Again I come to you with an article about Sarah Palin. My turnaround regarding the former governor is perhaps as perplexing to you as it is to me. It is certainly so that the paradigm shift in the national dialogue and the sudden urgency that has arisen in the conservative base about the proper role of government has produced something of a change in what I perceive as a proper strategy. It has forced me to reassess what the practical should and could be — and the question of ends and means. But it is more than this, I think. It was certainly Palin’s Hong Kong speech that served as the catalyst for my soul-searching, but it is not that speech alone that has swayed my opinion. Upon evaluating her actions in the calendar year of 2009, I have come to the conclusion that I was honestly wrong about certain aspects of Palin.
When Sarah Palin resigned as governor, John Fund of the Wall Street Journal contended that her resignation had to do with how effective she could really be as governor while dealing with a barrage of frivolous ethics complaints. She essentially, in Fund’s words, was being paid to show up to work to defend herself. The state of Alaska was being drained of its time, money, and energy, and Palin determined that the overall costs of staying to fight outweighed the benefits of simply handing over the reins to now-Governor Parnell. For this, she was maligned as a quitter: if you’re a real fighter, then why don’t you stay around and, you know, fight? And the money wasn’t much, after all, in the grand scheme of things.
Doctor Zero at Hot Air provides the rebuttal that planted the seed within me to start warming up to Palin:
I don’t blame her for refusing to take any more personal or financial pounding from political operatives using Alaska’s odd government ethics system as a weapon. Some have said she was foolish to cite the cost to Alaskan taxpayers as a reason for her resignation, since it was a paltry two million dollars. To me, that doesn’t sound like a criticism – it’s a campaign slogan. Sarah Palin: She Still Thinks A Million Bucks Is A Lot of Money. If she runs for president in 2012, it will be against an incumbent who thinks a billion dollars of graft or waste is a rounding error in one of his big-government schemes. A lot of people will like the idea of voting for someone who doesn’t use rolls of taxpayer dollars to wipe the ink off their hands after signing legislation.
Indeed. Moreover, her newfound status as a national lightning rod made her a chief target for Alaska Democrats who wanted to earn a killing by taking her down. The maverick politician who once boasted a 90% approval rating was no more — and she could never come back in such an atmosphere. I have no reason to believe that Palin desired to govern as anything other than a pragmatic center-right Republican, and it’s rather, well, refreshing, in hindsight, to realize that there is actually a politician out there who would rather just get out of a system in which she can’t do anything productive.
Only a knave or a fool would think that she didn’t realize she’d be branded as a quitter. And yet, she decided that it wasn’t worth her blessed, almighty title to be ineffective. She stated in her resignation address that she could be more effective elsewhere: “Only dead fish go with the flow.”
She seems to have been vindicated. Her decision to leave certainly wasn’t nonsensical, in hindsight: she’s had a lot more of an impact on the national debate from behind her computer chair than she would have from the governor’s mansion. Just like she had more of an impact by resigning from the Oil and Gas Commission than by staying on it, the tool of resignation once again came in handy. From Facebook to Hong Kong, Palin’s words have echoed with force matched only by the president himself.
For a while now, I have judged the former governor as much by the words of her supporters as by her own words. In an article — which, by the way, I still think has some merit — I contended that Palin was America’s new victim-in-chief. My personal distate for self-styled victims overflowing, I attacked the role her supporters often attempt to cast her in: as a target of the wicked media, of sexism, of elitism. But what of the words of Palin herself? Her anger towards “bloggers in their mothers’ basements” can certainly be rationally chalked up to a mother’s instinct to protect her children from attacks by creeps over at the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post. The inevitable cry arises: well, that’s not very presidential, is it? Well, no, I guess it’s not. In fact, hell, no — and thank God. Isn’t it refreshing to have a politician think of herself first and foremost as a mother and not as someone meticulously calculating how a decision will affect one’s political future? We saw similar sentiments arise from Sarah Palin, Mother, in the David Letterman ordeal.
Nobody’s perfect. Palin created a sub-cabinet department while governor to deal with ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ or whatever it is we’re calling it this week. Bad. Her support for the Federal Marriage Amendment is annoying, although nothing of consequence (her record in government shows that she is anything but a crusader for hot-button social issues). Her glorification of ‘Joe Six-Pack’ during the 2008 campaign season still rests heavily on my mind, too — although I’ll take Joe Six-Pack over God’s Partner In Life and Death. But the time for parsing is quickly passing. The means of intellectual conservatism simply aren’t as important as the ends of individual freedom. When Sarah Palin contends in her Hong Kong speech that we don’t want fixes, but rather freedom, it sends my classically liberal heart a-flutter. When she has the audacity to go after the third rail that is the Federal Reserve, my eyebrow raises, and not in a bad way. When she simultaneously condemns protectionism and the human rights record of China, I can’t help but clap my hands. Yeah, yeah, she had a speechwriter. Just like Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Mr. Intellectual himself, President Obama. Is Sarah necessarily, strictly speaking, as intelligent as any of the three? Probably not. But what’s her ideology like? It seems to be a lot more like Barry Goldwater’s than Richard Nixon’s. If it turns out that we can’t beat Barack Obama, I’d rather send a message with Sarah Palin than with Mitt Romney.
Now, I’m not turning into John Ziegler or Kristofer Lorelli, here, but my opinion of Sarah Palin is now officially positive. Freed of the McCain campaign’s fumbling and often bizarre calculations, Sarah, I believe, can be set loose to do what she really wants to do. I eagerly await her next speech and her upcoming book. If she can sway me, she can sway others. Go get ‘em, Sarah!
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com
September 26th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Great post!
“Now, I’m not turning into John Ziegler or Kristofer Lorelli, here, but my opinion of Sarah Palin is now officially positive.” Haha, with the possible exception of Tommy Boy, nobody can be another Kristofer; I am just glad that you are officially positive. I congratulate you for your courage; the extreme elements within the Romney camp are not going to take to kindly to this.
September 26th, 2009 at 8:53 am
You’ve crossed over to the dark side. You’ll be missed here in the light.
September 26th, 2009 at 8:54 am
“If it turns out that we can’t beat Barack Obama, I’d rather send a message with Sarah Palin than with Mitt Romney.” Ah, the real message of your post. All that blithering about Palin just to take a shot at Romney.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Alex, this was more an apology/excuse-making post for Palin, than anything else.
Honestly, I think you’re just joking for the heck of it. You can’t really believe what you wrote. Pretty convoluted stuff.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:16 am
How refreshing to see an article that is free from political bias. Thanks for the courage Alex.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Alex, is this another one of your “April Fools” jokes like your “Romney endorsement”?
Somehow, based on your postings to date, I just can’t picture you and Sarah as a couple in love.
You and Rudy, I could picture that.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:27 am
And for a parting shoot Alex………This statement of yours has all the hallmarks of you would would so glorious label as a FLIP-FLOP.
Welcome to the same company as Romney.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:28 am
“parting shot”…….good grief
September 26th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Yeah, this thread is about as sound of logic as your dissing Mitt over his questioning intelligence in Iran….i.e. three days later they find a nuclear faciity heretofore unknown! I’m almost glad to see this, because Alex is rarely right when picking candidates.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Okay, what the heck.
1. Palin didn’t appear to WANT to be effective as gov after the 08 election. She got a taste of the limelight and grew too big for Alaska – at least hat’s what many Alaskans expressed. Her record when she came back seems to bear it out. She was ineffective all the way around, and most repubs and dems in the legislature grew frustrated with her lack of interest/attention. She failed to fight for any legislation – even her pet projects. She submitted her 3 most important pieces of legislation with only 6 weeks to go. Her heart wasn’t in it.
The personal cost to fight the ethics charges was a problem, to be sure. But the claim that it cost Alaska 2 million is not true, according to new reports – the cost was around $40,000 or so. At least that’s what I read, correct me if I am wrong. So the excuse doesn’t wash. Besides, Sarahcuda is supposed to be able to handle anything. She’s got the rep for taking on anything. The mounting ethics charges problem was a PERFECT opportunity for Sarah to display her leadership/tough gal qualities. Yet, she shrunk.
I don’t know why her quitting does not bother you, Alex. Alaskans elected her to do a job with the full expectation that she would not quit when the going was rough. Where’s the commitment? Politicians ought to serve their full terms, unless presented with extremely extenuating circumstances. Media pressure, and a few disgruntled democrats in Alaska filing frivolous claims does not rise to extenuating. Most of the charges were being dropped, anyway. Nearly everyone was on her side, and it could have been a net gain for her political future is she had weathered the storm and just done her job.
Now, she will forever be tarred as a quitter, and forced to answer the endlessly repeated question, “If elected as POTUS, will you serve your full term, or will you quit when the job gets too tough?”.
We must nominate a strong, tested person to go up against Obama. Palin would be a huge risk for a number of reasons. Her performance in the last election looms large. Palin is good at getting attention, but she has not demonstrated that she is good at leading, that she understands to complexities of the issues, or that she has the fortitude to do the job, no matter how difficult it may become.
Alex, I hope you are just having fun. I think you know that Palin also has some of those character flaws that you hate in the other candidates. It’s weird to see you give Palin a pass on so many obvious red flags.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:58 am
I eagerly await palin’s book as well. Not because I would ever buy it, but rather because I want to see if sarah is brave and decent and transparent enough to let people see WHO SHE REALLY IS. This would writing about her apparent shotgun wedding, her 20 years spent in a radical church (does this remind us of someone else…hmm?) and what it is that she and John McCain were determined to keep hidden from sarah’s base by not releasing her medical records (her Doc released only a letter THE NIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION—bizarre!). If sarah’s book is simply about what a victim she has been and how awesome she is (* cough, cough*) and how many points she scored in a basketball game, then she will have simply reinforced what a joke and scam she truly is.
From an article by THE HILL on the book, Trailblazer:
“Lorenzo Benet, an assistant editor at People magazine, tries to capitalize on Palin’s star power in his latest book, Trailblazer: An Intimate Biography of Sarah Palin.
But even with all of his focus on Palin’s values, Benet practically glosses over what was apparently a shotgun wedding. The Palins eloped on Aug. 29, 1988, to the surprise of their parents and friends. Their firstborn, Track, was delivered almost exactly eight months later, on April 20, 1989.
When contacted by The Hill, Bill McAllister, a spokesman for Palin, said only: “I think it’s part of the public record that the governor and her husband eloped.” He declined to comment on the timing of Track’s birth.”
http://thehill.com/bookshelf/20791-tracing-palins-trailblazing-path
September 26th, 2009 at 10:02 am
The first time I ever voted for a President, I voted for Ronald Reagan…and after his presidency, I got so disgusted with the Repub Party that I spent years voting for Democrats, Libertarians and Independents. In 2008, I voted for a Republican for the first time since Reagan. I voted for Sarah Palin (not McCain.)
Of course Sarah knew the media would destroy her because she resigned her Governorship…she knew it would set off yet another round of degradation and ridicule. And she knows that it will be used against her in future campaigns…but she was willing to risk her career and her political future by doing what was right for the people who she took an oath to serve. Sarah put her Alaska first.
It was one of the most courageous things I ever seen a politician do in my lifetime.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Alex, as a faithful, long-time, careful reader of this site, my main gripe here has been its Palin minimization and/or outright bashing going back a long long (in political/election terms) time.
Now I recall a (then) frequent commenter “Ted” — Spring and Summer of 2008 — who more than repeatedly, consistently and vociferously, touted Palin (as McCain’s VP pick) at a time when she was hardly known, and she was certainly derided and/or dismissed (along with doing the same to “Ted”) by writers and commenters here.
I haven’t seen any of “Ted’s” comments here since then — at least after McCain’s selection of Palin, but I do remember them, mainly because of “Ted’s” steadfast, more than confident, prognostications on the many merits of Palin (again, much to the disdain of others on this site).
Perhaps folks here can look those archives up, and perhaps give “Ted” some overdue credit and/or recognition.
“Ted” certainly knew more about Palin than you guys.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:03 am
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-05/inside-sarahs-church/full/
Inside Sarah Palin’s Radical Church
by Max Blumenthal
September 5, 2009
“In an excerpt from his new book “Republican Gomorrah”, Max Blumenthal examines the radical beliefs about witchcraft and the “serpent seed” that propelled Sarah Palin into politics.
“Oh father, use her to turn this nation around,” Bishop Muthee shouted, his left palm on Sarah Palin’s head, “so that the curse can be broken.”
Sarah gets protection from witches:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl4HIc-yfgM&feature=fvw
September 26th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Inside Sarah Palin’s Radical Church
by Max Blumenthal
September 5, 2009
“In an excerpt from his new book “Republican Gomorrah”, Max Blumenthal examines the radical beliefs about witchcraft and the “serpent seed” that propelled Sarah Palin into politics.
“Oh father, use her to turn this nation around,” Bishop Muthee shouted, his left palm on Sarah Palin’s head, “so that the curse can be broken.”
More:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-05/inside-sarahs-church/full/
September 26th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Sarah Gets Protection From Witches:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl4HIc-yfgM&feature=fvw
September 26th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Your post is outstanding. I do not disagree with much of it. (As far as Palin’s identification as a social conservative, I do not find this a liability. I think it makes her road to the nomination that much easier. I think her libertarian and federalist tendencies make her understand that social conservatism cannot be the principal focus of a National Government in a federalist and pluralistic republic, and that her principal role in such a debate is limited to stopping the accretion of power and authority to the central government, most durably by her judicial appointments.
I do not believe that she has cast herself as “victim in chief”, although I believe she has been savaged by the media and the Democrat operatives (yes, and some Republicans as well), and the GOP base (and even many liberals) do perceive her treatment as grossly unfair. I vividly remember the same operation (Operation Slander, it might be called), which was undertaken against Reagan after HE burst onto the national scene in 1964 with “The Speech” in support of Goldwater’s failed Presidential candidacy. The left, as well as the Republican Establishment, quickly perceived him as a real threat. First, they tried to dismiss him as a lightweight actor who couldn’t succeed at the serious, consequential job of governance. Then, when he won the governorship of California in 1966 by one million votes against an incumbent who had, four years earlier, easily dispatched (by 300,000 votes) former Vice President (and former California Senator) Richard Nixon, the persecution began in earnest and really continued up to and beyond his entry into the White House 14 years later. While I do not believe there is any formal conspiracy to destroy Palin, I believe there are those on the left who believe that they did not take Reagan seriously until it was too late, and that they do not intend to make the same mistake with Palin. Hence, the level of vitriol is disproportionate for one who has left office and kept a relatively low profile.
Palin appeared to me (when she was announced) as someone who embodied Reagan’s philosophy to a tee. Get the government out of the way. Like Reagan (and unfortunately unlike any Republican nominee since Reagan) I think she really believes it. If you couple those convictions with a sunny, optimistic personality and real tenacity (I am glad you mentioned the Oil and Gas Commission, because she quit that job over principle (i.e.-corruption) as well, even though it meant walking away from a salary well into six figures that represented a genuine financial sacrifice), not to mention the courage to take on and crush a sitting Republican Governor, who was an electoral powerhouse and institution in Alaska, you have..well..Reagan. Maybe even Reagan plus, because I am not sure even the Gipper would have fought the battles she has fought thus far (and won).
The left fears her, but the Republican establishment fears her no less, because..Yikes…She appears to actually MEAN IT. She doesn’t understand that these are the things you say to get elected. This is not how you govern. And the people sense that she means it as well. That is why she, with a couple of facebook postings, is able to “move the needle” on public opinion AND public policy even though she holds no office. Even Reagan, for all his gifts, never accomplished anything like that, although he was able to get deep tax cuts through a Democrat House, over the leadership’s determined opposition, in 1981 and 1986 (while George W. Bush got a measly temporary tax cut through a Congress in which BOTH HOUSES were controlled with decent majorities by the GOP).
I have said before that the circumstances of 2009 are very similar to those extant in 1977. The incumbent President bears a striking resemblance to Jimmy Carter. The GOP establishment candidate, Mitt Romney, is very similar both in philosophy and background (even geography) to George H.W.Bush. And the insurgent candidate, Sarah Palin, bears a resemblance to Ronald Reagan that was not lost even on the former President’s son. Are there going to be differences between 1980 and 2012? To be sure. But will the results be the same. I believe they will.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Well welcome to our side. Where the common folk live and understand a person that knows what we really want. Unlike the political genius’s
And we do the voting.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Martha is right on the money.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:10 am
#12..Susan…Your post is interesting to me, and that’s certainly one way to look at it.
Gov. Romney also has taken much grief on this site because he did not run for a second term as governor of MA stating that it was his intent to run for the presidency and he could not focus on that and do a good job as governor.
But because a Demorcrat was elected in his place, he gets blamed for that and for only being a one-term governor.
Anyway, it’s interesting how one event can be viewed so differently by so many people.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Shelby, you are not doing Romney or the GOP any good by repeatedly posting those anti-Palin links. We got the message.
Also, we don’t want similar posts about our candidates of choice posted repeatedly do we?
During the last camapaign, there were people constantly posting half-lies and bold-face lies, and out-of-context stuff about Romney and others.
So I’m asking you Shelby, as a strong Romney supporter, to please stop posting those virulent links about Sarah Palin.
Please
September 26th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Shelby,
Just so you know, if you post Links and lowlights from articles, in my threads, with basically no analysis, I will delete your replies. Alex is maybe more forgiving. Just a warning.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Wow. The whackjobs are out in force this morning. You know who you are…
Great post Alex!
September 26th, 2009 at 10:21 am
13. Ted (the original Ted) occassionally posts over at C4P. He said he was banned from Race42008. He would like to post here again, but until he is invited back and “unbanned”, we won’t be hearing from him.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:24 am
13, 23 – Um, Ted would spam every freaking thread with Birther crap. That’s why he was banned.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:30 am
I did write an analysis in post #11, and the writer of this article brought up sarah’s book. The level of honesty or lack of it in sarah’s upcoming book will add to the information we need in deciding what candidates have necessary qualities of transparency, integrity, and maturity.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Alex,
You seem to be a pretty young guy with a lot of enthusiasm and not much real world experience. Let me give you some advise.
No one with Sarah Plain’s resume would even get an interview for a serious job. No One. If you run an add for a senior executive in the WSJ, as I have , you sometimes get 10,000 resumes, which I received. Out of that response, why would you ever pick a candidate who doesn’t stay with a job and doesn’t have a lot a serious, senior level experience and no academic management / legal credentials? It is not enough to just ” like” somebody. It is not enough to be photogenic. We have commercials with geckos that accomplish that.
We also have dozens of examples of failed companies whose incompetent CEO was put in place by an adoring BOARD because they liked the candidate.
Stop considering who can win the office and start considering who can manage the Office of the President
September 26th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Hi Alex,
Sorry for the typos; ie, advice and Sarah Palin, but I think you understand my good intentions. Look at the bigger picture
September 26th, 2009 at 10:35 am
It is not enough to be photogenic.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Alex, most excellent post. The drama up here in Alaska was getting real old. It seemed like every other week someone was filing a new ethics complaint against her. And they’re still litigating the complaints.
While she would have been easily re-elected, I’m not so sure about Parnell. So by stepping down early, she raises up Parnell.
“If I die politically, I die.” What a liberating sentence for a politician to make — to be able to state your position not caring whether or not it will cost you an election.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Alex,
I predict you will, in time, desert Sarah and take up the cross (so to speak) for Pawlenty. He will emerge, over time, as the true alternative to Mitt. You will do this because Sarah, wonderful woman that she is, simply isn’t who you imagine her to be. She isn’t ready for primetime, however sound her ideological instincts are. Her campaign will unfold like a soap opera; more a Quixotic than a heroic quest.
Her only hope is to become even more the darling of the tea partiers and the most flamboyant of the talk show hosts, ultimately leading the rabble in an all-out assault on the Bastille. If this actually worked, Huckabee would be President right now. Anyway, this is still a step up for you. It’ll keep you out of trouble for awhile.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:44 am
sarah’s favoribility ratings in Alaska were nearing the under 50% mark when sarah up and quit. Many believe that was one of the factors for sarah’s choice to bail.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Alex, I recall that there were, in fact, many repeated “Ted” comments at the time touting Palin throughout the blogosphere — I guess you could call that “spam” as well; and I later read somewhere that “Ted” was credited in spreading awareness of Palin (even to McCain who publicly essentially admitted “learning about public perceptions” on the blogs — McCain’s statement was picked up by the press at the time).
In any case, I later read on Adam Brickley’s palinforvop.blogspot.com site that he (Adam) awarded Ted “blogger of the year” for his Palin doings.
I say this because, perhaps you are dismissing Ted’s “birther crap”, apparently the same way this site dismissed Ted’s “Palin comments” in the Summer of 2008. That is, perhaps it will turn out at some point that “Ted” will be shown as correct on his Obama (birther stuff) as Ted turned out to be correct on Palin. And anyway, as I am a careful reader throughout the political blogosphere, I don’t believe Ted claims that Obama was not born in Hawaii; I believe that Ted claims that since Obama’s father was Kenyan/British, Obama does not fit the definition of “natural born citizen” under the Constitution’s Article 2 (albeit Obama may be a “citizen” which is irrelevent for the unique Article 2 POTUS requirement).
September 26th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Jerald,
I have never said anything critical about Romney. I follow Sarah Palin’s lead, and she has never spoken negatively about any of her fellow Republicans. I applaud Romney for his honesty as well.
It perplexes me how people claim that they want “a politician who is different from the others” and when one emerges on the scene, they back away and run back into the arms of a “business-as-usual” politician (the typical back-stabbing, snake oil salesmen.)
In my heart, I know I wouldn’t have had the guts to do what Sarah did. I would have rather endured every Saul Alinsky tactic in the book, risked the Gas pipeline, risked bringing my state to a legislative standstill, having my State targeted by Washington and watched as my political opponents escalated the ugliness and birthed more division and rancor and ill-will.
I would have thrown my State under the bus before I’d stepped into the firing line of personal humiliation like Sarah Palin did.
Some say should should have “toughed it out.” Tough what out? Watching her State be fed into a meat grinder by her “destroy her at all costs” opponents?
That’s like telling a woman whose children are being abused by her husband, that she needs “to tough it out” and let the abuse keep going…anything to avoid being called “A Quitter” by her neighbors. Peer pressure is always used to keep weak-willed people conforming to the “status quo.” I am glad Sarah rose above “what people will say” and did the right thing for the people of Alaska.
Quitting is sometimes the bravest thing a person can do…I sure am glad our Founding Fathers “quit” England.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:47 am
#30:
Once you sign on mentally and psychologically to Sarah’s team I can personally testify you will never desert her. The challenge Sarah faces is to convert folks like Alex because there are so many of them. Having said that, Sarah always shows up well in polls so what I am talking about building on an already solid foundation.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Palin could really be the Ross Perot of 2012. The country is ripe for a liberatarian populist. If she starts getting some money guys behind her like Fred Malek, and speech writers like the one she had in Asia, and some campaign structure she could really go far. The only problem I see with all these people getting behind her is that they will want to mold Palin into this image that they have. It could turn into some internal squabbling that could derail her. In addition, the voters may not like what the strategy guys end up presenting-i.e. like what they did to Romney. I see Palin as a very strong woman who makes her own decisions, i.e her telling McCain to go after Michigan. So if she can stick to her guns, and be who she really is, then she could win 2012.
The only problem I still have with Palin is her lack of experience. Now Huckabee, Pawlenty and even Romney will have had more governing experience then she has. Romney could even upstage her with his amount of business experience. So she is not a true Ross Perot because she will not have all that experience behind her.
So the big question will be in 2012-what are the voters looking for? And then how do the candidates play into that. Who changes to suit the voters? Who listens to their strategists and misses the mark? And who tells the voters, this is who I am, this is what I believe in, and this is what I want to do for America?
It will be interesting to watch how the top four play the game for the next two years. We can already see some of their strategies emerging.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:50 am
# 28 Alex,
That’s O.K. I know you need help.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Not according to this poll:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/071709morning-fix-winners-and.html#more
September 26th, 2009 at 10:55 am
#35:
“Who changes to suit the voters?”
I predict that Plain will not change to suit the voters (or, more accurately, what the pollsters say the voters believe). Like Reagan, she will lead the voters.
Now, let’s see…Which one of the four is the most likely to change to suit the voters?
September 26th, 2009 at 10:56 am
And this post is an example of why I post FACTUAL information about sarah palin with links/citations to verify. The info obtained from blogs is often the ONLY PLACE one can learn the true persona of politicians. It’s disappointing that the pro-palin article writers on this blog would prefer that FACTUAL information regarding palin not be made known to its readers. Some just love to keep their heads buried in the sand, and then wonder why their candidate did so badly in an election.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:58 am
#35:
In 2 years when the primary season comes upon us I think your criticism of her inexperience may have diluted somewhat. By then Sarah should have helped to orchestrate a huge turnaround in GOP fortunes in the 2010 midterms and LEGITIMIZED her leadership ability and her worthiness for higher office.
And Sarah is not about to run as a third party candidate. Sarah is not stupid. She understands the political reality of the electoral college and presidential politics.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Um, just to clarify:
1) I have not endorsed Sarah Palin for the presidency
2) Rudy Giuliani remains my first choice and anything else is subordinate to that
3) I still think Sarah was disingenuous about the Bridge to Nowhere
4) I still think Sarah Palin did not know what the Bush Doctrine was, whether out of ignorance or nervousness and brain fartery; neither are acceptable
5) I still have a problem with the Wasilla Sports Complex
September 26th, 2009 at 11:03 am
This is a stunner Alex, and absolute stunner!! I’m blown away. I take back every single nasty thing I ever said about you. Welcome to the side of the Angels. And your always welcome on my blog.
Eric Dondero, Publisher
Libertarian Republican
September 26th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Martha, you people are going to have to start backing up your claim that she abandoned her post to bask in the LIMELIGHT, to walk the red carpet and live in the glow of her celebrity. How many times have you seen her, since her resignation, hamming it up on television, schmoozing with talk-show hosts? Where are all those magazine covers and photo shoots? Where is she selling herself in the hyped-up, glamour scene? If it’s screaming crowds she wants…she could have them at the snap of her fingers…and yet she’s quietly spent the last few months out of the spotlight.
She went to Hong Kong and got paid for a speech for which she’s promptly demonized as being “money hungry.” However, I don’t see any of these people screaming hysterically about Huckabee and his television show. Surely he’s drawing a paycheck for all his television appearances.
That “limelight” schtick is getting old and has proven to be wrong on all counts.
As for your other “facts”…just keep makin’ things up…
September 26th, 2009 at 11:07 am
“Rudy Giuliani remains my first choice”
Problem with Rudy is he will split the GOP and hand the White House to Obama for a second term. His social liberalism was the reason he got no traction in 2008. (Plus he will be 68 and a cancer survivor).
2012 will be no different than 2008. I suspect Rudy realizes that. He would be a great AG or White House Chief of Staff or a half dozen other posts, assuming he doesn’t do the country a big favor and take one of the NY Senate seats back .
September 26th, 2009 at 11:07 am
41. She’s disingenuous about more things than that, Alex.
Remember the whopper she told the McCain campaign about Todd being registered with the AIP for 7 years? Oh, he just checked the wrong box.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:12 am
45 – Lol. Yeah, it’s a whopper. Surely you can also admit that Mitt Romney was telling a whopper when he said that he voted for Paul Tsongas in ‘92 because “he really wanted to vote against Bill Clinton”?
September 26th, 2009 at 11:13 am
His social liberalism was the reason he got no traction in 2008.
No, his poor campaign strategy (and I don’t mean Florida) and a bad calendar (given the other candidates) were the reasons he got no traction.
He had no coherent message.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:14 am
43. Susan, I’ve never made anything up about Palin.
All you need to do is observe Palin to know she seeks the limelight. She’s very good at soliciting media attention, and she has most definitely not gone off quietly out of the spotlight. (BTW – did you see her beauty queen spread in Runner’s Magazine. Look it up, it’s a hoot).
I don’t care how much Palin gets paid for her speeches. Go for it. Most of us would do the same thing, especially it we needed the money, and had lawyers to pay. It doesn’t bother me at all.
Quitting bothers me, when I’m looking for a serious potential POTUS. Being a great leader involves getting attention – which Palin is very good at, but more importantly, it requires doing the not-so-glamorous work of preparation and making hard choices when necessary. Palin has shown little ability to do either.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:16 am
#42 – Couldn’t you easily have made that list 50 long? I surely would hope so!
September 26th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Obama has less than two years in Congress and he was seen as qualified. Quayle had ten years in Congress, and he was seen as too inexperienced to be VP. Quayle never shook the inexperienced critisism (The spelling of potato didn’t help). I don’t know if Sarah will ever shake the perception that she is inexperienced.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:17 am
46. Maybe so, Alex. I thought that one was a little questionable, too. But in fairness, some people really do that.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:17 am
#41 now
September 26th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Why is is that Alex rights several detailed paragraphs about Sarah Palin, and mentions Romney twice, yet the Romneyites think this is all some grand conspiracy to bring down Mitt? Honestly Romneyites, not everyone who supports other candidates has some sinister motive, most of them just like the other candidates more than the other choices.
Not everything is about Romney, and not every remark where his name is mentioned us an attack on him or his religion.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:18 am
49 – I could add that (6) She still needs to do some hardball interviews…
September 26th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Will you quit knocking Palin’s intelligence, you know women are part of the same species you are. Try to wrap yer brain around it.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:20 am
46. Maybe so, Alex. I thought that one was a little questionable, too. But in fairness, some people really do that.
And listen, you know, I don’t necessarily hold it against him; perhaps we really was embarrassed, in hindsight, about voting for Paul Tsongas and was thinking on his feet and gave some convoluted answer. Too embarrassed to say “Yeah, I supported Tsongas at the time.” A lot of people did. I just find it to be a pattern in Mitt.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Will you quit knocking Palin’s intelligence, you know women are part of the same species you are. Try to wrap yer brain around it.
Um, all I said was that I think that Romney and Obama are smarter than she is. That would be true even if her IQ were 130 and theirs were both 135.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Name one other person who gave or would give up power and title for love of state and country?
September 26th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Who knew, outside of Washington, what the term “Bush Doctrine” encompassed? If Gibson had asked her what she thought of Bush’s foreign policy, those two could have hashed it out. Where Sarah made her mistake was not throwing it back in Gibson’s smug face with a “look Charlie, I don’t run with Beltway intellectuals…I’ve been too busy governing a state to stay up on the jargon…”
I am not confident that McCain or Biden would have specifically answered that question without asking for some clarification from Gibson either. Obama would have never been asked.
My impression of the Bush Doctrine question, is that aftewards…all the “know it alls” googled the term, made quick minute read of it to inform themselves, and then proceeded to act as if they knew “all along” what it meant, and expressed phoney shock, “She didn’t know what Bush Doctrine meant?”
Come on people…how many people, not living in “the bubble” knew what that meant? Yes, yes…you will all say, “But we’re not politicians…we aren’t running for office.” Well, I say this: I’m sick to death of politicians who know “the lingo”, can talk up their intellectual prowess…but when it comes down to cold hard, work…making practical decisions…maintaining their ethics and just doing what is right (instead of obsessing over their political careers) they are moral midgets. I wish they’d just shut up, roll their sleeves up and get to work. Prove to me how wise you are by working hard and trying to do the right thing.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Congrats on the conversion, Alex!
I am a Palin fan because she is willing to attack her own party first–remove the mote from the GOP eye before going after the beam in the DNC or national eye.
I also agree that the Federal Reserve needs to be taken down. I was warm to the idea before, but after they rejected an audit last week, I believe they are hiding something. If they won’t submit to an audit, the right to regulate the money supply should be returned to the Federal Government (as is Constitutional) and the Federal Reserve (a private organization) disbanded.
Of course, I still prefer Romney for President in 2012, but Palin is a close second. I would love to see them work together.
I think Palin should also consider a run for Congress. As much as we like her as an Executive, her voice would be invaluable in deciding legislation that is REALLY good for America. SOMEONE besides Joe Wilson needs to speak up for America. How many are speaking instead for special interest groups, partisan politics, and “Progressive” (regressive!!) agendas?
Finally, I appreciated you pointing out that her instict as a mother precedes her instinct to protect her political career.
God bless,
@ConsRepublicans (Twitter)
September 26th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Who knew, outside of Washington, what the term “Bush Doctrine” encompassed?
People who followed the news.
Bush Doctrine = preventive war.
Even if you disagree, it certainly wasn’t “………..his worldview?”
September 26th, 2009 at 11:26 am
SOMEONE besides Joe Wilson needs to speak up for America
Oh, good grief.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Susan, as a strong Romney supporter, I’ll ahve to say I agree with you on that particular question. She didn’t handle it well, but to not know it was not nearly as bad as some of her answers in the Couric interview. It was also not as bad as attempting to pick and choose which questions to answer in the debate.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:31 am
#47
The fact that Rudy “had no coherent message” is undoubtedly why you were supporting him, I surmise. Actually, Rudy’s mindset was easily perceivable, it’s just that he couldn’t present it and still get the nomination. But you’re right about one thing: His strategy truly sucked.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:35 am
“Um, all I said was that I think that Romney and Obama are smarter than she is.”
I do not really know who is smarter, having nothing to base it on. In Obama’s case, I don’t even know what he is academic record was, nor do you. We can’t just assume he is brilliant becasue that is what the MSM tells us.
I think, though, that if we are talking about IQ tests (which are really problematic, even for measuring intelligence) Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer and Annapolis Graduate (ranked 59th out of a class of 820), almost certainly had a significantly higher IQ than Reagan. Indeed, I have read that some accounts estimating that Carter’s IQ was higher than Lincoln’s, although I do not know how they quantify it.
IQ, and especially IQ tests, means nothing. Zilch. Especially in a President.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:36 am
If every Governor resigned when the going got tough, we would have around 4-5 governors left in this country right now. Frankly, I think that’s one of the most inexcusable things about Sarah. A Governor does not quit in the middle of their term just because they are having some difficulties.
What will she do if she becomes President? Is she going to quit when ‘Putin rears his head’? Are we going to hear from something like this from her?:
Actually, I think that’s what Alex wants.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Martha, again…give me three examples of how she’s “sought out” the limelight since she resigned? If the woman eats a banana, we hear about it for a week on television…she hardly has control over the media Palin-mania.
As for making “things up”…I spoke in error. You are just repeating, I suppose, what you’ve heard the Left-wing media report about Sarah. We are living in a world where 2 + 2= 5 now…facts and figures are now flexible…most of what you read about her (just like the garbage they report about the “tea party,” Town Hall protestors) is skewed and distorted.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:37 am
#59…Susan, most people in the US haven’t got a clue what the “Meiji Restoration” is, but any two-bit student of Japanese history does.
Similary, anybody keeping even a cursory eye on US foreign policy during the Bush Administration knows what the “Bush Doctrine” is.
The fact that Sarah was clueless showed everybody that she had less than a cursory interest in and knowledge of US foreign policy. Stating her foreign policy credentials as “I can see Russia from my front porch” and her defense creds as “There are antiballistic missiles in Alaska” didn’t help much either.
Give Sarah credit where credit is due, but lets not stretch it….
September 26th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Yes, Dave. I thought Rudy’s message was right, and coherent. He just had a horrible strategy that was not obvious until it was too late.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Stating her foreign policy credentials as “I can see Russia from my front porch”
Tina Fey said that, not Sarah Palin.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:43 am
#70…..Really?….Then I stand corrected……Embarrassing……Took the misinformation hook, line, and sinker…..
I can trust you on that, right Alex
September 26th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Alex, as for Rudy in 2008, putting his social liberalism aside, I agree he got screwed by the primary schedule.
Start things off with NY and NJ and it would have been over before it began.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Palin On Foreign Policy
Katie Couric talks with Gov. Sarah Palin about her foreign policy experience and Alaska’s proximity to Russia.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4478156n
September 26th, 2009 at 11:47 am
#59:
The person who coined the term Bush doctrine, Charles Krauthammer, who by the way has not been known as an avid Palin defender, came out shortly after the Gibson interview and defended Palin and exposed Gibson as a fraud who did not know that there were different aspects of the Bush doctrine.
Alex, although you have had a change in heart I disagree with you on your take here. I’ll go with CK over you. I hope you don’t take offense.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:48 am
#67. No Susan. I don’t read or watch the MSM much. I certainly don’t know what the talking points are on Sarah. I just use my own eyes and ears.
But, you are partly right, though. She has been a little more quiet since she resigned. I was actually referring to her actions after the election, where she was actively seeking publicity. She had an ill-advised public battle with the father of her grandson that was totally unnecessary. She picked a fight with Letterman that actually ended up with a lot of people commenting about the possible rape of her daughters. That controversy lasted for a week or so, when it should have been one day. She should have left those things alone, and learned to say ‘no comment’.
I thought the Runner’s World photos were a perfect description of how Palin uses her persona. But I don’t want a beauty queen POTUS. Seriously did you see the poses?
Yes, she has a low threshold for news. All the more reason to be a little more careful about which battles to choose. I think she often chooses the wrong ones. I think her death panel Facebook post was a mixed result. And the Hong Kong speech, whatever it was – I didn’t see or read any of it, was tarnished by her unwillingness to have the press present, and by being critical of America while on foreign soil.
She still las a lot to learn and do before she can be a credible candidate.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Actually, I don’t fault the strategy of Rudy. I do believe his social positions as well as his personal life is what hurt him. He ran hard in Iowa, for a while, found out he was not going to do well, and backed off. He ran hard i NH, for a while, and the harder he ran, the worse his numbers got, and backed off. He had the money and psent the money in most of the early important states, but he just (for whatever reasons) didn’t catch on in a lsting way.
I believe his messy divorces, the fact that he didn’t wait for the divorces, the near scandal (regardless of whether or not deserved) pertaining to paying for his lovers expenses, the cross dressing, living with gays for 6 months after his divorce….all these things added up to what I believe hurt him. But bigger than any of these individually was his stance on abortion. For whatever the reasons, the harder Rudy campaigned in a state, the worse his numbers got. The closer people looked at him, the more of them ran away. The appointment of very liberal judges, regardless of whether or not it was his fault probably hurt him a little too, as did Romney’s, also not his fault.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:48 am
#59
“Who knew, outside of Washington, what the term “Bush Doctrine” encompassed?”
Exactly. Bush’s entire Presidency was an exercise in “split the difference” and equivocation. I would not have hazarded a guess that there was any such thing. Palins’ foot fault was in trying to understand and answer the question as if it were posed in good faith. which it clearly was not.
If she had been asked that question (and similar gotcha questions for which there is no right or wrong answer) after a little more seasoning (not much, because I think she is very good on her feet), she might have answered it with a reference to her ideological godfather, who is Reagan.
In response to questions about what Bush did or thought, she should answer them with reference to what Reagan did and thought. The specific question about the Bush doctrine could have been answered thus:
“Let me tell you what my doctrine is, Charlie, and you have heard it before. It was the same doctrine enunciated by President Reagan when he confronted our enemies: ‘WE WIN, THEY LOSE’”
Palin was slammed because she tried to answer in good faith. She will be prepared for the assaults in 2012.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:49 am
73. You can always count on Aron.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Alex, I just watched, again, the video posted by Aron.
Tiny Fey was paraphrasing Sarah Palin, but these painful responses by Sarah were just as bad or maybe even worse.
As you would say about Mitt: There is a pattern here……
September 26th, 2009 at 11:51 am
74. Bob, nobody believes that Palin’s inability to answer the Bush doctrine question can be chalked up to Palin wondering about the intricacies CK describes. LOL
September 26th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Alex, I think that you have come around to my feelings re Governor Palin (albeit, it took a bit longer) and articulated your support for her better than I could have. Although skeptical of the possibility of Gov. Palin as a Veep choice in July and August of 08, I have since warmed to her and admire her tenacity, emotional intelligence and undeniable charisma. She is REAGANESQUE in her appeal and could be the ONE to unite the various factions of the Party.
Her election as POTUS would be an historic first and would forever create parity in the so called gender gap between parties. I long though that the GOP would be the first party to nominate an African American, for the GOP to nominate its own “Thatcher” would be a coup of enormous proportion and shift the tectonic plates of political debate. Although nominating the first Mormon would also be a first and go far towards embracing ecumenicalism, the nomination of the first woman or Hispanic would be a huge game changer whose potential for future dividends we just can’t see from where we stand. Governor Palin is undeniably qualified and unquestionably dynamic to lead this Party into the future.
Welcome aboard Alex, I’ve reserved a seat for you on the bandwagon.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:55 am
76. I think that is exactly right. The religious right were out to get Rudy for those reasons, there is no doubt. It’s too bad, because Rudy would have been a stronger candidate than McCain, and is probably more conservative when the rubber meets the road, and would make a great president.
I thing he would be a kick-butt-take-names kind of POTUS, which we really need right now.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:56 am
#80
Again I’ll go with CK on this matter. If Sarah had screwed up he would have outed her. He did not and he had every opportunity to do so especially being a consistent critic of hers.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:57 am
JA Pruce, the polls show that while a great majority of repubs like Palin, only 12% want her to run for POTUS. That leaves little room for the possibility of uniting the party.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:57 am
#81 should read “I long thought…”
September 26th, 2009 at 11:57 am
#82…Martha, what part of Portland or you from. I grew up in SE Portland.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:59 am
You don’t say! Where?
We live in the Milwaukie/Gladstone.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
area.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Martha, I think you are spot on with this. I saw those pics a while back and was shocked/appalled to see sarah posing directly for the camera in TIGHT spandex…it was just too much. Where is this woman’s modesty and judgment? Pretty scary when one wants to be a high level politician and a beauty queen/star at the same time.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
None of this is going to matter in a couple of years.
Sarah Palin is helping to rally the opposition to Obama. That’s all to the good. She is going to be able to help in red districts that have Democrats in congress (and have no business doing so). She can help raise cash and she can help elect Republicans to the congress.
The serious Republican bigwigs, the opinion leaders, the Limbaughs aren’t going to stomache Palin as a presidential candidate in 2012. They know she is damaged goods. They’re going to line up behind someone else with populist appeal but without the baggage. They’ll find someone acceptable to the GOP base in the southern states and will hammer the point home day after day. Look at how Limbaugh and company gave us George Bush over McCain in 2000. The same thing is going to happen in the next election. The Republicans will just have to line up behind someone that can unite all factions. The opinion leaders will pick someone that the base can tolerate. Everyone else will be marginalized. Voila. We’ll have our 2012 nominee.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
#87…Hey, just a stone’s throw away. The real SE, Foster, Powell, Division area between 60th and 30th Ave, Portland Stake area (a few different locations).
Went to Benson Tech High.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
And to follow up on 90,
A base acceptable and enthusiastic pick alone will be enough to pull back IN and NC into the red column. Beating up Obama relentlessly, continuing to do so will keep VA, FL and OH right on the brink. Play our cards right and the whole ballgame tips our way.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
91. My husband graduated from Aloha High School, but I’m a transplant.
Adam, Limbaugh loves Palin and has already touted her for POTUS. He said she’s articulating the conservative message better than anyone, and that Romney and co. hate her, and are afraid of her.
He’s nuts though. You’re right about the big wigs, I think – I hope.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
“The serious Republican bigwigs, the opinion leaders, the Limbaughs aren’t going to stomach Palin as a presidential candidate in 2012. They know she is damaged goods. They’re going to line up behind someone else with populist appeal but without the baggage.”
Limbaugh, Levin and Beck all like Palin very much, so your premise is flawed. There is no evidence out there that any dark horse exists in the GOP who can unite it and bring it to victory. In the 1980 cycle, there were plenty of such candidates, Phil Crane, John Connally and others who were much less damaged ( not to mention younger) than Reagan (and who were not considered disloyal for having challenged a sitting GOP President). The GOP does not nominate dark horses.
BTW any conservative is going to be “damaged goods” according to the prism of the MSM. McCain was not damaged goods, he was media tested and approved, because he was a) likely to lose; and b)even if he won, he would implement a significant portion of the big government agenda (cap and trade, etc)
According to this measure. Mitt will nicely fill the bill as the MSM approved GOP candidate in 2012. Problem for him is that 2012 is the year of the insurgent candidate. Ergo, the year of Palin.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
#93…..Ah, your husband is a West Sider. Where are you transplanted from?
September 26th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Kind of unrelated, but Adam’s post in #92 made me think about the electoral map…
It’s very rare for Presidents to win reelection with less electoral votes then the first time.
If you look at the past hundred years, it’s only happened three times.
Woodrow Wilson in 1916, and FDR in 1940 and 1944.
I wonder if we’ll have another addition to that list in 2012.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
I would have to disagree about sarah’s “emotional intelligence”. As mentioned before, sarah has engaged in unnecessary public bickering with the father of her daughter’s baby and with David Letterman, and other incidents. If you have not seen the photo of sarah palin standing behind Cindy McCain POUTING like a two year old on the verge of a tantrum, you really should see that image to get an idea of sarah’s “emotional intelligence”.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Martha,
Yeah I know. He’s playing to the audience. He’s faking it. Once he can no longer deny the PR disaster that she is, he’ll drop her. I guarantee it.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
I could not agree with you more.
My lone questions about Palin are her ideology & vision for America. While she still needs to provide her vision – which she will do in time – I am beginning to see that she is a true Reagan Conservative, and not a faux one like either of the Bush’s.
If you watch Palin you will see that she is usually 3 steps ahead of the dreaded Conventional Wisdom (which is now evident by her resigning from Governor).
Her strategy is becoming apparent. It’s slow & disciplined. She does not need to win the nomination in 2009. It’s still early in the process, but Sarah Palin is a positive force to be reckoned with.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
#90
I agree with you that Sarah is going to rally the opposition to Obama but I do not agree with you that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are going to abandon Sarah Palin as long as she is a viable Reagan conservative. Yes, the GOP establishement and “opinion leaders” may back Romney but what I believe will save Sarah is the grassroots and the base of the GOP. With over 900,000 members on Sarah’s Facebook and a potential 2m in 2 years Sarah cannot be discounted.
I am not saying that Sarah will win the primaries but I don’t believe that your scenario will play out. Simply put it will be a head to head contest between her and Romney. Sarah is strong now; she will be much stronger in 2 years.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Kevin,
That is interesting. It’s hard to see where else Obama breaks through. I mean, he won all the close ones. You could make a case that perhaps Missouri could flip if the economy improves. Maybe Montana. But Obama is going to have a hard time just holding NC and IN. You can bet that the GOP won’t give him a free ride in those states again. Elsewhere, all the ststes that McCain won were by 5 points or more. Obama pretty much maximized the black vote and its hard to see him do much better in Georgia. Everywhere else wasn’t close.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
“Once he can no longer deny the PR disaster that she is, he’ll drop her. I guarantee it.”
Yea. Rush Limbaugh hasn’t figured out that Palin is a PR disaster, but you have. And you guarantee he is going to make a calculated decision to “drop” her even though he has never shown any such tendency in the past and his criticisms of GWB and GHWB were never aimed at them as a “PR disaster”, although their numbers were underwhelming and, for much of their tenumre, in the toilet.
His criticisms were sharp (and well deserved) and were, and still are, always based on the person’s departure from conservative, Reaganite principles, not MSM/DNC spin.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Yes, Limbaugh, the 3-times married and (former ?) druger addict sure can pick ‘em can’t he? Sanford was his POTUS pick before…well you know…
September 26th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Sarah was called everything from a “sex-pot” to a “blow-up dummy” from legitimate journalists in supposedly legitimate newspapers…there were were the Sarah Palin strip revues and the Sarah Palin porn movies…and the “Sarah Palin is a C#@$!” t-shirts…everything from the “oh-so-funny” effigy of her that hung from a house for a week last Halloween to Sandra Bernhard threatening to have her “gang-raped by her black brothers in New York.” Sarah Palin never said a word.
When her children are involved, it’s quite a different matter. In her first and only response to Levi…it was issued in a statement by her spokesperson…she never did the “talk-show” circuit to bolster her position. Just one brief written statement. That’s all. One little piece of paper…and yet you heard about it for weeks. And Letterman joking about her fifteen year old daughter having sex with a professional athlete?
In both those cases she was defending her children.
Not that it matters, if she hadn’t said a word in defense of her kids, her detractors would have been disgusted at her for “not sticking up for her children.”
That’s the extraordinary thing about Sarah…for her detractors she will never do anything right…I am obviously a supporter, but there are times that I do not agree with her (her pro-capital punishment stand.) Though I can honestly tell you, no matter what I might disagree with her on, I will always defend her.
As for the Runner’s World photos…it’s a running magazine…small circulation for hard-core running fanatics (which Sarah is)… and the photos that you are referring to, only one of them (the picture of she with Trig in the stroller) ever even appeared in the actual magazine. I thought they were cute (though I will admit the one taken in her living room made me raise my eye-brow.)
Martha, she’s a good woman and she’s giving her heart and soul to “fighting the good fight.” You don’t have to vote for her, but don’t harden your heart against every little thing she does (or every little thing the media blows out of proportion.)
September 26th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
“The serious Republican bigwigs, the opinion leaders, the Limbaughs aren’t going to stomache Palin as a presidential candidate in 2012. They know she is damaged goods.”
Adam,
I hear what you are saying. But 3 years is an eternity in politics. If Obama is on the ropes (which I predict he will be), if Palin is able to illuminate about her ideology (Which I believe she will do via speeches, her book, and appearances), and if she looks like a winner, then all but a few elitists will gladly join with her.
Remember, the goal for any conservative (or moderate, for that matter) is to get this buffoon out of office. And if it takes Palin to do that job, the she will be backed.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
zebra,
Rush can be pragmatic. I seem to remember him gung ho about Schwarzenegger in CA in 2003 during the recall effort. Granted Arnie has fallen out of favor with everyone since then – but he was no Reaganite even in 2003.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Meant drug addict…
September 26th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Susan,
You make an excellent point. I can think of NO politician in recent history who was bombarded with false innuendos, rumors, and general crap than Sarah Palin. She never complained. She was always gracious.
The only time she fought back was when her children were attacked (Which, again, is something that NO politician in recent history has had to endure).
This woman has a very thick skin. And compared to the extremely thin skin of Obama, she is a far stronger person.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Low emotional intelligence because she defended her fifteen year old daughter from a sex joke that was heard by millions of Americans (including the kids who attend her daughter’s public school.)
Put me up there with Sarah and all the other red-blooded American mothers who protect their children from sex jokes.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Alex: I agree with your thoughts in regard to the resignation — it has turned out (contrary to punditry at the time) to be not only the right thing to do, but also a brilliant strategic move.
She has, in fact, proved to be very good at strategy — Facebook, which many sneered at (and continue to sneer) as a communications medium, has proven to be effective and visionary.
With a bow to the Rombots, no doubt she didn’t think of these things herself — she’s too stupid to come up with good strategic moves, just as she’s too stupid to write a speech. But the fact is that it doesn’t matter — a good executive is not someone who can do everything him/herself, but one who finds the right people to do each job.
That said, your post emphasized pragmatism. And the most important practical point is electability. Polls showing her performing a few points more poorly than Romney or Huckabee mean zero this far out, but the general perception of Palin means that it will be a long, hard slog to get to the point where she is electable. If/when she gets there (or at least a lot closer), I would have no problem supporting her — like you, I love the classical liberal philosophy she (or her speechwriter) is expressing — but till then I’m mostly looking elsewhere.
Which brings up the question of how she gets from here to there. Certainly she has to pass the interview test. Not now, not even soon, but sometime in 2010. Also, while Facebook has been a great move, and continues to work for her, it won’t do so forever. It will be interesting to see if she (or her strategists) has another new medium in mind.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I do not recall Rush being enamored of Schwartzenegger even then, when he was taking conservative fiscal positions.
He took a position in 2000 in favor of George W. Bush, after a great deal of soul searching, as I recall, and was very tentative about it and it was a choice between Bush and McCain. (He got behind Mitt Romney, after Thompson dropped out, to try stop McCain as well) To tell the truth, there have been no viable Reaganite candidates for Rush to get behind in the 20 years since he burst on the scene. I think he sees Palin as the first really viable Reaganite since Reagan and he also sees 2012 as very similar in its dynamics to 1980. I believe he will continue to tout her, and the only way he will abandon her is if she abandons the principles.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I would have never known about the Runner’s World pics if not for OLD-FOGY MALE PALIN SUPPORTERS posting them on Politico.com. They got a lot of exposure there, and I assume on other blogs as well. These types of things are what cause sarah to be seen as a brainless sex-pot and SARAH AND HER SUPPORTERS ARE CAUSING IT! sarah the victim…
September 26th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
“the general perception of Palin means that it will be a long, hard slog to get to the point where she is electable”
If she is nominated by the GOP, which is highly possible, the question will be whether the country wants to fire Obama. If they do, as I think they will, she will be easily electable. as you say now, the polls now mean nothing.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I would like to address a couple of comments, but first, welcome Alex, nice aritcle.
To # 26 and 27, Craig – I can see that you do NOT follow your advice to Alex, i.e. Sarah just being a mayor of a small city for two terms gave her a great deal of executive leadership comparied to Obama and his 160 days of saying “present” while in congress. To top that – she did more in her first year a governor than any other governor in history and was still at a 57% favorable when she made the correct choice of giving up her title for the benefit of Alaska.
And to Alex in your #41 post – 1. You should! #2. Why? #3. How was she disingenuous? She wanted what all governors wanted – Money coming to our state. Remember, we have not been a state very long. We need at least 10 trillion dollars worth of pork to catch up with what other states have collected for hundreds of years. And it WAS NOT a bridge to no-where. It connected an important airport to its city. #4. I voted for Bush both times and follow politics closely and have no idea what the Bush Doctrine was or is. If, as you say, it was preventive war. Good, I was stationed in Germany when Dessert Storm broke out and I was angry that Nukes weren’t used right away. #5. Why would the Wasilla Sports Complex bother you? Sarah asked for and got a 2% sales tax passed for the exact purpose of getting it built and when she left as Mayor Wasilla had an 18 million dollar surplus.
Ok! I’m done!
September 26th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
That’s not much of a rule, Kevin. How many cases are there in the same period of an incumbent president increasing his EV?
Five — Roosevelt ‘36, Eisenhower ‘56, Nixon ‘72, Reagan ‘84, Clinton ‘96.
So in five out of eight cases the EV increases. Not much of a track record to go on.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Someone mentioned the 2000 primary as a template for 2012. Although not a perfect parallel, I would have to agree to some degree. I see Governor Palin playing the part of Bush – her Reaganesque charisma and unflappable advocacy of conservative first principles playing to movement conservatives and the base, while Romney plays McCain and attracts the establishment types. If Limbaugh and Beck et al jump on early with Governor Palin, look out, I think she has the momentum to go all the way. She is strong and knows how to win.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
“She’s too stupid to come up with good strategic moves, just as she’s too stupid to write a speech.” Bob, whoever your “candidate” is for 2012…I hope they share your opinion of Sarah…I hope they to underestimate her at every turn, and repeat in mantra-fashion “Sarah is stupid…Sarah is stupid…Sarah is stupid.” I hope that’s the crux of their campaign strategy.
I hope that’s how they prepare for debates against her. I hope that’s their slogan. I hope that’s exactly how they “size” her up.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
#117. Not so quick. sarah will have to make it through the primaries. Romney and huck and PAW-T and almost every possible GOP contender has got more intelligence than does palin. And palin will be seriously vetted if she tries to run for president. Her contenders and base will want to know what sarah hides in her medical records. If she is a decent, “Christian” non-hypocritical (she knocks obama for not being transparent) contender, then she will spill the beans. And it could be bad. Only sarah and McCain and her doctors and likely Todd know what she’s hiding. sarah is pretty sly at hiding the things she doesn’t want her base to know. Stay tunned…
September 26th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Oops…that was supposed to be “Stay tuned…”
September 26th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
If Sarah can win over Alex then Sarah can win over the nation.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
#117:
The “stupid, unsophisticated bimbo” will always be in the Obama war room and MSM bag of tricks but I predict it will be supplemented more by the crazy, erratic, unstable, wacko, extremist meme as we move forward. Unfortunately that plays into the stereotype of the “irrational, flighty female” and the misogyny that some Americans still harbor.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Bridge to Nowhere was passed by Congress. Sarah was not even Governor when the legislation was introduced. In her gubernatorial campaign she stated that she supported the Bridge project, but after she became Governor and began reviewing the actual cost/benefits that were set on her desk, she recommended that the money be channeled to more vital state infrastructure projects and designated a portion of it to help with Hurricane Katrina rebuilding.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
117. Susan, Palin left the impression that she is not anything above average intelligence, and that she knows little about national affairs. She said the bailout was about healthcare reform and trade.
That’s not our fault.
She knew she wanted to be VP for many months before she was chosen, yet failed to prepare herself in the slightest way.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Matt, it appears that Shelby has outed himself with this statement.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Susan: That is not my opinion of Palin. I was mimicking the standard Rombot approach, as I tried to indicate in the preceding sentence.
I suppose I should have been clearer.
I think Sarah Palin is intelligent, but more to the point, I think high intelligence, while obviously a good thing, is not mandatory for a president. As someone noted above, Jimmy Carter is very intelligent. Case closed.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Perhaps to the GOP base; but not beyond. The affable Reagan won over blue collar, moderate-to-conservative Dems, the college-educated, and the youth vote; many of whom weren’t aligned with him ideologically. Palin’s notoriously divisive tone and rhetoric on the campaign trail has left her with much work to be done before ascending to the status of serious, credible, electorally-viable presidential candidate; nevermind reaching Reaganesque status.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/independents/data-presidential.html
http://race42008.com/2009/09/24/poll-watch-ppp-d-2012-presidential-survey-6/
Flashback: Political Memo; G.O.P. Makes Reagan Lure Of Young a Long-Term Asset
by E.J. Dionne
October 31, 1988
Among Women
Barack Obama 55%
Sarah Palin 36%
Could be, but to say that’s extremely unlikely would be a gross understatement.
Four GOP senators stand, applaud Obama’s ‘death panel’ dismissal
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/58053-four-gop-senators-stand-applaud-obamas-death-panel-dismissal
Murkowski: Don’t tell lies about the health-care reform bill
http://www.adn.com/life/health/story/895431.html
September 26th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
122. Hogwash. Palin didn’t flip-flop on the Bridge until it became a national embarrassment. That’s when Palin found the light on pork. Until then, she was a big porker – as mayor and gov.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Shelby #118…I WAS talking about the Primaries! Obviously you are one of those conspiracy theorists who think Bristol conceived her son, Tripp while pregnant with Trig. I’m not even going to waste my time with that.
Again, I hope the “Sarah is stupid” mentality is maintained by her Primary opponents…if they could all be Trig Truthers…that would only make it sweeter!
September 26th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
#117
“I hope they to underestimate her at every turn, and repeat in mantra-fashion “Sarah is stupid…Sarah is stupid…Sarah is stupid.”
Of course , they will. She will be called Quitter, stupid and unstable/crazy. Reagan was called “Old, stupid, and erratic/crazy”. I do not know if they truly underestimate her as much as they fear her. In Reagan’s case, they clearly underestimated him because they did not believe that anyone as conservative as Reagan could win the Presidency. They now know it is possible and you can smell the fear.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
<>
Interesting analogy, although Bush was never “Reaganesque.” If he was, he never would have used the stupid term “COMPASSIONATE Conservative.” Also, Bush lacked the charisma of Reagan, or even Sarah Palin.
However, the parallel holds up in one very important area: Passion. The passionate voters were with the Dems in ‘06 and ‘08. That has completely been turned on it’s head.
But let’s be very clear about something: Elections are won or lost based on the incumbent.
- If Obama is seen to have been doing a Good job, he will beat any Republican. – If Obama is seen as doing an Average job, he will beat any Republican (Given the power of the Presidency, the financial advantage, and the press in his hip pocket.
- BUT, if Obama is seen as doing a Bad job (Which I think will happen) then almost ANY Republican will defeat him. And if Palin is the nominee, she will become the first female President.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Bob…I’m sorry…I misunderstand. Please accept my apology.
Gotta go folks! It’s been fun! I only showed up because it was Palin blog…and I gotta defend my girl.
Godspeed everyone and may the best man (or woman) win.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Susan, are you aware that when Palin was mayor, she even appointed someone to seek out as much pork from Washington as possible?
Also, someone said earlier that Palin left Wassila with an 18 million surplus. The truth is that it is a 20 million debt for the Sports Complex. She broke ground before the land was secured, and the case is sill unsettled – costing even millions more in legal fees.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Aron,
The editorial board of the Washington Times disagrees.
Death panels by proxy
Baucus bill pressures doctors to stop treatments
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/25/death-panels-by-proxy/
September 26th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Good because I also don’t waste my time with that hokey “Bristol is Trig’s mom” stuff. I want to know what THE REAL THING IS THAT SARAH IS HIDING. Did she ever have an abortion (she did apparently get knocked up prior to marriage and had a shotgun wedding…was it the first time she got knocked up? Has she had treatment for any kind of mental illness? The basic questions that we have a right to know (based on the kind of person sarah wants us to believe she is, etc). By not being candid and releasing her medical records as she told Brian Williams she would, it leaves a lot to the imagination. Releasing her records would end the lingering questions. If sarah is going to be transparent and NON-HYPOCRITICAL, she will provide her med records.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
#126″Perhaps to the GOP base; but not beyond. The affable Reagan won over blue collar, moderate-to-conservative Dems, the college-educated, and the youth vote; many of whom weren’t aligned with him ideologically.”
Give me a break. The “affable Reagan” was maligned as everything from a warmonger anxious to start World War III to a John Bircher who couldn’t wait to throw old people in the snow to an amiable dunce who was completely clueless. Go back and do your research. Reagan was as far behind Carter in the 1977 polls as Palin is now supposedly behind Obama. And all the early polls in that cycle showed Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush (two terrific losers) as significantly stronger general election candidates than Reagan.
Citing Lisa Murkowski as an authority? Who? Oh, wasn’t she the one whose daddy appointed her to his Senate seat when he became governor. And wasn’t her daddy (Frank Murkowski) the one Plain dimed out for his unethical behavior and then defeated in a Republican primary by a Landslide. Yea. Let’s pay close attention to her. And E.J. Dionne and Olympia Snowe. Yada yada yada.
Are you under the impression Palin is seeking the DEM nomination?
September 26th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
<>
Aron,
When Reagan ran for President in 1976, he was defeated in the Primaries by Ford. At that time he had no appeal beyond the Conservative Base, much less the Republican Party, and the nation as a whole. In fact, the nation as a whole saw Reagan as a nut.
Reagan carried on carefully crafting his message to the entire country (Not just Conservatives, and not just Republicans). He then went on to preach a very strong conservative message, created the passion of people in all demographics, and defeated a weak President.
Do you see a familiar pattern emerging?
BTW: Be wary of polls that are conducted more than 3 years before an actual election. They are interesting, but totally irrelevant.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
#134;
Obviously you have never lived in a small town atmosphere. Sarah has lived in Alaska all her adult life. If she had suffered any mental illness or exhibited any sign of craziness it would have been exposed by the Alaska Dems or Murkowski Republicans by now.
And don’t forget Obama “air-lifted” his hatchet men to Alaska to investigate Sarah thoroughly during the 2008 campaign and after the campaign as well. All they could find was that she spent her own money for a tanning bed which she had installed in the governor’s mansion.
And finally Sarah did say she is a healthy woman and has only been in the hospital to have her kids. That might not sound very glamorous but it is what it is.
Sarah is probably the most vetted candidate in the history of America.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
“If Sarah can win over Alex then Sarah can win over the nation.” True, but Alex is still not a Palinite nor a 100% believer is Palinism. He is just suggesting that he might be able to support her in a pragmatic fashion. Hey that is OK.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
William Henley # 114
Actually, there’s nothing wrong with small jobs in small towns or states. Just finish the job. It’s called a learning curve or ” experience.” Notwithstanding the fact that these are all really small, in the scheme of things. ( My county has 2 X the population of Alaska and a bigger budget). Sarah just needs the experience that comes with actually completing a job. I would not hire anybody who couldn’t even see the advantage of finishing an assignment, let alone an elected one.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
“Aron,
When Reagan ran for President in 1976, he was defeated in the Primaries by Ford. At that time he had no appeal beyond the Conservative Base, much less the Republican Party, and the nation as a whole. In fact, the nation as a whole saw Reagan as a nut.” Good point, I was only a little boy at the time and not even an American, but I remember well how many in the media (both domestic and foreign) tried to portray Mr. Reagan as an unstable crazy man.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Palin’s great, but much more suited as a media person, like Huckabee. Palin could govern better than Huckabee of course, but she helps more in media than in politics.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
#139
“Sarah just needs the experience that comes with actually completing a job.”
Like Mitt Romney completing the job on health care in Massachusetts. He would have done everyone who lives there a favor if he had left that job undone. I don’t want him finishing whatever start Obama makes that score. Thanks but NO THANKS.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
September 26th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
“Sarah just needs the experience that comes with actually completing a job. I would not hire anybody who couldn’t even see the advantage of finishing an assignment, let alone an elected one.” C’mon! In big counties, people move from job to job almost all the time.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
<>
Zebra,
You are exactly right! Palin’s qualifications & “quitting” will be called into question. No doubt.
But here is the thing: EVERY candidate has something that they have to overcome to win the hearts & minds of the voters:
- Obama had to overcome his inexperience, his ties to radicals, his race (Yeah, I said “race” – sue me for being honest), and his ultra liberal position.
- Romney had to overcome the Mormon issue, as well as his constant flip/flops
- Hilary had to overcome her Iraq vote to win the Dem nomination (Something she was unable to do)
- McCain had to overcome his age, temperament, support for Illegal Reform bill
- Bill Clinton had to overcome Whitewater & his many affairs
The candidate that can best address the objections against them, will usually win out
September 26th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
…and sarah was away at college in different states…she’s hasn’t always been in Alaska.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
“Not buying it…if that’s all there is to it, sarah would have released her records as she told Brian Williams she would.” Then why doesn’t your friend, Mr. Obama release his records.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
“- Romney had to overcome the Mormon issue, as well as his constant flip/flops” Mr. Romney is not exactly a constant flipper.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
#136:
BE WARY OF POLLS THAT ARE CONDUCTED MORE THAN 3 YEARS BEFORE AN ACTUAL ELECTION. THEY ARE INTERESTING, BUT TOTALLY IRRELEVANT
I do disagree with you on polls. If it were not for the internet polls held during the late spring and early summer of 2008 which showed Sarah either first or second in the hearts and minds of Republicans/conservatives Sarah would not IMHO, had the necessary credibility to have been considered by McCain as his running mate. I know people denigrate internet polls but if you notice Sarah usually polls well in them including the 3 polls conducted by instapundit.com on 3 consecutive days recently which show Sarah winning by either a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 margin each day over her nearest opponent.
If you notice the comments on this thread, none have commented on her viability in the primaries but most have focused on her personal atrributes or the “quitting” meme and how she would do against Obama.
Polls are not entirely irrelevant. Believe me if Sarah was not polling well right now Obama, the MSM and her GOP opponents would be highlighting this fact and making the argument that she was not viable for this reason.
Sure her unfavorables are high but with who: Democrats and the Far Left; you betcha! With conservatives and Republicans-no way.
Finally should Sarah decide to run for POTUS her only goal now should be to win the GOP primaries. And if she could maintain such favorablility among both groups that would give her a great chance for the nomination.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
OJ…Don’t assume that everyone who raises legit questions about sarah’s background is an obama supporter. I am not…did not vote for him nor for McOld/palin.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I really enjoyed reading this well written article.
While her distractors still fear, thus attack her, their actions within the bounds of the Fringe Media, have been defeated… as has the Fringe Media itself.
Sarah does not need nor seek the approval of Leftists …they have their own problems defending Obama’s miserable 9 month track record.
“I will close GITMO in one year.” Yeah… right. Someone clue that clown in or reality.
“The Cambridge Police Acted Stupidly.” Even though he knew nothing of the details of the incident nor the tiger trap he placed himself in speaking as the holder of the office of President and not as a private citizen.
The list is endless… for a “smart” person, Obama is the dumbest person to take the oval office since President Calvin Coolidge.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
“OJ…Don’t assume that everyone who raises legit questions about sarah’s background is an obama supporter. I am not…did not vote for him nor for McOld/palin.” Well, when one uses liberal talking points, one gets lumped in with the liberals. It may not be totally fair, but hey, that is the game.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
OJ falls into that trap sometimes – that it you disagree with Palin, you must love Obama. Doesn’t work that way, OJ.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Romney is an anchor… throw him overboard.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Ohio Joe,
The perception (and maybe the reality) is that Romney flipped on just about every issue, from abortion, to taxes, gay rights, etc. Even after the nomination, he flipped on his support for TARP.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Sarah does not need the approval of RINOs or beltway Elites like Peggy Noonan, either.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
155. All that is provably false.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
OJ, that’s a cheap shot…..just because someone thinks Sarah should release her medical records sure as heck doesn’t make them a friend of Obama.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
VotingFemale:
I agree with everything you said except the reference to Calvin Coolidge. He was one of the most successful presidents of the 20c. The economic growth of industry and commerce and the rise in individual incomes during his tenure was unprecendented. It was not Coolidge who was president when the stock market crashed in 1929, but Hoover.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
To be a viable candidate one needs moderates and Indies to win in the General. palin does EXTREMELY badly with Indies. After three more years of obama, Repubs are going to have viability as a top priory to best produce a GOP win. Palin is the GOP’s obama…lack of competence but major arrogance.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Stuart, I don’t know if you’re not properly informed or whether you are lieing, but it’s one or the other.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Bob,
Please do not delude yourself into thinking that McCain picked Palin as his VP because of “internet polls.” One simple reason is that Palin was an unknown to 80% of Republicans. If ANYONE was winning the Internet polling in August for VP, it was Romney.
Secondly, even if you want to adhere to the theory that McCain picked Palin because of a few Internet polls, you will have to admit that the polls McCain was considering was 4 months before the election – not 40 months before the election (Which is what my comment was based on)
Thirdly, If you look at the Internet polls in 2007, I bet you will have found Hillary with a HUGE margin for the Dem nomination. In fact, I bet Obama wasn’t even listed.
So again I say: a poll taken over 3 years before an election is interesting, but irrelevant.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
We all can agree Sarah is a raw and gifted politician that was thrown to the wolves and savaged during
the campaign and until she resigned as governor. Obama said he needed more then two months and he was
never attacked by the wolves. Sarah had two months and no time to study up. McCain’s people used almost
every second of her time as a fund raising machine. People just don’t understand what this woman was
able to accomplish with only two months and hardly anytime to study. Granted maybe Gov. Palin should
have said “no” to McCain and stayed in AK but nobody could have envisioned how the MSM would lie, twist
and twist, and tear Gov. Palin and her family apart. Gov. Palin was the VP pick but as far as the MSM
was concerned it was Obama vs. Palin. After the election the elites’ kept saying that Gov. Palin should
go home and study up. But as we all witnessed, Gov. Palin was spending all her time fighting with both
hands tied behind her back against liberals and the MSM that were out to bankrupt and destroy her
politically.
Tell me how many here would not have resigned and turned over their state to a LT-Governor with the
same conservative policies and that also agreed to keep her staff in place and carry on her policies.
We can only look at the last two months to see what “could be” the future of our country.
Freedom is beautiful.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
The truth is that Palin does have some personal baggage. She did not release her medical records after she said she would, but simply a letter from her doctor saying she was healthy. She did use marijuana, she did take 6 years to graduate college, she married after she found out she was pregnant. After her water broke with Trig, she gave a speech, hopped on a plane after her water broke, (did not tell the attendants), flew 8 hours back to Alaska, driving another hour back to Wassila to deliver a special needs baby. She has quite a few instances where she has been less than honest as an elected official. She makes poor decisions concerning her family sometimes.
I guess you can say she’s normal, and that all pols have problems. But whenever you mention any of this about Sarah, people go nuts. You CAN’T talk about that stuff with the Princess. But we could talk about it with Rudy, or any other politician. For them, it’s fair game, but with Palin it’s strictly off limits.
No matter, though. Because there are enough problems with her official record.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
LOL
Illinois,
Can you be specific on what I am misinformed/lieing about?
September 26th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
163. I think Palin should have been about to envision a question or 2 about the WOT, FP, what news she likes to read, and what Supreme Court decisions she disagreed with. She might have tried to understand what the bailout was, and that it was not about healthcare reform.
She knew a full 6 months before McCain called her that she wanted to be VP, yet did nothing to prepare to answer simple questions.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Stuart, you know darn well that the only issue Romney truly changed position on is abortion. The others are flat out lies. Anyone who cares to know the truth, can easily find out.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
#163:
Remember all those pundits who were telling Sarah that she had to “bone up” on foreign affairs if she was going to be seen as a serious candidate for POTUS and remember the siege she was under before July and also remeber that being governor is a full-time job, you could appreciate why Sarah did not have the time to “bone up”.
So Sarah leaves the governor’s mansion, gives her speech in HK. Strange, there are no more pundit comments that she should bone up. Do you think her leaving the governor’s mansion and freeing up her time to “bone up” might something to do with the quality of her speech in HK and her “newly-found” expertise in the healthcare debate. I think it does.
If Sarah was still a full-time governor of Alaska would she have been able to impact the national political scene as she has in the last 60 days since her resignation. I think not.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
HAHAHA! Sarah had plenty of time to study up but as a previous poster noted, but she didn’t bother to take that time to prepare herself. This while she was actively pursuing the VP position!!! Sarah is all for power but not much in the way of preparation or judgment. She was unprepared and willing to put our nation, which she says she loves in danger! This woman is SELFISH BEYOND BELIEF!
PALIN’S TALENT SCOUT
by Scott Horton Oct. 10, 2008
“No wonder Bill Kristol has remained so positive about her while other neocons have fled. He helped push her to the veep ticket—and won out against Karl Rove.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/palins-talent-scout
September 26th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Let me change one thing:
“raw and gifted servant”
I will not say leader because I don’t know if Gov. Palin wants that title.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
All I have to say is that I would be more comfortable voting for Huckabee than Palin at this point. Populous histeria and temporary approval from split-thinkers like Alex who tend to project their weaknesses and strengths on their ‘good’ and ‘bad’ candidates tend to burn itself out over time. I suspect there will be huge anticipation, but that come primary time all the cards will fall with those who are more experienced and stable choices.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
168. Bob, I do think Palin is beginning to prepare herself. That is a good sign, but likely not enough to tip the balance in her favor by 2012. We also know very well that the Hong Kong speech was more the thoughts of the speech-writers rather than Palin herself.
Also, Bob. The truth is that Palin should have just done her job as gov for 18 more short months. We are not so desperate for her that she needed to bail on Alaska. She would have built far more creds with the general population if she had weathered that storm.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Martha,
Changing positions on abortion – right before he enters the GOP nomination fight – is a pretty big flip/flop. You have to admit to that.
And if you carefully read my post, you will see that I said his problems with the flip/flops were based in both reality AND perception. And unfortunately in politics, sometimes perception outweighs reality.
But a candidate MUST defend him/her self against the objections: be they real or perceived.
Palin is perceived to be a lightweight and a quitter. That is not nearly the reality, IMHO. Still, she will have to address those objections if she wants to be the nominee.
It may not be fair, but I did not write the rules.
BTW, I happen to love Romney. He was my choice in 2008.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
And not only was Trig a special needs baby, he also was one month premature! Why sarah chose to take all these risks with her baby is beyond hard to understand. Also sarah did hide her pregnancy from her children until 3 weeks prior to Trig’s birth and she has said she worried that she could not be able to love a Down Syndrome baby.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
@169
Obama had two years to study up.
Gov. Palin never thought she was in contention until the last week or two.
Did Gov. Palin have two years to study-up?
Look at what she has accomplished in two months as a private citizen. I would say now she has the time to
study up.
Freedom is beauiful.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Shelby are you really a woman because if you were you would not be saying those things.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
#172
When you say “weather the storm” you are really saying Sarah should have gone down with the ship. That she decided not to sacrifice herself on the insidious altar of Alinsky and be left twisting in the wind is a tribute to her clever instincts, her strong will to survive, and her ability to tack.
Sarah escaped the “gubernatorial” foxhole intact. Obama and his war room got hoisted by their own petard. Over the next 2-3 years they will be paying for their mistake in judgment.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
175. That’s not true, Jan. She voiced a desire to be VP at least 6 months prior to her call, and just about that same time also knew that interest in her was heating up fast. She knew, and didn’t do anything at all to get ready to answer a question.
I don’t really care about Obama in relation to the GOP choosing the best candidate. People always defend her by comparing her to Obama. But that’s not the right comparison. We need to compare her to our own candidates. When we do that, she comes up wanting.
Stuart, yes I realize you said perception. And yes, the abortion issue was huge, but not a true flip-flop as Romney was always pro-life, but simply promised to not change abortion laws while gov.
You’re right though. Romney does need to overcome the flip-flop perception. In large part I think he already has.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Well the Dems would love a huckabee nomination! That man’s got LOTS of skeletons and they know it. I recently found this and it confirms what I’ve known all along about why the Dems will not pick on huckabee (now!):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Mike_Huckabee
Perception from liberals and Democrats
On December 9, 2007 self-described liberal columnist Frank Rich of The New York Times praised Huckabee in an op-ed saying Huckabee is the Republicans’ Obama.[54]
On December 11, 2007 the Drudge Report found out that the highest levels of the Democratic Party told their officials to avoid any criticism of 2008 Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, until he would secure the nomination. One Democrat said “He’ll easily be their McGovern, an easy kill.” The last time the Democratic National Committee criticized Huckabee was on March 2nd, 2007.[55]
September 26th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Martha you are so funny.
Everybody has speech writers but for some reason Gov. Palin is treated differenly because she has a speech writer.
Why is Gov. Palin held to a different standard than anyone else?
Obama speech writer is a teleprompter.
Gov. Palin give a 90 minute speech off of notes.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
177. Bob, that is being a bit over-dramatic. The ethics complaints were coming from exactly 2 people – both Alaskans – not the insideous alter of Alinsky. LOL
How do I think Palin should have weathered the ’storm’? She should have simply gone to work every day, kept her head down and done her job, ignoring everything else – including the media. Palin was viciously attacked, but chose to whine and make a big deal of it every day. She chose to make her problems larger than life. They just weren’t. A lot of them she invited by keeping herself in the constant spotlight, and by picking stupid fights with clowns.
As Alex once said here “Live by identity politics, die by identity politics”.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
#180:
The Romneybots (not the rational Romney supporters but the more umm… passionate ones) hold every other candidate to an impossible standard. They must never have changed their mind, make no comment that they consider to be anti-Romney, and have no speechwriters. While for their candidate, his flip-flops are understandable, his speechwriters are meaningless, and he never, attacks anyone about anything ever.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Found this at HotAir
Comment by njpat
Listen to what the Progressives (ultra far left) at the Institute for Policy Studies have to say. If you don’t have time for the whole video, go to 50:00. Who is it they fear? And if you attack Palin, you are attacking the right-wing populus….keep that in mind. These are the folks calling the shots. If you watch the whole video, you will see that.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7900177939290563733&hl=en#
njpat on September 25, 2009 at 9:43 PM
………….
I only listened at the 50 minute mark and from that point they are worried about Gov. Palin.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
#178:
By your logic Tiger Woods should have known in the spring of 1996 he was going to turn pro and prepared himself for the pro tour. But it has been well documented it was not until his performance in the British Open in July 1996 did he give serious consideration to turn pro which he did about 4-5 weeks later.
Should he have won 3-4 tournaments in 1996 instead of the two he did win with the reason being he did not prepare himself for the eventuality of turning pro.
I don’t usually quote pundits but did you hear any pundit favor Palin as the pick before McCain chose her. i believe the reports that Palin did not make the short, short list until very late in the process and I also believe McCain when he said he did not make the pick until after Biden was chosen which meant that he probably chose her on the weekend of the 23-24th of August.
Blaming Palin for not being prepared is not a credible argument. If Ridge or Pawlenty, for example were chosen and they did not perform up to expectations during the campaign would you then say they should have prepared themselves for that eventuality 6 months prior to being selected.
Get real! Life doesn’t operate that way.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
#181, Martha,
You are so spot on about palin and her whining over every little slight. Just imagine if she were president and Ahmadinejad said something that hurt her poor little feelings!
September 26th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
#115, and Bush 2004.
That’s 6 out of 9. I’d say it’s somewhat interesting data to look at, even if it doesn’t mean anything.
And if you go back to the 19th century, it holds true as well, although that’s awful far back.
1900 – McKinley wins reelection by a wider margin than in when he won in 1896
1892 – Grover Cleveland gets back into the Presidency, winning by a wider margin than the first time he won in 1884
1872 – Ulysses S. Grant wins reelection by a wider margin then when he won in 1868
1864 – Lincoln wins reelection by a wider margin then when he won in 1860
1832 – Andrew Jackson wins reelection by a wider margin then when he won in 1828
1820 – James Monroe wins reelection by a wider margin then when he won in 1816
1812 – James Madison wins reelection by a wider margin then when he won in 1808
1804 – Thomas Jefferson wins reelection by a wider margin then when he won in 1800
1792 – George Washington wins reelection by a wider margin then when he we won in 1789
I mean, that’s awful far back, but when an incumbent President wins reelection, there’s only been three situations where he got less electoral votes than the first time, and two of those were unusual scenarios. (FDR running for third and fourth terms)
September 26th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Shelby and Martha,
Nobody could be winning more than the POTUS we have now.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Yes, Billy Kristol said a couple months before McCain announced palin as his pick, that he could hardly live another day without palin on the ticket! See story in post #169 and this one:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/27/081027fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all
How John McCain came to pick Sarah Palin.
by Jane Mayer October 27, 2008
Excerpts:
“Palin’s sudden rise to prominence, however, owes more to members of the Washington élite than her rhetoric has suggested… John Bitney, a top policy adviser on Palin’s 2006 gubernatorial campaign, said, “Sarah’s very conscientious about crafting the story of Sarah. She’s all about the hockey mom and Mrs. Palin Goes to Washington—the anti-politician politician.”
“Upon being elected governor, Palin began developing relationships with Washington insiders, who later championed the idea of putting her on the 2008 ticket. “There’s some political opportunism on her part,” Bitney said. For years, “she’s had D.C. in mind.”
The most ardent promoter, however, was Kristol, and his enthusiasm became the talk of Alaska’s political circles. According to Simpson, Senator Stevens told her that “Kristol was really pushing Palin” in Washington before McCain picked her. Indeed, as early as June 29th, two months before McCain chose her, Kristol predicted on “Fox News Sunday” that “McCain’s going to put Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, on the ticket.” He described her as “fantastic,” … “Go for the gold here with Sarah Palin,” he said. The moderator, Chris Wallace, finally had to ask Kristol, “Can we please get off Sarah Palin?”
“The next day, however Kristol was still talking about Palin on Fox. “She could be both an effective Vice-Presidential candidate and an effective President,” he said. “She’s young, energetic.” On a subsequent “Fox News Sunday,” Kristol again pushed Palin when asked whom McCain should pick: “Sarah Palin, whom I’ve only met once but I was awfully impressed by—a genuine reformer, defeated the establishment up there. It would be pretty wild to pick a young female Alaska governor, and I think, you know, McCain might as well go for it.” On July 22nd, again on Fox, Kristol referred to Palin as “my heartthrob.” He declared, “I don’t know if I can make it through the next three months without her on the ticket.”
“There was concern that she was a novice.”… Meanwhile, McCain’s longtime friend said, “Kristol was out there shaking the pom-poms.”
September 26th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
#185:
From Sarah Palin’s Best Wishes for the Jewish High Holidays:
“A speech was given at the UN General Assembly yesterday that was full of hateful anti-Semitic rhetoric…such talk was especially abhorrent coming as it did during the Jewish High Holidays. The world community must speak with one voice in declaring anti-Semitism and all forms of intolerance and racism utterly unacceptable. There is no place in the community of peace-loving nations for those who traffic in hate or deny the terrible atrocity of the Nazi Holocaust…”
Here, Palin was not whining over a little slight, but instead putting Ahmadinejead and other dictators on notice that she will not personally tolerate or the USA should not tolerate such behavior. It is not a question of “hurting her poor little feelings” but standing up for the USA in the face of obvious distortion and untruth and fanatical belligerence that threatens the peace of the world.
September 26th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Bob,McCain may have decided late on his VP, but Palin was on the list for a long time. She was vetted, and she knew very well she was being considered. She expressed interest in it many long months beforehand. If she really wanted it, she should have prepared to at least answer simple questions.
This is where arrogance becomes a factor. She had a special baby and a pregnant teen. She knew the election would be very close due to Obama’s popularity. How on earth did she believe she was truly prepared for the job, or that she would be an asset? How on earth did she believe she could be POTUS if something should happen to the elderly McCain?
Unbelievable naivete or breathtaking arrogance.
September 26th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
189. What little slight? I didn’t read anything directed at Palin in that quote.
September 26th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
187. Right, but like I said, I don’t care if Obama whines. The correct comparison is not with Obama, but with the other GOP candidates.
September 26th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
[...] and this article, How Sarah Palin Made Me a Fan from race42008. [...]
September 26th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Today is the 4th day in a row instapundit.com has conducted a presidential poll and to the question Who would you most favor as GOP nominee in 2012? Today he allows two choices:
Current results:
Sarah Palin 1871 votes
David Petraeus 805
Mitt Romney 786
Condi Rice 581
Tim Pawlenty 561
Bobby Jindal 553
Mitch Daniels 264
Haley Barbour 240
Mike Pence 147
Bob Corker 145
Mike Huckabee 104
Gary Johnson 41
3418 voters
http://poll.pollcode.com
/mzh_result?v
September 26th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
One reason people have problems taking you seriously, IL-guy, is that you’re such a one-sided cheerleader.
You call out Stuart, perhaps properly — I don’t know — but throughout this thread and in many others you have totally ignored Shelby and his wacky conspiracy theories.
Just because somebody is a Rombot does not mean you should give him a pass on his nuttiness. Quite the opposite.
September 26th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
194: Instapundit’s readership tends to be libertarian and internationalist. It’s not surprising Palin would do well and Huckabee poorly.
Gary Johnson’s miserable performance should wake up any dreaming libertarians. If he trails Huckabee among Instapundir readers, he has no hope.
September 26th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Alex
Thank you for your excellent article. No one should underestimate Sarah Palin’s power. After her speech in Hong Kong she received a standing ovation from 1,098 (2 people walked out) of the world’s financial brains. Her appeal is astounding and ranges from those who proudly call themselves “the forgotten middle America” to erudite and highly intelligent people. Oh, by the way, the ovation lasted upwards of 5 or 6 minutes. That’s a very long time. I tried it. It’s a very, very long time.
To those who are citing statistics and the media’s personal biases as if they were ‘Gospel’ (oops, I said a ‘God-intentional’ word – how terrible ;+}), this article is quite interesting. There are agendas and people in high places who are intent on misleading people. Please don’t believe everything you read and as for stats, well – Statistics lie…
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/duke/090924
September 26th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Martha, It has been 9 months and McCain is alive and kicking. Gov. Palin would have learned so much in
the last nine months and not to mention that the American people would have fallen so in love with her
and hear family. You know this.
If the corrupt MSM had treated her like a VP pick then McCain would be POTUS if he hadn’t screwed up
the economic meltdown. Obama was a one month senator with no, I repeat no experience in anything except
fooling the American people.
We can go on with ifs and buts forever and a day but the truth is the corrupt MSM put Obama in office and we all are paying for it. .
September 26th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Palin made no more difference to McCain’s campaign than Romney would have. She did give him a better-than-average convention bounce, but that was irrelevant once the meltdown occurred. No Republican ticket, not McCain-Palin, McCain-Romney, McCain-Jesus or any combination of Republicans was going to win once Lehman Brothers went down.
September 26th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Martha,
Here is the truth about what happen in HK.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcltCgH1u_k&feature
Gov. Palin answered many questions and they were not pre-arranged as the Fringe media would like you to think.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Bravo!
September 26th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
198. So, you are admitting that Palin needed on-the-job training.
BTW, McCain had no intention of teaching Palin anything. She was chosen specifically to help him get elected, and after than he would have ignored her – just as most VP’s are.
Hey, I fell in love with her family the day she was chosen, so did everyone. It means exactly nothing.
I repeat, comparisons to Obama are meaningless. We must compare her to our other GOP candidates. Of course Obama is not qualified!
200. Jan, where is the evidence that Palin answered off the cuff questions? I have not seen it, and I would be very surprised if she did. She cannot risk it, and is not going to open herself up for another press debacle.
The link you provided gives no further insight into her speech.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
The Democrats are very fearful of Gov. Palin and do not like the fact that she is elevating her foreign policy profile to rave reviews.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Yeah 55% v 35% scares the shit out the them.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Alex I can only assume this is part of your attention seeking need issues. I don’t mean to be personal but no-one can change their mine about someone a total 180 degrees in a few weeks. Ironic as you call Mitt a flip flopper.
We have long memories so don’t come sucking back.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
A commenter on Conservatives 4 Palin said that this is an extremely pro-Romney site. The Rombots on here think we’re not favorable enough to Mitt. Seems to me that that’s evidence that we’ve got a good balance when it comes to him.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Heath, I said that I like her. I don’t support her for the presidency, I don’t think she’s as of yet a viable candidate. I just have a favorable opinion of her now. That’s it.
BTW, Mitt’s flip-flops are of dubious nature. If I thought his flip-flops were GENUINE, I wouldn’t care. But I think he just changed his mind out of political expediency. If there’s some sort of ulterior motive I might have in deciding I like Palin, tell me what it is, please.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
What people fail to do all the time is recognize the distinction between commentators and what appears on the front page. O’Reilly committed this sin when he smeared Hotair earlier this year.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
208 – No kidding. O’Reilly has gone after commenters on the Huffington Post and Hot Air for it. He’s so freaking oblivious to the nature of blogs.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
If there is one claim about Palin that I wish people would examine more closely, it’s the one you mention here: “The state of Alaska was being drained of its time, money, and energy, and Palin determined that the overall costs of staying to fight outweighed the benefits of simply handing over the reins to now-Governor Parnell.” It’s bogus.
When her office FINALLY released a spreadsheet after she continued claiming without proof that the state had spent $2 million fighting these “frivolous” complaints, it was clear to anyone who spent 30 seconds looking at it that it in no way matched her claim. It was filled with double-counting, weird accounting, and vague accounting, which even her spokesman acknowledged and couldn’t explain. Almost all of those “frivolous” complaints cost less than $1,000 each to address, and the single-most expensive expenditure was the one she herself incurred when she filed a complaint against herself so she could sidestep the Legislative inquiry into Troopergate. Only because she quit shortly afterward did this shady document not receive the attention it would have. And nobody’s ever seen any verification that she’s spent $500,000 defending herself. We only have her word–which, I assure you, is not considered to be worth much right now in Alaska.
Furthermore, as an Alaskan I’d argue that many of those “frivolous” complaints were not frivolous at all. She was charging the state to haul her family around for events that weren’t official, for heaven sake–and she basically acknowledged their impropriety by agreeing to pay back the money. She was claiming per diem for living in her own house. She was advertising her husband’s sponsor at public events–how would people react if she started wearing BP advertisements everywhere in her official capacity? And guess what–it is a citizen’s right to ask for answers from elected officials. Who else is going to do it?
But most importantly, the ethics complaint you never hear about is the one in which the independent investigator concluded that it appeared she DID break the ethics law by using her position to ask for donations to the highly questionable “Alaska Fund Trust”–thus using her office for personal gain. She was on her way out the door by then, avoiding the uncomfortable problems this slush fund would have caused her. See: http://www.adn.com/palin/story/872192.html
Finally, you don’t actually think she’s writing those brilliant op-eds and Facebook foxhole commentaries and speeches, do you? Read her “I quit” speech, which she wrote herself and read from a teleprompter. It’s pure Palin–three miles wide and an inch deep. So who do you suppose is pulling her strings right now?
I will grant you this: her quitting was, after all, the best thing for Alaska. I never would have voted for him, but Sean Parnell is 50 times the governor she was. He puts his head down and works, he reaches out to constituents, he’s talking to legislators, and nobody has any idea how many kids he has or even what their names are because he’s not parading them around as props constantly. For some reason, he doesn’t see the governorship as a stage upon which he writes, produces, and stars in a constant, hysterical drama.
Bottom line: She loved being governor. She just wasn’t any good at governing.
I encourage you to dig a little deeper in your analysis.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
National elections are won on more than just policy positions. Other intangibles become very important such as cultural affinity and personality (the old “who would you rather have a beer with” test). These distinctions and contrasts are important and a candidate’s ability to connect to the voters is essential. To win against Obama we will need a candidate who can contrast with his elitist preferences for “spicy” mustard and arugula. Such things might seem small but they are terribly important in developing a narrative. I just don’t see Mitt, while having other strong qualities, competing very well in this category. Governor Palin on the other hand is a natural at portraying herself as a real everyday American with solutions from main street USA. The gal shines in this category.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
#212:
Why I like Palin is that she able to open wounds, draw blood, inflict body blows, bloody the Messiah’s nose, beat him up, has the will to go for the knockout punch without feeling “white guilt” and will never throw in the towel. While doing this she will never hit below the belt or sucker punch him. Are there any more boxing metaphors?
September 26th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Alex, I’m excerpting this for Libertarian Republican tomorrow. With link, of course.
Consider yourself to now be an official “friend of Libertarian Republican blog.”
Eric – LR Management
http://www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com
September 26th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Bluedog Alaskan,
Explain then why Democrat political operatives are happy that Palin won’t be on the ticket in 2010 if her word doesn’t mean much as you allege?
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_21/politics/38231-1.html
The most reasonable inference from what I have blockquoted from the roll call article is the opposite of your unsupported assertion given. See also post 37 for another source that runs contrary to your unsupported assertion.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
I don’t know how anyone can think sarah has got good ethics.
In other words, Mr. Parnell is professional and likely hasn’t got a dysfunctional family as does palin. This woman is far more suited to doing a TV show than being in high level politics.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Martha,
People or groups that filed ethics complaints agaisnt Gov. Palin
Andree McLeod – 4 complaints
Brian Kraft
Public Safey Employees Assoc
Monegan
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics
Unknown – 2 by names not released
Zane Henning
Anthony Martin
Edna Birch – busybody charcter on soap opera – nobody by that name
Kellen Biegel
Sondra Tompkins
Kim Chatman
These are the ones that we know about.
There were also 300 + FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), and law suits.
The complainers also have up two years to file a complaint from the date they think it happen.
September 26th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Bluedog Alaska Says:
Are you talking about this one
Contends Palin is misusing the governor’s office for personal gain by securing unwarranted benefits and receiving improper gifts through the Alaska Fund Trust. The fund was recently established by supporters to help Palin pay off more than $500,000 in legal debts stemming from other ethics complaints, including troopergate. Complaint filed by Eagle River resident, Kim Chatman. Pending.
The independent investigator does not make the final call the Personal Board does and it is still pending.
Tell me how $150.00 donation would sway a favor from Gov. Palin.
Give me a break.
You are late to the gate everything has been debunked.
concluded
September 26th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Bluedog Alaska Says:
I will grant you this: her quitting was, after all, the best thing for Alaska. I never would have voted for him, but Sean Parnell is 50 times the governor she was. He puts his head down and works, he reaches out to constituents, he’s talking to legislators, and nobody has any idea how many kids he has or even what their names are because he’s not parading them around as props constantly. For some reason, he doesn’t see the governorship as a stage upon which he writes, produces, and stars in a constant, hysterical drama.
………..
Everything Palin did before she was tapped to be VP. That is why Gov. Palin had a 90% plus approval rating before being tapped for VP.
Everything changed when Gov. Palin returned to Alaska right Bluedog. Where did you get your talking orders from the DNC in Wash.
I take it Bluedog Alaska was one that was in the 8% that didn’t like Gov. Palin.
September 26th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Martha,
Everybody needs training to be President and VP unless they have already been POTUS or VP.
I was more making a point that McCain is still alive and kicking.
September 26th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
#219:
On many occasions I have even said that when Sarah Palin was picked as McCain’s running mate she was not ready to be VP. I know that makes me sound anti-Palin but it is what it is. But she was definitely ready to serve as VP as directed by McCain. We soon forget what duties McCain was prepared to assign to her: energy independence, working with special needs families and I believe the third was government accountability. Sarah would have grown into the job and in 2 years would have been qualified to be POTUS. But most certainky she would have made a great VP.
And in September 2009 again Sarah Palin is not ready to be POTUS now. But nobody is asking her to be and the last time I checked the job isn’t open till November 2012. By the primary season in 2011-2012 Sarah Palin will be ready to be POTUS.
September 26th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Restate.
Everybody needs SOME training to be President and VP unless they have already been POTUS or VP.
Some need more than others except for Obama who was clueless and had no experience.
I was more making a point that McCain is still alive and kicking.
September 26th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
VP=POTUS
September 26th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
I’m sorry, but some of te comments on this thread are straight up ridiculous. Alex, I appreciate your thoughts here but I’m still left to wonder…what was it that was blocking you from understanding her resolve on this level before? Evidently other posters here are still afflicted by it. Guys, and in posting this I am primarily referring to posts made by Martha, Bluedog Alasa, and Shelby– guess what: sometimes there is great and profound merit in “quitting.” That should be of *simple* understanding. George Washington, too, “quit” before he was thrust into the role of leadership of the US– for much less justification. Palin quit in merit and honor the first time in protest of the unethical activities taking place that she became privy to after her appointment. She took it upon herself to clean house- which she did, all the way to the governor’s office. She steered a course for Alaska and by and large accomplished everything she set out to do in Alaska, and as a national political target, the only effect of her presence in Alaska at his time was a negative one– Sean Parnell, who is pursuing the legacy exactly that of Palin, Bluedog, is fully capable to carry on with her intentions while she leads the target elsewhere. Consider a general leading a small brigade of troops– he is the target and he is compromising the safety of his troops and the success of his mission, so he hands off leaderhip to a lieutenant while he leads the target elsewhere. It’s not “quitting,” and the people of Alaska elected her judgment as wel as her intentions. Well, her intentions were fulfilled and she had the opportunity to restore effectiveness to her administration, so WHY SHOULDN’T SHE? *That’s* what she was elected to do– exercise prudent and considerate judgment, which is precisely what she did. So on the one hand, some of you need to do some reevaluation of your reasoning, and on the other…I’m curious what the catalyst for Alex’s change of heart is here. I realize the CLSA speech…but more specifically- because from my perspective, this speech is nothing new or different about Palin and her intentions and her consistent resolve. I realize that posters are careful to note that they don’t support Palin for president yet…but that’s a given since she’s not running yet. The question is, would you prefer a candidate that is not capable of exercising such judgment? Can’t resist taking a shot at Romney here– what he signed into law in MA mandating that individuals obtain health coverage is precisely what is trying to be done by the current federal administration. Can anyone point out why that’s a good thing? Not to mention his flips, as Alex pointed out, are not honest– evidently, one way or anoher he has been dishonest in an effort to artificially garner support. That is something I cannot support in a leader or public servant.
September 26th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
12. It was the most chicken thing I’ve seen in politics in a long time. She would not show us what she was made up of. She just caved in. I have zero respect for her. It was not the press. Heck, she has a DEGREE in journalism. You’d think she’d know her way around the press by now…And it was not her ethic’s charge, or the cash out lay she claims to have had. No. I think it goes much deeper than that. I think she just could not do the job. IMO I think her family might have given her the untimate. Us or the job. I hope she left for her family. THAT I would respect. But to chase dollars, as it appears she is doing?
September 26th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Patrick. I’ll remember that line that there is greatness in quitting when my children tell me their homework is just too hard. I’ll remind them that Palin quit, and so can they.
Not.
I want better in my examples to my children. Palin is not a good role model for my children at all.
September 26th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Please, what the media concerned itself in these last nine months,
“President Obama, what was your most enchanting momeny, what did you think of the Gates/Crowley incident, tell us again how the
public option is so wonderful,
‘death panels’ don’t exist, but they would be a great idea.”
Let’s not forget the loathsome Larry King interview with Ahmadinejad, I guess he would have interviewed Hitler the same way in 1938, Williams, Stephanopolous have done the same.
Tomorrow more wisdom from Bill Clinton, another narcisistic layabout, whose malfeasance we have yet to recover from. I personally preferred Guiliani, despite my pro life view, because
of his touch anti crime,. anti corruption, free market economics hardline foreign policy.
September 26th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
178. Palin considered aborting Trig. She said so in one of her famous ‘word salad’ speeched to some mid west right to lifers.
No, she did not go through with it. but she did consider it for more than 10 seconds.
September 26th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Patrick. I’ll remember that line that there is greatness in quitting when my children tell me their homework is just too hard. I’ll remind them that Palin quit, and so can they.
That’s a really, really, really lame analogy.
September 26th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
178. Palin considered aborting Trig. She said so in one of her famous ‘word salad’ speeched to some mid west right to lifers. No, she did not go through with it. but she did consider it for more than 10 seconds.
…I think anyone in those circumstances would consider it for more than 10 seconds. It’s pretty malicious to try and fault her for that.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Palin’s resignation was a brilliant tactic. She pulled the equivalent of an Inchon landing and threw Axelrod and Co. completely off their game. In that move she did the following:
1) After completing all her major objectives in the first year and half, she set up Parnel to carry the banner so he could get his feet wet before he runs on his own,
2) Outflanked the Dems by going national so she could fight for libertarian/conservative candidates in 2010 and go for POTUS in 2012, plus attack the current administration and the Dem Congress’s policies,
3) Presented a tougher moving target that Obama cannot pin down, and
4) Released time to write her autobiography and get up to speed on national issues.
Anybody who thinks Sarah Palin is a lightweight has not been paying attention.
Because of her, Obamacare is getting scaled back.
She is the only GOP politician that really fights and has the courage. Anybody see Jindal or Pawlenty on TV? They have nowhere near the fire to lead the country against the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis. Jindal comes off as staff not line and slumps his shoulders too much. He needs to stand tall and look presidential. He doesn’t get it. Pawlenty has fear in his face and doubt. He lacks fire.
NO OTHER GOP politician comes close to leading the opposition.
And, she does not attack other GOP national-level politicians. She doesn’t break Reagan’s 11th. Romney has in attacks on Sarah. I was 20 feet from him at CPAC when he took that cheap shot at Sarah. Even the Romney college kid behind me said “What was that?”.
Do people REALLY understand the cagefight we are in? Sarah does. She sees the country almost at the point of no return from the standpoint of liberty. Of course she has to resign her governorship, the GOP needs a courageous, charismatic leader with convictions.
Romney is staff, not line.
Who is more likely upon taking office to disband the Dept. of Eduction? Rest my case….for now.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Bluedog Alaska is a troll. Key characters ‘blue’.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
And, she does not attack other GOP national-level politicians. She doesn’t break Reagan’s 11th. Romney has in attacks on Sarah. I was 20 feet from him at CPAC when he took that cheap shot at Sarah. Even the Romney college kid behind me said “What was that?”.
It was a botched joke. It was not a shot at Sarah. Be fair to Romney, there.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Alex,
You show great courage on this site as you articulate what others are beginning to see. I went through the same transformation as I learned the FACTS over time and compared to other politicians. Nobody’s perfect, but Palin gets it and is in touch with the average American voter like no other GOP politician over many factions.
She is …the Anti-Obama.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Uh…I haven’t seen sarah on TV either. Have you? She’s hiding while someone else writes her material for speeches and Facebook. Courage? I think not!
September 26th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Martha doesn’t like Sarah’s “Runners World” spread. OK, now we know her motive. It’s….THAT!
September 26th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
What concerns me most about Sarah Palin is her lack of foreign policy know-how. Her heart is in the right place, but her head isn’t necessarily filled with the right facts to articulate that to the American public, which is skeptical both of her and of the Republican Party in general. She needs to brush up on a few things, but I’m confident that she can do so if she really wants to.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
<>
Alex, certainly you are not saying that Obama (or Bush, for that matter) had any foreign policy experience before they took office. In Obama’s case, it is totally apparent.
For that matter, what foreign policy experience does Romney, Huckster, or Pawlenty possess?
And if you really want to go back in time, what foreign policy experience did Reagan possess when he became President in 1980?
I hear what you are saying. But a candidate has to first have the right ideology (which I THINK that Palin has), and surround him/her self with the right people. That is true for every single candidate.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Experience and knowledge are two different things. I never said experience. I said knowledge. I don’t think she could coherently spell out the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah. Nor could Bush have, in 2000, I suspect, and I’m not sure if I would have voted for him back then. I imagine, given my ideology, that I would have been an independent back then, and one more likely to vote for DLC Democrats.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
One’s Sunni of a Salafi character,
the others Iranian, one supported mostly by Saudis the other an Iranian client, Both practice military assaults and suicide terrorism. The problem is too many in the vaunted foreign
policy establishment, think there
is legitimacy to either organization. They both want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. Until recently, the only democracy in the region. It’s rather very simple. Not so simple
that this current administration, misses every single of the goal posts though.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Er…not quite.
Hamas is a Palestinian paramilitary terrorist organization dedicated to wiping Israel off of the face of the Earth. It’s a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, but it’s more violent than most of their other branches. Their ultimate goal is to reinstate the caliphate. They are Sunni.
Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy that mostly stirs up trouble in Lebanon. It, too, is dedicated to wiping out Israel. However, it has not engaged in suicide terrorism.
Both are terrorist organizations, both use democracy to legitimize themselves, both do charity work for Arabs to gain support on the ground.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:00 am
41-4 i can’t keep from answering this just as sarah did. “which bush’s doctrine are you talking about, charlie?
evidently you don’t know anymore than charlie did that there were several of his policies known as “the bush doctrine”. gov. palin just had the good sense and manners not to tell charlie that he was dumber than a damn rock and he should ask his researcher which “doctrine” he meant
as for her “lack of experience”, she left alaska with a surplus of 30 billion dollars instead of owing several billion dollars like most states at the time.
i trust palin to do what she says she’ll do because being truthful is as big a part of her as her courage. last week she stepped into the lion’s den and didn’t sugarcoat anything including china’s need for human rights reform. seems like her speech was well received by most and that sure beats “the one” on the stump. palin like america and it’s people and she knows americans don’t want or need the govt. to do their thinking for them. she has the courage to tell us what she thinks and not what she thinks we want to hear. totally unlike most politicians and particularly not like obama. i also think palin’s a lot smarter than obama or he wouldn’t be making a complete train wreck out of the white house. the best thing i can say about obama is that he’s a superb teleprompter reader.
dennisintn
September 27th, 2009 at 12:05 am
OMG, stop apologizing for that freaking Bush Doctrine question like Krauthammer did. That was Krauthammer’s moment of shame.
Everyone and their mom who knows anything about foreign policy knew that the Bush Doctrine meant preventive war.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:06 am
Even if you agree with Krauthammer, Palin did not say “What aspect of his foreign policy do you mean?” She went
“*pause* … *leans back* … In what respect, Charlie? …”
Er, the Bush Doctrine.
“…His worldview?”
…No.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:15 am
I encourage everyone to purchase this week’s Globe magazine at the supermarket counter.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:23 am
Hey there, “Knickers”, since evidently you failed to read what I wrote, I’ll rephrase: there are times when quitting is the right thing to do. Quite obviously, homework is not one of those times. Let me know when you’re willing to move past your wishful preconceptions and actually address the given reasons for Palin’s resignation. It doesn’t serve your case to reiterate that “she’s a quitter” without acknowledging *any* of the circumstances behind her decision.
It doesn’t bother me that Palin doesn’t have a premature foreign policy agenda spelled out…at all. In fact, that’s a problem, when leaders have an idea in their heads and attempt to force it to work. It is “on the job”, and it’s all about a wilingness and readiness to adapt to circumstances.
Yeah, she didn’t know what “Bush Doctrine” referred to. I’d dare guess 98% of Americans didn’t before that question. It would have helped her image if she did, but beyond that…does it really bear any relevance or significance at *all*?? It’s no secret that Gibson had nothing but disdain for Palin throughout the entire interview, and instead of asking something straightforward that captures the importance of the qustion like “Do you agree with a policy of pre-emptive war if a threat exists?” But instead, he resolved to test her knowledge of obscure meaningless terms coined to associate policy with policy maker. Irrelevant. That and the whole bit of blatantly misquoting her and claiming the quote was her exact words…totally transparent motivations in that interview.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:28 am
OBSCURE, MEANINGLESS TERMS?
The “Bush Doctrine” is a very famous term. Any politician should know about it.
Professor Robert Kaufmann “In Defense of the Bush Doctrine”
Norman Podhoretz of Commentary Magazine “Enter the Bush Doctrine” (a book read and endorsed by Giuliani, Gingrich, Bolton, Limbaugh…))
September 27th, 2009 at 12:28 am
Er, sorry, Enter the Bush Doctrine is a chapter in World War IV. That’s the book I’m referring to. And it’s an excellent book.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:38 am
Yeah, I stand by my statement. Not saying the term didn’t exist, but that’s all it is. A term. It’s not critical or central to the idea, at all. It’s a term that connects policy to policy-maker. I didn’t know what it was, no one I knew did. I realize it existed, but its completely unimportant to the actual idea, and in reality, very few knew about it. I’m speaking comparatively. Whether she knew the term for the sake of knowing the term is irrelevant. Can you explain to me why it’s important that she understood what that term referred to besides her own image? How does that hold any bearing on her understanding and her perspective on foreign policy?
September 27th, 2009 at 12:39 am
She effectively answered the question once she picked up on the idea he was driving at with the infamous term.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:42 am
There are many aspects tied to the Bush doctrine, ‘preemptive
intervention, focus on democracy
promotion, as key aspect of Middle
East policy. proactive measures like preventive detention of enemy
combatants. All of this is to be jettisoned by this administration
in whole or in part. That’s the point, embracing Mubarak and the Sauds, whose stability brought us
9/11, returning counterterrorism to a forensic game, erasing nearly two centuries of policy
dealing with unlawful combatants
September 27th, 2009 at 1:01 am
No patrick. YOU said quitting was just fine. Sorry, winners never quit, quitters never win. Palin QUIT for the almighty dollar. Not a fine example, IMO.
September 27th, 2009 at 1:03 am
Hey all! Palin will be on Meet the press tomorrow AM! No. Just kidding. Real questions, having to think for herself. Heck, she’d get 1/2 way through the interveiw and quit! That’s her MO!
September 27th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Patrick. I don’t know if you noticed but she was running for veep, with a running mate that is of ..um.. advanced age? I would EXPECT someone who is seeking the second (and perhaps the highest) office in the land to be well versed on subjects pretaining to national security, war, preventive ‘war’, the economy and the price of pickles. “in what respect, Charlie” was her way of saying “ummm. you asked a hard question. Can’t answer it. Did not do my homework”. It was NOT a gotcha question. He was trying to figure out why McCain picked her. Many of us came away scratching our heads over that pick as well.
September 27th, 2009 at 1:24 am
Ohh! Is that what I said Knickers? Excuse me for stating my position in a way that doesn’t fit with what you read and hear and interpret. Don’t put words in my mouth, and that little statement just now is sheer dishonesty. I don’t believe that the point so easily passed you by. Let’s think of another analogy if it’s really so hard to put things into perspective yourself. Say your the executive of a company that has had tremendous success, in part because of the relationship you have with leaders of interdependent companies that all work together. Except, a personal rift develops between you and one of your key partners– they set out to destroy you specifically. You have two choices: resign and save the business you built, leaving it the hands of a successor you trust at the cost of your personal reputation; or “tough it out” and “do the job you were hired to do” and go down with the ship– at the expense of the entire company you had built and the projects that had been so succesful previously. Which one would actually be doing a better job, and more effective for the cause and the business? Which path is the honorable one? Which one would be self-motivated, and which would be self-less?
September 27th, 2009 at 1:38 am
No, Knickers– as I *just* explained above (definitely starting to question your reading comprehension skills) it’s a ***TERM***, strictly for connecting policy to policy-maker. Once she picked up on the idea he was driving at, she effectively answered the question and demonstrated firm grasp of the issue. It’s comparable to asking “Do you support a federal government of acrasia?” knowing full well that it’s a term very few are familiar with, and then having everyone (including those that were previously oblivious to the term) say “WHAT? You don’t know what acrasia means? You must not have done your homework!” It’s juvenile. Term knowledge indicates nothing more than memorization. She had the idea down, and that’s what’s important.
September 27th, 2009 at 1:59 am
Lol Patrick – really good point. Who quickly googled “acrasia”? I know I did
September 27th, 2009 at 2:11 am
Hey Knickers! You really gave me a jolt with the “palin on Meet the Press” line!!! Very funny. But I truly think it will be years before sarah is brave enough to try to speak coherently on a Sunday morning talk show.
September 27th, 2009 at 2:15 am
What’s the Obama Doctrine? Surely you people who follow the news know what it means without google searching it
September 27th, 2009 at 2:23 am
OMG…I think you need to head over to Andrew Sullivan’s web site and check out his long list of sarah’s lies, all with verifiable sources. Sarah is very loose with the truth…I would not call her a person of high integrity by any means.
September 27th, 2009 at 2:35 am
Shelby,
Andrew Sullivan is a truther and that is all you need to know.
One more thing the man is a pot head and his brain is screwed up.
Know what I mean.
September 27th, 2009 at 3:50 am
This site is turning into a Palin PR machine. Maybe the sensible among us should start up a new site if this type of thing continues?
September 27th, 2009 at 5:46 am
I am a Sarah Palin supporter but for one comment I am going to try to set my mind to being an anti-Palin supporter with is a Republican or conservative but also a person with rational thoughts.
With that in mind I want to separate legitimate from bogus issues with regards to how should we judge Sarah Palin or for that matter any politician:
10 BOGUS ISSUES:
1)Trig Trutherism-Does anyone really believe that any woman, especially the governor of a state could fake giving birth in a hospital; that would mean an elaborate hoax would have to be perpetrated and in addition Bristol’s friends would have to be silenced. With Obama’s detectives and the MSM blanketing Alaska interviewing several people what are the chances this could be true? In addition Levi Johnston in his Vanity fair interview said that Sarah left it to the last moment to tell her family about the pregnancy.
2)Sarah Palin is illiterate or doesn’t read. Sarah Palin is a college graduate. Enough said.
3)Sarah Palin is stupid, dense or uninformed. Elaine Lafferty, former editor in Ms. Magazine in late October wrote an article about the intelligence of Sarah Palin, she’s a Brainiac. Lafferty is definitely not an arch-conservative. In addition Sarah was governor of a state. No governor of any state can be an idiot, intellectually speaking. Corrupt yes, idiot no.
4)Sarah shoots wolves from a plane herself and revels in it.
5)Sarah’s participation in a beauty pageant; so what?
6)claims Sarah didn’t know Africa was a continent or she didn’t know the countries in NAFTA
7)the wardrobe controversy during the campaign; the RNC admitted signing off on all the expenditures
8)Sarah doesn’t write her own speeches so that means she doesn’t know or understand what she is saying or is a robot, or a puppet of the speechwriter; I have watched thousands of speeches in a public setting and never once did I think that the speaker did not comprehend what he/she was talking about whether I agreed with the sentiment or not; this is a disconnect no rational person should ever entertain such claptrap
9)Sarah Palin believes the earth is only 6000 years old; Matt Damon said it.
10)That Sarah said, “I can see Russia from my house.” It is well documented that Sarah never said it. Tina Fey did.
10 LEGITIMATE ISSUES:
1)Issues of potential outrageous HYPOCRISY; as a Palin supporter I hope it does not exist but it is fair game if it is discovered and PROVEN. But it must be proven and not just innuendo
2)The issue of the resignation or “quitting”; I will never dismiss this concern by many people on our side. If this is a deal breaker why you could never vote for Palin so be it
3)Palin’s ability or inability or reluctance to handle face-to-face interviews on Sunday shows, newsmagazines, or talk show host; I will admit this is not one of her strengths but rationally it can be improved; having said that if she doesn’t improve over the next 1-2 years I will be as concerned then as anti-Palinites are now.
4)Sarah’s high unfavorables or that she is a “polarizing figure” that possibly makes her unelectable; if you are rational, you will say that this is not a good sign, but polls are fickle; it is irrational to say poll numbers are set in stone
5)MSM “damaging” Sarah beyond repair; a highly legitimate issue that is a concern; having said that the 2012 election is not for another 38 months; the perception of her may have changed; if it has not Obama will win in 2012
6)misogyny-I hate to admit it but it a legitimate issue especially some religious groups who may refuse to vote for a woman for POTUS out of religious tenet
7)Sarah’s INEXPERIENCE as less than a one-term governor; highly relevant and a deal breaker for many people who see experience as a precursor of performance; rationally this is most often the case but in the case of Tiger Woods it was not when he won 8 times on tour at age 23. Rationally, is Sarah a superstar? I think she is. The “experience” rules don’t apply to superstars. But you may think she isn’t. I can understand that.
8)Sarah’s ability to dramatically impact the 2010 midterms; highly legitimate but it’s like Chris Berman of ESPN says, “That’s why they play the game.” Wait and see.
9)Sarah’s personal viewpoints on abortion, evolution, gay rights, climate change, amnesty etc. I expect Sarah to be questioned hard on political issues and she should be. I would say the same for any political candidate aspiring to the presidency
10)Her political agenda and why she opposes Obama; highly relevant; why the debates are important; if she is consistently fuzzy in explaining her Reagan conservative agenda to the American people or they conclude it is something they don’t want to embrace-fair ball-she doesn’t deserve higher office and I would be the first to say so but if her message is distorted by an orchestrated MSM campaign of disinformation or propaganda then as a rational, independent thinker I would have to conclude that is not fair but a foul ball and out of bounds
September 27th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Bob, it would be good to relist these at the beginning of a thread. It would be good for some discussion.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:38 am
#242
“Everyone and their mom who knows anything about foreign policy knew that the Bush Doctrine meant preventive war.”
Wrong. I consider myself more than well informed and I did not know what it was. The fact that a columnist coined it does not mean that I, or anyone else, has to adopt it. I reject the term for two reasons, at least. First, Bush, and by that I mean both Bushes, was far too inconsequential as a leader and a historical figure to be credited with a doctrine that bears his name. He did not help to define the foreign policy of the United States for over 150 years and to shape the Constitution, as did Monroe; He did not stand alone against the Nazis, as did Churchill; Nor did he defeat the Soviet empire without firing a shot, as did Reagan. Yet, a taking head announces that he too has a doctrine and it is an accepted fact. That is hogwash, in the premises.
Second, assuming there is such an animal as the “Bush Doctrine”, who would want to tether himself to any “definition” thereof? Who would be so imprudent? The only firm Bush position (not a doctrine) that comes to mind (again, I am speaking collectively) was “No new taxes”, and we all know how that turned out. The Bushes are synonmous with nuance and compromise. They speak about restraining the growth of government and then proceed to grow it at record levels. They talk about “no new taxes” and then proceed to raise them. The words “Bush” and “Doctrine” are an historical oxymoron, and Palin was right to ask News Reader Charlie Gibson, “In what sense, Charlie?”
September 27th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I have read this article and about 2/3 down on the comments. The most optimistic and intelligent words were posted by Zebra and that includes the original author. I noticed, too, that not one other poster took refuted anything he/she has said. The comments on this blog, for the most part were very good with some, but very little rancor and name-calling. However, I would say to all who post to try to discredit Ms. Palin, if you truly love this country AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTITUTED, you need to widen your horizons. Stop reading the New York Times and watching the other state-run medias. They are PURPOSEFULLY trying keep you, and all their readers, in ignorance. For that alone, you should be outraged.
Zebra, if you have a blog, I would love to read it. You speak my mind eloquently and with hope. I love it.
Thank you.
September 27th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I totally agree with this suggestion.
September 27th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Hmmm…if you were to make it over to Sullivan’s site you would find that SARAH ALSO HAS DONE POT, and she does not deny it.
Sullivan’s site provide links and citations to back up his claims/research.
September 27th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Palin had to find about 6 unis before she could find one that would graduate her! And ironically it was in journalism!
September 27th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
September 27th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Knickers said “No patrick. YOU said quitting was just fine. Sorry, winners never quit, quitters never win. Palin QUIT for the almighty dollar.”
OK, by your logic (which is the same as the almighty Conventional Wisdom), Palin is a quitter. Well, that makes Kathleen Sebelius and Janet Napolitano “quitters” as well. After all, both of them were re-elected as Governor to their state in ‘06 (same year Palin was elected Governor). And both of them “quit” on their constituents in order to enhance their resumes move to DC, and become Cabinet Secretaries.
And don’t give me that “There changed jobs for public service” baloney. According to your logic, they QUIT. For that matter, Rahm Emmanuel quit on his constituents less than 2 weeks after being re-elected.
Look, if Palin resigns from Governor and goes into hiding, then go ahead and label her a “quitter.” But from where I sit, she helped lead the charge to defeat the Public Option (which is a “public service,” in my opinion), will probably lead the charge to elect Republicans to put the breaks on the Obama express (Another public service).
And if she runs for President, she is no more a quitter to Alaska than Obama was a quitter to Illinois.
In other words, quit listening to the Beltway Pundits who never get anything right, and quit speaking in cliche’s
September 27th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Bob,
Good list of potential objections to Palin. While the haters will ALWAYS latch onto the Bogus ones, the vast majority will zero in on the legitimate concerns (Again, EVERY politicians has concerns against them – Palin is no exception)
1)HYPOCRISY; I have to be honest with you: I have no idea what that means. In what specific area is Palin being hypocritical?
2)QUITTING: No doubt this will be a big hill to climb, but not a difficult one. Palin can handle this by pointing to other Governors who have “quit” to move on to a higher political calling.
3)SUNDAY TALK SHOWS: We are in 2009. By the time 2011 rolls around I have no doubt she will be doing her fair share of talk shows. Be patient.
4)HIGH UNFAVORABLES: Dude, this is politics we are talking about. Those things can change in the blink of an eyelash. After doing a series of speeches (Inspirational & serious ones), writing a book, doing the book tour, getting back out on the campaign trail for the ‘10 election, and meeting with reporters, she can turn this around
5)MSM: Maybe I am the only one here that is noticing that the MSM is being proven less & less important
6)MISOGYNY: No, this is not a legitimate issue. The nation just elected a black man by a wide margin. It can elect a white woman as well. In fact, had Obama not come around Hillary would be POTUS right now
7)INEXPERIENCE: On this we agree, especially considering the disaster of electing an inexperience President in Obama.
8)2010 MIDTERMS: This will have no effect on Palin’s ability to gain the nomination or not. Believe it or not, the ultimate decider is the nominee – not the one campaigning for them
9)SARAH’S PERSONAL VIEWPOINTS: Again, this is something that EVERY candidate faces.
10)HER POLITICAL AGENDA: If I read you correctly, this gets to her ideology. And that is something she is in the process of explaining. As her speech in HK pointed out, she is a Reagan disciple.
There is one that you left out: VISION. What does she want to do with the country, where does she want to lead it, and what is her solutions to solving the problems.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
#265
JuliBME: Thank you for the kind words. I do not have a blog but post from time to time here and on some other sites, such as freerepublic. I see so many historical similarities between this election cycle and 1980, when the great RR made his successful insurgent run for the nomination. The savage media treatment of Sarah Palin and the Republican establishment’s disdain for her are strikingly similar to their attitude toward Reagan. Only after he had won did he become the affable, genial Gipper to the establishment GOP and only after he was out of office did the press let up on him. It is truly funny how short are the memories.
In any case, I will be posting with greater frequency as the election approaches, and I truly hope that Governor Palin runs both because it will make the election so much more interesting and because her election would be SO good for the country. I am glad to know there is someone out there who gets something out of my scribble. God bless you.
September 28th, 2009 at 3:28 am
Oh gosh. I must get this to 275. It’s such a beautiful number, divisible by 25.
September 28th, 2009 at 3:31 am
Anyway, Zebra, you are always welcome to comment here. We’re a nice group. We get contentious, but we have good discussions! From our silly troll JA Pruce to the affable Adam to the Rombots (Martha, IllinoisGuy, Heath) to OHIO “Bingo!” JOE, to our resident Democrats American Ideals and Kevin, to cantankerous MetroIndependent…aye. Lots of memories with Race4…which soon will be no more! Moving on to bigger and better things…but I digress.
September 28th, 2009 at 6:43 am
Don’t leave AK I like debating you even though you are infuriating me atm!
September 28th, 2009 at 6:44 am
It’s like a big family here.
September 28th, 2009 at 8:15 am
Thanks for the great post. It generated quite a lot of interest, no doubt because of the skill of the author and the interest in the particular subject. I certainly enjoyed it and the comments it generated.
September 28th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Re: Stuart Post # 272 Point 8 2010 Midterms
I believe Palin’s participation in the midterm elections will be crucial in her move toward 2012. If she is interested in running for POTUS in 2012, I believe she will be all over the midterms like white on rice. It will seem like she is running for more than half the seats in Congress. If she is effective she has the opportunity to have her name on the banner of a great Republican comeback, just like Gingrich did in 94. She will also learn important political details from state to state. She will ring up IOUs country wide. And she will then be in a position to be formidable in the 2012 primaries.
But maybe she isn’t interested.
September 28th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Glen,
I agree and disagree. If she is all over the campaign trail, gains a lot of positive attention, and the GOP candidates win, then she will look good for 2010. It will also propel her towards the 2012 nomination, just as you expertly pointed out.
My point is that her nomination does not hinge on the results of the final election (Which again, depends on the candidate). If they lose, I don’t think she will be seen as the blame …. although, you can bet the MSM will try to make that the story.
If she simply sits at home and does nothing (which neither of us expect, but you never know what will happen) she will never be able to make it in the 2012 race.
To be honest with you, I don’t know her strategy is in this regards. She has made some excellent moves (Resigning as Governor, Facebook), and some baffling ones (Canceling speeches). We’ll see what happens next year.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Speaking of Sarah Palin, she just finished her book: “Going Rogue: An American Life.” It’s a 400 page book that is due out November 17.
No wonder she has limited her comments to Facebook. The woman has been busy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090928/ap_on_en_ot/us_books_palin
September 29th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Going Rogue is now #1 at Barnes and Noble and #23 on Amazon.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Going Rogue is now #11 at Amazon.com
September 29th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Not bad – especially considering the book will not be out for a month and a half. Gee, do you think there is some serious interest in Sarah Palin?