February 28, 2011

Most Important News of the Week: Some People Said Bad Things About Sarah Palin
— Ace

The Hammer asked for a thread about people talking about Palin. Fine.

Chris Christie says what I've been saying forever: If Palin wants to prove she has the mettle to stand up to Ahmadinejad, she has to show the mettle of standing up David Gregory and George Stephanopolous. Her FaceBook/Friendly Media agenda proves she can, like Barack Obama, give a fine interview when gently questioned; it doesn't prove she can actually stand up to the fire.

I keep hearing she's the only candidate who's been baptized by fire but I haven't actually seen her in fire for quite a long time.

But Chris Christie, and I, are bad people for noting this, or bad people for wondering what it will take for Palin to reverse her horrible unfavorable ratings.

Ann Coulter, newest member of the RINO Sell-Out Caucus, says that Palin isn't running, but is just maintaining the possibility of running because (as she claims Palin quoted Gingrich) you get paid more in speaking fees if people think you're running. (Coulter goes on to say that this is why Gingrich "pretends to run every four years" but no umbrage is taken over her dis of Gingrich.)

I actually think Coulter is unfair here. I thought this myself, but upon examining the situation, I had to conclude the charge was false.

First of all -- most importantly -- Sarah Palin maintains that she just might run for president because, um, she really might run for president. Now, I think that is an outside chance, and I think Palin thinks that's an outside chance too; but Palin herself says it's an outside chance (or puts it in a way that suggests she wouldn't run if a capable True Conservative did, at least). Furthermore, everything is a "might" situation in life, pretty much.

I think Palin says she might run for president because she might run for president. "Might" doesn't mean "will." It means might. I think that's true. We can argue about the likelihood of it, but in the end, I'm sure there's some chance under some circumstances she could run.

There are other reasons besides simple truth to maintain she could run -- it makes her more influential, and yes, it makes her richer. So there is a mixture of motives here, but you can't get past that first one -- it's also true, and that's motive enough, isn't it?

So I disagree with the RINO Ann Coulter here. But overall, of course, her greater sin is failing to get on Team Palin which we now know makes you a disreputable person who can only possibly be acting out of jealousy over the fact that you're aging badly while Palin still looks hot. (Yes, this is an explanation offered in the comments for Ann Coulter's failure to embrace Palin -- jealousy. I hear this sometimes here, in different variations.)

Nikki Haley claims she doesn't "owe" Palin a nomination and will make such a determination of who to endorse later. (No nasty comments there about Haley.)

I realize this post has a sneering tone. I'm at that point. I'm sneering. I do not believe that the most important story in politics is always who's saying supportive things about Palin and who's saying critical things. I think this is like American Idol balloting at this point.

There are more important things. This doesn't even make the top 50.

Posted by: Ace at 09:49 AM | Comments (1057)
Post contains 593 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I keep hearing she's the only candidate who's been baptized by fire but I haven't actually seen her in fire for quite a long time

Was the shooting in Arizona really that long ago?

Posted by: pajama momma at February 28, 2011 09:52 AM (1lqnR)

2 oh and Chris Christie 4 prez!

Posted by: pajama momma at February 28, 2011 09:54 AM (1lqnR)

3 Damn, the Ewok is on fire! 

Vegas baby!  It's a new month an my SS check is going to clear!

http://tinyurl.com/2uywdoa

Posted by: Kemp at February 28, 2011 09:54 AM (JpFM9)

4 Where the hee haw heck is everyone?

Posted by: pajama momma at February 28, 2011 09:54 AM (1lqnR)

5

You're right - none of the things you cite from Christie, Coulter or Haley rank in the top 50 things people should find important.  They all fall under the category of "obvious."

Obviously Palin, if she runs, will face unscripted situations.

Obviously Palin, in her current position, is more powerful an influencer than she would be as a declared candidate.

Obviously Haley, as Governor of a crucial primary state, would be a fool to declare for a candidate at this point -- especially a candidate who hasn't actually declared her candidacy -- because it would cause the rest of the field to reduce their campaigning (and spending!) in South Carolina.

Posted by: stuiec at February 28, 2011 09:55 AM (Di3Im)

6 Second look at Andrew Sullivan?

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 28, 2011 09:55 AM (1fB+3)

7 4 Where the hee haw heck is everyone?

Vegas??

It is a work day for those who aren't on fun employment.

Posted by: Kemp at February 28, 2011 09:56 AM (JpFM9)

8 The Good and Proper Clause of the Declaration of Independence rules out criticism of Sarah Palin and /or Chris Christie.

Educate yourselves Sheeple!1!

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 09:57 AM (Q6tnr)

9 Was the shooting in Arizona really that long ago?

Posted by: pajama momma at February 28, 2011 02:52 PM (1lqnR)

What do you mean?  Isn't every prominent political figure routinely accused of causing lunatics to go on shooting rampages by using subliminal messages in his or her communications graphics?  Aren't all politicians assumed to be able to remote-control madmen using only their brainwaves?

Posted by: stuiec at February 28, 2011 09:57 AM (Di3Im)

10

Anne Coulter???

Check the neck!!

 

Posted by: Keef Obermann at February 28, 2011 09:58 AM (pr+up)

11 Aren't all politicians assumed to be able to remote-control madmen using only their brainwaves?

Louis Farrakhan says, "YES!"

Posted by: pajama momma at February 28, 2011 09:58 AM (1lqnR)

12 Personally I don't think she will run. If she runs, I don't think she will get the nomination. Can we move on.

Posted by: nevergiveup at February 28, 2011 09:58 AM (0GFWk)

13 Second look at Andrew Sullivan?

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 28, 2011 02:55 PM (1fB+3)

Sullivan left The Atlantic for The Daily Beast because he thought "the daily beast" was one of the job benefits he would be entitled to.

Posted by: stuiec at February 28, 2011 09:59 AM (Di3Im)

14 It is a work day for those who aren't on fun employment.

No fair. I wanna go.

Posted by: pajama momma at February 28, 2011 09:59 AM (1lqnR)

15 I'm fully "Meh" about people saying unflattering things about Palin.  We'll see what we see when/if she declares.  Until then, going on antagonistic interviews doesn't really help her much, if any.  If she declares and still doesn't go on them, though, she get's labeled "unserious," and we'll see if there's anybody better.

You want to go rounds on actual policy, we can do that- more or less.  But all this other heh-haw is a whole bunch of nothin'.

But, then, I'm not one of the ones who says she's the only one who has been through the fire.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at February 28, 2011 09:59 AM (8y9MW)

16 I already nominated the Fat Man ( not Sidney Greenstreet ) -- now you morons needs to Get Behind & Push

It's a combo of 1860 and 1932, bitches, and there's no Reagan. 

Posted by: SantaRosaStan, whose Rip is no longer Torn at February 28, 2011 10:00 AM (UqKQV)

17

We left the Necessary and Proper thread for this? I know I'm going to be instantaneously flamed for this, but here it is.

I like Palin personally, (not a fan of the tv show) but she has a lot of baggage. Quitting the governorship was a mistake. Yeah she was right. It was unfair and people were out to get her. But sometime you have to cowboy up and show them your mettle. The reality show also has a tinge of something I son't like about it. It lacks gravitas. I can't imagine George Washington or Thomas Jefferson doing it. (Maybe TJ would do a Povich episode as to who the baby's paternity is, but thats another story) In a sense she kinda reminds me of Obama here: she's trading on celebrity and I'm just not feeling the substance. Regan was great at media, but lets not forget he had the intellectual wherewithall of doing numerous speeches and articles on the philosophy behind conservatism for decades before he became president. Obama may be the first taboid president of the modern era, but I don't wnat him followed by another. I want someone I don't have to see on every damn channel constantly.

Posted by: JollyRoger at February 28, 2011 10:01 AM (NCw5u)

18 Win With Mittens!

Posted by: Dan Dan the Mittens Troll at February 28, 2011 10:01 AM (czcue)

19 Never feel sorry for a politician, a lawyer, or David Carridine.


Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 10:01 AM (Q6tnr)

20

Says Chris Christie who reverberates the same speech all the time. He clearly does not like Palin from interviews where he had to ask about her. She is unscripted, I doubt whatever she says is not poll tested beforehand. What I think he is saying is the whole hand wringing thing of how come she is on FOX. On this he is sort of right. One, she has a contract with fox and can only appear on other networks when selling books. Two, she had a meeting with a ton of moderates in long island and they were pretty impressed

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at February 28, 2011 10:01 AM (c5RQr)

21 Chris Christie says what I've been saying forever: If Palin wants to prove she has the mettle to stand up to Ahmadinejad, she has to show the mettle of standing up David Gregory and George Stephanopolous. How true. Christie can handle such people. Any candidate for POTUS must run that gauntlet, fair or not.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 28, 2011 10:01 AM (AZGON)

22 Mitt!  Mitt!  I Love You!
I Troll For You, I Really Do!

Posted by: Dan Dan the Mittens Troll at February 28, 2011 10:01 AM (czcue)

23 Thank the good Lord that someone is saying this. I've always kind of liked Palin but a lot of her "the one" supporters really irk me. The woman is a human being. She is not a political messiah who can do no wrong and when people give her advice that doesn't mean they are attacking her. Perhaps Christie, et al, actually do like Palin and want her to succeed - especially if she ends up being our nominee. They don't want us to lose to Obama in 2012 and want whoever our candidate is to be the strongest possible candidate we can have.

Posted by: hueydiamondpooty at February 28, 2011 10:02 AM (ifIgh)

24 Who Do We Want?

Mitt!

When Do We Want Him?

Right Now!

Posted by: Dan Dan the Mittens Troll at February 28, 2011 10:02 AM (czcue)

25 I guess everyone missed Palin taking questions for an hour from a Democrat in long island recently. Are people really saying that in order to qualify for the Presidency you must talk to David Gregory and George Stephanoplous? Are you serious? If that is what conservatives now believe, then we should just close up shop now lol. There is a little thing called a campaign ya know where many moments occur. Come to think of it, the campaign has not even begun yet, so maybe we should wait and see. Christie says something that is factually wrong and is instantly rebutted using video evidence. I do not know him personally and I do not know Ace personally. I have no idea whether you are the greatest people ever or not. My hunch is that you are both good people. I do know that you are factually wrong in regards to her having unscripted moments. Many of them are on video, but they just get ignored by her critics. She is more unscripted than the rest of the field thats for sure. I have a feeling that she could go on with David Gregory every week and tear him a new one, and her critics would STILL repeat the same meme.

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2011 10:02 AM (mXBxH)

26 10

Anne Coulter???

Check the neck!!

Posted by: Keef Obermann at February 28, 2011 02:58 PM (pr+up)



I thought you Ag guys always checked the teeth?

Posted by: Kemp at February 28, 2011 10:02 AM (JpFM9)

27 @17 I for one appreciate your heretical comments.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 28, 2011 10:02 AM (AZGON)

28 O/T:  "Wisconsin's Republican Gov. Scott Walker said on Monday that absent senate Democrats have 24 hours to return and vote on a measure to reduce the power of public sector unions or the state will miss out on opportunity to refinance its debt."

To the person saying "what has happened to everyone?".   Been reading that same kind of comment on every blog I read.  The postings have dropped off on all of them.   Either people are preparing for an emergency, per all the commercials the government seems to be running or they are just so disgusted that they assume their opinion doesn't really matter anymore.

I'm noticing the same "campaign phrases" in the prez's speech and I'm thinking a lot of people are in the mind mode of "he's gonna get a second term no matter what so why even bother to fight him mode".   

Posted by: curious at February 28, 2011 10:02 AM (p302b)

29 Does Ace need a binky???

Posted by: moi at February 28, 2011 10:03 AM (Ez4Ql)

30

What is it about Sarah Palin that causes such strong emotions? I enjoy the left's overstepping in their criticisms of her but agree it is not the same as withstanding the "fire."

 

Anyone catch Rand Paul on Letterman? I just have not seen Sarah perform that service to the conservative cause. Until and if she does I will agree with others concerns about her.

Posted by: Brian in Idaho at February 28, 2011 10:03 AM (pQ0lf)

31 Christie has appointed a muslim to NJ's Supreme Court, came out in favour of a mosque in lower Manhattan, and outside of tackling his state's budget, ------------------------------- demonstrated NOTHING that would lead any of us to believe that he has what it takes to shoulder the foreign policy obligations that descend on the man sitting in the Oval Office.

In fact, his pronouncements usually are idiotic.

Mark Levin has been going off about it now for months.

Sarah Palin meanwhile, has provided the LEADERSHIP on issues ranging from health care, {death panels} to Libya, where she strongly suggested imposing a no-fly zone almost a week ago.

So no, I don't think letting David Gregory piss all over her is a sine qua non to earning the GOP nomination.

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2011 10:03 AM (jD6eh)

32 Whatever, Ace...

Posted by: Kensington at February 28, 2011 10:03 AM (mEyVv)

33 Yeah I love all the talk about Palin running. It distracts from who the field of other potential candidates actually running will be.

I'll wager Romney's lifetime supply of hairspray that Palin is not running. Hmmm or maybe Newt's supply of dribble bibs. OK, Huckabees lifetime membership to Porky's Ribs Place.

Posted by: Marcus at February 28, 2011 10:03 AM (CHrmZ)

34 OT: From Gov. Walker via FB:

Unions Say There Can Be No Concessions, Period.

Union bosses have said that gov't workers would be willing to contribute to pensions and pay a slightly larger portion of their h'care premiums. But a flier endorsed by units of AFL-CIO, AFSCME, IBEW, and TAA-AFT says, “there can be no more concessions, period.” It says that there should... be no cuts in public sector pay, pensions or health benefits.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 28, 2011 10:03 AM (q8u+l)

35

I like Palin personally, (not a fan of the tv show) but she has a lot of baggage. Quitting the governorship was a mistake. Yeah she was right. It was unfair and people were out to get her. But sometime you have to cowboy up and show them your mettle. The reality show also has a tinge of something I son't like about it. It lacks gravitas. I can't imagine George Washington or Thomas Jefferson doing it. (Maybe TJ would do a Povich episode as to who the baby's paternity is, but thats another story) In a sense she kinda reminds me of Obama here: she's trading on celebrity and I'm just not feeling the substance. Regan was great at media, but lets not forget he had the intellectual wherewithall of doing numerous speeches and articles on the philosophy behind conservatism for decades before he became president. Obama may be the first taboid president of the modern era, but I don't wnat him followed by another. I want someone I don't have to see on every damn channel constantly.

THIS

Posted by: YRM (Rares Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 10:03 AM (UzBwz)

36 That, and Mrs. Palin has plenty of time to develop herself as a presidential candidate.  She doesn't have to run right away in order to run for president.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at February 28, 2011 10:04 AM (O9Cc8)

37 My mama grizzlies will get you for this Mr. Ace. I'm not saying you are a knuckle dragging neandrethal though. I'll let other people do that.

Posted by: Palin - Chief Grizzlie at February 28, 2011 10:04 AM (R9YVs)

38 Oil prices are going through the roof, why because of the drilling moratorium, which she was one of the strongest critics, Food prices, because of QE 2 by the Fed, which she warned about. So much so, it has helped toppled two major regimes in the region.The President took eight days to order an evacuation in the chaos of the latter, but reacted almost instantly in the Former.Christie is still for cap n trade, which is a legendary ponzi scheme, he vouched for Kagan, likely to bring about
untold horrors of jurisprudence.

Posted by: justin cord at February 28, 2011 10:04 AM (A0LUZ)

39 Christie is the honey badger of current political life  ==  he don't give a shit

he'll carry Cumberland County, home of the world's finest tomatoes

( not the women; the vegetable )

Posted by: SantaRosaStan, whose Rip is no longer Torn at February 28, 2011 10:04 AM (UqKQV)

40 I am always puzzled at "conservatives" that will throw social conservatives overboard in order to save "moderates". Moderates will stab you after the ship sinks.

Posted by: cherry π at February 28, 2011 10:05 AM (+sBB4)

41 the redundancy and repetition might be wearing out people (see what I did there?)

Posted by: Soothsayer al dente at February 28, 2011 10:06 AM (uFokq)

42 Man Men Overboard!

Posted by: PALINISTO! at February 28, 2011 10:06 AM (2fU2Q)

43 No, it's more important to point out that Chris Christie, the only Republican right now to get at least some favorable media coverage and the one with the biggest bullhorn on fiscal issues, has a weight problem. 

Because Sarah Palin is pretty and all.


Yeah, it's getting to me to.  'Wonder if I can get my 2008 campaign donation back?

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 10:06 AM (pW2o8)

44 ... especially during primaries.

Posted by: cherry π at February 28, 2011 10:06 AM (+sBB4)

45 Mitt Mitt he our man, and he's got a tan!

And some REALLY strange beliefs!

http://tinyurl.com/2pjymn

Posted by: Kemp at February 28, 2011 10:06 AM (JpFM9)

46 By threatening to run but not actually declaring, Sarah is (1) Trying to direct the party to the right; (2) Trying to maintain her name recognition. I think she'll be a campaigner, and a popular one, and she'll line up behind whoever the nominee is. And it's early days yet. Let's wait until the SC debate in May.

Posted by: joncelli at February 28, 2011 10:06 AM (RD7QR)

47 Lynne Cheney reaches the bar that Christie has set, easily.  She never seems to get any of the encouragement for office (personally, I think an excellent selection for VP to eventual P).  Not that she has ever given any indication to want it.  I still think she should be considered by whoever the nominee is and I realize what the MFM would say about another Cheney, but F them, good is good.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at February 28, 2011 10:07 AM (xdHzq)

48 Yeah right Ace. If Palin just sharpened her 'insight' and showed her abilities more often, she could so change the public's perception of her. You probably think that if we just make more effective foreign policy, the muslims will become our friends. You probably think that if we stop supporting Israel, the middle east will no longer pose a threat. Palin is one of the purest filters there is as to whether one is truly on the right or just a RINO. You constantly show your true RINO self.

Posted by: Mike at February 28, 2011 10:07 AM (A4OwG)

49 30, Rand Paul might not be in office right now if it was not for Palin. Rand says as much in his book when he recalls how huge it was that he got her endorsement and says how it infuriated his republican primary opponent.

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2011 10:07 AM (mXBxH)

50 Also, here's why I can take umbrage with Coulter's dis of Palin without taking umbrage at Coulter's dis of Gingrich.

Gingrich is, largely, a douche as a presidential figure.  That was clear when he made the global warming commercial with Pelosi.

So I don't care if Coulter disses him.

I'm Palin agnostic, in the sense that I'm not one of those guys running around and insisting that she can win.  I just like what she says and hope she runs.  And if she does run, I'll support her.

But the anti-Palin whining is probably as irritating to me as the Palin support is to some of you.

Posted by: Kensington at February 28, 2011 10:07 AM (mEyVv)

51 Oh shit, Ace is snarky. Better run. I guess I would object to Anne because this might be a technical 11th commandment violation. I get prickly when hate-filled lefties say insane things about Palin in their usual pissy, personal manner. Ace makes a good point that Palin isn't going on Meet The Press. As for the role of the media in vetting conservative candidates and giving tongue love to liberal ones, hey, if they're going to ask "quiz master" questions to conservatives to trip them up, what can you do? I guess someone like Palin should say, "hey, I'm not a lawyer but I ran a state, I know when decisions affect my duties but I don't know the inside geek baseball that people pretend to understand."

Posted by: joeindc44 at February 28, 2011 10:07 AM (QxSug)

52   The postings have dropped off on all of them.   Either people are preparing for an emergency, per all the commercials the government seems to be running or they are just so disgusted that they assume their opinion doesn't really matter anymore.

Or, number B, their employers finally wised up and banned access to Ace's at work.

Posted by: pajama momma at February 28, 2011 10:07 AM (1lqnR)

53 I have a feeling that she could go on with David Gregory every week and tear him a new one, and her critics would STILL repeat the same meme. No, not at all. That would earn her conservatives' respect. We all love it when They get pwned. Recall that interview between Rumsfeld and the scrunt married to Alan Greenspan. Yet for good or ill if she runs she will then have to play in that minefield at least part of the time.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 28, 2011 10:07 AM (AZGON)

54

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2011 03:03 PM (jD6eh)

so the fact that the independents loathe the woman, that she polls worse then Ron Paul against Obama, that she quit her Governorship, and has only had happy no hard questions interviews doesn't concern you at all? I mean i'm personally hoping Christie runs (and please don't bring up that loudmouth Levin who rather attack personally then debate facts) and yes I am concerned about the things you've mentioned about him but I, as someone who constantly defends Palin against my libtard buddies and on facebook, can see the downsides to her candiacy

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 10:08 AM (UzBwz)

55 I think it's silly to say there's no one Palin is running but I would agree it's unlikely.

Coulter is just doing what she normally does, scans around to see what will get the biggest reaction and goes with it. Although I do think she has a geniuine affection for Christie as a canddiate I think she is only pushing that right now because she is sure he isn't running. The thing with Palin may be just the opposite, she isn't sure.

I do not believe that the most important story in politics is always who's saying supportive things about Palin and who's saying critical things. I think this is like American Idol balloting at this point.

There are more important things. This doesn't even make the top 50.


I would definitely agree with that. I have never understood why people get so hung up on a specific candidate anyway. Their policies okay, their marketability okay, but the rest is fluff. I have no need at all to like a candidate and I don't know why people put such a high premium on that. Sarah Palin is very likable and not just physically. I think that is one of the reasons she garners this stuff. She comes off as an everyman type, probably because she really is, and not many pols can pull that off.


Posted by: Rocks at February 28, 2011 10:08 AM (Q1lie)

56 I'm waiting until the primaries before I choose a candidate, because I want to see more before I decide. In the meantime, the focus should be the Congress and what they can do in the window of time they have before the 2012 election. JMO.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 28, 2011 10:08 AM (q8u+l)

57

 

At least she's not on a drug called "Charlie Sheen."

Posted by: Dr. Varno at February 28, 2011 10:08 AM (QMtmy)

58 Sorry to be blunt here. I think it is a dumb/stupid strategy for our side to keep sneering/attacking Palin. She represents a number of issues (eg social issues) important to a sizeable portion of the base. The way for a Rep candidate to beat her and win the general election is to co-opt her issues without directly attacking her. If this strategy continues, I think it is stupid for anybody, esp. the social cons, to enthusiastically lend your time/money to someone sneering at your important issues. I have a hard time taking seriously the claim that we care so much about winning the 2012 election that we have to sneer at Palin.

Posted by: LAI at February 28, 2011 10:09 AM (R4ub4)

59 45 Mitt Mitt he our man, and he's got a tan!

And some REALLY strange beliefs!

--

Yeah, because no religious sects have odd beliefs except Mormons.  And Catholics. 

That's pretty much it.  I'll go do the research and determine which of the GOP candidates or potential candidates are young earth creationists and start campaigning against them. 

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 10:09 AM (pW2o8)

60 The thing I would not like about Christie being President is because I feel he is the kind of person to tell his political base to "fuck off" like dubya did with immigration.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at February 28, 2011 10:09 AM (c5RQr)

61 43, you should ask yourself why he is getting favorable media coverage. Who runs the media again? Would they be liberals or conservatives?

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2011 10:09 AM (mXBxH)

62 I don't support candidates who are not running.  Why do we keep doing this?  Why not wait to see who is actually running?  Every once in while is fun, but dang!  Over and over again, it just seems sort of obsessive at this point.  Why don't we talk about the really important issues, like whether GOProud will be at CPAC next year.  You know, the stuff that affects all our lives. Well, 3% of us.

And Ace, Midol.  I think you could use some.

Posted by: countrydoc at February 28, 2011 10:10 AM (131HS)

63 Posted by: pajama momma at February 28, 2011 03:07 PM (1lqnR)

yes, but you can get around that filtering stuff. 

my friends firm banned facebook and gmail.  So, he doesn't go there on his firm computer, he either uses his phone or his personal laptop.  There are some people who work very well when they can switch off to something else and not so well when that something else is taken away.

Posted by: curious at February 28, 2011 10:10 AM (p302b)

64 #60 Looks like 2012 will be another election we have to wipe our nose to vote for the Rep candidate. I am dealing with reality at this point.

Posted by: LAI at February 28, 2011 10:10 AM (R4ub4)

65 "Yeah I love all the talk about Palin running. It distracts from who the field of other potential candidates actually running will be."

Well maybe there wouldn't be so much interest in Palin running if the GOP slate, those people "actually running," wasn't filled top to bottom with the sorriest band of losers I've seen in my lifetime.

When that's the reality, who wouldn't want to be distracted?

Posted by: Kensington at February 28, 2011 10:10 AM (mEyVv)

66 Weight problem ?? Nothing that some cardio and a modest diet can't fix

 Obama has a Lying all the Time problem; a Total Incompetence problem; a racist Whitey-hating problem; a narcissistic personality disorder problem

need I continue?

Posted by: SantaRosaStan, whose Rip is no longer Torn at February 28, 2011 10:11 AM (UqKQV)

67

Palin is one of the purest filters there is as to whether one is truly on the right or just a RINO. You constantly show your true RINO self.

oh Great so now any body who doesn't kiss the woman's ass is a RINO? yep, we're fucked in 2012

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 10:11 AM (UzBwz)

68 61 43, you should ask yourself why he is getting favorable media coverage. Who runs the media again? Would they be liberals or conservatives?

You should ask yourself why you are threatened by his media coverage?  He's not running.  How did the NYT piece (which did still contain some cheap shots at Christie, btw) hurt our cause? 

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 10:12 AM (pW2o8)

69 OK, You going to love the new Papist me! 

OK so I have been divorced er two three times, who's counting.  The pope movie, I am  getting those old marriages annulled, they promised.

I am not arrogant, I am smart, just axe me and I will explain to your small mind how I taught at a third rate state school, years ago. 

You are still my student get that?

Your homework is late. 

Posted by: Newt, the repetile, not republican at February 28, 2011 10:12 AM (JpFM9)

70 Give me an M!
Give me an I!
Give me a T!
Give me a T!
What does that spell?
Socialized Medicine Mitt!

Posted by: Dan Dan the Mittens Troll at February 28, 2011 10:12 AM (czcue)

71 "I would definitely agree with that. I have never understood why people get so hung up on a specific candidate anyway. Their policies okay, their marketability okay, but the rest is fluff." 'Nuff said. We will know more in six months.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 28, 2011 10:12 AM (AZGON)

72 btw, anyone else happen to check out the latest National Enquirer and Globe at the supermarket checkouts? It never occurred to me until recently how often they report who's dying and has just days to live. This week it is Bill Clinton and Liz Taylor.

Posted by: Soothsayer al dente at February 28, 2011 10:12 AM (uFokq)

73 How can people really be sure she is not running? She is making trips overseas, putting feelers out in Iowa, and she cancelled a second season of SPAK. So, I say it's up in the air.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at February 28, 2011 10:13 AM (c5RQr)

74

I'm waiting until the primaries before I choose a candidate, because I want to see more before I decide. In the meantime, the focus should be the Congress and what they can do in the window of time they have before the 2012 election. JMO.

THIS

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 10:13 AM (UzBwz)

75 66 Weight problem ?? Nothing that some cardio and a modest diet can't fix

I could get him to drop 120-160 lbs in a year with conventional diet and exercise.  It's a non-issue. 

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 10:13 AM (pW2o8)

76

he'll carry Cumberland County, home of the world's finest tomatoes

Ahem. Here in "Sacratomato" we would beg to differ. Besides, aren't tomatoes technically a fruit?

Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 28, 2011 10:14 AM (ujg0T)

77 I realize this post has a sneering tone. I'm at that point. I'm sneering. I do not believe that the most important story in politics is always who's saying supportive things about Palin and who's saying critical things. I think this is like American Idol balloting at this point.

One person asks for a thread like this, so you do it?  And then 'sneer' that a thread like this it's just not that important?

Ok, I'm stumped....

Posted by: Tami at February 28, 2011 10:14 AM (VuLos)

78 Newt is not experienced enough to be President. He was Speaker but the Speaker is after all only a House member.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at February 28, 2011 10:14 AM (c5RQr)

79 Anyone catch Rand Paul on Letterman? I just have not seen Sarah perform that service to the conservative cause.

What service did Rand perform?  He went waaaay easy on Letterboob and Letterboob (and his audience) came away thinking liberalism won.  Made me wish it was Chris Christie instead.  Or Honey Badger.

Posted by: Ian S. at February 28, 2011 10:14 AM (p05LM)

80 Anyone who has a reality tv program should be disqualified. If two or more members of your family have been on different reality shows you should be disqualified from any political office. That is only the my second ranked serious cause for disqualification. My first is being a lawyer. Hello Amish.

Posted by: polynikes at February 28, 2011 10:14 AM (R9YVs)

81 Seriously, liz cheney is a very smart woman but she's still a cheney and the name, alone, without knowing a thing about her, would dash any chance she has.  A lot of folks believe all that stupid cheney ran GWB stuff.   Whoever runs has to be new and fresh  Even Palin with the way information goes, is old and stale.  I don't trust Christie at all, something about him to me, just isn't right.  Can't put my finger on it, could just be he's from jersey but he feels an awful lot like bloomie felt in the beginning.

Posted by: curious at February 28, 2011 10:15 AM (p302b)

82 >>>The way for a Rep candidate to beat her and win the general election is to co-opt her issues without directly attacking her. I agree generally that the ultimate candidate will have to be ass-kissy to kingmaker Palin. On the other hand, I think it's silly what is now being treated as some kind of harsh criticism requiring furious pushback. Whether Palin's supporters will ever acknowledge this obvious fact or not, Palin's big weakness is a general concern she's not fluent in policy, not quick-thinking, and not up to the job. There are steps that could be taken to reverse this impression, but these steps are not being taken. Question marks are not beign answered. They're being left big question marks. That's on Palin. This is her weakness; this, and this alone, is what she needs to fix to be viable (and even strong). The fact that she chooses to leave confidence-destroying question marks about herself is her choice, not mine.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 10:15 AM (nj1bB)

83 "At least she's not on a drug called "Charlie Sheen." Posted by: Dr. Varno" Of course, not. It's not available because if you try it once, you will die. Your face will melt off, and your children will weep over your exploded body,"

Posted by: moi at February 28, 2011 10:15 AM (Ez4Ql)

84 I don't know Christie says he's not running, but I hear him being talked up in a thousand places, Daniels fumbled his way, through last week, having to do more retakes that a Christian Bale photoshoot, ticking off a new group of supporters every week,

Posted by: justin cord at February 28, 2011 10:15 AM (A0LUZ)

85 Wait, somebody actually ASKED for one of these threads?

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at February 28, 2011 10:16 AM (YmPwQ)

86 >>>Newt is not experienced enough to be President. He was Speaker but the Speaker is after all only a House member. hahaha And he has leprosy!!!

Posted by: Soothsayer writes for the National Enquirer at February 28, 2011 10:16 AM (uFokq)

87 Yeah, because no religious sects have odd beliefs except Mormons.  And Catholics. 

That's pretty much it.  I'll go do the research and determine which of the GOP candidates or potential candidates are young earth creationists and start campaigning against them.

Last time I went to any Christian church I didn't have to wear "temple wear".

Catholics don't have any strange beliefs, except that altar boys have to give it up.

Posted by: Kemp at February 28, 2011 10:16 AM (JpFM9)

88 "Mitch Daniels Has Son From Gay Lover"

Posted by: Soothsayer writes for the National Enquirer at February 28, 2011 10:16 AM (uFokq)

89

@72

Smart money would have been Bat Boy and Charlie Sheen.

Charlie Sheen is a hell of a drug.

Posted by: JollyRoger at February 28, 2011 10:17 AM (NCw5u)

90 LEAVE PALIN ALONE! *sobs*

Posted by: fb at February 28, 2011 10:17 AM (G60Nl)

91

well here are the negatives for people to whine and debate about:

Palin - high unfavorables, seen as right wng radical, loses to Obama worse then Ron Paul

Christie - fiscal tiger but squishy on other issues

Romney - ROMNEYCARE

Huckabee- watch his show, Dems salivate to face him

Pawlenty - what? who? i'm falling asleep now

Gingrich - next to Pelosi the most unpopular speaker, loves his lobbyists, and lets not forget that Scozofavav (or w/e) mess

Cain - never won an election

Bachmann- seen kind of as a quack by moderates, never has delivered just talked

Barbour - image problems

Paul - REVOLUTION!!!!eleventy!111

did I miss anyone?

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 10:18 AM (UzBwz)

92 "28 O/T:  "Wisconsin's Republican Gov. Scott Walker said on Monday that absent senate Democrats have 24 hours to return and vote on a measure to reduce the power of public sector unions or the state will miss out on opportunity to refinance its debt." I looked up Walker's own webpage to see the actual text. Sort of bothers me that he says --- "Now they have one day to return to work before the state loses out on the chance to refinance debt, saving taxpayers $165 million this fiscal year.  Failure to return to work and cast their votes will lead to more painful and aggressive spending cuts in the very near future. This is the Senate Democrats’ 24 hour notice." --- 24 hours to what exactly? Naming a firm deadline is provocative. If something very specific doesn't happen after time is up, this may look like empty bluster. Yet there are no "or else" details other than a warning about spending cuts in general.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 28, 2011 10:18 AM (AZGON)

93 This is like the birth certificate controversy. That's on Obama because he won't take the step necessary to dispel the question mark. So he can't whine that the question mark remains. Palin's question mark is about seasoning, fluency, confidence, command. Gravitas and/or qualifications. She cannot wounded-duck her way into the White House unless the economy takes a double-dip (in which case Obama's weakness will make her viable, but still one of the candidates most likely to lose to Obama). Those of you who are pro-Palin should be encouraging her to become a stronger candidate and overcome her weaknesses rather than insisting she can skate by with her weaknesses still present.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 10:18 AM (nj1bB)

94 I can haz Christie/Palin thread?  Thanks, Ace...I'm searching for a pudding cup.

Posted by: The Hammer at February 28, 2011 10:18 AM (32ubA)

95 Catholics don't have any strange beliefs, except that altar boys have to give it up.

Posted by: Kemp at February 28, 2011 03:16 PM (JpFM9)


that's a terrible thing to say.  terrible.  And, if you knew anything about the Catholic Church most of the altar servers are now female and most fo the Eucharistic Ministers are female also.

Posted by: curious at February 28, 2011 10:18 AM (p302b)

96 Why's ace so obsessed with Palin?  I like her and all, but I don't want to talk about her every day.  Except today: I'd hit that like an SEIU thug hits a minority that has wandered off the plantation.

Posted by: FUBAR at February 28, 2011 10:18 AM (McG46)

97 I'm really disappointed in you, Kemp. 

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 10:18 AM (pW2o8)

98 43 No, it's more important to point out that Chris Christie, the only Republican right now to get at least some favorable media coverage and the one with the biggest bullhorn on fiscal issues, has a weight problem. 

Because Sarah Palin is pretty and all.<<<

Because we all know that Republicans with positive media coverage are full of WIN!  MCCAIN 2012!!

Posted by: Kerry at February 28, 2011 10:18 AM (a/VXa)

99 I presume Our Jovial Sneering Host is referring to the potential candidate of Some Other Party, since he recently carved in stone that the GOP is dead to him and he no longer has any interest in its future. Right here on this page. He didn't say it like it was a quick joke.

It's like a scab he can't stop picking.

Posted by: comatus at February 28, 2011 10:18 AM (W5ilH)

100 That's on Palin. This is her weakness; this, and this alone, is what she needs to fix to be viable (and even strong). The fact that she chooses to leave confidence-destroying question marks about herself is her choice, not mine.

The same thing with other candidates. They want an enthusiastic base in the general election, they had better not piss off a sizeable portion of the base. It 's on them, not me. I can't be enthusiastic about someone like Christie anymore. I was super-estatic about him at the beginning. It is their choice to piss of the base as part of their strategy. Then don't expect people 's enthusiasm. That 's all.

Posted by: LAI at February 28, 2011 10:19 AM (R4ub4)

101 We really do have a weak, weak field. I guess I understand the pro-Palin people given the weaknesses of other likely candidates. I guess Daniels and T-Paw are the strongest but I don't think either is actually strong. I sure do hope one of these guys gets better, fast, or else some darkhorse (like a businessman) suddenly enters the race.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 10:19 AM (nj1bB)

102 Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 03:18 PM (UzBwz)

So what you are saying is WE'RE FUCKED?

Posted by: Kemp at February 28, 2011 10:19 AM (JpFM9)

103 Question marks are not beign answered. They're being left big question marks.

That's on Palin. This is her weakness; this, and this alone, is what she needs to fix to be viable (and even strong). The fact that she chooses to leave confidence-destroying question marks about herself is her choice, not mine.

THIS

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 10:20 AM (UzBwz)

104 I'm still of the opinion that the Pubs could run the corspe of Millard Fillmore and still beat Zero handily. Lots of people were fooled by the unknown in 2008. Now that he he picture is clear..Zero is as bad, and probably worse, than any of us ever expected....I can't see those independents and such voting for him again. The Pub takeover in many states will help tamp down the voter fraud. I see light at the end of the tunnel, and I'm hopign it's not the high-speed train.

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at February 28, 2011 10:20 AM (YmPwQ)

105 Because we all know that Republicans with positive media coverage are full of WIN!  MCCAIN 2012!!

Christie's success at getting out the message helps us all. 

And he's not running. 

But let's make sure to smear him for not being red enough and because he said something completely true and obvious about what any candidate needs to do to win. 

And he's fat.

And a Catholic.

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 10:20 AM (pW2o8)

106 #95

Sorry!  Bad joke.

Posted by: Kemp at February 28, 2011 10:20 AM (JpFM9)

107

Wait, somebody actually ASKED for one of these threads?

is that hard to believe?

Posted by: AllahPussy at February 28, 2011 10:21 AM (UzBwz)

108 The dems always field someone billed as "a dynamic hopeful candidate who will bring positive and lasting change".  The republicans always seem to be picking "the best from a bad lot" and people see that and so even if they don't want to they vote dem. 

Posted by: curious at February 28, 2011 10:21 AM (p302b)

109 Who the hell is bitching about Nikki Haley refusing to endorse someone who has not even announced that she is running yet?  Seriously?  Even the HotAir crowd (including most of the recognizable Palin-bots) is pretty nonplussed by this, except for the handful of dunces who show up every time Palin is mentioned  to cut-n-paste the same stupid shit nobody read the last twenty times they posted it.

Passive-aggressive much, ace?

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 28, 2011 10:21 AM (0IPsJ)

110 Christie's success at getting out the message helps us all.

This!

He is the best I've seen in a long, long time.

I understand why he's saying he won't run...but I still am in mourning about it.


Posted by: Tami at February 28, 2011 10:22 AM (VuLos)

111 I'm still of the opinion that the Pubs could run the corspe of Millard Fillmore and still beat Zero handily. Lots of people were fooled by the unknown in 2008. Now that he he picture is clear..Zero is as bad, and probably worse, than any of us ever expected....I can't see those independents and such voting for him again. The Pub takeover in many states will help tamp down the voter fraud. I see light at the end of the tunnel, and I'm hopign it's not the high-speed train.

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at February 28, 2011 03:20 PM (YmPwQ)

52% of the country wants to be Obama's babymamma.  In spite of the economy and his obvious incompetence.  I wouldn't run Zombie Fillmore.

Posted by: FUBAR at February 28, 2011 10:22 AM (McG46)

112 I don't care if she runs or not. She is under Obama's thin skin and making him dance.

She also scares the shit out of all the right people. She is useful and has good ideas.

The country could do a lot worse in a president or vice president, as we see right now.

She's just a person, not a demigod.

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 10:22 AM (Q6tnr)

113

@91

Trump- reality tv star dq, other potential liabilities, see Trump

Charlie Sheen- has drug named after him

David Petraus- gives everyone here including the ladies a stiffy.

Posted by: JollyRoger at February 28, 2011 10:22 AM (NCw5u)

114

So what you are saying is WE'RE FUCKED?

well if the base refuses to come together, yes we are

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 10:22 AM (UzBwz)

115 110 Who the hell is bitching about Nikki Haley refusing to endorse someone who has not even announced that she is running yet?  Seriously?

I have a theory about why the attractive female Haley was given a pass when the fat man was not.  Wanna hear it? 

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 10:22 AM (pW2o8)

116 Since Ace was kind enough to oblige my request, here's some thoughts (more about Christie, and moderate R's in general), than Palin:

One point none of you mention...regarding the 2nd Amendment, it's not just about current laws, it's about USSC Justices and their views on it for the future.  You think Christy would nominate justices who are clearly 2nd Amendment believers if he isn't?  So, yeah, it matters.

And to those who think abortion, for example, should be less important.  Fine, I get it.  The debt, deficit, all the taxation stuff is way more important to you.  I'm definitely for lower taxes and less spending too, but ask yourself this.  How many liberals you know who are pro-life?  How many democrats in general, do you know who are pro-life? 

It matters to them for some reason.  They would never nominate a presidential candidate who is pro-life.  Why, because it's who they are and they won't bend on the issue.  And neither will I.  The D of  I lists:  Life, Liberty, Pursuit.  If you can't get on board with those, then nothing that follows...even balanced budgets forever will really matter.  I will not knowingly pull the lever for a pro-abortion candidate. 

If Christie is pro-life, that's great.  But his views on amnesty, guns, Obamacare, and the gaia matter.  Amnesty, Obamacare, and Gaia all 3 are liberty issues and fiscal issues.  There's too much left to be desired, IMO.  And I don't buy that there isn't a candidate who can get the big ones right...if there's not, we're just delaying the inevitable anyway. 

And finally, if the MFM can get a moderate R nominated, they essentially move the goal posts and anyone who comes after that candidate who is the lest bit to the right of Christie, for example, is an extremist.  That's why they are pushing him.  You watch his coverage...he will eventually be called a conservative...it will happen. 




Posted by: The Hammer at February 28, 2011 10:22 AM (32ubA)

117

Well, Catholics have to believe in the ritualistic cannibalism and transmogrification.

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at February 28, 2011 10:23 AM (YmPwQ)

118 Fruit, vegetable.......  Do you mean fruit-fruit or, you know, homos?

I love the smell of nit-picking on the internet in the afternoon

Posted by: SantaRosaStan, whose Rip is no longer Torn at February 28, 2011 10:23 AM (UqKQV)

119 Hey, I'll change parties, call me!

Posted by: Wesley Clark at February 28, 2011 10:23 AM (JpFM9)

120 >>>Who the hell is bitching about Nikki Haley refusing to endorse someone who has not even announced that she is running yet? Seriously? Even the HotAir crowd (including most of the recognizable Palin-bots) is pretty nonplussed by this, except for the handful of dunces who show up every time Palin is mentioned to cut-n-paste the same stupid shit nobody read the last twenty times they posted it. I said there were no nasty remarks yet. But it fit in with the other two pieces of information. I really did consider it rather demented that Coulter's failure to get on Team Palin was ascribed to female henny jealousy over Palin's looks holding up better.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 10:23 AM (nj1bB)

121 He is the best I've seen in a long, long time.

I understand why he's saying he won't run...but I still am in mourning about it.

Posted by: Tami at February 28, 2011 03:22 PM (VuLos)

Even though he's pro-choice and pro-gun control?  It'd be interesting to see if he could overcome that.

Posted by: FUBAR at February 28, 2011 10:24 AM (McG46)

122

I live here in New Joisey, and I loves me the Big Guy, but.................

1) weak on 2nd Amendment

2) We're still in the RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Iniative, aka Cap and Trade)

3) Mike Castle

4) Elena Kagan, etc

Leave him here with us for a while, ok? 2016 is not that far off, he'll come around.

 

Posted by: BIG ROB at February 28, 2011 10:24 AM (hr33h)

123 Republicans: The Party of Hudson

GAME OVER MAN! GAME OVER!
Coming to a ballot box near you in 2012

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 10:24 AM (Q6tnr)

124

@110

This. I think Palin will recreate the perception of herself if she becomes a candidate. It's only when she will anounce.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at February 28, 2011 10:24 AM (c5RQr)

125

>> I have a theory about why the attractive female Haley was given a pass when the fat man was not.  Wanna hear it? 

Heh.  Yeah, there's a shocka, ain't there?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 28, 2011 10:24 AM (WvXvd)

126 The thing I would not like about Christie being President is because I feel he is the kind of person to tell his political base to "fuck off" like dubya did with immigration.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka



Christie edged into office with under 50% of the vote, so throwing an occasional sound bite to the Jersey Dems to get on their good side in case he runs for re-election or the Senate is understandable, if unpleasant.

But when he goes overboard and does things like praising Michelle Obama's snack food jihad, it just makes you cringe.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 28, 2011 10:25 AM (DsqGb)

127 The encouragement idea reminded me of something. While we conservative are sometimes quick to criticize instead of encourage, I've seen an increase in the number of everyday citizens asking specific conservative leaders what they can do to help in the fight against Obama. It would be lovely to get some specifics.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 28, 2011 10:25 AM (q8u+l)

128 I still say that Fillmore or whoever  will get a good chunk of the white vote that self-destructively went to Zero in '08. He'll retain his minority base but that's about it.

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at February 28, 2011 10:25 AM (YmPwQ)

129

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 03:22 PM (Q6tnr)

Where's the "Like" button for this comment?  I can't seem to find it.

Posted by: blue star at February 28, 2011 10:26 AM (4OCrT)

130 We don't have a weak GOP field. What we have are people on our side who can be satisfied only with 100% concurrence with their degree of an issue, not just the issue in general. And make no mistake , the media is already taking this and using the 'weak field' meme to sway voters to the Dems.

Posted by: polynikes at February 28, 2011 10:26 AM (R9YVs)

131 You think anyone will figure this out if I change my name?

I am rested and ready!

Posted by: Jeb Boosh at February 28, 2011 10:26 AM (JpFM9)

132 Hammer, Christie has ruled out running to such an extent it would make it pretty difficult to run. Not impossible, but very difficult. I figure his chances of getting in the race are slightly lower than Palin's. She's one in ten, and will only get in if Obama craters; he's one in twenty, and would only get in if Obama doesn't crater but no other Republican catches fire and seems likely to beat him. My problem here is that you seem to be judging politicians on a single issue: Their support of Team Palin. Whatever else Christie does, the only thing that seems to matter is that he isn't pro-Palin.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 10:26 AM (nj1bB)

133 From my perspective. We are fucked and we cannot unfuck the situation. The country is doomed.

Posted by: Holger at February 28, 2011 10:26 AM (YxGud)

134 or else some darkhorse (like a businessman) suddenly enters the race.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 03:19 PM (nj1bB)

you rang?

Posted by: Donald Trump and his magnificent hair at February 28, 2011 10:26 AM (UqKQV)

135 >>>We don't have a weak GOP field. What we have are people on our side who can be satisfied only with 100% concurrence with their degree of an issue, not just the issue in general. Sure we do, man. Maybe someone will catch fire and get better but as it stands the field is weak.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 10:26 AM (nj1bB)

136

Has anybody pointed out yet that Coulter gets paid more by saying things like this? Talk about the pot calling the kettle "black".

All the talk about who is or isn't running is so "High School". It's a huge commitment to run, and makes your personal life open to viscious attacks, so give 'em a break! And as far as the talk about what is or isn't likely - crazy things can happen that change everything all of a sudden, and they know it. So it makes sense to keep your toe in the water, "just in case".

Posted by: Optimizer at February 28, 2011 10:27 AM (2lTU+)

137 a businessman other than Don Trump, I meant. I set myself up for that.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 10:27 AM (nj1bB)

138 Those of you who are pro-Palin should be encouraging her to become a stronger candidate and overcome her weaknesses rather than insisting she can skate by with her weaknesses still present.

I don't care if Palin is our Rep candidate or not. She happens to be the person who seem to best represent the three legs of the conservative stool. Issues are not everything, but they are pretty important. If there is a better candidate that represent all 3 major conservative issues, I will be more happy to support that candidate. The other candidates should make peace with the base at least!

Posted by: LAI at February 28, 2011 10:27 AM (R4ub4)

139 54, I hope Christie runs too. He will split the vote with the other liberal republicans. Sarah's support is not going to be swayed. Enough liberals split the vote and my candidate wins so I am all for it. Also, I too believe in competition and everyone showing their ideas. I know what she can do and have studied her political career so a contested primary sounds great to me! In regards to polls...I direct you to Time Magazine that polled Carter was ahead by 25 to Reagan. I point out that the polls were sure it would be Rudy vs. Hillary in 2008. I point out that the experts and poll watchers said we were headed for a 20 year democratic reign after 2008, only to see a historic accumulation of seats for the GOP and conservatives more specifically just 2 years later. Independents do not know Sarah Palin. They know the funhouse mirror version that the media has presented. A campaign has the ability to change that through debates, ads, moments scripted and unscripted. I am not interested in winning the battle (beating Obama) but losing the war if a liberal republican wins and fails to secure the border, and grows government etc. At most she is down 10 to Obama currently. Cue CBS to show she would lose by 30 lol. As VP she garnered 45% of the vote in the worst year for republicans in my lifetime. She won in 2006 which was another horrible year for Republicans and took on a corrupt administration of the same party. I do not think it is a long shot at all, but even if it was I am comfortable supporting her to the max, donating to her to the max, and traveling to a few swing states to help. If people want to criticize Sarah Palin. Great, more power to them. I will however rebut the arguments with facts. Some say this makes me a "cultist" which I find quite odd. It seems there is a small contingent of people who really do not like any of the candidates all that much, but they see that Palin has lots of energized people who are ready to work the second the announcement happens and are worried because the other candidates do not seem to have the same enthusiasm behind them and could be steamrolled. IE, David Brooks on Mitch Daniel's letterhead does not cut it with the GOP base. If you believe in someone else, work your ass off for them That is what I am going to do. Then, let the best prepared candidate win. The head to head matchup with Obama will look totally different after the primary.

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2011 10:27 AM (mXBxH)

140

Even though he's pro-choice and pro-gun control?  It'd be interesting to see if he could overcome that.

Posted by: FUBAR at February 28, 2011 03:24 PM (McG46)

NJ Right to Life endorsed him. 

Posted by: Tami at February 28, 2011 10:27 AM (VuLos)

141 Jack Cassidy was also baptized by fire as I recall...

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at February 28, 2011 10:28 AM (HqpV0)

142

Newt turned me into a newt.

And he is a Great Ameican.

 

Posted by: Sean Hannity at February 28, 2011 10:29 AM (pr+up)

143 after a while you couldn't tell there was any difference between John and barry, none, nada and then john sealed the deal by endorsing barry.

If you guys are going to win you are going to have to make sure you put up someone who is the complete opposite of barry.  someone who barry would be unable to co opt their ideas otherwise he would completely lose his base.  You really might need someone who was willing to say they were against abortion, I'd love to see barry co opt that one.

Posted by: curious at February 28, 2011 10:29 AM (p302b)

144

@112

Thats kinda the problem for me too. OK, maybe she can win by the virtue of just not being Obama. (Kinda how Obama won by not being Bush) We have to consider A) whats best for the country (can she do the job?) and B) can she effective advocate our message and soloutions to people (evangalize for conservatism)

I don't know about A. Alaska is a small state and she left before her term ended. Even assuming that B is still very important. Lets not forget conservatism was on the mat before Bammy's incompetiece drove independents here. Judging by polling and what I have heard her say, I know she can serve up the red meat, I just don't think she's going to create any "Palin Democrats" any time soon.  

Posted by: JollyRoger at February 28, 2011 10:29 AM (NCw5u)

145 Honest, who cares.

If Palin announces she is running I'll start to worry about this nonsense, and not until then.

Frankly, I don't think she is going to make that announcement this election cycle (if ever). 

Even if she were to announce, she'd be facing a pretty strong field of contenders, and I sincerely doubt she'd be able to clear the field and get the nomination.

I'd vote for her if she were the nominee, of course, but she's not my top pick of likely Republican contenders, and I also think she has pretty serious "electability" issues among the general population.


Posted by: looking closely at February 28, 2011 10:30 AM (PwGfd)

146 Just breaking into the top fifty this week, "Someone done got sand in his vagina because someone else said something not nice about a third person who punted on whether she supports Sarah Palin for the Presidential nomination that said potential nominee has not announced she is running for" by the hot new hipster swing group, "Ace and the Morons."

Next, a special long distance dedication from an actual woman to all you Manhattan Beta Males enduring prolonged involuntary celibacy.

Posted by: Casey Kasem at February 28, 2011 10:30 AM (0IPsJ)

147

NJ Right to Life endorsed him. 

Posted by: Tami at February 28, 2011 03:27 PM (VuLos)

Really.  Perhaps I've been okey-doked by the MFM.

Posted by: FUBAR at February 28, 2011 10:30 AM (McG46)

148

Posted by: Wesley Clark at February 28, 2011 03:23 PM (JpFM9)

fuck you

Posted by: polynikes at February 28, 2011 03:26 PM (R9YVs)

THIS

Posted by: BIG ROB at February 28, 2011 03:24 PM (hr33h)

all but the Mike Castle thing, let's not go there and talk about you know who, do concern even a Christie fan like me

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 10:30 AM (UzBwz)

149 the field is weak; Ukraine is weak !!

Posted by: Cosmo at February 28, 2011 10:30 AM (UqKQV)

150 Obama is not going to flip any red (for the sake of argument) states. There's a very good possibilty that several states that went blue in '08 go back to red. Voila! President-Elect Fillmore!

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at February 28, 2011 10:30 AM (YmPwQ)

151


I figure his chances of getting in the race are slightly lower than Palin's. She's one in ten, and will only get in if Obama craters; he's one in twenty, and would only get in if Obama doesn't crater but no other Republican catches fire and seems likely to beat him.

My problem here is that you seem to be judging politicians on a single issue: Their support of Team Palin. Whatever else Christie does, the only thing that seems to matter is that he isn't pro-Palin.

---------------

yawn. I'd say Palin is 7 in 10 of running now. She doesn't seem to give a shit about her February 2011 numbers. I'm a Palin supporter and the reason I think CC can be annoying is because he is a gigantic islam supporter, Kagan supporter, illegal immigration supporter, and pro gun control

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at February 28, 2011 10:30 AM (c5RQr)

152 I have always been in the Meh Category concerning Palin.  I can't see why anyone on either side gets so fired up about her.  I think they all see much more than is actually there.

Posted by: dfbaskwill at February 28, 2011 10:30 AM (71LDo)

153 Posted by: Casey Kasem at February 28, 2011 03:30 PM (0IPsJ)

Khamel jockey.

Posted by: FUBAR at February 28, 2011 10:31 AM (McG46)

154 >>>Jack Cassidy was also baptized by fire as I recall... He died in a fire? I am responding to this just because I am lately watching old Columbos on netflix and of course will get around to the one Jack Cassidy episode available soon. ( I know he is one of the multiple villains but only one of his episodes is available for instant streaming, the Now You See Him one where he was a former Nazi magician.)

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 10:31 AM (nj1bB)

155 135 From my perspective. We are fucked and we cannot unfuck the situation. The country is doomed.

Posted by: Holger at February 28, 2011 03:26 PM (YxGud)

I thought the same thing when Goldwater lost, trust me we will come up with a winner.  It is a long time till nominations, so, cut it out with the negative waves!

http://tinyurl.com/b3cdol



Posted by: Jeb Boosh at February 28, 2011 10:31 AM (JpFM9)

156 It's not like Palin is avoiding the issues. She has found a way to get her message out and is influencing the agenda. I'm not sure she is my pick for president but I appreciate that she isn't cowering in fear of losing a few approval points. What many of us don't understand is why so many on our side want to denigrate her. What democrat gets the kind of treatment or ridicule at the hands of other democrats that republicans direct at Sarah Palin? Once the primaries start, if she is a candidate, her primary opponents and their supporters should have at her. Until then why not save your criticism for Pelosi, Reed, Obama, Biden, or take your pick from any number of idiots on the left?

Posted by: wheeler at February 28, 2011 10:32 AM (NlmAy)

157 That's fucking PONDEROUS!

Posted by: Kazzee Kassim at February 28, 2011 10:32 AM (Q6tnr)

158 >>>Even if she were to announce, she'd be facing a pretty strong field of contenders, and I sincerely doubt she'd be able to clear the field and get the nomination. Another person thinks our field is strong? You guys are either seeing stuff I'm not or you're optimists!

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 10:32 AM (nj1bB)

159 Is this the thread where we point out that Chris Christie is a gun grabber who wants to, uh... grab your guns?

Posted by: Purity Reichsminister Jeff at February 28, 2011 10:32 AM (ypWHs)

160 What is all this nonsense about "seasonsing, fluency, confidence adn command" on the part of acceptable GOP candidates? No Republican presidential candidate has had this combination of traits since Reagan. Why does Palin have to be so much better than everyone else in the GOP to be acceptable to you, Ace? I see your girl issues continue apace. I suppose that's natural for a man your age, and I empathize with all your young adult angst, but trust me when I say it's showing.

Posted by: kathleen at February 28, 2011 10:34 AM (xPx2z)

161

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2011 03:27 PM (mXBxH)

dude you did very well and this is coming from a guy who is fretting about her numbers, you made a strong comment w/ facts and evidence on why we could back Palin and be happy about it. You don't seem like a cultists but there are plenty around who have taken their Palin love to absurd levels (Tammy Bruce, Hillbuzz, etc)

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 10:34 AM (UzBwz)

162 BTW, I'm the new Taoiseach and I'm a guy!  And the Irish version of a Republican

I'm from County Mayo, where mayonaisse was invented

( it's pronounced 'tee-sook' and be careful how you say it )

Posted by: Enda ( not 'Edna' ) Kenny at February 28, 2011 10:34 AM (UqKQV)

163

Really.  Perhaps I've been okey-doked by the MFM.

Posted by: FUBAR at February 28, 2011 03:30 PM (McG46)

Lifesitenews:

snip~

Christie, on the other hand, received a critical endorsement from New Jersey's foremost pro-life GOP Congressman Chris Smith. The pro-life leader's approval for Christie, who admitted at the beginning of his campaign that he used to describe himself as "pro-choice" until the birth of his own children led him to embrace the pro-life position, was followed by the endorsement of New Jersey Right to Life.

Posted by: Tami at February 28, 2011 10:34 AM (VuLos)

164 Christie wants to grab guns...from SPACE.


Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 10:34 AM (Q6tnr)

165 Vegas baby!  It's a new month an my SS check is going to clear!

http://tinyurl.com/2uywdoa

Posted by: Kemp at February 28, 2011 10:35 AM (JpFM9)

166 What many of us don't understand is why so many on our side want to denigrate her. What democrat gets the kind of treatment or ridicule at the hands of other democrats that republicans direct at Sarah Palin? Once the primaries start, if she is a candidate, her primary opponents and their supporters should have at her. Until then why not save your criticism for Pelosi, Reed, Obama, Biden, or take your pick from any number of idiots on the left?

Posted by: wheeler at February 28, 2011 03:32 PM (NlmAy)

It's really not necessary to offer substantive criticism of her.  She has dismal approval ratings, whether it was her own doing, the MFM, the Democrats, or whatever the cause.

My only criticism at this point is that she can't win.

Posted by: FUBAR at February 28, 2011 10:35 AM (McG46)

167 Cassidy did die in a fire.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 28, 2011 10:35 AM (1fB+3)

168 >>> Why does Palin have to be so much better than everyone else in the GOP to be acceptable to you, Ace? I see your girl issues continue apace. She doesn't have to be better. She has to be borderline CLOSE to their ability. Ah, my "girl issues"? Ah yes, the standard leftwing tactic of saying your opponent is a racist rather than discussing his actual argument. Just like Ann Coulter is really just jealous that Sarah Palin is soooo cute.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 10:36 AM (nj1bB)

169 "What many of us don't understand is why so many on our side want to denigrate her." It's the boy's club bullshit.

Posted by: kathleen at February 28, 2011 10:36 AM (xPx2z)

170 You know who this helps, right?

Come on over to our lame-o website and read our focus-grouped out the ass talking points.

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2011 10:36 AM (0IPsJ)

171 Weak field compared to what historical standard or what present criteria? Every one of our potential candidates have the ability to appeal to independents in addition to keeping the base sufficiently satisfied. You're eeyoreism sucks. And don't try to pretend it's realism.

Posted by: polynikes at February 28, 2011 10:37 AM (R9YVs)

172 I'm pretty sure a campaign is when you make your case that you are up for the job. The campaign will begin soon enough and then we all will see who is up for it.

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2011 10:37 AM (mXBxH)

173 >>>It's the boy's club bullshit. Anyone who doesn't like Sarah Palin is a racist, just like anyone who doesn't like Barack Obama is a racist. Ignore people's actual stated reasons for not liking her and invent a strawman that's easier for you. That's about your speed, kathleen.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 10:37 AM (nj1bB)

174

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at February 28, 2011 03:30 PM (YmPwQ)

we shouldn't lose FL, VA, NC, IN this time around, from there we just need OH and an extra other state and w/ WI, MI, IA, & PA trending more red lately, there's hope

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 10:38 AM (UzBwz)

175 Ace is right, I love Sarah, but she is a loser.  She will stay home, make money.

I am looking a WI and those boys up there. 

Posted by: Kemp at February 28, 2011 10:38 AM (JpFM9)

176 Anyway im out. ace gets a bit too obsessive on this topic.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at February 28, 2011 10:38 AM (c5RQr)

177 >>Just like Ann Coulter is really just jealous that Sarah Palin is soooo cute.

Coulter isn't jealous because Palin is cute, she's jealous because Palin has become the femme fatale of the conservative movement.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 28, 2011 10:38 AM (1fB+3)

178 It's the boy's club bullshit. Kitten, I think what ace is saying is that sometimes, shit happens, somebody's gotta clean it up, and who you gonna call?

Posted by: Purity Reichsminister Jeff at February 28, 2011 10:39 AM (ypWHs)

179 All u reichwingers in civil wahr now we gonna expose Koch bros n Palin cause WI is overreach u done for LMAOROTFL!

Posted by: Erg's Tender Nipples at February 28, 2011 10:39 AM (/sE4s)

180

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 03:37 PM (nj1bB)

I gotta back you on this ace, I've noticed a lot of women when confronted w/ concerns about Palin stike back "you just want the boys club to stay in power", forget that I happily voted for her as VP in 2008 or that I voted for a woman as my Attorney General here in FL

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 10:39 AM (UzBwz)

181 Could I just say:  Boy's club my ass. 

I'd much rather have a smokin' hot Lady President with a smidge less political talent, than a Bob Dole, say, with a smidge more political talent.

I'm sexist in the other direction.

So you can take your boy's club and...make me a sammich!

Posted by: FUBAR at February 28, 2011 10:39 AM (McG46)

182 Did I mention Vegas?

Posted by: Kemp at February 28, 2011 10:39 AM (JpFM9)

183 >>>Weak field compared to what historical standard or what present criteria Huh? Well just general impression that there's no one that strong. Compare this field to 2000, when we had Bush and McCain, and before you scream McCAIN?!!!? remember that back then he was a conservative in good standing. It was the 2000 race, and his belief that unfair tactics had been used against him, that seemed to radicalize him against what he believed were "extremists" in the party. It was after this race he began with the serious base-thwarting stuff because he hated Bush and thought he'd have to court the liberal media even harder to get the nomination. In 2000, McCain was a pretty darn good candidate and solid on all the issues. It just turned out we had what seemed to be a stronger candidate even better on (most of) the issues.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 10:40 AM (nj1bB)

184 She's just a person, not a demigod.
Posted by: sifty



*tcht*  - wish you would have mentioned that before we preformed the dark rites to appease her endless and unholy appetite for human blood.

Well, we were going to get the carpets cleaned anyway, so it's not a total loss.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 28, 2011 10:40 AM (DsqGb)

185 I think this is like American Idol balloting at this point.There are more important things. This doesn't even make the top 50.

Says the sneering guy who puts up a Palin thread at least once/week just for the hits, and who put up an Idol style Preference Poll, also for the hits--which the sneering guy also neglects to mention was DOMINATED by Palin.

Thats cool Ace--you just want the hits your Palin-supportin readers provide. We get that. Gives us a chance to gloat about that ass-beatin she put on Christie and your other faves in your preference poll. Meanwhile, best of luck in your neverending quest to find some NE Rino to beat her in 12.

Posted by: snort! at February 28, 2011 10:40 AM (K/USr)

186 Ace, if I may be so bold to ask, what exactly brought this on? Did Palin fire back at Christie, Coulter, or Haley? And if not, why was it even worth posting about?

BTW, she just did a Q&A in Long Island with a bunch of Dems and moderates for a full hour without any pre-screening of the questions on her part. That's pretty "unscripted".

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at February 28, 2011 10:40 AM (IoUF1)

187 My "leftwing tactics" are just observations, Ace. They seem like tactics to you because they obviously hit the mark. and I'm not trying to humiliate you, merely to suggest that there might be stuff which is... muddying up your thinking.

Posted by: kathleen at February 28, 2011 10:41 AM (xPx2z)

188 The "plantation" remarks really bother me. Massa can't tell you to stay and slave for him. If you are so valuable, go be well-paid somewhere else.

Posted by: SarahW at February 28, 2011 10:41 AM (Z4T49)

189 Why should Palin play anyone else's game?

Going for "antagonistic interviews" is nothing more than rewarding those who play the "insulting upward" ploy (like Lawrence O'Donnell claiming his pressure on Glenn Beck is why Beck apologized for something or other involving Jews--I stopped reading at that point, so I don't honestly know).  Smart media folks, like Limbaugh, don't bother to address the upward insulters because it give's the low-ratings loser a boost (prime example: Ed Shultz is always begging to get Rush's attention using this tactic). So the smart move is to stop giving the losers (NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, etc) credit, and start treating the winners (Fox, Certain reporters at ABC and CBS, and of course, the Blogs and Social Network tools) as the real deal.

We're at the point where it's making less and less sense for Conservatives to credit the NYT in any way, whatsoever. There's just no good reason to treat these fools like honest conveyors of information. Conservatives should follow the splendid example of The Fountainhead''s lead character, Howard Roark, when answering the socialist character Ellsworth Toohey's famous question, "What do you think of me?" The sooner these pathetic rags are left to die, the better.

As to the "sneer factor" in this piece, if Palin only went to people like Hannity or O'Reilly, Ace would have a (more solid seeming) point. But she hasn't avoided all non-friendly media. How hard is it to find out she's been on shows like Oprah, CNN, Good Morning America (ABC, Robin Roberts), and others, and also had a totally unscripted interview at the LIA meeting a week or so ago? (answer, five minutes' precious gun-cleaning time, spent a-Googlin'.)

So despite the obvious and expected overreaction by the more rabid Palinistas, this fit of sneering (more in the top half of the post) is pretty much a similar overreaction: especially susceptible are bloggers, who pay closer attention to current events.

I agree, in general, with the closing point. However, unscripted moments like Christie's are equally telling.

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 10:41 AM (9b6FB)

190 Coulter isn't jealous because Palin is cute, she's jealous because Palin has become the femme fatale of the conservative movement.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 28, 2011 03:38 PM (1fB+3)

You gotta be shittin' me.  Is this the new, post-personality change Ann Coulter?

Posted by: FUBAR at February 28, 2011 10:41 AM (McG46)

191 in 2008, the field APPEARED super-strong, it was almost embarrassingly strong. Who knew Giuliani and Thompson were both going to turn out to be so weak? I sure the fuck didn't. Appearances deceived. Maybe they're deceiving again but in the opposite way. I sure hoped so.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 10:42 AM (nj1bB)

192 >> Christie wants to grab guns...from SPACE.

Toldja

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 28, 2011 10:42 AM (WvXvd)

193 134...Ace, I don't know if you saw my 118 post or not...I asked for the thread more in jest than any real desire to discuss Palin.  I am a fan, but I can see the very valid argument that she simply can't win.

With regard to Christie, I'm seriously set on this belief:  we need to hash out how far right the party is willing to go...and we need to do it now, rather than before the primary season. 

Some on here think social issues don't matter as much as fiscal, and that's fine.  But if Daniels thinks the media is going to give him a pass on social issues just because he called time-out, he's out of touch.  If Christie thinks the MFM won't position his stances on 2nd, amnesty, gaia, and Obamacare in a way that bludgeons the rest of us then he's mistaken, and the conservative wing of the party will be done.

It's really, IMO, that important.  Christie needs to come to us, so to speak, not the other way around.  His mistakes/positions (however you want to define them), are no less egregious in some cases than Romneycare.  And DrewM pronounced Romney DOA earlier today. 

Posted by: The Hammer at February 28, 2011 10:42 AM (32ubA)

194

@154

I always wondered about the fasciantion around Palin myself.

I think for liberals she's kind of a threat- an uncle tom to the women's rights movement that women should be pro-choice of course so long as the choice is to abort. Factor in the obvious threat to the feminist coaltion (a woman who fits within the outdated male dominated society and is genuinely happy) with the social con culture war flashpoints and we have a figure that is a point of rage for the left.

For us righties, I think there is a combination of her as a canidate sticking it to the left for the reasons above (a woman who chose life and fits well within a traditional paternalist society) as kinda a middle finger to a person who demographically could be a democrat and our natural protective instinct to help one of our own who is unfairly attacked. And shes hot.

Posted by: JollyRoger at February 28, 2011 10:42 AM (NCw5u)

195 kathleen you are anti-obama because you are a racist. Nothing else can explain it but your whites-only view of politics.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 10:43 AM (nj1bB)

196 So don't bother me, kathleen -- i don't truck with *racists* like you.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 10:43 AM (nj1bB)

197 106 Because we all know that Republicans with positive media coverage are full of WIN!  MCCAIN 2012!!

Christie's success at getting out the message helps us all. 

And he's not running. 

But let's make sure to smear him for not being red enough and because he said something completely true and obvious about what any candidate needs to do to win. 

And he's fat.

And a Catholic.<<

I don't give a gilded shit about either fact.  I'm fat, female, and Southern Baptist to boot, so I sure as HELL am never running for an office where I'd need the Moron vote.

And I'm not smearing Christie for not being red enough, but I'm not throwing him a vote so he can throw open the gates for amnesty and built a National Mosque in downtown DC, either.  You can take your hurt feelings over that and shove them.

Posted by: Kerry at February 28, 2011 10:43 AM (a/VXa)

198

I still maintain that T'Paw will be the consensus candidate in 2012.

God help us.

Posted by: toby928 at February 28, 2011 10:43 AM (GTbGH)

199 Lol, Sarah Palin goes on lib talk show and they just lie about what she says anyway.  She is not our savior, but she is the type of Republican that will turn in fellow corrupt Republicans.  She has defeated an entrenched political dynasty in Alaska and endured the nastiest character assassination in modern political history, yet the we still need to raise the bar for her.  She isn't elected to anything and yet liberals can't stop discussing her, they are the cultists, not her defenders.

Posted by: Africanus at February 28, 2011 10:44 AM (EDjAd)

200

Posted by: snort! at February 28, 2011 03:40 PM (K/USr)

um ace posted this thread because he was asked to

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 10:44 AM (UzBwz)

201 Yeah, it's the boys club bullshit. the same boy's club bullshit that led Ace to suggest finding a new candidate for SC governor when the Haley affair rumors started (yeah, Ace said that, and I can provide the link). The same boy's club bullshit that led Ace to proclaim Bachmann an agent of the dark side for giving an additional response to the state of the union instead of leaving it solely to Paul Ryan. Boy's have issues with girls sometimes, didja know?

Posted by: kathleen at February 28, 2011 10:45 AM (xPx2z)

202

Ann Coulter, newest member of the RINO Sell-Out Caucus, says that Palin isn't running, but is just maintaining the possibility of running because (as she claims Palin quoted Gingrich) youget paid more in speaking fees if people think you're running. (Coulter goes on to say that this is why Gingrich "pretends to run every four years" but no umbrage is taken over her dis of Gingrich.)

I actually think Coulter is unfair here. I thought this myself, but upon examining the situation, I had to conclude the charge was false.

I suspect Coulter has a point here.  Palin hasn't taken the steps (hiring campaign consultants, spending a lot of time in early primary states, etc) generally associated with someone who's even considering the possibility of running.  She also skipped out on CPAC (again) for unspecified "committments".

She has, however, spent a lot of time on paid speeches, reality TV, book tours, (paid) Fox News segments, and other such activities that advance Sarah Palin the celebrity person moreso than Sarah Palin the future candidate.

Even if she lives in a bubble surrounded by fans and sycophants, surely she can't be so insulated that she doesn't recognize how poor her chances would be against Obama.  If, in the unlikely event she won the nomination and (inevitably) lost in the general, she'd be tossed aside like yesterday's newspaper by all but her most devoted followers.

Nobody- even those we know are going to run- have unambigously stated that they're running yet.  Were she to delare that she's not running, she loses publicity (and income) with little in the way of reward.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 28, 2011 10:45 AM (SY2Kh)

203
  It's interesting, following, on various blogs, the Sarah Debates. Fascinating that she seems to live rent free in EVERYONE'S head--not just the left. Don't have much of anything else to add to that observation, it will stand as is.

   Do I support her?


   You betcha!

Posted by: irongrampa at February 28, 2011 10:46 AM (ud5dN)

204 Doesn't matter what she does. She could hold a policy-wonk seminar every day from now until Election Day 2012, and the anti-Palin bloc--on both sides--would still insist that "she's not fluent in policy, not quick-thinking, and not up to the job. There are steps that could be taken to reverse this impression, but these steps are not being taken." The Narrative has been written, and nothing shall call it into question.

Posted by: tsj017 at February 28, 2011 10:46 AM (4YUWF)

205 I think when it comes to Presidential candidates, we are doomed this cycle and probably in the wilderness for the next couple of cycles.

Posted by: Holger at February 28, 2011 10:46 AM (YxGud)

206 And I'm not smearing Christie for not being red enough, but I'm not throwing him a vote so he can throw open the gates for amnesty and built a National Mosque in downtown DC, either.  You can take your hurt feelings over that and shove them.

How does it help the conservative cause to weaken a sitting governor who is making progress on fiscal issues in a blue state -- and garnering positive coverage to boot -- to point out he's not conservative enough for an office for which he is not running? 

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 10:46 AM (pW2o8)

207 Re:Coulter on Cristie (it would have to be that way, otherwise he would squash her), I am sort of intrigued that she is so much in love with the guy.

I don't know.  Who thought we were electing a President in 2000 to deal with 9/11?  Seems we ended up with a pretty good one-for that at least.  Cristie, despite his policy positions with which I think I disagree and his shiny newness to elected office does seem to have that something extra I just do not see from the array of blow-dried hacks who seem to form most of the field of likely candidates.

If a combination of pugnacity and a commitment to cut spending is what we need, he might be that guy.  Like I said, I don't know.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 28, 2011 10:47 AM (0IPsJ)

208 Boy's have issues with girls sometimes, didja know?

Posted by: kathleen at February 28, 2011 03:45 PM (xPx2z)

You're a homophobe too?  Who don't you hate?

Posted by: FUBAR at February 28, 2011 10:47 AM (McG46)

209

Posted by: kathleen at February 28, 2011 03:45 PM (xPx2z)

hey dolt, ace defended Haley and mocked the clowns who were trying to assasinate her character, he also had a problem w/ Bachmann trying to steal the spotlight and do a Post-Obama SOTU speech even though Ryan was doing it, and yet he went on to be on record saying he liked her speech even though folks like me and others still thought it was stupid of her to do it

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 10:47 AM (UzBwz)

210 My friendsh, alienating the bashe is the besht way to win an election!

Posted by: John McCain, Mav-AZ at February 28, 2011 10:48 AM (mEyVv)

211 163, very interesting you mentioned Tammy Bruce and Hillbuzz. Both were on the left for a long time and had major conversions. Tammy had hers awhile ago and Hillbuzz more recently. They are gay and disagree with Palin on some issues yet support her 100%. Tammy Bruce is pro choice for example. The Hillbuzz head guy drove from Chicago several hours to southern Illinois (can't remember the exact spot) too see Palin speak. My point in bringing it up is that these are not the church going social conservatives that people often associate with being her supporters. There is an undercurrent of support for her that is not even based in policy but based in the fact that she is seen as an outsider who is not beholden to anyone. I like Herman Cain partially for that reason as well. They also understand the alinsky method better than most of our GOP politicians. Ridicule is one of the most important elements. They see it used against her and have no problem using it right back.

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2011 10:48 AM (mXBxH)

212 Palin is the only potential candidate on the GOP side who's not a total limpdick. I exclude Christie, because he insists he's not running.

Posted by: tsj017 at February 28, 2011 10:48 AM (4YUWF)

213 Thanks for the epithets, Ace. BTW, I didn't call you sexist. I do think you have a couple of blind spots, however. Food for thought is all.

Posted by: kathleen at February 28, 2011 10:48 AM (xPx2z)

214 As Ace suggested, some people don't think she is a "quick thinker". I do. To have such success, pre celebrity years, requires smarts. She seems crafty and a quick study to me. Anyways, the perception is there. Serious question. Do you think it would help her cause to take the IQ test and release the results to the press? Would that change people's attitude about her?

Posted by: Serious Cat at February 28, 2011 10:49 AM (bAySe)

215 ace, why do you hate boobs?



Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 10:49 AM (Q6tnr)

216

I keep hearing she's the only candidate who's been baptized by fire but I haven't actually seen her in fire for quite a long time.

Speaking of being in fire, anyone seen my last bottle of Chivas?

Posted by: Ted Kennedy at February 28, 2011 10:49 AM (QKKT0)

217 It's the vent your spleen thread at the AoSHQ! Like a political WWF Cagematch bring your favorite presidential candidate to bash others with! Off the top ropes its Ace with a Chris Christie Banzai Splash! Kathleen returns the favor with a Palin "rack" em move that has Ace in agony!

Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at February 28, 2011 10:50 AM (/sE4s)

218 Kathleen, you having your monthly visitor? I think sometimes the issues with your mysterious lady parts muddies your thinking. Like saying you're not allowed in the Boy's Club. Of course you are welcome. As long as you are escorted by one of our members.

Posted by: Purity Reichsminister Jeff at February 28, 2011 10:50 AM (ypWHs)

219

Ace!  Your ass is genius!!!!

Posted by: Kahn Souphanousinphone at February 28, 2011 10:50 AM (CfQ+e)

220

I still maintain that T'Paw will be the consensus candidate in 2012.

God help us.

We could do worse, but he'll need to step it up on the charisma front if he's to have a chance in the primary or general.  He's been about as conservative as one can be in a blue state.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 28, 2011 10:50 AM (SY2Kh)

221 Yeah, it's the boys club bullshit. the same boy's club bullshit that led Ace to suggest finding a new candidate for SC governor when the Haley affair rumors started (yeah, Ace said that, and I can provide the link). The same boy's club bullshit that led Ace to proclaim Bachmann an agent of the dark side for giving an additional response to the state of the union instead of leaving it solely to Paul Ryan.

Posted by: kathleen at February 28, 2011 03:45 PM (xPx2z)

kathleen has a point here.  ace never criticizes male politicians.  Ever.

Posted by: FUBAR at February 28, 2011 10:51 AM (McG46)

222 >>>I suspect Coulter has a point here. Palin hasn't taken the steps (hiring campaign consultants, spending a lot of time in early primary states, etc) generally associated with someone who's even considering the possibility of running. She also skipped out on CPAC (again) for unspecified "committments". Palin is unique in not needing to organize her supporters. They will self-organize upon her declaration.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 10:51 AM (nj1bB)

223 Sure we do, man. Maybe someone will catch fire and get better but as it stands the field is weak.


This is a very complicated case, Maude. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-yous. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in my head, man. Lotta strands in old Duder's head. Luckily I'm adhering to a pretty strict, uh, drug regimen to keep my mind limber.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes quotes the Dude at February 28, 2011 10:51 AM (xdHzq)

224 Thanks for the insights YRM. Ace backtracked slightly on Bachmann, granted. and I'm well aware Ace eventually defended Haley (even though I'm such a dolt duhhhh), but Ace's first reaction to the Haley fiasco was "find another candidate", and that's almost word for word. It's his immediate reactions to the girls that have given me pause.

Posted by: kathleen at February 28, 2011 10:52 AM (xPx2z)

225

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2011 03:48 PM (mXBxH)

but Hillbuzz also went out of their way to make Mike Pence in a category of "cocktail establishment" type of guy which is ludricious, any potential GOP candidate is quickly dismissed by them because they are not Palin and Bruce comes off to me as only liking female candidates

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 10:52 AM (UzBwz)

226 If I had to bet my money, I would say she does run. She is going to India next month to speak at a prestigious event. If it was all about money she could just give speeches here in the USA and take a shorter plane flight. There is no shortage of demand. Reportedly her speech in India will be "her vision for America" or something along those lines. There is plenty of time for her to hit New Hampshire. (oops "hit" violent rhetoric"

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2011 10:52 AM (mXBxH)

227 I would agree that field looks pretty weak but that is because of the dynamic of the 2012 election. Unseating an incumbent incompetent ideologue.Our best fighters/most inspiring  candidates right now are weak on competency and those most competent are not very inspiring/ good fighters or have some big marketing problems.  The Former would be the natural pick if this were a wide open election. In a wide open election people appreciate passion. What will beat Obama though is  to not be an ideologue but to be very competent to offset his very obvious lacking in  this area.  The problem with this is you have too many people that think they can paper over obvious faults in things like marketability or passion with competence and you can't. No one wins a primary because they are competent.

At this point if I had to bet I think if Pawlenty can grow a pair, even a small pair, he will walk to the nomination. In the general in 2012 people will not want the Anti-Obama, but the Non-Obama. Basically there are only 3 people in the race who can claim that mantle at this point. Romney, Pawlenty and Daniels. Daniels just completely flamed out at the wrong time. By the time he fixes it the money will already be committed to others. He's toast. Romney is toast for Romneycare.  He either completely disavows it or he goes home. Anything else is a distraction at this point. Which leaves Pawlenty as the last man standing.

Posted by: Rocks at February 28, 2011 10:53 AM (Q1lie)

228 Yes I'm bleeding like a stuck pig, my friend. I'm also watching Lifetime and eating bon bons galore.

Posted by: kathleen at February 28, 2011 10:53 AM (xPx2z)

229 172, just so you know, I am NOT the Dan that supports Romney. lol I clearly support Palin.

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2011 10:53 AM (mXBxH)

230 I once saw ace kick an old lady out of the crosswalk and into oncoming traffic. I asked him why.

He said "Because I can't stand bitches."

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 10:53 AM (Q6tnr)

231 >>>hey dolt, ace defended Haley and mocked the clowns who were trying to assasinate her character, no, kathleen is right, when the rumors first began I assumed there was probably some truth there. I usually believe that where there's smoke there's fire. Will Folks said he had evidence and would present it shortly. I got spooked. She is right, at first I did sound notes of alarm and ask "Is there someone better?" But then Will Folks (is that his name?) did not produce evidence, or at least produced very weak evidence, like long phone calls late at night, which is frankly suspicious but hardly damning.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 10:54 AM (nj1bB)

232 @228
Hillbuzz is a joke. 

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 10:54 AM (pW2o8)

233

It's the vent your spleen thread at the AoSHQ! Like a political WWF Cagematch bring your favorite presidential candidate to bash others with! Off the top ropes its Ace with a Chris Christie Banzai Splash! Kathleen returns the favor with a Palin "rack" em move that has Ace in agony!

um that's WWE since 2002 not WWF, as a pro-wrestling fan I have to correct you

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 10:55 AM (UzBwz)

234

Serious question. Do you think it would help her cause to take the IQ test and release the results to the press? Would that change people's attitude about her?

That would be pretty tacky.  She'd run the risk of appearing insecure.

Besides, the main beef with her (outside of the deranged left) isn't the belief that she's stupid (I don't believe she is), but rather that her judgement is suspect.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 28, 2011 10:55 AM (SY2Kh)

235 And he's not running.
Posted by: Kerry


For President, probably not.

But he is prime VP material for 2012. Blue state governor who might be able to drag his state over to the Dark Side.  And he doesn't have to run for re-election until 2013, so he can spend a couple of months flogging the ticket in New England and the Midwest without compromising his other political ambitions.

That's why his tenancy toward political cyanosis merits examination. He could be a heartbeat away.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 28, 2011 10:55 AM (DsqGb)

236 What does the World Wildlife Fund have to do with this? 

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 10:55 AM (pW2o8)

237 >>>At this point if I had to bet I think if Pawlenty can grow a pair, even a small pair, he will walk to the nomination. I kind of feel this way too but let's face it the knock on Pawlenty is all about his LOOKS. I can't criticize you for feeling he's a wimp because superficially he looks wimpy because I do the same thing and I can't help it. But it is something to bear in mind, for all of us (including me) knocking T-Paw as not appearing strong: We're basing this on his frickin' face.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 10:55 AM (nj1bB)

238 What is all this nonsense about ace being a misogynist?  He absolutely adores women...from afar.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 28, 2011 10:56 AM (0IPsJ)

239

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 03:54 PM (nj1bB)

well thanks for claryfying that but it sounds like a rational response to such things being levied on a person, in the end you defended her and that's all that matters

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 10:56 AM (UzBwz)

240 OK, Fellow Men, I'm off to put some Bitches in their place.  Have Fun and Hate Wymyn!

Posted by: FUBAR at February 28, 2011 10:57 AM (McG46)

241 That said, perception is reality, and T-Paw would have to reverse this impression to be a strong candidate. How to do this, I don't know. You can't teach charisma and gravitas. A character actor cannot "learn" to become a leading man. Leading men just seem like leading men; character actors (playing the best friend, the minor roles, the non-heroic roles) just seem like character actors. it's not fair but that's the way it is. I have no idea how someone overcomes such a huge but superficial (but no less real) problem.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 10:57 AM (nj1bB)

242 Pawlenty needs to grow a beard. And slap an intern.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 28, 2011 10:57 AM (1fB+3)

243

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 03:47 PM (UzBwz) 

Are you Palin-Steele?  You've got the biggest mancrush on ace since that idiot scurried off to the ace shrine in his bedroom.


Posted by: Captain Hate at February 28, 2011 10:57 AM (kKA7V)

244 @172  I know, that one is special. 

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 28, 2011 10:58 AM (0IPsJ)

245 @240
My knock on him isn't to do with his looks, but I guess is just as shallow.  I can't get enthusiastic about someone that Ed Morrissey has been pimping, because I've found that Ed really has become too 'moderate' for my tastes (with a weird layering of libertarianism thrown in). 

I'll research Pawlenty if he becomes a real candidate, but not until then.

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 10:58 AM (pW2o8)

246 OT but since everyone seems to be here, Does anyone know if there is an official metric for national wealth?  Maybe with deltas? 

I  have the feeling that we have lost trillions but I don't have the figure.

Posted by: toby928 at February 28, 2011 10:58 AM (GTbGH)

247

um that's WWE since 2002 not WWF, as a pro-wrestling fan I have to correct you

----------------------------

Damn your WWE! Yokozuna, Hacksaw Jim Duggan and Andre baby! WWF. When fake wrestling was real!

Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at February 28, 2011 10:58 AM (/sE4s)

248

If I had to bet my money, I would say she does run. She is going to India next month to speak at a prestigious event. If it was all about money she could just give speeches here in the USA and take a shorter plane flight. There is no shortage of demand.

She's shoring up the vital Indian call center vote?

If she was in it for the money, what would she be doing differently?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 28, 2011 10:59 AM (SY2Kh)

249 To be fair, ace also thought the Tucson maniac might be a Tea Partier for a few hours. And he was a male monster.

Mistakes happen.

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 10:59 AM (Q6tnr)

250 A for the Coulter/Christie love I really do think the fact that Coulter's Dad was a union busting attorney has something to do with it.

Posted by: Rocks at February 28, 2011 10:59 AM (Q1lie)

251

I'm probably more upset that Coulter said the president should be a lawyer.   Fuck that shit.   If that's one of her major prerequisites for a president, her opinion doesn't mean jack.   Oh, and now that she has succeeded in getting everyone's attention, did you know she has a book coming out in a couple months?   Has nothing to do with any of her remarks, though.

As for Christie's comments, I wasn't exactly impressed with him trying to take all the credit for Walker's, Kasich's & other Republican governor's battles with the unions.    He's, also, not the strongest conservative among those governor's.   He might have the biggest ego, though.    Personally, I don't give a shit what he says about Palin.  It's other crap that spews from his piehole that pisses me off.

I've become somewhat immune to the criticisms of Palin, because most see just what they want to see.   Have any of the other potential candidates been asked to keynote the IndiaToday conference in India?   That's isn't exactly beanbag.  And doing an hour long Q&A in Long Island with a Democratic questioner doesn't exactly lend itself to hiding behind a friendly venue.   At least, she's not kissing Mooshelle's ass & talking about what a brilliant man Obama is, and running around spewing snide comments about fellow Republicans just to boost her own image.  

 

Posted by: Steph at February 28, 2011 10:59 AM (AkdC5)

252 @246 He better hope Jeffy B. doesn't catch on.  Too many Rumpswabs spoil the broth, or so I am told.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 28, 2011 10:59 AM (0IPsJ)

253 You notice how the left (and certain segments of the right) don't have an argument, Folks was used by the old guard, to try to slime Haley, and Ace automatically recoiled. They pulled every trick in the book, unsealing personnel records, misreading counrt opinions to elect Lisa What's her name, and they've tried to bogus scams against Walker, the booing that never happened, and that psycho stalker nutrooter Murphy. But it's our burden, to deny bs charges by ignorant and
vicious people

Posted by: justin cord at February 28, 2011 11:00 AM (A0LUZ)

254 "204 Yeah, it's the boys club bullshit. the same boy's club bullshit that led Ace to suggest finding a new candidate for SC governor when the Haley affair rumors started (yeah, Ace said that, and I can provide the link). The same boy's club bullshit that led Ace to proclaim Bachmann an agent of the dark side for giving an additional response to the state of the union instead of leaving it solely to Paul Ryan. Boy's have issues with girls sometimes, didja know? Posted by: kathleen at February 28, 2011 03:45 PM (xPx2z)" Don't forget Sharron Angle! Clearly not good enough to face the legendary statesman Harry Reid. Who's just launched a campaign against legal prostitution in Nevada. Would Angle have done that? There is no scenario--NONE--in which Angle, no matter her shortcomings, wouldn't have been a) a HUGE improvement over Reid and b) worth supporting in any case just to see Reid gone. But, you know, there are certain standards for Congress. The standards that most candidates meet, because our congressmen and senators are of such high quality. GOP brain trust--covering itself in glory since . . . since . . . well, I'm sure they'll start any day now.

Posted by: tsj017 at February 28, 2011 11:00 AM (4YUWF)

255

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 28, 2011 03:57 PM (kKA7V)

what? clearly you haven't seen me go after ace's bud allah or disagree w/ ace on ceratin issues; wow I agree w/ the blog head guy at the blog I enjoy the most, imagine that

and PalinSteele who I fought in this blog was no ace asskisser

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 11:00 AM (UzBwz)

256 Ed really has become too 'moderate' for my tastes (with a weird layering of libertarianism thrown in). 

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 03:58 PM (pW2o  


In a post the other day, he mentioned something about "normalizing" illegal immigrants.  In addition to "normalizing" gay marriage.

Posted by: FUBAR at February 28, 2011 11:00 AM (McG46)

257 The only way for us to really know if ace is a misogynist is for all the moronettes to send him photos of our nekkid bodies and see if he has pixy ban us.  Rumor has it that logprof is actually a chick, hence the banning. 

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 11:00 AM (pW2o8)

258 Screw it.

I just want someone in office who isn't going to screw me over.

Posted by: Holger at February 28, 2011 11:01 AM (YxGud)

259 @254 And lest anyone think Long Island outside the boroughs is moonbat free compared to say, Brooklyn, let me tell you, it is only relative.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 28, 2011 11:02 AM (0IPsJ)

260 I'm raising money for ace's new 527 PAC. It's called "We Got 99 Candidates (But A Bitch Ain't One)" In conjunction with the Pimps Up, Hoes Down Foundation, our goal is to raise Ho Awareness and build our brand through our "Bitches, man..." campaign.

Posted by: Purity Reichsminister Jeff at February 28, 2011 11:02 AM (ypWHs)

261 182, The women I talk to say that because they do not see the potential male candidates being held to the same standard as her. This really pisses them off. This could be huge for us in the general election. An army of motivated female supporters could sway some undecided voters our way None of the men have shown mastery of all the issues etc yet they are almost universally praised as "serious." In fact, many of them have hidden during the rough and tumble debates of Obama's radical agenda the past 2 years.

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2011 11:02 AM (mXBxH)

262 The only way for us to really know if ace is a misogynist is for all the moronettes to send him photos of our nekkid bodies and see if he has pixy ban us.

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 04:00 PM (pW2o

I might possibly be a misogynist.  Just FYI.

Posted by: FUBAR at February 28, 2011 11:02 AM (McG46)

263 nice tomatoes, kathleen.  I mean tomatoes-tomatoes, not, you know, mammaries

Guess how many fallacious arguments you made on this thread,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Posted by: Enda ( not 'Edna' ) Kenny at February 28, 2011 11:03 AM (UqKQV)

264 C'mon people, it's a known fact that Ace isn't into women.  He's into EWOKS. 

I mean, christ, it's not like he's some sort of freaky cross-species bestiality-lover or something. 

You folks should know better.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 28, 2011 11:03 AM (NjYDy)

265 O/T but important:  Clinton Portis released by the 'Skins

Finally! 

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 11:03 AM (pW2o8)

266

Palin is unique in not needing to organize her supporters. They will self-organize upon her declaration.

OK, that's a valid point as proved by the strong showing by Ron Paul! and Teh Fred.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 28, 2011 11:03 AM (SY2Kh)

267

Ace could do a rap album with Snoop and Dre and then we would know for sure.

Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at February 28, 2011 11:03 AM (/sE4s)

268 209...unfortunately, the MFM will bludgeon the rest of the field with the Christie positions they agree with because it helps their cause.  Running or not, he is already attempting to or being used to shape the narrative that any candidate to his right is extreme. 

Scads of intertube postings by the left will wonder why the republicans nominated candidate XXXXXX, when that nice, moderate Christie was available but was not allowed to run.  Moderate, level-headed, anonymous republican leaders will lament how extreme the party has become when even Chris Christie isn't good enough. 

So, we need to get out in front now.  If Christie isn't running, fine...then he should shut his yap about anything not NJ related and realize he's got ZERO friends in the MFM...they are using him, plain and simple. 

Posted by: The Hammer at February 28, 2011 11:04 AM (32ubA)

269 I just want someone in office who isn't going to screw me over.

Then you want me for prez, but I am not running either.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes, me for prez not at February 28, 2011 11:04 AM (xdHzq)

270

and PalinSteele who I fought in this blog was no ace asskisser

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 04:00 PM (UzBwz)

Oh bullshit; every time ace farted PS popped a breath mint.  He liked to address ace personally in each post, like some fucking stalker.

Apologies to you if you've quarreled with ace in the past and I haven't noticed; you seemed a bit too rabid in your defense of him in this thread.

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 28, 2011 11:04 AM (kKA7V)

271 What would Ewok rap sound like anywho?

Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at February 28, 2011 11:04 AM (/sE4s)

272 @258  Fair enough, though I think it a bit of a stretch to put in a request for a medal over "fighting" a sitepest who mostly stepped on his own dick over and over until ace just got bored with him.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 28, 2011 11:04 AM (0IPsJ)

273

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2011 04:02 PM (mXBxH)

women have been voting Dem since what? 1988? they also vote more vigirously against GOP women then GOP men

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 11:04 AM (UzBwz)

274 Guess how many fallacious arguments you made on this thread,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Posted by: Enda ( not 'Edna' ) Kenny at February 28, 2011 04:03 PM (UqKQV)

Welcome aboard, buddy, it's a good thing you aren't a worthless woman.

Posted by: FUBAR at February 28, 2011 11:04 AM (McG46)

275 pixy ban be damned, but what does "nekkid" mean?

tomatoes-tomatoes, or you know....................

Posted by: SantaRosaStan, clueless in Sonoma County at February 28, 2011 11:04 AM (UqKQV)

276

She also skipped out on CPAC (again) for unspecified "committments"

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 28, 2011 03:45 PM (SY2Kh)

Google up "Iron Dog Race" and you'll find that her husband races in it and it takes place in February. It's a week long and there are months of prep beforehand. That's why she never goes to CPAC, and probably never will. And what's the point anyway? The Paulnuts and Mittbots are hauled in by the truckload and given free tickets so they can stack the straw poll. She'd just be giving another speech, which her detractors would then point to and say "SEE, SHE'S JUST IN IT FOR TEH MONIES!!!111!!! IF SHE WERE SERIOUS SHE'D GRANT  PERKY MCBITCHY ANOTHER SIX-HOUR SELECTIVELY-EDITED INQUISITION!".

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at February 28, 2011 11:05 AM (IoUF1)

277

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 28, 2011 04:04 PM (kKA7V)

no i'm rabid in defending those on my side that seem to devoted to only one way of thinking and calling anyone who slightly disagrees with them some kind of RINO who's opinion doesn't matter

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 11:06 AM (UzBwz)

278 I thought you were Ace's doppelganger, FUBAR

not doppelganger-doppelganger, but, you know......

( my SpellCheck accepts doppelganger and doppelganger-doppelganger )

Posted by: SantaRosaStan, clueless in Sonoma County at February 28, 2011 11:06 AM (UqKQV)

279 "Palin is one of the purest filters there is as to whether one is truly on the right or just a RINO. You constantly show your true RINO self."

Posted by: Mike at February 28, 2011 03:07 PM (A4OwG)

This has to be a troll. Nobody else on this blog is that stupid.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 28, 2011 11:06 AM (LH6ir)

280 Like Wookie rap but with smaller gold chains.

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 11:06 AM (Q6tnr)

281 but what does "nekkid" mean?

Naked means you have no clothes on, nekkid means you have no clothes on, with intent.

Posted by: toby928 at February 28, 2011 11:07 AM (GTbGH)

282 >>>This could be huge for us in the general election. An army of motivated female supporters could sway some undecided voters our way This card was played in 2008 and backfired. Women wound up breaking hugely for Obama. I need more than wishcasting; I need an explanation of how Palin is going to change things.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 11:07 AM (nj1bB)

283 Voting for a woman just because she is a woman is an insult, as is voting for someone due to the color of their skin. We can't mock the 52% for their reverse racism if we're going to engage in reverse sexism. If Palin is going to be our candidate, then she should win due to her conservative policy positions and what she brings to the table.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 28, 2011 11:07 AM (q8u+l)

284

no i'm rabid in defending against those on my side that seem to devoted to only one way of thinking and calling anyone who slightly disagrees with them some kind of RINO who's opinion doesn't matter

okay fixed that

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 11:07 AM (UzBwz)

285

Here are just the Sarah Palin interviews I can think of since Couric.....


Barbra Walters--3 times
Matt Lauer--2 times
Oprah Winfrey--2 times
Brian Williams
ABC News Kate Snow
Jay Leno
Larry King
Robin Roberts
Wolf Blitzer

Those are the ones I know of. She has done about 40 interviews on Fox. Other then Hannity, they have been straight up interviews on the issues. About 15 very informative interviews on Fox News Buisness. The kind of interviews Chris Christie faces on Face the Nation.

So she hasn't done the 3 network Sunday Morning shows. Is that all this is about? Doing Meet the Freaking Press? How many of these shows has Mitt Romney done?

If she runs she will do more interviews like these, until then maybe people she stop ignoring every interview she has done  or ignoring every interviews Mitch Daniels and Mitt Romney have NOT done.

BTW, when has Chris Christie truely faced a tough question? He doesn't get them from the main stream media. Greta Van Sustren called him out last week for not appearing on her show and face some tough questions.

 

Posted by: Keven at February 28, 2011 11:07 AM (UMRed)

286

Hammer,

 

If your issue is abortion, you need to know that Palin appointed a former Planned Parenthood board member to the Alaska Supreme Court, over the objections of the Alaska Family Council, because she was the best qualified for the job.

 

This drove Frank Bailey, former aide and author of the yet-unpublished smear book about Palin to go to the other side – he thought she betrayed the pro-life community.

 

I only bring this up because no media or blogger has mentioned it.

Posted by: jwest at February 28, 2011 11:08 AM (qeYI9)

287

Two words.

Vaginas.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 28, 2011 11:08 AM (WvXvd)

288 Hollowpoint, Your right. It would seem weird at best. It would be convenient if info like that would somehow 'leak'. Of course Reagan was thought of as a dunce too by his detractors, but with Palin parts of the media are shockingly rude how they parade their prejudices about her intellect. I think that hurts her with indies.

Posted by: Serious Cat at February 28, 2011 11:08 AM (bAySe)

289

no i'm rabid in defending those on my side that seem to devoted to only one way of thinking and calling anyone who slightly disagrees with them some kind of RINO who's opinion doesn't matter

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 04:06 PM (UzBwz)

I think you stated that backwards to what you meant, right?

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 28, 2011 11:08 AM (kKA7V)

290 Ok you corrected it.

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 28, 2011 11:09 AM (kKA7V)

291

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 28, 2011 04:08 PM (kKA7V)

yeah I posted the correction

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 11:10 AM (UzBwz)

292

Just a thought:

Sarah Palin was 42 when she was sworn in as Alaska governor.  When Ronald Reagan was 42, he was... still a Democrat.

So there's plenty of time for Sarah Palin to become a formidable Republican candidate for President, whether in 2012 or farther down the road.

Posted by: stuiec at February 28, 2011 11:10 AM (Di3Im)

293 "I keep hearing she's the only candidate who's been baptized by fire but I haven't actually seen her in fire for quite a long time." You should check out @heytammybruce on twitter. There are plenty of links to follow there where she was unscripted and had to answer questions but then these are not reported in the general media. Also, she should be going on with the MSM unless she is running for president or something, which she has not yet declared. Also, she was calling for a no fly zone on Labia over a week ago but nobody criticized because she was right on that one.

Posted by: some dude 4 Palin at February 28, 2011 11:10 AM (RSfE/)

294 I thought you were Ace's doppelganger, FUBAR

Posted by: SantaRosaStan, clueless in Sonoma County at February 28, 2011 04:06 PM (UqKQV)

If you're accusing me of brown-nosing, you take that back!  He threatened to ban me once.

If you're accusing me of busting his ass, you take that back!  ace is the greatest blogger on the Innertubes!

Posted by: FUBAR at February 28, 2011 11:10 AM (McG46)

295 Welcome to club, Ace, the rest of us pariahs who have dared question Mama Grizzly accept you into our society.

Posted by: Vyceroy at February 28, 2011 11:11 AM (vFVJi)

296

Posted by: jwest at February 28, 2011 04:08 PM (qeYI9)

well let's add more to the negatives of the GOP 2012 field, damn I wish Coolidge was alive still

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 11:11 AM (UzBwz)

297 this is from drudge, it illustrates just how difficult it will be for anyone to successfully run against him, at least anyone who continues to play by the rules he and his party have set forth: 

"IN PUBLIC: Obama offers states flexibility on health care law..."

"IN PRIVATE: Tells liberals move will allow states to enact even more expansive reform..."

sorry the second link is to politico

Posted by: curious at February 28, 2011 11:11 AM (p302b)

298 276, absolutely but Sarah does not have to win the female vote to win. Some polls showed her getting more woman for McCain that he would have otherwise gotten. If she gets a little more then we are in great shape. Remember, it is all after a campaign has run.

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2011 11:11 AM (mXBxH)

299 Barbra Walters--3 times -- entertainment reporter/interviewer Matt Lauer--2 times -- ditto, working on a morning show Oprah Winfrey--2 times -- ultimate entertainer non-reporter Brian Williams ABC News Kate Snow Jay Leno -- entertainment Larry King -- entertainment Robin Roberts Wolf Blitzer I don't know about Robin Roberts or Kate Snow. Celebrity journalists are easier because they're all about one's bio and stuff.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 11:11 AM (nj1bB)

300 @269  You know, that's a good point.  No, not the one you were making.  The imaginary one I am going to segue off.

So, I see Ace-sy Kasem is doing requests.  We got us a six sided Mexican standoff here over Palin and Romney and Christie et al.  How about a nice Unity Tuesday tomorrow?  A day of fellowship.  A day when we can  all come together to support common cause.

It didn't want to have to do this, but...

ace,

Tomorrow, could you write up a nice only sort-of insulting post on Ron Paul.  You know, hit that spot where "Any sane person reading this would know I think Ron is a crackpot"  overlaps the "A million-in-one? So there IS a chance!"
open invitiation for the Paultards to show up with bells on to argue their case.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 28, 2011 11:12 AM (0IPsJ)

301

I honestly don't get why Palin would want to run for President at this point - she's already a kingmaker in the GOP and a millionaire; and if she ran for President and lost, she's almost certainly lose a decent amount of her influence.

Also, it must be getting awefully lonely to be a hardcore Palinista, where anyone/everyone who says anything remotely critical about their candidate must immediately be attacked as a RINO/Establishment Elite(tm).

Posted by: yabkpjo at February 28, 2011 11:12 AM (0tHG6)

302

@286

Miss80'sbaby is right. We're supposed to be the party not beholden to identity politics.

"I can haz boobs" isn't really a postion to get behind.

On top of perhaps. But I'll leave the splaining of that one to Charlie Sheen.

Posted by: JollyRoger at February 28, 2011 11:12 AM (NCw5u)

303 I am every fictional character in Catch-22

I have a point ( really ) :  All politics is Catch-22

there's always a catch  == I'm so profound I amaze myself

also, wherever you go...............there you are

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at February 28, 2011 11:12 AM (UqKQV)

304 ace likes strong, independent. Women who can open their own dpors, form their own opinions, pay their own way. Women who aren't ashamed to choke themselves during sex.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 28, 2011 11:12 AM (ypWHs)

305

The women I talk to say that because they do not see the potential male candidates being held to the same standard as her. This really pisses them off.

This could be huge for us in the general election. An army of motivated female supporters could sway some undecided voters our way

Except she polls just as poorly (and sometimes worse) among women as men.

Damned misogynist chicks.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 28, 2011 11:12 AM (SY2Kh)

306 300. Yes. Obama is a skilled liar. He says one thing for the cameras and does the exact opposite when no one is looking. We need someone to call him out on that during a campaign. IE, if his healthcare bill is so great, why is he giving waivers out to big business and big unions? Big Business and Big unions are not the most popular things these days in swing states especially!

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2011 11:13 AM (mXBxH)

307 I guess the only solution is to waterboard Sarah Palin on national TV and really get the straight scoop.

Nothing else will get the true measure.

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 11:14 AM (Q6tnr)

308 no, man, I thought you were /  is HIM

 himself  ( a cut-out; a legend, etc )

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at February 28, 2011 11:14 AM (UqKQV)

309 I wasn't going to get involved with this thread but I saw the Nikki Haley angle.

Of course Politico and HuffPo are trying to make a big deal out of that statement. However, it means NOTHING. Haley is exactly correct. It IS far too early to endorse anybody.

The fact is NOBODY has even announced they are running yet. I have a feeling that if Palin does actually declare that Haley would endorse her.

Posted by: Vic at February 28, 2011 11:14 AM (M9Ie6)

310 BTW, that is assuming Politico is not lying about the whole thing.

Posted by: Vic at February 28, 2011 11:15 AM (M9Ie6)

311 Ace,

one point about what Coulter said: what I find insulting isn't that she dissed Palin (she's been doing that for a year now and it doesn't bother me), but her condescending elitist bullshit about non-lawyers being unqualified because only lawyers can have a keen grasp of facts and details or something (I don't have the exact quote but it was something close to that).

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at February 28, 2011 11:15 AM (IoUF1)

312 I have no idea how someone overcomes such a huge but superficial (but no less real) problem.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 03:57 PM (nj1bB)


I don't really agree with that.  I don't think Pawlenty's looks are a problem it's really more one of attitude. Attitude can be taught to an extent but it really takes a light switch moment for the "actor" to get it. Pawlenty could have that, especially in a debate. The problem is he needs to go for the jugular and not get scared of the blood. Right now he winces when the blood flows.

Posted by: Rocks at February 28, 2011 11:15 AM (Q1lie)

313 Ace, According to Dick Morris, McCain/Palin had a better male/female ration than did Bush/Cheney. He said she kept John from being destroyed by Obama with women. To answer your question , all she can do is match the other peeps running in the debates and in the press interviews. If she performs on par with the others, peoples impressions will start to change.

Posted by: Serious Cat at February 28, 2011 11:16 AM (bAySe)

314 Vic gets +2000 Bronsons.

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 11:16 AM (Q6tnr)

315 Obama is a skilled liar.

I think he's a terrible liar.  He's transparent and ridiculous.  Were the MFM not a bunch of toadies, he would be laughed out of office.

Posted by: toby928 at February 28, 2011 11:16 AM (GTbGH)

316 Conservative Blogs:  Suicidal Teen-agers
Ron Paul: Candyman

Posted by: Say it three times at February 28, 2011 11:18 AM (0IPsJ)

317 These masturbatory fantasies that some of you seem to have for Palin is getting tedious.

She is unelectable in her current incarnation.

If that changes, then all bets are off. But ignoring the facts is just stupid and boring.

And before you get all pissy; realize that I like her. I like her personally. I like her politics. And I think she is a MILF. But I am also sane and intelligent (ignoring my nic) and realize that it will be a long, hard slog to change the country's perception of Sarah Palin.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 28, 2011 11:18 AM (LH6ir)

318 I was recently talking to someone about the debate between rick and hillary.  The guy was telling me that he was there.  He was saying rick was totally in the right, totally justified and that hillary was able to turn things around so deftly he woke up the next morning the bad guy and the loser.

Well, the republicans need someone with that ability.  Problem is, rarely do republicans "lie", "stretch the facts", it's sort of not in their DNA, they sort of somehow come out and give you the whole truth, even if you don't want to hear it.  So finding someone who goes along with this kind of dirty politics and is a republican with a conservative bent, is going to be next to impossible.

Posted by: curious at February 28, 2011 11:19 AM (p302b)

319 >>> If she performs on par with the others, peoples impressions will start to change. Why wait? It's not easy to turn around long-held impressions, you know. It takes a lot of time. Dan Quayle, for example, attempted it for years and years (and didn't quite ever make it). So why is she waiting so long to begin this process? Does she imagine it will be easy and only take a couple of months?

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 11:19 AM (nj1bB)

320

Two words.

Vaginas.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 28, 2011 04:08 PM (WvXvd)

Are you for them or against them?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 28, 2011 11:19 AM (LH6ir)

321

I'll say this though. An otherwise throwaway thread on Palin on a Monday afternoon: 300+ comments in an hour.

An important if not intellectual conversation about the Necessary and Proper clause and Obamacare: maybe 100 (maybe.)

Ace's traffic fu is strong.

Posted by: JollyRoger at February 28, 2011 11:20 AM (NCw5u)

322 @314 IIRC, Ann did not fight against George W. Bush's nomination right down to the last day, did she?  I am a little hazy here, but did she work against him at all?  He was no lawyer.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 28, 2011 11:20 AM (0IPsJ)

323 open invitiation for the Paultards to show up with bells on to argue their case. You're playing with forces you don't understand. Stupidity you can't control! Do you realize what you've DONE?!

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 28, 2011 11:21 AM (ypWHs)

324 Was the shooting in Arizona really that long ago? Posted by: pajama momma at February 28, 2011 02:52 PM (1lqnR) Straw man. You know quite well that Ace was not talking about unprovoked character assassinations of her, rather her having her policies / beliefs challenged by oppositional forces in the context of 1) are these policies / beliefs the correct ones and 2) how they would be implemented. And yes, she has to "run the gauntlet" of liberal media. Most Americans KNOW the media is biased. Her path to victory is not to shrug her shoulders and go, "Well, folks, you know they're against me, so why bother? Let me sit down for another Sean Hannity interview.". It's to go "you know they're against me, so watch me as I still sit down with them and smack them around with my answers any way.". THAT would impress the hell out of indies and do a lot to dispell the myths that have been built up around her.

Posted by: Vyceroy at February 28, 2011 11:21 AM (vFVJi)

325 Vaginas are something most of us can get behind. Sometimes support. Although sometimes they are beneath us. Sometimes they make us do crazy things.

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 11:22 AM (Q6tnr)

326 285, ace surely you realize that 2008 is different from 2012. If you think the environment will be the same in 2012 as it was in 2008 for us, then we have no chance at all no matter who the candidate is. Have some faith man You ask how she will change things? How would ANYONE change things? It is not complicated. They have a campaign with a platform and policy positions. They debate the issues countless times. They meet people one on one in local diners. They go to a vital important ally like India and give a speech on their vision. She will do all of this if she runs. I could go on forever. No reason to worry about that this second. Every candidate will have to do it at the proper time. I think she can do it given her record.

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2011 11:22 AM (mXBxH)

327 >>>one point about what Coulter said: what I find insulting isn't that she dissed Palin (she's been doing that for a year now and it doesn't bother me), but her condescending elitist bullshit about non-lawyers being unqualified because only lawyers can have a keen grasp of facts and details or something (I don't have the exact quote but it was something close to that). I thought that was her effort to let Palin off the hook by saying that details/wokery wasn't in her typical wheelhouse as it was for the average lawyer, who self-selects and is also outside-selected into a job that's about the moving parts of legislation and fine details. To be honest I think Coulter is trying to say she doesn't support Palin in the nicest way possible so that people on the right don't get mad at her, that's why she's trying this silly spin that the "presidency would be a step down for Palin." Note she doesn't say that about Christie, whom she supports.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 11:22 AM (nj1bB)

328 OMG, the last thing you need is another lawyer, or Senator or Congressman in office.  You actually need a governor who was/is a business man or woman.  I know you don't want to think that you need to turn to a business person but heck you need someone who deals in realities, not someone who thrives on "what if's" and "parsing words for the win".   Most lawyers can't even balance their damned check books and they are going to understand the nuances of our precarious economic situation?   And yes, the president the next time around does need a grasp of economics.  that is more important.

Posted by: curious at February 28, 2011 11:23 AM (p302b)

329 Palin is playing dog-in-a-manger the way Cuomo did with the Dems so many times.   She needs to GTF out of the way ASAP if she is not really going to run.  It makes a big difference to other potential candidates' decision to run and their ability to raise early cash.

Posted by: jeannie at February 28, 2011 11:23 AM (GdalM)

330 Are you for them or against them?

I prefer to be right up against them.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at February 28, 2011 11:23 AM (xdHzq)

331 Your problem and alot of the anti-Palin critics have, is you play double standard. Palin isn't running YET, so why do you persist in asking she do things that NO OTHER CANDIDATES are being asked to do. Have Christie been given a difficult interview yet? Nope, yet ppl like Ann is supporting him already.

Posted by: 4rc at February 28, 2011 11:24 AM (KeYED)

332 >>>You actually need a governor who was/is a business man or woman. Ideally sure but we're past the point of holding out for ideal candidates. Well, fingers crossed. Who knows, maybe someone will come along.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 11:24 AM (nj1bB)

333 320...that's actually kind of where I find myself.  Then the question becomes: did I let the MFM win and change my perceptions of her, or am I being a wise realist?

I actually hope someone arrives on the scene with the conservative instincts of a Palin or DeMint, but who isn't so easily painted as extremists by the MFM.

And make no mistake...Christie benefits from his moderate/rino positions in this regard...they can only attack him for fiscally conservative positions, which right now the general public is at least leaning towards.  So, his coverage will be different than a true conservative.  But, that doesn't mean he's someone suited to be the R presidential candidate.  And it doesn't mean they aren't using him.

Posted by: The Hammer at February 28, 2011 11:25 AM (32ubA)

334 In most American cities, the party system is almost exactly like the national party system in Ireland:  One party is almost always in power ( except for a short term every 20 years or so when Fianna Fail fucks up )

Then Fine Gael scoots in like eyewash, but never wins re-election.  Never

The problem with this type of system ( which they have in India with the Congress Party ) is obvious:  Mega-corruption:  Votes are traded for Stuff

Patronage 2.0, + another 2.0

Now the Irish economy has collapsed, with 15 % Unemployed and much worse coming, combined with massive tax increases and More

But since cities and states can pass on their debts to the national government here ( no states in Ireland and the cities don't have much say in their spending ),  they aren't forced to face a Reckoning like Eire 2011

so yeah, we're boned

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at February 28, 2011 11:26 AM (UqKQV)

335 >>>Palin is playing dog-in-a-manger the way Cuomo did with the Dems so many times. She needs to GTF out of the way ASAP if she is not really going to run. It makes a big difference to other potential candidates' decision to run and their ability to raise early cash. I find this frustrating as hell but the problem is she actually might run under certain (unlikely) conditions so she has a reason not to step aside early, as you (and I) would prefer.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 11:26 AM (nj1bB)

336 Posted by: jeannie at February 28, 2011 04:23 PM (GdalM)

I disagree.  she should stay in there and forget about the other candidates.  If they can't raise money on their own, whether palin is a go or not, then screw em they don't belong anywhere near a presidential primary.

Posted by: curious at February 28, 2011 11:26 AM (p302b)

337

 Vaginas are something most of us can get behind. Sometimes support. Although sometimes they are beneath us. Sometimes they make us do crazy things.

---------------------------

Clearly.

Posted by: Andrew "Glutes" Sullivan at February 28, 2011 11:26 AM (/sE4s)

338 Have you seen any of her Fox News Buisness interviews Ace?

Posted by: Keven at February 28, 2011 11:26 AM (UMRed)

339 Posted by: The Hammer at February 28, 2011 04:25 PM (32ubA)

You are exactly correct. They are creating in Christie a template for a "Conservative Republican." Fiscal conservatism will be fine, but anyone to his right on social issues will be vilified.

Saul Alinsky would be proud. It's almost as if the MBM was taking its marching orders from the Democrats.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 28, 2011 11:27 AM (LH6ir)

340 @334 Point of order:  Christie has been holding open meetings in which he tells whiny teachers and other union drones to their face to go fuck themselves.  I think maybe that qualifies as a difficult interview-for them anyways.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 28, 2011 11:28 AM (0IPsJ)

341

Are you for them or against them?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 28, 2011 04:19 PM (LH6ir)

preferably, inside them


( thank you, ladies and gentlemen, thank you )

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at February 28, 2011 11:28 AM (UqKQV)

342

The big reason I like Palin is that she's taken a beating by the MFM and the DC elites and still manages fuck up their day by sending out a simple tweet or FB comments.  I think she'd be a powerful adversary in any campaign she chooses to run.

 

Posted by: Soona at February 28, 2011 11:28 AM (efdtN)

343 Vaginas are like the rare sea tortoise. They should be caught, tagged and released. Not hate player. Hate GAME.

Posted by: Will Folks at February 28, 2011 11:29 AM (ypWHs)

344

"I guess someone like Palin should say, "hey, I'm not a lawyer but I ran a state, I know when decisions affect my duties but I don't know the inside geek baseball that people pretend to understand."

It's not fair because Democrats don't get quiz or ambush questions tossed at them by the press to trip them up. Indeed, they normally get softballs lobbed at them. But fair or not, there it is.

There is a way to handle this. Christie and Rumsfeld have provided recent examples. I hate to say it, but I have pretty much arrived at the position that unless you possess this skill and the capacity to handle the media, to be able to turn this around on the liberal shill trying to trip you up, you probably cannot be a viable Republican candidate at the national level.

Can Palin learn this skill? I'm not even sure it is "learnable". There are some very bright people on our side of the aisle who know the nuts and bolts verbatim, but I've not seen the evidence they can defuse hostile questions. 

Posted by: RM at February 28, 2011 11:29 AM (GkYyh)

345 338, ace if those candidates are so afraid of Palin that they are holding off on running because they do not know if she will then they have no business being President. How can they handle Iran if they can't handle "unserious" Palin in a primary? This is your same logic that you apply to her. How can she handle Iran if she can't handle David Gregory? See what I mean? your own logic disqualifies the people whose decision on running depends on her. If they have a great vision and are smart and serious, they should do it regardless of what "unserious" Palin does. Cain has declared and I say god bless him. I want to hear more from him. He is not afraid. He is going to make his case regardless of who else runs.

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2011 11:30 AM (mXBxH)

346 Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 28, 2011 04:20 PM (0IPsJ)

I don't know if she supported Booosh in the primary or not, but she said in the interview we had to nominate a lawyer, because only lawyers are capable of grasping facts and details. Never mind the fact that the lawyer currently occupying the WH doesn't even have a firm grasp on reality, let alone facts or details.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at February 28, 2011 11:31 AM (IoUF1)

347 Then the question becomes: did I let the MFM win and change my perceptions of her, or am I being a wise realist?

I would go with realist.  I thinks she's good and I like her, but her polling is atrocious, even if you account for skewing.  Overcoming that with an incumbent who promises to raise $1 billion, I'd put her in the 5% range of winning the general.  Independent women just don't like her.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at February 28, 2011 11:31 AM (xdHzq)

348 209 And I'm not smearing Christie for not being red enough, but I'm not throwing him a vote so he can throw open the gates for amnesty and built a National Mosque in downtown DC, either.  You can take your hurt feelings over that and shove them.

How does it help the conservative cause to weaken a sitting governor who is making progress on fiscal issues in a blue state -- and garnering positive coverage to boot -- to point out he's not conservative enough for an office for which he is not running? <<<

Peculiar answer/question, though not entirely unexpected.  I don't grant the premise that my opinion "weakens" him any more than yours "bolsters" him.  I enjoy his budgetary red meat rants, but I'm not going to paper over the parts of him I don't like so we can pretend he's actually advancing the conservative cause in any sense other than the fiscal. 

Posted by: Kerry at February 28, 2011 11:31 AM (a/VXa)

349 Ace, Until she is out of the FOX contract all she can do is write policy and give speeches, which are't how the politically 'meh' learn about their candidates. I think it's important to have others pols doing the same basic campaign stuff as a comparison. That's why I think her best option now is to lay low and do the safe stuff, speeches and policy.

Posted by: Serious Cat at February 28, 2011 11:33 AM (bAySe)

350 The big reason I like Palin is that she's taken a beating by the MFM and the DC elites and still manages fuck up their day by sending out a simple tweet or FB comments. I think she'd be a powerful adversary in any campaign she chooses to run. ------------------ One could say the same for Rush. But as much as I mancrush daily I don't think he would be the most electable candidate.

Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at February 28, 2011 11:33 AM (/sE4s)

351 Unless the republican candidates realize that they can give a near perfect interview and the guy/gal in the editing booth can ruin their entire career, then no one moves forward.  To her credit, Palin is circumventing them, after couric, she may be done with the MBM.  Everyone else is still trying to play the MBM, including fox, game and it will this time be to their detriment.  As long as they can change the sound bites and interviews without being challenged they will continue to behave badly.   The next republican candidate has to draw a line in the sand on that issue.

If I want to critique ace in another place and I know most people only read the headline then I can show ace's header in this way "Most Important News of the Week: Some People Said Bad Things About Sarah Palin"   See, that completely changes ace's intent.

Posted by: curious at February 28, 2011 11:34 AM (p302b)

352

This drove Frank Bailey, former aide and author of the yet-unpublished smear book about Palin to go to the other side – he thought she betrayed the pro-life community.

 I only bring this up because no media or blogger has mentioned it.

Posted by: jwest at February 28, 2011 04:08 PM (qeYI9)

Appoint a woman who once served on the board of Planned Parenthood (before they performed abortions), or risk giving an environmentalist lawyer, also pro-choice on abortion, the chance to become an activist judge?

She made the right choice.

Posted by: Steph at February 28, 2011 11:34 AM (AkdC5)

353

I'm just sayin is all.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 28, 2011 11:36 AM (WvXvd)

354 Ann Coulter is a political comedy writer. You don't see her getting off her ass to run for anything.

Let's not put too much faith in the advice of a woman who writes a weekly comedy column and dated Bill Maher.

Her thing about only lawyers can make good presidents is full of shit. Either it is sarcastic or just plain goofy.

She seems nice, but her opinion doesn't mean shit.

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 11:37 AM (Q6tnr)

355 If Palin is POTUS, there is exactly zero chance she will nominate a liberal to the supreme court. That instance in Alaska she had no choice as all the candidates she could choose from were liberal. She picked the least liberal/best judge of the group.

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2011 11:38 AM (mXBxH)

356 It didn't want to have to do this, but...

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 28, 2011 04:12 PM (0IPsJ)

It rubs the lotion on the skin or else it gets the hose again.

Posted by: Buffalo Wing at February 28, 2011 11:38 AM (Di3Im)

357 Saracuda proved her mettle-lessness when she quit as Governor of Alaska rather than stand and fight the Dems' frivilous "ethics" war against her.  She let them criminalize her politically by driving her from high elective office.  Any claim she ever had to being a "fighter" - and, yes, "maverick" - died with her resignation.  It's that evaporated credibility that will keep her from ever again being taken seriously as a presidential candidate.

Posted by: JASmius at February 28, 2011 11:40 AM (LMHcg)

358 Sarah is the McRib of the Republican party, you gotta jump at the chance for the goodness because it's not always offered...

Posted by: Gary at February 28, 2011 11:40 AM (KUjSN)

359 She'll run and win, in 20 years, when she's old and no longer a MILF.   Will you still love her?  I have my doubts.

"...no fly zone on Labia..."    <=== see how confused some of you guys are?

Posted by: jeannie at February 28, 2011 11:43 AM (GdalM)

360

Steph,

 

It plays better the way I had it.

 

“She appointed a former Planned Parenthood board member to the Supreme Court over the objections of the Alaska Family Council.”

 

No one can doubt Palin’s pro-life position, but there are millions of independents and centrists who question whether someone like Palin can put her religious beliefs aside and make the best choice for the country.  When explained like I have it, she puts a lot of minds at ease.

Posted by: jwest at February 28, 2011 11:43 AM (qeYI9)

361 Why should any of us wish another conservative not run int the primary? ..!!.. As long as they have a credible shot of winning the nomination, and aren't wasting peoples time,, let the run!

Posted by: Serious Cat at February 28, 2011 11:44 AM (bAySe)

362 Posted by: JASmius at February 28, 2011 04:40 PM (LMHcg)

Tell me what you would have done in her place, Mr. Keyboard Warrior.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at February 28, 2011 11:44 AM (IoUF1)

363 331 ...And yes, the president the next time around does need a grasp of economics.  that is more important.

I strongly agree. Now, how many Republican candidates are there that have that plus commitment to conservative causes, as well as charisma? To beat Obama, we're going to need all 3, and that's just a starting point.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 28, 2011 11:46 AM (q8u+l)

364 365, he would have gone bankrupt and his families security would have been at risk, but he would have been "tough." LOL

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2011 11:46 AM (mXBxH)

365 my advice is to forget her, Ace. But it's kinda sweet that you can't (I might be talking about Palin here...I might not)

Posted by: kathleen at February 28, 2011 11:48 AM (xPx2z)

366 Posted by: JASmius at February 28, 2011 04:40 PM (LMHcg)

And "stay and fight" doesn't count. I want specifics.

I know I won't get an answer because you don't have a serious argument. If she'd stayed on and finished her term millions of dollars in debt from legal fees and having accomplished nothing her last year in office because she was in court all the time you'd be bashing her for that.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at February 28, 2011 11:49 AM (IoUF1)

367 I dont care who it could have been, but I will never see the logic in voting for someone for President that voluntarily resigned from their elected position of Governor. And if such a person decided to run for President after resigning I would find that clulessly arrogant.

Posted by: polynikes at February 28, 2011 11:50 AM (R9YVs)

368 Hey, I know, lets just vote for a loud mouthed gun grabbing Rino, maybe he can appoint a good Sharia follower to the supreme court...... Its worth it because no one has ever been elected Pres without New Jersey and Conn going for them... Honest

Posted by: Squishey Rino at February 28, 2011 11:50 AM (KUjSN)

369 Christie is not so unscripted about the issues other than the fiscal ones. His Pr group make sure of that. He is not my Gov. but if/when he declares not so sure, he can handle the incoming that Palin has received. Well see. I'm up for it like to see what they all got and how much they have hidden. As far as Palin is I think msm has treated her as a candidate from the word go, and have been doing a helluva a lot vetting, lying etc. It is amazing that she has been able still drive debate and thankfully so. I don't see anybody else take a leadership role by um leading the debate.

Posted by: lions at February 28, 2011 11:51 AM (/vDzc)

370 kathleen, you are bordering on creepy now. ew

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 11:51 AM (Q6tnr)

371 Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 04:37 PM (Q6tnr)

And the most important difference: Who would you rather bang (assuming you are a guy or a lesbian)?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 28, 2011 11:51 AM (LH6ir)

372

Any claim she ever had to being a "fighter" - and, yes, "maverick" - died with her resignation. 

 Posted by: JASmius at February 28, 2011 04:40 PM (LMHcg)

She personnaly accrued $500,000 in legal fees in 8 months.  Her state was in the hole for $2mil in that same time frame.   How much do you think it would have cost her and the state for her to have stayed on as governor?

Plus, you don't even see the irony in your statement, do you?

Posted by: Steph at February 28, 2011 11:52 AM (AkdC5)

373 Republicans are too fucking perpetually butt-hurt to ever meaningfully unite for more than 5 minutes, which is why even when we win we eventually lose, to complete idiots who blatantly obviously want to wreck everything.

Why I don't drink heavily I'll never know.

I do think it's slightly ironic for people to complain bitterly that Palin doesn't face enough criticism (or respond to enough criticism the right way), not for the obvious reason that she's the most-criticized political figure in modern times with Obama as a possible exception, but because the people complaining about Palin's supposed lack of dealing with criticism almost inevitably complain bitterly about facing criticism from Palin supporters.

Really, the "we're pariahs, you called me a RINO, nobody's allowed to say what we're constantly saying" act is old. Jesus, talk about not taking criticism well.

Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at February 28, 2011 11:52 AM (bxiXv)

374

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2011 04:46 PM (mXBxH)

'Zactly.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at February 28, 2011 11:53 AM (IoUF1)

375

@361

you gotta jump at the chance for the goodness because it's not always offered...

 

Are we still talking about vaginas?

Posted by: JollyRoger at February 28, 2011 11:53 AM (NCw5u)

376 Palin also mocked Politico’s use of anonymous sources, saying, “I suppose I could play their immature, unprofessional, waste-of-time game, too, by claiming these reporters and politicos are homophobe, child molesting, tax evading, anti-dentite, puppy-kicking, chain smoking porn producers…really, they are… I’ve seen it myself…but I’ll only give you the information off-the-record, on deep, deep background; attribute these ‘facts’ to an ‘anonymous source’ and I’ll give you more.”

Truly people, she is one of us!


Posted by: Africanus at February 28, 2011 11:53 AM (EDjAd)

377 I'm a married guy.

I'll give the only answer that makes good sense.

My wife.

and both of the others. dressed as nurse librarian nuns

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 11:55 AM (Q6tnr)

378

Are we still talking about vaginas?

Posted by: JollyRoger at February 28, 2011 04:53 PM (NCw5u)

I thought that we are always talking about vaginas!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 28, 2011 11:55 AM (LH6ir)

379 Anecdotal, of course, but I do notice that, at leas in the deep-blue city of Philadelphia, just mentioning Palin's name is a sure bet to draw fangs. Especially from the females. They hate her as much awe can't stand Zero.

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at February 28, 2011 11:56 AM (YmPwQ)

380 Palin. Happy-Clappy Republican. Tastes great, less filling. Just like the kool-aid her cult drinks.

I've never seen so many people support a categorically unqualified person for president of the United States of America and who vilify anyone who dares make such comment.


Posted by: Palin's Kool-Aid Machine at February 28, 2011 11:57 AM (GJeQU)

381 Women b crazy.

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 11:57 AM (Q6tnr)

382 Palin's Kool-Aid Machine

Not since 2008 and Obama you mean.

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 11:58 AM (Q6tnr)

383 Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at February 28, 2011 04:56 PM (YmPwQ)

Oh, that's just because she hasn't explained herself well enough. It will all be rosy once Sarah tells these open-minded women about her monetary policy and how she would reform civil service, and what she is going to do about Islamic fundamentalism and...

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 28, 2011 11:59 AM (LH6ir)

384 Sit Obama and Palin down at a desk and give the both IQ tests.

Winner gets the job.

Pretty confident we'd have a new president.

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 11:59 AM (Q6tnr)

385 the = them if I was smart.

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 12:00 PM (Q6tnr)

386 383--sure you have!  He garnered 52% of the vote in 2008.

Posted by: Kerry at February 28, 2011 12:00 PM (a/VXa)

387 Women b crazy.

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 04:57 PM (Q6tnr)

Undoubtedly. But they also have vaginas and breasts and asses and legs, so we're sort of stuck.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 28, 2011 12:00 PM (LH6ir)

388 Oh, women are definitely the only choice. No doubt about it.

The good outweighs the crazy in most of them.

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 12:02 PM (Q6tnr)

389 "There are more important things. This doesn't even make the top 50."

But once again, even though it's deemed not important, Palin bashing deserves its very own post.

And if you get the chance Ace (since it seems you had the time to post this "unimportant topic") you might take the time to watch her very unscripted responses to questions at the Long Island Business Association lunch.

Posted by: Nunya Bizness at February 28, 2011 12:04 PM (EN76G)

390 Sifty: actually, from what i recall, most people I know who voted for obama were open to the idea that he didn't have comparatively great qualifications as against mccain. it was a repudiation of neo-conservatism that matter more (oh, and to have a black president qua collective white liberal guilt). nobody was whining about amazingly qualified he was.

reasonable minds may disagree.

but if you narrow the focus of my point to 'republicans-only' it very much stands true.

the way the Palinstinians are ranting about how awesome she is because "she's taken on the MSM" makes me think Carrie Prejean would make an ideal Vice Presidential pick for Palin.

Posted by: Palin's Kool-Aid Machine at February 28, 2011 12:05 PM (GJeQU)

391 Posted by: Palin's Kool-Aid Machine at February 28, 2011 04:57 PM (GJeQU)

Tell me who is more qualified, and more importantly, WHY they are more qualified. And don't just tell me what offices they've been elected to, tell me specifically what they accomplished while in office.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at February 28, 2011 12:06 PM (IoUF1)

392

376  I think you may be on to something.

 

Posted by: unknown jane at February 28, 2011 12:06 PM (5/yRG)

393 also, cue jokes about being at defcon 3 every 28 days

Posted by: Palin's Kool-Aid Machine at February 28, 2011 12:07 PM (GJeQU)

394 "I need more than wishcasting; I need an explanation of how Palin is going to change things."

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 04:07 PM (nj1b)

Nobody gets that until after the election. Everything before is posturing. You either buy what's behind the posture or you don't. Damn, think of all the BS "W" put up front during his 2000 campaign. (The few items he worked on related to those campaign issues were Kennedy's ed-umb-a-cation bill and medicaid drugs fo less cash money.)

The "explanation of how" is inside the content of the character and that character's philosophy. That's all you get, other than sleep-inducing, policy-wonk BS that hardly anybody pays attention to.

So 'escuse me if I find that "objection" (claim?, position?) to be somewhat vapid. I understand it, it just don't mean much.

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 12:07 PM (9b6FB)

395 Ol' Dirty: care for another round of punch? don't forget to tie your black nikes real tight. it'll be a magical ride. ya know?

Posted by: Palin's Kool-Aid Machine at February 28, 2011 12:09 PM (GJeQU)

396 "...the people complaining about Palin's supposed lack of dealing with criticism almost inevitably complain bitterly about facing criticism from Palin supporters.

Really, the "we're pariahs, you called me a RINO, nobody's allowed to say what we're constantly saying" act is old. Jesus, talk about not taking criticism well."

Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at February 28, 2011 04:52 PM (bxiX

What he said.

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 12:10 PM (9b6FB)

397 394:
most people I know who voted for obama were open to the idea that he didn't have comparatively great qualifications as against mccain

You're full o shit. I'll let the smarter folks deal with the details on this one.

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 12:11 PM (Q6tnr)

398 most people I know who voted for obama were open to the idea that he didn't have comparatively great qualifications as against mccain

Affirmative Action

Posted by: toby928 at February 28, 2011 12:15 PM (GTbGH)

399 Yes sifty. i'm full of shit. my experience of being surrounded by fanatical obama supporters (and campaign contributors, too!) is completely irrelevant. Because it er, uh, has to be. Because, uh, it does not conform to my view that Palin is the bestest ever candidate since ever.

*clinks glasses*

another round?



Posted by: Palin's Kool-Aid Machine at February 28, 2011 12:15 PM (GJeQU)

400 I have noticed that a lot of Palin supporters can dish it out when it comes to just about everyone else...Christie, Daniels, Gingrich, Coulter etc but when it comes to Palin, the  anything other than adoration is seen as an attack and that in turn just makes people resent her even more. In other words, the Palinistas are not doing her any favors.

Posted by: Terrye at February 28, 2011 12:15 PM (UYcqZ)

401 @Toby: yeah, and you can still see it today. he's doing a terrible job, and people still support him. surely is NOT because of his 'experience and qualifications'.

Must be something else.

After all, you can't just compare "mr. community organizer noob senator" to "mr war hero congressman"  on the MSM and really expect to see a full treatment of Zero's experience being even remotely superior to McCain's.

yeah, i guess the discussion of him being a law prof was something...

Posted by: Palin's Kool-Aid Machine at February 28, 2011 12:18 PM (GJeQU)

402 NRO: Obama endorses healthcare opt-out?

If he did, I have to wonder what else is in the proposal. Or is he actually attempting triangulation?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 28, 2011 12:19 PM (q8u+l)

403 I think I've been pretty open about my non-worship of any politician, including Sarah Palin. Even in this thread.

My contention is that you are lying and a shit-stirrer for no reason or you are just wrong.

You have yet to come out with the perfect candidate or any Republican you are willing to name that you would vote for.

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 12:21 PM (Q6tnr)

404 >>>So 'escuse me if I find that "objection" (claim?, position?) to be somewhat vapid. I understand it, it just don't mean much. Asinine. It means everything. If someone can fucking fish then they fucking fish. If someone can dunk a basketball they dunk a fucking basketball. What we have is a woman who has not demonstrated she can do any of the things needed to win (like just sit down for a substantive policy interrogation) but we keep being told she *can* do it, she just "doesn't feel like it right now," but of course she'll do it later. Always later, always later. Forgive me for thinking at this point she can't fish and can't dunk a basketball.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 12:23 PM (nj1bB)

405 >>>I do think it's slightly ironic for people to complain bitterly that Palin doesn't face enough criticism (or respond to enough criticism the right way), not for the obvious reason that she's the most-criticized political figure in modern times with Obama as a possible exception I'm not saying she doesn't get enough criticism. She gets too much, actually. I'm saying it's ridiculous to carry around "Friend of Palin" and "Enemy of Palin" lists assigning gold stars and black marks to every allied politician based only on his willingness to prop up a woman who apparently seems to need a lot of propping up, given the cries when she doesn't get it.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 12:25 PM (nj1bB)

406 @ Miss'80'sBaby: could it possibly be anything BUT triangulation?

He's got a view of the public holding their nose to the big healthcare turd he dropped, and now he's trying to build up cred as a bipartisan...crossing-the-aisle type of nonsense. Making such a move will, in his mind, ease the fears and concerns that many have about his magnificent turd.

And so what next? Republicans/Conservatives still force the issue to SCOTUS and in states around the country? Putting them in a position of being labeled as partisan douchebags.

Well, I hope Obama is wrong. He looked like a chump re: unions, but on this...i'm not sure how resistant americans will be to him pulling wool over their eyes.

Posted by: Palin's Kool-Aid Machine at February 28, 2011 12:27 PM (GJeQU)

407 She needs to do some interviews. I agree. The time for being coy and playing media games is over. Put on the pads and get in the game, join the cheerleading squad, or get the hell out of the stadium and join the chess club.

Sarah needs to take the questions and let us know if she's right for the job.


plus:

I have yet to even see her make a single sammich. How will she make us all sammiches?

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 12:29 PM (Q6tnr)

408 410 I'd like to see more about the proposal, especially considering it involves Scott Brown and a Democrat. Is there something we aren't being told here? After all, this is the same Obama who had his Justice Dept have Judge Vinson reaffirm part of the ObamaCare ruling. So I'm cynical enough to think there might be something in the small print. But who really knows with this president.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 28, 2011 12:32 PM (q8u+l)

409 @ Sifty. Ah yes. I'm a 'shit-stirrer' for not going with the flow.


*cough*

Let me retry this thread again.


Palin is an EXCELLENT candidate for President of the United States. She has suffered so much criticism, and beaten the liberal media machine back at every which way. She quit her job to fend of baseless ethical allegations and is more conservative than any other conservative you could mention. She was a mayor AND a governor. She's got her own television show. People *I* know love and adore her as the diva that she is. In fact, I only ask ANYONE who thinks they have a better candidate for the GOP nominate to speak up, so I can immediately disagree with them and reiterate the same points already mentioned in this paragraph. And if you disagree with anything I've said, you're a shit-stirrer.

*sip*



Posted by: Palin's Kool-Aid Machine at February 28, 2011 12:33 PM (GJeQU)

410 Still waiting on the name of the Republican you'd like to vote for.

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 12:36 PM (Q6tnr)

411 Posted by: Terrye at February 28, 2011 05:15 PM (UYcqZ)

It's not just Palinistas. Start criticizing Chris Christie here or at HotAir and I can assure you the knives will come out. Some of those who accuse Palin supporters of being cultists get pretty angry at any criticism of their guy.

My point is that every candidate has supporters who are like that. It might feel more intense with Palinistas because there are a lot of them and their online presence is so huge. And even some people who don't support her for Prez will get pretty vicious in their defense of her if they feel an attack is particularly nasty or unfair.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at February 28, 2011 12:36 PM (IoUF1)

412 I see it now on Drudge. Once again, public triangulation while privately moving ever further left.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 28, 2011 12:37 PM (q8u+l)

413 @Miss80's:

Consider for a moment, the possibility that they'll lose at the highest court.

It would be a total travesty to their cause. Do you think they're willing to risk it on a swing voter like Kennedy? Hell no. Once they can retake a solid control of the supreme court, THEN they'll make their move. Because then the supreme court will be nothing but a rubber stamp to swing that commerce clause door wide open.

The liberals are idiots, but, as far as that goes, they know their strategy. It's long-term.

Posted by: Palin's Kool-Aid Machine at February 28, 2011 12:37 PM (GJeQU)

414 "Palin is one of the purest filters there is as to whether one is truly on the right or just a RINO. You constantly show your true RINO self."

-Posted by: Mike at February 28, 2011 03:07 PM (A4OwG)

Way to prove his point, you big fucking baby.

Posted by: Palinisfuckingannoyingashell at February 28, 2011 12:38 PM (8UlnD)

415 360 Saracuda proved her mettle-lessness when she quit as Governor of Alaska rather than stand and fight the Dems' frivilous "ethics" war against her.  She let them criminalize her politically by driving her from high elective office.  Any claim she ever had to being a "fighter" - and, yes, "maverick" - died with her resignation.  It's that evaporated credibility that will keep her from ever again being taken seriously as a presidential candidate.

Posted by: JASmius at February 28, 2011 04:40 PM (LMHcg)

Well, you tried. That lame accusation is about as well-expressed as humanly possible in your comment, to make it seem like it actually signifies something. This degenerate accusation will come up over and over and over, (sadly, brought about by many PDS-afflicted Republicans), and get crushed, over and over and over.

You try to "stand and fight" when the game is rigged, you have no protection from such an unethical and systemically-corrupt assault, and your family and business are what you have to throw to the sharks, all just to appease PDS-afflicted idiots. That's not standing, that's rolling over and giving up, all to hang onto some stupid piece of political power. At least "power" as the critics, the media, and the PDS-afflicted see it.

Great people in history often have given up much more than she did in that defiant act of resignation. That's power.

Plus, the average voter can relate to overlawyering, and how it screws up everything, and can cause good people to lose everything, far better than they relate to political opportunists.

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 12:42 PM (9b6FB)

416 @ Sifty. Whoever I end up supporting does not mitigate the fact that Palin is categorically unqualified to act as commander in chief.




Posted by: Palin's Kool-Aid Machine at February 28, 2011 12:43 PM (GJeQU)

417 Just tired of the non-stop cannibalism. This place sometimes sounds like DailyKossucker with the Republican-bashing day after day. Doesn't matter who it is. I even get tired of hearing how shitty Masscare Mittens and Awwshucksabee are. And I agree that they suck!

It's my fault. I violate my own rule: Never feel sorry for a politician, a lawyer, or David Carradine.

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 12:44 PM (Q6tnr)

418 @ to add, even IF I were to vote for Palin, that would STILL not make her qualified to act as president of the United States.

Posted by: Palin's Kool-Aid Machine at February 28, 2011 12:44 PM (GJeQU)

419 #420

Then you just stepped full on into the troll category.

I doubt you have ever or will ever support a Republican.

/ignored

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 12:45 PM (Q6tnr)

420 Sifty she has shown ace her making sammiches. On her reality show.

Posted by: polynikes at February 28, 2011 12:47 PM (R9YVs)

421 @ K-Bob


PDS....Palin Derangement Syndrome?

Let's consider it a neutral point. It neither makes her better OR worse in terms of qualifications to be president of the united states.

(btw, if she was president and quit b/c of ethics complaints or lawsuits that were related to her actions before becoming president....that would also be praiseworthy?)

Anyways, it's a neutral point. It's not something that really bolsters her credibility. And there's at least some explanation to suggest it doesn't hurt her either.



Posted by: Palin's Kool-Aid Machine at February 28, 2011 12:50 PM (GJeQU)

422 So Sarah Palin has to show her seriousness for the nomination by having a sit-down interview with David Gregory?  Really?

She was the Republican nominee for the vice presidency of the United States in 2008.  She gave a ton of interviews and speeches all over the country.  That's pretty serious stuff.  I bet she's even been the subject of more death threats than any other private person in the US today.  Just for speaking her mind.  On Face Book.  Twittering.  Giving speeches as part of a national Tea Party tour.  That's pretty serious stuff, too.  She does Q&A, wrote two top-selling books, and spent weeks on brilliantly-successful book tours. 

So what's going on? Well, the GOP seized control of the House of Representatives, with several Palin-endorsed candidates winning their House (and Senate, Gubernatorial, and state AG) seats.  This means that more official voices have been added to the political arguments.  Another issue is that several lower-tier presidential wannabes are anxious for a Palin announcement.  They can't get any traction until she's in or out.  The current sneering campaign, I think, is a pressure tactic with the purpose of forcing a decision now.




Posted by: mrp at February 28, 2011 12:50 PM (HjPtV)

423 "I realize this post has a sneering tone. I'm at that point. I'm sneering." At that point? Dude. You live in Sneeringville. And, hiding behind Ann Coulter's skirt: grow a penis, man (?). And, then you go on to cry that you've been maligned cuz you're not on Team Palin. Nice straw man, there. The reason you get maligned is because you're the wannabe captain of Team (please invite me to you're DC party) RINO. Fuck you, and Ewok rape victim that spawned you. And, think: I once considered wrapping you in a snuggly blanket and spoon-feeding you my Love Pudding.

Posted by: Beefy Meatball at February 28, 2011 12:55 PM (bZ8J6)

424 Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 05:25 PM (nj1bB)

I think that's entirely fair. 

I just get annoyed with the whole "she shouldn't run" shtick. If she's that fucking bad she'll get destroyed in the primary debates, won't she? If she's such an ignorant unqualified dumbfuck, the other candidates should have no problem beating her. And if they can't beat her, whom we are are constantly told by our betters is the stupidest, most unqualified ignorant bitch to ever walk the earth, how the hell are they going to beat Obozo?

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at February 28, 2011 12:55 PM (IoUF1)

425

Been on comment-reading hiatus for some time and I'm trying to catch up.  If I follow this thread:

a)   Ann Coulter is now a RINO and "comedy writer" who is "jealous" of Palin because she's the hawtness while Coulter's now an old hag;

b)  Ace is still a RINO because he questions Palin's hawtness and/or qualifications and/or tactical/strategic political decisions since 2008

c)  Ace is acting as a useful idiot for the Church of Sarah by posting these threads

d)  Christie, Haley and any number of others are RINOs like Ace for the same reasons

e)  Ancient historians studying the era in which I last commented will conclude I'm a RINO as well for the same reasons.

I'm never a fan of sweeping topics under the rug and wouldn't ask for "no moar Sarah threads."  It's good to know where everyone stands even if some egos including my own get bruised - words ain't gonna hurt me.  We have a good six months plus to get a better idea of what the '12 slate is going to look like - can we try to refrain from this kind of emotion-fueled bloodletting at least until we know she's running or not ?

No one person is so important to a political cause that they trump every other thinker o or leader - it's why I gave up being an Ayn Randroid back in the day, and a big reason why I viscerally distrust the Cult of Sarah - like Rand, they equate policy disagreements with moral failings or even outright evil intent - and I'm already in their choir politically.  How will the less-right-wing-than-I crowd respond when Palinistas start doing this to them ?  Palin's made some efforts at reining in her overly-ardent supporters but I still cringe at what I see in the future on that score.  

Posted by: societyis2blame at February 28, 2011 12:55 PM (TXYGl)

426 K- Bob what you state may be valid but it's still a disqualifier to pursue an even higher office that has even more of the pitfalls you mentioned.

Posted by: polynikes at February 28, 2011 12:55 PM (R9YVs)

427
I'll never forget that ridiculous clip of Christie endorsing Mike Castle. He looked like a buffoon- and he picked wrong. At a time when Tea Party small gorvernment conservatism was on the rise, and Castle was sliding fast in the polls, Christie had the brilliant idea of endorsing the obvious loser. The man has horrible political instincts, so he's no-one to go giving advice.

What's offensive about Christie's remarks on Palin is the venues he's chosen for making them. You don't go on MFM outlets in front of rabidly liberal hosts and dump on other Republicans- especially ones that are popular among the conservative base and have been the target of unprecedented campaigns of personal destruction, as has Palin. It's just stupid, and it illustrates character. And he was not giving advice- if he wanted to do that, he could send an email. This was an attack.

Everything I need to know about Christie I learned from his despicable response to the Ground Zero Mosque issue. He dumped on the good people who took time out of their lives to halt that abomination and for that I will never forgive him. If the only revenge I would ever get would be to with-hold my vote should he run for president, then so be it.
 
As far as I'm concerned, he eats with the fishes.

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 12:56 PM (+fNcw)

428 @ Sifty. I voted W. twice, and Dole, too.

I've never voted for a Democrat. And, pretty much never plan to vote for one ever.

But I have no reason to qualify myself. The fact is, whether I'm a Republican (Rino, Palinista, or Other Conservative) a Libertarian or a Democrat, my point stands as it is.

Oh wait...you're telling me it....would?

I guess for you, it matters WHO is saying it. Which is why you're so intent on coloring me as some liberal douche. Because that's about all you've got left.




Posted by: Palin's Kool-Aid Machine at February 28, 2011 12:59 PM (GJeQU)

429 For someone that is soooooo tired of all Palin, all the time, I wonder why even post about Palin? If I owned a blog, and complained daily about how I'm tired of everyone talking about x, I sure as hell wouldn't write about x for the 20th time to let everyone know I'm so tired of x.  

Posted by: Schwalbe : The at February 28, 2011 01:01 PM (UU0OF)

430 Either she can fish...

So, are you gonna continue to ignore the stuff she does (family business, accomplishments in office, hobbies, etc), as well as the counter-points made about her actual unscripted interviews (there were links)?  I don't get that.  It's like you've been told she makes chrome-plated arrowheads, and you've seen pictures of them, and her making them, and are still saying, "but can she make chrome-plated arrowheads?"

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 01:06 PM (9b6FB)

431 @ societyis2blame: excellent comparison. Never really thought about it like that, but I think you're right on the money.

@sartana: he picked wrong..by not picking the person who literally was going to never win against the dem choice? Having been a resident of Delaware and meeting O'Donnell on one occasion, I'm pretty sure Alan Keyes would have garnered more votes.

Now that I think about it, if it ends up being obama vs. palin, the same result would probably play out. I've got way more respect for Palin than O'Donnell. Take from that what you will.

Posted by: Palin's Kool-Aid Machine at February 28, 2011 01:08 PM (GJeQU)

432
Anyone who thinks Palin is weak in unscripted moments should check out her performance during the televised debates for the Alaska governor's race. She went up against two very polished candidates in several lengthy sit-down debates and she didn't merely hold her own- she trounced them. I watched one entire hour and a half long debate and bits of a couple others. She's very impressive, and she's already achieved enough in life as well as keeping herself in the absolute forefront of the opposition to this regime that she doesn't need this kind of patronizing "advice" from various assorted ankle-biters.

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 01:10 PM (+fNcw)

433 OK, I'm going to drink enough coffee to wake up from my Palin Lust Syndrome. I always thought she had the charisma and solid conservative credentials to be attractive to most Republicans except those in the GOP that have succumbed to Beltway Delusion Disorder ("BIG, BIG GOVERNMENT JUST SLOWER").
Listening to her talk, I also felt she had enough of teh Smarts to run an effective campaign (something McCain never, ever had).


But maybe I've allowed my desperation to influence my thinking. I'll refrain from defending Palin so much. All I care about at this point is that someone, anyone, who can get elected and won't secretly change their "R-" to "D-" after winning -- RUN.


If that's Romney -- and, God, I fear he is another milquetoast who will bore the nation to sleep to the point they'll forget to vote -- I'll go with Romney.


But can't we do any better than that?


Uh, I haven't been following the news for a few days ...when did Ann Coulter sell out to the RINO caucus?  Surely you jest but tell me it ain't so.

Posted by: Full Moon at February 28, 2011 01:10 PM (DtbEv)

434

Posted by: polynikes at February 28, 2011 05:55 PM (R9YVs)

Are you telling me that I can file thousands of baseless ethics complaints against the President at no cost to myself and that he will be forced to pay the legal fees out of his own pocket and forbidden from starting a legal defense fund, and that the business of the United States will grind to a halt because of it? Seriously?

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at February 28, 2011 01:10 PM (IoUF1)

435 >>>Anyone who thinks Palin is weak in unscripted moments should check out her performance during the televised debates for the Alaska governor's race. Okay, so the Sunday shows usually have a moderated debate between a designated lefty and a right-leaning person. That's their standard format. Why doesn't she do one of those on a topic she's big on?

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 01:13 PM (nj1bB)

436 I challenge anyone to watch this completely and not cringe at least 20 times. How in fucks sake is this woman qualified to run for President? Or is this some new sportly trend where we let borderline retarded people learn on the job - see current President as example.

Answer me.

http://tinyurl.com/3tzuav

Posted by: Squirrelio at February 28, 2011 01:13 PM (8UlnD)

437 >>>I just get annoyed with the whole "she shouldn't run" shtick. If she's that fucking bad she'll get destroyed in the primary debates, won't she? If she's such an ignorant unqualified dumbfuck, the other candidates should have no problem beating her. And if they can't beat her, whom we are are constantly told by our betters is the stupidest, most unqualified ignorant bitch to ever walk the earth, how the hell are they going to beat Obozo? But I don't think she'd lose a primary. Like Christine O'Donnell, She'd win a primary and get destroyed in an election.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 01:15 PM (nj1bB)

438 430 K- Bob what you state may be valid but it's still a disqualifier to pursue an even higher office that has even more of the pitfalls you mentioned.

Posted by: polynikes at February 28, 2011 05:55 PM (R9YVs)

You can't frivolously sue the POTUS. Nor most other Governors. And most of the ones you can sue, you can't force them to pay for their own lawyers. In fact, I doubt any other state has that loophole. So I can't see that as a disqualifier in any way.

It isn't about the sturdiness to take the heat. For some reason those who bring that accusation are perfectly happy to ignore the obvious fact that she's had to stand up to more heat than any American politician in history. Not even Obama gets that much heat. Most people leave his kids out of it. Most leave his family in general out of it. The only thing he faces that's even comparable to the daily deluge Palin faces is the somewhat pathetic "birther" stuff he has to ignore.

(The overseas effigy-burning just comes with the office, and no American gives a shzt about that, when it comes to who they vote for)

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 01:15 PM (9b6FB)

439 o-d-b, I don't know -- how do you deal with all of the polls (all of them) that show Palin faring the very worst out of all major candidates (sometimes btter than Ron Paul, sometimes worse)? Are you just telling yourself the numbers are cooked and it's a grand conspiracy to make her appear unviable? or what? Is there any evidence in your possession that she would do well in a general election? I find this argument pretty frustrating because I point out evidence, data and am sort of told by Palin fans to "have faith." Have faith? Are you kidding? Faith in a person? To do that which she has until now shown no skill in doing?

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 01:17 PM (nj1bB)

440

I think Palin has found her fulcrum: SarahPAC. If she gets another twenty seats in the next election then she is certainly a tremendous force for good who really really gets the issues. I am beginning to think she might be wasted if she were president.

But if she runs I am voting for her enthusiastically.

Posted by: Steve In Tulsa at February 28, 2011 01:18 PM (f7ylG)

441  
Yeah, he picked wrong. He was making an endorsement for the GOP primary at a time when Castle was going downhill- at time when the Tea Party was ascendant he chose to endorse the most liberal Rino in congress and alienated himself from the activist conservative base in process. Big time fail. He continues to display his bad judgement by going to left-wing venues and attacking a very popular Conservative. He's a fucking backstabber. He went on Morning Joe and attacked the opposition to the GZ Mosque. He should be on everyone's shit list for that.


Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 01:19 PM (+fNcw)

442 @ Squirrellio: that just proves she can face the heat bro. She can go face to face with the liberal MSM and show them she isn't gonna back down. You thought it would make her look bad but in truth, it only bolsters her credibility. Obv!


Posted by: Palin's Kool-Aid Machine at February 28, 2011 01:21 PM (GJeQU)

443 >>>Yeah, he picked wrong. He was making an endorsement for the GOP primary at a time when Castle was going downhill- at time when the Tea Party was ascendant he chose to endorse the most liberal Rino in congress and alienated himself from the activist conservative base in process. Big time fail. It was his belief Christine O'Donnell could not win. Was he wrong? You seem to believe that doing the conservatively-correct thing is the same as the "right" thing. I know that was a moment when the Tea Party Express decided it needed some more fund-raising skim opportunities and decided to support the gadfly, unserious, unqualified O'Donnell; was Christie wrong for deciding she'd be trounced? nope! He was right. Some people seem to think we gain an awful lot by losing. That's fine, but the same people seem to be all-in on Sarah Palin, making me wonder if they have the same let's-get-decimated-to-prove-a-point gameplan in effect again.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 01:24 PM (nj1bB)

444 The sad thing is that most of what is claimed about her "unscripted" interviews comes from two fzck-ups by the McCain handlers in letting her get set-up so badly. Two ancient (in political history) interviews.

It wouldn't seem so stupid if the "I don't think she can win" folks would at least watch something a little newer. Say from 2010, at least. I don't think the PDS folks are going to get much traction over "The Couric Interview" four years later. That's going to play about as well as telling everyone that Obama is friends with Bill Ayers!!!

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 01:27 PM (9b6FB)

445  
Why doesn't she do one of those on a topic she's big on? - Ace

Obviously you haven't seen her debate performances. If she's not appearing on these Lefty Sunday shows, it's definitely not because she's nervous about how she'd perform. Your mistake, Ace, is in underestimating her to the point where you think she needs your advice when there is ample evidence of her talents. Of course, you were the one who pronounced her "dead in the water!" when she stepped down from the Alaska governorship.

How'd that prediction pan out?

Anyway, the question is not why Palin is not doing those shows, but rather why any Republican is.

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 01:28 PM (+fNcw)

446 I'm saying it's ridiculous to carry around "Friend of Palin" and "Enemy of Palin" lists assigning gold stars and black marks to every allied politician based only on his willingness to prop up a woman who apparently seems to need a lot of propping up, given the cries when she doesn't get it.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 05:25 PM (nj1bB)

It's not Palin who needs the propping up.  It's her supporters (like me) who want validation that we're right to support her.

But that's not so different from you, ace, screaming bloody murder that $61 billion in spending cuts is a total RINO sellout -- as opposed to, say, a decent start.  You are defining politicians not getting what you want as personal betrayal, which is kind of silly.

EVERYONE wants to feel that they're right.  You can point to the same fierce loyalty among the supporters of almost any potential GOP candidate.  Mitch Daniels supporters are very fierce;  Romney supporters are very fierce;  people who want to draft Mike Pence or Chris Christie are very fierce;  and the less said about Paulbots, the better.

So if you want to criticize Palin, criticize what she says and does (which, by the way, entails actually looking at what she says and does, rather than assuming you know or taking second-hand accounts as gospel) and don't blame her for the enthusiasm of her supporters.

Posted by: stuiec at February 28, 2011 01:32 PM (Di3Im)

447 Ace, I'd say that running McCain in 2008 WAS a let's-get-decimated game plan. It was totally out of touch with the mood of the center-right at that time, let alone those further to the right.

Anything that smacks of the same concept in a candidate for 2012 will be double plus ungood decimation. You'd be lucky to get Chris Christie's vote.

It's after five. Let's get decimated!

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 01:32 PM (9b6FB)

448 ohhhhh... I see sartana, she could wipe the floor with her leftist opponent and therefore advance both the cause and her own political amibtions but she chooses not to, out of principle. This is the answer I keep getting. It's like when I was in eighth grade and claimed I could dunk a basketball, and other people said, "yeah? prove it!," and I said, "shyah right, I could prove it but I don't feel like it right now." So that's the answer: Palin could do all these wonderful things but she doesn't feel like it right now.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 01:32 PM (nj1bB)

449 Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 06:17 PM (nj1bB)

I never tried to argue that her poll numbers are great. I just don't think they're as bad as everybody lets on. What I don't like is the way people like Allahpundit cherrypick the shit out of them. PPP (whom I dismiss out of hand as Kos propaganda) had a poll last summer showing her tied with Obozo at 47%. No mention of that one from AP, but any poll they release showing her getting blown out is automatically a "Top Pick" at H/A. Survey USA had one a month or two ago with her trailing by 4%. Around the same time Pew had her within 6% (Those are by no means insurmountable margins, especially in the absence of a campaign). Both had Obozo drawing under 50%. Again, no mention of either one by AP, but he'll write 9 paragraphs about some laughable CBS/WaPo or CNN poll showing her losing by 20%. I'm using AP as an example because he ALWAYS does this.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at February 28, 2011 01:33 PM (IoUF1)

450 >>>EVERYONE wants to feel that they're right. You can point to the same fierce loyalty among the supporters of almost any potential GOP candidate. Mitch Daniels supporters are very fierce; Romney supporters are very fierce; people who want to draft Mike Pence or Chris Christie are very fierce; and the less said about Paulbots, the better. I don't agree at all. This is not common to everyone's partisans. This is only a Palin thing right now-- not even Ron Paul's (RON PAUL!!) supporters are doing this at the moment. Either the woman can stand on her own two feet or not. This crap that people who are obviously her potential opponents must ALSO praise her is just crazy.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 01:34 PM (nj1bB)

451  


Ace, he was making an endorsement for the GOP primary. It should have been obvious to any idiot that Castle was going down. If he didn't want to endorse O'Donnell because he feared she would lose, then he could have with-held endorsement entirely.  He lost twice over by endorsing a loser and pissing off a very fired-up base in the process. Very, very bad political instincts.

But then again, what would you expect from a Morning Joe Republican?



Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 01:37 PM (+fNcw)

452 >>>eople like Allahpundit cherrypick the shit out of them. PPP (whom I dismiss out of hand as Kos propaganda) had a poll last summer showing her tied with Obozo at 47%. No mention of that one from AP, but any poll they release showing her getting blown out is automatically a "Top Pick" at H/A. Survey USA had one a month or two ago with her trailing by 4%. Around the same time Pew had her within 6% (Those are by no means insurmountable margins, especially in the absence of a campaign). Both had Obozo drawing under 50%. Again, no mention of either one by AP, but he'll write 9 paragraphs about some laughable CBS/WaPo or CNN poll showing her losing by 20%. I'm using AP as an example because he ALWAYS does this. Polls have that margin of error rating with a 95% confience interval which means that 1 in 20 will simply be completely wrong. Plus a fair number will be right but due to the MoE being deceptive. You are talking about outliers. I haven't seen these polls, so I grant that they've been unpublicized enough that I've missed them. But you are doing some cherry-picking here to seize upon a very few number of polls and ignore the rest. Especially when polling has that 1 in 20 polls are COMPLETELY wrong limitation. You seem to be going for those 1 in 20. Something like two thirds of *Republicans* have doubts about Palin's qualifications. Is this going to be addressed at any point? Or are we supposed to take it on faith she's up to the job?

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 01:37 PM (nj1bB)

453 @ sartana: she would be dead in the water but for the hot air being blown into her hopeful, magical sails.

I hope more republicans take the opportunity to get on the MSM and speak to the public. And hopefully, they take some cues from Rumsfeld and Niall Ferguson: both have shown how memorable it is to show up and stand one's ground. Like we really need bill kristol to be the 'conservative voice' on a panel anymore.

Posted by: Palin's Kool-Aid Machine at February 28, 2011 01:38 PM (GJeQU)

454 >>>Ace, he was making an endorsement for the GOP primary. It should have been obvious to any idiot that Castle was going down. You know what was more obvious? That the idiot Bill Maher guest who hadn't held a real job all of her adult life and seemed to be in politics for the same reason Puck was on The Real World was going down.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 01:39 PM (nj1bB)

455 I think Palin supporters latched on to Christine O'Donnell as a proxy/dry-run. I think they were very invested in COD to prove the establishment wrong. Well, we weren't proven wrong, at all. I told you it was going to be a bloodbath. I do think COD wound up serving as a dry run for Palin but of course now that's being ignored as not analogous.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 01:41 PM (nj1bB)

456 Something like two thirds of *Republicans* have doubts about Palin's qualifications.

Is this going to be addressed at any point? Or are we supposed to take it on faith she's up to the job?

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 06:37 PM (nj1bB)

Two thirds? I may as well caucus with Democrats, then. I don't see anyone with a list of qualifications--who is also "in the running"--that is any better than her list.

And I supported Romney last time.

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 01:43 PM (9b6FB)

457 Yeah, well, it wasn't the Tea Party Express that dumped Castle for O'Donnell - it was the GOP primary voters of Delaware.

Posted by: mrp at February 28, 2011 01:44 PM (HjPtV)

458  
She's smarter than you,  Ace. She's better looking than you, and lots of people really like her.

You're saying the only way she can get her message out is by appearing before David Baboon-face Gregory?

Fact is, two years ago,  hardly anyone could have predicted the position of prominence she currently holds, and as I pointed out- you predicted the precise opposite.  She doesn't need advice from you or Ziggler or anyone else. You are making a huge mistake by underestimating her.

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 01:45 PM (+fNcw)

459 @Sartana


if only TRUE conservatives gave unquestionable support to O'Donnell, then i do not want to be a part of it. really...they had to pick O'Donnell? Did all of the Tea Party groups support her? oh yeah? because I know there were people who didn't support her...and were a part of the tea party too! believe it!

what terrible judgment we all must have if we end up with dupes like O'Donnell.

Posted by: Palin's Kool-Aid Machine at February 28, 2011 01:46 PM (GJeQU)

460 >>>She's smarter than you, Ace. She's better looking than you, and lots of people really like her. No she's not, dude, but I do enjoy how personal you guys get about it. Proving to me that this is emotion-based and irrational. You know, politics is not a reality tv show where you root for your favorites. Nor is it about cultural validation, where you support someone to stick it to "the elite" or whatever.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 01:47 PM (nj1bB)

461 And yeah, I just got personal.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 01:47 PM (nj1bB)

462 Ace,

Thanks, BTW for hanging with us in the dirty, dirty comment playground. I think we're out of water, too. And could you order some new pine shavings for us to chew on?

Seriously, you can go crazy responding to reader mail, so don't worry about us. We can argue amongst ourselves.

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 01:48 PM (9b6FB)

463 >>>You're saying the only way she can get her message out is by appearing before David Baboon-face Gregory? I'm saying she's afraid of them, yes, because if she could beat them (or even draw to a tie) she would rush to do it. So yeah, hiding proves to me she knows she can't beat them. She knows they will beat her and cause her further embarrassment. I am not supporting anyone who's afraid of Katie Fucking Couric. (And don't tell me about deceptive editing -- she could do a live interview, or set ground rules that the interview must be transmitted in full or not at all.)

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 01:49 PM (nj1bB)

464  
It should also be noted that while Christie attacked Palin, during the same interview he went on to praise Michelle Obama.  Christie needs to focus on New Jersey and stop all these glamour-girl appearances on national TV shows.

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 01:51 PM (+fNcw)

465 "Christie needs to focus on New Jersey and stop all these glamour-girl appearances on national TV shows."

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 06:51 PM (+fNcw)

Now those were some real unscripted moments, and I'd do it again, a$$holes!

Posted by: Chris "Unscripted" Christie at February 28, 2011 01:54 PM (9b6FB)

466 if only TRUE conservatives gave unquestionable support to O'Donnell, then i do not want to be a part of it. really...they had to pick O'Donnell? Did all of the Tea Party groups support her? oh yeah? because I know there were people who didn't support her...and were a part of the tea party too! believe it!

This isn't a Republican vs. Democrat thing - it's a Ruling Class ("political class" or "Government Party") vs.  The Country Class.

If the primary fight in Delaware means anything, it means that the dominant conservative wing will not vote for a Ruling Class candidate, even if it means tossing out a  multi-term, big-government squish in favor of someone who has never held office.  Our country is broke.

Posted by: mrp at February 28, 2011 01:54 PM (HjPtV)

467

She didn't look presidential when she went camping with Kate Gosslin.  If now is the time when she is supposed to be establishing her bona fides, then she ain't cutting it in my book.  Look, I love the positions she takes on Facebook, but I post political genius on Facebook all the time and that don't make me Predidentin material. 

 

 

Posted by: California Red at February 28, 2011 01:55 PM (7uWb8)

468 One thing is not debatable:

Palin either has to shit or get off the pot this year and this election. I won't tolerate her turning into our Jesse Jackson / Ralph Nader perennial candidate and I don't think many others will either.

Put up or shut up this year. We don't have time to pussy-foot around with any of these Dem clowns.

State your platform, take your lumps, and sell the country on yourself. If you can't grab a bullhorn and join the cheer squad for someone else.

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 01:58 PM (Q6tnr)

469 "It wouldn't seem so stupid if the "I don't think she can win" folks would at least watch something a little newer. Say from 2010, at least. I don't think the PDS folks are going to get much traction over "The Couric Interview" four years later. That's going to play about as well as telling everyone that Obama is friends with Bill Ayers!!!

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 06:27 PM (9b6FB)"

You don't think interview after interview after interview isn't going to hold much traction because they were a few years old? Man, wake the fuck up. The woman was running for Vice President of the United States during those interviews.

Those weren't 25 year old, bong induced rants. Those were a VP candidates views. But now, after literally being pres-chooled into world politics, we're supposed to have faith in her?

Get real.

Why is it that we demand perfection from every job in the world except politics? Surgeons, engineers, airline pilots, special forces operators...we all demand that only the top percent be able to work in their field.

And yet, when presented with arguably the most difficult, important, straining job on planet earth, we're supposed to be cool with a candidate because they've 'learned' a lot the last couple years, hunt moose, and reference themselves as a god damned grizzly bear.

Posted by: Squirrelio at February 28, 2011 01:59 PM (8UlnD)

470

Please Ace, do not embarrass us on your account speaking for the actual import Ms. Coulter might intend.  She has twice your estimable I.Q.

Her Christie throwaway "Fat, White Hope" simply dodged actually showing interest in anyone in particular.  You of all people understand that dissemble.

Palin is running, as she has from the start.  Yeah, she could pull a Mario(Cuomo) and pull out at the last minute.

The bottom line is if you can't find a warm body as conservative as Palin, both fiscally and socially,  you lose.

Pence, Thune, gone.  Daniels,  puppy juice.  Ryan and Christie rockstars by their inaccessibility.  Time's a wastin'.

Posted by: gary gulrud at February 28, 2011 02:00 PM (/g2vP)

471 Chris Chirstie wouldn dare to support Arizona over immigration, Palin did.

Chris Christie wouldnt dare to speak out against the victory mosque , Palin did.

Who got the real spine here.

Posted by: Temper Tantrum at February 28, 2011 02:01 PM (bAL0J)

472  
 Ace, you really need to look up the clips from the Alaska governor's race. If you'd seen them, you would not be saying this. And it's just ridiculous for you to assert that she "fears" certain venues. The woman is absolutely fearless - she's always the first to put forth her opinion on any given issue when others are still putting their fingers to the wind. She has big fucking guns and when she shoots she always hits the mark. You don't go from nowhere Idaho to where she is at by being stupid or insecure.Whether on not she can win the presidency is a different question altogether. But she's definitely not a lightweight who is in need of coddling.

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 02:01 PM (+fNcw)

473 Sarah Palin will be traveling to India in March, where she will give a speech tentatively titled "My Vision Of America"  LINK (The New York Sun)

excerpt from the linked article:

Sarah Palin’s choice of an international venue to deliver an address on “My Vision of America” is canny. She will speak in March before India’s business, political, diplomatic, academic and media elite at the annual India Today Conclave. The gathering arguably possesses the biggest private-sector megaphone in the world’s largest democracy. And while the delegates may not be a microcosm of the country’s 1.2 billion mostly poor people, they certainly make decisions that matter.

Posted by: mrp at February 28, 2011 02:05 PM (HjPtV)

474 The NY Sun Palin article LINK

Posted by: mrp at February 28, 2011 02:06 PM (HjPtV)

475 "So yeah, hiding proves to me she knows she can't beat them. She knows they will beat her and cause her further embarrassment.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 06:49 PM (nj1bB)"

Yeah, sure, as if they aren't trying to embarrass her every other day, pure genius Ace!

Posted by: Africanus at February 28, 2011 02:07 PM (EDjAd)

476 >>>Ace, you really need to look up the clips from the Alaska governor's race. If you'd seen them, you would not be saying this. I have seen her recently and it caused me to have grave doubts about her. I gave her a pass that she was just learning the ropes having suddenly been drafted to run for federal office after serving in a position where she didn't need to think about federal policy. But she's been "national" for two years now and she is unwilling or unable to debate anyone on TV or radio or... anywhere. >>> And it's just ridiculous for you to assert that she "fears" certain venues. I know she can't/won't go on them. >>>The woman is absolutely fearless - Except about that one thing. >>>she's always the first to put forth her opinion on any given issue when others are still putting their fingers to the wind. On facebook or friendly spots on Hannity where no one will challenge her. That's not real life. That's living in a friendly, padded little soft-shell bubble with training wheels attached. But this is the woman "tested by fire???" Okay.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 02:10 PM (nj1bB)

477 "I won't tolerate her turning into our Jesse Jackson / Ralph Nader perennial candidate and I don't think many others will either."

Good point. Screw waiting for 2016, that's a geologicial age in political-time. Anyone out there over the age of forty who has the guts to be President had better have the guts now.

That's why I think Allen West isn't going to rule out being called to be VP. He's proven that he will answer the call to serve, and doesn't give a rat's a$$ who thinks it looks bad (to seem "eager").

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 02:10 PM (9b6FB)

478 >>>Chris Chirstie wouldn dare to support Arizona over immigration, Palin did. Chris Christie wouldnt dare to speak out against the victory mosque , Palin did. Who got the real spine here. Christie is actually serving in office whereas Palin's job, by choice, is to be a partisan commenter for Fox and write books for a partisan audience.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 02:11 PM (nj1bB)

479 Chris Christie was licking all over Obama for his Tuscon speech.

But were criticizing Palin for what she said when she defended herself and the tea party.

He's an ugly fuck , on the inside.

Posted by: Temper Tantrum at February 28, 2011 02:11 PM (bAL0J)

480

"You don't think interview after interview after interview isn't going to hold much traction because they were a few years old? Man, wake the fuck up. The woman was running for Vice President of the United States during those interviews.

Those weren't 25 year old, bong induced rants. Those were a VP candidates views. But now, after literally being pres-chooled into world politics, we're supposed to have faith in her?

Get real."

You had one-too-many "interviews" there, Mr. Wake The Fuck Up.

"Faith," my ass; don't bother to pay attention to something other than two stupid interviews by two journalists who have lost the public's respect. You can sell that as hard as you want, and claim we're all just asleep, or bring up bongs or helium, or whatever projections you want. It only works on Obama fans and the kind of folks who want another McCain. They will buy it.

Go watch the actual unscripted stuff that's been mentioned several times in this thread. If you think old work by two disrespected journalists will stand against the body of work she'd done over the last few years then that's your problem, not hers.

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 02:21 PM (9b6FB)

481

Ace warns us not degrade Gov. Haley for the very same shortcoming he presses the goad against Palin.

"Aren't you beholden?"  Just ignore the bait, it's a sucker punch, and proceed.  "I want every candidate to come to SC".

The unforced error reminds one of O'Donnell or Miller.  Of course she owes Palin one.  No pol will miss her screwup.

Transparently false, Ace.

Posted by: gary gulrud at February 28, 2011 02:24 PM (/g2vP)

482 Why not let Palin run the way she want to, or if she want to. Why not nag on the other turds.No one is forced to vote for palin if she decides to run.

Posted by: Temper Tantrum at February 28, 2011 02:24 PM (bAL0J)

483
YouTube is your friend , Ace. She's not appearing on BaboonFace the Nation because she doesn't need to. Why would Fedor wrestle a midget? Palin is where she is because she's shrewd and driven and she has a plan and she's  doing it.

If  Christie stepped down from the Governorship and attempted  to stay relevant through other channels would he be nearly as success-full as Palin.  I think not.  The fact that Palin still has such prominence despite the fact that she holds no public office is evidence enough of her instinct and intelligence.

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 02:25 PM (+fNcw)

484 Christie is actually serving in office whereas Palin's job, by choice, is to be a partisan commenter for Fox and write books for a partisan audience.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 07:11 PM (nj1bB)

I recall that for a couple of decades or thereabouts, Ronald Reagan chose to be a partisan commenter for General Electric and wrote speeches and radio commentary for a partisan audience.  Is it a bad thing?

(As for "by choice," that guy in 127 Hours chose to cut off his own arm.  Nobody forced him to -- he could have toughed it out and died in the canyon, doing the job he originally set out to do.  But, hey, quitter, you know?)

Posted by: stuiec at February 28, 2011 02:29 PM (Di3Im)

485 Ace wrote this to get the numbers up!

Posted by: davod at February 28, 2011 02:32 PM (GUZAT)

486 This is getting silly. Look, it's not like the freaking birth certificate, OK?

Palin's supporters: Here's her credentials. Please read them.
Palin's detractors: Where's her credentials?

Palin's supporters: See, she has done very well in debates and unscripted interviews. Go see the video.
Palin's detractors: She needs to learn how to handle real debates and unscripted interviews.

Palin's supporters: She's a rock-ribbed Conservative. Look at her history.
Palin's detractors: She no "real" Conservative.

Palin's supporters: She's won elective office several times.
Palin's detractors: She can't win.


At least with the birth certificate, the man refuses to cough one up, so there's a thin glimmer of a shred of argument. But that's unseemly and lame, so we won't go there.

But seriously, let's keep on ignoring every bit of evidence supplied, and just go with the meme that no evidence was supplied.  Yeah, that's how Conservatives roll.

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 02:37 PM (9b6FB)

487 >>>YouTube is your friend , Ace. She's not appearing on BaboonFace the Nation because she doesn't need to. Of course she doesn't; it makes perfect sense for someone who plans to run nationally to ghettoize herself by only speaking to friendly very-conservative very-partisan sub-sections of the country. It's good to know that Palin could be on the Sunday shows winning the national conversation for us but chooses not to. Oh wait, she is winning the national conversation by writing facebook entries which tend to be read mostly by her 2.7 million facebook followers. I know you guys think in your minds that "Palin is really setting the agenda." She's not. She has self-ghettoized She is narrowcasting to her core supporters and almost no one else. People ask me "when will you cover palin's statements?" How about when she starts making them to the nation at large instead of to her small facebook following? What is the point of Palin basically just talking to her book purchasing audience?

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 02:38 PM (nj1bB)

488 Palin's detractors: if she can win, why the fuck is she losing? That's the real question, K-Bob. Palin is losing, and losing badly, and you guys keep telling me she could win whenever she chooses to. She just wants to lose right now. I guess for tactical reasons.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 02:39 PM (nj1bB)

489 I don't know 'bout them Palin smarts and all.  It's not like Chris Christie, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, or Mitch Daniels took on  crooked incumbent GOP governors, whipped them in the Republican primaries, and then went on to win the gubernatorial generals.  Nope, nope, she's a dummy for sure. 

BTW, she resigned from the state office she held before she ran against Frank M.

Posted by: mrp at February 28, 2011 02:41 PM (HjPtV)

490 She could not handle Karie Couric or Charlie Gibson.She needs Sean Hannity or Greta Van Sustern to toss her batting practice pitches.

Posted by: Jimmy Page at February 28, 2011 02:43 PM (ychgM)

491 stuiec is right. He should have toughed it out. It's likely a critter would come by and gnaw off the dead arm just in time to save him, so he should have just been cool with that.  And he'd have proven his character.

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 02:44 PM (9b6FB)

492 >>>I recall that for a couple of decades or thereabouts, Ronald Reagan chose to be a partisan commenter for General Electric and wrote speeches and radio commentary for a partisan audience. Is it a bad thing? You act as if they have the same job requirements. Wake up, bub-- Christie is currently responsible for running a state whereas Palin is not responsible for anything except pleasing a smallish base of book-buyers and well-wishers. Palin is doing her job right when she says every conservative-pleasing meme in the book. That's not Christie's job right now; he has specific things he has to do to effect tangible results. Ditto for people currently serving in office. Yes, Rush Limbaugh gets to play a more conservative guy then they do but that's because he's not responsible for anything except pleasing his audience. You act like this is the same thing as governing a state. Maybe in your head you think it is.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 02:48 PM (nj1bB)

493 I don't agree at all. This is not common to everyone's partisans. This is only a Palin thing right now-- not even Ron Paul's (RON PAUL!!) supporters are doing this at the moment.

Either the woman can stand on her own two feet or not. This crap that people who are obviously her potential opponents must ALSO praise her is just crazy.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 06:34 PM (nj1bB)

Ace, I've seen you get all Mama Grizzly about Mike Pence.  (Who, by the way, hasn't made the decision whether to run for President, Governor or Senator... or just for re-election to the House.  Does that make him some kind of manipulator or coward, or is he just making his own decision in his own time?)

And I have seen plenty of Romney and Daniels supporters going all strident in insisting that their guy is the only one who can win in 2012 and responding to any criticism of their guy's policy decisions with "H8RZ!"

Not to mention the cult-like following behind Christie: "Help us, Obi-Wan Christie!  You're our only hope!"

The sensitivity of Palin supporters stems from the insistence on the part of so many folks that Palin should not be permitted to compete (and you can look up those articles yourself, like the one at ConservativeHomeUS) because the Powers that Be have foreordained her unelectability.

Posted by: stuiec at February 28, 2011 02:50 PM (Di3Im)

494
As to the debates I mentioned- no, Palin did not whip out her Shazaam cape and zap her  two opponents reducing them to steaming piles of goo.

She went up against two very slick, very polished liberal Democrats and a very liberal moderator who framed every question as an accusation and was constantly going on the offense against her with the rigorous follow-ups in the typical Sunday show fashion. She had three opponents, and even on issues she was weak on, she still held her own and  showed a talent for deflecting a question without appearing either clueless or evasive. I've seen  plenty of very intelligent people with strong public speaking abilities who still lack that basic talent.

On issues that were important to her, she was excellent. She showed the talent for taking big issues and reducing them down to the essentials and was effective in making the case for her stance with very clear simple language that serves to actually persuade the audience to your side rather than simply win the debate on points.

There were times in the debate I watched where both oppenents and the moderator ganged up on her - gay marriage and abortion if I remember correctly. She didn't obfuscate or attempt to soften her views to make them palatable, but reiterated her stance strongly in a way that made her opponents seem small and actually perverse. When the topics moved toward the business of Alaska and energy, she was a whiz and she destroyed them- this was actually her strongest showing. She won the debates and made all three of them seem like washed-up crusty nobodies.

The evidence is out there. This woman is not a flash in the pan glamour girl. She's serious and deserves to be taken seriously. And she doesn't need any kind of "advice", especially from the backstabbing buffoon Christie from his perch on some leftie talkshow like Morning Schmeg where he seems waaaay too comfortable gabbing with all those vapid idiot Democrats.

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 02:55 PM (+fNcw)

495 Ace, she isn't "losing," any more than Newt is losing, or Mitt, or Huck. So I just can't join you on that platform. It's too high for me to climb just now.

I do know this: in the next election, a McCain type is a guaranteed loss against Obama. No way enough on the right will go there. Burned twice is lesson learned.

The O'Donnell debacle split the right into two factions: the hardcore "see, we fucked up, and we could lose this whole thing" group, and the even harder-core "we aren't going to take any more of this shit" group.  Both sides think I mean them in the latter.

One side will be proven wrong. My money is on the bet that the Tea Party types are more hardcore, more serious, and more willing to let the Republican ship burn and then go R-word (unprintable at AoSHQ), than the "mainstream" Republicans are at getting Mitt/Tim 2012! across the finish line.

(And I don't include the RonPaul! kids in this opinion, either.)

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 02:56 PM (9b6FB)

496  Palin is not responsible for anything except pleasing a smallish base of book-buyers and well-wishers.

You've  got some kind of chip on your shoulder.

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 02:59 PM (+fNcw)

497 >>>I recall that for a couple of decades or thereabouts, Ronald Reagan chose to be a partisan commenter for General Electric and wrote speeches and radio commentary for a partisan audience. Is it a bad thing?

You act as if they have the same job requirements. Wake up, bub-- Christie is currently responsible for running a state whereas Palin is not responsible for anything except pleasing a smallish base of book-buyers and well-wishers.

Palin is doing her job right when she says every conservative-pleasing meme in the book. That's not Christie's job right now; he has specific things he has to do to effect tangible results.

Ditto for people currently serving in office.

Yes, Rush Limbaugh gets to play a more conservative guy then they do but that's because he's not responsible for anything except pleasing his audience.

You act like this is the same thing as governing a state.

Maybe in your head you think it is.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 07:48 PM (nj1bB)

Ace, Palin has ALREADY governed a state, and she did a good job of it to boot.  (Or is there a reason she has to erase that from her resume now?)

Chris Christie has been Governor for 13 whole months now.  Sarah Palin left office after serving as Governor for 31 months.  How is Chris Christie now more experienced as a state Governor than Sarah Palin?

Reagan didn't become a state Governor until 1966, at the age of 56, after having been involved in politics only as a commentator and presenter (unless you want to count his presidency of the Screen Actors Guild, and his testimony to the House Un-American Activities Committee) for fifteen years.  After failing to win the Presidential nomination in 1968, Reagan served out his governership and then went back to being a commentator, along the way losing another bid for the Presidential nomination before winning in 1980.  So the vast majority of Reagan's experience lay in political commenting.  Was this poor preparation for the Presidency?  Did he turn out to be a total washout?

Posted by: stuiec at February 28, 2011 03:04 PM (Di3Im)

498

"There are more important things. This doesn't even make the top 50."

Apart from zerohedge there aren't many blogs devoted to the top 50.

Why is giving Palin cold feet so important?  Because Huckabee doesn't present as grave a threat?

Posted by: gary gulrud at February 28, 2011 03:04 PM (/g2vP)

499 You've  got some kind of chip on your shoulder.

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 07:59 PM (+fNcw)

If he had some salsa, that would be cool.

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 03:05 PM (9b6FB)

500 One thing is not debatable:

Palin either has to shit or get off the pot this year and this election. I won't tolerate her turning into our Jesse Jackson / Ralph Nader perennial candidate and I don't think many others will either.

Put up or shut up this year. We don't have time to pussy-foot around with any of these Dem clowns.

State your platform, take your lumps, and sell the country on yourself. If you can't grab a bullhorn and join the cheer squad for someone else.

Posted by: sifty at February 28, 2011 06:58 PM (Q6tnr)

You mean, the very first general election after her VP candidacy and she has to speak now or be branded a "perennial" candidate?  Doesn't "perennial" mean, like, more than once?

Your undebatable proposition seems to boil down to, Sarah Palin either has to run this year or not.  Well, yeah, that's pretty undebatable -- you seem to have covered all two possibilities.

Posted by: stuiec at February 28, 2011 03:09 PM (Di3Im)

501 One thing is not debatable:

Palin either has to shit or get off the pot this year and this election. I won't tolerate her turning into our Jesse Jackson / Ralph Nader perennial candidate and I don't think many others will either.

Posted by: sifty



Sorry Dick.  You had your shot in '60 so you're done.  Same for you Dutch.  You couldn't close the deal in '76, so no second bite of the apple.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 28, 2011 03:12 PM (DsqGb)

502 Sorry Dick.  You had your shot in '60 so you're done.  Same for you Dutch.  You couldn't close the deal in '76, so no second bite of the apple.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 28, 2011 08:12 PM (DsqGb)

'76?  Reagan's first failed shot at the Presidential nomination was in '68.  He should have packed it in then.

Posted by: stuiec at February 28, 2011 03:14 PM (Di3Im)

503 500 posts on a no-news Monday?  Ace, you magnificent bastard!1!!!11!

Thanks for indulging my request for this thread.  As I mentioned, I'm not voting for Christie for anything...no way, no how.  So, it's a good thing he's not running.  Now if he'd just zip his pie-hole, unless he's nuking democrats. 

As for Palin, I do agree with someone up-thread that she should announce sooner, rather than later.  The day she announces, she instantly becomes the news cycle for several days running...and by announcing early, she may shake some other things lose.  Plus, if she starts flaming out early, she can still get out and leave the stage intact for the eventual contender.

I also think we have to run someone to the right of where McLoser was...well to the right.  If we're not going to do that, then we are totally boned and it won't matter anyway. 

Posted by: The Hammer at February 28, 2011 03:16 PM (32ubA)

504
Anyone notice how Palin never makes disparaging, back of the hand, passive-aggressive statements about other Republicans?

Even when she endorsed a candidate in the primaries, she did it without belittling   or being combative and in such a way as to least offend the supporters of the other guy. She's the best friend to her friends and the worst enemy to her opponents- and even then, when she attacks the other side,  she does it with a type of snark that is devastating but avoids seeming petty or mean-spirited. She's pure class. She's got something that you can't teach in school or win through trying no matter how hard.  I can't think of another figure on the Right that I can say that about.

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 03:21 PM (+fNcw)

505
@507 Forgot about that. Wikifact, Reagan actually beat Nixon in the popular vote for the nomination:

Ronald Reagan: 1,696,632 (37.93%)
Richard Nixon: 1,679,443 (37.54%)

Mostly due to a big favorite son vote in California. Way behind in delegates, though.




Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 28, 2011 03:21 PM (DsqGb)

506
Third place in '68:

James A. Rhodes: 614,492 (13.74%)


Wow, straight to obscurity or what?

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 28, 2011 03:24 PM (DsqGb)

507 "It's good to know that Palin could be on the Sunday shows winning the national conversation for us but chooses not to. "

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 07:38 PM (nj1bB) "

Ace, that's PRICELESS...coming from someone who seems to think Palin can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

I am confused, since Palin is so CLUELESS, seems like she would do so much damage to your cause.

Regards,

 

 

Posted by: the Dragon at February 28, 2011 03:29 PM (gRSqy)

508

Anyone notice how Palin never makes disparaging, back of the hand, passive-aggressive statements about other Republicans?

Tell it to Rick Santorum, among others.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 28, 2011 03:29 PM (SY2Kh)

509 Ace, Palin has ALREADY governed a state, and she did a good job of it to boot. (Or is there a reason she has to erase that from her resume now?)

She took her record as governor out of play the moment she resigned. She won't be able to bring up one without the other being questioned.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 28, 2011 03:31 PM (SY2Kh)

510 When I was a kid, I was a huge fan of KISS.  I thought they were the greatest band that ever existed.  I used to argue with my big brother about it all the time, too.  Being six years older than I was, he had somewhat more sophisticated and refined tastes in music than I did.  I realize that now, of course.  But, back then, I would argue with him for hours if need be -- as long as he cared to engage me in the argument, you could count me in.

Looking back, I have to smile about it.  It was really, really important that I stand up for KISS back then.  Any claim that Steely Dan, or the Doobie Brothers, or E.L.O. or anyone else in the whole wide world were better than KISS had to be shot down, and there was no argument that I couldn't come up with to make my case.  The fact that KISS was the greatest band in the world, and in the history of rock music, was so self-evident that I would happily sit for hours and point out all the ways in which they were.  In fact, it was so self-evident that I even began to tailor my arguments around the things that I knew to be true about them.

Gene Simmons was taller than Boston's bass player, and tall people are better bass players because they have longer fingers, and the best band has the best musicians and KISS had the best bass player, thus KISS was better than Boston because they had the tallest bass player.  In your FACE big brother!!!

Anyway -- I know what it's like to be a Palin supporter.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 03:40 PM (OLomk)

511 >That's the real question, K-Bob. Palin is losing, and losing badly, and you guys keep telling me she could win whenever she chooses to.

Polls a year out from the primaries usually don't tend to be accurately predictive of the polls during the primary, or during the general, should it get that far. Reagan was far behind Carter during '79, though that's only an example and not predictive of future results.

The bigger point with her poll numbers is why they're so low. Is it because she's such a terrible, stupid candidate? No. It's because she's perceived as being such. Ok, so why is she perceived this way? Because all most people hear of her, aside from the tiny subset of year-in-year-out political observers, has been heavily, heavily filtered. The only time most people get to hear about her, it's as the butt of some joke. She gives an unscripted Q&A session in front of a bunch of non-rightwing folks? Good luck getting anyone to hear about that, because it's never brought up in anything outside the right-leaning blogosphere.

So then the pollster calls and says, "Who would you vote for, Palin or Obama?" And what they hear is, "Who would you vote for, that crazy kooky easily-confused snowbilly conservative extreeeeeemist who's synonymous with Tina Fey in your mind, or Obama?" And that's what the polls reflect. If the election were right now, there's no way she can win.

Fortunately, the election is not right now. The primaries aren't even right now. And before anyone jumps on or off any bandwagon of exclusive support for anyone, where you're either with us or you're to be cast out into the dark and if your candidate wins we're making protest votes to make sure you don't win just to spite you...let's let campaigning happen first.

Now, campaigning isn't a perfect advertisement either, as candidates will give speeches and only 10-second soundbites will show up on the local evening news (if at all), but it's a better way to tell the populace what your message is than what's going on right now. When/If she gets into full campaign mode and makes her case directly to voters, giving them a chance to go, "Hey, wait a minute. What she's saying actually makes sense. This doesn't sound like the joke I heard on Letterman/Stewart/Colbert/SNL at all!"

IF
she can make that happen, she's got a straight shot to the nomination and decent odds in the general. If she can't, then she won't win the nomination and will go all-in for whoever does make it out. But to be fair, she's got to have her shot in her own campaign, speeches and commercials and unscripted debates and interviews and all. There's no need for "SHE CAN'T RUN, SHE SHOULDN'T RUN, IF SHE RUNS SHE'LL WIN AND THEN SHE'LL LOSE!! WE MUST STOP HER NOW!"

If she's that terrible a choice, she won't make it through the primary. If she has a shot (or, at the very worst, gets through the primary campaign looking better than anyone else), she will. But her poll numbers can only go up with greater unfiltered exposure.

Posted by: Dan K. at February 28, 2011 03:45 PM (BFm2s)

512 Ace, Palin has ALREADY governed a state, and she did a good job of it to boot. (Or is there a reason she has to erase that from her resume now?)

She took her record as governor out of play the moment she resigned. She won't be able to bring up one without the other being questioned.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 28, 2011 08:31 PM (SY2Kh)

Resigning from a job means you never did it?  Or that your accomplishments in it evaporated, were erased from the pages of history?  Wow, that's pretty amazing.

Have YOU ever resigned from a job?

Posted by: stuiec at February 28, 2011 03:48 PM (Di3Im)

513 492 >>>YouTube is your friend , Ace. She's not appearing on BaboonFace the Nation because she doesn't need to.  Of course she doesn't; it makes perfect sense for someone who plans to run nationally to ghettoize herself by only speaking to friendly very-conservative very-partisan sub-sections of the country.  It's good to know that Palin could be on the Sunday shows winning the national conversation for us but chooses not to.  Oh wait, she is winning the national conversation by writing facebook entries which tend to be read mostly by her 2.7 million facebook followers. I know you guys think in your minds that "Palin is really setting the agenda." She's not. She has self-ghettoized She is narrowcasting to her core supporters and almost no one else.  People ask me "when will you cover palin's statements?" How about when she starts making them to the nation at large instead of to her small facebook following?  What is the point of Palin basically just talking to her book purchasing audience? Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 07:38 PM (nj1bB) FINALLY, a major blogger has the balls to come out and say this.  I cannot tell you how much of this Palin cult of personality crap I have to suffer through on a daily basis at places like Hotair. And lately it's reminding me of the Charlie Sheen situation.  Charlie rants about how he's "winning" in his battle with CBS and the producers of his show, even as it's cancelled for the season and he's skyrocketed up on most people's death pools. Palinistas always say she's "winning" and act as if she destroys everything and everyone before her.  But she's NOT winning.  Virtually every poll shows her with either high unfavorables or generally losing an election to Obama by a large margin.  But wait, I forgot, Palinistas usually claim those polls - ALL of them - are biased. And anyone who points out Palin's flaws is dubbed a "RINO" and their opinion immediately dismissed.  Well, whatever - she has a LOT of weaknesses, and ignoring them, or WORSE, immediately turning on any and all who even breathe them, isn't going to end you anywhere but disaster. And by the way, people like Ace, or me, or whomever, who keep pointing out her flaws, we're not doing it out of jealousy, because she's more "pretty" and "popular" than us.  We don't do it out if "fear", as if a Palin candidacy or presidency would do away with us "Establishment" types.  We do it because some of us don't subscribe to the Jim DeMint strategy, where it's better to continually LOSE by offering up "true conservative" approved-but-unelectable candidates, because that's the "principled" thing to do.  Some of us want to actually win this.  And if we can't do that by convincing you Palin is a weak candidate, then maybe we can at least point out what her weaknesses are in the hopes that she will address and overcome them. But that's a Sisyphean task when some of you refuse to acknowledge any flaw with the woman, and respond to the mere voicing of such an opinion with righteous fury. I do not hate or resent Palin.  But a lot of her followers really, really, really make it hard to like her.

Posted by: Vyceroy at February 28, 2011 03:50 PM (aappB)

514 Ace ur a moron. Who the hell watches David Gregory and Bill's George? Who are these biased leftists sucking on Obama's tit? Who are these Democrats that I must demand that my GOP presidential candidate genuflect before in order to prove she's worthy? You're a moron, Ace, a moron. Stone cold moron.

Posted by: apodoca at February 28, 2011 03:54 PM (C4Y9x)

515
Rick Santorum? He took a cheap shot at her- which was totally un-called for and came out of nowhere.

When she was asked to respond, she did it with a smile and made some light comment about getting an earful from his wife, and she left it there. She could have torn into him but she didn't. Pure class- thanks for making my point.

"...among others."? There are none, Hollowpoint, which is why you could only put up that pretty thin gruel example with Santorum. She's been leading the assault on the Left while getting sniped at from behind and she's still going. I bet it must really suck to see someone you hate succeed, especially when she's kicking ass in the main ring and you're in the back row munching stale popcorn- but you'll have to get accustomed to it. Just know that you're better off for her efforts.

She took her record as governor out of play the moment she resigned. She won't be able to bring up one without the other being questioned.

A baseless assertion. Only you and some Rinos and the Democrats hope it will play out that way. I'm glad she left the job to Parnell. She's done more for America in the past two years than she could have done for Alaska.

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 03:56 PM (+fNcw)

516 She resigned because the left wing loons had paralyzed the state government for the sole purpose of making her look bad.  She said she had accomplished everything she set out to do, she wasn't going to run for reelection, there was only one more legislative session in her term, and Parnell was more than ready to step up.  So, instead of clinging to power with every fiber of her being no matter what, the same as every other politician in living memory,  she did the right thing for the people of Alaska and took herself out of the equation.  And, low and behold, the left wing loons went home, and the state government was able to function again. 

She is a private citizen who makes money by giving speeches no one is obliged to listen to, by writing books no one is obliged to read, and by making tv shows no one is obliged to watch.  She writes facebook notes that are read by literally millions of people.  Just like a blogger, only different. 

She is not obliged to do anything.  She is perfectly free to run for president without ever appearing on a single sunday news show.   If she does that and wins, they will say she's brilliant.  If she does that and loses, they will say she's an idiot.  Nothing to lose.  Everything to gain.   Screw Couric and the broomstick she flew in on. 

Never entrust power to anyone not willing to surrender it. 


Posted by: VADM (Red) Cuthbert Collingwood RN at February 28, 2011 03:57 PM (ZTn9N)

517 67 Palin is one of the purest filters there is as to whether one is truly on the right or just a RINO. You constantly show your true RINO self. oh Great so now any body who doesn't kiss the woman's ass is a RINO? yep, we're fucked in 2012 Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 28, 2011 03:11 PM (UzBwz) The Palin filter Are you kissing her ass = Who cares Are you attacking her for thinking of running for POTUS = RINO

Posted by: Daniel at February 28, 2011 03:59 PM (D4mDF)

518 Sarah Palin fascinates people. The proof? Look at the number of comments on this post.

Palin played a vital role in leading opposition to Obama in the year before the 2010 election when Republicans were virtually without political power.  As a result of that election, there now are Republicans who have power to set policy. She has a lower profile now and I think she wants that lower profile--she wants to stay out of the way of the congressmen and governors who are making important decisions.

If she runs for the Republican nomination, she will win it. She is by far the most charismatic Republican out there and she may be the smartest as well. Her biggest liability is that she is a smallish woman with a high-pitched voice and a lot of people have a hard time imagining a small woman with a high-pitched voice as president--it's that gravitas thing. Race worked for Obama, but gender works against Palin.

Posted by: nohype at February 28, 2011 04:00 PM (g3EG2)

519 So, essentially, Palin has established that given sufficient Democratic opposition and and gridlock, she'll just pack up and quit.  It's a safe bet the Dems have picked up on that.

That's what you guys don't seem to understand about the resignation problem.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 04:03 PM (OLomk)

520 If she runs for the Republican nomination, she will win it.

But here's the key: in order for this to happen, she'll have to have convinced Republican primary voters that she can handle the general election. And if that happens, we'll be looking back on these "She can't win." kinds of posts with mild amusement. If she can't convince the primary voters of this, then she won't be getting the nomination, and we'll move on as usual with her in an advocacy role.

But to demand that she convince everyone right now or she has no chance is premature. There's a lot of time to go before anyone has to cast a primary vote and she's not even an announced candidate.

Posted by: Dan K. at February 28, 2011 04:06 PM (BFm2s)

521  
Vyce, if someone puts forward an argument, then those who disagree then put forward a counter argument. That's what's going on here. Some people argue against Palin's viabiliy, and others argue in favor. You're just angry because you want Palin to go away- she won't. If she runs, there will be a primary process and GOP voters will get to decide on nominating her.  What's un-democratic is the people arguing that she shouldn't be given the chance. What are you afraid of? It's like some people think GOP primary voters are too stupid to decide and need  to be protected from ourselves- i.e. we're too stupid to know Palin is a loser so you've determined to do everything in your power to deny us the choice.

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 04:06 PM (+fNcw)

522 People ask me "when will you cover palin's statements?" How about when she starts making them to the nation at large instead of to her small facebook following?

I think you need to maybe cut down on the caffeine.   Stand in the nearest mall food court for an hour and ask every third person if they've heard of Sarah Palin.  Then,  ask them if they've heard of the Ace of Spades HQ.  Let me know what you find out. 

I'm sure 2.7 million people regularly read this blog.  Hey, I'm a believer.  

Posted by: VADM (Red) Cuthbert Collingwood RN at February 28, 2011 04:13 PM (ZTn9N)

523 "But that's a Sisyphean task when some of you refuse to acknowledge any flaw with the woman, and respond to the mere voicing of such an opinion with righteous fury.

I do not hate or resent Palin.  But a lot of her followers really, really, really make it hard to like her.

Posted by: Vyceroy at February 28, 2011 08:50 PM (aappB)"

Interesting, this IS NOT a one way street.  I expect vitriol from the left...I find the parroting of the leftest memes by those who are supposedly on on the my side.  Relishing every DIMINISHMENT of Sarah Palin as the fault of IDIOT PALIN SUPPORTERS, and RARELY trumpeting the virtues of their favorite.

Just don't come crying when the left goes nuclear on your nominee.  AND, I won't pile on like Ace, etal BUT I will have a satisfied smile on my face.  With friends like these...

I sure hope the Supreme Court invalidates ObamaCare before the election, then, even though it would be my 10th Presidential election, I can sit it out with a clear conscience. 

Regards,

ps: The Ford/Reagan fight in 1976 was very off-putting, been there done that, got the tee Shirt, NOT AGAIN!

Posted by: the Dragon at February 28, 2011 04:20 PM (gRSqy)

524  @ 527  - What's un-democratic is the people arguing that she shouldn't be given the chance.

Who on earth has argued that? I haven't seen anything like that said on this thread, or any other comment section of discussion forum I've ever frequented.  At worst, what I've seen is that people are advising her to just give it up because there's a growing sense that she doesn't have a shot in hell at winning.  But that's an entirely different thing from saying she "shouldn't be given the chance."

That's one of the common traits among Palin's most ardent supporters -- a tendency to greatly overstate the negativity of those who think she's a weak candidate who would better serve the cause in other ways.  Another trait is to engage in the sort of howling stupidity that normally characterizes the left  -- e.g., attributing all skepticism to misogyny and sexism.

But, by all means ... continue on with these tactics.  I think you'll find over time that, rather than minimizing her opposition, you're uniting, expanding, and solidifying it.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 04:26 PM (OLomk)

525 Ace, if 2/3 of Republicans have doubts about her competence, or whatever, then how is she going to win the primary?

Posted by: John McCain, Mav-AZ at February 28, 2011 04:28 PM (mEyVv)

526 Stupid sockpuppets...

Posted by: Kensington at February 28, 2011 04:28 PM (mEyVv)

527 Would anyone like more refreshments? I have plenty to go around.

Posted by: Sarah Palin's Kool-Aid Machine at February 28, 2011 04:29 PM (GJeQU)

528 "525 So, essentially, Palin has established that given sufficient Democratic opposition and and gridlock, she'll just pack up and quit.  It's a safe bet the Dems have picked up on that.

That's what you guys don't seem to understand about the resignation problem.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 09:03 PM (OLomk)"

This is your answer to  530 .

In case you didn't know, the Alaska Legislature has modified the ethics law, so that one does not have to bankrupt themselves to hold office.  I am sure you think that change was an error ;-)

Regards,

 

Posted by: the Dragon at February 28, 2011 04:32 PM (gRSqy)

529 Ann Coulter may be many things, but a RINO isn't one of them.

Posted by: -Shawn- at February 28, 2011 04:35 PM (BckWm)

530 So you fling lame shit at Palin and then think the problem is that you didn't get on team Palin? I'm pretty sure it's the lame shit and all the reaching required to fling it. Also, Newt supported Cap and Trade so he burned his bridge back to any kind of power as far as I'm concerned. Huckabee and Romney are in that same boat too.

Posted by: cackfinger at February 28, 2011 04:37 PM (HpG1y)

531  @ 534 - In case you didn't know, the Alaska Legislature has modified the ethics law, so that one does not have to bankrupt themselves to hold office.  I am sure you think that change was an error ;-)

To the extent that Alaska ethics law is in any way germane to running for the White House, I suppose that's a fine change and quite welcome to the next person to run for the governor's office in Alaska. 

Hey!  Now, there's an idea.  Why doesn't she run there again?  Think she'd win?

In any event, I'm trying to figure out how that answers the question.

VOTER 1:  Well, when she was governor in Alaska, they trumped up a bunch of ethics complaints against her.  Sure, they were all eventually thrown out, but she wound up resigning anyway.  I'm not sure she's all that dependable -- especially for someone wanting to be the leader of the free world.

VOTER 2:  Yeah, well ... they've changed the ethics laws in Alaska since then.  Now, you don't have to worry about being sued into poverty if you run for office.

VOTER 1:  Oh, well that changes everything.  Got any bumper stickers or yard signs?

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 04:46 PM (OLomk)

532

Interesting, this IS NOT a one way street.  I expect vitriol from the left...I find the parroting of the leftest memes by those who are supposedly on on the my side.  Relishing every DIMINISHMENT of Sarah Palin as the fault of IDIOT PALIN SUPPORTERS, and RARELY trumpeting the virtues of their favorite.

Posted by: the Dragon at February 28, 2011 09:20 PM (gRSqy)

It certainly doesn't act as a one way street, because I've experienced the same sort of "vitriol from the left" from countless true cons / Palinistas.

I'm an independent, but fact is, in my twelve years or so of voting, I've voted for conservatives / Republicans probably at LEAST 85% of the time, including for Palin last time around (OMG, yes, I used to be something of a "Palinista" myself back in 200 .  Frankly, though, I've grown very fucking weary of the ENDLESS purity tests and being treated like I'm some liberal piece of shit because I happen to voice or agree with negative commentary regarding her viability as a candidate.

Posted by: Vyceroy at February 28, 2011 04:49 PM (JJRCc)

533
BS, Walt. People have been out to destroy Palin since the '08 election- that's a matter of public record. It's not at all an exaggeration to say that Palin has been the target of the most massive campaign of personal destruction in the history of American politics. Much of this is coming from the Right. Stop playing stupid.

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 04:51 PM (+fNcw)

534 @ 538 The thing with the Alaska ethics complaints was twofold. One, it was possible to effectively paralyze the state executive branch that way. With the legislative changes, it no longer is, but at this point that's only helpful to Parnell and his successors.

Two, it doesn't apply on a federal level. Never did. "But if we elect her, she'll just quit on the job again because she can't handle it." No, she won't. That situation has no parallel to the White House and doesn't even have a parallel to Juneau any more.

Posted by: Dan K. at February 28, 2011 05:02 PM (BFm2s)

535

You're just angry because you want Palin to go away- she won't.

NO, what I would PREFER is she remain in her role as campaigner / advocate.  I do not want her to "go away."

If she runs, there will be a primary process and GOP voters will get to decide on nominating her.  What's un-democratic is the people arguing that she shouldn't be given the chance.

I'm not saying she should be barred from running.  I'm asking 1) that electability remain a factor in deciding whether to give her the nomination (electability has ALWAYS been a factor in primaries, or at least it USED to be, certain elections in 2010 seem to indicate that maybe it no longer is a concern) and, more importantly, 2) for her most ardent supporters to quit acting like it's a fucking mortal sin that some of us request or even demand that electability be considered.

What are you afraid of?

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 09:06 PM (+fNcw)

Viability.  Or, at least, for some of you to start acknowledging that she needs work if she is to be a strong candidate, and not just believe that she's already demonstrated to the GENERAL electorate that she's qualified (she hasn't) or that it will be as simple as snapping her fingers once she's officially declared (it won't).

As it is, I think we're likely royally fucked in 2012 any damn way, because 1) I find it unlikely that Palin, if she is the nominee, will attract the necessary moderates / indies to win the general UNLESS significant changes are made (which, as Ace has pointed out, she may not be inclined to make) and 2) if it isn't Palin as the nominee, if it is the "not-Palin" who winds up securing the nomination (be it Romney, Daniels, etc.), that person will be dubbed an "Establishment RINO" by the true cons / some elements in the Tea Party, who will then demagogue that person as if they are far, far worse than Obama has been, is, or ever could be (let's call that "Castle Syndrome") and sit home out of spite.  End result: Obama re-election.

Posted by: Vyceroy at February 28, 2011 05:03 PM (JJRCc)

536  @ 540 - People have been out to destroy Palin since the '08 election- that's a matter of public record. It's not at all an exaggeration to say that Palin has been the target of the most massive campaign of personal destruction in the history of American politics. Much of this is coming from the Right. Stop playing stupid.

I don't deny she's been subjected to a massive campaign of personal destruction.  Whether it's the worst in the history of American politics is debatable, but not an outrageous statement.

Problem is, you're tarring the Right with the same brush that you use against the Left, and that's just not accurate.  There have been some on the right who can be fairly blamed -- Christopher Buckley, Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, etc.  I still despise them for what they did.  It was bush-league, turncoat punditry at its worst.

But, what you're seeing here is nowhere near that kind of criticism.  But, it benefits your case to make it seem as though all criticism is the same, so anytime anyone looks askance at the notion of nominating Palin, you climb up on your high horse and make with the self-righteous indignation.

Pointing out that it's not good that she resigned from the governorship isn't the same thing as questioning Trigg's provenance.  Pointing out that she shies away from interviews where she might be challenged isn't the same thing as accusing her of a religious crusade to purge the public library system of A Catcher in the Rye.  So, don't be surprised when people take exception to being accused of such.

And, most of all, don't be surprised when you discover you haven't had much success in browbeating people into giving her another look.  That never works.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 05:05 PM (OLomk)

537  @ 541 - "But if we elect her, she'll just quit on the job again because she can't handle it." No, she won't. That situation has no parallel to the White House and doesn't even have a parallel to Juneau any more.

That's what ace is talking about when he refers to your expectations that everyone "have faith".  I'd have more faith if she went back up to Alaska and ran for another office and finished the term.  But, what you're asking people to do is disregard the missing half of a resume in considering someone for the most important job on the planet.

You'll just have to find it within yourself to be patient with those of us who think that's a bridge too far.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 05:11 PM (OLomk)

538 " Frankly, though, I've grown very fucking weary of the ENDLESS purity tests and being treated like I'm some liberal piece of shit because I happen to voice or agree with negative commentary regarding her viability as a candidate.

Posted by: Vyceroy at February 28, 2011 09:49 PM (JJRCc) "

Fair enough.

I am curious about this viability issue, since it, IMHO is inane.

Was Ronald Reagan a "viable" candidate? (AND NO, this IS NOT a comparison of Reagan and Palin).  By the standards used on these blogs, he was ABSOLUTELY NOT a viable candidate in March of 1980, just 7/8 months before the election, trailing Carter by 30+%.  That's why Carter won a second term in November 1980, and Mondale won in 1984.

Was Barak Obama a "viable" candidate?  By the standards of these blogs, NO!  In early 2007, Hillary Clinton was the odds on winner.

Everybody needs to take a breath.

There is one positive omen for Sarah Palin.  Over the past couple of election cycles, Ace has promoted candidates, and I have given to most.  His record isn't an O'fer, but I'm guessing it's near the mendoza line.  He's not real good at picking winners.  Sarah's best chance to win is for for Ace to promote Obama ;-)

Regards,

 

Posted by: the Dragon at February 28, 2011 05:13 PM (gRSqy)

539 And before you chime in with, "Yeah, well ... Obama had less experience than Palin does," I'd just like to point out that I didn't vote for him either.

So, that makes them even in my book as far as that point goes.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 05:15 PM (OLomk)

540 Pointing out that it's not good that she resigned from the governorship isn't the same thing as questioning Trigg's provenance.  Pointing out that she shies away from interviews where she might be challenged isn't the same thing as accusing her of a religious crusade to purge the public library system of A Catcher in the Rye.  So, don't be surprised when people take exception to being accused of such.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 10:05 PM (OLomk)

Exactly.  I question her electability as a candidate for national office.  Quit acting as if that's the same thing as going, "yeah, actually, I do think she caused the Tucson massacre."

Posted by: Vyceroy at February 28, 2011 05:24 PM (JJRCc)

541 You'll just have to find it within yourself to be patient with those of us who think that's a bridge too far.

And I'm fine with that. If she's going to provide ample proof that she can answer every nay of the naysayers, she'll do that during a potential primary campaign. Which wouldn't begin for a while now.

But what I'd advise against is breaking Reagan's Eleventh Commandment right and left when we don't even have anybody announced for the primaries yet. Whether it's mocking "Palinistas" for standing by her now or denouncing as "RINO" everyone who doesn't yet, let's not be burning bridges before they're even built.

Posted by: Dan K. at February 28, 2011 05:29 PM (BFm2s)

542 "That's one of the common traits among Palin's most ardent supporters -- a tendency to greatly overstate the negativity of those who think she's a weak candidate who would better serve the cause in other ways.  Another trait is to engage in the sort of howling stupidity that normally charac..."

Projection. This is exactly why some of us bother to beat back such nonsense. You folks raise a stink, then act like it's a damned dirty shame when people respond to it, and that's an argument?

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 05:31 PM (9b6FB)

543 "That's what ace is talking about when he refers to your expectations that everyone "have faith".  I'd have more faith if she went back up to Alaska and ran for another office and finished the term.  But, what you're asking people to do is disregard the missing half of a resume in considering someone for the most important job on the planet.

You'll just have to find it within yourself to be patient with those of us who think that's a bridge too far.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 10:11 PM (OLomk) "

Actually, I have had that discussion with several individuals.  One, a casual friend who ran for Montgomery County, MD County Council last year as a Republican (She's a wonderful person, BUT she's to the left of any RINO). 

After the election, which she and the other Republicans lost, we were at a party and when the topic came to Sarah Palin...her first words were "she quit!" I said yea she did.  I asked IF she (my friend) had won her election for an office which pays @ $94K/yr...would she gladly spend $500K to $1 mil to defend herself against frivilous ethics charges?  Her answer...I never looked at it that way.

IF the person is open or not adamintly opposed (ala Ace) to Palin, this is an easy issue to difuse.  Some of the job is Palin's, BUT in a practical sense it is MY job, to bring reality to the issue.

Regards,

Posted by: the Dragon at February 28, 2011 05:31 PM (gRSqy)

544 "But, what you're asking people to do is disregard the missing half of a resume..."

Bullshit. It's a full resume, which includes stepping aside for a good and sufficient reason. You either think the reason is not sufficient, which puts you squarely in on the side of lawsuit abuse is good, or you do think it's sufficient, and the issue fades.

There isn't a middle choice, other than Clintonian parsing for effect.

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 05:35 PM (9b6FB)

545 492 >>>YouTube is your friend , Ace. She's not appearing on BaboonFace the Nation because she doesn't need to.

Of course she doesn't; it makes perfect sense for someone who plans to run nationally to ghettoize herself by only speaking to friendly very-conservative very-partisan sub-sections of the country.

It's good to know that Palin could be on the Sunday shows winning the national conversation for us but chooses not to.

Oh wait, she is winning the national conversation by writing facebook entries which tend to be read mostly by her 2.7 million facebook followers.

I know you guys think in your minds that "Palin is really setting the agenda." She's not. She has self-ghettoized She is narrowcasting to her core supporters and almost no one else.

People ask me "when will you cover palin's statements?" How about when she starts making them to the nation at large instead of to her small facebook following?

What is the point of Palin basically just talking to her book purchasing audience? Ace

Ace, if you actually believe this stuff, then it's time for you to stop talking about Palin.  You obviously are not well informed on the subject.  "Death Panels" came from her Facebook page, but it never went beyond her narrow core of supporters.  Yeah, right.  Then there was her statement on QE2 that the WSJ commented very favorably on in an editorial.  I could go on and on with other examples.  The media has such a fixation about her that her Facebook postings become news themselves, not to mention the blogosphere coverage.  They clearly reach a hell of a lot more people than her Facebook followers and book buyers.  You've made one foolish assertion after another in your comments in this thread.  About the only thing that you've been right on is her lackluster poll numbers.  If she runs, she'll either sell herself and her policies to the voters and those numbers will change or she won't be successful.  A campaign will answer that question.  If you're going to keep commenting and writing about her, at least do a little research first.

Posted by: NDFan at February 28, 2011 05:38 PM (V+woP)

546 George Stupidnopolous he gets to be annoying and irratating just having to listen to the little bum

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at February 28, 2011 05:39 PM (vA9ld)

547 But what I'd advise against is breaking Reagan's Eleventh Commandment right and left when we don't even have anybody announced for the primaries yet.

Please, spare me the "Reagan's 11th Commandment" bullshit.  It was bullshit back when he said it -- a pleasant soundbite that not even he adhered to back in the day (see his criticism of Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits if you doubt me) -- and it's even more bullshit now.  In a world where Palin fans cloak their creepy fetishistic love for her in the guise of "no true Scotsman" RINO-hunting, in a world where the rest of us have finally had enough with the Palinistas...hell, in a world where the Tea Party functioned (in both its best AND worst moments) as an incumbent-cleansing device for the GOP, we are LONG past the "11th Commandment."

I'll criticize whichever fellow Republicans I fucking well please, thank you.  That includes both the unelectable Saint Sarah and the equally unelectable Mitt Romney, as well as anyone else who I think falls short.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 28, 2011 05:51 PM (NjYDy)

548 >>Projection. This is exactly why some of us bother to beat back such nonsense. You folks raise a stink, then act like it's a damned dirty shame when people respond to it, and that's an argument?

I wish I could print out a copy of your contributions to this thread, put it in front of your face, sit you down and force you to read it, and then have a nice long educational discussion on the proper meaning of the term "projection."

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 28, 2011 05:52 PM (NjYDy)

549

Ace what qualifies you to determine who is up for the job? Is that your opinion or a stated fact? Fortunately, the electorate will determine that and not you.

That is a bold claim to make before we even see the candidates run their campaigns and face off in the debates.

Why are these politicians, pundits, and bloggers even mentioning Governor Palin? They(You) should be attacking President Obama and his policies. Put your money where your mouth is and concentrate on the important issues.

That's what Governor Palin does. Despite the flood of comments from the peanut gallery she continues to focus like a laser on the Obama administration and his destructive policies.

Also, your whining comes off as very weak. Pathetically weak, actually.

 

Posted by: Chief at February 28, 2011 05:53 PM (ACsq3)

550 Let's examine this notion of "shying away" from certain media outlets.

You are running for Mayor of a midsize town. You can find communist rags and underground rags, distributed for free in any bar or coffee shop.  By the logic of these folks who seem to think it so all-fired important Palin grovel before certain networks or papers, you, as a mayoral candidate, need to hold press availablities for all the socialist, sex/drug/music, and Hugo Chavez supporting rags floating around  town. Right away, too.

Just because Palin has recognized that the NYT and NBC and others have pretty much lowered themselves to the level of free, underground rags by now, doesn't mean she needs them as much as you think she does. If her plan to go around them works, then good.  If not, then she's still had a major effect on the next round of elections.

We're already to the point where the ratings and circulation numbers show that folks who want to get their news from "certain" sources are having to learn how to read blogs and watch "successful" outlets (when they actually want to know what's going on).

And this is working both ways. Fox is having less trouble getting lefty politicians on TV now that they are the major player in Cable news.  So think back in time ~ ~ ~ ~
(hand waving with strange music). Remember how badly Clinton needed to be interviewed by Rush Limbaugh in order to seem "serious"? Me neither.

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 05:53 PM (9b6FB)

551 Oh great. another retarded "poor me" thread claiming to be some sort of victim of daring to criticize Palin. Because we all know she doesn't get enough of that, right? Oh, I know, I know. I'm a stupid brainwashed Palin bot for actually DEFENDING her from retarded vicious personal attacks. How terrible of me. The shame. the SHAAAMEEEE.

Posted by: JC at February 28, 2011 05:57 PM (6QUWP)

552

"As it is, I think we're likely royally fucked in 2012 any damn way, because 1) I find it unlikely that Palin, if she is the nominee, will attract the necessary moderates / indies to win the general UNLESS significant changes are made (which, as Ace has pointed out, she may not be inclined to make)"

Yea, Ace is a real authority.  He ridicules 2.7 million followers, fair enough.  Ace gets, what 10-15 million hits a day?

2012 will be far more about Obama than Palin or whomever.  Interesting how someone that in Ace's estimation is a fuck-up, managed to drive much of the debate during 2010.  That's is IMPOSSIBLE, Palin didn't take questions from Ace's buds, and somehow managed to get ample airing of her concerns, and criticisms.  I would really like to hear from Ace as to how that is even possible.  He is all knowing after all.

 "and 2) if it isn't Palin as the nominee, if it is the "not-Palin" who winds up securing the nomination (be it Romney, Daniels, etc.), that person will be dubbed an "Establishment RINO" by the true cons / some elements in the Tea Party, who will then demagogue that person as if they are far, far worse than Obama has been, is, or ever could be (let's call that "Castle Syndrome") and sit home out of spite.  End result: Obama re-election."

Maybe, I think it depends...although, the "Establishment Republicans" are little better than Obama.  Just as the Congressional Republicans of my youth, Senator Everett Dirksen & Rep Bob Michael.  In that era, not unlike the British Tories, their claim to fame is that they could manage the Government more efficiently than the Democrats/Labour.  So we get to ruin a few years later.

There is hope.  Would Wisconsin have happened 10 years ago?  I think not.  People have finally come to the conclusion that things have to change.  The bottom line, have enough come to that conclusion?  In 2010 the answer was yes, to some degree 2012 will be a different electorate...time will tell.

Regards,

Posted by: Vyceroy at February 28, 2011 10:03 PM (JJRCc)

Posted by: the Dragon at February 28, 2011 05:58 PM (gRSqy)

553 "In a world where Palin fans cloak their creepy fetishistic love for her in the guise of "no true Scotsman" RINO-hunting, in a world where the rest of us..."

More projection. Yeah, that's working. I can hear the clatter of mental lattices opening up to your worldview, thanks to you being one of those fantastically brave souls who will criticize who they damn well please.

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 05:58 PM (9b6FB)

554

You people that say Palin will not run because she is in it for the money.  A question.   You all do understand that Gov Palin stands to make more money in her moneybombs  in the first week of her delcaring than she has made over the last 2 years  right?    Even if she does as well as COD   she makes $4-5 million.  Take that nationally   And you could see a $10-20 million payday in the first couple weeks.     If Palin was in it for the money she would have announced months ago...

 

 

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 05:58 PM (aVGmX)

555 Annnd we're at "force you to read it."

Say folks, looks like we're approaching the Godwin point. The ol' dash-of-a-mustache will be here soon. Get your actual reasoning in before last call.

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 06:00 PM (9b6FB)

556 You Palin haters are fucking psychotic. Seriously. I have never seen such rabid stupidity before.

Posted by: JC at February 28, 2011 06:01 PM (6QUWP)

557 @unseen

Stop it! All of that logic hurts! Stop it! Palin EEEEEVIIIIIIL.

Posted by: I HATE PALIN at February 28, 2011 06:04 PM (6QUWP)

558 #563.  nice post.  short and too the point. 

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 06:05 PM (aVGmX)

559  @ 550 - Thing is, she could have used a legal defense fund to defray the costs of the legal defense -- and had actually set one up (http://is.gd/t08RwY).  There were some regulatory issues as to how and from whom donations could be made and accepted, and what form the fund could take.  But, it was an option.  And, by then, Palin had established a fairly sizable and fervent following, willing to back her to the hilt.  So, while I am somewhat sympathetic to the legal issue, I'm not entirely sold on it being a legitimate reason to resign from office, or that the Palins would have necessarily been left destitute by it all.  And I'm absolutely positive that the question will never go away, regardless of how it's explained/spun/justified -- however you want to put it.

 @ 551 - Y'all have been giving that same answer to the question since people started asking it, and you've yet to change a single mind.  You're going to have to do better than that.  Serving half of an elected term is not a full resume, no matter how loudly or angrily you say otherwise.  I'm willing to take even-money on whether or not the issue fades.


Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 06:07 PM (OLomk)

560 Jesus Christ, we just got linked by Allahpundit over at Hot Air.  In come the little baby Teddy Ruxpins to shriek about Palin's godlike unscripted communicative abilities (newsflash: even the "greatest hits" edited version of her Long Island get together in front of a paying audience was cringeworthily awkward in many spots).  TAMMY BRUCE FOR PRESS SECRETARY!!111!  CHRIS CHRISTIE IS A FAKE REPUBLICAN!!

And of course, here comes "unseen," one of the most hatefully obnoxious sacks of shit to post at Hot Air...and I call him that ONLY because his Palin-fetishism is so desperate, so dire, so far progressed into the terminal phase, that he was last seen suggesting that Mitch Daniels is a cuckold faggot girly-man for reconciling with his wife, and that this was somehow indicative of his "truce-making" tendencies w/r/t policy. 

Jesus Christ, a man would earn a straight-up cockpunching for that if they ever said it in person. 

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 28, 2011 06:13 PM (NjYDy)

561

Posted by: I HATE PALIN

 

sometimes I wonder if people  really take time to think things through.  It's like they pick some narrative and suddenly   they are no longer able to think things through.   And if the money thing  wasn't enough.  Tell me  how she  becomes a more powerful kingmaker.   By running and  getting a large block of votes  or by sititng out the race?   If she runs  and secures second or third place she has a record of votes for her.  This isn't like Rush  with his number of viewers.  These are hard cold votes.   The type that other politicians  will sell their mother for.   If  Say Palin runs and comes in second  would she be a bigger kingmaker  from there on out or would she lose that title.?   And if she sits out  what does she gain?  She loses face and supporters......

the only way Palin becomes less powerful by running is finishing a distant last place which from the polls  show isn't going to happen even if you believe the polls.

 

If Palin is in it for the money and power to be kingmarker and to push policy  she only has one choice and that is to run.  If she is in it for what is best for the country then she has a couple choices  depending on the facts on the ground......  but pretty much all evidence and  best choices  point to her running.   

 

those that think she will not might be right but from a logic POV  Gov Palin only has one option and that is to run.  

 

 

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 06:16 PM (aVGmX)

562

 <i>cuckold faggot girly-man for reconciling with his wife, and that this was somehow indicative of his "truce-making" tendencies w/r/t policy.</i>

 

yeah because accepting  an unfaithful wife back after she fucked around on you for 4 years abandoned  you and your four daughters, married someone else  is a lesson in studmanship.   Hell it's almost he-manish.   Daniels has the ego  the size of a flea and the spine of a worm.

 

 

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 06:22 PM (aVGmX)

563 >>Okay, so the Sunday shows usually have a moderated debate between a designated lefty and a right-leaning person. That's their standard format. Why doesn't she do one of those on a topic she's big on? Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 06:13 PM (nj1bB)<< 'Cuz she's under contract to Fox. She was on Chris Wallace's show not too long ago and it seemed to go well. Did you watch? She was on a lot of other non-Fox channels giving interviews after her second book came out. Did you catch those? Yes, she has to go into hostile interview territory in order to win primaries in Jan-June 2012 and a general in November 2012. It does not follow that she has to sit for David Gregory in March 2011. >>..And anyone who points out Palin's flaws is dubbed a "RINO" and their opinion immediately dismissed. Posted by: Vyceroy at February 28, 2011 08:50 PM (aappB)<< Cry me a fraking river. You complain about Palinistas all the time and dismiss their opinions out of hand (yes, you of "True Con" fame). If you can dish it out you need to be prepared to take it.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 06:22 PM (UKAnE)

564  @ 568 - If she runs  and secures second or third place she has a record of votes for her.  This isn't like Rush  with his number of viewers.  These are hard cold votes.   The type that other politicians  will sell their mother for.   If  Say Palin runs and comes in second  would she be a bigger kingmaker  from there on out or would she lose that title.?

Well, we could always ask Kingmaker Romney and Kingmaker Huckabee to see if they feel any bigger having come in second and third.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 06:24 PM (OLomk)

565 ..566 @ 550 - Thing is, she could have used a legal defense fund to defray the costs of the legal defense -- and had actually set one up (http://is.gd/t08RwY). There were some regulatory issues as to how and from whom donations could be made and accepted, and what form the fund could take. But, it was an option. Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 11:07 PM (OLomk)<< No, it wasn't. The ethics board declared legal funds to be unethical. She tried to do it your way, and overzealous legal interpreters with axes to grind decided she couldn't. She announced her resignation right after that decision.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 06:31 PM (UKAnE)

566  @ 551 - Y'all have been giving that same answer to the question since people started asking it, and you've yet to change a single mind.  You're going to have to do better than that.  Serving half of an elected term is not a full resume, no matter how loudly or angrily you say otherwise.  I'm willing to take even-money on whether or not the issue fades.


Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 11:07 PM (OLomk)

All y'all have been trying to sell that as "not a full resume", and convincing no one not already convinced. Loud, angry, etc.

You are still stuck with the happy campers who love them some federal, pound-you-in-the-ass, lawsuit abuse. You don't have to like those folks, but that's where you done set your lawn chair.

Of course it'll fade. Not a lot of people running around these days arguing over whether Burr had it right in challenging Hamilton to a duel. All issues fade when their relevance becomes moot. If she wins the nomination, it's moot.

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 06:31 PM (9b6FB)

567 You anti palin blogs will catch up soon enough. Look, someone just got around to watching Media Malpractice. In 10 years you'll all be jumping up and down claiming to have been a Palinista from the very beginning. 

Posted by: coppafella at February 28, 2011 06:31 PM (EOyDG)

568 Well, we could always ask Kingmaker Romney and Kingmaker Huckabee to see if they feel any bigger having come in second and third.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 11:24 PM (OLomk)

 

and yet they are still major players in the GOp race this time around are they not.  and did not Mitt and huck endorse and campaign for many candidate sin 2010.   Whereas the people that sat out 2008 are not and did not.

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 06:32 PM (aVGmX)

569 >>>Ace, she isn't "losing," any more than Newt is losing, or Mitt, or Huck. So I just can't join you on that platform. It's too high for me to climb just now. Well poll show Mitt and Huck within around 3 or 4% of beating Obama. I don't like either one of them but they are doing a heck of a lot better against Obama. I can only ask so many times: When does Palin start winning? You seem convinced she's playing fourth dimnension chess and new-style politics I can't understand. Fine, I can't understand it -- but I can understand the RESULTS of it, if they exist. And that would consist of Palin's alleged plan bearing some fruit in some objective measure -- like a poll. But all the polls show her as one of the weakest candidates we have. When I confront people with this, they give me a combination of "polls don't mean anything" (yes, they do; See President Barack Obama; Senator Chris Coons) and "well she hasn't started running yet." Okay, what's the hold up for beginning the Palin recovery plan? It's going to take a long, long time to dig herself out of a negative-favorability hole. A year, at least. So why is she waiting? I think there's more plausible explanations: Her plan is either in effect but isn't working at all, or she's so damaged that no plan can work, or she's not putting a plan into effect because she isn't really planning to run. This idea that she has a secret plan, and also that the fruits of this plan are also secret and invisible (in as much as they don't show up in any objective measurement of progress or viability) is absurd. It's for those who believe in magic. I don't.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 06:42 PM (nj1bB)

570 I'm still a little confused how it is that Alaska reformed the ethics-process abuse problem they had and yet there was apparently no possible way Palin could have hung in office until they did so.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 06:45 PM (nj1bB)

571 I realize this post has a sneering tone. I'm at that point. I'm sneering. I do not believe that the most important story in politics is always who's saying supportive things about Palin and who's saying critical things. I think this is like American Idol balloting at this point.
+++++++++++++++++++
And I no longer believe that you are a serious person worth listening to.
I've contributed money to you before... never again. I won't be coming here anymore.

Posted by: fabrexe at February 28, 2011 06:46 PM (anlYg)

572 >>>yeah because accepting an unfaithful wife back after she fucked around on you for 4 years abandoned you and your four daughters, married someone else is a lesson in studmanship. Hell it's almost he-manish. Daniels has the ego the size of a flea and the spine of a worm. This is the sort of silly asshole who goes around whining about the 11th Amendment when it comes to Palin.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 06:46 PM (nj1bB)

573 >>I can only ask so many times: When does Palin start winning? Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 11:42 PM (nj1bB)<< After she declares. And she'll declare when she decides to run. There is a point at which it is too late to decide, but that point is not March 2011.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 06:48 PM (UKAnE)

574

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 11:46 PM (nj1bB)

 

Ace the 11th amendment went out the window  about 2 years ago.  I have never seen you follow it.   The problem when people break the rules is the other side no longer feels they have to follow the rules either.  

 

 

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 06:50 PM (aVGmX)

575 I'm still a little confused how it is that Alaska reformed the ethics-process abuse problem they had and yet there was apparently no possible way Palin could have hung in office until they did so. Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 11:45 PM (nj1bB) Because Palin lost her state GOP when she outed her party chair as a corrupt bastard and lost her state Dems when she was nominated as VP against Teh Won. Everyone had an axe to grind and no one felt inclined to help her out. We always talk about how our leaders need to be prepared to lose in order to implement the kinds of reforms that are necessary. That's Palin.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 06:51 PM (UKAnE)

576 I also don't understand how the weakest part of Palin's game -- giving cogent answers to the media on policy -- is going to improve when she's avoiding that aspect of politics almost completely. Usually practice makes one better at something. Not practicing makes one... well not worse, but not any better. And this is what turned the public against her in 2008; why is there no effort to improve? I think a lot of people have bought into the spin. Yes, we all spun for Palin's shaky, confidence-sapping answers; but that was 50% spin. the other 50% was that her answers were, in fact, frequently bad and left you wondering if she knew what the hell she was talking about. I gave her a pass, as I've said, as she was new to the scene. But she's not new any more, and she's done nothing I can see to cure this deadly defect. her fans just keep reassuring me that the shaky, scary performance that turned voters away in 2008 will, for reasons I don't quite get, win them over in 2012. I honestly would like to see Palin improve, because if she did improve, she could in fact be a strong candidate. But as she is, she's weak. And if she doesn't improve, she's weak. And it's bizarre to keep hearing again and again that weakness is somehow a strength and that the public is going to suddenly like all the things they don't like about her now. There's not much more time to improve. The actual campaoign season as in fact started. So again, when does the plan go into operation?

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 06:51 PM (nj1bB)

577 >>>After she declares. And she'll declare when she decides to run. At that part she starts giving confident answers to unfriendly media on policy? If she can do this now, why isn't she doing this now? This is what freaks me out. I expected that 2009 to 2010 would consist of her sort of getting her political chops ready for the road. But I haven't seen that.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 06:53 PM (nj1bB)

578 >>>Because Palin lost her state GOP when she outed her party chair as a corrupt bastard and lost her state Dems when she was nominated as VP against Teh Won. Everyone had an axe to grind and no one felt inclined to help her out. We always talk about how our leaders need to be prepared to lose in order to implement the kinds of reforms that are necessary. That's Palin. Does this woman ever do anything in her family's self interest or is each of her decisions resolutely in the abstract interest of state or nation?

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 06:56 PM (nj1bB)

579 At that part she starts giving confident answers to unfriendly media on policy? If she can do this now, why isn't she doing this now? Did you watch the Long Island Association video? Lots of confident answers. If you think that forum was insufficiently unfriendly and what you really want is ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN, then you'll have to wait until she declares because she's under contract to Fox. (Is there an echo in here?)

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 06:57 PM (UKAnE)

580
@ 572 - No, it wasn't. The ethics board declared legal funds to be unethical. She tried to do it your way, and overzealous legal interpreters with axes to grind decided she couldn't. She announced her resignation right after that decision.

Err ... no.  They declared the first attempt at establishing the fund illegal because of the way it was set up.  Another fund was set up afterwards and people are still able to make donations to it today -- for past, present and future legal costs, just like it says on the site.

 @ 573  - All y'all have been trying to sell that as "not a full resume", and convincing no one not already convinced. Loud, angry, etc

Therein lies your problem.  You see, if you guys don't get busy changing some minds, and soon, she's sunk.  Right now, you're looking at a lot of people with a lot of questions, and you haven't answered any of them to anyone's satisfaction.

Of course it'll fade. Not a lot of people running around these days arguing over whether Burr had it right in challenging Hamilton to a duel. All issues fade when their relevance becomes moot. If she wins the nomination, it's moot.


Well, you do have a point.  It likely will fade at some point when she's no longer running for office.  And, at that point, it truly will be moot.  But, something tells me you understand that the no one's talking about 200 years down the road, here.  I mean, call me crazy, but it's been my impression that this entire discussion has taken place in the context of the primaries.  I mean, please tell me I don't have to specifically state that all of my points are only valid within this particular epoch.  That could get a bit tedious.

@ 575 - and yet they are still major players in the GOp race this time around are they not.  and did not Mitt and huck endorse and campaign for many candidate sin 2010.   Whereas the people that sat out 2008 are not and did not.

They're certainly not "bigger" players than they were in 2008.  And, of those who didn't run -- which constitutes quite a large number and broad array of people -- the vast majority probably maintained their level of influence.  Paul Ryan didn't get in last time, and he's much more influential now than he was in 2008.  On the other hand, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson did get in last time, and aren't making a great deal of noise these days.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 06:57 PM (OLomk)

581 Does this woman ever do anything in her family's self interest or is each of her decisions resolutely in the abstract interest of state or nation? Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 11:56 PM (nj1bB) I think she resigned thinking primarily about her family's best interest, although I believe the state factored into it as well. But that's not what I meant about making hard choices. Going after her state party chair is what I meant about hard choices. Signing an imperfect ethics statute that your party hated because political ethics in your state are that bad i what I meant about hard choices.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 06:59 PM (UKAnE)

582 Does this woman ever do anything in her family's self interest or is each of her decisions resolutely in the abstract interest of state or nation?

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 11:56 PM (nj1bB)

 

how you got there from what was posted is beyond me.   you asked why she couldn't hold out for 2 years and the poster explained  the ethics laws would never had been changed while she was in office because of the politics  and you turn it into Palin being Joan of Arc?   That's some jump in logic....

 

 

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 06:59 PM (aVGmX)

583 >>>Did you watch the Long Island Association video? Lots of confident answers. If you think that forum was insufficiently unfriendly and what you really want is ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN, then you'll have to wait until she declares because she's under contract to Fo She could appear opposite a liberal on Hannity's Great American Panel. Plus, I really doubt that Fox has an *EXCLUSIVE* relationship with her. Long Island Association? THE Long Island Association? Really? That's trial by fire?

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 07:00 PM (nj1bB)

584

Who do you like Ace? Who is your super duper candidate?

Do you have video of them being asked tough questions?

And I don't mean Christie being fondled by Scarborough during 'Morning Joe'.

Posted by: Chief at February 28, 2011 07:01 PM (ACsq3)

585 Err ... no. They declared the first attempt at establishing the fund illegal because of the way it was set up. Another fund was set up afterwards and people are still able to make donations to it today -- for past, present and future legal costs, just like it says on the site. Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 11:57 PM (OLomk) Err ... no. The current fund is legal because Palin isn't governor, not because of anything to do with the fund. If she was still governor the fund would still be unethical.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 07:02 PM (UKAnE)

586 Really? That's trial by fire? Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 12:00 AM (nj1bB) Stop moving goalposts. You asked for confident answers on policy that wasn't on Hannity.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 07:03 PM (UKAnE)

587 NancyAce needs to get rid of the Black Jack and post under something pink, or maybe a picture of a polar bear cub sliding off a melting ice block. If fat boy thinks he's going to win a Presidential primary running as a Republican, he'll need to do some serious repair to his platform positions: amnesty, crap and trade, and gun control, inc. Nice try, poseurs.

Posted by: Jaibones at February 28, 2011 07:06 PM (maka6)

588 They're certainly not "bigger" players than they were in 2008.  And, of those who didn't run -- which constitutes quite a large number and broad array of people -- the vast majority probably maintained their level of influence.  Paul Ryan didn't get in last time, and he's much more influential now than he was in 2008.  On the other hand, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson did get in last time, and aren't making a great deal of noise these days.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 11:57 PM (OLomk)

 

Like I said if Palin gets in and does bad  she will lose influence like Fred or rudy.   her risks of losing influence are if she sits out or if she runs and does badly.   there will always be  new people coming on the scene  and others fading away.   But those that don't play in the game can not and will not shape it for long.  It is just the way it is.   If Palin sits out  she loses support not gains it.    Just like clinton sat out in 2004  and by 2008 she was weakened enought that Obama  was able to win.   The risks/downsides stack up more heavily if she doesn't run then if she does. 

 

 

 

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 07:07 PM (aVGmX)

589 I'm still a little confused how it is that Alaska reformed the ethics-process abuse problem they had and yet there was apparently no possible way Palin could have hung in office until they did so.

Because the leftist Alaskan bloggers continued to file spurious ethics charges AFTER she resigned from office.

And anyone breathing knows that it is political suicide for legislators to change the ethics rules while the chief executive (state or federal) is under official investigation(s), especially if the chief executive is of the same party as the majority in the legislature.  So "hanging in there" was not an option.

BTW, to the best of my knowledge, the ethics charges only started after she accepted the nomination for the vice presidency.

Posted by: mrp at February 28, 2011 07:08 PM (HjPtV)

590 Walt Gilbert After all, this is a state whose governor can't even ethically endorse a politician running outside Alaska, much less sit for a political interview. Can you imagine if Christie were similarly restrained?

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 07:08 PM (UKAnE)

591 all of the would be candidates except palin are always on the sunday shows getting interviewed on policy. All of them. like every three weeks. Are you kidding? I'm not even talking tough questions -- I'm talking handling basic questions (with follow-ups) on policy and not flubbing it too badly. And Mitt and the rest DO flub questions, frequently. It's not like any of these guys is perfect or even close. But my memory of palin, as well as most people's, is of Palin flubbing questions and appearing very deer in the headlights in 2008. What I'd like is for her to demonstrate she's over that now, and able to give coherent answers (with the occasional flub, as everyone has). but people keep insisting that she can do this via facebook. Where 2.7 million people read her. She's narrowcasting to her personal base, which is not nearly large enough to be a winning coalition in a general. (It's only big enough to win a primary in a split field.) You guys do realize that to actually take office she needs to get 51% of the vote, right? When does she start talking to the other 40% of the public she needs to win?

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 07:10 PM (nj1bB)

592  @ 592 - Err ... except, they went on to set up another fund immediately after the original fund was shut down, which was shut down because it was called the "official" fund.  So, she had other options.

http://community.adn.com/node/140324

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 07:10 PM (OLomk)

593 >>>NancyAce needs to get rid of the Black Jack and post under something pink, or maybe a picture of a polar bear cub sliding off a melting ice block. Right, got it, because supporting a weak candidate who won't go on Meet the Press is a sign of rampaging heterosexuality.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 07:12 PM (nj1bB)

594 Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 12:10 AM (OLomk) Have you heard of the doctrine of exhaustion through futility? Thats what was going on in Alaska. Complaints were filed against the new fund too. They just were dismissed as moot because she resigned.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 07:15 PM (UKAnE)

595
Hey Ace, how's that FBI investigation against O'Donnell coming along? It would be interesting to read a post by you wondering at the irony of the fact that Boy Wonder Barack can get away with disabling identity verification software on his campaign website to facilitate untold millions of donations from various shady and downright hostile and anti-American foreign donors while O'Donnell warrants an FEC complaint and an FBI investigation for supposedly taking her campaign staff out for bowling night.

What else? Hey as long as you're taking requests, I've seen some very interesting and credible presentations that allege direct involvement by the Obama White House in coordinating the various ethics complaints and other harrassments against Palin while she was Governor.

Stories like this are an excellent way to sully(or even Sully) Obams's Golden Boy public image and show him up for the corrupt, vicious hack that he is- thereby opening the door for the now-timid Repubics to begin attacking him personally as you asserted needs to happen.

If you do either of these things, I will personally donate to you fifty bucks through  my mom's paypal account- as long as you can have the charge appear as "pool supplies" or something. I don't want to have to explain what minx.cc is all about.

But you won't do either of these things. When you're too hung over and aching to make it out of the trench, it's much easier to frack your own side and then go off on a Sheen about how dangerous it is to be you-you truth teller. Yeah Ace, we really are out to get you.

Battle-tested bayonets, Bro!

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 07:15 PM (+fNcw)

596 Plus, I really doubt that Fox has an *EXCLUSIVE* relationship with her.

Long Island Association? THE Long Island Association?

Really? That's trial by fire?


Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 12:00 AM (nj1bB)

 

Ace do you have her contract in front of you?   You have no idea if they have *exclusive* relationships with her or not.   Her book tours  point to the fact she does  since during the book tours she gave interviews to many different stations.  After the book tour not so much.   If you were  Alies and paying someone  $1 million  would you demand *exclusive* access or would you allow your top ratings person  to go on MSNBC to drive up their ratings?

 

As far as the LIA  interview. it got great reviews  even from people like Ben Smith.    nothing is worse Ace than someone that continues to live in fantasyland when  shown facts to disprove their main point...

 

 

 

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 07:15 PM (aVGmX)

597 When does she start talking to the other 40% of the public she needs to win? Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 12:10 AM (nj1bB) After she declares. You keep asking, I'll keep answering.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 07:17 PM (UKAnE)

598 >>> You have no idea if they have *exclusive* relationships with her or not. Nor do you. But people keep telling me, without knowing, that her contract prevents her from talking to anyone else.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 07:17 PM (nj1bB)

599 I love Sarah Palin -- I think she's a terrific political force, and if she chooses to use friendly media (social, chosen interviewers, etc.) to get her points across, I think that's fine.  But I also think it's entirely fair to ruminate that if she does intend to run for President, that she needs to grease the skids with some "unfriendly" interviews and have more unscripted moments.  Otherwise, as Ace points out, she opens herself up to charges of being a lightweight, much like I and others claimed about the current occupant of the White House with all of his "we're the change we've been waiting for" B.S.  Repeating the phrase "common sense conservative values" to Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren does not make for much after the 9th or 10th time.  But if she's not interested in "the job" and she wishes to stay on as a force in the opinion set, then she can, as Coulter suggests accurately, keep doing what she's doing.  Believe me, nothing would please me more than to see Sarah Palin mop the floor with David Gregory or Norah O'Donnell, but so far she's not up for it (her prerogative), but Chris Christie is, and he's doing a sensational job at it.

Posted by: D2Boston at February 28, 2011 07:18 PM (BGT5G)

600 You guys do realize that to actually take office she needs to get 51% of the vote, right?

Uhhhhh ... probably ...


Posted by: W. 2000! For The Win!! at February 28, 2011 07:21 PM (HjPtV)

601 unseen, her plan for the economy, according to that tape, is capitalist, common-sense constitutional tried and true principles like freedom and letting wealth-creators keep more wealth. Do you not notice a certain lack of specificity there?

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 07:21 PM (nj1bB)

602 Nothing would please me more than to see Sarah Palin mop the floor with David Gregory or Norah O'Donnell, but so far she's not up for it (her prerogative), but Chris Christie is, and he's doing a sensational job at it. Fair enough. I think it's also reasonable for Palin to believe the interviewers will not be as fair to her as they are to Christie and therefore she faces a bigger risk in going on those shows than he does.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 07:21 PM (UKAnE)

603 >>Stop moving goalposts. You asked for confident answers on policy that wasn't on Hannity.

Nobody is moving the goalposts.  We're merely making the point that Palin's "field goal attempt," so to speak, has still fallen short of them.  I saw the same video that you keep pimping.  I watched the "edited greatest hits" (by a friendly group of fans!) and my immediate reaction was "wow, she's fielding softballs and she's not even doing that well."  So then I went back and I watched the entire unedited thing. 

And it's pretty awful.  She's getting easy questions and still looks like a hamhocked amateur w/r/t to serious, nuts & bolts policy.  Even now.  Even after two years' worth of time to theoretically prepare. 

And these are SOFTBALLS, from a generally *very* friendly audience.  This isn't Chris Wallace or David Gregory or even Katie freakin' Couric.  This isn't a group of real adversarial journalists. 

And she can't hack it.  She has canned answers, generic applause lines, and absolutely no sense of spontaneous deviation from a carefully prepared script. 

So please stop referring to this "magic bullet" of an unscripted meet & greet (Wow!  A whole hour! With the LONG ISLAND ASSOCIATION! Those killers!) as some sort of irrefutable evidence that her intellectual capacity and policy grasp is now the equal of any other plausible nominee for President.  It begins to look like the sort of sad, Affirmative Action boosterism we see in lefty apologias for unqualified hires.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 28, 2011 07:22 PM (NjYDy)

604 And she can't hack it. She has canned answers, generic applause lines, and absolutely no sense of spontaneous deviation from a carefully prepared script. We apparently watched completely different tapes, because that's not at all what I or my non-Palinista companions saw.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 07:24 PM (UKAnE)

605 >>But you won't do either of these things. When you're too hung over and aching to make it out of the trench, it's much easier to frack your own side and then go off on a Sheen about how dangerous it is to be you-you truth teller. Yeah Ace, we really are out to get you.

Funny you should mention Charlie Sheen.  Because if anybody is "winning" in the Sheen sense of the word, it's Sarah Palin and her fans.  "Winning" to the tune of a -60 disapproval rating.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 28, 2011 07:24 PM (NjYDy)

606 >>>Fair enough. I think it's also reasonable for Palin to believe the interviewers will not be as fair to her as they are to Christie and therefore she faces a bigger risk in going on those shows than he does. Of course they will be scrutinizing her more harshly. And they'll get away with some of that, because The Narrative is set that she's not up to the job. But that just means this is her particular cross to bear. Other candidates have other problems. This is hers. She cannot win unless she does this. You cannot just keep making excuses for her. At some point she has to demonstrate that she can actually take on the press and play them to a draw. (I don't ask for a win. But then, a draw is a win for her.) But this idea that Sarah Palin is, unlike every other politician in history, to be excused from this duty because it's too hard on her... this is a scary idea, the one that bothers me. Either she can do it or she can't. I'm not into taking it on faith that at some point she'll be up to it.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 07:26 PM (nj1bB)

607 Do you not notice a certain lack of specificity there?

Gee, Ace, didn't you devote an entire post to Palin's endorsement of the Ryan Road Map plan?

Posted by: mrp at February 28, 2011 07:26 PM (HjPtV)

608 Nor do you. But people keep telling me, without knowing, that her contract prevents her from talking to anyone else.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 12:17 AM (nj1bB)

 

Because most contracts do.  Hannity says his does, Pat Buchann  says  his does.   He is allowed to do radio but can not appear on any other channel but MSNBC  unless he is sellling a book.   Most media contracts of pundits  are like that.  Or  do you see alot of Ed shultz on Cnn  or BOR on ABC?  Or Jake Trapper on NBC?

but I'm sure you would pay someone  a $1 million  bucks  and not care where she goes and who she talks too...

As far as Sunday shows Palin has appeared on Foxnews Sunday  a couple of times and handled  the questions well enough and chris wallace is no  "friend" of Palin's.....Unlike Chrisite  or Daniels  Palin has a contract  with Fox.news.   that is a big difference no matter if you want to see it or not...

 

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 07:27 PM (aVGmX)

609 She cannot win unless she does this. You cannot just keep making excuses for her. Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 12:26 AM (nj1bB) If you'll read a little farther back you will notice I agreed that she has to do this. I am disagreeing on the timeline: she does not have to do it until she decides to run.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 07:29 PM (UKAnE)

610 "Right, got it, because supporting a weak candidate who won't go on Meet the Press is a sign of rampaging heterosexuality." No, because supporting a liberal who holds lib-Democrat positions on core conservative issues makes you a RINO pansy. Hey, you could change the Jolly Roger to Jack Sparrow?

Posted by: Jaibones at February 28, 2011 07:29 PM (maka6)

611 And. once upon a time, there was a Narrative that she was political toast the moment she resigned from office;  and now one of the biggest beaters of that tom-tom is now whining that she won't spend face-time with David Gregory and George  Steph,etc. LOL!

Posted by: mrp at February 28, 2011 07:30 PM (HjPtV)

612 >>>Gee, Ace, didn't you devote an entire post to Palin's endorsement of the Ryan Road Map plan? Yes but as I said she simply endorsed the plan, broadly. Look, if you think that a candidate with a reputation for being a bit dopey and uninformed is going to become president without REFUTING this reputation and getting into nuts and bolts details -- if you think she'll be able to prosper politically with the 51% of the country she needs while offering only generalities and bromides-- well, let's say I disagree strongly. I think you guys are doing what the media did with Obama, where his every vague, dumb utterance was treated as the Wisdom of God, really. I hear Palin offering vague bromides here (which is no problem, because the questions aren't very specific; she's not really being grilled on policy) and you're praising it as something noteworthy. I didn't say she was *RETARDED*, you know.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 07:31 PM (nj1bB)

613 unseen, her plan for the economy, according to that tape, is capitalist, common-sense constitutional tried and true principles like freedom and letting wealth-creators keep more wealth.

Do you not notice a certain lack of specificity there?

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 12:21 AM (nj1bB)

 

do you remeber Bush's plan for the economy in 2000?  Or Obama's  plan for the economy in 2008?   or Reagan's plan in 1980?   the problem with people when it comes to Palin is they demand something from her that no other politican has to give.     

 

You start talking bullet  points and facts and figures and voters eyes  roll  over and you lose their interest.   She endorsed Rayn's roadmap.  she has called for cutting corp tax rates, increased energy production to increase jobs and gov rev among other things.  She has called for changing entitlements programs for  new people entering the system.    Her polices and positions  are all over the place....

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 07:33 PM (aVGmX)

614  @ 615 - Unlike Chrisite  or Daniels  Palin has a contract  with Fox.news.   that is a big difference no matter if you want to see it or not...

Surely there's an escape clause somewhere in there.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 07:33 PM (OLomk)

615 >>>And. once upon a time, there was a Narrative that she was political toast the moment she resigned from office; um... okay. I like how you're assuming that's not true in order to prove it's not true. That's a logical fallacy, you know. Your proof that she's viable is that she's viable. She's not viable with a -23 favorability rating. Let me repeat this fact: Al Sharpton's favorability in 2004 was -30. Just to put it into perspective what bad shape she is in.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 07:34 PM (nj1bB)

616

Ace, why don't you post the video and let you readers decide.

Jeff, every fucking person at the event was impressed and I'd suspect 75% of the crowd was composed of social liberals.

The interviewer is a pro-gun control, pro-abortion, hardcore Democrat.  Unlike Christie screaming at a bunch of union hacks, the interviewer was a perfectly respectable guy who posed a good challenge.

Any asshole can give a canned speech in front a hard-right audience at AEI.  Why do you think Rudy and Bill Clinton did not let cameras into their speech at this same event. Seriously, nearly every fucking person in the center-left audience was impressed.  You are pretty much the only fucking person who wasn't.

Ace, why not put up the fucking video?

Posted by: drudge23 at February 28, 2011 07:34 PM (5cLDO)

617 >>>You start talking bullet points and facts and figures and voters eyes roll over and you lose their interest. I love how Palin's supporters are so quick to make this claim, that Palin doesn't have to prove fluency with math and policy because it's boring. I think they strongly suspect she is incapable of it which is why they always scream she must not be asked to do it. unseen, would it be boring for her to do it just ONCE or TWICE to demonstrate she can? Or would that be counterproductive too?

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 07:35 PM (nj1bB)

618 >>Gee, Ace, didn't you devote an entire post to Palin's endorsement of the Ryan Road Map plan?

Yes, and we've already discussed this issue before: in that endorsement (which, I must point out, was almost certainly written for her by a staffer) she gave absolutely no indication that she had actually, you know, *read the damn thing.*  She just said "this is a good idea, I support it."

Which is nice, but I would sort of appreciate some indication -- even the slightest bit -- that she's actually immersed herself in the complexities of Ryan's plan and knows what she's endorsing.  Not having a staffer give her a nice 'talking points memo' version of the Roadmap, but actually reading the thing herself. 

Every supposedly "intellectual" move she has made ("look at this great editorial!"; "look at this great Facebook post") has been very conveniently made in writing, behind the wall of the internet.  And each piece is written in a voice that, curiously, bears absolutely none of the hallmarks of Palin's own style.  (I could give away the game here and admit that I know who her ghostwriter for foreign policy matters is, but then...oops, I guess I just gave away the game.  It's Randy Scheunemann.) 

So I still don't have even the slightest bit of proof that this woman is SMART ENOUGH FOR THE JOB, for god's sake.  That matters to me, immensely, just as it matters to the vast majority of voters. 

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 28, 2011 07:36 PM (NjYDy)

619 Ace, the answer to your polls question is, when do the polls start to matter? Now, or after Iowa?

As for the "Beating Obama" polls, they had Reagan getting beat by Carter before the "There you go again" debate. Those polls have always heavily favored incumbency. I look only at Republican and Independent, likely voters types of poll, and ignore most of the others as ways to make long-ass campaigns seem interesting. Not a lot of the "likely voter" polls have been floated recently (that I've seen). The top Gallup polls lately keep showing things to be the usual, "statistical tie." So I'm not sure what's got you so worked up.

Weakest candidate we have? So far, we have two candidates, so take your pick: Pawlenty and Cain. Comparing anyone not running to anyone else not running is really far too much like fantasy baseball at this point. Besides, some genius types believe a successful Republican congress guarantees an Obama win, thanks to an improved economy. Things aren't anywhere near the critical stage for the un-announced candidates yet.

So claiming she's being floated by her supporters on some magic formula or un-announced strategy is being too tightly focused. She's consistently hung in the top tier of "candidates" without putting on a PR blitz, and while working mostly on helping 2010 candidates. With contributors and organization, things totally change. We aren't in the public-version of campaign operations for anyone except Cain and Pawlenty.

The only "things that are campaign-ish" that can be looked at much are her new staff guy and her PAC, both of which have been impressive to people who track that sort of stuff (I got nothin' there, other than to passively note that whole, "record amount of money" thing).

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 07:37 PM (9b6FB)

620 I think you guys are doing what the media did with Obama, where his every vague, dumb utterance was treated as the Wisdom of God, really. Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 12:31 AM (nj1bB) I see significant differences. To this day many acquaintances think I'm an idiot because I don't agree with everything Obama does. [See, he's a genius, and it only proves that I'm stupid if I can't see that.] No Palinista expects you to always agree with her or believe she's the second coming of JC or Ronald Reagan. No one Only a very few think she's perfect. They/we mostly just want you to give her a chance to run and prove herself and avoid bitter personal attacks at least until she declares.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 07:37 PM (UKAnE)

621 Ace, "unseen-#603" is in my opinion correct with his assertion of your continued "don't confuse me with the facts " attitude.  You continue to harp on her supposedly only reaching her core supporters via Facebook.  I posted part of the following @ #552 above, which you either didn't see or simply ignored: You obviously are not well informed on the subject.  "Death Panels" came from her Facebook page, but it never went beyond her narrow core of supporters.  Yeah, right.  Then there was her statement on QE2 that the WSJ commented very favorably on in an editorial.  I could go on and on with other examples.  The media has such a fixation about her that her Facebook postings become news themselves, not to mention the blogosphere coverage.  They clearly reach a hell of a lot more people than her Facebook followers and book buyers.

I'm sure that you're familiar with Conservatives4Palin.  Although you may consider it just a self-serving Palin site, it closely tracks Palin's activities, speeches and interviews and the media's reaction thereto.  It's an excellent clearing house for Palin issues.  You might want to visit it before your next article or set of comments on Palin.  If you do, you'll no doubt come across as much better informed.

Posted by: NDFan at February 28, 2011 07:38 PM (V+woP)

622

Ace,

She trails Obama by 11-12 points according to Democrat-friendly PPP and Newseek before campaigning.  That's not insurmountable at all.

Why don't you post the fucking video and let your readers decide.  But think about why everyone who attended the event was impressed by her.  Remember that this is a pro-abortion crowd.

Believe me, Palin wants this video distributed far and wide.  Why don't you think the media played the video of it when  was available.

Posted by: drudge23 at February 28, 2011 07:39 PM (5cLDO)

623 There's a quote from airplane: "Should I put on the lights on the landing strip?" "No -- that's just what they'll be expecting." Similarly, when I say "Maybe Palin should disabuse people's perception that she's not fluent in policy by offering a wonkish defense of specific policies," a lot of her supporters say "NO -- that's just what they'll be expecting." Unreal. So again I seem to be told that Palin could change this situation whenever she wants; she just doesn't want to.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 07:40 PM (nj1bB)

624 Surely there's an escape clause somewhere in there.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 12:33 AM (OLomk)

 

Most likely  she can cancel the contract whenever she wishes.   But until then she is bound by it.  Foxnews could seek damages  if she breaks the contract.  Since we don't know  what is in the contract we can only assume it is like most media pundit  contracts which means exclusive access for the station that hired them  unless they ar edoing things like a book tour.      All I know is when she has  done book tours she has appeaered on most the channels (except MSNBC and CNN).   This narrative that she doesn't do interviews with  other people didn't start until after she signed the contract with foxnews.    

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 07:41 PM (aVGmX)

625 >>And. once upon a time, there was a Narrative that she was political toast the moment she resigned from office

Huh.  Near as I can tell, she's still political toast, and her toastiness pretty much CAN be dated exactly from the moment she resigned from office.  Sure, she can and does influence the debate, but she'll never be elected to another political office again.  Hell, she couldn't even get elected in ALASKA.  Seriously -- if she ran against Mark Begich in 2014 I doubt she could even secure the GOP nomination, much less win the race.  (And don't give me this "corrupt Alaska GOP boys club" drivel, either -- she got the nom for governor once already, so it was *obviously* possible.)

And I have the reams and reams and reams of polling data from every single source imaginable (GOP-leaning, Dem-leaning, and non-partisan) to prove it.

You, on the other hand, counter that with the awesome powers of your atom-splitting mind, wherein mere assertion to the contrary is sufficient to demonstrate proof of that being asserted.

Guess I lose.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 28, 2011 07:42 PM (NjYDy)

626 So again I seem to be told that Palin could change this situation whenever she wants; she just doesn't want to. Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 12:40 AM (nj1bB) You seem to be hearing what you want to hear. She's under a contract with a media channel. She appears on that channel. She will have to leave when she becomes a political candidate, both because of "equal time" rules and because she can't win without going on unfriendly shows. So relax and be patient. If she does, she does. If she doesn't, who cares. Embrace the Zen, Ace.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 07:44 PM (UKAnE)

627 What would be your idea of winning, Jeff?

Huckabee, against the pleading of his DA, releasing a violent felon into society who then goes on to murder four police officers? WWWWWinninggg!

Romney, shoveling himself out of the  immense dung-heap of Romneycare- hopefully in time to save us from Obamacare- after he gets through explaining to a perplexed voting public about the distinctions between the two?

Mitch Daniels, who when he's not busy tripping over his own limp dick, is trying to convince us that the latest incredibly bone-headed and tone-deaf statement he just issued is not really what you thought it was?

So many of the people who excoriate Palin are completely mum about the collosal failings of these other characters. I heard back in "08 that we had to settle for the one who was most electable. I'm not going for that shit again.

Palin's poll numbers will improve when America sees the Sarah Palin that debated for the Alaska governorship- and she doesn't need fucking David Gregory make her case.

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 07:45 PM (+fNcw)

628 Me: If she wins the nomination, it's moot.

You: Well, you do have a point.  It likely will fade at some point when she's no longer running for office.  And, at that point, it truly will be moot.  But, something tells me you understand that the no one's talking about 200 years down the road, here.  I mean, call me crazy, but it's been my impression that this entire discussion has taken place in the context of the primaries.  I mean, please tell me I don't have to specifically state that all of my points are only valid within this particular epoch.  That could get a bit tedious.

------

It will get even more tedious if you ignore a pretty darned specific qualifier as to which particular epoch it becomes mooted. When she wins the primary, it's fish or cut bait for the "Palin can't win" crowd. So it will be moot right then and there. Why?

It can't be used like a hammer, over and over when lawsuit abuse is a real problem that had to be addressed by the Alaskan legislature, and everyone knows has to be addressed at the national level, too. At that point, Obama's tolerance of lawsuit abuse (if he or his surrogates bring it up again and again) and his distaste for school vouchers make just as heavy a millstone to carry into any election.

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 07:46 PM (9b6FB)

629 Look, if people keep insisting that a certain kid is the greatest basketball player ever, but he doesn't actually play the game, at some point people are within their rights to question if he is a good player. If he's a good player, why doesn't he ever demonstrate this and play a game? I keep being told that Palin is a great politician but when I ask why she hasn't entered the real arena for two years I'm told... oh, different things. Her contract, people get bored of policy, etc., etc., etc. If she's a good player she'll start playing. No one gets to be an NBA all star from FaceBook.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 07:48 PM (nj1bB)

630 >>>Palin's poll numbers will improve when America sees the Sarah Palin that debated for the Alaska governorship- When is this going to happen? Or do you suggest that Palin run commercials advising people 'Watch my six year old debates for governor on youtube"?

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 07:48 PM (nj1bB)

631

Jeff,

You are total piece of shit.  She would beat Begich.  As for the nomination, how else did Miller win 51% of the vote without any money?  She led Ethan Berkowitz by 20 in a poll taken at around the time of her resignation.

 

If you and Ace want to be the only two people who didn't find her impressive, then so be it.  But post the fucking video so your readers can find out how wrong you are.

Posted by: drudge23 at February 28, 2011 07:49 PM (5cLDO)

632 The Gallup poll released Feb. 23 shows Palin, Huckabee, and Romney in a statistical tie among Republican and Republican-leaning primary voters.

Posted by: mrp at February 28, 2011 07:50 PM (HjPtV)

633 So again I seem to be told that Palin could change this situation whenever she wants; she just doesn't want to.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 12:40 AM (nj1bB)

 

 

the left used a similar attack line against bush.  they wanted him to admit he made a mistake  any mistake to prove he wasn't a egomanic and was human.   because you see all humans  make mistakes and bush's failure to admit he made any mad ehim less of a person.   Bush wisely  did  not give into the demands of the left.   since they would have simply took his admited mistake and pounded him with it. 

 

See Palin gives a speech on QE2  saying inflation is going to be going gangbusters  soon and food prices are already being impacted.    She calls for a strong dollar policy form our government.   Palin is called stupid by the MSM  and the left  and some on the right rush to print on how she is so totally wrong and doesn't know what she is talking about.   Now with food prices going up  and causing the entire ME to revolt which in turn is causing energy prices to spike (another thing  we were told she didn't know anything about)   You get the stories tha tPalin was right all along.  Of course those stories are on page 6  and the  ones about her being wrong ar eon page one.  In short Palin can not change the preception    by simply doing a sunday talk show.   because no matter what she says  the media will  say it was stupid  by   the usally suspects.   

 

the only way she can change the preception is to get on the same stage as the other candidates and be judge in comparision with them.  You know this Ace  or at least you should. 

 

 

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 07:51 PM (aVGmX)

634  @ 631 - Most likely  she can cancel the contract whenever she wishes.   But until then she is bound by it.

Fairly or not, sooner or later, it's going to dawn on people that she seemed to have a whole lot less trouble breaking her contract with Alaska's voters.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 07:51 PM (OLomk)

635

Ace,

People are rejecting your argument.  Do you understand that they aren't accepting your premise?  They view Long Island as "in the arena."

Why don't you post the fucking video and show your readers?

Posted by: drudge23 at February 28, 2011 07:51 PM (5cLDO)

636 >>> "Death Panels" came from her Facebook page, but it never went beyond her narrow core of supporters. Yeah, right. Then there was her statement on QE2 that the WSJ commented very favorably on in an editorial. I could go on and on with other examples. Actually I strongly suspect you could not go on and on with other examples. Whenever I ask for actual tangible contributions to the public debate -- signs that Palin is 'winning" -- I hear about these two things, a two-word catchphrase and a single WSJ editorial (which, let's face it, is not necessarily written by her).

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 07:51 PM (nj1bB)

637 When is this going to happen? Or do you suggest that Palin run commercials advising people 'Watch my six year old debates for governor on youtube"?

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 12:48 AM (nj1bB)

 

hmm how about during the freaking debates?  I like how people want her to run a genral election campaign during a primary election and wants her to debate herself  before the actual  hmmm debates...

 

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 07:52 PM (aVGmX)

638 >>>If you and Ace want to be the only two people who didn't find her impressive, then so be it. But post the fucking video so your readers can find out how wrong you are. it's impressive that she can speak in bromides? really? You're easily impressed.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 07:53 PM (nj1bB)

639 Look, if people keep insisting that a certain kid is the greatest basketball player ever, but he doesn't actually play the game, at some point people are within their rights to question if he is a good player. If he's a good player, why doesn't he ever demonstrate this and play a game? Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 12:48 AM (nj1bB) She has played the game, Ace. She played AA ball, and then AAA ball. Her rookie year in the majors wasn't fantastic, but could have been worse. She's got a good arm and based on her record she's worth keeping on the roster. But during the offseason people don't play real games. They play practice games. You have to wait for the real season to start to see if she can take the pressure.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 07:54 PM (UKAnE)

640 >>>The Gallup poll released Feb. 23 shows Palin, Huckabee, and Romney in a statistical tie among Republican and Republican-leaning primary voters. Few doubt she has a good chance to win the primary. That's what is so scary. That she can win the primary without a chance to win the general. Quote the head-to-head polls versus Obama...

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 07:54 PM (nj1bB)

641 Fairly or not, sooner or later, it's going to dawn on people that she seemed to have a whole lot less trouble breaking her contract with Alaska's voters.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 12:51 AM (OLomk)

 

Not at all.  when she declares to run she will cancel her contract with foxnews.   Just like Newt is about to do if he hasn't already... 

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 07:54 PM (aVGmX)

642

Jeff,

You are total piece of shit.  She would beat Begich.  As for the nomination, how else did Miller win 51% of the vote without any money?  She led Ethan Berkowitz by 20 in a poll taken at around the time of her resignation.

I'm a total piece of shit, eh?  I guess you'll think I'm a REAL piece of shit when I point out that Sarah Palin went all in against Lisa Murkowski AND LOST.  Much like in the rest of the nation, she excites a narrow slice of the Alaska electorate - the 35% or so that are dead-red conservative Republicans (in other words, Joe Miller's voters in the 2010 race), and turns off the rest.  Yes, that's right -- even in Alaska.

To be fair, I do suspect she could defeat Begich, given the narrow margin of his victory and the tenuousness of any Dem victory in a state like AK.  But do I think she could win the GOP nomination?  Not a chance in hell.  And citing polls taken around the time of her resignation is a laugher, because suffice to say a lot has changed since then.  

Deal with it.  As Radiohead might say: "you're living in a fantasy world...this beautiful world..."

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 28, 2011 07:54 PM (NjYDy)

643

Ace,

By the way, your interpretation of what she said about another conservative being in the race is self-serving.  based on her statements, she's no less likely to run than any of the hacks that you promote here.  None of them would have done better than her in the Long Island event.  Think about why Clinton wouldn't let cameras in?  It's a tough arena.

You can post the video and your readers can tell you how wrong you are.

Posted by: drudge23 at February 28, 2011 07:56 PM (5cLDO)

644 Few doubt she has a good chance to win the primary. That's what is so scary. That she can win the primary without a chance to win the general.

Quote the head-to-head polls versus Obama...

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 12:54 AM (nj1bB)

 

ace,  do you think those polls are the high or low water mark for Mitt and huck  since they have had little if any negative press for the last two years.   If they can't beat Obama now  with all the favoralbe press they are toast once the election starts  and Obama  sends out his attack dogs...

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 07:57 PM (aVGmX)

645 We apparently watched completely different tapes, because that's not at all what I or my non-Palinista companions saw.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at March 01, 2011 12:24 AM (UKAnE)

I always love opinion, coated heavily in abuse, being sold as fact. I think we've gotten to the usual circularity where the Palin supporters offer lists, proof by video, appeal to other authorities, and even my minor mention of record-setting fundraising.

But those "SHE SHOWED ME NOTHING" folks have tightened up the blinders to nursing-home levels. It's pretty hard to argue through that.

(and no, I won't apologize for not being PC about nursing homes or whatever anyone wants to make it out to be. It's a lame joke. Tough.)

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 07:59 PM (9b6FB)

646 Ace@644:
"Whenever I ask for actual tangible contributions to the public debate -- signs that Palin is 'winning" -- I hear about these two things, a two-word catchphrase and a single WSJ editorial (which, let's face it, is not necessarily written by her)"

See, this is where you kind of go off the rails for me, when you refuse to even give her credit for the WSJ editorial by suggesting that maybe she didn't right it.  It's like you're stretching to find ways of denying her credit for anything substantive.

Posted by: Kensington at February 28, 2011 07:59 PM (mEyVv)

647 >>What would be your idea of winning, Jeff?

Sartana, you know what my idea of winning would be?  Very simple: ANY REPUBLICAN defeating Obama.  ANY ONE.  Conservative? Great!  RINO? I'll take it!  Mike Castle?  Jesus, I'd even suck it up and take that.  Because the alternative is four more years of Barack fucking Obama. 

If Sarah Palin could actually win -- if she was even remotely qualified for the job, if she was smart enough to handle its demands, if she had the proper temperament, IF SHE COULD WIN 51% OF THE VOTE -- then I'd take that, too!  I just want to fucking win.  And anyone who doesn't is a goddamned fool who's failing to realize how Truly Fucking Crucial the stakes are.  Four more years of Obama and we're all doomed.  I'd take the RINO-iest RINO in order to get his ass out of office, although I wouldn't be thrilled about it.  If you wouldn't make that trade-off too, then you're pretty much scum.  Because you'd rather watch the world burn to prove a point. 

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 28, 2011 08:00 PM (NjYDy)

648 it's impressive that she can speak in bromides? really?

You're easily impressed.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 12:53 AM (nj1bB)

 

hey keep lowering the bar for her.  Pretty soon people will be impressed if she ties her shoes.

 

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 08:00 PM (aVGmX)

649 >>> None of them would have done better than her in the Long Island event. This Long Island event has a more central role in the presidential-selecting process than I ever before realized.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 08:00 PM (nj1bB)

650 Didn't "write" it, obviously.  Oy, it's late.

Posted by: Kensington at February 28, 2011 08:00 PM (mEyVv)

651

Ace,

Go ask the center-left pro-abortion crowd that was impressed.  Why won't you post it?  Are you worried a piece of excrement  like Jeff B. won't be able to explain how the center-left and your readers agree on how good she was?

Just post it man.  What are you worried about? 

Posted by: drudge23 at February 28, 2011 08:00 PM (5cLDO)

652  @ 636 - It can't be used like a hammer, over and over when lawsuit abuse is a real problem that had to be addressed by the Alaskan legislature, and everyone knows has to be addressed at the national level, too. At that point, Obama's tolerance of lawsuit abuse (if he or his surrogates bring it up again and again) and his distaste for school vouchers make just as heavy a millstone to carry into any election.

I'm sure that's a very comforting thought, and you've rationalized it nicely and neatly.  But, if you think getting past the primaries is going to make the "quitter" issue suddenly redound to her benefit, you're the most hopeful and optimistic person I've ever encountered in my entire life.  Seriously.  I mean that.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 08:01 PM (OLomk)

653 You might want to visit it before your next article or set of comments on Palin.  If you do, you'll no doubt come across as much better informed.

Posted by: NDFan at March 01, 2011 12:38 AM (V+woP)

 

Why would he want to do that.  Ace gets his Palin news from US weekly and national enquirer

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 08:02 PM (aVGmX)

654 >>>See, this is where you kind of go off the rails for me, when you refuse to even give her credit for the WSJ editorial by suggesting that maybe she didn't right it. Oh, because you didn't realize that politician's editorials are frequently ghost-written? You weren't aware of that? Have you honestly never heard that? Did you not know JFK didn't write Profiles in Courage? or did you hear that, but you're insisting, because this is SARAH PALIN, that of course SHE writes all of her own campaign communications? What evidence do you have for that? That is why I'd like to see HER, HER answer these questions. Not just see a FaceBook entry or editorial signed by her.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 08:02 PM (nj1bB)

655  I've ever encountered in my entire life.  Seriously.  I mean that.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 01:01 AM (OLomk)

 

didn't seem to impact Dole in 96 when he quit his senate seat to run for POTUS  did it.

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 08:04 PM (aVGmX)

656 ...less trouble breaking her contract with Alaska's voters.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 12:51 AM (OLomk)

Now winning an election is a contract? What next, collective bargaining? Hey, maybe SEIU will open an office of "Executive Workers" or something.

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 08:04 PM (9b6FB)

657 Wow, dude, are you really going to strawman me on that?  Because JFK didn't write a fucking BOOK, then Sarah Palin might not have written an editorial?

And because politicians employ ghost writers, then we have to presume that Sarah Palin couldn't have written a fucking editorial?

Weak.

Posted by: Kensington at February 28, 2011 08:06 PM (mEyVv)

658 What evidence do you have for that?

That is why I'd like to see HER, HER answer these questions. Not just see a FaceBook entry or editorial signed by her.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 01:02 AM (nj1bB)

 

She stated on Greta  that she writes her own facebooks posts  during her going rouge book tour.   She also has a very small staff.   I'm sure some of the stuff can be ghost written  but do you find yourself  wondering why you are repeating daily KOS talking points  against a fellow conservaitve ?   Next you will be saying the Koch brothers are bankrolling her.  

 

 

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 08:07 PM (aVGmX)

659 but you're insisting, because this is SARAH PALIN, that of course SHE writes all of her own campaign communications? What evidence do you have for that? Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 01:02 AM (nj1bB) Does Mitt Romney or T-Paw have to prove to you that he wrote an editorial with his name at the byline?

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 08:07 PM (UKAnE)

660 The thing is, I don't know for sure that she can turn her numbers around to a sufficient degree. I sure want her to, but I'm not asking anyone to hitch themselves to a faith wagon of "Believe! It WILL happen! And doubters shall not enter the Promised Land." It may or may not happen but at this point the best we can do is wait and see. And not panic just because she's not expanding her support among doubters at this moment.

There will be multi-candidate debates. There will be one-on-one interviews with alphabet network hosts. In the next dozen months there will be plenty of opportunities to make her case. Will she rise to that challenge? I can't tell you for certain one way or the other. We'll just have to find out when we get there.

Posted by: Dan K. at February 28, 2011 08:07 PM (BFm2s)

661 And furthermore, I have to PROVE that she wrote it?

Why don't you have to prove that she didn't?

Posted by: Kensington at February 28, 2011 08:07 PM (mEyVv)

662  But this idea that Sarah Palin is, unlike every other politician in history, to be excused from this duty because it's too hard on her- Ace

Where did you ever get the idea that it is a "duty" to appear on Meet hte Press or any of the other clownish weekend or morning shows? If we had anything resembling an objective mainstream media, I might agree. But when Obama can do any number of interviews and tell such collosal, provable lies and not be called on the mat- then, no,  would say that it's not necessary for a candidate go that route.

For CNN to declare, during the Jerehmiah Wright revelations of 2008, that CNN would be a "Wright-free zone"- for an established network to declare a black-out on the most explosive revelations in the history of American politics, is basically to declare themselves a partisan outlet and I wouldn't think it incumbent upon a Republican candidate to appear there than it would be for them to do an interview for Indymedia.

I think Palin sees all the big media outlets as Left-wing advocacy outfits- that she doesn't much distinguish between Daily Kos and ABC. Whether she decides to make her case to the audience they have is up to her- but I don't see it necessary to use those outlets. Perhaps she's making a gamble by going around them, and if so, we'll see.

But if you think she's ignoring them out of fear, then you're as dumb as you think she is.

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 08:08 PM (+fNcw)

663 Have you honestly never heard that? Did you not know JFK didn't write Profiles in Courage?

JFK?  Don't you mean President John F. Kennedy?

And the next thing you'll tell us is that President Barack Hussein Obama didn't write his own memoirs.

Man, politicians ...  they'll break your heart, after they win office.

Posted by: mrp at February 28, 2011 08:09 PM (HjPtV)

664 This Long Island event has a more central role in the presidential-selecting process than I ever before realized.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 01:00 AM (nj1bB)

 

Well you know they had Clinton and Bush speak there  after they left office.  It's not like it is a hole in the wall.   Oh  yeah and she drew more people than either of them...  but maybe you aren't up on the important stuff.  I mean speaking at an event that two expresidents spoke at where people paid 5,000-50,000  for a seat and having the entire room on the edge of their seat in engaged and clapping for the full hour.  I mean any housewife can do that.....not to mention getting great reviews from your journalolist pal Ben smith from the politco and stuff....

 

 

 

 

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 08:11 PM (aVGmX)

665 I'm sure that's a very comforting thought, and you've rationalized it nicely and neatly.  But, if you think getting past the primaries is going to make the "quitter" issue suddenly redound to her benefit, you're the most hopeful and optimistic person I've ever encountered in my entire life.  Seriously.  I mean that.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 01:01 AM (OLomk)

Hope and of course, "deserve's got nothing to do with it." How many times can they hit her with it? After how many times will it sound like "where's the birth certificate." You can hope for it to stick, and on some it may, but most of us are tired of the lameness of "quitter."

What's more, a lot of us are not going to keep taking this same old shit, over and over again.

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 08:13 PM (9b6FB)

666 >>Where did you ever get the idea that it is a "duty" to appear on Meet hte Press or any of the other clownish weekend or morning shows?

I've got news for you, Sartana: if you're running for President, then it *is* a duty to appear on Meet The Press or those "clownish weekend" shows.  A duty.  Every single serious presidential candidate in the history of modern television has had to do those shows.  Every. Single. One.  Including Barack Obama. 

Why?  Simple: because it's one of the most obvious and immediately accessible places to test the mettle of a potential candidate.  It's a well-known fact that candidacies (for state or national office) can rise or fall based on a politician's ability/inability to hack it on that stage. 

Palin is not exempt from these rules.  She does not get a "special pass" because she's just so darn special and awesome and inspiring that she can singlehandedly rewrite the rules.  Or, if you think she is, then it's incumbent upon you to explain how such a strategy might work, with particular focus on how you'll be able to convince voters that this strategy isn't merely due to fear and an inability to actually carry herself on a national stage in the face of tough questioning.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 28, 2011 08:15 PM (NjYDy)

667 I am actually looking forward to the debates, because finally we will not be exclusively treated to the "Palin has faults!!!" game anymore. Instead it will be a matter of whose faults are bigger or more damaging. That's a much different game.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 08:16 PM (UKAnE)

668 Shorter PDS: She's stupid, so she must be stupid.

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 08:17 PM (9b6FB)

669 From this discussion it has become  very clear that Ace knows next to nothing about Palin and doesn't wish to know anything more about Palin.   Which coming from a blogger that prides himself as the goto politcial blog is frankly a bit of a LOL moment.   So I guess we can continue to ge tthe US Weekly version of Palin news form Ace and  his site.

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 08:19 PM (aVGmX)

670 Panic is starting to set in for supporters of the not-Palin 2012 possibles.

Christie and Daniels are getting a bit ripe.  Romney is slipping.  Huckabee is sending pretty strong signals that he's not 100% for a go at the brass ring.   If Palin's plan is to low-key things through March so that the anti-Palins sink themselves, it's working like a charm.

Posted by: mrp at February 28, 2011 08:19 PM (HjPtV)

671 >>I mean speaking at an event that two expresidents spoke at where people paid 5,000-50,000  for a seat and having the entire room on the edge of their seat in engaged and clapping for the full hour.

Oops!  You just gave the game away.  People paid $5,000-$50,000 for the privilege of attending this talk?  ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?  Do you even realize what you have inadvertently admitted?  This was a paying audience, and HIGHLY-paying audience at that, which means that by definition it was self-selecting.  Only people who are fans of Palin, or are at least inclined to be sympathetic towards her, are going to pony up that kind of money for the privilege of listening to her speak for an hour.  Only. Fans. 

People who are enemies or Palin-skeptics do not pay that kind of serious cash to listen to her speak.  If you think otherwise then your understanding of the basic operation of human nature is as deficient as your understanding of how national electoral politics works. 

So the room was stacked with rich Palin fans.  And she got softball questions plus prolonged applause?  WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT?!?!?

Jesus Christ, sometimes you Palin fans parody yourselves and you don't even know it.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 28, 2011 08:20 PM (NjYDy)

672 Hey, Sartana, you have to abide by the rules, man. You do like all the other Republican candidates, and let the lefty media run all the debates. And treat failing shows as coequal to the successful ones. That's how it's done, son!

And some wonder why the Republican party has earned the nickname, "The Party Of Stupid."

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 08:20 PM (9b6FB)

673 Does Mitt Romney or T-Paw have to prove to you that he wrote an editorial with his name at the byline?

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at March 01, 2011 01:07 AM (UKAnE)

 

Well from now on they will have to prove it too me.  I will require that they set up a videolink  so I can see them write it  or anything and everything they write and say will by default be ghostwritten and done  by paid staffers.  

 

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 08:21 PM (aVGmX)

674  @ 663  - didn't seem to impact Dole in 96 when he quit his senate seat to run for POTUS  did it.

As I recall, Dole had put in more than two years serving the people of Kansas.  That said, I'm not sure he's the candidate you'd want to use as a rationale.

 @ 664 - Now winning an election is a contract? What next, collective bargaining? Hey, maybe SEIU will open an office of "Executive Workers" or something.

You're not helping her, you know.  I mean, you're supposed to be trying to assure people that she actually takes holding office seriously, and not something to be cast aside as blithely as a Fox News contributor contract, am I right?

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 08:22 PM (OLomk)

675 Ace, the WSJ editorial was by their editors.  It was commenting on her op-ed in the National Review.  A couple of quotes from the WSJ editorial of 11/9/10: "According to the prepared text of remarks that she released to National Review online, Mrs. Palin also exhibited a more sophisticated knowledge of monetary policy than any major Republican this side of Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan." and "Misguided monetary policy can ruin an Administration as thoroughly as higher taxes and destructive regulation, and the new GOP majority in the House and especially the next GOP President need to be alert to the dangers. Mrs. Palin is way ahead of her potential Presidential competitors on this policy point, and she shows a talent for putting a technical subject in language that average Americans can understand."  Then there was her editorial in the Wash. Post on the Cap and Tax (Trade) dead end; her Energy policy op-ed in National Review; another piece in the National Review on the START treaty.  There are more examples, but it's getting late and a 7:00 AM breakfast meeting will be here before I want it to be.

Posted by: NDFan at February 28, 2011 08:22 PM (V+woP)

676 Hey, so there's probably not a lot of rich people on Long Island, right?

Who knew? (The fundraiser was not for Palin, BTW.)

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 08:23 PM (9b6FB)

677 >>>Why don't you have to prove that she didn't? I don't know if she did or didn't write it. That's what I said and that's my point. You're the one who seems sure of his position. I said it was an open question. It would be less of a question if she answered questions with follow-ups about her position.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 08:24 PM (nj1bB)

678  
Palin does write her own Facebook posts. One of the emails that was leaked from Todd Palin's email account back this fall, was an email Todd wrote to Joe Miller. Todd was fired up about Miller's apparent dismissal of Sarah's presidential viability and there was a line pretty much like the following:

"Sarah's been working all morning on a Facebook post refuting the charges against your record, but now she's not going to post it."

The email proved what a hard-ass Todd is, and also that he plays much more of a part behind the scenes than we could have guessed.  Also, it indirectly confirms her authorship. Todd stated in an email he thought only Joe Miller would see, that Sarah was at work on a Facebook post- this is obviously not something made up to bolster her image.  There was also a lengty piece on Palin last year, in the New York Times I believe, where the Times reporter asserted that she does in fact write those posts.

Yes, the Facebook posts are much more well-written than she is well-spoken in sit-down interviews, but that's not at all uncommon.

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 08:24 PM (+fNcw)

679 I don't get all this constant Palin angst.

If she is weak...and the rest of the primary field is soooo strong (as claimed by all her critics)....then just sit back a wait till they all kick her ass.

Right now they are all just waiting each other out, waiting to see who blinks next, after Thune.  The candidates will announce soon enough.

Why all this arguing now?




Posted by: Pam at February 28, 2011 08:25 PM (uDwml)

680 Jesus Christ, sometimes you Palin fans parody yourselves and you don't even know it.

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 01, 2011 01:20 AM (NjYDy)

 

man seek help...they paid because they understand unlike you and Ace that Palin is a mover and a shaker.  the same reason the  India conclave invited her to give a speech  next month  with thier PM  giving the opening speech.   some most likely paid to see her fall on her face it was after all  in long island.  

 

  

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 08:26 PM (aVGmX)

681 Right now they are all just waiting each other out, waiting to see who blinks next, after Thune.  The candidates will announce soon enough.

Why all this arguing now?




Posted by: Pam at March 01, 2011 01:25 AM (uDwml)

 

Because she can not be allowed to be on the same stage as the other GOP candidates.  It would destory 2 years of narrative and all.  

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 08:27 PM (aVGmX)

682 Oops!  You just gave the game away.  People paid $5,000-$50,000 for the privilege of attending this talk?  ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?  Do you even realize what you have inadvertently admitted?  This was a paying audience, and HIGHLY-paying audience at that, which means that by definition it was self-selecting.

Brother, I think T-Paw would give both his nuts for a chance to speak in front of an SRO audience that paid $5000-$50,000 to hear him speak.

Posted by: mrp at February 28, 2011 08:27 PM (HjPtV)

683  @ 673 - What's more, a lot of us are not going to keep taking this same old shit, over and over again.

Well, I'm not sure what the plan of action is, but it sounds promising.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 08:28 PM (OLomk)

684 I don't think she needs my help, Walt. You folks aren't exactly driving money toward the other candidates right now.

She obviously took the office seriously enough to recognize an untenable situation created by a loophole that couldn't be fixed by legislators until she resigned. Appeals to formality about the sanctity of occupying the office make a pretty thin argument. Doubly so when weighed against the logjam of executive capacity caused by lawsuit abuse (abuse which had with zero consequences for the perpetrators and major consequences for the state).

You could move your chair a little further from the "Ask me about my recent abuse of lawsuits!" camp and closer to fiscal reality if you just recognized the obvious monetary cost to Alaska, and to the Palins, of maintaining that "contract" you are selling.

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 08:33 PM (9b6FB)

685 Ace:
" You're the one who seems sure of his position."

I said nothing of the sort.  I just don't think it's reasonable to presume that she didn't write it, especially when the sole purpose appears to be to buttress your narrative that she's got no substance..

Posted by: Kensington at February 28, 2011 08:33 PM (mEyVv)

686 >>>I think T-Paw would give both his nuts for a chance to speak in front of an SRO audience that paid $5000-$50,000 to hear him speak. You just keep doing victory laps about Palin's one strength while ignoring her weaknesses. Also, JeffB's point was that the Long Island Association event was NOT hostile at all -- anyone who's paying you $500 - $5000 is a supporter. It was previously represented as an example of the "unfriendly" sort of venue that people are asking Palin to take questions at.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 08:33 PM (nj1bB)

687

As I recall, Dole had put in more than two years serving the people of Kansas.  That said, I'm not sure he's the candidate you'd want to use as a rationale.

 

 

And yet he quit in the middle of his elected office.  He was a quitter by your own definition.  but of course you have to move the goalposts.  Dole quit his job to run for POTUS  and no one said a word  about it.  Politicans resign all the time for many reasons  yet Gov Palin was the first politican to quit.  words mean things.  you ever wonder why people use the word quit instea dof resign when referring to Palin leaving office? 

 

Obama quit his senate job to move to a higher office, Huntsman quit twice in two years.  If Chrisite runs he will also be a quitter  and so was clinton when she quit  her sneate job  after telling the people she would serve out her term.   the entire government is filled with people that quit their elected offices  to run for higher office  or for scandels  or because they are tired or  fed up or any number of resaons  but it is amaxzing that only GOv Palin gets the word quitter tied to her.  Nothing like accepting the left's words and narratives hook line and sinker.



Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 08:34 PM (aVGmX)

688 >>>he obviously took the office seriously enough to recognize an untenable situation created by a loophole that couldn't be fixed by legislators until she resigned. That's not obvious to me at all. I think she quit to pursue another career.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 08:34 PM (nj1bB)

689 So unseen, are you saying they are trying to strangle her in her crib?

That is just plain weird.

Why?

I have never seen this before with any Conservative candidate wanting to run in a GOP primary...what is the rationale?

Good grief, even Ron Paul wasn't treated this badly.


Posted by: Pam at February 28, 2011 08:36 PM (uDwml)

690 >>>I said nothing of the sort. I just don't think it's reasonable to presume that she didn't write it, especially when the sole purpose appears to be to buttress your narrative that she's got no substance.. What? I said, parenthetically, "(which we don't even know she wrote herself)" and you asserted of course she had. But I'm the guy with certainty? Look, accept this or don't: Palin's intelligence is in doubt. It's that simple. People do not believe she's that smart. So when someone like me asks for PROOF that she's smart and on the ball, and her supporters begin making excuses why she should never, ever be expected to provide such proof, I start to make certain inferences about what her supporters believe about her intelligence.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 08:37 PM (nj1bB)

691 That's not obvious to me at all. I think she quit to pursue another career. Really? You think the whole brouhaha Jan-July 2009 was just a pretext for her doing what she really wanted?

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 08:37 PM (UKAnE)

692 >>>Really? You think the whole brouhaha Jan-July 2009 was just a pretext for her doing what she really wanted? Yes, I think it was to take a media position at Fox. Which is what happened, of course.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 08:38 PM (nj1bB)

693 Also, JeffB's point was that the Long Island Association event was NOT hostile at all -- anyone who's paying you $500 - $5000 is a supporter. It was previously represented as an example of the "unfriendly" sort of venue that people are asking Palin to take questions at.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 01:33 AM (nj1bB)

 

 

Yeah because those same people paid to see Bush and Clinton speak  and we all know  they are so alike that  the people just loved both of them.  It is an annual  event to raise funds for their association.    After the speaking fee  the funds go towards the group.   And we all know  no one has every sat through a speech form someone they can't stand if it beenifits their group's fund raising/  

The interveiwer was a democrat,  The writeups of the event had numerous people say they were not supporters of gov Palin but liked what she had to say.  You two keep fucking that chicken...

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 08:38 PM (aVGmX)

694 Sarah Palin is an accomplished politician.  For high-key discourse, I'd say watch the Palin-Biden 2008 VP debate.

Her folksy approach at more informal venues is deliberate.  She's setting herself up as the Western Outsider up against the East Coast establishment.  That's the purpose of the Palin reality show:  "I'm a regular person who understands the problems normal people face in everyday life."  She doesn't need to be on MTP to do that.  The candidate debates and interviews on the Web, on regional and local TV/radio stations can get her message out without appearing on  the MSM sneer-fests.

 Following the rules made by people who loathe you is for losers.

Posted by: mrp at February 28, 2011 08:39 PM (HjPtV)

695
JeffB, up until 2008, I had the same view of the big news talk-shows that you still seem to. But in 2008, not only did Big Media take their mask off- they spat in our face.

I no longer see these shows as integral to our elective process. You do realize that more people see Meet the Press clips by going to RCP, than actually watch the damn show, right? If you think it necessary to appear there, then that's just you. Nowhere is it written that presidential hopefuls must appear there- it's just something that we've come to expect. But that's changed- a lot has changed in the past two years.  Our Press has surrendered any special status we had afforded them till now- they are approaching obsolescence and should be treated like so.

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 08:39 PM (+fNcw)

696 That's not obvious to me at all. I think she quit to pursue another career.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 01:34 AM (nj1bB)

 

yeah the 500,000 in debts had nothing to do with it  and the ethics charges coming down the pike for as far as the eye could see also had nothing to do with it.  she was just a money grabbing celeberity that want some bling....

 

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 08:40 PM (aVGmX)

697 I didn't realize that successfully appearing in front of a friendly crowd was now proof of presidential timber. This is exactly like the Praise Baby Barack bullshit where a very ordinary event is blown out of proportion by Obama's supporters to be proof of how great he is. She spoke in front of a friendly crowd of partisans about a variety of issues (superficially) and it's proof that she's addressing unfriendly media and whatever else we need it to be proof of.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 08:40 PM (nj1bB)

698 >>She obviously took the office seriously enough to recognize an untenable situation created by a loophole that couldn't be fixed by legislators until she resigned. Appeals to formality about the sanctity of occupying the office make a pretty thin argument. Doubly so when weighed against the logjam of executive capacity caused by lawsuit abuse (abuse which had with zero consequences for the perpetrators and major consequences for the state).

Isn't Palin the one who pushed for this legislation and signed it into law?  Are we, on top of everything else, just supposed to ignore the fact that one of her only legislative accomplishments during her truncated tenure as governor of Alaska turned out to be little more than an embarrassing, self-defeating own-goal?  (If you accept this version of the narrative, that is; I don't, and think she only resigned because she wanted to rake in the bucks and hated being trapped up in the middle of nowhere away from all the action.)

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 28, 2011 08:41 PM (NjYDy)

699 when someone like me asks for PROOF that she's smart and on the ball, and her supporters begin making excuses why she should never, ever be expected to provide such proof Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 01:37 AM (nj1bB) That's nonsense and you know it. Supporters have offered you one link and anecdote and point after another. You keep demanding more and better proof. And many of us have granted that she should provide more and better proof in due time, which is quite apart from "never, ever" providing it.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 08:41 PM (UKAnE)

700 Yes, I think it was to take a media position at Fox. Which is what happened, of course.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 01:38 AM (nj1bB)

 

wow  just wow.  care to explain why AK changed their laws then  if it wasn't a problem?

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 08:42 PM (aVGmX)

701 again, what people are asking for is evidence that Palin has the smarts for the job by demonstrating that in a proxy situaiton (tough interview). It says a lot that her supporters are dead set against that. I wonder what they know that we don't.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 08:42 PM (nj1bB)

702 Ace:
"What? I said, parenthetically, "(which we don't even know she wrote herself)" and you asserted of course she had. But I'm the guy with certainty?"

I asserted that "of course she had"?  Where did I do that?  I've only posted a handful of comments, and none of them were as you just described.

Posted by: Kensington at February 28, 2011 08:43 PM (mEyVv)

703 >>Sarah Palin is an accomplished politician.  For high-key discourse, I'd say watch the Palin-Biden 2008 VP debate.

Apparently you watched a different debate than I (or the rest of the country, for that matter) did.  Palin did as poorly as a Veep candidate could do during that debate short of a full-on Couric/Gibson meltdown.  She was stapled to talking points and generic BS, so much so that she let Biden get away with a number of major howlers.  If this is the best you can do to cite her ability to engage in "high-key discourse," then you're proving my point: she really just ain't all that bright.  Or good on her feet.  Or whatever it is...you know, the stuff that actually MATTERS for a politician in terms of convincing swing voters.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 28, 2011 08:45 PM (NjYDy)

704 It says a lot that her supporters are dead set against that. Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 01:42 AM (nj1bB) Seriously, are you blind?

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 08:45 PM (UKAnE)

705 She spoke in front of a friendly crowd of partisans about a variety of issues (superficially) and it's proof that she's addressing unfriendly media and whatever else we need it to be proof of.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 01:40 AM (nj1bB)

 

now you are grasping and making assumptions  based on faulty logic.   but do go on.... 

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 08:46 PM (aVGmX)

706 Sartana -

>>I no longer see these shows as integral to our elective process.

Glad to hear that you've unilaterally (well, not unilaterally -- apparently you have the full-throated support of other Palin fans) decided that these shows no longer matter.  Good luck convincing the rest of the nation that they don't, or that putting a candidate in front of serious questioning from a tough media doesn't matter. 

Even people who think the MSM is nothing more than a bunch of liberal jackals (and I'm pretty much one of them) recognize the importance of such things.  You, however, have figured out that they're suddenly no longer relevant. 

Well, at least as long as it's Palin we're talking about.  Because she's already proven everything that needs to be proved!

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 28, 2011 08:48 PM (NjYDy)

707 Yes, I think it was to take a media position at Fox. Which is what happened, of course. Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 01:38 AM (nj1bB) Of course. Because two things happened in sequence, the one led to the other. Your logic is impeccable. May I ask when you think Fox made her an offer?

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 08:48 PM (UKAnE)

708  @ 692 - She obviously took the office seriously enough to recognize an untenable situation created by a loophole that couldn't be fixed by legislators until she resigned.

As earnest and altruistic as that sounds, I don't think it's going to be persuasive.  She's certainly free to try.  But, it was going to be an uphill climb even with a completed full term.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 08:49 PM (OLomk)

709 Isn't Palin the one who pushed for this legislation and signed it into law?  Are we, on top of everything else, just supposed to ignore the fact that one of her only legislative accomplishments during her truncated tenure as governor of Alaska turned out to be little more than an embarrassing, self-defeating own-goal?

The lawsuits didn't start until after McCain picked her for the VP spot and she sliced and diced Obama in her  acceptance speech at the 2008 convention.

Posted by: mrp at February 28, 2011 08:51 PM (HjPtV)

710

was the rare appearance for Palin outside her comfort zone of the Fox News studios and social conservatives audiences at large rallies. Instead, this was a group of centrist, business-oriented Republicans and Democrats in a swing county that elected a GOP country executive less than two years ago after having a two-term Democrat at the helm.

She was greeted warmly by the audience, but also with skepticism and some challenging questions by Law.

 

yeah Ace some group  of supporters...

 

 


Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 08:54 PM (aVGmX)

711 But, it was going to be an uphill climb even with a completed full term. Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 01:49 AM (OLomk) That's exactly why I don't think it matters very much. Few gave her credit in 2008 for having managed a state. "Alaska is smaller than most major US cities"; "The Mayor of Chicago is more qualified than she is". One more year would not have changed that.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 08:54 PM (UKAnE)

712 >>now you are grasping and making assumptions  based on faulty logic.   but do go on....

What does this even mean?  Where is the faulty logic?  Or the grasping at straws?  She spoke to a friendly audience that paid a shitton of money to see her (and hence was wildly unlikely to either be indisposed towards her or to crap in the punchbowl with tough questioning/follow-ups).  Hence, it was little different (if at all) from a typical Hannity appearance, and cannot be reasonably cited as proof that "Palin can face tough questioning from a skeptical audience and impress with her mastery of policy details." 

Which is what people like us would like to see some evidence of.  Palin, live, speaking extemporaneously, about policy.  Not callow bromides in front of a tame, friendly audience.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 28, 2011 08:54 PM (NjYDy)

713 >>>Seriously, are you blind? Blind in what way? I am addressing several people's arguments. Several people are informing me that she should not/need not ever sit for an unfriendly interview. "unseen" is very, very sure that Palin should NEVER, not even once, stand for a substantive, wonkish interview on a specific issue, even just to demonstrate she can. You seem to be saying she can wait for the debates... Ah, the six or eight or ten person debates, where everyone speaks in generalities, and no one will want to say a bad word about Palin for igniting the pure white hate of her supporters which is on display any time someone says boo about her. So to me, no, the debates, with eight people giving two minute answers, and no one risking the wrath of the ready-to-take-umbrage palin supporters, will not serve as a demonstration taht she's qualified. I think she did pretty well in her biden debate, unlike JeffB. Or at least okay. I do not know how she's going to get the prep and practice at this sort of thing by refusing, supposedly on high principle, to play the media's game. Most of the country considers her unqualified for the office. Either she addresses that or she doesn't. but spin and "take it on faith" suggestions from her partisans are not enough. She needs to put these questions to rest. Again, it's people like me and Christie who are suggesting a plausible path to the presidency while her partisans, on the other hand, are actually encouraging her to pursue a path of defeat.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 08:54 PM (nj1bB)

714

Ace, have you questioned why Chris Christie will not do an interview with Mark Levin? Levin has asked his office numerous times. Did you blast Christie for not being up to the challenge? No Christie would rather sit down with Morning Joe or CBS. There he can give free advice to Palin and they love him even though they slap him on the wrist for the way he bullies the unions. Win/Win for Christie, but not hostile. I would like to hear Christie, Daniels, and Romney answer a few questions from Mark Levin, but I'm not gooing to get what I want.

I don't understand the big rush for the primary to begin. We only have two exploratory committees launched with Cain and Gingrich. Don't worry Ace, Palin will have to debate the other contenders. The 'Cult' is not going to be able to push Palin across the finish line unless she is able to convince the primary voters.

 

We have a long time before we get there. Even if she wins the primary it doesn't mean you have to support or vote for her. I think it is early in the process to expect the candidates to be in campaign mode. I would actually like to see Palin in townhall events and doing local interviews when the campaign begins. Palin will do the Sunday shows for those that think she needs it for her gravitas. Assuming, of course. that Palin is even running. Snoozefest if she doesn't. 

 

 

 

Posted by: Chief at February 28, 2011 08:57 PM (ACsq3)

715 Apparently you watched a different debate than I (or the rest of the country, for that matter) did.

Apparently we did.

Posted by: mrp at February 28, 2011 08:58 PM (HjPtV)

716

Yes, I think it was to take a media position at Fox. Which is what happened, of course.
Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 01:38 AM (nj1bB)


Of course. Because two things happened in sequence, the one led to the other. Your logic is impeccable.

 

No  they didn't happen in sequence and Ace once agains shows his ignoranc eof Palin and her history.   Palin left office in july 2009.   she then took the next month or so to write her book going rouge.  She then went on a book tour  selling  around 3 million books.  having  people camp out in subzero cold in the hundreads and thousands to spend 15 secs  shaking her hand.   After the book tour  Alies form foxnews seeing the massive following Palin had  signed her to a gig  in Jan of 2010.   Six months after she left office.   There was no job waiting at foxnews..  Palin was in so much debt from the false ethics charges she had to push up the publishing of her book and work  aorund the clock for  to ge the book out quicker than was  suppose to be.   but you know Ace don't let facts get in the way of your mental picture....

 

 

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 09:00 PM (aVGmX)

717 You seem to be saying she can wait for the debates... Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 01:54 AM (nj1bB) No, I am saying she should wait for her campaign to start. I look forward to debates but they are only part of a campaign. She also has to do the interview gauntlet and the retail politicking. She should wait to do the interviews until she has decided first to run, and second on a campaign platform, theme, and set of policy proposals. I want her to have the whole package more or less ready when she announces, because she's going to be instantly grilled and judged. You know it, I know it, and I'm sure she knows it too. (And I understand you are arguing with lots of people here but you have made several categorical statements about all Palinistas. Only a sith deals in absolutes.)

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 09:01 PM (UKAnE)

718 >>>No they didn't happen in sequence and Ace once agains shows his ignoranc eof Palin and her history. Palin left office in july 2009. she then took the next month or so to write her book going rouge. Ah so she immediately set to writing her bestseller book. And only later signed with fox, an offer that was obviously hers for the taking. She had a political job; she quit it. That's the fact. Now that's supposed to be taken as a recommendation for her next political job.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 09:02 PM (nj1bB)

719  @ 695 - He was a quitter by your own definition.  but of course you have to move the goalposts.

Actually, my position has always been that she quit half-way through her first term as the governor of Alaska.  I mean, you can pretend that everything after the word "quit" is just extraneous and irrelevant to the conversation -- and, truth be told, I could hardly blame you.  I'd want to evade that as much as possible, too.

But, there it is -- staring us all straight in the face.  And uncompleted single term in statewide office.  I'd like to think she'd at least offer to do a little more before -- you know, just to make up for the rest of the term.  Because, the notion that it's somehow out of bounds to expect a little more is ludicrous.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 09:03 PM (OLomk)

720

"unseen" is very, very sure that Palin should NEVER, not even once, stand for a substantive, wonkish interview on a specific issue, even just to demonstrate she can.

 

where the hell did you come up  with that.  I said if she did  people like you will simply raise the bar and pick at something she did or did not say that she should have.    She sat down with newsmax with a bunch of big donors and players who picked her brain  behind closed dooors and they raved about her performance.   The fac tthat you  require this of her and not one other candidate is your problem not hers.. 



Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 09:04 PM (aVGmX)

721 always fired up, you seem to believe the campaign hasn't already started. you also seem to think it won't take that long to change opinions on Palin which have long ago begun to harden. This is horrible judgment on her part, if she is seeking the presidency. if her first series of judgments was that it wasn't all that bad to be this far behind and be thought of as unqualified by the public, and could wait and wait to roll out her campaign to change opinions, it's a horrible judgment, and should be counted against her.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 09:04 PM (nj1bB)

722 >>>where the hell did you come up with that. I said if she did people like you will simply raise the bar and pick at something she did or did not say that she should have. you told me she shouldn't do it because people find that stuff boring.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 09:06 PM (nj1bB)

723 No  they didn't happen in sequence and Ace once agains shows his ignoranc eof Palin and her history.   Palin left office in july 2009.   she then took the next month or so to write her book going rouge.

Are you seriously trying support your argument in favor of Palin by saying that, no, she didn't quit the governor's office to work for Fox straightaway...she instead quit to rake in a ton of money writing a book? As if this somehow obviates the reality that SHE QUIT HER GODDAMMNED JOB TO MAKE MONEY? (I love how you cite the fact that people lined up to shake her hand as proof of something or another...Jesus, Palinistas really do all think along the same lines of rockstar fandom, it seems.)

Also: are you drunk?  Seriously, man...it's like you're falling apart in this thread or something.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 28, 2011 09:06 PM (NjYDy)

724
Biden was telling all those howlers precisely because he was thrown off-balance by Palin. Granted, it doesn't take much for Biden to start spouting nonsense, but Palin performed very well in that debate. That's when I knew for the first time that she was no flash-in-the-pan, but would be a force for a long time to come.

Palin's intelligence is only in doubt by stupid people. The record is there. You do not get elected the Governor of a state without any machine support, or any  big money or other kind of benefactors if you're stupid. You do not stay relevant on the national stage in the manner she is by being a dummy. She's at least smarter and more shrewd a player than Joe Miller- seeing as how she got herself elected Governor, yet he couldn't pull off the Senate. And the proprietors of AOSHQ had always held out Joe Miller as the most impressive of the Tea Party candidates until he lost.

That said, more attention should be paid to Todd's role in her rise and staying power.


Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 09:07 PM (+fNcw)

725 I think she resigned because she was facing 2 years of screaming headlines being labeled as corrupt and unethical.  Unthinkable for a politician with lofty goals.

Or two years of being labeled a quitter.

So she took a political risk.

She decided on quitter.

A no win situation.


Posted by: Pam at February 28, 2011 09:07 PM (uDwml)

726

Ace,

Can you cite one good reason why you won't post the fucking video?

Jeff, think about your agument.  These are the same people who paid Clinton and watched him speak.  They belong a to a membership association. They are not supporters.  Read what people wrote about the crowd.

Posted by: drudge23 at February 28, 2011 09:07 PM (ljRac)

727 >>>Palin's intelligence is only in doubt by stupid people. This just in: 65% of America is stupid. Another 10% is stupid-curious.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 09:08 PM (nj1bB)

728

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 01, 2011 01:54 AM (NjYDy)

 

The faulty  logic is becaus ethey paid to be at the event they were supporters.   which just isn't true.   Politco reports that it:

 

was the rare appearance for Palin outside her comfort zone of the Fox News studios and social conservatives audiences at large rallies. Instead, this was a group of centrist, business-oriented Republicans and Democrats in a swing county that elected a GOP country executive less than two years ago after having a two-term Democrat at the helm.

She was greeted warmly by the audience, but also with skepticism and some challenging questions by Law.

every  other point you two made based on your flawed data about the interview is than moot.  But like  an idiot  you continue to sprout  your talking point.  Proving you can not take in new information and  change your mind based on new information or doing a basic google search.

 



 

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 09:08 PM (aVGmX)

729 So we're back to the "quitter" meme?  At least she isn't getting slammed because she went from $500,000 in the hole to maybe $12,000,00 in the bank.  In two years.

Now, if she can do that for Palin, Inc., just imagine what she might accomplish for the country.

Posted by: mrp at February 28, 2011 09:08 PM (HjPtV)

730 Now that I know that 65% of America is "stupid," I can also tell you that it doesn't matter if 65% of America is "stupid," Palin will need a large part of this stupid vote to get elected and these stupid people would like some evidence she's smart enough for the job.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 09:09 PM (nj1bB)

731 >>She sat down with newsmax with a bunch of big donors and players who picked her brain  behind closed dooors and they raved about her performance.

Unbelievable.  It's like you haven't been listening to anything any of us has been saying. NEWSMAX?  You're citing an interview with fucking NEWSMAX?  And a closed-door meeting with unnamed "players?"

Where's the public interview?  With an unfriendly media outlet?  This is hilarious.  It's like you don't even believe in your own argument anymore, or something.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 28, 2011 09:09 PM (NjYDy)

732 This just in: 65% of America is stupid.

Another 10% is stupid-curious.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 02:08 AM (nj1bB)

 

I would say ignorant  not stupid.   

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 09:10 PM (aVGmX)

733 Where's the public interview?  With an unfriendly media outlet?  This is hilarious.  It's like you don't even believe in your own argument anymore, or something.

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 01, 2011 02:09 AM (NjYDy)

 

ROFL...another data point  you simply ignore to continue on in your world of denial.  

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 09:11 PM (aVGmX)

734 So the room was stacked with rich Palin fans.  And she got softball questions plus prolonged applause?  WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT?!?!?

Jesus Christ, sometimes you Palin fans parody yourselves and you don't even know it.

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 01, 2011 01:20 AM (NjYDy)

With that you show your ignorance.   They were not fans of Palin.  They were members of the LIA.

The Long Island Association (LIA) is the largest business organization in New York, and the leading organization in the Long Island region. Founded in 1926, the LIA’s membership now comprises over 5,000 businesses, labor unions, colleges, universities, not-for-profits, government agencies, and civic groups, which employ two-thirds of Long Island’s workforce.

Posted by: Steph at February 28, 2011 09:12 PM (AkdC5)

735 if her first series of judgments was that it wasn't all that bad to be this far behind and be thought of as unqualified by the public, and could wait and wait to roll out her campaign to change opinions, it's a horrible judgment Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 02:04 AM (nj1bB) Public opinion on Palin is what it is. It hasn't changed much since she left office. She's tried a couple different ways of rehabilitating her image. They haven't so far paid off. I don't believe she doesn't think it's all that bad, I simply think she has enough confidence in herself to believe she can change it. And if she doesn't, she won't run. Now if she doesn't run for president, this doesn't really matter. If she wants to run, she's gonna have to work for it, and do a lot of campaigning. She's also said as much herself. I don't think she will wait long to jump in. I would guess she'll decide one way or another by April or May.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at February 28, 2011 09:13 PM (UKAnE)

736 >>So we're back to the "quitter" meme?  At least she isn't getting slammed because she went from $500,000 in the hole to maybe $12,000,00 in the bank.  In two years.

Guess what?  We're back to the "quitter" meme because, in point of fact, she quit.  She quit her job halfway through her term, and the rest is just spin. 

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 28, 2011 09:14 PM (NjYDy)

737 Man, Ace, you are really hanging in there. Thanks for your time tonight.

I'm guessiing you don't want many more of these kinds of threads, so I can understand getting all the wounds festering fully before sealing in the germs with heat for a while. That's why they make liquor.

We keep going round and round. Some claim she hasn't done tough interviews. Fine, let's see what develops (she has been tied up with family stuff recently, and also waited and kept it kind of tame after the Giffords shooting.)

But you guys keep making claims about her lack of grasp (or whatever) and yet there's nothing you'll currently entertain in the way of showing counterfactual evidence. That's not much better than those videos of ranters at the protests in Wisconsin that Hoft has been putting up. How do we argue through that sort of refusal?

I agree she needs to do some other networks or papers, in general, but I think the right, as a whole, needs to stop kowtowing to the dying ones like the NYT and MSNBC. As long as you bloggers and the radio types keep commenting on their crap, they are being detained on their journey to the fabled, yellow journalism graveyard. Just let them die.

Why can't NRO or CPAC or Townhall host an interview program with actual, hardboiled journalists like Jake Tapper and even Geraldo (who infuriates, but at least has the balls to call lefties on their crap). Jim Angle and a trade to be announced later? Why does it always have to be Republicans running the gauntlet at NBC? Why would anyone support continuing that stupid tradition?

Let them die. It's the honorable thing to do.

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 09:15 PM (9b6FB)

738  Glad to hear that you've unilaterally (well, not unilaterally -- apparently you have the full-throated support of other Palin fans) decided that these shows no longer matter.  -JeffB.

No, it's definitely not only me, Jeff. They have no ratings. The shows matter only to wonks, and a slightly larger circle of people who read what wonks write. The public has decided they don't have the pull they once had, and the proof is that no one watches.

No one here said she should avoid any unfriendly interview. At least I didn't. Only that there are many other venues than those stupid weekend shows, and the even more stupid and vapid morning shows. If she runs, I don't fear that she will try to avoid putting herself out there where it matters. Do you not trust that GOP primary voters would notice that she was hiding from unscripted encounters and act and vote accordingly?

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 09:17 PM (+fNcw)

739 Even Newsday said she had an impressive knowledge on a range of subjects, at the LI appearance.  And I remember local AK newspapers saying she was the first Gov to come before their editorial boards without aides and lawyers.

So, she is obviously not stupid.   Just really different than we are used to.

I think she is too young...and maybe could wait until her kids grow up some more.

But, we shall see, she will obviously have to compete with all the rest if she decides to run.

And she is very competitive, a tom-boy, and gutsy.

It will be fun to watch.

Posted by: Pam at February 28, 2011 09:22 PM (uDwml)

740 Also: are you drunk?  Seriously, man...it's like you're falling apart in this thread or something.

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 01, 2011 02:06 AM (NjYDy)

 

I guess you are too dense  to understand.  Ace  made a point she resigned to go work for foxnews.   That was completely  100% wrong.    which just shows that Ace's  views on Palin as fa ras her resignation are based not on fact but fiction and make believe.   Ace did not argue  she resigned her job to write her book.   Which he could have   if he knew the real facts but he instead contended that she resigned to work for foxnews.  Showing he has no clue to what happened after she resigned  and calling in question his understanding of why she resinged.   Or in other words  Ace just proved  himself ignorant of the baisc facts anyone with an ounce of effort could find out.  Which also  calls into account his other beliefs about Palin.  Are those beliefs also based on made up facts that he thinks he knows.     Like it appears your  are? 

put down the bong  and try to use the god given gift of thought process.  you are failing   at it  at the present time.

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 09:23 PM (aVGmX)

741 Just took a quick look at the Ann Althouse blog for a WI update.

We can beat these guys.

LINK


Posted by: mrp at February 28, 2011 09:25 PM (HjPtV)

742 >>Do you not trust that GOP primary voters would notice that she was hiding from unscripted encounters and act and vote accordingly?

No, I do not.  I am deeply afraid that there is a sufficiently large minority of hardcore I-love-Sister-Sarah Palinistas who are completely indifferent to such rational considerations (see: this fucking thread), who consider supporting her to be an act of sacred honor and commitment unamenable to negotiation, and who could be enough to put her over the top in a very divided, winner-take-all primary field.  She could win enough early primaries in a divided field to bank a ton of electoral votes, and then even if she didn't end up winning it could well embitter her devoted fans (the "Hillary was robbed!" of the GOP), keeping them home in November.  Don't laugh, because that's what several of these assholes have explicitly PROMISED they would do if Palin was denied the nomination by "the old boy's club."

I have no doubt that a majority of GOP voters are opposed to Palin.  But Republican PRIMARY voters (as in, the ones motivated enough to go vote) are but a small, small subsection of that larger group, and even then they could easily be divided into several groups.  Leaving the hyper-motivated Palin zealots to rack up a win.

So I think she could well win the GOP primaries, based exclusively on the strength of her fervent followers plus a fractured field.  She would then be utterly destroyed (and we're talking McGovern-style destroyed here) in the general election. 

So yes, that's why I'm opposed to Palin.  She's poison if she runs, I fear, even if she loses.  Her craziest, most rabid fans will accept no other, and if she is denied the nomination, would rather see the country burn than vote for the 'monster' who supplanted Saint Sarah.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 28, 2011 09:25 PM (NjYDy)

743 It's interesting that some are pushing the "quitter" meme as something important. For one thing, it's calculatedly (in moron-math) used to be as obnoxious as possible. The fact that stepping down from office is a long-practiced thing, especially when folks are running for other offices, seems oblivious to you.

So we are stuck with the general obnoxiousness. What motive do you have to run an argument that way? Does obnoxiousness seem to be the same as making a logical point? I mean, hey, we're all Morons here, but why does it have to be a contest of uppercase letters and bile?

It's odd that the reasons she stepped down keep getting ignored, (and ignored, and ignored) by those who are selling an obnoxious term.

I question the motive.

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 09:29 PM (9b6FB)

744 you told me she shouldn't do it because people find that stuff boring.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 02:06 AM (nj1bB)

 

well  that is a long way from stating she should Never ever be doing an interview like that.  the fac tis voters find those types of interviews extremely boring Reagan tried it in 1976  and he found out the voters tuned him out.  so in 1980 he ran on broad themse and sound bites..  When the other politicans sit for that indepth interview I'll have no problem with Palin doing it.   I think Palin should do what every other candidate odes no more and no less.   You seem to want her to go above and beyond what is required of every other politicans   which is called a double standard.. 

 

  Most candidates have to go in front of Newspaper editorial boards and answer questions  to get their support.  Palin will  most likely do those.     

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 09:30 PM (aVGmX)

745 It is quite possible that Palin would agree to a sit-down interview with an MSM type, but only on Palin's terms, which would likely be:

1) A live interview
2) No edits
3) Taping of the interview by the Palin team.

Once burned by CBS and ABC.  Ain't gonna happen again. I'm thinking.

Posted by: mrp at February 28, 2011 09:34 PM (HjPtV)

746 That is just plain weird.

Why?

I have never seen this before with any Conservative candidate wanting to run in a GOP primary...what is the rationale?

Good grief, even Ron Paul wasn't treated this badly.


Posted by: Pam at March 01, 2011 01:36 AM (uDwml)

 

If your entire narrative is based on a lie  do you want to give that person a stage to show the lie for what it is?   It was what happened with Reagan.   The people saw him debate Carter  and the voters shifted when they saw Reagan wasn't the idiot they pretended him to be.  

If you look at the polls  they all show  huck, Mitt and palin tied.  What happens when you take Huck  out of the polls?  

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 09:35 PM (aVGmX)

747

Jeff B.

Would you vote for 'Saint Sarah' or Obama?

Do you think your lunatic like rantings about Palin will help her defeat Obama if she is the nominee?

You are screeching about something that might happen when at the same time trashing a potential nominee. Are you trying to burn down this country?

One more time. Ace, who is your candidate right now?

Same for you Jeff B. Just curious.

Posted by: Chief at February 28, 2011 09:36 PM (ACsq3)

748 OMG, so for a pol to have a constituency and Conservative supporters is a bad thing?

Bitter-clingers?  Christian zealots? Cults?

Sounds like liberal speak.

Wow,  no wonder the GOP is dead.

They don't even like their base supporters.....and would rather their candidate didn't have people lining up to hear them speak.

Is it any wonder why we have so many wimps and cowards in office?  Who only crave MSM and liberal approval? 

Because these are the only kind of men we have ever voted for.....because they simple reflect us.









Posted by: Pam at February 28, 2011 09:37 PM (uDwml)

749 Because these are the only kind of men we have ever voted for.....because they simple reflect us.

Posted by: Pam at March 01, 2011 02:37 AM (uDwml)

They're all Morons?

Posted by: K~Bob at February 28, 2011 09:41 PM (9b6FB)

750 her first series of judgments was that it wasn't all that bad to be this far behind and be thought of as unqualified by the public, and could wait and wait to roll out her campaign to change opinions, it's a horrible judgment

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 02:04 AM (nj1bB)


You didn't watch the interview  did you?   Palin addresses this issue in the Qand A  session.

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 09:49 PM (aVGmX)

751

>>Jeff B.

>>Would you vote for 'Saint Sarah' or Obama?

Of course I'd vote for Palin over Obama.  But I wouldn't be under any illusions that I was actually voting for a qualified commander-in-chief, I'd just be voting to replace Obama (who is obviously worse).  You thought Obama did a shite job of responding to current events (e.g. all the crap going down in the Middle East right now, or China, or Russia)?  What makes you think Palin would be any better?  Just because she'd be coming from our side of the political fence doesn't mean she would necessarily be more competent.  In fact, she could well be worse -- making a hash of things by attempting to advance theoretically 'good' policies in inept or hamhanded ways.

Still, I'd bite the bullet and support her, as I said, just because getting rid of Obama is by far the most important question.  But of course, if it comes to that, she's going to be destroyed in the first place.  Look: I'm a member of the Republican BASE.  Not the squishy middle.  Not the RINO wing of the GOP.  The conservative base.  And if I have problems with Palin, if I have to really hold my nose to vote for her, that's a very telling symptom of how screwed she'd really be. 

As for my candidate?  It's a terribly weak field right now, unfortunately.  Of the ones who might actually be running, I'd say Daniels or Pawlenty.  Ideally I'd want Christie, but that ain't happening.  Not Romney, not Newt, not Palin.  And Herman Cain is a decent radio talk show host, but seriously folks: the guy has never even held a single elective office. 

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 28, 2011 09:52 PM (NjYDy)

752

Sarah Palin's appearance in Long Island this week was noteworthy for several reasons.

The most important one, however, was it signals a new phase in her campaign for president.

Palin wooed a large crowd of Long Islanders at the Crest Hollow Club in Woodbury.

The audience was a mixture of business people drawn from both political backgrounds.

Long Island was a great location for Palin to choose to break out of the adoring crowd circuit she regularly encounters in friendly states.

Long Islanders however, are the ultimate switch voters, who move back and forth between Democrats and Republicans.

This time she won them over-- big.

She took questions on all topics and displayed what ' Newsday' called an impressive knowledge on a range of subjects.

This is the real Sarah Palin, the one you can hardly find behind the media image and the sneering stuff of late night comedians.

Given how undistinguished this Republican presidential field is Palin looks more and more like an option for the GOP.

Instead of pining for Chris Christie they may want to look North to Alaska for their best hope.

She brings excitement, commitment and a sense of something new to a very staid political party.

Sure she will start as an outsider, but how far more outside can you be when you were Governor of Alaska and a woman to boot?

And look where she is now.

I have written here consistently that Palin continues to be underestimated by the media and the Washington echo chamber.

As she proved in Long Island she's as smart as a whip, looks great, is confident and has a plan whether you like it or not.

I see no reason to change my long-term forecast that she will be the Republican nominee.

This week I believe she took another important step.

from irish central...

Posted by: unseen at February 28, 2011 10:03 PM (aVGmX)

753
Okay, Jeff B. In conceding that you don't trust GOP primary voters to reject Palin even if she made a poor showing in her run for the nomination, you at least concede what a lot of anti-Palinistas deny. The reason many on the right have attacked her is because they want to keep her out of the running. They think GOP voters are too dumb to decide for themselves, so they're working to deny us the choice.

Walt Gilbert above, denied it and attempted to play stupid. You, at least acknowledge the ugly truth. That's what incenses the Palinistas- this condescending attitude that she's too stupid and we're too stupid to notice. It also further reinforces the perception that just as there is a Liberal Democrat elite that despises the average American, so also is there a liberal GOP elite that sees the Conservative base as a bunch of rubes who need to be lead by the nose, and they'll screw us if we deign to go against their decree- even if it means colluding with Democrats to keep us in line.

That's what Delaware showed, and why I think it's still important. Most of us backing O'Donnell saw no problem with a vicious primary battle between supporters of O'Donnell and supporters of Castle. But we were appalled when many Republican backers of Castle refused to close ranks behind O'Donnell and continued to dump on her in an attempt to tank her candidacy. I thought then, and still think, that the message being sent had nothing to do with their feelings about O'Donnell, but rather was a warning to the Conservative base that bucked Castle for Christine:

"If you ignore our pick and choose Palin for 2012, we'll do to her what we did to O'Donnell in Delaware."

I think that there is a faction of very powerful GOP old guard that would indeed collude with Democrats to tank a Palin bid for president. There's just too many people whose power and influence depend on some variation of the current status quo, and they fear the shaking-up that the Tea Party and Sarah Palin represent and they'll go to any lengths to keep the lid on.

That's who is behind Mitch Daniels' possible bid for the White House. I just know this guy is not out there of his own accord- someone pushed him out there because they're getting desperate.

Posted by: sartana at February 28, 2011 10:59 PM (+fNcw)

754 @ 572 - No, it wasn't. The ethics board declared legal funds to be unethical. She tried to do it your way, and overzealous legal interpreters with axes to grind decided she couldn't. She announced her resignation right after that decision.

Err ... no.  They declared the first attempt at establishing the fund illegal because of the way it was set up.  Another fund was set up afterwards and people are still able to make donations to it today -- for past, present and future legal costs, just like it says on the site.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at February 28, 2011 11:57 PM (OLomk)

True - because the first fund was set up while she was Governor, and the second fund was set up after she resigned.  "The way it was set up" the first time was to benefit a sitting Governor, which the Alaska ethics panel decided was verboten.

Posted by: stuiec at February 28, 2011 11:08 PM (JuWS+)

755 "I think that there is a faction of very powerful GOP old guard that would indeed collude with Democrats to tank a Palin bid for president."

I do too.  Hence, Karl Rove's interview with NY Mag (can't link) where he openly mocks her voice and Alaska travelogue show.  He truly is the James Carville of the right, except he's less honorable.  You don't see Carville mocking factions of the Democratic party, do you?  That would also explain Barbara Bush's comments.

Posted by: not the droid you seek at February 28, 2011 11:16 PM (h35AH)

756 Long Island Association? THE Long Island Association?

Really? That's trial by fire?

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 12:00 AM (nj1bB)

THE Long Island Association:

Audience Reach Hosts over 1,100 of Long Island's most influential CEO’s, presidents, and senior-level executives of mid to large companies.
LIA Speakers - A “Who’s Who” of Leaders Speakers at LIA luncheons have included former President George Bush Sr., former President George Bush Jr., former President Bill Clinton and former Secretaries of State Colin Powell and James A. Baker III. In addition, the Annual Meeting Luncheons have hosted:From the Defense and Military arena: Generals Norman Schwartzkopf and Tommy Franks and Defense Secretary William Cohen. From Congress: former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who teamed up with Democratic strategist James Carville. In New York Politics: former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Governors George Pataki, Mario Cuomo, Nelson Rockefeller and Hugh Carey. From the Business World:one of the world’s most respected economic leaders, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Dr. Alan Greenspan and former General Electric Chairman & CEO Jack Welch. Well-known Journalists have also made an indelible mark on Long Island through their appearance at LIA events. That list includes former NBC Anchor and noted author Tom Brokaw, “Meet The Press” Host David Gregory, journalist Bob Woodward and Radio and TV talk show host Sean Hannity.
Yep, only two-bit fart-knockers show up to this no-account hick venue.

Posted by: stuiec at February 28, 2011 11:22 PM (JuWS+)

757

"Most Important News of the Week:"

For blog stats.

Posted by: davod at March 01, 2011 01:30 AM (GUZAT)

758 Palin is running and putting her 2012 team together (witness her recent hiring of Michael Glassner as her chief of staff).

She is now a global political player which is why she was invited to be the Keynote Speaker and Gala Dinner Chief Guest at India conference (featuring major names from the international community and India's Prime Minister as a speaker).  This a big  f---g deal as Joe Biden would say!

Sarah will draw the largest crowds and grassroots fundraising $ during the GOP 2012 primaries (none of her rivals can match her star power). Her SarahPac is outperforming the others and she hasn't even announced yet. LoL

All this talking don't mean a thing until the campaigns start. We will see who can bring it! I say everyone should run who wants to. Concern trolls need not apply.

Posted by: derised1 at March 01, 2011 01:43 AM (pdq17)

759 "648 Few doubt she has a good chance to win the primary. That's what is so scary. That she can win the primary without a chance to win the general.

Quote the head-to-head polls versus Obama...

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 12:54 AM (nj1bB) "

Ace is absolutely correct about the polls...It was beyond parody when earlier this month there were many life stories about the fictional President Reagan.  These works of fiction were creative...Carter WON REELECTION in 1980.  He lead Reagan by 30+ points in March 1980, end of... 

It was obviously in some alternative universe that Ronald Reagan ever became the US President, AND in the imagination of these fiction writers.

What confuses me is why Ace is worried about head-to-head polls between Palin and Obama...what is Obama but a 2 bit Senator from Illinois?  It would be far more useful to discuss Sarah Palin vs. President Hillary Clinton.  So say the polls in early 2007.

I guess if this Obama person even runs, Ace will be supporting him to the hilt,  these polls are ALWAYS correct, need proof?  Jimmy Carter was a 2 term president (Google it...Ace's crack research should be able to confirm it in 5 minutes), and Ace (it's his woman thing) continues to dismiss President Hillary Clinton's reelection chances.

Regards,

 

Posted by: the Dragon at March 01, 2011 03:18 AM (gRSqy)

760 Firings will continue until morale improves.

Posted by: Scott "Pimp Hand" Walker at March 01, 2011 03:30 AM (mHQ7T)

761 So yes, that's why I'm opposed to Palin.  She's poison if she runs, I fear, even if she loses.  Her craziest, most rabid fans will accept no other, and if she is denied the nomination, would rather see the country burn than vote for the 'monster' who supplanted Saint Sarah. So much this. Like I said, doomed anyway. If she wins the nomination, she loses the general, handily, unless she changes a GREAT many things that she may not be willing to change (and, inexplicably, her cultish followers do not believe she needs to anyway). If she loses the nomination to the "not-Palin", her followers villify that individual as someone WORSE than Obama has been, is, or ever will be, and throw a pity party and sit home on election day. Doomed. Don't worry, though, Sarah Palin will still earn millions a year in speaking fees, reality shows and book royalties.

Posted by: Vyceroy at March 01, 2011 03:57 AM (of+54)

762

Ace's opening premise that Christie is somehow an honest broker is the central lie here we swallow unobtrusively before he jambs the horsesh*t fruitcake down our throat.

Remember, Reagan's 11th only extends from nomination to election.  Christie has received no rough-handling from the Right since the final weeks of his 'campaign'.

Castle promo's were indefensible save it would give us a shot at the 60th Senator.

Crap & Tax, no defense possible.

Muslim judges? Really, you want to go there?

Apart from a tunnel veto and the benefits melee of what does his resume consist?

This pot-shot of Christie's is a naked attempt to salvage some cred following WI.  Watch Gregory interview Walker and tell me Christie isn't a bench warmer.

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 01, 2011 03:58 AM (/g2vP)

763 Who knew Giuliani and Thompson were both going to turn out to be so weak? I sure the fuck didn't.

Really? You live in NYC. I knew Giuliani was weak by the way he dealt with all his personal scandals, which was to curl up in a ball and suck his thumb. It is the reason every Republican laments "where is Rudy?" when an election is held in NY. He couldn't even run against the Gillibrand Twins. But he could go on SNL dressed as a woman and ban ferrets.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at March 01, 2011 04:01 AM (mHQ7T)

764

"If she loses the nomination to the "not-Palin", her followers [will] villify(sic) that individual ... and sit home on election day."

Oh, no worries, we'll vote.  The Indie emerging is a lock for third, at minimum.

Murky won in AK, you think this will be 'hard'?

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 01, 2011 04:08 AM (/g2vP)

765 As for Christie's comments, I wasn't exactly impressed with him trying to take all the credit for Walker's, Kasich's & other Republican governor's battles with the unions.    He's, also, not the strongest conservative among those governor's.   He might have the biggest ego, though.    Personally, I don't give a shit what he says about Palin.  It's other crap that spews from his piehole that pisses me off.

This pisses me off, as well, because it strikes me that Christie is trying to ride on their coattails. When he was asked whether collective bargaining should be ended for public unions, he said, "I won't presume to tell Scott Walker how to run Wisconsin, and things are different in NJ. I'm not touching it." Bullshit. If Christie went after the unions' power instead of just attacking their benefits, the outcry would be worse than what you see in WI. They keep saying they'll agree to the benefit cuts, but keep their power intact. In other words, they'd love to have Christie as their governor. He didn't screw the pooch and use any pussy language like "truce," but it's the same effect. Fuck Ann Coulter for even putting it in people's heads that Fat Bastard should be our nominee. No will power, no fight, no thanks.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at March 01, 2011 04:13 AM (mHQ7T)

766

Posted by: not the droid you seek at March 01, 2011 04:16 AM (h35AH)

Pliant orcs like Ace do not grasp how detested the GOP machine is among TEAs.

2010, on the heels of a 2008 candidate that wouldn't fight, left no doubt with Amerikkka.

The GOP will fight TEAs and their own Right to the death then run like hell from the Dimmi horde.

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 01, 2011 04:19 AM (/g2vP)

767

>>Oh, no worries, we'll vote.  The Indie emerging is a lock for third, at minimum.

>>Murky won in AK, you think this will be 'hard'?

You're exactly the sort of person I was thinking of when I wrote my post, Gary.  You're a psychopath on Hot Air, so much so that even other Palinistas are frightened of you and want to disassociate themselves from you.  And yet, here you are, actually promising (no doubt with a cracked-out, crazy grin!) that you'd vote third party rather than allow anyone but Palin to be the next president!  I mean, holy shit!  What is your operative theory here -- Palin should run as a third-party candidate?  She can WIN just like Murkowski did (with an electorate that, I might point out, is only 1/2 of the entire city of Chicago and overwhelmingly right-leaning) as a write-in?  How's she gonna bank any electoral votes that way, sport?  Crazy talk from a mental patient.

You are basically saying that you are happy to see four more years of Obama, the permanent entrenchment of ObamaCare (which will lead inevitably to fully nationalized healthcare), and the complete collapse of the American economic system on the back of out-of-control entitlement spending...because if Saint Sarah can't be the leader of this country, well then, fuck it, it ain't worth saving after all.

You're a goddamned clown, and it's a shame that more people haven't told you this on Hot Air.

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 01, 2011 04:20 AM (NjYDy)

768 >>This pisses me off, as well, because it strikes me that Christie is trying to ride on their coattails. When he was asked whether collective bargaining should be ended for public unions, he said, "I won't presume to tell Scott Walker how to run Wisconsin, and things are different in NJ. I'm not touching it." Bullshit. If Christie went after the unions' power instead of just attacking their benefits, the outcry would be worse than what you see in WI. They keep saying they'll agree to the benefit cuts, but keep their power intact. In other words, they'd love to have Christie as their governor. He didn't screw the pooch and use any pussy language like "truce," but it's the same effect. Fuck Ann Coulter for even putting it in people's heads that Fat Bastard should be our nominee. No will power, no fight, no thanks.

Christie is governing a blue state with huge Dem majorities in both the state house and state Senate.  Each time he goes out there and fights for something like his annual budget, he has to bring a number of Democrats (who are otherwise invested in seeing him fail) along for the ride.  And somehow you think that, in the midst of fighting a battle to get his state out of debt and attack the teacher's unions, he should also come out for uprooting all unions, root and branch?  Why?  To satisfy you personally, who do not even live in NJ in the first place?  All that would happen is that his enemies would instantly pounce on him and use it as an excuse to stall or kill all of his other initiatives.  And it would work because, as I said, HE DOESN'T HAVE LEGISLATIVE MAJORITIES TO WORK WITH LIKE WALKER DOES.  Moreover, how could he support Walker more than he has?  In the quote you just cited, he went on to say "I know Scott Walker, I trust him, and I know he's doing what he thinks is necessary for his state."  The whole bit about not "running WI from here in NJ" is political eyewash designed to keep the Dems at home in NJ off his back, nothing more.  It's good politics.

You are literally casting aside all rational considerations merely because you WANT a reason to hate him.  It's as simple as that.  Logic doesn't enter into this for you -- you've designated Christie an enemy, and now you're gonna slot & slant everything to fit that frame, by gum, even if it's irrational. 

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 01, 2011 04:26 AM (NjYDy)

769

"You're exactly the sort of person I was thinking of when I wrote my post, Gary. "

Sorry to disappoint, Jeff B., but characterizing me as a commenter at Hot Air or reader of your tendentious drivel is unalloyed psychosis.

 

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 01, 2011 04:31 AM (/g2vP)

770 I think you guys are doing what the media did with Obama, where his every vague, dumb utterance was treated as the Wisdom of God, really. And Ace, you've stumbled upon the main problem I have with her hardcore fans. They are the conservative equivalent of the Obama zombies.

Posted by: Vyceroy at March 01, 2011 04:43 AM (NAiYY)

771

The charge of Ace, supported by the intellectually challenged(those with successful mommies), is that Palin, a front runner for the nomination, should walk away because sometime allies of the Right will desert, should she somehow win, risking the return of the Adversary.

Unwillingness to play along, and worse, to turn the tables, is greeted with the smear of 'Traitorous Unhinged Neanderthal'.

Oh, the simplisme.

 

 

 

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 01, 2011 04:45 AM (/g2vP)

772 >>Sorry to disappoint, Jeff B., but characterizing me as a commenter at Hot Air or reader of your tendentious drivel is unalloyed psychosis.

First off, if you're responding to my post, then by definition you are a reader of my "tendentious drivel."  Secondly, I had assumed that you were the same person as "gary4205" over on Hot Air.  Same name, same Palinistaism, same verbal tics (i.e. "Chris Christie is a fat fake Democrat who loves Muslims!").  If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry.  But my point remains the same.

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 01, 2011 04:49 AM (NjYDy)

773 No Palinista expects you to always agree with her or believe she's the second coming of JC or Ronald Reagan. No one Only a very few think she's perfect. They/we mostly just want you to give her a chance to run and prove herself and avoid bitter personal attacks at least until she declares. 1. Oh, actually, a good number of Palinistas DO believe she's the second coming of Reagan and really DO expect conservatives to agree with her. The very reason this blog post exists is because Palinistas tend to lose their shit over any perceived slight or disagreement with her. And about that, 2. Some of you Palinistas have a remarkably warped concept as to what actually constitutes a "personal attack.". Chris Christie saying "she needs more unscripted moments" is constructive criticism. A personal attack is saying "Sarah Palin caused the Giffords shooting".

Posted by: Vyceroy at March 01, 2011 04:51 AM (NAiYY)

774 >>2. Some of you Palinistas have a remarkably warped concept as to what actually constitutes a "personal attack.". Chris Christie saying "she needs more unscripted moments" is constructive criticism. A personal attack is saying "Sarah Palin caused the Giffords shooting".

Yes, and we can extend it farther than that.  Any expression of doubt about Palin's abilities or style is taken as a personal attack.  Palinistas have no problem calling Chris Christie 'disgustingly fat' (fat! a straight-up undisguised superficial ad hominem!), or a RINO, or a terrorist-sympathizer, or a gun-grabbing cod-Fascist.  They have no problem lambasting Romney as a flip-flopping, blow-dried sellout (and, in their more unguarded moments, they go after his Mormonism). 

And yet when someone like Ace or I say "I have real doubts that Palin is intelligent enough to be President - she just doesn't seem to be that smart, policy-wise, and she has done nothing to allay these concerns"...not only is that mischaracterized as a personal ATTACK, but it seems to fly completely in the face of their willingness to utterly trash everyone else.

Which is why I feel it's worth taking the time to engage Palinistas and fight it out with them: their hypocrisy is so rank, and goes unanswered so often, that it seems like they're no longer even aware of it much of time.

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 01, 2011 05:05 AM (NjYDy)

775

783.  "If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry.  But my point remains the same."

As, without apology, does my point remain. 

Gallup's Oct. affliate polling had 27% Republicans, 30% TEAs.  Moreover,  73% of Republicans reiterated their opinion of 6 months prior, that GOP leadership was "unresponsive and had lost their way".

Your putative lay of the land pretends you have a majority on the Right and yet you don't even have your own affliates on board.

Compete in IL, NJ, NY, or CA?  To what purpose?

 

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 01, 2011 05:07 AM (/g2vP)

776

785. "And yet when someone like Ace or I say "I have real doubts that Palin is intelligent enough to be President."

Then the both of you need to show up with hat pins, or better.

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 01, 2011 05:14 AM (/g2vP)

777 It might not be gary4205, Jeff. This Gary doesn't seem as in love with the return key as the HA Gary. No novel length posts yet. Which is why I feel it's worth taking the time to engage Palinistas and fight it out with them: their hypocrisy is so rank, and goes unanswered so often, that it seems like they're no longer even aware of it much of time. Agreed. And if Palin does win the nomination, what an albatross they will become. I can imagine how unaffiliated indies will react to their nonsense once the serious questioning of Palin's qualifications begins.

Posted by: Vyceroy at March 01, 2011 05:14 AM (ly4ma)

778 Christie is governing a blue state with huge Dem majorities in both the state house and state Senate.  Each time he goes out there and fights for something like his annual budget, he has to bring a number of Democrats (who are otherwise invested in seeing him fail) along for the ride.

He should keep governing in NJ and doing what he can get the Democrats to agree to, and if he is successful, then maybe he can run for President in the future on this wonderful track record. But right now, he is just running his mouth on TV, criticizing Sarah Palin more harshly than the most far left radical president this country has ever seen and letting flattery go to his head.  Since we're talking about who should run in the primaries, let's agree that Chris Christie is better off running further down the road and is just running his mouth right now. Blue state governors rarely win, anyway.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at March 01, 2011 05:15 AM (mHQ7T)

779 You are literally casting aside all rational considerations merely because you WANT a reason to hate him.  It's as simple as that.

I think he's doing a great job in NJ, but I want a stronger conservative nominee -- even Huntsman would do. Gay marriage is not a dealbreaker, but not high on my list of priorities. Gun rights, property rights, national security -- Christie doesn't do it for me.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at March 01, 2011 05:20 AM (mHQ7T)

780 JeffB: "You are literally casting aside all rational considerations merely because you WANT a reason to hate him.  It's as simple as that.  Logic doesn't enter into this for you -- you've designated Christie an enemy, and now you're gonna slot & slant everything to fit that frame, by gum, even if it's irrational." Gee, JeffB: change "Christie" to "Palin" in that paragraph, and it applies perfectly to you. You can't admit that Palin is anything other than a quitter/snowbilly/cretin, evidence to the contrary be damned, because you are so committed to the idea that she's only going to hasten Obama's re-election. Any facts that don't conform to your cariacature of Palin must therefore not exist in your reality. Pot, kettle, introductions as necessary.

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 06:35 AM (JuWS+)

781 Republicans on Long Island are the equivalent of raving liberals nearly everywhere else except California. There are hardly any private sector jobs on Long Island, and the public sector is riddled with corruption and incompetence. LIA was most certainly not a friendly venue for Palin, not even close.

Posted by: kathleen at March 01, 2011 06:36 AM (xPx2z)

782  
@ 762 - What this really shows is that there's a group of people within the GOP who were stupid enough to think Christine O'Donnell had a shot of hell in winning in Delaware, were told she wouldn't, they got her nominated, she got her ass kicked like everyone said she would, and they're still stupid enough to blame the people who told them from the outset that she was going to get her ass kicked.  That same group, seeing the poll numbers Sarah is pulling, is using the same stupid rationalization that they used for O'Donnell: "The problem isn't the candidate, it's the 'old boys club' and the system."

And you say "that's why this is so important" -- as if accepting a reality that's as plain as day to anyone doesn't have a deep, personal investment in Team Sarah means the "old boys club" and the "system" wins.  Of course, under that rationale, there's no way you can ever "truly" lose.  If she gets her ass handed to her in the primaries, it's the old boys club and the system.  If she wins the primaries, but loses in the general, it's the old boys club and the system.  You have it worked out where it can never be you or your candidate.

It can never be the dismal poll numbers -- those are a product of the old boys club and the system, you see.  And, it can never be the fact that she quit the only state-wide office she's ever held before she fulfilled her term -- she did that because of the old boys club and the system.  It wasn't that most of the statewide candidates she backed in 2010 didn't fare well -- it was the old boys club and the system.  You have a ready-made, non-falsifiable excuse in the old boys club and the system, and it's always going to be applicable to anyone and everyone who tries to tell you anything that doesn't jibe with what you want to hear.  I don't expect you to ever stop using it.  But, I do suspect people will get awfully tired of hearing it -- just as they did with O'Donnell.  Which, again, will prove that it's the old boys club and the system.

@ 763 - Again ... they set up another account, BEFORE she quit that was perfectly legal.  The reason the first one was illegal was because they called it the "official" Sarah Palin defense fund -- which they said implied that it tied to her status as a state "official".  It was perfectly acceptable to set up another fund that people could donate to, just like it's perfectly acceptable for someone to walk in off the street and pay your speeding ticket for you.  There's no way they could have stopped that from happening.  It was a simple matter of not being able to imply that the fund was for the benefit of a specific government official in relation to official government duties. 

If it had been called the "Palin Family Legal Trust" or something along those lines, no problem.  And, in fact, they at one point had such a thing set up -- apparently before discovering that it would be much easier to leave the governor's mansion and make some real dough on the media circuit.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 06:37 AM (OLomk)

783 2. Some of you Palinistas have a remarkably warped concept as to what actually constitutes a "personal attack.". Chris Christie saying "she needs more unscripted moments" is constructive criticism. A personal attack is saying "Sarah Palin caused the Giffords shooting". Posted by: Vyceroy at March 01, 2011 09:51 AM (NAiYY) No, Ace insisting she's an idiot and/or used the ethics attacks as a pretext to allow her to leave office and make millions are personal attacks. Karl Rove mocking her accent is a personal attack. "Unscripted moments" is pretty tame.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at March 01, 2011 06:41 AM (r3B7Q)

784 apparently before discovering that it would be much easier to leave the governor's mansion and make some real dough on the media circuit. Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 11:37 AM (OLomk) QED.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at March 01, 2011 06:42 AM (r3B7Q)

785 It was perfectly acceptable to set up another fund that people could donate to, just like it's perfectly acceptable for someone to walk in off the street and pay your speeding ticket for you. There's no way they could have stopped that from happening. Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 11:37 AM (OLomk) Sec. 39.52.120. Misuse of official position. (a) A public officer may not use, or attempt to use, an official position for personal gain. (b) A public officer may not ... (2) accept, receive, or solicit compensation for the performance of official duties or responsibilities from a person other than the state; Any legal fund she had that dealt with conflicts connected to her official duties (as all the complaints did) would have violated the law. She could not raise any money for the fund; all money raised for both funds came (because it had to) from independent entreaties. AK's ethics law is unique in the 50 states. Things that are "fine" everywhere else are not fine there. And complaints were filed against the second fund, they just went nowhere.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at March 01, 2011 06:49 AM (r3B7Q)

786  @ 796 - PREEEE-cisely.  You see, "Sarah" was not allowed to raise the funds for it.  But, any other person could, as long as that person wasn't officially connected to the governor's mansion or involved in any public duties.  So, you see, a "Palin Family defense fund" set up by a third party, as long as they didn't officially coordinate with Sarah Palin, could have been set it up and administered by a third party without a single legal hitch.

Perhaps it's that, without Sarah Palin herself doing the asking, not many people were willing to pony up the dough.  Idunno.  But, what you seem to be granting here is that Palin left office in order to trade on her star power -- not altogether different from what others have been saying all along.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 06:58 AM (OLomk)

787

So tallying Palin's negatives, she's stupid, divisive, and her supporters do not play well with others.  Let's continue to ignore Huckster and proceed to a Romney negative, taboo though it be.

Fox poll of adults Feb. 10-11 had 99% recognizing Palin, 90% Huckabee, 87% Romney and among trailers, 42% Huntsman.

So while he has a decent chance at the nomination,  Romney will likely have no Red states in his quiver, and no likelihood of delivering Blue states in Nov. 

17% on the Right claim they will not vote for a Mormon.  He has a non-zero chance of coming in third in 2012, should he prevail in August.

 

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 01, 2011 07:13 AM (/g2vP)

788  @ 798 - I won't grant that Palin is stupid, nor do I think she's nearly as divisive as the figure she's been shaped to be by the media.  But, the single biggest problem Palin faces, and I've been saying this for MONTHS, is what you hit upon with regard to her supporters.

Some of you people are unmitigated asshats and are responsible to a huge degree for the fading of the angelic glow that I once saw around her.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 07:19 AM (OLomk)

789 @ 796 - PREEEE-cisely.  You see, "Sarah" was not allowed to raise the funds for it.  But, any other person could, as long as that person wasn't officially connected to the governor's mansion or involved in any public duties.  So, you see, a "Palin Family defense fund" set up by a third party, as long as they didn't officially coordinate with Sarah Palin, could have been set it up and administered by a third party without a single legal hitch.

Perhaps it's that, without Sarah Palin herself doing the asking, not many people were willing to pony up the dough.  Idunno.  But, what you seem to be granting here is that Palin left office in order to trade on her star power -- not altogether different from what others have been saying all along.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 11:58 AM (OLomk)

The only trouble is, as long as she was a sitting Governor, she herself was prohibited from benefiting from any legal defense fund set up by her or others.  That is, the legal defense fund was not permitted to spend money defraying her legal bills while she was Governor -- to do so constituted graft under Alaska law.

Of course, Palin could have stayed in office and written her book on the State's time -- as Barack Obama and many others have done -- and maybe even gone on a book tour on the State's time, and made money for her legal defense so that she could nominally remain Governor.  That would have been typical behavior for a politician -- a species generally so addicted to public office that they would literally rather die than leave office voluntarily.  I guess that's the kind of politician that many folks here want: someone who'll disregard any other of his or her duties and responsibilities just to stay in office.

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 07:22 AM (JuWS+)

790 That's who is behind Mitch Daniels' possible bid for the White House. I just know this guy is not out there of his own accord- someone pushed him out there because they're getting desperate.

Posted by: sartana at March 01, 2011 03:59 AM (+fNcw)

I disagree.  Mitch Daniels has long political experience - he was Reagan's political director during the mid-1980s.  His particular focus is fiscal responsibility and he feels that this is his crisis that can't go to waste: hence his calling the deficit and debt the "new Red Menace."

My problem with Daniels is that so far, he's shown himself to be a one-trick pony.  He hasn't had anything to say (not prominently enough to be widely reported, anyhow) on foreign policy and dealing with America's enemies.  As far as social issues, he's famously tried to wish them onto the back burner, which would be nice but is wholly unrealistic to expect from people who take those issues to heart.

I'd vote for Daniels if he became the nominee, but there are better choices.

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 07:30 AM (JuWS+)

791  @ 800 - I tend to think that any law firm representing her would have gladly deferred payment for a reasonable period of time knowing that there was a fund being put in place to defray the costs once she was legally able to do so.  Having worked with and around lawyers at various times in my life, this is not exactly an unheard of thing.  Believe me -- I know how this sort of thing works.  A high profile client with enough cachet is able to extract all manner of concessions and deferrals from an ambitious attorney.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 07:31 AM (OLomk)

792

"It can never be the dismal poll numbers...

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 11:37 AM (OLomk) "

Walt, you are absolutely correct.

That's why Ronald Reagan's run in 1980 was doomed from the start, and so shattering.  Jimmy Carter's reelection was a gut shot.

Unfortunately, Ronald Reagan will be forever known as a B Movie actor, when IF he had better poll numbers, He could have been GREAT!

President Thomas Dewey also can thank his lucky poll numbers.

Regards,

Posted by: the Dragon at March 01, 2011 07:33 AM (Y8C1Q)

793 Over at National Review, Tim Pawlenty said something smart:

In an interview, Pawlenty volunteers that it is a mistake to multiply the categories of conservative. “People say, ‘I’m a tea-party conservative,’ ‘I’m a religious conservative,’ ‘I’m a compassionate conservative.’ But there [aren’t] 16 varieties of conservatism; there are some basic tenets of conservatism.” Those tenets, he believes, are “time-tested principles reflected in our founding documents. . . . The real challenge is to apply it to the challenges of our time.”

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 07:35 AM (JuWS+)

794

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 12:35 PM (JuWS+)

Which brings us, finally, to those still in the game by August 2012-given the practicabilities involved in collecting electors in numbers.

In no particular order, Palin, Huckabee, Romney, Barbour, Pawlenty, Nor Luap, all but the last carrying proxies.

Got someone else in mind?  Pixie dust.

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 01, 2011 07:46 AM (/g2vP)

795  @ 803 - You forgot to include the all-important caveat, "Now, I'm not comparing Sarah Palin to Ronald Reagan, here . . ." before you said that. 

The differences between the two, not to mention the differences in the way in which they're suited for the times in which they're running, is so vast as to render the comparison ludicrous. 

I mean, is Christine O'Donnell just like Ronald Reagan, too?  Is there anyone with horrible poll numbers right now that isn't just like Ronald Reagan?

"Well, you know, Ronald Reagan's poll numbers weren't that much better that Ron Paul's right now."

For all the yammering about her performance at the Long Island Association dinner, having watched it, I can say forthrightly and without the slightest reservation that, while competent and engaging, there was absolutely nothing Reaganesque about it.  Maybe, given a few performances that instill that sense, the comparison will begin to take on a tint of plausibility.

Until then:  No sale.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 07:47 AM (OLomk)

796

"You're a goddamned clown, and it's a shame that more people haven't told you this on Hot Air.

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 01, 2011 09:20 AM (NjYDy) "

Sounds like pot & kettle

 

Posted by: the Dragon at March 01, 2011 07:50 AM (Y8C1Q)

797 I guess that's the kind of politician that many folks here want: someone who'll disregard any other of his or her duties and responsibilities just to stay in office.

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 12:22 PM (JuWS+)

Sarah Palin endorsed a candidate who spent his time working for the state freeping online polls, so lump her in with that bunch. Joe Miller even tried to skirt the issue of whether she was qualified to be president or not.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at March 01, 2011 07:55 AM (mHQ7T)

798 Because all the other possible nominees are soooo Reaganesque, right Walt Gilbert? Or is it just the girls that have to be better than everyone else?

Posted by: kathleen at March 01, 2011 07:57 AM (xPx2z)

799 His particular focus is fiscal responsibility and he feels that this is his crisis that can't go to waste: hence his calling the deficit and debt the "new Red Menace."

Too bad Mitch Daniels didn't think that way when he was Bush's budget director. The Bush family would love Daniels to be the nominee in 2012, so the party will run to Jeb in 2016.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at March 01, 2011 07:59 AM (mHQ7T)

800 "806  @ 803 - You forgot to include the all-important caveat, "Now, I'm not comparing Sarah Palin to Ronald Reagan, here . . ." before you said that. 

The differences between the two, not to mention the differences in the way in which they're suited for the times in which they're running, is so vast as to render the comparison ludicrous. 

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 12:47 PM (OLomk) "   Cute...   So Ronald Reagan is the only other person in history to have dismal polls?  President Dewey had very good poll numbers, so did President Hillary Clinton, at a similar time frame before her 2008 election, and there might have another politician or two in my lifetime which has had polling done on their behalf.   So, just so I get this straight, IF Walt decides dismal poll numbers are irrelevant (Reagan -30+ in March 1980), that's fine.  Anyone who recognizes that polling 20 or so months before an election, just might not be too reliable...who's pushing the ludicrous point of view?

Posted by: the Dragon at March 01, 2011 08:16 AM (Y8C1Q)

801

Sarah Palin endorsed a candidate who spent his time working for the state freeping online polls, so lump her in with that bunch. Joe Miller even tried to skirt the issue of whether she was qualified to be president or not.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at March 01, 2011 12:55 PM (mHQ7T)

Was Miller's freeping on state time news before Palin endorsed him?  And did it constitute more than a single episode of logging onto several computers to vote in the online poll (which, I imagine, took all of fifteen minutes)?

As for Miller skirting the issue of Palin's qualifications, maybe he wanted to give the impression that he was not Palin's owned property?

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 08:59 AM (Di3Im)

802 @ 800 - I tend to think that any law firm representing her would have gladly deferred payment for a reasonable period of time knowing that there was a fund being put in place to defray the costs once she was legally able to do so.  Having worked with and around lawyers at various times in my life, this is not exactly an unheard of thing.  Believe me -- I know how this sort of thing works.  A high profile client with enough cachet is able to extract all manner of concessions and deferrals from an ambitious attorney.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 12:31 PM (OLomk)

There's the superficial issue and the real issue.

First, the superficial issue: No doubt there might have been a firm willing to provide services with deferred payment -- or even pro bono, to garner goodwill.  But Alaskan law would most likely have regarded the provision of the services itself as an illegal contribution in kind.  And it would really have looked like an effort to evade Alaskan ethics laws.

Second, the real issue.  Governor Palin saw two choices: expend a lot of time and effort to figure out a legal way to protect herself from the cost of frivolous ethics charges just so she could remain in office, or leave Alaska in the hands of her hand-picked Lieutenant Governor and become a private citizen, in which capacity she could defend herself against the attacks against her personally without robbing the State of its Governor's time and attention to duty.  Why is it that a selfish effort to connive to stay in office is a sign of great leadership, and a selfless resignation from office in the interests of the State of Alaska is despicable quittertude?  Is Lisa Murkowski a paragon of leadership because she spit on her party's primary results and ran Independent in order to cling to her office?  I mean, at least Murky's not a "quitter."

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 09:08 AM (Di3Im)

803 Was Miller's freeping on state time news before Palin endorsed him?

It was in AK, and I read about it on Art Chance's RedState diary before he was banned. I read the whole report, and more damning was how Miller broke into all his coworkers offices and tried to explain it away. It contributed to an abundance of unfavorable impressions voters were forming about Miller as a candidate that Murkowski rightly seized on. She ran an effective campaign, framing Miller as an entitled incumbent already buying office furniture and chuckling with Sarah Palin, then turning on her in favor of other possible 2012 nominees who were contributing to his campaign. So, Miller imploded.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at March 01, 2011 09:11 AM (mHQ7T)

804 I mean, at least Murky's not a "quitter."

There's a lot to be said for that. Murkowski was called the C name and a coke whore and a princess, but she was the first successful write-in candidate since Strom Thurmond, despite Sarah Palin and the tea party gunning for her.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at March 01, 2011 09:14 AM (mHQ7T)

805 Sarah Palin knowingly pushed a flawed candidate on Alaskan voters, because she figured he would keep his mouth shut and not give up the game. After all, he went to West Point and likes fishing and hunting!

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at March 01, 2011 09:16 AM (mHQ7T)

806

812.  "As for Miller skirting the issue of Palin's qualifications, maybe he wanted to give the impression that he was not Palin's owned property?"

By that point Miller was a wholly-owned Huckster susidiary.   And doubtless these imponderables contributed to the final outcome.

Ya know,  if Reagan(better, Jesus) appeared in the clouds, having taken on a new body, and promised to return and live among us August 2012 and thereafter,  I honestly think as a wacko-dipsh*t-immoral Palinista I'd say "No thanks, we're good."

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 01, 2011 09:20 AM (/g2vP)

807 Miller beat Rino-lib Murk...before she got a do-over from the MSM/DNC establishment.

She admittedly asked and got $$$ from Rahm and Co, got great press,  DNC, RNC lawyers, unions, lobbyists, and boots on the ground.

Where the situation reversed, no way would Miller have received cash, press, and help from DC.




Posted by: pam at March 01, 2011 10:01 AM (uDwml)

808 Sarah Palin knowingly pushed a flawed candidate on Alaskan voters, because she figured he would keep his mouth shut and not give up the game. After all, he went to West Point and likes fishing and hunting!

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at March 01, 2011 02:16 PM (mHQ7T)

As opposed to the flawless Lisa Murkowski?

And just where does one find flawless candidates these days?  I mean, if perfection is the standard.

Perhaps Palin correctly determined that Alaskan Republicans were not all that happy with Murky and would select a different nominee.  Perhaps Palin's and Miller's failing was that they assumed that Murky would behave with some degree of party loyalty, and that they failed to see that a sizeable number of Alaska Democrats would vote for "independent" Murky as a poke in the eye to Palin.

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 10:02 AM (Di3Im)

809  @ 809 - "Because all the other possible nominees are soooo Reaganesque, right Walt Gilbert? Or is it just the girls that have to be better than everyone else?"

I'm not the one who dragged Reagan's bones into this, and didn't try to justify supporting someone with bad poll numbers because Ronald Reagan once had bad poll numbers.  You see, sometimes, bad poll numbers actually mean something.  And, one of those times is when they've been bad for an extended period of time.  Sarah Palin's poll numbers have been consistently bad for quite some time now.  It would help your case if you could produce a set of poll numbers that show consistent improvement in her preference or approval or higher positives than negatives.  Otherwise, what you're doing is asking Republican primary voters to be the only people in the country who haven't formed an opinion of her.

As I said above, it's not like I have a problem with Sarah Palin as a person.  I think she's the bee's knees as people go.  But, it's her fans, devotees, acolytes and missionaries who stick in the craw: people who, after conceding your point that she has bad poll numbers, conclude that the only reason anyone could possibly see that as a political hindrance is because you have something against people with boobies.


 @ 811 - "Anyone who recognizes that polling 20 or so months before an election, just might not be too reliable...who's pushing the ludicrous point of view?"

When that polling has been remarkably consistent for the prior 20 months despite near-constant media exposure, it's not ludicrous to conclude there's a public opinion problem.  I'm sure you find it deeply troubling, but that doesn't make it ludicrous.  And, while I'm sure you'll find it equally as ludicrous, I have a strong suspicion that if a poll were released tomorrow that showed Palin leading the pack, you wouldn't think it was all that meaningless.  You're going to find hope wherever you can, and you're perfectly entitled to do that.  But, sooner or later, it would help if you were able to produce some actual evidence to buttress your claims. 


 @ 813 - "No doubt there might have been a firm willing to provide services with deferred payment -- or even pro bono, to garner goodwill.  But Alaskan law would most likely have regarded the provision of the services itself as an illegal contribution in kind."

I'm afraid it takes a little more authoritative citation than what Alaskan law would have "most likely" done.  And, so far as I'm aware, there's no law that prevents attorneys and clients from coming to some manner of deferred payment arrangement, in which case, there would be nothing remotely resembling an in-kind contribution. 

Why is it that a selfish effort to connive to stay in office is a sign of great leadership, and a selfless resignation from office in the interests of the State of Alaska is despicable quittertude?

It demonstrates a quality that the Palin crowd keeps assuring us is the one we're most deeply in need of at this particular point in the history of the conservative movement, and the one she has an infinite supply of:  A willingness to fight.

Y'all keep saying, "Sarah is the only one with the integrity and the balls to fight for true conservative principles, and the only one who will never back down from the sleazy charges of the left."

Well, to say the least, that remains to be seen, doesn't it?

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 10:04 AM (OLomk)

810

yup ACE that's right

As Rush always says "they will TELL you whom they fear"

Gov Palin's "inactivity" is enough to intimidate all the 'big boys' in the GOP

HA!

 

Posted by: exodus2011 at March 01, 2011 10:37 AM (4GJw2)

811

Having just had TPaw for eight, I can say there are no dead-on-arrival issues.  Wife is an ex-Judge, quiet and a looker.  He's no Scott Walker.

I don't see it happening, but then I bought Boston Beer at IPO and didn't sell the first week.

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 01, 2011 10:48 AM (/g2vP)

812 Sarah Palin would probably make a pretty good president. But of course we'll never know for sure because she's completely unelectable at this point. Which is why it's insane to suggest that we should nominate her. QED

Posted by: RJ at March 01, 2011 10:51 AM (qDPnZ)

813 >>>No, Ace insisting she's an idiot I didn't say she was an idiot. I am saying that an awful lot of people doubt her intelligence -- and not just 30%, the liberals, who could be safely ignored, but 65%, which is of course a supermajority. She cannot win with this perception. Ergo, she needs to reverse it. But whenever someone offers an idea of how she could change things (maybe), we're shot down as "attacking Palin." The Palin people insist on two things. One thing too many: 1. That Palin is the greatest candidate since Reagan. 2. That everything Palin is doing is smart and expertly calculated to win the presidency. ONE OF THESE THINGS MUST BE FALSE, because her poll numbers are awful. Yet when we palin skeptics attempt to focus attention on premise two, and suggest she CHANGE some things because pretty obviously the CURRENT plan, if it is a plan, is simply not working, we are yelled at for being anti-woman, as the furious, one-trick-pony Grrl Power twitwit kathleens says once again. Either PALIN is flawed or Palin's current strategy is flawed. There are no other choices, because she is doing very badly at the polls. But you guys insist that not only is she flawless, but everything she's doing is flawless, and to even suggest that she has to do SOMETHING to win over skeptics and opponents if she is to have any credible chance at the presidency, you claim that's false, she should just keep on bein' Palin. Well, look at the polls. Just "bein' Palin" isn't working. Do you have any thoughts of your own on this or do you just want to continue pursuing a course that looks a lot like suicide, just hoping that for some magical reason it's suddenly going to begin bearing fruit?

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 11:24 AM (nj1bB)

814 Palin's support of O'Donnell and Angle showed that she can be clueless when it comes to nominees. As for Miller, he might have won however I think that Alaskans resented Palin's  playing the role of Kingmaker, and voted for Murkowski.  in order to give Palin her comeuppance. She is yesterdays news and outside of a small coterie of the base, has little appeal for the rest of the nation. By the way she is not the social con that so many social cons think she is. Maybe had she not quit her job as Governor she would have had more credibility.

Posted by: Jimmy Page at March 01, 2011 11:26 AM (a8MXW)

815 It demonstrates a quality that the Palin crowd keeps assuring us is the one we're most deeply in need of at this particular point in the history of the conservative movement, and the one she has an infinite supply of:  A willingness to fight.

Y'all keep saying, "Sarah is the only one with the integrity and the balls to fight for true conservative principles, and the only one who will never back down from the sleazy charges of the left."

Well, to say the least, that remains to be seen, doesn't it?

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 03:04 PM (OLomk)

Silly man.  You assume that the only way to fight is head-on and on the enemy's terms.

She's chosen to fight on her terms.  You can debate whether she's fully effective, but you cannot argue that she's slinked off into obscurity to get away from criticism.

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 11:44 AM (Di3Im)

816 1. That Palin is the greatest candidate since Reagan.

2. That everything Palin is doing is smart and expertly calculated to win the presidency.

ONE OF THESE THINGS MUST BE FALSE, because her poll numbers are awful.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 04:24 PM (nj1bB)

Point of information: one of those things must be false IF AND ONLY IF you can prove that Reagan and other Republicans who won the Presidency never had awful poll numbers similar to Palin's.

(There is also the other small matter that Palin isn't yet a declared candidate.  It's entirely possible that she will reach a point where she herself evaluates her chances this cycle as poor and decides not to run until a later election -- if ever.  Reagan ran for President in 1968, 1976, 1980 and 1984, and only won the last two times.)

You're saying "she MUST DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT to win the Presidency in 2012," but who says she has to run in 2012?

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 11:50 AM (Di3Im)

817
You could have saved a lot of space, ace, by simply asserting that Palin's poll numbers are bad, and that she won't appear before David Gregory(lol!). That seems to be the totality of your argument.

Poll numbers change. I'm confident that the more people are exposed to Palin, the higher her poll numbers will climb. You keep asserting she's not rolling herself out the right way- well, you might be right, but I think she's done fine so far without your advice. If she runs and makes a good showing during the primary, then she might win that. And if she makes a good enough showing to win the primary, she has a very good shot at the Presidency.

She won't appear before David Gregory? Fucking LOL!

Posted by: sartana at March 01, 2011 11:53 AM (+fNcw)

818 "I'm confident that the more people are exposed to Palin, the higher her poll numbers will climb." Then why doesn't she, you know, expose herself to more people? Other than her Facebook friends? "She won't appear before David Gregory? Fucking LOL!" Quick, name the last major party nominee who refused to do Meet The Press.

Posted by: RJ at March 01, 2011 12:07 PM (qDPnZ)

819 >>>Poll numbers change. Not Palin's, except down. She has been on a downward trajectory since the first two weeks of her national exposure. It sure would help if at any time the trendline showed improvement. I'm starting to think that some of these alleged pro-Palin commenters are Axelturfers. No matter what facts you point out, they just keep insisting full speed ahead, don't change a thing. Gee, I wonder who that benefits.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 12:12 PM (nj1bB)

820 >>>"I'm confident that the more people are exposed to Palin, the higher her poll numbers will climb." >>>Then why doesn't she, you know, expose herself to more people? Other than her Facebook friends? I keep asking variations of this. If she can beat the media, why doesn't she do so prominently in a dramatic face-to-face match-up? if she can win the narrative for us, why doesn't she? if she gains from public exposure, why continue narrowcasting to the same smallish audience? This strategy is flawed and is not working. It is failing. Either the candidate is flawed or the strategy is. When people like me attempt to be nice and offer up maybe it's the strategy (which can be changed) which is at fault, we're told to shut up, that's an attack. Okay, well, if we're being offered Sarah Palin with Sarah Palin's current strategy and her fans will brook no changes or constructive criticism, I (and more than half the party) will ahve to go somewhere else. Palin's fans seem to forget that it's teh candidate's duty to attract support, not the supporters' duty to offer support to the candidate. When we (who are in fact persuadable) say stuff like, 'Well, here's what it would take to get me on board," we're told to shut the fuck up, we'll get nothing and like it. Okay, fine. The the hell with her. I don't like her as she is and can't support her in this form. if y'all are insistent that this IS sarah palin and she will never change and never improve -- fine, PASS. And, btw, you fail at politics.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 12:20 PM (nj1bB)

821 She hasn't declared her candidacy.  If someone like Mitch Daniels runs, she probably won't.  For all we know, she might want to be the next Limbaugh, or simply to influence society outside of the formal political structure.  If either of those scenarios is correct, then there is no point in facing a press gauntlet.  Can't we just wait a bit on this?

Who are the official declared candidates so far?  I know of Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich, anyone else yet?

Posted by: not the droid you seek at March 01, 2011 12:40 PM (h35AH)

822 Shorter debate:

Palin supporters: Here's her credentials. Here's the video of unscripted interviews.
Palin detractors: She has no credentials, she needs unscripted interviews and Palin supporters are rabid, deranged worshipers.

Palin supporters: No, you people are the elitist scumbags who bring us the McCain and Castle type candidates.
Palin detractors: Well you hillbillies want to see America burn.

Someone please invoke the little Aryan so this stupid thread can die.

Posted by: K~Bob at March 01, 2011 12:41 PM (9b6FB)

823 Either PALIN is flawed or Palin's current strategy is flawed. There are no other choices, because she is doing very badly at the polls.

But you guys insist that not only is she flawless, but everything she's doing is flawless, and to even suggest that she has to do SOMETHING to win over skeptics and opponents if she is to have any credible chance at the presidency, you claim that's false, she should just keep on bein' Palin.

Well, look at the polls. Just "bein' Palin" isn't working.

Do you have any thoughts of your own on this or do you just want to continue pursuing a course that looks a lot like suicide, just hoping that for some magical reason it's suddenly going to begin bearing fruit?

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 04:24 PM (nj1bB)

 

So those are the only two choices?   It could also be the polls are flawed.  it could be the polls  being pushed by the likes of PPP  are purposely  weighted  to give Palin  worse numbers  to push a narrative that she is unelectable.   Research most of those polls  and you see they oversample  dems  to rep  esp  if you take the 2010 midterm numbers  instead of say the 2008 voter turnout.  say Palin is at 50/50  it doesn't take much to change a poll  a couple pts.  but of course you know this Ace,  you have used this point numerous times  in the past  on how the left uses polls to push narratives.   so that's three choices not 2.  Or another choice  could be that with Palin not having a fully formed campaign yet she is not able to push back  with enough force to counter the entire MSM/DNC/RINO attacks.   If she wins the nomination  she has the party appratus behind her to push her narrative and counter the DNC/MSM  narrative to a larger degree.   You also know this.   So there are 4 choices not 2.  

Judging by the level of support she does have and the fact  it seems that her support is staying mostly constant.  Palin's strategey is working on about 40%  of the population.   Could it be if she has the money, time to take her strategy more mainstream she would be able to expand  that to more people? 

 

another choice is she is running a primary election campaign now  and not a general campaign.   Again those polls you cite  seems to suggest that strategy is working out well enough since she is tied for the lead in the primary.  Does she need your vote to win the primary?  No   she doesn't.    So that's 5 choices  right there not 2.  And if she wins the nomination will  people liek you vote for her over Obama?   Maybe maybe not   but that is what a general election campaign is for to get the "moderates"  on board. 

 

 

I like how you frame the debate as an either /or   thing  but reality is not so clear cut.   Palin  being Palin is getting her in a positon to win the nomination.   Palin being Palin has got her about 40%  support in most "polls".   A level of support that is very strong .  One that will not leave in at the last moment.  If she wins the nomination I suppose Palin being Palin will go after the other 11% needed to win.  Why you want her to go after that 11% before the primary elections  before  she even declares for the POTUS is beyond me.     

So  is her strategy working?  I guess that depends on what the strategy is suppose to accomplish  now doesn't it.   Is Palin's gaol with her strategy  to win the nomination or is it to win the against Obama?   Since the primary comes first I would say its  to set herself up to win the primary and in that light her strategy is working   just fine.        

 

  

 

Or it

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 12:50 PM (aVGmX)

824  
Brook no constructive criticism? Bullshit. If you recall, your post on this was a response to Christie's backhanded "advice" to Palin on Face the Crustacean. Critcism is fine. Most of us who consider ourselves Palinites react angrily to the cheap shots she gets from the right- the kind that Christie has been going out of his way to make.

You've registered your disapproval and it's been duly noted- what steams you is that you can't bully us into rejecting her as well. I think JeffB. stated it pretty well above, when he admitted to thinking GOP primary voters would be too stupid vote responsibly, therefore it's up to the GOP Gnostics to preempt her and deny  us the choice.

As far as not appearing on the weekend clown shows- I did a google for "Ronald Reagan Meet the Press" and came up with clips from 1966 and 1976. Did Reagan make the rounds in '80 and '84? It's been pointed out that he went around traditional media outlets, so if Palin decides to go the same route, I think that's fine. Big Media has been crapping in our mouth for some time now, so fuck them.

Posted by: sartana at March 01, 2011 01:01 PM (+fNcw)

825

Ace is obviously despondent that Palin & Huckabee get to pick the nominee. 

Life sucks and then u die biatch.

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 01, 2011 01:03 PM (/g2vP)

826  
Mitch Daniels I heard interviewed by Medved doing damage control for Mitch's latest foot-in-mouth episode. I have not heard recently, a politician sounding so uninspiring and uninspired as Daniels sounded in that interview. It's been my feeling that someone's pushing him into this and that interview only confirmed my suspicion. Yeah, I think he's being pushed by the "Anybody but Palin" Brigade.

Everytime I see Mitch Daniels, two words come to mind-

Wiiiild Haaaawgs!

This clip pretty much illustrates how Daniels' run has been going so far:

http://tinyurl.com/4dn85p6

Posted by: sartana at March 01, 2011 01:10 PM (+fNcw)

827 Someone please invoke the little Aryan so this stupid thread can die.

Posted by: K~Bob at March 01, 2011 05:41 PM (9b6FB)

If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can imagine.

Posted by: Obi-Wan Palin-Thread at March 01, 2011 01:13 PM (Di3Im)

Posted by: sartana at March 01, 2011 01:13 PM (+fNcw)

829 And, btw, you fail at politics.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 05:20 PM (nj1bB)

We Palinistas may suck at politics, Ace.  But you're not going seriously suggesting that a woman who went from being a housewife to town councilwoman, to small-town mayor, to state Governor (along the way having lost a statewide Lt. Governor election and been appointed to a major administrative position) knows less about politics and winning elections than, say, you or I?

Palin endorsed some sucky candidates in 2010, like O'Donnell and Angle.  She also endorsed Miller, whom you also endorsed, but who lost a quirky election.  Overall, however, better than 60% of candidates she endorsed in the 2010 midterm election won.  So she's got some proven political acumen... even if she's not clever enough to take direction from a smart military blog.

It's even possible that she knows what she's doing.

Posted by: Obi-Wan Palin-Thread at March 01, 2011 01:23 PM (Di3Im)

830

If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can imagine.

Posted by: Obi-Wan Palin-Thread at March 01, 2011 06:13 PM (Di3Im)

Your overestimate the power of my imagination.

Posted by: K~Bob at March 01, 2011 01:25 PM (9b6FB)

831 As the founding and apparently sole member of RINOs For Palin, I have to put in my two cents.

Ace (and Jeff B., much more pugnaciously) are letting their justifiable irritation with the Palin Suicide Brigade to spill over into a general fear and loathing of the base.

They've both explicitly stated on this thread that they fear Palin will hoodwink just enough True Cons to win the primary, then get crushed in the general.
Which is possible.
But in their concern, they're starting to sound vis-a-vis the base how liberals often sound vis-a-vis the entire country: disdain and exasperation that these peoples' votes actually get counted.

Ace, two weeks ago you were ranting about how the GOP was dead to you and it was third-party time.  Who the fuck is going to join you in this new party? Daniels? Christie?

She'll run, or not.  She'll get the nomination, or not.  She'll win the Presidency, or not.  I see those odds breaking down as 50, 50+, and 50-.  Ends up a wash.

"what steams you is that you can't bully us into rejecting her as well."

Sartana has you there.

I'm way more of a squish than you, but I still think it's her time.  Maybe enough people will agree that she'll get the nomination, maybe not.  Going in with this attitude makes "maybe not" that much more likely.


Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 01:33 PM (/E72E)

832 Taking this tone also, paradoxically, increases the chances of the very scenario you seem to fear most - a bitter primary dividing the party along class, regional and ideological lines, followed by a crushing defeat no matter who, Palin or ABP, gets the nom.

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 01:36 PM (/E72E)

833

835.  Posted by: sartana at March 01, 2011 06:01 PM (+fNcw)

Caught Ingraham's polite dismantling of Noem this AM as she eviscerated Cantor, startlets mentor, over the PP surrender:  "Congresswoman,  I love ya but you're not answering the question".  Some powderpuff pistol whipping and Eye Candy got half real.  Laura even let "Energy policy is my bailiwick" go unchallenged by a guffaw or snigger.

Think Christie, without the deference, would last a round?

Christie is safe with Gregory, yet catching the Walker interview put CC to shame.  Ego did not enter in for a frown, a raised syllable, nada.

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 01, 2011 01:36 PM (/g2vP)

834

It's even possible that she knows what she's doing.

Posted by: Obi-Wan Palin-Thread at March 01, 2011 06:23 PM (Di3Im)

 

For Ace to admit that  he would have to admit that Palin is smarter than him.  Which I doubt he will  admit too.

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 01:37 PM (aVGmX)

835 "Which I doubt he will  admit too."

He specifically denied it upthread (465).

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 01:42 PM (/E72E)

836 >>>For Ace to admit that he would have to admit that Palin is smarter than him. Which I doubt he will admit too. Well, you put me in the corner of bringing up dreaded *credentialism*, but that's the game you're playing, so I'll just note that according to every test I've ever taken (IQ, SATs, AP, LSATs) I've been rated top 0.5%. Including perfect score on LSATs. And now, having brought up the claim that Palin is smarter, you'll say none of that matters, or accuse me of "good old boys' club credentialism," or say that intelligence can't be measured (then why bring up the assertion?), etc. So, given that Palin stumbles when speaking of policy basics, no, I'm not rushing to that conclusion. And if you didn't want this answer than don't bait with it.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 01:42 PM (nj1bB)

837 Knemon, It's not hatred of "the base" because I think in fact Palin's supporters are not the base. It's a subsection of the base. It's not hatred in any event, except hatred of emotionalism and stupidity and the urging of this emotion-driven faith-based silliness as a basis for decisionmaking. It's christine O'donnell all over again. It's this belief that if we all just *B E L I E V E * enough we can will this to happen, and so the focus should not be on the candidate's qualifications, statements, actions, and results, but instead on a whipping of the pool of supporters into conformity. If we just all get on the same page, we can make it happen, so it doesn't matter if Palin (or, before, Angle or O'Donnell) seems a bit not ready for prime time. So while people like me ask for the candidate to improve herself, I get shouted down in favor of the candidate's supporters demanding her would-be voters improve THEMSELVES and stop making unreasonable demands and just get with the program.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 01:45 PM (nj1bB)

838

And now, having brought up the claim that Palin is smarter, you'll say none of that matters, or accuse me of "good old boys' club credentialism," or say that intelligence can't be measured (then why bring up the assertion?), etc.

So, given that Palin stumbles when speaking of policy basics, no, I'm not rushing to that conclusion.

And if you didn't want this answer than don't bait with it.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 06:42 PM (nj1bB)

Why would I say any of that?  For being smart you seem to have massive blindspots and make completly unfounded leaps of logic. 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 01:49 PM (aVGmX)

839 I can only keep on saying that I don't object to Palin as a person. I also don't object to Palin's POSITIONS -- she's not an extremist and is just a solid republican. Not a moderate, but there is a big difference between moderate and "extremist." In between lies "solid, conventional strong conservative," which I support. I never say "Palin must change her beliefs to be moderate." I never thought they were immoderate to begin with. I say: "Palin must get better at explaining this stuff because she's not very good at it now and, like Christine O'Donnell, if you're not good at explaining the harder-to-accept parts of conservatism, it SOUNDS extreme to the average pussy voter." I have made this distinction a thousand times. If you're smart and good at making the conservative case, you can be as conservative as possible. If you're weak at communicating and can barely explain this stuff even to friendly audiences, only then should you moderate your policy, because you just can't sell the harder stuff. I keep making this point about candidate quality. It does us no good to have people who just make empty assertions without facts and arguments behind them. POLITICAL CONTESTS ARE NOT WON WITH NAKED ASSERTIONS, repeated over and over. They're won when people start making points or asking questions that cannot be well answered by the opposition. So I try and try to suggest some way Palin can up her game in the communication/debate/persuasion area, but I keep being told no, she's perfect as it is. Which is astonishing, given that, for example, 52% or so oppose ObamaCare but only 38% support her -- what accounts for more people being on board with repealing obmacare than actually support her? And I keep saying it's because she's not very good at explaining this to people and making conservative arguments SOUND reasonable. Doing the Sean Hannity thing of just repeating doctrinal soundbites doesnt make you sound convincing or reasonable; it makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about. So when I say Palin should do these things, it is for the reason of improving her skills and practicing at political communication and getting better at persuading people. The people supporting Palin have ALWAYS believed the things she says. Palin did NOT persuade them into these beliefs. She just echoes these beliefs. A winning candidate MUST be able to persuade some people who disagree into agreeing. Palin does not do that. And when people offer the constructive criticism that if she ever wants 51% of the vote she'll have to get better at this, and should start making a determined effort at improvement NOW (actually, like a year ago) and not in three months, we get ragged on, because we can't see how brilliant she is. Brilliant? At what? Persuading people? Name me one Palin convert in the past year. One person who has gone from anti-Palin or Pailin-skeptic to pro-Palin. I see her losing support -- like John Ziegler, who did a documentary about her. Or Ann Coulter, who wrote in 2008 that she was Conservative of the Year. So if she's so good at convincing, why aren't people being convinced? This must end. This is like Spinal Tap calling its playing at smaller and smaller venues not a loss of popularity, but a "more selective appeal." Palin needs to be LESS selective in appeal and bring more people into her camp. You guys sound like people who like a small band that doesn't sell many records screaming bloody murder if someone says "you know, if they added a ballad, I bet they would have a gold record." And you're like, "NO! THAT WOULD BE SELLING OUT! I WANT THE BAND EXACTLY AS IT IS!" Well, as she is, she sells a few records and then gets dropped from the label. So who's her friend here, and who's her enemy?

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 01:58 PM (nj1bB)

840 "So while people like me ask for the candidate to improve herself..."

Again, not yet an official candidate.  If she declares, then she probably will take your advise.

Posted by: not the droid you seek at March 01, 2011 01:59 PM (h35AH)

841 "It's a subsection of the base."

OK, but a subsection of the base isn't enough to win the primary.  I detected in some of your posts upthread (much more blatantly in Jeff's, but often he sort of serves as your id on these flame threads, right?) some blurring of the lines between the two.

I'm saying, trust the system.  The non-crazy-but-tentatively-pro-Palin position is to say: I have some faith (uh-oh, there's that word) that she can address these concerns of yours, that she will in due course, and that she will (or at least *can*) win the nomination.

Your fear is that she can't, but that she will somehow win the nomination anyway.  Which, if her opponents willon have been lame enough to let that happen, any of them would've lost the general anyway, so WGAS?

As someone quite like you - a four-sigma nerd (not *quite* a perfect LSAT, though, more's the shame) from the Northeast who's on the right mostly because I Can't Fucking Stand Liberals - I get what you're saying, I really do.  What I'm saying is: you're in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, you're adopting The Wrong Tone, and you're setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What I'm saying is:

All I'm saying is: a self-fulfilling prophecy

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 02:01 PM (/E72E)

842 Advice, dangit.  I can't type today.

Posted by: not the droid you seek at March 01, 2011 02:01 PM (h35AH)

843

When people like me attempt to be nice...

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 05:20 PM (nj1bB)

That may be one of the funniest things you've said in a long time when it comes to Palin.

 

Posted by: Steph at March 01, 2011 02:05 PM (AkdC5)

844 >>>Again, not yet an official candidate. If she declares, then she probably will take your advise. Can you suggest any benefit that accrues to someone waiting to begin practicing and improving? Is delaying practice and improvement ever a useful thing? You guy keep saying "Oh she'll do those things." Okay, why isn't she doing them now? Why in fact wasn't she doing them through 2010? Or 2009? Do you think becoming an accomplished public speaker, capable of persuading skeptics to accepting a stronger-tonic form of conservatism, is an easy thing that can be done in a matter of a few weeks' cramming? Previously I did give Palin the benefit of the doubt and I postulated she was doing mock interviews in Alaska, behind the scenes, studying up, getting better. But if that has been going on, where is the evidence? And what is the delay on seeing the fruits of this process?

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 02:06 PM (nj1bB)

845
I've been rated top 0.5%. Including perfect score on LSATs.-Ace

That puts you right up there with Sheriff Joe, champ! I'd love to hear your tips on owning "physical gold".

Apparently, ace, you should be smart enough to know that Delaware is not close to being representative of the US as a whole, and O'Donnell is definitely not in the same league as Sarah Palin- so the comparison falls flat. And yes, some of us still consider it a victory that Cap'N Trade Mike Castle was denied a chance to scuttle a Conservative agenda from a perch in the US Senate. Good riddance to stale Rinos. You seemed to have come around to our side recently with your "F tha GOP" day of rage post- but I guess you've spun around again. But I guess you can do that- strafing runs in your speedos and all that.

Who is this "Palin Suicide Brigade"? I consider myself a Palinista, but she'll still have to earn my vote. If she doesn't have her act together to make a credible run for the nomination, and if she takes the wrong positions, she won't get my vote. Palin has a core of partisan supporters like any other candidate- probably larger and on more of a hair-trigger than others, but this is par for the course. You attack a candidate and their supporters fire back.

Unless you're saying there's a different standard for Palin and her crowd- that when she's attacked, or merely criticized, anyone who defends her is now some Kamikaze nutjob. That's not fair.

Posted by: sartana at March 01, 2011 02:09 PM (+fNcw)

846 It's not hatred of "the base" because I think in fact Palin's supporters are not the base. It's a subsection of the base. ...



..So while people like me ask for the candidate to improve herself, I get shouted down in favor of the candidate's supporters demanding her would-be voters improve THEMSELVES and stop making unreasonable demands and just get with the program.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 06:45 PM (nj1bB)

 

So  I wonder did it ever occur  to you to think that maybe you are the small subsection of the base and you wish the base to confirm to your view?  

 

you continue to bring up COD  for whatever reason  but   you fail to explain how an election of a conservative in a deep blue state has any bearing on  a possible election of a conservative in a majority right of center country.    You  also fail to explain how Palin must win one NE state or even one vote in the NE to win the POTUS.  So if she doesn't need your vote to win the election  why should she court your vote?   I'm sure she will   because that is what she does.   But why  should  she care what someone  in NY/NJ thinks of her.   You really are not the target audience she is going after.   Yet you demand that she meets your standards.  Standards that has been shown  to not be needed  by the simple fact that Obam won the election.  A more unqualified person   than Palin could ever  hope to be.

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 02:09 PM (aVGmX)

847 >>> I detected in some of your posts upthread (much more blatantly in Jeff's, but often he sort of serves as your id on these flame threads, right? Yeah jeff is one of those troublesome frenemies who sort of hurts you while trying to help you because he loses his shit. For example, I never thought Palin did badly in the Biden debate. I thought she won that. Said so at the time, and I have no reason to revisit that conclusion. But this comes down to the question posed in The Social Network: "If you invented facebook, why didn't you invent facebook?" If Palin is winning, um, why is she not winning? Her fans are so blinded by blind loyalty that they are incapable of forming any sort of realistic position of where she is and where she needs to be. They just assert over and over that all is going according to plan. It is? It's part of the plan that she starts 20 points in the hole as far as favorability? It's part of the plan that 65% (including a majority or close to it of republicans) think she's unqualified for office? If this is success as sceduled according to the plan, please tell me what in the name of God failure might look like.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 02:10 PM (nj1bB)

848 You guys keep saying "Oh she'll do those things."

I said nothing of the sort.  I said she might want to be the next Limbaugh or want to influence society outside of the formal political structure.  That would jibe with her FOX contract and the building of the studio in her home.

Posted by: not the droid you seek at March 01, 2011 02:12 PM (h35AH)

849 >>>>you continue to bring up COD for whatever reason but you fail to explain how an election of a conservative in a deep blue state has any bearing on a possible election of a conservative in a majority right of center country. Same tropes. Blind faith, blind loyalty, shouting that anyone saying "she can't win" is a RINO traitor who "hates her" or has "problems with female candidates," personal attacks on anyone suggesting she's got some homework to do, etc. I keep seeing Palin's fans deride "Fat Boy" Christie for his "snide" attack on Palin, suggesting she needed to do more unscripted stuff. Actually, he used the wrong word -- the problem isn't that she's scripted, it's that she has a narrow comfort zone that ONLY works in front of friendly audiences and is not getting the practice at defending herself in front of unfriendly or just neutral venues. It's easy to sound okay when you get softballs. See Barack Hussein Obama. That is what Christie is talking about. That all these friendly, shallow interviews are NOT preparing her for the media gauntlet of a real run; this is book-promotion publicity, and that sort of publicity is easy. And if she really is going to run, if she's not just pretending, she must get good at the adversarial/debate type stuff. Because -- some of you seem utterly unable to admit this -- she flubbed that stuff badly the last time, so bad that she went from having huge favorables to unfavorables in like a MONTH. Now, if you want 2008 v. 2.0, if you want that hell again, fine, keep encouraging her to do nothing differently and not get any better.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 02:15 PM (nj1bB)

850

The people supporting Palin have ALWAYS believed the things she says. Palin did NOT persuade them into these beliefs. She just echoes these beliefs.

A winning candidate MUST be able to persuade some people who disagree into agreeing. Palin does not do that.

 

Ace stop with the assumptions.  You do not know that Palin supporters agree with her 100%,  if they always believed in her positons,  if they  like what she says  100% of the time.   You are basing your entire arguement on an assumption  based on  facts you have no way of knowing.   And then you treat the conclusion you come up with as irrefutable fact  BECAUSE YOU SAY IT IS.  

that is not a good way to go about winning a debate.   I personally do not agree with Palin 100% of the time,  somethings I have come around to her way of thinking because she persuaded me.  Somethings  I have not thought of  before she spoke out on the issue  and after listening to her points I have either agreed or not  based on my knowledge and core beliefs.   Because she has not persuaded you does not mean she can not persuade. 

I think this is why people tear into you when the subject of Palin comes up.   You make baseless assumptions.

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 02:17 PM (aVGmX)

851 "If Palin is winning, um, why is she not winning?"

If she's not winning, why do you care so much?  I can only assume it's because you see the Nightmare Scenario (1964 on acid) as a real possibility.

I agree it is a possibility.  What I question is whether the approach you're taking here is making it anything other than *significantly more likely* (adjusted for the fact that you're just some moronblogger, clown nose on, etc.).

Remember your post, maybe last year, drawing a distinction between "PC" and "racial courtesy?"
There has to be some similar distinction to draw here, between "pointing out the serious risks of a Palin candidacy [or even serious primary run given the bitterness if she loses, esp. narrowly]" and "calling her supporters braindead hicks."  (Yes, not in those words, but you see what I mean).

You're the guy with the blog, I'm just the guy commenting on it.  All I'm saying is, while the Palinistas can get tiring, so can the antis.  It takes two to have a civil war.

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 02:18 PM (/E72E)

852 Let me ask this: In 2008, when Palin was picked, we had palinmania, and McCain/Palin was actually AHEAD in polls by 7, 8%. Do you remember? And in a month they were back behind by 5 or 8. now, WHAT HAPPENED? People loved the IDEA of Palin. What they didn't love was that she often seemed deer-in-the-headlights. She did not project confidence that she knew what she was talking about and could be a leader. In one month, she went from McCain's only (and great) asset to a drag on the ticket. Now, if you want to claim it was ONLY the media responsible for this, I have a two questions: 1. Is this a different media now, then? Can she afford to give incoherent answers because now the media will give her a pass on them? 2. And question 2: You're wrong. yeah, that's not a question. Palin started to slip away when the public saw her scrambling like a kid who didn't do his homework to bullshit her way through questions. You can blame "media unfairness" for making an issue out of this where Obama and his 57 states got a pass, but that is REALITY; that's the way the game is played. To win, she can't afford those kind of "what the fuck?" moments. And so when I tell you she needs to get BETER and avoid that crap and you on the other hand tell me "Hellz no! Let's have the disaster of 2008 all over again!," I really have to wonder: Which candidate are you really supporting for office? Palin? Or Obama?

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 02:26 PM (nj1bB)

853 " To win, she can't afford those kind of "what the fuck?" moments."

Agreed, but amended: To win EVEN THE PRIMARY, she can't afford them.

So if there really is such a Problem Like Sarah, it'll resolve itself.  And if not, she'll get a chance to rewrite the narrative.

Maybe what you really want is for her to actually make these changes, prove you wrong, and win it all?  But it's the definition of magical thinking for you to think that by railing on her Suicide Brigades in the comments of your blog you'll somehow affect her behavior.

This is on track to be one of the longest threads you've ever had, so maybe you know just what you're doing, but this can't be good for your blood pressure.

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 02:32 PM (/E72E)

854

Same tropes. Blind faith, blind loyalty, shouting that anyone saying "she can't win" is a RINO traitor who "hates her" or has "problems with female candidates," personal attacks on anyone suggesting she's got some homework to do, etc.

 

Yet another assumption. 

 

the problem isn't that she's scripted, it's that she has a narrow comfort zone that ONLY works in front of friendly audiences and is not getting the practice at defending herself in front of unfriendly or just neutral venues.

assumption  again.   And factually wrong. 


That is what Christie is talking about. That all these friendly, shallow interviews are NOT preparing her for the media gauntlet of a real run; this is book-promotion publicity, and that sort of publicity is easy.

And if she really is going to run, if she's not just pretending, she must get good at the adversarial/debate type stuff.

 

Because -- some of you seem utterly unable to admit this -- she flubbed that stuff badly the last time, so bad that she went from having huge favorables to unfavorables in like a MONTH.

Now, if you want 2008 v. 2.0, if you want that hell again, fine, keep encouraging her to do nothing differently and not get any better.

Some on your side seem utterly unable to admit this  that  being a VP  candidate and defending someone else's positons is differnert then defending yours and that the media lies about her book burning, her being a terrible mother, her making people buy rape kits, her believing the dinasours walk the earth in man's foot steps  etc  had nothing to do with the drop in favorables.   It was all do to a cut up edited interview.  

  You also  fail to understand that Palin believes that those lies and smears were are most of the problem.   And has taken steps in the last 2 years to counter all of those false smears and restrict the ability for fresh ones to be started.   

    





Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 02:35 PM (aVGmX)

855 >>>Agreed, but amended: To win EVEN THE PRIMARY, she can't afford them. i disagree. Well, I disagree in this sense: I do not agree that this is a perfect tonic as you postulate. It could happen that way (many of Palin's well-wishers also say they won't support her for president), but it won't necessarily happen that way. As you may or may not be able to see, some of her supporters are willing, ready, and eager to spin away *anything* as immaterial. There are people who will claim that all of her answers to Katie Couric (like: her rambling, incoherent defense of TARP) are easily explained away and that "the public doesn't care about wonkish details." In a split field, given that Palin's fans are obviously the most energized of any, yes, I can see 2008's version of bumbling, stumbling palin nevertheless winning, and then disaster. And then, when Obama wins, I get to say "I told you so, I told you the public DID in fact care about basic ability to explain policy coherently," and that will be small comfort, eh?

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 02:38 PM (nj1bB)

856 unseen, shall I link Sarah Palin's incoherent answer defending TARP which was so bad that Tina Fey actually quoted it almost verbatim in parodizing it? Are you going to tell me that was just media spin? Or that there's a big difference between defending John McCain's policy and her own? Really? She can't give a coherent answer on the most important question of the day (back then) but we can excuse that because she was being pressed to defend John McCain's policy? She also doesn't sound much more in-command when she defends her own policy.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 02:40 PM (nj1bB)

857 now, WHAT HAPPENED?

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 07:26 PM (nj1bB)

 

hmm  the enitre stock market  was wiped out and McCain suspended his campaign?  but I'm sure that had nothing whatsoever to do wioth McCain's sinking poll numbers.  It was all due to THAT WOMAN......Come on Ace  you  are better than this.   Bring your A game.

 

In one month, she went from McCain's only (and great) asset to a drag on the ticket.

 

exit polls show she was an asset  and a net positive for McCain. 

 

 



Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 02:40 PM (aVGmX)

858 >>>exit polls show she was an asset and a net positive for McCain. cite one, this wasn't my understanding. Show me the data you mean. Maybe I'm wrong. But I won't confess it on your say-so.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 02:41 PM (nj1bB)

859 unseen, shall I link Sarah Palin's incoherent answer defending TARP which was so bad that Tina Fey actually quoted it almost verbatim in parodizing it?

Are you going to tell me that was just media spin? Or that there's a big difference between defending John McCain's policy and her own?

Really? She can't give a coherent answer on the most important question of the day (back then) but we can excuse that because she was being pressed to defend John McCain's policy?

She also doesn't sound much more in-command when she defends her own policy.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 07:40 PM (nj1bB)

 

No I didn't much care for her answer on TARP.   But you  would have to admit defending something you personally disagree with  as the best thing in the world  takes a special kind of skill set.  Do I want my President to be able to lie out his ass  at a moment's notice  not really.  So I will take a rambling answer  and file it in she really doesn't believe in what she is saying.  

 

but it proves a point.   you are reaching back 2,5 years to find fault with something Palin said.  why is that?  If she hasn't gotten any better then shouldn't you be able to point to say last week  or last month  instead of having to reach back 2.5 years to find fault...

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 02:46 PM (aVGmX)

860 "the media lies about her book burning, her being a terrible mother, her making people buy rape kits, her believing the dinosaurs walk the earth in man's foot steps  etc"

Also under the category of etc: her affair, Todd's affair, Todd knocked up her daughter, she's anti-gay, she's racist, she'll ban abortion in the US, she doesn't know that Africa is a continent, she fires troopers who question her, she calls her kid a retard, and she's directly responsible for inciting violence that resulted in Gifford's shooting.

Gee, can't imagine why she'd need to take a little time off and rehabilitate her image a tad.  This shit continues to this day, and yes, it is influencing opinion.  They wouldn't lie if it didn't work.

Posted by: not the droid you seek at March 01, 2011 02:46 PM (h35AH)

861 Late september 2009: 49% say she's not qualified; only 40% say she is. Note "qualified" is a very easy hurdle to pass. They're not asking who you prefer, but if someone is just minimally qualified. I opposed Clinton but I'd have to answer 'yes" on the qualification question. So, in late september, three weeks after her debut, she's thought to be unqualified for the presidency by almost 50% of the country. And you say she doesn't have to improve her game, huh? She doesn't have to correct this deadly weakness? We should "just let Palin be Palin," huh? No problem? None at all? You think this same basic thing is going to work better the second time around when she's on top of the ticket instead of a back-up hypoethetical replacemnt?

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 02:46 PM (nj1bB)

862 that was late september 2008, not 2009. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/24/wsjnbc- poll-voters-doubt-palins-qualifications-to-be-president/

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 02:49 PM (nj1bB)

863 >>>Gee, can't imagine why she'd need to take a little time off and rehabilitate her image a tad was the rehabilitation going on without me noticing before this? If she's doing so great, how come no one seems to think so except her supporters?

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 02:50 PM (nj1bB)

864 The polls on Palin as a net drag or lift can be sliced any old way.

"As you may or may not be able to see, some of her supporters are willing, ready, and eager to spin away *anything* as immaterial."

I'm ready, willing and able to see that (why do you think I call them the Suicide Brigade?)

But "some of her supporters" do not amount to a winning coalition even in a badly fractured primary (which, is there any guarantee that's what we'll get?  People are dropping out; who's dropping IN?).

You're worried that the hard-cores will bewitch (oh what a giveaway) many other less-hard-cores into voting for her, even and especially if she pulls a Kouric interview-level gaffe every day.  I just don't see that as likely IF the performance is not there.  This is why our drawn-out schedule is a good thing: no one performing as you fear she will can make it through. (Yes, Obama made it through, but his problems are different - in fact, his flaws are largely the opposite of hers.)

As for "disaster," well, what's the worst that can happen?  Obama wins.  Well, you're a smart guy with a good knowledge of politics and history: odds are he wins anyway.

Right now the safe choice is Pawlenty, coming in to bridge the Romney-Palin gap and Bring Us Together.  (Or J.E.B.!)

Is that what you want?  In any other year, I'd agree.  This year, I feel like rolling the dice.  RINOs for Palin, yo.

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 02:53 PM (/E72E)

865 >>>No I didn't much care for her answer on TARP. But you would have to admit defending something you personally disagree with as the best thing in the world takes a special kind of skill set. No, not really. I offered this spin myself at the time but didn't believe it all that much. I think it's a pretty easy thing to hear someone else's case for a policy, learn it, and offer it back. I don't think it's that hard. Every single lawyer in the world does it every single day and no one accues the profession of brilliance. I suppose you will make some kind of claim that it was her basic honesty that caused her to stumble so badly, though.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 02:53 PM (nj1bB)

866 was the rehabilitation going on without me noticing before this?

If she's doing so great, how come no one seems to think so except her supporters?

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 07:50 PM (nj1bB)

 

I suppose it would depend on where you get your news about her.    for instance her suppoerts  as well as others watched SPAK  did you?   Her supporters go to pro-palin  news sources  as well as anti-palin  sources to get both sides.   Now  if you get your news sources form US weekly  or NYT   you would never know.  She would still be a stupid  to you  since they don't give you the other side.    that is more your problem that Palin's isn't it?  

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 02:56 PM (aVGmX)

867 Qualified according to WHAT QUALIFICATIONS? The country sure thought the Obama was qualified. If the hurdle is made out of fudge then fuck the hurdle. It's a hurdle because you WANT it to be a hurdle and you've shown that you'll take any hurdle you think you can get. Palin's detractors are like Macgyver, reflexively driven to try and turn any thing they happen to find(sticks, bottle caps, dead grasshoppers) lying on the ground, or in their heads, into "hurdles". SNL skits? No problem? Not having a fully formed platform two years before announcing a pesidential candidacy? Sounds like a hurdle to me! The detractor bar for what might represent a "hurdle" to Palin (oh please please please!) is so incredibly low, that when their offerings inevitably fail to impress anyone, the distraught detractors are forced to manufacture grandiose theories about how her supporters can't be dissuaded by ANYTHING.

Posted by: cackfinger at March 01, 2011 02:57 PM (HpG1y)

868 >>> for instance her suppoerts as well as others watched SPAK did you? Her supporters go to pro-palin news sources as well as anti-palin sources to get both sides. Now if you get your news sources form US weekly or NYT you would never know. So Palin's fans, who seek out palin-friendly websites for news, are convinced she's up to scratch now? And what about the 65% of non-fans? Fuck them, who needs them anyway, what?

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 02:57 PM (nj1bB)

869 " that is more your problem that Palin's isn't it?  "

No, unseen, it's Palin's too.  I'm with Ace this far: SPAK is not enough.

Where Ace and I part ways: I don't see how going on Meet the Press *now* is going to help or hurt her.

Where I rejoin ways with him: if she announces but doesn't engage, up to and including sitting across from David Gregory and resisting the urge to slap him as he tries every gotcha trick his masters can feed him, this isn't going to work.

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 02:59 PM (/E72E)

870 >>>b that is more your problem that Palin's isn't it? No I assure you its hers. If she chooses to ghettoize herself and only appear in a closed universe of friendly media which narrowcasts only to her staunchest supporters, I assure you it is her problem, not mine, that her rehabilitation campaign isn't going wider. She's chosing the venues. She likes them small and cozy and friends-only. Not my choice. I'm the guy saying she has to get out of the conservative ghetto and out into the general adversarial media to reach those she's not reaching, but I am told I am wrong to say that.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 02:59 PM (nj1bB)

871 I think it's a pretty easy thing to hear someone else's case for a policy, learn it, and offer it back. I don't think it's that hard. Every single lawyer in the world does it every single day and no one accues the profession of brilliance.

I suppose you will make some kind of claim that it was her basic honesty that caused her to stumble so badly, though.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 07:53 PM (nj1bB)

 

Last time I looked Palin wasn't a lawyer.   that is a learned skill set.  It isn't something you are born with.  The ability to lie and lie well is  a learned ability.  Most people  that lie are easily  seen to be lying...Now if you want an attorney in office that's fine and that couold be a different debate.  I persoanlly think the lawyers are the cause of much of what is wrong with our govenrment..

 

 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 03:00 PM (aVGmX)

872 >>>is a learned skill set. It isn't something you are born with. The ability to lie and lie well is a learned ability. Most people that lie are easily seen to be lying... Like I said, you cast her deer-in-the-headlights dog-ate-my-homework flub as yet another paean to the virtue of Saint Sarah. She flubbed the question and looked stupid because she was too honest to lie well. So she lied poorly, I guess. Predictable.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 03:02 PM (nj1bB)

873 No, unseen, it's Palin's too.  I'm with Ace this far: SPAK is not enough.

Where Ace and I part ways: I don't see how going on Meet the Press *now* is going to help or hurt her.

Where I rejoin ways with him: if she announces but doesn't engage, up to and including sitting across from David Gregory and resisting the urge to slap him as he tries every gotcha trick his masters can feed him, this isn't going to work.

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 07:59 PM (/E72E)

 

See this goes back to the question of if a bear shits in the woods and no one sees it  did the bear really shit in the woods.   Now  You can say she isn't doing the right venues but  saying she isn't doing the rehab  is false.   we can debate if TLC  was a good place to rehab her image.  But just because Ace hasn't seen it doesn't mean she hasn't done it.  

 

 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 03:03 PM (aVGmX)

874 Ace, I think what unseen is saying re:SPAK is this:

People who can see her "unfiltered" (SPAK is obviously its own filter but set that aside) like her.  In the primaries, and especially when/if she gets the nomination, she will get a chance to reintroduce herself to people, to do it all Her Way this time around, and will quickly turn things around.

This is kind of what Reagan did.  I was nine months old at the time, but it's what they tell me.

It's a plan so crazy it just ... might ... work.

What would be constructive is: turning this from a negative to a positive:
"she has to get out of the conservative ghetto and out into the general adversarial media to reach those she's not reaching"

OK.  Where should she go?  MtP?

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 03:05 PM (/E72E)

875 So Palin's fans, who seek out palin-friendly websites for news, are convinced she's up to scratch now?

And what about the 65% of non-fans? Fuck them, who needs them anyway, what?

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 07:57 PM (nj1bB)

 

not at all.  But it refutes  your point that Palin's support is based on blind faith and stupidity.   You think it is based on that because you have  not seen what her supporters have seen and therefore it doesn't exist  TO YOU and so to your thinking her support must be based on unicorn loving fantasyland thinking.

 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 03:05 PM (aVGmX)

876 Her rehab was a gauzy reality tv show about hunting and fishing? Good Lord. I'm sorry, remind me again: Was Sarah Palin's greatest liability that she wasn't perceived as folksy, mom-ish, and Alaska-proud enough? Or was it that she was unqualified and maybe not that bright? Oh right, it was the latter. So what does proving she's folksy, mom-ish, and alaska-proud do about that? You seem to believe that a deadly, disqualifying weakness can be overcome by just being super-folksy. No one doubts she's folksy. That's not her problem. I can't believe a reality tv show is her rehabilitation. Okay, I'm done here; this is pointless. A reality tv show is an important part of a political rehabilitation. This is a religious faith. This is very nearly idolatry.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 03:07 PM (nj1bB)

877 What would be constructive is: turning this from a negative to a positive:
"she has to get out of the conservative ghetto and out into the general adversarial media to reach those she's not reaching"

OK.  Where should she go?  MtP?

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 08:05 PM (/E72E)

 

TLC  is not known to be a conservative ghetto.  It would be like I don't know going to a neutral/non friendly place and trying to presuade people  that maybe havn't seen Palin before  wouldn't you say.  Which again  blows up ace's point  that she doesn't go into those envirnoments.  

 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 03:08 PM (aVGmX)

878 "She's choosing the venues. She likes them small and cozy and friends-only. Not my choice. I'm the guy saying she has to get out of the conservative ghetto and out into the general adversarial media to reach those she's not reaching, but I am told I am wrong to say that."

No, you're right to say that.  That is an essential part of a campaign.  I mentioned that she would take your advice if she ran.  You ignored that, and commented only on her social outreach with friendly media.  That really isn't arguing fairly, when she hasn't announced.

Posted by: not the droid you seek at March 01, 2011 03:08 PM (h35AH)

879 I can't help but notice palin's fans only want her to do the things that are easy for her and want her to stay away from the things that are hard from her. Which reinforces her own bad tendency. No one's going to elect someone who doesn't seem up to the job or know what she's talking about because she did some rock-climbing on a reality tv show.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 03:09 PM (nj1bB)

880 Okay, I'm done here; this is pointless. A reality tv show is an important part of a political rehabilitation.

This is a religious faith. This is very nearly idolatry.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 08:07 PM (nj1bB)

 

So did you watch it?  I am going to assume you did not.  because anyone that did  would not describe it in those terms.  But because that is what you read,  and what others  told you it was about  (again I'm assuming you didn't watch it)  you know for a fact and have faith that is what it was.   Seems to me the one with the religious faith here is you.  If my assumption is right.   You believe  in your heart that SPAK was a just a reality show and was folksy without independent verification.  The show was watched by an avg of 3.2 million viewers  every week for 8 weeks  which seems  to be a big reach  to get to people  on a differnet levels.   Co workers that were antipalin before watching the show  changed their minds  Some become open to her possible run.  some become supporters.  Some didn't watch it becaus ethey KNEW what it was about. 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 03:15 PM (aVGmX)

881

Here is wisdom from Chris Christie (speaking to Rich Lowry at National Review's offices):

Yes. Believe me, I’ve been interested in politics my whole life. I see the opportunity. But I just don’t believe that’s why you run. Like I said at AEI, I have people calling me and saying to me, “Let me explain to you how you could win.” And I’m like, “You’re barking up the wrong tree. I already know I could win.” That’s not the issue. The issue is not me sitting here and saying, “Geez, it might be too hard. I don’t think I can win.” I see the opportunity both at the primary level and at the general election level. I see the opportunity. 

But I’ve got to believe I’m ready to be president, and I don’t. And I think that that’s the basis you have to make that decision. I think when you have people who make the decision just based upon seeing the opportunity you have a much greater likelihood that you’re going to have a president who is not ready. And then we all suffer from that. Even if you’re a conservative, if your conservative president is not ready, you’re not going to be good anyway because you’re going to get rolled all over the place in that town.

I just see how much better I get at this job every day, and I do, and I learn things. If not every day, at least every week. And my wife and I were actually talking about this last night. We had dinner together with the family after the [New Jersey budget] speech and she was saying how much better she thought I was yesterday than I had been before in my speech. She said, “You are getting better.”

That’s just the nature of life. So, I see the opportunity, I recognize and understand it and I’m really flattered that people think of me that way. But, if I don’t believe it in here [pointing to his heart], I’m not going to be a good candidate on top of everything else.

And remember in the context of sitting there on election night 2009, and my wife and I were convinced we were going to lose. It is a bit to get your arms around, too. You’re a successful United States attorney and then within a year of that time you have people talking about you and I was running around campaigning for folks. All of these handmade “Christie for President” signs in the crowds when I was in Michigan and Iowa and all the other places that I went, Ohio and Pennsylvania and Florida. It’s also been overwhelming, too.

Like I said before, I am who I am and people have to trust, they don’t have to but they should trust, my instincts on this. I know me better than anyone else knows me. If I felt like I was ready, I’d go, but I’m not. But I’m also not going to go if I don’t think I’m ready.

When I walked into the Governor’s office last January there have been some difficult days in the job. There has never been a day where I’ve felt like I’m over my head, I don’t know what to do, I’m lost. I don’t know whether I’d feel the same way if I walked into the Oval Office a year and a half from now. So, unless you get yourself to the point where you really believe you have a shot to be successful, then I don’t think you have any business running for it.

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 03:19 PM (Di3Im)

882 I can't help but notice palin's fans only want her to do the things that are easy for her and want her to stay away from the things that are hard from her.

Which reinforces her own bad tendency.

No one's going to elect someone who doesn't seem up to the job or know what she's talking about because she did some rock-climbing on a reality tv show.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 08:09 PM (nj1bB)

 

I've noticed that the ABP people  only want her to do the hard stuff.   Maybe because they think she will fail and then she will be finally finished.   Most Palin supporters I know can't wait for her to enter the arena.    We were not concerned with her going to the LIA  interview.  We knew she would hit a homerun which she did.   We do not sit on the edge of our seats thinking Palin will mess up.    We know she like anyone else might.   she could put her foot in her mouth like Huckabee did today.   I doubt it  but anything can happen.  

 

There is this belief in the ABP people  that when she enters the arena  it will be 2008 v 2.0.......the palin supporters do not think this way.   she can go on MTP anytime  she wants and she will do well.   Of course the ABP people will find some fault about it.   

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 03:22 PM (aVGmX)

883 "A reality tv show is an important part of a political rehabilitation."

Well, a reality tv show (SPAK), a family-friendly tv show(DWTS), Facebook essays, Twitter, op-eds in USA today and Wall Street Journal, punditry on FOX, two books and the tours, visiting Haiti with a charity group, speeches in India, and speeches in New York were all part of it.  Yes, she did need to rehabilitate her image personally and professionally.  The TV shows humanized her, and the books, op-eds and speeches provide some of her policy.  The hostile media gauntlet would follow all of that.

Posted by: not the droid you seek at March 01, 2011 03:24 PM (h35AH)

884 She flubbed the question and looked stupid because she was too honest to lie well. So she lied poorly, I guess.

Predictable.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 08:02 PM (nj1bB)

 

And you cast it has she was dumb as a box of rocks  which was also predictable.

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 03:25 PM (aVGmX)

885 #893

I read that Lowry orgasm and thought: "Man, that's a lot of first-person singular pronouns."

Posted by: mrp at March 01, 2011 03:29 PM (HjPtV)

886  @ 894 - We were not concerned with her going to the LIA  interview.  We knew she would hit a homerun which she did.

I've got news for you.  That wasn't a home run.  It was a display of warning track power -- in a batting cage.

I watched the interview.  Again, she came off as reasonably competent and engaging, but there wasn't a memorable line in the whole thing, except for the wisecrack about breastfeeding and the price of milk.

She did one hell of a job at winning over Jedediah Bilah over at Human Events, though.  If I didn't know better, I would have thought she was a huge fan from way back.

Wait ... what?

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 03:31 PM (OLomk)

887 Well, a reality tv show (SPAK), a family-friendly tv show(DWTS), Facebook essays, Twitter, op-eds in USA today and Wall Street Journal, punditry on FOX, two books and the tours, visiting Haiti with a charity group, speeches in India, and speeches in New York were all part of it.  Yes, she did need to rehabilitate her image personally and professionally.  The TV shows humanized her, and the books, op-eds and speeches provide some of her policy.  The hostile media gauntlet would follow all of that.

Posted by: not the droid you seek at March 01, 2011 08:24 PM (h35AH)

 

so Ace of those things how many did you tune into?

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 03:32 PM (aVGmX)

888

"I'm done here; this is pointless."

Indeed. 

VDH had a column up a few weeks back detailing Reagan's years in the Wilderness before meeting, against the will of the GOP, propitious circumstance and destiny.  His conclusion: Palin will be in the mix for years. 

But circumstance,  Walker and WI, has blown Daniels' and Christie's chance for good.  Ripon, WI was one of the birthplaces of the GOP, and it would appear, is so again.

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 01, 2011 03:44 PM (/g2vP)

889 cite one, this wasn't my understanding. Show me the data you mean. Maybe I'm wrong. But I won't confess it on your say-so.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 07:41 PM (nj1bB)

McCain's strategist Steve Schmidt (certainly no fan of Sarah Palin) told CNN's Anderson Cooper - on the heels of trashing Palin as part of the 60 Minutes piece on the book Game Change - that, "I believe, had she not been on the ticket, our margin of defeat would've been greater than it would've been otherwise."

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 03:44 PM (Di3Im)

890  @ 899 - so Ace of those things how many did you tune into?

See ... that's your problem right there.  Nobody aside from the gaggle of cloistered Palinites watches any of that stuff.  They have their SPAK parties, and they pass around these columns and they have their "Sarah Palin is Awesome Book Club" meetings where they sit around and talk about Sarah Palin's books and how awesome they are, and not to mention how awesome SHE is.  But, other than that, you're not winning anyone over.

You have a few people at the office who say, "you know, I'm suddenly open to voting for her" after seeing her on SPAK.  Fine.  What's the plan for winning people over from here on out?  Going door-to-door handing out DVD's?

You spend two days telling everyone how none of this stuff matters -- it's meaningless and she's doing exactly what she needs to do.  Then, in a grand turnabout, tell everyone that all that meaningless crap comes AFTER the rehabilitation.  "It's all part of the plan."

Face it.  There is absolutely nothing that she could possibly do that you wouldn't rationalize as "part of the plan", is there?  If she were to get a DUI driving down the backroads of Alaska, there's a considerable number among your contingent who would say, "Well, it humanizes her and helps her identify with Joe Sixpack.  Besides, DUI is the most popular conviction in America according to crime statistics dating back to the early 90's."

And then there's the fact that she quit the governorship.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 03:45 PM (OLomk)

891

902.  "And then there's the fact that she quit the governorship."

See, reading thru Ace, Jeff B. or yourself is a complete waste of time.  A conclusion here, a topic sentence there and you're betrayed as an unserious, mendacious troll.

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 01, 2011 03:51 PM (/g2vP)

892 Well, you put me in the corner of bringing up dreaded *credentialism*, but that's the game you're playing, so I'll just note that according to every test I've ever taken (IQ, SATs, AP, LSATs) I've been rated top 0.5%. Including perfect score on LSATs.

And now, having brought up the claim that Palin is smarter, you'll say none of that matters, or accuse me of "good old boys' club credentialism," or say that intelligence can't be measured (then why bring up the assertion?), etc.

So, given that Palin stumbles when speaking of policy basics, no, I'm not rushing to that conclusion.

And if you didn't want this answer than don't bait with it.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 06:42 PM (nj1bB)

Ace, Congress has a lot of very smart attorneys in its ranks.  One of them actually beat Watson the Computer in a demo round of Jeopardy!  (Oh, wait - that was Rep. Holt, a nuclear physicist by trade.)  Why are you not running for office, where you can put your credentials to even greater use in the Conservative cause?

Surely "smarter than Palin" translates to "better at electoral politics than Palin," doesn't it?

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 03:53 PM (Di3Im)

893  @ 903 -  See, reading thru Ace, Jeff B. or yourself is a complete waste of time.  A conclusion here, a topic sentence there and you're betrayed as an unserious, mendacious troll.

The fact that you haven't been able to sufficiently put the issue to bed isn't my fault.  Do you honestly think it's been addressed sufficiently enough to put it to bed in the atmosphere of a contentious campaign?

SCENES FROM THE DEBATE:

MODERATOR:  "I can't help noticing that there are a few former governors in this primary.  First to you, former Gov. Huckabee.  What qualities do you have that sets you apart from the other former governors in this race?"

HUCKABEE: ... (Pause for effect) ...

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 03:58 PM (OLomk)

894 Did anyone read Ponnuru's cri de coeur today?

"Palin vs. Romney"  LOL (LINK)

Excerpt:

If there are Republicans who would rather not see either Romney or Palin on the ticket, or just don’t want to see a bloody primary between them, they had better unite behind another candidate. And given the speed with which the primaries are approaching — the Iowa straw poll is in August — they had better do it fast.

What about conservatives that want nothing to do with status quo pols like Daniels, Ramesh?  Because if Palin whips Romney in the primaires, all that "quitter" stuff and "she's not ready" goes right out the window.

Posted by: mrp at March 01, 2011 04:03 PM (HjPtV)

895 @ 905 Huckabee: "Let's see... I lost a previous run for my party's nomination. Oh, and I gave clemency to a good Christian man... who subsequently killed some cops in Washington State. But at least my talk show on Fox isn't a reality show, so there's that."

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 04:21 PM (hzHaf)

896  @ 907 - Huckabee: "Let's see... I lost a previous run for my party's nomination. Oh, and I gave clemency to a good Christian man... who subsequently killed some cops in Washington State. But at least my talk show on Fox isn't a reality show, so there's that."

Well, that may apply to Huckabee ... but, you do understand that the other governors in the race would benefit from the answer just as much, and Huckabee's supporters are much like Palin's in that, no matter what, they're leaving with the one  what brung 'em.

In a field packed with governors, the one who gives the answer isn't the only one who benefits from it.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 04:36 PM (OLomk)

897 >>>Surely "smarter than Palin" translates to "better at electoral politics than Palin," doesn't it? No of course not. I'd say my odds of becoming president are 10% less than Palin's (assuming Palin takes your wise council and continues doing nothing to improve her shakiness in answering basic policy questions). I'm at 0%. She's at ten percent. She wins. There is a nasty habit of personalizing every argument when Palin is involved. I say that Palin is perceived as unqualified and not smart enough by over half the public -- this is not an insult; this is a simple fact. But anything said about Palin is taken as an insult, and not just an insult of her, but an insult of Palin fans. And thus the response is a personalized one. I say she's got an obvious problem in that over half the country doesn't think she's smart enough; multiple people come back with "she's smarter than you." Am I on the ballot? No. So what does that have to do with anything? Similarly when I said Palin's 2.7 million facebook fans was a small audience considering she has to reach about 100 million people, people shot back with "She has more readers than you!" Um, yes, she does. And...? This is a weird thing, this resort to spitting out personalized little digs whenever someone says something critical of palin. Does anyone not notice that they seem to be behaving differently with her than with most other politiicans? Palin was the most unfairly derided politician of the past 30 years, at least. Granted. Who's the second most? BUSH. But I can ROUTINELY criticize Bush (as many people do), and no one takes THAT personally. But with Palin, there is this protective instinct that seems to kick on. I would suggest that is a sign of her weakness, not of her strength. I do not know many politiicians (except for Obama, actually) who seem to inspire this level of angry defensiveness and personalization of attack. And I would suggest that stems from a subconscious understanding that she needs some protecting. Because, I repeat: Bush is the SECOND-MOST maligned politician in the past 30 years. And his family -- his daughers -- got it bad too. But I can say Bush isn't eloquent; that he frequently seemed to need his supporters to make too many defenses on his behalf; etc., etc., etc. I can say all that, and people will respond to me in impersonal, professional-type manners. They will not yell at me or shout that "Bush is smarter than you!" They will concede, "yeah, Bush had a bad case of the mouth-stumbles sometimes." Or "I wish he were a real conservative." Or they might disagree with me. Agree with me, disagree with me-- the point is, they will have a normal sort of discussion with me. They will not leap to his defense by hurling an insult in my direction. This of course changes with Sarah Palin. Everything is personalized here; people who disparage her are not just wrong, but frequently, it is claimed, "stupid," "misogynist," "haters," "RINOs," etc. Note the uncontrovertable fact -- an uncomfortable one, perhaps, but perfectly uncontrovertible -- that Palin's chief weakness is not on personality or policy but intelligence and qualifications and people start throwing around insults like they're protecting their daughter from a drunken molester. Is this a sign of strength on her behalf? Does this evidence a belief that she can answer all questions to most people's satisfaction? Or does it evidence a belief that a lot of questions cannot be answered so they had better be shut down as quickly as possible? I do not think that a strong candidate needs this level of shouty defensiveness. I don't see people wigging out if Daniels or T-paw are analyzed for defects and weaknesses. It's only with Palin. Over and over, over and over. I call Thune weak and a dedicated farmer-style socialist big spender and no one says anything. I say T-paw looks like a wimp and I don't know if he can ever project the sort of alpha confidence of a president. I routinely say Romney is unelectable and seems fake. All thse other politicians it's apparently okay to criticize. Why? Becuase they can take it? Is it only Palin who can't take the scrutiny? I think this betrays a knowledge that Palin, as she stands now, is in fact very weak, and her supporters know this too, even if they won't admit it out loud. There's a saying in law: When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on your side, pound the *table.* That is, make a ruckus, get emotional. The fact that it is so hard to have a debate about Palin without resort to the misogynist, RINO, stupid, elitist, etc. debate-ending insults tells me that some people are not very confident in their position or in their candidate.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 04:52 PM (nj1bB)

898 >>>That is an essential part of a campaign. I mentioned that she would take your advice if she ran. I believe I specifically asked you: Can you think of a possible reason for delay? If a quarterback knows he's going to be playing in the super bowl and at the present moment his skills aren't sharp, would you advise him to avoid practices and scrimmages until three weeks before the game? Is there some hidden advantage of WAITING to get good at one of the key skills of a successful politician? There are none. If you want to propose some, I'm all ears. If you would rejoin "it's not the season," wrong, it's always the season to get good or get better at something. There is no reason Palin couldn't be getting good at, say, debating ObamaCare with a liberal. This not only helps the party, it gets good experience under her belt.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 04:55 PM (nj1bB)

899 >>>I've noticed that the ABP people only want her to do the hard stuff. Maybe because they think she will fail and then she will be finally finished To be honest, I don't think this is that hard, which is what I find so unnerving, that apparently palin does find it hard. I don't know many politicians -- make that *any* -- who avoid the roundtable shows. I think it says something that you believe this is the "hard stuff" and want Palin to remain in her comfort zone. I think that betrays your real belief, which is that she is not up to that, she will fail at that, so you are scrambling to explain why that should not be important. I actually don't assume she would fail, but I do think she needs a lot of experience to get comfortable in this sort of venue. I actually have sympathy, because I never, ever got comfortable on the radio, ever. Which is why, maybe, I have a better understanding that this is NOT easy and if someone is to get better at this they need a LOT of practice to overcome jitters or whatever else is fogging the brain.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 05:00 PM (nj1bB)

900

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 08:45 PM (OLomk)

 

Got to love it.  you admit  you do not look for positve news about Palin,  you admit you are closeminded when it comes to Palin  but somehow in your mind  it is Palin supporters that are the cult members and base  their support on faith and emotionlism.  

 

Project much?  

 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 05:09 PM (aVGmX)

901 There are two possibilities: 1. She's not that bright. 2. She is bright, but she doesn't come off as bright, because she gets defensive/uncertain/flustered when in an interrogation-type situation. If the problem is 1, well, there's not much that can be done. If the problem is 2, the only thing that helps is practice, practice, practice, until it's not scary, it's boring, because it's so passe. Mary Katherine Ham called me a long time ago for advice on how to be comfortable on the radio. She wasn't on Fox then -- it was one of her first call-ins to a local radio program. I told her she'll be fine, don't sweat it. I also told her the only thing that helps is just to keep on doing it to the point where it just seemed like everyday type bullshit. Well, I don't think that advice helped her, because as I told her, she was a natural. So she didn't really need much practice. Palin does. I'm just pointing out I( offered MKH similar advice. But when I say that about Palin, I'm told by "unseen" I only want her to do the "hard stuff." The hard stuff? This is the fucking presidency not junior varsity student council. "The hard stuff" like making a strong case for your policy on tv with an adversarial interviewer or debate opponent? That's "the hard stuff"? What else typically comes with the job is also "hard stuff" that Palin can be excused for not being good at?

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 05:12 PM (nj1bB)

902 unseen, do you notice that Palin's 2.7 million facebook friends are similar in number to the 3.2 million SPAK watchers you crow about? If the presidency will be determined by those 2.7 -3.2 million people, great, she'll win 99%-0%. if you're thinking she needs more than that many, she should probably stop just narrowcasting to this small cohort.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 05:14 PM (nj1bB)

903 >>>See ... that's your problem right there. Nobody aside from the gaggle of cloistered Palinites watches any of that stuff. exactly, it's the narrowcasting. Some people are consuming a LOT of Palin TV, 95% of the people are consuming none at all. The people consuming a great deal of it think they're "balancing it out" or something. They're not. 95% of people just are ignoring her. There are two models of media: Push, the traditional model, which is like tv. Shows are created, scheduled, and broadcast. The other is "pull," which is the internet model, where people seek out their own programming and choose it. Now, Palin is doing some good "pull" media, but only with like 4 million people. (Which can make you rich, by the way -- a bestseller is a huge seller if it cracks 1 million copies.) But a best selling book is dwarfed compared to the amount of exposure a president needs. A huge best seller may sell 2 million copies... but a president receives, what, like 60 million votes? She is insulating and self-ghettoizing by remaining in her closed universe of "pull" media. Out in the bigger world of "push" media, there's not a lot of Palin, except for snide remarks about her. Yes, her 4 million fans are getting pure Palin, unfiltered, but everyone else is getting snide remarks about her. And that's because of media bias, yes, but she is making it easy for them to do this, because she's not appearing on a debate panel and whipping someone's ass. If she whipped someone's ass, believe me, word would get out. The media can only spin so hard. The presidency will not be decided on a 4-million-strong pull-media closed universe. She can whip you guys up, but you can only vote once. It doesn't matter if you're super-duper-animated to vote. you can only vote once. It does unnerve me that a potential Republican candidate can't/won't step out into the normal debate-style roundtable shows everyone else does. I think people know themselves pretty well, and if Palin is avoiding them, I take her word for it that she would not prosper there.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 05:23 PM (nj1bB)

904  @ 913 - Got to love it.  you admit  you do not look for positve news about Palin,  you admit you are closeminded when it comes to Palin  but somehow in your mind  it is Palin supporters that are the cult members and base  their support on faith and emotionlism. 

If it makes you feel any better, I don't go around looking for positive news about anyone else, either.  Also, I have spent a fair amount of time looking for negative coverage of Palin -- in an effort to debunk it.

Most recent example:  The coverage she got over the Tucson massacre.  But, the funny thing about that is that, given the fact that what I had to say about the issue wasn't 100% pure hosannas and the blogospheric equivalent of a petal-strewn path laid out before Our Sarah, it in all likelihood would be received by the typical Palinite on this thread as a hate-filled screed.

Me?  Project much?  Nah ... not so much, really.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 05:28 PM (OLomk)

905

To be honest, I don't think this is that hard, which is what I find so unnerving, that apparently palin does find it hard.

I think it says something that you believe this is the "hard stuff" and want Palin to remain in her comfort zone.

 

Ace you are the one that brought up " I can't help but notice palin's fans only want her to do the things that are easy for her "

 

Thus my reference to "hard stuff"  as counter to  you belief she is doing the easy stuff.   I don't think it is hard stuff.  maybe I wasn't clear.  Most Palin supporters I have talked to  simple don't think the time is right for her to do it.    I tend to agree with them.  Why do it? She isn't running for the general election YEt. She is running (if she runs) for the nomination  of the party.  Thus is  not in her interest to go on these type of shows YET.  You mock the SPAK series  yet it  reach more people  than any interview on Sunday morning could.   5 million the first show.  that is  about 2 million more than the Sunday shows  bring in.   And  her avg of 3.2 million  beat the Sunday shows  which avg around 2.5million 

Of course they are diffenret target groups  and it says more about the voters  Palin is going after than about her "hiding out".   Her posts on facebook is also about trageting a certain type of voter.   Her appearances on Foxnews  are the same.   She is going after the Reagan voter, not the Bush voter.   Because she knows that  is how she wins the nomination.     

 

She is not at the present time trying to get the NE moderate republican vote.   You seem to want to take that and declare she doesn't want to get out of her comfort zone.    Instead of a politican  working a group for votes.  Her appearnac eat LIA  seems to protend  a change in that strategy  has she gets closer to running.   So does her speech in India next month.  Can you deny that Palin seems to have the under $50,000  pro Reagan republican vote  locked up going into the primary?  

 

This is a fatal flaw in the RINO gameplan IMO.   they don't target one group  and move on  after winning them over.  They assume the base is theirs  and instead go right to the moderates to try to win their vote.   Palin is simply doing things differently.   Polls  show she is having success  at what she is doing  as far as the Gop primary battle goes.  And her support once gotten stays strong.    

      


Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 05:29 PM (aVGmX)

906 I've got news for you.  That wasn't a home run.  It was a display of warning track power -- in a batting cage.

I watched the interview.  Again, she came off as reasonably competent and engaging, but there wasn't a memorable line in the whole thing, except for the wisecrack about breastfeeding and the price of milk.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 08:31 PM (OLomk)

 

Well that's your view  but   most  media reports disagree with you.  Not just conservatives by left leaning ones like Politico and the New york Daily news.

 

which pretty much proves the point that even when faced with evidence  to say  she did great the ABP people will close their minds and insist  she didn't.   It's like a religion with you guys

 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 05:32 PM (aVGmX)

907 Ace, saying Palin has a 10% chance of becoming President (if you meant the main chance, not chance if nominated) is saying she has a great chance.  If you think she has a 10% chance now, you should be singing Hosanna to the Snow Queen.  Who else has a running * getting nominated * winning multiple that high?  (Romney, I guess. Motherfucker even kind of *looks like* Nelson Rockefeller.  Ponnuru's DoomSaying on that subject must be particularly terrifying, given that he's talking about phase one of your Nightmare Scenario.)

If you think she has a 10% chance *if nominated*... I'd say the base chance for Generic R is at most 35% (yes, the generic polls are 5 down or tied, but that's not the same thing).  So she's a third of the way there, almost.

Optimism!

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 05:32 PM (/E72E)

908 >>>She is not at the present time trying to get the NE moderate republican vote. You seem to want to take that and declare she doesn't want to get out of her comfort zone. You equate "NE moderate republican vote" with "people who want assurance a potential president is up to the job"? This is a cute trick you play: I specifically said a bunch of posts ago I'm not looking for her to moderate her policy because I have never considered it immoderate in the first place. I do not have a problem with her policy. I do not find it extreme. What I do find is that she does not demonstrate an ability to make any kind of rigorous, coherent defense of it or put it in a way that can attract voters. Simply repeating the same two dozen bullet-point policy-stances doesn't *sway* anyone to your policy-stances. I keep saying this. I'm not changing my take. I'm not walking anything back. But because it's hard to explain why a presidnet should not be smart (or come off as smart), you change this into an argument about "NE Moderate Republicans." If you're defining "NE Moderate Republican" as someone who finds that intelligence, competence, experience, and coherence is important in a commander in chief, I think you are going to find to your dismay most voters in this country are "NE Moderate Republicans" and are not going to accept your invitation to overlook the "hard stuff" and focus on Sarah Palin's Alaska.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 05:36 PM (nj1bB)

909 "NE moderate Republicans, RINOs for basic competency" sheesh. your spin is weak and it's not going to sell, unseen.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 05:37 PM (nj1bB)

910 unseen, do you notice that Palin's 2.7 million facebook friends are similar in number to the 3.2 million SPAK watchers you crow about?

If the presidency will be determined by those 2.7 -3.2 million people, great, she'll win 99%-0%.

if you're thinking she needs more than that many, she should probably stop just narrowcasting to this small cohort.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 10:14 PM (nj1bB)

So you make another asumption.   because numbers are close all  Palin's  facebook friends decided to watch her show.   yeah ok.    that takes a leap of logic.  

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 05:42 PM (aVGmX)

911 I really think a lot of these are proxy arguments for "intelligence is overrated." Well... I don't think that's going to sell very well. I don't think that disguised proxy-arguments for this proposition are going to go over well. I don't think claims that wanting smarts in a C-in-C is some kind of "old boys club rule" thing are going to play very well. Whether you like it or not, Palin is either going to demonstrate the level of minimum level of policy fluency, command, and smarts the public requires in a C-in-C or she's going to lose. There is no point attempting to spin this; it won't work. Obama's a fucking idiot but he wasn't sold as a fucking idot. He was sold as "brilliant." I know he's not. He's a dullard. But people thought he was smart and they liked it. Attempts to convince the public that smart is bad are going to be... disastrous.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 05:42 PM (nj1bB)

912 Ace 910 - you're ignoring the pink elephant in the room.

Kathleen's right - but she only has half of the picture.
You're describing the other half.

There's one politician you're not mentioning.   HRC.  Many of whose otherwise quite liberal supporters are now rabidly on Sarah's team.

Ockham's Razor - this is the first serious female candidate, these are female-specific issues.  IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.


*
Also, you're right, it's a weak-as-shit bench.  That means you should only be comparing her *to the rest of the weak-ass bench*, not to any precedent (where we're going, we won't NEED roads) or predecessor.

Palin's from Alaska, Obama's from Hawai'i.  Kismet.

RINOs for Palin: Maximize the Contradictions

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 05:42 PM (/E72E)

913 "Obama's a fucking idiot"

Nah.  You've got him all wrong.  He's a shitty president, but he's smart enough in a tweedy way.  Misunderestimate not.

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 05:43 PM (/E72E)

914 unseen, notable comments on the sunday shows are also seen by most of the news-consuming world the following week. It's not the show itself that has reach. It's that it's a serious, formal environment, not just a reality tv show, which is a type of news. People announce and make agendas on these shows. (Sometimes -- most weeks they don't, and it's bullshit-bullshit.) But the point is that it's real news and "serious" and not just a cute reality show about fishing and rock climbing with one's family, which is not news, but entertainment. I don't care if it's on a Sunday show. She could debate someoen on HANNITY, as I keep pointing out. She doesn't, because she doesn't wish to be challenged. That's a bad thing. No one LIKES to be challenged, really, but people who get challenged tend to get better at responding to challenges. People who insulate themselves from challenge and just deal with friendlies get slack and rather bad at it.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 05:47 PM (nj1bB)

915

exactly, it's the narrowcasting. Some people are consuming a LOT of Palin TV, 95% of the people are consuming none at all. The people consuming a great deal of it think they're "balancing it out" or something. They're not. 95% of people just are ignoring her.

 

ok  saying your assumption is correct  just for shit and giggles.  About 50% of the people ignore all news.    But what I would question is if you are not one of those 5%  then how do you know  what she is doing and what she isn't doing.    If she is bering unscripted or not?   If she needs to bone up on the issues or not?  Seems  to me  someone   that is narrowcasting would  be more of a got to source about something than say someone that might take a cliff notes version  of the subject or a read a comic book about the subject once..   

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 05:49 PM (aVGmX)

916 unseen, notable comments on the sunday shows are also seen by most of the news-consuming world the following week.

It's not the show itself that has reach. It's that it's a serious, formal environment, not just a reality tv show, which is a type of news.

People announce and make agendas on these shows. (Sometimes -- most weeks they don't, and it's bullshit-bullshit.) But the point is that it's real news and "serious" and not just a cute reality show about fishing and rock climbing with one's family, which is not news, but entertainment.

I don't care if it's on a Sunday show. She could debate someoen on HANNITY, as I keep pointing out.

She doesn't, because she doesn't wish to be challenged. That's a bad thing. No one LIKES to be challenged, really, but people who get challenged tend to get better at responding to challenges.

People who insulate themselves from challenge and just deal with friendlies get slack and rather bad at it.



Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 10:47 PM (nj1bB)

 

So would you say  a debate betwen Ron Paul and Gov Palin might be one of those tpyes  of shows  you are suggesting?

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 05:50 PM (aVGmX)

917 >>>He's a shitty president, but he's smart enough in a tweedy way. He's not smart, not even in a tweedy way. I take your point he's not dumb, but if I had to put a number on it, I'd say, what, 115 IQ, tops? Better than average, but nothing that's going to rock Steven Hawking's world. I figure Bush was about the same, 115-120. Of course he was an "idiot." For what it's worth, it's my guess Palin is around the same as these two, but she comes off rather dumb when challenged, and the thing is, because she hasn't answered the call while I'd guess she's as smart as Bush or Obama I have to confess I fear she might not be as smart as them. You know what she said her problem was in the Katie Couric interview? When she had no answer for what books she read, and said, "you know, like all of them, periodicals, magazines"? She said she was "shutting down" because Katie Couric was trying to "trap" her on an abortion question and she kept saying she didn't want to answer. I think this is true, and her problem. She is inexperienced with this type of thing so when presented with a "trap" situation, she shuts down, she gets flustered, she doesn't see where the trap is so begins assuming EVERYTHING is a trap. How does one fix this? Practice, dealing with this crap on a day-to-day basis. I believe her-- she had "shut down" and was flustered because everything seemed "like a trap." And so she reacted defensively, which appeared to be stupidly or evasively. Someone who's good at this anticipates the traps and just avoids them, gracefully. Doing more shows like Sarah Palin's Alaska is hardly going to teach her this skill.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 05:52 PM (nj1bB)

918 There is a nasty habit of personalizing every argument when Palin is involved. I say that Palin is perceived as unqualified and not smart enough by over half the public -- this is not an insult; this is a simple fact.

But anything said about Palin is taken as an insult, and not just an insult of her, but an insult of Palin fans. And thus the response is a personalized one. I say she's got an obvious problem in that over half the country doesn't think she's smart enough; multiple people come back with "she's smarter than you."

Am I on the ballot? No. So what does that have to do with anything?

Similarly when I said Palin's 2.7 million facebook fans was a small audience considering she has to reach about 100 million people, people shot back with "She has more readers than you!"

Um, yes, she does. And...?

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 09:52 PM (nj1bB)

The point is simple: you speak authoritatively about what Sarah Palin MUST do to win the Presidency, and you seem really, really irritated that (a) she's not doing what you suggest and (b) other people don't agree that she MUST do the things you suggest.

Perhaps Sarah Palin actually knows more about what it takes to get elected to political office than you or I do.  Perhaps she knows how to build a grassroots campaign and how to take on political machines and how to connect to enough voters to win: she did, after all, accomplish all of that in Alaska.  And maybe she is engaged in the same process now that she used in learning how to win a statewide race in Alaska, figuring out how to position herself so that she can (if and when she chooses) make her case to the American electorate.

Maybe she knows that timing is critical, and that she should only go on the Sunday morning shows and such when she feels entirely ready.  Maybe she sees a path between what she is now and what she will need to be to win the Presidency (if that's even her intention), and she just hasn't chosen to share that path with the rest of us.

So maybe the reaction is to your formulation, which is less "I'm reserving judgment on Palin until I see x, y and z" and more "WHAT? NO X, Y or Z?  She's INCAPABLE of winning!!!"

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 05:52 PM (JuWS+)

919 ace - All thse other politicians it's apparently okay to criticize. Why? Becuase they can take it?

Is it only Palin who can't take the scrutiny?

No, Ace.  The reaction is because Palin is the first viable movement candidate since Reagan.  Bush I & II were not movement candidates.  Neither was Bob Dole.  Nor McCain.

I'm old enough to remember the  GHW Bush - Reagan primary season.  If you had gone after Reagan like you've gone after Palin, you would have stirred up the same reaction.  I'll admit that I voted for Bush in '80 because I was swayed by the same type of personalized arguments ("He's too old", "He's too conservative"  "He's unelectable", etc., etc.).  The 1980 primaries were bitter and divisive, and when they were over, there was the usual bitter words and doomsday predictions.  And guess what happened in November, 1980?

Posted by: mrp at March 01, 2011 05:54 PM (HjPtV)

920 Knemon, I would not mind at all if I could have sarah palin as my nominee -- but the smart version of sarah palin I believe she can be instead of the lazy person who satisfies herself with glib bullet-point slogans offered to friendly audiences. Palin could potentially be our best candidate and a rather good one. But not limping along with this massive, massive wound. She either needs to fix this or... well there is no or. She needs to fix this, if she can. if she can't, she can't be president.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 05:55 PM (nj1bB)

921  @ 919 - Well that's your view  but   most  media reports disagree with you.  Not just conservatives by left leaning ones like Politico and the New york Daily news.

I don't suppose it occurred to you that the reason I'm not doing somersaults on the front lawn over it is because, unlike the NYDN and Politico, I don't consider any appearance in which Palin manages not to dump the contents of a drool cup down her ample cleavage a raving, unqualified success.

I know from way back that Palin is capable of putting in a competent performance.  I've watched her in the Alaska gubernatorial debates, and I watched her work a crowd before.  This ain't new territory for her.  It was yet another appearance in an decidedly welcoming environment in which she had a reasonable expectation of not being confronted with any particularly uncomfortable facts and questions.

That's what she has always excelled at.  She's a likable person with an engaging personality.  I don't think anyone operating from a goodfaith position would argue otherwise.  What ace has been trying to say, and what I've been trying to point out, is that if she doesn't get out there and face these confrontational situations -- hostile environments, not merely "unscripted"  -- and do it soon, she's going to miss the chance to prove her mettle to a whole lot of people who would otherwise be open to the notion of supporting her.  I, personally, am leaning against that -- though I won't rule it out.  But, if she were to secure the nomination in spite of the lack of my support (as preposterous as that may be), I'd be the first dumbass in line at the polls to vote for her in the general.

But this sitting around, waiting for the good part is getting tedious.  She needs to flash a little leg, or something. 

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 05:58 PM (OLomk)

922 >>>So would you say a debate betwen Ron Paul and Gov Palin might be one of those tpyes of shows you are suggesting? In what forum? if it's with a friendly crowd and friendly moderator, it would be good practice for the Real Deal, but if it's like Hannity moderating a debate on interventionism where no one is going to get hurt that badly, then it's just practice. I would definitely suggest she do something like this, and then more, and more, and more, though. If she's going to do that sort of thing with a friendly crowd and friendly moderator that's good but it's still a training-wheels situation.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 05:58 PM (nj1bB)

923 Whether you like it or not, Palin is either going to demonstrate the level of minimum level of policy fluency, command, and smarts the public requires in a C-in-C or she's going to lose.

There is no point attempting to spin this; it won't work.

Obama's a fucking idiot but he wasn't sold as a fucking idot. He was sold as "brilliant."

I know he's not. He's a dullard. But people thought he was smart and they liked it.

Attempts to convince the public that smart is bad are going to be... disastrous.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 10:42 PM (nj1bB)

 

Well of course she will.  but that does not mean she has to demostrate to your level or standards.  

 

But you know  carter, dukakis, Gore, clinton. Obama, Mondale, Kerry   were all  brilliant.  And ike, goldwater, Nixon, ford, Reagan  both bushes Dole  were  all idiots.   It is what the left does.   I do find it amazing that you are playing to that meme.  Is Palin a mozart on economic  policy  no  but then  no other candidate is.     Is Palin as smart as Mitt  or Tpaw   yeah.  Is Palin smarter than Obama no freaking doubt in my mind...

 

 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 06:01 PM (aVGmX)

924 >>>The point is simple: you speak authoritatively about what Sarah Palin MUST do to win the Presidency, and you seem really, really irritated that (a) she's not doing what you suggest and (b) other people don't agree that she MUST do the things you suggest. Stuiec, the elephant in the room is that majority of the country thinks she is either stupid or at least too dumb to be president. I am not sure what to do about that, but I know it must be addressed. If you don't like my suggestions, I'm open to other suggestions. But I do know someone perceived as stupid or at least too dumb to be president by more than half the country will nto be president, absent Obama basically raping a male aid in the Oval Office. So you tell me what she should do. Here's what i KNOW she cannot do: The same fucking thing she's doing now. Because that is NOT WORKING, and it doesn't matter how much you spin it, the numbers are the numbers and they do not change because you offer up pro-sarah spin.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 06:02 PM (nj1bB)

925 In what forum? if it's with a friendly crowd and friendly moderator, it would be good practice for the Real Deal, but if it's like Hannity moderating a debate on interventionism where no one is going to get hurt that badly, then it's just practice.

I would definitely suggest she do something like this, and then more, and more, and more, though.

If she's going to do that sort of thing with a friendly crowd and friendly moderator that's good but it's still a training-wheels situation.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 10:58 PM (nj1bB)

 

it was on Judge nepolitano show  who is not a big  fan of Palin  but is a fan of Ron Paul.     She did  very well on the show  debating Paul on a number of libertian issues including legalizing pot.  

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 06:03 PM (aVGmX)

926 So you tell me what she should do. Here's what i KNOW she cannot do: The same fucking thing she's doing now. Because that is NOT WORKING, and it doesn't matter how much you spin it, the numbers are the numbers and they do not change because you offer up pro-sarah spin.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 11:02 PM (nj1bB)

 

When you say not working.  in relation to what?

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 06:04 PM (aVGmX)

927 Again: if she's that shitty, she won't get the nomination.  I think you're exaggerating her problem on this (real though it is), but who has ever been nominated after a performance on the level you're describing?

You can't simultaneously (a) say Palin fans are uniquely creepy and cult-like partially because (b) their idol is a stumbling failure but also (c) seriously fear that they'll clone themselves enough to win.

Or, I mean, you *can*, but then you're saying a plurality of the party is prone to creepy cultism.  That way lies Frumville.

The biggest risk is what Ponnuru's talking about: a bitter Romney-Palin contest with no buffer between them.  I disagree to the extent he implies it'd be equally bad whichever way that contest broke, though.

If Palin won, the Goldwater allegory at least gives a hopeful narrative.
If Romney won, you might get your third party after all.

This is why asking you "okay, so who's your alternative" isn't an empty taunt.

Seriously - who's your alternative? We're looking at a very few names here.

If no alternative ... it's Romney.  NTTAWT, some of my best friends, &c.

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 06:05 PM (/E72E)

928 And after she announces her intention to make a run for the presidency, I guarantee you, Ace, that she won't be doing the same thing she's doing now

Posted by: mrp at March 01, 2011 06:07 PM (HjPtV)

929

I would not mind at all if I could have sarah palin as my nominee -- but the smart version of sarah palin I believe she can be instead of the lazy person who satisfies herself with glib bullet-point slogans offered to friendly audiences.

 

 

Ace one word that does not and never will describe GOv Palin in any way shape or form is lazy.  



Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 06:07 PM (aVGmX)

930 And I gotta throw a flag on this "hostile audience" stuff (Walt uses the phrase more but I think you've used it a few times), if you mean like literally a hostile *audience,* Morton Downey Jr.-style.  Who does that?  Did I miss Bush getting hooted at and tomatoes thrown at him a lot in the spring of 1999?  Candidates do precisely three of those - the debates - and by then all the rest of this will be revealed one way or the other.

If you mean, hostile *interviewer,* sure.

Palinistas see the lesson of Kouric as "once bitten twice shy" and you see it as "get back on the horse."  They're defensive and you more want to be the grizzled trainer in a Rocky montage.

This marriage can be saved. When and if she starts making the kind of appearances you're describing, if she can kick some ass, you'll be her biggest fan.  I feel you at #933.  (Any avowed Palin fan who thinks Ace is a hater should look at 933.  unseen, I'm talking to you).  Here's hoping.

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 06:12 PM (/E72E)

931

If Palin won, the Goldwater allegory at least gives a hopeful narrative.
If Romney won, you might get your third party after all.

This is why asking you "okay, so who's your alternative" isn't an empty taunt.

Seriously - who's your alternative? We're looking at a very few names here.

If no alternative ... it's Romney.  NTTAWT, some of my best friends, &c.

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 11:05 PM (/E72E)

 

 

in 1980  it was the romney crowd that went 3rd party with Anderson.

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 06:12 PM (aVGmX)

932 >>>it was on Judge nepolitano show who is not a big fan of Palin but is a fan of Ron Paul. She did very well on the show debating Paul on a number of libertian issues including legalizing pot. Eh, well that's a start. That sort of debate is all about values though and values really can't be challenged. It's just pot is bad or pot isn't that bad. That is really the easiest thing to debate. The harder stuff involves numbers and disagreements over how to value one person's taxed labor versus another's subsidy. But it's good that she at least did that. As you could probably tell I could tell from your question it was a "trap." Notice I didn't shut down as Palin did (as she said with Katie Couric) but began skillfully preparing my defense as to why I was still right. See? Experience. I saw the trap, did not wig out, took a guess about the venue you were talking about and began describing it in such a fashion as to render your offer of proof harmless to me. I don't know how Palin is going to gain this skill with friendly, supportive audiences who are almost answering her questions for her.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 06:13 PM (nj1bB)

933 (Any avowed Palin fan who thinks Ace is a hater should look at 933.  unseen, I'm talking to you).  Here's hoping.

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 11:12 PM (/E72E)

 

I don't think I have ever referred to Ace as a palinhater.  I think he is willfully ignorant when it comes to Palin because he is in his own little bubble  repeating mostly left wing talking points  that Rove and CK  tend to repeat.   But I don't think Ace hates Palin.   I just think he has been brainwashed by the bubble he has choosen for himself in regards to Palin.

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 06:15 PM (aVGmX)

934  
How about Dave Weigel? Would it satisfy the naysayers if Palin did a little sit down with Dave Weigel? If they got around to chatting beauty secrets, I'm sure she could give him some prime tips on how to handle that nasty case of Rosacea he's got.

Posted by: sartana at March 01, 2011 06:16 PM (+fNcw)

935 "Notice I didn't shut down as Palin did"

"Does anyone not notice that they seem to be behaving differently with her than with most other politiicans? "

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 06:16 PM (/E72E)

936

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 11:13 PM (nj1bB)

 

It wan't a trap I asked if that was the type of show  you were tlaking about.  

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 06:17 PM (aVGmX)

937 >>>If you mean, hostile *interviewer,* sure. If Palin's fans are packing the room it makes it hard for an interviewer to be hostile. Most people have the psychological tic that they can be battered by peer pressure -- if they keep getting hisses for their questions, for example, most people will buckle and will not push it. This is what benefited Obama... even when crowds weren't in the studios reporters also bent their questions to the will of the liberal audience they imagined would hiss. It's not that I want an "hostile audience' so much as I don't want a friendly audience. Let it be no audience at all, just camera men, without the support of Palin paritsans to cheer or boo. What Walt and I am talking about, I'm pretty sure, isn't an "hostile" environment so much as environments that simply aren't so *screened* as to become virtually scripted situations. She's going to have to take chances, in other words, and go to venues she does not have behind-the-scenes or thanks-to-the-crowd control over. She has to demonstrate she can stand on her own two feet. Her supporters who think they're doing her favors by protecting her... I stand by the statement that if she can't beat Katie Couric she can never, ever be president.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 06:18 PM (nj1bB)

938 Ace has given you a name: Gregory, Meet the Press.

It's not even that bad an idea.  Gregory's like a 5 on the hack scale.  A Sam Donaldson, if you will.

Gregory's not Glass Joe, though. More of a Soda Popinski. You work up to that.

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 06:19 PM (/E72E)

939

So  Ace would you think  reaching out to union  members would be the type of ploy  Palin should do.   You know  I don't think they are the most friendly  pro-palin people.   seems  they would be considered a "hostile group"  right?

 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 06:20 PM (aVGmX)

940 >>>"Notice I didn't shut down as Palin did" Huh? You're quoting me snidely. As I just said, that was Palin's own excuse for her blown "what books do you read" answer. I just saw her say that -- I shut down; she was trapping me with abortion questions -- on Zieger's Media Matters documentary. This was her own excuse -- I shut down; I felt trapped. And that to me explains a lot. That's how she acts, as if she's never sure where the next punch is coming from, so she alternates between a wary crouch and puffed-up bravado (when on FaceBook). That seems jerky. In the original meaning and the metaphorical one. People who are not smooth are, of course, jerky in motion. She's jerky to me. She's either unchallenged and laying down all sorts of smack and snark, or she's in a more challenging situation, and she feels "trapped" and "shuts down." That's not going to win. You have to be able to take a shot and give one back.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 06:21 PM (nj1bB)

941 Hmmm... here's a link to a Palin interview broadcast on the CBC shortly after the 2008 election  LINK (two parts)  One-on-one.

Posted by: mrp at March 01, 2011 06:24 PM (HjPtV)

942

Gregory's not Glass Joe, though. More of a Soda Popinski. You work up to that.

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 11:19 PM (/E72E)

 

yeah when the time is right   he might be ok.  I think bob sheffer  would be better he has more class.  

 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 06:25 PM (aVGmX)

943 "in 1980  it was the romney crowd that went 3rd party with Anderson."

Yeah, but that was pitiful.  (And I didn't mean by that to suggest the palin crowd is less party-loyal or more fickle or whatever.  If anything, they'd be more justified than Anderson was.  And the fact that Reagan still pwned in 1980 just confirmed his mandate all the more.)

I'm talking a real third party or at least a Perot.  Perot cost the GOP a two-term time-out.  That happens in '16 from bitterness over a '12 fight, you're talking 16 years of consecutive Democrats '09-'25.

This is a big risk either way, but an infuriated base is the bigger risk.

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 06:25 PM (/E72E)

944  @ 943 - And I gotta throw a flag on this "hostile audience" stuff (Walt uses the phrase more but I think you've used it a few times), if you mean like literally a hostile *audience,* Morton Downey Jr.-style.  Who does that?

Simple:  The roundtable on ABC on Sunday morning, Meet the Press, Face the Nation -- anyplace where the goal of the interrogator is to trip up the candidate.  Show some willingness to take a risk.  Take questions, answer them, take follow-up questions, defend your position with facts, display some savvy, show appropriate indignation when called for, and poise when challenged.

Debating Ron Paul on Napolitano carries virtually no risk.  Any conservative debating Ron Paul can safely retreat to the fall-back position on any given subject: "Congressman Paul has some valid concerns, and his voice is needed in the Republican Party, but I respectfully disagree, and here's why."  Then, proceed to say normal things.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 06:26 PM (OLomk)

945 >>> I think he is willfully ignorant when it comes to Palin because he is in his own little bubble repeating mostly left wing talking points that Rove and CK tend to repeat. Dude, it's not ignorance, it was my gut growing cold as Palin botched a bunch of questions with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. I remember those days well. The days when I/we all had to spin daily for Palin's gaffe of the day. That's not going to win an election. I can only say this so many times: It was always my assumption that if she were serious about the presidency she would bone up and practice and get better. Not just try for the president's desk when she'd already been exposed as not-ready-for-prime-time with the VP's desk. (And I know Biden and Obama are not smart -- but she blew it too. As Nixon said, I gave them a knife to stab in my back and they twisted it with relish. SHE gave them the knife. Don't mistake spin for reality.) But apparently that is the plan, so much as one exists, to just try to convince people that incoherent answers and swerving wildly from one topic to the other without any rigor or in depth examination of one issue is what we want in a president. That plan will not work. Knemon, to answer your question, while the field is weak, as it stands, I will support either T-Paw, Daniels, Romney, or Haley Barbour. I do not believe any of those men is strong but I believe each of them is stronger than Palin, whom I consider, in current configuration, very, very weak, and (if unimproved over 200 likely to result in a truly embarrassing blow-out.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 06:27 PM (nj1bB)

946 "I think bob sheffer  would be better he has more class."

See, I wonder if by giving big interviews to second-tier or even younger upcoming guys she runs a risk but could have a reward.  The risk is they'll seek to make their bones by being the Palin-Slayer.  The reward is, she has a little leverage too as she can make them.  I'm talking like a Chuck Todd (okay maybe not him as he's more a wonk than an interviewer) or even a Luke Russert.  There are MSM types who are consciously biased hacks and there are ones who try to do the right thing but don't notice the water they're swimming in.

Bob Schieffer is also a good idea.  I'd like to see that.

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 06:27 PM (/E72E)

947

What Walt and I am talking about, I'm pretty sure, isn't an "hostile" environment so much as environments that simply aren't so *screened* as to become virtually scripted situations.

She's going to have to take chances, in other words, and go to venues she does not have behind-the-scenes or thanks-to-the-crowd control over.

 

don't know  she seemed to handle the Tonight show well both times she was on.  She did the SNL thing  well too.  Not a friendly crowd there.



Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 06:27 PM (aVGmX)

948 So you tell me what she should do. Here's what i KNOW she cannot do: The same fucking thing she's doing now. Because that is NOT WORKING, and it doesn't matter how much you spin it, the numbers are the numbers and they do not change because you offer up pro-sarah spin.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 11:02 PM (nj1bB)

But why are you so exercised about her need to do whatever it is this very moment?

Perhaps -- here's a revelation for you -- perhaps Sarah Palin is making a determination whether the negatives she faces are too great to overcome between now and November 2012, and she's thinking in terms of 2016 or 2020.  Or perhaps she's focusing on a series of steps to build her credibility with the electorate rather than attempting to re-emerge, Athena-like, with her brilliance so blinding that all must acknowledge it.

One of the big, big slams against Palin in 2008 was that she was so unprepared for the general election campaign.  By all accounts -- hers and Steve Schmidt's -- she wasn't given time to prepare in any way that was familiar or comfortable to her.  So it would make sense that she would take the time to prepare in the way that works best for her -- and take as much time to do it as she sees fit.

I am a Palin supporter, but not one who argues that she HAS to run this time or has NO work to do to run.  I argue that she has the experience and expertise to know what work she has to do and whether she can do it in time for the 2012 race.

And I also know that if she runs and loses, she will have the ability to learn from that loss, to run again and to win.

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 06:29 PM (JuWS+)

949 I'm talking a real third party or at least a Perot.  Perot cost the GOP a two-term time-out.  That happens in '16 from bitterness over a '12 fight, you're talking 16 years of consecutive Democrats '09-'25.

This is a big risk either way, but an infuriated base is the bigger risk.

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 11:25 PM (/E72E)

 

yeah see your point. 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 06:29 PM (aVGmX)

950 >>>don't know she seemed to handle the Tonight show well both times she was on. Seriously? Can you get off of entertainment tv? Can you like accept that winning the presidency consists of more than trading quips with a comic?

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 06:30 PM (nj1bB)

951 "I will support either T-Paw, Daniels, Romney, or Haley Barbour."

Daniels may have made it to Romney territory these past few weeks in terms of setting up the Doom scenario Ponnuru plays out.  (NRO will be the last to notice if so.)

Pawlenty, Barbour, Romney and Palin would be an interesting, almost cartoonish N-S-E-W segmentation.  The more people who aren't Romney and aren't Palin who make viable runs, the better.

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 06:31 PM (/E72E)

952 >>>Perhaps -- here's a revelation for you -- perhaps Sarah Palin is making a determination whether the negatives she faces are too great to overcome between now and November 2012, and she's thinking in terms of 2016 or 2020 Fine with me! My entire criticism is based on the purported/implied threat to run in 2012 -- and for 2012, she is badly, badly behind schedule as far as a rehabilitation campaign, which takes time. How much, I don't know, but I suspect about two years. IF she's running in 2012 -- she is way behind. Obviously if it's 2016, well, she's got lots and lots of time. But she hints she might run, and her supporters, largely, make that assumption. In fact, if you say she's not running now, that is often taken as an "attack" or "insult" so you just attacked her. If she just wants to be an influential kingmaker, she's doing fine for that too. but if she actually wants to be president in 2012, seriously, the primary season already started and I do not see any evidence yet that palin has improved at all.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 06:33 PM (nj1bB)

953

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 11:27 PM (nj1bB)

 

It was 2.5 years ago man let it go....

 

 It was always my assumption that if she were serious about the presidency she would bone up and practice and get better. Not just try for the president's desk when she'd already been exposed as not-ready-for-prime-time with the VP's desk.

 

Which is pretty much word for word what CK said  on the subject.  I'm surprised you didn't say she needs to leave the room.

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 06:34 PM (aVGmX)

954 She's going to have to take chances, in other words, and go to venues she does not have behind-the-scenes or thanks-to-the-crowd control over.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 11:18 PM (nj1bB)

That's a pretty fair description of the Long Island Association event.  Because the questions weren't given to her in advance, and her performance carried a large risk: the audience was composed of people she needs to donate to her, to endorse her and to praise her to other influencers.

It was an excellent step toward exactly what you are suggesting she should do.

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 06:35 PM (JuWS+)

955  
Ace has given you a name...

The point about bringing up Dave Weigel and his Rosacea, was that it's just as ridiculous to say someone should be considered unfit for higher office for having avoided David Gregory as it would for them to avoid Weigel. To demand that Republican candidates debase themselves before this or that Dem hack is what's ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as it is for Republicans to continue to attend debates moderated by the usual Big Dem Media know-nothings. That Gwen Ifill was allowed to go ahead and moderate the '08 VP debate despite that glaring conflict of interest should be a sign that it's time to shake things up and that the opportunity is there for Republican candidates to make their case outside of the traditional avenues. I think this might be what Palin is up to.

Ace and others here dumping on Palin for avoiding the old, dull and dead outlets comes across as kind of klingy.

Posted by: sartana at March 01, 2011 06:37 PM (+fNcw)

956 >>>Which is pretty much word for word what CK said on the subject. Oh I must be wrong then; he's obviously an idiot. No, you're probably right, even though 65% of the country thinks she's unqualified they'll be won over by some soft banter with Jay Leno, Oprah Winfrey, or other entertainment/talk-show hosts. You're right, it's a reality tv world, and all that matters is that someone is able to successfully endure a gentle interview with Jay Leno and then that means they're all set for the "hard stuff" of the presidency.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 06:37 PM (nj1bB)

957 There are MSM types who are consciously biased hacks and there are ones who try to do the right thing but don't notice the water they're swimming in.

Bob Schieffer is also a good idea.  I'd like to see that.

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 11:27 PM (/E72E)

 

She seems to like Wolf blitzer for whatever reason she appeared on his show I think twice after the election.   Matt Lurer on the today show was also a pretty good interviewer  he got  off tanget on her daughter   but still it was a pretty good interview  about the gaspipeline   paln being finished..

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 06:38 PM (aVGmX)

958 >>>Ace and others here dumping on Palin for avoiding the old, dull and dead outlets comes across as kind of klingy. Put another Palin supporter down for "I know she'd wilt in that situation."

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 06:38 PM (nj1bB)

959 You know, when a situation presents both an upside (Palin rips media!) and a downside (Palin embarrassed by media, yet again), and you guys keep insisting she should avoid that situation, it's sort of obvious which way you'd think it would go. I think it would go that way too, alas. Which is why I really wish she'd been practicing and working her way into being comfortable in this situation.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 06:42 PM (nj1bB)

960 Has anyone made a list of the "soft" interviews/appearances Obama has made on TV since his inauguration?  Degeneres and Oprah and others?

And because Palin appears on Leno means that Obama is the prohibitive favorite?

Posted by: mrp at March 01, 2011 06:43 PM (HjPtV)

961 Oh I must be wrong then; he's obviously an idiot.

No, you're probably right, even though 65% of the country thinks she's unqualified they'll be won over by some soft banter with Jay Leno, Oprah Winfrey, or other entertainment/talk-show hosts.

You're right, it's a reality tv world, and all that matters is that someone is able to successfully endure a gentle interview with Jay Leno and then that means they're all set for the "hard stuff" of the presidency.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 11:37 PM (nj1bB)

 

Let's see she  "endured" interviews with  wolf blizter, with Matt lauer, Hannity, BOR, Ken Law from LIA, NYT, greta, judge nepolition, Eric bolling, Neil Cavuto, NYT, Oprah, Walters, Robin givens from ABC,  Leno,  good morning America, fox and friends, Rush, bob humphires, Laura inghram, Beck,  to name a few 

 

Some friendly  some not.     but the only one you seem concerned over is Katie and Gibson.

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 06:43 PM (aVGmX)

962 "She seems to like Wolf blitzer for whatever reason"

Well, I think he falls into that "what the *$%# is water" category more than the "Hack and Proud of It" one.

It's just now March.  Iowa straw poll's in August.  I think the stuff Ace is talking about should be happening well before halfway to August so, say, early May at the latest.

Which, when I put it like that, does seem pretty soon.  So maybe it's not too early to be having this fight after all.

Goodnight, everyone.

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 06:44 PM (/E72E)

963 I think it would go that way too, alas.

Which is why I really wish she'd been practicing and working her way into being comfortable in this situation.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 11:42 PM (nj1bB)

 

I think you are projecting here.  

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 06:46 PM (aVGmX)

964 It's just now March.  Iowa straw poll's in August.  I think the stuff Ace is talking about should be happening well before halfway to August so, say, early May at the latest.

Which, when I put it like that, does seem pretty soon.  So maybe it's not too early to be having this fight after all.

Goodnight, everyone.

Posted by: Knemon at March 01, 2011 11:44 PM (/E72E)

 

Early May she will be on the ground in IA  shaking hands. 

 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 06:47 PM (aVGmX)

965
What do you have vested in those weekend shows, Ace? Stuffed-shirt guest A turns to stuffed-shirt guest B and says: "Well, I'd like to respectfully disagree with my esteemed colleague that..."

Let it go, man. With all the new media available, now would be the best time to give those fucks the finger and let them know they've lost their status. I would think that you, as a practitioner of this new media, would be at the forefront in proclaiming the importance of taking a new route. Seriously, if I thought for one second that Palin is avoiding these shows out of fear, I wouldn't be supporting her. And you know damn well that she's not. With such historic lows in approval for the media, why bump them up with your presence when there is an alternative?

Please find for your readers some clips of Reagan appearing on those awful shows for his runs in '80 and '84. I'm thinking he didn't do any. Which is what they're referring to when they say that Reagan went around traditional media and made his case directly to the people.


Posted by: sartana at March 01, 2011 06:49 PM (+fNcw)

966 By Reaching Out to Union Workers, Palin Follows Reagan When Poland's Communists threatened Solidarity, the Gipper brought Big Labor and conservatives together. more in Opinion » By SETH LIPSKY

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 06:53 PM (aVGmX)

967 >>>With all the new media available, now would be the best time to give those fucks the finger and let them know they've lost their status. I would think that you, as a practitioner of this new media, would be at the forefront in proclaiming the importance of taking a new route New media is alternate media which is another way to say "not the media." You're making excuses, excuses. Everything palin does is great. Great. Apparently the skill of thrust-and-parry in a debate is "old school" politics and the New School Palin doesn't need that either. You guys seem to be putting undo faith on, let me pause to say this as seriously as I mean it, kill-time farmville fucking facebook and #hashtag Twitter.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 06:53 PM (nj1bB)

968 But she hints she might run, and her supporters, largely, make that assumption. In fact, if you say she's not running now, that is often taken as an "attack" or "insult" so you just attacked her.

If she just wants to be an influential kingmaker, she's doing fine for that too.

but if she actually wants to be president in 2012, seriously, the primary season already started and I do not see any evidence yet that palin has improved at all.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 11:33 PM (nj1bB)

There is a lot of evidence that she's improved, if you're willing to look at it.  (Yes, the LIA event is a piece of evidence.)  Is there evidence that she's 100% bulletproof?  No - but then, no one is.

But as I have said before, when Reagan was the same age that Palin was when she was sworn in as Governor, he was still a Democrat.  Palin has plenty of time.

And when you look at 2012, who stands out as a potential Commander-in-Chief in the Republican field?  In other words, what candidate DOESN'T have an incredible amount of work to do between now and next year?

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 06:54 PM (JuWS+)

969 well if you think Palin's going to project confidence while running from the media -- good luck with that.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 06:54 PM (nj1bB)

970 I think you have it backwards, Ace.  The media is running after her.

Posted by: mrp at March 01, 2011 06:58 PM (HjPtV)

971 >>>s a potential Commander-in-Chief in the Republican field? In other words, what candidate DOESN'T have an incredible amount of work to do between now and next year? none of the others, not even Ron Paul I think, begin with 65% of the public thinking he is fundamentally unqualified for office. You seem to not know the old adage in politics -- an unknown has room to grow, as his name recongition will grow. A known has much less room to grow. Palin has almost no room at all to grow because she has 100% name recognition and virtually everyone has an opinion on her. So a T-Paw, for example, has (let me guess) fav/unfav of like 20% and 6%. Well, see, only 26% of people have an opinion. Of the 74% without an opinion, most will fall into the favorable camp as they get to know him. (And this is the usual practice -- most candidates who even do *okay* wind up with +15 or +20 fav/unfav ratings.) Palin's fav/unfav (depending on the poll, of course) is something like 46/31. -15. and as you can see from adding those too, 77% already have an opinion, and a near-majority have an unfav opinion. There is less room to grow. Yes, the others are in a much better position, because name recognition is relatively easily had (it can be bought, after all, in commercials) while you have to actually connect with people or not piss them off to have a +double-digit fav/unfav. Palin's fav/unfav is at least -15 and it's frequently measured as high as -23. For comparison, sharpton had a -30 when he run. You seem to think that Palin just has to reintroduce herself to the public. Not true. The public already has an impression of Palin, and a bad one, overall. It takes a great deal of time, work, and confidence-building to reverse such bad fav/unfavs. Continuing to narrowcast to the small number of people who already love her does nothing at all to improve this number. 65% of the country either doesn't like palin or doesn't thinks she's qualified and while you seem to want her to continue smothering YOU with love that is crazy, she needs to begin working on the people who DON'T love her.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 07:02 PM (nj1bB)

972
Apparently the skill of thrust-and-parry in a debate is "old school" politics

Thrust and parry in a debate on Meet the Crustacean is old school politics. Debate can happen in any number of arenas. A good deal of it, and also the most memorable happens during primary debates. During presidential debates. Town hall debates "unscripted" and not moderated by some vapid Lefty. Why you're so stuck on the weekend sleepfests is beyond me.

And no, not everything she does is just dandy for me. I can make any number of criticisms- as I said before, she has not yet earned my vote. But the ones you and others have been making here are pretty thin gruel- not even one dispute on policy she's advocated, just assertions of inadequacy.

Posted by: sartana at March 01, 2011 07:03 PM (+fNcw)

973 >>>I think you have it backwards, Ace. The media is running after her. A determined mind can imagine anything. Palin gets a lot of mention in the press. She drives hits. She draws hits from both haters and lovers. You have to wrap your mind around this at some point: The haters outnumber the lovers and not by just a little bit.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 07:03 PM (nj1bB)

974 You guys seem to be putting undo faith on, let me pause to say this as seriously as I mean it, kill-time farmville fucking facebook and #hashtag Twitter.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 11:53 PM (nj1bB)

I now she how Palin has been underestimated during her entire career.  Thank you for opening my eyes.    

 

 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 07:04 PM (aVGmX)

975 65% of the country either doesn't like palin or doesn't thinks she's qualified and while you seem to want her to continue smothering YOU with love that is crazy, she needs to begin working on the people who DON'T love her.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2011 12:02 AM (nj1bB)

 

Ace you keep repeating the 65% number do you have any link to that number I can't seem to find it.  Last I saw it was 56%.  which needing 51%  is a big difference.   So  just wondering wher eyou got that number from.   ar eyou inverting the number perhaps?

 

 

 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 07:06 PM (aVGmX)

976  kill-time farmville fucking facebook and #hashtag Twitter.

Lol! Fucking Dutch Schultz or what?

Posted by: sartana at March 01, 2011 07:06 PM (+fNcw)

977 >>>I now she how Palin has been underestimated during her entire career. Thank you for opening my eyes. yes, anything that palin is bad at doesn't count. It's easy to be "good" when you just dismiss anything you're bad at. Palin's not good at debate? Immaterial. Flubs questions? Immaterial! Can't seem to stick on the subject asked about but free-associates as string of pleasant but empty words like "freedom" and "competition" and "common sense"? Immaterial. The only things that matters are what she's good at, name recognition, tv shows, facebook, and twiter. Everything else? Immaterial. Doesn't matter. Only the stuff she's good at matters. Because we said so.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 07:07 PM (nj1bB)

978

So a T-Paw, for example, has (let me guess) fav/unfav of like 20% and 6%. Well, see, only 26% of people have an opinion. Of the 74% without an opinion, most will fall into the favorable camp as they get to know him.

 

that is assuming the MSM does not palinize him.  since the left has had  great success with bush and Palin making them appear stupid, ill informed,  arch evildoers.   I doubt they are going to declare a truce  and stop the attacks  espically since it seems a lot of the "smart" people fall for it.  Of course they will wait until after he wins the nomination.   I look for Mitt to becomes the fat cat wall streeter DC insider  that outsourced  thousands of jobs  with close personal ties to lobbyists if he should happen to win the nomination that will destroy the very foundation of the mom and pop store  for his rich friends...

 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 07:11 PM (aVGmX)

979 Well, this is from Feb 2010, when it was as 70%: Although Palin is a tea party favorite, her potential as a presidential hopeful takes a severe hit in the survey. Fifty-five percent of Americans have unfavorable views of her, while the percentage holding favorable views has dipped to 37, a new low in Post-ABC polling. There is a growing sense that the former Alaska governor is not qualified to serve as president, with more than seven in 10 Americans now saying she is unqualified, up from 60 percent in a November survey. Even among Republicans, a majority now say Palin lacks the qualifications necessary for the White House. Palin has lost ground among conservative Republicans, who would be crucial to her hopes if she seeks the party's presidential nomination in 2012. Forty-five percent of conservatives now consider her as qualified for the presidency, down sharply from 66 percent who said so last fall. From here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ article/2010/02/10/AR2010021004708.html When only 45% of your own party says you're qualified... this is not fixable with some Oprah appearances. Palin does have to do "the hard stuff" because it's precisely "the hard stuff' people think she's not up to.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 07:12 PM (nj1bB)

980  @ 983 - I think you have it backwards, Ace.  The media is running after her.

And it's working "just like they planned it."

You see?  It's easy, ace!

Sarah Palin knows what she's doing, and even though it looks like she doesn't have a shot in hell, and she's not doing anything that she's (wink, wink) "supposed" to be doing according to the "old boys network"and the "system" -- she's got them right where she wants them.

Don't you worry 'bout it ace.  Unseen and the rest of these guys have things well in hand.  Just take a look at her polling numbers.  Sure, they don't look good from your perspective -- but, you're part of the "old boys network" and you play by the rules of the system.  But, what you don't know is that everything's going according to plan.

Trust them, ace.  They know what they're doing.  We've always been at war with Eastasia.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 07:12 PM (OLomk)

981 >>>that is assuming the MSM does not palinize him. since the left has had great success with bush and Palin making them appear stupid, ill informed, arch evildoers. they haven't been able to palinize everyone. You're using the word "palinize" for a reason.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 07:13 PM (nj1bB)

982 New media is alternate media which is another way to say "not the media."

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 11:53 PM (nj1bB)

How did this guy do?

As the 2012 cycle begins to warm up a bit, I hope candidates and their campaigns carefully study what worked and what didn’t last cycle.

This video, from the firm Targeted Victory, offers a quick-moving lesson on how the Marco Rubio campaign used the Internet – YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, special online fund-raising days, Facebook town halls – in his once-long-shot campaign for Senate in Florida this year.

The end result was a campaign that punched well above its weight in the online world. In a three-way race, Rubio accounted for 72 percent of all Facebook “likes”, 58 percent of all Twitter followers, 85 percent of all YouTube views, 55 percent of all web visits to candidate web sites, and 48.9 percent of the final vote. One in three of his e-mail subscribers were donors.

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 07:18 PM (JuWS+)

983 yes, anything that palin is bad at doesn't count. It's easy to be "good" when you just dismiss anything you're bad at.

Palin's not good at debate? Immaterial. Flubs questions? Immaterial! Can't seem to stick on the subject asked about but free-associates as string of pleasant but empty words like "freedom" and "competition" and "common sense"? Immaterial.

The only things that matters are what she's good at, name recognition, tv shows, facebook, and twiter.

Everything else? Immaterial. Doesn't matter. Only the stuff she's good at matters. Because we said so.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2011 12:07 AM (nj1bB)

 

A lot of wishcasting in there.   Palin has shown she is fine with debates,  Palin was able to stick to the subject very well in the LIA  interview as well as other recent interviews.  As far as the rest.   So what.  she does facebook  and twitter.   Name another candidate that has a wealth of public positons at your fingertips  where with a simply search you can find that candidates   view on almost any subject?  If she changed her spots all the time that would be a negative since she would open herself up to double talk.    name another candidate that has the power to drive any debat eon any subject with a press of her finger.  you think Chrisite  could drive a debate on DOMA   by writting an email?   you think mitt or Tpaw could?   

  

  

 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 07:19 PM (aVGmX)

984 I stress: While her supporters continue to urge her to just keep doing what she's doing and be folksy, engaging, grizzly-mom-ish and all that, those are not in fact the reasons people don't like her. They don't like her because they fear she cannot do "the hard stuff." So her supporters continue urging her to basically commit political suicide. To not deal with the actual reason for her predicament, to pretend that stuff away, and to insist that a deficit on qualifications can just be goosed with a lot of emphasis on charm and folksiness or whatever. Nope. They doubt she can do "the hard stuff," as unseen calls it. Continuing to avoid "the hard stuff' only solidifies this suspicion. At some point the 8th grade reubttal -- "Oh I can do that anytime I want, I just don't feel like *proving* it right now" -- appears pretty hollow. Fish or cut bait.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 07:20 PM (nj1bB)

985 >>>n has shown she is fine with debates, Palin was able to stick to the subject very well in the LIA interview as well as other recent interviews. Oh good god the LIA interview again. An interview in front of paying well-wishers, who paid $500 and up a plate just to be in the room with her.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 07:21 PM (nj1bB)

986 When only 45% of your own party says you're qualified... this is not fixable with some Oprah appearances. Palin does have to do "the hard stuff" because it's precisely "the hard stuff' people think she's not up to.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2011 12:12 AM (nj1bB)

 

Well if the poll is correct then she will quickly flame out in the IA primary.

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 07:22 PM (aVGmX)

987 Oh good god the LIA interview again. An interview in front of paying well-wishers, who paid $500 and up a plate just to be in the room with her.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2011 12:21 AM (nj1bB)

 

Ace I posted articles showing you the audience was not really palin friendly .   Yet  you keep repeating the meme  why?

 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 07:23 PM (aVGmX)

988 In January of '79, Ronald Reagan trailed Carter by 22 points in one poll.  At the time, Reagan was probably as well known as Palin is now.  By November of 1979, Reagan's polling numbers were not only lower than Carter's, they were lower than Ted Kennedy's, too.

Unfortunately for the rest of the crowded Republican candidates in the primary scrum, Ronald Reagan didn't have to beat Jimmy Carter to win the GOP nomination, he only had to whip the other Republicans.  Which he did.

Posted by: mrp at March 01, 2011 07:25 PM (HjPtV)

989

Oh good god the LIA interview again. An interview in front of paying well-wishers, who paid $500 and up a plate just to be in the room with her.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2011 12:21 AM (nj1bB)

 

Here is the write up from Politco Ace:   Now  how you get from what is written to what you said  is a mystery.

It was the rare appearance for Palin outside her comfort zone of the Fox News studios and social conservatives audiences at large rallies. Instead, this was a group of centrist, business-oriented Republicans and Democrats in a swing county that elected a GOP country executive less than two years ago after having a two-term Democrat at the helm.

She was greeted warmly by the audience, but also with skepticism and some challenging questions by Law.

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 07:26 PM (aVGmX)

990 They don't like her because they fear she cannot do "the hard stuff."

So her supporters continue urging her to basically commit political suicide. To not deal with the actual reason for her predicament, to pretend that stuff away, and to insist that a deficit on qualifications can just be goosed with a lot of emphasis on charm and folksiness or whatever.

Nope. They doubt she can do "the hard stuff," as unseen calls it. Continuing to avoid "the hard stuff' only solidifies this suspicion.

At some point the 8th grade reubttal -- "Oh I can do that anytime I want, I just don't feel like *proving* it right now" -- appears pretty hollow.

Fish or cut bait.


Posted by: ace at March 02, 2011 12:20 AM (nj1bB)

 

 

Oh  you mean like christie saying he knows he can win but doesn't want to run?

 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 07:28 PM (aVGmX)

991  @ 996 - Is she looking to drive debates, or get elected president?  I should tell you that those are entirely different things.

Ross Perot once drove the debate.  So did Newt Gingrich.  Ron Paul sometimes drives the debate.  I even remember a time when Jesse Ventura was driving the debate. 

Palin has shown she is fine with debates,  Palin was able to stick to the subject very well in the LIA  interview as well as other recent interviews.  As far as the rest.   So what.

She also quit the governor's office.  Like other areas she seems to shy away from, it was a bit confrontational.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 07:30 PM (OLomk)

992 Palin's not good at debate? Immaterial. Flubs questions? Immaterial! Can't seem to stick on the subject asked about but free-associates as string of pleasant but empty words like "freedom" and "competition" and "common sense"? Immaterial.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2011 12:07 AM (nj1bB)

This is why some might think you don't actually look at evidence regarding Palin.  Not good at debate?  Look at her three-way debate during her Gubernatorial campaign.

Only free-associates?  Apparently she impressed the audience in Long Island.  And said something fascinating:

Never one to back down from adversity or criticism, Palin didn’t blink an eye when asked about her approval ratings in one of the latest Gallup polls that shows that more than 50% have a negative opinion of her. Palin joked, “In a lot of those polls, yeah, I get my butt kicked." Palin pointed out that the poll Law was talking about took place right after Tucson in which the media was quick to look for somebody to blame for the shootings. Palin said, “I’m not blaming that for my poor poll numbers. They are what they are. I think though, how else does the public know you though besides through the press? And when the press reports things that have really, really misrepresented my record as council member, mayor, governor, commissioner…and when the press is misreporting what you stand for, what your family is, certainly the perception out there is that this person is less than qualified.” However Palin said she will get out there and let people know who she is, what she stands for and what her record is. “You can’t rely on the liberal-leaning press to do that for you.”

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 07:31 PM (JuWS+)

993

She was greeted warmly by the audience, but also with skepticism and some challenging questions by Law.

Posted by: unseen at March 02, 2011 12:26 AM (aVGmX)

 

And Ace at the end of the interview per the write ups she had them clapping   and many were considering voting for her.   which means she won them over or in your words presuaded them   Something you  swear she is not doing.

 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 07:31 PM (aVGmX)

994 Gee, wasn't it only last night that Ace said that he thought Palin did OK against Biden in the 2008 VP debate?

Posted by: mrp at March 01, 2011 07:34 PM (HjPtV)

995 She also quit the governor's office.  Like other areas she seems to shy away from, it was a bit confrontational.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 02, 2011 12:30 AM (OLomk)

 

yeap Palin was the only politcan in history to quit  all others resigned.  

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 07:34 PM (aVGmX)

996 Yay!  We're back to the "she's a quitter" meme.  That means we're winning

Posted by: mrp at March 01, 2011 07:36 PM (HjPtV)

997 “You can’t rely on the liberal-leaning press to do that for you.”

Posted by: stuiec at March 02, 2011 12:31 AM (JuWS+)

 

Or it seems right leaning blogs either.

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 07:36 PM (aVGmX)

998 Oh good god the LIA interview again. An interview in front of paying well-wishers, who paid $500 and up a plate just to be in the room with her.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2011 12:21 AM (nj1bB)

You're really not doing yourself any credit here, Ace.  The LIA is not a Republican fundraising group, and it doesn't invite people to make small talk over tea.  And you're just making yourself look closed-minded because Palin's choice of venue outside her bubble doesn't match your choice for her.

THE Long Island Association:

Audience Reach Hosts over 1,100 of Long Island's most influential CEO’s, presidents, and senior-level executives of mid to large companies.
LIA Speakers - A “Who’s Who” of Leaders
Speakers at LIA luncheons have included former President George Bush Sr.,
former President George Bush Jr., former President Bill Clinton and former Secretaries of State Colin Powell and James A. Baker III.
In addition, the Annual Meeting Luncheons have hosted:
From the Defense and Military arena: Generals Norman Schwartzkopf and Tommy Franks and Defense Secretary William Cohen.
From Congress: former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who teamed up with Democratic strategist James Carville.
In New York Politics: former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Governors George Pataki, Mario Cuomo, Nelson Rockefeller and Hugh Carey.
From the Business World:one of the world’s most respected economic leaders, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Dr. Alan Greenspan and former General Electric Chairman & CEO Jack Welch.
Well-known Journalists have also made an indelible mark on Long Island through their appearance at LIA events. That list includes former NBC Anchor and noted author Tom Brokaw, “Meet The Press” Host David Gregory, journalist Bob Woodward and Radio and TV talk show host Sean Hannity.

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 07:37 PM (JuWS+)

999  @ 1006 - And Ace at the end of the interview per the write ups she had them clapping   and many were considering voting for her.   which means she won them over or in your words presuaded them   Something you  swear she is not doing.

I don't know about you, but if I pay $500 to listen to someone give an interview, I'd be clapping my ass of all persuaded like nobody's business by the end of the night.

I can't think of a soul on earth I'd pay $500 to see if I wasn't at least somewhat inclined to support them.

The more you keep flogging that speech, the more desperate for approval you seem, by the way. 

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 07:37 PM (OLomk)

1000 Yay!  We're back to the "she's a quitter" meme.  That means we're winning

Posted by: mrp at March 02, 2011 12:36 AM (HjPtV)

 

ROFL...I do find it strange that Ace and other ABP people are using the same talking points that the left uses.  I have always found that when I am  in agreement with the entire left wing of the country I might have be getting snowed.   

It does seem strange to see the same agruments on Ace of spades as you see on Daily Kos  doesn't it?

 

 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 07:40 PM (aVGmX)

1001 If they were clapping at the end of the Palin speech, then they obviously felt that they got their $500+ worth.

Posted by: mrp at March 01, 2011 07:40 PM (HjPtV)

1002 Unseen, I believe you were the person who reported that people paid $500 to $5000 to be there. It was said upthread, definitely, by a palin supporter. This point was bragged on. so is the claim the crowd paid to be there but was hostile? Really? As for "driving the debate with an email" -- Matt Drudge just wrote to say "make me president."

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 07:41 PM (nj1bB)

1003 The more you keep flogging that speech, the more desperate for approval you seem, by the way. 

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 02, 2011 12:37 AM (OLomk)

 

Of course  because any evidence that proves you are 100% totally wrong must be discredited.   It's the MO of the ABP group.   I'm glad you are not letting me down and starting a new strategy....

 

 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 07:41 PM (aVGmX)

1004  @ 1008 - yeap Palin was the only politcan in history to quit  all others resigned.  

Well, yes.  Resignation has a much nicer ring to it.  James Baker, Bob Packwood, Bob Livingston, Richard Nixon ... all resigned rather than quit, because that makes it look better.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 07:42 PM (OLomk)

1005 >>>If they were clapping at the end of the Palin speech, then they obviously felt that they got their $500+ worth. unreal. Once again Palin supporters consider it a great victory that Palin can successfully get applause from confirmed, paying Palin supporters. We seem to be lowering the bar for success for this woman to Obama depths, don't we?

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 07:43 PM (nj1bB)

1006 >>> The LIA is not a Republican fundraising group, and it doesn't invite people to make small talk over tea. it does, however, charge 500-5000 for admission, as you yourself reported (I believe). But these were Palin haters, I guess.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 07:44 PM (nj1bB)

1007  @ 1016 - Of course  because any evidence that proves you are 100% totally wrong must be discredited.   It's the MO of the ABP group.   I'm glad you are not letting me down and starting a new strategy....

It proves she can be engaging in front of a friendly group with a cordial interviewer without smearing feces on the walls.  I don't think I ever said she couldn't do that.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 07:45 PM (OLomk)

1008 This just in: Joe Biden wowed 'em at the Friends of Amtrak Choo-Choo Dinner.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 07:46 PM (nj1bB)

1009 they haven't been able to palinize everyone. You're using the word "palinize" for a reason.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2011 12:13 AM (nj1bB)

That's a hoot, Ace.  The word is "palinize" because no one else has been subjected to anything like what Palin has.  And as soon as any Republican looks to be gaining traction, he (or she) will get palinized, and how.  (Remember the New York Times front page story about McCain's "affair" with a lobbyist?)

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 07:46 PM (JuWS+)

1010

Unseen, I believe you were the person who reported that people paid $500 to $5000 to be there. It was said upthread, definitely, by a palin supporter. This point was bragged on.

so is the claim the crowd paid to be there but was hostile? Really?

As for "driving the debate with an email" --

Matt Drudge just wrote to say "make me president."

 

Is that chrisite's virgin drudge link? 

 

As far as paying to attend  they pay every year to attend the luncheon.   It is considered an event.   It doesn't matter if its Clinton or Bush or Bush or Palin   they pay  to get a seat.   The proceeds go to the LIA  it  is their annual fundraising event.  Paying to attend an event does not make one a defacto supporter.  that is a leap of logic---esp  when you are giving hard evidence by a reporter   without any skin in the game that your logic leap is flawed.  Now a really "smart" person would take the evidence and change his stance even if it tends to defeat his point.   A closedminded person with a narrative to drive  would disqualify the evidence of if he can't do that will simply ignore the evidence.   So which are you?

 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 07:47 PM (aVGmX)

1011 >>>. The word is "palinize" because no one else has been subjected to anything like what Palin has. Oh, I did, pretty much, except for the attacks on family. I was, however, accused by a prisoner of dealing pot or being a gay hooker, and the media reported this lie. I, too, never recovered.

Posted by: Dan Quayle at March 01, 2011 07:47 PM (nj1bB)

1012 stuiec, are you arguing Palin is smart or "smart enough"? If you do believe she's smart, why are you adverse to her proving it? Are you going to assert/spin, as some really have, that the reason she doesn't demonstrate her chops is that part of her appeal is based on seeming "normal" and so she doesn't want to alienate supporters by demonstrating how smart she is? The solution is evident: Prove her smarts. Why there is so much arguing that she must not do this is not explainable... except by the one explanation. If that's the explanation, then seriously, you should probably reconsider. If you think Palin's not smart, and you're so sure of that you're terrified of her speaking in uncontrolled environments, then, well, you should probably support someone else.

Posted by: Dan Quayle at March 01, 2011 07:50 PM (nj1bB)

1013 Ace, Palin has given paid speeches in Canada and Hong Kong, too.  The audiences were obviously not Palin supporters, and the speeches were considered successful.  People clapped and some even said they were impressed.

Posted by: mrp at March 01, 2011 07:51 PM (HjPtV)

1014 they haven't been able to palinize everyone. You're using the word "palinize" for a reason.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2011 12:13 AM (nj1bB)

sure they haven't  and bush DIN'T leave office with a >30% approavl rating.  They are doing it as we speak to Scott Walker his negatives are in free fall.  and before Palin  they made McCain out to be a  old wash up sneile man.   and before that ford  couldn't  tie his own sheos on his own  and Nixon was a crook.   and bush the first was a idiot  that was lead around  by his shadow government.   And  reagan was simply an empty suit.   If you are honest you will see a direct line  form one Republican leade rto the next eack being attacked more and more as the left fine tuned  the attacks  since at least Ike.   the volume and reach  and depth of the attacks have increased in a straight  line  and they will continue to do so as long as people on the right fall for it.  and let's not forget quayle   an up and coming  star in the Gop.  Well at least until the left got down with him...

 

but yeah you are so right Palin is the first one they ever did this too.///  unlike most she fights back.

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 07:54 PM (aVGmX)

1015 This just in:

Joe Biden wowed 'em at the Friends of Amtrak Choo-Choo Dinner.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2011 12:46 AM (nj1bB)

 

Must be getting tired because that was pretty lame.

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 07:55 PM (aVGmX)

1016  @ 1026 - Ace, Palin has given paid speeches in Canada and Hong Kong, too.  The audiences were obviously not Palin supporters, and the speeches were considered successful.  People clapped and some even said they were impressed.

They have a point there, ace.  I've experienced this every time I've sang karaoke, so it obviously means something.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 07:58 PM (OLomk)

1017 well, unseen, you decieved me by bragging on Palin having the charisma to induce people to pay $500 to $5000 a plate (which you asserted made her special in the field of candidates). I took that to mean how you intended it to be meant, that people signed up and paid to see HER specifically. If you're changing your story now because your current needs are different, that's on you. By the way, rarely have I seen someone so nasty as to peddle bottom-of-the-barrel DU level charges against Republicans, like Daniels, who you accused of being a cuckold, not a real man, maybe gay, etc. But you're the nasty little shit who'll come in here and tell people that our "attacks" on (actually warranted concerns about) Palin are "left-wing" stuff, huh? Tell me more about Mitch Daniels being a fag, unseen.

Posted by: ace at March 01, 2011 07:59 PM (nj1bB)

1018

Crap ace I don't see that drudge link doesn't he even get a pic?   nice of Matt to say that but he must not think its important enough to make a link to the newstory.  Maybe he will get around too it sometime.  

 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 07:59 PM (aVGmX)

1019  @ 1027 - unlike most she fights back.

But not in the way you think she'll fight back.  Because that's just what they expect. 

She'll just straight-up resign on their ass.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 08:01 PM (OLomk)

1020  @ 1030 - Tell me more about Mitch Daniels being a fag, unseen.

Oh, yes ... do tell.  That'll be innn-ta-resting.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 08:08 PM (OLomk)

1021 She'll just straight-up resign on their ass.

If she does, I hope Drudge puts the pic up with a sireen or too.


Posted by: mrp at March 01, 2011 08:08 PM (HjPtV)

1022 All right, back from work and whoa!

Comment 911, Ace asks me if there is any reason Palin shouldn't start debate practice and whatnot nice and early.

No reason to if she's not going to continue in formal politics.  She might be happy doing what she's doing, being Obama's gadfly and running private businesses.  That's all I meant.

I know I'd quit if my kids starting getting death and rape threats in their personal emails.  God only knows what Laura Bush and the twins received.

Posted by: not the droid you seek at March 01, 2011 08:13 PM (h35AH)

1023

By the way, rarely have I seen someone so nasty as to peddle bottom-of-the-barrel DU level charges against Republicans, like Daniels, who you accused of being a cuckold, not a real man, maybe gay, etc.

 

 

I never said anything about Daniels being gay.   But  nice smear there.  As far as a cuckold  is that not the definiton?  Maybe I'm mistaking on that.   I was under the impression that a cuckold is a man that accepts an unfaithful wife.  I would say a wife that leaves you and marries someone else for 4 years would fall under the "unfaithful"  defintion.  But maybe it was a Pultonic relatinship  I was assuming there.   Since he took her back  that would fall under the cuckold defintion.   Yes. it is   crass.  but it is also what it is.   I know we didn't use to talk about persoanl issues on our cnadidates but I thought since Palin's family has been fair game and her unwed  daughter was the talk of the town, all the other caniddates personal lives were fair game.  Maybe I''m wrong on that.  

 

As far as  misleading you  I asked "name me another housewife that could filll a room  With plates costing $500-$5,000"   you made the logic leap that that meant they were supporters.  There are many people netural  to Palin or even skeptical of her  that are interested in seeing and hearing from her.  Opinions are not set in stone.   But thanks for blaming me for your mistakes.  that seems typical  in a way.

 



 

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 08:13 PM (aVGmX)

1024 The last poll I saw gave Obama a 51-40 lead over Palin.  With the ABA factor flavoring a poll like that, Palin is in the ballpark this early in the game.  Forty percent of the electorate prefer a housewife without portfolio, holding no elective office over the current president of the United States.  And she hasn't even announced whether or not she's going to run.

Well, ABAers, that's something to chew on.

Posted by: mrp at March 01, 2011 08:15 PM (HjPtV)

1025 After flubbing ABP by typing ABA, I see proof positive that I'm tired.  'night All.

Posted by: mrp at March 01, 2011 08:20 PM (HjPtV)

1026  @ 1037 - The last poll I saw gave Obama a 51-40 lead over Palin.

Keep lookin'.  There's a pony in there somewhere.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 08:27 PM (OLomk)

1027

But you're the nasty little shit who'll come in here and tell people that our "attacks" on (actually warranted concerns about) Palin are "left-wing" stuff, huh?

 

and yet I see the same talking points on Daily Kos and huffington post.  and from  your defensive tone and your attempt to smear me as what anti-gay or something? (not like that isn't a left wing MO)  I must have hit a nerve.   Does that mean you are a lefty?  no it just means when it comes to Palin you have common cause with them.

 

or do you want to deny that DK  and HP  are not using the same targuments you are?



Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 08:27 PM (aVGmX)

1028 Sarah Palin on TARP, 2008: Th...the alt...as I say inaction is not an option we have got to shore up our economy. This is crisis moment for America. Really the rest of the world also. Looking to see what the impacts will be if America were to choose not to shore up what has happened on Wall Street because of the…the ultimate adverse effects on Main Street and then how that effects this globalisation that we’re a part of on…in our world. So the rest of the world really is looking at John McCain – the leadership that he’s gonna provide through this and if those provisions in the proposal can be implemented and make this proposal better make it make more sense to taxpayers than again, John McCain is gonna prove his leadership. But ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy um helping the…oh – its gotta be all about job creation too! – shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reigning in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans and trade we’ve got to see trade as opportunity not as competitive um scary thing but one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today we we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity – all those things under the umbrella of job creation – this bailout is a part of that.

Posted by: RJ at March 01, 2011 08:40 PM (qDPnZ)

1029  @ 1036 - Yes. it is   crass.  but it is also what it is. 

That's the difference between me and you.  For all the faults I have with Sarah Palin, I can't think of a single situation where I'd use the term whore or bastard to describe her or anyone in her family, and am curious to know what Mitch Daniels supporter said something to justify your idiotic, classless behavior -- and what they said.

If it's something you just spouted off, you've demonstrated yourself to be a pretty slimy dirtbag.  And, if you're in any way indicative of the sort of people Palin counts among her supporters, there's not a whole lot of reason for anyone to be concerned with her candidacy.  It'll eventually be undone by the behavior of her supporters, once GOP primary voters get a sense of who you are.

No one wants to work with or alongside scumbags like that.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 08:41 PM (OLomk)

1030

That's the difference between me and you.  For all the faults I have with Sarah Palin, I can't think of a single situation where I'd use the term whore or bastard to describe her or anyone in her family, and am curious to know what Mitch Daniels supporter said something to justify your idiotic, classless behavior -- and what they said.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 02, 2011 01:41 AM (OLomk)

Yeah because you would rahter talk  about Palin flashing some leg and her drooling into he great clevage.
  but nothing crass in that comment you made.  I love hypocrites

Posted by: unseen at March 01, 2011 08:53 PM (aVGmX)

1031  @ 1043 - Yeah -- another difference is that I can distinguish between writing figuratively for humorous affect and behaving like an all-purpose sleazebag.  I mean, seriously -- you're a real piece of scum.


Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 09:05 PM (OLomk)

1032 stuiec, are you arguing Palin is smart or "smart enough"?

If you do believe she's smart, why are you adverse to her proving it?

Are you going to assert/spin, as some really have, that the reason she doesn't demonstrate her chops is that part of her appeal is based on seeming "normal" and so she doesn't want to alienate supporters by demonstrating how smart she is?

The solution is evident: Prove her smarts.

Why there is so much arguing that she must not do this is not explainable... except by the one explanation.

If that's the explanation, then seriously, you should probably reconsider. If you think Palin's not smart, and you're so sure of that you're terrified of her speaking in uncontrolled environments, then, well, you should probably support someone else.

Posted by: Dan Quayle at March 02, 2011 12:50 AM (nj1bB)

I have no terror of Palin speaking in uncontrolled environments.  I'm not the one attempting to belittle the LIA appearance.

I'm also not the one claiming that Palin's Facebook posts and op-eds are all ghost-written and even if they aren't they don't count because she gets to write them down so she's not really using her brain or something.

I'm the one pointing out that her intellect was plenty powerful enough to propel her from Wasilla housewife to Governor of Alaska.  (And I'm not the one arguing that resigning from a job causes a space-time wormhole that erases everything one has accomplished in that job.)

It's interesting that you think there is only one acceptable proof of intelligence and that it can only be delivered in a particular type of forum.  That's your idée fixée, the one you keep having to defend against any other possible evidence of her smarts.

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 09:12 PM (JuWS+)

1033  @ 1045 - (And I'm not the one arguing that resigning from a job causes a space-time wormhole that erases everything one has accomplished in that job.)

I don't recall seeing anyone make that argument.  So far as I can tell, the argument has been that it undermines her claims to experience in comparison to the other governors who'll be running in the primary, and that it undercuts the narrative that she's the only "real fighter" out there

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 09:16 PM (OLomk)

1034 Once again Palin supporters consider it a great victory that Palin can successfully get applause from confirmed, paying Palin supporters.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2011 12:43 AM (nj1bB) 

Again - because this seems to be a very difficult concept for you - the LIA doesn't hold these events for supporters of the speaker, but for their members to see and hear prominent newsmakers. 

You might consider that some of those people paid $500 to $5,000 in hopes of seeing Palin make an ass of herself in public so that they could tell all their friends what a dolt she was.

It seems you're not willing to click on the links I and others supplied to the LIA's site and to the Palin interview clips from the LIA event.  That's too bad -- I thought you were interested in evidence whether or not it fit with your preconceptions.

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 09:20 PM (JuWS+)

1035 I don't recall seeing anyone make that argument.  So far as I can tell, the argument has been that it undermines her claims to experience in comparison to the other governors who'll be running in the primary, and that it undercuts the narrative that she's the only "real fighter" out there

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 02, 2011 02:16 AM (OLomk)

Funny how so many people tout Chris Christie as the only viable candidate for the GOP in 2012... when he has 13 months of experience in elective office, as compared to Palin's 31 months as Governor.  There's where the suspicion of a double-standard arises.

And it's boring to reiterate that "real fighter" and "desperate clinger to public office" are not synonymous.

Posted by: stuiec at March 01, 2011 09:24 PM (JuWS+)

1036  @ 1048 - Funny how so many people tout Chris Christie as the only viable candidate for the GOP in 2012... when he has 13 months of experience in elective office, as compared to Palin's 31 months as Governor.

Yeah, I find that kind of funny, too.  Which is why I've never made that argument.  It strikes me as a bit silly.

And it's boring to reiterate that "real fighter" and "desperate clinger to public office" are not synonymous.

I agree there.  Though, I would stipulate that there's a difference between staying in office long beyond one's usefulness (as many in Congress do) and finishing a single elected term.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 01, 2011 09:32 PM (OLomk)

1037  848 "It's not hatred of "the base" because I think in fact Palin's supporters are not the base. It's a subsection of the base.

It's not hatred in any event, except hatred of emotionalism and stupidity and the urging of this emotion-driven faith-based silliness as a basis for decisionmaking.

It's christine O'donnell all over again. It's this belief that if we all just *B E L I E V E * enough we can will this to happen, and so the focus should not be on the candidate's qualifications, statements, actions, and results, but instead on a whipping of the pool of supporters into conformity."

Ace, I can agree with your basic point about Palin taking a few visits to a select batch of hard interviewers. I can even accept your oveblowing the importance of the polls right now (you have been using pretty emphatic language about something--trend analysis--that inherently defies such emphasis), in the spirit of trying to understand the logic of you position. But I wish you, at least, could avoid this sort of bizarre straw-man argument. It's simply not the case that many competent writers--here, especially--have made some dumb-ass appeal to faith or conformity, or party purity, or whatever ad hominem springs to mind.

You are simply wrong about that assertion. It's no more "emotion-driven" for the Palin supporters than it is for the detractors. In this particular thread, the most emotional tone has come from her detractors. So that concept is of no utility here.

Many of us simply disagree with your weighting of:
A)the polls--at this time, and
B)Her strengths.

You scoff at her strengths, albeit without the smoking jacket and pipe attitude of some of the more common sorts of media/new-media types. Fine. It's clear that you have less faith (the real kind) in people who do everyday things competently, than you have in people who are not media pros. I don't mean that as a negative statement about you, but about your emphasis in this thread.

We have a strange disconnect between anti-Palin folks wanting her to be stellar at Big Media, and anti-Palin folks who love to accuse her of being a media star (the term whore gets used a lot), and then burn that bit of straw by declaring things like "we don't need any more media stars."

We have far too many people discounting what it takes to operate a family business, run a campaign, and deal with energy issues, just based on her media presence.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in a house built by the Palins than one built by just about anyone else in the media or politics. I'd also feel more comfortable with Governor Palin sitting in some conference about energy than most of the other potential candidates, just because of the stark difference between her experience and theirs.

So drop the "faith-based" stuff.  It's factually incorrect.

As for the polls, let's see what happens. My guess is that, come summer, you'll see her draw the biggest crowds. If not, then that will be hard data. If she does draw the big crowds, that, also, is hard data.

Posted by: K~Bob at March 01, 2011 09:59 PM (9b6FB)

1038 "It's clear that you have less faith (the real kind) in people who do everyday things competently, than you have in people who are not media pros."

Sorry, that should read:

"It's clear that you have less faith (the real kind) in people who do everyday things competently, than you have in people who are media pros."

(bad edit)

Posted by: K~Bob at March 01, 2011 10:05 PM (9b6FB)

1039

Still waiting:

What's the plan for a centrist to stop the TEAs running their own?

Pawlenty?  That's it?  That's all you've got?  Pretty thin, anorexic, in fact.

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 02, 2011 04:55 AM (/g2vP)

1040

Let me briefly toss out a few TPaw lurkers.

2 publicly funded stadia.

1 light-rail boondoggle,  operation of which is 80% subsidized.

As most farm-staters,  Ethanol whore.

Supports government sponsored gaming, shakedown of Indians for revenue.

Falling bridges.

Windfarms freezing up in cold weather, shutdown at 20mph by design, electricity sold outstate.

Did oppose benefits to same-sex partners, which is more conservative than me and a majority in MN.

 

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 02, 2011 05:14 AM (/g2vP)

1041 @ 1049 "I agree there.  Though, I would stipulate that there's a difference between staying in office long beyond one's usefulness (as many in Congress do) and finishing a single elected term." And this is why it's boring, because you refuse to admit the possibility that because the Dems were using Alaska's weird ethics law provisions like Lilliputian ropes to make it impossible for Palin to give her State duties the full attention she believed she owed her office, she determined that staying on to finish her first term would be staying in office long beyond her usefulness. You are arguing that it would have been the better part of valor for Palin to draw a State paycheck while spending all her time defending against frivolous ethics charges, all in the name of continuing to serve the people who elected her, rather than giving the State a full-time Governor in the person of her hand-picked lieutenant and getting off the public payroll to handle her personal fight against the ethics charges on her own time. (Note that in other states or in the White House, ethics charges against a sitting chief executive get defended against at the taxpayer's expense.) You know who the city of Cincinnati is named for, right? The willingness to leave high public office voluntarily rather than cling to its perks and prestige has always been so rare and laudable that we remember the names of the few who've exhibited that willingness through the ages. It is qualitatively very different from "being a quitter."

Posted by: stuiec at March 02, 2011 05:53 AM (JuWS+)

1042 GG, I do think that Pawlenty will be the designated ABP.  What gets really interesting is if she doesn't run.

Posted by: Knemon at March 02, 2011 06:42 AM (Da+uN)

1043

1055.  As House leader, TPaw got a carry law thru,  allowing posted opt outs, so he's NRA feasible.  But cannot hold a flame in pure oxygen.

So, if Palin doesn't go,  for some reason I can't imagine, like she believes civil war will break out instantaneously,  TEAs are on notice day one.

"Interesting" isn't quite the term, something more intense?

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 02, 2011 07:15 AM (/g2vP)

1044 Mega-interesting.  Pawlenty seems in the middle of the pack of potential candidates, of the party itself, and of the country geographically.  The party could do worse, and probably will.

Posted by: Knemon at March 02, 2011 08:00 AM (Da+uN)

1045

1057.  Last week Cain and TPaw spoke at some TEA sponsored meetup of 2000 in AZ.  Straw poll had Cain winner w/over 30%,  TPaw second less than half Cain's total.

So there you have one head to head.

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 02, 2011 08:11 AM (/g2vP)

1046 GG, I do think that Pawlenty will be the designated ABP.  What gets really interesting is if she doesn't run.

Posted by: Knemon at March 02, 2011 11:42 AM (Da+uN)

Even more interesting if she doesn't run and endorses Pawlenty.  (She could, you know.)

Posted by: stuiec at March 02, 2011 08:51 AM (Di3Im)

1047 K-Bob, It's not exactly that I discount her strengths. It's that I am saying that she currently has a deadly, disqualifying weakness (even if only one of perception). Here's an analogy: Let's say Obama really wasn't a natural born citizen, and this was widely known, and this was a Democratic blog. It would be like you arguing: He's a great speaker, he has a great pedigree, he'd be a good candidate. And I say: But he can't be a candidate, because he is specifically disqualified from office. And you say: But the base loves him and he has an easy-going vibe the moderates will mistake for substantive policy centrism. So he can get both. And I say: But he can't be a candidate, because he is specifically disqualified from office. And you say: But he's our greatest hope of restoring the progressive dream! Why, he even proudly states he'll make electricity prices skyrocket! And I say: But he can't be a candidate, because he is specifically disqualified from office. We could go on and on. Palin has such a specific disqualification. Not a legal one, but a political one. Now, the good news is, she could change this. The bad news is, she hasn't changed it yet and it will be difficult to change and she must change it. So you can continue telling me Palin is a fighter, and I'll be here telling you, as with Barack Obama in the hypoethetical: But she can't win, because of this specific disqualification. There is not getting around that. It must be defeated. And defeating that perception as unqualified requires specific action on her part. Not on mine or anyone else's. This is the burden she has; only HER actions will overcome that. This is why speaking in front of untelevised, private venues like the LIA don't really matter. Who sees this? 400 people in the room plus some dedicated Palin fans on YouTube? How does that help with her disqualification problem, which is very, very broad-based? The argument keeps being made, by implication (confessedly her fans do not say it) that her disqualification on the basis of competency, fluency, and smarts can be overcome just by her emphasizing her strengths. No. Like in my Obama hypothetical. To be viable she must convince 51% of the public she has the minimum-required level of competency (at least). She cannot charm her way around meeting that hurdle. Cute shows like Sarah Palin's Alaska continue to instruct us she is charming and sweet and liakble. That's fine. But as I keep saying, people aren't opposed to her because she's not charming, not sweet, and/or not likable. They specifically oppose her because they do not believe she knows what she's talking about on complex policy, especially that involving math and multiple moving parts.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2011 09:24 AM (nj1bB)

1048 You can keep spinning that she should NOT be thought of as unqualified, but unless you believe you can get to 51% of the voting public and convince each and every one of them to buy your argument, it doesn't work. The other possibility is that Palin herself takes stock of her situation, recognizes the current disqualifying weakness people assume, and takes specific action to refute that (such as taking part in debates involving math and policy). If she does that, you wouldn't need to spin, because anyone watching it would say: "Why are people saying she's dumb? She knows just as much about this stuff as her oponents do." Either that happens, or you can just try spinning each individual voter's perception. The latter won't work. You are pressed into this service because Palin won't or at least hasn't yet done the one thing that WOULD work.

Posted by: ace at March 02, 2011 09:28 AM (nj1bB)

1049

1059.  Seems Cain is with Ace, she's just a cheerleader.

Cain's upside is GA is lost to redOreo.

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 02, 2011 11:55 AM (/g2vP)

1050 Ace, I agree with your point, when stripped of it's qualifiers, like "deadly" and "disqualifying".  I think it's just good, basic advice. I just can't see it as being the massive millstone that you see.

Maybe she needs someone on her team to take that as good advice. My guess is they already have a plan for that, because so far they do seem to have plans for things, rather than just winging it.  So while I can agree about your point, I disagree that it's hiding a weakness (or, to parse it more finely, as you do, that it is a perceived weekness; perceived by enough people that it's a problem).

Where you're placing more weight on that factor, I place a much heavier weight to the fact that the New Media has won, and having someone major recognize this will cause a ground-shift. We are at that tipping point.

Meet The Press
just isn't what it used to be. Especially without Tim Russert. The NYT editorial page is ignored by more and more people every day. As a matter of fact, I think it's a sign of weakness--in the Republican party--to keep acting like those pathetic, yellow, j-juicers even matter anymore.

That opinion has nothing to do with faith in Palin, or hope, or any other vaporous nonsense. It's time the right acts like the majority for a change. If not now, when?

Posted by: K~Bob at March 02, 2011 12:49 PM (9b6FB)

1051 What happens if she doesn't run is interesting.

We have a lot of anti-Palin types claiming she's weak because (while pathetically ignoring massive amounts of counterfactual evidence) some of her endorsees were weak.

Gosh. I wonder if anyone running would seek her endorsement?

Posted by: K~Bob at March 02, 2011 12:54 PM (9b6FB)

1052 I'm blaming the keyboard.

Posted by: K~Bob at March 02, 2011 12:57 PM (9b6FB)

1053 Yeah -- another difference is that I can distinguish between writing figuratively for humorous affect and behaving like an all-purpose sleazebag.  I mean, seriously -- you're a real piece of scum.


Posted by: Walt Gilbert at March 02, 2011 02:05 AM (OLomk)

 

your problem is what you find "funny " others find crass.   Like Tucker carlson reffering jokingly to Gov Palin as a MILF.   that is crass.  talking about her cleavage and her flashing her legs to get your interest  is crass and  sexist to boot yet you pretend it isn't. 

 

I'm man enough to admit  my comment was crass.  It was meant to be.  I don't hide behind humor to get my  point across  like most anti-palin people..    finally  you  still have not  told me how my comment was factually incorrect  or  how it was anti-gay.

Posted by: unseen at March 02, 2011 03:21 PM (aVGmX)

1054

Rove on Hannity yesterday was selling "It's wide open! There is no front runner."

Seems like the cabal, GOP Genius Illuminati,   'Palin must DIE,  Arrrggghhhh', hasn't quite got their narrative storybooked.

Cue Nurse Ratched,  they are beginning to convulse.

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 03, 2011 04:00 AM (/g2vP)

1055 Thomas Sabo Australia Service is found in Europe-Germany together with deals in the creation, production and additionally supplying involving cool wristwatches, Thomas Sabo besides other beauty items.

Posted by: Thomas Sabo Australia at March 03, 2011 07:55 PM (RLWcF)

1056

"unless you believe you can get to 51% of the voting public and convince each and every one of them to buy your argument"

Slick never managed,  why must Palin?

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 04, 2011 07:22 AM (/g2vP)

1057 interesting article, thanks for sharing.
iklan gratis
iklan baris gratis
bisnis pulsa

Posted by: iklan tanpa daftar at April 03, 2011 05:30 PM (TP14+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
983kb generated in CPU 1.92, elapsed 3.7934 seconds.
62 queries taking 2.2764 seconds, 1293 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.