way more credit than she deserves for using logic and sound reasoning.
Post a Comment