We’ve all had a go at Sarah’s poor speech patterns. But what if the lady is actually doing the best she can with what she’s got to work with? The excerpt above is from a .pdf file that’s surfaced in the blogosphere. (Thanks DarleenMB for the link.) It purports to be an actual Sarah Palin background check albeit there’s no documentation supporting its authenticity. The hand-written date in the ‘Received’ stamp at the top of the first page reads 2003, but does not say by whom, for what purpose or for whom the vetting was performed. I did not find anyone claiming authorship, and the only other post I was able to access on the site was a well-orchestrated bit of flash humour.
Knowing how easy it is for Joe-the-average-guy to photoshop erroneous information into genuine documents, I am more than skeptical of this .pdf file. That said, I’m going to indulge in a small game of what if based solely on the premise that the intelligence quotient portion of this report is accurate, and Sarah Palin’s IQ is indeed a below-average 83.
What if Sarah’s IQ is 83? How much of her behaviour would this explain? A tonne! One informal definition of intelligence quotient, simply put, is the ability to focus. Another is the ability to solve problems. Both of these tasks seem difficult for Sarah in practice, as witnessed by anyone who has watched any of her television interviews.
I’ve pinched the following from www.wilderdom.com (and of course it must be accurate because there’s a picture of Einstein on the front page!):
Kidding aside, I studied this subject a bit in college and again many years later when I had a child born with cerebral palsy. This information agrees with what I remember from my psych 101 classes and medical discussions concerning my son, so even if it’s not the latest information, it appears to represent the testing Sarah would have encountered in the 1980′s.
There was even a small chart representing population norms. However, there’s no year of publication with which to link this information. It simply appears (to me) to be reasonable:
This single blip on the radar would explain:
why she needs to have so many (loyal) people by her side.
her need to hire people with whom she has history, regardless of their abilities to fill the positions.
why she hired a formal administrator (at $50k a year) to do a job she’d been elected to do.
why she could not follow her RNC handlers advice on the campaign trail.
why she created her Maverick image.
her ease in telling one reporter one thing, and a second the exact opposite.
her expectation the other Republican Govs would blindly fall into step behind her in Florida.
her predisposition to string several words together without forming one complete sentence.
I’m not sure where to stop. My brain is jammed and the orange [information overload] button is flashing. But seriously, so much of her behaviour just makes sense when it’s put into the context of She’s just not that smart, folks.
Take a step back and a good look: If Sarah has a low IQ, chances are she also has low self-esteem. She would need to be cocooned by people she trusts to feel safe. Like having a living security blanket. Even though she can bravely march onto a stage in the midst of thousands of fans, and confidently read from a prepared speech, when it comes to her own inadequacies, she would need the security of knowing that her staff’s first priority would be to protect her image – to shield her true nature from the public. Any other job description would be incidental.
She would be an on the surface people pleaser, telling her immediate audience what she thinks they would want to hear. And the next day with a new audience she would do it again, disregarding any contradictions she might make as inconsequential. And once any of her statements produced a reaction she liked, she would hammer that soundbite into speech after speech and interview after interview.
When she lost track of a correct answer she could always double back and play the Maverick card. It’s not that I don’t know the answer… it’s that I’m a Maverick and don’t have to give you the answer!
The best description I could ever give Sarah’s patter when giving an interview is that it’s very much like listening to someone stutter. The jerky half-sentences separated by and also, well there’s and, also too, remember, and if, if is stuttering, in my book.
The mumbo-jumbo cadence also buys her time to work out what to say. People who lie (or exaggerate) often, usually require more time than others to form thoughts as they need to run a story-check much the same way writers take a moment to use spell-check.
One thing which continues to irritate me about Ms. Palin’s fast-track to political fame is the over-the-top exaggeration process the RNC used to promote her qualifications. First because it’s just not necessary any more to grossly exaggerate a candidate’s virtues. The public, in general, is smarter these days. We can google. Second, because it empowered Sarah to think she was allowed to rewrite her own biography, and take out anything she thought unpleasant. And here’s a thought - people who can lie the way Sarah can, shouldn’t be encouraged to do more.
Right from the start she was introduced to the public as a woman who’d stood up to the big boys in oil and won. She did? I’m wondering if the big boys, you know, the ones who got a promise of $500 mil from Sarah know she filleted them like a salmon? And I can’t help wonder, now that she’s had to go back to being just a Governor, how statements like that are going to affect her ability to successfully negotiate with the boys in the future.
So yes, RNC, we acknowledge Sarah was indeed the Mayor of Wasilla.Thing is, at the time of her election, Wasilla’s population was roughly 5,000. Less than 700 people voted for her, approximately 200 more than voted for her opponent. Not exactly a landslide in a big city.
And yes, she in fact won the elected position of Alaska State Governor. But at the time of her win, there were less than 800,000 people living in Alaska, not all were registered voters, and her opponent was vastly disliked by an unprecedented majority of those who were registered voters. For you, the responsible folks in the Republican National Committee to tout her as someone who had the trust and respect of millions of voters in Alaska, well, it just makes me angry.
And quite frankly, Sarah should be angry too. You placed her high on a public pedastal and then walked away, leaving her to think that’s where she belonged. I’m not at all confused as to why Sarah is still campaigning for herself. You dropped tent and drove off without helping her down.
I’m tired of politicians treating all of us as if we’re idiots, that we’re disposable, and that people don’t matter, only winning matters..
Nobody in a position to speak on a national level told how Sarah left Wasilla $20 mil in debt, or that the reason she’s called hockey mom has nothing to do with a Stepford Wife image of mom driving a carload of kids back and forth to hockey practice, but because she used $15 mil of Wasilla’s money to build a hockey rink-slash-community centre – and then authorized it’s construction prior to a proper title search on the land,- leaving the citizens of Wasilla to this day – to pay for lawyers to deal with the mess.
Nobody in the lower 48 took the story of the road to nowhere seriously. Nobody took it as a sign there was more to come. Alaskan newspapers and reporters hung their citizens out to dry under a hot, summer sun while taking the be nice she’s our governor tack and tucking all Sarah’s dirt neatly away from national scrutiny.
If this report of Sarah’s IQ score is even remotely accurate, if there’s even one chance that Sarah Palin had the unmitigated gall to nationally portray her first grandchild as her own son, (see upcoming post) then we need to get behind the people in Alaska. We need to support the newly formed Alaskans for Truth and help them make their legislators do their job.
And we need to do it before Sarah finds a way into the Senate.
I’m off to make my donation to Alaskans for Truth all the way from Australia – have you made yours?