I lived in Argentina for four years -- long after the Evita era, of course, but she was still revered like a saint by the Peronistas. I'm really just thinking about the dual identity as crusader and victim -- and the unquestioning reverence of followers. These are qualities they seem to share.
My understanding is that she is offered no shortage of good advice but chooses to do her own thing. For better or worse.
Of course not. When you pepper your speeches with gun-related metaphors and your Facebook page with gun-related images, and an official whose district was put in crosshairs by you is shot, people are going to ask whether there's any connection. If there is not -- and that appears to be the case here -- then that will be reported, too. This isn't persecution, and it doesn't make you a victim.
Actually, I think it was more likely an attempt to speak to that wider audience. Otherwise, why go to the trouble of having a professional production, with the flag in the background and everything? I think it just went off the rails when she stopped talking about the victims and began talking about herself.
So far, not working. Last week's statement was clearly a setback in any effort to widen her support. A Washington Post poll reports that just 30 percent of Americans approve of her response to the Tucson shootings.
Why the lack of reporting on the serious issues pertaining to the lack of mental health facilities and care and the stranglehold by the NRA on gun control? It seems we are obsessed with the shooter's motivation instead of a disturbed person's ease of getting a gun and the llack of proper health care to avoid such a tragedy.
I wrote a column about gun control and Tucson last week. My colleague Steve Luxenberg has an excellent op-ed in the paper today about mental health. And in the news pages of this and other newspapers, there have been lots of stories about both subjects. The problem isn't a lack of reporting. We could force our elected officials to pass meaningful gun control and establish a functional mental health safety net, but we don't.
That's an excellent question. Palin's problem, in terms of being a viable candidate for president, is that since her debut on the national stage, her approval numbers have gone steadily down while her disapproval numbers have gone steadily up. These wrong-way trends make it hard to imagine how she could ever be elected president. But her presence on Fox News, Facebook and Twitter continues to give her a high national profile -- and a ton of influence in the Republican Party. I don't think it's inevitable that her popularity among her most loyal followers will burn out.
Great column, and obviously there are a lot of fundamental differences between Sarah Palin and Eva Peron. Speaking more generally, do you think Sarah Palin serves as a national Rohrschach test of sorts? That is, these near-weekly discussions we have about her (here and elsewhere) are more about what we as Americans think of the other side of the red/blue divide? It strikes me that she, as a half-term governor of a small, remote, sparsely-populated state, would not inspire so much commentary from all sides if there weren't something greater at work here. Thanks.
I agree with everything you say (except the part about Alaska being a "small" state, of course). Something about Palin evokes strong feelings and provokes heated discussion. It has something to do with red/blue, something to do with gender, something to do with Tina Fey...
I remember that quote. It stands out, because it's the only time I can recall his using that kind of violent metaphor. He should apologize. So should you, if you're suggesting that there's an actual equivalence between the rhetoric we've been hearing from the president -- for that matter, from the left in general -- and the kind of gun-related rhetoric we've been hearing from the far right. Come on. Be real.
Do you agree with your colleague Richard Cohen about Pres. Obama's lack of connectedness? Is that why he has not chosen a 'home church'? That he understands intelectually and can rise to the occassion but not personally?
No, I don't. Actually, I think President Obama's history and record suggest the opposite -- that his connections or attachments are sometimes too strong. I think the "he's a robot" complaint usually means "he's not doing what I think he should do."
You say we could force our elected officials to enact "meaningful gun control" but we don't. Why don't you acknowledge the majority of Americans do not want gun control. You could also mention Washington D.C. has extremely restrictive gun laws (they violate citizens rights) but has high gun violence. Laws do not solve the problem.
A majority does want gun control, actually, but it's not a big enough majority. A huge majority of Washington residents supported this city's handgun ban, which was struck down by the Supreme Court. The Second Amendment is a fact of life, but we can and should do all we can, within the framework that the Court has established, at least to get assault weapons off the streets. You don't believe laws help solve the problem? Ask any police chief.
I think so. It turns out that Democratic predictions were right: Health reform has become much more popular. It just took longer than Democrats expected.
We got lots more than that. It's just a function of how fast I can type.
So Sarah Palin should NOT express her opinions, but it is OK for you to express your opinions? Is that what you are saying?
Of course she has the right to express her opinions. I was just offering a bit of advice. I'm fairly certain she won't take it to heart.
You and your ilk dragged her into this drama. Why shouldn't she be able to defend herself in any way she sees fit?
My elk? Oh, you said ilk. I thought you might be making some oblique caribou reference.
And with that, folks, my time is up. Thanks for joining in a lively free-for-all. See you again next week.
Thoughts, comments, suggestions or criticisms about The Post's Live Q&As? Send us an e-mail.
Become a fan of Post Live on Facebook.
Follow @WashingtonPost on Twitter.
