Quotes of the day
posted at 10:30 pm on June 15, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“Finally, here’s a second thing Sarah could learn from Hillary: It’s the substance that sustains, not the exposure. In terms of raw talent on the hustings, Sarah Palin is far more of a political natural than Hillary Clinton. She might get somewhere in the long run if she would just go away in the short run and read some books. Her problem is that she thinks the popular culture is the culture. She has no context, no knowledge of the world to offset her obsessive Nixonian flailings about how everyone is belittling her stature as the hardworking governor of Alaska. Her answers on CNN about Pentagon cuts in missile defense that affect her state were as halting and glassy-eyed as a novice U.N. translator’s attempt to grapple with Uzbek in his earphones.
Yet if Palin added some depth to her knowledge, she has so much she could offer.”
***
“And God bless Sarah Palin. What would we do without her for entertainment? She’s our very own political reality show. An American Political Idol finalist. She’s like watching a moose on roller skates. Never graceful. Always riveting.
Yet, despite buckets of criticism constantly flung her way, she’s got a lot going for her. Just like George W. Bush, people and the media constantly ‘misunderestimate’ her. No matter what you think about her politics, this woman is tenacious, fearless, and savvy. John McCain’s former chief of staff, Mark Salter, said it best: ‘What she knows, you can’t teach. And what she doesn’t know, she can learn.’
She got thrown in the deep end before she could swim. As my friend Stuart Stevens said, ‘It was like picking someone of the street and telling them they had to take the MCATs the next day.’ But, she dog-paddled furiously, thrashed about, made a lot of waves, and managed not to drown. And now she’s got her water wings. And she’s working on her strokes. And by 2012 or 2016, she’ll be a lot stronger.”
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 ... 4 5 6
Well, of course that is accurate. In addition, his successor added benefits that were not part of Mitt’s original plan which caused the plan to not work as well….and of course various retarded folks blame Mitt for that.
The only cultists here are Mitt worshippers propogating the myth that he is an advocate of limited government. Mitt is a fatuous huckster who conviently took up the mantle of conservatism when he decided to seek the nomination. The mid 90’s Romney is the exact opposite of the version we see today. His ability to pander to specific voting blocks is unparalleled in American politics. His deceptive nature was so effective that he was able to hoodwink enough conservatives to vote for him, thus making him a relevant candidate. To nominate this waffler would be obliterate standards. I’d have more respect for the man if he were capable of admitting that he’s a shammer. Cato has rightly described Mitt’s horrendous health care plan as being essentially the same as Hillary’s. What a train wreck.
V15J on June 16, 2009 at 3:51 AM
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
TheQuestion on June 16, 2009 at 3:55 AM
So all the REAL conservatives…National Review, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt etc etc etc and other true conservative intellectual thinkers were all “hoodwinked” by this “huckster”.
I think I will stand with the National Review and all the true conservatives that I have mentioned, amongst others, that supported Mitt Romney.
Oh yeah, one more thing:
Yo Momma!
The Final Cut on June 16, 2009 at 4:02 AM
Awww, Sarcasm.
Cut, thanks for the laugh, nice to see someone of your apparent political hue with a sense of humor. Perhaps there is chance for you all.
El Coqui on June 16, 2009 at 4:19 AM
Its FRICKING pathetic. Its like waaaay stupid the first 1500 times it was said on this website and it is even MORE stupid now. Mmmmmmmkay?
She fights…got it…thats greeeeaaaaat….yeah, she fights.
OK, lets shut it on that stupid comment now.
I hope we also put to bed that irritating “raaaaaaaaaaaaaacist” comment that kept coming up too.
The Final Cut on June 16, 2009 at 3:21 AM
We can not spare this women….she fights.
We can not spare this women….she fights.
We can not spare this women….she fights.
We can not spare this women….she fights.
We can not spare this women….she fights.
We can not spare this women….she fights.
We can not spare this women….she fights.
Ok? do you get it now? Maybe if you spent more time learning about our nation and about our current politicial leaders instead of watching south park you might make more sense.
unseen on June 16, 2009 at 4:28 AM
mitt the bore in the woods…so telling
unseen on June 16, 2009 at 4:32 AM
Sarah Palin has ZERO chance of ever winning the presidency so we need to just drop it now and find a new candidate.
Yes i voted for her ticket but I did not feel good about it and I would not do it again.
I would sit out the election or go third party if she was the nominee.
MaximusConfessor on June 16, 2009 at 4:52 AM
After you cited Sean Hannity and Hugh Hewitt as “intellectual thinkers,” I didn’t think your response could be more farcial. Then you said, “Yo Momma.” I guess this lunacy can be expected from a person who supports a guy who has flip-flopped on every significant issue.
And yes, those people were hoodwinked by the huckster (not Huckabee, although he fits the bill). The only one of the people you listed who supported Romney on the outset was Hewitt. All of the rest waited until Mitt was the final option. It was a selection out of desperation as opposed to genuine support.
V15J on June 16, 2009 at 5:03 AM
Sarah Palin has ZERO chance of ever winning the presidency so we need to just drop it now and find a new candidate.
MaximusConfessor on June 16, 2009 at 4:52 AM
Oh really. Ok everyone go home now. It’s over. this guy is going to sit out so we better tell Palin not to run. Her other millions of supporters don’t matter so let’s drop the whole thought process.
OR…..here is an idea. Lets wait and see if she is going to run and then wait and see what kind of campaign she runs and then wait and see what the voters of Iowa and New Hamshire and the other 48 states have to say about it. and then after a couple of years of policy speeches, election results let’s see who we want to vote for on Nov 2012?
right now Palin is the front runner due to her ideas, chrisma and prowness at raising money.
At this moment in Time Palin far from having a zero chance at the whitehouse has a 50/50 chance. that number will go up or down depending on her actions and obama’s action over the next 3.5years and it matters not what you say about it.
My advice to you is get use to seeing her on the national scene for the rest of your life she is not going away any time soon and neither is obama
unseen on June 16, 2009 at 5:10 AM
Looking at the guy in the White House right now, I have to disagree with you that Palin has no chance.
manofaiki on June 16, 2009 at 5:20 AM
In 2016? Oh my gosh…there won’t be an American official position to run FOR in 2016! It truly is now or never for these pansy, milquetoast republicans to “become” conservative and/or new ones to take the chance. RIGHT NOW. ANYONE and EVERYONE.
Mommypundit on June 16, 2009 at 6:01 AM
Anyone wonder WHY, exactly, he isn’t condemning the rigged elections and forceful subjection of the people in Iran? Possibly because, well, they stole something from his playbook and he agrees more than we want to admit, or that he wants to tell us. It isn’t even funny the kind of election fraud being expanded yearly through groups like ACORN. We are still dealing with the fraud that went on during the last election, and if the DoJ’s and other Obama decisions are any indication, they have no qualms in stopping debate and all scrutiny. They will remove anyone who criticizes their regime. Period. So, at the point, Sarah Palin or WHOEVER needs to be really, really on top of the fraud situation because it is abundantly clear that friends of Obama will do whatever it takes to get him elected. We just don’t know how far up the trail goes.
Mommypundit on June 16, 2009 at 6:10 AM
You didn’t…I’ve just had a few sleepless nights…I was tired. Still am, as a matter of fact…
ladyingray on June 16, 2009 at 6:27 AM
Things may change, but right now she has the best chance of winning it.
jimmy2shoes on June 16, 2009 at 6:28 AM
You got Oxy? All I got was Tylenol 3 after my C-section.
What a freakin’ gyp!
ladyingray on June 16, 2009 at 6:46 AM
We’ll stop saying that when you stop tongue-bathing Mittboy.
We like Mitt too but your devotion is crazy, stalker-crazy. So, stop being a nuisance and stop denigrating fellow Republicans.
promachus on June 16, 2009 at 6:51 AM
Plucked off the street, my butt. This is mythmaking 101.
Palin was interviewed by McCain months in advance of being selected. She’s now been in the national eye for close to a year. Were she serious and up to the task intellectually, she’s had plenty of time to “read some books”.
And yet she’s still being marketed as “good potential, if only…”. At what point does the realization there’s no “there” kick in?
That’s the Republican moderate point of view. The Democratic position is still, no doubt, “Please nominate this woman!”.
sanguine4 on June 16, 2009 at 7:10 AM
All the left does is condemn and disparage Sarah Palin, therefore I’m inclined to support her. If Romney were being constantly targeted, I’d have to deduce that he was the threat to Obama.
jimmy2shoes on June 16, 2009 at 7:18 AM
Lincoln was mocked too, because he didn’t fit the mold du jour. I wonder what our media would say of Mr. Lincoln today if he were in the current public spotlight.
How have we become a society that thinks a marxist muslim can run the country better than an all-American person of values?
… a marxist muslim that’s running America into the ground faster than a crashing 777 before our very naive eyes…
ErinF on June 16, 2009 at 7:19 AM
I firmly believe the 2012 ticket will have Romney and Palin together in some shape or form. Not sure who will be on the top, and it doesn’t matter to me, really.
Sarah has the charisma to drum up the masses of support in the public. Romney has the financial expertise to clean up obama’s mess. I think they would make a great team.
ErinF on June 16, 2009 at 7:22 AM
That would be freakin FANTASTIC!
JiangxiDad on June 16, 2009 at 7:26 AM
The Final Cut on June 16, 2009 at 3:21 AM
Why is this guy even back on here? You banned him as Roger Waters. You banned him as The Wall. You know he’s going to pull out the trailer park jokes sooner or later.
Sarah Palin is a Conservative Leader from outside the Beltway. She is not a member of the Elite. That is the reason for all the ad hominem attacks. She drives the guardians of the status quo crazy.
kingsjester on June 16, 2009 at 7:41 AM
I hope everyone goes to that link and reads that. That one line is as far as you need to go. This guy is a former bush and mccain political strategist. That line shows how myopic and limited the political class is. The country is going down the tubes, the world is about to explode and these intellectual deficients are thinking about elections in 7 years. Americans are worrying about nuclear war and whether they will get a paycheck next month. We need a new president today and this guy is plotting where his paycheck will be coming from in 2016. We have allowed a self annointed elite to take over this country, just as the founding fathers warned us about, and thier self absorption and retarded vision is destroying America and, have no doubt about it, where America goes, the world goes. This isn’t a bad election cycle people, this looks very much like the beginning of the end.
peacenprosperity on June 16, 2009 at 7:43 AM
If Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney let people like this get involved in thier decision making they will both be dead in the water shortly and we will have no hope.
peacenprosperity on June 16, 2009 at 7:47 AM
This, said of a woman who grew up the child of a science teacher and school secretary, in a house in the woods in Alaska, where the TV room had no heat, surrounded by nature, by Tina Frigging Brown.
Words fail.
DrSteve on June 16, 2009 at 7:48 AM
I was a Mitt guy in the primaries and I adore Governor Palin. I don’t see why we have to tear each other down. We have no idea what the country will need in 3 1/2 years.
What I can say I’d love to see Palin do is help the RNC recruit and develop a strong cadre of local candidates nationwide by leveraging her experiences going from the PTO to the governor’s mansion. Give Republicans a 20-year pipeline of new talent with experience addressing problems locally.
What I’d love to see Mitt do is hammer away on Obamanomics.
DrSteve on June 16, 2009 at 7:56 AM
Many Republicans dismissed Reagan as an unelectable, stupid actor in 1976. They were wrong then, and you are wrong now about Palin.
Liberals are going deranged with fear, because they know Sarah’s charisma and common sense can beat a tired Teleprompter reader.
Right_of_Attila on June 16, 2009 at 7:58 AM
If Final Cut is an example of the base for Mitt, I think my opinion of Mitt have now fallen to about that of Biden. I have tried to keep an open mind about Romney and the Mormon background, but this lean towards the elitist worldview is getting as old in Republicans as it is in the Democrats.
Who was it that was hated by the elites as non-blueblood country bumpkin? Oh yea, I think it was Lincoln.
MikeA on June 16, 2009 at 8:00 AM
In so many ways, it’s clear to me that we are going to end up trying to kill each other. That’s why divorce may have to be considered. The only other alternative is to wait until an entire generation dies of natural causes, which is do-able, but that will leave half the country miserable all the time for another 25 years. And yes, Tina Brown and I don’t live in the same country, and don’t want to.
JiangxiDad on June 16, 2009 at 8:01 AM
Rush nailed it yesterday. The RINOs and Democrats are not going after any other potential Republican Presidential Candidate. They are going after the most dangerous. They are going after Sarah Palin.
kingsjester on June 16, 2009 at 8:01 AM
What a load of crap
bill30097 on June 16, 2009 at 8:05 AM
That seems to infer that you voted for the ticket in spite of her. That would mean you voted for mccain? Go away, you loser.
peacenprosperity on June 16, 2009 at 8:06 AM
LOL.
JiangxiDad on June 16, 2009 at 8:10 AM
The problem in 2008 was devious engineering by the McCain/Guillani branch of the party who stacked the deck by fracturing the social and fiscal conservative wing of the GOP long enough for a liberal (it was supposed to be Rudy) to sneak into the nomination. The assumption was that the GOP base would put aside their ideological differences with the liberal winner and rally around the flag to fight the more liberal Dem candidate (it was supposed to be Hillary). That isn’t what happened. McCain got the votes from the GOP base but none of the enthusiasm, grass roots organizing, or any other support apart from that vote on election day. The outcome would have been even more bleak if, as a Hail Mary pass, the sputtering McCain campaign hadn’t put Sarah Palin on the ticket as a fresh face with unquestionable socially conservative roots.
In leading up to 2012, the GOP base must not let the liberal wing of the party to repeat their blunders of 2008. A Republican does not win an election by offering themselves up as a milder form of their Democrat opponent! They win by expounding on the bedrock principles of the base. The smart strategy at this point for the RNC is to enlist all the wannabes and potential wannabes into a team that develops a clear anti-Obama/anti-Democrat/anti-big government/anti-socialism message and then spend the next three years staying on message until it resonates as a tenent of faith among the electorate.
It is only by such unity of effort and clarity of message that the GOP has a chance of bringing down the dictator in the White House, removing his cadre of unelected thugs/czars, and restoring some of the checks and balances that have been utterly ignored by the repressive Obama regime.
highhopes on June 16, 2009 at 8:11 AM
FIFY
/real change
bluelightbrigade on June 16, 2009 at 8:11 AM
Anyone wanna bet this moron is exactly 26 years old?
gryphon202 on June 16, 2009 at 8:17 AM
Let the ‘intelligentsia’ of the Republican Party whine as much as they want. They are going to do it anyway, because that is all they know how to do. The rest of us will get down to business, unite behind Sarah Palin and take back the White House and our country. Actions speak louder than words.
shomegirl on June 16, 2009 at 8:32 AM
No one thought we would elect a Catholic highbrow from Massachusetts, but we did.
No one thought we would elect a peanut farmer from Georgia, but we did.
an actor
a womanizer
another Bush
a black man
You get the picture.
shomegirl on June 16, 2009 at 8:36 AM
With all due respect, the reason why we have the quasi-dictatorship we do is from people uniting behind an individual and establishing a cult following. The experience, ability, or views of the filthy liar in the White House were less important than personality.
I want social and fiscal conservatives to rally around a fundamental set of beliefs. If the spokesperson ultimately turns out to be Sarah Palin, so be it. Nevertheless, we must not make the mistake of voting for a person instead of the ideas he/she represents.
highhopes on June 16, 2009 at 8:42 AM
Dear Tina Brown;
Your piece was a big yawn.
Not only that, it shows signs that the Palin attack machine is impotent.
Here’s something you can learn from a man. Palin is not impotent.
Have a nice day.
Saltysam on June 16, 2009 at 8:47 AM
You didn’t learn much much from 2008, did you?
bluelightbrigade on June 16, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Sorry, Michael Steele but we aren’t buying your load! Mitt Romney is a RINO and we aren’t voting for one during the next election. You can try to denigrate Sarah all you want but those of us who are actual conservatives get it. Now go back to your party “bigs”, you know the ones who write your daily script and tell them to suck it!
sabbott on June 16, 2009 at 9:06 AM
I passed along Tina Brown Comments to the guys at HillBuzz who are Hillary Democrats but love Palin and are pushing the Letterman boycott bigtime. It may be decision time for those guys.
RobCon on June 16, 2009 at 9:21 AM
You’ll thank me.
Akzed on June 16, 2009 at 9:26 AM
O/T you have to check out the headline on Drudge.
heshtesh on June 16, 2009 at 9:29 AM
E gads. I guess the Fainess Doctrine is needed now more than ever.
Akzed on June 16, 2009 at 9:41 AM
I’ve been waiting to join here just to tell AP something. Read “Intellectual Morons,” by Daniel Flynn…How smart people fall for stupid ideas. Throughout history so-called intellectuals have perpetrated the dumbest things due to their narcissistic ideologies. You may know how to read well from a teleprompter, go to Harvard and still
runruin the country. The left still doesn’t want to admit Obama had the fewest credentials of any candidate in this election, and he’s a Chicago “polished” thug. (I’m a born and bred Chicagoan and I know how politics operates here.)I think those who disrespect what Palin is and what she has accomplished are afraid of Truth. Truth is about keeping it simple and doing the right thing. One need not read a thousand books to “get it.” That’s something which comes naturally. It’s called common sense.
Nalea on June 16, 2009 at 10:22 AM
The elitist comments above are like royalty of England looking sown their noses at the riff-raff common person in the 17th century. Politics ain’t rocket science and Sarah has the knowledge and skills necessary to diagnose the political problems and the guts to speak in plain language what and who is wrong. Heard her the other night and Lord how I widh she were in the White House now instead of this stooge who speaks from both sides of his mouth.
Herb on June 16, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Isn’t if funny how people criticize one of the few Republicans in the country who has not only balanced her state’s budget, but actually cut it in time of recession?
Isn’t it funny how these “moderate” Republicans are the kind of people who want to nominate a waffler who was a liberal in the Nineties when he had to run against Teddy for the Senate, but morphed into a True Blue Conservative by 2008?
Strange that these same people ignore Palin’s achievement in bringing together the forces in Alaska that needed to put the largest construction project in Alaska history since the Transalaska pipeline?
While other Republicans talked, Palin acted and achieved.
I’d say there’s some there there. And no, Democrats don’t want us to nominate this woman. They are frightened of her.
victor82 on June 16, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Right on. I don’t understand why this is such a difficult concept for people. We have several potential leaders in the Conservative movement, and they all have differing strengths – depending on how events unfold over the next few years, certain strengths may be more necessary than others come 2012.
In order of my own preference:
Palin – Great instincts, quick learner, genuine charisma, and a tenacity lacking elsewhere in the party. Stack some more experience on that pile and Sarah will be a formidable force. Those who hate her do so because they believe the media caricature, which bears no resemblance to the original.
Romney – After the election, I realized that he does change his stripes a bit often for my comfort, but I trust his economic experience, which will be invaluable in the coming years. I also think that too many Mormon-haters will trip him up.
Guiliani – Fantastic executive, has a clear record of achieving exactly what he sets out to do, and succeeding, at that. Since I think that the pro-life battle must be fought in the culture before we can reverse the policy, his abortion views do not worry me. His presidential ambitions are probably finished, but I’d love to see him in a high cabinet position one day.
Sanford – Integrity, integrity, integrity. Slight misstep with trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement for his own gain, but forgivable. Lacking in the charisma necessary for a national run, but excellent on substance nonetheless.
Perry – Lay off the succession rhetoric for a bit, and I’m all there. Tough and unapologetic, though whether he’d retain that outside of Texas is questionable. Tried to use the Tea Party movement with Sanford, again tactless but forgivable.
Jindal – Seems to be the real deal, substance-wise, but needs some more experience (and practice in front of a camera) before he can become a major player. Am watching closely to see where he stands his ground.
Gingrich – Too Beltway-politician for my taste. Backpedals too frequently and is quite cooperative with corrupt politicians on different issues, which smacks of McCain-like moderation to me. Would be a great cabinet member, though, with long experience.
Huckabee – not a fan at all: I think Huck has his priorities all backwards. It’s great that he used to be a preacher and all, but I don’t want ANOTHER Republican president focusing on social issues while the country falls apart (causing a further loss of small-government credibility). Also, I have an innate suspicion of leaders who come from a tradition of “end-times” obsession. I don’t want you running the country if you think the world is ending. There’s probably a place for him, just not at the top.
*drops gavel, puts pom-poms away*
Animator Girl on June 16, 2009 at 11:52 AM
You’re wrong, not only wrong but truly ignorant of what the people know and think. Sorry to have to say it, but you sound like you’re becoming one of those elite pundits operating in a bubble. Just my opinion.
texanpride on June 16, 2009 at 12:19 PM
What Republican presidents have ever focused on social issues? No offense here, but I think you’re accepting the media-generated myth that Repubs are obsessed with social issues. Despite majority Republican rule in the White House for the past 40 years, social conservatives have gained little if any ground policywise. That would not be the case if Republican presidents had been “focused on” social issues. Most Repub presidents pay lip service to social conservatism and throw an occasional bone out to that constituency (think Terry Schiavo), but for the most part they do not spend much of their political capital on social concerns.
frank63 on June 16, 2009 at 12:27 PM
AP:
You are 100% wrong on this one. Totally wrong.
BetseyRoss on June 16, 2009 at 12:34 PM
The second quote is correct! Whatever is “Nixonian” about her? Nixon never had to deal with personal attacks on his daughters, but Nixon HAD major issues with covering up for criminals, and even being a “sore loser” in his “Checkers” speech after losing the California gubernatorial election.
Sarah Palin is glassy-eyed–she wears glasses, but so what? Unlike Nixon, Sarah Palin tells the truth. Which may not be what voters always want to hear, but she tells it anyway. She told the truth about the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, thereby losing her job, but then upset a sitting Governor in the primary and won the Governorship, because she knew the issues in Alaska.
Does she need to read some books? Maybe, although she already reads technical journals of the oil and gas industry. Does she need to go away? Hardly. There are many national issues about which she is already knowledgeable, and Obama will probably give her a target-rich environment to make her points.
Coming from Republican-friendly Alaska, she was unprepared in 2008 for the vicious and personal attacks from the liberal national press, and she got an education. She’s also a fast learner, and won’t be unprepared the next time. Next time, she will be out from under McCain’s shadow, and won’t have to distance herself from George W. Bush. Obama will be the status-quo, and all Republican candidates (including Palin) will represent “change”. Sarah Palin has about three years to prove that she is the “change” the voters can believe in.
They didn’t believe Ronald Reagan in 1976, but they did in 1980. They didn’t believe Sarah Palin in 2008–they might in 2012.
Steve Z on June 16, 2009 at 12:40 PM
What could Hillary learn from Sarah Palin?
Rhymes with “eggs.”
smellthecoffee on June 16, 2009 at 1:04 PM
This blog proves that she is the most feared politician by the left.
whughes888 on June 16, 2009 at 3:28 PM
A maximumconfession of a willingness to turn his/her back on their country by actively giving the Whitehouse back to an anti capitalist, anti American, anti Constitution, tyrannical marxist. Support for such descriptions through complicity. Shame.
Apologies for the play on user name. I generally try to avoid it but it seemed appropriate.
anuts on June 16, 2009 at 4:03 PM
NEXT!
DSchoen on June 16, 2009 at 6:23 PM
Whom do you have to know to get thewall, I mean thefinalcut banned from here?
I went back an reread the terms of use.
The only thing this buttplug seems to do is throw incendiary bombs and sit back. It’s the same childish nonsense over and over. There is no real substance to what it says, logically.
I mean, you banned southernbroad for much the same thing, didn’t you?
This puke makes an otherwise enjoyable thread incredibly tedious.
If I wanted to be inundated with idiotic left wing hogwash I’d go to Huffpo or dailycoz.
Wouldn’t be so bad if everyone didn’t respond to this cretin.
Please folks, can I get an amen?
Lanceman on June 16, 2009 at 9:51 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6