Romney advisor on Palin: “She’s not a serious human being”

posted at 6:34 pm on July 15, 2010 by Allahpundit

Huckabee’s taken potshots at her from time to time, but between this fusillade from unnamed Mitt advisors and the furious counterattack on Romney at Conservatives 4 Palin, I’d say that the 2012 primary is now, at long last, officially on.

In the immortal words of Greg Stillson, “The missiles are flying. Hallelujah.”

Still, few express much regard for Palin’s ultimate chances. One adviser to Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, and, by traditional standards, the putative 2012 frontrunner, says of Palin, “She’s not a serious human being.” Another Romney intimate warns, “If she’s standing up there in a debate and the answers are more than 15 seconds long, she’s in trouble.”

One of the most experienced Republican national political operatives in the country suggests that while Palin might be envied and sleek, she lacks the endurance required for a protracted nomination fight. “She’s like a cheetah. She can run really fast, but not really long.” In the end, this school of thought about Palin goes, she is too polarizing to be seen as likely to beat Barack Obama, and Republicans will be too hungry in 2012 to risk nominating someone who could cost the party the White House — maybe even in a landslide…

Such a disjointed field can only provide more encouragement for Palin.
And nothing would make the White House happier. The President’s political advisers, troubled by the weak economy and Obama’s image as a big spender, are more worried than he is about re-election and more worried than they let on publicly. Obama himself has told people that he believes the Tea Party movement will still be going strong in 2012, leaving the party to go into battle against an incumbent with a candidate too far right to win. In fact, the President’s advisers believe that if Palin is the nominee, New York’s billionaire mayor, Michael Bloomberg, could enter the race as an independent, scrambling all the conventional rules yet again.

Bloomberg as a self-funded stalking horse for his pal Barry intent on taking down the GOP? Why, that sounds … entirely plausible, actually. As for the nastiness about her being unserious, righties as respected as Krauthammer and George Will have made the same point. And I’ve noted before myself that, given the media’s obsession with painting her as a female Quayle, she’d have to be virtually perfectly on the trail for more than a year to avoid that narrative. The tiniest, most innocent flub — think Bush being quizzed on the names of foreign diplomats — will be hyped into the second coming of the Katie Couric interview, with the press breathlessly insisting that no sane person would vote for such a doofus. Can she be that perfect on the trail? Can any human being, including Barack “Bitterly cling to guns and religion” Obama?

Follow the link and read all of that piece, actually, if only for the bit about Bush and Cheney both reportedly pushing their old pal Mitch Daniels to GOP movers and shakers. Given the reviving influence of Team Dubya over the party’s establishment, I wouldn’t underestimate Daniels’s ability to burst out of obscurity quickly via a huge push from prominent Republican donors and groups. And speaking of quick bursts, more on Palin from Mark Halperin:

She would be the only woman against a half-dozen or more Republican men. As long as she leaves the door to a race open, she can freeze the field, prevent other GOP hopefuls from gaining much traction, keep the media in a perpetual will-she-or-won’t-she frenzy and jump into the race whenever she likes. That would be impossible for an ordinary candidate, but Palin could splash in as late as November 2011, just a few months before the voting begins. There is no deadline for signing up for the Iowa caucuses, and when it comes to competing in early-state contests, she will have a far easier time than any previous insurgent. Her candidacy would require almost none of the usual time sinks that force politicians to jump in early: power-broker schmoozing, schedule-intensive fundraising, competitive recruitment of experienced strategists, careful policy development. She would have immediate access to cash, with even small Internet donations likely bringing in millions.

Fred Thompson splashed into the last primary late, but not as late as November. Then again, Fred wasn’t the grassroots phenomenon that Palin is and he suffered from the perception that his late start was due to him not caring quite as much about winning as the rest of the field. That wouldn’t be the case with Palin; her late entry would be seen as calculated for dramatic effect, which would probably give her boost. And the point about small donations is well taken: Romney’s PAC has dwarfed hers in fundraising so far this year, but according to the Globe, most of the money’s come from events and large donors. By contrast, three-quarters of SarahPAC’s haul came from small donors. That’s not good news for her in terms of raw numbers — Mitt can almost certainly use big-money bundlers to crush whatever amount she’d rake in from grassroots contributors — but the media will go bonkers for a storyline about plucky blue-collar conservatives trying to propel Palin to victory against the Romney fortune one five-dollar donation at a time. And of course, that media coverage will be worth millions in itself. Remember: The default press narrative in 2012 will be Palin vs. Anti-Palin, with the task for Romney, Daniels, or whoever emerges as her nemesis to try to embody the good qualities the Anti-Palin is supposed to have — smart, competent, experienced — while avoiding the bad ones (elitist, white-collar, uncharismatic). As such, they’d better be awfully careful with how far they push the condescension towards her, especially given the potential alluded to by Halperin for gender politics to enter this race.

For what it’s worth, former McCain associate Mark McKinnon thinks she’s going to run even though neither she nor the country are ready for it. Note well his point at the end about what a Palin loss in the primary would mean; given the fervor her supporters are known for and the likelihood that the race will turn nasty, he’s totally right about the possibility of devastating party divisions in the general election. Exit question: Some Palin critics are speculating that the Bristol/Levi tabloid wedding announcement was secretly blessed by Sarah. Um, given the fact that her alleged unseriousness is already a major political liability for her, why on earth would she do that?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 6

Are you not aware that Reagan was being pummeled by Carter in 1978/79 by like a 20-30 point margin?

powerpro on July 15, 2010 at 7:14 PM

What? Where did you get that from?

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:16 PM

Palin would be lucky to get 25% nationally.

therightwinger on July 15, 2010 at 7:03 PM

Who is this effing idiot? Go away…

LurkerDood on July 15, 2010 at 7:17 PM

Yeah. Reagan too, in 1978.

JonPrichard on July 15, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Very true:

National opinion polls continue to show Carter leading Reagan by an apparently comfortable margin of about 25%. They also show that more moderate Republicans like Ford would run better against the President. This suggests that Reagan is not the strongest G.O.P. choice for the November election and that he clearly faces an uphill battle.

Hat tip: ddrintn

Norwegian on July 15, 2010 at 7:18 PM

You clearly haven’t read her FB Notes…

Jenfidel on July 15, 2010 at 7:12 PM

I appreciate the content. However, facebook notes seem…like facebook notes.

Bee on July 15, 2010 at 7:18 PM

Hmmm.

Romney operatives badmouth Palin! News at 6!

Seriously Allahpundit. This is news?

memomachine on July 15, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Even Levi and Bristol probably don’t think it’s newsworthy.

Tav on July 15, 2010 at 7:18 PM

Can AP be Palin’s campaign manager?

TimeTraveler on July 15, 2010 at 7:18 PM

I would say that it is significant that Team Romney is already going negative on her with anonymous comments.

Well, not completely anonymous. Romney’s name is in there several times, and that is no accident.

I have not heard Palin or her people say anything about Romney, except when she was asked directly months ago, she said “sure, I like him”, and that was that.

She’s fighting Obama, Pelosi and Reid every day.

Romney should focus on that too, if he knows what is good for him.

This negativity won’t work out well for him with Republicans.

Elephants don’t forget.

When Palin does hit back, it’s going to be hard and fast.

She doesn’t think it’s time yet, but when she does, he won’t know what hit him.

Brian1972 on July 15, 2010 at 7:20 PM

This constant sniping and picking about how she should wait, she’s not ready, she’s too stupid, blah, blah, blah is what will drive her supporters away from the eventual candidate. Hillary voters deserted the Dems because they thought she got shafted by the insiders and Palin supporters will feel the same way.

katiejane on July 15, 2010 at 6:57 PM

Yep. We’ll come back to the fold, but only if bridges weren’t burned. All candidates have their relative flaws, but what’ll matter in 2012 is their relative strengths.

alwaysfiredup on July 15, 2010 at 7:20 PM

portlandon on July 15, 2010 at 7:15 PM

Give it up with the “Willard” thing. It isn’t going to work any better than Bush, Sr.’s “Pierre” DuPont.

Mitt will stand or fall on his merits, and I’m guessing he’ll fall (again.)

notropis on July 15, 2010 at 7:20 PM

You’re going to laugh at me, but I think she’d make a great VP candidate.

Paul-Cincy on July 15, 2010 at 7:20 PM

Norwegian on July 15, 2010 at 7:18 PM

Thanks for posting that!
Reading it now, in 2010, is a HOOT!
They said almost exactly the same things about Reagan that they’re saying about Palin…(they also said them about Bush 43, too).
Love it! ;-)

Jenfidel on July 15, 2010 at 7:20 PM

For what it’s worth, former McCain associate Mark McKinnon thinks she’s going to run even though neither she nor the country are ready for it.

Is there some sort of bleach or douche or SOMETHING to get rid of this one. Do we really need to keep hearing what this nancyboy has to say? He did such a fantastically fantastic job in 2008. /s

HornetSting on July 15, 2010 at 7:21 PM

You know who this helps? Sarah Palin.

exception on July 15, 2010 at 7:21 PM

You’re going to laugh at me, but I think she’d make a great VP candidate.

Paul-Cincy on July 15, 2010 at 7:20 PM

NO.NO.NO.
President or bust (if you’ll excuse the expression!)

Jenfidel on July 15, 2010 at 7:21 PM

lol oh, Mittens.

lansing quaker on July 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM

Really? Why? Reagan was purported by the media as the dumbest rock in the universe and wasn’t considered much of a threat to Carter. So why is this nonsense?

JonPrichard on July 15, 2010 at 7:15 PM

Because it is nonsense. You people seem to forget Reagan damn near defeated the incumbent President in the 1976 primaries. He breezed through the 1980 primaries and soundly kicked Carter’s a** in the general. In no time during Carter’s Presidency was Reagan numbers ever close to what powerpro claims.

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM

Clearly, several people here know nothing of Palin’s history.

She got in the gubernatorial race in October 2005 for a November 2006 election. 11 months. Traveling all over a state that is 1/5 the size of the Lower 48.

Have you seen the long series of primary debates against the sitting governor?

Have you seen the long series of the general election against a former 2-term governor and an independent?

And TimeTraveler is really cracking me up saying the only way Palin can win is to sit in a room with GOP insiders and get briefed/indoctrinated for a year. hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hrh40 on July 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM

You clearly haven’t read her FB Notes…

Jenfidel on July 15, 2010 at 7:12 PM

I appreciate the content. However, facebook notes seem…like facebook notes.

Bee on July 15, 2010 at 7:18 PM

Is it not the content that really matters?

Those Facebook posts frequently wind up as speeches, tv commentary, or newspaper op-eds.

The content is what’s important, not how you first find it.

Brian1972 on July 15, 2010 at 7:23 PM

…read all of that piece, actually, if only for the bit about Bush and Cheney both reportedly pushing their old pal Mitch Daniels to GOP movers and shakers.
I like Cheney, but Daniels telling us we must surrender to the Democrats on social issues was plain stupid.

I think your mis-stating the facts there a tad, Daniels said “temporary truce” not surrender, pressumably from the stance of a Rep controlled House & possibly Senate as well. Hence having the strong hand trying to get Dhims on board to COMPROMISE WITH HIM on buget issues in exchange for not pushing the social agenda out the gate. Not an unreasonable strategy to address our deficits which will sink the USS America if not remedied IMMEDIATELY, if there is no nation left to govern then its really a moot point anyways as the chaos that would ensue would leave the land lawless. If there is no-one who can enforce the law it really doesn’t matter which ones you pass, does it?

This seems to me a rather rational position in that light, no?

Archimedes on July 15, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Sarah Palin has the best of both worlds right now. She’s very successful, her family no longer has financial issues, she can say and do whatever she wants as a private citizen, and she can influence the type of candidate she likes with her money and her endorsements.

Why would she give all of that up to run for office? To be vilified by the left, the MSM, the RINOS, to be subject to campaign laws, to have her family under the magnifying glass again (Bristol is a lost cause for privacy), etc. just for the most stressful campaign for the most stressful job in the world?

She should stay where she is, she’s much more effective as a kingmaker.

Common Sense on July 15, 2010 at 7:23 PM

That would 13 months …

hrh40 on July 15, 2010 at 7:23 PM

So being a “Human” has degrees huh? Sarah Palin isn’t a complete Human Being? She is somehow deficient as a Human Being?

How so? And if Mit Romney is such Conservative Christian when did he or his staff start judging other human beings worthiness or seriousness? I thought that was God’s purview?

Just what office is Romney seeking/SARC.

Dr Evil on July 15, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Palin already lost against Obama, and her presence would get out the vote for Obama again.

PrezHussein on July 15, 2010 at 7:24 PM

I appreciate the content. However, facebook notes seem…like facebook notes.

Bee on July 15, 2010 at 7:18 PM

Sarah’s are truly in a class all by themselves and quoted in news media like op eds.

Jenfidel on July 15, 2010 at 7:24 PM

Give it up with the “Willard” thing. It isn’t going to work any better than Bush, Sr.’s “Pierre” DuPont.

notropis on July 15, 2010 at 7:20 PM

Pet names like “Mitt” or “Skippy” make my skin crawl. Why not go by “Will Romney”?

Mitt = Yuck.

portlandon on July 15, 2010 at 7:25 PM

Palin already lost against Obama, and her presence would get out the vote for Obama again.

PrezHussein on July 15, 2010 at 7:24 PM

No, McCain lost against Obama.
Duh.
He almost won because of Palin.

Jenfidel on July 15, 2010 at 7:25 PM

Why would she give all of that up to run for office?

Erm. Because she loves her country and thinks we’re dangling over the cliff like the sled in “How the Grinch Stole Christmas?”

And she thinks she can help turn us back from the abyss?

Do you know why she ran for governor? Pretty much the same reason.

hrh40 on July 15, 2010 at 7:25 PM

Scooter is the ultimate target. Who lives in his head rent free? Not Mitt. Not the Huckster. I wonder why.

a capella on July 15, 2010 at 7:25 PM

In no time during Carter’s Presidency was Reagan numbers ever close to what powerpro claims.

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM

Prove it.

Brian1972 on July 15, 2010 at 7:25 PM

I jusy want to know one thing.

If Mitt had come up with the “ObamaCare” much like there is in Mass with “RomneyCare” would those who like Mitt, still vote for him after what they see taking place in Mass after he left?

Just curiousity…..

upinak on July 15, 2010 at 7:26 PM

What? Where did you get that from?

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:16 PM

Whoops. You’re right. I remembered the 50 part and the 30 part but it was a bit closer…

Matched against Republican front Runner Ronald Reagan, Carter was polling 52 percent of the vote and Reagan 38 percent. Against former President Gerald Ford, Carter was polling 48 percent, Ford 41.

From the Palm Beach Post April 22, 1979

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19790422&id=lv0sAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jM0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1163,975636

powerpro on July 15, 2010 at 7:26 PM

Why would she give all of that up to run for office? To be vilified by the left, the MSM, the RINOS, to be subject to campaign laws, to have her family under the magnifying glass again (Bristol is a lost cause for privacy), etc. just for the most stressful campaign for the most stressful job in the world?

Common Sense on July 15, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Because she has a “servant’s heart” and if God and her country call her to public service again and higher office, she will serve.

Jenfidel on July 15, 2010 at 7:26 PM

I like Sarah. I pray to God that she does not run for President. Please, please please please please no.

Secretary of Energy? YES!

Maybe GB can talk her out of it.

unmeritedfavor on July 15, 2010 at 7:27 PM

What? Where did you get that from?

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:16 PM

And then of course there’s this… (per ddrintn):

National opinion polls continue to show Carter leading Reagan by an apparently comfortable margin of about 25%. They also show that more moderate Republicans like Ford would run better against the President. This suggests that Reagan is not the strongest G.O.P. choice for the November election and that he clearly faces an uphill battle.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921912-1,00.html

So I was right…I was just remembering the wrong poll.

powerpro on July 15, 2010 at 7:28 PM

unmeritedfavor on July 15, 2010 at 7:27 PM

Umm you don’t run for secretary of energy… you are appointed. duh?

upinak on July 15, 2010 at 7:28 PM

I pray to God that she does not run for President.
unmeritedfavor on July 15, 2010 at 7:27 PM

Why?
What’s your problem?
She’s a woman? She’s too pretty?
She’s “stupid?”

Jenfidel on July 15, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Why are these idiots going at Palin like this? Who’s minds are they going to change with these attacks?

They’re just pissing people off like me and make me work extra hard to slime Romney…

Just STFU and if she decides to run, she will either rise or fall on her own.

LurkerDood on July 15, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Paul-Cincy on July 15, 2010 at 7:20 PM
NO.NO.NO.
President or bust (if you’ll excuse the expression!)

Jenfidel on July 15, 2010 at 7:21 PM

Only if they’re real.

HornetSting on July 15, 2010 at 7:29 PM

In fact, the President’s advisers believe that if Palin is the nominee, New York’s billionaire mayor, Michael Bloomberg, could enter the race as an independent

Progressives will do anything to stop a return to our founding principles. Face it, it’s us against them. Us vs Progressive Republicans and Communist democrats.

darwin on July 15, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Prove it.

Brian1972 on July 15, 2010 at 7:25 PM

Prove it? I lived though it, that article Norwegian linked to is bullshit. Reagan pretty much out polled Carter from the get go. How do you think he won by such a large margin? I remember the Dems pushing Muskie because he polled better then Carter or Kennedy did against Reagan.

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:30 PM

if God and her country call her to public service

I think God called her to the full time job of taking care of a special kid.

PrezHussein on July 15, 2010 at 7:30 PM

In no time during Carter’s Presidency was Reagan numbers ever close to what powerpro claims.

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.

powerpro on July 15, 2010 at 7:30 PM

unmeritedfavor on July 15, 2010 at 7:27 PM

Yes, your favor to us was indeed unmerited.
Thanks.

Brian1972 on July 15, 2010 at 7:30 PM

In no time during Carter’s Presidency was Reagan numbers ever close to what powerpro claims.

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM

How old were you, during that campaign? See Norwegian’s link, above.

25 points, and everybody “knew” Reagan was unelectable.

notropis on July 15, 2010 at 7:30 PM

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:30 PM

If history serves right.. carter polled above Reagan until the very end.

upinak on July 15, 2010 at 7:31 PM

They pulled the same crap with Reagan. And, we all know how that turned out.

Key West Reader on July 15, 2010 at 6:59 PM

I remember it well. The REPUBLICAN establishment was trying to push Gerald Ford for VP up until the last moment at the Convention.

Regards,

the Dragon on July 15, 2010 at 7:31 PM

Only if they’re real.

HornetSting on July 15, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Of course they’re real!
Everything about Sarah is real (except for her blonde streaks which I suspect are hiding gray hair).

Jenfidel on July 15, 2010 at 7:31 PM

I like Sarah. I pray to God that she does not run for President. Please, please please please please no.

Secretary of Energy? YES!

Maybe GB can talk her out of it.

unmeritedfavor on July 15, 2010 at 7:27 PM

I’m always skeptical of someone who begins a post with: “I love Sarah but…”

“I’m a concerned Christian but…”

Sarah if she chooses to will clean Obama clock. Doing pretty job of it right now, just wait till it become official.

Sharr on July 15, 2010 at 7:31 PM

unmeritedfavor on July 15, 2010 at 7:27 PM

We appreciate your concern.

kingsjester on July 15, 2010 at 7:31 PM

I won’t even consider voting for Romney after this. He must have subhumans for advisors.

tinkerthinker on July 15, 2010 at 7:31 PM

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:30 PM

Links would be nice, although I expect you to just take my word next time you disagree with me.

Brian1972 on July 15, 2010 at 7:32 PM

Also, IF Romney, etal are so great where are they? In their bunkers, shaking with fear while Sarah takes “the Bomber” on daily on our behalf.

Regards,

the Dragon on July 15, 2010 at 7:32 PM

I think God called her to the full time job of taking care of a special kid.

PrezHussein on July 15, 2010 at 7:30 PM

Well she talks with the Lord a lot more often than you and He told her differently.

Jenfidel on July 15, 2010 at 7:32 PM

This is not the way to convince people to vote for your candidate. What is with these advisers?

Rose on July 15, 2010 at 7:32 PM

Prove it? I lived though it, that article Norwegian linked to is bullshit. Reagan pretty much out polled Carter from the get go. How do you think he won by such a large margin? I remember the Dems pushing Muskie because he polled better then Carter or Kennedy did against Reagan.

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:30 PM

Are you intentionally ignoring what we’re posting or what?

I posted one article that had Carter over Reagan by 14 points and someone else posted (and I reposted) yet another article showing Carter leading Reagan by 25%.

powerpro on July 15, 2010 at 7:33 PM

OT Specter’s admin job?

upinak on July 15, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Jealousy.

listens2glenn on July 15, 2010 at 7:33 PM

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:30 PM

Looks like you’re getting outnumbered.

Brian1972 on July 15, 2010 at 7:33 PM

This is not the way to convince people to vote for your candidate. What is with these advisers?

Rose on July 15, 2010 at 7:32 PM

They are the Same advisors that went with McCain.. and when McCain lost due to “advisors” who couldn’t keep their trap shut, went over to the Romney wagon… and these advisors are going to be the death of Romney.

Oops.

upinak on July 15, 2010 at 7:34 PM

As our country continues on the path of being “substanially changed”, we the agrieved sit here and argue which candidate would be the best. We have seen both Republican and Democrats and the “good old boys” are no different than each other: they are highly educated, rich, and controlled by private interests, and it has lead to what? Obamacare, Masscare, open borders, cap & trade, entitlements, and coming soon to a neighborhood near yours higher taxes. Nope, but having a woman who has fought corruption, followed the Constitution, and fights for we the people, can’t be our president because we are doing so well with the past elitists and highly educated leaders we have trusted. Great thinking–We deserve the road we are following because with your thinking, nothing will change for we the people, but at least we will have another highly educated controlled leader to give us what? What has happened to us that we are so blind not to see that honesty, trust, and common sense must replace what we have been doing for the last 60 years?

mistert1950 on July 15, 2010 at 7:35 PM

Scooter is the ultimate target. Who lives in his head rent free? Not Mitt. Not the Huckster. I wonder why.

a capella on July 15, 2010 at 7:25 PM

THIS.

HornetSting on July 15, 2010 at 7:35 PM

Brian1972 on July 15, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Definitely agree but it’s an issue of perception. “Serious” human being, and all.

Bee on July 15, 2010 at 7:36 PM

So I was right…I was just remembering the wrong poll.

powerpro on July 15, 2010 at 7:28 PM

Do you guys remember 1980? The reason the polls showed it was because the Harris, Gallap and Times polls were bullshit and everyone knew it. Then when Reagan won in a landslide only the press was left standing scratching their heads, everyone else knew the polls were bullshit from the get go. Reagans own polling was dead on accurate, his internals never showed him trailing.

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Sharr on July 15, 2010 at 7:31 PM

It’s possible they do like her but have reservations. That’s a good thing, wouldn’t you agree?

Bee on July 15, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Rightwinger-

I am not the biggest Palin fan but your 25% post is just silly.

CWforFreedom on July 15, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Then when Reagan won in a landslide only the press was left standing scratching their heads, everyone else knew the polls were bullshit from the get go.
lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:37 PM

So, if what you say is true (which is a big “if”), what’s to say that Sarah’s candidacy can’t follow exactly the same path?
IOW, all these polls showing her with unfavorables that are too high or that many think she’s “unelectable” are cr*p and that her support is vastly underrated, underreported and under the MSM’s radar.

Jenfidel on July 15, 2010 at 7:40 PM

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:37 PM

So, now you went from Carter never led by 25 points in the polls, to Carter did lead by 25 points, but “everyone” knew it was bullshit.

It’s a lot easier to just admit you got it wrong, and go on.

Nobody’s perfect.

notropis on July 15, 2010 at 7:42 PM

I posted one article that had Carter over Reagan by 14 points and someone else posted (and I reposted) yet another article showing Carter leading Reagan by 25%.

powerpro on July 15, 2010 at 7:33 PMYou can post bullshit poll after bullshit poll it doesn’t change the fact Reagan was the frontrunner in the election from the start, we all knew it at the time, even the Democrats. Even the polls Kos commissioned look accurate compared to the polling back then. This wasn’t some big mystery, Reagan was a lock to win in 1980, that’s just the way it was.

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:42 PM

That’s a good thing, wouldn’t you agree?

Bee on July 15, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Nope, not really.
Given what we’re suffering here and now in the ObamaNation, coupled with the strong conservative platform that Sarah brings to the table, I’d say that petty “reservations” were irrelevant.
Mitt, Huck, Newt and Pawlenty all come with their major “reservations” already.

Jenfidel on July 15, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Why are these idiots going at Palin like this? Who’s minds are they going to change with these attacks?

They’re just pissing people off like me and make me work extra hard to slime Romney…

LurkerDood on July 15, 2010 at 7:29 PM

I am sure Mitt knew what they were going to say. Using others to slime his opponents is Mitt’s operating style. He doesn’t have the courage to attack them himself.

bw222 on July 15, 2010 at 7:43 PM

This wasn’t some big mystery, Reagan was a lock to win in 1980, that’s just the way it was.

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:42 PM

Did anyone tell Jimmuh Cartuh?

Jenfidel on July 15, 2010 at 7:44 PM

Sharr on July 15, 2010 at 7:31 PM

It’s possible they do like her but have reservations. That’s a good thing, wouldn’t you agree?

Bee on July 15, 2010 at 7:37 PM

I’ve seen it posted as means of deflection whenever the topic of Sarah Palin & a run for the White House arises.

Better to say: I’ll support her if she runs, however I think she should do xy or z. That way you don’t come across as giving a backhanded compliment.

You tend to look more like someone who actually supports her rather than a concern troll more worried about how the media will cope with such a pick.

Sharr on July 15, 2010 at 7:44 PM

You can post bullshit poll after bullshit poll it doesn’t change the fact Reagan was the frontrunner in the election from the start, we all knew it at the time, even the Democrats. Even the polls Kos commissioned look accurate compared to the polling back then. This wasn’t some big mystery, Reagan was a lock to win in 1980, that’s just the way it was.

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:42 PM

So there were no polls that reflected what I said…but there were…

…but “everyone knew” they were crap. Okay.

Enjoy your goalpost moving.

powerpro on July 15, 2010 at 7:44 PM

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:42 PM

Speaking of bullshit, how are you doing tonight? Still claim the natural gas pipeline isn’t going to happen?

bw222 on July 15, 2010 at 7:45 PM

So, if what you say is true (which is a big “if”), what’s to say that Sarah’s candidacy can’t follow exactly the same path?

She can’t because she doesn’t have the following inside the GOP to dominate the election like Reagan did, that’s not saying she can’t win, she just won’t dominate. My problem is people getting their history wrong, there was no doubt in the country that Reagan was going to be elected President in the 1980 election. We all knew it and everyone knew the polling back then was horseshit.

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:46 PM

we all knew it at the time, even the Democrats.

That’s funny, because I had one professor who broke down in tears in front of the class the next day, and another who attempted suicide.

There was a lot of shock and disbelief on the left.

I was there, too, and, strangely enough, my memory corresponds pretty closely to actual reports from the time.

You’ve been given the links; you could re-acquaint yourself with your past.

notropis on July 15, 2010 at 7:48 PM

“She’s not a serious human being.”

I mentioned this in another thread. Thats just such a “well educated” Brooksian thing to say… and by well educated I mean whoever spoke it wasted all those dollars on their schooling to trade in common sense for a piece of paper.

Sharr on July 15, 2010 at 7:48 PM

Definitely agree but it’s an issue of perception. “Serious” human being, and all.

Bee on July 15, 2010 at 7:36 PM

Those perceptions are behind the curve.

Take this for example:

The Charge of Racism: It’s Time to Bury the Divisive Politics of the Past

Tuesday at 8:58pm
I am saddened by the NAACP’s claim that patriotic Americans who stand up for the United States of America’s Constitutional rights are somehow “racists.” The charge that Tea Party Americans judge people by the color of their skin is false, appalling, and is a regressive and diversionary tactic to change the subject at hand.

President Reagan called America’s past racism “a legacy of evil” against which we have seen the long struggle of minority citizens for equal rights. He condemned any sort of racism, as all good and decent people do today. He also called it a “point of pride for all Americans” that as a nation, we have successfully struggled to overcome this evil. Reagan rightly declared that “there is no room for racism, anti-Semitism, or other forms of ethnic and racial hatred in this country,” and he warned that we must never go back to the racism of our past.

That is just the opening two paragraphs, the rest is at the link. She put that up the same night as the NAACP Tea Party resolution passing, within a couple of hours.

It hit the blogs immediately, and was all over the news the next morning. I mean all over every news outlet you can think of, and anyone who talks about what’s on the news outlets.
Then she went on Hannity’s radio show the next afternoon and talked about the same topic, among other things.

There are currently 1,888,810 people singed on as supporters at the Facebook page, and who knows how many just drop by to read what’s new, but are not signed up, like me. This has become a big f’n deal, to quote the VP, and she has done it herself. She is the first one to do this this well. Obama has a Facebook page too, but it’s campaign crap from his lackeys, it is almost never him writing there. This is her, personal. It is working.

Brian1972 on July 15, 2010 at 7:49 PM

So there were no polls that reflected what I said…but there were…

…but “everyone knew” they were crap. Okay.

Enjoy your goalpost moving.

powerpro on July 15, 2010 at 7:44 PM

I’m not moving the goalposts. Everyone knew the major polling was horseshit, that’s just the way it was. There were articles on top of articles after the election on “where did the polling go wrong?”. That was the press, everyone else knew they were wrong from the onset. They would do it again today if they could. The press were more scummy back then.

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:51 PM

She can’t because she doesn’t have the following inside the GOP to dominate the election like Reagan did, that’s not saying she can’t win, she just won’t dominate. My problem is people getting their history wrong, there was no doubt in the country that Reagan was going to be elected President in the 1980 election. We all knew it and everyone knew the polling back then was horseshit.

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:46 PM

Reagan had a following inside the GOP? I wish I could find it but last week I saw a 1978 poll of GOP insiders and had Reagan behind both Ford and Bush41.

Every time I think you can’t say anything dumber, you lower the bar.

bw222 on July 15, 2010 at 7:51 PM

Brian1972 on July 15, 2010 at 7:49 PM

What Palin is doing with Facebook reminds me a bit of what Rush did with AM radio — finding an original use for a medium that no one else had thought of, and using it as a means of getting her message directly to the people.

notropis on July 15, 2010 at 7:52 PM

Speaking of bullshit, how are you doing tonight? Still claim the natural gas pipeline isn’t going to happen?

bw222 on July 15, 2010 at 7:45 PM

It ain’t, open season ends in a couple weeks and that’s the end of it. Not that there was anything to start with.

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:53 PM

This wasn’t some big mystery, Reagan was a lock to win in 1980, that’s just the way it was.

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:42 PM

Spoken like someone who was born in 1993.

Way to not know what you’re talking about sweetandlow

portlandon on July 15, 2010 at 7:54 PM

Because she has a “servant’s heart” and if God and her country call her to public service again and higher office, she will serve.

Jenfidel on July 15, 2010 at 7:26 PM

Jenfidel, the zealot. You sound like those drooling idiots going on and on about Obama back in the day. You live in a weird and naive world Jen. Palin’s about the green, plain and simple, and I don’t blame her one bit.

dakine on July 15, 2010 at 7:55 PM

Reagan had a following inside the GOP? I wish I could find it but last week I saw a 1978 poll of GOP insiders and had Reagan behind both Ford and Bush41.

Every time I think you can’t say anything dumber, you lower the bar.

bw222 on July 15, 2010 at 7:51 PM

How the hell could Reagan be behind Ford and Bush when he damn near knocked Ford out in 76? Reagan was the lock for the nomination in 1980 from the 76 convention on. What did he win, all but 6 state primaries? Ford or Bush never had a chance.

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:57 PM

That’s right, dummy, eat your own before November; then the Dems, our REAL problem will get to retain power, which you seem to want. I will not support or vote for anyone that starts campaigning for 2012 before the November elections.

DL13 on July 15, 2010 at 7:57 PM

I’m not moving the goalposts.

In no time during Carter’s Presidency was Reagan numbers ever close to what powerpro claims.

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM

“Numbers” would be “poll numbers,” I’d assume, since that’s what powerpro’s original reference was about.

notropis on July 15, 2010 at 7:58 PM

Spoken like someone who was born in 1993.

Way to not know what you’re talking about sweetandlow

portlandon on July 15, 2010 at 7:54 PM

Explain it to us how Reagan damn near swept the primaries then went on to a landslide in a general that hasn’t ever been seen before if he was such a long shot? Explain that?

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 8:00 PM

Jenfidel on July 15, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Given those very issues I urge critical thinking. If she’s the woman for the job, she’ll withstand our reservations.

Sharr on July 15, 2010 at 7:44 PM

I’m certainly not a troll!

When McCain picked her, I was cautiously pleased. I had liked her prior to the nomination but hoped she’d not get sullied in a national campaign with someone like Mac before she’d had more experience. (Precisely what happened.) I was definitely disappointed when she resigned as Gov, though.
Regardless, she’s a leader Whether that means POTUS, I’m still debating. I’m watching as things unfold.

Bee on July 15, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Regardless, she’s a leader Whether that means POTUS, I’m still debating. I’m watching as things unfold.

Bee on July 15, 2010 at 8:01 PM

There’s supposed to be a period in there somewhere, I’m sure of it. I blame beer.

Bee on July 15, 2010 at 8:03 PM

“Numbers” would be “poll numbers,” I’d assume, since that’s what powerpro’s original reference was about.

notropis on July 15, 2010 at 7:58 PM

I know but he doesn’t seem to grasp that the numbers were just fabrications of the press, everyone knew it at the time.

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 8:03 PM

a landslide in a general that hasn’t ever been seen before

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 8:00 PM

Or at least since Nixon in ’72, or Johnson in ’64. You might also recall that Reagan also got less than 51% of the popular vote in ’80, despite the Electoral shellacking that he gave Carter.

notropis on July 15, 2010 at 8:04 PM

It ain’t, open season ends in a couple weeks and that’s the end of it. Not that there was anything to start with.

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 7:53 PM

Really? Then what is this about?

Rivals may join to develop gas pipeline from Alaska

By TOM FOWLER Copyright 2010 Houston Chronicle
June 28, 2010, 10:02PM

A BP-ConocoPhillips venture planning to build a huge natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the Lower 48 is in early talks to join a competing project headed by Trans- Canada and Exxon Mobil Corp., according to a source familiar with the projects.

The BP-ConocoPhillips project, known as Denali, would likely be tabled as the two companies team with the TransCanada project, said the source, who is not authorized to discuss the status of the projects and requested anonymity. With a price tag up to $40 billion, it’s long been thought that only one of the projects would be built.

Palin canceled deal

Alaska granted Trans-Canada a license to build the pipeline in January 2008 following a public bidding process initiated by then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. She canceled a pipeline deal that her predecessor had negotiated in closed-door sessions with the three major North Slope producers, Exxon Mobil, BP and ConocoPhillips.

The three producers did not take part in Palin’s state bidding process, saying it did not provide the kind of tax and tariff assurances needed. ConocoPhillips announced its competing project shortly after, and BP joined in that project in April 2008.

Pending federal approval in the U.S. and Canada, construction may start in 2016 and operations begin in 2018.

Brian1972 on July 15, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Bee on July 15, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Always be mindful. They savaged her, not because they figured they were doing us some good, they did it because and continue to do so because they see her as genuine and a threat to their continued power.

McCain lost because he and his staff held back and kept reins on Sarah Palin. They were winning until he thought surrender was a good strategy…

Sharr on July 15, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Given those very issues I urge critical thinking. If she’s the woman for the job, she’ll withstand our reservations.
Bee on July 15, 2010 at 8:01 PM

I never think uncritically, which is why I had no problem voting for her in 2008 and why I completely support her candidacy and her PAC now.

Jenfidel on July 15, 2010 at 8:06 PM

notropis on July 15, 2010 at 8:04 PM

He also had Anderson sponging out a large chunk of votes, even with that he beat Carter by what? Damn near ten percent of the popular if I recall.

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 8:07 PM

She’s not a serious human being.

“Of course you know, this means war.”
–Rufus T. Firefly

Emperor Norton on July 15, 2010 at 8:08 PM

McCain lost because he and his staff held back and kept reins on Sarah Palin. They were winning until he thought surrender was a good strategy…

Sharr on July 15, 2010 at 8:06 PM

I totally agree, Sharr!
I often think that McCain lost the election on purpose.
He didn’t even try to win.
And just when Sarah would get some momentum going, he’d kill it.
It still makes me upset and crazy to remember it!

Jenfidel on July 15, 2010 at 8:08 PM

You clearly haven’t read her FB Notes…

Jenfidel on July 15, 2010 at 7:12 PM

I appreciate the content. However, facebook notes seem…like facebook notes.

Bee on July 15, 2010 at 7:18 PM

Yes, it’s been so ineffective for Sarah. For example, she should never have used facebook to rock the world with laserlike truth – something about “death panels” ….

tigerlily on July 15, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Brian1972 on July 15, 2010 at 8:06 PM

I don’t know if you missed what’s going on with BP but they ain’t doing nothing in Alaska for a good long while.

lowandslow on July 15, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 6