House of Eratosthenes

Why go into the details. Sarah Palin recited an historical event that “obviously” was supposed to go in a certain direction, and she took it in a direction different from that and this is ipso facto proof that the woman is a complete ditz who doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Aaron Worthing, guest blogging at Patterico’s Pontifications, has an excellent roundup of the explosion that ensued…and, the salient linkage that shows Palin was not so wrong after all.

Isn’t it obvious what’s going on? Palin is doing what this guy is doing:

Whitney Pitcher has more to say about the details of Paul Revere’s ride, but that isn’t what I wish to inspect at this time.

Now that we’ve been through enough turns on this merry-go-round, I wish to take a look at the people who continuously pipe up, sneering at Sarah Palin that she needs to study a history or just crack open a book…without first studying history or cracking open a book.

I made the link to Stockholm Syndrome because some of the people I know who are doing this are, in fact, sympathetic with Governor Palin’s point of view that the country is going in the wrong direction. These people are not pussy liberals; in fact, the picture that emerges is one of a freedom-loving, rightward-leaning libertarian type. They agree the Second Amendment is the only gun permit anyone should ever need, and that the best cure for an ailing economy is to simply allow the lowly citizenry to make money. They pay their taxes on time, and they take notice when the people helped by those tax dollars, have much bigger teevee sets than they have. They know global warming is a scam, and they fight the scam. They’re good Americans. They know things are cocked up, and as long as the matter under discussion is non-Palin-related, they can be counted-on to do the right thing. They’ll fight the madness with the resolve of Sisyphus.

But when the Barracuda pops up, this all changes.

These are the very same people who really go apeshit when Palin warbles her way through another “Kyle Steals a Ride” fake-out. They tap into a great wellspring of adrenaline, which our left-wing friends don’t seem to have, I see; beating the Wasilla Wonder upside her pretty head, transforming themselves into frenzied perpetual-motion machines of spite, ridicule and snark, while the lefties quickly tire of the game and move on. These are the people who seem to learn absolutely nothing from the last go-’round.

Yesterday morning, having no idea what was about to take place with the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere, I updated the list of Things I Know with the stuff that had been stewing in my smartphone for a few weeks, and it just so happened this item came in through that batch:

396. Once disaster is perceived as inevitable, people will resist any efforts to thwart it.

The captive will begin to sympathize with her captors, and not only defend them but resist the efforts of rescue. It’s like, they’re dangling off the edge of a cliff, desperately clinging to some sagebrush or whatever…Sarah Palin extends a dainty and well-manicured, but strong, hand in their direction…and no thankyew. Palin’s voice is annoying, or she must be an airhead because perception is reality, right? Or her legs are too shapely. There must be someone else up there who can yank us up — we’ll hold out.

Just ridiculous. But that’s where we are, I’m afraid.

And it would be an object of merely intense quizzical study and maybe some measure of pity. But the captive is the United States of America. Obama’s got the country hostage, and is forcing it at knifepoint to withdraw from its own ATM, repeatedly. His handling of the employment situation is a complete boot-pissing exercise, an absolute albatross.

And He may get another four years to do His damage, just because of the repeated fracturing of the eleventh commandment. Nope, it hasn’t gone out of style yet. The Gingrich hoop-de-doo, evidently, didn’t teach anybody anything.

Commenter Peter probably said it better than anybody this morning:

Keep devouring your own dear pseudo-conservatives. You will ensure that Obungler gets reelected.

It’s too bad ya need a subscription to read this. But I’ll give ya the money shot:

The years since 2008 were Mrs. Palin’s opportunity to redefine herself, to shake off the McCain tinge, to shatter the press stereotypes of her as a right-wing zealot. This was certainly within her ability. After all, prior to getting tapped in 2008, Mrs. Palin’s reputation was as a clear-eyed, inclusive reformer—one with soaring bipartisan approval ratings. Instead, Mrs. Palin has chosen to cater mostly to her loyalist base. She’s purposely chosen to insert herself into nearly every national controversy—all but forcing voters to be for her or against her. Far from being reassured, many independents have felt confirmed in their fears about her temperament. She remains radioactive among a majority of voters, and she has even polarized Republicans. A March poll showed that 37% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents view her unfavorably, a number that far outpaced that of any other potential GOP candidate.

The stakes in 2012 are high. Mr. Obama is a sitting president. It will take a mighty GOP nominee (not to mention a lot of luck) to knock him off. Mrs. Palin would come into this race with little or no infrastructure, a near complete lack of a policy agenda, and eye-popping unfavorables. Nothing is impossible in politics, but her start is not encouraging.

Indeed. But you’re part of that Loyalist Base, Morgan, and for you the lady can do no wrong. Count me in that 37% demographic cited above.
- bpenni | 06/04/2011 @ 10:00
Hey here’s an idea:

How about wait for her to actually be wrong, before criticizing her for being wrong?

Not sure how long that would take…but evidently it exceeds the limits of your patience.
- mkfreeberg | 06/04/2011 @ 13:16
Deciding I’d heard enough of the snorting and chuckling over on the Left about this, I posted this the “Hello Kitty of Bloggin” yesterday about six videos like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZSigyG-BZU

Yeah….Sara-cuda has nothing on Mister Wonderful, I’m afraid. Neither did Bush.
- cylarz | 06/04/2011 @ 13:26
And this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of61E1FesPU&feature=related

There are more.

I won’t even get started on Gaffe Machine The Veep, and then they is John Kerry, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid….

Every last one caught with their foot in their mouth at least once.
- cylarz | 06/04/2011 @ 13:28
Yes, bpenni, that’s right. We enlightened types in the press, (especially the press, since that’s where the truly enlightened media types go to share our wisdom with the unwashed masses without ever having to interact with them) will tell you who is simply unacceptable to run as a conservative for election.

Don’t you pay any attention to the fact that McCain was dead in the water until he asked Palin to join his ticket. Forget that the politically savvy people who actually look at things like records were finally energized when Palin, with an “eye-popping” popularity among real constituents who experienced her success in Alaska, were thinking, “Maybe we’ll get lucky and McCain will die his first year in office.” Okay, sorry, maybe only a tiny, tiny group of people thought that. McCain’s a nice enough guy, he just has some serious problems with keeping his oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Forget that nobody can draw a crowd of all kinds of people, turns out to be right when the idiot lefties merely think she’s wrong.

In reality, the lefties are scared to death that Palin is going to pull her own unique version of what Ronald Reagan did in 1980. That enough of the real conservatives and the common folk will see through the smear tactics of the Krauthammers and the Roves and all the other “loyal opposition” RINOs and decide they want Palin in spite of the propaganda.

I have a very, very simple way to know if I’m going in the right (correct) direction in politics. If the lefties are practically screaming that I shouldn’t move in a particular direction, then it must be a good, or at least safe, direction. If they are complimenting me on moving in a level-headed, intelligent, non-partisan, non-controversial direction, then I must be walking into quicksand or an ambush.

Of course, they won’t over play their hand. They’ll gently talk about Romney or Pawlenty or someone who is stereotypical white, male, reasonably handsome, talks in a debate like he’s doing show-and-tell at an elementary school, and they’ll deride his “conservative” views just enough to convince people who only pay attention to broadcast sound bytes long enough to form the erroneous opinion that he’s a real conservative and not just a political hack.

They won’t ask HIM the same questions that they ask Sarah until after the nomination process has insured that he is going to be the next RINO that they have chosen to lose to their anointed one, BHO.

There are still enough of the top echelons of the leftist fourth estate who remember Ronald Reagan. Now with Ahnold, and Jesse Ventura in the history books, they know that there are enough crazy people out there in fly over country who might just be willing to ignore their anointed wisdom from the hallowed halls of the Old Media. By God, they are not going to let that happen again. We are going to crush this Palin, even if it takes flying monkeys.

But it’s all good. I have a secondary fantasy, since I had the pleasure of listening to Herman Cain when he filled in for Neal Boortz and when he had his own talk radio show for over a year or two in Atlanta. I would love for Sarah to keep driving the press nuts with this tour and then, if she decides she isn’t going to run, endorse Herman Cain. I’m kind of salivating at the idea of how the media is going to blow a gasket over the race issue.

You stick to your guns, bpenni. The media is counting on folks like you to help them get a GOP nominee like McCain again. I’m not going to sweat it. I’ve made my plans. I’m ready for whichever direction this next election takes us.
- Moshe Ben-David | 06/04/2011 @ 14:45
I have republished my comment with expanded comments at my blog:

http://www.thecompostfiles.blogspot.com

Thanks for the forum, Morgan.

Shalom Y’all
- Moshe Ben-David | 06/04/2011 @ 15:17
More reading for my friend Buck.
- mkfreeberg | 06/04/2011 @ 17:03
From your link, Morgan:

“I stand with conventional wisdom that she’s way too flawed,” Cain. “Polls show that many women and independent voters aren’t happy with her.”

Cain believes the national economy must sink back into recession and unemployment swell to double digits before Palin becomes dangerous to Obama.

Let us ALL pray that Cain’s caveats don’t come to pass. “Conventional wisdom” usually turns out to be reality, in most cases. No?

As for me, I’m still in that “conservative-leaning independent” demographic Ms. Strassel mentioned. I’m still not happy with Young Sarah, for the reasons Ms. Strassel enumerated… but I’m glad to see the WSJ made the article available for general consumption. At the time I posted my comment it was a “subscribers only” article.

Cool lil soundbites that fire up the right-wing fringe are all the rage, but the questions in my mind are “Can she LEAD? Can she govern?” The evidence, as I see it, suggests not. If La Palin would have completed her term as governor my opinion MIGHT be different. But she didn’t and therefore my opinion reflects Palin’s inability to “see it through.” And then there are the policy shortcomings, as Ms. Strossel noted. She has none that I can see.

But, Hey! You keep on keepin’ on, Morgan. There are are none so blind as those that cannot see. Or will not see.
- bpenni | 06/04/2011 @ 21:02
“Conventional wisdom” usually turns out to be reality, in most cases. No?

Uh…no. Disagree or not, the GOP did a pretty sweet job of following c.w. in 2008 and it didn’t work out that hot. Time to move on to a different technique. No?

I’m still not happy with Young Sarah, for the reasons Ms. Strassel enumerated…

This must have slipped past your notice — we’re all susceptible to being affected in this way, when we read something that agrees with us — but Ms. Strassel didn’t enumerate any reasons. Nearly all of her points had to do with something someone else was thinking.

What’s the most disagreeable Palin policy? Is this the point where someone finally responds to that long-standing challenge of mine? What’s her very most fringe-kooky position?

I heeded your advice and “changed my position” some six hours ago. Granted that this is mostly an experiment and an ironic comment, not entirely sincere…but a quarter of a day later I’m still waiting for one single person to express a note of approval to me or my article, for my ostensible rejection of Sarah Palin and my openness to considering other candidates. Just ONE.

I’m still waiting…and this says something, with regard to our current discussion. It must. Right?
- mkfreeberg | 06/04/2011 @ 21:11
Cool lil soundbites that fire up the right-wing fringe are all the rage, but the questions in my mind are “Can she LEAD? Can she govern?” The evidence, as I see it, suggests not.

Buck, serious question. Where exactly is this evidence and what does it consist of?

Because from what I can tell, the Sara-Cuda has a pretty good record of fighting corruption, controlling spending, scaring the pants off corporate bigwigs, and managing an economy.

I will concede that I wish that record spanned a greater length of time…but it would have if her political enemies hadn’t been so hell-bent on destroying her (even after her ticket lost the ’08 election!) that Alaska’s state government itself was grinding to a halt over the ceaseless, groundless accusations of corruption and FOIA requests. She resigned because her opponents were making sure the state couldn’t get anything done, and now we can only speculate on what the 3rd and 4th years of her gubernatorial term would have been like.

If she doesn’t run for president, I’d love to see her take a shot at the US Senate or House instead.
- cylarz | 06/04/2011 @ 23:58
Where exactly is this evidence and what does it consist of?

Excellent point. She has led; she has governed; it seems when you wrote “evidence” you really meant to describe where this “conventional wisdom” was heading. But it’s been rather meme-y and trope-ish from the very beginning, has it not? It would be a much more convincing point, I think, if one from among your ranks had bothered to say who is a more viable candidate…or failing that, what a more viable candidate would look like, what exactly it is he’s got that she hasn’t got.

If you go after the “quitter” thing you admit fidelity to a viewpoint that a so-called “leader” whose job has been reduced to a phony-baloney circuitous-route make-work stint, and puts up with it indefinitely while suckling at the public teat, is better than who would stop the insanity.
- mkfreeberg | 06/05/2011 @ 08:31
If you go after the “quitter” thing …

Sigh. We’ve been down this road before and the ruts are DEEP. Mrs. Palin is a resourceful woman who thinks outside the box, or so you say. If that’s true, why didn’t she go to the Alaska legislature and say “Help me stop this shit?” One would think that could have been done easily if her political skills, approval ratings, ability to choose a competent team (staff/administration) and other indicators of her wonderfulness were actually true, no? Well, no… according to you, who bought the “my stepping down is for the Greater Good” trope… hook, line, and sinker.

The more cynical among us believe the resignation was, at best, symptomatic of a lack of will. The seriously cynical among us think she saw Big Bucks in a book deal, Fox teevee contract, six-figure speaking fees, and a mini-series of her own. The MOST cynical among us maintain quitting was THE disqualifying event. Her resignation speech reenforced that… and THAT was the point I quietly dismounted from the bandwagon.

You DO remember 2008, right? I wrote nearly as many Palin Paeans during that time as you did, mebbe more. But we’re different, you and I. I have been re-born… I have SEEN THE LIGHT, Brothers and Sisters! AMEN! Halleluiah!

C’mon into Brother Buck’s Big Tent Revival, Morgan. It’s a Big Tent and we have room. 😉
- bpenni | 06/05/2011 @ 10:18
Wait, I don’t recall going down this road before. She should have appeared before the AK legislature and said help me put a stop to this shit? That would have been resourcefulness?

I dunno; I consider myself reasonably resourceful, but if it’s up to me to pay legal fees out of my own personal kitty while some legislative body gets its act in gear, I don’t know if I’d step up to something like that. I don’t think you would, either. You like to keep the cigars & fancy beer coming in, don’cha?

See it keeps coming back to, Palin’s supposed to be a lightweight because she did exactly what you or I woulda done in the same situation. Maybe that’s the real point of disagreement; I think people aren’t good enough to serve if their values are different than mine, meanwhile you & your folk are looking for some kind of super-duper-demigod type who isn’t ordinary in any way.

If that’s the case, just vote to re-elect O, I say. We’re never gonna get anyone more hopey or changey.
- mkfreeberg | 06/05/2011 @ 10:51
Some of Palin’s detractors are sketchy about their own principles – in short, they have none.

Sarah Palin has very sound, solid Conservative principles — for those without principles of their own, this means nothing.

These detractors dislike Palin because she’s a woman, and attractive, to boot. Women can be so catty and this holds true when it comes to Palin.
- Expiate | 06/05/2011 @ 11:03
That’s all you’ve got, Buck? You’ve DQ’ed her because she didn’t demand the Legislature’s help?

That she resigned the governorship as one of several possible options for getting the Alaskan government moving and freed from the FOIA requests? *That* is why you don’t want her to be president?

I assumed you had more, but I didn’t see it in your post.
- cylarz | 06/05/2011 @ 12:55
Wait, I don’t recall going down this road before.

You have a short memory, Morgan. We’ve hashed this point out several times… her quitting before her term was half over bein’ my MAIN point of disagreement about her suitability for higher office… and you ALWAYS deflect the conversation into other areas. You’ve learned argumentation well at the knee of your liberal opponents, haven’t you? Can’t answer the issue? Deflect.

But, back to the matter at hand, about which there’s this:

Alaska is well known for being unique. Even in the state’s court system, Alaska has demonstrated a break from the Lower 48 by early on adopting a “loser pays” system for attorneys’ fees as a check and balance against unnecessary litigation. In a nutshell, the “loser pays” system says if you sue someone and you don’t win, you must pay a portion of the winner’s attorney fees incurred in fighting your lawsuit.

The idea is to allow the person who got sued to recover some of the costs in defending the litigation. The concept is to create a consequence from filing lawsuits and to make people think twice before filing a frivolous lawsuit. Of course, the person sued never fully recovers his or her costs, but the “loser pays” system is believed to reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits that Alaskans and Alaska companies must defend.

Like so many things that work really well, the government, through the Alaska Supreme Court, tried to fix something that was not broken and created an exemption from the “loser pays” system for individuals who brought litigation on the “public’s behalf.” At the time the court created it, the exemption sounded noble.

That’s from this. It’s usual practice for the congress to revise laws the Supremes find unconstitutional, or otherwise take issue with. One would THINK the Alaska legislature, and Mrs. Palin, would take a page out of that well-read book and modify the “loser pays” law to account for the harassment Mrs. Palin experienced when she quit. One would think.

But, no. Big Money is SO much more appealing, so let’s just call it quits and rake in the cash. I’ve got no stomach for that shit.

And then there’s the issue of Mrs. Palin lack of policy positions, about which I’ll direct you back to Ms. Strossel’s column. Shorter: what she said. Soundbytes don’t geddit… present company excepted, of course. True Love shall NOT be denied.
- bpenni | 06/05/2011 @ 14:54
Seems to me one of the tricks I’ve seen the liberals reliably haul out is “There’s only one way to interpret this event, and that’s the way I say.” Now who, here, is doing that?

Are you really unaware that it’s a documented Saul Alinsky tactic to file this kind of nonsense ad nauseum…and that it’s been working just great? With all respect, what hole have you been living in? So you say — for the first time, to my recollection, although you insist we’ve been down the road many times before — Why didn’t Gov. Palin appear before the AK legislature and politely request a change in the rules? In the words of Col. Nathan Jessup, “the truth is, I haven’t a goddamn clue.” Maybe the votes weren’t there. Or maybe, more likely, even given the absolute best case scenario, the Palin household would’ve had to pony up thousands of dollars while the legislature went through the motions of getting their thumbs outta their butts. Gov. Pennington would’ve put up with that shit?

You say Sarah went after cash…rather than burning up what she had, like there’s something wrong with that. Okay then. People who drop the ‘g’ off the ends of their words aren’t allowed to have money, people whose kids have funny names can’t have money…and aren’t qualified to run for President. People from Alaska can’t run either. How many more such unwritten rules are there?

Who’s a good candidate?

What makes a good candidate?

You may insist we’ve been down the road a lotta times, but these questions are still outstanding. If Palin haters were capable of filling in meaningful details, such basic questions would not remain unanswered.

Conclusion: You’re just grasping, like a few thousands of noisy others. If it weren’t for the stepping down, it’d be something else. (In fact if memory serves, prior to the stepping down, it was a lot of other miscellaneous, meaningless, empty, marginal fluff & stuff.) After my experiment this weekend, I have less sympathy or respect for the hate-Palin movement than I ever did before. I don’t even think there are that many of ya.
- mkfreeberg | 06/05/2011 @ 15:59
. One would THINK the Alaska legislature, and Mrs. Palin, would take a page out of that well-read book and modify the “loser pays” law to account for the harassment Mrs. Palin experienced when she quit. One would think.

Then that would have opened her up to charges of modifying the law in order to suit her personally and benefit her political career. Had that happened, you’d be leveling that charge in addition to the others you’re making.

And then there’s the issue of Mrs. Palin lack of policy positions, about which I’ll direct you back to Ms. Strossel’s column.

She’s got plenty of “policy positions.” Why don’t you just say you don’t like them or that you find them too conservative, instead of pretending she hasn’t got any?

Even “drill baby drill” counts as a policy position. It means she’s in favor of expanding domestic drilling. That in turn tells us a lot about what a Palin Administration’s energy policies would be.

Defense: Do you have to ask?
Taxes: Do you have to ask?
Spending: Do you have to ask?

Etc.

You don’t have to like Palin – hell, plenty don’t, even among conservatives – but there’s no need to say dishonest things about her.

You also haven’t answered Morgan’s question: Whom DO you support, why, and if the answer is “no one currently running,” at least tell us what your idea candidate would look like.

I think what drives me the most crazy about this whole Palin-bashing business is that it’s…pointless. She’s a private citizen on a publicity tour. That’s *all* she is doing. Maybe she’s doing nothing more than raising money for other conservative candidates.

Everyone – Right and Left, but especially Left – seems to be operating under the assumption she’s going to run for president. Sorry everyone, but Palin is not Hildabeast. Maybe she is waiting for another shot at the veep slot instead. Maybe she wants to run for Congress. Maybe she’ll stay in the private sector and be like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham. The point is, nobody knows.
- cylarz | 06/05/2011 @ 22:54

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Stockholm SyndromeSaturday, June 4th, 2011

Stockholm Syndrome
Saturday, June 4th, 2011