GOP Establishment Scrambling for Alternatives to Palin in 2012
Forgive me for a bit of looking ahead past tomorrow’s GOP romp, but at Hot Air Headlines (Politico story; no links for bullies!) this story seems to have generated some interest:
“There is a determined, focused establishment effort … to find a candidate we can coalesce around who can beat Sarah Palin,” said one prominent and longtime Washington Republican. “We believe she could get the nomination, but Barack Obama would crush her.”
. . . .
Few, if any, Republican officials want to challenge Palin’s credentials in public, but most speak dismissively and condescendingly about her in private. They think she would kill Republican chances with independents and conservative Democrats frustrated with Obama’s expansive agenda.
Just because they’re the establishment doesn’t mean they’re wrong about this.
My prediction is that we have a devastating victory tomorrow; that Palin runs for the nomination; that she wins it; and that she loses to Obama in 2012.
There, I said it.
Sarah Palin stands for the right things, for the most part. She is weak on immigration, but seems to have a genuine concern for the principles on which the country was founded. She isn’t ready to be President, in my view, but she would certainly be far better than Barack Obama, who also was not ready (and it shows).
But could she get elected? I doubt it. Americans understand that the media is biased, but they also expect candidates to be able to rise above that bias, and handle an opposition media with a Reaganesque spirit that uses humor to deflect criticism. I have not seen evidence that Palin has that facility. Mainly for this reason — and because she quit the governorship in Alaska — I think she would indeed lose badly against Obama.
Supporting the “idea” of a candidate, as some have, ignores the fact that we have to go to bat with real people. This is the same sort of thinking that is willing to accept losses in ten consecutive elections, even though that would turn over control of the Supreme Court for generations and shred our Constitution in the process.
The Christine O’Donnell campaign was so hotly debated because it was a proxy for the Sarah Palin candidacy. When Sarah Palin watched O’Donnell on YouTube saying “I’m you,” it probably hit home more than with most.
Tomorrow will be interesting. We will see where we win — and where we don’t. Moving forward, the issues will be: will this new group be the same yahoos as we have always had — and do we have a prospect in 2012 of changing this dynamic and finally getting people in office who are responsible about spending and limiting the extraordinary size and reach of government?
The key thing is not the individuals, but the policies — recapturing our government from a cycle of two sides that are both too content to maintain a big-spending, future-mortgaging status quo. Unfortunately, we need individuals to implement our vision. I don’t think Sarah Palin is that person.
Then again, I don’t see anyone else who is.
P.S. But we will crush them tomorrow. So at least we have that!
If the republican establishment wishes to avoid a Palin candidacy they had better get serious about fiscal responsibility and debt reduction…….
gahrie (ed7a50) — 11/1/2010 @ 7:04 amFirst off, I feel sorry for you today. First day back in the office after 2 weeks away is murder. However, if you’re lucky, someone else will prosecute that murder and at least take that much off your plate.
Second, actually I think Palin has responded to quite a lot of media bias, and other attacks, with humor. Whether it was Reaganesque or not, I don’t know. But it’s pretty tough to smile about people attacking your children.
Third, you’re right. She’d probably lose. We’ve got a timing problem. All of the very BEST possibilities for a great Republican president are too new and inexperienced. Rubio, Christie, Palin. The alternatives are much less exciting people who seem suspiciously likely to compromise – Pawlenty, Romney, Huckabee, etc. There’s no sizzle there.
If Palin were content with the role, she could be a better king-maker than a queen.
Gesundheit (aab7c6) — 11/1/2010 @ 7:07 amPalin will run, but she’ll lose in the primary. Keep in mind that all predictions this far out are essentially exercises in futility – who would have even mentioned an unknown and inexperieced Senator from IL at the same point in time the last election cycle? Palin will get her clock cleaned in debates by either one or more of the following possible candidates: Christie, Daniels, Ryan – the list will only grow from here on out. Granted, she’ll suck a lot of the oxygen over the next year or so, but overall the public is getting sick and tired of her and her family’s bizarre dynamics, if not now then shortly hereafter.
Dmac (ad2c6a) — 11/1/2010 @ 7:08 amSo maybe the lesson of the last couple of cycles is letting the candidates actually debate issues with one another. I don’t care about journalists interviewing candidates; that can turn into fluffing or unfair attacks, as we have all seen.
But letting the candidates present themselves to the public, for good or for ill? That would seem the best approach. At least to me.
And that goes for both parties.
Eric Blair (dcced2) — 11/1/2010 @ 7:12 amMy message to Washington (and others) as posted at the WSJ-Online today…A Manifesto:
Frederick Douglas wrote once that the equality (and Freedom & Liberty) of Blacks in America, and ultimately of all persons, rested on Three Boxes:
The Jury Box;
The Ballot Box; and finally,
The Cartridge Box.
Tuesday, we will discipline one unruly group by giving power back to a group that was previously disciplined.
To my GOP brethren, I just say:
Don’t blow it this time, or there will be Hell to pay in the future!
We do not want you deciding what kind of light bulbs we use;
We do not want you deciding what kind of toilet we flush;
We do not want you having access to every $600 transaction we make;
We do not want you deciding what form our health insurance takes.
We do want you to maintain the sovereignty of the Nation by securing the borders;
We do want you to maintain the security of the Nation by defeating all those who threaten us;
We do want you to maintain a sound Dollar;
We do want you to recognize that your powers under the Constitution are limited and defined;
We expect you to minimize the impact of Government on the everyday lives of the citizens of these United States!
This is what is expected of you.
AD-RtR/OS! (273260) — 11/1/2010 @ 7:34 amIf you are unable, or unwilling, to accede to these desires of the electorate that you purportedly Represent, then we will find a new Government to lead us.
Remember, we are a Country with a Government, not a Government with a Country!
As to Palin-2012:
AD-RtR/OS! (273260) — 11/1/2010 @ 7:43 amIf the economy continues in the doldrums no one in Washington will be safe in ’12, and that particularly includes Teh Won.
If he blocks every attempt at economic revitalization by a GOP lead Congress, he might end up the reverse image of Harry Truman in ’48:
The Do-Nothing President!
In that scenario, even the Huckster could win.
But, this country is not going to replace a failed President who came out of the Senate without any executive experience with another Senator without executive experience;
The trail to the White House in ’12 starts at one of the Several State-Houses.
We’ll be very tired of Empathy, and demanding Leadership.
Can the Sarahcuda demonstrate that leadership?
That’s what the next eighteen months will determine!
Man this primary is going to be awesome. But I don’t think Palin wants to run.
imdw (53b665) — 11/1/2010 @ 7:49 amPalin would wipe the floor with Obama simply because he is an idiot and she is not. She can actually think on her feet and doesn’t need a teleprompter to tell her what to think or say. I would also say that her humor is one of her strongest assets so when Patterico cites that as a weakness I can tell that he hasn’t paid much attention to her.
None of that matters in the least to me though. Better to have an idiot who will implement the right policies than a genius who will do the wrong thing.
The only reason Palin is vilified in the press is because the left fears her. That tells you all you need to know. What a bunch on Rinos in Washington think is not even remotely relevant at this stage. The people quoted off the record in the Politico article are the Crists, Murkowskis and Specters of the Republican party and the sooner we are shed of their ilk the better. The Tea Partiers have done an excellent job smoking those whack-jobs out in this election cycle and if they think it is going to be business as usual once the Pubbies have a majority then they are going to see a replacement party rise up to become what the Republicans were supposed to be.
Palin understands all of this.
Last Chance for the Pubbies (29afdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 7:53 amIf she DOES throw her hat in– as opposed to others trying to pull her in– she’ll lose a lot of votes from the folks who believed her when she said she wasn’t going to try it.
Foxfier (24dddb) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:02 amYou make a lot of assumptions, Patterico.
You assume that the Republican nomination will be worth something in 2012. If the Establishment keeps control of the Congressional delegation and just nibbles at the edges of Obamacare and makes not large hacks at the budget, that may not be the case. Maybe you missed Limbaugh’s 3rd party threat while you were out.
You assume that the party will continue to listen to members who won’t support party candidates if they don’t get their way. A person who will openly diss party candidates (rather than keeping their —- mouth shut) isn’t necessarily one that gets to choose the next nominee. See Colin Powell.
You assume that the coming wave owes nothing to Sarah Palin, when in fact much of the enthusiasm that will bring folks to the polls in such lopsided numbers is directly due to Ms Palin’s efforts. She even fills rooms in “blue” towns when Obama cannot. Palin has all kinds of debts to call in in 2012.
You assume you would like the alternative. Huckabee? Really? Romney? Boring.
You assume even if there’s no Tea Party challenge, that a place-holder candidate — selected on the basis of not being Palin — would do anything but infuriate the Republican base. Leading to a WORSE drubbing than you postulate for Palin.
And lastly, you assume that even if we win with some acceptably safe choice that there would be a point to it. Like, say, when we chose Ford over the “unelectable” Reagan in 1976.
Kevin M (298030) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:08 amOh, wait. Ford lost. To Carter.
Kevin M (298030) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:10 amAd
that douglas paraphrase is excellent. i would love a cite for that. that dovetails nicely into recent arguments about how the framers of the 14th Amendment felt about guns.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:11 amI didn’t see her promise not to run. In fact, I thought her commentary was very obvious that she was considering or planning a run.
When did she say otherwise? I agree, this kind of thing should be held against her. I know it’s common, after all Obama explicitly promised not to run for President in 2008, but I expect people to honor their word.
I think she’s quite plainly running, anyway. My worry isn’t that she’ll lose. My worry is that people are underestimating the enormous difficulty involved with running a White House. Bush was brilliant, and made it look easy, and a lot of people think he’s a moron, so now people think Obama or Palin could handle the chaos.
They can’t. Bush had tons of great help sorting the chaos, but he also was a workaholic. Palin was a good governor, but she shows some weakness in handling the unfair chaos. Obama outright hates his job, and the chaos is just getting worse as his staff turnsover rapidly.
My worry about Palin goes beyond her electability. I like Palin a lot, and I suspect she can beat Obama, but is she actually up to the job with only a couple of years experience at a much, much easier job? Does she have enough brilliant support from her circle? That Todd Palin email makes it seem like she doesn’t.
She’s be much better than Obama, having real experience as a leader. But I’m hoping Mitch Daniels.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:13 amon the crushing, there is this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/251662/gallups-final-generic-ballot-numbers-gop-55-democrats-40
my only concern is… its gallup, which always seems funny. so here is a Buick-sized grain of salt on the subject. still, fwiw…
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:14 amIt doesn’t.
If she did this because she loves her country, anyway. I know I do my part too. We’ve got people risking their lives overseas and thousands of volunteers, and actually, other politicians doing much of what Palin does.
You’re the one being presumptuous.
Would Palin’s most loyal supporters refuse to support a candidate other than Palin? Depends on their level of patriotism, of course. This isn’t just about Romney or Huckabee, who I agree are worse than Palin. But it’s disturbing you say the 2012 nomination is worthless, so we might as well give it to Palin. We desperately need a very skilled leader.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:17 amKevin M.
In your long list of supposed assumptions you claim I am making, none of which I actually made, I think my favorite is this:
Did you even read my post? In particular I would ask you to read this part:
You’re arguing with a ghost. I didn’t say or assume any of the things you said, and in fact I said the precise opposite in at least one case.
Ah, the Internet. Nothing beats constant, neverending recharacterizations of your argument. I never get tired of it!
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:20 amThe way I see it if Palin and the America/Americans she represents are disregarded in 2012 than the Republican Party fades in history.
Pagar (eabaa3) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:22 amOn the actual topic of the post, i think that palin is less than ideal to be the next president. since guiliani might run, he is back in my “preferred choice” column, though better options might materialize.
But there is one thing really appealling about her, and chris christie. i believe both of them just might sit down and say, “okay, time to really get the budget in balance. time to reduce entitlements as needed. time to get serious folks.” we need that desperately. But no, i don’t think she has sufficient administrative experience to do the job, although she could do it better than the president.
As for the media, honestly, i never before in my life saw the insane hysteria the media has shown toward her. i mean i thought they were crazy about Bush, but the relationship between genuine cause for criticism v. hysteria has never been so out of whack.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:22 amPatterico, obviously you are a Pawlenty supporter, you admire the hair.
Admit it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:23 amPalin and the Tea party have been villified in the main stream press precisely because the left fears her and the tea parties ideas.
My gut feel is that she will not be able to overcome the bigotory and bias the press will have for her and therefore will be crushed by Obama. While his experience shows, he will have 3 plus more years than she has in 2012.
Huckabee, Romney likewise are passe and/or will only appeal to a small segment of the electorate.
Joe (6120a4) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:26 amPawlenty may be a good choice, especially the way he has handled a democratic house in Minnesota.
Well, SPQR, it is good hair. And he likes ice hockey.
Seriously, Pawlenty can discuss things without a teleprompter. We need to put candidates up against one another, debating.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:26 amI don’t think Palin is going to run for President in 2012. The problem is she has quit as the Governor of Alaska last summer and didn’t finished through her first term. I would like to see Gov. Christie of New Jersey run for President in 2012. Christie said he is not going to run in 2012. Tim Pawlenty might be a good choice.
m (8d321b) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:29 amI thought I would never see another politician as talented as Bill Clinton, but I am not sure anymore after watching Sarah Palin. She is charismatic and very bright. Her biggest obstacle is that she is a woman–race helped Obama, but gender will hinder Palin. The American people may not be ready for a female president–they do not know what a female president should act like since we have never had one. (I think that is what Karl Rove was trying to get at with his remark about gravitas.) The gender obstacle is not a story that the mainstream press will ever tell, but it is reality.
nohype (428b10) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:29 amPatterico, as for the “crushing” to take place tomorrow, let’s go Conan himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PQ6335puOc
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:29 amPalin’s an awesome pundit sometimes, because she doesn’t mince words and she’s often quite perceptive. And she was a good governor except for a situation that wasn’t fair.
She’s be a step up. I don’t think she has what W had, in this circle of awesome advisors and staff loyalists.
Patterico says he doesn’t see any alternatives. I wonder if he just doesn’t want anger from Palin loyalists directed at his preference, but I shouldn’t pull a Kevin M and pretend a position I haven’t seen expressed.
We haven’t fully seen the carping at Obama yet. How he handles the hardest two years of his life is yet to be seen. Palin can beat the Obama I predict will exist in 2012. It would be an awesome repudiation of a lot of hatred (obviously I’m not talking about this post). And then Palin has to manage huge problems with her enormous circle of brilliant loyal advisors. The kinds of people Reagan and W cultivated. Not her husband bitching about a facebook post not being posted.
I don’t think Romney could possibly handle the job either. He’s a lightweight. Huckabee is clever, but he’s basically a democrat. I hope someone steps up.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:30 amDustin–
I agree we need a skilled leader, and I’m not yet convinced it is Palin. But she IS a leader, and is currently the only one visible.
What everyone thinks they know traces to Palin’s performance in 2008, days after being thrown onto the national stage. She was fairly ignorant about national politics, but ignorance does not equal stupidity and is curable. For those that haven’t spent time there, Alaska IS a very different place and one easily forgets that the Lower 48 is more than a source of grief. One of the reasons she had to resign if she was to run in 2012.
I am encouraged that she seems to have regained her footing and the “gaffes” the press reports lately are the press’s gaffes, not hers. She’s not digging any more.
Everything (absolutely everything) that has been said about Palin was said about Reagan. By Republicans as well as Democrats. As late as 1980, TIME was claiming he was unelectable. That doesn’t make Palin Reagan’s heir by any means, but they do protest a bit much.
We’ll see. But right now, I don’t see the alternative and the shirt-rending coming from the Establishment is unbecoming.
Kevin M (298030) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:33 amI will point out that it is a near mathematical certainly that Palin is smarter than the majority of people who think she’s stupid.
Kevin M (298030) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:34 amAll roads lead to Pawlenty.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:41 amWell Said, Kevin M.
Well, that sounds like something that is completely unavoidable. The GOP is in a bit of a civil war and our presidential candidate has to be able to rally both sides of it.
I believe people complaining about Palin are not hoping to promote this ‘establishment’, and that this defense is unproductive. It’s not going to bring us together. But this is probably going to be a very common criticism from paranoid jerks who do more damage than good.
I like Palin a lot, and it’s good to fight the Murkowski type corruption (this is the establishment?). But we need a solid conservative with 100 years of executive experience, handling chaotic problems without embarrassment, with 2 million loyal genius advisors. If Palin’s the closest we can come to that, we do have a light bench.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:42 amChristie would make a great candidate. If he retains his popularity in New Jersey, then a solid-Democrat state would become a likely Republican state in the election. That would be 16 votes the Dems normally count on, and would make it that much tougher for the Dems to win.
But Christie has to continue doing a good job of showing fiscal discipline. If NJ’s economy takes off, he’d be tough to beat. But if NJ’s economy tanks and Christie’s popularity sinks as a result, he’d have no chance on the national stage.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:42 amHear, hear.
Completely right … at least as far as Sarah Palin not being ready, and not having the right personality to overcome the media juggernaut and connect with the mainstream of the American people. Sure, she’s right to complain a lot and point out the media’s flaws, but she hasn’t shown much of an ability to genuinely take it in stride and ride above it as you say.
However, I think the GOP has a great bench of prospective candidates who could win. I even think Jeb Bush has a shot.
Barbour, Pence, and others. The candidate has to be credible with a personality able to handle the campaign as you describe, Patterico, not necessarily widely known yet.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:43 amPatterico–
You can’t say that about an article and not lead one to believe you agree with it. And that article was basically about the Roves and such who are trash-talking Palin. Why should I not assume that this is your position? The rest of your comments didn’t dispel that much.
Kevin M (298030) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:45 amAW…
AD-RtR/OS! (273260) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:47 amThat quote was from one of his books that I noticed cited in a long article IIRC in Commentary, but I can’t recall the author of the article.
I thought I had saved it into the box, but I just ran through that and it’s not there; it is probably on my desk somewhere in a print-out, but good luck on that.
I thought it interesting, as I had previously used a 3-box theory of democracy as The Soap Box, The Ballot Box, and The Cartridge/Bullet Box
(which I cribbed from another source), which may or may not have its origins in Douglass’ writing.
“Palin would wipe the floor with Obama simply because he is an idiot and she is not. She can actually think on her feet and doesn’t need a teleprompter to tell her what to think or say.”
– Last Chance for the Pubbies
Look! Someone expressing an opinion about a politician’s intelligence!
GET HIM!!!
Leviticus (45c763) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:53 amJeb BUSH?
Never in a million years will another Bush be President of these United States
(but, 43 can still throw strikes – if you happened to watch the opening of Game-4 last night)!
As to Palin, and quitting:
AD-RtR/OS! (273260) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:56 amI wonder what CA’s resident Girly Man would have done if this state had the same Ethics Rules as AK, and a determined political oppostion as willing to use them against the Governator as AK’s oppostion groups were willing to use them against the Sarahcuda?
As it was, absent any Ethics Rules, he was emasculated by his political opponents through many of his own poor choices, none of which threatened his (or his family’s) financial health.
Daniels. Pence. did I really read that someone called Romney a lightweight? I don’t like him much, but a lightweight? Give me a break.
JD (a5262a) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:56 amPatterico – Face it, you can’t belong to the sound thinking Republican/principled conservative/classical liberalism/kewl kids club because you don’t know the secret passwords or handshakes.
Unless you exorcise you inner demons and get rid of that candy-assed pragmatism you will never be accepted by our new pure extremist overlords. Off with the heads of the Rino’s, we’ll rule with a majority of the minority if we can get it!
OUTLAW!!!!
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:00 amAd
well, certainly he wasn’t the first to say that sort of thing. i recall alot of the founders of the 15th amendment saying, paraphrase, “we have to give black people the right to vote. it is almost as fundamental as the right to bear arms. its really about self-defense, at the ballot box or with arms.” like i said, a paraphrase, but to me macdonald was a no-brainer.
Lev
Obviously obama is able to speak for himself, although his reliance on the TOTUS is odd. the real problem is his administrative skills, which are negligible. and he is throwing gasoline on the recessionary fire. and he keeps bowing to people, including the asian american mayor of miami. which makes you wonder if he thought “all asians believe in bowing.”
but right now, a hamster would do a better job, just because it would stop doing anything, which would be an improvement.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:00 amConvert or Die!
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:01 am“You can’t say that about an article and not lead one to believe you agree with it.”
Kevin M – He did and he backed it up, in the body of the text. See what he did there.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:03 amI’ll stop resisting when confronted with Seven-of-Nine!
AD-RtR/OS! (273260) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:05 am“Daniels. Pence. did I really read that someone called Romney a lightweight?”
LOL.
I would pick Daniels… he’s a smart guy, a great campaigner, and he’s got a lot of the right experiences for a smooth running White House.
And yes, I said Romney is a light weight. He’s got less experience than Palin does, having basically quit his governorship at two years like Palin did, but letting the state hobble along as he held the title.
He was simply not a strong governor. He’s terribly inconsistent. Many say “well, he ran a blue state”. That’s fine, but he still wasn’t improving the state.
I’ve heard his economic acumen described repeatedly, and I just don’t think it’s particularly impressive. He’s not Fiorina. Other than the Olympics, I haven’t seen much from Romney that shows he’s not a lightweight.
I look to his abilities as governor and think a Romney White House would be very poor. I’ll take Palin over Romney.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:05 amThis argument is as pointless now as it was in 2008. If the Republican powers that be want to make sure Palin doesn’t win the nomination, come up with a better candidate who is capable of beating her–preferably without spitting in the faces of those who *do* support Palin. If they can’t, they need to deal with that and support the party’s nominee, or resign themselves to another four years of the Chosen One (or whoever the Democratic nominee is if he’s had enough and retires to make big bucks speaking to crowds of moonbats).
M. Scott Eiland (27aed4) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:10 amPat, it looks like the reasons you give for Palin losing in 2012 are exactly the same weaknesses Obama has. Are you saying that the difference is really that the press will continue to cover for Obama?
Tex Lovera (30e140) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:18 amYou’re absolutely right. We need to search for someone better than Palin starting right now, relying on reasonable arguments instead of this spit-in-faces thing.
And that goes doubly for Palin’s supporters. Spitting in faces of anyone simply trying to discuss Palin’s flaws will cause rifts. If they say ‘Palin or Bust’, scornful of a lot of conservatives, they should go ahead and resign themselves to more Obama.
I say that as someone who greatly admires Palin. She’s better than the entire 2008 fleet of candidates. If she’s the best we’ve got, that’s not her fault.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:21 amEric, I’m not endorsing Pawlenty, just teasing Patterico.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:28 am“P.S. But we will crush them tomorrow. So at least we have that!”
They will crush you tomorrow, and what you’ll get is a big stick in the place where the sun never rises!
Triumph (0692b1) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:36 amRINO’s still exist and that’s reason enough to never give a dime to the republican party machine. Pick a candidate and give directly to them.
Scrapiron (4e0dda) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:39 amPalin haters are dangerous to the country. Find them and go after them when they are up for election. Several Rep’s bit the dirt this time around, several more have put their head on the chopping block.
For those of you, including Patterico, who continue to write about her resignation, I suggest that you do your homework. She didn’t resign because she couldn’t stand the heat. She didn’t resign because she wanted to make money. She resigned because she was being forced into personal bankruptcy and she and her staff were unable to do the state’s business because of the bogus ethics complaints. Most reasonable people can relate to avoiding bankruptcy. She had two strong reasons to resign and turn the job over to someone who could continue her policies. Had Obama and his minions allowed her to come back and govern, she would be running for re-election for Governor right now.
So to you, Patterico, you owe it to your readers to look at the reality of her situation in July of 2009 before you blast her for resigning.
RefudiateObama2012 (f82fbb) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:42 amTriumph, delusions are among the symptoms of DT’s.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:44 amSPQR —
As you wish, but I won’t be the one purchasing tons of vaseline tomorrow.
Triumph (0692b1) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:45 amDid not Triumph once claim to be a concerned conservative?
JD (f15d6b) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:47 amWhat’s your point?
It’s really hard to see how Palin overcomes this issue. You demanding we do our research doesn’t help. It will be used as a very quick and compelling attack requiring a lot of careful analysis to overcome. Most voters don’t do that analysis. It’s a very hard issue for Palin.
and even once you realize she made a good call to resign, helping her state, it’s clear Palin did not manage chaos well. In fact, she pushed many of the reforms that were used against her. She isn’t corrupt, and it wasn’t fair to sue her. But even after a careful look at why she resigned, she isn’t fully vindicated. And as I said, millions of voters in the center will never get to that point anyway. The jokes will be relentless and even more unfair than ever.
So don’t tell us we can’t bring it up because the complaints were mostly bogus or trivial.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:48 amI think he’s saying he DOES agree with it. Where are you getting that he doesn’t agree with it?
Gerald A (0843ed) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:49 amTriumph, I’m sure you are already stocked up.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:49 amLisa Murkowski hates Palin and is dangerous to the country. That’s not the same as saying people who want a surer shot at beating Jimmy Carter 2.0 are dangerous to the country.
It’s not Palin’s fault if she’s the best option we have, but she’s short of things like ‘reelected governor’.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:52 amPalin for President is a bit too early and a bit too daunting a thought for me at this time. Tomorrow is where my focus lies, as well as the immediate aftermath of spinning and coalescing resolve that may arise.
More concerning (to me) is the schism and animosity within “establishment” party leaders that they feel they need to diminish a skillful spokesperson for certain conservative ideals, rather than work to incorporate those ideals into party platforms, candidate selection criteria and legislative resolve.
If they did that, “Palin for President” would become a non-issue.
John Lynch (7fb472) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:54 am#3 Dmac: Actually, if you look at news coverage from October 2006, around this point in the last election cycle, Barack Obama was already talking about the possibility of his running for president. He appeared on “Meet the Press” about two weeks before the election and said he had thought about it and would look into it further after the midterm.
Joshua (9ede0e) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:55 amWHY DID PALIN QUIT ALASKA GOVERNORSHIP?
1°) Because she was unqualified for the job.
2°) Because she deluded herself into believing in a presidential future.
3°) Because she was too stupid for the job (and remember we’re talking about Alaska, one of the dumbest states in the Union)
4°) Because commissioning a book (she certainly didn’t write one word of it) was much more lucrative than running a state.
5°) Because she wasn’t good at anything that requires more than a vapid gaze and a forced smile.
6°) Because she had ran out of cash to spend for herself, her family and her cronies.
7°) Because she knew it was only a matter of time before Bristol or another of her children engage in teenage sex and get/make someone pregnant, and expose her family as the freak show that it is (And no, I’m not including Trig among the freaks)
8°) Because she’s Sarah Palin and Sarah Palin is no good.
RIGHT?
Triumph (0692b1) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:56 amShe just drives them crazy!
AD-RtR/OS! (273260) — 11/1/2010 @ 9:58 amYou go Girl.
JD —
I’m a concerned conservative, that is, I’m a conservative concerned with the current state of conservatism. Palin is the epitome of everything that is wrong about it; she and her pals need to be beaten as hard as possible so that the other, real conservatives can regain control of the whole thing.
Triumph (0692b1) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:00 amI have no pleasure wishing the GOP ill-luck tomorrow, but very few of its candidates actually deserve to be elected – and Tea-Baggers like Engle, Millor or O’Doughnell are not among them.
http://rlv.zcache.com/puck_falin_shirt-p235475904475830487trdy_210.jpg
Triumph (0692b1) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:02 am“My prediction is that we have a devastating victory tomorrow; that Palin runs for the nomination; that she wins it; and that she loses to Obama in 2012.”
I have to agree with your prediction. Palin will be a HUGE mistake indeed, yet that is what the GOP will do. I say that we will get the house, but not the Senate specifically because we put up mama grizzlies.
Madcap (5083b1) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:02 amCrush? oh pleez….you get the House. pretty normal for midterms.
what would i do if i played 11D chess? pass cap n trade in the lame duck session, and work on immigration for then next two years.
Concern Troll Ross Douthat sees the writing on the wall.
but….a steady 2 year push for immigration reform will make the obstructionist refuglican brand even more toxic to hispanics.
wheeler's cat (2db2db) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:06 ampraps you should run Rubio in 2012.
When people let their mask slip, it is inevitably quite ugly. Triumph proves that.
JD (f15d6b) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:07 amI think that’s very likely.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:12 amThat all may be true, but the public perception is that she quit to make money on the lecture circuit. In politics, perception becomes the reality.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:15 amSigh. The fake Sufi fake science person who reads comic books is back. Complete with weird syntax and spelling.
Of course she doesn’t care about the polls. This always happens. Sigh.
Eric Blair (226de0) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:16 amNo, it’s not pretty normal. What’s normal is for the President’s party to lose some seats in midterm elections, but losing control of a Congressional house is the exception, rather than the rule.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:20 amWhat it comes down to, and this will be unpopular comment #2673 that I make, is that the above point is 100% true and at the same time, many of us who feel she’s not mentally equipped for the job are smarter than Palin and the majority of people who think she’s stupid (she’s not).
The American people, though, want someone who isn’t a little bit smarter than average. They want someone who quite a bit smarter than just that and who has leadership skills, charisma, experience, etc.
Palin has reasonably good leadership skills, boatloads of charisma, and mediocre experience that she walked out on.
She’s not a great candidate for President. She’s someone who appeals to the vast majority of the base who are no more intelligent than she is, and in most cases less.
I’m not saying the Republican base is stupid. It’s average, by definition. Average intelligence, on average. Nothing wrong with that.
A President should be more especially if they’re going to have to fend off a hostile media.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:20 amIn short, Obama could get away without being especially bright or accomplished. Palin can’t.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:22 amGreta Van Sustern made the observation on her site this morning that this article does not name one source for its information. It is sloppy and mean-spirited journalism.
Ken James (9d7ca5) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:23 amThe senate was a long shot to begin with. OD is the most problematic “grizzly” followed by Angle due to some of her past statements. Yet she may win anyway.
VOR2 (c9795e) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:25 amHopefully, what the TP learned this time around was that it is important to have “someone” do a better job of research on candidates who offer to represent them.
I don’t see the electoral math for a Palin victory against Obama.
pretty normal for midterms.
In how many mid-terms since The Crash, did the House change hands?
1930…pretty much a tie;
1946…GOP takes control, loses it back in ’48;
1954…Dems take control;
1994…GOP takes control;
2006…Dems take control.
Four times in Eighty-Years (4 out of 20); that doesn’t sound “pretty normal” to me.
The Democrat Party pretty much ran The Hill continuously for 64 years (1930-1994), passing virtually all of the major legislation that is causing the economy to come apart now – just as Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown initiated most of the foundation (during his previous stint as Gov ’74-’82) at the heart of the collapse of governance in CA today. It would be a “Karma” thing if he has to preside over the ultimate collapse of CA.
AD-RtR/OS! (273260) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:25 amIt will be Perry-Palin or Perry-Daniels
EricPWJohnson (2d1c68) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:29 am“The senate was a long shot to begin with. OD is the most problematic “grizzly” followed by Angle due to some of her past statements. Yet she may win anyway.”
You could be right, but if so, mostly due to the huge Republican wave, and decidedly not because of the quality of the candidates. I suspect that this will be interpreted by the base as evidence for Palin’s strategy, whereas I really think it’s a freq occurrence due to Obama’s and Pelosi’s huge overreach, especially with ramming healthcare down the country’s throat on a straight party-line vote, in the face of majority public opposition, and during the midst of a financial recession, the worst since the great depression.
The tea party rising to fight these forces is great. Palin had an impact, sure. But she is nothing like the reason for any of this.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:30 amYour point is correct. Palin’s answers to any question have all the depth of the beauty contestant she was. And had she kept her day job as governor and done the job well, we might have something else to point to as a qualification.She chose to chase the bucks(no shame in that) over building her resume. Instead she will be only marginally more experienced than the 2012 Dem opponent. Yes, she would be preferable to Obama to all of us, but losing to him CANNOT be an option.
Sadly we must recognize the independents who will decide this election do not view Palin as presidential material.And by the same token, for different reasons but still having to do with appeal to independents, Huckabee and Romney are losers as well. Heck, Ron Paul is preferable to any of the above.
Hopefully some comboniation of Ryan, Christie and Rubio comprises the GOP ticket.
Bugg (996c34) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:30 amWhat is the average number of seats to change hands in a midterm election?
JD (f15d6b) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:30 amwheeler’s cat (#64) engages in goal shifting.
Crush? oh pleez….you get the House. pretty normal for midterms
Thirty eight seats required to take the house. Nobody even one year ago thought that likely.
Historically, the party in power loses some seats in the midterm election, but not in this “emerging democratic majority, hopey changey” time as seeen two years ago.
In fact, since 1945, the house has changed control four times, in 1946, 1948, 1994, 2006. Two of those were presidential, not mid-term elections. So, of the past thirty-eight congressional elections, twice has the party in control been kicked out in a midterm.
As Joe Biden would say “this is a big f..in deal.”
John Lynch (7fb472) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:30 am* should be “freak” not, freq … thinking of physics or my car radio or something stupid 😉
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:31 amI think we should have Scozzafava – Castle, in honor of EPWJ.
JD (f15d6b) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:31 amJD
VOR2 (c9795e) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:32 amfrom http://www.gallup.com/poll/141812/avg-midterm-seat-loss-presidents-below-approval.aspx
Party in power, midterms, number of seatrs, etc.
John Lynch (7fb472) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:35 amComment by John Lynch — 11/1/2010 @ 10:30 am
John, since WW-2 the House has changed hands in the following years:
1946 (Mid term);
1948 (Pres election);
1952 (P);
1954 (M);
1994 (M);
2006 (M).
Four mid-terms, two Presidential’s.
AD-RtR/OS! (273260) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:38 amI would say that the Republican base, mostly small business people and their families are smarter than the Democrat base, unemployed minorities and public employee union members. Teachers are all that get the Democrat base above 100 IQ.
I don’t think Palin has decided about running and she probably won’t if the likely candidate is acceptable. That would be someone like Pawlenty or Daniels. I don’t think Christie will run this time but he might in 2016.
The GOP Congress might save Obama if he can pivot like Clinton did. I suspect he can’t. If the economy starts to pick up, he can go along or he can fight the Congress. Clinton went along and took credit. Take a look sometime at the Dow Jones from 1994 on.
The GOP establishment will fight the tea parties like Bob Dole fought Reagan. I hope they lose because Dole cost Reagan a lot more than just the Senate in 1982. He really sidetracked a lot of Reagan’s agenda. By delaying the tax cut until 1982, he caused the sharp recession of 1981 and that hurt in the 1982 election. The economy began to respond to the tax cuts in 1982 but it was too late for the election. Dole was the one who delayed them and then forced a tax increase the next year.
I was a McCain supporter in 2000 and never liked Rove although his comments are interesting . He was not that good a strategist as he let Bush spend a lot of resources in California, a lost cause, and he concealed the drunk driving arrest which should have been revealed in the spring of 2000 where it would have done little damage. By allowing the Democrats to reveal it before the election, it cost Bush a lot of religious votes and led to the tie in the election.
Marco Rubio is going to be a very prominent figure and could end up on the GOP ticket. He is a good speaker. There are some more tea party candidates that will show how sharp they are once they past the media barrier.
I even think Christine O’Donnell and McMahon could win if the wave is big enough.
Mike K (568408) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:38 amI don’t think she wants to run for the Presidency.
If this election goes well tomorrow for the Republicans, she’ll have a couple of dozen Congressmen/Congressmamagrizzlies in her back pocket. She’s a good fundraiser and fantastic cheerleader. She’s pulled in some good policy advisers and sharp speechwriters.
I’m thinking she’s aiming to be the head of the Republican party. Or maybe…her own party. She’ll have to back a Presidential candidate that can win to do it. I seriously think she’s still fighting against the “Corrupt Bastard” wing of the Republican party.
Xmas (a633e2) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:39 amJD
Sure that turned out well – moderates replaced by liberals! 🙂
EricPWJohnson (2d1c68) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:39 amJD
Have you gone to the FBI yet?
EricPWJohnson (2d1c68) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:40 amThe column is right on, except I am not sure she really wants to run. Sometimes it seems she wants to be the female Rush Limbaugh than run for office. Assuming she does decide to run, someone should take her aside and tell her, “Sarah, I knew Ronald Reagan, and you are no Ronald Reagan.”
Bored Lawyer (c8f13b) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:40 amIn which I defend a Mama Grizzly, with a backhanded intro …
Ed Morissey drives me crazy. He’s a nice guy and a smart guy, and yet he gives the left the benefit of the doubt to the point of obtuseness.
Apparently a Deleware TV station twice “forgot” to air O’Donnell’s 30 minute TV ad, which she purchased last week. This is Ed Morrissey speaking:
It’s certainly possible? WTF?
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:41 amVOR2…Nancy’s approval rating is at 8% according to Rich Lowry at NRO.
AD-RtR/OS! (273260) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:43 amIt’s good that they’re polling those that have been institutionalized, as they certainly do need that help.
AD-RtR/OS!
Not sure I understand your point re Pelosi. It’s Monday and I’m slow I suppose.
VOR2 (c9795e) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:46 amThe FBI? WTF are you babbling about? I will start paying close attention to you when Breitabart is indicted and O’Keefe is charged with a national security violation.
JD (f15d6b) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:46 amAD-RtR/OS! (#84)
1952 and 1954 were changes of the Senate, not the house.
See above link. (at #83)
I believe it is correct, for as far back as it goes anyway.
John Lynch (7fb472) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:46 amHe must know about you donning a Saints jersey earlier this year….
VOR2 (c9795e) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:48 amVOR – why do you hate me?
JD (f15d6b) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:49 amjeez Mr. Patterico you stoled my prediction and I worked really hard on it
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:50 amRun sarah!
w (9df40f) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:54 amWe need another christianist president.
The end times are soon.
The only thing I would change about that prediction is that Palin would get steamrolled by Team HopeyChange.
JD (f15d6b) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:55 amThe media has been absolutely relentless towards O’Donnell. This latest refusal to run the ad she paid for speaks volumes about the fear democrats have of an informed public.
Is O’Donnell my favorite candidate? Obviously not. I think the democrats should be deeply ashamed of how they addressed this challenge, and Delaware should think carefully about what it means to continue to support a democrat senate candidate in the face of repeated unfairness. It makes perfect sense to vote O’Donnell as a protest to this treatment, even if you don’t agree with her on every issue, or even don’t like her personality. The line has been crossed repeatedly. My worst complaints about the primary’s BS are so drastically overshadowed by how O’donnell’s been treated.
And I’m sure this sentiment will be even more pronounced in the 2012 election, no matter who the GOP nominates.
EPWJ, regarding Scozzafava, I am grateful she lost, because if she had won, we’d have a democrat (Scozzafava) running on incumbent power, perhaps even pretending to be a Republican. Instead, a better Republican will represent NY 23. You were right that Hoffman was a let-down. But everything is working out. It takes time to recover from the democrat taking advantage of the GOP cleaning house… sometimes it doesn’t make much sense, but sometimes, as in NY23, it actually does work out over time.
We are so much better off. There is no doubt in my mind Obamacare would have passed has Scozz won.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:55 amWilliam the racist hilljack Yelvereton is a bigot. And a plagiarized. And a gender bending coward.
JD (f15d6b) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:55 amI’m a Cleveland Browns fan – I have to lash out once in awhile 😉
VOR2 (c9795e) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:57 amExcuse me John, but Joe Martin (R-MA) was Speaker from 47-49, and 53-55!
AD-RtR/OS! (273260) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:57 amSam Rayburn (D-TX) was Speaker from 49-53, and 55-11/61!
Last time I looked, the Majority Party pretty much picks the Speaker of the House.
Wheeler’s cat thinks this is normal, despite the fact current projections are a worse drubbing than anything the nation’s seen in a century.
but then, Wheeler could care less about the truth.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:58 amVOR2, I mentioned Nancy’s approval rating as a re-inforcement of the loss of House seats when the President has low approval ratings.
AD-RtR/OS! (273260) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:02 amWith a Nationalization of the races for Congress, the approval ratings of Pelosi, and for Reid, are instrumental in the numbers of seats in both houses that will be lost.
This, along with the below 50% rating of Teh Won, is a Trifecta for the GOP.
All the smartest people in the room seem to agree that Palin can’t win in 2012. The reasons why is that she has no experience which is why Obama is not president. The second reason is that she’s not smart enough and that’s why George Bush never became president. The third reason is that the press will beat up on her which is why Ronald Reagan never became president. The fourth reason is because she’s bad at speaking extemporaneously and can’t hold her own in debate with Obama … uh, uhh, unless she can use a teleprompter. The fifth reason is that she can’t energize her base and she only has lukewarm support on the Right. The sixth reason is that no one knows who she is and she will have trouble raising her profile. The seventh reason is that she’s a woman and everyone knows that women, unlike black people, can’t be elected president. The eighth reason is that she has shown her independence of the Republican establishment and the American people, as shown by the recent primaries, are clamoring to elect Republican establishment types. The ninth reason is that the next two years will be a struggle between Obama (and his bureaucracy) and congress and at the end the American people will demand that Obama should win. The tenth reason is that the Tea Party movement is going to pack up and go home and will support anyone that the Republican establishment puts up.
Have I left anything out?
P.S. My wife took a McCain/Palin bumper sticker, cut McCain’s name off and put it on her bumper. Of course she does not live In LA, we live in flyover country; she doesn’t want her car keyed.
Moneyrunner (53e425) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:02 amAh got it. Thanks. No disagreement with your assessment. My guess is 65 seats picked up.
VOR2 (c9795e) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:04 amGod bless Sarah Palin. May she continue to drive those who fear her crazy.
Reading the hate filled comments on this one article would convince almost any decent person they want absolutely nothing to do with politics. The 24/7 attacks against any woman who runs as a Republican are insane.
I’ll guarantee befor this week is half way gone, there will be establishment Republicans saying ‘we can’t win as conservatives we will have to compromise.” Compromise that will continue the Obama Administration effort to turn America into a third world hellhole.
Sarah Palin never did any thing to earn the dislike so many people are heaping on her. She was chosen by John McCain and did her best to win for the Republicans under extremely trying conditions. Now we see the same attacks on Christine O’Donnell, chosen by the Republicans of Delaware who rejected the Democrat who poised as a Republican, Mike Castle.
These women are being attacked because they are Republican women and are not perfect. No perfect women is going to come along. Quit claiming to be Republicans while you attacking the Republican women. That is what Democrats do.
Pagar (eabaa3) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:11 am75+!
AD-RtR/OS! (273260) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:12 amMoneyrunner, George W Bush was very intelligent. Not sure about that point.
And indeed, Obama is a great argument against low experience.
At any rate, most of your reasons are not reasons the ‘smart people in the room’ have provided. Just ignoring the reasons stated is unreasonable.
And, at least personally, I am not totally concerned with winning elections. Our country cannot afford another chaotic administration. Clinton and Bush 43 had competent administrations, and this makes a difference in a myriad of ways that go beyond Capitol Hill policy disputes.
Palin is particularly weak on overcoming unfair chaos. She would have to deal with it for years, without the talents of Karl Rove. I realize Rove is being demonized relentlessly, despite him being among the most powerful assets to the Tea Party (partly because he isn’t doing this to promote his own name, but rather to win contests). But people like Rove are essential to managing the mess in the White House. Todd Palin is not up to the task, is he? The email leaked against him was private, and it’s not fair to bash him for defending his wife, but that was not professional support.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:12 amAD-RtR/OS! (#84)
I stand corrected on 1994 being a midterm.
So, three times in 76 years has the party in power of the house been kicked out in a midterm. I don’t know if Joe Biden would still say that’s a big deal.
We’ll have to count the seats after tomorrow to get the “how historical is this?” take.
We can also count the Senate seats – a gain of six is a big deal, eight would be outstanding, but unlikely.
While it would have been great (and still might) to win every contested seat, the odds of that are damn near zero.
The Palin effect gave us a couple of Mama grizzlies and some amount of voter enthusiasm. I cannot net out how much of tomorrow’s results will be from Palin’s efforts.
A couple of, perhaps overreach, candidates, and some amount of repelled moderates, and an enthused base. How much of the enthusiasm can be attributed to Palin? How much to Obama/Reid/Pelosi negatives? How much to “normal” midterm blowback on the party in power? How much to economic malaise? Poor policy choices?
In the aggregate, there is a lot going for the R team this time, but tracing individual voices in all this is beyond me.
My general take is that the Palin effect (overall) has been positive for the R team, but I’m still not ready to think of her in “Palin for President” terms.
John Lynch (7fb472) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:13 amWhat in the world are you talking about?
Are you just lying? Palin’s getting very reasonable criticism, not hate.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:13 amYou, Pagar, are exactly who I was referring to above in my comment 70. Thank you for both confirming and clarifying my thinking.
I’m guessing you missed the missed the fact we didn’t criticize all Republican female candidates (there are many good ones) or the attacks Castle, Rove (!), and other Republicans blessed with a penis endured.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:15 amI hate the fact that I am the worst person for making typos. Totally kills the effect of a biting, hopefully witty, satirical comment.
Sigh.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:17 amSP can’t win coz she is a bs-er and a quitter, we have all seen both of those aspects of her. She IS good at pithy put downs tho. If there was a cabinet position for slam-czar she should get it…..ooh Skip the previous, X-mas at #86 sums her up way better.
What about Rick Perry? Gov of the one state still adding jobs? Is he too Regular Republican for people here?
EdWood (c2268a) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:18 amJohn, please slow down a bit…
AD-RtR/OS! (273260) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:18 amThere have been four (4) changes in the House at Mid-Terms since WW-2:
1946, 1954, 1994, 2006!
At each of these elections, the party in control of the House was also the party that resided at 1600 PA Ave, and they lost control to the opposition.
BTW, this happened much more in the 19th-Century.
Dustin, I read Moneyrunner’s comment as laced with sarcasm – very heavy sarcasm.
AD-RtR/OS! (273260) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:21 amEdWood should confine himself to poor quality, b&w flicks on late-night TV.
AD-RtR/OS! (273260) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:22 amI have no special feelings on Rick Perry as a candidate, but the point is he seems competent and accomplished. I’m guessing those two qualities are going to look real attractive after 2 more years of Obama.
And the GOP has several governors and others who meet those criteria … better than .6 term governor Sarah Palin.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:24 amI suck. Sorry, Moneyrunner. Thanks, AD.
Rick Perry? Oh man… I’d rather have Palin.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:27 amDarn. I stand corrected again. My previous link was to about.com, and the information there incorrect regarding years of congressional control. A better link congressional history show #83 to be correct.
The internets has false data?!
John Lynch (7fb472) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:28 amSarah Palin is a “good woman”. That’s sufficient.
LeBron Steinman (2b2d23) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:29 am(I forgot. The slimy, revisionist “deny I ever said that term is ‘decent woman.”)
Hey, it’s good enough for “good man” Barack (Punish Our Enemies)Obama.
Not that Rick Perry wouldn’t be a huge improvement. I just don’t like that guy. He is considering national politics, IMO. Guy spends time in China, etc.
If Rick Perry can win the primary, Mitch Daniels can, too.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:30 amWhat kind of weirdo argument is that? Patterico said he didn’t raise his kids to be partisan zealots, and try to see democrats and republicans as simply good folks with different plans for the country.
Get over it. It wasn’t an endorsement of his policies or his future nasty ‘enemy’ talk. It wasn’t an endorsement of his games with ayers or Wright. It was a general claim about loving a country that is divided.
I’m amazed people are still acting like this is offensive. Politics is not as important as fatherhood.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:33 amI agree with LeBron. Obama is not a good man (overall).
But it would be terrible politics for a major candidate to say so. Even if Obama sees Republicans — those who defend liberty and life — as his enemies (and why wouldn’t he, a staunchly pro-abortion/infanticide Marxist who associated with known domestic terrorists /Pentagon bombers / cop killers and started his political career in their living room?), it’s awfully divisive for the President to say this. And he’ll pay a political price for it.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:43 amGet over it. It wasn’t an endorsement of his policies or his future nasty ‘enemy’ talk. It wasn’t an endorsement of his games with ayers or Wright. It was a general claim about loving a country that is divided.
Anyone who observed this guy from the start should have been aware from the start that he was an immature, angry, narcissistic,thin-skinned, resentful of his country ,lack -of-character cauldron of resentment and that the “punish your enemies” was an inevitable and utterly predictable expression of his personality and attitude toward anyone who opposes him and his policies.
LeBron Steinman (2b2d23) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:44 amThis ain’t, and never was “good man”. This was clear to anyone with a shred of perception of people ,particularly a shallow poseur like Obama.
Grow up, LeBron, this recurrent attack on Patterico got old a year ago.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:46 amQuite, Lebron. On this point you are right and I disagree vehemently with Patterico (and did at the time).
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:47 amI clearly support Patterico’s thinking on lots of issues, but disagree with his analysis of Obama’s character. Not so much “on point”, but whether it adds up to “not a good man”. I think it does.
However, and I don’t know this to be the case, it’s possible Patterico considers it bad politics/bad manners/bad blogging to say so (he’s right about all that), and this may in part be why he calls Obama a good man.
Regardless, I’m not going to hate everyone who doesn’t think Obama is not a good man. Just expressing the contrary opinion with a few reasons to back it up.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:49 amSo what?
You’re just trying to have a blog-war, as Cristoph did when he repeatedly bashed some very nice people over this.
You guys are making an incoherent argument. Palin’s electability has nothing to do with Patterico telling his kids to respect the good intentions of people they disagree with. Any good parent is struggling to deal with teaching respect for the presidency while Obama is in office. You want to pretend this is some major character defect? Why?
I get it, you really really really want to prove you hate Obama more than Patterico does. Even though you and Cristoph seem to hate EVERYBODY more than Patterico does, but do far, far less about it in your life. That’s why you’re insecure enough to have this comparison.
It has nothing to do with Palin, and everything to do with your wounded ego, and I think you’re both pathetic.
Obama probably does want to do good, in his own extremely dumb and unpatriotic way. IF you don’t realize that, you probably have a mental disorder.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:51 amI don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:54 amBTW, it’s really no secret Cristoph does have some kind of mental disorder. The guy actually went out of his way to ridicule DRJ because she was being nice.
So no surprise he hates the idea of trying to teach kids to be nice, intelligent, effective citizens. Nothing about Cristoph is recognizably American, and I wonder why he would have repeatedly wanted to lash out over something so benign. The entire premise of Patterico’s ‘good man’ post was that he greatly disagrees with Obama, doesn’t respect his affiliations, etc. You’re acting like you have proven him wrong about something he was ahead of you on.
I noticed someone with a crazy screen name on another blog bashing Patterico for this, in successive threads on completely unrelated topics. And then I realize it was this obsessed guy whose entire philosophy seems to be a rejection of civility.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:56 amOh, but I do.
You do not do as much good for the world as the people you are bashing. I know,f or sure, you will fail to prove me wrong, even though you just asserted you could in your typical slimy “I didn’t directly say what I’m saying” way.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:57 amDustin, I can’t even remember the thread with DRJ. I’m vaguely aware that I got pissed off at her and called her something which is taken as particularly offensive in our culture, but is objectively no worse than what I’ve called many guys.
I do not believe in civility toward baby killers, pro-infanticide, terrorist-associating, cop-killing organization building, Pentagon bombing folks, and their proteges. And I’m entirely cool with being a little bit more Oliver Cromwell on those types and less milquetoast as you are, and as Patterico is.
It’s a different style, but your ad hominem is BS.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/1/2010 @ 12:01 pmSame old Cristoph. We have had several discussions. You will make claims that aren’t correct, or reason in a way that is terrible, and I will point out how you’re being irrational or unfair.
Then, you will proceed to relentless comment until you’re sure you’ve had the last word.
You’re the one obsessed and agreeing to a completely stupid argument that has nothing to do with Palin. You’re the one who bashes people specifically because they are nice.
You can’t handle an intelligent debate, and it’s no surprise someone who uses ad homs relentlessly just can’t take my style of showing you the mirror. Of course you pretend you don’t remember what I’m talking about… another example of trying to make an argument without having to back it up.
You’re going to get this reaction when you make terrible arguments. You can’t win just by having the last word, either. Palin’s electability does not hinge on the crazy old axe you’re grinding.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 12:06 pmBTW, an ad hominem argument is not fallacious when the conclusion regards someone’s character, be it Patterico’s ability to gauge electability despite the way he raises his child, or the character shown by bashing him for it.
Those are opportunities to discuss a person’s character without it being a fallacy.
So stop parroting objections you don’t understand, Cristoph. Your ad homs have nothing to do with Palin, and mine have everything to do with your credibility.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 12:11 pm“Palin’s getting very reasonable criticism, not hate.”
If that is what you believe, you define things different than I do. Maybe different than comment 59 too.
“Thank you for both confirming and clarifying my thinking.”
Amazing, You had already confirmed and clarified mine.
Pagar (eabaa3) — 11/1/2010 @ 12:24 pmYep! Right on! Washingtion wasn’t ready to be President, nor Adams, nor Jefferson with the string continuing right up to Obama. Great observation.
What all this means is either the GOP will become the Tea Party or it’s toast. If you see a name like Romney, Rove, McCain, Dole, Steele, Huckabee, Guilani, Gingrich as the “front runners”, the GOP will be running as a third party. Period.
The point should be to get a better candidate than Palin. Someone like Michele Backmann or Chris Cristie.
Exit question. After Obama, exactly what does “not ready to be Presideent” mean? My senile dog, by the Obama standard, is more qualified.
cedarhill (cae0e3) — 11/1/2010 @ 12:59 pmPagar, I think Palin is a natural leader, a true patriot, and actually ethical. These are huge components that have earned her a lot of loyalty.
There are additional factors for someone who wants the 2012 GOP nomination for President.
Those are: ability to run an unfairly chaotic administration over a byzantine federal government, and ability to overcome the Obama campaign (for example, the ‘quitter’ BS).
It’s reasonable to bring this up.
You have identified comment 59 as an unfair attack on Palin. You’re right. Triumph is a troll. If you’re not conflating those trolls with the general skepticism of Palin’s ability to run a white house or beat Obama, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Just think to Bush, a brilliant leader who ran a huge state very well, and how much trouble he had with his own employees in the CIA and DOJ and USDA. I look at Palin and see a great person, but someone who has succumbed to unfair backstabbers sometimes.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 1:04 pm“shred our constitution”
heh
The Tea Party supposedly touts the US Constitution, yet we have never seen a group more bent on CHANGING the the Constitution. They want to change the 14th amendment, the 17th amendment, they want to reject the supremacy clause Article VI, Clause 2, and federal taxation Article I, Section 8, clause 2…. and if it were up to them, they’d have a religious (Christian) test for political office which violates Article VI, paragraph 3.
http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/slideshows/12-ways-republicans-want-to-change-the-constitution
Do you remember?
w (9df40f) — 11/1/2010 @ 1:11 pmWilliam Yelverton – could you explain to us why you are such a bigot?
JD (428a42) — 11/1/2010 @ 1:26 pmFirst off all, like the supposed ABC News quote, why do we accept anonymous sources as reliable, second, keep your promises and she may not need to run, and third, is she going to run ‘you betcha’, however, anyone who hasn’t seen this whole campaign as a proxy fight between the establishment and the more resolute Tea Party faction, hasn’t been paying attention. Now they’ll likely proffer up a Daniels, who’s ok, but I don’t think can rally the base, in sufficient numbers, for his defense and national security and his awkward way of identifying priorities, I’d vote for him, heck I voted for Dole, but that would be about the size of it
ian cormac (c07a45) — 11/1/2010 @ 1:37 pmW–
Since when is the Tea Party Christian? Social issues are WAY down on their list, if they agree on them at all.
The Tea Party wants fiscal responsibility, small government and suggests that people take care of themselves and not look to Uncle Sugar to do it for them. How is that particularly Christian, or extreme?
Kevin M (73dcc9) — 11/1/2010 @ 1:39 pmDustin,
w (9df40f) — 11/1/2010 @ 1:46 pmExplain to us how your personal relationship with Christ allows you support the tea party position that incest rapists should be allowed to procreate and that their 12 yr old victims are less important than a zygote?
The thing that worries me is that so many Palin supporters just ignore her negatives. I like the woman, I have her on Facebook and all that. But I also know that a lot of Independents don’t like her at all. She is popular with conservative Republicans, but with Republicans overall, she is about even. The last numbers I saw on this were 47-47 and that was among Republicans.
But if the base manages to get her nominated, I doubt that she can win. Anything is possible, but I really do not think she can win.
As for the GOP establishment, she is one of them. People keep forgetting that. Palin is a Republican, she was on the national ticket in 2008…she is not some unknown novice who has never been involved with politics. As for the Republicans getting serious about spending, even that can work both ways. Most Americans do not want to give a lot up, they are not in the mood to make sacrifices..I think a lot of them would be happy to go back 5 years or even 10 years..they don’t want to go back 100 years to the days before the New Deal.
I just hope the Republicans do not make the same mistake the Democrats made, and start to think that this shift means the whole country has gone libertarian..I also hope that Palin’s supporters keep in mind that people with negatives as high as hers are almost impossible to get elected.
Terrye (eec529) — 11/1/2010 @ 1:48 pm#
Yep! Right on! Washingtion wasn’t ready to be President, nor Adams, nor Jefferson with the string continuing right up to Obama. Great observation.
What all this means is either the GOP will become the Tea Party or it’s toast. If you see a name like Romney, Rove, McCain, Dole, Steele, Huckabee, Guilani, Gingrich as the “front runners”, the GOP will be running as a third party. Period.
The point should be to get a better candidate than Palin. Someone like Michele Backmann or Chris Cristie.
Exit question. After Obama, exactly what does “not ready to be Presideent” mean? My senile dog, by the Obama standard, is more qualified.
Comment by cedarhill — 11/1/2010 @ 12:59 pm
Not all the Tea Party people are alike, it is not as if they are the Borg. What might be seen as representing the Tea Party in a state like Oklahoma, would not ever sell in Delaware or California. Politicians are supposed to represent the people who elect them..not broad national movements. That is what the whole issue of states rights is about.
Terrye (eec529) — 11/1/2010 @ 1:54 pmPolitico is crap, trying to make sure Palin fans do not turn out to vote. Or making sure her detractors don’t turn out to vote. Everyone, we had our fight in the primary, and it’s time to win the general election. We will commence the greatest primary battle of our lives on Wednesday.
It will suck donkey balls.
Both sides of the Palin debate seem to think this argument bolsters their POV. Our nation can’t afford “not ready”. It matters more, not less, because of Obama.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 1:54 pmW, why is it that you feel entitled to make up fraudulent claims about the TEA party?
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/1/2010 @ 1:55 pmpatterico
Btw, new rasmussen poll puts the generic preference at 12 points, not the 15 at gallup. all things being equal, i trust rasmussen. But i would love it if we prove them wrong on this one. 😀
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/1/2010 @ 2:00 pmI just really really hate the victims of incest and rape, W. Karl Rove told me to. They aren’t as important as a zygote, because you never know if that zygote will turn out to be the antichrist. We must preserve the seed of demons at any cost.
Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 2:03 pmPardon William Yelverton. He is getting his hate on.
JD (9bc648) — 11/1/2010 @ 2:15 pmObama will be weak in 2012. If we have a candidate that exites the base we can beat him to a pulp. Nominate Mr. Suntan (Romney), or some other moderate,and at best we elect someone who will dissapoint us, at worst we end up with a base that stays home clinging to their guns and religion wondering what to do next.
Smarty (eed5d4) — 11/1/2010 @ 2:23 pm#
Obama will be weak in 2012. If we have a candidate that exites the base we can beat him to a pulp. Nominate Mr. Suntan (Romney), or some other moderate,and at best we elect someone who will dissapoint us, at worst we end up with a base that stays home clinging to their guns and religion wondering what to do next.
Comment by Smarty — 11/1/2010 @ 2:23 pm
The base is not a majority. If you nominate someone with negatives of over 60% Obama will win reelection. Barry Goldwater excited the base too, look how that ended up.
We need a strong general election candidate..and to be honest, 2012 is a ways off yet. We don’t really know who will be exciting who in 2 years.
Terrye (eec529) — 11/1/2010 @ 3:01 pmComment by SPQR — 11/1/2010 @ 1:55 pm
AD-RtR/OS! (273260) — 11/1/2010 @ 3:48 pm‘Cause he knows stuff!
Plus, what’s so bad about a definition of terms in the 14th…”subject to the jurisdiction thereof”; and we already repealed one Progressive amendment as a mistake, why not a couple more?
AD-RtR/OS! (273260) — 11/1/2010 @ 3:50 pmThis is the mindset I worry about, and one might say it’s manifest in his candidate;http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1904136,00.html#ixzz144bPECJt
ian cormac (c07a45) — 11/1/2010 @ 4:04 pmOld Yellerton’s actually just warming up for his concert tonight at the Manhole bar – he’s going to do Strauss on his skinflute – seats are still available!
I would like to see Gov. Christie of New Jersey run for President in 2012. Christie said he is not going to run in 2012.
Christie was in Iowa last week, doing a few speeches and stuff – he’s definitely thinking about running, count on it. He’ll be wise to remember that waiting to run when the time is “perfect” means in reality that that moment in time may never come. You take the opportunity to run when it presents itself, and that time is now.
Dmac (ad2c6a) — 11/1/2010 @ 4:27 pmHuckabee would be creamed as well
I hate that guy like some people hate Sarah Palin
“NO HUCK IN 2012”
Jones (72b0ed) — 11/1/2010 @ 4:42 pmF@ckabee is a plague, a pox, a manifestation of many things bad. I loathe him.
JD (803412) — 11/1/2010 @ 4:48 pmBarry Goldwater excited the base too, look how that ended up.
And how well would Rockefeller have done? Lost just as bad, probably. After Kennedy was killed, nobody wanted to change Presidents right away. Now, if the election had been held in ’66 ….
Kevin M (73dcc9) — 11/1/2010 @ 5:24 pmIs anyone here not on the anti-Huck bandwagon?
You never hear Huck supporters anymore. I assume his intention is to undermine Palin because they have some overlap, but he’s dead in the water. He can’t possibly win by attacking Palin.
But I’ll worry about Huck later. He’s actually been pretty helpful, as has Romney for all my bashing of him. Maybe something historic has yet to occur regarding our 2012 primary. We have to wait and see.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 6:48 pmThe tea party supports the right of incest rapists to procreate. They want to force women to bear rapists’ babies. That’s what you’re voting for when you vote Republican.
w (9df40f) — 11/1/2010 @ 7:27 pmYou really are a sick twist, Yelverton. Go serenade your kitteh. It will take your mind off the beating you and yours will endure tomorrow.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/1/2010 @ 7:38 pmRomney I don’t have a big a problem with, as are his more vociferous supporters, exactly the kind
ian cormac (c07a45) — 11/1/2010 @ 7:39 pmthat would fit the profile of those anonymous folk
in Politico, I know that seems ironic, however, it
looks like their voice in the loudest in what passes
for SRM
Raw Story, ‘eh?
It’s worth a glance, conservatives. The main page, of course, not W’s attempt to spam-troll.
Jesus had AIDS, the elections mean nothing (for once, I guess), and Al Qaida was the hero of the recent bomb attacks on cargo planes.
My favorite part is how they cite Fox contributors challenging other Fox contributors in about half of their stories. They think this is proof of how extreme one of the contributors is, missing the forest for the trees. That’s the “balance”, guys. That’s why they are trusted enough to be relevant to our democracy, and Raw Story is not.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 7:41 pmian, Romney can’t be all bad, or Huckabee wouldn’t hate him so much, but take my feelings towards O’donnell and multiply them by 4, and you get my feelings towards Romney.
By which I mean “He is Better than Coons any Day of the Week” and nothing else… until Wednesday.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 7:43 pmDustin – For all of his wailing and rending of garments and gnashing of teeth, William Yelverton’s political universe consists only within the confines of rawstory, mediamatters, the soros sites, MadCow, and Olbergasm.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/1/2010 @ 7:45 pmDustin- to call Romney a lightweight is beneath you.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/1/2010 @ 7:46 pmHow can I be mad at this guy, when you’re clearly right. Those are unpleasant sites meant to gin up outrage. He isn’t trying to dominate us… he’s just afraid of us because he doesn’t understand us. He’s been brainwashed by Soros.
That’s part of why I resist political orthodoxy. I would rather be wrong and still trying to think for myself. Not that I think you’re any different.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 7:49 pmYou’re probably right, JD. I’ll try to better articulate my views on this guy when he comes up later. I do not consider him to be a serious leader, but I know he’s done a lot of work helping a lot of candidates, and I don’t want to fall for this primary jump-start trick Politico is playing.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 7:51 pmWell the few times I’ve ventured into the world of Larissa Androvona (sic) it’s been mildly entertainly, if you don’t care about the truth,
ian cormac (c07a45) — 11/1/2010 @ 7:51 pmOlbermann has lost his charm, because his skull has burst one too many times like a victim in Scanners, tomorrow will be a whole round of ‘kamikazi scotsman’ at the network that the Netroots have helped tear down
I am way different, Dustin. You are most likely a better kinder person than I. I have hard edges.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/1/2010 @ 7:52 pmJust trying to keep my comments from suggesting the people I’m talking to here are somehow less free thinking than I am.
And yeah, my edges are pretty soft. And getting softer, since I have way too much spare halloween candy.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 7:54 pmWell, in William Yelverton’s defense, he doesn’t actually think. He just hates. And plagiarizes.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/1/2010 @ 7:58 pmIt is documented, at least 78 Republican congressmen support the right of incest rapists to procreate. That is what you are voting for when you vote GOP. They want to force women to bear rapists’ babies. That is the documented FACT, and several teaparty candidates support this position. Instead of the standard GOP denial and attack the messenger, just own it. It is true and documented. Just like you attacked Charles Johnson and he turned out to be correct you WRONG.
w (9df40f) — 11/1/2010 @ 7:59 pmIf you click that boldcaps “WRONG” in W’s comment, you see a blue field claiming to represent Stewart’s rally. Near the middle of the blue field is a large circle shaped building.
Go check an actual photograph of the rally, and this building, the Hirshhorn Museum, is where the rally terminates on one side. In other words, it’s not hard to prove W’s rally was less than half the size the “WRONG” link says it is.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:02 pmIt’s like RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIINNNNNN!!!!
Alanis Morrisette (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:03 pmw:
I hope that argument works out for you.
You do realize that one of your cogs isn’t meshing?
Ag80 (743fd1) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:03 pmAg – if Yelverton did not have his hate, his kitteh, and his douchenozzlery, he would have nothing.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:11 pmWillie – You seem fascinated by incest. How many relatives have you knocked up?
You’ve also already sung this tune several times on this blog. Don’t you gave any new talking points? How many pregnancies are year are you talking about again? You remember, don’t you?
BABY KILLER!
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:11 pmw, you are still misrepresenting the TEA party. Using your utter lack of actual logic, with a chain of logical fallacies, you’ve only proven that you are obnoxious.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:13 pmIt is really strange that he brings up incest and rape and kids in every single thread, no matter what the topic is. It’s an illustration of an extreme situation, but I remember him complaining about arguments that only represent a small percentage of the discussed group.
w, what’s this got to do with Sarah Palin?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:14 pmSPQR – he is like nishidiot/wheelers insofar as he has a limited number of talking points and memes that it spits out, incessantly, no matter what the topic.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:16 pmWhat’s weird, Dustin, is the utterly dishonest way in which he expresses his position: “support the right of incest rapists to procreate” would only be true if any of the GOP was advocating decriminalizing incest and/or rape. Expressed that way, it is simply another falsehood of what frankly sounds like a very disturbed person.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:16 pmYeah, SPQR, there’s no way around it. He’s brought this up so many times, but it’s just a disturbing concept I wouldn’t come up with in a million years.
In just about every sense, it’s just wrong. For one thing, most people support the right of rapists to procreate so long as they aren’t raping. The baby is not what’s wrong with these horrible acts w loves to think about.
Letting this baby survive is not some victory of the rapist over the mother. Dana compellingly spoke about this, but she didn’t get any respect from w for her effort to dialogue (obviously).
The baby getting to live or die is not some prize for liberals or rapists or rape victims. That’s the whole point. We’re talking about the right to life, not the right to force others to bear our kids.
Rape is not being decriminalized, as you note.
What w is really saying is that he doesn’t understand why he’s afraid of us or Ms Palin or the Tea Party.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:21 pmQuellist kat is somewhat entertaining in her pomo pastiche, Yelverton is more like a typed tourettes
ian cormac (c07a45) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:33 pmresponse
Had occasion to see Palin on “O’Reilly” this evening. Whining and mewling about the unfairness of the MSM and liberals, even if true, gets old quick. It’s all attitude, zero policy. And not what we need in a leader.
Bugg (4e0dda) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:45 pmShe has policy views up on her facebook page, if you’re more curious about this. Her personally mannerism isn’t for me either, but who cares?
Indeed, the MSM is a pack of corrupt bastards. Do you say they aren’t? Just in the past few days we’ve seen a conspiracy to associate Miller with sexual predators, based on an assumption, not tested, that statistics indicate one of his many supporters out there must be on the sex offender list. How is Palin wrong, then?
O’Donnell put out a great 30 minute policy video. She wants to make her case to the American people. Using her political donations, she pays for this to be aired to the citizens, and the station ‘forgets’ to air it, twice. On the day before the election, her case is censored from public view. This never happens to democrats. These constant ‘errors’ and corrections and conspiracies almost always skew left.
Palin is right. You call it whining and mewling… why? It’s a serious problem.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:50 pmRight, except she explains why she chose the candidates she chose, and cap n trade were a big part. Supporting Murkowski and Castle and you can add Bennett or any other Senator who had an early demise, due to unconstitutional, nearly criminal policy positions is the important thing.
Let’s face many of the party establishments on both coasts are rotting shells, hence the absence of not only viable but conscientous candidates, my own states’ experience with the Orange Blur and his factotum now in jail, are one
ian cormac (c07a45) — 11/1/2010 @ 8:56 pmPalin was absolutely terrible on O’Reilly tonight. If she can’t handle O’Reilly, how can she handle the media during a Presidential campaign?
This video of the interview tonight, in Palin’s own words, makes pretty much each and every negative point Patterico was making about her political viability and wherewithal.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:09 pmYes we saw it. O’Reilly couldn’t even remember the name of the worthless Rino backstabber, who would
ian cormac (c07a45) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:16 pmdo a Jeffords or Chafee backstab, at any moment
I don’t give a crap about O’Reilly. He ain’t running for squat.
And if Palin had temporarily forgotten some Congressman’s name, even one she’d interacted with, I wouldn’t care. Things happen.
But my God. O’Reilly lobs her a softball asking if it’s possible to be too far right in America and she screwed that up with the mainstream. She could have said, “It’s impossible to be too committed to freedom, sound fiscal management, supporting our men and women in uniform, and ensuring good people are protected from criminals.” Anything along those lines.
Anything other than no, you can’t be too right wing. That’ll raise her favourables with the voters she needs to win a general!
I’m not even sure that was her biggest flub. Got to watch it all. I thought it would be a good ra, ra get out the vote, session, and some strong critique of Democrats. Instead, it made her look like … someone who really appeals to the GOP base … and to no one else.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:26 pmian, I don’t like watching video for content. Was cristoph’s summary approximately accurate? I realize he wouldn’t say Palin did well, since he’s one of those sorts of commenters, but that doesn’t mean he is wrong.
Palin doesn’t have to worry so much. Today is not the night she’s running for president. She’s made plenty of misstatements before, too, so any argument for her is going to include the point she isn’t a polished elite. But I’m just curious if she looked dreadful.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:37 pmYou’re a jackass, Dustin. I would indeed say Palin had done well if she had done well.
I am not trying to curry favor and build alliances among mostly anonymous fellow blog commenters. I call it like I see it on a case by case basis.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:50 pmI was asking ian what if he thought Palin fell short.
I just don’t think your impression is necessarily reliable, and I also don’t think it’s automatically wrong. If you think you’re being honest, I’m happy for you, but I just don’t think you’d give Palin a fair shake. I also think some things set you off that normal people do not mind, such as niceness.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 10:58 pmbtw, my guess is that your impression was correct, but I’d like to discuss it with other folks. I’m not attempting to shut you up… I’m just trying to discuss it with others.
You obviously think very little of me, and I think I’m in good company.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:00 pmLet me add and point out for you, Dustin, that Palin does not have a great track record for handling media interviews (and this was O’Reilly lobbing her an easy pitch, not the “gotcha” leftwing media).
She clearly is good at other things: Delivering prepared speeches, using Facebook to communicate, etc., as well as other accomplishments in her life. And she is very, very good at appealing to the GOP base. Possibly she was just being sincere and thinks, “Too conservative? No way! Right wing = conservative and conservatives rule,” and that’s a worldview I can respect if not agree with.
But her answer as a political proposition was terrible and is a great example of why she can be highly competitive for the nomination, but all polling shows she’d be taken to the cleaners in the general.
Reagan deftly handled the media and had crossover appeal. Both H.W. and W. too one degree or another aren’t hard core conservatives and so had innate crossover appeal. That was even true of Nixon!
Palin, like Goldwater, is a true blue conservative, but does not, I believe, have a comparable intellect, grasp of the issues, and ability to think quick on her feet (oh, and he still lost).
To translate any of this into I could never say anything good about Palin is just a gross distortion based on your letting your feelings about me get the better of you.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:04 pmThat’s nice, Cristoph, but I don’t trust you very much because of your conduct in other threads. I’d rather ask someone else’s opinion than explain why I don’t trust your impression.
Just because you give her some token respect doesn’t mean your impression is reliable. Just because you give some token ‘see, I backed off a claim’ comment doesn’t mean you’re reliable. We’ve had a few discussions and you just aren’t reasonable sometimes. I understand why you’re insecure about it. But I call them like I see them too. Instead of just argue with you, I’m asking someone else’s opinion, noting I am not relying on your claims.
I’ll continue to point out problems in your reasoning, as I have here earlier in this thread. I’m not ‘grossly distorting’ anything.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:15 pmDustin, a lot of your points are actually rational. But if I say something similar, I think the bile rises up in your throat a bit. If i say something different, you want to jump at me and make it personal.
The reality is, while I find you unpleasant, I don’t really care. I am not hear to socialize. If I was, I’d be using my complete name and hitting on chicks. It’s my thing (and why I disappeared earlier today).
Here, I care about the ideas. I care very little about the personalities of bloggers and commenters and the like. That isn’t to say I don’t like and respect some. I do.
But it’s a distant second to me compared to the underlying principles of issues I care about. And when I care about personalities, it’s an effort to understand the characters of the decision makers — politicians and/or undemocratic leaders — not the character of those doing the opining.
Do I hope you and others here are of good character? Sure, I do. “Hope” being about the right word.
But it ain’t why I’m here on those days and times I choose to be here, which sure as heck isn’t always. Nor on every story.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:16 pmYes, you do parrot some of my points. It’s lame.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:17 pmIt is more than token. It is a significant, measurable amount of respect in a wide scope of areas, which I could expand on. Like many people, I get her social issues appeal, particularly on the pro-life cause, where I’m a huge fan (and of O’Donnell as well).
But my respect of her is limited. She is not entitled to any particular amount of respect. Did I start raging at her or attacking her for being a woman or any other trope? No, I pointed out how saying you can’t be too right wing is a politically terrible answer for someone who already does not appeal to either centrists or moderate Republicans. And she sure as hell would need the centrists to win.
But you take my critique of an awful media interview with a friendly voice … to mean I’m casting great aspersions on her character or something, and showing her no respect aside from a fig leaf token.
And that is ridiculous, Dustin.
Now O’Donnell is someone I criticized in harsher terms, because of issues with her honesty in addition to political viability.
And not that I think “Appeal to Patterico” is a valid form of argument, but in each of these cases I’m struck by the degree to which my opinion mirrors his. Which is purely an accident.
And yet you say I’m not showing enough respect. To which I ask you, “What degree of respect am I required to give, and why am I required to give it?”
I thought politics was people making decisions and judgments on which politicians they like and respect and why or why not.
Yes, it is true that my “respect thermostat” may be set at a lower level. To me, respect is not a right, it is earned. Others view it the exact opposite.
That probably explains why a Patterico can look at Obama and say he’s a good man, whereas I say to be a good man, a person must have certain ideas or have done certain actions, and Obama has done neither.
• Soldier fighting for his country while maintaining a reasonably decent, non-criminal deportment? I’ll probably call that person a good man based on their actions and ideals as expressed through those actions.
• A person who advances sound philosophical ideas? I’ll probably call that person good too until I have evidence to the contrary, based on the thoughts they advocate and spread.
For the most part, I definitely put Palin into the “good” category. Saying I think she is a morally good person is a huge sign of respect from me, because I take ethics and morality very seriously. But I can respect someone as decent while disagreeing with them on issues and parts of their ideology, and certainly I can do this while maintaining an opinion that they are unqualified to be President of the United States.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:30 pmI was joking, dude.
But at any rate, I’m not trying to troll you. Stop reacting to me so much. It’s totally pointless.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:33 pmAnd the problem isn’t that I wouldn’t support Palin in a general election. Against Obama, I definitely would. Against Paul Ryan or whomever, no, but against Obama, absolutely.
But I’m a center-right libertarian with a not particularly common pro-life passion. She could get my support.
My analysis and criticism was based on the fact that this interview was a perfect example of just why she can’t get the support of the center.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/1/2010 @ 11:40 pm#18, Aaron, please, take it from a New Yorker: you really do not want Giuliani. He’s, well, I don’t like to use the F-word, especially about an Italian, so let’s just call him “authoritarian”. In temperament he’s Elliot Spitzer’s identical twin. I would never vote for either one of them, regardless of party; they’re just mean people. If you think Rahm Emanuel’s vindictive, think again; Spitzer and Giuliani are the kings of vindictiveness.
Remember all those things the left squawked about when the USA-PATRIOT Act passed, all the abuses that they claimed the Bushitler administration would perpetrate? They were wrong, because the Bush people were mostly decent people who respected civil liberties enough not to abuse these powers. Giuliani isn’t like that. His record, both as US Attorney and as mayor, is that he doesn’t give a damn about civil liberties.
If Giuliani gets the R nomination, count me as a temporary D. Last year I voted for a D for the first time in 25 years; I held my nose and voted for Bill Thompson for NYC mayor. And you know what? My hand didn’t fall off. I didn’t come down with plague. So if necessary I can do it again. I won’t like it, but if Giuliani is the R candidate I’ll do it. Unless the tea party types go third-party, of course.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 11/2/2010 @ 2:39 am#25 “Huckabee is clever, but he’s basically a democrat.”
Exactly. If the Ds allowed pro-lifers, Huckabee would be a D.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 11/2/2010 @ 2:43 amSo it’s only hate that may makes one suspicious of Palin’s persona and political skills? Telling the truth about her is “being a troll”? Well, you guys are in even greater trouble than I thought.
Triumph (0692b1) — 11/2/2010 @ 5:14 amPut Palin on the ballot and even Alan Grayson finishes in the White House. You need someone who doesn’t look a nut or a boob to the vast majority of Americans who don’t share the tea party’s values. You need one local version of David Cameron, reassuring to the center while delivering the reform this country needs if it is to recover from recession (brought by W, worsened by BO) and gain world leadership again. You may debate who satisfies to those criterias, you may even debate the criterias themselves, but one thing is for sure: Palin doesn’t fit; never did, never will.
Milhouse —
Obviously you don’t know your enemy – just hating him is so much more fun, ain’t it? There are pro-lifers in the Democratic Party, they even almost derailed Obamacare. Check your facts rather than just inventing them.
Triumph (0692b1) — 11/2/2010 @ 5:16 amIt would be interesting to see what tea party values are so noxious to Triumph the insult troll.
JD (77596e) — 11/2/2010 @ 6:31 amShorter Triumph: Basically, a conservative is fine, but they have to understand the center enough to be able to phrase things in a way that doesn’t put them completely off.
Reagan did that. Palin hasn’t done that at all.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/2/2010 @ 8:41 amNo. Certainly not, since I admire her as a person and also complain about those aspects.
Believe me, when I want to antagonize Cristoph or challenge his position, I do not pretend I’m not doing so. I was asking for an impression of something that Cristoph had just given, and it would have been odd to do so without explaining I wasn’t relying on his impression.
If I had known it was going to set him off so much, I probably wouldn’t have n bothered. It doesn’t bother me to outrage him, but it’s pointless.
I’m curious about how people see Palin, and particularly people who aren’t reflexive about her, and those who don’t hold grudges, or those who are just plain weird. So you and Cristoph, while entitled to your opinions, weren’t who I was asking.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/2/2010 @ 10:53 amDustin – you don’t really think that triumph the insult thing wants a rational discussion, do you?
JD (dd00f1) — 11/2/2010 @ 10:56 amOf course not. LOL.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/2/2010 @ 11:09 amSo, maybe Palin should back legalized pot, eh??
Here in Philly there are ads for Sestak where the punch line is, “Toomey sounds a lot like Sarah Palin”. So, we’ll see how good Sarah Palin does in PA.
Good grief, Charlie Brown. The public likes someone who is forcing the nation into bankruptcy and can’t stand someone who skillfully improves the economic well-being of their state.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/2/2010 @ 11:14 amShe was a great governor. I wonder if she was a miracle worker, given the insanity Alaska seems to roll in. It’s not like I’m trying to blame her for only having limited high level leadership experience, though I realize others do blame her.
If she’s the best we’ve got, then let’s roll. It’s going to be a brutal primary, and I’m glad it’s going to start early. I hope it ends early. There are several Republican governors who have improved their state (I wouldn’t put Perry in this category, but he’s presided over great success). If there really is someone worth believing in for a reason other than ‘we need to stop Palin and this is our best shot’, then great. Even then, Palin’s looking inevitable.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/2/2010 @ 11:23 amPalin has already been through the human excrement washing ritual of the conservative candidate. We’ll see who else wants to try and whether they can still come out standing. Look for the MSM and New Hampshire voters to coronate the second coming of John McCain.
I need to
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/2/2010 @ 11:28 amgoleave you all alone now, and go vote.As I said, Lisa Murkowski is so running (here she’s showing her loyalty to the current Democratic President, relying on her record to set her apart from him as independent).
If she follows the strategy I outlined, she has a shot … at the nomination. A long shot, yes.
If she gets the nomination, she’ll win the general election in almost any economic environment running up the middle with the Democratic party machinery, Hillary Democrats, and centrist swing voters supporting her. Further, if it wasn’t for her dad, she’d have always been more comfortable as a Democrat all along.
That fact — that she would actually win the general — may way heavily on Democrats if Obama keeps going on his empty suit plummet.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/15/2010 @ 5:55 pmYeah, I saw the typo.
The other thing she’ll have going for her is a minor populist legend as having been the person who defeated the tea party extremist (that’s how she can portray it anyway) in an honest-to-goodness 3-party race write-in campaign (more popular than Palin is in Alaska too, I’ll add).
I think she’s a serious threat if she decides to go for it … and she’s thinking about it.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/15/2010 @ 5:58 pmMore here.
Christoph (8ec277) — 11/15/2010 @ 7:26 pm