Patterico's Pontifications

2/7/2010

Palin Open to 2012 (Updated)

Filed under: Politics — DRJ @ 2:25 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

In a Fox News Sunday interview today, Sarah Palin won’t rule out running for President in 2012:

“Sarah Palin says it would be “absurd” for her not to consider running for president in 2012.

The former Alaska governor and the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008 says she will run for president if she believes it’s right for the country and right for her family.

Palin was asked on “Fox News Sunday” if she knows more today about domestic and foreign affairs than she did two years ago. Her response: “Well, I would hope so.”

Fox News has more Palin comments here.

— DRJ

UPDATE: Palin was in Texas this afternoon appearing with Governor Rick Perry:

“Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin stumped for Gov. Rick Perry at a rally Sunday in suburban Houston, adding some national Republican star power to Perry’s re-election campaign.

“I doubt there is another public figure in our country who gives liberals a bigger case of the hives than our special guest today,” Perry said. “At the very mention of her name, the liberals, the progressives, the media elites, they literally foam at the mouth.”

Palin talked about her home State’s relationship with mine:

“Palin said Texas and Alaska had some “really sweet connections, … independent pioneer-spirited people and big wide open spaces.”

“A lot of us in our states proudly cling to our guns and religion,” she told a cheering crowd.”

100 Responses to “Palin Open to 2012 (Updated)”

  1. What a stupid question to ask her. I would hope that any candidate knows more now than s/he did two years ago, and will know yet more two years from now!

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  2. It is a standard question asked of every prominant politician on the national stage (Hannity & Gretchen ask Newt this question constantly when he is on their programs).
    I think she gave a smart, thoughtful, and non-committal answer.

    AD - RtR/OS! (f9cda3)

  3. She’s a presumptive candidate now, no? Is it safe to say that?

    happyfeet (713679)

  4. AD, I think asking someone how much they know of topics is not a standard question. And as phrased, its obviously intended as a putdown, not a question.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  5. I was speaking directly about the question as to whether she was going to run for President in 2012.

    Everything else is fair game, since she is contracted to FoxNews as a commentator on politics and the events of the day.

    AD - RtR/OS! (f9cda3)

  6. Heck, media buffoons asked Scott Brown this question!

    Mr. Feet, please calm down. Your hands are shaking again. Have some more tasty chicken wings and a relaxing beverage. Tell you what: come up with a word—I recommend “happinitis.”

    Then, when you get all ready to vent some spleen about Palin, you can just post “happinitis,” and we will all know what you meant. Because you get awfully nasty on this topic, and it seems difficult for you to (i) stick with noninsulting facts that do not become overly personal or a bit odd, and (ii) present viable alternatives.

    So it becomes yet another “Bash Palin” post, much as I would see at DK or PuffHo.

    But heck, the femtosecond a Palin post appears, we get an image of you grinding your teeth. Still, the word might help. Like a “safe word,” in a way.

    Heck, you can fill up a Wall O’ Text with the word, much like our trolls do, if that makes you feel better. We’ll know what you mean.

    And hopefully you will be able to maintain your sanguine and funny nature on other topics.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  7. I updated the post regarding Palin’s appearance this afternoon in Texas.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  8. […] the rest here: Palin Open to 2012 (Updated) […]

    Palin Open to 2012 (Updated) | Liberal Whoppers (d16888)

  9. I didn’t say nuffin Mr. Blair. It’s just sometimes people like to dismiss concerns about Sarah Palin by saying we don’t even know if she’s gonna run yet.

    I think that’s not a particularly valid dodge anymore after this interview.

    happyfeet (713679)

  10. Perry is running in 2012, Sarah will be his running mate

    EricPWJohnson (27b854)

  11. Comment by happyfeet — 2/7/2010 @ 5:01 pm

    What I heard is her saying that she is open to the question, but that she hasn’t made a decision.
    But, YMMV.
    If she were openly running for the Presidency, she would have to forfeit her gig with Fox.
    BTW, Cong.Paul Ryan (R-WI) is speaking in NH this month – a definite precursor to running for National Office.

    AD - RtR/OS! (f9cda3)

  12. Mr. Feet, I enjoyed, very much, hearing your thoughts the other day about alternatives to Sarah Palin. I wish we heard more about that, because under the unusual writing style, you have organized, carefully considered thoughts.

    Maybe you will choose to post more about that. Your choice, of course.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  13. The most effective way to get me to stop saying negative and skeptical things about Sarah Palin would be to give her the nomination.

    The second most effective way is to ask me nicely. Which you’ve done.

    Ok. For awhile at least we’ll let it rest. I’m not sure how much awhile is but I think you’ll be pleased.

    happyfeet (713679)

  14. Cong.Paul Ryan (R-WI) is speaking in NH this month – a definite precursor to running for National Office.

    Yeah, I saw that a few days ago – he’s laying the groundwork, hope he gets an operation going next year. I won’t keep harping on it, but I think the guy’s exactly what the GOP needs to challenge Obama, no matter what happens over the ensuing years. Incredibly sharp, great presence, is not emotionally involved in any social issues that would cause him problems with some of the elements of the party – the big tent philosophy is his main deal.

    Dmac (539341)

  15. I can live with Mr. Ryan. As long as he doesn’t bust out all charismatic and rock star.

    I don’t think that’s much of a worry though.

    happyfeet (713679)

  16. “Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin stumped for Gov. Rick Perry at a rally Sunday in suburban Houston,…”

    If she’s smart, she’ll stay away from Arizona. Far away.

    With luck, this upcoming November McCain will be sent into retirement.

    Blacque Jacques Shellacque (efef8c)

  17. In other words, happyfeet, it’s best if you stick to insulting liberals. That’s all well and good, and never gets old, but its annoying when you criticize Palin for perfectly legitimate reasons.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  18. In other words, Leviticus, you have over the past couple months lost favor in my book as a liberal who debates with integrity. You definitely need to adjust your dosage of the anti-psychotics you’ve been prescribed. They’re not doing the job they once did.

    John Hitchcock (1ed822)

  19. Leviticus has reasonable days and unreasonable ones, John. What is sadly ironic is how much he dislikes sweeping generalizations. Except when he makes them. But then, it is late. People get cranky.

    My point to Mr. Feet was about monomania. And I am sure that, if I was a good liberal, and I started carrying on about Obama—getting personal and snarky and seeing how close I could get to the line—and did so post after post, why, Leviticus would find that tiresome as well.

    And I don’t think that everything Mr. Feet wrote was, well “perfectly reasonable.” I certainly hope that Leviticus didn’t think so (or hadn’t read the long, long litany of anti-Palin commentary by Mr. Feet). And of course, Mr. Feet can say whatever he likes.

    To be clear, I don’t care whether or not anyone likes or dislikes Sarah Palin. What I felt was that there needed to be some solutions and other choices described, rather than just Palin-bashing.

    Much as I can think of large numbers of Democrats I would rather see President and Vice President than Obama and Biden. And I suspect that larger and larger numbers of Democrats are coming around to that thinking nowadays.

    Eric Blair (c2a27d)

  20. For some reason, Rasmussen Reports is taking too long to respond but I seem to remember a stat showing heavy Democratic support for Obama, which would show an unwillingness to look for a replacement. Even while the negatives are double-digits.

    And I will admit to being less charitable than most commentators here in that I no longer value anything the full-of-hate penguin has to say and I’m beginning to not value anything Leviticus has to say. I have a very hard edge like that (and it’s not necessarily something to be proud of).

    John Hitchcock (1ed822)

  21. Palin2012. Oh God please please please let it be. Let it be. Palin for president. I can see the white house from my window! She’s da mon.

    The Emperor (172b08)

  22. EricPWJohnson is running for Idiot in 2010 — unopposed — with The Emporer for his running mate.

    Icy Texan (c095d4)

  23. For her campaign stop with Rick Perry, after she got criticized for writing 6 words on her hand while speaking 40 minutes at the Tea Party Convention and called a “dunce” by someone linked at NRO (they’re really sensitive about the O’Teleprompter thing, no?) she wrote on her hand: “Hi Mom!” hahahahaha Scorccchhh!

    What they meant of course, was that she’s a chillbilly hick for writing on her hand, not a “dunce” (speakers use index cards for notes all the time, and WH reporters routinely write their single question down, yet Obama can’t speak five words to a group w/o a teleprompter). They can’t even get their insults right, and they make themselves – as well as Teleprompter-crutch Obama – look even more stupid and petty with every passing day. Good work, MSM!

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  24. Next time, she should write “This way to my uterus, Sully,” along with an arrow.

    Icy Texan (c095d4)

  25. I am sure that after a speech and a campaign stop this weekend, Excitable Andy is in full-on crawl up her uterus mode.

    JD (8f4186)

  26. Comment by Icy Texan — 2/8/2010 @ 4:37 am

    Comment by JD — 2/8/2010 @ 5:36 am

    She could just write this on her hand with “Hi Andy” and finally drive The Excitable One barking mad for good:

    http://www.sarahpalinsuterus.blogspot.com/

    no one you know (196ed7)

  27. noyk – That would make his head assplode.

    JD (5e5cad)

  28. “If she’s smart, she’ll stay away from Arizona. Far away.”

    She’s endorsed McCain.

    imdw (f29a79)

  29. I think Sarah Palin would serve the country better by showing up at every public function where tax dollars play little or no role – waterway clean-ups, neighbors-helping-neighbors, etc. Highlight how things can get done without state and federal government intervention. She has such a strong following in the press (albeit still negative by most outlets); she can refocus the attention on charity and grassroots efforts instead of big brother. Government has a role in bigger projects – but it has long over-stepped its charge.
    I hope she doesn’t run, not because I don’t think she could do a good job as President, but because there are so many who have already tuned her out and won’t listen to reason. The media campaign will create an even larger divide.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  30. “I think Sarah Palin would serve the country better by showing up at every public function where tax dollars play little or no role – waterway clean-ups, neighbors-helping-neighbors, etc. Highlight how things can get done without state and federal government intervention.”

    So another volunteerism summit… Maybe on MLK day too?

    imdw (017d51)

  31. Yes, glad you agree. Maybe I’ll see you there.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  32. That imdw thingie sure is obsessed with Palin and MLK.

    JD (3b62be)

  33. “And I am sure that, if I was a good liberal, and I started carrying on about Obama—getting personal and snarky and seeing how close I could get to the line—and did so post after post, why, Leviticus would find that tiresome as well.”

    – Eric Blair

    No. I wouldn’t. In fact, I’m a liberal, and I haven’t said a nice thing about Obama for approx. a year and a half. And I haven’t accused myself of “monomania”. I’ve accepted (and embraced) the propriety of sustained criticism of public officials who claim the ability to do miraculous things and then fail miserably in their efforts (if they even make those efforts at all). So if you were a “good liberal”, and were consistently personal and snarky about Obama’s false celebrity – which seems to be one of happyfeet’s primary criticisms of Palin – then I would almost surely agree with you, and not find your remarks tiresome at all.

    In addition to that: there are probably 50 conservative commenters on this blog who “get personal and snarky and see how close they can get to the line, post after post” with Obama, and I don’t see you going out of your way to scold them. JD – with whom I have no problem – makes sweeping statements about the mendoucheity, douchenozzlery, and general recalcitrant deviousness/shamelessness of Obama and Democrats on a near-constant basis, and you don’t scold him for being unreasonable, either.

    Here’s the bigger point: I’m kinda pissed off at you. I think you’re an intelligent commenter here, but I think you apply double standards far more often than I do… and yet you accuse me of just that nearly every time you direct a comment at me.

    On the Bachmann thread – which you obviously remember, by your use of the word “cranky” – you accused me of unfairly attacking Bachmann’s intelligence. And I pointed out that Patterico has an entire tab dedicated to “Morons”. And I was going to point out that Joe Biden’s nickname around here is “Slow Joe”, and that the intelligence of Obama, or Biden, or some other Democrat/liberal is insulted on this blog on a near-daily basis. And you never say “boo” about any of that, and you never responded to the point.

    I disengaged, because DRJ weighed in, and DRJ… well, DRJ’s DRJ. But you could respond now – how do you account for that? How is my attack on Bachmann’s intelligence unfair, in light of things she’s said, but all the attacks leveled on liberals totally fair, based on things they’ve said?

    I’m interested in sorting this out, because (again) I think you’re an intelligent commenter. But I’d like some sort of explanation for this selective criticism.

    Leviticus (35fbde)

  34. Dmac…it is interesting that in her FNS interview with Chris Wallace, Mrs. Palin (right at the end when asked about who she thought was the front-runner GOP candidate for 2012) brought up Cong.Ryan’s name as a “bright, articulate” spokesman for GOP principles of small, limited government.

    AD - RtR/OS! (cc3695)

  35. In other words, happyfeet, it’s best if you stick to insulting liberals. That’s all well and good, and never gets old, but its annoying when you criticize Palin for perfectly legitimate reasons.
    Comment by Leviticus — 2/8/2010 @ 12:16 am

    If you go back, there isn’t a defense of Palin as much as people getting sick of the constant Palin-bashing. I get just as annoyed when every single comment by someone unfairly bashes President Obama or anyone else. If every comment was for a legitimate reason there would be no problem. The incessant personal attacks that marked happyfeet’s comments are no different than when a troll bashes Rush Limbaugh beyond policy and into lies or misrepresentations about his personal life. happyfeet has been a troll every time he brings up Palin and suggestions to dial it down a notch were ignored. Having the sheer gall to try and turn it around on me as a psychological blindspot pissed me off. If feets can’t tell the difference between lovie-style worship of President Obama and people getting sick of his Sully-style attacks, that’s his problem. If he wants to continue getting personal with me, that will become a problem for him as well.

    I’d vote for Palin, just like I would any of several people who I believe represent my views. I’m content to wait and see who runs first before getting too invested in a campaign that doesn’t even exist. If the GOP runs another McCain, they can forget it and I think President Obama might get a second term. Until the Republicans get the message that conservatives are tired of “10% less crap” sandwiches, they deserve to lose. We get the government we deserve, including the current one.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  36. Comment by Stashiu3 — 2/8/2010 @ 2:12 pm

    Here, Here!

    AD - RtR/OS! (cc3695)

  37. Or: Hear, Hear!
    (I never can get that right)

    AD - RtR/OS! (cc3695)

  38. “Hear! Hear!” is right. 😉

    Icy Texan (7c3e19)

  39. Oh, my. Leviticus is touchy, and is unhappy with me. I think it is because he is young, and has the very natural antipathy toward authority figures. It makes me sad, since I may be a college professor, but I am no authority outside my own field of expertise. In any event, I am very familiar with the “rebel internal leitmotif” but it doesn’t wash. I have seen lots and lots of progressives claim to be “above partisan bickering” and yet their voting record suggests otherwise. Ditto from some conservatives, of course.

    But the accusations of double standards on my part kind of sounds like hurt feelings. Again, not precisely a mature attitude. Who cares what I write?

    I’m not sniping. Just being accurate. Historically, Leviticus has not exactly been the Enemy of Double Standards, since I p0wned him by using his own argument on him a while back, and was delighted to seem him criticize me for what he was doing himself. It’s why I did it at the time, to show he was being contrarian.

    And the funny part of it is, I like the gentleman. He isn’t just some nasty troll. I don’t agree with Leviticus on most topics, but we are at very different points in our lives.

    But I don’t want to fight with Leviticus. What I will say is that JD tends to treat trolls harshly. I haven’t seen him be rude to people who politely disagree. In fact, I can think of plenty of occasions when JD has been pretty positive about Leviticus. But JD responds to trolls as if they are, well, trolls. And he particularly doesn’t care for hypocrites.

    Which is amusing, since Leviticus accuses me of being that exact thing.

    Oh well. I really and truly don’t care if Leviticus is angry with me. No big deal. As I have written many times, I wish the gentleman well.

    As for Mr. Feet, I was responding to trollery. I think what Stashiu3 wrote is the best policy: see what they do. Incidentally, as I have written repeatedly, I wouldn’t care if Mr. Feet had said that he disliked Sarah Palin because (fill in the blank) was better because of (fill in the blank). Instead, I read post after post of comments trying to see how close he could get to sexism.

    I would rather hear alternatives. If I want to read snarky sound bite attacks, there are other sites to go to.

    Anyway, sorry for the sermon.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  40. Hahaha. She used her palm to write crib notes. And during this same speech she ripped Obama for using a teleprompter. It is this kind of hypocrisy that makes people like her conservative heroes.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  41. Something tells me that our cotten-headed friend has written more than his share of crib notes. Except for tests, not speeches.

    What do you think, folks?

    I still think high school for this, um, less than optimal person.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  42. So “Doctor” Blair: Are you suggesting that because you think that I did something it is okay for Palin?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  43. Intelliology, whose already shown its own incompetence, now shows that it does not know the difference between writing three words on one’s palm versus having to read a comment from a teleprompter that even inserts pauses.

    By the way, Intelliology, do you know how to pronounce “corpsman” ?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  44. SPQR’s dictionary:

    incompetence (adj) – like, when I link to something that proves another fellow poster’s point, ‘ceptin that he is a libturd so it doesn’t count.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  45. SPQR, this troll-ette is just playing games.

    He or she can try to make light of my degrees. But I did earn them. What degrees does the little troll have, again, since she is are so certain that only “ignorant” people disagree with her about science?

    Considering she or he already revealed he or she knows nothing about the subject.

    Little troll, I could care less what you think. You are just trying to play games. Pfft. Go away.

    I think you have to dry the dishes about now, don’t you? Or maybe it is time for more beer pong.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  46. #44: children shouldn’t post on their parents’ computers. Time to go away or act, well, more like a grown up.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  47. Intelliology,
    Where your scientific proof that carbon dioxide is the main cause of present warming, given that CO2 increases historically lag warming by hundreds of years?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  48. Intelliology, still trying to rewrite history.

    And failing.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  49. Now, SPQR, you leave the troll’s grades out of it!

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  50. “Doctor” Blair:I’m a male, you misogynistic butt-clown. I guess that shows how ‘enlightened’ you are, with your attempt to denigrate me by referring to me as a female.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  51. Yes, it is definitely young. Very young. And very defensive about gender misidentification. Probably happens to it all the time. 😉

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  52. That brother bradley fikes, she sure is a sweetheart. And an awfully good debator, for a woman. I’ll bet she cooks a mean meatloaf too. She’s so cute when she’s wrong, that little woman, her.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  53. ROFL, Brother Fikes.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  54. Ah, it’s so cuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuute when it recycles the schoolyard taunts it receives!

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  55. Ha! You just admitted how idiotic and juvenile “Doctor” blairs taunts were.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  56. And don’t worry, “Intellliogy,” I don’t expect you to answer my question on global warming. That’s grown-up stuff you couldn’t understand.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  57. First of all, I appreciate you responding to my post. Like I said, I do want to hash this out.

    “Historically, Leviticus has not exactly been the Enemy of Double Standards, since I p0wned him by using his own argument on him a while back, and was delighted to seem him criticize me for what he was doing himself. It’s why I did it at the time, to show he was being contrarian.”

    – Eric Blair

    You did nothing of the kind; you did the thing I was doing in an attempt to prove that it was wrong, when it wasn’t, and I didn’t object (because there was nothing wrong with it), and you claimed that you “powned” me. If you know what post that was, go ahead and link to it, and people can decide for themselves – if that’s what you actually want.

    “The accusations of double standards on my part kind of sounds like hurt feelings. Again, not precisely a mature attitude.”

    – Eric Blair

    I would just like you to address the substantive points of my previous post: why is Patterico allowed to call people “Morons” without you claiming that he’s out of bounds? Why do so many conservative commenters get to call Obama all kinds of names and insult his intelligence without rebuke and I get jumped on for doing the same with Michele Bachmann? JD’s harshness extends beyond trolls, but he has no more evidence that Obama is a moron than I have evidence that Bachmann is. So what gives?

    I mean, I say “pissed off” in the sense of “perturbed at an intellectual level”. That’s about as pissed off as I get about stuff that happens on the Internet, so don’t worry about it too much – it doesn’t seem that you are. But I would like you to answer these questions, if you are willing. I’ll try not to drag this out too much, but it is what it is.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  58. “Use your head, Agent Coulian” sorry was channelling
    “Usual Suspects” for a minute there, everyone raise
    their hands, if they think she didn’t know, energy, tax cuts, and the renewal of the American spirit
    were the goals. All right lower them, but you never
    read her book, any of her speeches, op eds, or campaign appearances

    ian cormac (7b6e35)

  59. It is an interesting fact & does seem to be true that the older one gets, the less upset one is at hearing one’s gender mis-id’d. Confess I hadn’t thought of Intelliology as being “older” or “younger” till I saw that.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  60. “why is Patterico allowed to call people “Morons””

    Because “Morons” is ok. “Retarded” is not.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    imdw (017d51)

  61. I am a flawed person, Leviticus.

    JD (7cdb18)

  62. NOYK,
    Eric Blair was the first to stop the telltale signs of whiny babyhood in the troll. All that’s missing is the pacifier and rattle.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  63. Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 2/8/2010 @ 7:04 pm

    Which question is this? Can’t you just get SPQR to find a link that proves my point? He is good at that.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  64. And it wants others to do its homework. High school, tops.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  65. Comment by Leviticus — 2/8/2010 @ 7:05 pm

    That is how “Doctor” Blair works. Anybody who disagrees with him is automatically immature and younger than him. He’s like the yoda of misogynists.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  66. You forgot jingoistic xenophobic homophobic imperialistic warmongering racist.

    JD (7cdb18)

  67. Intelliology, still trying to revise history. My link established that you had lied. It did not prove your point.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  68. Intelliology – forgot to call him a homophobic racist too. Just sayin’

    JD (7cdb18)

  69. I’ll let you go ahead and do that for me JD. Thank you for joining in on this conversation; you were invited.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  70. Let’s pretend we’re all gender-neutral rainbow-colored humanoids of indeterminate age who want to discuss topics.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  71. Comment by DRJ — 2/8/2010 @ 7:45 pm

    Pretend?

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  72. Comment by DRJ — 2/8/2010 @ 7:45 pm

    Pretend? :)

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  73. DRJ – Do I have permission to comment? Apparently, I am mean, and Idiotology thinks people need to be invited.

    JD (7cdb18)

  74. DRJ, I’m mauve.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  75. #69 DRJ:

    humanoids

    I’m humanoid?

    Cool, I’ve just made a huge leap up the evolutionary ladder!

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  76. Jeez…I come back from dinner with the family and find all this!

    Leviticus, I wish you well, but you clearly have an awful lot of spit saved up. So best wishes with that. Just remember to give yourself the examination and sensitivity you send toward others. I’m not trying to fight; just an observation. But there is no point in arguing with you. Best wishes.

    As for Baby Troll, well, I think his (how ironic he found being called a woman insulting) diaper is pretty full by now, metaphorically speaking.

    Just one further thing. I don’t care people getting irritable with me. JD has never been rude to a person who had not been rude in the first place. Go read over his posts. Yes, he thwacks trolls. But that is entirely different from people with whom he disagrees politically.

    I don’t much care for trolls either.

    Anyway, if there is more monkeyshines to be had, do have a great time with it. I’m going to read a story to my children tonight, then grade some more papers.

    I remind myself that posting here is supposed to be fun. Sadly, for trolls, it is…but for unusual reasons.

    Pleasant evening to all….

    Eric Blair (c2a27d)

  77. Now we need to form NAAIP.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  78. “Leviticus, I wish you well, but you clearly have an awful lot of spit saved up. So best wishes with that. Just remember to give yourself the examination and sensitivity you send toward others. I’m not trying to fight; just an observation. But there is no point in arguing with you. Best wishes.”

    – Eric Blair

    DRJ – You are on this thread, right? In normal circumstances I would not do this, but I would like to ask you to go on the record (as the closest thing to a universally respected individual on this blog): in my interactions with Eric Blair on this thread, have I or have I not been perfectly reasonable in my lines of questioning, and have or have not my questions been perfectly reasonable?

    I hate to do this. I don’t like it at all, and don’t want to set some sort of precedent that puts you in the middle of every little spat that erupts on this blog – and because of that, if you decline the request altogether, I will completely understand. And if you do answer, and say that I have (in one way or another) been unreasonable in this thread, then I will completely understand that as well. But, with those disclaimers in mind, I’m going to ask for a trial by a jury of my peers – what have I said that’s indicated any sort of desire to “fight”, or made it clear that I have an “awful lot of spit saved up”? What have I said that indicates that it’s pointless to argue with me? Am I going completely nuts?

    JD – I said in the thread that I have no problem with you or your comments; much of the time, I think your assessments of prominent Dems and insistent trolls are spot on, and I don’t begrudge you them in the slightest. But my point in all of this is that I get scolded like a little kid for making similar assessments of prominent Republicans, and you don’t. And Patterico doesn’t. And very few conservatives on this blog do. So that’s a double standard, right? Is that not the definition of a double standard?

    Intelliology, imdw –

    This has nothing to do with you guys. Frankly, having you on my side doesn’t help my case in this crowd; you haven’t exactly gone out of your way to build the requisite social capital.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  79. Leviticus – I think a lot of the prominent Republicans are douchenozzles too.

    JD (a6eddf)

  80. I know that. And you say it sometimes, as do I. But I get jumped on for it, and you don’t.

    The funny thing is, I don’t even care that I get jumped on for speaking my mind; and I don’t mind admitting that I’m wrong (when I am indeed wrong), or admitting that I have no reasonable justification for a certain opinion or thought (when that is indeed the case). But this… this is just some serious bullshit, and I’m sick of Eric Blair acting like he’s being the reasonable one here, and I’m asking you guys to step up and call him on it.

    It takes a village, after all.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  81. Leviticus,
    You’re a credit to your ideology :-)

    Seriously, despite the friction with Eric Blair, we would not dream of likening you with Intelliology or the other trolls. And there will doubtless be a kum-bay-ah with EB in the near future.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  82. I know you wouldn’t, and I know he hasn’t, and I hope there is. But this is a sticking point for me. I’m not gonna have a kum-bay-ah with someone who refuses to admit when he’s wrong. I’ve done it plenty of times on this blog; is it to much to ask that other people do the same?

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  83. Lookit, Leviticus. You made a very troll-like Hasty Generalization and I hammered you on it. Eric Blair came in and tried to moderate the situation, wanting me to back off you. And you jumped all over him for it. And you’re still jumping.

    John Hitchcock (12878f)

  84. Leviticus and Eric Blair,

    I think the best way to resolve this is with a Patterico-style duel in which your weapons are words and ideas. The rules are:

    1. Agree on a topic or question to be debated.

    2. State each other’s position on the topic or question to the satisfaction of the other party.

    3. Debate the topic or question without insults, ad hominems, mischaracterizations of position, etc.

    4. Provide links where appropriate or requested.

    If you both agree (and I hope you will), I’ll set up a post for your use.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  85. Leviticus,

    I’m not gonna have a kum-bay-ah with someone who refuses to admit when he’s wrong. I’ve done it plenty of times on this blog; is it to much to ask that other people do the same?

    Not at all; I’ve certainly made and apologized myself for numerous wrongs. And Eric Blair would certainly not claim he’s always in the right. So let’s see what tomorrow brings.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  86. Ha ha ha ha…

    Dude, this has nothing to do with you.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  87. The only caveat I’ll add is that I think it should be a political topic. And if the problem is more personal than political, feel free to suggest other solutions.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  88. “Eric Blair would certainly not claim he’s always in the right.”

    – Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R.

    No, he would not. That’s true. But there’s a big difference between not claiming you’re always in the right and actually admitting you’re wrong. And one’s much harder than the other.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  89. #88 was for John Hitchcock, by the way.

    [Edited to change comment # from 89 to 88. I’m having problems with comments in the spam filter and it’s affecting the other comments. — DRJ]

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  90. DRJ – I’m willing to engage in a “Patterico-style duel” (man… it’s been a while since we had one of those); the problem is (from my point of view) certainly more personal than political – unless you want to call an objection to double-standards a political problem – but I still think the same format would work. Whatever method is fine with me. I’m sure Eric Blair has a much busier schedule than I do, so I would say allow the whole matter to take place with his schedule in mind, but I’m fine with the general idea of hashing the thing out for everyone to see.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  91. Leviticus, go back and reread 17, 18, 19. This is where this thing blew up yet again. I stand by my 85.

    John Hitchcock (12878f)

  92. I know what you were talking about, and I reiterate: this has nothing to do with you. I’m trying to stay polite, here: you are wrong.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  93. Here’s the thread where this whole argument between Eric Blair and I started, by the way – at least, this is where I think it started.

    http://patterico.com/2009/11/26/the-lefts-war-on-sarah-palin/

    Y’all are welcome to go through it and see the whole thing for yourselves, if you care. And I totally understand if you don’t. But I think my words speak for themselves throughout, and I think I’m in the right on this one.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  94. Leviticus and Eric Blair,

    I’m about to burn bridges here and I’m not looking forward to it.

    I’ve only had time to skim this thread but, Leviticus, I believe you have been polite on this thread and that goes a long way with me. However, I also believe your first comment was inflammatory:

    In other words, happyfeet, it’s best if you stick to insulting liberals. That’s all well and good, and never gets old, but its annoying when you criticize Palin for perfectly legitimate reasons.

    I think happyfeet has made some legitimate points about Sarah Palin but not all of them were “perfectly legitimate.” Your phrasing not only suggests that the points were all legitimate but, more important, implies that all we care about is insulting liberals. Maybe you feel that way and it’s fine if you do, but don’t expect us to agree with you. It’s true that many of us are conservatives and, as a liberal, you may certainly feel out-numbered but I hope you don’t feel unwelcome. I think that counts for something.

    As for Eric Blair, you are also polite but you sometimes come across as patronizing with commenters who you believe are young. I encourage you to focus on the message and not the messenger. For one thing, we rarely know each other in “real life” so we don’t really know anyone’s age, gender, race, etc. More important, why does it matter who someone is? What matters here are our words and ideas.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  95. I posted my last comment before seeing your last link, Leviticus, but I’ll try to read it tonight.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  96. DRJ – that comment absolutely was inflammatory, but it was leveled in light of what I identified as preferential scolding for the maintenance of unsupported views (which is particularly important in light of the fact that the dispute between Eric Blair and myself has largely orbited around a notion of double standards, each thinking the other to be guilty of applying them – the thread I mentioned should shed some light on that).

    Again, I really appreciate you helping to mediate this; I hope Eric Blair and I are able to sort this out, and if we do it will due largely to your assistance. So: thank you in advance for that, or at least for your efforts. Consider no bridges burned whatsoever.

    With that, though, I’m going to sign off for the night. It’s not that I wouldn’t like to continue, but I feel as though I’ve already said too much without giving Eric Blair time to weigh in and articulate his own perspective on these matters. So, sorry about that, and good night.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  97. A lot of people are in dire need of bed-rest.
    Good-night!

    AD - RtR/OS! (3884b0)

  98. My comment regarding Eric was unsolicited, uncalled for, and wrong. I apologize and I’m going to take AD’s advice and take a break.

    DRJ (84a0c3)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4925 secs.