Quotes of the day
posted at 9:35 pm on November 9, 2008 by Allahpundit
“Some conservatives who are gluttons for punishment are getting a head start on ensuring a 2012 drubbing by prescribing peculiar medication for a misdiagnosed illness. They are monomaniacal about media bias, which is real but rarely decisive, and unhinged by their anger about the loathing of Sarah Palin by similarly deranged liberals. These conservatives, confusing pugnacity with a political philosophy, are hot to anoint Palin, an emblem of rural and small-town sensibilities, as the party’s presumptive 2012 nominee.
These conservatives preen as especially respectful of regular — or as Palin says, ‘real’ — Americans, whose tribune Palin purports to be. But note the argument that the manipulation of Americans by ‘the mainstream media’ explains the fact that the more Palin campaigned, the less Americans thought of her qualifications. This argument portrays Americans as a bovine herd — or as inert clay in the hands of wily media, which only Palin’s conservative celebrators can decipher and resist.
These conservatives, smitten by a vice presidential choice based on chromosomes, seem eager to compete on the Democrats’ terrain of identity politics, entering the ‘diversity’ sweepstakes they have hitherto rightly deplored. We have seen this movie before. Immediately after the 1972 election, some conservatives laid down the law — the 1976 Republican nominee must be Vice President Spiro Agnew.”
*
“Harris … said that the party is now divided into two wings: the ‘hell, no’ wing and a ‘yes, but’ wing. ‘The ‘hell, no’ is going to fight [Obama] every step of the way’ on ideological grounds.
‘The other will say, ‘Yes, we agree with a lot of his objectives; we want to do it in a somewhat different way.’ It really, I think, goes right to a tactical and philosophical fault line in the Republican Party.’
[David] Brooks was not convinced that Sarah Palin could be taken seriously as the GOP’s next Ronald Reagan.
‘Well, the ‘hell, no’ group is rallying around her,’ he said. ‘And this past week, I don’t think, has been particularly flattering to her, the McCain people – and the whole thing has been a complete disaster. They’ve attacked her for her lack of human capital and for being a diva.
‘I’m not sure it’s all fair, but one would not say she has spent her life preparing for an intellectual revolution to lead the party out of the wilderness. Let’s put it that way.’”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
I’d be happy with Palin, Jindal, Pawlenty, Mitt, Jeff Flake, or Michael Steele.
And they’re all relatively young, so the ones who aren’t annointed in ‘12 will get another shot..
jgapinoy on November 9, 2008 at 9:49 PM
Count me in on all of them but Pawlenty. I’d vote for him in a general election against a Dem, but not in a primary.
thecountofincognito on November 9, 2008 at 10:38 PM
HELL NO! camp here.
jukin on November 9, 2008 at 10:39 PM
I wish people would stop talking about purges. What the hell is this, the French revolution? It’s ok to weed out specific problem individuals, like Trent Lott, but the idea of slicing off a section of the party is just nuts, whether it be libertarians, evanglicals, pro-immigration types, east coasters, ivy league thinkers, or people who live in small towns and drink beer.
Just reject the bad arguments as calmly and persuasively as possible, while defending against stupid counter-arguments forcefully. Then let the primary voters sort out who they want running the party.
Remember, we are the party of adults. Purges are for college students with Che shirts.
RINO in Name Only on November 9, 2008 at 10:39 PM
You are right, I didn’t go far enough and there are even more accomplishments not mentioned: Her ability to negotiate with the Oil companies, the negotiation of the NG pipeline from Canada that went farther than any previous governor, her expertise on Energy and conservation, etc. My sister lives in Alaska, loves Palin. She and I have talked about Palin for almost 2 years. We both had mentioned last spring that she would make a great pick for McCain…she can list more specifics than I, but she was definitely not promoted and used properly.
beththebaker on November 9, 2008 at 10:41 PM
hey folks — something to keep in mind here — the beltway/nyc elites only have their jobs ’cause people buy their books, newspapers and magazines. we need to follow through on ensuring that those who espouse these moronic “centrist” views don’t get our support — that is indeed the strongest message we can send. soo, if i may humbly suggest: no more wsj until they fly right on shamnesty [and ditch noonan], no more natl. review until they purge the k. parkers, no more fox news until jerry rivers, etc. are sent packing, no more wapo for, well, 100 reasons [that pretty much goes for any other big city broadsheet, even those who carry krauthammer, will, and ESP. brooks] — and most importantly, no more $ to the rnc until they install a proper righty at the helm [and btw that doesn't mean newt!]. we could see some serious attitude changes right after inauguration if many, many folks were to follow through on that …
Buckaroo on November 9, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Pffft, it’s East Coast, which means by definition “superior”. :p
ddrintn on November 9, 2008 at 10:43 PM
I’m so old, I remember actually being impressed with Peggy Noonan and George Will. Of course, I remember Howdy Doody, too.
RightTurnOnly on November 9, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Thank you. We should try to keep as many groups of people as possible.
terryannonline on November 9, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Sorry, have to disagree.
The current problem is that the Repubs went TOO broad and lost focus on basic philosophy until they stood for nothing.
Putting up a Pro Amnesty, Pro Cap and Trade, longtime Washington insider who has, in the past, insulted the Conservative base???
Plays well to the center, but not to Conservatives, WHO STAYED HOME THE LAST TWO ELECTIONS.
Romeo13 on November 9, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Fairleigh Dickinson is called “Fairly Ridiculous” here in NJ
clnurnberg on November 9, 2008 at 10:45 PM
I’m in the “hell no” camp. I’m going to be watching everything that sOb says and does.
cjs1943 on November 9, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Oh, horsefeathers! Those of us who backed Palin for Veep and consider her a leading candidate for 2012 do so because she is an accomplished politician, an effective governor, and a conservative communicator the likes of which we haven’t seen in years.
That she’s also damned hot has nothing to do with it. Really.
(And, if we have to go with identity politics, I’ll identify with Hot Righties over Howdy-Doody Lefties any day.)
irishspy on November 9, 2008 at 10:46 PM
I agree that she needs to talk to the hostile press eventually because most people get their news from the MSM. But I think she needs to let things die down a little then build her way back to talking to them. At this point all they want to talk about is the campaign and all the stories about her. I think, if she waits a few months she might have a better chance to talk about substantive issues with them and sort of re-introduce herself to people.
Of course, if she waits some of the interest could go away, but I think she’ll always be able to get interviews with MSM outlets if she wants them (maybe not with Oprah, but other outlets will give her a chair). I just think she’s better off setting her own timetable and terms. That was a big problem for her in the campaign: she may not have been ready for the national stage, but the people assigned to her had no idea how to handle her or present her. She knows how to sell herself in Alaska; I think, given a little time, she’ll be able to do that with great success at the national level as well.
meltenn on November 9, 2008 at 10:50 PM
What a stupid thing to say! I seriously doubt the people trashing her as stupid and crooked meant it to be flattering to her.
Books cultivates an air of intelligence, but if he can’t perceive obvious political backbiting, he’s not too bright.
I I were to highlight this comment by Brooks and repeat it constantly in newspaper columns and TV interviews, I could make Brooks look like a drooling idiot.
theregoestheneighborhood on November 9, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Hell with Howdy I remember princess SummerFallWinterSpring!
Oldnuke on November 9, 2008 at 10:51 PM
I loved Margaret Thatcher and she wasn’t exactly ‘hot’.
Lots of women in Hollywood are ‘hot’ and overwhelmingly leftists. Wouldn’t vote for any of them on a bet, so George Will is as usual showing himself to be an Educated Idiot.
sharrukin on November 9, 2008 at 10:52 PM
They STILL DON’T GET why we love Palin. HINT: It ain’t her chromosomes, and basically has nothing to do with the fact that she’s a woman. If a man-governor took on the good ol’ boys in Alaska and attacked Obama as deliciously as Palin did, we’d love him too.
jimmy the notable on November 9, 2008 at 10:53 PM
I think the hell nos just got punked. Let me tell you how it should be.
We should be setting standards, like Hannity sets for the party. Then we should preach those standards. We should chastize those that haven’t represented them. We should recruit, recruit, recruit. We should find seers, older soldiers, and have them guide the younger generation. We should preach the party line. We should speak the good news. And, recruit, and we are recruiting not one leader but an army of leaders. Thank you.
We don’t want a leader; we want an army!
anti-boomer on November 9, 2008 at 10:53 PM
The problem is, I’m pretty sure that very few people buy into all or even most of “the conservative philosophy,” no matter how you define it. I’m too much of a churlish layabout to google this myself, but here is an exercise:
Pick a number of issues of public controversy on which the public is at least somewhat divided – say Immigration, Military intervention, Abortion and other moral and/or religious issues, Gun control, Taxes, Fiscal policy, spending, etc.
Now take a position on even half of these issues, and count the number of people who agree with you on all of those issues, using public opinion polling (I’m not sure this is totally feasible, actually, since the polling might not be extensive enough for what I’m saying. But its more of a thought experiment anyway.)
I seriously doubt you will find more than 10% that agree with you on even half of the issues, no matter WHAT your beliefs are. And I’m almost sure I left a bunch off of the list.
That’s the problem with trying to impose ideological purity on a national party in a system that lends itself to having only two major parties at the same time. There are simply too many things to disagree on.
RINO in Name Only on November 9, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Aren’t the likes of George Will, Brooks, Noonan, baby Buckley, et al supposed to STFU right about now? So much for principles!! “Let’s see how we can sucker punch our party just a few weeks before the Nov. 4th election.” And they continue to lob punches. They sure are a bunch of big thinkers, aren’t they? I hope they enjoy their reduced role in the party and the smaller reading audience that will go along with it.
Once John McCain became the party’s nominee, all punditry on the subject of candidates should have CEASED and, the focus should have been on winning the election. The efforts of the above named should have been to support the ticket. Instead they looked for ways to tear it down. Will, a big baseball fan, should have understood the concept of team.
BTW, Unfortunately, I don’t think that I can ever watch CaddyShack again and not think of Peggy Noonan everytime Danny Noonan comes onscreen…a sad state of affairs!!!…$50 bucks says the Biden kid eats it!!!!
Gohawgs on November 9, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Ummm, no. We were smitten by her solid convictions and decisive actions.
SheofTwoMinds on November 9, 2008 at 10:58 PM
“We don’t want a leader; we want an army!”
an army needs leaders — otherwise it is nothing but an ineffective mob …
Buckaroo on November 9, 2008 at 10:58 PM
I guess I cheated, listing taxes, fiscal policy and spending as three separate things – still the general point is valid, I think.
RINO in Name Only on November 9, 2008 at 10:58 PM
I’m in the “hell no” camp!! Perhaps if McCain would’ve said “hell no” to the 700 bizillion bail out he would be Pres-Elect. Big mistake Big Mac!
Ozark_sky on November 9, 2008 at 10:58 PM
jonah goldberg addresses how people align to dem and repub respectively in a new column on nro i believe. i found it through drudge, i think. repubs are more about ideological purity. you must score 7 of 10 key issues. dems take a unity approach and rule by coalition. that’s why they seem to have no core beliefs (they don’t). Repubs definitely do better when they take the 1 issue approach. family values didn’t work. conserv economic values seem to work for reagan. I report; you decide.
anti-boomer on November 9, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Broooks knows damn well what it has been about. It just that the “untutored hick” meme serves his purposes better. That’s their story and their sticking to it.
ddrintn on November 9, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Right.
Jaibones on November 9, 2008 at 11:02 PM
ooops… minus an “o”, plus a “they’re” there. :D
ddrintn on November 9, 2008 at 11:02 PM
[RightTurnOnly on November 9, 2008 at 10:43 PM]
I’m that old, too. Never read Noonan. Will? I’ve always been impressed with his knowledge of baseball.
Dusty on November 9, 2008 at 11:03 PM
These liberals, smitten by the color of a mans skin and not the color of his politics.
Ozark_sky on November 9, 2008 at 11:03 PM
when are leaders dictators? (when democrats) our leader is our charter not a Fuhrer. it must be this way otherwise you are expecting the cult of personality to guide the way. good luck with that. don’t you people see we need an army of leaders everywhere from everywhere? Sarah Palin doesn’t want to carry your shit. I like how mark levin puts it: get out and participate. Choose your leaders, don’t wait for them. Make them!
anti-boomer on November 9, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Gov Palin fills a desperate need for leadership we conservatives have.
Its a string of jealous pseudo cons that seem to hate her the most.
Its her penchant for rooting out corruption that liberals hate so much.
Speakup on November 9, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Does this lady sound like an idiot?
http://content.streamaudio.com/podcast/81/Palin3.mp3
Note: There’s a difference between being green on national issues and being an idiot *&#(&#*(
Palinpuma on November 9, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Exactly. People who hate Palin love to ignore the fact that people who have met her and actually worked with her all agree that she is charismatic, intelligent, kind and sharp as a tack. There hasn’t been a single insider, ever, anyone who’s ever even MET HER that has said something that bad about her. Even LORNE F’ING MICHAELS complimented her after SNL. Obviously, that’s just him being a businessman, but he could have said nothing. Haters love to ignore this, and claim that our selection of Palin is based solely on anti-intellectual grounds, people like one of our resident trolls, barry norris:
No, barry. The thing we oppose is claiming that someone is qualified simply because they went to Harvard. Forget a lack of any legislative accomplishments, Barry O was head of the Harvard Law Review. Start measuring the drapes. But OHHHH Sarah Palin went to like, 3 or 4 colleges, she must be stupid. Forget the fact that everyone who meets her says she isn’t stupid, says she is an extremely quick learner. The phrase “like a sponge” comes to mind. Forget all that. She didn’t grow up in a major metropolitan city and go to the Ivy League, therefore she is JUST PLAIN STUPID and anyone that supports her is basically supporting anti-intellectualism. They’re actually supporting outright stupidity. Yeah, that makes sense. After all, only our Presidents who went to the Ivy League turned out to be good presidents.
Oh wait, Ronald Reagan went to Eureka College, and nothing else.
jimmy the notable on November 9, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Your problem then becomes the Repubs problem right now, where they stand for nothing… where its all rhetoric and no action based on philosophy.
The Republicans have already decided to throw the Anti Amensty, Anti Global Warming, pro small government folks folks out of the party by their choices in Governance (Bush) and by who they chose to run for President.
THEY made the choice of direction… where the politicians they chose to run don’t agree with the Party Platforms, or with the wishes of their traditional base…. the same base who put them in power years ago.
Political parties MUST make choices as to platform, and the Politicians who run for that party, MUST support that platform, or, (as now) you loose your base.
Romeo13 on November 9, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Yeah allah, we get the hint. You don’t care for Sarah. Now let someone else do the Sarah Palin stuff. Your Shi**y attitude is wearing a bit thin.
R D on November 9, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Folks,
A real friend tells you when you have spinach in your teeth and toilet paper on your shoe. You know me well enough to know I’m not a troll—but I am going to be critical here.
The Right has spent the past ten years or so with its collective thumb up its collective butt waiting for another Reagan. Beyond that, not just any old real-life Reagan will do. It has to be this myth of Reagan built beyond all recognizability to the man himself. People are getting convinced that once this Mythical Reagan shows up, s/he will be able to effectively stymie the bad press of the past ten years–and until then, Republicans don’t deserve to win with lesser candidates.
A few problems here:
1) Ronald Reagan put in some serious time on the intellectual side of things, and had been one of the guys in the background for years before 1980. Do we really have such an equivalent right now? If we did, don’t you think someone would know his or her name? Are we supposed to wither into obscurity waiting for him or her to show up?
2) There is a myth that Reagan’s forceful articulation of conservatism was able to cut through the liberal media and win Reagan the White House in 1980, with little or no compromise of principles. However, Reagan’s win in 1980 may have been less due to his forceful articulation of conservatism than his not being Jimmy Carter. Now, mind you, he won people over the next four years from the bully pulpit of the White House. But if Carter were less of a screwup, from where would Reagan have been able to explain conservatism?
3) Those annoying gadfly cub reporters who tried the “gotcha” game with Reagan in the 1980s? In 2008, they are known as editors and journalism professors. So who is the GOP supposed to meet with to discuss coverage they feel is too slanted? The editors in Reagan’s day at least took the GOP’s calls and took their concerns seriously.
Reagan may not be coming. And even if somehow the ghost of Ronaldus Magnus himself were to show up, I think even he would be hard-pressed to do much better than we are doing right now. Why do you need a Reagan to be conservative? What’s the matter with you, and you, and you, and you articulating conservatism? Sometimes, the salvation we seek isn’t coming. Quite often this is because God knows what God will do about troubled times. The real question is—what are you going to do?
Sekhmet on November 9, 2008 at 11:12 PM
This is way off. There are lots of “hell no’s” out there who don’t necessarily think Palin is the answer.
JA on November 9, 2008 at 11:13 PM
David Brooks is a pompous jerk.
conservative pilgrim on November 9, 2008 at 11:17 PM
I for one refuse to concede the supremacy of analysis to anyone here. And, as an Ivy brat, I must say I don’t give a ^&*& about that type of credential.
Any argument based on authority, be it Ivy credentials or a history of successful punditry, is no argument at all. I’d wager that there is more natural intelligence in my non-college-educated, dyslexic brother than in a majority of the elite punditry. Ann coulter rocks, though.
anti-boomer on November 9, 2008 at 11:17 PM
We just had nearly eight years of that kind of leadership. It doesn’t work and it is the main reason why the party is in so much trouble now.
lexhamfox on November 9, 2008 at 11:17 PM
I voted for Sarah Palin, not McCain nor against Obama, but she isn’t the only Republican out there I would support. It just happens that if she does become the Republican nominee for President in 2012 I be gung-ho for her.
Whoever the candidate is, it can’t be anyone who ran in the 2008 primaries. They cannot beat Obama because of his messiah status. It has to be a new face; someone who will accomplish a lot in the next four years. Palin can still pull it off. How she conducts herseilf in the next four years will be her legacy for 2012. Bobby Jindal is also a good candidate. He’ll have been governor of Louisiana for a good number of years.
We’ll have to see what happens in the 2010 Congressional election. It’d be great if Republicans gain control of both Houses, but as long as Republicans do well enough it would be a good sign they are heading in the right direction (pun intended :) ).
hadsil on November 9, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Well said. Enough with Reagan already. This is a different generation and a different time. Let us look to the future and not the past.
terryannonline on November 9, 2008 at 11:17 PM
The problem with a lot of Republican party leaders as well as party elites is this . They had spend so many years trying to mold the party to their own image of what it should be in their eyes so it would stay in power that they had forgotten what the Republican party ideals is really all about . They had spend so much time in their echo chambers as well as their party circles that they get offended when an outsider like Governor Palin had entered their world and had roused the Republican base that they often ignored and angered and she embraced with open arms because she is one of them and they hated that .
For Sarah Palin , my advice to her is this , she must continue to be Governor of Alaska and that she would never waver in her commitment to reform the government there and remove or reduce corruption in her home state . Her Duty to her Family , to Her People , to Her State should take precedence and forget about being a presidential candidate in 2012 . When people sees that her ability to lead exceeds that of every Republican candidates as well as president Obama and they asked her to run , only then she must consider of becoming a candidate for the US presidency in 2012 . Governor Palin , lead your state with honor , dignity , grace , intelligence and extreme competence and when the time comes that the Republican party will ask you to run as our presidential candidate . No one will ever again doubt your ability to lead this country . Learn what you can from your critics , reject those that will separate you from us . Do not reinvent yourself as someone who is not . Be true to yourself and your time as leader of this country will soon come .
DinobotPrime on November 9, 2008 at 11:20 PM
HELL NO!
Palin needs no defense, she will defend herself, something George W. Bush and John McCain would not do. She will support not only herself and her goals but those of the party.
Something George W. Bush was poor at doing and John McCain was absolutely not going to do.
Bi-Partisanship? HELL-NO!
dhunter on November 9, 2008 at 11:20 PM
I feel like we’re chasing our tails with this wrangling for our party “ID” business.
Reflecting on the election, all I can think about is how Bush won against Kerry four years ago, and my conclusion has little to do with ideology. The Senate Intelligence Committee said we went to war on flawed information and we had the 1,000th U.S. casualty just before elections. Bush’s popularity was creeping downward. The Dems should have been in the driver’s seat, but they selected an old, white, rich “Herman Munster” who wasn’t adept at speaking.
As sad as it is to say this about America, I think they looked at John McCain in the same light.
WaltDakota on November 9, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Governor Palin saved the GOP presidential campaign. It just wasn’t enough to overcome McCain’s refusing to be aggressive in using all the issues and incorrectly bashing “Wall Street greed” as the cause of the sub-prime collapse instead of pointing to the democrat lending policy as the cause. It was a major error.
scrubjay on November 9, 2008 at 11:21 PM
I have a great idea. Why don’t we have a primary in 2012 and then decide. Brilliant huh?
BO has got a big problem. He wants to tax his way out of recession like Hoover did. Yah, THAT worked out didn’t it. Reagan got handed a recession from Carter but his tax breaks got us out of it. Bush 43 got handed a recession from Clinton and his tax breaks got us out of it. It’s worked every time it was tried so *in BO’s mind* let’s do just the opposite.
We’re in for a rough ride folks.
Mojave Mark on November 9, 2008 at 11:22 PM
That is supposed to be some kind of monomaniacal unbiased analysis? Most “true” conservatives, liberals, libertarians, or bloggers of either side of the political spectrum could even carry Sarah Palin’s water, nor would she want them to.
rlwo2008 on November 9, 2008 at 11:23 PM
My take: Palin has been horribly mistreated by the press, who gleefully ignored her accomplishments and took advantage of the fact that she was overhandled to embarrass her. And certainly, the over-handling is directly attributable to McCain and his campaign managers. She is definitely an intelligent person who just got shoved into an incredibly unfair situation (anyone who actually believes or is pretending to believe that Palin is a dunce who thought Africa is a country is a completely unintelligent jackass).
That said, Palin is damaged goods. Even if she didn’t create the bad media situation, she didn’t handle herself well enough in those interviews to overcome it. She is now perceived, unfairly or not, as an incredibly decisive figure–some describe her, unfairly or not, as “Bush in a skirt”. Obama is, and will continue to be, portrayed by the press as a bi-partisan uniter (fairly or, more realistically, NOT).
Nominating Palin in 2012 would likely be a horrible move by the GOP. Of course, its too early to say for sure, but we need someone who can present his or her self as an accessible intellectual, a common man who “gets it” and can articulate what people are thinking. We need a Gingrich without the baggage.
I’m sorry… I was a Palin advocate before she was chosen, but I don’t think she’s the one.
DaveS on November 9, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Or we can do that too :-)
How did Hillary’s coronation work out for her?
terryannonline on November 9, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Anyone see a pattern here?
Ugly on November 9, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Um… “divisive figure” for those who didn’t figure it out.
DaveS on November 9, 2008 at 11:24 PM
The conservatives are not coming back to the GOP unless they run a conservative for office.
IMHO the Republican Party is dead!
sharrukin on November 9, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Of course, Sarah Palin is not The One, remember Barack Obama is The One.
/sarc
terryannonline on November 9, 2008 at 11:25 PM
yeah, hell no bipartisanship, rallying around palin, heh, don’t insult me. I cringed when she talked about bipartisanship. maybe she knows how to work it, I don’t know. Obama is the diva. take that.
anti-boomer on November 9, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Liberals are like a child that wants to quit football or piano. When the going gets tough they want to take the easy way out. They will always choose the path of least resistance or the option with the least personal accountability. They don’t have fixed standards, they are fungible. That is why we are called conservative, it is a constant fight to keep the country from pulling too far left.
kongzilla on November 9, 2008 at 11:27 PM
People need to remember that the comments about Reagan by people like David Brooks were never made during his candidacies or his presidency. He was considered an actor with no intellectual depth or knowledge.
All his ideas supposedly came from cue cards with clippings he’d cut from readers digest.
He was ridiculed by the media and the republican establishment went along with it. The establishment republicans who praise him now never supported him then.
Even the ones, like Noonan, who served in his administration trashed him behind his back – that’s how she gained her reputation, the media pointed to her as the one who wrote his speeches in order to prove he was just an actor and she was more that willing to go along with them.
kcewa on November 9, 2008 at 11:28 PM
“. We need a Gingrich without the baggage.”
to which the obvious rejoinder is — “instead of looking for some mythical creature, why don’t we support and cultivate those who do actually, y’know, EXIST!”
/i put Saracuda at the top of that list, but that’s just me …
//said list includes jc watts, m. steele, m. sanford, d. hunter, and I’m sure we can find more — if we tried — and weneed to do it before ’10 …
Buckaroo on November 9, 2008 at 11:30 PM
“Typical conservatives”?
SheofTwoMinds on November 9, 2008 at 11:30 PM
When Palin talks from her heart, her values, her life she is the future of the party. In that way she is like Reagan and Thompson. People see that they don’t have to hesitate when they answer a question because they don’t have to think about it. The answer they give is them not some handlers. You could tell when Palin was being handled and you could tell when she quit being handled. I f you watch Obama speak or Hillary, you can see them thinking about the answer to make sure they are saying the right thing for the right audience. That is why Reagan was not a politician he was a leader. That is why Palin will follow in his footsteps. She leads by speaking from her heart and connecting with people.
Sven on November 9, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Exactly my point (see my last post, above)
The media is no longer calling republicans REPUBLICANS.
Now you’re all CONSERVATIVES. Welcome to the fold, my friends :)
Ugly on November 9, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Way too soon to think about what’s for breakfast tomorrow, much less who should be the next next president
Greenhelmet on November 9, 2008 at 11:31 PM
She’s NOT divisive. The only reason these items produce such intense responses is because we want to protect her that much.
Rasmussen showed overwhelmingly that Republicans believe that Sarah Palin helped the ticket. She still has 91% popularity and 65% very favorable.
The only reason the “conservatives” in the MSM try to make her appear divisive is because they are not real conservatives, and she is not the candidate they want.
Also, I would venture to guess, anti-Palin articles written by “conservatives” get RIDICULOUS traffic.
jimmy the notable on November 9, 2008 at 11:33 PM
kongzilla on November 9, 2008 at 11:27 PM>>
that segues nicely with my assertion that leftists worship at the altar of death, assisted suicide, abortion, existentialism,…
conservatives say, hey let me pull you away from the cliff. if the country goes to hell in a handbasket, I just hope the libs get the worst of it. i wouldn’t mind seeing welfare go away. if we had 10 years of not being able to afford handouts etc, then we could get off big govt. just keep us out of a major war and we’ll strangle off the beast!
anti-boomer on November 9, 2008 at 11:33 PM
+1
This is genius. In fact, I always thought the whole +1 thing was a little silly, but I just couldn’t help myself.
It makes some sense for close political allies and people very involved in the process to start choosing sides now, but the rest of us should probably wait a bit. I mean, won’t we be in a much better position to decide these things two or three years from now? We’ll have seen a lot more of all the contenders. And its not like any of them really need support at this point – there will be plenty of time to decide who to donate to later. I suspect that rallying supporters 4 years before an election is unlikely to be the best plan for anyone. Just let Sarah find her own way to prove herself to the general public – she’s more than capable if she wants to, I think.
RINO in Name Only on November 9, 2008 at 11:33 PM
This has to do with her stands on the issues. Anyone who stands for conservative values will be called “divisive”.
That’s no reason to abandon a candidate, unless you also want o abandon the values.
kcewa on November 9, 2008 at 11:33 PM
” unless you also want [t]o abandon the values.”
which is PRECISELY what too many of the beltway/nyc axis have done …
:-(
Buckaroo on November 9, 2008 at 11:35 PM
Just had dinner with my parents – my Dad has dropped all pretense of being a moderate Republican! The two people he wants to see come out of this for 2012 – Jindal/Palin.
What these people have to realize – a lot of us in “fly over country” are just fine with Palin in the leadership of our party.
gophergirl on November 9, 2008 at 11:36 PM
How to rebuild the party: First, we kill all the pundits…
Blake on November 9, 2008 at 11:37 PM
“gophergirl on November 9, 2008 at 11:36 PM”
yay dad!
:-)
Buckaroo on November 9, 2008 at 11:38 PM
All conservatives will be attacked constantly, and labelled as divisive until they drift left, merging with Democratic values. Then they will be tolerated and toasted as bi-partisan until they challenge a Democrat. Then they become divisive again.
Call it the John McCain Syndrome.
sharrukin on November 9, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Palin and elites from The Weekly Standard:
“The last thing conservatives should do is let themselves be drawn into a debate over her campaign, how it was handled, and whether it was a net plus or net minus for John McCain. In the end people’s judgment about that won’t matter unless Palin internalizes the attacks and retreats from national politics. So far she seems unlikely to draw such a conclusion, which is very worrisome to elite opinion.
The reason elite opinion makers are set on destroying her is fear. They sense that like Ronald Reagan, and unlike, say, Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty, she really, genuinely doesn’t care what they think, and for that reason is willing and able to go over their heads and make a strong, direct appeal to voters. Some of them may even remember that Ronald Reagan’s negatives were as high as his positives in the polls as late as 10 days before he carried 44 states in 1980.”
meltenn on November 9, 2008 at 11:39 PM
I agree – so why don’t they join the democratic party? It’s nnot a question of “purging” them – this is a free country – but why do they want to call themselves republicans or conservtives?
kcewa on November 9, 2008 at 11:39 PM
It’s unbelievable how obsessed people like Brooks are with Palin. Why? He’s discussing how the opposition (i.e., Republicans) should respond to Obama. As governor of Alaska, she is about as far away as you can be from the center of this debate in Washington. In 1994 and after, when the Republican congress was going toe to toe with Clinton, Republican governors were absent. That’s because they’re state executives!!
This time, neither Jindahl nor Palin nor Pawlenty will be at the center of the opposition to Obama, Brooks, you cretin. Why bring Palin into this debate? Because he dislikes her and thinks she’s discredited and wants to associate the “hell, no” faction with her. Leave her alone, you a**. Your obsession with her is starting to look unhealthy. And saying she’s lacking in human capital? Sounds pretty hateful to me. Is that as bad as being a cancer?
You know, frankly I think I’d prefer discussions here of articles by liberals like E.J. Dionne or Paul Krugman than stuff written by this pompous idiot masquerading as grade A human capital.
chris999 on November 9, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Screw democracy.
I’d take Petraeus and a military coup at this point.
I’m so sick of the Beltway and both parties. Whores.
At this point, I think we are really looking at the possibility of a populist party in the making. If Sarah became its first candidate, she would not win. But, she could give it a good jolt out the door. And, it would be fun too.
Imagine the fear of a third-party run by Sarah in 2012 in the minds of the GOP establishment?
Philosophy is good for helping with the platform of a party, but ultimately, intellectuals DON’T win elections. Leaders and charisma do.
Sapwolf on November 9, 2008 at 11:41 PM
The any candidate we come up with that gets savaged by the MSM is damaged goods. We’re left in the wilderness.
I grew up in the 80s. I remember (as another poster said above) the ridicule of Ronald Reagan. I was in college during the latter part of Reagan’s term, and most of my professors wouldn’t feel it had been a constructive class period if they couldn’t get in an anti-Reagan crack. He was ridiculed on late-night TV, in stand-up routines and in the movies. He was damaged goods. Yet he won two landslide victories.
ddrintn on November 9, 2008 at 11:42 PM
“kcewa on November 9, 2008 at 11:39 PM”
near as i can figger, they stil dig capitalism [after all, they're almost to a one quite wealthy] so they’d rather not have san fran nan taking away all their corporate bonuses …
Buckaroo on November 9, 2008 at 11:44 PM
I see that the GOP Blue Bloods fear the guillotine.
Also also, I met no shortage of idiots at the Ivy League school I attended. What school you went to matters less to me than what you’ve done with life afterward.
TexasDan on November 9, 2008 at 11:45 PM
<<<Standing up and applauding!
HawaiiLwyr on November 9, 2008 at 11:45 PM
Petraeus would make a great nominee, Sapwolf, but the coup shit sounds a bit wacky. Let Obama fall from his own policies, it’ll happen. It may not be a bed of roses, but the people will stand up if he tries anything truly dangerous.
Breathe out
clnurnberg on November 9, 2008 at 11:46 PM
“meltenn on November 9, 2008 at 11:39 PM”
b. whittle wrote an AWESOME piece ["the undefended city" iirc] that pointed out [heavy paraphrase] — “they fear her for one simple reason — if she succeeds, she’ll prove they are not necessary; that the country can be governed just fine without their advice, words, and pompous rhetoric”
Buckaroo on November 9, 2008 at 11:47 PM
Way ti go Sekmet, the Reagan base is gone, 1980 was a long time ago. Some are dead and the future is with people who were born while he was in office. I remember Reagan, but we have to find someone else.
clnurnberg on November 9, 2008 at 11:49 PM
why are people just assuming she’s never read books like Road to Serfdom? This lady is smart on economic matters, she did support Forbes in 2000 afterall. Coming from a ‘small town’ to support a guy like Forbes is potentially telling, IMO
jp on November 9, 2008 at 11:50 PM
I’m thinkin’ let’s get some good names out there so people find them familiar when election time rolls around. It’s a sales technique. People begin to accept an idea if they’ve heard it a bunch of times. This is one way the liberals program people to regard extreme lefties as acceptable. I think conservatives could use this strategy to pave the way for some good potential candidates.
SheofTwoMinds on November 9, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Well hey Buckaroo, fancy meeting you here. But that is the reason for all the panic over Sarah. She is straight to the point and that would devastate 90% of all politicians if they couldn’t use political doublespeek.
R D on November 9, 2008 at 11:53 PM
this is the point where we start talking about finding people that exhibit testicular fortitude (esp the ones without testicles). I take this sort of spineless talk of “damaged good” as metrosexual beltway bullshit. I want a leader that has a fencing scar across the cheek and a glass eye.
We need to stop running away from our standard bearers and backbiting and fingerpointing and stoning and ridiculing and splitting hairs and prognosticating. I predict, nay prophecy that we will win if we seek God’s will and we find others that represent and we push them to overtake the fortifications. It takes more than a few months to create a new leader. Make no mistake we need good new leaders. Let’s open some salons. The coffee shops need patrons.
anti-boomer on November 9, 2008 at 11:53 PM
One of the key differences between conservatism, and liberalism, is that conservatism is an argument – a running conversation about the proper limits of government, and the responsibilities of a good citizen. Both of these things are hard sells, when the other side promises the easy answers: a government program to solve every problem, with nothing expected of citizens except their loyal votes.
Conservatives often find themselves explaining to the voters why it’s morally wrong, or economically unwise, to take the goodies held out by liberals. There is no ultimate end-game victory scenario for the conservative… he must understand that he will never stop fighting the battle against collectivism. Socialism enjoys many “points of no return,” tipping points like nationalized health care, lines which can only be crossed one way. Even if the fondest hopes of conservatism were realized, they would always be achievements that a leftist could take away, after one bad election. Socialism’s achievements, from the New Deal forward, have been chiseled in granite.
It is therefore essential for the conservative to convince the electorate not to fall for socialism’s promises, and to remind them that they will never have a chance to reverse or undo the liberal’s worst mistakes. Everything on the short list of positive accomplishments from the Bush years, except for his Supreme Court picks, can (and probably will) be reversed in the first days of the Obama Administration. Obama, on the other hand, will do things in his first two years that will haunt us for generations to come, with no way to undo them, until the entire post-New Deal system crashes and must be rebuilt.
These are the stakes a conservative champion plays for, and the rules he, or she, plays under. The position demands someone who relishes the struggle, and never tires of it – never stops forgetting that the conservative argument will carry on forever, and that it must be made to the voters every single day. McCain seemed to have little appetite for this kind of never-ending struggle. He was never a committed conservative, and his few deeply-held convictions were a hodge-podge of personal beliefs that had no consistent philosophy behind them. He didn’t make the argument against Obama – he just pointed out the man’s crappy resume, indicated his own qualifications, and waited for the voters to fall into his arms. Bush never really tried to make the conservative argument either. I don’t think any of these reach-across-the-aisle types are temperamentally suited for it.
Sarah Palin seems like she has the proper combination of coherent believes and cheerful determination to do the job. Who can say if she’ll survive the media attempts to make her radioactive, or avoid aligning herself with people in the elitist wing of the GOP that will sabotage her, or make mistakes that will lose her the goodwill of a base that wasn’t sufficiently motivated by the threat of Barack Obama? That part of the story has yet to be written. I don’t mind saying that I hope she pulls through and takes up our banner in the years ahead. I hope she is what I believe she might be… and we’re going to need someone like that.
Doctor Zero on November 9, 2008 at 11:54 PM
well, doesn’t he push flat tax or repealing income tax? who wouldn’t get behind that? damn, we need to get these monkeys off our backs. I’m a biz owner, I know how much these taxes kill. What a b#@ch.
anti-boomer on November 9, 2008 at 11:55 PM
On a serious note, do you think that Petraeus would be interested in politics? Actually, he’d be a dynamite VP for somebody, although peopel would probably want to just make him Sec. of Defense.
Sapwolf on November 9, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Ha! Love it!
SheofTwoMinds on November 9, 2008 at 11:56 PM
problem I see for her, other than the elite snobs hate(though they didn’t like Reagan either, ‘amicable dunce’)…is Obama is going to screw things up so bad internationally as Russia and company have their way the country will want a tough FP type guy to step in.
jp on November 9, 2008 at 11:58 PM
I actually read somewhere that she had read “The Road to Serfdom”. It was a few months ago.
Sapwolf on November 9, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Doctor Zero on November 9, 2008 at 11:54 PM
hope you didn’t plagiarize that. was pretty good article material. print and send to ur local newspaper and your GOP office.
anti-boomer on November 9, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Palin/Petraus could be a ticket maybe?
jp on November 10, 2008 at 12:00 AM
Start out on the local networks.. there is bound to be some Ron Burgandy type looking for that big interview to get noticed by the networks.. Sarah shows up… get her interview and swerves any gotcha’s… and she does it with you tube clips playable of the interviews on her web site.. and keep some of the networks at arms length until she can do one live.. on her terms.. like ‘De-Face the Nation’ or something like that..
DaveC on November 10, 2008 at 12:00 AM
“R D on November 9, 2008 at 11:53 PM”
howzit! yeah, i got in back during the conventions and, amazingly, haven’t pissed anyone off too badly [yet]…
/yeah, that’s why Saracuda’s next 2 years as governor are so crucial — she gets herself back into the groove that made her so beloved by Alaskans in ’06 and she can walk right back onto the natl. stage in 2 or 4 years pretty much on her own terms, with a huge smile and a menacing “I’m BACK” that will prolly cause the noonans, brookses, et al to wet their panties [yeah, i used that term with both of 'em for a reason!]
Buckaroo on November 10, 2008 at 12:01 AM
do you guys know that Dems run candidates that they hate, because they want to win? are repubs too hung up on candidates that they like?
does it really matter if you can make good coffee talk? I met hillary in NY on her first run for office. she was awful. I was repulsed, when I talked to her. I got her autograph. hillary rodham c… haha!
anti-boomer on November 10, 2008 at 12:03 AM
“Sapwolf on November 9, 2008 at 11:56 PM”
Dave P. has yet to show the slightest interest in serving in any capacity as a civiian, let alone run for office …
/i would prefer he concentrates on being the best CENTCOM Commander he can be for as long as duh1 lets him be …
Buckaroo on November 10, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »