Red State editor: Gee, some of Palin’s fans are awfully quick to attack critics

posted at 8:11 pm on January 14, 2010 by Allahpundit

Really? I hadn’t noticed. Do go on.

I understand that a great many of Palin’s supporters, myself included, have felt on the defensive for a while. The media genuinely hates this woman. The left is more revolted by Palin than they ever were by Bush.

I get that.

But I also get that there are Republicans who like — even love — Sarah Palin who think some of her handlers might not give her the best of advice or think she should or should not do one thing or another. And i’m finding, both from personal experience and the experience of friends, that when those points are brought up, the person raising the point is often inappropriately attacked as a Palin hater…

If the people who love Sarah Palin and lack the discernment to distinguish between real attacks and honest criticism or suggestions fly off the handle at everything other than unwavering support, they are going to have a hard time being advocates for Governor Palin in the future. With all the attacks against her by the media and the left, she is going to need all of us defending her.

Attacking me or any other Palin supporter for saying something in public we think needs to be said is fair from the love and war standpoint, but when the rest of team can’t have a rational conversation because everything other than hagiography is viewed as an attack, why even be on the team?

The punchline: Someone posted the link on Free Republic with the subhead, “Whose side is Red State on, anyway?” I’m actually shocked that this piece didn’t get wider play in the media today considering who wrote it. It’s Erick Erickson, who was on Colbert last week, is regularly treated as a spokesman in the media for tea partiers and other grassroots conservatives, and is given to saying things like, “The top priority right now is beating the Republican Establishment.” Not a guy who’s known for carrying water for Beltway GOPers. Yet even his conservative cred is suspect for uttering an occasional discouraging word about Sarahcuda.

Exit question: How did she get to this rare, exalted, and enviable position? Erickson’s surely right that part of it comes from an instinct of wanting to defend her after the relentless media nastiness towards her, but obviously it’s more than that. Is it cultural identification, that she’s blue-collar and familiar in a way that most cookie-cutter pols aren’t, which makes the slings and arrows of liberal “elites” sting twice as much? Is it a function of the leadership vacuum in the GOP, with the emergence of someone young and charismatic such a precious thing that some supporters will do battle with anyone who risks upsetting that? Is it just that she really is more unshakably conservative in her policies than anyone else? (If so, how come she went along with the McCain campaign’s stance on having a path to legalization for illegals?) I’m not quite as supportive of her as Erickson seems to be, but I do like her personally — and yet of course I get all the “Palin-hater” stuff thrown at me too when I dare to post, say, a poll that shows her numbers sinking. Here’s a better exit question, in fact: If even a guy as pro-Palin and pro-grassroots as Erickson is getting tired of this, why are Palin’s fiercest supporters so confident that it’s not going to create a wider backlash against her even among conservatives who might otherwise be well disposed towards her? Isn’t that a pretty good pro-Palin argument to mellow out?


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 5 6 7

She articulates fine. You ever think the reason you don’t get it is you?

gary4205 on January 15, 2010 at 2:20 AM

Probably dropped too much acid at Dead concerts.

atheling on January 15, 2010 at 3:34 AM

I like Palin. I support Palin. The only pol I liked better than her was Fred Thompson, and I doubt he’s ever running again.

I’m also not starry-eyed enough to consider her perfect. She’s not, and if she does something I think is a bad move, I’m going to mention it.

And no amount of “shut up” from those who believe she is perfect will change the fact that she’s not.

MadisonConservative on January 15, 2010 at 3:42 AM

You attack Palin, you attack US, you attack America.

Frankly, I have disagreed more on her strategery post governor, and yet, she’s proven she knows exactly what she is doing, so I’m just STFU’ing!

In short for ANYONE who wants to dis Sarah, the very best advice I can give is: DON’T START NONE, THERE WON’T BE NONE!

That goes for everyone.

gary4205 on January 14, 2010 at 11:19 PM

In other words: “SHUT UP!”

You don’t worship her, but you forbid anyone from questioning her.

Riiiight.

MadisonConservative on January 15, 2010 at 3:45 AM

Another question: if she’s as sharp, flawless, and powerful as some here imply…why are you so terrified of conservatives…NOT liberals, NOT the media…voicing legitimate criticisms? The way you’re protecting her, you’d think she was made of glass. Either she can handle what you people clearly can’t(and thereby answer it far better), or she can’t, and you’re building a delusional fantasy of Sarah Palin rather than the real woman.

…so which is it?

MadisonConservative on January 15, 2010 at 3:51 AM

Sorry that I am young enough to remember my fourth grade essay on George Washington, and I am ashamed at how much more eloquent it was than that.
thphilli on January 14, 2010

Wow! Really?

Do you think if you actually graduated from the 4th grade you wouldn’t be a parrot today?
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive …
Jan 14, 2010 … Showed nothing more than a 4th grade understanding of our nation’s founding. Unfortunately, Palin is not alone in her thin understanding of …
16 hours ago

Think Progress » Palin says her favorite founding father is ‘all …
Jan 14, 2010 … Not surprisingly, this is almost verbatim from 4th grade history textbooks …. Obviously, Palin’s favorite founding father was the one that …

Huff TV: Sam Stein Discusses Palin-Beck Interview, Harold Ford On …
Jan 15, 2010 … First, naming one of the Founding Fathers correctly, …. She has a 4th grade understanding of the world…..that’s fine if you are in 4th …

Daily Kos: Palin’s Favorite Founding Father: “All of Them”
Jan 14, 2010 … Share this on Twitter – Palin’s Favorite Founding Father: “All of Them” …. The stuff about Washington would have gotten my 4th grade son a …

Princess Sparkle Pony’s Photo Blog: OMG, Sarah Palin Is Just …
Jan 14, 2010 … Who is your favorite founding father? This is a question a state congressman asks a nine-year-old while visiting a fourth grade social …

DSchoen on January 15, 2010 at 4:15 AM

DSchoen on January 15, 2010 at 4:15 AM

That’s gonna leave a mark!
+++1000!

lovingmyUSA on January 15, 2010 at 5:23 AM

Governor Palin has become a symbol. People are projecting
their own ideology on her. This is the same thing that
happened to Obama. As much as I admire Palin, I do not think
that she is beyond being questioned or held accountable.
The people who are too quick to attack those who criticize her should be aware that they are behaving like the fools on the left. As much as I like Sarah Palin, I don’t know if she’s qualified to be President after Obama. If Obama gets his way, this country is going to be in a even bigger mess by 2012. We really do need someone with a lot more executive experience than she has.

val647 on January 15, 2010 at 5:46 AM

Exit question: How did she get to this rare, exalted, and enviable position?

Because we desperately need a true firebrand conservative to take the reins, and no one else is stepping up.

Squiggy on January 15, 2010 at 6:48 AM

Class wars don’t erupt often in our society, at least in comparison with Europe. We’re just not built that way. But the highly educated ruling class in America has fu*ked things up in nearly every way possible, and have lost their legitimacy. Enter Sarah Palin.

JiangxiDad on January 15, 2010 at 7:08 AM

This guy Erikson, Moe Lane and his RedState crew are a bunch of self-rightous elite wannabe’s. They are just trying to drive traffic to their sh*tty website. By bashing Palin.

During the election they started booting people who disagreed with McCain or even said a word negative about him. They were THE FIRST to jump on the “Its About The Party” bandwagon when McLoser got the nod.

They were fine til they started rubbing elbows with the Washington crowd. They just became part of the machine that we are trying hard to shut down….and that makes me smile.

Now, on Palin, Erikson just doesnt get it. Its about the movement Erik! Its about the type of folks that she will put around her to help lead if she were to run and win; we understand and agree with and TRUST her to chose the right folks! Its about CRUSHING THE LEFT not making nice and being “bipartisan”. Its not Sarah Palin the person as much as Sarah Palin the CONSERVATIVE. Moron.

OSUBuciz1 on January 15, 2010 at 7:26 AM

Red State editor: Gee, some of Palin’s fans are awfully quick to attack critics.

Well, Erickson is angry that Palin did not promote CPAC, Erickson’s sponsored event. Erickson is also thinking that Palin is STEALING Red State’s Tea Party Movement.

Is that an attack to Erickson and his precious Red State?

Here’s a better exit question, in fact: If even a guy as pro-Palin and pro-grassroots as Erickson is getting tired of this, why are Palin’s fiercest supporters so confident that it’s not going to create a wider backlash against her even among conservatives who might otherwise be well disposed towards her? Isn’t that a pretty good pro-Palin argument to mellow out?

Will you give proof that Erickson was a supporter of Palin besides Palin cordially allowed him to interview her?

What kind of support did Erickson do to Palin? Red State has never been Pro-Palin in my opinion. Red State is always about and for Erickson and his gang.

I remembered that certain Gary (Yes, I know I remember his name)back in August or September. He posted a so-called “diary” about Sarah Palin’s FB notes. All lurkers of Red State bashed that guy and made fun of him.

They called him: Palin fan, Palinbot, and everything. They did not just ridicule Gary. They ridiculed Palin in their comments. RED STATE IS NOT A SUPPORTER OF PALIN. RED STATE IS FOR RED STATE.

Now, let’s go back to the “ATTACK”. WHO ATTACKED FIRST?

Some Palin’s real supporters find “not attending CPAC is a wise decision” and they defended her. Is that personal attack to Erickson or Reihl for NOT TAKING THEIR VIEWPOINTS AND ALIGN WITH PALIN INSTEAD?

Is “stating facts” an attack to the subject?

1. Palin is not attending CPAC and Erickson’s RS is co-sponsoring CPAC.
2. JBS is sponsoring CPAC.
3. GoProud (pro-gay marriage) is sponsoring CPAC.
4. Erickson was actually “angry” with Palin last week on TV. (I saw it.)
5. Politico misquoted some “Palin aides”, the basis of Erickson’s dismay of Palin.
6. TP activity is for leadership training of organizers at US$500 for 3 days. The organizer now offered a much lower rate.
7. CPAC rate is actually very very much higher despite JBS money on it.

In short, AP, you have been deceived by Erickson’s angelic post about his “very rational” (sic) support (aka attack) of Palin.

Criticism of your posts about Sarah Palin?

You know what? Almost all your posts have insinuated that Palin supporters ARE NOTHING BUT FANS! And Sarah Palin is nothing but a failed Governor of Alaska.

If we see something about Palin beyond your measure, are we wrong then?

Plus, Check your use of words, AP: In RS and your radar, Palin supporters are nothing but IDIOTIC “FANS”. All your posts are nothing but intriguing things about Palin. When did you ever discuss Palin’s political beliefs without harboring some intrigues? You never did. And you call yourself a supporter of Palin?

You mentioned about CNN Poll. Can you honestly tell us now that’s a worthy post worthy of your name? What’s the value of that post now? Nada. You stirred your readers, AP. The criticisms you received are not just from the lowly “Palin fans”. THEY ARE ALSO YOUR AVID READERS.

MY FINAL TAKE:

1. EE believes that Palin supporter should be limited to “I like Palin” and should never go beyond in actually supporting her. Why? Because Erickson is pessimistic. Erickson that all Republicans are just like Bush, Thompson, Gingrich, and McCain.

And no one will ever come close to the Founding Fathers and RS’s god, Ronald Reagan.

And because of that, any politician who tries to emulate these icons are “fake”.

2. Palin knows better. Palin clearly stated to Beck his reprimand to Beck and her followers:

“We are living in a fallen world. Don’t trust anyone.”

In her appearance in Hannity’s show, Palin was reaching out to Democrats and Independents. Erickson’s Red State is demonizing all liberals and other dissenters to whatever he calls “principles of conservatism and republicanism”.

People like me don’t need Erickson’s self-righteous diary.

3. Defended Palin? I think EE never really defended Palin. Erickson supported Death Panel because it was convenient at that time. Only Moe Lane was truly the first believer of “death panel” at Red State. Before the Death Panel became a big hit in the conservative circle, Palin was being bashed at RS two days earlier.

4. Erickson lost his marbles. It’s not a sin to criticize the critic, especially if the critic has personal motivations on the subject. If you love to criticize, you should also welcome criticism.

I HAVE ONE REQUEST FOR YOU, AP. CRITICIZE PALIN OF HER PRINCIPLES. AND MAKE A STAND. YOU DON’T NEED ERICKSON AS YOUR BUFFER, AP. YOU’RE A BIG GUY AND I ACTUALLY ADMIRE YOU DESPITE MY DISAGREEMENTS WITH YOUR CHOICE OF SUBJECT IN YOUR POSTS.

AND PLEASE TELL ERICKSON: STOP BEING PETTY LIKE GETTING ANGRY WITH PALIN FOR SKIPPING THE EVENT THAT HE’S INVESTED SO MUCH. WHAT? IS HE HITLER NOW AND ALL CONSERVATIVES HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO FOLLOW HIS PETTY WISHES?

TheAlamos on January 15, 2010 at 7:38 AM

The Palintologists need to realize that within a broad democratic system, such idol worship of a leader has the effect of turning off those who otherwise might be brought around by a realistic portrayal.

Palin may well be bright enough, talented enough, and tough enough to get elected POTUS. But make no doubt about it, she is not as bright, talented, or tough as her idol-worshipping fans portry her as. And if they don’t wise up, they are headed for the disappointment of their lives.

JohnGalt23 on January 14, 2010 at 8:18 PM

You mean like your idol worship of the anti-Christian Ayn Rand?

True_King on January 15, 2010 at 7:51 AM

Exit question: How did she get to this rare, exalted, and enviable position?

You think so, AP?

I will defend Palin or any conservative who are unrighteously being mocked, derided or lied about by the liberals.

I will criticize Palin, you, Erickson, Gingrich, Huck, Romney, etc. who will say or do something against the cause of conservatism. I have forgiven many conservatives in the past.

BUT NOT FORGOTTEN. I will never forget RomneyCare, Scozzafava, wanton spending of Bush Administration, and Bush pandering.

So far, Palin has not yet done “a mortal sin” that is worthy of my “strong indignation”. Not attending CPAC is not a mortal sin!

TheAlamos on January 15, 2010 at 8:01 AM

TheAlamos @ 7:38

…sweet.

ExTex on January 15, 2010 at 8:05 AM

Could be wrong…..but I feel like most Palin bashin’ from the right is done by the Mitt-en. They only way to try to lift their guy up is too take others down…

…nah, I’m not wrong.

ExTex on January 15, 2010 at 8:07 AM

TheAlamos @ 7:38

…sweet.

ExTex on January 15, 2010 at 8:05 AM

+1

pugwriter on January 15, 2010 at 8:10 AM

one two Sarah’s coming for you.
three four dim’s going out the door.
five six dim’s are lunatics.
seven eight the left is full of hate.
nine ten She’s going to do it again…………

To the theme of Nightmare on Elm Street……..

RealMc on January 15, 2010 at 8:23 AM

Hey, if a more conservative, more principled potential candidate with better political instincts comes along, I’m all in. But until there are alternatives, Palin is the flag bearer for the conservative movement (among politicians).

It’s no different than my defense of Rush; if he goes off into moderate waters, I’m done with him.

And don’t give me the amnesty for illegals, climate change, yadda, yadda crap. You can’t confuse a vp pick trying to tow the line for the top of the ticket with the independent voice that Palin has now.

pugwriter on January 15, 2010 at 8:25 AM

OK, we have GOT to get to the 1000 mark on this thread so here goes! I love Sarah Palin but I don’t see her as perfect. She has made mistakes, plenty of them- admits it herself. As opposed to other politicians who blame their predecessors for everything, if ya get my drift.

But the fact is that she will always be misunderstood by Allah (among lots of others) because she is a committed Christian with a very strong faith in God & a fierce love for her country, and that is her primary motivation.

kg598301 on January 15, 2010 at 8:31 AM

I do not mind substantive criticism of Sarah Palin. I do think that she does lack experience — but so does Dear Liar. And he was on top of the ticket.

I think the reflexive support of her is due to the fact she has lived an authentic American life. Maybe The Whine has as well, but why title one of your books “Dreams of My Father” when he abandoned you after 2 years? If Obowmao talked about the hurt (if he had any) about being abandoned by his dad rather than his rolling-stone dad’s dreams, I’d have more empathy for him.

I have JD & MLS, but I can identify more with Sarah — hard working & deferring dreams — which reminds me of my mother, rather than Dear Liar. If you want to criticize Sarah for inexperience — a fair charge — then you cannot support Barack Obama. At the head of the ticket rather than as #2.

rbj on January 15, 2010 at 8:43 AM

The money quote…thanks!!!

Is “stating facts” an attack to the subject?

1. Palin is not attending CPAC and Erickson’s RS is co-sponsoring CPAC.
2. JBS is sponsoring CPAC.
3. GoProud (pro-gay marriage) is sponsoring CPAC.
4. Erickson was actually “angry” with Palin last week on TV. (I saw it.)
5. Politico misquoted some “Palin aides”, the basis of Erickson’s dismay of Palin.
6. TP activity is for leadership training of organizers at US$500 for 3 days. The organizer now offered a much lower rate.
7. CPAC rate is actually very very much higher despite JBS money on it.

In short, AP, you have been deceived by Erickson’s angelic post about his “very rational” (sic) support (aka attack) of Palin.

TheAlamos on January 15, 2010 at 7:38 AM

I might add there was nothing “angelic” about saying…What Do Sarah Palin and Jesus Christ Have In Common? as Erickson did. It’s thread whoring or post baiting…plain and simple. At least I hope it is, otherwisw Erickson comes off as a whiney Right WIng Andrew Sullivan.

Deanna on January 15, 2010 at 8:51 AM

Let’s see, so far we have the choice of Mitt “Lyle Waggoner” Romney, Tim “Yawn” Pawlenty, some nobodies named Daniels and Thune, and “reach across the aisle and get slapped in the face” McCain and his loyal pet, Lindsey Graham, and Ron “Father Coughlin” Paul. No thanks. There’s still time before 2012. Let’s hear what Sarah Palin has to say.

kingsjester on January 15, 2010 at 8:58 AM

I wonder what allah says behind the boss’s back?

RobCon on January 15, 2010 at 9:22 AM

Sarah Palin is a Natural. Saw it the moment that McCain introduced her. Ed Morrissey is also a Natural at what he does here. Saw it the moment when I first visited his old Captain’s Quarters blog.

Karmi on January 15, 2010 at 9:31 AM

I like Palin because she makes a great drinking game. When Palin is on TV drink every time you hear:

1. Ronald Reagan
2. Liberal Mainstream Media
3. Lower taxes
4. Socialism

You will be drunk within the first 3 minutes.

Decider on January 15, 2010 at 9:47 AM

I’m not quite as supportive of her as Erickson seems to be, but I do like her personally — and yet of course I get all the “Palin-hater” stuff thrown at me too when I dare to post, say, a poll that shows her numbers sinking.

Haven’t read all the comments, but… “A” poll?

What, a poll a week? This has turned into allahpundit-posts-the-latest-Frum/Schmidt-article-criticizing-Palin-Air over the past year or so.

Do a little content analysis of your posts, then come back with that “a poll” nonsense.

Or, better, a little self-awareness.

cs89 on January 15, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Because we desperately need a true firebrand conservative to take the reins, and no one else is stepping up.

Squiggy on January 15, 2010 at 6:48 AM

Both the left and right wings are badly in need of true leaders.

But what they have to choose from respectively for the next round of elections are Obama and Palin, because that’s all the best they can muster.

Dark-Star on January 15, 2010 at 9:50 AM

Sheesh – more whining by RedState et all about being attacked by Palin supporters. Makes me want to tell Rrik to put on his big girl panties and get over the fact that Palin isn’t attending CPAC.

They complain about how “unfair” it is that they are criticized for criticizing her? If we were talking about Dems the term hypocriscy was spring to mind.

katiejane on January 15, 2010 at 9:56 AM

was = would

katiejane on January 15, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Posts like this one are why the republican party is called the ‘stupid party’.

If we have a strong leader – effort is made to destroy her.

I’ve said all along it is sexism and if you look at the reasons behind all the criticism that thread is evident. She didn’t do what Erickson wanted her to do… that woman should know better. Women must do what they are told.

When I see article after article from Jonah Goldberg about “What Mitt Can Do To Improve Himself” or AP about how “Newt’s Enthusiastic Supporters Are OffPutting”, I’ll assume that the truest sin Palin has committed is that she is female and doesn’t do what she is told.

BTW, does it make sense to attack enthusiastic supporters (the base) for their enthusiasm? Nobody else generates that type of energy and that’s the type of energy that gets out the vote, donates, and does the heavy lifting in an election.

Is it hero worship or a feeling of being hit at from all sides that motivates Palin supporters to so vehemently strike out? The line has already been crossed if you are a Palin supporter, such that no response is as low as the attack and the attacker. Why? Is there anything more insulting than being called a ‘blind follower’? It certainly is worse than being called a ‘blind critic’. Think about it.

What Palin’s critics fail to see is that they become PART OF THE ESTABLISHMENT when their criticism falls outside of her policies and goes to her personal decisions. And if any sentiment is red hot this political season it is ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT.

Insulting that part of our political base may appear savvy, but it is demoralizing and stupid. Democrats are doing everything they can to destroy our country and we’ve got navel gazers on our side looking to pick fights with the most energized segment of the base.

Stupid stupid stupid.

Carolina Kat on January 15, 2010 at 9:58 AM

I’m a huge Palin fan.

I also think the above article (both by Allah and the blurb by Erickson) is right on-target, and pro-Palin Conservatives would be wise to heed it.

If we really love her that much, we should understand what expressions of devotion will be helpful to Sarah, and which ones will be harmful. Consider also that if she is to again become a major play in ELECTORAL politics, she will need to have the strength to stand alone, to defend herself against inevitable media attacks, and to be the independent spirit that we all so admire. If we are always standing between her and her attackers, people will rightfully come to believe that she depends on us and in fact has no strength at all.

Trust Sarah, and maybe pick your battles.

Animator Girl on January 15, 2010 at 10:03 AM

Trust Sarah, and maybe pick your battles.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the attacks came from OUTSIDE our party for a change?

Carolina Kat on January 15, 2010 at 10:12 AM

Wouldn’t it be nice if the attacks came from OUTSIDE our party for a change?

Carolina Kat on January 15, 2010 at 10:12 AM

You’re either exaggerating or suffering from a severe case of politically-induced amnesia.

Dark-Star on January 15, 2010 at 10:13 AM

Folks, some of you seem to really believe that there are Palin supporters literally standing between her and her critics, to the extent that Palin is somehow denied the ability to speak for herself, as if some are crowding into the TV studios standing between her and and an interviewer, leaping in to speak for her like secret service agents diving for a bullet.

Well, they’re not, and she isn’t, so it doesn’t really make any difference how often or how exuberantly any one of her supporters opts to opine on the latest criticism in blog comment threads.

It doesn’t really have any effect on Palin. She’s doing fine, at least insofar as she’s actually out there speaking on her own behalf. That’s already happening.

Nobody’s really getting in the way.

Kensington on January 15, 2010 at 10:15 AM

So I see nothing in these responses to disabuse me of the notion that AP’s “valid complaint” is nothing more than that Palin supporters are idiots and lunatics and brainwashed and should STFU…and Palin should never be president. But no, those two things aren’t related at all.

Those who criticize Palin do so because they don’t want her to be president (i.e., they have an agenda for another candidate or they just don’t like her). No one believes “I personallylike her, but…”

I’ve seen headline after headline on why Palinistas are bad for everyone, including themselves and their preferred candidate. I see no headlines complaining about all the abuse being heaped on Palinistas and how extremely counterproductive that is. Instead the first six comments on this thread go along the lines of “if she can’t handle Katie Couric, how can she handle Vladimir Putin?” As if that would not put hackles up? No one ever slams me when I criticize Palin. Ever.

Let me put it this way: I’m not a Republican, I’ve never been a Republican, and the only reason I now am willing to listen to Republicans is Sarah Palin. If you don’t want my vote on your side, fine.

alwaysfiredup on January 15, 2010 at 10:59 AM

You’re either exaggerating or suffering from a severe case of politically-induced amnesia.

Dark-Star on January 15, 2010 at 10:13 AM

What an intelligent response. Did it take you a long long time to come up with that?

My point stands. It’s stupid to bring down the enthusiasm within your own political party. Argue with that.

Carolina Kat on January 15, 2010 at 11:12 AM

TheAlamos on January 15, 2010 at 7:38 AM

An excellent post. Since I don’t visit Red State, I don’t know anything about Erick Erickson. Thanks for the rundown on this guy. We must always remember that conservatives do not march in lock step and people are people, flawed and mired in their own agendas. We cannot let some dissenting voices veer us off our chosen path. They do so for their own, sometimes dark, reasons. BTW, you give allahpunkass way too much credit.

SKYFOX on January 15, 2010 at 11:17 AM

LOL! Allah makes Erickson out to be this independent, tea-party loving, rock-ribbed conservative.

He is not.

He is a main street Republican. The issue some of us have with RedState is his propensity to ban users that disagree with his point of view. I was banned there for just disagreeing very midly with one his assertions.

Instead of blaming Palinistas for “intolerance”, perhaps Erickson should take a good look in the mirror.

Norwegian on January 15, 2010 at 11:17 AM

Sarah Palin has remained herself. It is all of us within the party that have changed/ are changing.

This kind of heated debate is the same thing we saw with the Obama vs. Hillary primary fight. However with us, it is PalinPro vs. PalinCon. It really is ridiculous. We all basically share a common foundation in our importance of conservatism, yet are destroying eachother over a decision that won’t be made for nearly another 3 years.

Just let Palin be herself, and let the cards fall where they may.

portlandon on January 15, 2010 at 11:27 AM

This episode is a prime example of how our side could be capable of shooting itself in the foot by causing dissension in our own conservative ranks or internecine warfare in the GOP and instead of keeping our eye of the ball on a 24/7 basis (the defeat of Obama and the stalling of the implementation of his agenda in the 2010 midterms)we give the opposition material which it can use aginst all of us in the midterm elections and give it the opportunity to drive a wedge between the TPM and the GOP, splintering our ranks as Hannity was alluding to last night in his interview with Palin and thus preventing us to pick up enough seats to make any appreciable difference in the radical Leftist policies brought forward in 2011 and 2012.

In addition if those folks in the GOP think that the TPM is going to either go away or to be like sheeple and just fall in line with the GOP establishment as we get closer to the midterm elections you have another thing coming, my friends.The TPM is symbolic of the anger, outrage, contempt, resentment and yes bitterness that exists with yes Obama, abut IMHO even more so with the GOP establishment and the RINO’s who refuse to “play for keeps” and call Obama and the Far Left the enemy, acknowledge that we must are in a war to fight country’s survival as we knew it in the history books and the birthright we were handed, and that we must engage the enemy aggressively with an indefatigable attitude of “not taking any prisoners”.

Sarah Palin “gets it”. Let’s hope and pray the GOP establishment eventually comes around as well.

technopeasant on January 15, 2010 at 11:32 AM

Babe Factor is +1000. Don’t underestimate those gams.

Hucklebuck on January 15, 2010 at 11:32 AM

Norwegian on January 15, 2010 at 11:17 AM

Spot on.

Well, Erickson is angry that Palin did not promote CPAC, Erickson’s sponsored event. Erickson is also thinking that Palin is STEALING Red State’s Tea Party Movement.

TheAlamos on January 15, 2010 at 7:38 AM

Erickson is also back and forth between supporting the Tea Party movement as an anti-establishment, grassroots, truth to power expression of the People (at least, when he can capitalize on it or tap into it) and a dangerous potential third party split that could weaken the GOP. Republican leadership has not stepped forward to lead, and Erickson is not as influential as he would like to be.

The only time I recall him sticking up for Sarah Palin was when RedState vowed to out the anonymous McCain staffers who were leaking after the election. That may not have been entirely for Palin’s benefit, despite what was said then.

My issue with his original post was how it was worded. He spread panic that well-meaning idiots were falling prey to a “Nigerian scammer” and this was picked up and trumpeted throughout the blogosphere: Sarah Palin Might Be ‘Ruining’ Herself By Attending a Tea Party Convention. He frets that “the tea party movement has largely descended into ego and quest for purpose for individuals at the expense of what the tea party movement started out to be.” He is basically making this “criticism” of Sarah Palin, pointing out her speaking fee and concluding, “I think Sarah Palin got some bad advice and probably should have done more due diligence.”

So, he called her stupid, or corrupt… or both. He used the histrionic verb RUINING herself. Why doesn’t he just come right out and call her a self-absorbed whore. Because he sure opened up the comments to that. Not to mention his own pet Palin critic Art Chance who regularly blogs there.

Then he throws a big tantrum and whines about the attacks from her supporters, going full metal jacket and calling Christianity a cult and accusing Sarah Palin’s supporters of idolatry. He also closed the comment section. So, now his readers know where he stands on Sarah Palin, and he is hardly as supportive as he would suggest.

chunderroad on January 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM

JohnGalt23 on January 14, 2010 at 8:18 PM

Given what we know about the Objectivism cult-of-personality that developed around the creator of JohnGalt, and especially her acolytes, this comment was rather amusing. Seriously, can you name for me a contemporary American politician who lost an election due solely to the supposedly shameful, cult-like behavior of his/her supporters?

Don’t worry, I got time if you need to search for one.

BradSchwartze on January 15, 2010 at 11:57 AM

For the record, anyone who would call Christianity a cult is not that conservative, either.

chunderroad on January 15, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Then he throws a big tantrum and whines about the attacks from her supporters, going full metal jacket and calling Christianity a cult and accusing Sarah Palin’s supporters of idolatry. He also closed the comment section. So, now his readers know where he stands on Sarah Palin, and he is hardly as supportive as he would suggest.

chunderroad on January 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Exactly.

And then AP picks it up as if it were reasonable commentary.

Social conservatives EXPECT controversy. We don’t care about avoiding turmoil.

Chris_Balsz on January 15, 2010 at 12:30 PM

Well AP if your objective is to deflate morale, good going.

At a time when we are about to experience the impossible in MA, you are setting fires in your own house.

Carolina Kat on January 15, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Seriously, can you name for me a contemporary American politician who lost an election due solely to the supposedly shameful, cult-like behavior of his/her supporters?

Don’t worry, I got time if you need to search for one.

BradSchwartze on January 15, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Well, now you are adding qualifiers that I never indulged in. Rare is the case that there is one single factor that loses an election for someone. Democratic elections are, by their nature, an assessment of multiple factors, giving each factor its appropriate weight, and deciding accordingly. If you have any experience in electoral politics, you know that.

However, sometimes one of those factors gets magnified, and an inordinate amount of attention gets put on it. Once again, if you have any experience in electoral politics, you know that this is a situation candidates usually want to avoid. One of the things that can cause that is the silly behavior of followers, as the Palintologists are demonstrating this very minute.

Now, you want examples of this? Try Howard Dean. The obnoxious orange-hatted fools that purported to support Dr. Dean scared away the sensible Iowa Dem caucus goers, in a race that was in fact Dean’s to lose.

I can very easily- very easily – see the Palintologists dropping the ball in exactly the same way.

JohnGalt23 on January 15, 2010 at 12:42 PM

Infidoll on January 14, 2010 at 8:47 PM

I’d be happy to acknowledge what you want me to acknowledge. What now follows, Palinstas, is an explanation of supposed electability issues involving Sarah Palin. Please read the whole thing, then comment. Thank you.

If you are to define “electability” based upon the recent historical experiences of the Republican Party and the way it does business, then Sarah Palin certainly does have “electability issues.” After all, Sarah is not waiting “her turn,” and stepping down from an elected position is going to hack off some Republicans whose whole SOP is the resume and the experience.

But if you define electability the way Dems have define “electability,” and the way TV and Film have defined it, then you’d have to say Sarah is easily electable. She’s easily the most personable Republican in the arena since Reagan, and has the personal narrative not seen in a Republican since Theodore Roosevelt.

BradSchwartze on January 15, 2010 at 12:44 PM

JohnGalt23 on January 15, 2010 at 12:42 PM

OK, so you gave me a decent example in Howard Dean. I can deal with that. Do keep in mind, though, that Sarah has multiple qualities that were not available to someone like Howard Dean (Here’s one: Howard Dean isn’t the greatest picture for the camera to see). And I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of the voting public will not see the alleged nasty behavior of her supporters, as the camera will be so focused on Sarah.

BTW, I noticed that you didn’t respond to my snark about JohnGalt, and his creator’s creepy fanbase.

BradSchwartze on January 15, 2010 at 12:51 PM

BradSchwartze on January 15, 2010 at 11:57 AM

BTW, I’d be the first to admit that Rand’s acolytes often go way too far, and as a result scare people away from libertarianism who would otherwise be very open to such arguments.

Obnoxious rarely gets you anywhere in politics. A lesson that far too many Palintologists have yet to learn. But they will, and when they do, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, I am sure.

JohnGalt23 on January 15, 2010 at 12:53 PM

I’m sure the fact that Iowa fits nowhere in the Dean demographic could have nothing to do with it. And later the infamous scream… nah… it was his annoying supporters.

There’s already gnashing of teeth. In MA. People who think the party will go on as usual.

Obnoxious rarely gets you anywhere in politics. A lesson that far too many Palintologists have yet to learn. But they will, and when they do, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, I am sure.

JohnGalt23 on January 15, 2010 at 12:53 PM

Who exactly is turning off who? I’d say you are doing an excellent job of making the case that populism isn’t welcome in the GOP. Women should just do what they are told and not run for higher office in our party. And that enthusiasm is the enemy of electoral success.

Wow. I know why Rand is your hero. You’d rather destroy something than see it succeed any way except your way. Great moniker.

Carolina Kat on January 15, 2010 at 1:12 PM

Exit question: How did she get to this rare, exalted, and enviable position?

By being a real human being in a playing field dominated by ultra-cynical, manipulative schmucks.

TheUnrepentantGeek on January 15, 2010 at 1:17 PM

JohnGalt23 on January 15, 2010 at 12:53 PM

One of the things I truly have to wonder with any discussion involving Sarah Palin is whether or not the criticism isn’t driven by a desire to bait her fanbase (of which I claim membership). When you have Allahpundit treating Sarah Palin as the GOP’s Erin Pageviews Andrews, people very quickly question the sincerity of any critical commentary.

BradSchwartze on January 15, 2010 at 1:24 PM

MadisonConservative on January 15, 2010 at 3:51 AM

Interesting. No response to this question.

MadisonConservative on January 15, 2010 at 1:33 PM

MadisonConservative on January 15, 2010 at 3:51 AM

Hey, you wanted one!

Personally, I don’t claim to say she’s “sharp and flawless.” I’m just here to say that choosing Sarah is a different route for conservatives and Republicans to take. One that, in the “optics” and emotion-driven era in which we live, is essential in order for conservatism to survive.

Let’s be honest: The political positions of Modern Conservatism are well-established in the public domain. And for those positions that aren’t, the general public is likely to assume that those positions are “not Obama’s.” So really, it’s not the ideas so much anymore. That means we Republicans and conservatives are forced to look for personalities to help further the ideas and “principles.”

Sarah Palin fits the personality bill better than any Republican since Theodore Roosevelt. People all over the world see that. So forgive me if I sound extremely irate at this patronizing (There! I said it!!) notion that a very personable Sarah Palin needs to “study the issues,” so some cranky old conservatives can get over their issues with emotions and personality.

BradSchwartze on January 15, 2010 at 2:01 PM

MadisonConservative on January 15, 2010 at 3:51 AM

Interesting. No response to this question.

MadisonConservative on January 15, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Q.“if she’s as sharp, flawless, and powerful as some here imply…why are you so terrified of conservatives…NOT liberals, NOT the media…voicing legitimate criticisms?”

A. Conservatives questioning Palin is not unhealthy. It should be done of all possible candidates. However, these same questions are not being asked of anyone other than Palin. I think a healthy discussion is awesome, but anything Palin is discusses communications break down into personal attacks and regurgitated memes ON BOTH SIDES.

“The way you’re protecting her, you’d think she was made of glass. Either she can handle what you people clearly can’t(and thereby answer it far better), or she can’t, and you’re building a delusional fantasy of Sarah Palin rather than the real woman.”

As for this statement Madison, you are right….to a point. Alot of people build their heroes into something in their minds that don’t reflect who they are in reality. If you were to listen to conservatives talk about Ronald Reagan today, you would have thought he brought down the Soviet Union with a flick of his index finger while eating jelly beans. He was a great man, and a great President but he had his faults as well. Palin is no different. If given the chance, I think she would be a great President, and I trust her judgment.

This whole squabble amongst our own party about Palin can be traced back to the ’08 election. She hit the party instantly, during a hard fought election, and was attacked by the libs in ways that absolutely needed defending. They mauled her, her family, her state, and our party in a way the reflects a rhetorical “rape” than anything else. The demeaned her in a way that anyone hates to see a woman be treated.

The Palin defenders are literally rubbed raw from defending her from the libs. I am one of these, and often a questioning of Palin sets off an almost immediate trigger reaction to destroy those who do. I see that it is not productive, and have tried to take it down a few notches because in the heat of debate I forget that we are all on the same side here. However flaming some obvious trolls should be done. They are rotten to their souls and need to be outed.

Also,the conservatives who do not support Palin for whatever reason need to be more respectful to both Palin and her supporters. We might not disagree, but they are a tad “touchy” themselves in their pre-emptive whining about being attacked…before they are even attacked.

Just my 2cents.

portlandon on January 15, 2010 at 2:03 PM

Who is perfect? Certainly AP is very far from it. I am so sick of you using that photo. BTW, Conservatives4Palin do not support you.

rlwo2008 on January 15, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Haha:

Poor Allah, sitting there in his Manhattan apartment, stroking his cat, is always so inoffensive in his posts. He sees the best in everyone, is rarely sarcastic or brutal in his comments and has never been known to seek extra traffic by being provocative. So he bleeds for other bloggers who, in merely trying to be helpful to Palin by questioning her motives, her judgement and her political common sense over the CPAC and the Tea Party Convention affair, have been shocked and wounded by respondents who have questioned the bloggers’ own motives and judgement

It is classic Allah, a cri de coeur, glistening with heartfelt sincerity, pleading the unfairness of bombing the bomb throwers. Even I, world weary old English cynic that I am, felt tears welling up in my timeworn eyes….

BOOM! Taste my nightstick!

atheling on January 15, 2010 at 2:32 PM

I live for the days you aren’t commenting on anything, AP.

rlwo2008 on January 15, 2010 at 2:32 PM

MadisonConservative on January 15, 2010 at 3:42 AM

What a big guy, beating up that strawman.

atheling on January 15, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Carolina Kat on January 15, 2010 at 1:12 PM

I’m sure the fact that Iowa fits nowhere in the Dean demographic could have nothing to do with it.

Well, that would certainly explain why he never led in the polls in Iowa.

Oh wait.. he did lead in the polls in Iowa, right up until the point where the orange-hatted fools showed up. If you were paying attention (like I was), you would know that.

And later the infamous scream… nah… it was his annoying supporters.

Once again, since you obviously weren’t paying attention, I’ll bring to your attention the fact that “The Scream” occurred after the caucuses had closed. So, it is very unlikely that “The Scream” had any effect on the Iowa caucuses, outside of course the all-important time-traveling segment of the Democratic Party.

Who exactly is turning off who?

Right now, a bunch of keyboard commandos are turning off another bunch of keyboard commandos. Not a big deal. But once she enters a national race (if she ever does), the tactics her most strident backers use (which mostly consist of whining, truth be told) will be turning off rank-and-file GOPers.

I’d say you are doing an excellent job of making the case that populism isn’t welcome in the GOP.

I’ve studied enough history and politics to know that I don’t want a Klondike Huey Long at the head of my party, that’s for damned sure. Whether SP will follow the populist path is YTBD… there is still time for her to reject that path, the Palintologists notwithstanding. But yes, I certainly would advise her against a populist approach.

Women should just do what they are told and not run for higher office in our party.

You play the gender card almost with the alacrity that the race card is played by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. You should be very proud.

And that enthusiasm is the enemy of electoral success.

Enthusiasm is our friend. Blind enthusiasm that willfully overlooks serious flaws of a potential standard bearer is our enemy. You would do well to learn the difference between the two.

Wow. I know why Rand is your hero

Like so many of our liberal friends, you know so much yet understand so little.

I like Ayn Rand as an author, and I like John Galt as a character. My heroes however tend to be more sturdy historically, like Locke, Goldwater, Jefferson, and Machiavelli.

But I can understand why you would try reading so much into a moniker. Like judging a book by its cover, you clearly have fallen for SP because of superficial reasons, and ignored her obvious, substantive flaws.

All in all, that’s an indication of a dearth of seriousness. Let’s just hope that if SP does get the GOP nod, that flaw is limited to the Palintologists, and does not extend to the object of their worship.

JohnGalt23 on January 15, 2010 at 2:35 PM

I like Ayn Rand as an author, and I like John Galt as a character. My heroes however tend to be more sturdy historically, like Locke, Goldwater, Jefferson, and Machiavelli.

But I can understand why you would try reading so much into a moniker. Like judging a book by its cover, you clearly have fallen for SP because of superficial reasons, and ignored her obvious, substantive flaws.

All in all, that’s an indication of a dearth of seriousness. Let’s just hope that if SP does get the GOP nod, that flaw is limited to the Palintologists, and does not extend to the object of their worship.

JohnGalt23 on January 15, 2010 at 2:35 PM

O_o

TheUnrepentantGeek on January 15, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Also,the conservatives who do not support Palin for whatever reason need to be more respectful to both Palin and her supporters. We might not disagree, but they are a tad “touchy” themselves in their pre-emptive whining about being attacked…before they are even attacked.

Just my 2cents.

portlandon on January 15, 2010 at 2:03 PM

well said. I’ve noticed this as well- and the tendency of conservatives who don’t like Palin to use the same inane talking points liberals use. She’s too pretty. She doesn’t interview well. She’s got an accent- Bush had an accent and people made fun of him for it! Plus she likes Jesus and Guns! Redneck!

When you hear this crap over and over again from people who supposedly vote as you do it gets annoying as hell.

I’m all for constructive criticism- though they’ll have to excuse me if my first reaction to their negative attitude is to look out for the BS. I’ve certainly heard enough of it.

Jewels on January 15, 2010 at 2:55 PM

O_o

TheUnrepentantGeek on January 15, 2010 at 2:50 PM

LOL

Machiavelli wrote about deceitful tactics in battle and politics- it’s where the term Machiavellian comes from. He didn’t actually advocate it- it was a cynical illustration of it.

It is a bit like George Orwell’s book 1984 which criticized the very things the term “Orwellian” implies.

Jewels on January 15, 2010 at 2:59 PM

I’m all for constructive criticism- though they’ll have to excuse me if my first reaction to their negative attitude is to look out for the BS. I’ve certainly heard enough of it.

Jewels on January 15, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Exactly. See the dishonest strawman arguments, such as the ones by MadCon, who will completely ignore your point and continue whining.

atheling on January 15, 2010 at 3:01 PM

Um, so let’s see. You want to be critical of someone. But when someone is critical of your points, they are attacking you.

I see a bit of a disconnect here. Maybe those who point out faults with your pointing out of faults are just being offering helpful advice to YOU!

If you cannot accept “advice”, then dont hand it out!

Skywatcher44 on January 15, 2010 at 3:52 PM

I see a bit of a disconnect here. Maybe those who point out faults with your pointing out of faults are just being offering helpful advice to YOU!

If you cannot accept “advice”, then dont hand it out!

Skywatcher44 on January 15, 2010 at 3:52 PM

The problem there is that all political “advice” seems to consist of anymore is “You’re an (insert insults here), get out of the way and let me do it.)

Dark-Star on January 15, 2010 at 3:56 PM

It is a bit like George Orwell’s book 1984 which criticized the very things the term “Orwellian” implies.

Jewels on January 15, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Except for the fact that Machiavelli didn’t criticize the things he outlined in The Prince, and to some extent in The Discourses. The beauty of Machiavelli is that he didn’t write on how things ought to be. He wrote on how things are. In a book that over the last half-millennium has only gained in prominence and usefulness.

JohnGalt23 on January 15, 2010 at 3:59 PM

But I can understand why you would try reading so much into a moniker. Like judging a book by its cover, you clearly have fallen for SP because of superficial reasons, and ignored her obvious, substantive flaws.

All in all, that’s an indication of a dearth of seriousness. Let’s just hope that if SP does get the GOP nod, that flaw is limited to the Palintologists, and does not extend to the object of their worship.

JohnGalt23 on January 15, 2010 at 2:35 PM

I searched anywhere in that ad hominem for anything remotely justifying your view point other than an obstreperous need to be offensive. In fact, the entire comment rather smacked of a nonserious response. OH MY. Did I call you a sexist and your response was to acknowledge that indeed you are? I believe so. (No card necessary) You defend yourself like Harry Reid: “I’m a republican so I don’t have to say anything because all allegations against me are false.” Wrong, Bubba. You validate it with your dismissal. No words to defend yourself so definitely go with the Harry Reid defense. Good move.

Yes I’ve read Rand, and the throw down my marbles and run home approach is exactly the kind of political discourse you exemplify. Your opinion is supreme and all others, the Palinistas, you say with disdain, fail your miserable standards. Who died and made you judge? You don’t remotely measure up to your own standards of refraining from obnoxious behavior.

Talk of a dearth of seriousness. Go ask your mother what those words mean, that is if you can get her out of the kitchen.

As to Howard Dean, you are seriously sticking to the ludicrous assertion that enthusiasm for a candidate can cause the candidate to lose. Really? I am well aware about the polling – ask Coakley how those early leads work out – and I know when he screamed – do you think that was the first and only gaffe he personally made? Apparently logical interpretation of the outcome isn’t as important as making a foolish remark and having to defend it.

Your disdain for the populist approach may very well be the most vulnerable part of what passes for discussion to you. What pray tell do you think the Tea Party movement is? Or did you miss that whole tea party thing this year?

I don’t worship Sarah Palin, nor Ronald Reagan, nor any political leader. However, until and unless I see anything remotely approaching honest criticism, I will continue to see the attacks on her as personal, below the belt, and the false edifice of a surreptitious agenda.

And STUPID. As I have repeatedly stipulated on this thread that we don’t need an internecine war started by bomb throwing from the navel gazers who fling poo like “Palinista” at passing targets like monkeys in a zoo. Talk about knee jerk, or just jerk, whatever you prefer.

We need to come together – but hollering at one another won’t cut it. You don’t like my style, fine, the cut of your jib won’t hold any wind but your own. He who sows the wind reaps the whirlwind. Go for it.

Galt, you can blow up your building now.

My objective isn’t to defend Palin in this case. I’m trying to find a way forward for our party to protect if from those bent on destroying it if they don’t like the person most people are enthusiastic about.

…. because enthusiasm gets people to the polls, gets them to work on elections, and most of all gets people elected.

Scorn, snobbery, elitism, that gets you Coakley’s campaign.

Carolina Kat on January 15, 2010 at 4:06 PM

The problem there is that all political “advice” seems to consist of anymore is “You’re an (insert insults here), get out of the way and let me do it.)

Dark-Star on January 15, 2010 at 3:56 PM

You really have no moral authority in this debate. You are a Palin hater. You hate her handicapped child, Trig. You are a liberal troll.

After your vicious comments about Trig Palin, you have been outed as a pig. And a pig is what you are.

atheling on January 15, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Because we desperately need a true firebrand conservative to take the reins, and no one else is stepping up.

Squiggy on January 15, 2010 at 6:48 AM

There it is.

I really like Sarah. She’s just a normal person from all that I’ve seen, heard, and read about her, as well as all the info she has given me in her own words.
But I don’t worship her.
And there seem to be a lot of Palin-bots out there.
Here, too.
ONe word for you Palin-bots: you are NOT helping.
STFU and be critical of EVERYONE who is running for office, EQUALLY.
Do not project all your hopes onto one person by elevating them to a pedestal that no one on this Earth can hold, except for Jesus himself.
This is how we got Obama.
Sarah is a human being with faults of her own. To praise her for things that deserve no praise is dangerously setting the bar so high that disappointment will most definitely follow, no matter how good a job she does.

Badger40 on January 15, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Sarah is a human being with faults of her own. To praise slam her for things that deserve no praise slamming is dangerously setting the bar so high that disappointment will most definitely follow, no matter how good a job she does.

Badger40 on January 15, 2010 at 4:56 PM

FIFY.

Do show us where she is being “praised” for that which deserves no praise.

atheling on January 15, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Oh, and for every one of those examples I requested, I can show you ten where she is slammed for that which deserves no slamming.

atheling on January 15, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Sarah is a human being with faults of her own. To praise her for things that deserve no praise is dangerously setting the bar so high that disappointment will most definitely follow, no matter how good a job she does.

Badger40 on January 15, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Strawman. Show me where anybody says they worship Palin. This is an imaginary problem. Made up out of whole cloth.

And if you think calling people irrational is an argument that will sway them – look in the mirror and you’ll see irrational.

What forms are two entrenched lines like you see on these threads today. Do you think any thing and I mean ANY thing productive came out of this discussion?

Neither do I.

Carolina Kat on January 15, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Badger40 on January 15, 2010 at 4:56 PM

“But I don’t worship her.”

“And there seem to be a lot of Palin-bots out there.”

“ONe word for you Palin-bots: you are NOT helping.
STFU”

“Do not project all your hopes onto one person by elevating them to a pedestal that no one on this Earth can hold, except for Jesus himself.”

Such kind suggestions to your “friends” here at hotair. Because this is truly how we should be talking to eachother. And people wonder why Palin supporters get pissy.

portlandon on January 15, 2010 at 5:36 PM

MadisonConservative on January 15, 2010 at 3:51 AM
Interesting. No response to this question.

MadisonConservative on January 15, 2010 at 1:33 PM

I don’t even have to look at the question.
The answer is C.
It’s always C.
Or pi.

Phear my test taking skillz!

justltl on January 15, 2010 at 5:44 PM

portlandon on January 15, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Yup. And a lot of empty posturing.

atheling on January 15, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Another question: if she’s as sharp, flawless, and powerful as some here imply…why are you so terrified of conservatives…NOT liberals, NOT the media…voicing legitimate criticisms? The way you’re protecting her, you’d think she was made of glass. Either she can handle what you people clearly can’t(and thereby answer it far better), or she can’t, and you’re building a delusional fantasy of Sarah Palin rather than the real woman.

…so which is it?

MadisonConservative on January 15, 2010 at 3:51 AM

Nothing wrong with legitimate criticism, but it seems to become obsessive with some. Each and every thing the woman does or says is subjected to a scrutiny that isn’t trained on any other potential candidate. After a while, it gets to be tiresome. Her “death panels” remark is a case in point. Or simply posting to Facebook at all. Or speaking to this group, or not speaking to this group.

ddrintn on January 15, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Except for the fact that Machiavelli didn’t criticize the things he outlined in The Prince, and to some extent in The Discourses. The beauty of Machiavelli is that he didn’t write on how things ought to be. He wrote on how things are. In a book that over the last half-millennium has only gained in prominence and usefulness.

JohnGalt23 on January 15, 2010 at 3:59 PM

I think it was Whitehead who said that Machiavelli provided the blueprint for a twelve-years’ success. Politics divorced from morality is interesting in relation to Italian city-states in the Renaissance, but following Machiavelli isn’t gong to produce anything with staying power.

ddrintn on January 15, 2010 at 6:19 PM

The bigger deal about Palin, is not why people like her so much, but why people, especially the pary establishment and some conservative pundits hate her so much

On the conservative side, the ones who consider Palin stupid are not on my list of smart people. But they consider themselves to be smarter than her.

I haven’t seen anything to show Palin is as stupid as they say, but I have seen a ton of rank stupidity from the elitist critics, starting with obama worship.

Now Obama has proven himself to me to be a mediocre intelligence who plays the same old card game his buddies play. He is not clever under fire, and he has proven himself to be a man of little imagination when he dishes up his childish snubs

On the other hand, Palin is very consistent on certain conservative principles, taxes, abortion, euthanesia. Palin is also very good at avoiding the entire subject of open borders and illegal alien crossings.

the press goes out of their way not to hit Palin on this, which tells me they are saving that issue as a fall back to take her out later.

Meanwhile, the very smart Palin haters, most of whom want amnesty and open borders, do not want to Push palin on this one either

So the question is still open – why do they hate her

Does she have a rabbit in her hat they fear? I haven’t seen one. If not, they ought to address her on issues and prove her incompetent in an open battle

i.e. face off with her like men instead of gossiping about her behind their fans

They act as if she is defying the party. Sometimes that is a charade to make the public think she really is a maverick. However I haven’t seen any evidence of the smarts required to pull off that double blind

entagor on January 15, 2010 at 6:34 PM

Politics divorced from morality is interesting in relation to Italian city-states in the Renaissance, but following Machiavelli isn’t gong to produce anything with staying power.

ddrintn on January 15, 2010 at 6:19 PM

You should probably ask john Adams about that. My understanding is that he considered The Discources very seriously when helping to form this Republic.

JohnGalt23 on January 15, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Blind faith in anyone or anything is not good and it’s DEFINITELY not what this country needs. I like W. I met him, shook his hand, looked him in the eye and I believe him to be a good man who believed he was doing what was right for this country. I did NOT however agree with everything he did. In fact, quite a few things he did REALLY pissed me off.

This country does not need rock stars in the White House. It doesn’t need leaders who are followed by fainting, fawning hordes willing to do their bidding no matter what. And that’s what seems to be happening to some folks who like Sarah.

I REALLY like Sarah, however, I do not believe she is the be all and end all in politics.

if anything, the Obama Zombies OUGHT to be showing us just how important it is NOT to put our candidates on a pedestal. Blind faith in an untried candidate has gotten this country into a huge mess. And if we go into 2012 with the same mindset as the Obama Zombies had in 2008, we could well wind up feeling just as many of them do now: shocked, confused and really disappointed.

By all means, keep Sarah in mind. Watch her grow and learn. And come 2012, if she’s become the outstanding candidate I think she could one day be, then get behind her. But while we watch and wait, we need to keep looking for other possible candidates with the same appeal, beliefs and hopes for this country. That way if our gal turns out not to be presidential material, but better suited to other things, then we have other options. But for GOD’S sake, let’s not bicker amongst ourselves over whether or not she’s the bee’s knees. That just plays into the hands of those who are already screwing things up but good.

Mad Mad Monica on January 15, 2010 at 6:50 PM

TheAlamos on January 15, 2010 at 7:38 AM

I concur. I lost interest in Redstate because I also felt it was pretty elitist.

As for Sarah – why can’t everyone just let Sarah be Sarah and do it her way and see how it turns out? Just leave the woman alone for Pete’s sake…

I liked what Dick Cheney said when pressed for an opinion – he likes her personally and she has just as much right to run for office as anyone else, let’s just watch and see what she does (paraphrased).

Queen0fCups on January 15, 2010 at 6:54 PM

Carolina Kat on January 15, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Did I call you a sexist and your response was to acknowledge that indeed you are? I believe so.

Just like the race hustlers, the gender hustlers see (or pretend to see) sexism everywhere. I’m other than shocked that you see sexism in my accusation of your playing of the gender card.

But by all means, point to where I said anything remotely sexist. I’ll wait.

Yes I’ve read Rand, and the throw down my marbles and run home approach is exactly the kind of political discourse you exemplify.

Odd, coming from someone who defends a person who quit halfway through her term as governor. Now that’s throw-down-my-marbles-and-go-home politics right there.

If you don’t like quitters, maybe you should find another idol to worship.

As to Howard Dean, you are seriously sticking to the ludicrous assertion that enthusiasm for a candidate can cause the candidate to lose.

Well, I got reports from my colleagues who were there on the Dean Iowa debacle, so I think I know a thing or two about it, yeah. Of course, considering their ambition to be the 2010 version of the orange-hatted fools, the Palintologists would try to deny history. I can only hope it only affects the Palin campaign if/when it happens, and it doesn’t infect the entire GOP.

As to Howard Dean, you are seriously sticking to the ludicrous assertion that enthusiasm for a candidate can cause the candidate to lose.

Of course you are. That’s why you tried to claim that Dean’s campaign was at odds with Iowa voters, when in fact it was the your contention that was at odds with the polls.

Of course you’re aware of them. Of course you are.

and I know when he screamed

of course you did. That’s why you brought it up, when the discussion was about the Iowa caucuses, not the entire campaign.

Of course you know when the scream was. of course you do.

do you think that was the first and only gaffe he personally made?

No. Clearly he screwed up when he allowed a bunch of orange-hatted fools free reign in Iowa, thus tanking his performance there, and leading to his eventual defeat.

Try to keep up.

What pray tell do you think the Tea Party movement is?

I think it is a sign of crisis within the GOP. And like any crisis, it poses an opportunity, and it poses danger. Handled well, it could mean a renaissance for the GOP. Handled poorly, it could mean the death of the GOP.

Now, put it in the hands of idol worshiping Palintologists, who deliberately blind themselves to her flaws, and the latter becomes far more likely than the former.

I don’t worship Sarah Palin

Of course you don’t. Of course you don’t.

However, until and unless I see anything remotely approaching honest criticism, I will continue to see the attacks on her as personal, below the belt, and the false edifice of a surreptitious agenda.

Yes. Every bit of criticism from every sector, left right or middle, of SP has been dishonest. Those folks at National Review, Weekly Standard, Human Events… they were all disingenuous lefties with ulterior motives and were out to destroy the conservative movement.

And here I was thinking that you worshiped SP in a cult-like fashion. Silly me.

We need to come together – but hollering at one another won’t cut it. You don’t like my style, fine, the cut of your jib won’t hold any wind but your own. He who sows the wind reaps the whirlwind. Go for it.

Use tired cliches much? (Hint: The correct answer is “Yes”)

Galt, you can blow up your building now.

See, the building I’m concerned about is the GOP, and I’m interested in protecting it from incompetent fools who like to play with political dynamite while not knowing just what it can do.

JohnGalt23 on January 15, 2010 at 7:11 PM

Here’s a FACT: Palin has yet to comment on her facebook page about her contract/appearance on FOX. Why not? She’s commented on many other events in her life and world/national events of import to fans/admirers and other interested Americans. Why hasn’t she written ANYTHING about her contract with FOX?

I don’t have the answer but I’m concerned that she apparently doesn’t think she needs to say anything. This indicates, to me, that she really doesn’t have a grasp of how significant her actions are to a large portion of the electorate and that is troubling.

jcw46 on January 15, 2010 at 7:26 PM

You should probably ask john Adams about that. My understanding is that he considered The Discources very seriously when helping to form this Republic.

JohnGalt23 on January 15, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Machiavelli would have no use for a man who said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

I don’t have the answer but I’m concerned that she apparently doesn’t think she needs to say anything. This indicates, to me, that she really doesn’t have a grasp of how significant her actions are to a large portion of the electorate and that is troubling.

jcw46 on January 15, 2010 at 7:26 PM

LOL…perfectly illustrating the Palin hyper-criticism to which I was referring.

ddrintn on January 15, 2010 at 7:49 PM

jcw46 on January 15, 2010 at 7:26 PM

See what I mean? Nutty.

atheling on January 15, 2010 at 7:51 PM

to me, that sheI really doesn’t have a grasp of how significant her actions are…

FIFY
JCW, why does she have to comment at all? Your post is a prime example of what others have said. Hyper-criticism of everything she does.

Hard Right on January 15, 2010 at 8:10 PM

ddrintn on January 15, 2010 at 7:49 PM

Machiavelli would have no use for a man who said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

I would argue it is less about how much use Machiavelli had for John Adams as how much use John Adams had for Machiavelli. Which, judging by how much he references Machiavelli in his DEFENCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES
is quite quite substantial.

Do try to keep in mind that The Prince is not the only political work by Machiavelli, and in many people’s opinions not necessarily his most important one.

JohnGalt23 on January 15, 2010 at 8:23 PM

I would argue it is less about how much use Machiavelli had for John Adams as how much use John Adams had for Machiavelli. Which, judging by how much he references Machiavelli in his DEFENCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES is quite quite substantial.

JohnGalt23 on January 15, 2010 at 8:23 PM

As an historian, yeah. As a political philosopher, no.

ddrintn on January 15, 2010 at 8:49 PM

Here’s a FACT: Palin has yet to comment on her facebook page about her contract/appearance on FOX. Why not? She’s commented on many other events in her life and world/national events of import to fans/admirers and other interested Americans. Why hasn’t she written ANYTHING about her contract with FOX?

I don’t have the answer but I’m concerned that she apparently doesn’t think she needs to say anything. This indicates, to me, that she really doesn’t have a grasp of how significant her actions are to a large portion of the electorate and that is troubling.

jcw46 on January 15, 2010 at 7:26 PM

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

pugwriter on January 15, 2010 at 9:21 PM

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

pugwriter on January 15, 2010 at 9:21 PM

I thought the same thing. A troll perhaps?

Hard Right on January 15, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

pugwriter on January 15, 2010 at 9:21 PM

I thought the same thing. A troll perhaps?

Hard Right on January 15, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Troll? Maybe. Moron? Absolutely.

pugwriter on January 15, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Here’s a FACT: Palin has yet to comment on her facebook page about her contract/appearance on FOX. Why not?

Uhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm……..

Perhaps she’s busy?
New show, new job.

BTW, is there some law that dictates one MUST comment on their facebook page when YOU think (and yes I’m using “think” loosely) they should?

“This indicates, to me, that she really doesn’t have a grasp of how significant her actions are to a large portion of the electorate and that is troubling.”
jcw46 on January 15, 2010

Speaking of not having a “ grasp”, what’s your version of reality?

DSchoen on January 16, 2010 at 6:13 AM

Did I call you a sexist and your response was to acknowledge that indeed you are? I believe so.
Just like the race hustlers, the gender hustlers see (or pretend to see) sexism everywhere. I’m other than shocked that you see sexism in my accusation of your playing of the gender card.

But by all means, point to where I said anything remotely sexist. I’ll wait.

Your very fine imitation of Harry Reid was adequate.

Yes I’ve read Rand, and the throw down my marbles and run home approach is exactly the kind of political discourse you exemplify.
Odd, coming from someone who defends a person who quit halfway through her term as governor. Now that’s throw-down-my-marbles-and-go-home politics right there.

If you don’t like quitters, maybe you should find another idol to worship.

This is your idea of persuasion? You need to apply for a job in the Obama administration. You’d fit right in. Go ahead, feel free to attack “quitter” Palin, but the root of the problem is not Palin, it’s that I don’t agree with you. Many people do not agree with you. This rocks your tiny little world.

As to Howard Dean, you are seriously sticking to the ludicrous assertion that enthusiasm for a candidate can cause the candidate to lose.
Well, I got reports from my colleagues who were there on the Dean Iowa debacle, so I think I know a thing or two about it, yeah. Of course, considering their ambition to be the 2010 version of the orange-hatted fools, the Palintologists would try to deny history. I can only hope it only affects the Palin campaign if/when it happens, and it doesn’t infect the entire GOP.

As to Howard Dean, you are seriously sticking to the ludicrous assertion that enthusiasm for a candidate can cause the candidate to lose.
Of course you are. That’s why you tried to claim that Dean’s campaign was at odds with Iowa voters, when in fact it was the your contention that was at odds with the polls.

Of course you’re aware of them. Of course you are.

and I know when he screamed
of course you did. That’s why you brought it up, when the discussion was about the Iowa caucuses, not the entire campaign.

Of course you know when the scream was. of course you do.

do you think that was the first and only gaffe he personally made?
No. Clearly he screwed up when he allowed a bunch of orange-hatted fools free reign in Iowa, thus tanking his performance there, and leading to his eventual defeat.

Try to keep up.

Observe. Your response is dripping with assumptions, condescension, and hostility. Very persuasive. Reasonable people look at that and wonder if you can read. When they read that the thrust of your argument is that enthusiasm for a candidate is a problem, the only conclusion a reasonable person can come to is that your hostility blinds you to reason. We get that you want people to think exactly as you do. But we wonder why you consider yourself a conservative with an attitude like that.

What pray tell do you think the Tea Party movement is?
I think it is a sign of crisis within the GOP. And like any crisis, it poses an opportunity, and it poses danger. Handled well, it could mean a renaissance for the GOP. Handled poorly, it could mean the death of the GOP.

A crisis? Get out of politics. Do the GOP a favor. You are one of the elitist snobs that give our party a bad name.

Now, put it in the hands of idol worshiping Palintologists, who deliberately blind themselves to her flaws, and the latter becomes far more likely than the former.

I don’t worship Sarah Palin
Of course you don’t. Of course you don’t.

However, until and unless I see anything remotely approaching honest criticism, I will continue to see the attacks on her as personal, below the belt, and the false edifice of a surreptitious agenda.
Yes. Every bit of criticism from every sector, left right or middle, of SP has been dishonest. Those folks at National Review, Weekly Standard, Human Events… they were all disingenuous lefties with ulterior motives and were out to destroy the conservative movement.

And here I was thinking that you worshiped SP in a cult-like fashion. Silly me.

Strawman. But I can see why you have difficulty discerning the difference. Everyone who doesn’t fall lockstep into your opinion is the enemy.

We need to come together – but hollering at one another won’t cut it. You don’t like my style, fine, the cut of your jib won’t hold any wind but your own. He who sows the wind reaps the whirlwind. Go for it.
Use tired cliches much? (Hint: The correct answer is “Yes”)

That whole idea of unity is such a bother when people disagree isn’t it? If only the world thought just like you… Do you know why a person uses metaphors (or cliche if you prefer)? To communicate an idea simply. Apparently it wasn’t simply enough for you. Do you even attempt to understand anything I wrote or do you simply enjoy picking fights for the sake of argument? Your response isn’t remotely fairminded; you are right and you know it even if nobody in the whole wide world knows it. HMMPH! (Galt seen stamping feet) This is how you assess Sarah Palin and that’s why your attempts at persuasion end in frustration for you. You are convincing of one thing. The primary opposition to Sarah Palin is based on irrational fear of the crisis of the Tea Party which had likely undercut the political authority of some of your ‘colleagues’. After the debacle of the last two elections, conservatives aren’t listening to party hacks any more. Failure is hardly a recommendation that you have a clue about successful campaigns (although I bet you know a whole heaping lot about failure).

Yes Sarah Palin scares you. I get that. It makes you angry that the rabble is causing a crisis. I get that. Her common stripes are an offense to you and are the reason others like her. That irks you. It makes you feel better to come here and attack people that like her, sort of as a proxy. You like to kick the dog, too. Come on, Dede Scozzofava, is that you? ;-)

Galt, you can blow up your building now.
See, the building I’m concerned about is the GOP, and I’m interested in protecting it from incompetent fools who like to play with political dynamite while not knowing just what it can do.

See, the building I’m concerned about it the USA, and I’m interested in protecting it from incompetent fools who like to throw water on the only spark of life left in the only party that can save it. You party first types have killed the GOP. Talk about foolish. Don’t you understand that parties are made up of PEOPLE. The great unwashed masses. We’ve got a well-educated, highly polished politician in the WH and he really sucks. Get it? Nope you don’t, and that’s why we don’t trust your opinions any more. We don’t trust your judgment and we think you suck, too. That may be a ‘crisis’ for you, but it isn’t for America. The people of America are waking up and it begins in MA. Brown may not win, but he’ll shatter some illusions, just like Palin continues to shatter yours.

I get that she is a threat to your ivory tower. Whether that is seeded in an idea that women should stick to the kitchen or that all leaders should be Ivy Leaguers, I don’t know, nor do I care. You attitude is soooo yesterday. And that probably sucks for you, but it is good news for our country.

JohnGalt23 on January 15, 2010 at 7:11 PM

Carolina Kat on January 16, 2010 at 10:51 AM

My response, Galt is in italics.

Carolina Kat on January 16, 2010 at 10:54 AM

EGADS this is frustrating.

My response, Galt is in italics.

Should read: Galt, my response is in italics.

Carolina Kat on January 16, 2010 at 10:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7