More about Palin as a candidate
I see perhaps a bit of clarification is in order about yesterday’s post about Palin. So let me just say:
(1) I have always defended Palin, judge her to be savvy, and think the media campaign against her was abominable.
(2) I am basing my ideas about the negatives of Palin as Republican presidential nominee in 2012 at least in part on polls that show her as weak among independents. But my estimations of her candidacy spring even more strongly from an admittedly small (but I think telling) sample: my friends who count themselves as moderates. To a person they detest her, for reasons that have not wavered, and which I have been unable to dent over time. Simply put, they bought into the lies, and that’s that. Even though these particular folks do not like Obama, they will not vote for Palin. I feel that the Republican candidate cannot afford to lose them.
(3) Of course this could change over time. But right now that’s the way it looks to me. And since 2012 will probably be the most important election of my lifetime, I would much rather see a Republican candidate with very strong appeal to independents.
The desire for a strong Republican candidate with very strong appeal to independents is exactly what Newt Gingrich is positioning himself for–what with his tour with Al Sharpton and his support for Nathan Deal and Dede Scozzafava and his announcement that teapartiers should reach out with townhall meetings to the NAACP.
Could Sarah Palin as his VP generate that “social momentum” which decides presidential elections?
Or do we want Newt? (Most on this site, don’t.) He would be a compromise.
But wasn’t this country’s very foundation and existence built on compromise about a very wrong thing: slavery.
neo.
I understood your point about Palin’s negatives.
That they are manufactured lies does not mean they won’t have weight in the electoral process.
I take the opportunity to pshrink at a distance your blockheaded friends, whom, it goes without saying, I have never met.
They will not vote for Palin because it would damage their self-image as a morally and intellectually superior person to vote with the rubes, the conservative Christians and all those other lesser breeds.
Thus, they cannnot believe you about the facts, or, at least, cannot admit that they know better but will vote against her anyway.
The negatives about which you seek to educate them are not the issue. They are the excuse.
Neocon: I understand your point and agree with it; however, that does change my opinion regarding Palin. It was my opinion in 2008 that of the 4 people on the R/D tickets she was the only one with the experience to be even considered for president. Was she fully versed in all the nuances of foreign, tax or economic issues, no. But were the others? Or were these people only more familiar to the media and people of the US, that answer is obvious. The biggest complain against Palin is her education at “no name” schools, yet her real life experiences and education was significantly superior to the other 3 ticket space takers. Does this mean I would vote for Palin regardless or stay home if she is not the candidate? No, at the end of the day elections in the US’s two party system represent a true Hobbesian choice – vote, but chose the one who will do the best job or the least damage. In ’08 that choice likely was McCain.
The education point above sums up my current impression of educational regard: A freshly minted useless degree from an “elite” university is given higher regard by the senseless media than real life experience and 3 engineering degrees from a land-grant university.
Your anti-Palin moderates show the triumph of propaganda. Just like Baraq’s attempts to tar Repubs as the Party Of The Rich…as if we were playing Monopoly. We all know the Dems richly deserve that tag.
Maybe Newt is at heart still a constitutionalist. If so, his games are OK, but who knows? Pandering, propaganda….Who you gonna trust as truthful?
I love Palin and what she’s doing in her current role. She’s running around the country giving speeches, endorsing constitutional conservatives, and firing up the conservative base.
But as a candidate, I’m afraid the media hatchet job on her has been so successful that she is damaged goods as a presidential candidate — at least for 2012. She has nearly 100% name recognition and most people have probably already made up their mind about her. Conservatives and right leaning independents love her, the left despises her.
The poltical center is what wins elections. Because the left controls the messaging in the mass media, they will do everything possible to discredit her with the political center. For that reason I don’t think she can win. I think she would be a terrific president if she could win, but I also think the media and the Soros funded smear merchants will make it nearly impossible for her to be successful if she were to win the primary.
I think a lot of people believe she would use the wrong fork at a state dinner at the Elysee. That’s certainly a possibility, but I find it far less serious than giving QEII an iPod with your speeches. Why do the snobs let The Won off so easily?
I hear you Neo. My girlfriend and other friends still have the negative judgment against Sarah.
Yes. It’s a double-standard on the experience equation. Obama couldn’t even meet Sarah’s level of experience and yet SHE’S the one who was judged.
Yes the charges leveled against her were false, mean and irrelevant. She had the economic prescription (even over John McCain) and Obama had the virus.
But the polls show what they show. Huckabee is a fine gentleman but he wouldn’t win either because he doesn’t have the “look”…. and after all it turns out to be a popularity contest to some extent once Hollywood and Entertainment mags get their shots in close to the election.
This aces out plenty of people. Gingrich, etc.
Why not a Bobby Jindal? or a Michelle Bachman? Will they ever poll these fine people or do they not have enough name recognition to even beat Sarah?
Neo,
You are correct that Palin has been made radio active by the media. She’s damaged goods. People still joke about seeing Russia from her house, even though she never said it.
For those of you liking Newt, check out his personal life and think about John Edwards. The media will beat him up unmercifully.
Another thing to check out is the hatchet job being done on Sharron Angle in Nevada. Reid was dead meat until the left opened up on her. Either of her opponents in the primary would have been stronger in the general election. Voting for a rookie was a big mistake.
Given the bias and venom of the media, Republicans have to nominate someone who has a clean history, small negatives, and a solid record of accomplishment.
I love Sarah Palin. I wrote two posts at the end your last thread on Palin so I won’t repeat them here.
However, I simply must say here that anti-Palin friends like yours (and mine) are simply stupid. They will never vote for any Republican candidates. It will take some kind of economic cataclysm, throwing them or their children into dire poverty, that will sway them. The liberals you and I know so well are brain-dead people. This cohort will have to die off.
As I mentioned on your previous thread, most Americans probably talk like Palin or an equivalent local accent, so she’s not the turnoff that the brain dead liberals may think.
Not to rehash the discussion of the other post, but concerning this group of moderates who aver that they would not vote for Palin while also disliking the Obama Administration — as represented by some whom you know personally: in the event of a choice between Palin and Obama, would they then simply not cast a vote at all?
In short: even as regards this portion of the electorate, I’m doubtful that Palin would “lose” them in the strong sense, i.e., to Obama, especially given the shape the country will be in, in all probability, two years from now — on life support.
Neo, or anyone else with similar experience; can you persuade your anti-Palin friends to give a rational answer as to why they detest her so much? I am genuinely curious.
I have a daughter who expresses similar vehemence; but she will not argue on merit. (I continue to hope that she is pulling my leg. She has a history.)
My brain is short-circuiting over the term “moderate”, and your friends who count themselves as moderates.
I don’t think there is such a thing, unless it is a person who is waiting to see what other people are going to tell them to do.
A “moderate” is a person who voted for Obama and doesn’t want the blame.
I wouldn’t waste a second of tim trying to convince them. They can’t be convinced. I would just convict them – if you have the guts – tell them what they are; that they are an embarrassment to adulthood and the civilized world; and then maybe tell them all the cool people are going for Palin. That may change their minds, if they think for a second they might not fit in they’ll vote for Atilla the Hun or Santa Claus it wouldn’t matter.
When I am with people like this I either speak my mind, or keep quiet. I never let them spout their BS. I alsways tell them they are brainwashed or an elitist and that since they have no idea what they are talking about politically then please don’t talk politics to me. That always stops them.
… my friends who count themselves as moderates.
Moderate is as moderate does, so I’m glad Neo used the qualifying phrase, “ … who count themselves …” I am guessing of course but I think probably most of Neo’s friends think of themselves as urbane and refined. I also believe it is difficult for a person with such a self image to choose Palin over Obama. Ninety-nine percent of those who self-identify in such a way are going to vote for Obama no matter who ends up being Obama’s opponent. Best not to waste energy worrying about it.
But I also believe that most independents, who I believe may not be burdened by a similarly sophisticated self-image, are capable of being won over by Palin. Do most independent voters possess advanced degrees, cultivate an appreciation of the arts or read books by authors such as Milan Kundera? I think not.
Speaking of friends, most of my friends also voted for Obama, yet across the nation a considerable amount of voters(46%) voted for Obama’s opponent. Another 5% and McCain would have won the popular vote, despite a distinct lack of enthusiasm for McCain among a significant amount of conservatives. Let us all hope that those same conservatives do not repeat that same disastrous error in 2012.
I’m w/the R. Aubrey contingent, but would say it differently: its a class thing … yet IS NOT a lineage thing. Its an ENLIGHTENMENT thing.
Barack has no appropriate lineage, yet he ingratiated himself w/the enlightened set, and thus passed the class test which neo’s friends care about. Sarah Palin flips the bird at neo’s enlightened friends – at every opportunity – and with great verve and enjoyment. Therefore, neo’s friends could never vote for Palin: they could never again hold up their heads at a neighborhood BBQ which was filled with like-minded persons of the oh-so-enlightened class.
Snorfle. My entire state (excepting commie Austin) is organized around the principle of snorfling at the enlightened class of fools. Its not b/c we think we are ignorant. Au contraire: THEY are ignorant, and we don’t doubt it for a second. And, all across this nation, there are more of us than there are of them. Sarah Palin can win. I say that with humility, b/c my political predictions mostly suck eggs. Still, once more, with conviction: she can win.
The enlightened class is dealing with a Tea Party nation. The enlightened class is dealing with the culture displayed in this video. The enlightened class is dealing with a vast portion of a nation which has come to a similar renegade attitude as the obnoxious subjects of this video. The enlightened class’ days are numbered, and they are too ignorant to know it.
Last thing: there is a feeling of … resignation and dismay … about the alleged bland and flawed quality of potential Repub POTUS candidates. I think thats dead wrong. Take another look at your favorite (off top of your head) 1/2 dozen potentials: these candidates have a lot of positives, have a lot of appeal. Let your worries about them fade to background for just a moment: these guys have a LOT of positives going for them. Think of Jindal, Pawlenty, Romney, Ryan, Daniels, Pence, et al. These are stand up guys with positive appeal, and we are blessed to have them as potential candidates. Had conservatives been so weak minded 3 decades ago, they would have dismissed Ronald Reagan as irreparably flawed. And, I did call you weak minded. I love the way many of you guys think, but, in this area, your current thinking is weak-minded. You are buying into some propaganda; you are looking past some glowing positives.
I don’t like ‘what if’ scenarios (they are best left to fiction writers) but Palin might have proved an effective governor if McCain hadn’t dragged her, prematurely, into the national spotlight. The woman was then subjected to one of the most vicious, infamous and effective media inquisitions that I’ve ever witnessed. However savvy and persistent Palin may be I doubt she can ever repair the damage done.
What’s all this with “the damage done.” Palin is precisely powerful because she has met, matched and mastered the media mockery.
It’s time for Texas-type-thinking!
NEO said: “Even though these particular folks do not like Obama, they will not vote for Palin. I feel that the Republican candidate cannot afford to lose them. ”
So who did they vote for in the last election?
Palin has already survived the hatchet job. as i stated on the previous thread, her negatives are moving in the right direction over the previous two years. Obama now has the same negatives and no one is saying he cannot win re-election. His negatives are moving in the wrong direction no less.
There is no real candidate without a past. Come campaign time, they will be dragged through the mud if they are republicans (not so if they are democrats). people tend to believe lies first, then after time come to realize the truth. a “clean” candidate won’t stay that way and in an election season, there won’t be enough time for people to realize the truth.
in the gallup poll, only 9% surveyed have not heard of or have no opinions of her, whereas this group constitute 27-49% for the other candidates. Their negatives can only rise and rise to a much greater degree than Palin.
I am sorry to hear about your “moderate” friends. they were likely duped in 08 by the media attack on Palin, and come 2012 they will likely be duped again by the media attack against whoever is running against Obama if not Palin. Their best chance to become informed voter is to look into Palin now and realize how gullible they are, regardless of whether they will vote for Palin or not.
Like jon said. You can’t lose what you never had.
As far as I know, Sarah is not (yet) running for office. But if by some stretch it did come down to a choice between Sarah and another four years of The Zero, and someone chose The Zero over Sarah … well, I’d say there’s little hope for that person.
Forget Palin, people. We have more immediate problems. This, for instance, via no less a luminary than Instapundit: http://noisyroom.net/blog/2010/07/17/first-they-came-for-the-bloggers/
You can’t lose what you never had, but what happens when you start losing what you HAVE? What happens when you’ve lost what you USED to have?
If this keeps up, and at the current rate, we may never even get to the point of deciding whether or not to vote for Palin.
Texas-type-thinking? Sure. Sounds good. Rick Perry has been gov there for 10 years. It’s not the media hatchet job that sets Palin back IMHO it’s that she never finished one term as governor of Alaska. I’m really praying for an incumbent & effective R gov to challenge The Empty Arrogant Conceited Suit in 2012: Jindal or Perry or Christie or Brewer or Pawlenty or Daniels.
Dear Neo,
I say let Sarah run.
I believe she can win–I believe she can win the primary; I believe she can win the general election.
For all your “moderate” friends who say they don’t like Obama but can’t vote for her, it will be time to put up or shut up.
Neo,
Re “To a person they detest her, for reasons that have not wavered, and which I have been unable to dent over time. Simply put, they bought into the lies, and that’s that. … Of course this could change over time.”
It *will* change. If she runs, Gov. Palin is going to change a lot of minds about her, and the biggest loser after Obama is going to be the MSM.
This may sound unbelievable to you, but I am certain of it: a large number of the women who today say they hate Gov. Palin will vote for her if she runs in 2012. This phenomenon will represent a major turning-point in American politics, because the women who change their minds about Gov. Palin will from then on be intellectually unchained from many of their former prejudices which the Democrat-MSM complex has stoked and tended for decades.
Some of these women will be among your friends, and they will post on your blog telling us what this experience meant to them personally.
To varying degrees, their own mini Neoneocon conversions will begin as a result of their changed perceptions regarding Gov. Palin.
If you like, later on I can explain why I feel this will happen — right now I have to walk the dog, who is giving me that look. 🙂
PS If you’ve noticed, I’ve made it my habit to refer to Sarah Palin as Gov. Palin. The reason I do this is because she is not some pop culture figure like Ann Coulter (and I say this as a fan of Ms. Coulter); she was a governor, and a damn good one. Before that she was an oil and gas commissioner, and before that she was a mayor. In short she is a strong, successful leader whose C.V. people should not be allowed to forget.
Maybe your moderate friends (in NE?) would vote for Obama over Palin, but Obama has already lost most of the swing states. I predict the Republican candidate will win in a landslide whoever he or she is.
The Republicans should nominate someone who is charismatic but unflinching in their desire to deal with entitlements including Obama’s ‘wins.’ Maybe we should start a draft Christie movement? I don’t think experience matters as much as having the right stuff.
When I hear the objection that Sarah did not finish out her Alaskan governor tenure, I think the person voicing that is stupid, a troll, un-informed, hypocritical, something . . . because it was the single, most brave, unique, and awe-inspiring thing any politician has done since George Washington earned the moniker “Cinncinatus.”
It’s a totally weird and unsophisticated concept that an elected office is an absolute duty incapable of being handed to another when the circumstances so warrant.
I agree with Neo.
I’ve said this before, and I’ve been dismissed before. There is a great danger that people on this board, and among other conservatie circles, are making the same mistake that the Obama people did. They assume that just because their freinds and acquaintances, including those they know just as nicknames on the internet, all believe and feel a certain way, that truly the rest of the country will feel that way as well.
This reminds me of the person, just after the 1972 election, who could not believe that Nixon won because all of her intellectual friends voted for McGovern. This happened again more recently when all the liberals, in their liberal echo chambers, would all be head over heals in support of Obamacare.
And now, here we are, with some of us on the brink of thinking that all of America must surely agree with them.
The elections in 2010 and 2012 are crucial. We need to win these to prevent the left from enacting their socialistic agenda… an agenda that is not merely moderately liberal, but so aggressively socialistic that it threatens oir liberty and our fre market system.
Sign me on to what Curtis said at the beginning of the comments. We need to carefully decide who is capable of winning, and after winning, implement the rollback of these Obama policies. As Curtis correctly said, sometimes this calls for compromise. If we nominate anyone, including Palin, it should be because we really think they can win. These are not years for noble defeats.
As I said before, we need to think strategically.
Now, I’m sure what I’ve said can be blown off as being too compromise-oriented or not conservative enough. But if the GOP nominates someone who is uneletable because large numbers of moderates or independents dont vote for them, lets not show up here after the election and blame that awful liberal media or claim that some conspiracy is afoot.
Palin has already been savaged by the media. ANY conservative that is likely to do those things which will be required in 2013 will likewise be savaged as soon as they become competitive.
We can’t allow “moderates” who will be unlikely to vote for any true conservative to pick the candidate. Remember our friend McCain!
J.L.,
Re “… I’m sure what I’ve said can be blown off as being too compromise-oriented or not conservative enough. But if the GOP nominates someone who is unelectable because large numbers of moderates or independents don’t vote for them, let’s not show up here after the election and blame that awful liberal media or claim that some conspiracy is afoot.”
It’s not about being too willing to compromise or not conservative enough — it’s about being too gun-shy, too quick to accept the MSM’s “unelectable” meme about *our* candidates, when the MSM’s ability to shape the narrative is weakening more and more with every passing day.
First off, they said the same things about Reagan: dunce, extremist, unelectable. That’s what they say about all of our best candidates, and that’s why they try to destroy them before they leave the starting gate.
Our support for Gov. Palin, belief that she will appeal to most Americans, does represent groupthink or wishful thinking, but a belief that the MSM’s days of picking our candidates and defining reality are over.
In addition, I recommend you check out Doctor Zero’s latest column, in which he explains the reality of what this country is facing, and what kind of leader we need to deal with it: http://www.doczero.org/2010/07/serious-human-beings/
Follow-up, from HillBuzz:
http://hillbuzz.org/2010/07/17/gallup-puts-sarah-palin-in-lead-with-76/
The “young women” you describe pay little attention to politics or the news, and are not sophisticated participants in politics, mostly because they haven’t the time, and are unwilling to dedicate more of their time to becoming educated.
The Progressive effort has two major strands: One is to pass all the leftist dreams into law, the Other: A permanent Democrat majority. They have essentially said so. The Secretary of State Project, the drive to put into law all mail-in voting, the Motor-Voter Law, and the redefinition of ACORN are all steps in that direction. The Democrat Propaganda machine has every media outlet coincidentally saying exactly the same thing at the same time, usually in exactly the same words. They were so successful in demonizing George W. Bush that many Republicans couldn’t begin a political statement without dissing Bush first.
Sarah Palin has gotten the treatment because the Left finds her scary. She has natural charisma, talks straight, means what she says, and has all the right instincts. It can’t have been easy to apply the “not ready for prime time” theme to her, when Obama was so lacking in experience or qualifications. That said, the candidates I really like, so far, don’t have the name recognition on a national level.
Most of the Stimulus money is unspent, and undoubtedly saved for the run-up to the 2012 election.
JL: Your Nixon-McGovern analogy is flipped. McGovern supporters said they did not know anyone who voted for Nixon. Here Palin supporters would not say they do not know anyone who voted for Obama. They probably would say they do not know many others who support her. The Palin critics are probably the minority. That would make the Palin supporters the ‘silent majority.’ Remember Nixon won the election.
1. I changed from a 2007 Palin supporter to a 2009/10 opponent for reasons that I linked to in Neo’s previous post. The media hit pieces on Palin had little to do with it. (Fwiw, I was a halfhearted Thompson supporter in 2008.)
2. What will I do if Palin is nominated without recovering my good opinion? I don’t know. In 2004 I didn’t vote for Bush again (which made no difference to the MA outcome), but I gave money to the SwiftVets to get the word out that Kerry is unfit.
3. Creating a new governing coalition while retaining essential principles is very hard. On one hand, look at how RINOs have undercut the cause of limited government and individual sovereignty. On the other hand, ask Congressman Doug Hoffmann’s supporters how their ideological purity worked out for them. It’s almost unfortunate that Reagan made coalition-building look easy.
4. How the Crist-Rubio race shakes out will be relevant to 2012. My Floridian sister-in-law was not her usual firebreathing self in her last email; she sheepishly admitted that dumping Crist in the primary might have gotten him elected as an independent who will caucus with the Democrats, thereby flipping a seat that the GOP should hold handily.
5. Somewhat OT but in the ballpark: Professor Angelo Codevilla has articulated an intellectual structure for what the Tea Parties are getting at. IMO serious conservative politicians should invite Codevilla to their brain trusts.
The Media has crafted a very hollow image of Gov. Palin. That’s fed her negatives, but that’s also a pretty fragile construct.
If she wants to run (better than 0%), and if she’s smart (likely), then she’ll be crafting a strategy to shatter this image. She has plenty of time to put together a decent platform, and bone up on deep-dive talking points that will put the lie to the “I can see Russia from my house” silliness, and how to stick the knife into the arrogant interviewer while maintaining a smile.
After the third interviewer goes down in flames, the others will be more careful. There will also be abundant fodder for Youtube, shattering the “Governor Ditz” image. Once the image is broken, she has the opportunity to re-engage your friends, especially with a “The Political System is sexist” approach. And she needs to take Tina Fey down. Nicely, but down.
I expect we’ll see whether she wants to do this, presently. It won’t be all that hard for her, if she’s as smart as she seems.
And if she’s not smart enough, she shouldn’t be President.
Correction: “If she wants to run (better than 50%)”
New keyboard, that’s surprisingly hard to make friends with. And the spell checker seems to think that “0%”is just fine …
Undeniably, Palin’s speech at the 2008 RNC convention was one of the most potent political speeches in modern American politics.
It (if only briefly) sent a shock of optimism into the conservative right that resonates even today.
And, we all feel the outrage at the media’s blatantly biased treatment of her.
But, Sarah Palin as President?
Folks, don’t get caught up in the same thin obsession with persona that swept Obama into office.
Conservatives are better than that.
Let’s pick a real leader – a reluctant candidate, a personage impelled by sense of duty not ego, someone in the mold of George Washington or the Roman Cincinnatus.
Draft…David Petraeus in 2012! And, Condi too!
Neo, you get it right again. I wish we had a country where a Palin could run and be elected, but our problems now require great leadership and outstanding character. Palin is just a female McCain–“Can’t we all just get along?” She can hardly keep from fawning all over Hillary.
Cutesy rhetoric and flashy smiles will not solve the massive problems we face.
Neo, It is with great sadness that I concur with you. I live in the Bay Area and have so many friends that appear to be like your friends in this regard. What puzzles me so much is the passionate dislike – even hatred – of Gov. Palin. I can understand not wanting her to be President or VP, but how can any normal person not like her – or at least find many admirable qualities in her? These people, especially the women, viscerally despise her. It cannot be explained by them accepting the MSM characterizations, etc. There is something else afoot, and I sure wish I understood it as well as most commenters think they do. It is very disturbing.
As much as I adore Gov. Palin, it is supremely important to nominate an electable opponent to Obama.
cyclerider
Some months back, “reclusive leftist”, run by a woman so far left as to make Lenin tentative, and so feminist as to make misandry seem tame, had a couple of threads on Palinhate, which she and her readers could not understand.
Long, long comment threads.
Well I, a former Democratic activist, will almost certainly vote for any Republican next time, including Palin. I wonder how electable she is.
I think Jennifer rubin in Commentary had it right a few months ago–her article was specifically on why (many) Jews hate Palin but I think her point is generally true: It’s class bias, rather vicious and rather overt. This is part of the reason for the sneering at her U. of Idaho degree.
By the way, I know absolutely nothing about Idaho’s journalism department but I’d bwet that the respect in that department for genuine diversity of thought is no less, and probably a great deal more, than,say, in Harvard’s women’s studies department.
Alex,
Yeah, but Harvard’s HARVARD, so it may be true, but it doesn’t matter. ’cause Harvard’s HARVARD and U-Idaho isn’t.
Clear, now?
“”These people, especially the women, viscerally despise her.””
cyclerider
I’d say it’s because Sarah not only hints their feminist ideas are wrong, but exposes them to be exactly 180 degrees wrong. The enemy is not patriarchy. The enemy is evil promising equality if they just treat certain groups unequal.
gs,
Thanks for the Codeville link. Long, but excellent explanation of the progressives and the urge to power which has made the two parties so similar. He never mentions the TEA Party, but he talks about the values of the “country class” that are similar to those of the TEA Party. Interesting.
I still say that Palin needs to win over the elite eastern Republicans (Brooks, Will, Krauthammer, Noonan, Parker, etc.) to have a chance of winning in 2012. Those people have large megaphones that are listened to by independents. The winner in 2012 will have to have the independents in his/her corner.
geran said : “Palin is just a female McCain—”Can’t we all just get along?”
Palin is the woman who wrote the term “Death Panels” en regards to the Health Care bill. I hardly call that “just getting along”. It infuriated the Democrats- and she did not back down. On her blog on Facebook she also called Obama’s, pre-oil spill , pretend call for more drilling “Stall, baby, Stall”- pointing out how it was a bait and switch scheme that actually put oil projects that were about to be started on hold.
On top of that, she calls my home state of Texas, which brags about it size, “Alaska’s little sister state”. lol
You don’t know Sarah Palin.
Angelo Codevilla compares Sarah Palin to Dan Quayle and to Barack Obama. “…I would take odds that Palin and Obama’s SAT’s are within fifty points.”
There is a great danger that people on this board … are making the same mistake that the Obama people did. They assume that just because their friends and acquaintances … all believe and feel a certain way, that truly the rest of the country will feel that way as well.
Hmm. Well, but Obama IS in the Whitehouse. And if Obama’s people keep making the same “mistake” he may very well be there for two terms.
My hope that Palin runs in 2012 is not based what a small, rarified hardcore group of sophisticates(like Neo’s friends) might think of her. I know, and probably Palin knows, that they will never vote for her under any circumstances.
But I think they represent a relatively small segment of voters. They are the elite, but a defining characteristic of the elite is that they are not many of them. If they were a lot of them they wouldn’t be elite, would they? I don’t believe the elite decide elections. I think their influence is waning.
It was somewhat the same in years past for the Bush-haters — who probably comprised much the same demographic as Neo’s friends do today. They hated him and the fact that he didn’t give a damn about their opinion of him made them hate him all the more — the hatred was so deep and so obviously pathological that it even became derisively known as Bush Derangement Syndrome(BDS).
All the Progressive pundits assailed him daily; all the MSM was against him, ridiculed him, foamed at the mouth about him throughout his public life — and still do, for that matter.
Yet Bush won two terms. Let us all recall that someone the elite thought was a dumb hick with a Texas drawl and that they hated with a passion spanked them not once but twice in Presidential elections. I think the elite underestimate Sarah Palin at their peril. The more they howl at her the stronger she seems to get.
Neo’s concern in her paragraph (2) indicates acceptance of a non-conservative, a RINO, as the *best* candidate against Baraq in 2012. That’s too bad, because it implies being OK with slowing Progressivism from its mad dash (hare-like) to a slower crawl (tortoise-like). But the tortoise will keep trudging along, soothing her moderates all the while. The frog is cooked either way.
Might be good polisci, but it is a recipe for what we’ve been through since FDR. The long haul of the tortoise has pulled and pushed us to where we were in 2008, and that ain’t good. Steadily corrosive but not good.
I don’t see much difference between (A) trudging over the edge of the abyss and (B) zooming over it.
It’s the direction that matters, not the speed.
The first primary is here in NH. I don’t see her dominating here. That may be unfair to Palin – and to some other candidates – but that is the current reality. Iowa and SC may bring her a recovery or keep her alive, but the course does not favor her.
Re “It’s the direction that matters, not the speed.”
Exactly.
grackle said:
Hmm. Well, but Obama IS in the Whitehouse.
Yes, thats true. But look at his support (and Pelosi’s) now. And look at the backlash that has developed over their policies, notwithstanding their liberal echo-chamber beliefs that once they pass the stimulus and Obamacare (and as Pelosi said) once they know what’s in it, people will be head-over-heels in support of both. This was an echo chamber delusion on the part of the left, and it is costing them dearly in terms of support… and it may well cost them the next 2 elections (for both Congress and the presidency).
My hope that Palin runs in 2012 is not based what a small, rarified hardcore group of sophisticates(like Neo’s friends) might think of her. I know, and probably Palin knows, that they will never vote for her under any circumstances.
But I think they represent a relatively small segment of voters. They are the elite, but a defining characteristic of the elite is that they are not many of them. If they were a lot of them they wouldn’t be elite, would they?
If you are shown to be right, then I would have no problem seeing Palin as a viable presidential candidate. In fact, in previous posts, including one linked to in my above post, I suggested she would make a good vice presidential candidate.
But what Neo has suggested is that this antagonism and concern against her is not just an elite thing, but is also found among many other independents and “moderates.” Enough to throw her chances of being elected into serious doubt. And Neo has presented some anecdotal evidence in this regard: her own real-life contact with real swing voters who have expressed their views to her.
Now, as Neo said, this may change. And Neo, and myself, and the others who have expressed their views, may be wrong. But I still say its a serious concern.
I still don’t see why we have to decide on a candidate now. It’s a bit like Obama announcing when we will withdraw troops from A’stan. Supporting what Palin is now doing keeps the public aware of how they are looked down upon by the elites and class snobs. Her Mama Grizzlies need to be kept growling. But we have to remain adaptable and also play up the strengths of the Ryans, Pawlenties, and Christies. We don’t know what issue may be dominating the news in 2 years. We have to be sure we don’t destroy what could possibly be our strongest voice to deal with that issue. The more we keep our different factions engaged, the greater the chance that whoever comes out on top will have to take their concerns seriously.
Right now we must concentrate on keeping Axelrod awake at night wondering where the next hit will come from.
Neo, J.L. et al supporting the thought that Palin is unelectable because she is already tainted and damaged goods in the minds of some voters:
1. For every small group of friends like Neo’s “moderates”, there is an equal or larger small group of friends who like Palin.
2. She will become more liked as this next year goes on by merely hanging in there and always (as she ALWAYS does) speaking to the issues. Probably 60% of the country agrees with her down the line on the issues, and that fact will have a big impact as time goes on and the old vilification won’t be able to be used anymore. What, will they accuse her of inexperience again after the whole world has seen what real inexperience in Obama is?
3. Palin’s greatest assets are two: First, she is exceedingly “normal”. She is a Mom, a wife, an American. She thinks like we do. She works like we do. She recreates like we do. She is worried about what we are worried about. She is one of us. Almost no one else has that.
Second, and most importantly, she has the right principles. She knows what work and economies and life and peace and strength and fairness and justice, etc., etc. are at their cores. Therefore, any policy that follows from her principles will be mostly right and mostly productive of the ends intended (which for her and the rest of us normal decent people are good ones).
Obama and ALL Democrats and ALL of the self-styled “moderates” of Neo’s circle have the wrong principles. They cannot but do harm because of their starting positions on every category mentioned above, and more. They will always fail, and bring misery. Since this is a fact of reality that is, now, in our faces every day, more and more people will not the contrast.
A person like Palin – brave, true, principled, outspoken, empathetic and compassionate, and especially, battle tested, will, by 2012 be way ahead in the “best person out there” category.
She is not VP material for anyone. By August 2012 all the talk will be about who is good VP material for her, and some of the boys better get their games on to be worthy of it. SO far, none of them have.
My biggest disappointment to date on the R side is that all the men are wimps and sissies. They are a disgrace and only look even remotely palatable because Obama and co. are evil. Next to Darth Vader, even a wimp looks good, but we’d rather have Hans Solo.
I note with interest the volume of responses to any post that contains the name Palin. There is meaning there.
It was noted that Harvard is not U Idaho. It should also be noted that 99.x% of U.S. voters did not attend any Ivy League school, and for many of them the bloom is off that rose.
I still say that no one knows where SP is headed. If she does choose to run, she will face a quandary. She cannot appeal to both the commoners and to the elites. A percentage of the latter will reject her just because the former embrace her. I think I know which she would choose.
For now, she has the best of all options. Her fans love her and the media elites simply cannot ignore her. To use the vernacular, she is messing with their heads big time. Not bad for a girl from the U of Idaho.
Palin’s problem is that the first impressions of her to the general public were so awful – even though IMO that impression was a deliberate fabrication by the MSM to undercut her at every opportunity.
The Couric interview, complete with selective editing to make her look as clueless as possible, comes to mind – even though in the full interview her responses were much better when taken in context.
This is not to say she didn’t have her own stumbles, as I was wincing myself at the initial moments of her debate with Biden until she got into her groove and completely wasted him.
However, I know of several people who stated they had turned the channel by that time and didn’t see the full debate, so her initial performance in that debate is the image they still carry of her.
On the other hand, I’m a supporter and would vote for her in a heartbeat because I’ve taken the time to educate myself – and I feel she shares many of the same views as I do on a variety of subjects.
She may have a problem articulating that view at times, but I find myself placing trust in her instincts.
That’s a HUGE factor in her popularity, I think, as many people are taking the same view as I do of her.
They trust her instincts.
2012 is still over 2 years away, and a lot can happen in that 2 years.
Look at what The One has managed to screw up in less than a year and a half!
What Palin needs to do is exactly what she is doing.
– She’s become THE powerhouse in the Republican party.
If she’s backing you, you’re in an extremely good position. If she’s backing your opponent, you very well could be toast.
Joining the camp of her opposition (as Mitt Romney recently found out) can be a huge negative on your political career.
Being seen as a kingmaker is part of the actual power of those who become kingmakers.
Perception is reality.
– She’s not allowing herself to be a punching bag.
One of the criticisms of the McCain/Palin ticket was they never let her off of the short leash they kept her on to respond to attacks by Obama.
This likewise severely limited her ability to respond to the negative image the MSM and democrats were creating of her in the mind of the general public.
That negative image took hold and she’s still paying a political price as people revert to their initial impressions of her when she is brought up as a subject.
Since she is no longer restrained by the McCain toadies, she is free to be her own person now and speak her own mind.
Her opponents attack her at their own peril, again much as Romney recently found out.
She will not wait after being attacked, but will instead respond immediately.
– She is interacting on the national political stage, and is thereby gaining important experience in dealing with national entities who have an agenda that often includes diminishing her political capital for their own advantage.
The gaffes she made in the Couric interview will not happen a second time.
The most painful/expensive lessons are the ones you don’t forget, and she’s had to learn some very painful lessons.
– That interaction on the national stage is also going to, over time, mitigate that negative image MSM painted of her as a simpleton.
The more the general public sees her conducting herself intelligently and effectively, the more that initial image will be mitigated.
It’s still not going to be easy, as the bar is set far higher for her than it will ever be set for Obama.
She was blasted for not giving a simple answer to a complicated question regarding the *Bush Doctrine*, yet Obama can get away with referring to 57 states.
Her manner of speaking is ridiculed as rural, yet Obama gets away with repeatedly mispronouncing *corpsman*.
Hate to agree with an old feminist view, but this really is a case where she’ll have to be twice as good to be seen as half as competent.
– The last item I’ve not seen her go after yet, and that is to be in a high profile position actually doing something successfully.
One can argue that getting a Republican Congress elected should qualify, and I would agree, but the general public too often doesn’t pay close enough attention to politics to understand that.
As an example, what percentage of the general public actually realizes the Democrats controlled Congress the last 2 years of the Bush era, and that spending started going out of control and the economic meltdown started on their watch specifically as a result of their policies?
I’d wager not a very high percentage – on the other hand the Democrats are being thoroughly blamed at this point by almost 2/3 of the population for much of the lack of recovery now, so it cuts both ways.
At any rate, Palin needs a very public, non-political organizational effort that paints a picture for the general public as a competent leader.
It can be in private business, a charity, or some similar high profile endeavor, but she needs that image of leadership competency to successfully challenge Obama, and as far as I can tell that’s the last bit of the puzzle for her to become a viable candidate in 2012.
I’ve got the feeling she’s definitely up to that challenge should she decide to go for it.
If she does, it could be a game changer in the general public’s mind regarding her competency to be President.
I think there’s a Hillary 2008 factor that helps Palin in 2012. Hillary ran the gauntlet in the 90s (‘own goal’, that) and that gave her some protection in a ‘we already investigated that’ sense in 2008. Palin has the same advantage, though the media will try their usual double standard on these things. The media will try, but it’s likely to backfire when it becomes clear how low the media will go to take Palin down.
Six months ago I thought she had zero chance to be President. But if Paul and Angle get to the Senate and the economy doesn’t dramatically improve she might be well positioned.
I’ll say this: if there is one reason that should NOT exclude Sarah palin from the presidency, it should NOT be that she didn’t come from an elite Harvard or Yale background.
Ronald Reagan didn’t come from the Harvard/Yale elite, nor did many other presidents from either political party: Harry S. Truman, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson.
It appears that only recently we’ve gotten into the mindset that someone had to be Harvard/Yale/Ivy League to be a capable political leader.
In any case, I wish Sarah Palin well. If she is the nominee, I will vote for her. I still think a lot of considerations need to be made before anyone is chosen as the GOP candidate, including correct views on the issues, ability to create enthusiasm among the core of the GOP, the ability to appeal to voters outside of the core, and the ability to capably rule as president. Palin scores well on many of these categories. It will be two years before 2012, and theres enough time for a lot of things to happen, including for Palin to make herself known further and to prove herself further. Whoever is chosen, the fate of one of the most crucial elections will hang on that person.
I agree with expat – it is too early to be picking candidates, a lot can happen in two years. Palin has some strong negatives, mostly from the media attacks on her, that she will have to overcome. But I don’t think they are insurmountable. The idea from JR Dogman that many women will “flip” from Palin-haters to Palin voters is especially intriguing. Were this to happen she would be a very formidable candidate.
Palin will not run in 2012. She would absolutely tank in a general election. Winning the White House is about winning the middle not the left or the right. We live in an era where you have to fool the public into thinking you are moderate rather than hard line. And Palin doesn’t hide behind her views. Plus she got a bad start. Sure, blame the media but she is still way too divisive and comes across as too far out. [And she still makes odd gaffes like today again using the word ‘refudiate’. This works against her in the minds of everyone except her staunch defenders.]
Look, I’m liberal, so I would never vote for her anyway. But I will say she has the ability to bring together Republicans and can be strong in raising money for the right candidate.
I’m thinking by 2012 it will be Romney or Huckabee or Pawlenty on the Republican ticket. I’d be surprised if it was anyone else. If Obama wins re-election then look to Scott Brown in 2016.
Thanks for zip, MattL. Why don’t you apply your same microscopic scrutiny to your Dear Leader’s remarks? See “57 States”. Didn’t keep you from voting for him, did it?
MattL,
Re: “Palin will not run in 2012. She would absolutely tank in a general election. Winning the White House is about winning the middle not the left or the right. We live in an era where you have to fool the public into thinking you are moderate rather than hard line.”
Whether she will run or not I don’t know. But I can tell you this, if she runs in 2012, Gov. Palin will *smash* Obama.
Your analysis of how winning the White House is done — i.e., that you have to “fool the public” into thinking you are middle-of-the-road — is correct… but not really. This notion represents a false construct created over many years by the MSM-Democrat Party Complex, and that Complex is in bad shape. When you say we live in “an era”, that is 100% incorrect; we *have been living* in an era in which the construct you allude to was dominant, but at present we *are coming out of* that era.
In that era, the MSM didn’t only elect Clinton and Obama, it elected Bush I and Bush II as well — all four of those men are products of the false sociopolitical narrative created by the MSM-Democrat Party Complex.
Reagan, however, was a fluke. He managed to slip through, either because the Complex didn’t recognize him in time for who and what he was, or because they simply couldn’t stop him.
And they said the same things about him that they say about Gov. Palin.
It’s incredible the amount of damage that Obama has done in such a short time — not just the debt, but the legal horrors that he has put in place with this congress. Yet it seems like it all had to happen: lies always bear evil fruit, and we’ve been lied to and lying to ourselves for decades. Before, the lies and destruction came at us at a more gradual pace — boiling the frog slowly, in other words. Now, however, Obama has so shocked the country, like a poison in the body that the body automatically rejects. That’s why he and the Democrat congress are in such a hurry — they know the country doesn’t want what they’re selling, so they aren’t even selling it anymore really, they’re just ramming it through.
What is most important is that this regurgitative reflex is occurring despite the MSM’s continued desperate efforts to protect Obama and the Democrat congress.
This tells us what a blow the Internet has struck against the Complex: it has created cracks in the Complex’s narrative, and those cracks just keep getting bigger. That’s why you hear Democrats talking about a media bailout and regulating the Internet — they *must* regain control of the news, so they can shape it. That’s why you have all these weirdos in the Obama administration talking about how wonderful and free the media is in Venezuela.
And yet perhaps the largest driver behind the coming collapse of the Complex can be summed up in one word: Unsustainable.
In plain terms: that which cannot be sustained, *will* not be sustained.
You put all of these things with a political wunderkind like Gov. Palin, explaining to the country in plain English what most of Americans already feel in their gut, and you have a perfect storm, ending in the absolute destruction of Obama by Gov. Palin in 2012.
More on the whys of my view on this subject in my earlier comments on this thread, if you are interested.
Tom, you also forgot Marine “Corpse”.
I know a woman who will not allow a discussion of Sarah Palin in her presence. Ridicule and hatred bubble up immediately upon hearing Palin’s name, and it has effectively shut down any further talk. Now…the focus of this animosity is on Palin, not the person who brought up her name favorably.However, I’m 100% positive that if all that Palin is remained the same except two: there was a “D” after her name and she was pro-choice, then this woman I know would chase me down the street promising bodily harm if I even voiced doubt about Palin’s political abilities. So, the folks (especially women) who hate Sarah Palin, will more than likely hate her till they die. Against Obama,Palin should be able to get the male vote. Of course Clinton, having lost the male vote both elections more than made up for it with the female vote. I think Palin can get enough women, because she did’nt try to make her personal choices the law of the land in Alaska and the big issues will probably crowd out the lifestyle issues.
MAttL,
You are a liberal. It is always the case that liberals try to tell normal decent people who thjey should or should not pick; who is and who isn’t acceptable.
Liberals gave us John McCain. That’s why we lost.
Liberals hate Palin because they know she will win. That is the main reason for the rabid hatred. She is a huige threat.
As a liberal you have no credibility or intelligence, only malice. It is going to be bad for you guys from now on because America is getting set to throw you out for good. Ta ta.
Tom Says:
July 17th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Your anti-Palin moderates show the triumph of propaganda.
That’s it. That’s the intellectual moral superiority of these ‘moderates’. What they are saying is that they are too smart to fall for propaganda. It’s another version of that rubric, too big to fail. They just can’t admit to themselves that they got suckered like a rube falling off a turnip truck. That is simply an unforgiveable sin to admit for someone of their ‘smarts’, the poor little cupcakes, bless their hearts.
The truth shall set them free. Well, maybe. Therapy might be required. Deprogramming that ‘Gramscian march through the institutions’ doesn’t come cheap.
—
Baklava, re: Jindal.
I don’t think Jindal is natural-born, not that that seems to matter much when it comes to Obama. His parents came to Louisiana as grad students and Piyush, ‘Bobby’ (after the Brady Bunch brother), was born shortly thereafter. I don’t think either of Bobby’s parents were citizens at the time of his birth. Like I said, not that this issue seems to matter much anymore. More Constitutional [hope ‘n] change.
—
Curtis Says:
July 17th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
It’s a totally weird and unsophisticated concept that an elected office is an absolute duty incapable of being handed to another when the circumstances so warrant.
Excellent point. Well said.
A difference between Palin and Obama: Palin is not thrilled with lawsuits, and gave up the governorship due to the frivolous ones wasting the State of Alaska’s Governor’s time and her money; Obama loves them, even going so far as to sue a state for reiterating in state statute the Federal immigration law. Having lawyers as public officials does not mean we live under the Rule of Law. Call me bigoted, but I really don’t want any more lawyers ever to be President, even a ‘lawyer’ like Obama who had to give up his license to practice law.
MattL,
I’ve got a few minutes this morning so let’s take your assertions one a time, shall we?
Assertion #1:
“Palin will not run in 2012. She would absolutely tank in a general election.”
If she wanted to run in 2012, she is doing exactly what she should be doing right now to make that happen.
Doesn’t mean she will, only that she is creating an environment where she can take that option if she chooses.
I would never put it past Palin not to run, either in 2012 or any other year. She has the enthusiastic backing of her supporters, and those supporters WILL show up at the polls should she decide to run.
Contrast that with the Democrat’s current problem of generating similar enthusiasm among their own ranks.
That lack of enthusiasm is one reason so many people are thinking the Democrats are going to lose so badly in November, probably losing the House and possibly even losing the Senate.
Never underestimate a motivated political base.
Assertion #2:
“Winning the White House is about winning the middle not the left or the right.”
The problem with this thinking is that you have the country roughly divided into thirds.
1/3 is leftist. 1/3 is right leaning. The last 1/3 seems to shift back and forth between those two extremes to one degree or another.
The “middle” you are referring to is not a static group, but rather a constantly shifting group that goes back and forth between the two types of political thought.
At the moment, that “middle” 1/3 has had a healthy dose of Obama and is shifting strongly to the right, and there is no reason in the world for the Republicans to shift left.
Better to shift the political center of the country further towards the right instead and encourage more of this kind of shifting.
If the programs of the political right work, and the middle 1/3 benefit, then in the long term that political shift to the right can become more entrenched, forcing the political left to shift more towards the right itself to compensate and remain a viable option in the eyes of the middle 1/3.
Assertion #3:
“We live in an era where you have to fool the public into thinking you are moderate rather than hard line. And Palin doesn’t hide behind her views.”
I think this part of your comment says more than any other about what the problems of the left are, right now.
You speak in terms of fooling the people, presenting yourself as something you aren’t as if the people are simpletons to be talked down to.
The American public experienced just such a situation in the last election, and are having serious buyers remorse right now.
My suspicion is they will be far more accepting of a politician that says what they really think, comes off as genuine even when it isn’t politically correct, and the public agrees with most of the time rather than all of the time.
Despite her rough edges (and admittedly she does have some rough edges), Palin fits that qualification perfectly.
You may not agree with what she says – but you can’t make a convincing argument that she doesn’t believe what she is saying.
Honesty, even if it’s on something you disagree with, is always refreshing.
Assertion #4:
“Plus she got a bad start. Sure, blame the media but she is still way too divisive and comes across as too far out.”
Already commented on the MSM *gotcha* campaign. But I’m curious – exactly what is she saying that is so “divisive” and “too far out”?
Assertion #5:
[And she still makes odd gaffes like today again using the word ‘refudiate’. This works against her in the minds of everyone except her staunch defenders.]
“Corpseman”. 57 states. Plenty more if you want a list…..
Every public word she states is recorded now and over-analyzed looking for a gaffe to reinforce the stereotype that has been created for her.
I can honestly say I’ve mispronounced words myself occasionally when I knew the correct pronunciation, simply because I was tired or distracted or whatever.
Mispronouncing “repudiate” is far less than what Obama is doing on a regular basis, and she is bound to misspeak occasionally.
Everyone does.
The only way she could avoid that is to not speak at all – which ain’t gonna happen.
Assertion #6:
“I’m thinking by 2012 it will be Romney or Huckabee or Pawlenty on the Republican ticket. I’d be surprised if it was anyone else. If Obama wins re-election then look to Scott Brown in 2016.”
Romney already got slapped pretty hard by Palin recently. He’s too similar to career politicians at the moment to have a serious chance, and the whole Romneycare problem will hamstring him in any general election as most of the country doesn’t want that kind of a system.
It would be impossible for the Republicans to argue against a mandatory national healthcare system when their standard bearer implemented exactly that kind of system while governor.
Huckabee doesn’t stand a chance. He knows he is better off making his money as a commentator, and would not generate enthusiasm or widespread support among either the right or the middle 1/3 of the population.
Pawlenty? What exactly has he done to place himself in a position to run? What attraction for the general public would he bring to the table? Where is his base of support? How enthusiastic is that base of support?
Scott Brown is a fad of sorts at the moment. He is too green to run for higher national office and would have a purely regional appeal should he attempt it.
Scottie,
Nice effort. It will be totally lost on his like.
You said, “Honesty, even if it’s on something you disagree with, is always refreshing.”
I want to urge you to muster the courage to accept the fact that this statemtn is not only false…it is wildly and dangerously false.
People like the one you were talking to DO NOT find hinesty “refreshing”. Not “always”. Not ever. They don’t.
M. Scott Peck coined a term for them: people of the lie.
We are living with them. That is who we are dealing with. That’s the reality of it.
Being a nice giy and being fair and civil is not the best approach for them. Being in their face Sean Connery in the Untouchable is the only way for them.
Mike Mc.,
LOL…in my view the leftists became inveterate liars a long time ago. My comments were more addressing the non-leftists state of mind.
I really do believe that most of that middling 1/3 of the population actually like the idea of someone NOT lying to them – even if it’s something they don’t want to hear or would agree with, and think there is a certain attraction by the general public when it doesn’t feel someone is lying to them just for their vote.
There’s a novelty to it, if nothing else.
It may take awhile, as most in that catagory automatically assume they are being lied to and that there is no real difference between the two extremes – but they seem to be coming around nicely now that they are having to live with the consequences of their choices in 2008.
Converts is what the political right needs, and converts are usually the ones least likely to change their minds in the future.
The political lurch rightward in 2010 could be the national equivalent of a chiropractor snapping the country’s back into proper alignment.
Might be painful for some when it happens, but damn if it won’t feel much better in the long run!
Fair enough.
Palin’s got my vote and I hope she runs. It’ll be fascinating and she’ll win. That’s why the left hates her so much. My friends in NYC absolutely hate hate hate her and everything about her. They underestimate her. They think she is stupid. She will not win them over but she doesn’t need to. They will follow BO over the cliff. Go Sarah. She’s the one with the talent and the backbone. Those other boys have no chance at all. They are dull dull dull. Obama knows how to fight those types, he’s been beating them at their own game his whole life. Sarah Palin leaves him absolutely flummoxed. She’s gotten under his skin.
I’m going to bet that your moderate friends favor legal abortion, a “right” that was won after a long battle with “religious fanatics”. Palin is the antithesis of the modern pro-choice woman. Her pro-life position and her willingness to “walk-the-talk” threatens their world-view, the one in which noble women like themselves freed women from the horrors of back-alley abortions.
However, public attitudes towards abortion are moving back in Palin’s direction. That is a scary thought to them. The last thing they want to see is a pro-life woman anywhere near the centers of power.
Palin’s own political record does not show her being rigidly pro-life. She appointed, albeit under pressure, a pro-life female judge. Palin’s focus was on cleaning up corruption, reducing the size of government and ensuring Alaskan energy resources were used for the benefit of Alaskans.
The LSM had considerable influence in painting Palin as an idiot from the sticks and/or a far-right religious nut case. After she resigned her governorship, she was written off. In the year since, she has closed a 16 point polling gap with Obama to a tie. She has become a king maker in GOP circles and she’s making liberal heads explode. She has even positioned herself as the public face of the Tea Party movement, even though her Tea Party appearances were with groups that had hi-jacked the name (Tea Party Express and Tea Party Nation are not the same as Tea Party Patriots).
A year ago, the idea that the “quitter” would be thought if as a serious candidate for POTUS would have been laughable. Today, it’s a possibility. After the mid-terms, we’ll be looking at a completely different political landscape, one in which the core Tea Party values are mainstream. Palin stands for fiscal responsibility, free markets and constitutionally limited Government. The other GOP contenders don’t have the same credibility on those values.
I seem to remember how scared to death everyone was about Ronald Reagan. He wasn’t too bright, but, by God, he was just itching to push the big red button to rid the world of those pesky Russkies. I use to call him Ronny Raygun. Well, he zapped Jimmy Carter real good, and won the Cold War.
My problem is that I don’t see any real contenders on the GOP side besides Palin. Romney has Romneycare around his neck, and he’s still flip-flopping like a stunned mullet. Pawlenty comes across as light-weight. Huckabee is type-cast as the genial TV host. Gingrich was successfully demonized by the Left in the 90’s and carries too much progressive baggage. Other good governors like Daniels and Babour lack a national profile. McCain won’t run again; he is now beholden to Palin. Guiliani had his shot and lost.
Palin has already figured out how to by-pass the MSM and get her message out. She has also figured out how to leverage her profile into political capital. Her endorsements are brave, strategic and worth 10 to 20 points. Look at Nikki Haley and Tim Scott in South Carolina. She also seems to be the only GOP contender calling out Obama on a regular basis. Being the anti-Obama in the public eye is going to be a good place to be as the country continues to fall apart under Obama’s tender care.
Julia NYC,
You are right, right, right!
Any other candidate at all Obama would demolish. Not because he is that good, but because they are that bad.
Palin is a better person and a more talented person than any of them, including Obama. She already has his number and he fears more than anything a few months with her as his sparring partner.
That is why all the Dems are giving Republicans are giving advice on who and who not to nominate! As if they have ours or the nation’s best interests at heart!
Why would they say, as they repeatedly do for those paying attention: Palin is a terrible candidate whose nomination they welcome because it would be an easy win for Obama; and don’t nominate her because she is a terrible candidate.
If they want the easy win, they’d want her nomination. But, as you say, they hate, hate, hate her. The reason is simple: They fear her like a vampire fears the sun.
Pat Dooley,
Palin has already figured out how to by-pass the MSM and get her message out. She has also figured out how to leverage her profile into political capital. Her endorsements are brave, strategic and worth 10 to 20 points. Look at Nikki Haley and Tim Scott in South Carolina. She also seems to be the only GOP contender calling out Obama on a regular basis. Being the anti-Obama in the public eye is going to be a good place to be as the country continues to fall apart under Obama’s tender care.
Bingo! You have nailed it.
I like Palin too but she speaks a lot like GWB… which is not good. Her points are usually good, but the communications skills (verbally at least, she writes better) are lacking. Even if we won with her, we can’t afford another republican who can not communicate. IMO, part of the reason for Obama’s strength with the youth vote is Bush was run circles around and couldn’t defend himself and this is all they saw while growing up. We can’t afford to loose another generation like that. Of course Palin does win a few battles and does have a special ability to communicate to conservatives… but it’s not good enough. I wish we had someone like Krauthammer we could run. The guy is able to communicate complicated ideas in a paragraph… several in a small article… and then tie them together to make a new point referencing the others… in the conclusion…
Simple, Thomas. GWB’s correct messages (not all of them were) were drowned out by the baying,lying, distorting MSM dogs. He did not work hard enough to get his message out. He was too trusting that all the news fit to print would be printed. Rove last week in fact said as much, just a tad late.
If Palin, or whoever, triumphs, she must inundate the media-ALL the media- With repetitive emphasis of the issues and her positions. Think of it as the equal of Obama’s golf outings! Pound away, make and remake the case.
And hire Charles the K as her main speechwriter. Baraq’s is a 27 year-old, pushy snotnose!
I like Palin for POTUS. Among other things, I enjoy the prospect of asking my lib friends why strong, accomplished women frighten them.
However. We may survive the dems and Obama.
What will doom this nation inevitably–there is no recourse–is that over half of the electorate thought Obama was a good choice. The likelihood that more than a baker’s dozen have changed what they think of as their minds is nil.
We’re hosed.
Richard Aubrey,
You are also correct. That is actually the number one problem.
Ot is not so much Obama – and the Dems in Congress. It is the 69m people who voted them in.
That mob of degenerate and regressive zombies is probably the end of America. They are the end product of 40 years of liberal training. Unless that can be reversed, we’re truly scr*&d.
A lot of great stuff has already been said here, so I’ll be brief.
Bluntly: we’ve had our share of blustery metrosexuals. Obama is good at looking like a Real Man, but he isn’t one, as is becoming painfully obvious.
Will the Real Men among the candidates please stand up?
Gov. Palin has what it takes… and I know of no one else in her league. She knows how to hold her ground; she knows how to fight the good fight because it’s worth the fighting for, win or lose. She doesn’t need a focus group to tell her what to believe. And nobody, with the possible exception of President Bush, has had the baptism of fire that she has.
In fact, I wonder who would be man enough to be her VP. Would she defy all expectations and pick a female running mate? (Now THAT I don’t think the country is ready for… although God knows, it’d be better than what we have now.)
Don’t count her out as ‘damaged goods’; ain’t no such thing in politics. Nixon came back from the dead; John Kerry repackaged himself as a war hero. Gov. Palin knows that she’d need to rehabilitate her image… and she knows that NOBODY will help her; she must speak to the American people and change their minds herself. As others have pointed out, she’s doing that quite effectively now.
Keep your eyes on the Palins; it’s gonna get interesting.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline