Sarah Palin’s Surprise
posted at 2:55 pm on July 6, 2009 by The Other McCain
From my latest American Spectator column:
“Her national political career is done,” NBC’s David Shuster declared, even before reports of her plans to resign had been confirmed. Other media types joined the rush to write Palin’s political obituary, with a Greek chorus of “conservative” commentators transparently eager to agree that her resignation represented proof that Palin is both unelectable to and unfit for higher office.
Of course, she had just exposed as fraudulent the pretended omniscience of the commentariat. None of them had predicted Palin’s resignation, and yet their latest oracular pronouncements — Ed Rollins told CNN she looked “terribly inept” — were treated as authoritative.
The punditocracy can’t predict Palin because she shares neither their perspective nor their assumptions. Her ascent to political stardom has been treated as a fluke by most of the GOP establishment for the simple reason that she doesn’t slavishly follow the standard script of Republican politicians.
Of course, in recent years this script usually has ended with “…and then the Democrats won,” suggesting the need for a re-write. . . .
Please read the whole thing. Sunday morning, I was driving back from Lake Weiss — where we’d shot our fabulous annual Fourth of July fireworks show — when the editor called asking me to write the column.
Of course, not all the commentators rushing to write finis on Palin’s career were of the Ed Rollins/David Schuster variety. Both Ace and Allahpundit hastened to endorse the pundit consensus.
I’ve got MSNBC on my office TV and the mid-day newsette just referred to Palin’s “baffling” resignation. It’s not baffling. Palin explained her reasons, and her reasons sounded entirely plausible to me. What baffles the pundits is the fact that it was (a) unexpected, and (b) doesn’t fit the established script for presidential hopefuls.
The people who pronounce themselves “baffled,” and who conclude that Palin has made a stupid move by resigning, are leaving a couple of things out of their calculations. First, Palin is a Christian who, in the past, has made straightforward reference to the will of God. What she believes — what she must believe — is that if it is God’s will that she become president, she will. Therefore, the conventional wisdom of the commetariat and all the advice from political “experts” are just so much noise to her.
Second, Palin’s closest adviser is her husband, Todd. He is not stupid. He is also not a man who will show up on TV and blabber his every thought for the sake of creating the impression that he knows everything.
Just because you don’t know what Sarah Palin is doing doesn’t mean that she doesn’t know what she’s doing.
(Cross-posted at The Other McCain.)
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next »
guntotinglibertarian on July 6, 2009 at 4:15 PM
“Christian” does not equal “Republican.”
There are many liberals who think their faith informs social justice, caring for the poor, etc. I don’t think the GOP can count on carrying all the Christian vote.
My point (that I don’t think you can honestly refute) is that expressing faith in God automatically loses lots of votes.
Wanna take another swing at that ball?
cs89 on July 6, 2009 at 4:22 PM
No, but I don’t think defending one’s beliefs is worthwhile. More important, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. Freedom of religion is core.
AnninCA on July 6, 2009 at 4:22 PM
atheling on July 6, 2009 at 4:22 PM
I’m not picking on you, but just making an observation.
I was flipping channels last night, and I stumbled onto a 1992 PBS American Experience on the Kennedys–largely about JFK, then RFK, and Teddy. Towards the end, it showed a clip filmed about six months after RFK’s death. In it, Teddy was sitting with mom Rose and dad Joe (almost dead), and Rose went on and on about the will of God in the extraordinary tragedies that the Kennedy family has endured. I assume that Teddy shared her feelings because he allowed himself to be filmed in the segment.
Anyway, I wonder how independents handle the religious belief of so many Catholics who seem to vote Democratic? Indeed–realizing I’m risking the retribution of Catholics–how do independents handle voting with Catholics who believe that one’s relationship with God goes through priests and a Pope rather than simply between God and the individual? How do independents handle voting with Catholics who so revere their clergy that it took them years to finally address the scandals involving the priests?
Returning to those Catholics in politics, how do independents feel about politicians such as Kennedy, Biden, and Pelosi who purport to be such devout Catholics? Shouldn’t that put off independents? Or is it because JFK and RFK were nailing everyone they possibly could with dear old Joe cheering them on and because Teddy, Biden, and Nan will gladly promote abortion that independents have come to believe that Catholic Democrats (whether running for office or just voting) really don’t believe all that Christian “nuttiness”–those politicians and voters just belong to a club so that they won’t be considered atheists?
BuckeyeSam on July 6, 2009 at 4:22 PM
There we are, the other side of the argument. And well said.
jaime on July 6, 2009 at 4:23 PM
DDT: SHHHHHH…u might upset Maverick Muse again. I tremble at the thought.
But, to reiterate, as long as Tammy promises to keep her finger off the trigger, she’s got my vote.
guntotinglibertarian on July 6, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Why does it make you queasy?
jimmy2shoes on July 6, 2009 at 4:23 PM
I didn’t know that Palin selected McCain to run. When did that happen?
How will “rallying the base” occur? Ummmm… by “rallying” them to support conservative candidates, right?
And….?
Really. Try to make sense when you post.
atheling on July 6, 2009 at 4:24 PM
She’s not done and that is what they are afraid of:):)
ohiobabe on July 6, 2009 at 4:24 PM
FIFY.
The Delaware Libertarian Party web site said, back in like 1996 when I moved there, “All men are endowed by nature with certain inalienable rights.” I raised hell and they changed it, then I changed my affiliation to Republican.
People who worry about hurting the feelings of atheists, or covering up our nation’s heritage to placate them, are nothing to worry about.
Akzed on July 6, 2009 at 4:25 PM
It’s not an either or situation.
God is able and willing to help those who are in no position to help themselves.
It’s just that he often calls on us to take a step of faith first.
One example of this is when Joshua led the Israeli’s into the promised land. The river Jordan was flooding and there was no way it could be crossed on foot. God commanded The Israelites to begin walking. It wasn’t until they were well into the Jordan that he damned the river so that the level started falling.
Looking at it another way.
If you just stay at home, waiting for God to find you a job, you aren’t likely to find a job. You have to pray about it, and send out lots of resumees.
MarkTheGreat on July 6, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Then, carefully place white-out over all but the third paragraph from the bottom. You will now understand why this thread is only about religion.
/sarc
cs89 on July 6, 2009 at 4:25 PM
You gotta read your Bible more.
Daggett on July 6, 2009 at 4:27 PM
cs89 on July 6, 2009 at 4:22 PM
should be expressing faith in God does not automatically lose lots of votes.
cs89 on July 6, 2009 at 4:27 PM
I’m not surprised that you are utterly ignorant about any concept regarding theological discussions.
I pointed out that the concept of Divine Right involved way more than the narrow focus that you gave it.
Your response was to echo your ignorant position.
But then again, if you were capable of learning, you wouldn’t be an atheistic liberal.
MarkTheGreat on July 6, 2009 at 4:28 PM
No one complained when Clinton mentioned Jesus – something like 40 times more than W. did in eight years. Why is it that when people seriously talk about God the libs and Loosertarians complain, but when the Left mouths platitudes about the Divinity, there’s no warnings, no complaints?
Akzed on July 6, 2009 at 4:28 PM
True enough, but He reserves the right to shape things as He wishes. That would be Divine intervention.
thomasaur on July 6, 2009 at 4:28 PM
I never said that expressing faith in God loses votes. I said that making statements that express or imply a belief that God’s will is instrumental in your political career scares the beejeezus out of independents, because they have spent the last 20 years being taught that there are fascist evangelicals under their beds.
It’s commonplace for candidates to express religious belief. But that’s a far different thing than some of the – admittedly, off the cuff- statements that Palin made about God’s will.
Every candidate
guntotinglibertarian on July 6, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Actually they’re at it again. Only this time they are seeing a vision of Michael; Jackson in a tree stump in California.
Says he’s bigger than Jesus.
Jeff from WI on July 6, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Gosh, one of Michael Medved’s last remaining listeners weights in. Wasn’t your boy Mikey an avid McCain supporter during the primaries? Yeah, as I recall.
He loves that term…loosertarian…because he hasn’t the slightest idea what we’re about.
guntotinglibertarian on July 6, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Translating maybe, accurately translating, not a chance.
One,
If Sarah doesn’t run, she won’t be president. Even if it is God’s will that she be president.
Two,
If I come over to your house, and hand you some evidence that causes you to change your mind. Have I taken away your free will?
Of course not.
MarkTheGreat on July 6, 2009 at 4:31 PM
You really do enjoy playing the stupid game.
Why don’t you deal with what I actually wrote.
If you are so capable.
MarkTheGreat on July 6, 2009 at 4:32 PM
That narrow focus is the part that was discussed. This type of rhetoric sounds similar to Bush, he made plenty of references to referring to a higher power for his decisions. A lot of her rhetoric is more of the same. Coddling the thumpers, I really don’t think people like Palin and Bush are dumb enough to actually believe in this nonsense, just that you and enough voters are.
LevStrauss on July 6, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Great post and spot on. The pundits are viewing this through their aging prism of elite political thinking. I’m sure when she succeeds everyone will be jumping on the, “I with her all along” bandwagon.
kagai on July 6, 2009 at 4:33 PM
atheling on July 6, 2009 at 4:33 PM
And here I thought I coined it.
The senate is Democrat because Loosertarian candidates took enough votes away from Republicans to hand the Senate to them. Look it up.
Akzed on July 6, 2009 at 4:34 PM
FIFY
Daggett on July 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Because, though I am a Christian, I don’t feel comfortable being patronized on that basis when it comes to politics.
Hell, Obammy thumped the religious drum big time. And black churches are the most political organ in America.
That sword cuts both ways; best to stick to the issues.
guntotinglibertarian on July 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Refresh my memory because I don’t recall what has you sweating so many bullets. And as I said in an earlier comment, something that you quoted before (see below) doesn’t serve as an example. Read (and understand) the conditional if.
BuckeyeSam on July 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Please show examples of how every Republican who lost during that time period expressed their religious convictions openly.
It would also help if you could demonstrate that each and every one of these politicians would have won had they kept their religious views in the closet.
MarkTheGreat on July 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Something odd about it to me was that she buried it in the news cycle that would get the least coverage of the year, and her statement was a rambling mess that didn’t sound like she gave this as much thought that she claimed. Just sayin.
Alden Pyle on July 6, 2009 at 4:36 PM
I think this is just the leftover fumes from the religious right. That turned a lot of people off.
Personally, I disliked the Faith debates. I preferred Hillary Clinton’s answers the best. If you recall, she declined to get into specifics and just said, “I think it’s private.”
I agree.
I was absolutely appalled at the burning of Palin’s church. I don’t see her at all as a “Bible Thumper,” and I listened to everything in the election. I never heard a whiff of that.
I liked that. Her faith strikes me as personal and authentic.
It’s not related to her politics.
AnninCA on July 6, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Sarah Palin isn’t leaving her state in bad shape. She got the Alaska Pipeline deal finalized and I read where Alaska is one of the few states in the black. All the other big Democrat states like CA, MI, NY,& IL are all in the toilet.
She has done a good job and has a good track record.
Sarah will be free to write her book and make her own agenda. I think she will be helping other conservatives on the campaign trail and won’t the State Run Media look stupid if they still knock her when she is a private citizen helping others. Be very afraid Dems, “you ain’t seen nothing yet”. Best of luck Sarah.
KCinLV on July 6, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Great question for all to think about. Thanks your Holiness.
genso on July 6, 2009 at 4:39 PM
“All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”
This means that when the fascists talk about taking our guns, or limiting our speech, or taxing us to the point of exhaustion, etc, they are threatening rights God gave to us.
And you, claiming to be a Christian, are covering for them.
Huh.
Akzed on July 6, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Then God isn’t all powerful; or, more to the point, all knowing?
Sorry, you lost me. I can be persuaded by a good argument. Is it always God’s argument that persuades me? I don’t think I fully understand what you’re trying to say.
jaime on July 6, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Absolutely correct…by 3 seats: Missouri, Oregon and Montana.
And we make no apologies for it…if those Republican Senators had stuck to conservative principles regarding spending and smaller government, they would have deserved our votes. But they didn’t. Eventually, the Republicans might get the message we are sending…abandon Constitutional principles and continue to lose elections.
The Dems were at least prescient enough to listen to their “fringe” when Nader cost them the 2000 election. The Republicans remain obtuse.
Keeping it simple: we’re trying to keep the Republicans honest by registering a protest vote. Not our fault if they’re too arrogant to listen.
guntotinglibertarian on July 6, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Pwned.
And that’s why atheism undermines our freedoms.
atheling on July 6, 2009 at 4:40 PM
She probably will be effective in rallying conservatives- but “kingmaker”? Over the top. There aren’t enough conservatives in the electorate to win elections, and it’s far from clear that Palin has influence outside that demographic to make or break a candidate.
Hollowpoint on July 6, 2009 at 4:40 PM
LevStrauss on July 6, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Classic liberal line, everyone who doesn’t agree with me is stupid.
I’m sorry I bothered trying to engage you in a rational discussion. Coherent thought is quite clearly a skill you have yet to master.
MarkTheGreat on July 6, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Very lucid, Ann. First time I have totally agreed with you.
guntotinglibertarian on July 6, 2009 at 4:40 PM
How disingenuous. Nitpick over semantics, while slithering away from your first ill conceived post.
atheling on July 6, 2009 at 4:42 PM
atheling on July 6, 2009 at 4:43 PM
God is sovereign.
History is HIS story.
He is in control. We do not know the mind of God or why things turn out as they do…He is in total control. I suggest that you READ the bible and if you really get into it – bible prophecies are starting to fall in place for the endtime fulfillment.
All you need to know is that in the end – the good guys win!! Jesus will reign as King!!!!
whatzit2u on July 6, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Excellent post.
cjs1943 on July 6, 2009 at 4:43 PM
If the United States of America has both
1) Freedom of Expression,
and
2) Freedom of Religion
You shouldn’t be worried about someone’s faith in God. If you are worried that Palin _says_ what her faith is, why? Every Catholic, _by their profession of faith_, believes what Palin said. If they don’t believe this, then they break a solemn oath _every Sunday_.
I hope you don’t think that people who lie about such important (to them!) concepts on a habitual basis should be followed.
So, do you trust a conservative who speaks their mind, or a conservative who doesn’t? Just a question.
Scott H on July 6, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Total non-sequitor – evidence of a third-class intellect.
guntotinglibertarian on July 6, 2009 at 4:44 PM
I’ll clarify. God’s will is sovereign. He will accomplish His purpose, for example, Abraham and Sarah did have a son, in accordance to God’s will. That said, Abraham and Sarah also exercised their will, which God clearly allowed, and Ishmael was conceived. God’s will was Isaac, which was accomplished, but Ishmael was born, also, through the will of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar. Better?
jimmy2shoes on July 6, 2009 at 4:44 PM
God has given us free will to accept or reject His commandments. So long as the USA had people of faith, God blessed the USA and provided us with leaders (imperfect humans)who allowed our nation to prosper. He does have an interest in how we live and if we continue to move farther from Him, we use our free will to make wrong choices. It is this faith that Sarah lives. She trusts God to help her make the right choices and is willing to trust God to determine if she is or is not working in accord with His wishes. May God continue to give her strength in whatever path she takes.
Pat in NC on July 6, 2009 at 4:44 PM
If the Republican candidates hadn’t been such god awfull candidates, they would have won many more races.
When you find yourself blaming someone else for your own troubles, you need to re-examine yourself.
MarkTheGreat on July 6, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Clearly God helps those that cannot help themselves, my only point. :)
bluefox on July 6, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Ok. My point was with regard to Sarah’s faith.
gh on July 6, 2009 at 4:13 PM
******************************************************
I didn’t read your previous posts, the statement just jumped out at me. That’s my fault, I know I need to start on page l, post 1. :)
bluefox on July 6, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Remember Braveheart? Remember how Bruce and his cohorts wouldn’t go to battle with Wallace?
Remember the 2008 election? Remember how the Loosertarians wouldn’t vote for Republicans and gave us a Democrat senate?
Here’s a little Politics 101: a Tom Delay couldn’t get elected in every Republican-majority district or state. If a Tom Delay were to run against Olympia Snow in the primary, who would win?
Loosertarians pit acceptibility against perfection. If I were to insist on the same standard, I would write in my bishop (PBUH) each election, and go to bed dreaming that I had done the right thing.
Akzed on July 6, 2009 at 4:46 PM
We I guess that doesn’t necessarily mean that I was calling you stupid. Upon further review of your inability to clarify your “Ifs” and tell us what you really think, we might agree on more than many would be led to believe.
LevStrauss on July 6, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Ad hominem. Evidence of a third-class argument, when you could have employed a few words to out argue me.
So where do our rights come from, Loosertarian?
Akzed on July 6, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Actually, it was 2006 and 2008. 3 seats. I’ve already addressed this.
Give Libertarians this: we go out, election after election, and actually register a protest vote against Republicans who don’t uphold the Constitution – rain or shine, we go and stand on line and vote – not like those who “stayed home rather than vote for McCain”.
It’s about Constitutional principles. But I guess you’re too busy reading your bible to learn the Constitution.
guntotinglibertarian on July 6, 2009 at 4:49 PM
The solution is not to vote Loosertarian, it’s to become active in Republican primaries working for better candidates than the ones we often send to DC.
I gotta go.
Akzed on July 6, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Akzed on July 6, 2009 at 4:34 PM
You are also making an unsubstantiated assumption.
That had there been no Libertarian candidate, that all of those voters would have voted Republican.
Many libertarians come to the party from the left (social justice) side of the spectrum. It’s more likely that these voters would have gone Democratic before voting Republican.
Many more would have just stayed home.
If you are upset that many voters chose a third party over the Republican candidate, then the only party to blame is the Republicans for failing to offer good enough candidates.
MarkTheGreat on July 6, 2009 at 4:50 PM
From God. But let me ask you this…do you even understand the term non-sequitor?
guntotinglibertarian on July 6, 2009 at 4:50 PM
“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” -John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and co-author of the Federalist Papers, letter to Jedidiah Morse, 28 Feb 1797.
“The Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an opportunity of deliberating upon and choosing the forms of government under which they should live.” -John Jay (The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. I, p. 161.)
I guess Jay had to study the Bible less and the Constitution more, eh?
Gotta really go this time.
Akzed on July 6, 2009 at 4:52 PM
I have never, in 20 years, met a leftist Libertarian. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Libertarian means: low taxes, small government, minimal government intrusion in the lives of citizens and upholding state’s rights.
Show me a liberal who believes any of those things.
guntotinglibertarian on July 6, 2009 at 4:52 PM
I agree. They usually sound even more right than the right, except for the Rush types.
AnninCA on July 6, 2009 at 4:55 PM
How am I “slithering away” from anything I’ve said? My objection was to this notion that she’s going to be an ultra-powerful “kingmaker” who will make or break a candidate.
She’ll have an opportunity to do some good, but a lot of people seem to be going a bit over the top in their admiration for Palin.
Hollowpoint on July 6, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Most definitely not correct.
God will not remove free will. He may go out of his way to try and convince her to run, but he would not take away her free will.
MarkTheGreat on July 6, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Um, that something does not follow, or is not a necessary consequence of the point at issue.
A. God gave us our rights.
B. You want Palin to knock off the Godtalk regarding our rights.
C. You want her to lose the argument, because
D. You’re a Loosertarian begging the question.
Akzed on July 6, 2009 at 4:56 PM
So any time a politician talks about religion, you feel you are being patronized????
I think you need to be examining your own faith, rather than questioning other people’s.
MarkTheGreat on July 6, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Thanks. Too long, I suppose, for the scanners.
In the end, conservatives (of all flavors) have to learn to fight back better. It shouldn’t be that hard because they’re right and they have the facts on their side. Conservatives will never convince, say, 30% of the folks, but they need to do a better job of preventing that 30% from controlling the message about them that gets communicated to independents.
Time to get in some grilles. And that’s what I think Palin is setting herself up to do.
BuckeyeSam on July 6, 2009 at 4:57 PM
B-bye.
Akzed on July 6, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Without free will there can be no virtue. Which reminds me – a government cannot impart virtue to its citizens through its actions.
disa on July 6, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Sarah is instinctual, but I know what I would definitely advise her to do.
If she’s listening….*haha
Hire a sharp speechwriter.
Immediately.
AnninCA on July 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM
I didn’t ojbect to her talking about God-given rights. I was queasy about her statement during the campaign that she felt God was directing her with regard to her political career. Look it up.
To reiterate, I revere the Declaration of Independence and agree that our rights come from God.
I just don’t care to have candidates waving the flag of religion as a political instrumentality. You might even say it debases the coin of faith.
guntotinglibertarian on July 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM
God is all knowing and all powerfull. But he doesn’t always choose to use all of his power. And it doesn’t matter how much God knows. If we as individuals choose to go against his will, he has given us that right.
I know what I am talking about, it is you who are confused.
I said that God can influence voters. There are many ways to influence voters.
You seem to think that they only mechanism by which God works is by dictating our actions. Nothing could be further from the truth.
MarkTheGreat on July 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM
It’s hard since we aren’t paid doorknockers and activists, the way the libs are – but we need to be as persistent as they are, understanding that it’s the “unrelenting” part that will win the day.
disa on July 6, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Oh, gee, thanks for the advice, Padre.
guntotinglibertarian on July 6, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Yeah, we all know how you guys feel about godbags. Same deal with Bush. Does it make a difference whether she says it or not? Really? If you take her – or GW – at their word, wouldn’t they be open to God’s guidance and blessing?
What else is left to call it, a “gut feeling”?
And WHY is belief in God a shamfel thing? For the life of me, I just don’t get it.
disa on July 6, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Can we stop all the Goldtalk and get back to Palin? Nothing more tedious than a ReligionGoneWild thread.
guntotinglibertarian on July 6, 2009 at 5:04 PM
shamfel=shameful
disa on July 6, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Libertarianism also means no govt intrusion in the bedroom or our private lives. Things like gay marriage and an end to the war on drugs.
Find me a single Republican who believes in those things.
I have met many libertarians who while they believe in most of the tenets, are only interested in fighting for the social justice parts of the platform.
MarkTheGreat on July 6, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Whoever came up with this strategy, it was brilliant.
They saw an opportunity and they took it.
An ethics complaint system that allows people to file charges against public officials as often as they like, and even if after subsequent investigation no abuses were found, the filee was only out of pocket for their own court costs; the public official found blameless got not ONE RED CENT and ended up having to pay for their legal representation out of their own pocket.
A system set up to allow the poor to sue the powerful and suffer no repercussions whatsoever.
Of course liberals have promptly abused it.
With Sarah Palin as their target, they have filed over 18 ethics complaints against her in the past year. All investigate, all found baseless, all costing her a fortune.
Like I said – a BRILLIANT strategy for removing her from the scene as a viable political candidate by 2012.
Had she remained in office for the next two years, let’s take a bet as to how many total ethics complaints she would have faced and how deeply she’d be in the red trying to defend herself against them.
I’ll go first:
30 ethics complaints, and over $1,000,000 in debt.
Seeing a way to keep Palin under a cloud, under investigation, under suspicion, pinned down in Alaska constantly trying to defend herself, all the way up to and likely even past 2012, the Left has gone all-in in pursuing this strategy.
If she was thinking about a 2012 run for the White House, a 2 1/2 year long jihad against her by her states own Ethics Complaint System should disabuse her of that notion.
Not only would she be phoning in her job as Governor for 2 years, she’d be constantly having to direct her attention to the charges in Alaska and desperately fighting them, knowing that being unjustly convicted of one false charge – a real possibility, mind you – could derail her.
Like I said, whoever dreamed this up, speaking strictly from a strategic standpoint, it was BRILLIANT.
It was WORKING.
And now……as a strategy………it’s DEAD.
Way to go Sarah.
manofaiki on July 6, 2009 at 5:05 PM
I doubt you’ve ever met a Libertarian. We puke at the term “social justice”.
guntotinglibertarian on July 6, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Because it’s understood that when people like Clinton and Obama mention religion, it’s for political effect. Legitimized hypocrites, in other words. When Bush or Palin mention Jesus, they mean it.
ddrintn on July 6, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Of course not – they’ll only get a few black Christians, for example.
disa on July 6, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Where but America is it true that, in order to become president, you must both a) profess religion, and b) not mean it.
Obama is such a Tommy Flanagan that whenever circumstances require him to actually keep a promise that he made during the campaign, his base immediately has a hissy because he wasn’t supposed to mean it. So many people who voted for a man that they assumed was lying, probably without really understanding it.
We require our politicians to lie, and then wonder why it is that all politicians are liars. Only in Alaska could an honest person ever be elected.
If you can’t win a majority of votes with your actual beliefs, then why bother? What use is it to win an office just to spend your term trying to navigate the lies? I guess the power is worth it to some. Better hope the athiests are right.
Immolate on July 6, 2009 at 5:07 PM
If such talk makes you quesy, then you have never read the Bible.
It’s full of such stomach unsettling talk.
MarkTheGreat on July 6, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Funny thing. You started it.
MarkTheGreat on July 6, 2009 at 5:09 PM
You quite obviously do not get out much.
MarkTheGreat on July 6, 2009 at 5:10 PM
I think you meant to say her closest adviser is Jesus. Heathen.
RightOFLeft on July 6, 2009 at 5:11 PM
No, actually I was only commenting on what the author of this thread said about Palin’s God comments. And my point wasn’t free will or whatever…it was that she makes independents nervous, so Godtalk was not good political tactics.
guntotinglibertarian on July 6, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Why would someone who believes in *urk* “social justice” get the delusion that s/he is a libertarian?
disa on July 6, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Maybe you should define your political beliefs, because they don’t sound libertarian.
disa on July 6, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Huh?
guntotinglibertarian on July 6, 2009 at 5:14 PM
It’s dead because it apparently worked- she cited the BS ethics complaints as one of the reasons she quit. Now that the strategy has (in part) proved effective in removing a candidate from office, expect more of the same in the future.
Hollowpoint on July 6, 2009 at 5:15 PM
1. You stated that “Palinistas” believe she will run in 2012.
I told you that as “Palinista”, I was unsure of that, and that she would focus on being “kingmaker” in 2010.
2. You then backpedal, and say in essence, “well, SOME Palinistas think that”. Fine.
3. You then say you don’t like the use of the term “kingmaker” because it sounds like I’m giving her too much “admiration”? WTH? Do you understand the term, “kingmaker”? It goes back to medieval times, when a powerful political figure (an aristocrat, to be precise), had the clout to rally the people to support the crowning of a king. It’s metaphorical, but apt, even in this day. It has nothing to do with admiration, but everything to do with power.
Well, wake up. She does have power. She draws more people to events than any other Republican. When she speaks, she gets major press coverage, for good or ill. She has more political clout in the GOP than anyone else, and to deny that is foolish and obtuse.
The good ole boy network in the GOP is scared of her, and so are the squish pundits because she doesn’t fit their paradigm. Deal with it.
So far, you have made incorrect assumptions as to my beliefs, the nature of the word, “kingmaker”, and what she will do in 2010.
Wanna go another round?
atheling on July 6, 2009 at 5:15 PM
So are these “independents” nonbelievers? If not, why would they fear “godtalk”?
disa on July 6, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Better, but not quite there. We do have our own will, but everything we do is still subject to God’s will. There are no exceptions listed in Ephesians 1:11:
Not even (what we perceive as) evil is outside God’s will. As Joseph said – “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.”
Daggett on July 6, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Yep, the Saul Alinksis are howling with rage, now that she’s on the verge of escaping their trap. They’re spinning furiously.
disa on July 6, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Yes, a lot of them are…or agnostics. Or just squishies who really believe that evangelicals have some sinister design. Stupid, but then, most independents i’ve met are not very sharp tools, to be sure.
My whole point is that independents decide elections and it behooves the right to try to understand how they “think”.
guntotinglibertarian on July 6, 2009 at 5:18 PM
They sure are, because she negates their influence!
Ah, my favorite Hot Air pitbull! How’s it going, atheling?
disa on July 6, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Well, from your observation, that task should be interesting.
atheling on July 6, 2009 at 5:20 PM
It behooves the independents to wrap their heads around what the Dems are doing to this country.
disa on July 6, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next »