Kristol: Two More Contrarians on Palin

“If you think of the balls of steel it took for her to carry on as the McCain campaign’s galvanic force–THE ONLY ONE–while the msm and the Obama campaign were doing their best to bring her down, and much of the patronizing campaign staff was doing the same, you have to think she’s got the moxie to pull this off, too.”

“Shorthand riff… “A” is right on BOS quotient, but Palin will have to use them to execute well. It’s not good enough to have them, you have to be able to use them deftly. For instance, her narrative is “I am tough”, but if she doesn’t articulate the politics of personal destruction just right, she will appear weak. She doesn’t want it to slip into ‘she’s leaving because they are picking on her.’ Unfortunately, in the era of Soros, the cost of pubic service is fly swatting frivolous ethics complaints; still, it doesn’t compare to being prosecuted after the fact for opinions rendered while in office, a la the “torture” lawyers. Her formulation on that was great yesterday…costing Alaskans $2M to investigate her holding up a fish. She just needs to drop the cost to her family (she will soon be raking in millions and no politician is a sympathetic character when it comes to money), and keep the focus on how dangerous and destructive and wasteful that kind of politics is, and in her unique way, include some humor. The fish story was automatically illustrative. How much did that cost, how many man hours, etc. She needs to own two substantive areas: for example, energy and federalism. And she should contrast flat out with Obama. She is Big Daddy; he is soft mama. She should be as specific as possible with real data on the issues she takes on. With cap-and-trade looming, the energy issue especially promising. She needs to get her impressive record down to an accessible litany and keep it in a message framework (reform, responsive, accountable, limited government). She needs to contrast with Obama reckless, feckless, opaque (middle of the night, unread legislation), command and control. She doesn’t need to talk about her family; res ipsa loquitur. UNLESS she is asked, then she should respond that most mothers are mega multi-taskers, either by blessing or necessity. Her family is a source of strength, not a distraction. On all her detractors, inside and outside, she should not respond in kind or detail. She should stick to, she has always marched to the beat of her own drummer; she has never been impressed with the answer to any question being, “well, we always did it that way”. Should demonstrate some executive skill sets: she should show she knows how to solicit and use good advice, and that includes understanding how to build on the best of the past but to be able look beyond convention. We are in a new age, etc. She should be clear on what she is doing going forward; don’t let the conversation dwell backwards. She will be supporting candidates and causes that stand for what? Be definite, give specific example(s)…one of the leading new young Turks and/or market-friendly energy policy or whatever. Conversely, don’t let it jump fast forward to 2012. Stay on principles and policies she thinks the country is slipping away from and that everyone can/should support (loved her line about you don’t have to have a title in front of your name to influence policy). Talk about what she heard, saw from the tea parties, from real Americans. Whenever possible she should contrast ordinary Americans to the detached, credentialed elitists of the Obama world. Don’t try to be an expert on foreign policy. But have grasp of large principles. And apply to current events– Iran, NK. Obama didn’t know anything (still apparently doesn’t) about foreign policy.”