The latest refudiate/Palin-as-Shakespeare dust-up got me thinking about a common “Palin wins 2012” argument, perhaps best phrased by Dave Weigel last week. Palin will win despite being a policy ignoramus and gaffe machine, according to this view, because the media is so enamored with her tweets and Mama Grizzly bullshit that they won’t cover her critically.
I’ll buy that the media will roll over, but I’m not buying that Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and the rest will give Palin a pass. Last cycle, there were a seemingly infinite number of candidate debates on the cable networks. Palin can either show up at these events and talk about policy and positions, or she can watch the other candidates debate a cardboard cutout of her, inveigh against their caricatures of her positions, and generally show that she doesn’t have the grit to take on Obama. None of this will be favorable to a candidate who can’t string together a few coherent sentences without intense rehearsal.
I’d imagine that any honest observer of Presidential campaigns would acknowledge this point, but instead we get clowns like Halperin firing up the wind machine to blow out ever more deistic Palin scenarios, like this one quoted by Weigel:
Her candidacy would require almost none of the usual time sinks that force politicians to jump in early: power-broker schmoozing, schedule-intensive fundraising, competitive recruitment of experienced strategists, careful policy development.
Rhetorically, this sentence belongs in a Sunday sermon next to talk about ascension into heaven, being seated at the right hand of the Father, and other similar fairy tales.