Sarah Palin’s Future
[Guest post by DRJ]
Toby Harnden analyzes Sarah Palin’s chances in 2012 and he doesn’t like them:
“The hatred of Mrs Palin by the east and west coast elites – to whom her very accent is an affront – is not shared by most American voters. But polling shows that the former vice-presidential candidate has some serious problems on her hands if she is to pursue her presumed ambition of winning the presidency in 2012.
A recent Gallup survey found that 63 percent of voters would not seriously consider her for the presidency next time around. She remains very popular among Republicans but among independents – who will decide the next election – her favourability rating is just 41 percent.
This is not snooty elitism – it’s based on the perception that Mrs Palin’s track record is thin and that while she has real star quality her political prescriptions are vague. Sound familiar? That may have worked for Barack Obama in 2008 but Americans are likely to want much more substance next time around.”
Instead of running against President Obama in 2012, Harnden thinks Sarah Palin should challenge another O — Oprah. Palin would have good personal reasons to avoid running in another national political election. She cited the cost of ethics probes to Alaska and criticism of her family as the reasons why she resigned as Governor of Alaska. She’s also making more money from giving speeches and writing books than she could earn as an elected official.
I like Sarah Palin. I voted for her in the last election and I would vote for her again. Today’s anti-Palin sentiment doesn’t bother me because I believe Palin will be remembered as someone who opposed Obama’s policies, a history that may resonate with voters in 2012 (especially jobless voters). So I disagree with the bottom line of Harnden’s analysis: Palin isn’t Obama-lite, she’s the anti-Obama, and I hope she throws her hat in the 2012 GOP primary ring because she will energize Republicans as they face an election against an incumbent President.
However, I’m also willing to consider the value of having Sarah Palin in the world of television celebrities. More than any conservative I can think of, she could help get the conservative message out to the demographic where the GOP needs it most — with unemployed and low-income women and minorities who are more likely to watch daytime TV and vote for Democrats.
Thus, if conservatives want to win the culture war [Edit by DRJ: In other words, the conservative agenda of lower taxes, less government, abundant energy, and more jobs], then having Sarah Palin on daytime TV might be a good place to start … but I still hope she runs.
— DRJ
Sarah should know better than to seek further association with the Republican party as it is presently constituted. If this party is so enervated and losery that it can’t even come up with a solid and robust primary challenge to the toxic John McCain, then there’s precious little hope for it I think.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:37 pmI’m in kind of a mood tonight.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:37 pmI voted for McCain, but also would gladly have accepted Palin as president compared to the disaster called Obama. So I hope she runs, and reaches out to independents and Libertarian-minded folks.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:37 pmI think tv is brilliant and then she can take Begich’s seat. She has no chance at becoming president at in 2012. The little president man’s media is still way too strong.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:40 pmAnd here is Andrew Sullivan, ostensibly talking about Sarah Palin, but really talking about himself.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:41 pmjust *in* 2012 I mean… not that I wouldn’t vote for her I just think it’s hopeless. Too many R ones would be trying to kneecap her besides.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:41 pmhappyfeet,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:44 pmState-controlled media is declining rapidly. Who knows what shape it will be in 2012?
there are unknown unknowns I guess. I don’t know how many.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/14/2009 @ 10:56 pmDon’t link Sullivan, unless you mean to ridicule him, he’s like the slime trail from Ghostbusters.
bishop (4e0dda) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:02 pmbishop,
Read my comment again, then read Sully.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:12 pmI agree there’s some projection there, Bradley.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:15 pmSince she quit as governor, I’m not convinced that she can convince voters to give her a chance at the top job. OTOH, she really gives the left a big pain in the ass and you can tell they’re terrified of her. She has star quality and fundraising ability so I think that she’s not going away, even if she doesn’t run for President.
trentk269 (ce2dd2) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:16 pmDRJ,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:19 pmThat’s exactly what I meant by saying Sully was “ostensibly talking about Sarah Palin, but really talking about himself.”
Palin’s priorities are fairly obvious given the rollout agenda this week after showing some campaign thigh and tossing some tease. On TV’s Oprah first, an Obama supporter to be sure, the perfect platform to peddle books and dish dirt, tattle ‘n talk and only on radio’s Limbaugh near week’s end to quench the thirst the desert-wandering dittoheads. Photogenic, effervescent and deeply shallow, Palin’s a perfect perfect for television– a medium she is comfortable in when she’s in front of the camera talking tough, but not answering tough questions. Are you watchin’, Rupert? Are you watching, Roger? She has an appeal on TV Rush just doesn’t have, Rog. A show about nothing is falling into your laps, fellas. Greenlight this baby and count on some high numbers- ratings and revenue both. A lucrative TV future is waiting for all ‘parties’ (she knows which redlighted camera to look at already) and could springboard to another run some day– under a new ‘Conservative Party’ banner, whose members will overlook her quitting the Alaska governorship. You go, girl!
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:19 pmThe troll’s Limbaugh envy is really unbecoming, but not surprising. Plenty of people, including myself, pay to download Limbaugh’s podcasts, and have bought Palin’s book. Far fewer, if any, would pay to read the troll’s keyboard vomiting.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:27 pmPalin is smart enough not to bow to foriegn potentates.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:30 pmDSCA, You missed a couple of taling points concerning Sarah.
highpockets (86fb07) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:36 pmI see the projection, Bradley, but my objection still applies, it’s bearded spock universe out where he hangs his hat. She was in sports journalism for a while, and she was on radio, for
bishop (4e0dda) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:37 pmthe interim between the time she resigned from the commission, and she ran for governor. But she is a doer not a talker as a general rule. You think that she likes the idea, she won’t be able to oversee her signature project to completion,
or be the grownup in the pork obsessedlegislature.
It’s a crazy world where plastic people or worse get the nod, and genuine honest civic minded people get the boot.
Thus, if conservatives want to win the culture war, then having Sarah Palin on daytime TV might be a good place to start … but I still hope she runs.
Winning the “culture war” is the infrastructure that animates conservatives and mobilizes the base? I don’t see opposition to abortion, gay marriage, welfare growth and bed-hopping office-holders quickening the pulse of today’s independents.
steve (ec55d3) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:45 pmsteve – Todays independants are supporting the Republicans by 22 percentage points over the Dems, 52% to 30%, according to Gallup. (Which is the Dems goto poll because Rasmussen was showing their support nosediving.)
Have Blue (854a6e) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:51 pmsteve,
The culture war to me doesn’t mean social conservatism. It’s the basic conservative message of lower taxes, less government, abundant energy, and more jobs.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:54 pmWell that’s not really her gig, as Austin Powers would say, she is personally opposed to abortion but sees persuasion over a legislative strategy. she reversed a anti domestic partnership vote by
bishop (4e0dda) — 11/14/2009 @ 11:56 pmveto, She works out to ACDC and named her youngest
in part, after Van Halen, That doesn’t sound like
the Tina Fey caricature at all does it.
Todays independants are supporting the Republicans by 22 percentage points over the Dems, 52% to 30%, according to Gallup.
I’m guessing it was the health care reform debate that took that independent vote from a 1-point GOP advantage in July to the current 22-point gap.
Not any ongoing “culture wars.”
steve (ec55d3) — 11/15/2009 @ 12:03 amAh, DCSCA is back from rehab again. Notice the silliness continues. There is so much to laugh about. We can start by his quite explicit sexism…which stems, I think, from his current “party of one” relationship status.
Then we move on to the now obligatory slap at Limbaugh (who nods, sips from his gold plated martini glass, and chuckles at DCSCA’s very obvious jealousy).
For me, the grandiose claims of expertise never disappoint from this serial fabulist. I’m starting to think this guy pushed a broom, rather than have serious discussions with so many famous people, world wide. It’s more Walter Mitty than Zelig.
But the line from a so-called journalist and media expert is the hysterical use of the term “deeply shallow.” Like “jumbo shrimp.” Or “journalistic integrity.” Even “level-headed DCSCA.”
Again: never a surprise.
Eric Blair (711059) — 11/15/2009 @ 12:12 amDJR: Congrats on the best descrip of Palin: “not Obama-lite, instead she’s the anti-Obama”. That’s exactly right, in every (almost) important. But to draw independents and moderates, she would have to become a political Fiscal conservative (which she is) and shed part of the other platforms, the moralistic conservative ones. She’d have to straight up, announce that she’s pro-choice. If she can’t do that, then my wife and countless others could never vote for her. Wouldn’t matter if Hugo Chavez of Barack Obama was the opponent.
SteveB (d71a0b) — 11/15/2009 @ 4:53 amNo doubt about it, the “party” is over.
All over the print and electronic media this week, the poobahs and pundits are predicting major Republican gains in next year’s elections. What is their basis for so bold a prediction? Historically, the party of a sitting president always loses in the midterm elections. It is as natural as autumn following summer. However, they fail to take into consideration one crucial factor: this is no ordinary time.
Given their weird behavior in the last year or so – and given the fact that they will only continue to self destruct in coming twelve months – I cannot foresee them gaining any serious ground in either the House or the Senate on Election Day next. In fact I can only see their numbers diminishing even further. By this time next year, Sarah Palin will be yesterday’s news – count on it.
We can only hope that out of the carnage of the GOP’s destruction will come a third party that is a tad more moderate and thoughtful – and I must emphasize the word “Hope”. Than ain’t never gonna happen, baby! It’s easy to predict that the Democrats will be running things for a long time into the future. The problem with that little scenario is, as Machiavelli said, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” – and the Democrats already have more-than-their-share of corrupt political hacks. For every Russ Feingold there are about ten Max Baucuses. If the Democratic Party is going to be taken seriously in their self-proclaimed roll as the “the party of the people” (and that’s getting harder to believe by the day) they need to be purged of their dead weight.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Tom Degan (c828c0) — 11/15/2009 @ 5:55 amWinning Iowa made Obama look serious in spite of his lightweight record. Palin wins Iowa and New Hampshire and she sweeps.
Momentum is a big deal in getting voters to vote for you.
HeavenSent (01a566) — 11/15/2009 @ 6:37 amI disagree with Toby Harden’s analysis. To argue that Palin has no chance in 2012 based on polling data from 2009 is absurd.
Palin has been attacked from the day McCain announced her as his selection. The McCain campaign muzzled Palin in the face of the attacks. Palin now has a chance to re introduce herself to the country and is starting on the Oprah show. The more exposure Palin gets, the more she can show who she is. If the dreaded Independents see her for who she is and not through the eyes of the left’s attackers, they might well like her. If they do, then woe be to those who have initiated all these attacks. Those people will have lost all credibility.
Rick
Rick Caird (0ceb78) — 11/15/2009 @ 8:43 amDegan, your comments completely ignore the fact that it is the Democrats who are coming apart with their incompetent legislative activities on display, and the failure of their pork laden stimulus.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/15/2009 @ 8:46 am“By this time next year, Sarah Palin will be yesterday’s news – count on it.” I would be willing to bet a few bucks on this one.
PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 11/15/2009 @ 8:52 amStashiu, have more respect for that spam filter.
Bob Woodward made an odd comment on This Week. He said, speaking of Sarah Palin, that “No president has been elected because of a book.”
Huh ???
Obama’s book was what got him attention in the first place. Without that first book, he would have gone nowhere.
Sarah Palin is an enormously interesting person. I was in favor of McCain choosing either her or Meg Whitman as VP nominee as I knew about her for a while. I think she was badly served by the McCain people but she also did a poor job in those two interviews. Her performance was inexplicable as the first thing a politician learns is to lie when they don’t have an answer. I don’t know why, for example, she didn’t name the Anchorage Daily News as a newspaper she reads. Obviously, she reads it. I think she just froze. That was a consequence, possibly, of poor planning buy the staff of McCain because she has said she wanted to do friendly interviews first.
Anyway, we don’t know how she will do over the next two years and she may do very well. If not, the problem will solve itself. It is interesting how hostile all the elites are to her. Juan Williams was practically showering the others with spittle this morning on Fox.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/15/2009 @ 8:58 amI think it would be fun to see Mrs. Palin as a talk show host. She couldn’t do much worse than Steve Wilkos.
antibody (936216) — 11/15/2009 @ 9:08 amI think this hits an essential truth, and it is an obstacle she may not be able to overcome by acting as a populist virtual “backbencher”, as she is currently operating. I say this as a fan – I would vote for her, will defend her to the ends of the earth against the BS she gets every day.
I just think she will be the right person at the wrong time.
A common observation of recent Presidential elections is that, in at least one important aspect, the people vote in the opposite of the current President, especially when changing parties. To whit:
Bush(1) – Clinton: Staid – Rambunctious.
Clinton – Bush(2): Undisciplined – Disciplined.
Bush(2) – Obama: Stubborn loyalty – “Under the bus”
I’m afraid that after 4 years of the current amateur hours the country won’t want to give a go to another politician with a similarly thin resume (that sadly, includes resigning as Governor), regardless of her policy positions and how good we think she would be.
Jeff Weimer (952d52) — 11/15/2009 @ 9:11 amFWIW, Tom Degan is a mental midget.
JD (7e3655) — 11/15/2009 @ 9:13 amHer fatal flaw as a presidential candidate is she is a woman. Women will not vote for her. Every man knows, though we are not allowed to say this, that chicks hate each other.
Ersatz (c48ce9) — 11/15/2009 @ 9:17 am^^^^^ It isn’t worth much, JD.
antibody (936216) — 11/15/2009 @ 9:19 amSo for SteveB, Chavez or Obama as potus trumps protecting the unborn from federal laws and taxpayers funds going toward their murders? And here I thought that it should be up to individual states to pass abortion control laws. Clearly, SteveB is happy with the socialistic control of all facets of our lives by national governments run by the like of despots such as the Monkey (hugo) and Urkel (the magic negro). God help us as so many think just like him.
aoibhneas (6d7589) — 11/15/2009 @ 9:20 amI love the way Palin brings out the sexist pigs on the left.
SGT Ted (c47cc2) — 11/15/2009 @ 9:42 amSGT. So the left is sexist when they talk about Palin, but the right is not racist when they talk about Obama. Double-standard, anyone?
antibody (936216) — 11/15/2009 @ 9:45 amHow is it racist to call Duh Leader the magic negro when the term originated with a left coast leftard who is also black, gay and Jewish? Oh, I forget that Obama is God incarnate to so many Americans who for some reason also have fantasies of having sex with said god. Hope! Change! Cluelessness! America Bad! The religion of peace great! The media is unbiased!
aoibhneas (6d7589) — 11/15/2009 @ 9:53 amDevelop our own energy, support the troops, promote economic growth, fight encroaching
bishop (4e0dda) — 11/15/2009 @ 9:54 amgovernment, defend the constitution. What you’re going to get more out of Romney or Huckabee, get real.
I had thought that, after W, the 2008 election would be about Competence. Turns out I was wrong. But if the Republicans want to oust the current president, Competence is a contrast they should seek. Sarah does not exude it.
How about Bill Gates?
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 11/15/2009 @ 10:08 am40-So using that logic, we just need one conservative pundit to use vulgar words to describe Palin and we can go ahead and jump on the bandwagon?
antibody (936216) — 11/15/2009 @ 10:10 amIf you thought the 2008 election was about competence or sensible policies, after all ‘he’s
bishop (4e0dda) — 11/15/2009 @ 10:13 ama good man, and we should give him a chance’ don’t
know what planet you were on, honestly
Just wondering….Does anyone think Sarah Palin would curtsey [bow]to any royality if she were President? Seems unlikely.
Mike H. (4be787) — 11/15/2009 @ 10:14 amHer fatal flaw as a presidential candidate is she is a woman. Women will not vote for her.
Anti-abortion women will.
For non-evangelicals, her feminist cred isn’t burnished when she rallies the largest pro-life banquet in the world. Opposing embryonic stem-cell research doesn’t engage moderate women, either.
steve (bb0cd7) — 11/15/2009 @ 10:19 amDegan, I’m a bit of a Machiavelli completist, so I’m kicking myself for missing where he said “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Perhaps you can help me out here. Alternatively, perhaps you are thinking about Lord Acton, in which case you are missing an important caveat. “Power tends to corrupt …”
You seem to be off by about 360 years chronologically and a significant amount of degrees mentally. Also, exclamation points should be avoided except in dialogue.
Uncle Pinky (e4d7c2) — 11/15/2009 @ 10:26 amsteve, you’re right that her social views won’t appeal to everyone.
But I think DRJ has such a great point when she notes that Palin won’t be remembered simply as a social conservative. She will be remembered as someone who is completely credible as an anti-Obama. Obama is hugely screwing up the economy and our foreign affairs. The election won’t be about abortion or gay rights (if it were, it would merely be a draw that Palin leans to the right). It will be about Obama’s economy and our foreign policy. If such things don’t hurt Obama, then damn… I guess he deserves reelection, and no republican has a chance against him.
But, if the economy has not improved by 2012 (I think the RINOs are wrong when they say it will), and if the world is a worse place generally, then Mitt Romney or other wafflers will be much less convincing than Palin, who was clear and consistent, even when it wasn’t popular.
Yep, if the GOP has a chance in 2012, that’s because Obama’s actions are unpopular. Therefore, only a true and credible anti-Obama candidate has a chance. If other Republicans with more experience are able to also be anti-Obama and beat Palin, we all win.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/15/2009 @ 10:26 amThere’s this idea that the economy is inherently str4ong enough to overcome all these regulations, uncertain taxation environment, and political hatred in the form of salary caps and other uncertain rules.
It simply is not. People will hold on to their investment ideas right now. Fewer than half a dozen companies went public so far this year, if I recall correctly. It’s too expensive to do so. It’s unpredictable how much you will be allowed to earn if you run one of these screwed up companies. It’s not clear how much you’ll be taxed, or how you’ll compensate your employees, or what energy rules are coming.
How can the economy rebuild? It’s simplistic in the extreme to just assume it will because it did when Reagan or W or JFK were in power. It will not, unless a lot of people believe they can get rich (which is the devil these days).
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/15/2009 @ 10:34 amoh. I remember this lady what the little president man’s dirty socialist media uses as a cat’s toy and gets away with it cause the majority of American have been convinced that they don’t much care for her. At this point the media knows that the Sarah Palin is toasty toasty toast but they just keep tormenting her cause it’s demoralizing for the R people and it’s classic Alinsky. And you Sarah Palin cultists are what more than anything else enable this highly successful campaign what is doing very much a lot to abet the little president man’s election chances.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/15/2009 @ 10:37 amSarah Palin for president-Confederate States of America.
Pinandpuller (ac62c3) — 11/15/2009 @ 10:38 amshorter me: that target on that cover up there is frozey frozey frozen and the R people have failed failed failed to do a damn thing about it
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/15/2009 @ 10:40 amI think for the most part that the R people, certainly Meghan’s coward daddy’s R people, have been convinced to be embarrassed by her.
This is a problem.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/15/2009 @ 10:45 amIt wasn’t about competence – witness the current occupant. It was more about certainty vs. “nuance.” This guy tries to outthink himself while Bush was the “decider”. And that is a difference in competence all in itself. The Marines have a saying (I paraphrase): “A decision made right now on incomplete information is better than the right decision made when all the data comes in”. If you wait too long for all the information to act upon, you are incompetent.
Jeff Weimer (952d52) — 11/15/2009 @ 10:47 amIf other Republicans with more experience are able to also be anti-Obama and beat Palin, we all win.
It will be an uncommon brand of Republican who is “anti-Obama?”
The electorate likes to rotate the tires every four or eight years. This is not brow-furrowing complicated. It’s a constant.
steve (bb0cd7) — 11/15/2009 @ 10:48 amsteve, I don’t think you’re understanding my point.
Palin is CREDIBLE as anti-obama.
Mccain is not, Romney is not, Huckabee is not, and Pawlenty is not. In fact, many of the people that are going to be lining up as anti-Obama, will have changed their views on the government, as the wind shifts.
The democrats will be able to exploit this easily. Palin’s been very consistent, and will be known, for her leadership in opposing basic government corruption, health care takeover, and various other aspects of Obama’s ‘leadership.’ That’s simply a bigger competent of her electoral chances than her abortion stance.
I’m not sure how your point about the public rotating presidents applies to what I said. I also don’t really agree with that. Obama was supposed to have kicked off a massive shift that would last 40 years. It is his policies that have changed that, not the public’s boredom with his 10 months of policy.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/15/2009 @ 10:54 amDustin, people of your ilk who fail to acknowledge her own stretching of the truth or straight up lies during her VP campaign will be subjected to a harsh reality when these same shortcomings that surfaced just over a year ago are rehashed if she runs again.
antibody (936216) — 11/15/2009 @ 11:00 amI don’t know if Sarah will be running in 2012, let alone the nominee. I do have an idea about what she needs to do now and a suspicion that she is thinking that way, too.
Like McDonnell in Virginia, she doesn’t need to talk about social issues. Everybody knows where she stands (or thinks they do) so she can concentrate on a libertarian agenda. She has some credentials there with the energy issues.
She needs to burnish credentials on foreign policy and remember what a poor job Bush did in that area, not even knowing Mushareff’s name when he was a candidate. She needs to meet with people like Netanyahu and I’ll bet she meets him in the next couple of months. Obama’s approval ratings in Israel are 2%.
She gave a talk in Hong Kong and I can see her in China next spring. China is far less sexist than Japan. Women are assertive there and are also in short supply due to the idiotic one-child policy. She will get a good reception.
Europe will be less receptive as they will mirror the coastal elites contempt.
Her best theme will avoid the social conservative issues as they are a given for her. Even so, the lefty elites will go batshit over them, thereby making her look ever more moderate. That’s how she gets the independents.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/15/2009 @ 11:01 amacknowledge her own stretching of the truth or straight up lies during her VP campaign
Like I said, the lefties go batshit. That just makes her look moderate. List the “lies” or admit you are a fool.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/15/2009 @ 11:04 amOK, I’ll bite. What “stretching” and “lies” are you talking about?
Jeff Weimer (952d52) — 11/15/2009 @ 11:06 amBridge to nowhere.
Luxerious hotel stays for her and the kids.
Shady mayoral deals including some preferential treatment in the sale of her home.
etc.
You are a fool. I admit it.
antibody (936216) — 11/15/2009 @ 11:08 amYou’re a fool to rely on the AP’s tendentious talking points. She repurposed the funds for the bridge, She stayed in NY with her family, you wanted her to stay at a motel.
bishop (4e0dda) — 11/15/2009 @ 11:15 amLies from the lefties are nothing new. The luxury hotel stay story has already been debunked. We need better trolls.
Here is an excellent comment about the lefty criticism of the book and why I look forward to reading it. Some political consultants are going to regret their sniping and may even have to find honest work.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/15/2009 @ 11:18 amHere’s the takedown of the AP, with relevant hyperlinks:
bishop (4e0dda) — 11/15/2009 @ 11:31 amhttp://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/11/fact-checking-fact-checkers
With the influx of trolls on this thread, I have to wonder how many of them are sock-puppets.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/15/2009 @ 11:39 amA great many I suspect, like the flying Bugs on Klendathu
bishop (4e0dda) — 11/15/2009 @ 11:43 amThe Bridge to Nowhere is a legitimate criticism of Palin, as I’ve said before. She accepted a fait accompli that Congress wouldn’t fund it, and tried to spin it as her own act. But that is a molehill compared to the mountain of lies and foolish/dangerous decisions Obama bears responsibility for.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/15/2009 @ 12:15 pmbishop, that link doesn’t work but you can go to the main website and scroll down.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/15/2009 @ 12:17 pmWhile watching Stephanopoulos today it occurred to me why so-called conservatives like Brooks are so dismissive of Palin: whereas they were completely taken in by Obama she saw right through him and wasn’t afraid to describe what she saw. Palin is a constant reminder of their own stupidity. And cowardice.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 11/15/2009 @ 12:22 pmBob Woodward’s statement that no one ever won the presidency by writing by a book is true and appropriately takes into account the authorship of Dreams.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 11/15/2009 @ 12:33 pmTerry Gain,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/15/2009 @ 12:34 pmGullible is the word that comes to my mind about Brooks and his ilk. Obama talked about Edmund Burke with Brooks to flatter Brooks’ ego, and Brooks just lapped it up. What a fool!
Ha! Compared to what? The accuracy and truth of oblameless and hairplugs. Puh-lease!
President Mop (44bf37) — 11/15/2009 @ 12:38 pmYeah those alleged Sarah Palin lies sure look horrible when you stack them up against the two faced forked tongue tour we saw from Obama-Biden.
Her inexperience probably can’t stand up to that high bar of experience the Amateur/Rookie President Obama sets…. he can at times deliver great speeches. That is the sum total of his contribution to our nation thus far.
Sarah Palin is the anti Obama and the anti elite Washington. She is also the anti elite academic class.
I don’t know if someone who is so much of an outsider can get elected because of how the elites control the media.
The Republican elites hate her and will gladly go on TV and give great quotes to the newspapers tearing her down. The Democrat elites hate her even more and will continue to try to destroy her.
All this is too bad for the country, because we need a return to more practical common sense leadership and less of that fake shiny veneer that passes itself off as polish and sophistication.
Washington is full of gleaming fakes and frauds and I don’t know if Sarah Palin is the antidote for that, but I doubt she’d hurt the country as bad as Obama will.
I think Palin is way more decisive than Obama. She’d have decided on Afghanistan months ago…
SteveG (97b6b9) — 11/15/2009 @ 12:42 pmI suspect antilogic cannot back up any of those assertions with any facts whatsoever. I also suspect antilogic is one of several puppets found on this thread.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/15/2009 @ 12:45 pmI find it interesting that the majority of the criticism of Sarah Palin is that she is a “Social-Con”, yet she never ran for Governor on that platform, but emphasized the same policy positions that carried the day for Bob McDonnell in VA three-years later: Small Government, Low Taxes, Infrastructure, Good Governance.
AD - RtR/OS! (603f4e) — 11/15/2009 @ 12:51 pmAny position she advocated for during the ’08 Campaign would not have been hers (since, per se, VP’s don’t set the agenda) but would have been the agenda and policies of the Presidential Candidate: John S. McCain.
The Left has been on a Crusade for almost a year-and-a -half against a strawman of their own creation,
and it seems they’re losing.
Oh, and BTW, just how many “Ethics Complaints” have been filed against the Governor of Alaska since Mrs. Palin resigned?
AD - RtR/OS! (603f4e) — 11/15/2009 @ 12:53 pmAD – RtR/OS!,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/15/2009 @ 12:56 pmThe left/MSM goal is to depict Palin as a right-wing fundamentalist extremist, to frighten away independents and Libertarian-minded folk.
“…no one ever won the presidency by writing by a book…”
I seem to remember a book that came out back in the Pleistoscene Age (pre-Vietnam) that garnered a tremendous amount of attention for it’s putative author, garnered a Pulitzer, and was used as a launching pad to the 1960 Democrat Party Presidential Nomination, and subsequent election as President of the United States:
Profiles In Courage!
But hey, I’m not going to contradict Brooks or Bernstein, for they work and write for the two best media outlets in America.
AD - RtR/OS! (603f4e) — 11/15/2009 @ 12:59 pmWhat I don’t see talked about is the devastating crash of confidence in elites. The financial crash has been a nasty example of how these people do not understand the derivatives they constructed and the politicians do not understand them any better. I reviewed an excellent book on Amazon that shows how things got out of control. Why should anyone believe that these people know the solution when they didn’t understand the problem in the first place ?
In her (Not Palin) book, she points out that Brown Brothers Harriman remained a partnership when the go-go firms who supply all the Democrats’ advisors went broke with other people’s money. Is there a lesson there ? Look what they are doing with other peoples’ money now?
One aspect of Palin’s attraction may simply be that people are tired of the experts who ran the country into the ground. Gore is now seeing protestors at every speech. Maybe it’s time that common sense and modesty have a chance.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/15/2009 @ 12:59 pmSorry…Woodward, not Bernstein.
AD - RtR/OS! (603f4e) — 11/15/2009 @ 1:00 pmI think Sarah Palin is exactly the kind of candidate that the majority of the US wants, if they had the chance to get a semi-objective view.
She is a person who became involved in politics from the ground up, for real, and because she saw problems that needed to be addressed. In addressing the problems, she took on the entrenched interests in her own party first. She is for no-nonsense tell the people what you will do and then do it, not cow-towing to the policial pundits.
But…
I think 2008 has shown that no rational family person need run for President as a non-Democrat, unless they and their family is ready for the political equivalent of the game they play in Afghanistan where they fight over a live goat, that ends up getting ripped apart.
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 11/15/2009 @ 1:01 pmComment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 11/15/2009 @ 12:56 pm
Well, they have their agenda, and those of us who wish to restore and preserve the Republic, have ours!
AD - RtR/OS! (603f4e) — 11/15/2009 @ 1:03 pmIf Palin is serious about running in 2012, she will have to address the charges of lying, half-truths, etc., that Andrew Sullivan has laid out recently. (For a number of reasons I view Sullivan as a major league slimeball, but that is beside the point) I have no idea if any of the points raised by Sullivan have merit, but you can bet that every MSM org. will be copying them and using them in various ways to smear Palin and they have to be dealt with seriously.
BT (74cbec) — 11/15/2009 @ 1:12 pmShe is an exciting personality and there are many many things to like and respect about Palin. At the same time she brings a number of weaknesses to the political table– and to ignore that fact is just not realistic. The vicious, unfair and undeserved hatchet job that has been done on her and her family has created/damaged her image to such a degree that it will prevent her from ever being elected to a national office. (The old “you can’t unring a bell” issue.) However, I believe she can be an even MORE powerful influencer and shaper of big ideas from outide the political system. IMO her greatest move right now would be to take some of the wind out of her critics’ sails by announcing that she has absolutely no interest in running for president or vice president ever again—but that she plans to spend the rest of her life supporting candidates and exploring issues she believes in, in order to help restore the United States of America to a country we can once again recognize.
elissa (a7a9c5) — 11/15/2009 @ 1:17 pmBT, I disagree to some extent. Answering dishonest charges is not the way to go, although some dishonest charges must be destroyed. That’s all the left has against Palin: lies about her. And they are on the heavy offensive with their lies.
Instead of going on full-defense mode, Palin and Conservatives need to maintain a heavy offense mode and push the leftist liars further into defense.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/15/2009 @ 1:21 pmElissa, I understand your sentiment but I disagree. Tea Party folk and 912 folk, who never before protested anything (and left places cleaner than “mother earth greenpeace” type protesters), have seen first-hand what the media tried to do. And word-of-mouth is a b… is a pain.
That’s the thing about grass roots. It’s how more grass is spread everywhere. And that’s exactly what the elites and their wholly-owned MSM are fighting now.
And now is the time for a woman of integrity to take a hardy stand against the liars and with the grass-roots that have been awakened. There is no time like now, and I feel the circumstances of today are indeed a once-in-a-lifetime event.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/15/2009 @ 1:28 pmIt is my view that Palin would do really well in the US Senate. She can promote her ideas and have a national platform to keep in the public eye. The issues raised by elissa are right on. Palin is going to need time to rehab her standing after the lynch job the D’s and MSM did to her. Personally I don’t think 2012 will be a good time for her. Although she has some real weaknesses, I like Palin but she needs some seasoning and she is very young and there is plenty of time to run for the big office is that is what she wants to do.
BT (74cbec) — 11/15/2009 @ 1:31 pmThe interesting part is how Sullivan never has to justify his own gyno-hatred. He still won’t back off on his Trig Trutherism, and thus he should be laughed at.
But the rest of the MSM (and you, apparently) take his comments seriously. And the MSM, so concerned with sexism just a short while ago, has to make Archie Bunker blush when it comes to Sarah Palin. That’s okay, though, because she doesn’t have a Magic D after her name.
I mean, what if someone made up stuff about you, and then attacked you for not responding to every bizarre statement (and keep in mind that Sullivan has gone waaaaay over the hedge).
Come to think of it, do you know Sullivan’s sordid little history? Personally, I think that every time he mouths off about hypocrisy, his own little history with that term (think “bug chaser”) needs to be repeated.
It’s only fair.
Remember this: if Sarah Palin had gone on record supporting gay marriage, Sullivan would be supporting her to the hilt. Do you need to know anything else about his intellectual honesty?
Eric Blair (711059) — 11/15/2009 @ 1:32 pmPrognosticating today what the future holds two-three years away in the fluid atmosphere of politics that currently exists is impossible.
Who knows who will be best able to defeat Joe Biden’s bid for a term in his own right?
AD - RtR/OS! (603f4e) — 11/15/2009 @ 1:34 pmDefending oneself against lies only lends credence to the accuser and the lie itself. Why one earth do that? And of all deranged, mentally unhinged accusers, Sullivan? No way.
Palin needs to control the conversation and not allow anyone to determine (or demand) it for her. Allegations and accusations backed up with evidence and from reputable sources are one thing, a demented wanna-be gynecologist is another thing altogether. And should be duly ignored.
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/15/2009 @ 1:37 pmOff the top of my head, I can think of 290,000,000 people vastly more qualified than Joe Biden for POTUS.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/15/2009 @ 1:38 pmI’m not arguing with you JH, I’m just advancing a scenario that he will be running for election as a sitting President in 2012.
AD - RtR/OS! (603f4e) — 11/15/2009 @ 1:43 pmAD, that is full of innuendo.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/15/2009 @ 1:48 pmYou betcha!
AD - RtR/OS! (603f4e) — 11/15/2009 @ 1:49 pmE. Blair, I am well aware of Sullivan’s history, and in case you missed it, there is a parenthetical in my comment concerning Sullivan’s lack of character. However, regardless of what you or I think of Sullivan and his lack of credibility, he is taken very seriously by the MSM and he has one of the largest readerships on the internet. Like it or not he is a player.
You can pretend all you want that his views don’t matter. I disagree. My view is (and only if she is truly serious about running for President someday) that she will in some way have to address his charges as they will be repeated by the (insert you favorite media outlet here). She has to take the air out of that balloon.
The stuff Sullivan raises won’t hurt Palin with conservatives but it may with Reagan Democrats and independents. And those are the voters she will have to appeal to to get elected. She can’t win on conservatives alone.
BT (74cbec) — 11/15/2009 @ 2:03 pmBradley, thanks for the link to the pant crease hilarity. It seems Brooks knows he’s a whore but can’t help himelf.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 11/15/2009 @ 2:06 pm“…Reagan Democrats and independents…”
I didn’t know that those working-class church-goers were big supporters of Gay-Militant hysterics –
AD - RtR/OS! (603f4e) — 11/15/2009 @ 2:08 pmprobably why Gay-Marriage has failed virtually everywhere it has been on the ballot?
Everyone knows Sullivan lost his mind when Bush came out and opposed gay marriage. He’s written more lies about Palin than anyone. He needs to be dismissed out of hand.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 11/15/2009 @ 2:09 pmNo! What he needs is a knuckle-sandwich and a trip to the orthodontist.
AD - RtR/OS! (603f4e) — 11/15/2009 @ 2:12 pmAnd your support of that idea empowers him. You say you dislike his dishonesty; have you written letters to his bosses at The Atlantic about it? Have you gone on boards to say that you do not trust a word coming out of his mouth, and post evidence of his partisan hypocrisy and over the top craziness?
I would bet cash money you have not. I have done these things, and so have a number of people here. So rather than wave your hand and say “that’s how it is,” why not have some genuine “hope and change”? We hope we can get the press to quit being partisan. That would be change everyone should believe in, Right and Left. A good way to start would be to complain about mentally twisted liars like Sullivan every time he publishes more poison.
And before you say that approach doesn’t work, why, the President of the United States has been going after an entire network, and a particular radio personality, personally. So the Left doesn’t think like you do.
And they are counting on people like you, to take the attitude you display here (an attitude that they themselves do not share, to repeat myself).
Because it isn’t policy with Sullivan. Or many of these characters. It’s personal. Don’t help them, which what you are doing does.
And this isn’t about Palin. This about putting a stop to MSM dishonesty.
Do your part. I find it ironic that I read your message, and then I see a post about Lindsay Graham.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 11/15/2009 @ 2:14 pmhe is taken very seriously by the MSM
You mean a little rag outfit like The Atlantic is an integral part of the MSM? Sorry, but after Michael Kelly’s unfortunate death, they’re a shell of what they could have been.
And what other huge MSM outlets have published Sullivan’s insane rantings?
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/15/2009 @ 2:44 pmPalin needs to show that she is competent in policy matters, not respond to hysterical accusations that do not merit a response. She can do that by being briefed by good advisers, by meeting world leaders who are not in love with Obama, like Netanyahu. I think he is one of the most impressive people in government right now. I wonder if Sarkozy might not want to talk to her. He knows how it is to run against the conventional wisdom. I think Britain right now is hopeless because Cameron is such a squish but there may be people who would like to see what she is made of. She has already been to China.
This is what she needs to do. When the debates come in time, she needs to say, “Well, Prime Minister Singh thinks…” He is a potential interlocutor for her because Obama is busy dissing India. It can be all low key but Singh has little to lose it seems to me. In fact, there are a lot of traditional US allies who have little to lose because Obama seems to be determined to alienate all of them.
I think this would be a dynamite strategy for her because, a) the men will want to meet her because she is gorgeous, and b) they have little to lose with Obama and might even believe it would give him pause.
I hope she does something like this.
MIke K (2cf494) — 11/15/2009 @ 4:08 pm39.SGT. So the left is sexist when they talk about Palin, but the right is not racist when they talk about Obama. Double-standard, anyone?
Opposing neo-Marxists isn’t racist, despite your Alinsky inspired attempts to paint it as such.
If Obama were a free market pro-liberty individual rights who supported the US Constitution politician, as opposed to the socialist, “fundamentally change America” black racist church attending bully who cannot brook dissent, I would support him.
Its blockheads like you who can’t stand dissent, nor can you argue the merits of his ideas, so out comes the “racist” smear. So, for calling me a racist: Fuck off, asshole. I bet I’ve had more racial minority bosses than you. But at least they were competent, unlike your Personality Cult icon Obama. Try again, but this time use an actual arguement.
SGT Ted (c47cc2) — 11/15/2009 @ 4:27 pmAny accusation left unchallenged is assumed to be true, no matter how ridiculous. Bibi would be some
bishop (996c34) — 11/15/2009 @ 4:44 pmone she would easily accomodate since they have similar interest, he’s the Likud maverick. She also met the Lithuanian Defense Minister when visiting the troops in Germany back in June.
There’s at least one review of Palin’s book that actually tells readers what’s in it.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/15/2009 @ 4:49 pmThus, if conservatives want to win the culture war [Edit by DRJ: In other words, the conservative agenda of lower taxes, less government, abundant energy, and more jobs], then having Sarah Palin on daytime TV might be a good place to start … but I still hope she runs.
DRJ, this is actually a pretty accurate assessment. Palin’s future may very well be more of a queen (or king) maker rather than becoming one herself and she’s tasted the bittersweet wine from that keg already. The potential for her tapping the demographics you cite and expand a party base is valid. She’s a personable and likable individual to be invited into viewer’s homes with a show. And with the advantage of a media platform all her own, Palin can shape her own message, recruit fresh voters and still maintain the option to run sometime in the future. Perhaps against HC in 2016, which would present the electorate with a clear alternatives.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 11/15/2009 @ 7:58 pmYou know the irony about Burke and Niebuhr, they would be the philosophers who by temperament would
bishop (996c34) — 11/15/2009 @ 9:01 pmmost probably object to Obama’s plans. The former opposed the French Revolution, the latter was skeptical of most government endeavors
“favorability of 41%”
Wasn’t Slick’s highwater mark 43%. You think the GOP can’t finish third locking out Palin.
Try us.
gary gulrud (75a696) — 11/16/2009 @ 9:13 amI agree with DCSCA in 106.
Palin is tremendously powerful. There’s really no good way to tell how popular she will be in 3 years, but there’s every reason to believe her word will be tremendously influential.
If the GOP presidential nominee is not someone in line with Palin, they have absolutely no chance. And this applies in many smaller races. I would think it’s a shame if Palin is reduced to TV host like Oprah, but maybe I’m being unfair.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/16/2009 @ 9:22 amSomething new .. Fabricated news stories .. in Alaska.
There is an irony here that goes beyond words.
Neo (7830e6) — 11/16/2009 @ 11:25 amWhy would anyone in the right mind set, want a president named Sarah Palin? She is Anti Government and she is a hater of all that Obama stands for.
Fred (ac59e8) — 11/18/2009 @ 6:10 pmShe doesn’t know the issues. Shes like the majority of the people on this rag, Obama haters.Who are Anti Health Care though, people are dieing, it won’t stop the things that the Lord has preordained.
Fred, what did you think of her book? I understand it’s full of ideas, proposals, and policy details. you say she doesn’t know the issues… is that because you read Newsweek and the Washington Post? Those sources are simply not considering Palin’s command of the issues.
Read her book.
You made a comment about how we can’t stop death. That sounds very much like the talk from Obama admin members about why we should ration health care. That leads me to think you are referencing Palin criticizing a specific ‘cost saving’ measure in the health care proposal… one that she used hyperbole, ‘death panel’, yo articulate the valid concern about a democrat bureaucracy trying to save money by cutting funding for life extending measures.
Palin has never said she hated Obama, but a lot on the left have said they hate Palin. In fact, it’s quite clear that the hatred against Obama refers to his policies (the issues), and hatred of Palin in very personal, sexist, and a refusal to even consider her views on the issues.
That’s what you’re doing, Fred… you’re telling us that you won’t even acknowledge that Sarah has any view on issues. This was the left’s one big chance to stop Sarah. It has passed, and now Sarah’s gaining momentum.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/18/2009 @ 6:45 pm[…] And here’s my reminder why she’d make a good Republican Presidential candidate: Palin is the anti-Obama. […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Sarah Palin, Man of the Year? (e4ab32) — 12/31/2009 @ 7:39 pm