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...
Dennis Miller has a rant about Sarah Palin (audio file). Actually, it’s a rant about the people ranting about Sarah Palin, and it’s pretty good.
Like I said earlier this morning over at the Hello Kitty of Blogging…and no, in keeping with my earlier moratorium, I am not going to link it, because this “I’m going to get attention by criticizing Sarah Palin” thing has gotten rather silly and I’m not going to help it along. But I said,
And yet…whenever we’re talking about her, it’s the people who are tired of hearing about her who started the conversation. Ain’t that somethin’?
Of course, you can tell by my pinup artwork I would like to see a President Palin. I want to see a President saying no to the left-wing balderdash, and then not apologizing to anyone for saying no to the left-wing balderdash. A real leader who will say “that’s cocked up right there…it will be all cocked up tomorrow, we’re not doing it, we won’t consider it until such time as someone proves there’s something to it. That’s my position and I’m sticking to it, and if you call me bad & filthy names for taking this position, guess what it isn’t going to change my mind one bit.” We’ve just had way too many so-called “leaders” doing their leading by way of avoiding criticism. We desperately need something else. Find me another candidate who will offer the something-else and I’ll consider supporting that candidate. Right now, there’s nobody in the running like that, and only one with a recognizable name worthy of any draft effort.
But here’s the point: That’s my take on it. It isn’t Sarah Palin’s. I don’t know if she’s running, you don’t know either…and she might not know. So venting your spleen about how unqualified she is to be President, is about as on-topic as noticing any other mother of a Dancing With The Stars contestant is unqualified to be President. Or, noticing any other reality show star is unqualified to be President. Or, noticing the hot dog vendor down the street is unqualified to be President.
This is all off-topic from Barack Obama…but at the same time…it needs to be said that these are exceptionally bizarre times for anyone to be noticing anybody is unqualified to be President. The energy would be more constructively spent worrying about the person unqualified to be President, who actually is President.
Does that mean I get to say “Palin for President!” and still criticize other people for saying “No, she’s unqualified!” Actually, yeah. It means exactly that. She isn’t running, so we get to talk about it being a good thing if she did. And you get to disagree if you want to. But if she’s unqualified, we’ll figure that out at the Republican convention or in the general election of 2012. You don’t get to unilaterally decide that.
These repeated attempts to do so, just go to show she is uniquely qualified. To run for the position, at the very least. And if she wins? It certainly wouldn’t be any worse than the situation as it exists today.
But the take-away from this is, whenever we’re talking about her, most of the time it isn’t the Palin fans like me who started the conversation. It’s the Palin haters who do that. Nor is it the Palin fans who are militant or hysterical about it. Again, it’s the ankle-biters doing that. They’re the ones with the uncontrollable reflex, the neurotic twitch.
Let’s just get that one thing straight.
Thanks to blogger friend Phil for forwarding this along in an off-line.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Larry Nelson, Sarah Storm Report. Sarah Storm Report said: BLOG: #tcot #nra Then Stop Noticing Her! http://dlvr.it/DpLJm #teaparty #tlot #rs #palin12 #spwbt #sgp […]
- Tweets that mention House of Eratosthenes -- Topsy.com | 01/21/2011 @ 10:02Exactly right, Morgan.
The thing about all the Palin hate that is most troubling is the fire down range from the Righties. I can understand, to a point, the Left going off, but not the Right. And, please for the love Pete, if you’re gonn’a spew could ya’ at least give a decent reason why you hate her, or why she’s unqualified” or, or…
- tim | 01/21/2011 @ 10:26“Ankle-biters.” Heh. That’s not in keeping with the New Normal, Morgan. But tit for tat, I suppose. I DID call you a Dead Ender.
And, Small-Tee… what’s so hard to understand about “half-term governor?” The adults in the room seem to get it. 😉
- bpenni | 01/21/2011 @ 12:04Buck, this may be fine a distinction for an adult to understand…
When you say, she lost my vote for good when she quit the governorship (or when he filmed that couch commercial with Nancy Pelosi, which in my mind is a far superior reason to quit trusting somebody)…you are announcing an individual vote which you have an absolute, perfect right to cast however you see fit. And if you communicate your intent to cast that vote, and some other people sitting on the fence go for the bandwagon fallacy and vote the same way you do, that is well within your rights as well.
When you say she’s a nice lady & all, but not presidential timber, or is unqualified, that is an attempt to assume dictatorial powers. It is a soft seizure, again working through bandwagon fallacy. But it is a confrontation against the message by means of an unrelated, and therefore insincere, attack upon the person & her individual characteristics.
Of course if the individual characteristics really do represent the bone of contention here, as I believe is the case with persons like your fine self, then the attack is sincere…but then becomes a tool wielded in proxy by (insincere) others. And you’re not even being paid some Soros money to get the message out, while others are…
This is, in part, why I call them “ankle-biters.” Some of them are just plain jealous because she’s younger than they are and yet has achieved much more than they have. There’s clearly a lot of anger over dubious provocations for the anger (she’s pretty, carried Trig to term, not making mollifying molly-coddle noises like most Republicans, represents an absolute wholesale repudiation of the liberal social experimentation, on and on and on). The conservatives with honest credentials who are pecking away at her, like Charles Krauthammer, and I guess you fall into this too…they seem to adhere to a model that I cannot agree with or support in any way. It seems to be: We figure out what messages we want to support and what messages we want to oppose…then we winnow the field of candidates down to get rid of the “unqualified” ones, and if that drastically changes the picture of the messages we can support then TOUGH TITTIES.
I just don’t think we can afford this right now. The electorate is all finished with liberalism, for the most part — it is backed into a corner where there is urgency involved in refudiating the left-wing style of governance, by which I mean, we cannot financially afford it anymore. The challenge before us is to get that message into the beltway. No (I’ll say it again) ankle-biter has stepped forward with a solid, promising plan to get that message into the beltway after the unqualified snowbilly — who isn’t running yet — has been dutifully disqualified. Their sole priority seems to be to just get the disqualifying done & worry about the consequences later.
And again, I know Obama has no connection with this…but this blissful ignorance they & you seem to show, about that issue of who’s being found to be qualified lately, and what execrable things this must say about the status quo…seems poorly considered to me. It’s like they & you are determined to follow someone else’s process and you’re not sufficiently worried about who’s built this process, what its vision is, what its objectives are, or what its ultimate outcome might be.
If it’s too early to think about who’s running in 2012, then it’s too early to figure out who’s unsuitable for such a running. That’s just simple, durable logic, right?
- mkfreeberg | 01/21/2011 @ 12:35To me (and, I suspect, to lots of folks) “half-term governor” is the least convincing link in the anti-Palin argument.
In, say, 2007 I’d tend to agree that a political CV consisting of half a term in a rather obscure statehouse, a VP ticket nod, and a Facebook page is insufficient. But it’s still more executive experience than “half-term US senator, one-term state representative, one-semester adjunct law professor, one-year ‘community organizer’ (whatever the hell that is)”… and that, we are informed by Our Betters, is presidential timber.
After this past election, the only “qualification” for President is the ability to get lots of people’s hearts to go pitty-pat. Palin’s got that. So much for my adulthood, I suppose…
- Severian | 01/21/2011 @ 14:40I speak only for myself, Morgan. I assume the same is true for Hinderaker, Krauthammer, Frum, Tapscott, Brooks, and 59% of polled independent voters… some of whom you denigrate as not being “true” conservatives. I’m NOT in favor of a Kamikaze election campaign… to quote Hinderaker… simply to prove a point. Your Girl will crash and burn should she win the GOP nomination. And in your heart of hearts you KNOW this is true. Bandwagon? Feh.
But, Hey! Tilting at windmills is SUCH fun, innit?
- bpenni | 01/21/2011 @ 15:47Sooner or later, you have to join the side you are on.
- mkfreeberg | 01/21/2011 @ 15:51I am not Joe Scarborough, nor have I ever been, Morgan. Next?
re: Half-term governor. I’ll invite you to watch her resignation speech in its entirety (and put up with BS adverts in the middle, sorry). Now think about this rambling, disconnected, and unfocused “speech” in the context of the State of the Union, or any other “important” event. Still support her? You’re beyond hope… or reason.
Let me reiterate: Palin is a great crowd draw and can fire up the base like few others. But she is NOT “presidential timber.” Speaking strictly for myself, of course. But I’ll quote Hinderaker yet again:
Words to the wise.
- bpenni | 01/21/2011 @ 16:11I see your Hinderaker and I raise you a Jacobson.
Time to join the side you’re on. If you think you’re already there, then the obvious question emerges: What side would it be? Just get the letter “R” in there, with nothing of substance behind it? Toward what purpose?
- mkfreeberg | 01/21/2011 @ 16:15I’m not sayin’ she shouldn’t run. Wait. I AM sayin’ that, for the good of the party AND the country. Let me reiterate, since you missed it the first three times around: 59-freakin per-cent-of-independent-voters, that would be FIFTY-NINE have a NEGATIVE view of Your Girl. That’s good, izzit? Not to mention comforting?
With numbers like that, there’s NO cause for worry, right?
Apropos o’ nuthin’… I want some props for being the Lone Dissenter (as well as Resident Pedant). Coz if it wasn’t for me all you’d have is your usual, run o’ the mill echo chamber. Where’s the fun in that? 😉
- bpenni | 01/21/2011 @ 16:32Agreed on your last point. Of course, I did offer a rather spirited (if half-assed) defense of the Hello Kitty of Blogging over at your place along those lines, so you know you’re preaching to the choir there.
Here’s why your 59 percent doesn’t resonate with me.
A = voters who, in the general election, would vote for (lukewarm, tepid, sonorous but monotonous generic white male) but would not vote for Palin.
B = voters who would vote for Palin but would not vote for the other guy.
A > B?
I know it feels good to be part of a perceived majority…but if A is not greater than B you might as well just forget about it. B, lest you forget, includes people who will say screw it, stay home, watch re-runs of M*A*S*H or Friends or Boston Legal or…whatever is served up Tuesday nights. Because it’s more fun than Mitt Romney.
Thus far, everyone I’ve talked to out of your 59%…when confronted with the “Oh, so you’re saying you’d re-elect O-Man if Palin is the alternative”…oh, they hem & haw and wince a little bit. But given the scenario, Palin’s got ’em. They may not like it but it’s true. Oh, and they will go out to the polling place and actually punch the chad.
A is not greater than B. It doesn’t even come close, it isn’t even in the same ballpark. She is the superior candidate, whether that meets your preconceived notions or not.
One more Jacobson quote: “If ‘she can’t win’ is the means by which one of the candidates wins the Republican nomination, then we can’t win either.” Like it or not, he’s right.
- mkfreeberg | 01/21/2011 @ 16:40Like it or not, he’s right.
In YOUR eyes. Let me remind you of someone we both know… someone who voiced the “I’ll stay home” meme way back during the 2008 campaign, someone who voiced that thought in support of one Fred T. vice some old white guy from AZ (you have a marvelous track record of supporting non-runners, now that I think on it)… remember that? You came around, eventually, to your lasting credit.
It’s early days, but I’m of the same mind that you expressed about ol’ Fred, vis-a-vis Yer Girl. I ain’t quite ready to throw out that tired ol’ “I’ll move to Canada” shit just yet, but I’m damned close. Yer Girl’s flavor of populism has never resonated with me, aside from the fact she’s less-than-qualified.
Let’s wait and see how the field unfolds. SOMEONE better’n Palin will step forward, and that “someone” will get MY single, solitary vote. In the meantime I shant stop bangin’ the drum on the opposite side of the street you’re working.
- bpenni | 01/21/2011 @ 16:53By the way… you ducked the resignation speech point. That was because of what? The sheer brilliance and organization? The irrefutable points made? Sumthin’ else? Heh.
- bpenni | 01/21/2011 @ 17:07Ah, you brought up the “someone”; I’m glad. Let’s inspect this. Your “someone” is pretty shrewd cowering down, staying out of sight, while the ankle-biters from the left & right soften up the big scary non-runner from Wasilla, so he can take her on after her disapproval ratings have been artificially boosted past the sixty percent mark. I’ve got a feeling if I’m ever in some legal trouble and it’s worth it to me to fight dirty, complete with ear-biting hair-pulling crotch-kicking, he’s my guy. Provided he’s got a law license. Which he almost certainly does. Along with gills.
As POTUS though, that’s more of a “disqualification” than the stinkiest albatross my girl has ever had swinging around her neck, back to day one. There’s something about an appetite for blood co-mingled with a lack of testicles that just gets under my skin, and you’ve just described someone who’s got plenty of fight in him only after the opposition has been softened up. That’s who you want taking on Al Qaeda, huh. This is the part of your cunning plan that could stand a little more thinking.
Here’s another: What about his beliefs on the issues? Another one of those fifty-percenters? Build the dang fence…uh, within reason, provided nobody’s offended, and all the environmental impact statements have been filed. Drill baby drill!…I mean, of course, after you’ve proven to my satisfaction the caribou are copulating the way I think they should…which you can’t…so, um…global warming is a scam! But, you know, I do agree it is a serious problem and we need to keep an open mind…and…er…The minimum wage costs jobs, and gun control doesn’t work! On, y’know, Mondays, Wednesdays and alternating Thursdays…
See, that’s what you’re missing here. Your 59%? They’ll stay home when they hear that stuff. People who are wishy-washy enough to be “moderates,” and this is a generalization but it’s a fair one…they will shy away from their own. They want someone else to make the decisions they won’t make. Kinda like the girl in high school turning down the sweet lovable nerd so she can give all her attention to the jock. But it’s alright, because someday the nerd will meet somebody……….ELSE. In the meantime, go home nerd. Get outta here. That’s what “we’re too smart to nominate Palin” Republicans are going to be told two years from now, just like they were told in ’08. You’re too vanilla, too mamby-pamby. Stand down.
- mkfreeberg | 01/21/2011 @ 17:12By the way… you ducked the resignation speech point.
What point?
- mkfreeberg | 01/21/2011 @ 17:14I think it was I who ducked the resignation speech point. Guilty as charged, I suppose — I didn’t watch the thing. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen an entire Palin speech, or read one of her Facebook posts in its entirety. Or, really, devoted any substantial time to analyzing her platform, such as it may or may not be.
In other words: I am one of those “low-information voters.” I only really know what my echo-chamber of choice — right wing blogs, mostly, like this one here — tell me about Palin. The quotes I read attributed to her — the ones that aren’t “I can see Russia from my house!”, anyway — I get from these sources. I am, not to put too fine a point on it, one of those very same dumbasses the Republicans need to convince to vote for Palin.
[I know, I know… I’m starting to sound like a leftist, bragging about my ignorance. But stick with me].
Voting isn’t zero-sum. Simply not going to the polls is always an option, one that lots of Americans avail themselves of every election. In my case, I’m highly motivated to vote, and I’d cheerfully cast my ballot for Palin. But then again, I’d cheerfully vote for a rancid ham-and-cheese sandwich or the corpse of James K. Polk over Dear Leader, so that’s not saying much. How many people are going to do that? There’s a lot of social opprobrium attached to a Palin vote, is what I’m getting at, and lots of people — lots of low-information dumbasses like me — would rather stay home than have to get up, go out in the cold and the rain, hold their noses, and vote for her, knowing all along that they’ll probably get asked about it later….
I see “us” (the Republicans, for lack of a truly conservative alternative) in the same bind as the Democrats in 2004. Nobody really liked John Kerry; they counted on his ability to not be George Bush to overcome his hectoring, condescending, Massachusetts-leftard toothache persona. They spent a great deal of time and effort pitching him not as John Kerry, but as NotBush. And how did that work out? They got 100% of the “anyone but Bush” vote, but even high turnout among them couldn’t make up for the low-info voter’s dislike of Kerry. As it stands, we’re about to make a choice between NotObama and Palin. Will NotObama, solo, bring out enough voters to win? I dunno, but I can guarantee you there’s a fairly large subset of the NotObama voting pool that is also in the “anyone but Palin” camp.
That’s my calculus, anyway. Anyone who is fired up about Palin is already in the NotObama camp. We don’t need to get them to the polls, since, like me, they’d vote for a random name out of the phone book over Dear Leader. But we absolutely can’t afford to alienate any of the low-information, borderline-apathetic NotObama voters… which is exactly what nominating Palin would do.
I agree that she could win the nomination. I even think she’d make an ok-to-good president. But she’d be a lousy candidate against Dear Leader, and Dear Leader is the one we have to run against. So, yeah, give me some blow-dried milquetoast with an R after his name. I’d rather have the squishiest squish RINO on the savanna than Dear Leader, because anyone who’s not a naive, spineless, America-hating, race-baiting, hardcore Marxist ideologue is better than Obama.
If that makes me a sellout (Morgan) or juvenile (Buck), well… I’ve been called worse.
- Severian | 01/21/2011 @ 18:13And that approach is different from picking McCain in ’08 because…?
- mkfreeberg | 01/21/2011 @ 19:53If that makes me a sellout (Morgan) or juvenile (Buck), well… I’ve been called worse.
Heh. Well said, Severian. I never said you… in particular… were juvenile. Just my “tar ’em all with one brush,” over-the-top rhetoric in play. I didn’t mean any offense, unless your name is Morgan.
What point?
This point: I’ll invite you to watch her resignation speech in its entirety (and put up with BS adverts in the middle, sorry). Now think about this rambling, disconnected, and unfocused “speech” in the context of the State of the Union, or any other “important” event. Still support her?
Defend THAT. Go on… I DARE ya. Specifically: that masterpiece of oration, that epitome of organization, that apex of logic, the evidence of a superior intellect in play… something worthy of the Forum in Rome, the steps of the Acropolis, or the House of Commons during WW II. I’m not sure I can be sarcastic enough about that speech. But I tried. That speech was the point when I… personally… said “Nope. Nevah hoppen, Gee-Eye.” Watch it with a critical eye, Morgan, and get back to me… would ya?
- bpenni | 01/21/2011 @ 20:00You don’t like the way she delivered a speech, and that disqualifies her?
Just wow.
Have you got another politician you can offer who has never been disqualified in this way?
FWIW, I saw the speech when she first delivered it. I thought it was about average. I can think of quite a few speeches delivered by others, far below average…multiple times, each person. Am I recalling incorrectly?
- mkfreeberg | 01/21/2011 @ 21:14And that approach is different from picking McCain in ‘08 because…?
Two reasons: first, we didn’t know just how godawful Obama was going to be. I suspected it would be bad, but even so, it took me a lot of effort to get up off the couch and go vote (either way, I figured, I’m casting my vote for a squishy naive statist liberal).
Second: McCain sucked. I can go on and on (and on and on and ON) to this very day about how so, so much McCain sucked, and feel 100% justified in doing so. But McCain never inspired the visceral hate in so many people that Palin does. Were we having “should he or shouldn’t he?” discussions about John McCain two years before the presidential election? Did anyone ever blame John McCain for some random psychopath’s spree? Did every liberal on god’s green earth consider it a sacred duty to inform us, in print, on tv, and over the radio, how awful horrible terrible John McCain was, every hour of every day?
We need every vote to get rid of Dear Leader. We could’ve used every vote back then to prevent Dear Leader, but that ship has sailed, and I can forgive low-info schlubs for not realizing the epic disaster he would become. These days, we have no excuse. He must be defeated. If there’s any chance that a candidate will cause a nontrivial number of NotObama voters to stay home on election day, that candidate has to go. Nothing else matters to me.
[On the speech thing: ugh. I’m sure her speech was awful. But so what? I’m just not that impressed with politicians’ speeches in general. Most of ’em couldn’t orate, or argue, their way out of a paper bag… and that certainly goes for Dear Leader, who we’re constantly told is the 21st century Demosthenes. Lies and pabulum, poorly delivered – that’s my verdict on him. The only genuinely good political orator of the last 30 years is Jesse Jackson, and he’s a raving moonbat. Sorry, but you’ll have to do a lot better than “she flubbed a speech” to get me on the “Palin is Teh Stupid!’ bandwagon].
- Severian | 01/21/2011 @ 23:56McCain sucked. I can go on and on to this very day about how so, so much McCain sucked, and feel 100% justified in doing so. But McCain never inspired the visceral hate in so many people that Palin does.
McCain sucked because he didn’t inspire much of anything either way. There’s a verse in Revelation about this; The Lamb of God’s beatdown upon the Church of Laodicea, Revelation 3:16. “Because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”
I’d argue there was very little other significant suckage about McCain apart from that. He is a decorated war hero and the stories he has to tell do demonstrate fortitude and courage. People who vote against McCain vote against him as a politician, and they vote against him as a politician because they don’t know what he’s going to do once he starts making deals with other politicians.
Thus far, all these distinguished males have the same issue. I know they’ll vote against abortion, for the most part. You can take it to the bank that McCain will. But in all other matters, I don’t know what they’ll do, and I don’t know that they’ll work to stop the global warming scam, stimulus, or any of the other boxcars on the Obama train.
I realize we’re really arguing about Buck’s hypothetical “somebody.” But, thus far, all the somebodies who can really pose a threat have been exposed to whatever insults and scolding is needed to tarnish them a little bit…which is enough to win over people like Buck…so, I should think this pattern will be broken by somebody — why?
All the Republicans are either not-a-threat, or evil, or stupid. And the liberals have successfully ensconced themselves into a position of deciding this for others.
- mkfreeberg | 01/22/2011 @ 09:12I realize we’re really arguing about Buck’s hypothetical “somebody.”
I’m really not, though. That’s why I’m using that ugly construction NotObama, for which I apologize. NotObama isn’t just a hypothetical “somebody;” he (or she!) is a real candidate with a real platform, and with two distinct advantages — not being Barack Obama, and not being Sarah Palin.
NotObama is your generic Republican, doing your generic Republican things. Which is not so great. I can’t emphasize this enough: you’re absolutely correct when you write “I don’t know that they’ll work to stop the global warming scam, stimulus, or any of the other boxcars on the Obama train.” I don’t know either, and that sucks. But you know what? I know Obama will work for those things. He’ll work really, really hard for them. He’ll also work really, really hard to neuter the military, downgrade our nuclear deterrent, and kiss ass on genocidal Muslim dictators (and every other dictator he can get his lips on, for that matter).
I will happily — enthusiastically, joyously!!– embrace the chance that NotObama will not do those things over the 100% guaranteed certainty that Dear Leader will do them.
That being said, I find the 2012 Republican candidate discussion depressing, but simple. As you say, every Republican candidate will be painted as stupid, evil, not a threat, or all three, and the media will be deciding this for us. Yeah, that sucks, but them’s the breaks and we play the hand we’re dealt. We face this every election. Consider the portrayal of George W. Bush: he had to break through a media mudbath of almost Palinian depth to win both election and re-election. Obviously the voters aren’t always swayed by the media’s bullshit.
But this time, there’s one particular candidate who has zero chance of changing people’s minds. There is a sizable, very electorally significant group of women who will. not. vote. for. Palin, noway, nohow. Every woman in America who ever got her boyfriend stolen by a cheerleader is in this group. Every woman who ever felt that someone got promoted over her because she’s prettier. Every woman who ever got snubbed by a mean girl in high school. Every man who ever asked out a cheerleader and got laughed at, every man who feels he can’t break into marketing or HR because only hot chicks get those types of gigs, everyone who feels their god-given talents are being wasted because some good-looking airhead with big tits gets the jump on them every time… these people will NOT pull the lever for Palin, even if they’re anti-Obama. They’ll just stay home and complain about how politics suck and there’s no real difference between the parties anyway.
Does this make our elections seem more like American Idol than they already are? Am I being near-leftist in my disdain for Joe Sixpack? Is all that stuff up there borderline misogynistic? Well, if so, so be it. It’s also true. That makes it real simple:
There are X number of NotObama voters out there.
There are Y numbers of “anyone but Palin” non-voters out there, who will just stay home if she’s the nominee.
There are Z votes out there for Obama.
X+Y may be greater than Z.
X – Y is definitely not greater than Z + Y.
QED, as far as I’m concerned. And I repeat: I personally like Palin. I think she’s the closest thing to a real conservative we’re ever going to get in pop-star politics. I think she’s a pretty good spokesman for the conservative cause for anyone willing to listen. I think she energizes the conservative base, and is a great draw. But the conservative base alone will not beat Dear Leader. Elections are won and lost on the visceral whims of low-info dumbasses, and the viscera of every low-info dumbass in America is irredeemably poisoned against Palin. It’d be a hell of a fun campaign, and we’d certainly learn who among our friends and neighbors is actually reflective and thoughtful versus petty and spiteful, but in the end we’d get four more years of Chicago machine politics, four more years of crushing debt and hyperinflation, and four more years for our enemies to sharpen their knives.
Ok, I’m done. That’s my best shot at making the “anyone but Palin” case. I think I’m going to go look at some Hooters girls now to clear my head.
- Severian | 01/22/2011 @ 10:36That’s my best shot at making the “anyone but Palin” case.
And a good shot it was. I’m done, too. So’s Morgan, if he’d only admit it.
- bpenni | 01/22/2011 @ 11:06I tend to doubt things when I see lots and lots of “soft” evidence they exist, but nothing firm. Maybe I doubt those things more strenuously because of the abundance of soft, wispy evidence billowing around…I figure someone must be putting it out there because there’s a need to put it out there, which in turn suggests to me maybe there’s nothing to it.
That could be the wrong way to go about it…I’m open to that…
But I don’t believe in the anti-Palin voter. From my own unscientific survey, I cannot find a single soul who is willing to say “if it’s Obama versus Palin, I will re-elect Obama (or stay home).” Not a single soul…except for people who like Obama or His politics. To the best I can discern, if Palin is the challenger, she’s capturing every single stop-this-madcap-left-wing-dash vote there ever was and is ever gonna be.
I don’t believe in hard absolutes like that, I’m just saying I’ve yet to find an exception. Even Buck isn’t an exception. At least, not until he pipes up with the statement above, that I’m looking for, which he isn’t gonna do.
- mkfreeberg | 01/22/2011 @ 11:07I cannot find a single soul who is willing to say “if it’s Obama versus Palin, I will re-elect Obama (or stay home).”
And that right there is the crux of our disagreement, it seems at last. I haven’t heard anybody say that either, but lots and lots of people are going to do it. They won’t say it for the same reason they didn’t explicitly say they weren’t voting for Obama back in 2008. It’s the same reason Democrats seem to do oh-so-well in early exit polling — in both cases, there’s some sneering snotnose kid on the other end of the line or holding a clipboard, just waiting for the opportunity to call you a racist. If all but a few phone surveys and early exit polls were to be believed, Dear Leader was cruising to a near-Saddamite level sweep.
There’s very little social cost to voting for Obama, since there’s a readymade, and devastating, comeback to anyone who gets in your face about enabling rampant leftwingery: “what are you, some kind of a racist?” There’s lots of social cost involved in a Palin vote, ranging from “how could you throw your vote away on that no-hope idiot?” (if she loses) to “I guess you really do want to see America run by another stupid hick” (if she wins) to “you’ll be sleeping on the couch for a good long time / we’re breaking up” (if your girlfriend viscerally loathes Palin, as ginormous numbers of college-educated, professional women do).
Hell, I myself am not going to tell my girlfriend who I plan to vote for just to avoid a bit of dinner-table awkwardness, even though she knows I’m a half-assed libertarian, and even though I’m chomping at the bit to vote against Obama and will do so no matter who the GOP nominee is. Unless you’re willing to fight it out with your friends, neighbors, coworkers, and significant others for the next year and a half, you ain’t gonna hear too many people coming out with statements that meet your burden of proof.
- Severian | 01/22/2011 @ 13:41I have to admit, I’d be lying if I said this didn’t concern me; it does, and I think you make a good point.
I just don’t think we can choose our candidates this way; that’s the point Prof. Jacobson was making. If jillions of women are ready to throw their boyfriends & spouses under the bus for their failure to elect or re-elect the Cloward-Piven baby-murdering commies-without-red-berets, and when it comes time to choose nominees the rest of us need to accommodate this…well then, hasn’t the battle already been lost? Seriously, what’s the point of even trying?
I’m done, too. So’s Morgan, if he’d only admit it.
Uh, waitasecund…someday some anonymous-for-today savior will emerge, we ain’t got nuthin’ until he emerges Venus-like from the ocean…but we’re all done talking about it?
That’s a little bit too much of a hairpin turn, I’m afraid. The whole discussion’s not yet started, or it’s over…but it can’t be both of those things at the same time.
- mkfreeberg | 01/22/2011 @ 13:49So we’ve been having this discussion since McCain tapped Palin for VP. No minds have been changed and we still don’t know if she’s running. Can we can it for a little while.
For the record, if the GOP nominates McCain again, I will stay home. I wouldn’t have voted for him last time if Palin hadn’t been on the ticket. McCain and his ilk are everything that’s wrong with the GOP these days and I refuse to vote for another turd like him. Having said that, there a plenty of candidates that I will at least tepidly support if Palin isn’t the one. But crikey, we don’t even know if she’s running. She might decide to become a kingmaker instead. She would wield a ton of raw power that way.
- Physics Geek | 01/22/2011 @ 14:30We can can it.
It’s the people who want us to stop talking about her who keep starting the conversations about her; that’s the whole point of the post!
As for people staying home, it seems to me they do that when the message of the GOP is muddled in some way. They don’t do that when the GOP champion advances the message in a clear, unapologetic way…no matter how badly his/her reputation has been tarnished. I notice up there I made a very strong statement, that I had yet to personally learn of an exception to this — and nobody has provided me with one. Who’s staying home out of disgust if Palin gets the nod? Severian has advanced a theory of guys terrified of being cock-blocked or frozen-out…which I find to be somewhat credible…but nobody says “I’m here to tell you Freeberg, I’m that guy. If she runs, I’m staying home, eating pork & beans, watching TV.” Not. One. Single. Person. Anywhere.
I have to conclude Romney/Huckabee/whoever would lose votes, and she would not. Tentatively anyway. Where am I going wrong?
- mkfreeberg | 01/22/2011 @ 14:36Where am I going wrong?
It’s too bad Daphne is bored with all this, coz I’m certain she’d have a few choice words for ya, Morgan. But I said I was done… for the moment… and I am. 😉
- bpenni | 01/22/2011 @ 15:15Nobody ever quits talking about Palin without announcing they’re quitting talking about Palin.
Actually, if you take the first six words of that it still rings true.
- mkfreeberg | 01/22/2011 @ 16:14As far as half-term governor goes…stuff it. The Left hounded the woman out of office and tried to bankrupt her state with pointless FOIA requests, then turned around and called her “quitter lady” when she actually stepped down. Merely defeating her ’08 presidential ticket wasn’t enough; no, they had to follow her back to Alaska and try to destroy her gubernatorial career as well. And then when they finally succeeded in doing so, it’s, “Hey! Where you going? Don’t you want to play with us? HEY QUITTER LADY!”
Worse, some alleged “conservatives” buy into this crap. People who frankly should know better.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – if you voted for Obama, then you don’t get to say ANYONE is unqualified to be President…EVER AGAIN. You do not get to say this about the aforementioned hot dog vendor, much less a woman who’s been a governor and has numerous political accomplishments under her belt. Obama voters are all done with that accusation. Forever. They threw it away. It’s gone. (Have you ever noticed that Palin seems to be the only person about whom this word “unqualified” is bandied-about with any frequency? We don’t seem to spend a lot of time worrying about whether Hildabeast is unqualified, or Harry Reid, or for that matter, Mittens Romney.)
We know perfectly well why they don’t stop talking about Palin – it’s because the Left (and some RINO conservatives, sadly) view her as a grave threat, and rightfully so. They don’t want US talking about Palin, either.
For the record, it’s NOT “too early” to talk about 2012 or who is going to run for president. The conversation officially began the day after the 2010 midterm election.
Why does it have to be Palin, anyway? There are at least four other people I’d love to see run against Obama…Sen Jim DeMint of SC, Gov Bobby Jindal of LA, Gov Haley Barbour of MS, maybe even John Boehner, our new Speaker. Like Palin, none of those people have thrown their hats in the ring, either. If Palin doesn’t want the top spot, I’d love to see her on the lower half of any of those tickets.
- cylarz | 01/23/2011 @ 00:32I’m not the least bit concerned about running a candidate who will appeal to independents and moderates.
Just the opposite…I think we need someone who’s polarizing right now. Someone who will draw a clear distinction between himself (herself?) and Jug Ears.. Not another Democrat-lite RINO squish.
I keep thinking back to 1980 (not that I’m really old enough to remember with clarity) and the kind of campaign Reagan ran. He wasn’t interested in moderating his tone or watering down his policy goals in order to win over moderates and independents. He articulated a clear vision, had a specific direction he wanted to take the country, and continually offered real alternatives to Carter’s inept, incompetent, ineffective leadership.
He not only won over those in the middle, he even took a big piece of the Left’s voters. There was even a name for these people – Reagan Democrats. Perhaps some here have heard of them.
There is absolutely no reason I see, why 2012 won’t be 1980 all over again. We’ve got a crummy economy, an incompetent incumbent president, and fresh faces in the Republican party who aren’t ashamed to be called conservatives. We need to run one of them – Palin or someone like her – roll the dice, and take our chances. Running another squish is going to get us four more years of Maximum Leader Zero.
Period, finito, end of discussion. Final answer.
- cylarz | 01/23/2011 @ 00:41