Sarah Palin: “It’s not too late for folks to jump in”

posted at 4:45 pm on December 20, 2011 by Tina Korbe

In an interview with Eric Bolling on “Follow the Money” last night, Sarah Palin re-invited conjecture about you know what. The Iowa caucuses are just two weeks away, but “it’s not to late for folks to jump in” the GOP presidential race, Palin said.

“Who knows what will happen in the future?” she asked.

Hers isn’t the only “ghost of a candidate past” to haunt the race. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush also recently stoked speculation about a possible candidacy with an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal. The op-ed — “Capitalism and the Right to Rise” — reads like “a campaign-like economic manifesto,” as Byron York put it.

But while Bush emphatically reiterates he won’t run, Palin doesn’t repeat her one-time announcement that she’ll stay out, making it infinitely more fun to resume speculation about Sarah than about Jeb. Still, even after the impartial consideration of curiosity-arousing statements from non-candidates, it’s easy to conclude, as York does, that GOP discontent with the present field — rather than any true intention to run on the part of Palin, Bush, Christie, Ryan or the rest of ‘em — fuels the irrepressible buzz about them.

Likely, the GOP nominee will come from the current crop of candidates — and, really, we could do worse. Remember the guy we fielded last time? Romney was popularly believed to be to the right of him. So, we can’t possibly nominate as poorly as we did in 2008. The Tea Party has made a difference in the presidential nominating process, after all.

Meantime, I just can’t wait for the Tim Tebow ticket in 2024. If you thought a Sarah Palin presidential run would be controversial …

In the same “Follow the Money” interview, Palin declares her pride in Tebow and positively proclaims herself to be on “Team Tebow.” I gotta say: I’m with Bolling and Palin on this. The Christian mission is full of creative tension. Called to share our faith, but also to avoid hypocrisy and displays of self-righteousness, we rarely get the balance just right — and, yes, that is understandably a scandal to non-Christians – but I can think of just one word to describe faulting a guy for trying to be faithful to his vocation: petty.


P.S. Totally superficial, but I love that crystal-trimmed coffee cup of Palin’s! It’s just to the right in the video. Cute, cute!


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 4 5 6

If you want a wimp who is going to be hestitant to criticize Obama, Romney’s your guy. He’s made that crystal clear. In a sane world, it would mean the end of his bid.

Dr. Tesla on December 20, 2011 at 7:03 PM

Right on right on right on!!

What a sad state of affaris! We have a wimp as a frontrunner, a Progressive challenger in Newt, and a Blame America First crackpot threatening to win Iowa!

LevinFan on December 20, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Oh no,

Tom’s in for it now.

Dr. Tesla on December 20, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Short of Sarah Saving Us ™, I’ve come to acceptance that Mittens is the only chance to get rid of the Evil 0.

We Can’t Wait ’till 2013…everything 0 has done has delayed-detonation dates in 2013 and beyond. They KNEW they’d never get re-elected by killing Keystone, implementing 0care, and don’t they still have a few hundred billion of “stimulus” fund to pork-barrel into 2013-2014?

It’s so obvious to everyone except the MSM and related commies…whenever you see a policy with a start-date after 2012, red flags should go up.

Who is John Galt on December 20, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Palin isn’t running. That’s disappointing, but that’s her right. If she changes her mind, I’ll happily vote for her, but I don’t expect that she’ll jump in.

I count myself as a Palinista, but I adapted to her not running a hell of a lot better than the haters. All Palin did is say something vague that COULD be interpreted as her thinking about jumping in, and the usual suspects are freaking out.

Aitch748 on December 20, 2011 at 8:09 PM

I live in Texas and we got jobs,a balanced budget,revenues back to 2008 levels & a surplus…So it was easy for me.

Gig Em’
Perry 2012

workingclass artist on December 20, 2011 at 7:06 PM

And you have all those illegals getting an in state tuition discount at taxpayers expense, to the tune of $33.6 M !

Some of you may remember gary4205, my all time favorite hotair commenter:

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/reminder-in-rick-perrys-texas-illegals-are-awarded-more-than-33-6-million-in-state-and-institutional-financial-aid-for-college/

LevinFan on December 20, 2011 at 8:15 PM

So, I just went through over 500 comments to see if was here and not a one! I am crushed.
I loved to read her comments and analysis. I enjoyed her, as I was a Palin supporter. I wanted her with NEWT, as a VP. I didn’t want him driving, since his eyes leave the road too often. (But, he would be there for advice, and would be 15 trillion times better than that plagiarizing pindeck Biteme, that Jugears picked for his dead brain cells.)
I miss you !
I think Palin turned into a political ‘pundit’ teaser, (and I had to use ‘pundit’ there). She has to be careful with this teasing or the rest of us will be throwing our political viagra and cialis away!

KOOLAID2 on December 20, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Dr Evil on December 20, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Agreed.
I think it’s just more of the “Screw the establishment rules” attitude than some thoughtful posturing. That attitude of hers that made me a ‘Nista.
… but Palin isn’t running, and Romney’s almost certainly going to be the nominee.
Axe on December 20, 2011 at 6:10 PM

I can’t agree with you that a Romney nomination is “almost certain.”

But what you said about Sarah’s “Screw the establishment rules” attitude is right-on, and what you said about her attitude drawing you into being a ‘Nista (cool abreviation) speaks for me as well.
I believe that is what draws most of her supporters to her.
Unfortunately, she has very few supporters, according to a very reliable and credible authority who posted earlier on this thread. I believe what the affore mentioned authority stated, was that “Sarah had zero influence.”
Well, when such an esteemed authority posts something like that, it must be true. Right? : )

listens2glenn on December 20, 2011 at 8:24 PM

I remember gary4205. He was “off the chain” as the youngsters say. But he was also far too often unhinged. (I still liked reading more than half his comments.)

John Hitchcock on December 20, 2011 at 8:25 PM

John Hitchcock on December 20, 2011 at 8:25 PM

Gary would jump down people’s throats a lot, but he also provided a lot of information in his posts.

I think it was people’s reactions to Gary that got the ball rolling among some people around here that Palinistas were supposed to be such fanatics that it reflected badly on Sarah Palin — an idea that reached its most extreme variation when Southernblogger decided to announce that the fanaticism of Palin supporters was worse than the fanaticism of Nazi Germany.

I half suspect that if many in the GOP will move mountains to deny Gingrich the nomination, it may be because Gingrich didn’t take any crap as Speaker of the House and managed to pass a balanced budget despite the corruptocrat Republicans. Certainly the reaction of many GOP pundits to Gingrich is pretty similar to the reaction of many people around here some months back to Palin supporters.

I’m just musing here. :)

Aitch748 on December 20, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Personally I do not see her jumping in at this point. Given that she has already said she’s not running it would look foolish for her to do so now. But then again, she has always done things on her own terms so who knows? I’m just not seeing it though.

ak moose stew on December 20, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Unseen?
I miss you.
Went through over 500 comments and you we not here!

KOOLAID2 on December 20, 2011 at 8:40 PM

aitch, I have major issues with Gingrich as you’ve already seen. But I approve of all Gingrich accomplished with the 104th Congress. Imagine a US with Reagan’s 1981 term in the White House combined with the 104th Congress. The US would have a lower income tax, far fewer regulations (and likely fewer regulatory agencies), a much smaller false entitlement footprint, much higher drilling, mining, refining output, many more nuclear power plants, a much more powerful economy, and far less debt today. And CRA likely would never have happened, meaning the huge Real Estate And Credit Crash would likely never have happened.

John Hitchcock on December 20, 2011 at 8:44 PM

This so much. She burned her cred with this ardent supporter; the people that carry on with their snuffed torches and dented pitchforks just make me laugh.

And I was quite enjoying the Palin freeze-out by the media. I hope Fox dumps her and she can go away for good.

Once burned, twice shy.

lansing quaker on December 20, 2011 at 7:46 PM

I don’t understand your thinking. Sarah never promised to run. She said all along she was seriously considering it. Given her record of decency and integrity throughout her career I take Sarah at her word that she was trying to decide all along, that she was 50/50 right up to the end of her decision.

I’m a longtime supporter, someone who lived at C4P for the last 2 years and got involved in Organize4Palin. As disappointed as I am that she didn’t run, I realize that I chose to help her, she never asked.

If she’s trying to decide whether to run the whole time, what’s she supposed to do, tell O4P and all these groups to knock it off? Doing so would tip her hand.

Palin took it upon herself to get involved in politics over 20 years ago. We must ask ourselves, what have we done? It’s easy to demand her to run, but most of us haven’t come close to facing the kind of scrutiny Sarah has faced. I can’t imagine the amount of death threats, especially to her family! I mean she had that waste of space move in next door to her!

So while I wish Sarah had run, I understand why she didn’t and take her at her word for how and why she made her decision. If Sarah were to announce tomorrow, I’d still support her 100%.

Overall, I’m glad she came onto the national scene. Sarah alot to help the conservative/Tea Party cause. She’s a great voice and someone I’ll always admire.

I’m sorry you feel the way you do.

LevinFan on December 20, 2011 at 8:44 PM

John Hitchcock on December 20, 2011 at 8:44 PM

I would take Newt over Romney because as you allude to, at least Newt has done some conservative things unlike Mittens.

I think it’s just time to vote your conscience though. Like you, Bachmann is my second choice behind Sarah.

Time to get involved, donate, make phone calls (sign up at her website). Go down fighting for the right principles, don’t disenfranchise yourself by settling for someone else.

LevinFan on December 20, 2011 at 8:49 PM

What, outside of the electioneering format of being a career wannabe politician, who, as Gingrich noted, had ever been reelected or elected after being a one term Gov. would(Romney) be a career politician, has Romney done or championed that even comes close to being conservative? NOT A DAMN THING!!!!!! He is a closet liberal. I wouldn’t vote for him if Al Sharpton gave me some of that walking around money.

they lie on December 20, 2011 at 8:55 PM

I think the real question is: what are you smoking?

lansing quaker on December 20, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Now you’re just coming across as bitter.

You were a supporter before, so you obviously believed in her record.

So are you now going to do a 180 and pretend her accomplishments suck?

Also, who are you supporting now?

LevinFan on December 20, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Gary would jump down people’s throats a lot, but he also provided a lot of information in his posts.

Aitch748 on December 20, 2011 at 8:32 PM

As my screen name suggests, I like people who take a no nonsense approach. Some of the Palin haters deserved to be put in their place and Gary was great at that.

And like Levin, Gary also provided alot of info about Sarah.

Check out his blog, lots of informative posts about everyone, not just Sarah:

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/

Michelle Malkin has even linked to him.

After Sarah said no I supported Cain and now Bachmann. I’ve had my disagreements with Gary about both of these candidates, but he’s never really jumped down my throat.

LevinFan on December 20, 2011 at 9:02 PM

Riddle me this, PDS sufferers. If Mrs. P is a nothing burger like you continuously claim she is then I would think you would relish the chance of her jumping into the race at this late date in anticipation of her falling flat on her face and then you getting to revel in your “I told you so” posts. But you don’t. In fact, you seem almost terrified of the prospect. Why? Because you know Sarah isn’t a nothing burger. You know, in fact, that she is the 800lb gorilla out there in the forest that would instantly change the political landscape if she decides to jump in. Too late you say? Politics is all about momentum and if she were to enter and start racking up victories she will become an irresistible force heading into the convention. Plenty of delegate rich states that are winner take-all still open to her. Write-in campaigns for the ones that aren’t. “It ain’t over until it is over.”

Tarnsman on December 20, 2011 at 9:10 PM

Tarnsman on December 20, 2011 at 9:10 PM

800 Lbs Gorilla? Are you talking about Sarah Palin or Rosie O’Donnell?

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 20, 2011 at 9:15 PM

This so much. She burned her cred with this ardent supporter; the people that carry on with their snuffed torches and dented pitchforks just make me laugh.

And I was quite enjoying the Palin freeze-out by the media. I hope Fox dumps her and she can go away for good.

Once burned, twice shy.

lansing quaker on December 20, 2011 at 7:46 PM

I think you invested just a weeeeee bit too much in Sarah Palin’s running. You were as invested as the haters, only the other way; and now you’ve joined them.

ddrintn on December 20, 2011 at 9:18 PM

800 Lbs Gorilla? Are you talking about Sarah Palin or Rosie O’Donnell?

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 20, 2011 at 9:15 PM

Yawn….

idesign on December 20, 2011 at 9:19 PM

Tarnsman on December 20, 2011 at 9:10 PM

800 Lbs Gorilla? Are you talking about Sarah Palin or Rosie O’Donnell?

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 20, 2011 at 9:15 PM

Oh, I don’t think she’s running or will ever run for any office again. But…if she were to jump in I think she’d be instant frontrunner even at this late date. The field is that blah.

ddrintn on December 20, 2011 at 9:22 PM

I think you invested just a weeeeee bit too much in Sarah Palin’s running. You were as invested as the haters, only the other way; and now you’ve joined them.

ddrintn on December 20, 2011 at 9:18 PM

Bingo! The jilted bride attitude never ceases to amaze me!

LevinFan on December 20, 2011 at 9:22 PM

Yawn….

idesign on December 20, 2011 at 9:19 PM

I wouldn’t call Palin an 800 lbs gorilla. Rosie on the other hand, I would call a 800 lbs gorilla in need of back shave.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 20, 2011 at 9:26 PM

I wouldn’t call Palin an 800 lbs gorilla. Rosie on the other hand, I would call a 800 lbs gorilla in need of back shave.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 20, 2011 at 9:26 PM

Omething we can agree on..:)

idesign on December 20, 2011 at 9:30 PM

Something

Dang!

idesign on December 20, 2011 at 9:31 PM

Now you’re just coming across as bitter.

You were a supporter before, so you obviously believed in her record.

So are you now going to do a 180 and pretend her accomplishments suck?

Also, who are you supporting now?

LevinFan on December 20, 2011 at 8:56 PM

I’m really not surprised she didn’t run, though I’m disappointed as well. All you have to do is look at this or any other Palin thread over the past 3 years to see what probably was one of the main reasons why she didn’t run: Self-described conservative Republicans spewing as much vitriol and bile toward the woman that it would do a Kos Kiddie proud.

ddrintn on December 20, 2011 at 9:32 PM

I think people need to respect her decision not to run. In turn, I think Palin should probably stick to being a commentator and stay away from this issue altogether. Just my humble opinion.

ak moose stew on December 20, 2011 at 10:13 PM

It’s not bigotry to call a liar a liar. Joseph Smith was a liar. I’d bet my life on it, and Romney’s 10,000, and his hair. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 20, 2011 at 7:06 PM

That is the standard answer from bigots. There is no religious test for political office, yet you are making one of it.

You are a despicable bigot.

csdeven on December 20, 2011 at 10:17 PM

…while Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was written on golden plates that have never been observed by anyone but Joseph Smith,

Not true. 11 person saw the plates and testified of it.

So all that’s required to prove someone is a false prophet is for him to promise something will happen, and have it fail.

tom on December 20, 2011 at 7:56 PM

Matt 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

This included Judas. But as we know from Matt 26:24 Judas will burn in hell.

Matt 26:24 The Son of man goes as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.

So according to your rantings, Christ is a false prophet.

Bottom line: You’re another religious bigot who cannot abide any faith that doesn’t walk in lockstep with your beliefs.

csdeven on December 20, 2011 at 10:32 PM

Can you answer my question: Do you think Obama is a socialist?

LevinFan on December 20, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Of course he is. I’d say he is borderline Marxist.

So what?

csdeven on December 20, 2011 at 10:33 PM

It matters because it’s his fuc*ing responsibilty as a putative political leader in a time of national peril at the hands of socialism — a peril directly produced by the ravages of stealth socialism which has gone unnamed and gained power in its namelessness — to make the connection between failure and the cause of the failure. Making the connection also depersonalizes the debate and serves the purpose of shifting from the cruder slur of “failure” to the greater issue, the nature of the national threat which has only incubated in the darkness of PC silence.

Figure it out. I don’t think you’re that obtuse. You can’t be.

rrpjr on December 20, 2011 at 7:12 PM

Bwahahahaha!! Are you listening to yourself? You want to get caught up in the minutia of it as a campaign focus so the dems and Obama can deny it? Then you’re committed to continue on until you prove it or give up all together. You’ll spend your time focused on it and rational people will say “So what?!”. Meanwhile, the real issue of his failed leadership is sitting there waiting to be picked up.

You’re an idiot. No candidate, not even your beloved St Palin the Victimized would do it.

Good gravy! It’s no wonder you hitch up to every failed candidate we have had.

csdeven on December 20, 2011 at 10:40 PM

If Mrs. P is a nothing burger like you continuously claim she is then I would think you would relish the chance of her jumping into the race at this late date in anticipation of her falling flat on her face and then you getting to revel in your “I told you so” posts.

Tarnsman on December 20, 2011 at 9:10 PM

Bwahahahaha!!! This is hilarious! St Palin the Victimized isn’t even running and she has her worshipers spouting the same idiotic nonsense they spouted all summer long!

Here is a clue for you….the comments that are critical of St Palin the Victimized are designed to skewer you worshipers! We knew St Palin the Victimized was never going to run. You worshipers gave us plenty of fodder for hilarious exchanges during the long boring days of the summer.

There are no haters. There is no one afraid she will run. There are only those poking you worshipers for entertainment value.

csdeven on December 20, 2011 at 10:46 PM

You are a despicable bigot.
csdeven on December 20, 2011 at 10:17 PM

You’re another religious bigot.
You’re an idiot.
YOU ARE A BIGOT.
csdeven on December 20, 2011 at 6:31 PM

I mocked you for being a bigoted and a hypocrite.
csdeven on December 20, 2011 at 6:39 PM

You are a bigot.
csdeven on December 20, 2011 at 6:02 PM

It only matters to cry babies who have to call people names to stoke their egos.
csdeven on December 20, 2011 at 7:05 PM

But only a spoiled rotten whiny brat has an unsatiable need to call people names.
csdeven on December 20, 2011 at 6:07 PM

And these morons would reject Reagan too.
csdeven on December 20, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Bwahahahaha!! Are you listening to yourself?
You’re an idiot…. No candidate, not even your beloved St Palin the Victimized would do it.
csdeven on December 20, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Bwahahahaha!!! This is hilarious! St Palin the Victimized isn’t even running and she has her worshipers spouting the same idiotic nonsense they spouted all summer long!
csdeven on December 20, 2011 at 10:46 PM

So go whine some more about your beloved St Palin the Victimized and how all the world conspired against her.
rotflmao!!
csdeven on December 20, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Wait for it…

We adults want to beat Obama and have decided on a course that is more likely to achieve that then using school yard tactics.
csdeven on December 20, 2011 at 6:51 PM

I think I understand better now why Romney can never seem to close the sale. I mean with adult supporters like these…

rrpjr on December 20, 2011 at 11:13 PM

csdeven on December 20, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

Personally, I expect her to announce she will run but not for a while yet. I think she pulled the plug last Oct. because she didn’t want to be accused, as she was by some, of stringing people along with the conjecture as to whether she was running or not. So she just announced that no she wasn’t going to run. Of course that doesn’t mean she couldn’t change her mind as many others have done.

Since, unlike her competitors in both the R and D parties, Sarah won’t accept large donations as those donors might expect favors in return (the standard practice in US politics). She will depend on her fervent supporters ponying up the small donations. Ten $10 donations from six million people would add up to $600 million which though significantly smaller than the O’s one billion, would still help make her competitive. The longer she can wait the better it is for her. Her competitors are burning up their stash and trashing each other. If the public is disaffected with their lot now, how will they be happier with them in a few months? Unlikely. That would be a good time for her to jump in. She would be a fresh face and provide a good contrast to the wannabes currently available. I think she could do it. Your mileage may vary.

shmendrick on December 20, 2011 at 11:27 PM

Oh… I miss her sooooooooo much!!!

The Dead Terrorist on December 20, 2011 at 11:37 PM

Some of you may remember gary4205, my all time favorite hotair commenter:

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/reminder-in-rick-perrys-texas-illegals-are-awarded-more-than-33-6-million-in-state-and-institutional-financial-aid-for-college/

LevinFan on December 20, 2011 at 8:15 PM

roflmao..:)

Dire Straits on December 20, 2011 at 11:50 PM

…while Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was written on golden plates that have never been observed by anyone but Joseph Smith,

Not true. 11 person saw the plates and testified of it.

Some made the claim that they “saw” golden plates. Three are specifically listed as witnesses, two of which later “apostasized” and left the LDS organization. But NONE ever read what was written on the plates.

But that’s okay, because neither did Joseph Smith. Unlike the Old Testament and New Testament that were written in languages known and used, and which you can read in the original languages today if you spend the time learning Greek and Hebrew, the entirety of the golden plates by the testimony of Joseph Smith himself was not translated by knowing the language, but by looking at them through “peep” stones and being able to interpret what they said through those peep stones.

And now the plates are conveniently no longer around.

The only person who “read” those golden plates was Joseph Smith himself. Period. Even Mormon apologists claim no more than this.

I say again, the words on these golden plates were only observed by Joseph Smith. So what good are these witnesses if they couldn’t read a word off the supposed golden plates themselves? Can you really call them witnesses?

I told you not to pull at this thread. You can choose to believe this if you will, and that’s certainly your right. But don’t try to claim that believing in Jesus is “just as nutty,” since no one ever required peep stones to translate a Bible text, and no one in the Bible claimed witnesses for events who turned out to be unable to actually observe the things they claimed to witness.

So all that’s required to prove someone is a false prophet is for him to promise something will happen, and have it fail.

tom on December 20, 2011 at 7:56 PM

Matt 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

This included Judas. But as we know from Matt 26:24 Judas will burn in hell.

Matt 26:24 The Son of man goes as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.

So according to your rantings, Christ is a false prophet.

First, I quoted the specific Bible standard of prophecy. The verses you quoted do not change that, nor do they prove what you want.

All I have to do to destroy your whole argument is to point out that Jesus knew exactly who would betray Him.

John 6:68-71
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. 70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Sounds like He met the standard of a prophet quite well. So much for making the case that He was a false prophet by my standard.

Bottom line: You’re another religious bigot who cannot abide any faith that doesn’t walk in lockstep with your beliefs.

csdeven on December 20, 2011 at 10:32 PM

No, I speak what I believe, and can tell you why I believe it. That’s the opposite of bigotry. Your comment makes not a whit more sense than calling all Republicans racists because they don’t believe Obama deserves re-election. You can’t make a case of bigotry if there are other perfectly understandable reasons for taking a position.

And I remind you we went down this path because you try to support your faith by claiming [slightly paraphrased] that “No one can prove that believing in Jesus isn’t just as nutty as believing that Joseph Smith is a prophet.” Obviously, if I can list good reasons for not believing Joseph Smith is a prophet that clearly do not apply to believing in Jesus, then your claim is false.

I don’t claim that it’s impossible to believe in Mormonism. Obviously, people do it every day. But there are ample reasons why people would reject Joseph Smith’s claims to be a prophet.

If you do accept Smith’s claims, then you will have to make peace with the fact that no archaeological evidence corroborates the events described in the Book of Mormon, and that the Book of Mormon has no manuscript evidence, in direct contrast to the other Scriptures accepted by the Mormon church, and that the language the golden plates were written in, “reformed Egyptian,” can not be found anywhere else in the world.

tom on December 21, 2011 at 12:41 AM

You know what I like about Sarah Palin? Narrow shoulders. She’s not a “broad”. And she doesn’t wear shoulder pads like the NFL or those 80s helmet-headed CNN bitches. She’s a real woman. God bless her.

Coronagold on December 21, 2011 at 1:43 AM

rrpjr on December 20, 2011 at 11:13 PM

Awwww…wadda madder wittle baby? Did the mean ol csdeven hurt your wittle fweelings? It is too hard for you to make the distinction between a political campaign strategy and poking you idiots with a stick?

It’s clear your tutu is too tight. Perhaps your grammy can make you some warm milk and cookies and tell you a nice story about rainbows and butterflies.

rotflmao!

csdeven on December 21, 2011 at 6:20 AM

Some made the claim that they “saw” golden plates.

People said they saw God too. You got a video to provide of the event? Yeah, I thought not.

Three are specifically listed as witnesses, two of which later “apostasized” and left the LDS organization. But NONE ever read what was written on the plates.

They never denied they saw the plates.

But that’s okay, because neither did Joseph Smith. Unlike the Old Testament and New Testament that were written in languages known and used, and which you can read in the original languages today if you spend the time learning Greek and Hebrew, the entirety of the golden plates by the testimony of Joseph Smith himself was not translated by knowing the language, but by looking at them through “peep” stones and being able to interpret what they said through those peep stones.

The Jews used the Urim and Thummim to divine the will of God. They also used lots and other items that you are condemning Joseph Smith for using.

And now the plates are conveniently no longer around.

And neither is proof that Christ existed. Convenient isn’t it?

I say again, the words on these golden plates were only observed by Joseph Smith. So what good are these witnesses if they couldn’t read a word off the supposed golden plates themselves? Can you really call them witnesses?

Not true. Many of the witnesses saw the writings on the plates. Additionally…..So he manufactured 60 lbs of golden plates? Exactly how did he do this?

I told you not to pull at this thread. You can choose to believe this if you will, and that’s certainly your right. But don’t try to claim that believing in Jesus is “just as nutty,” since no one ever required peep stones to translate a Bible text, and no one in the Bible claimed witnesses for events who turned out to be unable to actually observe the things they claimed to witness.

Hahaha. They just used the Urim and Thummim and Lots to divine God’s will. Exactly who claimed to see events that they didn’t actually see?

First, I quoted the specific Bible standard of prophecy. The verses you quoted do not change that, nor do they prove what you want.

Yeah, you keep moving those goalposts! lol

All I have to do to destroy your whole argument is to point out that Jesus knew exactly who would betray Him.

No. You need to square how on the one hand Christ said the 12 would reign with him then explain that Judas would reside in Hell for eternity. You need to go ask your pastor why he is indoctrinating you. Because I have to tell you dude, you’re talking out both sides of your mouth and holding two different standards. One for your beliefs and one for others beliefs.

No, I speak what I believe, and can tell you why I believe it. That’s the opposite of bigotry.

What you believe makes you a bigot. You are so utterly intolerant of the beliefs of others that you have created a reality wherein you use whatever rationalization to justify your nutty beliefs and deny those same rationalizations to others. That makes you a despicable bigot.

And I remind you we went down this path because you try to support your faith by claiming [slightly paraphrased] that “No one can prove that believing in Jesus isn’t just as nutty as believing that Joseph Smith is a prophet.” Obviously, if I can list good reasons for not believing Joseph Smith is a prophet that clearly do not apply to believing in Jesus, then your claim is false.

First, I never claimed to be LDS. Second, you cannot list any reasons for denying Joesph Smith was a prophet that don’t also apply to all prophets. You try to do it because you are a bigot, a fool, and intellectually dishonest.

But there are ample reasons why people would reject Joseph Smith’s claims to be a prophet.

Just as there are ample reasons to deny all religious beliefs.

If you do accept Smith’s claims, then you will have to make peace with the fact that no archaeological evidence corroborates the events described in the Book of Mormon, and that the Book of Mormon has no manuscript evidence, in direct contrast to the other Scriptures accepted by the Mormon church, and that the language the golden plates were written in, “reformed Egyptian,” can not be found anywhere else in the world.

tom on December 21, 2011 at 12:41 AM

If archaeological evidence is your standard of proof that a person is who they say they are, then I can prove to you that Rhett Butler told Scarlet that he didn’t give a d@mn because we know the Civil war happened.

Are you sure you want to pull this thread? It’s only going to get more evident that you are a bigot that has different standards for yourself. Your bigot pastor is doing you a disservice.

csdeven on December 21, 2011 at 7:02 AM

I only bring up Romney’s hero Joseph Smith because the ROmney cultists always smearing and running down Palin and everybody else as less bright or zany.

Dr. Tesla on December 20, 2011 at 5:55 PM

But it’s not a fair comparison, is it? A slam against Ms. Palin’s intellect (I don’t think she’s stupid, as evidenced by her still-passionate well of support), vs. a slam against Mr. Romney’s core faith, is not even in the same ballpark. (To quote Mr. Herman Cain, “Apples and Oranges.”) :)

I’m an unabashed atheist, yet believe that denigrating someone’s religion in a political context is the dirtiest of dirty pool. It’s no more than poisoning the prospects for whomever the eventual nominee is. Besides, it’s impolitic.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 21, 2011 at 8:30 AM

csdeven on December 21, 2011 at 6:20 AM

Adult to the end. You can at least claim consistency.

rrpjr on December 21, 2011 at 10:21 AM

csdeven on December 21, 2011 at 7:02 AM

What a sad little person you are. And you will never know why. Pity.

runawayyyy on December 21, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Don’t feed it. Five+ years of pimping for Romney, no matter how stupid it comes out, isn’t going to change now just because people notice that it’s a one-trick pony.

Do your common sense some good and ignore it.

RRR4VR on December 21, 2011 at 12:40 PM

If archaeological evidence is your standard of proof that a person is who they say they are, then I can prove to you that Rhett Butler told Scarlet that he didn’t give a d@mn because we know the Civil war happened.

Are you sure you want to pull this thread? It’s only going to get more evident that you are a bigot that has different standards for yourself. Your bigot pastor is doing you a disservice.

csdeven on December 21, 2011 at 7:02 AM

You’re sounding increasingly nuttier, and I didn’t really think it was possible. You claim witnesses, but even if you believe every word these witnesses spoke, at the very best, they saw tablets that appeared to be gold with some kind of writing on them that they could not read, nor could Joseph Smith, the putative prophet. Yet they’re listed on the front of Book of Mormon as witnesses. So what exactly did they witness?

Do you have the slightest bit of evidence that the Urim and Thummim were used to translate anything like Joseph Smith claimed to use his peep stones? So why do you even try to confuse the issue by bringing them up? And how did “casting of lots” even come up? That’s basically nothing more than a means of making a random selection from alternatives and trusting that God controlled the chances to make the right choice. What does it have to do with translating scriptures written in a language no one ever saw on golden plates no one could read?

Can I list reasons for doubting Joseph Smith’s word as a prophet that do not apply to other prophets? Easily. I’ve only held back out of courtesy, and because it’s so far off topic.

I’m not trying to disprove Mormonism here. I have no problem with Mormons, until they try to call people bigots for rejecting their claims. Which is what you’ve been doing repeatedly, over and over again.

I’ve given abundant reasons why a Christian would reject the claims of Mormonism without having to be a bigot, and it goes back directly to rejecting Joseph Smith as a prophet. This is the same Joseph Smith who claimed a revelation directly from God that all Christian sects were not just wrong, but abominations to God. But now Mormons declare that they are just another sect of Christianity, and that only bigots would reject that claim. So how did Mormonism move from rejecting Christianity as an abomination in the sight of God to declaring that they are also Christians in the space of 150 years? Did the Mormon faith change that much, or did Christianity? If Joseph Smith gave revelations directly from God, then why do you back away from those words now?

Do you really want me to talk about Joseph Smith’s prophecy that other nations would join in the Civil War? Or that the Mormon temple would be built forever in Missouri? Or that Jesus would return by 1891?

It’s one thing for you to decide you’ll believe Joseph Smith was a prophet in spite of these things. It’s another thing entirely to call other people bigots for making a different judgement about Joseph Smith.

tom on December 21, 2011 at 12:48 PM

I don’t understand your thinking. Sarah never promised to run. She said all along she was seriously considering it. Given her record of decency and integrity throughout her career I take Sarah at her word that she was trying to decide all along, that she was 50/50 right up to the end of her decision.
LevinFan on December 20, 2011 at 8:44 PM

There is a major flaw in your thinking: Palin NEVER seriously thought about running (at least since the beginning of the year) The funny thing is that a few months ago when people were saying that she wouldn’t run, her supporters were adamant that she would: “Oh she’s starting a bus tour, it’s proof that she’ll run! listen to her speech in Indianola, it’s proof that she’ll run! she hasn’t said she wouldn’t run, it’s proof that she’ll run!”. Of course when she announced that she wouldn’t run, you guys quickly went into “we never said that she would run” mode.

You seem to be too proud to admit that you’ve been fooled by a teaser. You are right, she never said she would run but riddle me this: why did her PAC send out a letter asking for donations just before her Oct 5 announcement? why did her team leak that her lawyers were making calls to find out about primary deadlines when such inquiries could have easily been made anonymously? by the way, I find it odd that assuming she has been “seriously considering” a run all along, she waited until September to make those inquiries.

You want to know why I and many other people knew she wouldn’t run? Contrary to what some Palin fans may think, it’s not because we are libtards, RINO, haters, affected with Palin derangement syndrome, blah blah blah. No, it’s because EVERY single candidate who has run for president has taken some preparatory steps before announcing like hiring some staff (policy advisors, pollsters, fundraiser team, etc.), making multiple visits in the early states or at least meeting up with politicians from those states, etc. You don’t see candidates going from “we really don’t know if he’ll run” to “oh! he has announced he’s running” overnight. And riddle me this please: why did she get booked for a speech in South Korea on Oct 11? Surely if she was still trying to make up her mind up until September she would kept that date clear knowing that should she decide to run, she’d have to campaign hard and fast (not to mention that her speech was scheduled the day or the day before a debate) But I’m sure you’ll just reply that she’s “unconventional” which is very convenient because it allows Palin supporters to keep being delusional. When every evidence points towards her not running, you guys can just reply “she’s going rogue”.

It’s quite sad really because she knows she won’t reconsider her decision yet she let her supporters waste their time and money. Oh well…

LOL

Durandal on December 21, 2011 at 1:34 PM

That would be a good time for her to jump in. She would be a fresh face and provide a good contrast to the wannabes currently available.
shmendrick on December 20, 2011 at 11:27 PM

Funny. You are assuming that the voters will turn away from candidates who have actually campaigned (ie debating, giving interviews to various medias, doing townhalls and tours, etc.) and embrace someone who’s spent the last few months in Wasilla doing… err, what exactly is she doing these days apart from giving softball interviews and posting on Facebook here and there? It’s a serious question though: do you know how she is spending her days? I’m curious

Durandal on December 21, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Durandal on December 21, 2011 at 1:34 PM

And here are the flaws in your thinking.

1. SarahPAC, which has other designated purposes than promoting Sarah Palin individually, has sent out fundraising letters at regular intervals. Without showing the pattern or demonstrating some irregularity in the pattern, a “letter” sent out in advance of October 5th means nothing.

2. The story of her lawyers making inquiries as to primary deadlines was widely (not surprisingly) misreported. The story as it appeared in September was a rehash of routine inquiries made much earlier. And if her lawyers made inquiries earlier, which they did, that would repudiate your contention that she never had any intention of running.

3. The crux of your argument seems to be that she made none of the conventional preparatory steps expected of a candidate. However you fail to note the role of volunteer surrogates who were assuming these roles such as Peter Singleton’s operation in Iowa and O4P across the country. These independent satellite set-ups were extensive, often run by veteran political professionals (the one in California was a marvel) and in many cases more organized and engaged on the ground than the other candidates’ organizations. Your sweeping dismissal of unconventional methodology misses the essential think-out-of-the-box quality of how Palin has run in the past and also what can work. You also fail to note that many of the other candidates NOW RUNNING also did not spend — and have not spent — a lot of time in the states. Some more, some less. Additionally, Palin was a far more visible and national figure than the other candidates and had greater latitude on this issue. Yet she DID visit Iowa, and DID make outreaches to Iowa politicians including the governor. If she decided to run in October, there is every reason to expect she then would have become a presence in the state. She had plenty of time to do the grunt work that some of the other candidates are only now doing. Finally, you assert that “you don’t see candidates going from “we really don’t know if he’ll run” to “oh! he has announced he’s running” overnight.” But isn’t that exactly what we saw with Chris Christie — who had far LESS organization and national visibility than Palin yet whose abrupt talk of running was taken quite seriously by the establishment? And this was never the case with Palin anyway. As the former VP nominee, she carried with her the implicit expectation of running for president.

4. Your argument fails for a much simpler reason: you cannot objectively know what she was thinking. Your threadbare and largely debunked circumstantial case doesn’t demonstrate that she knew she was not running and was “teasing” supporters, and otherwise peremptorily claiming you knew her intentions all along is just childish.

Absence of proof of the positive is not proof of the negative.

rrpjr on December 21, 2011 at 2:26 PM

SarahPAC, which has other designated purposes than promoting Sarah Palin individually, has sent out fundraising letters at regular intervals.

Out of curiosity, did SarahPAC send out a fundraiser letter since the Oct 5th announcement? It seems to me the answer is no, but I’m not really sure. And don’t play dumb please: you know very well that the email we’re talking about here clearly said – I am paraphrasing – that Sarah Palin was about to make a decision, please send some money. Most people with a bit of common sense would understand that she knew that once she’d announce she’s not running, fundraising would be much difficult, hence the last money grab before the well dries up significantly.

The story as it appeared in September was a rehash of routine inquiries made much earlier.

Well, I’m sure you can back up this statement with a link, right?

However you fail to note the role of volunteer surrogates who were assuming these roles such as Peter Singleton’s operation in Iowa and O4P across the country.

I agree that Palin had – and still has, to a lesser extent – plenty of people who were (willing to) actively campaign for her. But that cannot make up for pollsters, communication officers, advance team, policy advisors, fundraisers, etc. No matter how much grassroot support a candidate enjoys, he/she still needs a good team of professionals. and I remember reading that SarahPac = 5 (or was it 7?) staff: either way, that just cannot cut it.

You also fail to note that many of the other candidates NOW RUNNING also did not spend — and have not spent — a lot of time in the states.

Who are those candidates? The only name I can think of is Herman Cain. Yes, he spent very little time in any early state and he was very “unconventional”. But at least he attended every debate. Well, that is until he found out that he was a bit too unconventional for the job.

If she decided to run in October, there is every reason to expect she then would have become a presence in the state.

Which is probably why in September she agreed to go and make a speech in South Korea on Oct 11, of course.

Finally, you assert that “you don’t see candidates going from “we really don’t know if he’ll run” to “oh! he has announced he’s running” overnight.” But isn’t that exactly what we saw with Chris Christie

Sorry but you seem to have misread what I wrote. I wrote:

You don’t see candidates going from “we really don’t know if he’ll run” to “oh! he has announced he’s running” overnight.

We didn’t see that with Christie because he chose not to run.

Your argument fails for a much simpler reason: you cannot objectively know what she was thinking.

Let’s take an analogy, shall we? Imagine that the New-York City Marathon will take place on Jan 21. People are wondering if Mr X the famous long distance runner will compete. Now we are Dec 21 and at this stage all we know is that Mr X has spent most of his days in the last few months at McDonald’s, that he has been booked for a promo event in Asia two weeks before the race, that he is not scheduled to attend any training camp in the next few weeks, hell! he doesn’t even have a proper training team right now. Now imagine that Mr X’s agent comes on TV and says “Oh! he’s really thinking about running! we urge all his supporters to send us some money to help with his training costs” What would you think, my friend?

You are right, I can’t read Sarah Palin’s mind. But all the evidence show me that she never really thought about running and she still is not.

Durandal on December 21, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Durandal on December 21, 2011 at 3:37 PM

You’re making a positive assertion she NEVER intended to run (your emphasis) and was misleading her supporters all along. That’s an accusation of serious deception. The burden of proof is on you. But you fail to make the case and continue to rely on totally subjective extrapolations.

Out of curiosity, did SarahPAC send out a fundraiser letter since the Oct 5th announcement? It seems to me the answer is no, but I’m not really sure.

Then why make sloppy insinuations?

And don’t play dumb please: you know very well that the email we’re talking about here clearly said – I am paraphrasing – that Sarah Palin was about to make a decision, please send some money.

So what? This proves nothing other than the PAC didn’t know what she would decide and was attempting to drum up contributions. That is to say, doing it’s job.

Most people with a bit of common sense would understand that she knew that once she’d announce she’s not running, fundraising would be much difficult, hence the last money grab before the well dries up significantly.

You’re assuming guilt and working backwards to invest ordinary activities (the PAC making a fundraising appeal on the possible eve of her candidacy) with scheming intent. This goes nowhere. Again, so what?

But that cannot make up for pollsters, communication officers, advance team, policy advisors, fundraisers, etc. No matter how much grassroot support a candidate enjoys, he/she still needs a good team of professionals. and I remember reading that SarahPac = 5 (or was it 7?) staff: either way, that just cannot cut it.

So, she couldn’t have declared in October and had any chance of running a competitive race without your required scaffolding of flaks and factotums already in place? Nonsense. Stale conventional wisdom. Palin won the governor’s race without this dense apparatus. Certainly one needs a base of operations, and ready advisors. But you don’t think she had both? We’ve already demonstrated she had an organized and enthusiastic grassroots operations. And who is to say she wouldn’t have had other pieces ready to put in place in short order? All the candidates now running (other than Romney, who’s apparently been in Iowa since 2009) had to to assemble a working structure as they went along. If not, how was Chris Christie able to even contemplate entry even later with NOTHING in place and FAR LESS recognition. But he did.

Who are those candidates? The only name I can think of is Herman Cain.

And Cain was leading everybody by large margins — before he imploded for reasons other than his presence or lack of presence in Iowa. So you agree — unconventional is not only possible but can be spectacularly successful?

Which is probably why in September she agreed to go and make a speech in South Korea on Oct 11, of course.

Immaterial snark. A four-day trip to South Korea doesn’t imply her non-interest in running for President. Indeed, such speeches are determined important to a candidate’s credentials. It could be argued that it underscored her interest in running.

We didn’t see that with Christie because he chose not to run

.

Now you’re playing dumb. His actual decision was not the issue, but the fact he was still deciding at such a late date and that this was not viewed as scandalous or prohibitive.

Your “analogy” gave me a brain ache. Can’t comment.

You are right, I can’t read Sarah Palin’s mind. But all the evidence show me that she never really thought about running and she still is not.
Durandal on December 21, 2011 at 3:37 PM

There is no “evidence.” This has been demonstrated in this illuminating exchange. There is NO EVIDENCE. You don’t have a memo from Sarah Palin to an aide mentioning they need to play out this hoax longer and how to do it, or an intercepted email to a family member discussing their “secret”. You have nothing but a skein of perfectly ordinary circumstances typical to a totally, sincerely ambivalent person in the process of making a decision and as well to the ordinary course of business of others in all respects.

There is only your conjecture — total substance-less conjecture.

rrpjr on December 21, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Well, I’m sure you can back up this statement with a link, right?
Durandal on December 21, 2011 at 3:37 PM

I could not, in my brief effort to do so. So I may stand corrected on the point, as it comes strictly from my memory.

However, this raises an issue at the core of the “logic” in play here.

How is it proof of a deceptive or phantom candidacy to have your lawyers confirm the deadline dates for early primaries a few days or weeks before you make a decision? It isn’t, of course — except under an inverted, conspiratorial logic in which EVERY action is loaded with ulterior motive.

In truth, it only makes sense to confirm the dates in the event you are calculating how much time you have to make a decision down to the last minute.

But this is the sort of “logic” of presumptive guilt we have seen all the time around Palin. It is not enough to annihilate her character and celebrate her withdrawal, but it must go on, so that now her very wish to run was a fraud. There is an element of psychosis to it.

rrpjr on December 21, 2011 at 5:24 PM

The burden of proof is on you. But you fail to make the case and continue to rely on totally subjective extrapolations.

I have provided several pieces of evidence to make my case: the trip to South Korea booked several weeks in advance, the absence of any campaign team, the almost non-existent visits to IA and NH and meetings with politicians of those states.

Out of curiosity, did SarahPAC send out a fundraiser letter since the Oct 5th announcement? It seems to me the answer is no, but I’m not really sure.

Then why make sloppy insinuations?

Maybe because I’m right? Your non-answer confirms that she didn’t send out any fundraising email since Oct 5 (at least none that you and I are aware of). Isn’t it strange that according to you, her PAC regularly sends out fundraising requests yet the last one was sent out 2 and half months ago, just before she said she wouldn’t run? And when was the last fundraising email before that one? You claim that those emails were regular so maybe you can help me with that, no?

Palin won the governor’s race without this dense apparatus.

Are you seriously comparing the staff needed for a race for Governor of AK with the staff needed for running for President? Are you aware that the population of the US is 440 times the population of AK? Come on, you can’t be that deluded…

Who are those candidates? The only name I can think of is Herman Cain.

And Cain was leading everybody by large margins — before he imploded for reasons other than his presence or lack of presence in Iowa. So you agree — unconventional is not only possible but can be spectacularly successful?

You said many candidates, didn’t you? or is Cain many candidates all by himself? and as I said, at least Cain was in all the debates from the spring until he withdrew.

A four-day trip to South Korea doesn’t imply her non-interest in running for President.

Yes it does. It just doesn’t make any sense for any candidate in presidential primaries to take a 4 day vacation or foreign trip the year before the general election, between Labor Day and Christmas.

Your “analogy” gave me a brain ache. Can’t comment.

I am not surprised.

Now you’re playing dumb. His actual decision was not the issue, but the fact he was still deciding at such a late date and that this was not viewed as scandalous or prohibitive.

Christie was not deciding. He said all along that he wasn’t interested. He even said that short of killing himself, he didn’t know what else he could do to convince people he wouldn’t run. For some reason, there were folks out there who kept floating all kind of rumours but Christie himself never said he was on the fence.

How is it proof of a deceptive or phantom candidacy to have your lawyers confirm the deadline dates for early primaries a few days or weeks before you make a decision?

You are right, it doesn’t prove anything. But as I said, remember that those requests could have very well be made anonymously. Leaking the fact that her lawyers were calling officials in the early states had only one purpose, keeping the hope alive in the hearts of her fans. And doing that while not doing any of the heavylifting required to run was deceptive. It’s one of those signals she sent out to keep the donations coming while knowing very well she wouldn’t run.

You have nothing but a skein of perfectly ordinary circumstances typical to a totally, sincerely ambivalent person in the process of making a decision (…) It is not enough to annihilate her character and celebrate her withdrawal, but it must go on, so that now her very wish to run was a fraud

You need to make up your mind.

Durandal on December 21, 2011 at 6:11 PM

I have provided several pieces of evidence to make my case.

These aren’t “pieces of evidence.” Why is the exclusionary definition of this word so hard to understand. You’re offering “conjecture.”

1. the trip to South Korea has been covered. That you can’t understand that a politician’s trip — an opportunity in this case to made a meaningful address to a worldwide audience — doesn’t preclude a candidacy and could even buttress it, is odd. 2. an absence of a “campaign team” prior to a declared campaign? Scandalous! 3. “non-existent visits” could just as easily be explained as a reluctance to send signals of commitment prior to a commitment.

Maybe because I’m right? Your non-answer confirms…

My non-answer confirms nothing save I haven’t got the faintest idea. The burden of proof is yours not mine. Dig up the facts, including the memo from the PAC chairman to his assiatnt about how Palin is rigging all this to raise money. Spare the conspiratorialist static such as “isn’t is strange…?” I don’t know, is it? Is it strange that a PAC would send out a fundraising letter a few days before an important decision in order to maximize donations and not send one until two months later? Strange.

Are you seriously comparing the staff needed for a race for Governor of AK with the staff needed for running for President?

You completely dodged my larger point, as I expected you would. You do not commence a campaign like Athena springing full-blown from Zeus’ forehead. You build it state by state, in stages. None of these candidates started with a fully functioning “national” campaign. And Palin’s nationally mobilized forces were equal or greater than all of them — with O4P operating in a state of readiness across the country. No other candidate had such a force. Likewise, you completely ignored the mitigating points about her national prominence, and the people she had ready to step into the roles required. You don’t process any of these points, I see, but return to old narratives as I debunk them.

You said many candidates, didn’t you? or is Cain many candidates all by himself? and as I said, at least Cain was in all the debates from the spring until he withdrew.

Again, you ignore the point about Cain’s success while operating unconventionally. But Palin was not a declared candidate, so no comparison is legitimate. When and if she’d become a candidate, I doubt she would have skipped debates or not thrown herself into the local scene. (And she did go to Iowa to make a major speech in Indianola. And she also went to Pella, Iowa for the premier of her film. So forget the “non-existent.” See above.)

Christie was not deciding. He said all along that he wasn’t interested.

Flat out wrong. He consistently said no, then indicated he was reconsidering and then announced his decision in a statement.

A source familiar with the meeting suggested that Christie seemed inclined to enter the race but said he needed more time.
Christie promised to make a final decision “within two weeks,” the source said.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Christie-president-Romney-Perry/2011/09/23/id/412133

But as I said, remember that those requests could have very well be made anonymously. Leaking the fact that her lawyers were calling officials in the early states had only one purpose, keeping the hope alive in the hearts of her fans.

Conspiracy mongering in a nutshell. 1. Prove it was “leaked” as opposed to simply being disclosed by some election office worker in Iowa or New Hampshire. And why would anyone see it as important to conceal anyway? 2. So what if it was “leaked”? Couldn’t it also indicate a wish to glean public mood for a run? Isn’t this not only a natural but even more likely motivation? This goes to the larger issue of bizarre imputations around Palin. If any other candidate’s lawyer’s routine call to election officials to learn cut-off dates was “leaked”, would anybody even care? In Palin’s case, it’s fodder for a plot.

You need to make up your mind.

Cheapshot. Semantics. You know what I meant.

You are alleging a deliberate and sustained conspiracy by Palin NOT to run or to even entertain the idea of running while allowing everybody to believe this was not the case, for the purposes of enriching herself or aggrandizing her national influence.

Repeat — there is no evidence of this, only conspiratorialist conjecture around ordinary human behavior. Nothing Palin did was inconsistent — and everything she did was indeed affirmative — of what any sincerely ambivalent person would do in the course of making such a momentous decision.

Here’s a twist — since she’s made the decision not to run she has relatively quietly retreated out of the public eye, thus refudiating all of the behaviors and motives ascribed to for allegedly ginning up self-centered attention by pretending to run.

rrpjr on December 21, 2011 at 7:12 PM

an opportunity in this case to made a meaningful address to a worldwide audience

You’re telling me that that business convention in South Korea had a worldwide audience? Funny.

an absence of a “campaign team” prior to a declared campaign? Scandalous!

Well, considering that every politician who ran for the White House hired campaign staff before formally declaring, the absence of campaign staff is a pretty good indication that someone is not serious about running.

“non-existent visits” could just as easily be explained as a reluctance to send signals of commitment prior to a commitment.

That’s a conjecture isn’t it?

My non-answer confirms nothing save I haven’t got the faintest idea

Then why are you arguing that much if you haven’t the faintest idea?

A source familiar with the meeting suggested that Christie seemed inclined to enter the race but said he needed more time.
Christie promised to make a final decision “within two weeks,” the source said.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Christie-president-Romney-Perry/2011/09/23/id/412133

I repeat: Christie has always said that he wouldn’t run. Now if the best you can come up with to refute that is an anonymous source, I guess that you simply don’t want to admit you’re wrong.

Again, you ignore the point about Cain’s success while operating unconventionally.

Well it’s quite hilarious because you are actually ignoring my point: didn’t you mention “many of the other candidates”? who are those many? and I didn’t ignore your point: firstly, you can’t really consider Cain’s campaign as a success since he dropped out before the first votes were cast. If you consider that his time as a frontrunner means he was successful then by the same measure, Bachmann, Perry, Romney and Gingrich all had successful campaigns. And secondly, Cain’s campaign wasn’t THAT unconventional: he went to all the debates, gave plenty of interviews to different medias, attended townhall meetings, etc.

You do not commence a campaign like Athena springing full-blown from Zeus’ forehead. You build it state by state, in stages. None of these candidates started with a fully functioning “national” campaign.

I actually agree with you but here is what you fail to realize: Palin didn’t build anything. O4P is independent from her and SarahPAC. There are several steps before one formally announces he is running, and Palin didn’t get to step 1.

And Palin’s nationally mobilized forces were equal or greater than all of them — with O4P operating in a state of readiness across the country. No other candidate had such a force. Likewise, you completely ignored the mitigating points about her national prominence, and the people she had ready to step into the roles required. You don’t process any of these points, I see, but return to old narratives as I debunk them.

What nationally mobilized forces are you talking about? What exactly do you know about O4P operations outside Iowa? Who were those people ready to step into the roles? You say that I am ignoring your points but you are not making any point here my friend, it’s hard not to ignore something that doesn’t exist.

Prove it was “leaked” as opposed to simply being disclosed by some election office worker in Iowa or New Hampshire.

Ask yourself this: why would a lawyer making such enquiries feel the need to mention he’s working for Palin?

So what if it was “leaked”? Couldn’t it also indicate a wish to glean public mood for a run?

Precisely what I’m saying: the goal was to keep the fans fired up.

Here’s a twist — since she’s made the decision not to run she has relatively quietly retreated out of the public eye, thus refudiating all of the behaviors and motives ascribed to for allegedly ginning up self-centered attention by pretending to run.

What are you talking about? Since the Oct 5 announcement, she has made plenty of appearances on FOX, she was in South Korea, she had a rally in St Louis with Glenn Beck, a women’s conference (in Virginia I think), she gave a speech to the Florida State GOP, etc. is that what you call “relatively quietly retreated out of the public eye”? Seriously…

Durandal on December 21, 2011 at 8:22 PM

You’re telling me that that business convention in South Korea had a worldwide audience? Funny.

Yes. It was piped around the world to its various constituent interests.

Well, considering that every politician who ran for the White House hired campaign staff before formally declaring, the absence of campaign staff is a pretty good indication that someone is not serious about running.

Why hire a staff if you haven’t decided? Those other people hired staff because they’d already decided. Isn’t that the point being discussed? Besides, this is how she’s always rolled. The staff follows the decision. I’m simply assuming that as an experienced executive she had people in mind for the various roles she needed to fill.

That’s a conjecture isn’t it?

Of course. Like yours in totality. I can’t “prove” she wasn’t conspiring any more than you can. I’m merely offering more likely human behaviors to the exotically sinister machinations around faking a possible campaign. But it’s not my burden. You made the allegation, and you can’t prove it.

Then why are you arguing that much if you haven’t the faintest idea?

I’m not arguing. There’s nothing to argue. I’m saying “prove it.” You can’t. All you can offer is “maybe because I’m right”?

I repeat: Christie has always said that he wouldn’t run. Now if the best you can come up with to refute that is an anonymous source..

That’s spectacularly disingenuous, or you were in a coma in October. I never said he was going to run. He was openly reconsidering his previous position in October. You can’t be an observer of politics and not have seen this. It was my only point — the fact that the possibility was being considered and that the establishment (who’d been arguing against Palin’s run for reasons of tardiness) made no objections in this case.

On Tuesday, Christie said he felt an “obligation” to consider advice coming from members of the Republican party urging him to get into the race. “Over the last few weeks, I’ve thought long and hard about this decision,” he said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/04/chris-christie-2012-decision-_n_993910.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/01/sources-christie-reconsidering-white-house-bid/

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is reconsidering his decision to stay out of the race for the White House in 2012 and is expected to make a decision soon, according to several people close to the governor with knowledge of his thinking.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/09/30/20110930chris-christie-presidential-run-decision-soon.html#ixzz1hE2Xrdww

you can’t really consider Cain’s campaign as a success since he dropped out before the first votes were cast.

Not the point. The point was he was notoriously attacked for not spending time in Iowa or having a campaign infrastructure yet this did not matter to his rise. His fall is not the issue — only that he rose without any or most of the obligatory campaign structure you have declared such an indispensable element.

What nationally mobilized forces are you talking about? What exactly do you know about O4P operations outside Iowa? Who were those people ready to step into the roles?

This is hopeless. If you weren’t aware of these basic components to Palin’s support, why bother. I was a member of O4P. These organizations were in all primary states. They had experienced, veteran leaders. They were forces completely poised to mobilize with a functioning campaign machinery instantly at her declaration. She was miles farther ahead than you or others have realized. The idea that she could have declared in late October and not had a highly functioning operation in place in Iowa within days, or in New Hampshire, and with key parts being installed in the other states as well, is ludicrous.

Ask yourself this: why would a lawyer making such enquiries feel the need to mention he’s working for Palin?

Why the hell not? Who cares? He must have known people would have guessed anyway. She was the only likely possibility. What a canard.

Precisely what I’m saying: the goal was to keep the fans
fired up.

Not what I’m saying. Letting people know was just more good information on which to base the decision to run. Why not listen to public reaction. That’s what politicians do. The idea that it was leaked in order to gin up enthusiasm… for what reason? To raise more money for the PAC? This is the objective of a concerted and drawn-out scam to defraud the emotions of people? You must really hate this woman to ascribe such an exhausting, dishonest and low-reward undertaking to her.

What are you talking about? Since the Oct 5 announcement, she has made plenty of appearances

No, I’m not buying it. I’m fairly media savvy and I haven’t seen much trace of her anywhere. She’s out of the public eye. She makes an occasional modest appearance on Fox but that’s all I’ve seen. She’s eschewed any “kingmaker” role altogether.

This is reached a point of diminishing interest and returns for me. You’ve made a wild claim that she engineered a protracted conspiracy but have no evidence, and offer no significant motivating upside for her but a few more dollars to her PAC and some presumed gains to what would have to be a sinisterly swollen ego. This is conspiracy rubbish, the residue of hate from her campaign. It’s a waste of time for others to challenge. I knew this, really, I just fell into an old pattern. I surely believe people do bad, stupid and evil things for ego and other rewardas but there is nothing in this woman’s demonstrably honest and positive personal history and nature (really, who could have gone through what she’s gone through in the past two years and maintain such equanimity) to suggest this is remotely possible.

Good luck.

rrpjr on December 21, 2011 at 9:49 PM

She will get back in in Feb 2012

ChuckTX on December 22, 2011 at 8:30 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6