House of Eratosthenes

I see the General as a decent supplement…not a staple. I’m unshaken in my conviction that the Barracuda belongs in the top slot. Admittedly, this is mostly a protest against the mistaken notion that there’s some reason for her not to be there. But that protest is crucial. It has to be part of 2012’s ticket. The only alternative, is to broadcast the message that conservative values are easily defeated, all you have to do is call the right person stupid, and they’ll be dropped like a hot potato.

The Governor of Alaska is an excellent litmus test against the RINOs who pretend to champion conservative values, but will reliably engage in the “Sarah is stupid” meme so they can score that coveted invitation to the next strawberries-and-champagne brunch in Manhattan. She’s a reminder that it’s rude and ill-advised to form opinions about the intellect of people you’ve not yet met. She has to be on the ticket, to demonstrate that Republicans are committed to doing the right thing whether it’s popular or not…which, although nobody phrases it this way, is the primary question in peoples’ minds.

To raise that middle finger at the people who need it. That may seem childish, but it’s heart-attack-serious important here. That’s how the left has been controlling what their enemies think & say; Palin is the only “general” around who can drop a MOAB on it.

You could put the General at the top of the ticket, but then the tired old idea-bubble comes floating up…oh look girls, it’s a white guy who looks like your dad, and he’s going to boss you around and stop you from having abortions. Puh-leeze. Let’s not go through it again.

Besides, as Veep, Sarah’s number one job is to appear in front of cameras and give speeches in front of a pain-in-the-ass reporter trying to make her look dumb. She’s learned a lot about this, but this is going to continue to be her weakness. She is a competent, proven executive, whereas Petraeus, bursting-at-the-seams as he is with all kinds of other useful decision-making talents, is not. Petraeus doing what Cheney used to do? Except…this time there is a political cost involved in calling him Darth-Vader-evil? Now you’re talking.

But we have to see where he’s at with the other issues. Border? English as the official language? Affirmative Action? War on Drugs? Reading-writing-rithmetic, as opposed to sensitivity training? The Kerry doctrine of stick your head in the sand, hope the bad guys go away? Just because he’s a soldier who carried the orders out, doesn’t mean I know his position on those orders.

I guess General Powell has made me cynical about this. To those of us who were old enough to pay close attention way back in Persian Gulf War I, Powell’s decline has been from a great height, syrupy slow, gradual, steady…and certain.

Morgan,

OT, but check this out:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/03/requiem-for-a-lightweight.html
- rob | 03/24/2009 @ 12:42
Palin was perfectly competent to serve as Vice President. Hell, looking at comparative norms in previous presidential personal/professional backgrounds, she was qualified to run on the top of the ticket.

I despise the way she was treated, it was one of the worst vilifications I have ever seen of a candidate and her family – they even went after her children for the love of Christ. It was a disgusting spectacle.

Having said all of that, I fear that she may be too tainted in the general (ignorant) population to win a national election for conservatives. Although I could be wrong, the sheeple have very short memories.

I’m really liking the governor from South Carolina, although an acquaintance from inside the S.C GOP says he’s still too unseasoned to make a winnable run for 2012. *

Not sure about the General, I can already hear the “Betray us” Petraeus crowd screaming like baboons and I don’t know enough about his political positions.

*(But then, I’m leaning more Libertarian by the day, so you can take my two cents with a grain of salt)
- Daphne | 03/25/2009 @ 14:32
The only reason to reject Palin on the Republican ticket would be to try to anticipate the opposition’s battle cries, and try to avoid a path of greatest-resistance. But they’ll always have a battle cry. Always, always, always. What Republican can avoid being called evil? The Republican whom it’s easier to call a dimwit. What Republican can avoid being called a dimwit? A highly ineffectual one…all effective Republicans must be called either evil or a dimwit.

And you won’t have long to wait before the ineffective Republicans are called dimwits too.

If an attractive white female Republican like Sarah Palin could appear to the Manhattan crowd as intelligent as Obama — by that I mean, the way they see Him today, not as He really is — she’d be evil. She’d be cast in the mold of Lady McBeth, or Marie Antoinette. Like Barbara Bush was. Or Marilyn Quayle. The only way to escape it, for the ladies, is to do what Laura Bush did. Stay out of the contentious stuff altogether. Not that I mean to fault her style, I think that’s a legitimate decision for a First Lady to make. But it’s interesting that our “progressive” crowd seems to be at the forefront of a movement to push wives and mothers back into…aw, dare I say it? …into the kitchen. Just make sure that roast turns out fine at five thirty, and that you look pretty every minute up ’til then.

My point is, finding a better communicator than Gov. Palin is a futile endeavor. She’s not the perfect representative of the message…but she is an optimal one…and what happened to her, is representative of what will happen to every single attractive woman to come along who represents it just as capably. Any attempt to anticipate it and side-step it is futile, at best, and a sultry, subtle surrender at worst.

Besides: The democrats really lost a lot of skin and flesh off the knuckles, trying to get their licks in. I think it really hurt ’em a lot. It was damaging to their credibility as women-defenders, an identity they’ve been richly deserving to lose for a very long time now. I wanna see some more of that.
- mkfreeberg | 03/25/2009 @ 15:16
True, they will always go for the low blow rather than attack the ideas with intellectual honesty. I would never expect the liberals to find one of our candidates acceptable. (well, they did like McCain before he got the nomination – then he was roadkill)

If she ran, I would support her without hesitation. I admired her way before she ever got the VP nod – I used to blog about her in an old forum back in the day. You could never accuse me of carrying water for the feminists, but I admit to feeling good about successful conservative women achieving high levels of power.

Your point is well taken, Morgan – we shouldn’t predicate our choices on the left’s predictable reaction.

But it’s interesting that our “progressive” crowd seems to be at the forefront of a movement to push wives and mothers back into…aw, dare I say it? …into the kitchen. Just make sure that roast turns out fine at five thirty, and that you look pretty every minute up ’til then.

As long as those little women are willing to abort their children, that would suit those idiots just fine.
- Daphne | 03/25/2009 @ 15:39

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Palin Petraeus!Tuesday, March 24th, 2009

Palin Petraeus!
Tuesday, March 24th, 2009