Whom should Palin endorse for RNC chair?
posted at 5:27 pm on December 3, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Saxby Chambliss’s victory has certified the Palin wing of the party as the center of its gravity — at least, that’s how the GOP seems to be treating things. If Chambliss’s words are indicative of GOP thinking, Republican activists and conservatives, then Palin must have a pretty tight grip.
The answer to the question is that Palin hasn’t endorsed an RNC candidate, and her political advisers aren’t saying whether she will.
Follow the link for extensive handicapping, noting the potential pitfall for Steele in his coziness with a centrist Republican group. It’s no mystery whom the new, self-appointed “RNC Conservative Steering Committee” is trying to weed out. Why would Palin endorse anyone, though? Granted, if Chambliss is representative then she may have enough clout to handpick the new chair, but there’s no reason to believe Chambliss is representative. The polls don’t show her with anything close to a prohibitive lead over Romney or even Huck, and like I said this morning, Chambliss himself didn’t need her to win yesterday. Unless Palin’s sure she can decide the race if she intervenes, she’s in the same position Obama was vis-a-vis Jim Martin — faced with a risky bet she doesn’t need to make, especially with some RNC members grumbling about “celebrities” sticking their noses in where they don’t belong.
Exit question one: Assuming she does endorse someone, who will it be? Making nice with Steele would give her “big tent” credibility for 2012. Exit question two: Who’s Ambinder talking about at the very end, when he mentions another “high profile name” getting ready to jump in? I’m not sure if that means high profile among insiders like him, where Katon Dawson would qualify, or high profile among the rank and file, where we’re probably talking about someone like Gingrich or Fred.
Update: Per exit question two, a reader e-mails to question the timing of Fred’s new viral video.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 Next »
yes, benny, let’s see how that works out for you over time. When I see a party that’s best work is to denigrate and smear people, my radar goes up. In the 60s, and 70s, the Dems actually had ideas and made sane arguments for those ideals. I grew up in a blue collar Dem family but i can’t find many democrats like the ones I used to admire in days past. Now, most of what I see from the Left looks like a pre-packaged ‘group think’ mantra that’s repeated ad nauseum. I guess we’ll just need to see if it works this time.
Red State State of Mind on December 3, 2008 at 10:18 PM
And once again, the Associated Press is obsessed with Palin’s travel expenses. Honestly, just once I’d like to see them report anything remotely close to this on Obama. Just once.
hockey2k5 on December 3, 2008 at 10:18 PM
From the AP Obama
joey24007 on December 3, 2008 at 10:21 PM
You seem to be a Ron Paul supporter, and for that I respect you because I was one too. I’m also a Palin supporter (Palinista) and do not see a contradiction. Tell me why you do? I admit that having your name on a ticket with John McCain isn’t exactly the sort of resume item a Ron Paul fan would want in a future leader, but what about her record as governor turns you off to Palin? Or her rhetoric? Is it the greed on Wall Street stuff? Because I think we can safely say that there really was and is greed on Wall Street.
ramrocks on December 3, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Yes mass suicide is a distinct possibility. Much of the country doesn’t even think she is qualified for the office you people want her to run for. They don’t even get to the point where she is even considered a choice and this is because of her “song and dance routine”, enough people see through it to not even make her viable, but there are people who are used to putting their “faith” in nonsensical rhetoric so it is commonplace for them. This is ridiculous because even if we strip away all arguments over her rhetoric and just look at it from a strictly political side, she has absolutely no shot in the general. Most people watch her because she is a walking punchline, mainly for people with teeth and/or an IQ higher than their shoe size. If you cannot see through her nonsense your rationality is in question and if you still are rational and support her then you are a very immoral person. Pick any fable book of morals that you want, the Bible, the Koran, etc. even they speak against this tastelss acting.
LevStrauss on December 3, 2008 at 10:24 PM
The AP reports negative stories on Palin because they know their suscribers want negative stories.
It only serves to inoculate her.
kcewa on December 3, 2008 at 10:28 PM
The bible speaks against tasteless acting?
kcewa on December 3, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Ron Paul isn’t a brand or a sports team. I agreed on issues with Ron, his rhetoric is lacking, his past financial arrangements were questionable, official campaign was poorly run, though that is more due to Lew Rockwell and Ron’s naivete than anything.
What’s wrong with Palin? It’s what I have been saying repeatedly about Palin. Her rhetoric is so watered down, there is no substance. I gave her a fighting chance when she first was nominated, I even said she was the best choice that McCain could have made and thought that originally she wouldn’t even want the job. But once she got the job she showed her hand, more of the same garbage that’s been screwing us since 1994. Put her in power and proceed to be disappointed.
LevStrauss on December 3, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Bearing false witness. This is not a act that people know they will pay for, but they will still pay dearly for it.
LevStrauss on December 3, 2008 at 10:34 PM
kcewa on December 3, 2008 at 10:36 PM
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m122/Joey24007/untitled.jpg
joey24007 on December 3, 2008 at 10:42 PM
All the people that will give her the nomination and lose horribly. This is another con job, vague speaking CINOs who whore (for the lack of a better word) themselves out once they get the seats.
LevStrauss on December 3, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Oh, well if the bible says it it’s a done deal. I won’t vote for Palin because acting is bad according to the bible.
V15J on December 3, 2008 at 10:44 PM
You’ve been repeating the same thing for the last 30 minutes … but at least you have the decency to get it down to 2 sentences
for this … we are forever grateful
In the name of legal drugs, 9.11 investigations and Ron Paul
and judging by your views about Palin, you are just another clueless dolt with no knowledge of her record as the Governor of Alaska
did you hear that Trig is not really her kid? How about when she wanted to ban books?
shameful
joey24007 on December 3, 2008 at 10:47 PM
Trig is her kid, the holy spirit impregnated her along with her daughter. Don’t you remember her repeatedly proclaiming her love for Israel in the debate? Read between the lines my friend.
LevStrauss on December 3, 2008 at 10:51 PM
so she is a zionist too?
wow … I love a good conspiracy theory … tell us about the Federal Reserve and AREA 51
Classic Ron Paul supporter right here
joey24007 on December 3, 2008 at 10:53 PM
The only thing that reflects a Zionist conspiracy theory that I have ever read is Leo Strauss’s analysis of Maimonides’s Guide of the Perplexed. He makes some crazy assertions. Frankly it takes up a lot of space, so instead of going into the details I’d encourage you to read both his book and Rambam’s and I am not alone (last entry). Of course some things seem to be hereditary (back cover).
LevStrauss on December 3, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Only because she started running for 2012 on the day after the election. If she had taken a breather as some advised her, she’d be lost in the crowd.
So much for the ignorant redneck she’s portrayed as.
jgapinoy on December 3, 2008 at 11:05 PM
I never suggested that he was. I supported him because I agreed with his libertarian principles of limited government, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and respect for the Constitution. I respect Palin for the same reasons. Yes, I got the distinct sense of her pre-McCain campaign interviews that she is not interested in an uber-interventionist foreign policy. See here at 19:45 into the interview and here at 3:43 into the interview. Now you may suggest that she has now been turned into a neo-con podperson after the McCain aides have force fed past issues of the Weekly Standard down her throat, but I don’t think so because she is the only candidate who made the clear connection between our energy policy and our wars. That counts for a lot in my book. See here for proof at 3:44 into the video. As for respect for the Constitution, Palin has made her respect for the Alaskan Constitution her trademark in Alaskan politics. She’s a strict constructionist. And I’ve no doubt she feels the same about the U.S. Constitution as well. She certainly supports the Second Amendment in full force. Her fiscal conservatism and support for local autonomy and local government are part of her governing record.
So, tell me what in her “watered down” rhetoric you find so distasteful? And more specifically what in her record?
ramrocks on December 3, 2008 at 11:11 PM
ddrintn on December 3, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Well, if the guy Ambinder is talking about is Mel Martinez I don’t think that Palin will be supporting him. From Erick at RedState: Martinez was the Senator talking here.
meltenn on December 3, 2008 at 11:19 PM
yep: the road to 2012 will be littered with fools who underestimate her. Lincoln was underestimated; Reagan was underestimated…..
She’s neither Lincoln nor Reagan–or not yet–but effective leaders who change history are often underestimated: by their enemies and by countless others ( including the petty ankle-biting morons and sissies at the AP )
actually, MOST significant figures in the history of the West in the past two thousand years or so were underestimated–at least initially
Obama, on the other hand, is one of the most OVERestimated clowns in modern times.
Janos Hunyadi on December 3, 2008 at 11:20 PM
Thanks for that. I’m not interested in taking any advice from Martinez.
ramrocks on December 3, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Once she got out of Alaska she stopped running for Alaskan offices and pandering to an Alaskan electorate where if you don’t have those views you won’t win. Ideologically speaking Alaska is a very good state, though they love their pork, but a lot of that had to do with Stevens, unfortunately thats what keeps old Senators in office. Now she’s pandering to the whole country and that’s where we lost her.
Politicians are shells, their advisers are who actually make the decisions on policy. Everything Obama said on the campaign trail he stole from Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book. McCain had Kagan and that Georgian lobbyist. Bush had the Straussians with a fetish for Machiavelli and disgruntled Nixon people who hate warrants and due process. She’s going to be advised by the same kind of scum the three above did. Same product different label.
LevStrauss on December 3, 2008 at 11:23 PM
I honestly don’t think the Left underestimates Palin at all. They know the threat. The fear’s been in their eyes since August 29.
ddrintn on December 3, 2008 at 11:27 PM
For a guy with a last name like Strauss I certainly hope you’re not implying anything anti-Semitic. And here’s a little news flash for you: every politician in America repeatedly proclaims their love of Israel! Obama promised them an undivided Jerusalem before he came back and “clarified” his comment. If you have a problem with this love fest than take it up with AIPAC, otherwise quit with the innuendo.
ramrocks on December 3, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Acts covers most of the Baldwin Brothers, and in the King James version there’s a reference to Michael Moore.
Red State State of Mind on December 3, 2008 at 11:32 PM
No the only Zionist conspiracy theories I ever read were written by Leo Strauss, that comment was a silly response to a silly person. I actually had a comment in response to an earlier comment of the same tone with specific books by Strauss and his subject matter linked and endorsements by the Kristol family but it didn’t make it through the censors here despite me trying to post multiple times. Not surprising when I tried to post something similar in response to Redstate a while ago I got booted immediately.
LevStrauss on December 3, 2008 at 11:35 PM
Lev, you sound like a crank after my own heart. I’d probably really enjoy having a beer with you and shooting the sh*t about this stuff because I don’t like the neo-cons either and I’m sure we’ve read much of the same stuff. But I’ve also spent time studying Palin’s record and her character, and I really don’t think she’s the type to be “controlled” by anyone. She’s proven that no one controls her in Alaskan politics. I don’t think she would allow anyone to do that to her. Right now the empire is in retreat because it couldn’t support guns and butter at the same time. The financial meltdown has changed everything. Even the neo-cons will be scaling back their rhetoric and rethinking their premises.
ramrocks on December 3, 2008 at 11:36 PM
Rhetoric yes, premises never. That was the implicit point of my most recent post.
LevStrauss on December 3, 2008 at 11:41 PM
They DO underestimate her intelligence, her ambition, and her skill
They ARE afraid of the loyalty and passionate support she inspires
Most of all, though, they have contempt for her and for those she speaks for ( me included ). That contempt, in all its arrogant elitist snobbery stupidity, will lead them to underestimate her
meanwhile, they send the Attack Poodles ( AP ) after her…
Janos Hunyadi on December 3, 2008 at 11:41 PM
agree with you, especially about the elite’s contempt for so many of us. Your observations are a great ending to tonight’s blog-reading so it’s off to bed….
Red State State of Mind on December 3, 2008 at 11:51 PM
Fred! I wouldn’t mind seeing him get in the race, though I’d prefer that he spend his time tutoring Palin and helping her prepare for a national run.
Prepare to hear about this ad nauseam for the next few days: The RNC is filing the rest of the campaign disclosures forms with the FEC tomorrow. It’s supposed to have the rest of the information about the clothes in it. I have no idea what actually happened, for all I know all the insinuations about Palin shopping are true, but I do think some more work like this would be helpful in determining what actually happened. The part about Atelier and the quotes from the owner should make people say: Hmmmm…But it probably won’t.
meltenn on December 3, 2008 at 11:52 PM
I believe they already determined that the Atelier thing was bs. It wasn’t the mens clothing shop but something else. I can’t remember the article. I was so disgusted with the whole thing. The gist of it was that these articles are full of sh*t. The idea that Palin appeared in any store is nonsense. The press would have seen her do so. The idea that she asked for any clothing has been denied by all the aides willing to go on the record — which was all the senior people. The whole thing was a nothingburger.
ramrocks on December 3, 2008 at 11:59 PM
I would disagree a little. I honestly don’t think the left think Sarah Palin is an idiot. I think it’s just an image they want oh so desperately to stick. Hence the ad nauseam repetitions. They’ve been at this since she was announced. They’re afraid of all the above.
ddrintn on December 4, 2008 at 12:08 AM
The stupid lefties think she’s dumb. The smart ones know that she’s not. The Palin smears are coming from the smart ones and are believed by the stupid ones.
ramrocks on December 4, 2008 at 12:17 AM
Found it. I agree with your point, but it bothers me that she’s still getting flak for it. I have a feeling that it’s going to keep popping up like a weird game of Whack-a-Mole. I have this fear too that I’m going to put too much faith in her and end up getting disappointed (see: the numerous politicians that have let me down). She’s only human after all.
On a more positive note: Palin’s on the BaBa WaWa special tomorrow night! I guess since BaBa’s been seen around town, my hope that the ‘Cuda would leave her up in ANWR isn’t going to pan out. Hey, maybe she’ll endorse somebody for RNC chair during the interview. No? You don’t think so?
meltenn on December 4, 2008 at 12:38 AM
Ron Paul?
Wait, let me stop laughing…..
Ron Paul is the most idiotic person to run for office anywhere. Paul is a moon bat of the first order and supports 911 conspiracy with his partner in sodomy, Alex Jones; (anyone disputing this is a LIAR)
LevStrauss, your attempt at criticism of Sarah Palin’s intelligence is laughable. Sarah Palin, though not my first choice, is a credible conservative and leagues ahead of John McCain in both intelligence and integrity;(with the exception of McCain’s service record). Palin carried McCain on her back to some sort of respectability in the election which McCain would have never achieved on his own.
Oh how the GOP and RNC are jealous of Sarah Palin! What’s the matter RINOs, is a conservative stealing your thunder?
The LAST thing the RNC needs is a fraud like Michael Steele who supports gun bans, affirmative action, gay marriage, and Roe V Wade! RINOs, get the message, we CONSERVATIVES are taking back the Republican Party, if you don’t like that, LEAVE.
nelsonknows on December 4, 2008 at 1:29 AM
She doesn’t strike me as a typical politician. I came to that conclusion after the NYTimes published her financial disclosure listing how much money the Palins have. I know something about wealth assessments because I’ve assembled research like this for non-profits. I was stunned by the realization that the Palins are in fact very middle class. I don’t think we’ve ever had such a middle class candidate since, well, perhaps Nixon when he was Ike’s vp running mate. But the kicker for me was the realization that no politician comes out of oil rich Alaska with so little money to show for it. I thought, “Dear Lord, this woman must really be honest!” Further research confirms this. She’s that rarest of rare breeds — an honest politician. I’m touched by her constant use of the phrase “a servant’s heart”. I honestly don’t know if she’d make a great president, but I think she’s a great person, and she’s certainly a great governor of her state.
ramrocks on December 4, 2008 at 1:34 AM
Ron Paul never supported 9-11 conspiracy theories. You can’t blame a politician for the nutty beliefs of some of the people who endorsed him. That’s unfair and it reminds me of the liberals who rail against Republicans for speaking at Bob Jones University because of its history of anti-Catholicism.
ramrocks on December 4, 2008 at 1:39 AM
I agree that Palin shouldn’t endorse anyone but play behind the scenes to make sure she has someone with loyalty and the smarts at the top of the RNC.
OT, I read somewhere that Steve Schmidt has started working for Jindal and I think the organised net support and the sudden articles in Post are evidence that someone is working to push the profile and Jindal is evidently taking a Romeny route of building a cult around him. Schmidt also said that he gave up the hope of winning after the Lehmann crash. I remember AP ruling out Schmidt as the guy behind Palin attacks because he supported her inclusion on the ticket in the first place. Maybe he soured on her and after Lehmann, started the Sarah subterfuge, so that his future clients (maybe Jindal) remains viable.
Not to start a conspiracy theory, only hoping that no GOP candidate takes the help of Schmidt/Wallace again.
promachus on December 4, 2008 at 2:31 AM
Rhetoric never has any substance. Governor Palin doesn’t have to talk rhetoric. Her skill as a leader is obvious. She leads by example. Talk is for fakes. She is real.
Geochelone on December 4, 2008 at 2:33 AM
Jindal has a nice future … he shouldn’t waste it with a hack like Schmidt, who ran the most disorganized campaign ever
and he should never let Wallace near him as well
joey24007 on December 4, 2008 at 9:10 AM
A: someone loyal to her; or noone.
james23 on December 4, 2008 at 9:31 AM
This coming from a Ron Paul supporter? buzz off, dope
james23 on December 4, 2008 at 9:34 AM
Who cares who she endorses?
nazo311 on December 4, 2008 at 9:49 AM
You must admit he was spot on in predicting this financial crisis. I don’t know about him buying the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I will say that Alex Jones is a nut and anyone that goes on his show loses credibility. Jerome Corsi is a prime example….
nazo311 on December 4, 2008 at 9:52 AM
If the hint is about Fred, I say no. I voted for him in the primaries, and like his policies, but I think his plan is to stay involved in politics on a part-time basis while making money with his other time (acting, writing, etc). Good plan for him, and us.
Good advice on this thread earlier for Palin- state she’ll work with whoever the RNC chooses. My take is this should be her public statement, but she should discreetly offer some support or discouragement to help guide the process as well. A few meetings, visits or talks with prominent GOPers to talk about the direction of the party, etc., without a formal endorsement. She gets her point across, doesn’t play “kingmaker,” and doesn’t risk placing her bet on a runner-up.
As has been noted earlier, stay in the Gov. office. Maybe support Parnell or someone else to run againt Murkowski, but don’t jump to Washinton yet & then try to move on up while the paint is still wet on the office door. We’re in for a bumpy ride over the next 3 years or so on the national scene. If she can keep Alaska in the black, demonstrate effective administrative ability, and talk about energy, foreign policy, energy, taxes, and energy (see the theme?) she can be well positioned for the 2012 campaign.
cs89 on December 4, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Hand pick a REAL CONSERVATIVE, Sarah.
Let’s light this thing.
ExTex on December 4, 2008 at 10:18 AM
RUSH! He’s the only one that can motivate people, inspire them, and turn this near-dead party back to what it should be.
ErinF on December 4, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Or, Michael Reagan. I wanna get the good Reagan name back into the mix.
ErinF on December 4, 2008 at 10:37 AM
that is a pretty nice idea
joey24007 on December 4, 2008 at 10:42 AM
kcewa on December 3, 2008 at 9:28 PM
The Thompson family, both Jeri and Fred, have taken a deep interest in her. I think Fred is brushing her up on foreign policy specifically, while Jeri runs Team Sarah.
gippergal1984 on December 4, 2008 at 10:48 AM
If true, Palin better make amends to the economic conservatives, else there will be long term problems for the GOP. You can’t disparage businessmen throughout a presidential campaign, and expect them to vote for you. She has the social and military cons on her side, but the fiscals are not yet on board.
Vashta.Nerada on December 4, 2008 at 11:16 AM
IMO, she’s in good stead here. Right now, far too many “businessmen” are lining up at the bailout trough. She needs to espouse economic conservatism, which right now isn’t what 99% of big business are asking for (at least publicly.) She can hit anti-corruption/anti-greed/populism notes, and be a credible alternative as several “bailed out” companies implode anyway. As our $ goes into the money hole, she can say “I told you that was a dumb idea!” and 70-80% of voters will be nodding along.
cs89 on December 4, 2008 at 11:43 AM
I don’t see why not if these “fiscal cons” care about how a state’s chief executive has run the budget. Sarah Palin is a fiscal conservative, a budget hawk. She has the record to prove it, if anyone would just look at the facts and stop listening to Andrea Mitchell and Meredith Viera for their news.
She has cut the requests for federal earmarks by more than %50 from her Republican predecessor, Murkowski.
She has angered some on both sides of the aisle in the State House by vetoing over $500 million in spending from the last budget, and cut taxes repeatedly, consistently.
She did talk a lot about greed on Wall Street, partly because that was the McCain line after the financial collapse, but also she understands the concept of fiduciary responsibility to your investors (see servant’s heart). There were abdications of that responsibility by many Wall Street executives, encouraged by a corrupt and witless Congress. Ethics in Government is one of her strong points, and she talks about that in the context of being accountable to those that have hired you, namely the people whom you serve. Smaller, smarter government was mentioned often.
Social Cons love Sarah for her life choices, she walks the walk of family values. In her administration as Governor she had a couple of opportunities to sign into law an act that was really restrictive on gay couples and another one abortion related and did not. She will tell you her opinions on the social issues, how she chose for her own life and why, but she doesn’t govern as a social-con activist. She seems to be a “hearts and minds one at a time” type pro-lifer. Lead by example, not by fiat, which I like. You wouldn’t know that by the way she’s been painted in the national political media.
Brian1972 on December 4, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Right on, Brian! Great post.
ramrocks on December 4, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Thanks!
Brian1972 on December 4, 2008 at 12:26 PM
If Republicans don’t bring Newt into the process in some important way, they deserve more of the same. We need new thinking, not the same old partisan BS
NewsWonk on December 4, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Indeed Brian … anybody who STILL has not studied the record of Governor Palin should not be taken seriously in their analysis of her “fiscal conservatism”
She is a fiscal conservative PERIOD
joey24007 on December 4, 2008 at 12:55 PM
joey, what’s up Palin fanboy?
Any THINKING conservative’s answer to AP’s question should be “who cares?”. If Palin is the new kingmaker of the Republican party, we are in a world of hurt. Read Posner’s recent blog piece on the state of the conservative movement to get a bit of reasoned analysis. Might do you some good joey to read some stuff that goes deeper than the tier one stuff you come up with.
dakine on December 4, 2008 at 1:53 PM
In one of the last polls before the election 48% said that Palin was qualified to be president. This was after all the attacks on her by the media. All she has to do is convince 3% more and she will be campaigning on her own. She would no longer have to contend with being managed by people who didn’t particularly like her.
Rose on December 4, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Link to the article?
ramrocks on December 4, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Here you go ramrocks:
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2008/11/the_future_of_c.html
dakine on December 4, 2008 at 2:32 PM
First off, he makes the assertion that the financial meltdown is the result of deregulation. It’s not.
His post-ideological clap trap is just silly:
Gee, okay. A “post-ideological era” sounds great. And the only ideology that will be allowed is the one Posner advocates, which he will call “post-ideology”. This is the old “all truth is relative” fallacy.
Thanks for the article. It’s replete with generalities and impractical suggestions, but it was interested and somewhat thought provoking.
ramrocks on December 4, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Oops. That was supposed to be “interesting” not interested. Sorry.
ramrocks on December 4, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Palin shouldn’t endorse anyone. She also shouldn’t act like she’s controlling the party. In fact, she is still new to the public and she needs to earn her way to the top position. I have no doubts she can do this (I’m a huge Palin supporter). But … she needs to do it the old fashioned way – she needs to earn it. She will be much more credible in the end.
For the next four years … she needs to forge alliances the way she’s forged one with Chambliss here. She needs to get Jindal on her bandwagon. He’s too young for the top slot right now but he is the smartest man in the world – a boy wonder. A Palin / Jindal alliance would be unstoppable imo. She has the communication style and political savvy (like Reagan) … he’s got the knowledge and know-how.
HondaV65 on December 4, 2008 at 4:27 PM
I believe at this time it is too early to draft Sarah or Bobby for 2012. Jindal is a good governor as is Palin. Both are in their first terms. Jindal showed true leadership during Gustave and Ike. His ethics reforms are good but it is still too early to see how they play out. His background in healthcare is a plus, If he can improve the health care in Louisiana before 2010 then I think he will be making major strides toward 2012. Palin’s in charge of the Alaskan National Guard which gives her a little more National Security experience than most Governors. She also has her energy background. I do not think the two of them should join forces yet. They should follow their agendas, stay in the news and see where we are after 2010.
Guest1.1 on December 4, 2008 at 5:48 PM
I see no political advantage for Palin to endorse anyone. She’s the new kid on the block. Why risk hitching your wagon to someone with political baggage and why risk making enemies by backing the wrong horse?
Y-not on December 4, 2008 at 7:00 PM
One of the first things the new head of the RNC should do is hold a very public auction of the Palins’ clothes from the campaign. A good time should be in February when people are preparing their taxes and downscaling.
They should raise a good deal of money for a worthy cause, if so many people are interested in her wardrobe. I think the RNC should advertise the hell out of the event. Every major print publication should run full-page color coverage of the items and how much they went for on the auction block.
chunderroad on December 4, 2008 at 8:38 PM
I’m pretty sure that everybody just wants that story to die (except the media of course).
Oprah seems a little miffed that she wasn’t the first to get Palin after the election. Of course, this is a celeb mag so she could have been joking around (it’s always hard to tell what someone’s intention was when you read it in a gossip mag). Maybe Oprah will run for RNC chair and Palin can jump on her couch like Tom Cruise and endorse her. What? Stranger things have happened.
meltenn on December 4, 2008 at 8:46 PM
Sarah Palin towel has been auctioned off to the man in the 5th row, …. by the name of “campaign carl” AKA Weasel boy
joey24007 on December 4, 2008 at 8:51 PM
I think Palin should make Oprah come to Alaska to interview her. In fact, I think she should make Oprah come out with them on their commercial fishing rig in Bristol Bay. That will show Oprah what kind of gal she’s dealing with.
ramrocks on December 4, 2008 at 9:01 PM
She should endorse anyone but Newt “not the future of the GOP” Gingrich, since that’s the topic. Steele would be alright. I like that he’s tech savvy and interesting, I’m not sure about his vision for the party. I’m afraid he’d ditch the so-cons.
chunderroad on December 4, 2008 at 9:08 PM
I like it! I’ve actually thought something similar except I was thinking about Couric. I was thinking that she could get her up there with promises that she’ll give an exclusive about 2012, and take her out fishing in a storm (just to make her seasick and scared you understand, not to do her any injury). I guess that has to wait for summer though right? The salmon season is in July or August I think. Maybe upinak can tell us for sure.
meltenn on December 4, 2008 at 9:10 PM
It would be like an RNC lemonade stand. Their noses should be rubbed in it, anyway, because someone screwed up and put a Dem mole in the make-up room. They should pick a charity that will reflect positively on the GOP’s new direction, maybe childcare for Latinos, church hospitals or sickle cell anemia research.
Screw Oprah. She can get stuffed.
Ew. I don’t want to think about what Carl Cameron would do with that towel.
chunderroad on December 4, 2008 at 9:14 PM
Sorry to burst the bubble, but I believe the Palin’s commercial fishing operation is land based, using nets close to shore.
Still a lot of work, though, but nowhere near the investment and risk involved with a commercial fishing vessel on Bristol Bay.
Saltysam on December 4, 2008 at 10:08 PM
It sure sounds pretty dangerous in this bio piece from the Washington Post on Palin:
I’d love to see Oprah in the same position as old Chuck.
ramrocks on December 4, 2008 at 10:21 PM
That’s a great story, and I too, would love to see Oprah just cruising around with Palin in just a light chop. I’m sure that would rattle her cage quite succinctly.
I’m not knocking what the Palins do, and certainly not saying that they are not at any risk (I grew up around commercial fishing and can tell you that things can go wrong on a boat very fast, no matter the size of the vessel, or the distance away from shore).
Just saying that their fishing business is a small, close to shore operation, not the deep sea type that one usually associates with Bristol Bay commercial fishing.
Saltysam on December 4, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Anybody catch the BaBa WaWa interview? Did the ‘Cuda endorse Oprah for RNC chair?
meltenn on December 4, 2008 at 11:10 PM
I’m on the west coast, so I haven’t seen it yet. But like you I’d love to know how it went.
ramrocks on December 4, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Hey ramrocks,
Here’s a great story on Palin as Governor and fisher, which also has a couple of shots of the boat to give you a better idea of what I meant.
Saltysam on December 4, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Sarah was the only one of the top 10 ‘fascinating people’ not to be personally interviewed by Barbara Walters Good going, Sarah! Barbara called you ill-informed to Rush Limbaugh. Rush loves you Sarah. With Rush in your corner Sarah, you’re half-way there to the nomination in 2012.
technopeasant on December 4, 2008 at 11:17 PM
What?! She wasn’t actually interviewed by Walters? Who interviewed her then? Was there even an interview? Or was this some ratings tease to get us to tune in?
ramrocks on December 4, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Loved it. I’ve seen that one before. I like the “keep pickin’, honey” line. I’d love to to see Oprah in muddy fisherman garb hauling salmon! That would be a scream!
ramrocks on December 4, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Just a smear narrative by Barbara with the theme of the ‘rise and fall’ of Sarah Palin, implying Sarah is finished in national politics. Of course she highlighted the two interviews with Gibson and Couric that Sarah was perceived to do poorly in and with Tina Fey one of the top 10 she had Tina mock her some more during Tina’s interview.
technopeasant on December 4, 2008 at 11:29 PM
So it wasn’t even a new interview? There was nothing new? What in the world would I even want to watch it then? Is it even worth seeing?
ramrocks on December 4, 2008 at 11:34 PM
That figures. Good on Sarah for refusing an interview. I had thought that she had turned Barbara down based on this article, but after they announced her for the show I thought maybe she had changed her mind. I hope that Sarah refuses to ever go on The View, Leno, Letterman, Oprah, et al.
meltenn on December 4, 2008 at 11:38 PM
I can’t believe she hyped the fact that Palin was one of the 10 most fascinating people and she didn’t even interview her. What a ratings whore. She knew people would turn in to watch Palin and then Palin isn’t even part of the show. I’m on the west coast. Is this even worthwhile for me to tune in for or is it just going to make me angry? ‘Cause I don’t want to watch something that is just another gratuitous smear of Palin. Help me out here folks.
ramrocks on December 4, 2008 at 11:42 PM
In my humble opinion, if you don’t want to be disgusted with the MSM any more don’t watch, but if you want to get yourself fired up and and vow to defend Sarah to the death over the next 4 years, yes watch it and sample what the MSM is prepared to do to her a million times over.
technopeasant on December 4, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Here’s a brief rundown from an entertainment reporter. She gives a few sentences on what each segment was about then a couple of sentences on her thoughts about that person (not about the BaBa segment on them). She wonders if Tom Cruise was chosen as number 2 over Palin because BaBa couldn’t get an interview with the ‘Cuda.
The writer’s personal thoughts on Palin:
meltenn on December 4, 2008 at 11:55 PM
Wow, maybe that’s a backlash we are seeing. After mercilessly berating this woman, perhaps people will suddenly discover how disgusting the MSM has been behaving. “Caring and wonderful individual” indeed. It’s nice to see at least one person recognize that.
This whole thing just sickens me. I feel like I’m watching the closing scene of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” only this time when Jeff Smith passes out on the Senate floor, the crooks and the press just laugh at him.
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 12:03 AM
So Tom Cruise is more fascinating this year than Sarah Palin? WTF?! Barbara Walters is a complete and utter imbecile. Disgusting moron. I mean gimme a friggin’ break? Why is Tom Cruise this year more “fascinating” than the woman who for the last three months has become an international media sensation and has become a de facto leader of an entire political party? My God, Walters should be ashamed.
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 12:09 AM
I hope you’re right on the backlash. I doubt it though.
There’s a new article on the blog over at the Times about how much her hair and makeup people were paid in the last weeks of the campaign. You know that she’s going to catch flak for that even though she obviously didn’t hire them. Though their fees seem high I think that was money well spent. She’s a beautiful woman, but having professionals help you really does make a difference. She always looked pulled together and gorgeous, which I would imagine is impossible without some help when you’re campaigning 24/7.
meltenn on December 5, 2008 at 12:12 AM
Tom Cruise only wanted to take down Hitler (in a movie). Heavens to Betsy–Sarah wanted to take down the Messiah. It’s called political correctness.
technopeasant on December 5, 2008 at 12:15 AM
What the MSM is doing is chipping away like the Chinese water torture. What we all have to do is to stop the drip at the source. And the fundamental thing to always bear in mind 24/7: never to underestimate anything that the MSM is prepared to do to take Sarah out-and I mean anything if you know what I mean.
technopeasant on December 5, 2008 at 12:19 AM
It was clear to me (working in Hollywood) that she had a stylist because her hair and make up went from being low grade when she was introduced in Dayton, OH to high grade when she gave her speech at the RNC convention. She’s naturally a very attractive woman — the stylist just brought it out even more so. Take for example, the way they styled her hair for her debate. It was very intricate and I could tell that she had a professional do it — it was movie star perfect! And since the campaign, you can tell that she’s doing her own hair because the old hair clips are back for her up do.
In fact, I remember wondering how she could afford some of the outfits she had on with her income. The NYTimes had printed her tax returns and financial disclosure, and from that it was apparent that the Palins are solidly middle class folks. So, before the clothing story broke, I figured that she just must have splurged on that $2000 Valentino jacket she wore for her RNC speech.
Most of the clothes they purchased were returned after the fitting. It’s the sort of thing that every costume designer and stylist does — buy everything in multiple sizes, then have a fitting, and assemble the wardrobe. All the sizes that didn’t fit and the outfits that were rejected were no doubt returned. There’s no way she spent $150K on the outfits she wore. The NYTimes or maybe it was the LATimes did a piece where they asked a group of stylists to appraise her wardrobe on the trail and they could not come up with $150K worth, and many of the outfits she wore in the last weeks were clearly her own.
This whole thing is just shameful nonsense.
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 12:21 AM
technopeasant on December 4, 2008 at 11:29 PM
Palin was over before she even started. In 2012 it will be Hockey Mom who??? Oh, you mean that goofy-sounding, moose killer from Alaska who couldn’t name even 1 SCOTUS case besides the holy Roe? Yeah, you’ve got a real winner there. Can you christianites say Stockdale?
dk on December 5, 2008 at 12:27 AM
That’s why I think she should do more interviews. Interviews like the Lauer interview silenced critics. I wish that she had actually been interviewed by Walters. I believe that the Couric interview will not be repeated. She sat for dozens of interviews after that one and did fine. The left will hold that against her forever. Perhaps we should counter their criticism by digging up video of the most embarrassing moment caught on tape for these journalists and then make sure it gets 2 million viewer hits on YouTube!
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 12:27 AM
I don’t know if this is what you mean, but I always worried about her a little bit on the campaign trail. Some people are so deranged about her, and she’s so friendly and accessible that I was glad the Secret Service was around.
I personally hope that her doctor has her medical records under lock and key somewhere because I can see some nut trying to sell them to Excitable Andy. Ace has a post up today with a link to a blog that’s devoted entirely to Trig Trutherism.
Oh, right the thread’s topic: I’m still in favor of the ‘Cuda staying quiet on an endorsement.
meltenn on December 5, 2008 at 12:28 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »