Palin’s Story Divides Republicans
[Guest post by DRJ]
Politico headlines this week’s GOP feud featuring Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol and former McCain campaign chairman Steve Schmidt:
“Rival factions close to the McCain campaign have been feuding since last fall over Palin, usually waging the battle in the shadows with anonymous quotes. Now, however, some of the most well-known names in Republican politics are going on-the-record with personal attacks and blame-casting.
William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard and at times an informal adviser to Sen. John McCain, touched off the latest back-and-forth Tuesday morning with a post on his magazine’s blog criticizing the Todd Purdum-authored Palin story and pointing a finger at Steve Schmidt, McCain’s campaign manager.”
Kristol, with support from former McCain advisor Randy Scheunemann, believe Schmidt was responsible for rumors that Palin’s behavior was caused by post-partum depression. I guess PPD is today’s version of the Eagleton situation, but Politico does a good job summing up the real issue:
“Was Palin a fresh talent whose debut was mishandled by self-serving campaign insiders, or an eccentric “diva” who had no business on the national stage? Going forward, does she offer a conservative and charismatic face for a demoralized and star-less party? Or is she a loose cannon who should be consigned to the tabloids where she can reside in perpetuity with other flash-in-the-pan sensations?”
I think Palin should be Palin but IMO she has two choices: First, get a good campaign staff and manager and bet it all on being herself. With luck and good timing, she may be able to do what Obama did — especially with so many problems in unemployment and the economy.
Alternatively, she could run a Hillary-type campaign that focuses on gravitas and bland steadiness. This approach probably won’t win a primary, let alone a general election, but it could position Palin for a Senate run or a position in a future Republican Administration.
— DRJ
She needs someone in the Lynn Nofziger/Lee Atwater mold who will be entirely focused on the image of the candidate, and can be ruthless with those who don’t seem to have their priorities straight – and they have to be able to trust each other implicitly.
AD - RtR/OS! (5fd0fb) — 7/1/2009 @ 1:43 pm“Was
PalinJohn Edwards a fresh talent whose debut was mishandled by self-serving campaign insiders, or an eccentric “diva” who had no business on the national stage? Going forward, doesshehe offer aconservativeliberal and charismatic face for a demoralizedand star-lessparty? Or isshehe a loose cannon who should be consigned to the tabloids whereshehe can reside in perpetuity with other flash-in-the-pan sensations?”Fixed.
Official Internet Data Office (1aa78d) — 7/1/2009 @ 1:43 pmBrutal!
AD - RtR/OS! (5fd0fb) — 7/1/2009 @ 1:47 pmBut, who’s John Edwards?
DRJ really nails it. If Palin tries to be another Bush or Mccain, she can succeed easily at many things below president, but she will not have a chance of being president.
She is who she is. Her ‘it’ factor is based on a genuineness and a distaste for the crap the beltway has been serving. Any movement to mollify the beltway destroys that.
I don’t really like her social politics, and I honestly wish we had a deeper bench. But we don’t. If it’s not Palin, it’s some bland loser like we ran last round. Mccain was only marginally better or worse than Romney, Giuliani, Pawlenty… these guys are all great men (so is Mccain), but they just don’t have what it takes to overcome the popular Obama cult.
Juan (81687c) — 7/1/2009 @ 1:52 pmMr. Purdum’s next article could extend the journalism to those members of the media who time after time have lied about and mischaracterized Sarah Palin. Getting it right seems beside the point. Outdoing Pravda seems more to the point.
Menlo Bob (ab97b2) — 7/1/2009 @ 1:53 pmAlternatively, she could run a Hillary-type campaign that focuses on gravitas and bland steadiness.
Right. Definitely her long suit.
The talking point that works for her is complaining the media has tossed her over the side and made her a punch line. Sarah Palin doesn’t exhibit gravitas or “bland steadiness.” She exhibits a quicksilver vindictiveness and fitful work ethic.
steve (399ba4) — 7/1/2009 @ 1:58 pmOf course, Menlo. I think that’s so crucial about Palin.
In fact, part of what defines Palin is being slimed by jerks. I can’t even conceive of her without some dishonest enemies.
this could be the reason she doesn’t have a chance, but it really could be a great advantage. the media is going to slime anyone who attempts to dethrone the One. They really can’t do that to Palin anymore. People ignore it. Perhaps.
Juan (81687c) — 7/1/2009 @ 1:58 pmsteve:
I don’t know about Palin but that definitely describes Hillary. If Hillary can reinvent herself as a calm, steady leader, so can Palin.
DRJ (cdbef5) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:00 pmHillary has been so steady lately, I thought she was a tourist stop in the Petrified Forest.
AD - RtR/OS! (5fd0fb) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:03 pmDRJ, there goes that whole projection business. People “see” all kinds of good things in the President that are simply not there. In a similar way, many people see all kinds of bad things about Palin that are not there.
It might be “lookism” more than sexism. But who knows?
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:06 pmDividing Republican? Not exactly. It is dividing former McCain campaign staff and the Weekly Standard.
Personally, I like Sarah Palin (I hoped she would be the Veep pick before she was). I was horrified by the systematic attacks against her and how she was torn down by the opposition. I used to like Steve Schmidt, but he is disloyal and discredited by a poorly run campaign. But of course, it was not Sarah Palin, or Steve Schmidt, or Katie Couric, or Tina Fey who brought down McCain–it was McCain.
I think Palin was a bold pick, but given what it takes to be in the national spotlight a reckless one. Had McCain quietly given her the nod and let her prepare for a few months on her own (with vetting done in a manner the press did not pick up on it)–it would have been legend. Obama is correct, no one could get up to speed that fast. Given the circumstances Palin did fine, but she definitely had some bad moments.
In hindsight, given the circumstances, the better pick was Romney. When the economic meltdown happened in full force, Romney could have really been an asset. Would it have been enough to put Mac over the top? Don’t know. But I think it would have helped. While Obama finished strong, it was not overwhelming and Mac was actually a little ahead of Obama at one point towards the end.
In addition, had McCain taken the gloves off more in taking on Obama (and the Wright issue), been more organized on economic issues, less weirdly mavericky towards the end (suspending the campaign, etc.), I think he could have beaten Obama. All those decisions were McCain’s. So in the end, it was not Schmidt, not Palin, it was Mac.
Joe (dcebbd) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:07 pmSo far as the reinvention of HRC, this is interesting:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200605/ai_n17175827/
It might be prejudiced, true. After all, I remember the stories of her throwing a lamp at WJC while he was President. True or not? He kinda deserved it. But imagine the stories that the Secret Service could tell…
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:08 pmJoe, I think very highly of McCain as a person. But his silence on the people STILL slagging Palin is well…not in character with his valuation of character. I am disappointed in him on this topic.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:09 pmSarah Palin doesn’t exhibit gravitas or “bland steadiness.”
You mean, like Eliot Spitzer did?
She exhibits a quicksilver vindictiveness and fitful work ethic.
Nonsense–you’re thinking of Obama here.
Official Internet Data Office (1aa78d) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:09 pmPalin could always have a future on Fox cable. Think about it. I would put her up against Olbermann and make him look like the whiny little beeatch he is.
Joe (dcebbd) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:12 pmSo long as the lap dogs in the GOP let Dems and their PR wing in MSM tell them who is and isn’t fit to run for high office on the Republican ticket we can expect to have this sort of debate fairly regularly.
John McCain was an obvious disaster, he was too old and too much of a “maverick” to generate enough support from conservatives to stand much of a chance. Additionally, MSM split the party coalition along religious lines by pitting the thumpers against the only guy who really might have made it a race: the Morman Romney. So in the end, Mr Hope and Change won easily and now we’re on the slippery slope to Socialism, our economy in shambles, a skyrocketing national debt, and with government run financial institutions to ensure the ship of state goes belly up.
But, don’t get me started. I like Sarah Palin, she won me over. And it’s a national shame and a disgrace the Dems and MSM trashed her. However, to see McCain’s heavy handed bully boys still going after her is an outrage of a whole different magnitude. They’re lower and more dispicable than Letterman and Frankin and Kos put together. I hope they choke on their own offal.
Ropelight (bb3af5) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:15 pmEric, I was a big McCain fan for a long time (and I got slagged for it by fellow conservatives). I was a big Fred Thompson fan too. That McCain made mistakes is really not a huge issue any more, the election is over. What bothers me is McCain has not forcefully defended Sarah Palin every chance he gets. His presidential aspirations are over. He need not endorse her for President (he should keep his options open for the time being). But he should not tollerate this crap from Schmidt and should come out against it all the time.
Joe (dcebbd) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:15 pmIf Hillary can reinvent herself as a calm, steady leader, so can Palin.
The similarities are endless. The fact Hillary transferred into and out of five colleges for a BA – in between pageants – likely gave her “bland steadiness” and gravitas.
steve (399ba4) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:16 pmOh, somebody is very jealous.
AD - RtR/OS! (5fd0fb) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:25 pmDid we not brush our glowing mane this morning?
Hillary was born rich and married well. She has never really done anything on her own.
Palin was a normal person who came up with normal ideals and used plain old work to get through a *GASP* state school.
I have no idea if she transferred from one to another, though Obama proves you can flat flunk out and still be prez.
Palin made it on her own… she was a business owner, a success at local politics, a reformed in her state. she’s real in a way Hillary is not.
Hillary is a sign of the feminist left: she serves men, and always has, and always will. Feminism exists on the left to serve clever men.
Palin is just a hard working woman who insists on equal treatment (denied her by the left, of course). The comparisons are endless and never favor Hillary. Remember, of Palin and Hillary, only one has ever actually been on a presidential ticket. Only one has ever been a governor. the Democratic party is not the place to be if you want to be a prominent woman.
Juan (81687c) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:27 pmPlus, Palin never ran for public office on the coat-tails of her husband’s reputation and record. What she has accomplished is hers, and hers alone – unlike so many other female politicians who only seem to attain office after the retirement and/or death of their husband from that office.
AD - RtR/OS! (5fd0fb) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:40 pmThe current spat involving Schmidt should be a marker against any politician that engages the services of this a$$hat in the future.
steve shows well the vicious misogyny of the Left in reacting to Palin.
SPQR (72771e) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:54 pmWE DO NOT KNOW THAT SCHMIDT SAID A DAMN THING.
He’s actually a pretty awesome dude who really gave the democrats hell last year. He did butt heads with Palin, but smart people with energy will always butt heads. I seriously hate to think of Republicans fighting eachother over Palin when Obama’s doing things of greater importance to fight against.
If Schmidt did give that postpartum depression comment, then he’s garbage. but there’s no evidence he did. The democrats would LOVE to destroy Schmidt’s career. Remember when Mccain’s campaign turned around and somehow gained the lead in polls? that was Schmidt. They lost because of TARP and the economy, not him.
Juan (81687c) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:54 pmPalin’s problem with the McCainits is the same as with the Obamabots. She is young, tough, intelligent and, most important, a breath of fresh air. Compared to deadwood (McCain) and a Machine hack (Obama) floating along on politics as usual.
nk (218382) — 7/1/2009 @ 3:04 pmThere is more on this story at NRO. It looks like Schmidt and Wallace are the leakers although it might be Wallace’s husband who actually did the talking.
transferred into and out of five colleges for a BA – in between pageants
This is called working your way through college. It used to be considered important in demonstrating character. When Harry Truman was around, Democrats used to celebrate this sort of thing. Then the Democrats fell in love with rich playboys like John Kennedy and affirmative action babies like Obama and Sotomayor.
I’ll take the working stiffs, myself. The rich hedge fund brokers all voted for Obama and I hope they get what they voted for hot and hard. Small business, like the Palin’s fishing boat and Joe the Plumber’s ambitions, are what the base of the GOP is now. That might not be enough since places like New Haven have declared war on achievement but it’s the best we have.
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/1/2009 @ 3:07 pmJoe #17: I’m with you, 100%. I am very disappointed in John McCain. Yes, he was the “less bad” candidate. But I thought he would show more class, especially after the press went after his wife.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 7/1/2009 @ 3:31 pmOf course the hypocrisy is rank: why is Palin’s initiative and determination celebrated? Why is she not a role model for young women and men everywhere who aren’t privileged but have the guts to press on in spite of the obstacles and meet those goals?
Dana (8d88ef) — 7/1/2009 @ 3:35 pm“A quicksilver vindictiveness and a fitful work ethic”?
Based on what evidence? What do you know about her “work ethic”?
“The similarities are endless” ?
They’re both women? I’ve never seen two people in public life with less in common in terms of character and personality.
You’re an idiot.
rrpjr (63f5e5) — 7/1/2009 @ 4:06 pmJuan at 23 — Wrong.
Schmidt gave a classic “non-denial” denial when asked. Here is the direct quote in Politico:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24392.html#ixzz0K3M06mdV&D
Read that carefully — Kristol didn’t say Schmidt “defamed” her.
Here is what Kristol stated, according to the same article:
Kristol’s claim is that Schmidt was speculating to others in the campaign about whether her mental state might be suffering from PPD. Schmidt doesn’t deny that — he simply says he was not “defaming” her.
Wondering whether she might be suffering from PPD is not the same as stating as a fact that she was suffering from PPD. Schmidt’s denial would address the latter characterization, but it would not deny the former — and it is the former that Kristol says happened.
Shipwreckedcrew (7f73f0) — 7/1/2009 @ 4:28 pmThat whole train of argument doesn’t make any sense,if anyone was walking in a zombified state as if someone had passed away during the campaign it was McCain and co, who were shell shocked by the fall of Lehman Bros,. Schmidt about as admitted that in a speech at the University of Delaware, also saying that Obama’s charisma was akin to RFK, McCain going through the motions on the TARP negotiations, then apologizing to Letterman, not defending his own record, much less pointing out Obama’s paucity of one.
No one gave her that memo because she campaigned as if the fate of the nation was on the line, maybe the fact that she had just recently given birth, put an additional urgency in the import of her statements, showing a greater concern than most.
narciso (4e0dda) — 7/1/2009 @ 4:50 pmSometimes I think they would have done better if the positions had been reversed.
AD - RtR/OS! (5fd0fb) — 7/1/2009 @ 4:59 pmAt least Palin wouldn’t have abandoned the campaign trail to chase an elusive bail-out solution in DC (all the while looking as ineffective as McCain did), but would have hammered the Dems in Congress for allowing the melt-down at FM2, Schumer’s interference at WaMu, and more.
“these guys are all great men (so is Mccain), but they just don’t have what it takes to overcome the popular Obama cult”
You surrender that easily, eh Juan? You realize that the Obama cultists EXPECT you to get into the supine position, right?
Brad S (5709e3) — 7/1/2009 @ 5:15 pm“At least Palin wouldn’t have abandoned the campaign trail to chase an elusive bail-out solution in DC (all the while looking as ineffective as McCain did), but would have hammered the Dems in Congress for allowing the melt-down at FM2, Schumer’s interference at WaMu, and more.”
Her financial genius would really have shined through.
imdw (017d51) — 7/1/2009 @ 5:18 pm“But he should not tollerate this crap from Schmidt and should come out against it all the time.”
Forget McCain; do you ever notice PALIN doesn’t say anything about Steve Schmidt and his issues with proper treatment of women? Do you fully realize she doesn’t have to?
Brad S (5709e3) — 7/1/2009 @ 5:19 pmWE DO NOT KNOW THAT SCHMIDT SAID A DAMN THING.
Well, Steve (and Nicolle Wallace) better start speaking up LOUDLY then. He’s letting this get out of control, and he has to realize that Palin is smart enough to let him stew in his juices.
Brad S (5709e3) — 7/1/2009 @ 5:22 pm“Forget McCain; do you ever notice PALIN doesn’t say anything about Steve Schmidt and his issues with proper treatment of women? Do you fully realize she doesn’t have to?”
She prefers to have squabbles with tv hosts and bloggers. Apparently she calculates that this will make her popular.
“Her ‘it’ factor is based on a genuineness and a distaste for the crap the beltway has been serving.”
She has a taste for some of what the beltway serves, like bridges in nowhere alaska.
imdw (017d51) — 7/1/2009 @ 5:25 pmI would also like to say that you may want to include Tucker Bounds on there. I met him, he was not happy about Palin being on the ticket.
Death (1808e2) — 7/1/2009 @ 5:31 pmIf Hillary can reinvent herself as a calm, steady leader, so can Palin. Hmmm. Hillary vs. Palin? Possibly. Let’s start with Palin releasing her transcripts from her several college enrollments so voters can assess her mind and mindset. Then the electorate can handicap any learning curve for a race between her and Hillary in 2016. Personally, I hope Palin runs and gets the GOP nod in 2012.
Kristol’s gravitas on serving the interests of a national candidate can be summed up in two words: Dan Quayle. Love the infighting. What a gift.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:13 pmHer financial genius would really have shined through.
You mean like Obama’s genius in offering up the noted tax – dodger Geithner for Sec. of Treasury, while at the same time hinting that much higher taxes will be enacted shortly during a recession?
She prefers to have squabbles with tv hosts and bloggers.
You mean like Obama’s continuing public debates with that noted GOP strategist, Rush Limbaugh?
She has a taste for some of what the beltway serves, like bridges in nowhere alaska.
You mean like Obama’s quadrupling of the Federal Deficit in less than 6 months? You mean like the stimulus money is going to create all those numerous and awesome jobs as promised to the heavens? Do you have any actual figures demonstrating how that promise has turned out so far?
Please continue, you’re a hoot.
Dmac (f7884d) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:16 pm#39- You mean like Obama’s continuing public debates with that noted GOP strategist, Rush Limbaugh? Sparring with the leader of the Republican Party seems a natural enough dialogue. So please, by all means, keep playing ‘follow the leader.’
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:20 pmYou mean like Obama’s quadrupling of the Federal Deficit in less than 6 months? Yes, it’s expensive cleaning up Dubya’s messes, isn’t it. His family has know that for decades.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:21 pmLet’s start with Palin releasing her transcripts from her several college enrollments so voters can assess her mind and mindset.
Sure thing, but only after you post the appropriate documentation such as W – 2s in order to authenticate your many claims of wordly expertise in the following occupations:
– CIA Covert operations;
– Super – secret assassination sniper training;
– expert knowledge of rocket propulsion during your stints at NASA;
– expert knowledge of energy trading futures during your time at ENRON;
– your time spent at the US Embassy in Moscow;
– meeting Von Braun in your underwear in the hallway of your dorm (college transcripts apply here, obviously);
– extensive time living in London during Thatcher’s term as Prime Minister (real estate documentation required, or a leasing contract).
How ’bout it?
Dmac (f7884d) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:23 pm“Divides Republicans”
I don’t think so.
Nit-combs the RINOs out? Could be.
Larry Sheldon (86b2e1) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:24 pmSo please, by all means, keep playing ‘follow the leader.
You mean like the time when you smelled his armpits? I forgot all about that one – please provide substantive proof for that lovely story as well.
Let’s see it, all of it – now.
Dmac (f7884d) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:24 pmC’mon, Dggcrpp – time to finally prove to the world how awesome you really are. Don’t be shy, now – let’s see it.
Dmac (f7884d) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:25 pmJust the usual RINO’s and Obamanazies targetting the candidate who will bury Presidente Zero. The RINOs have demonstrated once again they are a joke.
For the Obamanazis, lets face it they are having a hard time with a leader who is destroying the country.
Doesn’t Obama make you long for the competence of Carter, the honesty of Clinton and the backbone of JFK?
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:33 pmDCSCA is not very good at hiding the misogyny either.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:36 pmPalin is just weird. I’ll know the GOP is serious when they dismiss her. What kind of bubble do you have to live in to take Palin seriously?
Jack (900fbe) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:39 pm#42- Inept. You get an incomplete. Now go clean the erasers.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:39 pmThis is one of IMP’s wet dreams. A comment thread about Palin where it can spew about Boss Limbaugh too.
Dmac – You always forget that IMP claimed to have worked @ CBS also.
JD (aeb697) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:45 pmI’d have a lot more respect for Republicans today if they’d just own up to having a shallow bench and a conservative platform that’s obsolete for today’s world and need to flush out the deadwood for a fresh generation of candidates with more moderate positions to tackle the new challenges facing the nation.
As it stands now, there’s nobody on the horizon but reruns, retreads and lightweights… and Palin, who falls into all three columns.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:48 pmJack – Crawl back under your rock.
JD (aeb697) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:48 pmPalin will indeed be Palin. Palin is Palin. Palin will continue to be Palin.
Larry Reilly (45e7a4) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:49 pmOh yeah. Thank you Geezus.
And she will end up cast away on an ice floe at an early age. Which is too bad for those of us who want her to be the top dog among Republicans because she is the rift that keeps on giving.
If she had any substance, she’d abuse it.
Re #51: that is amusing projection, given Reid, Pelosi, Burris, Biden…..
Ah, but that is always different. I get it.
Republican bad. Democrat good.
Eric Blair (acade1) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:54 pmDuckCrap needs to be reminded, again, that Rush is not the leader of the GOP, Michael Steele is.
AD - RtR/OS! (5fd0fb) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:57 pmIf the LiC wants to take anyone on, that is where he should direct his lies and innuendos.
Dmac #42: c’mon. You know that is what upsets the fellow so much. He hasn’t got very much going on, then and now. Despite all the bizarre claims. It must irritate him no end to see you post the list, and add to it.
I could be wrong. The guy really could be the International Man of Mystery.
But notice his response, when you call him on it, is to insult and change the subject.
Eric Blair (acade1) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:58 pmIts pretty hilarious to see someone refer to “lightweights” when the Democrats give us Joe Biden as vice president.
But then, that’s the International Man of Parody in action.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:58 pmMary drops in, pukes, then leaves. Apparently just putting the word Palin in a title is like flypaper for asshattery.
JD (aeb697) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:58 pmHey, they might be trolls, but they’re our trolls
AD - RtR/OS! (5fd0fb) — 7/1/2009 @ 7:06 pm(which I guess puts them on the same level as the Samoza family, heh-heh).
And this one is funny:
Oh, I get it. We will deal with deficits by creating MUCH LARGER deficits. But criticizing the first is okay, while championing the second is also okay.
Everything is GW Bush’s fault. Obama is responsible for nothing. Oh wait, everything he does is pitch perfect.
Up is up. Down is up. And anything at all that Democrats do is just pitch perfect.
Puh-leeze. Even Democrats are starting to admit that the spending spree is nonsense:
And it is for reasons that even trolls can understand: if increases in deficit spending are bad, MUCH LARGER increases in deficit spending are also bad.
Except trolls are just about…trolling.
Eric Blair (acade1) — 7/1/2009 @ 7:08 pmI’d have a lot more respect for Republicans today if they’d just own up to having a shallow bench and a conservative platform that’s obsolete for today’s world and need to flush out the deadwood . . .”
Those are not arguments–that’s just name-calling. Of course, Republicans don’t want your respect. The GOP should want people like you to get even more upset.
Official Internet Data Office (1aa78d) — 7/1/2009 @ 7:08 pmSPQR #47: and you know why the fellow feels that way, am I right?
Eric Blair (acade1) — 7/1/2009 @ 7:09 pmYea, a platform of spending 10 trillion in borrowed money over the administration’s term is just sooooo much more modern.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/1/2009 @ 7:10 pmEric, does it have anything to do with women’s fashion?
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/1/2009 @ 7:11 pmBrrr. You took that farther than I intended, SPQR.
The guy is just, to borrow again from Vivian Louise, a silly prat. He just posts that nonsense to stir the pot. He isn’t even consistent anymore.
Eric Blair (acade1) — 7/1/2009 @ 7:13 pmEric, lol.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/1/2009 @ 7:14 pmWhat kind of bubble do you have to live in to take Palin seriously?
In light of the nitwit who is our current VP (you know, the guy who said FDR spoke to the nation via the television—in the 1930s!), and the top female in the Democrat Party being the one who with a straight face claimed she, while First Lady, dodged sniper fire at an airport in East Europe, I’d say the bigger bubble is the one occupied by the fools on the left.
Mark (411533) — 7/1/2009 @ 7:17 pmNow go clean the erasers
OK, but not until you stop using up all the Jergens.
Dmac (f7884d) — 7/1/2009 @ 7:49 pmDmac – You always forget that IMP claimed to have worked @ CBS also
You’re right – now, what did he claim he allegedly did at CBS during his halycon days there? Probably one of the following:
– repairing the IBM Selectric when it went on the fritz;
– servicing Gunga Dan when he was feeling too tense before a newscast;
– trimming Andy Rooney’s eyebrows before they swallowed his face whole;
– giving Morley Safer his morning enema;
– keeping Ed Bradley’s wandering eye in line;
– applying the daily black polish to Mike Wallace’s hairline.
Dmac (f7884d) — 7/1/2009 @ 7:55 pm#60- Everything is GW Bush’s fault. Obama is responsible for nothing. Oh wait, everything he does is pitch perfect. Not everything. But just about everything. On both counts.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 7/1/2009 @ 7:55 pm#61- =yawn= sez you. Criticism isn’t leadership and that’s all conservatives have done is criticize. They wave budgets witn no numbers, float potential candidates who implode and offer no viable alternatives other than the ghost of the long dead Ronald Reagan. You have shown you cannot lead. You refuse to contribute and follow. Sn now with 60 in the Senate, get out of the way. We won.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 7/1/2009 @ 7:58 pm#54- Ah, but that is always different. I get it.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 7/1/2009 @ 8:02 pmRepublican bad. Democrat good. =yawn= That’s right. BTW, we won.
Hey, DCSCA,
I heard you picklebiters have a speliology program. It’s climbing up the Magical Mau Mau’s ass. At what stage are you?
nk (218382) — 7/1/2009 @ 8:03 pm=yawn= That’s right. BTW, we won.
Comment by DCSCA — 7/1/2009 @ 8:02 pm
“We”? Rahm Emanuel succeeded Rod Blagojevich as my Congressman and I can safely say that you, DCSCA, is something he stepped over or wiped off his foot during his morning jog.
nk (218382) — 7/1/2009 @ 8:06 pmCome on, clown, tell us your contribution to Obama’s victory. How much money did you give? How many votes did you bring in?
nk (218382) — 7/1/2009 @ 8:15 pmSee? A post about Palin and the International Man of Parody goes even more batshitkrazy than normal.
JD (aeb697) — 7/1/2009 @ 8:17 pmDCSCA,
“give it a rest. Best you not worry yourself with it. It’s really not your concern. But thanks for your interest.”
Sincerely.
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/1/2009 @ 8:19 pmDmac, every time that silly prat posts nonsense, I wish you would post that annotated World of Commander McBragg resume of his. It’s really pretty amusing, even for fellows who earned a few “quid” selling newspapers announcing the breakup of The Beatles.
And then, hilariously, call other people condescending. What is the combination of “troll” and “prat”?
Eric Blair (1d26af) — 7/1/2009 @ 8:23 pmAfter watching this food fight, it time to demand a spot on the ballot for “none of the above“
Neo (46a1a2) — 7/1/2009 @ 8:25 pmEric – that would be either a proll or a trat.
JD (aeb697) — 7/1/2009 @ 8:29 pmGoing forward, does she offer a conservative and charismatic face for a demoralized and star-less party?
Well, it worked for our president: Obama offered the counterpart – a liberal and charismatic face for a demoralized and starless party, so why not Palin, too?
I would however like to see her brush up on history, economics and foreign policy. But I would like to see Obama do the same. And as we’ve seen, at this point in time it’s his lack of depth in these areas and lack of gravitas or “bland steadiness that poses the most immediate danger. Palin still has plenty of time.
Dana (8d88ef) — 7/1/2009 @ 8:32 pmLet’s try something new. DCSCA’s contribution has come down to “We won” and I think he can do better than that, so he’s going into moderation for the next week. During that time, I’ll release one of his comments for every one of mine. Of course, I’ll also put up posts and if DCSCA wants to post, he can start his own blog or ask Patterico to let him post at The Jury.
DRJ (cdbef5) — 7/1/2009 @ 8:37 pmI disagree, but understand.
JD (aeb697) — 7/1/2009 @ 8:39 pmA politician who had engaged in adultery.
Michael Ejercito (833607) — 7/1/2009 @ 8:41 pmWe Lost…so that makes us bitter-enders/clingers/etc…
AD - RtR/OS! (5fd0fb) — 7/1/2009 @ 8:43 pmbut we were that before the election according to “some” people.
And we don’t fantasize about meeting Von Braunn.
Palin only divides the intelligentsia of the GOP (the DC kool-aid drinkers if you will) the rest of us out here in the hinterland will await the end of 2010 to see who is going to be running for the all important candidate of the GOP and we will NOT listen to nor pay any heed to “un-named sources”. We will make up our own conservative intelligent minds and we most definitely will see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears the truth about any of the hopefuls!
The party apparatus will NOT be picking the next candidate for the GOP and they had better make peace with that very quickly!
Jaded (c24ced) — 7/1/2009 @ 8:43 pmHillary was born rich and married well
Actually Hilary comes from a very middle class background.
hortense (aka horace) (973cfa) — 7/1/2009 @ 8:48 pmUpper Middle-Class.
AD - RtR/OS! (5fd0fb) — 7/1/2009 @ 8:58 pmShe certainly didn’t go to Wellesley on a scholarship.
#82- I see. Censorship out of frustration. The accuracy and reality of “We won” seems to be hiting home. If conservatives accepted this and worked with the administration a lot of progress could be made. But conservatives oppose progress, don’t they. More’s the pity.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 7/1/2009 @ 8:59 pmAnd, more than one person would say that all-in-all, she married down.
AD - RtR/OS! (5fd0fb) — 7/1/2009 @ 8:59 pmAD – They deserve each other. They are both power hungry, money grubbing, shameless, unprincipled, dirty socialist liars. One of the dirty, dirty secrets about socialists is that the ones at the top get all the spoils. Look at Soros.
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/1/2009 @ 9:05 pmYou kink of wonder what Bernie Madoff is thinking now?
AD - RtR/OS! (5fd0fb) — 7/1/2009 @ 9:09 pmDRJ- apparently you dont really respect opposing POV as you’ve proclaimed. Duly noted. Says more about the frustraions on the other side that they offer only criticism not constructive leadership. But if you’re going to play gatekeeper, you might want to peruse some of the childish commentary tossed my way- even a threat– which clearly is not debate at all. And reveals a great deal about the mindset of the right these days. A position which can only refute ‘we won’ with ‘we dont want to hear it’ censorship. Sad.
[DCSCA: I’ve already “un-moderated” you but you can take solace in the fact that you’ve accomplished what no other commenter has ever done. You bore me. — DRJ]
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 7/1/2009 @ 9:10 pm“Very middle class”
That’s such a populist lie. Lordy, I wonder what lies they will tell about Barack Obama to the next generation.
Hugh Rodham was a brilliant and extremely successful textile industrialist. He owned several plants that made drapes.
He was attempting to become part of the Chicago political machine, but became a lifelong Republican after having an unfortunate run-in with the Daley machine that is amusing in light of how his daughter’s career aspirations were changed into service in the Daley offshoot machine that is the Obama administration.
He’s not ‘very’ middle class. He’s not ‘upper’ middle class. He was rich. And there’s nothing wrong with it, except that it’s slightly inconvenient for class warfare. Hillary has attempted to paint over the truth of her father’s brilliance for expediency. She can serve a man now, because she wasn’t willing to be herself.
Juan (cab674) — 7/1/2009 @ 9:10 pmUgh…kind…
AD - RtR/OS! (5fd0fb) — 7/1/2009 @ 9:12 pmgot to stop transposing hands when I type.
Maybe I’m developing selective dyslexia in my old age?
Well, one man’s upper middle class, is another man’s comfortable, is another man’s rich.
AD - RtR/OS! (5fd0fb) — 7/1/2009 @ 9:15 pmIt all depends on how far up-town on Easy Street you live.
shipwreckedcrew,
I don’t see how I’m wrong. Just saying ‘wrong.’ like that is pretty annoying, actually.
If Schmidt was speculating to his friends over a beer that Palin was suffering from post partum depression, that makes him a careless jerk in a minor way. Nothing worse than that. Remember, this was a very heated and intense battle. These two people both had strong opinions and disagreements and worked together in a professional manner. They are both very valuable resources and, like many brilliant people, butted heads and got under eachother’s skin.
Now, I would suspect both had ugly things to say about the other when decompressing.
If someone has taken something Steve said out of context, or simply exaggerated something Steve said while decompressing, that that was taken to slime Palin, the reporter is a jerk, and the person repeating the smear is a jerk, but Steve is a much, much more minor jerk.
If Steve actually said this to a reporter, I agree he cannot be trusted in any capacity. but I sincerely doubt Steve would do something like that. For one, it’s career suicide for a very career oriented person who is very savvy of how this stuff works.
So we have no evidence that Steve is behind this except that one person included his name in a vague list that has no evidence behind it either.
Juan (cab674) — 7/1/2009 @ 9:20 pmAD, quite right.
but if I were to start a plant making drapes for Hiltons in Europe, if would set me back ten million dollars. If I owned a plant like that and called myself ‘very middle class’, I would either be an idiot or a liar.
Juan (cab674) — 7/1/2009 @ 9:21 pmI would have more confidence in Schmidt, if he had rebutted those ridiculous post election rumors, if his stewardship of the campaign had shown some strategy. If he hadn’t revealed his mindset at the U of Delaware, that they had no clue as to how to proceed after Sept 15th, why did they cancel all media appearances except for Couric and Gibson, specially after Gibson’s disingenuous editing. Why have McCain apologize to that cretinous fool Letterman.
narciso (4e0dda) — 7/1/2009 @ 9:37 pmComment by Juan — 7/1/2009 @ 9:21 pm
All true, but a lot of wealth is a mind-set.
AD - RtR/OS! (5fd0fb) — 7/1/2009 @ 9:42 pmSome of the most “comfortable” people I know come across as just another Joe down the street.
And then, you get the jerks that are “all hat, and no cattle”.
For all we know, Mr. Rodham might have thought of himself as just another struggling businessman trying to make sure his family was without want.
narciso, remember that Mccain’s campaign was led by John Mccain, and you will understand why the effort was so swervy and screwy.
Compare John Mccain’s campaign before and after him and the results don’t lie: Steve is a genius who did a great job. He turned around a sinking ship, and gained the lead. Sen. Mccain decided to handle the economic issue in a way that was ‘country first’ in his head, but the conservatives, including many people who worked for the campaign such as myself, found it insane and dispiriting.
Juan (cab674) — 7/1/2009 @ 9:44 pmOh, and Steve Schmidt is the person who recommended Palin to Mccain.
he’s called a Nazi on Huffington Post. Axelrod’s opposite is getting a furious attack these days, and it’s probably working, I am sad to say.
Juan (cab674) — 7/1/2009 @ 9:45 pmI just read #93….amazing.
DRJ, the best response evah.
Eric Blair (acade1) — 7/1/2009 @ 9:49 pmYou kind of wonder what Bernie Madoff is thinking now?
I don’t know about now, but I imagine back on election day in November last year he was one of those people in America who were quite joyful and pleased, perhaps even more so because he believed (or hoped) that with his brand of politics and party in the White House, and the ascendancy of his ideology throughout America in general, he’d be able to con even more people, or at least get more lenient treatment if ever caught.
I’ve often wondered how many of Madoff’s victims were, like him, big liberals — loyal contributors to the Democrat Party — and in particular the type who’d excoriate George Bush and Republicans for being greedy, heartless and dishonest?
Mark (411533) — 7/1/2009 @ 10:07 pmMark, that’s a good question. Democrats don’t really con Republicans and often their leaders don’t even seem to understand Republicans, but they can play a lot of liberals like a fiddle.
Indeed, Madoff started his scam when Bill Clinton took the white house, and it wasn’t until several investigations by the Bush admin’s SEC that he was finally brought to justice. I don’t really see how this is a flaming indictment of ‘underregulation’, but then, I am not the fiddle being played this time, either.
Juan (cab674) — 7/1/2009 @ 10:14 pmAnd I really hate to post so frequently in a single thread, but I just have to add:
It’s not up to Mccain or Schmidt or anyone else to defend Palin, and I do not think it’s in Palin’s favor to have them do so. While the blogosphere seems to be aiming right at causing a huge internal GOP fight, the fact is that this story helps Palin quite a bit. The idea that she was so polished while suffering from a problem that many mothers have felt makes her a superhero, the more likely scenario that she’s being smeared by jerks again just makes her sympathetic and admired.
Mccain is an anchor Palin doesn’t need tied around her ankle any more than it is. Steve probably needs to go ahead and issue a clear denial at this point, unless he really is the source of all this, in which case he cannot be trusted.
But beyond that, it’s really in Palin’s interests right now to be the strong woman who stands without any help from the beltway. Let Vanity Fair make up crazy stories about her.
Juan (cab674) — 7/1/2009 @ 10:19 pmThat last one from IMP is breath-taking in its lack of connection to reality, and its complete lack of introspection.
JD (aeb697) — 7/1/2009 @ 10:25 pm“That’s such a populist lie.”
Juan – Have you ever driven through Park Ridge? Maybe the Rodham’s did not spend a lot of money on things like housing, but it sure looks like a middle class area to me.
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/1/2009 @ 10:39 pm“DRJ- apparently you dont really respect opposing POV as you’ve proclaimed.”
Amazing!
DCSCA – You are not presenting opposing POV’s. You are posting tripe and threadjacking, but nice try for victim status anyway.
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/1/2009 @ 10:42 pmdaleyrocks, if you can buy that home, free and clear with no mortgage, and you own a plant worth millions on current dollars, then you are doing well.
If your assets, in and of themselves, make money for your family to live on, you are rich. In fact, that is my definition of rich. If your money works for you instead of you working for your money.
I have absolutely nothing but respect for Hugh Rodham, whose politics and hard working ethic were right on the money… which he had plenty of.
Juan (cab674) — 7/1/2009 @ 10:50 pm#109- Daly, I have no desire to ‘threadjack’. I think we all really want to find some solutions to the fierce problems we’re all facing. I think it’s too late for the boomers to do anything about it. A fresh generation of more amicable and practical pols need to ascend to office. What’s in place now is broken and it’s impossible to even attempt compromise as it’s equated with weakness on both sides.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 7/1/2009 @ 10:58 pmDRJ- I dont want to bore you. I truly want to see if both sides can craft compromise and seek solutions to these problems. This perpetual knife fight between the hard right and the hard left is inflicting real damage and leaving our kids a bloody mess they may never clean up. Rather than constantly criticizing Obama, Bush I’d love to engage in trying to find positive solutions rather than each side trying to score points all the time. The rest of the world is shrugging at us and moving on into the future. And I think all sides want the best not for us, but for our kids and our country. So please, Texas, no more talk to secede. We need you in the Union as much as New Jersey– or Alaska.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 7/1/2009 @ 11:03 pmDCSCA: SHE WON!!!! LOL
Just kidding.
Juan (cab674) — 7/1/2009 @ 11:03 pmYou know, Juan, you’re right about the Rodhams, but you’re uncorrect about this strategy, If out right lies and slander are allowed to bepropagated
as a matter of course; which is the Alinsky/
Axelrod way; this is how they won their races in 1995 and 2004, then we have a much bigger problem.
The latest CBS hit piece, which takes theGovernor to task for trying to clarify the innuendo about the AIP, has Schmidt’s hands all over it. Looking over his bio on wikipedia; it’s not too impressive
either. Beginning with the fact that he didn’t graduate from college, isn’t that ironic?. Moving on to his early track record:
1995, Steve Schmidt managed Will T. Scott’s (the current Deputy Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky) unsuccessful campaign for attorney general of Kentucky. This Kentucky campaign’s advertising strategy was featured in the second edition of George Magazine, published by John F. Kennedy, Jr. Later, in 1998, Schmidt ran Tim Leslie’s unsuccessful race for lieutenant governor of California.[7] That year he was also the Communications Director for the unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaign of Matt Fong.[8] In 1999, he was the communications director for Lamar Alexander’s presidential run, leaving in June when the campaign reduced its senior staff.[9]
He moved on to the House staff, then the White House, and the Schwartzenegger campaign, and the successful roll out of Alito and Roberts, You would think he would have had a little perspective
narciso (996c34) — 7/2/2009 @ 4:27 amnarciso, if Schmidt… or any republican staffer above intern level is leaking smears against Gov Palin, that’s a serious breach of trust.
Enough people are blaming Schmidt about this that he needs to come out and make a clear denial or clear admission of exactly what was said.
My guess is that this is a fabrication or that something Steve did not intend to hit the papers or become public knowledge was said in a relaxed environment, and confidence was broken to explode this comment into a diagnosis. Perhaps I’m wrong, and if I am, then Schmidt needs to be left off any matter where confidence or responsibility matter. But really, this looks a lot like a coordinated effort to eliminate the one person who gave Axelrod the most trouble last year aside from Palin herself.
Now, Schmidt may or may not be a graduate… I honestly don’t know. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs aren’t either. But Steve’s brilliant and very good at what he does. There’s a reason he’s had so many high profile jobs in this business. And there’s a reason he’s hired by underdogs who usually lose tough battles: you need a really good campaign staff to fight that kind of battle seriously.
With Bush’s approval numbers and the sour economy, Mccain barely had a chance. When Schmidt took over, Mccain’s campaign was sunk in polls and basically a write-off. A cause needing someone with a lot of ambition and backbone. And passion.
Mccain’s direction changed very quickly when Schmidt coordinated a quick news cycle strategy that is still being praised. We all noticed it… Mccain’s campaign got fast and moved from issue to issue depending onthe headlines. Now, Sen. Mccain made the final call, but Schmidt picked Palin, which was another hugely risky and aggressive move. Mccain was ahead in the polls when the financial disaster, which I think was coordinated for this purpose, destroyed his chances.
Schmidt is not considered a loser by any stretch. He didn’t get along with a lot of other people, perhaps. Palin did not like a lot of the traditional ‘use the VP as a shield to get bad publicity off the Prez’ strategy that Obama uses very well.
But that’s beside the point, I guess. Some people insist Mccain’s campaign was awful and embarrassing because he lost. We forget that it was really run quite well in many ways. We lost because of our candidate, plain and simple.
But I agree with you in the spirit of outrage that any republican staffer deserves if they are behind these stories. The election ended 8 months ago, and this is a huge waste of GOP time. Though I think this plays into Palin’s hands… she wants to be in the headlines and this story makes her look like a heroic woman who looked amazing while struggling with a hard problem and a hostile staff of assholes.
And I am dead certain that if Palin wanted Mccain, Steele, or Schmidt to issue a statement of support for Palin, she would easily have it if she asked. I do not think she wants that, for the reasons I gave above. I think Palin is far more savvy of this GOP argument than she’s given credit for, and that she’s thinking ahead and is probably the GOP’s only chance in 2012.
Juan (cab674) — 7/2/2009 @ 4:51 amI think the only way Palin gets a nomination is to hold her own in a debate against someone like Newt Gingrich, who I think may go for it in 2012.
IMO Palin’s achilles heel is the overreaction of her supporters to legitimate criticism. If McCain stepped out and forcefully defended her critics would say that just shows she needs someone to fight her battles… may not be fair or true but is probably what would happen.
voiceofreason2 (590c85) — 7/2/2009 @ 4:51 am“If McCain stepped out and forcefully defended her critics would say that just shows she needs someone to fight her battles”
Absolutely agree.
“the only way Palin gets a nomination is to hold her own in a debate against someone like Newt Gingrich”
I doubt it, but this would be nice. Winner takes all + lots of cadidates = Palin.
Juan (cab674) — 7/2/2009 @ 5:07 am“You mean like Obama’s continuing public debates with that noted GOP strategist, Rush Limbaugh? ”
The latest salvo really has no retort. It is the end.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907010015
Nobody can top this.
imdw (c5d9b9) — 7/2/2009 @ 5:28 amThis goes back to that dialogue from earlier in the year, about intentionalism, what Limbaugh
meant by “wanting Obama to fail” was a good idea, and the context therein, whether he was a ‘good man’ that benefited the benefit of the doubt. No one who saw last fall’s campaign, could honestly come to that second conclusion. With the ruthless
application of Alinsky’s Rule 12, (pick the target, personalize it, separate all bases for support)Rule 5,(use ridicule, ie: Tina Fey)rule 4, make the subject, live impossibly to one’s own standard. There was an earlier application of this with Newt Gingrich back in 1995, and he succumbed in part because of his own issues, much
like Sanford. it worked against Guiliani, and ultimately ended up undermining the Bush
Administration. It is considered bad form to either point out the lie from the socalled staffer, or from the reporter who recited it. Yes
I have no doubt that she can rise above it, but too many people have already bought the lies; it’s like background radiation. As they say “We Won” using those tactics
This is how we ended up with an administration which has a tax cheat for IRS chief, a special envoy to Iraq, despised by all three factions,
narciso (996c34) — 7/2/2009 @ 5:29 aman energy chief, that doesn’t know that oil and
gas are in his perview. A stimulus package that depresses the economy. A pair of economic advisors
that have had to deny the conclusions of a lifetime of scholarship, this is not an accident
“IMO Palin’s achilles heel is the overreaction of her supporters to legitimate criticism.”
At this point and time, at this stage in the grand game, there is NO legitimate criticism of Palin. Too many people shot their wad early on with their batshite rage toward Palin and her family to allow for legitimate criticism.
Better get used to it, Lefties AND Rigties. Palin is in the process of using Obama’s own tactics, and will in due course impale him with those tactics.
Brad S (9f6740) — 7/2/2009 @ 6:17 am“The latest salvo really has no retort. It is the end.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907010015
Nobody can top this.”
Limbaugh on top of his game. It’s a thing of beauty. And the rage from the Left keeps flowing.
Brad S (9f6740) — 7/2/2009 @ 6:20 amReally? How about governor of one of the least populated states relative to limited executive qualifications for POTUS or the failure to organize an effective team and strategy that gets her message out?
voiceofreason2 (10af7e) — 7/2/2009 @ 6:44 amEveryone has weak points and she is no exception. To say there is no legitimate criticism is similar to the fawning many on the left do about Obama and his “can do no wrong” approach.
Neither washes with me….
“To say there is no legitimate criticism is similar to the fawning many on the left do about Obama and his “can do no wrong” approach.”
Legitimate criticism of Sarah Palin ceased the minute Trig Trutherism got MSM play, much like legitimate criticism of Bill Clinton ceased when his critics banged on Vince Foster and Ft. Marcy Park. It’s what happens when folks make their criticism personal. Which BTW, has yet to fully happen to Obama, unless you consider mockery of his fan base illegitimate.
Brad S (9f6740) — 7/2/2009 @ 7:25 amThe latest salvo really has no retort. It is the end.
Oooh, that really hurts. Wow, using a source from that paragon of truth and objectivity, Media Matters. Say, how much has Soros given them in the past few years? I understand that most estimates number in the millions. Quite an awesome job of research there, Einstein. Did it take you a whole millisecond to find that clip, or are they on the list of your “favorites” section of your browser?
Were you one of those unfortunate souls who had to use the short bus on the way to school?
Dmac (f7884d) — 7/2/2009 @ 7:35 amI think the RNC be damned and the Steve Schmidts of the party drawn and quartered to boot.
We need a few of current sitting GOP legislators and executives but job one in 2010 is purging the vermin at the ballot box.
The Donks are job two, their fate is sealed until the debt they’ve run up is paid and forgotten.
gary gulrud (13437e) — 7/2/2009 @ 8:05 amHow can legitimate criticism cease because of a personal attack? Makes no sense. Unless winning a moral authority card is the goal…
voiceofreason2 (590c85) — 7/2/2009 @ 9:38 amAnd as far as Obama goes are you proposing an eye for an eye about personal attacks. Seems to me the legitimate criticisms about him are plentiful enough to sway fair minded voters.
Obama will so discredit the Democrats by 2012 that the Republican nomination will be valuable. We got Clinton because the Democrats thought Bush was a shoo-in in 1992. Palin will have to re-establish her credentials in debate with Romney and Giuliani at that time. If she can hold her own, assuming she wants it, she will be a formidable candidate. I was for her before McCain chose her but she did slip badly in those interviews. Gibson asked some trick questions but being asked what newspapers you read is not a trick question.
I do think she was badly handled by the McCain staff but remember that the Bush people are responsible for Cheney’s reputation for secrecy. He was so adept at debate they didn’t want him showing up W. It is not that unusual for staffers to confuse the goals of protecting their principal and winning elections.
On Michael Jackson, Dan Henninger has a good piece in the WSJ today. He writes that the internet killed true celebrity and Jackson was the last big example.
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/2/2009 @ 10:19 amDear lord, Mike, that’s drivel for a bunch of reasons.
1) You yourself are not exactly working class stiff, yet you want working class stiffs to be president. Give up teaching and start brick laying if you want to be a man of the people.
2) Harry Truman never graduated from college. But, if your disdain for Democrats nominating richie riches were true, then you’d have a problem with all political parties in American history.
3) Calling a man who attended an Ivy League school and then was invited to edit the Harvard Law Review (an invitation extended ONLY to people with only sparkling GPA’s) is not offensive enough, you double down by calling a summa cum laude graduate from Princeton and was a member of the Yale Law Review “an affirmative action pick.” Not to quibble, but it sure seems she belonged in the two institutions she academically dominated.
4) Seems to me the fellow siding with “the working class” is not a member of said class, just disparaged two former members of that class, and in the last three national elections voted for a trust fund baby (twice) and the son and grandson of Admirals. You sure know how to pick ’em.
In fact, dare we guess why you characterize Obama and Sotomayor as “affirmative action” picks, despite their academic and vocational successes? Hmmm, wonder why you singled them out?
5) the first time Sarah does something that anything to do with governance (besides get out-smarted by Katie Couric or tell Gwen Ifill she wouldn’t answer her questions), could you drop me a line
timb (8cd31a) — 7/2/2009 @ 12:02 pmtimb, Obama did not get invited to Harvard Law Review on the basis of grades.
That’s a stone cold lie. Obama admits that he was a poor student at Harvard.
Juan (5fa9e0) — 7/2/2009 @ 12:13 pmHey timb, I don’t mean to argue…but when you write:
You might consider backing that up.
My guess is that both you and I know people from Ivy League schools who are toilet film and people from no-name colleges who are great leaders. And vice versa.
It is interesting that we still haven’t seen transcripts from the President. No one’s business? It sure was before!
So I recommend you get the “grades don’t matter” meme in place. I have a strong suspicion you will need it when defending the President.
And grades don’t matter. Nor does the school matter so much. What matters is the record of accomplishment. I hope that we can agree on that.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 7/2/2009 @ 12:22 pmtimb, Sotomayor’s work as an appellate judge has hardly been stellar.
SPQR (72771e) — 7/2/2009 @ 12:30 pmHe got on because he was black and pretty and probably had professors helping him. Just as he got into Harvard in the first place. How awful this is for the truly gifted black students there.
Harvard is a school that can be very tough. But apparently it can be pretty easy, too.
I know my law journal’s managing editor thought affirmative action was a great idea, and went on and on about her opinion of our racial makeup. Truly pissed me off, and why we have a blind review process now.
Juan (5fa9e0) — 7/2/2009 @ 12:36 pmGary Galrud,
I think the democrats, and David Axelrod in particular, have as their #1 priority, convincing the GOP to stay on thus ‘purge’ bent for as long as possible.
It’s stupid. We need power more than we need purity. We need to provide some kind of roadblock to all the insanity going on NOW. We can purge when we aren’t facing Pelosi and Obama. There’s too much at stake to play imaginary and impossible games. There is absolutely no way to define the GOP to where it doesn’t have some flaws. We aren’t going to ever win a majority if we purge all of our moderate or liberal membership, and we aren’t going to be a place for bright staff to work if we let the press tell us to banish our best strategists.
We can pretend that it’s a good thing Carter was president, but in reality, that started a series of problems that our nation is far from overcoming. We need to promote our best members, but I am tired of the ‘purge’. It’s as though we don’t really want anything more than permanent minority status.
Juan (5fa9e0) — 7/2/2009 @ 12:42 pmDidn’t Harvard Law Review specifically change their policy from all about grades to essentially a popularity contest right before Teh One assumed that role and proceeded to do nothing?
JD (646114) — 7/2/2009 @ 12:57 pmDear lord, Mike, that’s drivel for a bunch of reasons.
1) You yourself are not exactly working class stiff, yet you want working class stiffs to be president. Give up teaching and start brick laying if you want to be a man of the people.
Tim, please enlighten the rest of the crew on my personal history. What, for example, did my father do and what was his highest level of education attained ?
Come on, Tim. You must know all this if you can attack me this way.
Calling a man who attended an Ivy League school and then was invited to edit the Harvard Law Review (an invitation extended ONLY to people with only sparkling GPA’s) is not offensive enough
Would you mind informing us of his GPA? You might also include a list of all his scholarly articles written, the usual requirement to be law review editor.
you double down by calling a summa cum laude graduate from Princeton and was a member of the Yale Law Review “an affirmative action pick.” Not to quibble, but it sure seems she belonged in the two institutions she academically dominated.
She has admitted that her SAT score was well below that of her classmates. I suggest you familiarize yourself with her history and activities with the Puerto Rican nationalists before you wax too poetic on her intellectual achievements.
Non-objective grading became popular around the same time that affirmative action did, for some reason.
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/2/2009 @ 1:06 pmIn case anyone didn’t realize this, Timmah is an unreconstructed asshat, who furiously constructs strawmen and never, ever offers evidence of the many inane emanations from his ginormous blowhole. Ignore him, he only comes here when he’s been badly pantsed over at Protein Wisdom.
Dmac (f7884d) — 7/2/2009 @ 1:39 pm“Wow, using a source from that paragon of truth and objectivity, Media Matters.”
Is there some alternate universe where rush did not say that? I mean, is there any lack of objectivity there?
imdw (de7003) — 7/2/2009 @ 2:42 pmTim is a would-be law student who seems envious of anyone who ever has accomplished more than he has.
I left home at 18 and would hazard a guess that I have worked at more manual labor occupations than Tim could name. The Democrats, to expand on this theme for a moment, have become the party of teachers, lawyers, government bureaucrats and women’s studies professors.
It’s interesting that, on another thread, the information was posted that the only group which still supports Obama’s economic policies is the group under 30. That should tell you something about Tim.
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/2/2009 @ 4:08 pmMedia matters does have a clear record of lying about Rush’s comments.
Are we talking about his joke about that joke, Michael Jackson? Because it was a) amusing and b) unoffensive.
Juan (67a879) — 7/2/2009 @ 4:35 pmDmac, you’re my little bitch. With that being said,. can’t you at least keep up with the fact that I can’t comment there.
Update your stalking interest in me, dmac, because you’re almost two years out of date.
Mike, you dolt, I’m 40 and I laugh at the ideas that you know anything about me and that since you’re the the plutocrat in the conversation, you still claim the democrats, the party that wants to provide health insurance to poor people, wants to increase the minimum wage, wants to help people unionize, protects the Lilly Ledbetters of the world etc, is the party of doctors, lawyers, and elitists, etc. It is to laugh
timb (8f04c0) — 7/2/2009 @ 5:12 pm“Media matters does have a clear record of lying about Rush’s comments.”
You can play the clip yourself. Did you? If Rush makes his clips available, I’d be happy to hear it from his site.
imdw (de7003) — 7/2/2009 @ 5:28 pmimdw, I don’t care about Rush. I just know that Media Matters lies a lot about him. In this case, if we’re talkinga bout the Michael Jackson joke, is there something I’ve missed that makes Rush’s statement objectionable?
And as to your point that they recorded him… so what? It’s super easy for Chicago goon organizations like Media Matters to record a tiny part of an overall message and distort the communication.
We all get it by now… Rush is benign and for some reason some think he’s a much bigger deal than he is. Whatever, my friend.
Juan (67a879) — 7/2/2009 @ 5:57 pm“did you?”
I’ll be honest. Nope. Can you tell me what the problem was? And why is it that most of the times that Palin is slimed in the media, someone brings up something Rush Limbaugh said (on a different topic)?
We get it… the GOP is really led my Sarah Palin, but Chicago wants everyone to think it’s led by Rush Limbaugh.
Juan (67a879) — 7/2/2009 @ 6:10 pm“In this case, if we’re talkinga bout the Michael Jackson joke, is there something I’ve missed that makes Rush’s statement objectionable?”
If you want to know what we’re talking about you can listen to the clip.
“Nope.”
Ok.
imdw (74da96) — 7/2/2009 @ 6:20 pmTim, your anger and insults didn’t help your case. I’m sorry to see you use that approach.
I think that you are falling into a mirror image view of how you see Republicans. Certainly your depiction of the concerns of the DNC are open to debate, given current events. I hope you don’t pain Republicans with an equally broad brush.
Eric Blair (acade1) — 7/2/2009 @ 6:24 pm“In this case, if we’re talkinga bout the Michael Jackson joke, is there something I’ve missed that makes Rush’s statement objectionable?”
If you want to know what we’re talking about, listen to the clip.
“Nope.”
Ok.
“And why is it that most of the times that Palin is slimed in the media, someone brings up something Rush Limbaugh said (on a different topic)?”
That I don’t know. Someone brought up rush above and I noted that he wins. Nobody tops him.
imdw (c5488f) — 7/2/2009 @ 7:16 pmMike, you dolt, I’m 40 and I laugh at the ideas that you know anything about me
Tim, 40 ? I would not have believed it. You have a lot of catching up to do.
I don’t think you’ll ever make it.
Of course, you could regale us with your exploits like DCSCA.
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/2/2009 @ 7:32 pmTimmah is 40? Holy shit! Knock me over with a feather. He sure doesn’t act like it.
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/2/2009 @ 9:19 pmimdw, I kinda want to joke about how people are calling for Rush’s death in the Media Matter’s comment section, but of course, extreme left sites aren’t accountable for their comment sections in the way they hold the rest of us accountable.
I can’t get the freaking video to load on their site, for some reason. I see along the column, a bunch of distortions about Limbaugh, though. One is Limbaugh saying ‘blacks and gays can get to the back of the bus’. When in reality, his argument was that [it is hypocritical and proof the dems are using people that ‘blacks and gays can get to the back of the bus’.
That’s what I am referring to. Rush will have some metaphor for what the democrats are doing that shows their behavior to be offensive, and Media Matters just quotes the metaphor as though Rush is endorsing something he designed specifically to show wrongness.
Anyway, I have tried several time. Would you be so kind as to just tell me what Rush said that was so offensive? I am intrigued. I found a text column where they are mad at Rush for pointing out that Reagan’s term coincided with Michael’s greatest success. Indeed, the 80s were a pretty amazing time for America culturally. Reagan’s confidence was absolutely a big part of that.
Carter’s misery was replaced with real hope and change. The kind we can see. That’s probably what Rush’s point was…aside from simply joking about how silly it is that Michael Jackson is getting so much coverage. That same Media Matters column says that conservatives are nuts to want Cap and Trade to be better covered than Michael Jackson.
Media Matters appears to be the enemy of a free press and a well informed democracy. Regardless, I am baffled as to why anyone would think this Rush ‘scandal’ holds a candle to Rush’s other ‘scandals’.
Juan (67a879) — 7/2/2009 @ 10:03 pmJuan, do you remember the good old days, when the Left kept referring to “The Republican Noise Machine,” claiming it was attempting to distract from Clinton’s great efforts to do good throughout the world and at home?
Well, it looks like a certain kettle was calling a particular pot a specific color.
The Left really does want to distract from things like the bizarreness of the cap and trade bill that no one read, yet voted on.
Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin are great distractions in that service. Axelrod is smiling.
Eric Blair (acade1) — 7/2/2009 @ 10:22 pmJuan, I’m sure you caught this one, but it is amazing:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/30/ca-dem-leader-why-do-we-allow-free-speech-to-terrorize-politicians/
Strange. Not so very long ago, dissent was the highest form of patriotism.
Alphabetism rules.
Eric Blair (acade1) — 7/2/2009 @ 10:27 pmTim is 40?
AD - RtR/OS! (b9e569) — 7/2/2009 @ 11:33 pmIs he in the cast of “Arrested Developement”?
“Would you be so kind as to just tell me what Rush said that was so offensive? ”
It’s not offensive. It’s awesome. The headline has most of it. When you fix your computer, you can listen to the rest.
imdw (c5488f) — 7/3/2009 @ 7:59 am“It’s not offensive. It’s awesome.”
imdw – Hey, that why he has such a large audience. Glad you liked it.
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/3/2009 @ 8:28 am