Oh my: Dem strategists set to give Palin the Limbaugh treatment

posted at 5:55 pm on March 30, 2009 by Allahpundit

Like the man said, they’ve exhausted the use of Rush as an attention-getter. So they’re off to hunt bigger moose.

Slublog snarks that the over/under on references to Alinksy’s “pick the target and personalize it” rule in the comments to this post is four. I would have said 40. Don’t let me down.

“Her name conjures up all kinds of reactions in people’s minds,” Carville told me, adding that her association with the campaign will be used to portray the GOP as hidebound and to alienate moderates. “She’s an uncomfortable figure for a lot of Republicans,” Carville says. “They want to move beyond her. We like her.”

“Luckily, she seems to present us with an opportunity every few days,” added a senior Dem strategist. “You could say it’s a turkey shoot.”

Such efforts are aimed at the Dem base. But House Dem strategists hope she can be used to damage the GOP’s image with swing constituencies in the 2010 elections. “When she was campaigning, she rubbed suburban and independent women the wrong way,” one House Dem strategist says. “They are generally very moderate, and she’s a reminder of the extremism of the party and other aspects of it they dislike.”

Think they’re kidding? Have a look at the flier Democrat Scott Murphy just sent out in upstate New York. The obvious response here is “Great! It’s worked wonders for Rush.” And indeed, at least one progressive’s prepared to concede defeat in the Great Limbaugh War of ’09. But: (a) Rush has the time, platform, and incentive to fight daily skirmishes with Democrats while Palin doesn’t and (b) don’t forget that boosting Rush’s profile was the point of the White House’s strategy, on the theory that the public’s antipathy to him would bleed over to the GOP. Surely Emanuel et al. knew that a media war would increase Limbaugh’s ratings; they simply calculated that the political benefit of rebranding Republicans as Team Rush outweighed the cost of making his megaphone bigger. Maybe they’re wrong about that, maybe they’re not, but evidently they’re willing to double down and try the same strategy out on Palin. Exit question: Do gender politics make it more likely that they’ll overplay their hand with her than with Limbaugh? If they’re putting out one ad after another beating up on her while she’s lying low and taking care of business in Alaska, it’ll quickly seem gratuitous.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3 4

you know, when my husband and I go “trolling” for fish. we just hang the line out the back of the boat and snag whatever TRASH FISH we can get to bite the line.
Kind of like reading the Obamabutts who feel a need to post here.

sandlin71 on March 31, 2009 at 3:23 PM

…it was about her ability to answer questions in realtime, kind of a basic neccessity for the High Office.

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 2:59 PM

What??!!! You don’t really wanna go there, what with the TOTUS and all, do you? I saw a cut recently from an O’Reilly interview with Hillary Clinton where he asks a pointed question about the Taliban, BUT prefaces it with, “I know I’m putting you on the spot, so you don’t have to answer that”. That’s an interview — asking open-ended questions is a technique in “gotcha” tabloid journalism. Taking a question that is answered and twisting its meaning to suit your meme is a sleazy Democrat art form.

littleguy on March 31, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Why are the liberals so afraid of her if she supposed to be so dumb?

Bevan on March 31, 2009 at 3:17 PM

Its the same type of contradiction that Dems practiced with Bush. He was supposedly the dumbest man on earth, all the while he was lying and fooling every US citizens into believing some vast web of lies. Brilliantly stupid I suppose. Oh, and Clinton never acted inappropriately towards women, just asks the feminist groups that so strongly supported him even though their sisters were lining up to accuse him of misdeeds. Its the kind of illogic that libs just live with I suppose, we could probably label it a disability.

Geministorm on March 31, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Nope.
Palin failed two interviews and kited off to sulk or get crammed for a month, dunno which.
Never catch Obama or Biden missing a photo-op and a chance to present their views.
Misspeaking is vasty different from not being able to speak at all.
Palin got that deer-in-the-headlights look a lot.
And….Palin reportedly refused to look at press clippings about her continuous rejections by a series of 80s hairbands.
That just isnt presidential.
Weeping because Survivor wont let you play Eye of the Tiger at rallies?

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 3:30 PM

Palin played it wrong.
If she really was a reformer and a fighter, she should have gone on the attack.
Attacked the media for their prejudice and poser questions and sliming her family.
But she didnt do that…she simpered and smiled and used Heartland Pageant Speak like it was some fucking beauty contest and she was goin’ for Miss Congeneality.
I would have respected her for fighting.
She laid down for Couric, she wanted Katie to like her.
/spit

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 3:35 PM

This is a pre-cursor of the second round of the Sunni-Shia civil war to follow.”

Question of the day: What should I say the next time someone tells me the surge “worked”?
strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Question for tomorrow: If the surge didn’t work, why don’t you hear anything on the network news anymore about Iraq? More importantly, IF Obama pulls troops out of Iraq and the combatants formerly known as terrorists take over, which President will be to blame (hint: his initials are BHO)?

littleguy on March 31, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Strangelet,

are you demented? YOUR President can’t verbalize a complete sentence without uuuhhh, aannndd, well…um, see, aaannnd…
when he does go off promter, he rambles and himhaws around the subject, so much so that by the end of his diatribe, he can’t even remember what the question was or what his point was to begin with. If he had been asked more pointed questions and pressed on some of his bullsh!t, we wouldn’t have elected the most inexperienced egor evah. Give me a break and get off it, already. you libtards only keep bringing her and Rush up because you can’t stand to face the fact that yo man is screwing up, BIG time. Let me know when you get your brown shirt in the mail.

sandlin71 on March 31, 2009 at 3:37 PM

If she really was a reformer and a fighter, she should have gone on the attack.
Attacked the media for their prejudice and poser questions and sliming her family.
But she didnt do that…

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Uhhhhh, yes she is, and mmmmmm, yes she did. Do you read the news at all yourself?

littleguy on March 31, 2009 at 3:42 PM

littleguy on March 31, 2009 at 3:42 PM

There was no empirical data to support your hypoth in those interviews.
Palin failed at interviews.
Joe Public isn’t going to research Sarah’s reformer chops…that takes work…..she had to be able to demonstrate them in realtime media coverage.
She couldn’t do it.
Consider that Palin was applying for a job with the American People.
By the election she was a drag on the ticket, a steady decline from her initial exposure.

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 3:50 PM

If the surge didn’t work

I am isomorphic with Petraeus and Kilcullen……we don’t know yet.
But I think a lot of triumphalist neocons (like Malkin and McCain) that promoted the “victory” calumny and the “success of the Anbar Awakening” are going to look pretty stupid.
Petraeus himself said not to use the term “victory.”

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 3:57 PM

There was no empirical data to support your hypoth in those interviews…
…By the election she was a drag on the ticket, a steady decline from her initial exposure.

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 3:50 PM

Empirical evidence? The facts speak for themselves. Now, if you want to talk about perceptions, or opinions, fine. She had some gaffes, Obama had gaffes, Biden had some really, really, really big gaffes. The difference is that the media filter works only one way. I like her, you don’t. She’s not perfect and you demand perfection — of her, but not of others. I challenge you to reveal your choice of the perfect candidate, so they can be critically judged by your standards of performance.

littleguy on March 31, 2009 at 4:05 PM

Palin got that deer-in-the-headlights look a lot.

So, it shouldn’t be too hard to site examples?

That just isnt presidential.

That’s relevant…how?

Could you please describe why Democrats have such difficulty with the concept of VICE President vs. President? I mean, really, its been 230 years now.

Misspeaking is vasty different from not being able to speak at all.

OK, since you’ve stooped to idiocy…Hey, isn’t it great that your best candidate never actually had executive experience of any kind? How’s that working out for ya’? I find it enlightening to see that your party would rather run a extreme leftist noob because he’s black than to actually front someone with a bit of experience just so you can ease the white guilt of America.

Palin can’t speak? Really…could we have a realistic discussion or should I just concede that you’re a moron unworthy of such an exchange?

Geministorm on March 31, 2009 at 4:06 PM

Petraeus himself said not to use the term “victory.”

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 3:57 PM

He’s one of the poor slobs who actually have to do something, rather than just talk about it. Have you ever heard him use the term “defeated” with respect to Iraq? Maybe he didn’t get the memo from his new boss yet. If it goes south, it will be on BHO now.

littleguy on March 31, 2009 at 4:11 PM

That just isnt presidential.

BTW, since you’re at a site that an Obamaturism of the Day page, do you really want to go down this path? Which do you think would be more embarrassing and un-presidential;

1. The VP candidate speaking to a confrontational and biased 3rd rate reporter and exposing she hadn’t read the newspaper.

2. Giving the nearly blind PM of our greatest ally a set of 25 DVDs in the wrong format. This from one of the richest nations in the world….what’s next, a Sam’s Club membership?

And that’s just one example, but I have more…

Geministorm on March 31, 2009 at 4:18 PM

If it goes south, it will be on BHO now.

littleguy on March 31, 2009 at 4:11 PM

Nope. That is why Obama is continuing the Bush policies on Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a high probability of FAIL in both theaters.
If the Awakening unravels, Obama will be able to blame Bush and Bush policy, and take the offramp at 16 months.
OTOH, if Iraq is success, Obama gets the props.
I dont think we have a clear exit strategy for Af-Pak yet.
But Petraeus and KIlcullen are on record that another “surge” won’t work.

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 4:19 PM

Geministorm on March 31, 2009 at 4:18 PM

/shrug
The media is a scorpion, you can’t blame it for its own nature.
Its nature is sensationalist and elitist and supportive of liberal ideology.
Also… I dont think you can force it to change by whining about teh unfairness.
This gets back to my basic question…..how do you make your memes competitive?

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 4:23 PM

I challenge you to reveal your choice of the perfect candidate, so they can be critically judged by your standards of performance.

littleguy on March 31, 2009 at 4:05 PM

Im a hereditary republican. Guns, dogs, and Pony Club.
Bush got my virgin vote.
But after I saw Bush lie on stemcells, Iraq, torture, small government and free markets my ideal candidate became anyone that was the epi-polar opposite of Bush.
I got as far away from Bush as I could.
I doubt Ill ever go back.

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 4:32 PM

Nope. That is why Obama is continuing the Bush policies on Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a high probability of FAIL in both theaters.
If the Awakening unravels, Obama will be able to blame Bush and Bush policy, and take the offramp at 16 months.
OTOH, if Iraq is success, Obama gets the props.
I dont think we have a clear exit strategy for Af-Pak yet.
But Petraeus and KIlcullen are on record that another “surge” won’t work.

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 4:19 PM

Look, don’t get me wrong. Its not that I don’t believe he’ll try to continue his blame Bush-a-thon — it just won’t work this time. Its “too big to fail” and its all his now. It didn’t fail with Bush in the chair, while Obama was calling it a failure (you know, like he was wrong consistently), and if either war fails now on his watch it will Obama who lost them forever more.

littleguy on March 31, 2009 at 4:35 PM

She needs to go on Rush Limbaugh’s show…and ASAP.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 31, 2009 at 4:43 PM

Im a hereditary republican. Guns, dogs, and Pony Club.
Bush got my virgin vote.
But after I saw Bush lie on stemcells, Iraq, torture, small government and free markets my ideal candidate became anyone that was the epi-polar opposite of Bush.
I got as far away from Bush as I could.
I doubt Ill ever go back.

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 4:32 PM

Been there, done that. Try to live a moment in someone else’s moccasins before you condemn them, though. Just a little advice from the front.

littleguy on March 31, 2009 at 4:44 PM

I mean…when anyone tries to make your memes competitive, like Meghan McCain for example, you blast her as a RINO and make fat jokes.
Its up to you, but I personally dont feel having creepy adams-apple-blonde tranny skanks like Coulter and Ingraham represent the party is going to help much.

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 4:45 PM

Have Teleprompter Will Travel reads the card of the man.
A cipher without a thought of his own in what he’s turning into a bankrupt land.

His ah, oh, umm, loose mouth heeds the calling of a Soros wind.
A man without a clue of his own is the cipher called Obamadin.

Obamadin, Obamadin, Where do you roam?
Obamadin, Obamadin, Just be sure to never leave your teleprompter at home.

He travels on to campaign whenever he feels he must
His yearning for power is his guiding lust

These are legends that themselves do spin
Of the Ventriloquist’s dummy
Of the cipher called Obamadin

Obamadin, Obamadin, Where do you roam?
Obamadin, Obamadin, Just be sure to never leave your teleprompter at home.

MB4 on March 30, 2009 at 6:41 PM

Bullseye. Espcially the name Obamadin – has a lovely muslim ring to it.

tigerlily on March 31, 2009 at 4:46 PM

/shrug
The media is a scorpion, you can’t blame it for its own nature.
Its nature is sensationalist and elitist and supportive of liberal ideology.
Also… I dont think you can force it to change by whining about teh unfairness.
This gets back to my basic question…..how do you make your memes competitive?

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 4:23 PM

I’m not blaming the media, I’m accepting of its nature. What I’m responding to is the left’s pursuit of rational discussion with the right and yet they cite Palin’s shortcomings (as evidenced by the MSM’s constant negative portrayal of her) while ignoring their own candidates’ (HRC, Biden and Obama) similar fumbles and foibles.

You say she’s not presidential (as the losing VP candidate), and yet ignore Obama’s embarrassing international gaffes, Clinton’s dopey comments on foreign soil and Joe Biden’s stupidity.

You say she can’t speak, and yet you ignore Obama’s inability to sound coherent without the teleprompter. Not to mention his unscripted comments like the one about the Special Olympics.

Why don’t you get your story straight? People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. But, in this case, after you throw a stone, you change position to disaffected elitist and spit up, “…don’t be such a whiner…”. If Palin isn’t a threat, then you have nothing to fear. From your replies, there is really nothing that separates her from the power-jockeys already in office. I suspect that the only reason that the left hates Palin is because they fear her political views will resonate with a large portion of the populace, and so the effort is made to degrade and dismiss her.

Its a paradox that you should personally evaluate. If her views are not popular, she’ll never get elected. If she is stupid sounding and looks like a deer in the headlights in stressful situations, people will see that and she will not get elected. If she is some backwoods, red-neck, hillbilly, with extremist views, no one will care what she has to say and she’ll never get elected. What would inspire the left/Democrats to continually attack Palin if it is not a move to undermine her future political aspirations? Think about it for one extra minute…what does the DNC fear? If they didn’t fear her and give her weight, why would they care what some lady said in BFE?

Do a little self-evaluation there strangelet. I’m not asking you to switch teams, I’m saying to look at your team’s motivations and compare that with the actions taken.

Geministorm on March 31, 2009 at 4:51 PM

Its not that I don’t believe he’ll try to continue his blame Bush-a-thon — it just won’t work this time. Its “too big to fail” and its all his now.

two words, littleguy.
sixteen months.

And Bush did fail….he spent 700 billion dollars and 4,000 lives from the finest military on the planet to make another Islamic state. The Iraqis wrote sharia law into their constitution. Just like Pakistan.
The Grand Misadventure of the Manifest Destiny of Judeo-Christian Democracy was an Epic Fail.

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 4:52 PM

I mean…when anyone tries to make your memes competitive, like Meghan McCain for example, you blast her as a RINO and make fat jokes.
Its up to you, but I personally dont feel having creepy adams-apple-blonde tranny skanks like Coulter and Ingraham represent the party is going to help much.

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 4:45 PM

I don’t like the fat jokes — I also don’t like the dumb jokes, either. Doesn’t matter, though, right? You can say whatever you want about Coulter, Ingraham, even Limbaugh and Hannity. I don’t even know if they’re Republicans. But, there are just as many assorted skanks, shrews, sleazeballs and political pimps on the left.

littleguy on March 31, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Its up to you, but I personally dont feel having creepy adams-apple-blonde tranny skanks like Coulter and Ingraham represent the party is going to help much.

Heh. Do you think I care what our spokesperson LOOKS like? Isn’t it the message that’s important and not the messenger?

For the most part, MMcLame is an apple that did not fall far from the tree. Her father *is* a RINO, a left-leaning liberal on several accounts. For examples; look at McCain-Feingold (campaign finance reform), McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal aliens), and McCain’s stance on global warming. There is a some real ground between McCain and the right-wing conservatives…McCain, as a moderate, was choked upon by the conservatives who voted for him as a vote AGAINST Obama, not because of his skin color but because of his policies. Meghan McCain *cannot* be a spokesperson for the conservative wing of the Rep party because she’s a moderate (read; centrist) NOT a conservative. Coulter, Hannity, Levin, Ingraham, and Limbaugh have *conservative* values and principles. That is why they represent us, not because we’re concerned about their looks.

MMc is labeled a RINO because she is one, plain and simple.

Geministorm on March 31, 2009 at 5:00 PM

two words, littleguy.
sixteen months.

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 4:52 PM

One word for you: spin. As one FOB once said, “Let us see what time will tell us.”

littleguy on March 31, 2009 at 5:01 PM

Geministorm on March 31, 2009 at 4:51 PM

Palin is unelectable. I don’t know if she was just unready in 2008, or if it is the basic lack of human capital David Brooks spoke to, but it will take at least 3 generations to forget that she was a national punchline. The evolutionary demographics are against her.
She is interesting as a field study in cognitive anthropology…she cleaved the party along the intellectual faultline, and the GOP lost about half of its braintrust; Powell, Brooks, Frum, Buckley, Will, Parker, etc.

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 5:03 PM

LEFT: Obama – Clinton — McCain — Jindal Palin – :RIGHT

Here’s a seating chart for all of you watching (Palin is *not* the most far right…she’s shown social conservativism, but there are many libertarians that are more fiscally conservative).

Geministorm on March 31, 2009 at 5:05 PM

littleguy on March 31, 2009 at 5:01 PM

It is a treaty that we signed with the Iraqis.
Not spin.

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 5:05 PM

….she cleaved the party along the intellectual faultline, and the GOP lost about half of its braintrust; Powell, Brooks, Frum, Buckley, Will, Parker, etc.

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 5:03 PM

Braintrust? How about an experiment in cognitive dissonance — guess what I’m thinking about the loss of this “braintrust”. Next, guess who I think is responsible for the “cleaving”.

littleguy on March 31, 2009 at 5:12 PM

Palin is unelectable. I don’t know if she was just unready in 2008, or if it is the basic lack of human capital David Brooks spoke to, but it will take at least 3 generations to forget that she was a national punchline. The evolutionary demographics are against her.
She is interesting as a field study in cognitive anthropology…she cleaved the party along the intellectual faultline, and the GOP lost about half of its braintrust; Powell, Brooks, Frum, Buckley, Will, Parker, etc.

/sigh

1. The same sort of things were said about Reagan. It took a couple of tries, but when he got elected, it was a true landslide.

2. Hahahahaha, I’m sorry, I can’t stop laughing because you put “braintrust” and names like; Powell, Frum, Brooks, Parker and Buckley in the same sentence. Heh, that’s freakin’ hi-lar-i-ous! Oh oh oh…you forgot one, Peggy Noonan! Hahahahahaha!

Excuse me while I catch my breath……
….
….
whew!

Those moderates couldn’t win an election if their lives depended on it. They only seem like a “braintrust” because they are more appealing to the left since they are centrists. Did you ever think to wonder why the left hates Rove so much? Do you think that there is any correlation between Axlerod and Rove?

Basically, this is the situation; a centrist/moderate *cannot* win a national election, especially if the Democrats run a leftist. Its just a statistical impossibility. The only way to win in a nation politically divided is to offer a polar opposite to the opposition. Do you think that John McCain could pull any significant portion of anything to the left of the center line of a bell curve? Do you think that John McCain could attract far right wing voters out to support him? No, he cannot. Without fail, the middle will be split between two candidates, the difference between a win and loss is how many of the fringe does the candidate pull. Obama easily pulls in the far left, John McLame causes the far right to be unmotivated to back a candidate that doesn’t support their views (neither does the other major candidate) so they have a tendency to not vote.

If Palin were unelectable, why is she this nation’s most popular Governor? Me thinks that perhaps you don’t have a good sense of the nation’s pulse.

Geministorm on March 31, 2009 at 5:19 PM

Everytime they attack Palin we need to send money to her Pac. Even if it’s only $5 or $10 dollars. Or send money to the RNC. We have to beat them at their own game.

greenstew98 on March 31, 2009 at 5:20 PM

sorry for the frequent posting

Forgot to mention; did you realize that John McLame *knew* that the only way he had a chance to win would be if he had a far right conservative on the ticket? Second, it would be beneficial to have a young female as well to shore up all of the weaknesses that his team knew they had. They were weak with the strong conservatives, with the 18-28 segment and the Republican party has a general image problem of being representative of old, white, men. You will notice that John McCain took to traveling with Palin after the convention because she was more popular than him. Imagine if a strong conservative had actually been running in the prime spot…they would have gotten all of McCain’s votes plus Palin’s far right votes. That would have been the only chance the Reps had.

.

Geministorm on March 31, 2009 at 5:26 PM

Oh…I love Colin Powell.
He defended the Fulda Gap.

Being the most popular governor of a state with less population than the Chicago suburbs is not going to help, sry.

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 5:28 PM

McCain cynically went after the PUMA voters.
Unfortunately for him, they could tell the difference between Hilary and Sarah.
Fail.
The 18 to 29 demographic isnt ever going to relate to Palin…..shes more like our moms then like one of us, especially with all the dissin’ of teh college-educated and “elites”.
We are the SNL/Colbert/Stewart generation.

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 5:34 PM

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 5:34 PM

As a cynical gesture, McCain’s targeting former Hillary supporters paid off, since Sarah Palin had Harriet Christensen and Lady Rothschild and Angie Harmon supporting her selection as VP. THe McCain ticket gained 27% of the gay community over Bush’s 2004 election results. There appeared to be an appeal there, though you may argue soccer moms in Jersey didn’t go for the GOP ticket in the end.

It seems you put a lot of faith in the youth vote, which barely paid off for Obama this year. The results show his victory was more from depressed Republican turnout.

chunderroad on March 31, 2009 at 5:44 PM

Geministorm on March 31, 2009 at 5:26 PM

Your posts are often very informative. Keep them coming.

chunderroad on March 31, 2009 at 5:46 PM

or if it is the basic lack of human capital David Brooks spoke to,

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 5:03 PM

The David Brooks who lets the White House dictate his columns? That guy in the Sally Jesse Raphael glasses?

chunderroad on March 31, 2009 at 5:48 PM

I’m a hereditary republican. Guns, dogs, and Pony Club.
Bush got my virgin vote.
But after I saw Bush lie on stemcells, Iraq, torture, small government and free markets my ideal candidate became anyone that was the epi-polar opposite of Bush.
I got as far away from Bush as I could.
I doubt Ill ever go back.

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 4:32 PM

Her mother was supposedly a beauty queen and Reagan voter. Anyone would vote for Bush over Gore and Kerry. That makes strangelet a minority in a posh suburb who has a weak grasp of the issues but votes on the cool factor. Blue Dawg Dem.

chunderroad on March 31, 2009 at 5:51 PM

Being the most popular governor of a state with less population than the Chicago suburbs is not going to help, sry.

Yeah, you’re right. Winning an election is no big deal. There’s no moving goal line there.

Hey, I’ve got an idea, let’s just move all of the conservatives to one state, then we can dismiss that state too!

You know, not to point out the obvious, but even with a small population, what’s really important is her performance which is probably (I’m just giving a WILD guess here) connected with her popularity. For a moment, let’s just dismiss California, because everyone knows that they are just a bunch of outliers (being every citizen is wildly liberal), so if Ahnold isn’t popular its because he’s a far right demagogue…yes, that makes total sense.

Supposition: Palin is unelectable.
Response: Palin was elected in Alaska and she was more popular that John McCain.

Supposition: Palin lacks human capital.
Response: Alaska is doing better than California.

Supposition: Palin is a national punchline.
Response: Palin is very popular in the state where she was elected.

Counter: Well, Palin was elected in some backwoods state with zero population so she doesn’t count.

/eyeroll

Yeah, that explains it. Fall back on the same old tired stupidity. I suppose I have to give up because your PDS has too strong a hold on you to have an intelligent conversation. Just go on, nothing to see here…Palin CAN’T POSSIBLY win an election, pigs will start flying first. So, anyway, wth is the problem with the Broncos?

The tactic of changing subjects, moving the goal-line and dismissing rebuttals out-of-hand is a winning game plan. Your college education is failing you, better pick a better school.

Geministorm on March 31, 2009 at 5:51 PM

McCain cynically went after the PUMA voters.
Unfortunately for him, they could tell the difference between Hilary and Sarah.
Fail.
The 18 to 29 demographic isnt ever going to relate to Palin…..shes more like our moms then like one of us, especially with all the dissin’ of teh college-educated and “elites”.
We are the SNL/Colbert/Stewart generation.

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 5:34 PM

I have control issues, I admit it…I have to comment.

McCain cynically went after the PUMA voters.

This is what idiotic buffoons on the left think because that is the caca that the DNC spread (to enrage the PUMAs). If you have a couple of braincells left to rub together, you’d recognize this is class warfare speak. Think for yourself. The primary reason that McCain picked Palin was to secure the right-wing of the party, its not even a close race without the support of the right. Think about that for a second, imagine if John McCain *did not* have the surge of support that he got from having Palin on the ticket, the financial support would have also been a large factor, especially in those last weeks.

Next on the list would be to secure at least a little of the 18-28 crowd, granted this was a pipe dream, but anything is better than nothing. Lastly, it would be to get a **few** disgruntled Hillary supporters. You will need to realize that there just weren’t that many disgruntled Hillary backers that would (a) not vote for Obama and (b) consider voting for McCain. Any moderate females were already split, so there was no great gain there. In fact, I would bet a good deal of money that Palin’s looks were more of a problem with female voters than a benefit in the females won from the PUMA camp.

As far as college educated voters go, I don’t recall being “dissed” for being educated, although I think that its perfectly fine that she smacked around the elites (read; Brooks, Noonan, Buckley, etc.) because middle America doesn’t like those people. In general, whenever someone starts thinking that they’re better than everyone else, it usually means they aren’t. There is a reason that America has become cynical about the Washington DC crowd/politicians, they are unprincipled in general and often crooked (on both sides of the aisle). Palin appears to be a principled person, that is part of her attractiveness. When you get a little older, you might come to appreciate the same value.

.

Geministorm on March 31, 2009 at 6:08 PM

Golly, I missed the part where Democrats have ever STOPPED attacking Palin. The Palins currently have half a million dollar legal bill to fend off all the Obots’ friviolous lawsuits:

http://hillbuzz.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/the-universe-sends-sarah-palin-the-wrong-french-toast/

“the Palins are now in debt to the tune of $500,000 because crazy Obama Democrats keep filing ethics complaints against her (for things like wearing an Arctic Cat jacket to a snowmobile race, saying she was advertising a product, when in reality, the woman was just keeping warm and the Arctic Cat jacket was the best piece of winterized sportswear she owns).”

adagioforstrings on March 31, 2009 at 6:32 PM

She is interesting as a field study in cognitive anthropology…she cleaved the party along the intellectual faultline, and the GOP lost about half of its braintrust; Powell, Brooks, Frum, Buckley, Will, Parker, etc.

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 5:03 PM

Good riddance. Palin, with her state school education could tell that Obama was a socialist whilst the ivy alumni got hoodwinked into believing that he was a moderate.

adagioforstrings on March 31, 2009 at 6:39 PM

You’re absolutely right, strangelet.

We lost this election because McCain, as a moderate, made the mistake of picking a CONSERVATIVE as his running mate, instead of ANOTHER moderate.

IT’S…………ALL BECOMING CLEAR TO ME NOW!

Had McCain picked someone exactly like himself, why this last election would have been MUCH MUCH CLOSER.

/sarcasm off

Are you for real? You’ve got to be joking, right? McCain’s campaign was dead in the water before he picked Palin. With no Palin he loses even worse than he did.

We tried the ‘WE MUST RUN A MODERATE’ strategy with McCain. We were told it was the ONLY way we could win. All those independents sitting in the center were there to be had if we would run a DEMOCRAT-LITE strategy.

Well you’re not FOOLING ANYBODY.

DEMOCRAT-LITE DON’T WORK.

This next election the Republican party goes full out conservative.

manofaiki on March 31, 2009 at 7:58 PM

Exit question: Do gender politics make it more likely that they’ll overplay their hand with her than with Limbaugh? If they’re putting out one ad after another beating up on her while she’s lying low and taking care of business in Alaska, it’ll quickly seem gratuitous.

1-Yes, they will overplay it but it will come back and bite them in the face because they are the only ones that have made Sarah a “Republican” issue, that has to be dealth with; if we fall in the trap of letting THEM pick whoever’s gonna run for ’10 or ’12, then we have not learned our lesson yet.

2-Basically she has talk radio on her side; it is the McCains that have a problem with her. They will fetch the family to accomplish this task. That is one angle; fascinating because of a myriad of fine men, or in House or Congress, they have to pick “her”.

3-To the smarter folks here, that follow the news, go online and want to ask, those hundreds of thousands that are joining us in the process because their eyes are opening up, they will smell the dead fish (pun totally intended).

4-She must pull an Ann Coulter and do absolutelyfriggin’ nothing.

Gotta have dinner (paella) so brb with further comments. My family is more important than what those dingbats in DC, we are aware of it and will counteract it in a very confident way.

ProudPalinFan on March 31, 2009 at 8:12 PM

But after I saw Bush lie on stemcells, Iraq, torture, small government and free markets my ideal candidate became anyone that was the epi-polar opposite of Bush.

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 4:32 PM

Ah. A serial liar.

Bush didn’t lie about stemcells. He laid out very honestly exactly what his position was, and why. You must be thinking of Obama, who made a big deal of overturning Bush’s policy to “give science its proper place,” then signed legislation a couple days later that banned embryonic stem cell research. The, when asked about the ethics, suddenly claimed he had “struggled” with it. Dishonest, opaque, deceitful. If lying really concerned you, you’d be shouting to the rooftops what a disappointment Obama is.

Bush didn’t lie about WMD’s. First, Saddam unquestionably had WMD’s, since he used them against the Iranians and against the Kurds. So the whole “where are the WMD’s?” is a dishonest question from the beginning. Secondly, Saddam had 16 months to hide or move his WMD’s during the “rush to war” the media liked to — dishonestly — talk about. Third, evidence of WMD’s has been found in multiple cases in Iraq, even though the stockpiles themselves were not found. But the evidence showed they had been there at one time. And fourth, even if we granted you your lying claim that Iraq never had WMD’s, it’s undeniable that our intelligence through both Republican and Democratic administrations believed they did have them. Bush would have to have known the intelligence was wrong in order for your claim that he was lying to be true. But it wasn’t wrong. Saddam simply made sure the WMD’s were never found.

Bush certainly never lied about torture. I’ll pass over the argument whether waterboarding — the most stressful technique used — constitutes torture, considering that members of our military endure it every year as part of their training. Regardless, Bush never pretended that it wasn’t used. Even though it was unpopular, he not only didn’t hide it, but defended its use.

On the contrary, Bush did away with Clinton-era “rendition,” where we claim we didn’t torture anybody, but hand them over to some other nation or group who will. Bush was too honest to play that game. He took the responsibility for all interrogation and interrogation tecniques. But what has Obama done? He re-started rendition. If someone needs toruring, he’ll just turn them over to people who don’t mind doing it, then pretend that he was above it. Obama’s claim to stand against torture is a sham.

Bush had his faults, but lying wasn’t one of them.

It is one of your faults, though.

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on March 31, 2009 at 10:47 PM

Palin is a never ending laugh factory…

Fox News: Palin didn’t know Africa was a continent (Video)

Poptech on March 31, 2009 at 11:32 PM

Palin is a never ending laugh factory…

Fox News: Palin didn’t know Africa was a continent (Video)

Poptech on March 31, 2009 at 11:32 PM

Like a moth to a flame, the Palin-stalker shows.

-Yawn.-

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on April 1, 2009 at 12:03 AM

Palin is a never ending laugh factory…

Fox News: Palin didn’t know Africa was a continent (Video)

Poptech on March 31, 2009 at 11:32 PM

…for the feeble minded, like Poptech.

Fox News: Palin didn’t know Africa was a continent is a LIE!

Just what we’d expect from a Barr-voting, Obama-electing tool.

littleguy on April 1, 2009 at 1:02 AM

Palin is a bullshit artist, when she doesn’t know something, she bullshits, reads up on it and denies she did not know. I’ve seen her type many times. This is how she gets through her political career, being cute and saying nothing.

Poptech on April 1, 2009 at 1:43 AM

Good riddance. Palin, with her state school education could tell that Obama was a socialist whilst the ivy alumni got hoodwinked into believing that he was a moderate.

adagioforstrings on March 31, 2009 at 6:39 PM

+10

sarahpalinfan99 on April 1, 2009 at 3:13 AM

McCain cynically went after the PUMA voters.
Unfortunately for him, they could tell the difference between Hilary and Sarah.
Fail.
The 18 to 29 demographic isnt ever going to relate to Palin…..shes more like our moms then like one of us, especially with all the dissin’ of teh college-educated and “elites”.
We are the SNL/Colbert/Stewart generation.

strangelet on March 31, 2009 at 5:34 PM

I think you have pointed out exactly why you are braindead. SNL/Colbert/Stewart are all nothing more than entertainment shows. They do not practice serious news and if you believe they do then you are even more lost than I fear. The only thing that most America can do is hope that you folks grow up and get a clue before you are truly responsible for this country.

Hawthorne on April 1, 2009 at 6:10 AM

Palin is a bullshit artist, when she doesn’t know something, she bullshits, reads up on it and denies she did not know. I’ve seen her type many times. This is how she gets through her political career, being cute and saying nothing.

Poptech on April 1, 2009 at 1:43 AM

You mean just like Obama? If the man didn’t have a prepared speech and a teleprompter, he would fall flat on his face from tripping over his UMM UMM UMMs

Hawthorne on April 1, 2009 at 6:13 AM

Palin is a never ending laugh factory…

Fox News: Palin didn’t know Africa was a continent (Video)

Poptech on March 31, 2009 at 11:32 PM

I know! Politicians are so funny/phoney, it could be a sitcom. Did you know that President Obama didn’t even know that there are 50 states in the USA? He thought there were 57, and he’s the freakin’ President…hahahahaha! Seriously, we could sit here all day and do this, it just amazes me how the stupidest people are running our country (into the ground) and yet people keep voting for them!

Un.Believ.Able.

Geministorm on April 1, 2009 at 10:07 AM

Bush didn’t lie about stemcells.
Bush lied twice about stemcells on national television at the time that he vetoed the stem cell expansion bill.
1) He said that hASCR was “superior and functionally identical” to hESCR so we didn’t need to fund hESCR. This a lie recognized by the entire scientific community.
2) And then he said we were already funding hESCR for the 21 preexisting ESC lines. However when the lines were restarted in 2006 after Johns Hopkins solved the mouse-feeder-cell contamination problem the 21 lines were discovered to be unstable rendering them useless for human research.
So we were not funding hESCR because the funded lines were useless. The MFC contamination problem also prevent ASC research from being useful for humans….however regrowing those lines did not require embryonic tissue so hASC research has been ongoing since 2006. hESC research has not.
The expansion bill that Bush veto’d merely allowed for the restart of the 21 funded lines.
So yes. Bush lied.

strangelet on April 1, 2009 at 10:17 AM

…denies she did not know. I’ve seen her type many times.
Poptech on April 1, 2009 at 1:43 AM

Of course you have, you’re a member of the Democratic party.

Geministorm on April 1, 2009 at 11:39 AM

The expansion bill that Bush veto’d merely allowed for the restart of the 21 funded lines.
So yes. Bush lied.

strangelet on April 1, 2009 at 10:17 AM

Wow, you went a long way to get to that “lie”, its a shame you don’t show the same diligence with your own candidates.

I understand you want combat the enemy (the Conservatives) and counter their arguments, but don’t you care in the least whether your own politicians are misleading you? I mean, I’m against any liar/crook regardless of their party affiliation, aren’t you?

Geministorm on April 1, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4