Coulter: For Palin, running for president would be a step down

posted at 7:00 pm on February 14, 2011 by Allahpundit

The sequel to her now-famous assertion at CPAC that if Christie doesn’t jump in, Romney’s nomination and eventual defeat in the general election are a fait accompli. I’m not sure what she means here vis-a-vis Palin, beyond it being a complimentary way to avoid a straight answer on why she thinks Romney is bound to defeat her in the primaries. Running would be a step down because Palin’s so much larger than life that the office isn’t big enough? Or because she can make a lot more bank in the private sector than on a $400,000 presidential salary? Somehow, I think Palinistas will find that unconvincing, especially now that Kos’s pollster has her leading in a new state, namely, New Mexico.

Meanwhile, in the money primary of New Hampshire:

The poll shows 40 percent of likely Republican primary voters would vote for Romney, 10 percent would vote for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, 7 percent favor former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and 7 percent support former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Another 6 percent prefer former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, 6 percent favor 2008 vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, 5 percent support U.S. Rep. and 2008 candidate Ron Paul, 3 percent support businessman Donald Trump, 1 percent favor former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, and 1 percent prefer Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour…

Romney also has the highest favorability ratings of the potential candidates. Currently, 73 percent of likely Republican voters said they have a favorable opinion of him. Romney’s net favorability, the percentage having a favorable opinion minus the percentage of those with an unfavorable opinion, is 57 percent…

The least popular Republicans are Palin at minus-17 percent and Trump at minus-43 percent. Barbour has a net favorability of minus 1 percent, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is at minus-1 percent and former New Mexico Gov Gary Johnson is at minus-5 percent.

Minor surprises: Giuliani in second (distantly) and T-Paw showing a spark of life in the state he’ll be targeting for a Romney upset. Also surprising is Mitch Daniels being completely off the grid. I know his name recognition is low right now, but surely politically active Republicans with their eye on 2012 have heard of him. Especially since New Hampshire’s the state where he’ll be looking to make his mark. Maybe the pollster didn’t include him as an option? I can’t find the crosstabs at the link.

Or maybe Republicans are already realizing that Daniels won’t run. I keep hearing that it’s unlikely both he and Barbour will jump in — they’re good enough friends that it’ll probably be one or the other — and Barbour sure looks like he’s ready. He’s an impressive guy and I have nothing against him, but honestly, I don’t understand the rationale for his candidacy in this cycle of all cycles. The GOP is trying to remake its brand, yes? Tea party, greater diversity, new fiscal responsibility, anti-Beltway, etc. So, the guy we’re going to run for president is … a former RNC chair turned lobbyist from the deep south? Really? I can see him at the bottom of the ticket paired with someone like Romney and Daniels who needs a little vicarious southern cred, but at the top? Really?



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

Just Ann’s spin on the Palin isn’t Running Meme that all of the Smart People are repeating publicly to encourage Palin’s people to start looking elsewhere.

Not happening, Genius.

james23 on February 15, 2011 at 8:35 AM

I think Coulter’s point is that Palin has a unique ability to influence events in the GOP and the nation at large already. She’s already got a bully pulpit on Twitter, in her books, and on the speaking circuit. Why put up with all of the headaches of the WH when she can already speak directly to the American people?

hawksruleva on February 15, 2011 at 8:26 AM

I dont see how the media can make it worse for her.
She has all the media negatives of being a President , while not the power. She’s more critical studied than Obama.

the_nile on February 15, 2011 at 8:41 AM

She was right about McCain…

ladyingray on February 14, 2011 at 7:08 PM

Who wasn’t?

darwin on February 14, 2011 at 7:12 PM

Uh… Sarah Palin.

JohnGalt23 on February 15, 2011 at 8:52 AM

Ann is the Lady Gaga of the Conservative movement in the sense that:

Obvious physical similarities.

Love to make “shocking” statements.

Strong political opinions.

Both had a few Bad Romances.

Strong promoters of homosexual rights.

And does Ann sing by chance…….or play poker?

PappyD61 on February 15, 2011 at 9:02 AM

PappyD61 on February 15, 2011 at 9:02 AM

Ann was hatched from an egg? Hmmmmm

james23 on February 15, 2011 at 9:06 AM

Romney is toast in NH the poll is horse hockey. We all see what he did in Mass. No way he gets elected.

dogsoldier on February 15, 2011 at 9:20 AM

It’s fascinating to watch all the right-wingers twist themselves into knots trying to ignore the fact that NO ONE wants them running this country.

pm123 on February 14, 2011 at 9:18 PM

Signed, The Nov. 2010 Shellacking

fossten on February 15, 2011 at 9:51 AM

Sarah Palin only has to do one thing to win the nomination and that’s to prove she’s a good candidate on her own. If she enters the field, goes to the debates, and wins those debates, she’s a shoe-in.

The media meme has always been to attack her as not a credible candidate, yet everywhere she goes she brings down the house. Of course there’s a difference between a good speech and a good president, which we learned last election. The Democrats will have a hard time playing the experience game, considering who we elected, so that leaves us with the common sense game and we know Sarah has that.

SO, it all boils down to debates and, if she avoids them, she can’t possibly be the nominee. If she’s in them and does well, all bets are off.

bflat879 on February 15, 2011 at 9:53 AM

She was right about McCain…

ladyingray on February 14, 2011 at 7:08 PM

Who wasn’t?

darwin on February 14, 2011 at 7:12 PM

Uh… Sarah Palin.

JohnGalt23 on February 15, 2011 at 8:52 AM

Being hand picked by McCain – Sarah Palin had no choice but to support him. I voted for McCain only because of Palin. — Of course I never vote Democrat and there were few other choices in 2008.

Dasher on February 15, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Ann Coulter said she was “over” Sarah Palin a year and a half ago, so that part of the story doesn’t surprise me. It is odd that she of all people would adopt the “fit the candidate to the electorate” style of argument, since that is classic, unmanly RINOspeak, at least from what I would have thought was the Coulterish perspective. The other irony is that, just on substance, Palin is better situated than anyone to bridge the gap between traditional Republicans and Tea Partiers. Nobody else could as easily tack toward the center without risking a major revolt on the right. But for better or worse, elections aren’t just about substance. Of course, anybody who thinks Palin deliberately tries to polarize, doesn’t remember Barry Goldwater, let alone Harry Truman, let
alone George Wallace… or Barack Obama for that matter. So the anti-Palin line boils down to, oh well, everybody knows she’s poison, so why even bother? Which is an extraordinarily brutal precedent given the actual facts about her. So while Coulter is scarcely obliged to endorse Palin, I wish she’d find a less craven way out.

Seth Halpern on February 15, 2011 at 10:12 AM

I can’t understand why Ann would support someone (Christie) who on at least a half a dozen occasions has told the world he is not running in 2012.

technopeasant on February 15, 2011 at 10:28 AM

So the anti-Palin line boils down to, oh well, everybody knows she’s poison, so why even bother? Which is an extraordinarily brutal precedent given the actual facts about her. So while Coulter is scarcely obliged to endorse Palin, I wish she’d find a less craven way out.

Seth Halpern on February 15, 2011 at 10:12 AM

Then Ann plays into a the liberals game of demonizing conservatives.

the_nile on February 15, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Even before Palin was chosen by McCain, some of us were hoping she’d be the candidate for PREZ. It’s one thing to call her unqualified, clumsy, stupid and all of the other things so many petty punks call her…, but to say so while comparing her to the available Democrap options is surreal and ridiculous.

And what continues to truly puzzle me is the way Liberals get away with the double standards regarding women, homosexuals, and minorities. It’s like being a Republican or even considering the Republicans the lesser of two evils disqualifies one from womanhood, banishes one from his own ethnicity, and / or renders his sexual orientation null and void.

I mean it’s fine that SOME folks are criminally-inclined enough that lying about stuff isn’t any big thing. We should expect that from the lesser beings of society and humanity… But the willingness of so many otherwise sane and basically good people to swallow the bilge is uncanny and unforgivable.

Rugged Individual on February 15, 2011 at 10:31 AM

Ann Coulter said she was “over” Sarah Palin a year and a half ago, so that part of the story doesn’t surprise me. It is odd that she of all people would adopt the “fit the candidate to the electorate” style of argument, since that is classic, unmanly RINOspeak, at least from what I would have thought was the Coulterish perspective. The other irony is that, just on substance, Palin is better situated than anyone to bridge the gap between traditional Republicans and Tea Partiers. Nobody else could as easily tack toward the center without risking a major revolt on the right. But for better or worse, elections aren’t just about substance. Of course, anybody who thinks Palin deliberately tries to polarize, doesn’t remember Barry Goldwater, let alone Harry Truman, let
alone George Wallace… or Barack Obama for that matter. So the anti-Palin line boils down to, oh well, everybody knows she’s poison, so why even bother? Which is an extraordinarily brutal precedent given the actual facts about her. So while Coulter is scarcely obliged to endorse Palin, I wish she’d find a less craven way out.

- Seth Halpern on February 15, 2011 at 10:12 AM

As much as I love Coulter, I couldn’t agree more with this… Palin may be polarizing…, but no more than any other potential candidate who actually wants to bring about improved conditions for every aspect of the entire nation and her people. She may be hated by those who only approve of the weakest possible Republican candidate…, but only until he becomes the only candidate. Sarah might be devout in her faith and determined to hold on to her personal beliefs…, but she’d likely be as pragmatic as any other politician in order to actually accomplish something.

One thing I always count on regarding Conservative candidates is that they understand that, no matter how kind history eventually treats them in the long run, they won’t have the vast majority of lame stream media talking heads rewriting history in their favor, during and immediately following their presidencies. That forces them to be more centrist than Conservative…, causing me to believe that the more polarizing a figure the better. Palin is the ideal candidate and would likely make great cabinet choices, superb judicial nominations, and joint chiefs selections. That’s what matters in the end.

Rugged Individual on February 15, 2011 at 10:54 AM

PappyD61 on February 15, 2011 at 9:02 AM

Ann makes shocking statements because we are in dire times and the fate of our Republic is at stake.

GaGa is just an attention whore.

Thune on February 15, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Bleed is holding his powder dry, but a few things are clear.
1) I have yet to hear anything objectionable from Palin
2) Lots of people, especially liberals, are saying she should not run, or cannot win
3) Christie has some fatal positions that puts him solidly in the RINO category.

Any Conservative who has failed to see the RINOsity of Christie is either not serious, or suffering a seizure of some type.

Bleed_thelizard on February 15, 2011 at 11:10 AM

Palin fans,

What’s your intention should Palin not win a place on the GOP ’12 POTUS/VP ticket?

Would you want Palin to run on another ticket?

And if she declined, what’s the contingency plan should you disagree with the progressive “compassionate” socialist whom Palin might endorse on the R-ticket?

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 11:12 AM

Being hand picked by McCain – Sarah Palin had no choice but to support him.

But she never outgrew her alignment with McCain. The ’08 experience concluded and provided her with the opportunity to make a clean break from endorsement. But Palin has no “that was then, this is now” distinction, choosing to stay stuck within McCain’s open borders agenda. The mutual back scratching society has nothing “rogue” about it.

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Ann makes shocking statements because we are in dire times and the fate of our Republic is at stake.

GaGa is just an attention whore.

Thune on February 15, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Please. Ann has made shocking statements about ever since she discovered that people would pay for deranged rantings if they were politically-oriented and she published them in book form.

Dark-Star on February 15, 2011 at 11:22 AM

I would worry that Chris Cristy might be too accommodating to Muslim demands or too ignorant of the evils of Islam. He did nominate Sohail Mohammad for a Superior Court judgeship in Passaic County, New Jersey, who said

when the government says `Islamic militants,’ it sends a message to the public that Islam and militancy are synonymous. Don’t equate actions with religion.”

http://www.toberight.com/2011/01/chris-christie-ties-to-terrorism-a-closer-look/

This statement is dumb for several reasons. If you study Islam it soon becomes clear that it is an extremely intolerant and warlike religion (google it), so much so that “Islamic militant” is almost redundant. Secondly, Actions clearly can be associated with the religion that encourages them.

Besides, I would not nominate a Muslim for dogcatcher, if only because Muhammad had many dogs killed (esp. black dogs which he thought were of the devil) because the “angel Gabriel” didn’t enter houses with dogs and/or pictures. (Bukhari 4:448) And the “prophet” Muhammad, incredibly, is revered as the perfect example for Muslims (heaven save us!).

Chessplayer on February 15, 2011 at 11:26 AM

In…New Hampshire…The poll shows 40 percent of likely Republican primary voters would vote for Romney, 10 percent would vote for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, 7 percent favor former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and 7 percent support former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Who’s kidding who – New Hampshire republicans, contaminated by neighboring, Massachusets’s socialist imports, leftist Vermont on the West, and liberal GOP Maine on the right, and socialist Candada up north, can hardly be considered conservative anymore. The south-east portion is far left. Free lunch and approved loose morals are a candy hard to resist by little children, particularly when offer by that tall Uncle Sam in the fed, white and blue suit.

Don L on February 15, 2011 at 11:29 AM

Being hand picked by McCain – Sarah Palin had no choice but to support him. I voted for McCain only because of Palin. — Of course I never vote Democrat and there were few other choices in 2008.

Dasher on February 15, 2011 at 9:59 AM

I wasn’t aware that McCain literally forced Sarah Palin to run on the ticket with him.

You-Eh-Vee on February 15, 2011 at 11:37 AM

I wasn’t aware that McCain literally forced Sarah Palin to run on the ticket with him.

You-Eh-Vee on February 15, 2011 at 11:37 AM

No one forced SP to run with McCain. When she decided to say yes, it became her job to support him and his positions. Pretty basic stuff…

joejm65 on February 15, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Coulter is right. Romney will likely lose because many people will see him as too slick, and he has RomneyCare hanging over his head, and he’s refused to distance himself from it or admit it was a mistake.

Ron Paul won’t attract enough centrists or many Democrats, so he would lose.

I like Palin — but she can’t win this time. She has a great record — independent Republican, a reformer, a governor, a self-made woman. But the Media establishment (including the entire entertainment industry) have spent nearly three years savaging her on a daily basis. So for the average voter who doesn’t pay attention until one month before the election, she’s probably too damaged. Maybe 2016 when she’s spent some time reforming her unfairly tarnished image, building her reputation and power base — like Reagan did.

So Christie could do it. He’s got executive experience, has built a reputation as a tough but fair-minded guy who tells it straight up, in stark contrast to our President. He has that star power right now. But will he run?? Don’t know, he may not.

EasyEight on February 15, 2011 at 11:49 AM

No one forced SP to run with McCain. When she decided to say yes, it became her job to support him and his positions. Pretty basic stuff…

joejm65 on February 15, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Exactly my point…

You-Eh-Vee on February 15, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Coulter: For Palin, running for president would be a step down

-
Love how she looks at the camera, smiles, and almost nods after she says it… She should’a winked.

RalphyBoy on February 15, 2011 at 12:28 PM

No one forced SP to run with McCain. When she decided to say yes, it became her job to support him and his positions. Pretty basic stuff…

joejm65 on February 15, 2011 at 11:46 AM

-
Thank God she took the job… Otherwise most people would still be saying Sarah who? Mac was running/going to lose anyway? The fix was in like nevr before in my life time… She is the only good news that came out of the 2008 election cycle. Fact.
-

RalphyBoy on February 15, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Romney probably has the lowest unfavorable rating, and is yet the least known, despite his last bid where he was erased by media working with the McCain/Establisnment end-run. Romney presented himself fairly well in the last election. His biggest problem is this time around, the electorate has changed

That is Coulter’s problem as she works the crowd trying to smooth over waves she helped create. She is not talking to the choir any more. Whether she can get her groove back time will tell. The crowd is looking for evidence of un-trustworthiness, and evidence is being held close to the heart.

The public, the unwashed is going broke and they know this election will be all, or nothing. There is a visceral hatred of all elites, and anyone who can afford to fill their gas tank.

Tell the public what to think, or whom to worship at your own peril

That is why Palin is anything but dead

entagor on February 15, 2011 at 12:38 PM

I dearly love Palin, but Ann is right – she is more effective doing what she is doing, just as Rush is. The media circus would never allow real issues to be debated – and even if she was able to win, the forces that drove her out of the governor’s mansion would do the same to her in the White House.

Queen0fCups on February 15, 2011 at 12:48 PM

and even if she was able to win, the forces that drove her out of the governor’s mansion would do the same to her in the White House.

Queen0fCups on February 15, 2011 at 12:48 PM

-
Different playing field, with different rules. IF she were to get in the WH… there’d be far more legal cover for the person Sarah Palin… But you’re right that her presidency would receive a steady barrage of crap from the other side. Perhaps making the GWB years look like an extended lovers spat.
-

RalphyBoy on February 15, 2011 at 1:00 PM

In all my years in politics, no one ever told me they voted for a Vice-Presidential candidate … until 2008. After that election, everyone I spoke and communicated with told me that the only reason they voted for McCain was because of Palin. I have yet for someone to tell me that they voted for McCain because of McCain. Think about that because it is an important bit of information.

No one ever told me they voted for Nixon because of Agnew, or Ford because of Dole, or Reagan because of Bush, or Bush because of Quayle, or Dole because of Kemp, or Bush II because of Cheney – as a matter of fact, very few people can even name Vice-Presidential candidates, especially in losing races.

Palin is the exception to the rule and those who write off her popularity with those who will actually vote either do not listen or choose not to hear what these people are trying to tell us.

So for those who use the meme; “I like her but she can’t win” – I say; If you believe that, you have nothing to fear by her candidacy, unless you fear being proved wrong.

I support Palin because I agree with Palin and the last time I had the opportunity to vote for someone I agreed with was Reagan. And yes, I too voted for McCain because of Palin and I had never done that before either. And if she can get to this cynical pol I have no doubt that she can get the votes she needs to win.

Done That on February 15, 2011 at 1:07 PM

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 11:12 AM

It depends how the primaries work out. If the candidates are smart, they will not demean her intelligence or dismiss her as irrelevant, and I will be happy to vote for the primary winner. If half the candidates plus Rove, Kraut et al decide they need to put her down personally in order to beat her, sitting home or voting third party in protest will look more attractive.

alwaysfiredup on February 15, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Coulter doesn’t want Palin to run, but she also doesn’t want to say anything negative about her. Coulter’s choice in 2008 was Duncan Hunter. Next.

Basilsbest on February 15, 2011 at 1:23 PM

FYI: The taxslayer ad is killing my computer. I hate flash. AllahP please make them stop!

alwaysfiredup on February 15, 2011 at 1:40 PM

It is a complete waste of time drawing conclusions based on very small percentages from unrealistic pairings in a straw (horse) poll!!

I’d bet that if there was a properly-calculated standard deviation for this poll it would greatly exceed the spread between candidates: proving that the poll signifies NOTHING.

landlines on February 15, 2011 at 2:12 PM

OK Allah. Now keep milking this Palin thread, then do a Ron Paul thread.
Then an abortion thread.
What fun!

Badger40 on February 15, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Coulter doesn’t want Palin to run, but she also doesn’t want to say anything negative about her. Coulter’s choice in 2008 was Duncan Hunter. Next.

Basilsbest on February 15, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Considering who won the Republican nomination, and considering who won the presidency, was that a bad choice? I don’t get what you’re saying here.

JSGreg3 on February 15, 2011 at 3:22 PM

OK Allah. Now keep milking this Palin thread, then do a Ron Paul thread.
Then an abortion thread.
What fun!

Badger40 on February 15, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Yet, here you are.

If you want to cry, please go in the corner.

You-Eh-Vee on February 15, 2011 at 3:25 PM

OK Allah. Now keep milking this Palin thread, then do a Ron Paul thread.
Then an abortion thread.
What fun!

Badger40 on February 15, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Gotta add a gay marriage thread too. Clickapalooza!

alwaysfiredup on February 15, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Also surprising is Mitch Daniels being completely off the grid. I know his name recognition is low right now, but surely politically active Republicans with their eye on 2012 have heard of him. Especially since New Hampshire’s the state where he’ll be looking to make his mark. Maybe the pollster didn’t include him as an option? I can’t find the crosstabs at the link.

LOL! Yeah, that’s it. I am sure the pollsters somehow “forgot” to include him.

Please stop pretending Mitch Daniels will a serious contender. He will never get above 1% in any primary outside of perhaps Indiana. It’s just a pipe-dream in David Brooks’ demented mind.

Norwegian on February 15, 2011 at 4:06 PM

IMO Ron Paul CAN be elected. The man is brilliant, good name recognition, charismatic (as opposed to a disgustingly fat Christi) and a believably honest man one can trust to keep promises (unlike the Obamanation and a number of Republicans – like McCain). I even disagree with him on a number of points but I’d still vote for him.

Chessplayer on February 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM

I dearly love Palin, but Ann is right – she is more effective doing what she is doing, just as Rush is. The media circus would never allow real issues to be debated – and even if she was able to win, the forces that drove her out of the governor’s mansion would do the same to her in the White House.

Queen0fCups on February 15, 2011 at 12:48 PM

The forces that drove her out of the governor’s mansion were operating under a completely different set of rules than they would be if she were president. The only way to deal with a sitting president’s ethics violations is impeachment. It is impossible, under current federal jurisprudence, to bankrupt a president by filing false ethics complaints. They must be dealt with by congress, and would necessarily go nowhere.

At the time Palin was dealing with this ethics tripe, there was no way for an Alaskan governor to defend him- or herself from scurrilous ethics charges. The law in this regard has been changed to the governorship’s benefit,. It is also worth noting that Sean Parnell, Palin’s Lieutennant governor, was re-elected in an overwhelming landslide last year due in large part to Alaskans’ knowledge that those ethics charges were scurrilous and filed with malice.

The old “she was forced from office and she’ll be forced from the presidency” dog doesn’t hunt with anyone who has half-an-earthly clue about what really happened.

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 4:24 PM

IMO Ron Paul CAN be elected. The man is brilliant, good name recognition, charismatic (as opposed to a disgustingly fat Christi) and a believably honest man one can trust to keep promises (unlike the Obamanation and a number of Republicans – like McCain). I even disagree with him on a number of points but I’d still vote for him.

Chessplayer on February 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Trading principles for electability, baby! Buckle your seatbelts, we’re going to Abilene!

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Uh… Sarah Palin.

JohnGalt23 on February 15, 2011 at 8:52 AM

Running mates don’t pick their presidential nominees, moron. It’s the other way around. Can you imagine the media sh!tstorm if Palin had refused?

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 4:27 PM

Being hand picked by McCain – Sarah Palin had no choice but to support him.

But she never outgrew her alignment with McCain. The ’08 experience concluded and provided her with the opportunity to make a clean break from endorsement. But Palin has no “that was then, this is now” distinction, choosing to stay stuck within McCain’s open borders agenda. The mutual back scratching society has nothing “rogue” about it.

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Groan… non-issue.

McCain brought her onto the national stage. If she did a “clean break”, it would have been disaster. She’d be calculating. If she said no from the start, she wouldn’t be on the national stage.

MrX on February 15, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Running mates don’t pick their presidential nominees, moron. It’s the other way around. Can you imagine the media sh!tstorm if Palin had refused?

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 4:27 PM

Absolute nonsense.

Sarah Palin joined McCain’s ticket because she believed they could win. She could have easily turned down the invitation in private if she didn’t believe in what he stood for.

Instead, she ran with him, defended his policies to the bitter end, and ultimately lost the race. It’s utterly ridiculous and disingenuous to walk away from the race, wipe your hands, and say “well, I had to defend him, because he was my running mate, but really I disagree with almost everything he stands for”.

You-Eh-Vee on February 15, 2011 at 4:40 PM

MrX, Amnesty for Illegal Aliens, comprehensive immigration reform package providing tax funded benefits BY LAW, instead of merely by policy, to the new “citizens” IS NOT A GROAN NON-ISSUE.

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Instead, she ran with him, defended his policies to the bitter end, and ultimately lost the race. It’s utterly ridiculous and disingenuous to walk away from the race, wipe your hands, and say “well, I had to defend him, because he was my running mate, but really I disagree with almost everything he stands for”.

You-Eh-Vee on February 15, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Hoo boy…if you think that sort of disingenuousness is unique to any campaign, or even rare, you don’t follow politics much. If it were any other veep candidate, I’d agree, but this is Sarah Palin we’re talking about. There would have indeed been a sh!tstorm, and no way she could have kept HER refusal secret, had it happened.

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 4:48 PM

…Palin has no “that was then, this is now” distinction, choosing to stay stuck within McCain’s open borders agenda. The mutual back scratching society has nothing “rogue” about it.

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Just who are you supporting, anyway?

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Were Palin not to win the GOP POTUS ’12 ticket, what would her biggest fans do should they disapprove of whom Palin might endorse?

And would her biggest fans encourage her to run, but on another ’12 ticket than GOP?

Palin will yet face severe criticism for her lack of foresight and poor judgment, despite her best intentions, inviting Levi Johnson to live in their home before the pregnancy took place, providing him free reign on the honor system when the point of his needing another place to live was due to his developing behavioral problems living with a mother on drugs at his own home. It isn’t that Palin didn’t learn from her poor parenting decisions. But there is a public advertising problem convincing American voters that Palin thinks clearly and practices wisdom while processing decisions. Common sense tells any parent of a teen girl that inviting a handsome and sexually active teen boy into the home to live and sleep is inviting trouble.

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Ann turns 50 in December and is probably reflecting on her life and what might have been. Ann has degrees from Cornell and Michigan. Sarah Palin has a degree from Idaho. Ann is probably thinking: “I am better than her. How come she has it all: a husband who is a hunk, a family, former mayor, governor, VP candidate, TV producer and now she’s a king-maker and possible Presidential candidate.”

Ann’s romantic experiences have pretty much been limited to left-wing losers. Perhaps Ann realizes what Sarah has that she deosn’t and iut hurts.

bw222 on February 15, 2011 at 4:55 PM

Just who are you supporting, anyway?

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Timing is yet premature. And the jury’s still out.

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 4:55 PM

bw222 on February 15, 2011 at 4:55 PM

I doubt that’s the case, btw.

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Were Palin not to win the GOP POTUS ’12 ticket, what would her biggest fans do should they disapprove of whom Palin might endorse?

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Maybe they could be as snarky and b1tchy as the anti-Palin types are now. The “Palinistas” have earned the right, and they’ll light into any candidate they don’t like.

ddrintn on February 15, 2011 at 5:00 PM

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Trying to spread rumors I see, we’ll find your candidate….

the_nile on February 15, 2011 at 5:01 PM

You-Eh-Vee on February 15, 2011 at 4:40 PM

You have a selective memory. What do you think all the flack about “Mavericky” was about after the GOP Convention? Why “Going Rogue” after the electoral loss? The establishment called her in and made her offers she chose not to refuse.

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Were Palin not to win the GOP POTUS ’12 ticket, what would her biggest fans do should they disapprove of whom Palin might endorse?

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 4:53 PM

I am voting for my favored candidate because she aligns most closely with my views, beliefs, and principles. If Palin does not run, or drops out before the primaries roll around to my state, then the remaining candidate that best exemplifies my views, beliefs, and principles will get my primary vote. Considering Herman Cain is the only presumptive nominee who has floated an exploratory committee, it’s still early, but I’ve been thinking about that very question myself in the last couple of weeks.

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:02 PM

You have a selective memory. What do you think all the flack about “Mavericky” was about after the GOP Convention? Why “Going Rogue” after the electoral loss? The establishment called her in and made her offers she chose not to refuse.

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Now that you’ve as good as called Sarah Palin a sell-out, I trust you’ll be voting for your favored candidate in the primary, as will I. And may the best former Alaskan governor win.

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:03 PM

I’ve said it before, and it bears repeating:

I don’t pick my candidate based on image, or whatever anyone else thinks of a candidate’s image. My biggest fear is that we’ll all end up in Abilene while Obama destroys the country from D.C.

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:06 PM

In the last election Palin was obviously more qualified to be president than Obama. Two years later that is still the case. She has executive experience. He has community organizer experience and he hasn’t learned anything in his two years in office. This is not saying I want Palin for the republican candidate. If there is someone better out there we will take him.

duff65 on February 15, 2011 at 5:08 PM

the_nile on February 15, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Just get a grip on reality, and quit kneejerking like big titty babies. It isn’t as if Palin and her supporters are going to enjoy smooth sailing onto either end of the ’12 GOP POTUS/VP ticket. Likely, Republican primary opponents won’t bring up her dirty laundry. That doesn’t alter the point that solid criticisms still face Palin. Throwing temper tantrums or name calling on Palin’s behalf will not win over those who doubt Palin’s credibility. And the Democrats haven’t even begun to attack Palin, as if things couldn’t get any worse than ’08. So grow a pair and admit where there’s yet a weak link in her campaign so as to help her mend it, if possible, sooner than later. Grow up.

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 5:10 PM

Hoo boy…if you think that sort of disingenuousness is unique to any campaign, or even rare, you don’t follow politics much. If it were any other veep candidate, I’d agree, but this is Sarah Palin we’re talking about. There would have indeed been a sh!tstorm, and no way she could have kept HER refusal secret, had it happened.

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Spare me.

Just because it happens in politics, doesn’t make it right. And no, there wouldn’t have been a shitstorm because Sarah Palin was a relative nobody at that time.

At the end of the day, she saw an opportunity, and took it.

You-Eh-Vee on February 15, 2011 at 5:15 PM

So grow a pair and admit where there’s yet a weak link in her campaign so as to help her mend it, if possible, sooner than later. Grow up.

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 5:10 PM

There’s a weak link in every Republican’s campaign. For Mitch Daniels, it’s his opposition to Right-to-work. For Huck, it’s the blood he has on his hands after releasing a convicted killer to kill again. For Romney, it’s what we call “Romneycare.” The list goes on and on and on, and given that you admitted you haven’t picked a candidate yet, all your carping about Palin’s “weak link” seems a little disingenuous to me.

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:16 PM

You have a selective memory. What do you think all the flack about “Mavericky” was about after the GOP Convention? Why “Going Rogue” after the electoral loss? The establishment called her in and made her offers she chose not to refuse.

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 5:01 PM

I honestly don’t know what your point is. Could you clarify?

You-Eh-Vee on February 15, 2011 at 5:16 PM

At the end of the day, she saw an opportunity, and took it.

You-Eh-Vee on February 15, 2011 at 5:15 PM

Last time I checked, that’s a feature not a bug (for a conservative).

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:16 PM

Last time I checked, that’s a feature not a bug (for a conservative).

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:16 PM

The problem isn’t embracing the opportunity, the problem is doing a total 180 on every almost every principle you campaigned on just to get the spotlight, (because it wasn’t there in the first place) pump about a few books about ‘rogueness’ and earn a reality show.

I think it’s tacky and dishonest, and is one of the many, many reasons I’ll never vote for her.

You-Eh-Vee on February 15, 2011 at 5:20 PM

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:03 PM

I certainly won’t be voting for another Islamic PC nation building never-ending interventionist with mutant results wars candidate. Nor will I support any candidate that refuses to secure our Borders and interior from organized crime that includes Mexican Cartels with armed fortresses built above Tucson and militia shooting at US Law Enforcement Officers as well as killing US citizens in their US property homes. I will support the most stringent fiscal conservative whose record upholds the integrity of our Constitutional Republic rather than the progressive who enables and strengthens authoritarianism. Given a choice of two candidates that stand on that constitutional conservative platform, I’d support the one with the strongest powers of presence when facing adversaries, not simply the one who coddles allies or fans.

So, where’s Palin?

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 5:22 PM

So, where’s Palin?

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 5:22 PM

???

darwin on February 15, 2011 at 5:24 PM

I think it’s tacky and dishonest, and is one of the many, many reasons I’ll never vote for her.

You-Eh-Vee on February 15, 2011 at 5:20 PM

And I think you are wrong. Period. Do you have a favored candidate yet? Or are you just trusting the primary voters to figure it out without you?

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:29 PM

I think it’s tacky and dishonest, and is one of the many, many reasons I’ll never vote for her.

You-Eh-Vee on February 15, 2011 at 5:20 PM

When did she ever change her principles? What are you talking about? She has been the most consistent politician in my memory since Reagen.

duff65 on February 15, 2011 at 5:29 PM

So, where’s Palin?

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 5:22 PM

How about you find a candidate that meets all those criteria and then get back to me? I’m going with the person who comes closest.

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:30 PM

When did she ever change her principles? What are you talking about? She has been the most consistent politician in my memory since Reagen.

duff65 on February 15, 2011 at 5:29 PM

There are a few, a distinct minority IMNSHO, who believe that Palin was is and forever will be tainted by her association with John McCain.

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:31 PM

Palin’s “weak link” seems a little disingenuous to me.

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:16 PM

But of course it seems so to you. You refuse to recognize difficulties as they exist, eschewing the discomfort knowledge sometimes presents. Calling me disingenuous illustrates another level of immaturity, emoting where logic was the point of rational discussion.

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 5:33 PM

I’m going with the person who comes closest.

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:30 PM

Then be so good as to state how it is that Palin comes closest, as you would expect others to follow your thoughts.

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 5:35 PM

But of course it seems so to you. You refuse to recognize difficulties as they exist, eschewing the discomfort knowledge sometimes presents. Calling me disingenuous illustrates another level of immaturity, emoting where logic was the point of rational discussion.

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 5:33 PM

“Disingenuous” is emoting? Dude, I’m well aware of Palin’s problems. Compared to the other candidates’ problems, they are of little consequence to me. I’m not so closed-minded as to think that Palin will win, or even will secure the nomination before she’s started. I just think she’s the best fit for my personal beliefs. Not the only candidate I can vote for without holding my nose, just the first candidate I would vote for.

I’ve been quite rational in defending my primary vote for Palin…presumptively. For a variety of reasons, it may not even happen the way I am planning, but regardless, Palin doesn’t need me to defend her. I have my reasons for supporting her, and it is those reasons that I am defending.

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:37 PM

You-Eh-Vee on February 15, 2011 at 4:40 PM

I misunderstood. Thanks.

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Likely, Republican primary opponents won’t bring up her dirty laundry.

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 5:10 PM

She doesn’t really have any that hasn’t already been done to death. The thing is, neither Romney nor Huckabee have been under anything NEAR comparable scrutiny. Let’s see how they hold up.

ddrintn on February 15, 2011 at 5:39 PM

I have my reasons for supporting her, and it is those reasons that I am defending.

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Chicken. You called me disingenuous because you chose ignorance. Go figure.

No more here. You can only lead a horse to water.

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 5:39 PM

Then be so good as to state how it is that Palin comes closest, as you would expect others to follow your thoughts.

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 5:35 PM

No, I don’t expect others to follow my thoughts. There is no requirement for anyone to understand why I think the way I do, and I am under no obligation to make or convince anyone to understand. I don’t think it’s a wise decision to tear down any individual candidate before you decide who it is you *are* going to support, but plenty of people here don’t define wisdom in the same way I do. That’s also just fine.

That being said, my two overriding concerns are freedom and safety. I have picked the candidate whom I believe best addresses those issues, and I have planned far enough ahead to have a contingency for if she drops out or doesn’t run. That’s plenty rational considering that Herman Cain’s hat it the only one in the ring so far.

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Chicken. You called me disingenuous because you chose ignorance. Go figure.

No more here. You can only lead a horse to water.

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 5:39 PM

I chose ignorance? Says the guy who told me it’s too early to pick a candidate yet? Pot, meet kettle.

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Throwing temper tantrums or name calling on Palin’s behalf will not win over those who doubt Palin’s credibility. And the Democrats haven’t even begun to attack Palin…

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 5:10 PM

You have got to be friggin’ KIDDING me. Attacking Palin has been their favorite pastime for over 2 years now. It’s Romney, Huckabee, Daniels and Pawlenty who haven’t even been touched yet. But that time will come.

ddrintn on February 15, 2011 at 5:43 PM

She doesn’t really have any that hasn’t already been done to death. The thing is, neither Romney nor Huckabee have been under anything NEAR comparable scrutiny. Let’s see how they hold up.

ddrintn on February 15, 2011 at 5:39 PM

Romney has the federally-funded “Romneycare” albatross around his neck, and I don’t think it’s hyperbolic at all to say that Huck has blood on his hands. I cringe to think of the ass probing the entire Republican party is in for if we nominate one of those guys.

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:44 PM

I cringe to think of the ass probing the entire Republican party is in for if we nominate one of those guys.

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Well we can stand back and say “told ya sooooo….”

ddrintn on February 15, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Well we can stand back and say “told ya sooooo….”

ddrintn on February 15, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Naw. I don’t take joy in that kind of thing. I’d rather do it right the first time. I had enough of the “win by losing” strategy in 2008.

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Naw. I don’t take joy in that kind of thing.

I do.

I’d rather do it right the first time. I had enough of the “win by losing” strategy in 2008.

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Get ready for it again. I’ve always thought that 2016 will be Palin’s year. It’ll take one more embarrassing shellacking to quit relying on Politico and the NYT to choose our candidate for us.

ddrintn on February 15, 2011 at 5:48 PM

Get ready for it again. I’ve always thought that 2016 will be Palin’s year. It’ll take one more embarrassing shellacking to quit relying on Politico and the NYT to choose our candidate for us.

ddrintn on February 15, 2011 at 5:48 PM

You could be right. Maybe 2012 will end up having more in common with 1976 than 1980…

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:50 PM

You could be right. Maybe 2012 will end up having more in common with 1976 than 1980…

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:50 PM

Well, I’ve also always felt that J. R. Dunn is going to be shown to be a prophet yet:

Democracies never stop halfway, no matter what it is: good or bad, intelligent or stupid, harmful or beneficial, they have to go the whole route before at last changing course. The U.S. could not abandon Great Society liberalism in 1976, it had to wait until 1980. The UK could not put aside postwar Labour policies until they were ground down to the last (the Brits went so far as to elect Harold Wilson to two nonconsecutive terms — something similar to re-electing Jimmy Carter in 1984. Talk about desperation moves!)

While that process unfolded, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan served long apprenticeships, learning all they had to know. Sarah Palin is embarking on the same course now.

Sarah Palin is not ready, they insist. It’s just as apt to say that we — the GOP, the conservative establishment, the country — are not ready for her. An electorate will always fall for the professional pol, slick, convincing, and empty, before turning in desperation to the truly human candidate. But the time will come.

In a few years her children will be settled, she will no longer have hostages to fortune, and the laughter will have long died away. That is when the lady will start shuffling the cards. We will all have further opportunity to wonder what Sarah Palin is up to.

ddrintn on February 15, 2011 at 6:08 PM

ddrintn on February 15, 2011 at 6:08 PM

It sucks hating someone cause you agree with them. And right now, I hate J.R. Dunn and it sucks.

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 7:17 PM

I didn’t see you over in the Barbour thread. You know, the one about him LOBBYING for Mexico to get an amnesty bill passed!

All you do is troll Palin threads with hate, lies, and stupidity. Go back to Kos where you belong.

gary4205 on February 14, 2011 at 9:01 PM

I posted 17 times in 101 comments on that thread, you worthless, lying SOB.

You know that, and you know I’m not a left winger and never have been anything within a hundred miles of one, and you know I post Palin’s quotes, and nothing more.

So you’re nothing but a miserable, $%^# *()*()(* lying SOB.

rightwingyahooo on February 15, 2011 at 7:37 PM

oh no, ^look who’s off his meds again. Get help.

james23 on February 15, 2011 at 10:07 PM

The campaign and debates will reveal who the real Jedi is.

I like Palin’s chances ;)

HondaV65 on February 15, 2011 at 10:26 PM

You could be right. Maybe 2012 will end up having more in common with 1976 than 1980…

gryphon202 on February 15, 2011 at 5:50 PM

Don’t elect a Republican if he / she can’t do what’s necessary to save the nation. If you elect a “Progressive – Lite” RINO then this nation will go under on his watch – and if it does, the GOP will be blamed for it and we’ll have a generation of Socialism in reaction to that.

This is absolutely critical – we have to elect an outsider and it has to be someone who will fight – not compromise.

HondaV65 on February 15, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Then why is Palin referring to “immigration reform that we are going to have to offer”?

The truth is, most times, she looks like she’s the only one fighting.

But she’s wrong on immigration, and that is huge.

T-paw, on the other hand, is not exciting, but he seems to have more principle on this critical issue.

Anything can be undone, except amnesty.

oh no, ^look who’s off his meds again. Get help.

james23 on February 15, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Please do not address me again, here or anywhere else.

rightwingyahooo on February 15, 2011 at 10:39 PM

If you elect a “Progressive – Lite” RINO then this nation will go under on his watch – and if it does, the GOP will be blamed for it and we’ll have a generation of Socialism in reaction to that.

I agree with this, but some would say it’s already happened, and Bush was the R who RINOed us into the grave, and Obama is the one just nailing the coffin lid shut.

rightwingyahooo on February 15, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Honda, do you consider yourself a Palinista? May I ask you a question in order to observe your reaction and compare it to the other Palinistas on this blog?

rightwingyahooo on February 15, 2011 at 10:41 PM

Honda, btw, nice blog, thanks for you service to the nation.

rightwingyahooo on February 15, 2011 at 10:49 PM

I wish Allen West was running for president. He is a leader, not just a politician. As far as I know he didn’t grow up with a silver spoon in his mouth.

deewhybee on February 15, 2011 at 11:57 PM

This is absolutely critical – we have to elect an outsider and it has to be someone who will fight – not compromise.

HondaV65 on February 15, 2011 at 10:30 PM

I hear ya. It is my intention to do what I feel is right, and to hell with anyone else’s opinions. My pessimism is growing as my optimism shrinks, but if my vote is a wasted one, at least I’ll know that I didn’t contribute to the handbasket we’ll be carried to hell in.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2011 at 12:00 AM

I wish Allen West was running for president. He is a leader, not just a politician. As far as I know he didn’t grow up with a silver spoon in his mouth.

deewhybee on February 15, 2011 at 11:57 PM

Allen West is a guy I could vote for proudly and without reservation. Although he is not my first pick, he is in the top three.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2011 at 12:01 AM

So, where’s Palin?

maverick muse on February 15, 2011 at 5:22 PM

I don’t know. It’s a policy area she has said very little about. That will have to change if she gets in the race, obviously.

alwaysfiredup on February 16, 2011 at 12:59 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4