Althouse: Sarah goes to Iowa.

September 17, 2010

Sarah goes to Iowa.

Look out.

154 comments:

Scott M said...: She's simply not ready. Neither is the country. She's one of the (if not THE) most divisive personalities currently on the political landscape.

I remember legions of people saying Hillary couldn't win because of the very same reason. She didn't, of course.

Palin needs time to ferment for a bit, I think, much like Christi, but for different reasons.; 9/17/10, 11:25 AM
Sprezzatura said...: But, Is she a candidate of the people that shops at Wallmart? And, Target; where stuff is so nicely lined up.; 9/17/10, 11:25 AM
Clyde said...: Okay, let's say she's not ready. Neither was Obama, which is probably the greatest argument against Palin. We need someone who has a clue about how Washington works and who isn't going to be worked over by Congress, as Obama was by Pelosi/Reid, who actually set the agenda.

Then again, 2012 is likely to be The Year of the Outsider. Washington is so deeply unpopular at this point that it's going to be difficult for anyone with ties to Washington to get the Republican nomination in 2012. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there won't be any Republican Senator getting the nod this time. And people like Pawlenty, etc., don't really have any more meaningful experience than Palin does at this point.

The God's-honest-truth is that NOBODY is really ready when they enter the Oval Office. But they are either capable or they aren't. Right now, we have one of the latter in office. Given Palin's track record, I'd give her a better than even chance of being capable if she ever gets elected to that office.; 9/17/10, 11:36 AM
Anonymous said...: GOP continues to self destruct. GOP will over-reach, more and more every day till the election.

Please continue hurting yourself.

We win by attrition. We always will win, both in Nov. 2010 and 2012.; 9/17/10, 11:36 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: If Palin runs, said Sabato, "it would be the best news Democrats could possibly have."

46 PERCENT UNFAVORABILITY RATING

Only 46% Well looks like Obama beats her by 2%.

But I agree with ScottM, she needs more seasoning though she's wielding a lot of power as kingmaker. Sometimes its better to be behind the scenes than on the stage.; 9/17/10, 11:37 AM
Scott M said...: Then again, 2012 is likely to be The Year of the Outsider.

That depends greatly on THIS election cycle, which truly is becoming a year of the outsider. If the GOP does take back both houses, or even just the House, and we're subsequently inundated with nonsensical requests for access to area 51 and the like, it will make 2012 the year of the insider.

If I had to bet on a GOP nominee at this point, which I'll admit up front is ludicrous, I'd got with Christi. At least the guy has ample common sense and guts...as well as an ample gut.; 9/17/10, 11:40 AM
BJK said...: I don't know that she has a real chance of being elected to federal office, but she has adeptly read the political landscape, and has been on the forefront of many aspects of the tea party movement.

(Is there a list compiled anywhere of Candidates she's endorsed in the 2010 electoral cycle? I'm sure we hear more about the successes than the failures, but most of the primary 'upsets' have been stamped with her seal of approval.)

Combine that with the attention drawn by her every move, and a message that is resonating with a constituency that seems disillusioned with 'politics as usual,' and you have the makings of a pretty good politician.; 9/17/10, 11:42 AM
MadisonMan said...: Four years ago Hillary! was probably in Iowa. And?; 9/17/10, 11:42 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: "She's simply not ready. Neither is the country. She's one of the (if not THE) most divisive personalities currently on the political landscape."

She's got my vote, already, if she runs. Divisive is a virtue - this is war and the enemy isn't supposed to like you. As far as I can tell, for the most part, she knows what's important. She knows right from wrong, and substance from shallow endeavors or observations, which (compared to a whole hell of a lot of other people today) puts her waaaay ahead of the game in any intelligence sweepstakes. Not to mention that contrived aura of nuttiness, forced on her by the Dems, would scare the bejeezus out of our real enemies overseas.

Run, Sarah, Run.; 9/17/10, 11:45 AM
Stan25 said...: If Palin runs, said Sabato, "it would be the best news Democrats could possibly have."

Isn't that what the establishment said about Reagan? Look at how badly he trounced Carter and Mondale. The pollsters also said that George W Bush was a gift for algore and Lurch. So it depends on how many people actually go out and vote. With the dissatisfaction with the way that both parties are running things, there could very well continue to be a radical shift in 2012 too; 9/17/10, 11:49 AM
Scott M said...: She's got my vote, already, if she runs. Divisive is a virtue - this is war and the enemy isn't supposed to like you.

Granted...but you have to WIN. That's my whole point.; 9/17/10, 11:49 AM
Hagar said...: I do not know that that is where the Palins are going, but if she does, I would not bet against her.

And she is a very fast learner and would have a lot of good people willing to pitch in and help, also after the election.; 9/17/10, 11:51 AM
Peter Hoh said...: and Tim Pawlenty gnashes his teeth.

WV: krear. As in "T-Paw's krear as a politician is coming to an end."; 9/17/10, 11:52 AM
MadisonMan said...: this is war and the enemy isn't supposed to like you.

Oh for God's sake.

Is someone shooting at you, Crack? Are people next to you dying as their brains are liquified from penetrating shrapnel, leaving you to ponder why you're lucky later on when you're bored because nothing is happening?

Politics in the US is not anything like war. I don't see what purpose heightened rhetoric serves.; 9/17/10, 12:00 PM
former law student said...: In 2012, will it be sufficient to not be Obama? How will she distinguish herself from the other GOPsters? She's cuter than Huckabee, but will that be enough? Will she survive a dozen debates with her dignity intact?

I'd kind of like to see if she would carry over her habit of using political office to punish her enemies (like her ex-brother-in-law) if she became President. She'd be like Nixon in a skirt, with an enemies list. Good times.; 9/17/10, 12:03 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: "You have to WIN. That's my whole point."

You're not paying attention if you can't see the trend lines now - O'Donnell was too right-wing, kooky, religious, completely unelectable - but there she is. Face it, Scott, the Dems are demoralized, have gone home, and (if history is any guide) won't be back to haunt us for another 20-25 years. What we need to do now is lay the groundwork so history doesn't repeat itself again whenever they decide to wake-the-fuck back up in the future.; 9/17/10, 12:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Naysayers galore.

Faced with Obama or Palin come election day for whatever reason,who will you vote for....?

Think.

Hard.

(soft whistling); 9/17/10, 12:03 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: My eyes wondered after reading a couple of paragrafs to this..

Tea Party Republican has big lead in Florida
Wed, Sep 15 2010

Wasn't Rubio "unelectable"?; 9/17/10, 12:06 PM
Chennaul said...: O/T

Wow.

Johnson just crossed the 50% threshold in Wisconsin.

New Rasmussen poll-

Johnson 51%

Feingold 44%; 9/17/10, 12:06 PM
Anonymous said...: "Obama Endorses Global Taxes on Eve of U.N. Summit"

http://bit.ly/ddMNHc

Obama or Palin.; 9/17/10, 12:07 PM
Chennaul said...: When an incumbents is polling below 50%, ummm-

that ain't so good.; 9/17/10, 12:08 PM
Opus One Media said...: Scott M said...
"Palin needs time to ferment for a bit...."

I bet you meant to say ripen but ferment is ok. Decompose is also a good choice.; 9/17/10, 12:11 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Crack: Divisive is a virtue - this is war and the enemy isn't supposed to like you.

Yeah, but it helps if at least 51% of the people like you.; 9/17/10, 12:11 PM
Clyde said...: Hell, NYTNY, I already voted for her once (her and the old guy)! Not a difficult choice at all.; 9/17/10, 12:11 PM
Opus One Media said...: Scott M said...
"Then again, 2012 is likely to be The Year of the Outsider."

yeah but we are still limiting it to this planet and not one foot beyond!!!; 9/17/10, 12:12 PM
Scott M said...: I bet you meant to say ripen but ferment is ok. Decompose is also a good choice.

lol, yeah. Good catch.; 9/17/10, 12:13 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: In 2012, will it be sufficient to not be Obama?

If the economic landscape looks like it does now?

You betch'a.

Obama's problem is he was oversold. The electorate actually bought into the messianic image he did nothing to discourage and now, two years in, all he has in his bag is how he inherited all the bad stuff. Yeah, Barry, that's why they elected you because you gave them the Si Si Puede speeches and they...gasp...BELEIVED YOU!

Obama's campaign was like that really cool move trailer; you know, the one where all the best scenes are flashed before you so you spend the $12 at the local cinemax and then 90 minutes later you walk out pissed off because the movie sucked and you already saw all the best parts during the commercial break on The Daily Show.

That's the Obama Presidency.; 9/17/10, 12:15 PM
ndspinelli said...: Our Presidential elections have become the equivalent of the "opposite day" our kids have in grade school. Start w/ Nixon..the opposite of that felon was Jimmy Carter, horrible but honest. It plays out disturbingly for Palin. The opposite of an aloof, elitist, law prof is_________!; 9/17/10, 12:17 PM
Anonymous said...: That's what I'm talking about Clyde.

If you add all of the people that voted Republican last time and all of the people that will never vote for Obama again, what do you get?

Right now 70% of the country is against him and he has two more years to sow his seed.

He will not change like B. Clinton, Obama is driven by his ideology.; 9/17/10, 12:18 PM
Chennaul said...: Sarah better get to Delaware-

she doesn't realize she's hitched her star...to that.

And, so has the Tea party for that matter.

Articles are being written that say the beauty of the Tea Party is that the general public doesn't associate it with any leader yet.

So there isn't a negative influence based on the unfavorables of that person.

Well, O'Donnell just walked into that vacuum-and the media is going to make C.O.D. the new poster child of the Tea Party in large part thanks to Sarah.

A large part of the fate of the Tea Party is now going to rest on the character of that one individual, and you all or going to have to hope Sarah's prodigy-that might soon eclipse her-can talk really fast.

btw-Tea Party's lack of scruples in this one race is a really, really big turn off as is the hate and the anger.

I don't now of too many people or parties that can survive on fumes.

It's a real shame now that the whole Tea Party and some of their better candidates are going to be associated with an out and out liar.; 9/17/10, 12:21 PM
knox said...: Politics in the US is not anything like war. I don't see what purpose heightened rhetoric serves.

If you were trying to run your own business right now, you might be feeling like someone declared war on you!; 9/17/10, 12:25 PM
Scott M said...: Well, O'Donnell just walked into that vacuum-and the media is going to make C.O.D. the new poster child of the Tea Party in large part thanks to Sarah.

Why didn't that very thing work on Angle in Nevada? Why the difference?

I don't now of too many people or parties that can survive on fumes.

The Democrats in the South ran on hate for a long, long time.; 9/17/10, 12:25 PM
Chennaul said...: Oh ya- and just for the record pre-emptively because I have a plane to catch.

I have been a big Tea Party defender around here -but Sarah went out and borrowed some enemies for the Tea Party last week.

People that still give a damn about this little thing called-

integrity.

Some of you have become "squishes" and "sell-outs" on something like that.; 9/17/10, 12:27 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Mad Man,

"Is someone shooting at you, Crack? Are people next to you dying as their brains are liquified from penetrating shrapnel, leaving you to ponder why you're lucky later on when you're bored because nothing is happening?

Politics in the US is not anything like war. I don't see what purpose heightened rhetoric serves."

Is someone shooting at me? Why do you Althouse old timers talk to me like you don't know who you're talking to? My ex left me for a liberal, who railed against my president, my country, and me - before the two of them used leftist spirituality and quackery to kill three others. That, alone, makes some think I dodged a bullet.

Has the war ended? Are you dense enough not to understand that life during wartime changes people? How many liberals, since the war started, have told me they "don't care" about facts (or any truth) that may get in the way of their utopian ambitions - even if it means the end of our friendship? How many called to laugh at me - knowing all I'd been through - when Obama won? How many called me crazy (for not buying their bullshit even after they won the last election) and said conservatism was "dead" - just like a soldier in war? How cruel have they been? The economy is wrecked - just like in war. We're polarized - just like in war.

Politics is war by another means - but it is war. Yes, this is war, Madison Man, and I want the other side DEAD. As a black American, I've had a lifetime of the lies and misery they've had to offer and I never want to see or hear from such scum again - well-meaning or not. This is war. And it's time for liberalism to die. Scortched Earth is my policy. Leave nothing standing. Silver bullets. Stakes to the heart. Whatever. It's time to fight like our lives depended on it.

Kill them all.; 9/17/10, 12:30 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Katie opened her monologue yesterday with the 1 in 7 Americans lives in poverty story.

9 months ago the story would have been buried if mentioned at all.

I find it peculiar that we seem to be saying we need a slick "polished" Obama with an R to beat the slick "polished" Obama with a D.. to beat the Obama that has nearly destroyed this country.

I think Palin will be ready for teleprompter Obama.; 9/17/10, 12:39 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Scott, Angle is giving the media very few sound bites these days.

And O'Donnell is smack between the two places the national media likes to hang out: New York and D.C.

Even if she stops talking, she's going to get a lot more national attention than Angle. And I don't think O'Donnell wants to stop talking.; 9/17/10, 12:40 PM
Chennaul said...: I am in Nevada

Sharron Angle has a hell of a lot more class than O'Donnell.

And I'm glad you brought her up.

The Tea Party, or Sarah Palin or both have Fred Thompson's wife making a damn fool out of herself by playing the gender card.

Accusing the "Establishment Republicans" of not backing O'Donnell only because she is female.

Well Sharron Angle is living proof of what absolute horse shit that all is.

First, Sharrron Angle beat all predictions. Yet according to O'Donnell she claims that it is because she wounded the establishment's vanity by upsetting their predictions, and their pick.

Well Sharron Angle did those very same two things.

But-and this is a big damn important but-Angle did those same two things but did it with class/ without absolute lying.

To some of us that matters.

And-Karl Rove has spent $ 2 million directly from his pact to run very effective campaign ads for Angle as other of "the establishment" have done. The RNSC for example.

The money has been pouring in from them, for Angle in Nevada.

Yet-Fred Thompson and crew slime them w/ the mama grizzly/victim routine and toss in the gender card.

And it's a stupid lie too.

It's immediately provable as false to almost everybody.

{Now, I really do have to get up and out of here}; 9/17/10, 12:42 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: "Obama's problem is he was oversold. The electorate actually bought into the messianic image he did nothing to discourage,..."

Yet another reason I despise liberals. Despite all their rhetoric, they were more than happy to go for that Hitler shit. He was, too. With Oprah playing their NewAge Rasputin or some shit. Oh, how smart they all were, the smug bastards. Fuck 'em all.

Peter Hoh,

"It helps if at least 51% of the people like you."

You've lost the (cowardly) independents - you ain't getting 51% again. And nobody has to like Palin - they just have to despise what you're offering, which we've seen already. It's over.

At the very least, you'll NEVER get me back.; 9/17/10, 12:46 PM
Kensington said...: I'd vote for her. She's better than any of the other "front runners" so far identified.

Huckabee? Spare me!

Romney? Sure! It will be awesome fighting to repeal ObamaCare with the architect of RomneyCare.; 9/17/10, 12:48 PM
Anonymous said...: My second choice for president is former UN ambassador John Bolton. My first choice is Sarah Palin, although I don't think she'll run in 2012. But if she does, I'll be looking forward to seeing her moose-dented Winnebago parked in front of the White House.; 9/17/10, 12:50 PM
ricpic said...: Reuters would dearly love it if Sarah declared her candidacy before November. Anything to change the story from the growing momentum for the GOP. Ain't gonna happen. But if Sarah announces after November it's hers for the asking.; 9/17/10, 12:53 PM
Unknown said...: Keep in mind that it is RotoReuters that wrote the article. They're about as credible as HD.

As to the concept that she's divisive, so was FDR, so was Reagan. Right now, she's one of the most, if not the most, influential voices in politics. Frankly, running for POTUS would mean taking a bust in rank. She commands a lot more attention these days.

America's Politico said...

GOP continues to self destruct. GOP will over-reach, more and more every day till the election.

Please continue hurting yourself.

We win by attrition. We always will win, both in Nov. 2010 and 2012.

Last time somebody said that, he was banging a desk with his shoe.

MadisonMan said...

this is war and the enemy isn't supposed to like you.

Oh for God's sake.

Is someone shooting at you, Crack? Are people next to you dying as their brains are liquified from penetrating shrapnel, leaving you to ponder why you're lucky later on when you're bored because nothing is happening?

Politics in the US is not anything like war. I don't see what purpose heightened rhetoric serves.

Just because there's no shooting doesn't mean it's not war. Just ask Kenneth Gladney.; 9/17/10, 12:57 PM
Opus One Media said...: Almost Ali said...
My second choice for president is former UN ambassador John Bolton."

oh what a team .. tweedle dumb and tweedle dummber; 9/17/10, 1:04 PM
Opus One Media said...: The Crack Emcee said...
" nobody has to like Palin - they just have to despise what you're offering ..."

oh that makes it ever so clear. are to "round out" that thought process some and get back to us?; 9/17/10, 1:07 PM
Sprezzatura said...: She has a fair and balanced book recommendation for you.; 9/17/10, 1:07 PM
former law student said...: Wasn't Rubio "unelectable"?

Charlie Crist said so, back in February. Now it's starting to look like Charlie is the unelectable one.; 9/17/10, 1:15 PM
MadisonMan said...: Just because there's no shooting doesn't mean it's not war. Just ask Kenneth Gladney.

Curious that his despicable assailants are being offered bail and tried before a jury. (Or maybe that's happened already -- the trial) Just like if they were at war with him!; 9/17/10, 1:16 PM
Alex said...: Sarah Palin simply has too many negatives. Bobby Jindal has much more upside. He graduated from Ivy League and doesn't write notes on his hand.; 9/17/10, 1:20 PM
J said...: a candidate of the people that shops at Wallmart

Sarah Klondike, Blue-Vest-in-Chief; 9/17/10, 1:23 PM
hombre said...: oh that makes it ever so clear. are to "round out" that thought process some and get back to us?

Uh oh. It's past noon in NY and the vodka is out.; 9/17/10, 1:23 PM
chickelit said...: Wow.

First she loves Eddie Gizzard and now she dumps Palin.

I want the old madawaskan.; 9/17/10, 1:38 PM
Unknown said...: HDHouse said...

Almost Ali said...

My second choice for president is former UN ambassador John Bolton."

oh what a team .. tweedle dumb and tweedle dummber

Yes, what a pair of dolts. They actually believe this country is worth fighting for.

MadisonMan said...

Just because there's no shooting doesn't mean it's not war. Just ask Kenneth Gladney.

Curious that his despicable assailants are being offered bail and tried before a jury. (Or maybe that's happened already -- the trial) Just like if they were at war with him!

Just like Adolf, Rudolf, and all the other olf's in 1924. That was war, too.

It's been war here since Doc Spock and Stokeley Carmichael walked arm-in-arm up Telegraph Hill. The Lefties have always prosecuted the Cultural Revolution in this country that way, but tried to laugh off anybody in the opposition who called it that. Now, people are beginning to understand.; 9/17/10, 1:45 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm going to sit back and watch the electoral process play out.

If Palin is running, her test is in attracting votes,not winning prediction contests.; 9/17/10, 1:46 PM
former law student said...: Just because there's no shooting doesn't mean it's not war. Just ask Kenneth Gladney.

You mean the man who dislocated Pastor McCowan's shoulder? Yes, it was quite brutal and unprovoked.; 9/17/10, 1:46 PM
GMay said...: Hoosier Daddy said: "...and you already saw all the best parts during the commercial break on The Daily Show."

I read the rest of your post and all, but seriously? You watch The Daily Show?

I'm heartbroken.; 9/17/10, 1:56 PM
GMay said...: madawaskan fumed: "-Tea Party's lack of scruples in this one race is a really, really big turn off as is the hate and the anger."

What the fuck are you talking about? Hate and anger?

Take a breath and let go of the pearls Madge.; 9/17/10, 2:04 PM
GMay said...: Back to the topic, I'd vote for Palin if she got the nod, but I'm hoping she stays on the sidelines doing exactly what she's doing for now - lightning rod.; 9/17/10, 2:06 PM
Triangle Man said...: @MadisonMan

Your appeal to reason is touching.; 9/17/10, 2:07 PM
AllenS said...: Sarah Palin simply has too many negatives.

At the present time, how many positives does Obama have?; 9/17/10, 2:18 PM
Phil 314 said...: My take; 9/17/10, 2:22 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: What is funny about the quote from Romney about Wal-Mart and Target is that it would not be the least bit surprising if he had actually met Sam Walton at some point along the way, either in business, or as the son of the governor of one of the larger states.

Which is another reason why he would have been the best of the mainstream party candidates to be running the country right now, might have beaten Obama in 2008, but is unlikely to be the man of the hour in 2012. Too much the insider, plus having RomneyCare hanging around his neck.; 9/17/10, 2:23 PM
Phil 314 said...: Okay, let's say she's not ready. Neither was Obama, which is probably the greatest argument against Palin.

Given the last two years, do we really want to use that argument?; 9/17/10, 2:23 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: "At the present time, how many positives does Obama have?"

He's not obese.; 9/17/10, 2:27 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: I like Sarah. Mostly because the left hate her with such rage.

I don't think Sarah will win against Obama. If Sarah's IQ were 20 points higher?... Then, maybe yes.; 9/17/10, 2:30 PM
Brian O'Connell said...: Bobby Jindal has much more upside. He graduated from Ivy League...

Can we retire that yet? Our late Ivy League dictatorship hasn't seen very good results. Paraphrasing Buckley, I'd rather a bunch of community college grads run the govt than the Ivy elites. They've been disastrous- and I'm not just talking about the Obama admin.; 9/17/10, 2:31 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Why didn't that very thing work on Angle in Nevada? Why the difference?

I think that the thing about Angle is that a lot of people just really dislike Harry Reid - a lot. Of course, it is probably a lot more noticeable up here in northern Nevada, which is traditionally more conservative. You see a lot of Angle signs and bumper stickers, but the only Reid bumper stickers are those that want him out - like his name in the circle with the line through it. Or, often much worse.; 9/17/10, 2:36 PM
Synova said...: Obama probably ran with no thought that getting the nomination was possible... at least not initially.

People do run for president for reasons other than they think they can win *this time*.

They run for the exposure, to gain and build familiarity with the voters. They run to try to influence policy and what issues get discussed.

People talk like if Palin ran, that her not winning would be a disaster for her career, that she should be more ready first. The campaign is one way to get ready.

Also, Palin running would elevate the level of interest in the Republicans competing to run against the incumbent Obama. As much as people talk about Obama not running, which would open up the Democrat primaries, or talk about a Clinton challenge in the primaries, it would be completely shocking if that happened. So in 2012 it's pretty much just the Republicans, and in an "off" year against an incumbent the most probable thing is that the incumbent wins. (Obama is more likely to end up like Carter than most, and Bush the First only did one term, so it's not all that sure that an incumbent will win, but it really is the incumbent's race to *lose*.) So what most Republicans are going to be counting on getting out of the campaign is voter recognition.

Palin is appearing a lot in friendly venues, but she's pretty easy to avoid. If she's running for President she can get on her soap box about her issues in places where people who don't actually follow her, will see her and hear her. Considering just how hostile the rhetoric was during the last presidential election and how much prominence was put on the Couric interview, the most common reaction may well be positive as people get a chance to compare her to the caricature that's been painted so vigorously.; 9/17/10, 2:40 PM
somefeller said...: Crack Emcee says:This is war. And it's time for liberalism to die. Scortched Earth is my policy. Leave nothing standing. Silver bullets. Stakes to the heart. Whatever. It's time to fight like our lives depended on it. Kill them all.

edutcher says: It's been war here since Doc Spock and Stokeley Carmichael walked arm-in-arm up Telegraph Hill. The Lefties have always prosecuted the Cultural Revolution in this country that way, but tried to laugh off anybody in the opposition who called it that. Now, people are beginning to understand.

I guess if you're otherwise a total loser in life, having little Walter Mitty fantasies about being a participant in a big war when you're just watching the standard political activity from the sidelines allows you to feel some sense of importance. But for those of us with more going on with our lives, MadisonMan's comments are correct. It's an election. Someone will win and someone will lose. Talking about it being some sort of war is laughable.

Regarding Sarah in Iowa, things are looking good for Sarah Palin right now, but we'll see how that plays out in the snowy retail political environment of Iowa and New Hampshire. 2012 is a long time from now.; 9/17/10, 2:43 PM
somefeller said...: And once again - keep your eye on Sen. John Thune.; 9/17/10, 2:43 PM
Synova said...: "Sarah Palin simply has too many negatives. Bobby Jindal has much more upside. He graduated from Ivy League and doesn't write notes on his hand."

Do you really think that the notes on her hand turned out negative for her?; 9/17/10, 2:43 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Brian, perhaps you'd be interested in my constitutional amendment that would limit the number of times we can have a president who has any connection with Yale or Harvard.; 9/17/10, 2:46 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: What is interesting about Palin right now is that she has really become the second most influential politician in the country (after Obama), and has done so after having resigned mid-term from her only major political office.

But this is the year of the outsider, and how can someone be more outside than sitting up there in Wasilla, Alaska?

That outsider stuff though is why I think that her prospects for 2012 depend, at least to some extent, on the Republicans doing well, but not really winning control of the Senate this election cycle. I don't think that even the most robotic of our liberals here believe in their hearts that the Democrats are likely to retain the House (frankly I think that it would have been unlikely even without the Tea Party Movement, since some 55 Dems are sitting in seats occupied by Reps 4 years ago). But with both Houses, the Republicans might be expected to try to govern over the next two years. But without the Senate to help pass OmamaCare repeal, cut taxes, etc., all the Republican House will be able to do over the next year is to investigate the heck out of the rampant corruption in the Administration (esp. Holder's DoJ), and maybe some of the CBC while they are at it, and then pass a bunch of stuff that isn't going to be enacted into law, but looks good. And if this is the case, then there is a real possibility that 2012 may be another year of the outsider election, and Palin would be the best candidate to tap that.; 9/17/10, 2:47 PM
AllenS said...: He's not obese.

Smokers tend to be thinner.; 9/17/10, 2:50 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: "Sarah Palin simply has too many negatives. Bobby Jindal has much more upside. He graduated from Ivy League and doesn't write notes on his hand."

I really don't think that an Ivy League education is going to help anyone win in 2012. Indeed, I expect it to hurt - a lot. Which is why both Jindal and Romney may have trouble.

Keep in mind that an Ivy League education, plus a Black parent, were the entirety of Barack Obama's credentials and qualifications. And the result is fairly obvious - one of the two most incompetent Presidents of the last century (I would throw Carter in as the other). Ok, maybe 80 years, since I am not sure how he really compares to Hoover.; 9/17/10, 2:52 PM
prairie wind said...: Obama's campaign was like that really cool move trailer; you know, the one where all the best scenes are flashed before you so you spend the $12 at the local cinemax and then 90 minutes later you walk out pissed off because the movie sucked and you already saw all the best parts

No, it's like paying $12 to get in and then finding out that instead of the heartwarming family drama the trailer promised, you're watching An Inconvenient Truth over and over while the usher demands another $12 every three minutes, and says you can't leave the theater for another four years.; 9/17/10, 2:54 PM
ricpic said...: I don't think Sarah will win against Obama. If Sarah's IQ were 20 points higher?..Then, maybe yes.

Pathetic the number of people who equate a knowing air and haughty condescending manner for smarts. Bet you think Reagan was a dunce too.; 9/17/10, 3:01 PM
Anonymous said...: My consultancy is going so much better these days. The GOP, Tea Party, and their supporters really do not know the voters. My clients do not even pay for polling. They simply trust my judgement: GOP will not win anything, except for minor (not relevant) offices.

We have nothing to worry for 2010 or 2012, as GOP no leaders-in-making.

Here's hoping Palin is their nominee. Her spectacular defeat will give us the mandate we have been wanting. If you think health care bill was big time, wait till what we do after Nov. 2012.

Keep on trucking. Don't stop.; 9/17/10, 3:02 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Faced with Obama or Palin come election day for whatever reason,who will you vote for....?"

Neither one, as I prefer not to vote for mass murderers or idiot puppets of the predator class.

(Not that Obama isn't a puppet of the predator class, but I make the distinction because Palin isn't a mass murderer--yet--and presumably won't be, unless she were to somehow gain the White House and continue the Bush/Obama wars, which I think is...unlikely.); 9/17/10, 3:07 PM
Robert Cook said...: "He will not change like B. Clinton, Obama is driven by his ideology."

Obama is merely the "white" Bill Clinton...preaching like a Democrat, governing like a Republican.; 9/17/10, 3:10 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: "I guess if you're otherwise a total loser in life, having little Walter Mitty fantasies about being a participant in a big war when you're just watching the standard political activity from the sidelines allows you to feel some sense of importance."

Taking the long view of politics ain't no Walter Mitty fantasy. The Democrats ruled, pretty much, since WWII. Conservatives are finally making headway against that - and the current cleansing of the Republican Party, and, soon, the clearing of Democrats from power, are a part of that battle.

Nothing that's happening now is "standard political activity". It's never been seen in American politics before. It's the people taking control of our country again.

And yea, as an American who was fueling this occurrence before the idea was popular, I feel damn important.; 9/17/10, 3:19 PM
Hagar said...: Regardless of which party wins congressional majorities in November, rhe majorities will be slim ones, and the next two years will be a legislative stalemate with a lot of frustration building up to the 2012 election, especially since the economy will at best bump along at its present pace.; 9/17/10, 3:22 PM
Paddy O said...: Her unfavorability is based on her two bad interviews during the campaign and massive media blitz against her.

If she can show that she understands global and national politics, and I have no doubt she has been drilling on these topics, she could turn these unfavorables around pretty quickly. Most Americans are quick to change their minds if someone proves they are capable.

Same goes the other way. Obama had stellar favorable ratings just earlier this year. Now... alas.

Palin cannot ride on her laurels. She has to prove herself. But so far she has proven to be a dynamo in the national political conversation, far beyond any other Republican.

She has fire in her belly. And as we know from coverage of Fred Thompson's failed run, that's apparently the most important thing everyone is looking for.

I'm not an automatic supporter. I'd like to see herself prove she's ready. I hope she can.; 9/17/10, 3:27 PM
Peter Hoh said...: What happens if the GOP wins either the House or the Senate -- or both?

Look for President Obama to recommend spending cuts while the GOP leadership works to ensure that they don't happen.; 9/17/10, 3:29 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Paddy, too bad she can't run for some office that would give her a chance to prove her executive chops.; 9/17/10, 3:30 PM
Robert Cook said...: "If she can show that she understands global and national politics...."

Good luck with that.

The inexplicable phenomenon of people taking Palin seriously as a person of even minimal substance, much less as a candidate for any public office, is proof of the Sub-Genius adage:

"Act like a dumbshit and they'll treat you like an equal."

(Of course, it should be "...treat you as as equal," but I quotes 'em as they're written.); 9/17/10, 3:36 PM
somefeller said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/17/10, 3:36 PM
somefeller said...: The Democrats ruled, pretty much, since WWII.

Poor Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush (I and II). So quickly forgotten.

Nothing that's happening now is "standard political activity". It's never been seen in American politics before. It's the people taking control of our country again.

Yeah, no one has ever seen conservatives banding together to call for spending and tax cuts before. This is totally new stuff.

And yea, as an American who was fueling this occurrence before the idea was popular, I feel damn important.

I'm sure you do, Walter.; 9/17/10, 3:36 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Yeah, no one has ever seen conservatives banding together to call for spending and tax cuts before. This is totally new stuff.

But this time, they really mean it.

Not tax cut, borrow, and spend like last time.

Honest. We really mean it.; 9/17/10, 3:43 PM
former law student said...: And the result is fairly obvious - one of the two most incompetent Presidents of the last century (I would throw Carter in as the other).

Carter was the worst of the second half century. W. is the worst since Carter. (By reversing the trends of deficit reduction and decreasing our dependence on foreigh oil, combined with a sevenfold increase in our our trade deficit, Reagan did more to harm the US than any other president in modern memory, but he was an effective leader.) Based on his performance so far, I would put Obama on a par with LBJ, in terms of managing both guns and butter.; 9/17/10, 3:46 PM
Sprezzatura said...: She's too cool to hang w/ her sistas. Not cool.; 9/17/10, 4:09 PM
Brian O'Connell said...: Based on his performance so far, I would put Obama on a par with LBJ, in terms of managing both guns and butter.

LBJ was far worse than Obama on both counts. Though to be fair, Obama's not done yet.; 9/17/10, 4:20 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: somefeller,

"Poor Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush (I and II). So quickly forgotten."

You're just playing dumb, right? Start with FDR and try that again - list them all. Then get snarky - if there's one thing I love, it's snark in the name of stupidity.

"No one has ever seen conservatives banding together to call for spending and tax cuts before. This is totally new stuff."

You are a loon: Goldwater's candidacy was a breach in the liberal stranglehold on power. Reagan was the first of the new breed. '94 was a comeback. (Bush II was interupted.) Now we're finishing the job.

"I'm sure you do [feel important], Walter."

It's better than being just somefeller.; 9/17/10, 4:21 PM
AllenS said...: LBJ once sent me a letter. It was a long time ago, but I remember it started off with one word: "Greetings".

Not long after, I was in the Army.; 9/17/10, 4:43 PM
Alex said...: The bottom line is that we won't ever win anything if we don't do what the Repubican elites like Brooks & Krauthammer tell us to do. Hicks like Palin are our doom!; 9/17/10, 4:55 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Carter was the worst of the second half century. W. is the worst since Carter. (By reversing the trends of deficit reduction and decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, combined with a sevenfold increase in our our trade deficit, Reagan did more to harm the US than any other president in modern memory, but he was an effective leader.) Based on his performance so far, I would put Obama on a par with LBJ, in terms of managing both guns and butter.

I don't think that you can really say that Obama is handling the guns and butter that well, with two trillion plus dollar deficits back to back, and more as far as the eye can see.

You may fault Bush (43) on starting the trend, but a lot of it, at the end, can be attributed to the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006. Sure, he was spending more than he was bringing in, but he was also waging two wars.

I think that even now, a lot of the public that didn't appreciate Bush (43) at the time, now think that he was a far superior President than his successor.

My, admittedly biased, view of the Obama Presidency, is that he has exploded the deficit, greatly endebted our grandchildren, mostly to pay off his political cronies and supporters, passed the very unpopular ObamaCare into law, greatly deepened the recession, pissed off our foreign allies, while showing himself, and this country, to be weak by appeasing our enemies.

All in less than two years. Wonder what he will do for an encore.

At least in the aftermath of 9/11/01, Bush was able to bring most of the country together. As far as I can tell, Obama, the supposed great uniter, has done nothing except to divide it further.

And that doesn't even get into the level of corruption in the Administration itself, and, in particular, the Department of Justice. A level that I don't even think we saw under Meese. An admitted tax cheat running Treasury and the bag man for the Clinton pardon sales running Justice. Just as a start.

Why you think that very many people will, in the end, consider President Obama as anywhere near the level of LBJ, or, really, either of the Bushes, is beyond me. My view is that the only reason he won't be rated at a similar level to the other President Johnson is that most "historians" voted for him (Obama).; 9/17/10, 5:00 PM
former law student said...: Sure, he was spending more than he was bringing in, but he was also waging two wars.

He cut taxes for his dad's buddies, then waged a war that was neither budgeted nor necessary. Let's say your Dad had his hours cut at work -- would it really make sense for him to buy a sports car?

now think that he was a far superior President than his successor.

Continuing the sports car analogy -- W. drove it full out without making sure it had enough oil. Obama must carefully rebuild the ruined engine.; 9/17/10, 5:11 PM
former law student said...: pissed off our foreign allies

WTF? Obama carefully mended fences with each of our foreign allies, most of whom think he's great.; 9/17/10, 5:12 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Hey, somefeller, I thought your stupidity deserved an underline:

"No one has ever seen conservatives banding together to call for spending and tax cuts before. This is totally new stuff."

From Peggy Noonan's Wall Street Journal column today:

Here is Jonathan Rauch in National Journal on the tea party's innovative, broad-based network: "In the expansive dominion of the Tea Party Patriots, which extends to thousands of local groups and literally countless activists," there is no chain of command, no hierarchy. Individuals "move the movement." Popular issues gain traction and are emphasized, unpopular ones die. "In American politics, radical decentralization has never been tried on such a large scale."

Got that? "Individuals 'move the movement.'"

That's a whole lot of Walter Mittys.; 9/17/10, 5:29 PM
somefeller said...: Got that? "Individuals 'move the movement.'"

And they move the movement to support the same things that conservatives have banded together to support for years. Same song, new singers. Yawn.; 9/17/10, 5:35 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: FLS,

What you're saying is so silly it's disgraceful. Obama keeps trying to use those auto-analogies as well ("drove the car into a ditch") and they're just as convincing - that's why he's so popular and Bush-inspired "Miss Me Yet?" shirts and billboards are nowhere to be found.

Jesus, what does it take for a liberal to acknowledge reality?; 9/17/10, 5:35 PM
somefeller said...: That's a whole lot of Walter Mittys.

And the Walter Mitty comment was aimed at keyboard commandos who like to talk of war when one is simply talking about electoral politics. I won't insult the whole Tea Party movement by claiming they are sad Walter Mitty types, because I have no reason to believe they generally are. Now, some of the people who support them, especially in internet comment boxes, however...; 9/17/10, 5:38 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: ""Sarah Palin simply has too many negatives. Bobby Jindal has much more upside. He graduated from Ivy League and doesn't write notes on his hand."

Peggy Noonan - again:

"Local tea parties seem—so far—not to be falling in love with the particular talents or background of their candidates. It's more detached than that. They don't say their candidates will be reflective, skilled in negotiations, a great senator, a Paul Douglas or Pat Moynihan or a sturdy Scoop Jackson. These qualities are not what they think are urgently needed. What they want is someone who will walk in, put her foot on the conservative end of the yardstick, and make everything slip down in that direction."

And Sarah Palin's is it.; 9/17/10, 5:54 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: somefeller,

"And they move the movement to support the same things that conservatives have banded together to support for years. Same song, new singers. Yawn."

My goodness, you're dumb. In case you didn't hear, we're not Democrats - we don't want "Hope and Change" but the government we were promised.

BTW - you should make "Yawn" your middle name:

I can't help but picture you with your mouth open.; 9/17/10, 5:58 PM
former law student said...: Jesus, what does it take for a liberal to acknowledge reality?

Reality like the bursting of the housing bubble?
Reality like $4 gas?
Reality like rebuilding the state of Iraq in direct contradiction of his campaign promises?

I think liberals are in touch with reality -- conservatives should try reaching towards it some time.; 9/17/10, 6:00 PM
Unknown said...: somefeller said...

edutcher says: It's been war here since Doc Spock and Stokeley Carmichael walked arm-in-arm up Telegraph Hill. The Lefties have always prosecuted the Cultural Revolution in this country that way, but tried to laugh off anybody in the opposition who called it that. Now, people are beginning to understand.

I guess if you're otherwise a total loser in life, having little Walter Mitty fantasies about being a participant in a big war when you're just watching the standard political activity from the sidelines allows you to feel some sense of importance. But for those of us with more going on with our lives, MadisonMan's comments are correct. It's an election. Someone will win and someone will lose. Talking about it being some sort of war is laughable.

Mr Phony Folksy raises the chicken-hawk dodge again. The Left has been on the offensive since the mid-60s to tranform this country into it's idea of a People's Paradise (actually, that's when it came out into the open) and some is one of Uncle Saul's good little nephews spreading the Big Lie. He know it's got to do with Antonio Gramsci's ideas of infiltrating a society's institutions and Cloward-Piven's theories on bringing down this country.

Phony Folksy knows it. Electoral politics is only one arena. And he projects how he gets his jollies as a Valiant Guerilla Fighter in the Glorious World Socialist Workers Revolution onto everyone who sees through him.; 9/17/10, 6:19 PM
former law student said...: edutcher -- I thank you for introducing me to Antonio Gramsci, because he sure god explained the Joe-the-Plumber phenomenon. From widipedia:

Capitalism, Gramsci suggested, maintained control not just through violence and political and economic coercion, but also ideologically, through a hegemonic culture in which the values of the bourgeoisie became the 'common sense' values of all. Thus a consensus culture developed in which people in the working-class identified their own good with the good of the bourgeoisie, and helped to maintain the status quo rather than revolting.

Joe took this further, and identified himself not as a plumber's assistant making chump change, but as a plumbing contractor, taking home more than a quarter-million a year.; 9/17/10, 6:40 PM
Anonymous said...: The downside to this revolution is that incumbents are back in Washington stealing everything they can lay their filthy, felonious hands on.; 9/17/10, 6:42 PM
somefeller said...: edutcher says: And he projects how he gets his jollies as a Valiant Guerilla Fighter in the Glorious World Socialist Workers Revolution onto everyone who sees through him.

Um, you're the one who regularly talks about war, purges, etc., in your comments, not me. It's not projection when someone points out the nature of your commentary. And as far as a socialist workers revolution is concerned, I'm quite happy with capitalism, thank you very much. In fact, I suspect I've done better at the capitalism game than you have, based on the stench of resentment and loserdom that comes from you. I simply realize that capitalism in an advanced country needs an effective government to thrive. Alexander Hamilton and all that.

Oh, and congratulations for mentioning Gramsci, Alinsky and Cloward-Piven in one post. You've probably been waiting days to do that. Sort of a dullard pseudoscholarship trifecta.; 9/17/10, 6:45 PM
Mark said...: I'd kind of like to see if she would carry over her habit of using political office to punish her enemies (like her ex-brother-in-law)...

You mean the State Trooper who TASERed his stepson?

You are definitely on the side of the angels there, friend.; 9/17/10, 6:59 PM
Mark said...: Even if she stops talking, she's going to get a lot more national attention than Angle. And I don't think O'Donnell wants to stop talking.

Remember, we're talking Delaware, home of Joe Biden. Saying stupid sh*t doesn't seem to be a show-stopper there.; 9/17/10, 7:04 PM
Cedarford said...: Here is Jonathan Rauch in National Journal on the tea party's innovative, broad-based network: "In the expansive dominion of the Tea Party Patriots, which extends to thousands of local groups and literally countless activists," there is no chain of command, no hierarchy. Individuals "move the movement." Popular issues gain traction and are emphasized, unpopular ones die. "In American politics, radical decentralization has never been tried on such a large scale."
=======================
The danger of an inchoate moment though, in a national political system, is obvious. The collapse of the Czarist system led to almost a dozen "movements" ranging from the reformist, legalistic, to the nihilist charismatics.
The charismatic ones "won."
The loss of WWI and the failure of Weimer to govern or stand up against the vengeful "allied nations" led to dozens of vying movements. The most charismatic figure, the one that pioneered mass radio communications and political barnstorming by airplane was able to unite the angry factions and masses with a strong revanchist, throw all the seasoned politicians out - message.

America is in a place where disorganized people want a charismatic, telegenic messenger to channel their anger and desire for change at any cost. In their meetings, they are gravitating towards "outspoken women of a telegenic nature who have gone to college to, then after college worked to master mass communications skills in cause group after cause group".

The Tea Prty movement is made to order for angry rubes not knowing what they want to gravitate to a spokesmodel who slickly dishes out the red meat after years of practice.
The times do not favor them going with a competent but "unexciting" persona like Mitch Daniels, Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, a Gov Christie....but a sports broadcast major (Palin) a theater and communications major(O'Donnell) Angle (TV journalism, art - U of Nevada)

The times are made to order, again in history, for someone who can best give speeches that channel anger on issues - not someone that has a background dealing with those issues.

Really, Obama was a mirror image to this in the other Party. As was Jesse Jackson, an earlier slick speechifier beloved by his disorganized followers and made into a Palinesque media darling.; 9/17/10, 7:19 PM
former law student said...: You mean the State Trooper who TASERed his stepson?

You are definitely on the side of the angels there, friend.

The State Troopers investigated the complete Heath family bill of particulars, including the tasering, and awarded the ex-brother-in-law a two-week suspension, which the trooper served.

This did not satisfy Sarah, who was out for blood. No man cheats on her sister and gets away with it. When she became governor she tried to see what her levers of power could do.

Now the analogy is not to Nixon, but to Henry II. "Will no one rid me of this troublesome Trooper?!"

But feel free to make excuses for the divine Sarah's using her clout in the service of a family vendetta.; 9/17/10, 7:21 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: The Tea Prty movement is made to order for angry rubes not knowing what they want to gravitate to a spokesmodel who slickly dishes out the red meat after years of practice.

The times do not favor them going with a competent but "unexciting" persona like Mitch Daniels, Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, a Gov Christie....but a sports broadcast major (Palin) a theater and communications major(O'Donnell) Angle (TV journalism, art - U of Nevada).

Keep at it. Every time a lib calls those backing the Tea Party "angry rubes", more join the party. Why? Well, for one thing, there are far more state university graduates than Ivy League graduates. And the state universities have the better football teams.

And, secondly, we have seen how incompetently those Ivy League graduates do when they try to run anything.

The problem for the left, and leftists, is that this is the election of the anti-elites. Elites have been telling us for decades to just trust them, and they will run this country better than anyone else can. But, they have had their chances, and, it turns out, their ideas, developed in academia, are epic failures, and their execution is just as bad.

So, we have a lot of candidates right now saying, quit trusting those elites, and do the common sense thing - cut back on the size and scale of government, and don't borrow money that we don't have. And no matter how often we hear someone glibly tell us that the government can borrow as much as it wants, because it is just balance sheet entries, the American people know that is a lie, being told to justify just borrowing more money from our grandchildren.; 9/17/10, 7:44 PM
chickelit said...: @Bruce Hayden:

Well said; 9/17/10, 7:57 PM
chickelit said...: But feel free to make excuses for the divine Sarah's using her clout in the service of a family vendetta.

Cripes FLS that's Paleopalinology. Unless you have some new facts, you're spinning your wheels.; 9/17/10, 8:09 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Bruce,

I'm sure that you would agree that all the folks that join the TPers because they overheard someone else call other TPers angry rubes are total dopes.

I'm guessing that the vast majority of the TPers did NOT join up because they heard someone call the TPers angry rubes. That would be a really stupid reason to join up.

And, your description of state college grads as football obsessed, bitter folks looking to "stick it" to Ivy folks is unnecessarily demeaning to the non-Ivy folks. It seems that you will be surprised to learn that non-Ivy folks (and non-college folks) are smarter than that.; 9/17/10, 8:23 PM
Mark said...: The State Troopers investigated the complete Heath family bill of particulars, including the tasering, and awarded the ex-brother-in-law a two-week suspension, which the trooper served.

Which most rubes would consider nothing more than the State Aparatus covering for a dirty cop.

Remember, Palin's image among those who admire her is one who is willing to take on the Establishment.

Legalisms and relationships aside, most people who haven't cast aside all ethical systems except the acquisition and maintenance of power (or worse, in the adoration of power) are going to side against the bad cop on this one.; 9/17/10, 8:25 PM
somefeller said...: Keep at it. Every time a lib calls those backing the Tea Party "angry rubes", more join the party. Why? Well, for one thing, there are far more state university graduates than Ivy League graduates. And the state universities have the better football teams. And, secondly, we have seen how incompetently those Ivy League graduates do when they try to run anything.

There's no shortage of state school graduates in the economic, political and cultural elites of this country. People who claim that contemporary politics is a battle between Ivy League graduates vs. state university graduates are telling us more about their own insecurities and cultural presuppositions than they are about what is really happening in the country. And while support for the GOP may be increasing (such is the nature of midterm elections in the midst of a recession, and the Obama Administration has had its share of unforced errors to boot), one shouldn't confuse that with support for the Tea Party movement in general, which is only one part of the GOP coalition.; 9/17/10, 8:26 PM
somefeller said...: And, your description of state college grads as football obsessed, bitter folks looking to "stick it" to Ivy folks is unnecessarily demeaning to the non-Ivy folks. It seems that you will be surprised to learn that non-Ivy folks (and non-college folks) are smarter than that.

This.; 9/17/10, 8:27 PM
Sprezzatura said...: "Remember, Palin's image among those who admire her is one who is willing to take on the Establishment."

That's what makes O'Donnell even better.
Fight the IRS

Fight the mortgage holder

Fight the tuition payment department

Fight the conservative think tank by making up BS about being in a non existent school program to help get a few more million

Fight paying campaign bills when that money can be used for personal expenses

She's so dreamy.

P.S.
She's only made 1.5 million since yesterday. Have you cons donated? Even if you have, you should donate more. You don't come across this sort of fighter everyday. And, she's adorable.; 9/17/10, 8:30 PM
Synova said...: And the best proof that Palin did not abuse her authority over her brother-in-law is that she didn't even manage to get him fired.

What sort of authority abuse is that anyhow. What a poseur!; 9/17/10, 8:38 PM
chickelit said...: Fight the mortgage holder

Fight the tuition payment department

Fight the Glower!; 9/17/10, 8:40 PM
Cedarford said...: Bruce Hayden - In the 20s, the responsible German burghers were aghast that the "rubes" were gravitating towards and amalgam of uneducated Freikorps vets, Romers SA brownshirts, outspoken WWI female war widows, proto-fascist disgruntled socialists, and rallying around a little corporal who got in front of rallies and threw out amazing charisma and telegenic appeal.

As Noonan later wrote in her essay:

" A movement like this can help a nation by acting as a corrective, or it can descend into a corrosive populism that celebrates unknowingness as authenticity, that confuses showiness with seriousness and vulgarity with true conviction. Parts could become swept by a desire just to tear down, to destroy.

But establishments exist for a reason. It is true that the party establishment is compromised, and by many things, but one of them is experience. They've lived through a lot, seen a lot, know the national terrain. They know how things work. They know the history. I wonder if tea party members know how fragile are the institutions that help keep the country together."

Remember that Obama is in a sense a mirror image of tea party FAVES. A telegenic, charismatic speechifier who had done no actual leading, dealing with challenges as an executive in government or private industry. He only excelled at oratory and channelling the anger in the country at Bush's dismal bumbling and the Republicans wars of adventure and dismal economic leadership. How the Republicans had become job-destroying, corrupted whores while they had power.

If the tea party is all about putting inexperienced, unqualified but telegenic people up to the top of their movement...Noonan's warnings will be soon realized.

Thinking the tea partiers under the likes of Palin will perform as well as Obama has - and push our country further to the brink - I am now thinking we could end up in a place where Lincoln was. The country needed an autocrat, parts of the Constitution had to be destroyed by Lincoln to save the whole, parts of democracy suspended, courts too. The military behind the scenes in charge of most civil and economic decisions made in the Civil War.

It is possible we could see another time when America is on a similar brink, and we go off that brink. As Noonan said, our institutions are fragile and the threat to them comes not only from Obamites but equal true-believer types from the other side of the political spectrum. I hope if it comes, it will be without the mass killing Lincoln decided he had to do to preserve the Union.; 9/17/10, 8:42 PM
Cedarford said...: 1jpb -

"Remember, Palin's image among those who admire her is one who is willing to take on the Establishment."

That's what makes O'Donnell even better.
Fight the IRS
Fight the mortgage holder
Fight the tuition payment department
Fight the conservative think tank by making up BS about being in a non existent school program to help get a few more million
Fight paying campaign bills when that money can be used for personal expenses
She's so dreamy.

P.S.
She's only made 1.5 million since yesterday. Have you cons donated? Even if you have, you should donate more. You don't come across this sort of fighter everyday. And, she's adorable!

Gotta say, 1jpb, we disagree a lot, but that sarcasm was dead on mark and funny as heck!

Who cares if she is unfit for the job! Can't balance her personal checkbook! I love her tits and her big loud mouth and she is adorably cute! Brains and ability are overrated. We need more Madame LeFarges!; 9/17/10, 8:49 PM
chickelit said...: Cedarford wrote:
It is possible we could see another time when America is on a similar brink, and we go off that brink.

and then:
Who cares if she is unfit for the job! Can't balance her personal checkbook! I love her tits and her big loud mouth and she is adorably cute! Brains and ability are overrated. We need more Madame LeFarges!

She's already got a face that launched a thousand left wing shitfits.

Let's consider her opponent, Chris Coons. What say ye for Mr. Coons?; 9/17/10, 8:59 PM
MadisonMan said...: And once again - keep your eye on Sen. John Thune.

Heh. I thought I was gonna read McCain, not Thune.; 9/17/10, 9:01 PM
MadisonMan said...: But seriously, the Repubicans would be MORONS to nominate ANOTHER Senator in 2012.; 9/17/10, 9:04 PM
Anonymous said...: How sad to see that Palin seems to be focusing on the acquisition of power instead of, you know, maybe doing something to help our country.

At this point, she could be using her considerable personal gravitas to force stupid Democrat laws to be changed and stupid Democrat commitments to be undone. Stop talking and do something!!!

One particular example is the 1099 IRS reporting requirements that the Democrats forced into their health care reform law. It will cripple the business community! Only now are people starting to realize how insanely burdensome to business this will be... and it starts in 2012, which is not too far away.

This is only one example of course. But who is confronting problems like this? The business community withers; until it starts going strong again, all of us will become more and more worse off.

I guess Palin wants to ignore the problems and vainly pursue the top job. And that leaves nobody-- nobody!-- paying attention to the essential immediate tasks at hand.

Everyone who wants to gain power this November and in 2012 has the incentive to make America as worse off as possible. The poorer we all are and the more difficult it is to conduct business, the better the prospects for political change.; 9/17/10, 9:13 PM
Unknown said...: former law student said...
edutcher -- I thank you for introducing me to Antonio Gramsci, because he sure god explained the Joe-the-Plumber phenomenon. From widipedia:

As a friend, I'd advise you to get a better source. I think you've got it just a wee bit backwards, but you want to quote something with a little more credibility.

somefeller said...

edutcher says: And he projects how he gets his jollies as a Valiant Guerilla Fighter in the Glorious World Socialist Workers Revolution onto everyone who sees through him.

Um, you're the one who regularly talks about war, purges, etc., in your comments, not me. It's not projection when someone points out the nature of your commentary.

Hmm, never said anything about purges. But then, denial is just a river in Egypt. When someone talks about Walter Mitty fantasies and keyboard commandos, that's standard fare for the Lefty crowd. The whole chicken hawk thing.

Again, projection.

And as far as a socialist workers revolution is concerned, I'm quite happy with capitalism, thank you very much. In fact, I suspect I've done better at the capitalism game than you have, based on the stench of resentment and loserdom that comes from you.

Love of one's country is, of course, resentment and loserdom.

Ah, yes, another captain of industry, just like Armand Hammer, for whom the Order of Lenin was created.

I simply realize that capitalism in an advanced country needs an effective government to thrive.

Which is what we'll have once the Lefties are thrown out. The country hasn't worked right since Woody Wilson, but that's about to change because the failure of the Left is hitting everybody.; 9/17/10, 9:15 PM
Mark said...: At this point, she could be using her considerable personal gravitas to force stupid Democrat laws to be changed and stupid Democrat commitments to be undone. Stop talking and do something!!!

Which will be a lot easier if there are fewer stupid Democrats in Congress come 2011.

Julius Ceasar understood that to effect change, one needs power. Does anyone today think Palin has less of it than she had six months ago?

(And yes, O'Donnell may be as dumb as Barbara Boxer, but I doubt she's any dumber.); 9/17/10, 9:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Noonan speaks from the position of a political hermaphrodite, currently in the voice of over-weened, liberal affectation.

Her take on American history and DC politics is that of a potato-peeling housemaid - in contemporary parlance, an ex-breakfast cook at the Waffle House.

The establishment types are [unknowingly] doing their best to alienate themselves from the electorate - and doing a bang-up job while they're at it.; 9/17/10, 9:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Julius Ceasar understood that to effect change, one needs power.

...and one gets that power by doing shit, not by talking about it. Caesar spent ten years conquering Gaul before he got to be undisputed leader of Rome. He didn't spend those ten years giving speeches in Iowa.; 9/17/10, 9:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Caesar...didn't spend those ten years giving speeches in Iowa.

Obviously, Barack Obama never read Caesar.; 9/17/10, 9:51 PM
Mark said...: Different battlespaces, Dead Guy. Palin doesn't have to pacify Gaul to prove her power. She just has to swoop in and tip a bunch of elections. Which she's doing.

If anything, Delaware proves how much raw power she has right now. And, when it gets right down to who owes what to whom, if O'Donnell does get elected, she's going to owe Palin a lot more than the established RINO would have.

Obama supposedly knows about poker. In that game, a bet on O'Donnell is playing the pot odds correctly.; 9/17/10, 9:53 PM
Kirk Parker said...: fls,

"WTF? Obama carefully mended fences with each of our foreign allies, most of whom think he's great.?

WTF right back at ya! Can you name some of these allies? Because England, Germany, and India are definitely not on the fences-mended-with list...; 9/17/10, 10:00 PM
Mark said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/17/10, 10:01 PM
Mark said...: BTW, the Establishment's last line of defense seems to be painting all the outsiders as fruits, flakes, and nuts.

I prefer to call them "An Army of Zaphods."; 9/17/10, 10:03 PM
jamboree said...: @Cylde I disagree that Obama was "worked over" by Pelosi/Reid. Obama was a lazy ass mf who didn't know how to do anything himself and HANDED them the healthcare bill so he wouldn't have to take full blame for the inevitable.; 9/17/10, 10:04 PM
Robert Cook said...: "How sad to see that Palin seems to be focusing on the acquisition of power instead of, you know, maybe doing something to help our country."

Don't be sad...she's not really trying to acquire power. She doesn't want to be President...it's too much work and requires that she at least pretend to know about things she couldn't care less about. She's only promoting herself as a "potential candidate"--and allowing herself to be promoted as a party spokeswoman--so she can make scads of money making her silly, empty speeches, annointing candidates in races hither and yon, and doing whatever else she can do to promote her brand that's both easy and profitable.

The woman couldn't last through one term as Alaska's governor; campaigning for the Presidency will be more grueling by far than were her challenges as Alaska's chief executive.; 9/17/10, 10:47 PM
Mark said...: Hey, Cookie, betcha being Governor of Alaska (even with all the "investigative reporters" dogging her) would be an easier job than the work she's doing now.

She's doing what she loves; going after the grifters living large on our tax dollars.

Cheering on the grifters is not only bad form, but stupid.; 9/17/10, 11:04 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Bruce Hayden: I think that even now, a lot of the public that didn't appreciate Bush (43) at the time, now think that he was a far superior President than his successor.

If Bush (43) had been a better president, Obama wouldn't have been elected in 2008.

Among other blunders, Bush kept Cheney as VP in 2004, when he could have selected someone who would have been a viable nominee for 2008.; 9/17/10, 11:07 PM
Gene said...: Scott M: I remember legions of people saying Hillary couldn't win because of the very same reason. She didn't, of course.

It wasn't Hillary's supposed divisiveness that lost the election. It was that blacks voted as a racial bloc for Obama on top of his getting the vote of every liberal who ever lived. Obama ran on non-racial platform but as soon as he won the media ran 6 million stories on "the first black president."

Race, it turns out, was all they cared about after all.; 9/18/10, 12:33 AM
David said...: Palin & O'Donnell. Attractive very conservative females. Just by being that, they give the liberal-femino-journalistic tribe a big shiver. Does not compute. Must destroy. Danger! Danger!

These women drive the establishment types totally bonkers. In their mind, these "girls" will never be ready.

Well, they are ready for a hell of a fight.

Stay tuned.; 9/18/10, 12:36 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Peter Hoh,

"If Bush (43) hadn't had so many false charges thrown at him, Obama wouldn't have been elected in 2008."

FIFY - and by the way: who revealed Valarie Plame's name again? Kept up a constant drumbeat we were going to lose in Iraq? Said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fine?

Yea, it was all because Bush was a bad president, not because liberals are bald-faced liars,...; 9/18/10, 7:27 AM
Robert Cook said...: "She's doing what she loves; going after the grifters living large on our tax dollars."

Oh, really? I haven't heard her condemning the war profiteers who are hoovering up tax payer dollars in the furtherance of mass murder, e.g., Halliburton or Blackwater, or the banks or health insurance or credit card companies, all of whom are thieving swine, getting rich(er) on the backs of their customers, or the politicians (from each party) who serve as minions of these and other corporate patrons while ignoring their titular constituents, the American people.

In fact, what bits of her speeches I have heard hardly constitute going after anyone. She is a purveyor of substance free cliches, words strung together to simulate meaning but which are merely white noise.

She is doing what she loves, I'll agree: getting paid large for being a celebrity.; 9/18/10, 7:52 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Yea, it was all because Bush was a bad president...."

Let's be accurate: Bush was a disastrous president, and his administration was a calamity for the world.; 9/18/10, 7:57 AM
Lincolntf said...: Let's be accurate: Bush was a disastrous president, and his administration was a calamity for the world.

Imagine how bad Obama must be with triple the deficit and double the unemployment rate of the Bush era. Not to mention the Age of Proliferation (for both Islamic terrorism and nuclear weapons) his Administration has ushered in.; 9/18/10, 8:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Let's be accurate: Bush was a disastrous president, and his administration was a calamity for the world.

Cookie, you are the full deal... commie, hipster goofball, Bush Derangement Syndrome...

Cast right out of the cookie cutter.

You're a walking cliche.

Anything unusual or original about you?; 9/18/10, 8:56 AM
Big Mike said...: Let's be accurate: Bush was a disastrous president, and his administration was a calamity for the world.

I think if you put up some "Miss me yet?" signs in the capitals of foreign countries you'd see vigorous head-nodding everywhere, with the probable exceptions of the Kremlin, Venezuela, and Iran.; 9/18/10, 9:35 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Let's be accurate: Bush was a disastrous president, and his administration was a calamity for the world.

Libtard reality-free wishful-thinking zone, where, if they just keep telling us these fables, they will, somehow, magically, turn out to be true.; 9/18/10, 6:35 PM
former law student said...: But feel free to make excuses for the divine Sarah's using her clout in the service of a family vendetta.

Cripes FLS that's Paleopalinology. Unless you have some new facts, you're spinning your wheels.

Anyone who has studied Bill Ayers should agree that character flaws do not self-heal. But why should the first woman President be perfect? Why should she not be mean, petty, and vindictive? Why should she not seek vengeance on her enemies? Why should she not be Nixon in a skirt?

I want to see her sic the IRS on her ex-brother-in-law. I miss Dallas and Dynasty.

And the best proof that Palin did not abuse her authority over her brother-in-law is that she didn't even manage to get him fired.

Blagojevich no doubt wishes Patrick Fitzgerald thought like Synova -- he never got any money for Obama's Senate seat so why persecute him?; 9/18/10, 7:16 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Bruce Hayden, one needn't be a liberal to consider the Bush presidency a failure.

Here's Bruce Bartlett's assessment.; 9/18/10, 9:59 PM
Synova said...: "Blagojevich no doubt wishes Patrick Fitzgerald thought like Synova -- he never got any money for Obama's Senate seat so why persecute him?"

FLS, I honestly don't understand why you can't be rational about the issue. You are usually rational.

Unlike selling (or attempting to sell) a Senate seat, a citizen has the right to make complaints about abusive law enforcement personnel, even if the abusive person is married to one's sister.

Did Palin give up that right when she got elected?

When I say that the fact that she got no *results* proves she didn't abuse her power what I *mean* is she got about the same results as any citizen would get, doing what any citizen has the right to do. (Actually, that's rather sad that we don't expect responsiveness from government, but there it is.)

So where, at what point, doing what EVERY citizen has the legal right to do, did she abuse the power of her position?

If you want to make the claim that someone who is elected actually loses the right to make any complaint, loses the right to talk to the people in charge and ask them to "do something about it" then, well, maybe you ought to just make that argument.; 9/18/10, 11:24 PM
former law student said...: When I say that the fact that she got no *results* proves she didn't abuse her power what I *mean* is she got about the same results as any citizen would get

But not for want of trying.

The Heath family complaints about Sarah's sister's ex-husband were made in 2005. After a thorough investigation, Trooper Wooten was punished with a ten-day suspension, reduced on appeal to five days, in 2006.

Sarah Palin was elected Governor, and sworn in on December 6, 2006. She named Walt Monegan Alaska's Commissioner of Public Safety.

Dec. 2006: Todd Palin summons Monegan to meet with him in the Governor's office. Meeting takes place Jan 4, 2007. Subject: Reviewing the case against Trooper Wooten and the discipline meted out.

Which Monegan did.

A couple of days after Monegan reported to Todd, Sarah called him indicating her displeasure with Monegan's review.

February 13, 2007. Monegan sees Palin on another matter. Palin asks to discuss Wooten yet again. Monegan deflects this request.

Later in February, Palin's chief of staff Tibbles calls Monegan to discuss Trooper Wooten. Monegan tells him the case is closed.

Monegan was also called by Alaska's Commissioner of Administration Annette Kreitzer about Trooper Wooten. Kreitzer also called Monegan's assistant for HR issues Kim Peterson about Trooper Wooten, as well as state Personnel Director Diane Kiesel about Trooper Wooten.

http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/10/10/16/Branchflowerreport.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf

To me this would indicate that Palin was moving heaven and earth to get Trooper Wooten fired. I don't think an ordinary citizen could have mobilized so many state government officials to follow up on Wooten's discipline.; 9/19/10, 12:20 AM