BK Special

Bill Keller, soon to step down as editor of The New York Times, has a very odd piece on Sarah Palin.  I can't imagine any other political name inspiring this sort of strangeness.

He starts by noting "most journalists would recoil in horror" at a Palin presidency, and only gets weirder.

Palin may think this is because the media are liberal, but Keller knows better--that only plays a small part (though I'd like to know what nationally known Democrat becoming President would make them recoil).  The real reason is the "profound and mutual lack of respect" between Palin and the press.  If it's mutual, isn't that begging the question?  How did they come to hate her so?

His example of her offensiveness is what she said to an NPR reporter at an event before Memorial Day “It is our vets who we owe our freedom — not the politician, not the reporter — it is our vets, so that’s why we're here." Keller is certain this is not really about noting the primacy of soldiers in protecting our rights, but as a cheap shot at the press.  So he's not only smarter than Palin, he can also read her mind.

He goes on into all sorts of speculation:

I’ll let the politicians stick up for themselves; I do hope they’ll ask if her contempt applies to the politicians who wrote that Constitution our worthy veterans swore to defend.

Behind Keller's sarcasm, does he honestly think Sarah Palin doesn't believe politicians are necessary and--being a politician herself--even important to our constitutional system, or could it be she just objects to certain politicians pretty much the same way most other politicians, right and left, do?

...her remark was automatic, like acid reflux.

From the absurd to GERD.

Palin’s disdain goes beyond the bitterness of a public figure who has been burned by the press. [....] Perhaps one key to Palin’s dislike of the news media is a streak of intellectual insecurity, or a trace of impostor syndrome. Her best defense against being found shallow is a strong offense.

I guess we should appreciate the "perhaps" as he discusses the reasons for her obvious failings.

The press, I think, returns her antipathy in part because she makes us feel ridiculous. We can’t ignore her, either. She is the second-highest-polling choice among Republicans, she has harnessed social media and if she doesn’t run she will at least bring her roistering talents to the party.

You can't ignore her? Why not try it and see how it works out?  At least be a little less obsessed.  And who cares how high she polls (in a large field with little-known names)--she hasn't announced and doesn't seem likely to.  Rick Perry, Chris Christie and other Republicans who haven't announced--and, unlike Palin, presently hold high office--poll pretty well too, but they don't get press coverage when they go on historical bus tours. (Speaking of Christie, there's a guy who attacks the press with gusto.  Hey Keller, how about 500 words on how it's connected to his being fat?)

At the core of the media antipathy, though, is something more fundamental. The fact is, reporters want as badly as anyone else to see the country led by someone who inspires confidence. But watching Palin answer a question is like watching a runaway train struggling to stay on the rails, and fact-checking her is like fishing with dynamite.

Hmm, when was the last time The New York Times was so impressed by how a conservative inspired confidence that the paper thought he or she should lead the country? And for a guy who hates Palin's gratuitous attacks, he's pretty good with the cheap shots himself (though I'm not sure if I get the last simile).

I think a lot of journalists, regardless of their politics, find her confounding and a little frightening.

Regardless of their politics?  Yes, she's got plenty of detractors on the right, but it's certainly far worse on the left.  And are they really frightened?  Maybe that tells you more about them than her.

Reagan is the antecedent Palin would prefer. Like her, he was mocked for misremembering; like her, he treated the press as a comic foil and used the dominant medium of his day — broadcasting — to go directly to “the people.”

Reagan, though, had a depth of experience, an underestimated grasp of issues, a gift for expedient compromise, a seasoned and loyal team and a good-natured charm that all translated into public trust.

Palin, on the other hand, just has our attention.

Now we see the kind of conservative Keller likes.  Out of office for a generation and dead.