Krauthammer: Palin isn’t a serious candidate for president

posted at 4:40 pm on July 2, 2009 by Allahpundit

Oh yes, he went there. We’ve been having a running debate on Twitter this afternoon about Sarahcuda and my contention that criticism of her is verboten among righty blog readers, HA’s included. This thread will be an interesting test case. Most of the heat Kraut takes will be for his contention that “You cannot sustain a campaign of platitudes and clichés over a year and a half if you’re running for the presidency.” Didn’t Captain Hopenchange do exactly that? Well, yes and no. Granted, the most memorable line he uttered in 18 months on the trail was “Yes we can,” but he’s done countless policy interviews, debated Hillary 20 times and McCain three, and held numerous press conferences. The TOTUS jokes are fun but The One’s perfectly capable of straying off script when need be. Is Palin? She seems at ease when discussing energy or life issues but the jury’s still out on most everything else, which is why Kraut feels comfortable asserting that she hasn’t (yet) brushed up on national policy the way we all thought she would.

While we’re on the subject of uttering anti-Palin heresies, I guess Frank J. from IMAO and I are the only two who thought the ‘Cuda came off worse in the Palin/Schmidt campaign e-mail exchange about the Alaska secessionist party published this morning by CBS. Quote:

“That’s not part of their platform and [Todd] was only a ‘member’ bc independent alaskans too often check that ‘Alaska Independent’ box on voter registrations thinking it just means non partisan,” Palin wrote. “He caught his error when changing our address and checked the right box. I still want it fixed.”

Palin was attempting to bend the facts ever so slightly to fit neatly into her version of events. In truth, the box that Alaskans have the option of checking when registering to vote states the full name of the party, “Alaskan Independence Party,” not “Alaska Independent,” which would make an error by uncommitted voters more plausible.

Clearly irritated by what he saw as Palin’s attempt to mislead her own campaign and apparently determined to demonstrate that the ultimate authority rested with him, Schmidt put the matter to rest once and for all with a longer response to everyone in the e-mail chain.

“Secession,” he wrote. “It is their entire reason for existence. A cursory examination of the website shows that the party exists for the purpose of seceding from the union. That is the stated goal on the front page of the web site. Our records indicate that todd was a member for seven years. If this is incorrect then we need to understand the discrepancy. The statement you are suggesting be released would be innaccurate. The innaccuracy would bring greater media attention to this matter and be a distraction. According to your staff there have been no media inquiries into this and you received no questions about it during your interviews. If you are asked about it you should smile and say many alaskans who love their country join the party because it speeks to a tradition of political independence. Todd loves his country

We will not put out a statement and inflame this and create a situation where john has to adress this.”

The leak is one thing, but on the merits Schmidt’s strategy is the better of the two. Why inflame the story, with bad information no less? Reading this, the Cuda’s decision to fire back at Levi Johnston in press releases starts to make more sense. Like Frum says, before Palinistas start filling her coffers, they’ll at least want some evidence that she can mount a competent national campaign. Right?

I’ll leave you with two pro-Sarah pieces for balance, one from Republican bigwig Fred Malek calling her “smart, curious, hard working, charming, and effective” and attesting that he’s personally seen her hold her own in private discussions on policy with heavy hitters. The other’s from Jim Geraghty, theorizing why it is that the left despises her so. He’s certainly got part of the answer — happy, successful pro-life conservative women are a grievous offense to leftist feminism — but I think he misses the element of sheer contempt they have for her intellect. To the left, I think, she embodies a sort of comfort with ignorance that they think characterizes most/all conservatives. Why they’ve come to see her that way is complicated (part of it’s probably educational pedigree, part of it’s her affinity for rural pastimes like hunting, part of it’s the Katie Couric interview and the canned answers she gave at the debate with Biden), but I think it’s a mistake to assume that their antipathy is rooted in nothing but fear and defensiveness. That’s not true of the right vis-a-vis The One, after all. Is it?


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 18 19 20

People are teasing Mr. Treacher about a monkey who appears on his blog site

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2009 at 1:25 PM

There is no monkey appearing on his blog. Mr. Treacher is Great Ape. Please note this for future reference.

Loxodonta on July 3, 2009 at 1:46 PM

csdeven on July 3, 2009 at 1:44 PM

You honestly think that any other politician would remain silent after David Letterman joked about their 14-year-old daughter getting knocked up at a baseball game. I hope it’s okay that I don’t share your unshakable faith in such an odd assertion.

Jim Treacher on July 3, 2009 at 1:46 PM

And id you want to kick me = And if you want to kick me

If I only had an id…

Loxodonta on July 3, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Actually NOBODY is a serious candidate against Obama until his popularity polling dips a bit lower. Right now he could beat a reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln. But upcoming double digit unemployment and inflation coupled with higher taxes and a collapsing foreign policy (including a possible domestic terrorist attack) will take care of that. Then ANYBODY-including a drunken bum dragged off a bar stool-would be a viable candidate.

I tend to agree with this although I wouldn’t have put it quite so strongly. Education about Obama’s policies is key. I admit in shame that I have really slacked off on my blog on reporting the junk he’s ramming through because it has been a constant onslaught. He’s done so much serious garbage in such a small amount of time that it has worn me out. It’s not that I’m less outraged by it. It’s just that I’m exhausted! Team blogs like Hot Air are really critical in the blogosphere. I know another blogger who has expressed the same sentiment. It is really outrageous, the things Obama has done in such a small amount of time. It will take time for the electorate to absorb the gravity of it all and then there will be hell to pay for the Democrats.

gocatholic on July 3, 2009 at 1:48 PM

I don’t know.

BINGO! Give the monkey boy a Kewpie doll!

csdeven on July 3, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Who are you quoting? I don’t see anybody who’s said that.

Jim Treacher on July 3, 2009 at 1:48 PM

I haven’t looked, is it another case of cherry picking or does he show any substantive arguments against his piece?

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2009 at 1:14 PM

This thread was headed that way since last night. I have found a few constructive conversations this am (with you and others). Last night was nuts.

csdeven on July 3, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Loxodonta on July 3, 2009 at 1:46 PM

I stand corrected and chastened.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2009 at 1:50 PM

I hope it’s okay that I don’t share your unshakable faith in such an odd assertion.

Jim Treacher on July 3, 2009 at 1:46 PM

If you find it odd then I see why you feel the way you do. I usually do not give turds credibility by lowering myself to their level. People usually understand that concept and do not hold it against you. The same is true for a president. Bush refused to respond and the issue died. As president, that is expected.

csdeven on July 3, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Who are you quoting? I don’t see anybody who’s said that.

Jim Treacher on July 3, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Whats wrong? You don’t like the meals you serve to others?

csdeven on July 3, 2009 at 1:53 PM

If you find it odd then I see why you feel the way you do. I usually do not give turds credibility by lowering myself to their level. People usually understand that concept and do not hold it against you. The same is true for a president. Bush refused to respond and the issue died. As president, that is expected.

csdeven on July 3, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Whereas Palin stood up to Letterman’s bullying and he apologized for it, which somehow was a mistake on her part. Because Bush did something different under different circumstances. Yes, it’s all coming together now.

Jim Treacher on July 3, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Whats wrong? You don’t like the meals you serve to others?

csdeven on July 3, 2009 at 1:53 PM

I don’t understand what this means. Did I misquote you?

Jim Treacher on July 3, 2009 at 1:55 PM

csdeven on July 3, 2009 at 1:48 PM

I enjoyed the thrashing DaveS was taking last night as he belittles in under the guise of being instructive. He brings out my bad qualities so I won’t respond to him the future. But I will truly enjoy the work of those who do.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2009 at 1:57 PM

1900+

Wow… 2000 by 5

Upstater85 on July 3, 2009 at 1:59 PM

So, Obama is not wrong for speaking out in support of human values, while Palin is wrong for speaking out in support of human values.

Loxodonta on July 3, 2009 at 1:42 PM

How long did you meander through illogical rationalization to come up with that tripe?

I never said she was wrong. I said not doing so makes her look more presidential. She can, and did choose to respond. IMO it will come back later to bite her in the ass because now she is forced to respond to any and all criticism of her kids. Once the flood gates open, if they do, she has to decide if she loves all her kids equally and has to defend all attacks, or cease responding and be accused of not loving one child as much as the other. It’s a slippery slope.

This is why Bush did not respond to the calls to rape his wife.

THAT is my opinion and it’s a sad day when simple criticism results in personal attacks. But I’ve noticed that is your MO.

It seems that in your zeal to make your point that you have cast all concern for reading comprehension to the wind.

csdeven on July 3, 2009 at 2:01 PM

csdeven on July 3, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Bush didn’t stick up for himself, that was his biggest mistake. There is nothing wrong with sunlight and calling someone out on the carpet for their conduct.

No blood for oil!

joshlbetts on July 3, 2009 at 2:02 PM

I think she sounded very good in her one interview on policy, which was over the gasline deal.

The rest of this is just more of the same. The people talking in “cliches and platitudes” are those discussing her. LOL*

You guys are the ones who are talking nonstop about much of nothing.

AnninCA on July 3, 2009 at 2:03 PM

If you find it odd then I see why you feel the way you do. I usually do not give turds credibility by lowering myself to their level. People usually understand that concept and do not hold it against you. The same is true for a president. Bush refused to respond and the issue died. As president, that is expected.

csdeven on July 3, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Whereas Palin stood up to Letterman’s bullying and he apologized for it, which somehow was a mistake on her part. Because Bush did something different under different circumstances. Yes, it’s all coming together now.

Jim Treacher on July 3, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Both of you have great points here. Honestly, you do. There’s something to be said about this either way. The public impact of both statements (Letterman’s and Palin’s) is a relevant issue. Bush let the media run all over him, though, at great cost. Palin obviously takes a different tactic, at least when it comes to her minor children. I think it is more relevant to discuss her overall handling of the media compared to Bush’s than it is to forever wallow in one event.

gocatholic on July 3, 2009 at 2:03 PM

Oh, by the way, I saw this same “insider” fight over Obama and Clinton.

Man, it got nasty.

The GOP insiders are right on schedule. Same fight.

AnninCA on July 3, 2009 at 2:04 PM

joshlbetts on July 3, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Excellent point.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2009 at 2:04 PM

IMO it will come back later to bite her in the ass because now she is forced to respond to any and all criticism of her kids.

csdeven on July 3, 2009 at 2:01 PM

Unanswered question.

Jim Treacher on July 3, 2009 at 2:05 PM

1900+

Wow… 2000 by 5

Upstater85 on July 3, 2009 at 1:59 PM

What’s the record, here?

Lanceman on July 3, 2009 at 2:05 PM

Thanks Cindy. Gotta go back to work.

joshlbetts on July 3, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Frankly, this is a remark from the GOP “chattering class.” LOL*

Good gravy. The woman will either engage American voters…or she won’t. It’s simple.

She will ignore the GOP insiders, as she should. I’m not sure they are exactly wracking up a good track record anyway. They couldn’t even get their own party out to vote. (She got her part out.) They are now the lowest recorded number of GOP identified in decades.

And you’re paying attention to them? Like they have the answer?

LOL*

It’s nuts.

AnninCA on July 3, 2009 at 2:10 PM

We finally find someone who will stand up to the media and say “this is how it is, bite me”, and you appear to want her to get her CBS Groove on. One of the attractive things about Palin to many of us is that she doesn’t concede to play that way.
DaMav on July 2, 2009 at 10:52 PM

Exactly. History is full of examples where people win by not playing by the other guy’s rules. Some tactical examples …(ie the strategic final outcomes may have been a loss)

- Clair Chennault’s AVG against the Japanese
- The German’s decision to go through the forest instead of attacking the Maginot line head on.
- The Japanese doing the ‘impossible’ and dropping torpedoes in Pearl Harbor
- Dolittle launching B-25′s from carriers.
- Taffy 6 where a bunch of DE’s took on a Japanese Line of Battle

etc. Etc.

Face it.. The left OWNS the lamestream media lock, stock and barrel. If you try to play their game by their rules, you will get burned.

I also firmly believe that the attacks on Palin are orchestrated ala Alinsky. She needs to cause immediate and severe pain to the attackers whenever possible.

Letterman clearly knew, or should have known, that the attack was on Palin’s 14 yo daughter. The photoshop of Trig by the alaskan a-hole was clearly out of bounds.

It’s just like the school bully. They will keep attacking (in the spirit of Alinsky). However, a roundhouse kick to the head will usually cause them to stop.

bullseye on July 3, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Two points:

Krathammer isn’t a conservative, he’s a neocon and there’s a heck of a difference. Like most neocons, he is liberal on many social issues.

Krathammer is part of the “Beltway elite.” He would rather have other elites praise him for bashing Palin than avoid him for defending her. Pass the butter for the lobster please.

bw222 on July 3, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Now that’s funny, pick a new stereotype. It’s old hat.

joshlbetts on July 3, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Which one did you like best?

Jaibones on July 3, 2009 at 2:10 PM

It’s just like the school bully. They will keep attacking (in the spirit of Alinsky). However, a roundhouse kick to the head will usually cause them to stop.

bullseye on July 3, 2009 at 2:10 PM

But it’s more presidential to let them keep pushing you around, or something.

Jim Treacher on July 3, 2009 at 2:11 PM

How long did you meander through illogical rationalization to come up with that tripe?

I never said she was wrong. I said not doing so makes her look more presidential. She can, and did choose to respond. IMO it will come back later to bite her in the ass because now she is forced to respond to any and all criticism of her kids.

First, you might have more traction in your argument if you pointed out the times she complained about poor media coverage. This is not Presidential or Gubernatorial. That said, I don’t think that he defending the honor of her child somehow makes her behavior less Executive. Sure, you can say, “well, Bush didn’t fight back,” but that doesn’t prove that Palin wasn’t acting Presidential (even if we assume Bush did). I see

joshlbetts on July 3, 2009 at 2:02 PM

makes the point that perhaps Bush should have fought back more. Instead of having the “Believe me because I said so” approach, Bush could have engaged his critics in an honest debate (something this country needs again).

Once the flood gates open, if they do, she has to decide if she loves all her kids equally and has to defend all attacks, or cease responding and be accused of not loving one child as much as the other. It’s a slippery slope.

That’s preposterous to assume that thought would even cross her mind. You have no idea what she’s thinking.

This is why Bush did not respond to the calls to rape his wife.

And you don’t know why, he didn’t…

THAT is my opinion and it’s a sad day when simple criticism results in personal attacks. But I’ve noticed that is your MO.

No, this is your MO. You call people names and you throw out your opinion, but then never back it up and attack everyone else’s.

It seems that in your zeal to make your point that you have cast all concern for reading comprehension to the wind.

csdeven on July 3, 2009 at 2:01 PM

And yet one more attack…

Upstater85 on July 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM

What’s the record, here?

Lanceman on July 3, 2009 at 2:05 PM

Hmmm dunno. I know we’ve hit 2000 before…

Upstater85 on July 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM

IMO it will come back later to bite her in the ass because now she is forced to respond to any and all criticism of her kids.

csdeven on July 3, 2009 at 2:01 PM

Dude – no one will ever FORCE me to respond to attacks on my kids. It will just happen. When some gap toothed douchebag makes repeated sexual remarks about your 14 year old daughter, you had better respond. When some democrap blubberbutt blogger does a nasty photoshop of your toddler, you had better respond.

Geez. Imus makes an off the cuff stupid comment with no apparent malice and he gets the axe. Almost literally.

Also, keep in mind that these attacks fit in with Alinsky’s rules. If so, then they are even more evil in that they are probably being coordingated somewhere in the whitehouse.

So, if you are a man and you don’t respond to those types of vicious attacks on your kids, then you might as well get the hedge clippers and cut those three dangly things between your legs because you don’t deserve them.

bullseye on July 3, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Hahahaha. I can see it now, “she’s not just cliches and platitudes, there’s also moose chili!”.

Me and Krauthammer actually agree on something.

LevStrauss on July 3, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Palin will announce that she has been in an affair for 2 years at the press conference today.

TimeTraveler on July 3, 2009 at 2:15 PM

It’s just like the school bully. They will keep attacking (in the spirit of Alinsky). However, a roundhouse kick to the head will usually cause them to stop.

bullseye on July 3, 2009 at 2:10 PM

That’s a pretty clever platitude you got there.

LevStrauss on July 3, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Geez. Imus makes an off the cuff stupid comment with no apparent malice and he gets the axe. Almost literally.

bullseye on July 3, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Hey, if he had made this remark about my kid, I’d be knocking at his door…

Upstater85 on July 3, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Hmmm dunno. I know we’ve hit 2000 before…

Upstater85 on July 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM

Probably on another Palin thread…

Lanceman on July 3, 2009 at 2:17 PM

She is doing a damn fine job running Alaska. Actually accomplishing something is the way to build a resume. Otherwise you end up being an empty suit pumped full of policy positions but no track record of producing anything in the way of results. That leads to the mess we have in the WH today.

The Opinionator on July 3, 2009 at 12:41 AM

And she is trying hard to get word out about her accomplishments, but the media and, sadly, most regular people, are more concerned about Letterman than they are about AGIA. Sad. People are far too caught up in personalities than they are about the records of service. People talk far more about Mitt’s hair than about Romneycare and they talk far more about Palin’s press release on Letterman than they do about her accomplishments with the gasline.

This woman is no moron. Audio file, Palin press statement on AGIA, May 22.

gocatholic on July 3, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Probably on another Palin thread…

Lanceman on July 3, 2009 at 2:17 PM

You know it. AP knows how to stir the pot, but he never knows how to keep it in check…

Upstater85 on July 3, 2009 at 2:18 PM

Pocket-book Democrats and GOP members are, in fact, on the verge of creating a new party.

It could be a very interesting decade. There are signs to me, anyway, that there are points of agreement than disagreement.

An old-style Democrat? A really, really old-style GOP?

It’ll be fun to watch.

AnninCA on July 3, 2009 at 2:21 PM

I can tell you guys, I’m not the least bit interested in what the current crop of insider GOP is offering.

Sanford? Oh please, the guy is a trainwreck. And you were thinking this joker was something?

Jindal? I couldn’t believe that speech he gave. It was insulting to everyone.

McCain can’t even be bothered to speak out about his own nasty business from his campaign?

Romney has lost how often now?

I don’t really care, I guess, but from the viewpoint of an outsider? The ONLY interest I have is in Palin. I like her independence and “outside the beltway.” If she’d soften on policies that divide me?

I could get behind her, at least for some major voice in the country.

AnninCA on July 3, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Pocket-book Democrats and GOP members are, in fact, on the verge of creating a new party.

It could be a very interesting decade. There are signs to me, anyway, that there are points of agreement than disagreement.

An old-style Democrat? A really, really old-style GOP?

It’ll be fun to watch.

AnninCA on July 3, 2009 at 2:21 PM

A fascinating proposition, and one that I’ll be looking for more evidence for. Yes, times are changing, and it is both exciting and dreadful at the same time.

gocatholic on July 3, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Me and Krauthammer actually agree on something.

LevStrauss on July 3, 2009 at 2:15 PM

That’s because there is a God.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2009 at 2:27 PM

I don’t really care, I guess, but from the viewpoint of an outsider? The ONLY interest I have is in Palin. I like her independence and “outside the beltway.” If she’d soften on policies that divide me?

I could get behind her, at least for some major voice in the country.

AnninCA on July 3, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Exactly. I have concerns about Palin, but I’m not voting for Pope, here, and I’m not voting on who is going to be my mother or my sister or my spiritual director. I’m voting for President and I do think she has what it takes. If you think about what the tea party crowd might want in a President, Palin is obviously and by far the best choice. Anyone who can’t bring in the tea party crowd is going to lose against Obama, plain and simple. Still, we won’t know until those SarahPAC numbers come out, will we? I’m watching for that.

gocatholic on July 3, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Anyone speculating on a new Palin post around 3:30 ET?

Will she run for governor? President?

Upstater85 on July 3, 2009 at 2:28 PM

AnninCA on July 3, 2009 at 2:24 PM

These are the insights that make me keep defending you. Except on health care but I do realize that it is a subject personally important to you.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2009 at 2:29 PM

The reason why CK, Goldberg and Purdom are all out to lunch regarding Sarah can be encapsulated in several events that Sarah has participated in over the last 6 months or been affected by:

1)Sarah’s interview with John Ziegler for Media Malpractice in early January clearly demonstrated that she did NOT consider herself as a victim and she said: “I’m the politician, fair ball, take your shots at me, but leave my family alone”

2)Rush Limbaugh’s speech on February 28th at CPAC was a turning point in the conservative movement and of the fortunes of Sarah Palin. What the speech did was to ignite a fire under the base who were frankly ashamed of the GOP establishment and members of Congress who were sucking up to Obama and not willing to call him out on anything. And then couple that with Michael Steele’s sarcastic ridicule of Rush Limbaugh later that evening enraged many conservatives to the point that they decided not to donate to the RNC for the foreseeable future.

3)Soon after many posters on blogs indicated that they would only be giving to SarahPAC for the time being. It could be argued that if Limbaugh had not given his speech SarahPAC which was set up on Jan.27th might not have taken off so quickly.

4)Sarah was constantly in the news in February challenging the acceptance of some of the stimulus money and capped her defiance of the package and Obama on February 27th at the Lincoln dinner in Alaska where she ran roughshod over Obama’s agenda by saying ‘It’s not free money folks.” And as a sidelight she revealed how she prayed with Piper before the debate with Biden showing she is indeed a person of faith.

5)Rush Limbaugh 2 or 3 times has come out strongly for Sarah Palin not as endorsement because she is not running for anything yet but as representative of a Reagan conservative. He posted a poster at his web site Sum of All Fears which must have angered the Romney and Huckabee camps.

6)The April 17th pro-life speech at Evansville cemented her stature with the pro-life community and she also took the opportunity to nail Obama again on defense and energy development in a substantive manner.

7)And then in early June to mid June she appears in NY state for the Seward celebrations and to help a developmentally disabled group with fundraising. She does one interview with Sean Hannity where again she blasts Obama for his reckless spending and his socialist tendencies. David Letterman was the last thing on her mind.

8)Then Letterman tells his ‘statutory rape joke’, hems and haws about apologizing and finally does. Again Sarah did not know Letterman was going to utter this joke and remember she said take your shots at me but leave my family alone. Sarah defended her daughter, not herself.

9)Then Sarah announces that Exxon-Mobil and TCP will be working together to build the pipeline, a major development. She goes on with Lauer and Blitzer and IMHO her interview with Lauer was the best she has ever done in the Lower 48. Strange that Purdom, Goldberg, and CK, none of them make mention of either one of these interviews.

10)Then the PPP poll and the PEW poll come out showing Sarah making gains with moderate Republicans and independents and improving her favorable/unfavorable number.

11) And then the Mark Sanford affair which Sarah will certainly benefit from by inheriting some of Sanford’s Presidential supporters but of course had nothing to do with Sanford going crazy and flying down to Argentina.

So where do these two esteemed writers and pundit get off by misrepresenting the last 6 months in the life of Sarah Palin. Sarah has had a terrific six months and to boot has not made any major UNFORCED ERRORS. This fact alone is one of the main reason that Obama’s war room and the GOP establishment are so frustrated now. The ‘hick from Wasilla’ is a lot smarter and resilient that we ever thought she was.

technopeasant on July 3, 2009 at 2:33 PM

AnninCA on July 3, 2009 at 2:10 PM

How many of those ‘former’ members of the GOP are like me, Ann?
I changed to Libertarian to get those pantywaste weenies at the RNC to stop soliciting me.
Not like they were (or are) listening to me and my ilk, anyway.
I was a Fredhead from the get-go. when he dropped out, I went with Romney.
When our ‘candidate’ turned out to be McLame ,
I said screw it!
No way I was gonna vote for that dem.
I was gonna vote but would’ve stopped with the congressional races.
Then he announced Sarah Palin.
I will admit I knew next to nothing about her. I knew she was the governor of Alaska, but I had never even seen a picture of her.
My opinion was she had to be a stiff, older, Patrician looking blonde woman.
Maybe a Republican version of Mary Landrieu. Way to get my vote, Johnny Mac, I thought
Then I heard her acceptance speech.
Whoa! Game-changer!
I’m still registered Libertarian.
And the RNC is still bothering me. More than once the caller has gotten an earful.
The Alfranken debacle just gets them in deeper with people like me.
But the second they start fighting….

Lanceman on July 3, 2009 at 2:34 PM

The way the country is going (particularly the economy), by the time the 2012 election rolls around, the idea of an outsider with no ties to Ivy League elitists may be exactly what voters want.

bw222 on July 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM

The way the country is going (particularly the economy), by the time the 2012 election rolls around, the idea of an outsider with no ties to Ivy League elitists may be exactly what voters want.

bw222 on July 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM

Yeah, who knew this government by oligarchy wouldn’t work out too well?

Jim Treacher on July 3, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Hey, you guys. I’m going to my local teaparty tomorrow. I’m still for public option, but I think a smart congress can figure out a way to afford that, and we need it for real.

It’s for people.

BUT….I’m toast with insider politics in WA, where they get to drive luxury hybrids and blow smoke up while on their latest trip to Argentina for SC business. (Are you
kidding me?)

I’m for figuring out where we agree.

Here’s a big start. Public option. Hate it due to abortion?

Let’s agree that’s ONLY covered in cases where the mother’s health is at dire risk. Otherwise, it’s an elective surgery.

Off the table.

Public option? Let’s agree that those wishing to opt in, pay the freight. No medicare/medicaid program here. AND…no more emergency room free rides. You show up, you buy the insurance, or no care.

We can quarrel about wars and national security stuff later, but surely we can agree…no more unfunded wars. We wage war, we raise taxes. Then, let’s see just how much we support that.

Lobbyists? I bet we all agree. Go to federally funded campaigns. That is the only solution. No more multi-billion campaigns. That includes Obama and his hidden list.

I think we have more in common than we realize.

AnninCA on July 3, 2009 at 2:44 PM

10)Then the PPP poll and the PEW poll come out showing Sarah making gains with moderate Republicans and independents and improving her favorable/unfavorable number.

11) And then the Mark Sanford affair which Sarah will certainly benefit from by inheriting some of Sanford’s Presidential supporters but of course had nothing to do with Sanford going crazy and flying down to Argentina.

technopeasant on July 3, 2009 at 2:33 PM

#10 and #11 are the key points. Krathammer and Goldberg thought Sarah Palin would be gone after the 2008 election. The more she is attacked, the stronger she gets. Krathammer aand Goldberg are part of the DC elite. They want the GOP to listen to them, not the rank and file. Palin is a game changer and she scares the sh!t out of them.

bw222 on July 3, 2009 at 2:46 PM

Palin making big announcement today from Wasilla at 3 PM EST. Go to thread at HA.

technopeasant on July 3, 2009 at 2:48 PM

I won’t respond to him the future.
Cindy Munford on July 3, 2009 at 1:57 PM

I don’t blame you.

csdeven on July 3, 2009 at 2:56 PM

Upstater85 on July 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM

Thanks, but my reading and typing skills are very low today and there were several unfortunate typos in that previous post which I did not catch. Can’t fix them at the moment. When in pain, I should not post. Nap time.

Loxodonta on July 3, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Let’s go for 2,000 comments! That would have to be some kind of record, wouldn’t it?

JDwinston on July 3, 2009 at 3:03 PM

I enjoyed the thrashing DaveS was taking last night as he belittles in under the guise of being instructive. He brings out my bad qualities so I won’t respond to him the future. But I will truly enjoy the work of those who do.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2009 at 1:57 PM

He’s not so bad. He just gets a silly idea in his head and won’t let it go, no matter the evidence to the contrary.

Jim Treacher on July 3, 2009 at 3:11 PM

Thanks, but my reading and typing skills are very low today and there were several unfortunate typos in that previous post which I did not catch. Can’t fix them at the moment. When in pain, I should not post. Nap time.

Loxodonta on July 3, 2009 at 3:00 PM

You enjoy that nap.

Upstater85 on July 3, 2009 at 3:13 PM

bw222 on July 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM

There is a lot to that because I tend to blame Ivy League insiders for the debacle on Wall St. as well. The years of genuflecting to people who have been consider the intellects of our time are over. Most have them are probably alumni admissions rather than gaining entry by any scholarly pursuits of their own anyway. Hmmm, sounding a bit bitter.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Jim Treacher on July 3, 2009 at 3:11 PM

I guess when he is right, he’s right. Last night was not my first encounter with him but it still played out the same. With the exception that you were more dogged in your response then most people are. He should try to remember that superiority is hard to pull off even if you have it.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2009 at 3:25 PM

O/T Gov. Palin resigns TRUE

heshtesh on July 3, 2009 at 4:09 PM

The Cuda is now unleashed. The libs need to be afraid, be very afraid. Go Sarah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

karenhasfreedom on July 3, 2009 at 5:33 PM

Hey, look on the bright side, Sauer Kraut was just doing his job. The pen is mightier than the sword. A grain of salt and a mountain of cliches!

Thanks for everything, Sarah.

Sweet_Thang on July 3, 2009 at 6:50 PM

Typical. Once the monkey’s learn to use soap, they think they can speak for the world.

I don’t know.

BINGO! Give the monkey boy a Kewpie doll!

csdeven on July 3, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Look, friend, Jim Treacher certainly doesn’t need me to defend him, he can take you apart piece by piece, but he has given you a very good argument. Why don’t you do us all a favor and admit you have no reply, and leave the Junior High name-calling to the 13 year olds.

Joe Pyne on July 3, 2009 at 8:26 PM

This is why Bush did not respond to the calls to rape his wife.

THAT is my opinion and it’s a sad day when simple criticism results in personal attacks. But I’ve noticed that is your MO.

It seems that in your zeal to make your point that you have cast all concern for reading comprehension to the wind.

csdeven on July 3, 2009 at 2:01 PM

Here is how a guy like Reagan would have responded:

“Well, you know, some guys cannot seem to get around the fact they have no life. My wife, and I, on the other hand have a wonderful life. I am so sorry they don’t. But, one day I will get to meet them face-to-face, then we can discuss this like men. Heh Heh Heh”

Know one should ever be excused for talking about raping someone’s children or wife, no one! That is not free speech, it is pornographic verbal masturbation. There is a difference.

Joe Pyne on July 3, 2009 at 8:39 PM

I think it is of the utmost importance to follow the wisdom of these crack analysts in the media for their insightful arm- chair prognostications. Certainly none of us have such innate, God given ability. Now having established these axioms as self-evident it only follows that our opinions are not only fraught with error but that we should not even bother to form them at all.

In fact it might be better to let Frum, Noonan, Parker, Sullivan and even Krauthammer cast our votes for us. Otherwise the government might get too big, bloated and corrupt; and the media stars might entwine themselves with power brokers who pull their strings behind the scenes.

Long live media analysts who are under no pressure to churn out one Objectively written and yet curiously sophistic “opinion” piece after another. It has worked magnificantly up to this point since we hinge on their every word as if they were somehow infallible.

Geochelone on July 3, 2009 at 9:44 PM

And CrockObama was a serious candidate? He had 144 days senate experience, had never ran any business and CrockObama’s only experience was reading a speech at the democratic convention.

Remember how they trashed Reagan and GW Bush, for that matter, as simpletons? Sarah Palin does need to brush up on world affairs. However, her message does reach the people over the media’s objections.

Deeds, not words or in CrockObama’s own words: “just words, just speeches”. Hopefully, we continue to note Crockbama’s deeds and the destruction laid in his wake.

dthorny on July 3, 2009 at 11:37 PM

2000 or bust.

Reaps on July 4, 2009 at 11:15 AM

Dear Charles,
thanks for your well-timed knife between the shoulderblades–a++hole.

james23 on July 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM

On the flip side of Sullivan and MoDo’s schadenfreud, Ace laments the backlash on conservatives who think Palin made a bad move:

And I do think I am taking off the week. You guys only seem to want to talk about sarah palin and furthermore you only want to hear the same thing — she’s running, this is a great move, she’s now perfectly poised for the race, etc.

It’s nonsense. And I hardly need to blog about it, because you all seem to know the words to the song. So you don’t need me as part of the chorus. You can sing the same words well enough without me.

I am really tired of this relentless nonsense and occasional nastiness whenever someone is believed to have departed from the conservativey correct line.

Mr. Joe on July 5, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Krauthammer is caving in to media pressure. I like Sarah the way she is. I have full confidence that she will get up to speed on all the issues, policies, etc… Remember, she didn’t have much time to prepare not like Obama who was campaigning for like 2 years and still he has not shown the excellence I would expect from an award winning writer and Harvard scholar.

She has the principles, drive, and strength which I consider is key to any successful leader.

As for 2012, I would happy with either Mitt or Sarah. Although both very different, both very capable.

JayJay123 on July 5, 2009 at 1:11 PM

This is why Bush did not respond to the calls to rape his wife.

THAT is my opinion and it’s a sad day when simple criticism results in personal attacks. But I’ve noticed that is your MO.

It seems that in your zeal to make your point that you have cast all concern for reading comprehension to the wind.

csdeven on July 3, 2009 at 2:01 PM

If Bush had pushed back a little more, though, we might not have Obama right now.

ddrintn on July 5, 2009 at 4:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 18 19 20