House of Eratosthenes

If Sarah Palin is the Republican nominee for President of the United States in 2012, you can go ahead and make an advance purchase of your tickets to Barack Obama’s second inauguration ball. I don’t care how many times she shows up on talk shows, or how many mini-series they gin up for the tube … she cannot win the presidency. Nominate her and you get ObamaTwo. Guaranteed.

Sorry. I know. The truth bites … but that’s why you have me.

Corbett, in a post titled “Here we go with the ‘electability’ crap again,” speaks for me.

The GOP’s pursuit of “electability” gave us Bush I (a 1-termer who repudiated everything Reagan stood for), Dole, Bush II (who out spent Clinton and grew government at a faster pace) and McCain.

If being a Republican is all about staying away from failed policies that have been proven not to work, then what’s up with this oh so wise strategic thinking, that Palin should be passed over for someone more electable? This gets back to the question I keep asking…

More electable in what way, exactly? I understand that at a certain point, irreversible damage has been done to a candidate — this shit works, or else they wouldn’t do it. But if we’ve learned anything from watching Palin over the last two years, we’ve learned that it works only when it is granted permission to work.

Palin has not been giving it permission to work, and thus far she’s won every battle. “Refudiate,” for example, was supposed to be the straw of humiliation that finally broke the camel’s back. Here it is in the dictionary now. That’s the way the whole drama has been playing out.

And as always seems to be the case, “here we go with the ‘electability’ crap again” when Palin has enjoyed a recent spate of such triumphs. The crap rises up again out of necessity. It is desperation. “Oh no, someone’s got to do something about her!”

Who’s this more “electable” Republican to emerge from the nomination process in 2012, after Sarah Palin has been so wisely shunted aside? Some guy…exactly six feet tall, sixty years old, with distinguished silvery hair. Mitt, Newt maybe. He’ll win independent voters by reaching across the aisle, voting for free health care for everybody, amnesty for illegals, and for heaven’s sake would someone please do something about that global warming!

And the voters will say…eh…why elect a phony when we can have the real thing. Why, this guy the Republicans put up, he doesn’t even have black skin! And then, Mr. Boortz, you can buy your ticket to Obama’s second inaugural ball.

Know ye this: If someone rises on the GOP side who shows some real promise in offering any other outcome…not even “promise,” just a hint of it…the Soros attack machine will sputter, then hit its stride, then kick into overdrive. That candidate will be asked all kinds of Trivial Pursuit questions while The Jar Jar Binks of Presidents continues to be tossed softballs like “What do You have to say to people who…” and “How does it make You feel when…”

And the first time your oh so electable sixty-year-old six-foot-tall silvery-temple white guy can’t name the Seventh Avatar of Vishnu, the headlines will be all abuzz with “this guy’s even dumber than Sarah Palin!”

So Palinphobes, I understand your objection. You’re kind of in that big no-man’s-land between pointing out a valid objection, and coming up with a viable, constructive alternative. You’re lacking a vision, here; a vision for victory. Take what you’ve got, add in a vision for victory and a likely way to reach it, and you’ve got the beginnings of a persuasive point. Then again — take what you’ve got, add a buck seventy-five and you’ve got a coffee-of-the-day at Starbuck’s.

That’s a nice way of saying you got nothin’.

An independent voter is concerned about President Obama and the democrats bankrupting the country. So he’s going to go into the voting booth in two years and say “I don’t like what He’s doing…but Sarah Palin…she’s so stupid and unqualified!” And then punch out Barack Obama’s chad? That will happen, huh? Really?

Or he’ll stay home? That’s what happened to Palin’s running mate…but Sarah Palin is not John McCain. She’d never agree to this in public, but they’re polar opposites, as far as I can see. If policy is bad, and Palin opposes it, you know what her position is going to be on it six months from now. You know for absolute certain. McCain just has to have a conversation with the right person, and (in most other matters besides abortion) after that you don’t know what you’re gonna get. That is what motivates people to stay home.

“Oh no, Katie Couric is going to make a fool out of her again” is not what makes people stay home.

This is something people have a tough time remembering. They have a tough time seeing it coming, too. Reagan versus Carter in 1980 — that was supposed to be a photo finish, remember that? Yeah, the economy sucked and all, but Reagan was such a likable dunce. There’s just no telling how it will come out! Even the day before the elections it was impossible to call.

We look back on it today, and realize there was an attempt there to hoodwink us. It didn’t work then, but then we go through all these motions of falling for it now.

She’s born in the US, she’s over thirty-five, and when her beliefs are under assault she stands up for them. Seems to relish the game, in fact. That makes her not only electable, but uniquely so.

Find me another like this, and we’ll talk. Meanwhile, if she comes gunnin’ for it, the job is hers.

I listened to Boortz for years. Love the fairtax. Agree with him on a lot of issues. But his hatred of anything regarding religious morals has warped him. I’m no prude. I even agree that the war on drugs is stupid, and I think individual States should be able to decide if they want prostitution to be legal. But Boortz is so hostile to anybody with a Judeo-Christian value system, and thinks that the majority of Americans feel the same way, that he just can’t stomach the idea of a staunchly pro-life candidate being successful.
- Moshe Ben-David | 11/18/2010 @ 09:14
A lot will be said of her decision to leave her mid-term post as Alaska’s Governor. Within the narrative of the Left are clues, such as “quitter.” Rarely do you read of Governor Palin’s concerns about her ability to afford the costs associated with nuisance filings with Alaska’s ethics groups. Because of state rules on funding her defense, she was being driven to poverty. Not being found guilty of ethics violations, but simply being forced to deplete her personal wealth in order to fight off, what in many cases baseless, ethics-complaint filings. Of course, the corollary then becomes “now she’s simply interested in enriching herself.”

Perhaps she should have allowed herself to be driven to bankruptcy. Fighting to the bitter end. One wonders how that would have played out?
.
- OregonGuy | 11/18/2010 @ 11:41
I’ve already said my piece on this, so I just want to emphasize that there’s a difference between “Candidate X can’t win” and “I’m a wholehearted supporter of Candidate Y.” Given the choice between Palin and Mittens Romney, I’d go with Palin, figuring a) we’ve got at least a puncher’s chance; b) most people will go for the real thing — in this case, a douchebag tax-n-spend liberal — over the milquetoast me-too alternative, and c) at least the debates will be entertaining. [I love Palin’s continuing presence in our lives for this very reason, by the way — she annoys the hell out of the kind of person who annoys the hell out of me. I’ll always love her a little for that]. I think the “electability” argument in itself, as a standalone proposition, is as dumb as the one that went “Obama can’t be that bad, since after all, Carter gave us Reagan.”

I will openly admit — and have admitted, many times, quite publicly — that I’ve got nothing when it comes to the next GOP candidate. Given that 2012 is two years away, I hope somebody emerges. Personally, I like Chris Christie — they say that you can’t elect a fat guy with only a few years’ experience in this day and age, but before 2008 I’d have said you can’t elect an accomplishment-free cipher with avowed terrorist buddies and the most liberal record in the Senate (after two short years) to the highest office in the land, either.

So… yeah. I got nothin’ when it comes to that. And I’ll go you one better: if, when the primaries roll around, the choices are between Palin and Mitt, or Palin and Newt, or Palin and Huckabee, I’ll be the biggest Palin supporter you’ve ever seen. In case I haven’t made this crystal clear yet, what I’m about to say does NOT mean I’m for “anyone but Palin,” and it most emphatically does NOT mean I’m for “electability” for its own sake.

But seriously, y’all — this Reagan analogy is just patently false. Most people who thought Reagan was an amiable dunce had never seen Reagan. Hell, most people who thought he was great had never seen him in anything other than Bedtime for Bonzo. People had plenty of time to change their mind about Reagan in the run-up to the 1980 election (and please remember that the media was even more biased then than it is now; the only difference is we didn’t know the full extent of it yet. Maybe you oldsters can put me into some knowledge here, but I’m confident that, then as now, most people took “it’s neck and neck” to mean “the Republican is comfortably ahead.” There’s no wishful thinking like MSM wishful thinking, and Pauline Kael didn’t know anybody who voted for Nixon).

EVERYONE, by contrast, has seen Sarah Palin. There are hundreds if not thousands of hours of her looking, sounding, and frankly being an idiot out there on YouTube, and every single goddamn person in America has seen them. It’s two years before the election, and “Sarah Palin stupid” returns 2.8 MILLION hits on Google. And that’s not counting her Discovery Channel special, etc., all of which can — and WILL, and HAVE BEEN — edited down to make her look as moronic as possible. How many Americans, do you think, still believe she can see Alaska from her house?

She ain’t gonna change any minds, people. In 1980, you might’ve had a vague idea that Reagan was dumb, based on zero information and ambient media bias. If you want “proof” that Sarah Palin is a mouth-breather, good ol’ mister internet will give you all you can handle. She’s as presidential as she’s gonna get right fucking now. I really don’t see how anyone can look at the modern media environment — including the internet, and the fact that more people get their news from The Daily Show than any other source — and deny this.

[n.b. I personally do not think Sarah Palin is any dumber than any other politician. Put a camera on Einstein 24/7 and he’s going to say a lot of silly-sounding stuff. But compare and contrast with Dear Leader’s idiotic statements — and oh God, they could fill a library — and you’ll see what I mean. Some amateur on YouTube could make Socrates look like Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel in the space of an afternoon; imagine what professionals can do].
- Severian | 11/18/2010 @ 13:16
Those are all good points, but at this point I have to seriously question the extent to which people are scared away from “dumb” candidates. I even question whether they’re scared away at all.

Consider the dynamics of the 2008 election with all the personalities removed (except George W. Bushh’s). Unpopular Republican President being term-limited out. Congress has been in the hands of democrats for two years…but much of the electorate doesn’t know that. The economy has just imploded. The war, widely viewed as a GOP initiative, is unpopular. Republican cardboard faceless candidate A runs against democrat cardboard faceless candidate B. B wins, and by what margin with all the personality attributes entirely taken out?

I say, roughly the same as what did in fact happen. Look at Obama’s victory in Pennsylvania, in Ohio. That’s 41 electoral votes right there. If he doesn’t pull His head out of His ass and become an overnight supply-sider, the economy is not going to rebound…and He’s not going to get those votes. The one ace He has in this game, His hopey-changey-charisma-or-whatever…unless you can come up with a logical rejoinder to my analysis above, it’s been neutralized entirely. The assist this has given Him has been overstated considerably.

In fact, I would proffer a notion that, when people mull over the idea of driving out to the polls in the evening when it’s nippy out and there are all these good shows on…generally, they are less likely to brave the elements when the candidate they support has a reputation for being dashing, sophisticated and smart. With the primary contenders removed, if the voter believes in the principles promoted by the “dimwit” who is in their corner, they become more likely to miss the Friends re-run and go vote. The dumbass needs the help. The smarty-pants can pull off some brilliant maneuver and get along fine without ’em…so hand me a beer and where the hell is the remote.

My point is — in an election in which turnout is crucial, a perceived superiority in the brains department probably doesn’t help the candidate. It might even hurt. People tend to forget, by November it’s too late to quibble over how the primaries went. You either demonstrate you’re interested in the outcome or you don’t.

Another thing people tend to forget, is that if you’re extra extra extra extra sick and tired of Palin, and think she’s extra extra extra extra stupid, and you’re extra extra extra extra anxious to say so…guess what? You still only get one vote.
- mkfreeberg | 11/18/2010 @ 13:47
Unless you’re sitting in stir for shooting up your teevee set and scaring the hell out of your wife. Then, you might not even get the one vote.
- mkfreeberg | 11/18/2010 @ 13:49
I wouldn´t mind seeing her in the White House, but my fear is that while she is guaranteed to get 40 percent without any effort at all, she is also guaranteed to get less than 50 percent. She will underperform with white female voters.

The appealing thing about candidates like Tim Pawlenty or Mitch Daniels is that they are two-term governors who have governed successfully (and conservatively) in states that went for Obama. But yes, they are a bit boring, aren´t they?
- El Gordo | 11/18/2010 @ 17:06
I think Palin’s fight to become the nominee will be a tough one. M-u-u-u-c-h tougher than the general election will be, should she become the nominee.

Republicans are well-tuned-in to the idea that something might very well happen, even though it “should” not. They’re a little bit too accepting of this, especially when it comes to figuring out how much “reaching across the aisle” needs to be done. A lot of the time, it looks to me like they’d be more effective if once in awhile they said, liberal-like, “this is what SHOULD happen, and if it goes some other way I don’t care, because it shouldn’t.”

But of course, the voters in primaries are going to (generally) be a little bit better informed. Hopefully, it will be understood to a large fraction what was really going on with the ethics complaints and the rape kits and the book burning and the “I Can See Russia From My House.” We’ve got a year and a half for people to face up to the truth: Most of the complaints about Sarah Palin are pure falsehood.

But…those voters in primaries might very well say…”true or not, that is the perception, and Republicans need to accept it or cease to exist.” I’ve noticed a lot of people out there are eager to show how flexible they can be, how intelligent and adaptable, by accepting false things as true and true things as false. These same people don’t seem to be in a very big hurry to show their intelligence by responding to the true state of things — that seems to bore them.

I notice in the past several years, all of the Republicans who have won, have been branded as “stupid.” In all cases, the branding-as-stupid campaign started out before they won; it was neither a cause nor an effect. I’m quickly coming to view the smearing-as-stupid tactic the democrats use, as a really, really, really inefficient and ineffective tool — like a dinner spoon used as a murder weapon. When the job needs doing, that tool will definitely come out because it has “better than nothing” value. To conjure up another analogy, think of throwing your wet laundry on a roaring house fire.

But its track record of success is rather lackluster. Dismal. Dreadful and wretched, really.
- mkfreeberg | 11/18/2010 @ 17:20
If policy is bad, and Palin opposes it, you know what her position is going to be on it six months from now. You know for absolute certain.

Did you know that Palin originally supported and defended the TARP, otherwise known as the bank bailout? And now she doesn’t. She’s as much a policy chameleon like the rest of them.
- huckupchuck | 11/18/2010 @ 19:20
I know the ticket she was on, supported the TARP. Which obliged her to come out with some bromides about it. Just one of many reasons why people are interested in seeing what changes when she’s in the top spot.

Like most dummies that are called dummies when they start threatening the liberal establishment…Palin’s record of wins vs. losses is pretty impressive for a dummy. She lost out running for Lieutenant Gov. a few years back in something like a four- or five-way race…and then of course, she lost riding “shotgun” with McCain. From what I’ve been able to find, that’s an exhaustive listing of Palin getting creamed. Running her own battles, in a head-to-head contest, she’s consistently come out on top.

Part of that is because when you’re the top dog on the ticket, you get to define the platform. In the case of TARP, of course, Palin did not have this option. But I know: You were hoping I didn’t know this, or maybe you were unaware of it yourself. The point stands.
- mkfreeberg | 11/18/2010 @ 19:50
I voted for Schwarzenegger because he was more “electable” than Tom McClintock. I was told that I was “throwing my vote away” if I didn’t vote for the electable candidate. There are few trips to the ballot box that I regret more than that one. I’m throwing my vote away if I DON’T vote for the candidate whose ideology best matches mine.

That being said, I will crawl on my belly across glowing coals to vote for a piece of wet toast if that is the non-Obama option in 2012.
- Jason | 11/18/2010 @ 21:58
[…] a Request and a Demand Little Valley Girl Best Sentence CII GOP to Force Vote on NPR Funding But Can She? We Already Convicted Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Testosterone Filled Movies You Go First IV Seven […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 11/21/2010 @ 18:37
Jason, I’m with you….with the sole difference between us being that I *did* vote for McClintock. My g/f and I were taking a walk in Golden Gate Park down in San Francisco a month or three before the recall election, and she knew I was a Republican. She asked, “I bet you’re going to vote for Ah-nold because of all of those action movies of his that you liked, right?”

“No, I’m going for McClintock,” I answered. “He’s a tax cutter and a budget cutter. Ah-nold is a fiscal moderate and a social liberal.” I knew that a genuine rock-ribbed conservative would probably go down in flames in this bluest of blue states, and of course that’s exactly what happened. But I’m a purist; pragmatic ballot-casting does not interest me. I vote my conscience and I’m not concerned with who is “electable.” I always cast my ballot as if it were the one that decides the outcome.

Of course, we all know how the election turned out…and how Ah-nold went on to handily win re-election in 2006. I held my nose and voted for him that time, simply because Bust-your-money was ten times worse. And I had a sinking feeling that in this state, a RINO-squish like Ah-nold was probably as conservative as we’re going to get. This most recent gubernatorial contest has done nothing to change that perception; Meg Whitman was called “Ah-nold in a dress” and this time around, even she couldn’t get the job.

Because Ah-nold *does* have an R after his name, the idiot voters in this state probably blamed the Republicans for the entire economic mess our state is in. Thanks to legions of people in San Francisco and Los Angeles who apparently have no idea that the Democrats have been running this place for years in spite of Ah-nold….said party now has a complete and total death-grip on the state government. Thanks a load, guys. We’re no longer swirling around the drain…we’re headed right into it..
- cylarz | 11/23/2010 @ 03:08

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

But Can She?Thursday, November 18th, 2010

But Can She?
Thursday, November 18th, 2010