Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
I called this one too early. However, my smart-money says I’ll not need to re-write anything and Boxer will win a fourth term. That’s a bet I’d be pleased to lose, even if I had committed some real money to it.
A certain Palin-hater is over on the Hello-Kitty-of-Bloggin’ that is FaceBook…spoiling for a fight about Palin. I’m sticking to where things go from here, how much we’re likely to hear from her from here on — it is a logical impossibility that we’re done hearing about her, we clearly are not. My adversary just wants to stick to his personal dislike of her, which he would like to explain over and over again.
I’m more interested in what’s going to happen in the months and years ahead. President Obama, that lover of car-metaphors, is zipping on down a road that is veering sharply rightward whether He wants it to or not. His choices are to make an absolute failure out of His Presidency, or steer rightward to keep the car on the road. I view this as a guarantee that His Presidency is an absolute failure, because He isn’t capable of…what, what’s that favorite word of His…change. No can do. That’s for lesser mortals.
So Obama will deliver some speech saying how stupid we are and how we need to get with it. We’ll get sicker of Him, and by 2012 Jar Jar Binks could challenge Him for the presidency and win handily.
The democrat party could name another candidate just for the sake of hanging on to the White House. I’m having some trouble envisioning this. Johnson in ’68 is something of a precedent — but that was LBJ’s idea. Obama isn’t capable of doing this either.
So Obama will be challenged, and He will lose. There isn’t time for the Tea Party to form, recruit, organize, and offer a candidate. Libertarians don’t have the flexibility to ever become relevant. It all comes down to, a Republican is going to be sworn in on January 20, 2013. There really isn’t any avoiding it.
It won’t be Sarah Palin…if she doesn’t want to do it.
Or if she’s hit by a bus, or eaten by a bear.
Or if aliens abduct her.
Or if a majority of Americans become simultaneously transfixed and enamored with Newt, or Huck, or Mitt. The three erstwhile gentlemen who have almost completely sat this whole thing out, while Palin has been out stumping and speechifying and endorsing, and generally being a potent force.
She’s easy on the eyes, too. Plus, she owns this night like nobody else in the country does, except maybe Rick Santelli.
At lot can happen in twenty-six months. But at this point, an awful lot would have to happen to stop her from being the next president. None of these events are terribly likely, and a whole bunch of loudmouths yammering over and over again how much they’re irritated by her, aren’t going to make it happen.
Like it or not, it would be entirely reasonable to pick out the perfect bearskin rug for the Oval Office. If that makes you mad, you can get just as mad about it as you want to. She’s headed in that direction and there’s nothing in her way.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think a bearskin rug would look awesome in the Oval Office. 🙂
- DarcsFalcon | 11/02/2010 @ 22:49The phrase that pays on a bumpersticker, just to make the heads behind you on the California freeway explode says,
PALIN-BACHMANN, 2012
- vanderleun | 11/02/2010 @ 22:51A snowy white bearskin rug?
- philmon | 11/03/2010 @ 08:10She’s headed in that direction and there’s nothing in her way.
Sometimes I think you’re nuckin’ futs, Morgan. I can’t think of a BETTER way to ensure Obama gets a second term than “Palin 2012.” The independents are key these days and the independents hate her. That’s reality, staring you in the face. But ya just keep on keepin’ on with your fantasies. Nuckin’ Futs.
- bpenni | 11/03/2010 @ 08:24You’re right about the Independents, Buck.
She has a hugely successful false narrative about her to overcome with them. We’ll see if she’s successful at doing that — if she even wants to. I think she’s thinking about it. But I also think she, like me, believes that a second Obama term would be more of a disaster to the country than even a McCain would be. She’s got to keep that in mind. Electability is an issue, and I believe she loves the country enough to take that into account.
But I don’t think she’s beyond overcoming it just yet. I wouldn’t count her out.
Ask Rand Paul.
- philmon | 11/03/2010 @ 08:34Nuckin’ Futs.
Name one thing that will stop it. One plausible thing.
OK, you did: If she runs against Obama, The Holy One will smack her down. I respectfully disagree. They both, after all, enjoyed a realistic chance to get refudiated last night did they not?
And which one went through that experience, hmmmm?
By 2012, we have two more years of what we’ve seen for the last two. During which time we m-u-s-t agree with Replacement Jesus…and we won’t, because we won’t be able to afford it…and failing that, His attack dogs will come out and call us stupid and racist.
For two years. Straight. Non-stop, starting today.
In 2012 you could run Chairman Zero up against Atila The Hun, and you’d end up with President Hun.
- mkfreeberg | 11/03/2010 @ 08:45Oh, I don’t share that confidence. Nope. Too many races were too close. We have a lot more people to wake up, or I think a Chariman Zero second term is a distinct possibility no matter who the other side runs.
- philmon | 11/03/2010 @ 08:48Although I am more and more encouraged by stuff like this from RightChange.
This’ll help.
- philmon | 11/03/2010 @ 08:52Well, I do have to hand it to you Phil: One should never underestimate the capacity of Republicans to pull defeat from the jaws of victory.
I want to be very precise about what I’m saying with regard to Obama’s re-election prospects: He is a strategic thinker, and His strategic thinking is always going to be brilliant when it capitalizes on the love people have for Him. As soon as He starts grappling with something besides love and adoration (seething resentment, fatigue, weariness, embarrassment, disgust, a desperate apprehension that His ideas will wreck the economy, etc.) He will cease — on the spot — to be a brilliant strategist and turn into a mentally feeble one. I say “mentally” because I regard Him as psychologically incomplete and hobbled. He displays the classic signs of narcissistic personality disorder.
He’s wearing horse blinders. Any time He needs to retreat from a brink, reverse course, in order to shore up His political capital, He will prove Himself incapable of it. This is why He has yet to do it; His approval rating, two years in, has always been on some kind of lasting down-slide, never bouncing upward even for a single day. Not once. It’s the price to be paid for lacking any & all humility whatsoever. In Barry’s world, it’s always the other guy who screwed up.
Republicans need to find a way to capitalize on that two years from now. If they fail at this, you’re right. If they succeed, He’s toast, because He has no defense against this. He hasn’t got a shred of contrition or humility in His whole body.
- mkfreeberg | 11/03/2010 @ 09:12I fully expect the “Sarah Palin can never become president” argument to go on until about six weeks after she takes the oath of office in January of 2013.
Politics and position in politics runs on two things: power and markers.
Palin is now the most powerful Republican and Tea Party leader in the nation.
Following last night she has a stack of markers about large enough to fill Scrooge McDucks money bin.
- vanderleun | 11/03/2010 @ 12:14And I’m sure she looks completely awesome when she goes swimming in it, Gerard.
- mkfreeberg | 11/03/2010 @ 12:16They both, after all, enjoyed a realistic chance to get refudiated last night did they not?
And which one went through that experience, hmmmm?
To the best of MY knowledge… although you may be privy to something I’m not… neither one was running. Obama’s policies got the shit kicked out of ’em and rightly so. Palin, on the other hand… had about a 50% success rate with her endorsements, at best. That’s vindication? You have a bizarre way of keeping score, Morgan. It might be your particular (which could also be spelled “peculiar”) brand of blinders, which don’t look good on anyone.
We live in interesting times… and some people’s times are more interesting than others’.
- bpenni | 11/03/2010 @ 12:42Well, I hope you’re right about Obama, and I suspect there is much to your theory.
And I’ll say we could do much worse than a President Palin.
- philmon | 11/03/2010 @ 12:55I’ll also say this about Palin. For the last two years I’ve heard and read pundits telling me over and over again that she’s irrelevant, she doesn’t matter, she’s a joke, a wash-up, a Barbie, a 15 minutes has-been…. but the deal is, the next week, they’re telling me again. And the next month, and months later — they’re telling me again and again. It’s so important to so many people to keep me appraised of her irrelevance. So much time and energy spent for two years telling me what a nothing nobody she is, every day.
And it is at least a *little bit* unfair to just look at which candidates she endorsed in the *general* election to gauge her influence. In the primaries, she had the golden touch, no doubt about it. It is through the primaries that we are going to have to change politics in Washington.
The Republicans need watching, too. The only reason the Tea Party turned out so strongly for Republicans was it was the only feasible way to stop the hemmoraging. But we didn’t vote for Republicans out of love for what they’ve done for us lately.
If we keep allowing the parties to basically pick our candidates for us without us really standing up and having a say in picking candidates that, in general, share our principles, then we’re going to get the same old shizz-nizzle every time. This was the first big primary/general cycle this movement has been involved in. We’re green. We have stuff to learn. But we need to keep moving, ahem, “foreward” with it regardless. And as I keep harping, the only way to make that work is for each of us to gently wake our friends and neighbors up, one at a time if need be.
I don’t pretend that Palin is The Magical Fairy Queen of All That is Good And Right™ or that she’s the answer to our problems and prayers. But I do think she’s a decent lady who shares more of my principles than any other candidate since Reagan. Not saying she’s Reagan, either. But I’m not so quick to dismiss her and I’m not so sure I’d want to even if I could.
- philmon | 11/03/2010 @ 13:32Generally, the people who are toughest on Palin are the ones who share her principles. It’s human nature. If you happen to think when a defenseless woman who gets mugged has it coming…and then you see it happen, keep on walking to show your consistency to your “principles,” you aren’t going to be that outraged when someone comes along to thwart the mugging. But if you know the right thing to do is to stand up against evil and save the woman, and you don’t do it because you’re feeling lazy or cowardly or don’t want to exit your comfort zone…then someone else comes along to save the woman…you get all pissed off. It’s really anger at yourself, but you project it onto the person who did the rescuing you know you should have been doing.
This is the real reason conservatives are pissed at Palin. She’s doing the work they know they should have been doing. They were going to foist off a whole string of moderate milquetoast losers and watch the democrats hang on to Congress, maybe even re-take the filibuster-proof super-majority…left up to them, the outcome would be something like that. Palin stopped it, and even worse yet, it’s highly visible to everyone paying attention that her intervention was needed. The “official” people who were in the right place at the right time, didn’t have the balls. They just kept walking and would have allowed the victim to be robbed, brutalized and molested.
Palin, on the other hand… had about a 50% success rate with her endorsements, at best.
If her success rate was 100% she would be open to criticism that she wasn’t really altering the outcome, just making obvious picks with regard to who was going to win anyway. This would be entirely valid criticism, and you’d be among the first to make it. Oh, how prompt you would be too. I could set a clock by it.
If she’s altering the outcome, some of her picks are going to be a little bit out-there, and the price to be paid for that is she’s not going to win all the time. So this isn’t really an endeavor to predict the outcome, and it isn’t an effort to stand rigid on principle either. It is a juggling act, involving many competing objectives, and she has handled it masterfully. The rules of the hunt apply here: If there is a bountiful feast on the table afterward that didn’t have to be acquired at KFC, and the hunter showed skill and competence during the hunt, there is an implied connection between these two things and nothing else matters. Anyone who wants to criticize after that has to go out doing the hunting next time, and show how well it’s done…otherwise STFU…
As far as your math, it is as correct as your logic. Which is to say not much.
So the logic in your statement doesn’t work, since it confuses the picture of the goal(s) she is trying to achieve. And your math is wrong since it seems to be based on figures that are mythical.
Other than those two things, I agree with everything you’ve said. <bseg>
- mkfreeberg | 11/03/2010 @ 14:09Don Surber and CBS News help the challenged bpenni out with realpolitik:
2. From CBS News: “Most of the candidates Sarah Palin endorsed chalked up victories Tuesday. And that scorecard leaves pundits wondering whether she’ll now train her sights directly on the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. As CBS News Correspondent Jeff Glor reports, the former GOP vice presidential nominee backed 43 candidates for the House. Thirty of them won, with races involving nine others still undecided. Her record in Senate races was closer: She endorsed 12 candidates. Seven won.”
Guess who just won the Endorsement Primary in the 2012 presidential sweepstakes
- vanderleun | 11/03/2010 @ 14:47I’ll give ya the math point, Morgan (and Gerard) since I didn’t give enough of a big rat’s ass to google it for the EXACT number. But ya got my drift and Good On Ya for that. At least I think you did; with you and the subject at hand it’s damned difficult to actually tell, as the woman can apparently do no wrong. It’s always so in matters of theology, innit?
So. You can continue to shout me down on the small shit; I don’t mind. But I’ll continue to debate the LARGER point… certain electoral suicide if and when she’s the 2012 GOP presidential nominee… until the freakin’ cows come home. I am not yet convinced, and your shilling for the girl ain’t doin’ a whole helluva lot to do so.
Serve, volley, yadda, yadda.
- bpenni | 11/03/2010 @ 15:01Gerard, the numbers don’t favor a Palin pin up in any presidential toss-up. While you may harbor a political boner for the pretty woman, most voters don’t. She’s a huge loser on the electoral scale.
Half of her picks lost in this election and a fourth of those that won would have skated to victory without her endorsement. Face it, half of the country thinks she’s as dumb as a box of rocks.
May I suggest you focus on Rick Perry? With a huge Tuesday win, serious money backing him, governor of a state with few financial difficulties and a national book tour kicking off, I think he’s going to run and I also think he could win.
Plus he’s the smart Ken to your dumb Barbie.
- Daphne | 11/03/2010 @ 15:20Well you know what will trump the debate right quick. Someone could pin her ears to the back of her head, as it were. Just completely humiliate her and show her up as the lightweight so many people claim she is.
Instead of letting her get away with kicking ass time after time after time after time………
Seriously, why’s it taking so long? Two years to get warmed up? All those consecutive months of “I *meant* to let her do that to me” while the economy goes down the toilet, unemployment ratchets up two and a half points and stays put at around 10% for over a year?
There’s an old saying about science being a perception of reality based on measurements of that reality, and theology being a perception of reality based on faith. Or something. If the distinction is anything like that, this isn’t much of a “theology.” You rank individuals in American history past & present who’ve had a singular, individual effect on how an election went…Palin goes up near the tippy top, to take her place alongside sitting Presidents. It’s just a simple, easily-proven fact. Noticing it doesn’t make a man a theocrat or a zealot…but if he works too hard at denying it, I suppose that might qualify him as one.
Some of your criticism against Fred was on-target. Palin seems to me to be a good solid answer to some of that criticism…and here you are lashing out again. You’re starting to look like King Solomon, carping away about not being able to cut the baby in half because, gosh darn it, he just sharpened that knife yesterday and he really wanted to see it happen.
You know what’s really ironic about Palin? She’s sparing the country from a whole serial procession of candidates who, without her interference, would be like mini-clones of the guy who picked her in the first place. She’s become the anti-McCain influence, and a darn good one. It isn’t just me saying so…
- mkfreeberg | 11/03/2010 @ 15:24You’re obsessed with the woman, Morgan.
Admit it.
- Daphne | 11/03/2010 @ 15:28Daphne,
You’ve had some pretty harsh words to utter about Gov. Perry before. If Gerard’s attempt is to please you over the long term, I’d have to suggest he steer clear of Perry and you’d have to agree with me about it.
Honestly, both you and Buck come off looking like you can’t find a candidate that really makes you happy, so you don’t want anybody else to be able to find one either.
- mkfreeberg | 11/03/2010 @ 15:28Why would you expect that I would ever find a perfect candidate, my dear Morgan? I’m completely out of step with contemporary political thinking.
No doubt that I am contentious, rigorous and demanding of my public servants who would seek higher office. As a man who constantly seeks fiscal conservative purity on this site, I’m surprised that you would take issue with my mild disagreements over Palin’s sway and ability to deliver to the goods.
Perry is man I’ve voted against twice, I think he’s Palin’s twin on a smaller scale; all hat, little substance, but inimitably more likable on a broad scale. I think he could actually win the nomination and beat Obama. Palin can’t, too many people have her pegged as an opportunistic grifter of limited intellectual abilities.
Face it, your girl is never going to be a white house contender.
- Daphne | 11/03/2010 @ 16:04People think Palin’s dumb as a box of rocks and is an opportunistic grifter because her political opponents inside and outside the Democratic party have made a pointed effort to paint her thus. No evidence to the contrary will be admitted to those who decided from the starting gate that they don’t like her. Admittedly, this is a harsh reality she would have to overcome.
Half the country may believe her to be dumb, but this half believes that they are wrong about that. Before she could become a serious candidate, she would have to make a strong case, no doubt — and work at it harder than most others because of what the prevailing political machinery felt it must do to her. And they did it because she is a threat to the status quo in both parties in Washington. This is why not only did the liberal media think she needed to be destroyed (and happily provided the vehicle) but people like Peggy Noonan and other establishment pundits and establishment GOP’ers did not want their world upset by someone who says to hell with the rules when they don’t make sense.
Frankly, I like her, and to say I like her only because I’m a guy and she’s pretty is not really terribly different from saying I oppose Obama’s agenda because he’s black. It’s not an argument, it’s specifically designed to avoid argument, in fact.
What I see here is more, “face it, she’s irrelevant. She’s dumb. She’s a has-been, never was.” A “Dumb Barbie”. More energy, screaming at me to pay her no mind because she doesn’t matter and besides, she’s pretty, so there. Honestly, when the protests grow so loud it makes me curious as to just what it is about her that threatens the protester that’s not being revealed here.
She talks funny. She correctly pointed out that the state she governed is in close proximity to a testy adversary of America. She couldn’t reel off any specific Supreme Court cases she disagreed with. And she was unwilling to answer a question on what newspapers and magazines she reads when she realized that no answer she gave would go undissected and unspun. She hunts, and comes from a small town. Plus she looks good in heels. And pro-big-government people hate her. Did we mention she talks funny? Oh, and when her opponents abused an Alaskan state law to force her to spend most of her time and a ton of her money fighting lawsuits rather than governing, she quit and went back and played a huge role in re-vitalizing the GOP, away from the reach of those lawsuits. (Kind of like Obi Wan — if you destroy me I will only grow stronger).
These are the charges I hear against her over and over. But that pretty much seems to be the extent of the rap against her. None of it tells me she’s actually stupid, only that a lot of people think she’s stupid, and some people really, really hate her. A lot of people thought Obama was a rational centrist, too.
With the people she’s popular with, she is extremely popular, and that’s a good chunk of the country.
- philmon | 11/03/2010 @ 16:49Honestly, both you and Buck come off looking like you can’t find a candidate that really makes you happy, so you don’t want anybody else to be able to find one either.
Why Morgan… it’s crushed I am. That’s not at all true. I’d have been right there with ya if you had signed on with Giuliani. You just pick and back these losers. 😉
And… for the record… notice I didn’t take issue with the “Carly” sticker in your sidebar, nor offer any debate with your rants against Moonbeam. If I lived in Kallyforhneeya I’d have been right there with ya.
- bpenni | 11/03/2010 @ 16:58Enjoy the Carly sticker while you can, it’s gonna have to come down. Just like the Chuck DeVore sticker that was up until the day she won the primary. See, I can be a rational centrist too.
Phil, you forgot the criticism that Palin is making EVIL MONEY doing what she’s doing, and therefore must be in it for that and for no other reason…therefore, she’s fooling millions and millions of people who think she’s pushing some principle when she’s laughing all the way to the bank.
A village idiot with a room temperature I.Q….is fooling zillions of people and building an evil empire. Hmmm, this seems familiar, like we just recently went through it before.
- mkfreeberg | 11/03/2010 @ 17:23*gasp*! We can’t have people making *money*. Not in *America* …. that means you’re *exploiting* someone!!!!! 😉
- philmon | 11/03/2010 @ 17:46Phil, you’re in the minority. The woman isn’t viable under any national circumstance.
- Daphne | 11/03/2010 @ 17:57I agree with you, Daphne. At this moment. I’m just saying don’t count her out. Election’s not for another 2 years. Or perhaps 6.
Things change.
I don’t really care if she runs or not. I’ve got nothing emotionally or strategically vested in her becoming a Presidential candidate. Frankly, I think she’s well suited to doing what she’s doing now, and it’s doing a tremendous amount of good. Plus she’s learning a ton.
A ton that could come in quite handy later in a presidential run.
- philmon | 11/03/2010 @ 18:10Among the things that can change, to which Phil refers…whether he realizes it or not, one of these things is guaranteed to happen.
The field will narrow down to an either-or. Just like it always does. People may be dislike it, they may hate it, they may be disgusted with it…someone always is…but the field will narrow down to two major contenders for each primary, then it will narrow again to two contenders for the grand prize. And with that, paradigms will shift.
Daphne, you haven’t named a viable scenario under which our next President is someone other than Sarah Palin. Buck has — he thinks Obama will beat the Wasilla Wonder. I’m comfortable taking that bet, since Palin’s popularity is on the mend, and Holy Man’s is on a distinct wane.
Where, exactly, do you think the tundra hussy’s path to the White House will be derailed? It’s all fine and good to say you don’t think it’ll happen because you don’t like it. But that doesn’t address my point. What alternative is more likely to happen, compared to this highly unpalatable outcome I’ve singled out?
- mkfreeberg | 11/03/2010 @ 19:14Why are you calling her a hussy?
That’s rather rude, Morgan.
I don’t think her path will be derailed since she isn’t running. If she does run, she’ll lose because she’s not electable under any circumstance.
If you like Palin, you should love Perry, and he could win.
- Daphne | 11/03/2010 @ 19:47Alright, so you’re saying she might not run and if she does run she’ll get creamed.
I agree with the first of those two, at this point I’d place it at about 50/50 she might not want the job.
As to the second…again, Daphne, I know you feel this discomfort as acutely as anybody when the field is narrowed and you suddenly realize none of the surviving candidate holds an appeal for you like the guy who just got the axe. That discomfort you feel when that happens, is the paradigm shift of which I speak. When there is one, people will change. They’ll support the person they never, ever, in a thousand years thought they’d ever support. And that’s going to be Palin because she’ll be the last to be eliminated, not the first.
Again, though — if she wants the job.
If she does, it’s hers. Comes down to the “Where else you gonna go” theory. Newt? Mitt? Get serious.
- mkfreeberg | 11/03/2010 @ 19:56Somebody’s scared of her, for sure.
An extremely progressive …. friend …. over on Hello Kitty posted this UK Guardian (extremely progressive paper) story tonight. It’s crap like this.
It’s no secret that the deep GOP establishment doesn’t like her. They never did. It’s because she doesn’t have the pedigree. But to many of us, the arrogance of the pedigreed is a big part of what ails both parties. Rove et. al. seem to completely ignore the energy she brought to the base to get the turnout in all of the other races across the nation that won an historic day for the GOP. In this day and age of tight races, turnout is where it’s at. Rove knows this, but chooses not to focus on it, because she’s a threat to the interests of the inner circles. They flatter themselves to think she wasn’t a big factor in that turnout, and instead focus on a few candidates she supported — on principle — and who lost. One of them arguably because of the cold shoulder (O’Donnell) got from the GOP establishment when their establishment candidate lost the primary due to the vote of … The People. She energizes and turns out the base across the nation in a crucial election for the GOP, and she not only gets snubbed for credit but also deflect blame for two key losses (that might have been less key if not for the success of her broader effort) onto her — because the victory wasn’t larger. This is the shit that’s gotta stop.
“Dude, you rallied us with 4 touchdown passes and helped us pull ahead and win the game, but if you just hadn’t fumbled on that one play and tripped on that other, we woulda scored enough points to put us #1 in the BCS rankings instead of #2. Thanks for NOTHIN’!” It’s ridiculous.
Now as to the rest of the article, it’s more of the usual cheap shots — in this case mostly making fun of the way she talks and speculating as to whether she won or lost a few individual races.
- philmon | 11/03/2010 @ 20:12Since I’m under the impression that you want Palin to run and would welcome her win, Morgan, may I ask why?
She seems totally at odds with your usual rational, dispassionate point of political view.
- Daphne | 11/03/2010 @ 20:20For the record, I think you’ll probably see some new names outside of the field that ran last time around on the GOP end that might be satisfactory to all of us.
- philmon | 11/03/2010 @ 20:45Because she is not an intellectual*.
Because she is decidedly unqualified**.
Because she is thoroughly uneducated***.
But most importantly of all…here. Let’s just jot down a quick off-the-top-of-my-head, generic, boilerplate template of any ol’ six-foot male distinguished-looking straight white Republican guy clarifying a previous comment.
I’d like to take this opportunity to clarify some remarks I made that I’m told have rubbed people the wrong way. When I said global warming is a scam, in no way shape or form did I intend to imply it was a deliberate scam…I really think it was all an innocent mistake, and “scam” is way too strong of a word. I may disagree with what these scientists have found out, but heck, what do I know? I’m no scientist. And anyway, if we start taxing carbon, people will lead more clean, green lives, and heck, that’s a good thing! Also, I didn’t mean to say anything bad about women because I didn’t mean to say anything bad about Hillary Clinton. First thing tomorrow, you wait and see, I’ll call her and personally apologize for any offense she might have taken. But not too early. I wouldn’t want to wake her. Not to say I think women sleep in or anything. Women who are mothers, work ten times harder than any of us — oh, wait, I didn’t mean any offense toward women who are not mothers just now. I’d like to immediately apologize for that comment I just made…
Daphne, let me be perfectly blunt. This is bullshit and I’m well past sick and tired of it. These perpetual “let me clarify my remarks” geldings are not leaders in any way, shape or form. They remind me of really old dogs, trying to go to bed, spinning and spinning and spinning, never quite finding a comfortable resting position. Which means nobody understands a single thing about what they’re trying to say.
And who can blame them. Men have to be careful. One wrong twitch and people just might remember we poop and it stinks just like everybody else. Death of a career.
Contrasted with that: Here’s Palin saying what she thinks.
Booyah. More, more, more. And if you read that speech, you’ll find it is chillingly prophetic.
Why They Hate Sarah Palin So Much, Item #11: Chicks can say stuff. They can; we men can’t; for the time being, I’m afraid, that means men aren’t suitable for political office. We need leaders who can call things out the way they really and truly are, and for the foreseeable future this is a bit like handling the Koh-I-Noor diamond. I’ll retract this rule as soon as a gentleman comes along to prove that I should. He hasn’t shown up yet.
*“Intellectual” is a word Thomas Sowell used to describe people whose professions begin with ideas, and end there as well, so that their ideas are never, ever, ever validated against reality. I also identified the word “intellectualism” as referring to the readiness, willingness and ability declare dangerous things to be safe and safe things to be dangerous (11th best quote of 2009).
**Unqualified means calling things what they are without a bunch of bullshit euphemisms. The very beginning of real leadership, in other words. We need some “unqualified” leaders. These “qualified” ones just aren’t getting the job done. They’re too comfortable with bullshit.
***The word “education,” lately, has been all too often affixed to a proclivity to dismiss unwelcome ideas, and an ability to do it very quickly. Thing I Know #183. In my world, this is more or less the exact opposite of what an education really is. I’m glad Palin is so lacking in it.
Hope that answers your question.
I like her legs, too.
The wife saw Perry on the TeeVee this morning. She immediately pointed out how attractive he is.
‘Course, he could never be elected, because he’s too handsome, he’s from Texas, and he talks like George W. Bush. Plus I’m sure there are things eleventy jillion reporters could find out about him in a week by digging through his garbage while completely ignoring the glaring radical track record of whoever his democratic opponent would be. That dude’ll walk on water, and they’ll have everybody believing Perry is a four-toothed shade-tree auto-mechanic who beats his wife and is secretly gay.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that. 😉
- philmon | 11/04/2010 @ 06:40In addition to my extremely brilliant points above, Phil’s last little humdinger is really what it all comes down to and it represents a truth I think you’d better reckon with toot-sweet. It isn’t just true of Rick Perry, it covers them all. You say…”If she does run, she’ll lose because she’s not electable under any circumstance.” And I say…okay, so you move on to someone else. Are you ready to move on again? Because the minute that other person becomes a contender, s/he will be dragged through exactly the same mud as Palin, and the odds are that person will not come out of the experience in quite as good shape as she has.
You need to remember — reporters flew up to Alaska to look through this woman’s trash. Literally. While they were completely ignoring Jeremiah Wright…and complaining about global warming as they blew all these jet fuel fumes out their tail ends. They didn’t find squat, and so they had to start making up stories about divorcing Todd, et al.
It’s a very simple formula they go through. If you’re conservative and you become a threat — alright, are you under sixty years old? If so, you’re stupid. If you’re over sixty, you’re pure evil. And if you actually beat them at their own game, then you’re both. Reagan was stupid and evil. Bush I was evil. Dan Quayle was stupid. Bush II was stupid. Cheney was evil. Palin is stupid. They’re not going to let up on this, and to think you’ll find the candidate who will persuade them to stop, is just silly.
The whole practice is unworthy of a serious response, and it’s high time it was treated that way. It’s just a shame that the first person we find with the balls to treat it that way, happens to be a girl. I’m glad she’s a pretty one though.
- mkfreeberg | 11/04/2010 @ 09:41I see a lot of folks saying Palin can’t be elected because she’s “unelectable.” Except of course she is and she has been and she will be again and, in the meantime, many of those she supports are indeed elected.
I’m looking forward to Palin’s numerous foreign trips over the next couple of years to gather the “experience” people seem to find lacking and seem to crave so deeply.
And I suspect the first three words of her first inaugural l address will be: “Neener, neener, neener…”
- vanderleun | 11/04/2010 @ 10:08Sadly, I agree with the “Palin is unelectable to national office” crowd (national office, please note; she has been elected to state office, and no doubt could be again). Because:
I’m just spitballing here, but I think that just as something like 20% of the country would vote for her because she has an R after her name, so something like 20% of the country wouldn’t vote for her no matter what because she doesn’t have a D after her name. A further 20% on both sides could be persuaded to hold their nose and vote partisan — the question “would you rather Palin or Obama be president?” admits of two answers, and when it comes right down to it you have to vote for one or the other.
That leaves that last 20%. The 20% who doesn’t really follow politics, who really doesn’t know or care much about “the issues,” and for whom social approval, their children’s play-dates, and the exact state of their pocket book on election day matters more than anything else. (The 20% who shouldn’t be allowed to vote in any rational system of governance, in other words, but oh well). These people, I’m afraid, will vote against Palin almost to a man or (much more likely) woman, simply because….
…”she’s an idiot.” Remember, the Democrats/MSM actually trotted out the idea that the governorship of a major state was an insufficient qualification for the presidency, yet running a presidential campaign was more than enough experience for the leadership of the free world, and that argument actually worked. Ya think the people swayed by this are going to carefully go back over her public appearances and say “oh, gee, it seems Bill Maher/ Katie Couric/ John Stewart / Wolf Blitzer / Juan Williams /Rachel Maddow / Kayne West / Bruce Springsteen et fucking goddamn cetera are all wrong; she’s actually super duper qualified!”?
Ninja, puh-leeeze. Her best (only) move is to be a kingmaker. Sad but true.
- Severian | 11/04/2010 @ 13:11Yet this is precisely what needs to be done, or we’re all hosed — Palin or not.
It needs to be shown to average, everyday Americans that those emporers … have no clothes.
- philmon | 11/04/2010 @ 13:59Severian makes some great points. However, two things are missing:
Ninja, puh-leeeze. Her best (only) move is to be a kingmaker. Sad but true.
Two years ago, Palin would have been dismissed as a “kingmaker.” Up until eight months after that she had not made any inroads in that direction whatsoever; quite to the contrary, she was resigning the governorship and the buzz was that she was completely done with anything & everything. Everything, that is, except to be embarrassed by some kind of scandal that would break Any Day Now.
The pattern is pretty consistent: To counter any seemingly-devastating criticism against Palin, all you have to do is bury it in the ground for a few months like a time capsule and dig it up again. This one, though, is the one put-down that will endure throughout the eons — Palin will “always” be unelectable.
Why, exactly, is this the one thing that will endure through the ages, when nothing else has credibly lasted the better part of a year?
The other thing I’m looking for is some meaningful difference between the times in which we live now, and 1980. Reagan was a “likable dunce” and was repeatedly slimed and slandered as such. The media refused to acknowledge him as even a likely winner. I vividly recall that magazine cover coming out just before election day, showing the two in a foot race neck-n-neck. Yeah, really. It’s probably worth a whole lot of money now if you have one…the image certainly hasn’t aged well.
The point is, Carter was soundly bounced out and it wasn’t because of the hostages. People evaluate things differently when they are suffering with no end in sight, and they perceive a connection between the incumbent leader and their suffering. And when the suffering is bad they ALWAYS perceive this connection. The message an incumbent Obama would have to get out in order to fend off Palin would be one of “She is SO stupid and unsophisticated, she isn’t worth trying…even though I’m still calling you a racist and a moron every week, and you don’t know if you can keep your house…you need to keep things the way they are, because I’m telling you she doesn’t know what she’s doing.”
That’s not to say I want people to suffer. My point is that they will. There is pain ahead, and when people are experiencing it, the question of who is “unelectable” can change mighty quick. It has before. And you cannot keep “driving the car” when people don’t like where it’s going…that last point, according to history, is non-negotiable.
- mkfreeberg | 11/04/2010 @ 15:23In addition to my extremely brilliant points above…
Oh shit, oh Dear. Please… let me up. I simply cannot argue with such brilliance, it’s not possible. I’m positively blinded by the light and MUST surrender to your steel-trap mind, Morgan, not to mention your flawless, unerring logic… which you never fail to mention is FAR superior to my own. Move over, Aristotle — Morgan’s here.
Goddamn.
- bpenni | 11/04/2010 @ 18:15Really, Buck? ‘Cause I haven’t seen any such claims. Just people trying to make their cases.
I like ya both, but b’jebus. Surely we can disagree without being disagreeable.
- philmon | 11/04/2010 @ 18:44Morgan makes a good point — things will, in all likelihood, still suck in 2012, and that pretty much must redound on Glorious Leader.
However, if — as I argue — we’re playing with at most 20% of the electorate, can we risk it? Risk someone who is viscerally loathed by umpteen hundred thousand people who would otherwise vote Republican? Anecdotes aren’t data, of course, but I know lots of conservative-ish people who shudder at the very mention of La Palin. A few considerations here:
1) Lots of people, faced with the choice between Palin and Obama, will hold their nose and vote Palin, just like they held their nose and voted McCain back in 2008. Lots won’t. Hence the reason we’re even having this discussion.
2) The primary fight will be brutal. You think whatever white, male, magnificently-coiffed milquetoast the GOP establishment serves up to challenge her won’t bring up “I can see Russia from my house” etc.? All of which immediately goes into every DNC ad for the rest of the campaign cycle: “Sarah Palin: even her own party thinks she’s a dunce.” If she tries to ticket-balance by bringing in some uber-wonk (Paul Ryan, maybe?) as a VP candidate, we’ll hear nothing but “the wrong person is at the top of the ticket” for eight months.
3) I hate this crap, but… running a woman against the incumbent Precedent smacks of desperate me-too identity politics. How has that worked out for the GOP in the past? (There maybe wouldn’t be a senator, let alone a President, Obama if the GOP hadn’t decided to parachute Alan Keyes in to Illinois on the hare-brained theory that it takes a nearly insane, yet mellifluous, accomplishment-free African-American to beat a ditto).
4) I wasn’t around in 1980 (ok, I was, but I wasn’t exactly politically literate), but I don’t think Reagan was actively hated by some significant segment of the population years before he stepped on the national stage. In the pre-internet, pre-Daily Show, pre-everything era of, say, 1978, I bet if you said “Ronald Reagan,” pretty much everybody outside of California would say “that old actor?” Everybody in America has an opinion on Sarah Palin, two years before she’s eligible to run for anything. I can’t see it ending well.
Which means, of course, that I’ll be holding my nose and voting for…. ugh… Mitt Romney in 2012. Or Tim Pawlenty. Or another one of those colorless, spineless turds. Excuse me while I go scrub my face with a cheese grater, then light myself on fire….
- Severian | 11/04/2010 @ 18:59Try to keep in mind that Palin has not even announced her candidacy. While she hasn’t “ruled it out,” what I’m hearing is that she will not run unless she believes that nobody else with her values, is stepping up.
Now granted, I don’t see anyone on the national stage who fits the bill, the bill of keeping her out of the race on those grounds. Newt? Huckleberry Finn? Mittens Romney? Surely you jest. Maybe Senator DeMint of South Carolina. Maybe.
But that doesn’t mean we won’t see someone from the state level take a shot at the big chair. How about Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana? He’s got them Tea Party values, in fact I most often hear his name mentioned in conjunction with Palin as a single ticket. Then there’s Haley Barbour of MS. Rick Perry of Texas. Hell, I even heard Jeb Bush of Florida, though the public may still be “Bush-ed out” by 2012.
It doesn’t have to be Palin on the one hand, 4 more years of Mao-bama on the other. There are other options. Obama wins right now in all the hypothetical matchups, but a lot can change in two years.
- cylarz | 11/04/2010 @ 19:08Pardon me for not reading the thread all the way through before commenting. Kinda pressed for time at the moment.
- cylarz | 11/04/2010 @ 19:10And they are wrong and they might figure that out over the next year or so. I’m a fly by the seat of my pants kind of guy. One of my favorite quotes from any book is from the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy:
In short, I just don’t fret about stuff that far ahead, in general. Cross that bridge when we come to it, etc. But I also don’t throw away valuable things just because they’re impractical to use right now. They often come in handy later.
I agree. If the race started today and was to end in, say, 6 months to a year… yeah, she’d probably lose.
I don’t think she really wants to run anyway…. I’m sure she’s considering it. But all I’m saying is don’t count her out. Unlearn the falsehoods ‘everybody’s learned about her, and stop stabbing an ally in the back over and over with this shit. If she runs and makes good arguments on the campaign trail, I’ll support her. S’all I’m sayin. She’s a good gal. She’s willing to fight the establishment on either side of the aisle — and the GOP has nobody else like that at this time. Nobody. Big weakness on the GOP side is articulating Hayek and Bastiat to the masses in short enough soundbytes for the TeeVee generations. Reagan was the last guy to do that well.
Now I do keep saying that she’s doing a great job from where she is, keeping people fired up and energized … she’s written some good articles. She might even make a good RNC chair. But as a possible candidate, she says she believes in personal responsibility and limited government, and doesn’t believe America is evil. Awesome! Find me another person who sincerely champions those values and I’ll get behind that person, too.
We can start talking about electability next fall. If she’s not by then, she won’t be. And she’ll know it. But it’s a ways off.
- philmon | 11/04/2010 @ 20:38Among Republicans choosing from Palin, Romney and Huck, it’s a dead heat.
As fellow Blogs4Palin contributor Conservatives4Palin points out, within the “very favorable” category the Thrilla from Wasilla spanks the two gentlemen, 50% to 43% to 37%.
We were saying?
- mkfreeberg | 11/04/2010 @ 21:54Ah yes, while all those who say she ain’t got a chance are working hard telling others why, Sarah and her presidential committee keep on cranking out winners like this on the day after the elections:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr3sj8q5lfY&feature=player_embedded
Baiters and haters can watch it and weep. This woman’s got mojo and momentum.
Add Bachmann and a Palin-Bachmann 2012 will thin the opposition just by making their heads explode.
- vanderleun | 11/04/2010 @ 22:01So much time and energy spent for two years telling me what a nothing nobody she is, every day.
I’ve noticed this myself, Philmon. Another thing I frequently notice – mostly on various blogs’ comment threads when the subject of the blog post is Palin – is some lefty troll showing up to tell us how “funny” and “hilarious” and “amusing” it is that we conservatives haven’t turned on her and chased her you-betcha butt out of our party at the end of a sharp stick.
“Oh, it’s just so hilarious how you stupid neocons and wingnuts still line up for this gal’s autographed copy of her book. Oh, it’s just a knee-slapper how you’ll defend her to your dying breath every time she’s attacked in the media. Oh, it’s sidesplitting how you would take her seriously as a political candidate. We’re over here laughing at you. Keep it up, you stupid right-wingers. Keep backing her! Stay with her! Obama’s going to trounce her in ’12.” (You know, even though she holds no political office whatsoever and has announced no plans to seek any.)
“It’s so hilarious! It’s so funny! Har har har har he he he he he ha ha ha ho ho ho ho. We’re rolling in the aisles laughing at you stupid cons.”
“It’s SO funny, in fact, that every single damn fucking day we have to REMIND you of how funny we think it is. Over and over and over and over and over, every single damn time the woman’s name comes up in the news.”
I always say the same simple thing to these people. “What’s the matter, then? Afraid she’ll run?” I don’t think they really find Palin anywhere near as “hilarious” as they pretend to. I think they’re scared to death she’s actually going to run for something.
- cylarz | 11/04/2010 @ 22:44Just completely humiliate her and show her up as the lightweight so many people claim she is.
I used to ask the same question about Bush, actually. Like Palin, half the country insisted, as Daphne so articulately (cough) put it…that he is dumber than a box of rocks. The idea got so popular that people started selling wall calendars, rear-view-mirror hangers and whatnot based on this meme of how stupid the President was supposed to be.
I always wanted to ask the Left, “If he’s so stupid, how come he keeps beating you guys?”
- cylarz | 11/04/2010 @ 22:51I don’t think her path will be derailed since she isn’t running. If she does run, she’ll lose because she’s not electable under any circumstance.
Yes, you’ve said that about three times now. Maybe you could answer the question – why do you believe so strongly that’s the case? Do you know something about her that we don’t?
- cylarz | 11/04/2010 @ 22:58I like ya both, but b’jebus. Surely we can disagree without being disagreeable.
I’m not so sure about that one, Philmon. See, there’s a civil war going on right now within the Republican Party. (A similar one rages among the Democrats, but never mind that now.) Jonah Goldberg pointed this out brilliantly:
http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2010/11/04/in_victory,_the_gop_will_turn_on_each_other
The salient point: “The political turmoil on the right, most commonly understood as “the Tea Parties vs. the establishment,” that we’ve witnessed over the last year…” that is the heart of it. There’s a struggle going on for control of the party that really is every bit as bitter as that between the two major parties themselves.
One battle in that civil war was the 2008 presidential primary season. The establishment won that battle when John McCain was nomimated. He went on to lose the general election, and during the post-mortem, us tighty-righties said, “Uh…I don’t know what you self-styled moderates and centrists were expecting would happen. The public will vote Democrat over Democrat-Lite every time.” The response, “La la la la, we can’t hear you. Dontcha stupid wingnuts know that McCain lost because he didn’t spend enough time moderating his tone and reaching across the aisle and making deals and otherwise selling conservatives down the river?”
The caterwauling resumed in earnest when Castle didn’t get the nomination for the Senate race in Delaware. The pendulum continued swinging back in our direction after numerous “centrist, moderate” RINO-squish incumbents were not even re-nominated, much less re-elected…in favor of those oogedy-boogedy scary right-wing extremist Tea Party types.
Now, the Democrats have taken the biggest shellacking (Obama’s word, not mine) in decades, and the Republican Party is once again a viable force in American politics…something other than a mere annoying mosquito for the Left to swat at and ignore.
Aaaaaaand…..the Establishment “centrists and moderates” still won’t concede that their philosophy is a dead-end road. They’re STILL caterwauling and hand-wringing about how the Tea Party is going to drive off independent voters. I’m beginning to resent these people even more than I do the Democrats and the Left – at least with *them* I expect to meet resistance and opposition.
If Tuesday didn’t show the Establishment moderates the error of their ways, I have no idea what will.
- cylarz | 11/04/2010 @ 23:19What will? As the poet says, “Fear in a handful of dust.”
Looked at from orbit the Tea Party is the centrist and moderate part of the party and it has the gravity to bring all the independents into it’s circle. After all, the core of the Tea Party happens to be composed of independents.
Republicans are now the tail of the dog and they’d better learn how to wag.
- vanderleun | 11/04/2010 @ 23:51From the Goldberg essay cited just above by cylarz: “Last week’s New York Times/CBS News poll found that for the first time since 1982, when polling began, the GOP has the edge among women. ”
Again, PalinBachmann 2012 and every Gyno-American will be sorely tempted.
- vanderleun | 11/04/2010 @ 23:56Well, I was referring to more local company, but you’re right, it is the same argument going on inside the Republican party.
We’ve got the establishment Republican Party who for too long has put too much emphasis on winning and not enough on principle. They talk a good game, but don’t follow through. And it’s because they’ve been courting the ,i>wrong crowd to win. This is why there’s a Tea Party to begin with. If the Republicans actually did what they say they stand for, there’d be no need.
Anyway, the Establishment Republicans … the ones that have been in cushy offices too long and thus established themselves …. are interested almost exclusively in keeping their own seats, and they have a pre 11/08 view of the political landscape.
You know how you usually have to tell a kid something three times before they get up off their butts and move? 11/08 was the first time. 11/10 was the second time. If we don’t make 11/12 the third time, they’ll go right back to playing with their toys and forget we ever spoke.
I’ll be interested to see how Bachmann’s Conservative Congressional Coalition works out.
- philmon | 11/05/2010 @ 05:55If any of the names most commonly raised for contention are nominated, we will either lose, or eventually be sorry that we didn’t. One of the impressive characteristics of the Tea Parties was the recognition that although they knew very well what was working against us, they did not know enough of how to put together something comprehensive that worked, or who might best champion that..
This need to know and settle the issues before we have sorted them out is destructive. There is time for cream to rise if we only wait and and watch and weigh.
No one–at least no one visible to the public mind– rises to the level of a Reagan, and even Reagan only gave us another “turn”. I don’t want another turn. His legacy is two Bushes, a Clinton, and Obama. This is a game we lose, and, possibly, a once in a lifetime opportunity to win by not playing it.
- jamzw | 11/05/2010 @ 10:17Hm, that last from jamzw looks like it packs importance and wisdom. I’m just having a little bit of trouble getting clear with it. You’re saying, when we have our “turn” it doesn’t really matter that much because when it’s over the other guys get their turn? The point about Reagan’s legacy proves this out pretty well, if that is what you’re saying…
So it’s better to hang back, let things take their course, and allow people to figure out on their own how much socialism sucks? This is where I’m losing you and thinking I’m not interpreting it right. We’re doing this right now, aren’t we? And other than the suffering that must arrive with the plan actually working…apart from that it’s working just about perfectly, isn’t it? Better than our wildest dreams?
This need to know and settle the issues before we have sorted them out is destructive. There is time for cream to rise if we only wait and and watch and weigh.
This looks like a chastisement directed toward me. Well, I agree with it. Very well, if other contenders want to jump in for the race in 2012, there’s plenty of room, and as many have pointed out Palin may not even be in the running. I’m still pegging that one at 50%/50% she might not have any interest in the job.
I’m just saying — if we “weigh,” that implies recognizing weights, without subordinating reality to preconceived notions. “Whoever wins, it cannot be Palin because Katie Couric made mincemeat out of her” is a preconceived notion. And to short-change Palin on what she has achieved in this election cycle, is to confess that one is unready, for whatever reason, to engage reality. I’m sure David Frum approves of such a thing, but in my mind this is exactly the “destructive” behavior to which you are referring.
- mkfreeberg | 11/05/2010 @ 11:16Peggy Noonan started her column out great today, before veering sharply to … bash Palin, again, this time for … pointing out that being on TV in general isn’t a bad thing for a President?
Huh? Reality show? Dancing with the Stars? Ok, so her daughter is on Dancing With the Stars…. but … she lost me on her whole “Mean Girls” tirade after some brilliant parody Obama prose.
Peggy’s always had her panties in a bunch about Palin, from the git-go.
I think she feels threatened.
- philmon | 11/05/2010 @ 12:07They talk about the Palin family fishing business — big deal. Anyone can get a couple of fish — just call Leonards’ on Third Avenue and they will deliver.
Thanks again to Gerard for pointing me to that wonderful parody, which like all great parody, doesn’t parody very much.
- mkfreeberg | 11/05/2010 @ 12:11(the most fun part of her article, though, was this bit:)
That is beautiful. And the picture she paints of Obama is the opposite of Palin.
- philmon | 11/05/2010 @ 12:12I’m uncomfortable veering this far out into the realms of pure, ass-pull speculation, but since this is a blog thread about a person who hasn’t held elective office in a year and won’t for another two (at least), here goes…
— Palin’s defenders here in this thread keep reminding us that the “Sarah is Teh Stoopid” meme keeps coming up all the damn time among lefties. Frankly, I’m shocked that you’re shocked about this. Leftism, as a wise man once pointed out, is the attitude “I hate this thing over here; come help me hate it” turned into a mass political movement. For the left, Sarah Palin is the prom queen, the varsity quarterback, the rich kids, and everyone else with a letter jacket all rolled into one; the left is the audio-visual club. Hell, for “Sarah Palin” substitute “the USA,” “Western Civilization,” what have you, and there’s the modern American left in a nutshell. “Sarah is Teh Stoopid,” much like “Bush is Teh Stoopid,” is just a group marker, nothing more. It’s like worker bees doing the hive dance to show other members that they’re part of the collective. Don’t read too much into it. If these folks were susceptible to logical argument — as in, “if he’s so stupid, how come he keeps beating Smart people like you?” — they wouldn’t be leftists.
— So Palin beats Huck or Romney straight up… in a hypothetical poll of a hypothetical race which might or might not happen two years hence. Question: is anyone, anywhere (outside of Hugh Hewitt) fired up about either of these two turds? Huck is just a Jesus-talking Bill Clinton; Romney is Al Gore minus the warm human touch. And further….
–ummmm…. those “Huck v. Mitt v. Palin” polls are comprised entirely of, errr, the type of people who vote in “Huck v. Mitt v. Palin” polls. Right-leaning political junkies, in other words. If they had any predictive value at all, President Ron Paul would at this moment be renting out the West Wing to Shriners’ Conventions while designing new gold coins and issuing letters of marque and reprisal. Which leads to…
— my last point, which is that we’re actually playing with a very narrow slice of the electorate. A slice that is, quite frankly, composed largely of the kind of people who are inexplicably fascinated by Kardashians, Gosselins, and Brangelinas. I know I personally would vote for anyone to the right of Kim Jong Il in a head-to-head matchup with Our Holy Glorious God-King, but I realize I am in the minority on this. When pitching your candidate to the celebretard culture — which, as I argue, you must in order to defeat the ultimate celebrity incumbent — the smart move would be to pick somebody who has enough flash to make an impact, but not so much baggage where 40-50% of the electorate gets dry heaves at the very sight of him/her. Who that is, I dunno, but it ain’t Sarah Palin.
Sorry.
- Severian | 11/05/2010 @ 13:25Sorry, Severin, but as they like to say in realpolitick: “You gotta beat somebody with somebody.”
Now it is possible that there will appear in a glowing cloud of gas the extremely perfect candidate you posit. And I suppose we shall all, in a state of divine revelation, recognize that person when that person appears. But if not, and if that still to be discovered perfect reincarnation of Abraham Reagan appears but lo has no markers, organization, PAC, ground and passing game, then….
Well, “You go to war with the army you have.”
- vanderleun | 11/05/2010 @ 13:37Vanderleun,
fair point. Especially since arguments of the type I just made generally drive me up the wall (you know the ones I mean: “Obama won’t be so bad. He’s just like Carter, and after all, Carter gave us Reagan”).
However: I really do think that Sarah Palin will alienate as many people as she attracts. I’d cite George Orwell here, who noted that, in 1940, anyone who proclaimed himself “anti-war” was in fact objectively pro-fascist, since the only war in the offing was against fascism… but that’d be pretentious, so I’ll content myself by saying that I think Sarah Palin will cause some significant minority of people who would otherwise vote against Dear Leader to sit out the 2012 presidential election, which will result in a second term for Dear Leader. Folks who would hold their nose and vote for Mitt Romney, in other words (God help us), will not get off the couch and head to the polls for Palin.
Personally, I like Sarah Palin. I think she’s a great spokeswoman for conservatism, and would make a decent president. And I’d love love love for the first female president to come from the Bible-thumping, homo-stomping, cousin-poking, anti-woman GOP. The sweetness of that schadenfreude would put me into insulin shock. But it ain’t gonna happen with Palin. My first priority in 2012 is to defeat Dear Leader, and my ideal candidate is the one who will pull in all the anti-Obama votes without causing an equal and opposite backlash.
Bottom line: I think the “anyone but Obama” vote will be canceled out by the “anyone but Palin” non-vote.
So…..yeah. I’m a coward and a squish and a RINO and a sellout, I guess. But there you have it.
- Severian | 11/05/2010 @ 14:14Bottom line: I think the “anyone but Obama” vote will be canceled out by the “anyone but Palin” non-vote.
This resonates with me. It is how elections are lost & won. Get people fired up about your candidate so they’ll skip reruns of their favorite sitcoms, and/or, see to it they could take-or-leave the competition, even if that competition sports their favorite party label. Then they’ll stay home and watch the sitcom rerun.
It’s a plausible scenario. I’d say it’s likely save for one thing: This is precisely what happened in ’08. People were really fired up about Obama, even if they were Republicans (see Noonan, P.). They were bored to tears with McCain/Palin…even if they were Republicans.
Since then, it has been posited that Palin and not McCain was the source of this lethargy. This idea really has not aged very well. The selection of Palin spiked the momentum of McCain’s campaign, it didn’t dull it. Palin’s voice may irritate, but it doesn’t put anyone to sleep. McCain is the perfect cure for insomnia. The election we just saw was masterminded by Palin…or else, as I’ve queried before…if it wasn’t her then who t’heck was it? She did this. She made people interested in turning out. So we don’t need to speculate on how fired-up people get when Palin champions a cause. We know, now. It doesn’t work in Delaware, but it seems to show some solid results just about everywhere else. I’ll bet you some solid money it’ll work in Florida.
Still, the money I’d bet is going to be limited. I do still find your theory plausible. But plausibility only buys you so much. I think you’re falling for the Arugmentum ad Plausible fallacy. I could be wrong…but that’s the definition. The argument hasn’t got anything going for it, other than the fact that it’s plausible, and the error committed is to confuse plausibility with proof. It’s the opposite we’ve just seen proven.
- mkfreeberg | 11/05/2010 @ 14:28Time Will Tell.
- philmon | 11/05/2010 @ 14:39Look. Let’s just run the campaign, see who shows up, and see who is and isn’t electable. I’m fine with that. Until then, people are using a lot of words to say “she’s unelectable because I say so”. Frankly, I think it’s more realistic to believe Governor Palin has the ability to hold onto her current base and change people’s minds about her than it is that a majority of Republican primary voters, and then the general electorate, are all of a sudden going to become raving fans of Newt, or Mitt, or Mike Huckabee, or substantially anybody else who ran in the primary in ’08. Maybe few of the new kids, perhaps a few others, could catch fire if they run. For it to happen to those other guys…would take genuine divine intervention.
- Rich Fader | 11/05/2010 @ 15:05I mean, no offense, but the ’08 field couldn’t even outshine John McCain.
- Rich Fader | 11/05/2010 @ 15:06That last remark … kinda what I was thinkin’, Rich.
- philmon | 11/05/2010 @ 17:20“You go to war with the army you have.”
The army is looking good, the generals are not. We go to war with the generals we have, we’ll regret it. The unrecognized talent is there, let it find oxygen. This is not going to be a slow two years.
- jamzw | 11/05/2010 @ 20:28[…] UPDATE: NOVEMBER 4, 2010 At Morgan’s place where the daggers are being drawn, sheathed, and drawn again in the comments: House of Eratosthenes […]
- Palin’s Clout Continues | FavStocks | 08/06/2012 @ 00:18[…] UPDATE: NOVEMBER 4, 2010 At Morgan’s place where the daggers are being drawn, sheathed, and drawn again in the comments: House of Eratosthenes […]
- Palin’s Clout Continues | FavStocks | 08/06/2012 @ 00:18[…] UPDATE: NOVEMBER 4, 2010 At Morgan’s place where the daggers are being drawn, sheathed, and drawn again in the comments: House of Eratosthenes […]
- Palin’s Clout Continues | FavStocks | 08/06/2012 @ 00:18