Why isn’t Sarah running?

posted at 4:00 pm on February 12, 2012 by J.E. Dyer

I’ll take a crack at it.  Her CPAC speech today was a barn-burner, hitting every conservative, small-government point and pumping out soundbites that will no doubt resonate in the public dialogue for days to come.  Some of my favorites:

“Drain the Jacuzzi!”

“This government isn’t too big to fail, it’s too big to succeed.”

“We don’t want an economy built to last, we want an economy built to grow.”

“This is Obama’s Washington.”

I wonder, however, if one of the points she hammered throughout the speech really registered with her audience.  Her signature line in this speech was “The door is open.”  She meant that political conditions are becoming conducive to a renewed commitment to small government and liberty.  People’s mindsets are changing.  We are not governed by the “rules” of political seasons past; the door is open to choosing our candidates and charting our nation’s future on a different basis.  The door is open to not accepting a continuation of the false compromises of previous decades.

(As I go to press, I see that Tina Korbe picked up on this theme.)

I have referred to those false compromises – “compromises” in which the conservative, small-government side gave up virtually everything – as the “old consensus.”  I see it losing, bit by bit, in this primary season.  People are no longer obediently making their political choices within the parameters defined for them by the professional political class.

This doesn’t mean that the voters have ideal candidates with whom to make their statement against the old consensus.  Santorum and Gingrich both have their drawbacks, as Paul always has.  But a critical mass of voters has recognized that Romney is the old consensus, and they are rejecting it.  The CPAC vote was remarkable for Romney’s 38% — because it wasn’t bigger, because Santorum got 31%, and even Gingrich, in a conclave of the politically connected, got 15%.

Everyone outpolled Ron Paul at CPAC, even though he has regularly won the CPAC vote in the past.  This signals a change in the mindset of politically active conservatives – not merely a new perspective that it’s overwhelmingly important to defeat Obama, but a perspective that the core of the conservative movement is shifting, and we need a serious mainstream candidate because it is a life-or-death matter to be effective in the political process.

That obviously doesn’t mean the CPAC voters think we need a “moderate,” leadership- and media-approved candidate.  If it did, they would have gone for Romney, rather than voting 46% for the mainstream candidates who are not Romney – and who are perceived, in many if not all cases correctly, as less satisfied with and enthusiastically “managerial” about the matter of big government.

But the point to take away is that voter sentiment, as it relates to the meaning of different candidates and the basis of government, is changing.

And that, I think, is about half the reason why Sarah Palin didn’t throw her hat in the ring for this campaign cycle.  Her evaluation of political conditions is remarkably accurate and prescient:  she saw, long before most of the voters did, that the game of expectations itself needed to change, and that only we could do it.

What strategic value was there for Palin in participating in the Cynical Media Slime-fest and All-Out Kick-em-in-the-Nads, mud-slinging, business-as-usual, expectations-on-autopilot primary season?

Six or eight months ago, the sea change in the voters’ sentiments and propensities might have been foreseeable, but it hadn’t happened yet.  Those who think Palin could have won lots of primaries on the basis of pre-primary voter sentiments are wrong, I think.  After all, the business-as-usual approach – Karl Rove tells everyone how bad a candidate is, the media magnify his or her every quirk or mistake, the media and some (not all) of the other candidates pile on with allegations that range from hostile spin to outright falsehood – has so far felled our most conservative candidates.

But in the process, the voters have been changing.  That’s what Palin saw before others did.  Do I think she is counting the days to a brokered convention?  No.  There is no one who could reasonably adopt that as a “plan.”  She won’t run this year; that’s my rational assessment as well as my gut feeling.  (I could of course be wrong, although I think some big conditions will have to change more for that to be the case.)

But if she does run, it will not be because she has changed, but because we have.  There are political conditions in which she could run successfully, and conditions in which she couldn’t.  The latter have constituted our political environment up until the last couple of months.

If the conditions are changing now, I believe that is largely because voters are having to wise up to the flaws in our own thinking by going through this ugly spectacle.  We already knew that the media have no intention of giving our candidates a fair shake, and that many in the GOP leadership want to submarine the small-government conservatives.   What many voters didn’t understand is that if we want to select leaders of character, we have to graduate from high school, and overlook the vicissitudes of “presentation” that sometimes make good people look like buffoons to those who see without humility, mercy, or discrimination.  We have to see with better eyes.  We have to think independently of the jeers embedded in the media narrative.  We have to be wiser citizens, placing in political leadership only the hope that is appropriate to free men and women.

We can’t have a candidate who sounds like Mitt Romney, but will lead the way a small-government conservative would.  That’s not an option.  What we’re doing in this primary season is coming to grips with that reality.  I think Palin knew instinctively that we would have to, before it would make sense for her to jump back into the electoral fray.

But, as I said, I think that’s only about half the explanation.  The other half is that Palin is an evangelical Christian.  She believes God has a plan for her life, and that He gives her a certainty in her spirit about the big choices she has to make.  I suspect she has had a peaceful certainty that joining the campaign as a candidate for 2012 was not something she should do.  If she were to analyze it, she might say that God knows better than any of us how the voters’ concerns and expectations are going to change.

Meanwhile, the door is open.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


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 6 7 8

csdeven on February 13, 2012 at 12:08 AM

Why there you go again, spewing insults while under the guise of its not personal, my statement of you stands. Hater.

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 1:27 AM

canopfor on February 12, 2012 at 7:06 PM
Good Deal..You have a daughter and a son correct??..:)

PS..For the record..I have a daughter and a son..:)

Dire Straits on February 12, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Dire Straits:Excellent,

yes,2 boys (30 and 25)daughter is twenty,me and wife started early,
we were 18,the wife (17) at the time!!:)

Nite Dire:)

canopfor on February 13, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Why are we still talking about this? She is too busy being a political celebrity to ever do something of substance EVER AGAIN. Get over it people, Sarah Sucks.

reagant on February 13, 2012 at 2:23 AM

reagant on February 13, 2012 at 2:23 AM

You posted?

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 2:24 AM

Because we are decent folks, we will endure your insults. But please note that it wont help you recover from your confusion. Only a mental health professional can help you.

csdeven on February 13, 2012 at 12:08 AM

You need not endure anything that’s not true. “Only a mental health professional can help you.”
No confusion. She lives Rent Free in your head, because she is after all Irrelevant. At some point , take the time to read your 400 plus anti Palin hatefest post’s, you might then see what many of us see.

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 2:31 AM

P.S. 3657 comments on the Irrelevant ones threads today.

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 2:33 AM

reagant on February 13, 2012 at 2:23 AM,
Even you don’t believe that. Sarah Palin rocked the house.

CoolChange80 on February 13, 2012 at 2:43 AM

csdeven on February 13, 2012 at 12:08 AM,
I doubt you are a decent. I know for sure that Jailbreak is a slimeball. If you were decent you wouldn’t be posting the garbage you post.

CoolChange80 on February 13, 2012 at 2:45 AM

Who cares? Let me know when Sarah actually does something.. ALL TALK NO WALK

dft2000 on February 13, 2012 at 3:47 AM

When she quit it was because her salary for Governor was $174,000 something and the lawyers to defend the ridiculous law suites was $500,000 but she was called a quitter? She did what I would have done. The public will not hear of such an excuse but she is called anything but a strong person. We tend to fear what we cannot control and that about wraps it up for Sara Palin. The left talks in metaphors and you are suppose to figure out what they mean by the stories they tell rather than a truth. She is a voice that is heard by many and it’s a lot more than our screams at the Congress which they prefer to ignore.

mixplix on February 13, 2012 at 4:44 AM

Why are we still talking about this? She is too busy being a political celebrity to ever do something of substance EVER AGAIN. Get over it people, Sarah Sucks.

reagant on February 13, 2012 at 2:23 AM

Perhaps you should go find another venue. I’ve only responded to you to point out your pathological behavior. Passive aggressive behavior is fixable.

Please seek help.

DevilsPrinciple on February 13, 2012 at 4:51 AM

THROW THE BUMS OUT!

/Here, Congress, the White House, hell the welfare parasite in front of you at the checkout line, eating better than you do. Throw the ALL out. It’s time to destroy the Looters.

rayra on February 13, 2012 at 5:11 AM

I wish Palin did run. She’s still the best candidate out there.

zoyclem on February 13, 2012 at 6:52 AM

“Her signature line in this speech was “The door is open.” She meant that political conditions are becoming conducive to a renewed commitment to small government and liberty.” – J.E.

I must have taken that phrase out of context: I thought she meant the “door” to the GOP nomination was “open”.

In any event, Mrs. Palin will never be POTUS.
Sorry, Palinistas. However, your guess is as good as mine given the fact that Barry Oh? managed to get elected. In other words, anything can happen in the distant future.
I’d bet the ranch though that Sarah never resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
A good and decent woman to be sure, Sarah is just far too inexperienced at far too many things.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 13, 2012 at 7:00 AM

The Mittbot Meltdown continues. By the way, she’s right about Romney.

kingsjester on February 13, 2012 at 7:01 AM

Three Palin threads, pushing on to 3,500 comments. No Enthusiasm Gap there.

james23 on February 13, 2012 at 7:14 AM

Ugh. Enough with the grrl power crap,

If you now or have ever believed that the poorly qualified, unelectable, platitude spewing airhead drama queen that is Sarah Palin would make either a good candidate or President, you are completely clueless about politics.

How people like J.E Dyer,Tammy Bruce, Dana Loech, Mark Levin, etc are ever taken seriously is beyond comprehension. Or intelligence.

Hollowpoint on February 13, 2012 at 1:23 AM

You’ve missed the point. Everyday, more and more of us are realizing that it is NOT about knowing politics, it’s about putting the brakes on out of control spending, entitlements and ever encrouaching big Govt. While political savvy is a plus, it is not a requirement to the extent of knowing how to play the D vs R game.

This country could do much better by replacing 1/2 of Congress and POTUS with total neophytes and as long as they had common sense and used the Constitution as their compass.

You’re the definition of insane by demanding “political” experience/savvy and expecting things to get better this time around. Not. Gonna. Happen.

Better yet, it doesn’t matter what you think, when we reach critical mass, all your protestations will mean nothing as you are banished to the new party of progressives. Either that will happen or the US will have collasped; but one thing is certain, we cannot maintain the status quo, or even return to even 1990 standards. The only thing that will save us is a drastic rewrite of entitlements etc, to shift everything to personal responsibility.

The best analogy would be a swimmer trying to rescue someone drowning. When the victim is in full panic and stronger than you, best to let him drown, lest you both drown. May be cold, but that’s the law of survival–which is something any pro-eveolutionist should appreciate. Greece is the classic example of the victim in panic.

AH_C on February 13, 2012 at 7:47 AM

the cnn, faux, msnbc? Palins CPAC speech…crickets.

her words must not be heard by those whose brains have never understood freedom and liberty.

run Sarah run.

renalin on February 13, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Ugh. Enough with the grrl power crap,

If you now or have ever believed that the poorly qualified, unelectable, platitude spewing airhead drama queen that is Sarah Palin would make either a good candidate or President, you are completely clueless about politics.

Hollowpoint on February 13, 2012 at 1:23 AM

Very well put.

These articles by J.E. Dyer are terrible. Why is this J.E. Dyer person’s dreck being highlighted on this site? J.E. Dyer makes groundless assertions (to support her anti-Romney and pro-Palin positions) based on strawmen that Dyer pulls out of the air.

I would like to see posts by regular posters like BuyDanish.

bluegill on February 13, 2012 at 8:17 AM

“Drain the Jacuzzi!” – 1/2 term, former Governor and failed VP candidate Sarah Palin

Yep, that profound quote is right up there with “Ask not what your country can do for you.”

bluegill on February 13, 2012 at 8:18 AM

bluegill on February 13, 2012 at 8:17 AM

The fish is back. When you or Danish have some cred, then maybe we’ll take you seriously.

So please point out this so-called “groundless assertion”, just one and explain how/why. Otherwise, your griping about both JED and Paline are just mindless assertions.

AH_C on February 13, 2012 at 8:28 AM

“Drain the Jacuzzi!” – 1/2 term, former Governor and failed VP candidate Sarah Palin

Yep, that profound quote is right up there with “Ask not what your country can do for you.”

bluegill on February 13, 2012 at 8:18 AM

Make up your own catchy statement then. But wait … you can’t, you’re an idiot.

So sorry.

darwin on February 13, 2012 at 8:28 AM

I wish Palin did run. She’s still the best candidate out there.

zoyclem on February 13, 2012 at 6:52 AM

By far… I agree.. but…

Shain1611 on February 13, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Sarah Palin isn’t running because she knows she would lose!

phoebe1 on February 13, 2012 at 8:35 AM

Sarah Palin isn’t running because she knows she would lose!

phoebe1 on February 13, 2012 at 8:35 AM

Your point?

darwin on February 13, 2012 at 8:38 AM

Why there you go again, spewing insults while under the guise of its not personal, my statement of you stands. Hater.

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 1:27 AM

Maybe it’s just a personal pet peeve, but I really detest the use of hater as a universal pejorative on the Internets. Hatred is a strong emotion but some things, people, movements and ideologies are worthy of hatred, such as communists, pedophiles, neo-nazis, and any painting by Thomas Kinkaid. Hatred is an emotional response. It isn’t wrong to hate, but sometimes inappropriate.

I like Sarah Palin although I strongly disagree with her non-endorsement endorsement of Newt Gingrich, and also think her recent ‘door is open’ statement more or less invites her most ardent supporters to construe what she says as a veiled promise to exploit a broken convention, should it (very improbably) happen. The problem is she had to know such phrasing would raise hopes, and I think she was wrong in doing it. She’s teasing you, guys. She’s leading you on. She’s the cheerleader dream date on prom night in the back seat of your grandfather’s borrowed Lincoln who keeps promising Paradise but never comes through.

troyriser_gopftw on February 13, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Source: Kingsjester’s blog

Sarah Palin said:

“I trust that his [Mitt Romney's, that is] idea of conservatism is evolving. And I base this on a pretty moderate past he has had, even in some cases a liberal past,” Sarah Palin said on “FOX News Sunday” this morning.

“I am not convinced,” Palin said of Romney’s conservative claim. “And I don’t think that the majority of GOP and independent voters are convinced, and that is why you don’t see Romney get over that hump.”

“He has spent millions and millions and millions of dollars and hasn’t risen yet,” she added.

Pragmatic on February 13, 2012 at 9:04 AM

bluegill is spam

Pragmatic on February 13, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Sarah Palin should enter the race – but only if Santorum cannot keep his momentum. At this moment, we have one clear conservative choice in Santorum, and we should not let us get divided again (sorry, Newt). I am sure Sarah would be a great candidate, and possibly the most under-estimated since a certain actor from Tampico. I would love to see the look on the face of Rachel Meadow or Lawrence o’Donnell when Sarah trounces Obamah in the debates. However, right now, I think she has a different role to play. Her endorsing Rick would be fantastic.

Captain Obvious on February 13, 2012 at 9:26 AM

reagant on February 13, 2012 at 2:23 AM

Hollowpoint on February 13, 2012 at 1:23 AM

dft2000 on February 13, 2012 at 3:47 AM

bluegill on February 13, 2012 at 8:17 AM

.
Ya’ll are ‘dripping’ with bitterness, and NOT “objective observation”.
All four of you can only fantasize about having the power and influence that Sarah Palin possesses AND PUTS INTO PRACTICE.

The rest of us here will amuse ourselves watching you gnash your teeth and pull your hair out in frustration, while Sarah continues to successfully “outmaneuver” the opposition with political gamesmanship.

listens2glenn on February 13, 2012 at 9:37 AM

bluegill is spam
Pragmatic on February 13, 2012 at 9:05 AM

I always thought of it as a “pan-fish”.

listens2glenn on February 13, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Kudos J.E.

Well done, indeed.

I haven’t reviewed the earlier comments (busy yesterday), but congratulations on the only rationale as to why SP decided not to run that has made any sense at all.

Spot on, and excellent.

davisbr on February 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM

A quitter never wins. But who knows. Based on her positions I could poss. seem myself voting for her, but you know if she won the nomination people would see this ad:

“Sarah Palin. She says she’ll fight for you. But she quit. She
resigned as governor.”

She did have her reasons, etc., but wouldn’t a true fighter have stayed in? Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead? Again she could make a good president, but wouldn’t her resignation hurt her? People like her positions, darn it, and she’s easy on the eyes. But she is also said to be polarizing (then again, isn’t Obama?)

She could have stayed in as governor and fought, then proudly could have thrown in her hat in the ’12 race and for all we know have been
in the lead right now.

But, no…..

raccoonradio on February 13, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Good morning, Hot Airians!

A question for J.E. Dyer and Sarah’s devoted (and occasionally messianic) followers: Why doesn’t Palin just tell us in one complete sentence what she means when she says “The Door is Open”? Why should we have to guess at the meaning?

And why is it necessary to claim “He” told her the time was not right? If J.E. is correct, why can’t she just come out and say that in another complete sentence?

We know Palin can be perfectly direct when she wants to be. Why this need to obscure her meaning, motives and intentions?

Buy Danish on February 13, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Should she decide to run she would have my vote. I don’t think I can hold my nose and vote for Romney. I feel he is only slightly more progressive than O’bama so why bother voting at all.

mullethead on February 13, 2012 at 10:03 AM

>If Palin had ever had any aspirations about running for another office, she wouldn’t have stepped down from her AK position.
She plays a role in politics, but she will never run for public office. It doesn’t pay enough $$$.

Agreed, though if she were concerned she could have thrown her hat into the ring. If she’s so popular in the GOP (though I don’t know how popular she’d be outside of it), she could have easily raised money for a defense. Or did the books and tours as part of her campaign and used some of that money to pay for the defense. But that is a good point–the Presidency would perhaps be a pay cut for her.

Also for the religious out there, if God could have made a difference in her campaign, maybe He could have led her to victory.
In her own heart God was telling her not to run, though. She was doing what was best for her family.

And for that matter what was best for her bank account.

raccoonradio on February 13, 2012 at 10:03 AM

She did have her reasons, etc., but wouldn’t a true fighter have stayed in? Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead? Again she could make a good president, but wouldn’t her resignation hurt her? People like her positions, darn it, and she’s easy on the eyes. But she is also said to be polarizing (then again, isn’t Obama?)

She could have stayed in as governor and fought, then proudly could have thrown in her hat in the ’12 race and for all we know have been
in the lead right now.

But, no…..

raccoonradio on February 13, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Few people seem to understand that by resigning as governor she beat the democrats at their own game. She was, and still is considered a threat by the left. Their goal after the 2008 election was to bankrupt and demoralize her to the point that she would finish her term, lick her wounds and fade from view. They never, never, ever thought she would resign. As soon as she did that their game was over. She was free to enter the fray and that’s just what she did.

The democrats very actions created what they intended to avoid. Palin became a very vocal advocate for conservatism.

Had they left her alone to finish her term she probably would still have a voice in the Republican party but nowhere near as powerful as she does today.

darwin on February 13, 2012 at 10:07 AM

We know Palin can be perfectly direct when she wants to be. Why this need to obscure her meaning, motives and intentions?

Buy Danish on February 13, 2012 at 10:01 AM

To drive you crazy.

darwin on February 13, 2012 at 10:11 AM

One of the problems with the system is that you need a candidate to appeal not just to conservatives but to moderates/independents. If the lib (Obama) only has his base and not the “independents” he could lose. If he does get them, he will win.

I’m not saying we should elect a RINO but be aware independents may be turned off by someone who is very conservative. They need at least
some appeal to their views. That, plus distaste for Obama, could lead to victory.

The GOP could nominate a true conservative and we/they would be very happy with that candidate!

Then go on to enjoy 4 more years of The One, as a result. (And needless to say the tradition is for the parties to nominate someone a bit to the extremes who then has to “move to the center”
for the finals.)

raccoonradio on February 13, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Not true. They have spent millions because she is a joke, and they want the rest of the conservative movement to look like and be tied directly to her.
We don’t need a publicity loving, reality tv failed Governor who bailed on our state to lead our movement. We need real, hard working candidates. She embodies selling out. Not what we want.
I’m glad she’s not running. Personally, I think Romney (as undesirable as he is) is a far better face for conservatism than her. do we want a half term Governor who has accomplished nothing, or someone who has shown that Capitalism works consistently throughout their life? I don’t even like Romney to be honest, but that’s why I compare her to him. she can’t hold a candle to his record as a conservative.

I would mostly agree with that. Supposedly she did do some reform
accomplishments as governor though. “…who bailed on our state”?
Yes, she quit. As for the comment before this about her voice being like nails on a chalkboard I may have to agree but if it were her vs. Obama I’d vote for her BUT would prefer someone else, and I think Romney would have a better chance of beating Obama
anyway. I don’t want four more years of hearing OBAMA (or knowing he’s in charge at least), that’s for sure.

raccoonradio on February 13, 2012 at 10:17 AM

raccoonradio on February 13, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Explain Reagan. America is a Center-Right nation. Not a Center-Center nation.

kingsjester on February 13, 2012 at 10:18 AM

To drive you crazy.
darwin on February 13, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Hopefully J.E. Dyer will articulate a more adequate response.

Buy Danish on February 13, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Supposedly she did do some reform
accomplishments as governor though.

raccoonradio on February 13, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Supposedly? You don’t know?

darwin on February 13, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Her endorsing Rick would be fantastic.

Captain Obvious on February 13, 2012 at 9:26 AM

What an apt screen name you have there. ;)

pannw on February 13, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Because talking is a whole lot easier and more lucrative than doing.

Thankfully, our Founding Fathers did not feel this way.

NoDonkey on February 13, 2012 at 10:21 AM

One of the problems with the system is that you need a candidate to appeal not just to conservatives but to moderates/independents. If the lib (Obama) only has his base and not the “independents” he could lose. If he does get them, he will win.

I’m not saying we should elect a RINO but be aware independents may be turned off by someone who is very conservative. They need at least
some appeal to their views. That, plus distaste for Obama, could lead to victory.

The GOP could nominate a true conservative and we/they would be very happy with that candidate!

Then go on to enjoy 4 more years of The One, as a result. (And needless to say the tradition is for the parties to nominate someone a bit to the extremes who then has to “move to the center”
for the finals.)

raccoonradio on February 13, 2012 at 10:11 AM

What we really need is for someone who can articulate conservatism to show how it should appeal to the so-called independents/moderates. This is what Reagan did so well. Palin does a very good job of this as well. The media so scathingly attacked her in 2008 (and since) because they fear her message getting across to the broad masses. They have to smear her as “stupid” and “extreme” to try to keep the masses from really listening to her and possibly resonating with her and, more importantly, her message of conservatism.

Bitter Clinger on February 13, 2012 at 10:21 AM

These articles by J.E. Dyer are terrible. Why is this J.E. Dyer person’s dreck being highlighted on this site? J.E. Dyer makes groundless assertions (to support her anti-Romney and pro-Palin positions) based on strawmen that Dyer pulls out of the air.

I would like to see posts by regular posters like BuyDanish.

bluegill on February 13, 2012 at 8:17 AM

BuyDanish has her own blog. Is there someone preventing you from making that your new haunt?

Mockingjay on February 13, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Hopefully J.E. Dyer will articulate a more adequate response.

Buy Danish on February 13, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Succinctness doesn’t appeal to you?

darwin on February 13, 2012 at 10:22 AM

troyriser_gopftw on February 13, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Duly noted, respectful. Thank you.

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 10:22 AM

bluegill is spam
Pragmatic on February 13, 2012 at 9:05 AM

I always thought of it as a “pan-fish”.

listens2glenn on February 13, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Tiny little bluegills are used for bait.
Resist the urge to take it.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 13, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Commentators here are so full of themselves. Passive aggressive behavior? Scoff. Palin is too busy with the “Will she run? Will she run?” pandering to ever get back to actually being a part of politics (you know the participatory kind, not the talking head kind). I think she should just see herself out or run for office. Either one works for me.

reagant on February 13, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Commentators here are so full of themselves.
reagant on February 13, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Except for you, of course. If you don’t like it, go back to where you hung out before the two Open Registrations.

kingsjester on February 13, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Buy Danish on February 13, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Good morning, My take is politics is a game/job that involves more than just blunt forth right statements. Sometimes it requires that to be sure. Sometimes a more nuanced approach is appropriate. Political strategy involves many types of messaging to be successful. Just a thought.

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Not true. They have spent millions because she is a joke, and they want the rest of the conservative movement to look like and be tied directly to her.
We don’t need a publicity loving, reality tv failed Governor who bailed on our state to lead our movement. We need real, hard working candidates. She embodies selling out. Not what we want.
I’m glad she’s not running. Personally, I think Romney (as undesirable as he is) is a far better face for conservatism than her. do we want a half term Governor who has accomplished nothing, or someone who has shown that Capitalism works consistently throughout their life? I don’t even like Romney to be honest, but that’s why I compare her to him. she can’t hold a candle to his record as a conservative.

I couldn’t find who posted this earlier (got it form raccoonradio’s post at 10:17), but this is strikingly (or should I say, “severely”) ridiculous. Romney can’t even speak the language of conservatism. That is precisely WHY he is “undesirable”. Sara IS conservatism through and through. Yes, she will always have the “quitter” label attached to her (no matter that she largely resigned because the phony ethics charges that Alaska law allows people to file rather easily was eating up all of her time and the state’s expense). Romney could just as easily be labelled a “quitter” for deciding not to run for another term as Governor when the hand-writing was on the wall that he would lose. But my problems with Romney don’t stem form that. My problems are that he ISN’T conservative and seems only to try and pretend he is in hopes of conning us.

Bitter Clinger on February 13, 2012 at 10:31 AM

kingsjester on February 13, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Eh, I think I’ll stick around. Plus I registered long before that.

reagant on February 13, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Boy oh Boy, is Hollowpoint very afarid of Sarah. As if Barack Obama is this great thinker other than the “community bully” that he is. Hey, Hollowpoint, we teapartiers are quietly orgianizing behind your “occupy fleabaggers” and we’ll be heard in November.

mmcnamer1 on February 13, 2012 at 10:33 AM

I think she should just see herself out or run for office. Either one works for me.

reagant on February 13, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Quick, someone get this urgent message to Palin! Obviously she has heretofore been unaware of reagant’s wishes for her. Surely once she becomes privy to his desires, she will either run for office again or exit the national stage forthwith!

Kataklysmic on February 13, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Commentators here are so full of themselves. Passive aggressive behavior? Scoff. Palin is too busy with the “Will she run? Will she run?” pandering to ever get back to actually being a part of politics (you know the participatory kind, not the talking head kind). I think she should just see herself out or run for office. Either one works for me.

reagant on February 13, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Interesting. Sarah isn’t allowed to be a “talking head” and express her opinion. She either MUST run for office or go away. Funny that nobody ever feels that way about Rove, Rush, Hannity, or Levin.

Bitter Clinger on February 13, 2012 at 10:44 AM

We know Palin can be perfectly direct when she wants to be. Why this need to obscure her meaning, motives and intentions?

Buy Danish on February 13, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Because if someone has to explain it, you still wouldn’t understand. You have yet to demonstrate a lick of conservative sense, let alone principles, why stop now?

Just face it, you are just pure partisan – vote the party, damn the policies. 150 years ago, you’d be railing on Lincoln for destroying the Whig party over slavery since that bit of political cronyism would just rock the boat. Which brings up another point, if the GOP doesn’t find the cojones to go back to their founding principles, it will be dead as a party within 6 years replaced by a constitutionally conservative party or the US as a beacon of freedom, liberty & self-determination will be history. So do get a clue before it’s too latte.

AH_C on February 13, 2012 at 10:54 AM

This is going to be a repeat of ’76 again if she does not run.

ChuckTX on February 13, 2012 at 11:08 AM

bluegill on February 13, 2012 at 8:17 AM,
Spam from the person that works themself into a pretzel for Mitt Romney.

CoolChange80 on February 13, 2012 at 11:13 AM

ChuckTX on February 13, 2012 at 11:08 AM
Here is an excellent article on that
http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/palin-reagan-thatcher-and-the-political-second-coming-of-1976/

CoolChange80 on February 13, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Good speech at CPAC. Did she write it?

Does anyone know?

MrLynn on February 12, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Why? You need a job?

idesign on February 12, 2012 at 5:44 PM

LOL! I could think of worse ones.

MrLynn on February 13, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Succinctness doesn’t appeal to you?
darwin on February 13, 2012 at 10:22 AM

On the contrary, “succinctness” appeals to me very, very much! That’s the whole point of my comment, where I ask why she can’t just come out and say what she means in one complete sentence (or two, if we want to delve into J.E.’s theory about His influence).

Seriously, how intentionally clueless to you have to be not to understand that? I could not have made my point any clearer.

AH_C on February 13, 2012 at 10:54 AM

How about we let J.E. Dyer speak for herself? Okey dokey? Indeed, if Hot Air really wanted to know the answer to these questions they could probably contact Palin’s office and ask her to respond with a clarification…in two complete sentences.

Buy Danish on February 13, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Did you notice that the only time she gave her notes anything more than a quick glance was when she recited the two Reagan quotes? Those words didn’t come from just her lips, they came from her heart. That’s why she connects with people whether she’s giving a speech or meeting them on a rope line. What she says is what she believes, not what someone has written for her, unlike Obummer or even Romney for that matter.

NoNails on February 12, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Seemed to me that Gov. Palin was using a teleprompter, looking first left, then right, but rarely in the middle. The speech sounded as though it was written out. Nothing wrong with that, but I’m still curious whether she or a speechwriter wrote it.

I don’t think we’ve had a President who could write a good speech since Ronald Reagan (and yes, I know he used speech writers in the White House). That’s one of the things I like about Newt: he can speak off-the-cuff, and he can write.

MrLynn on February 13, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Palin-haters = Republican eating their own while Democrats cruise to victory in 2012.

creeper on February 13, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Good morning, Hot Airians!

A question for J.E. Dyer and Sarah’s devoted (and occasionally messianic) followers: Why doesn’t Palin just tell us in one complete sentence what she means when she says “The Door is Open”? Why should we have to guess at the meaning?

And why is it necessary to claim “He” told her the time was not right? If J.E. is correct, why can’t she just come out and say that in another complete sentence?

We know Palin can be perfectly direct when she wants to be. Why this need to obscure her meaning, motives and intentions?

Buy Danish on February 13, 2012 at 10:01 AM

You’re asking the wrong questions, Buy Danish. The questions that would get a dialogue going are:

1. Why do you suggest that the meaning of “The door is open” is ambiguous, unfathomable, encoded, or otherwise simply different from what I have proposed? What do you think Palin should have said to “explain” it?

2. Why do you think I said “God” told Palin the time was not right? I didn’t say that. You appear to have overwritten my words with your own interpretation.

J.E. Dyer on February 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM

We know Palin can be perfectly direct when she wants to be. Why this need to obscure her meaning, motives and intentions?
Buy Danish on February 13, 2012 at 10:01 AM

ANYBODY can be perfectly direct, when they want to be.

Sarah is exercising pure unadulterated political gamesmanship.

And I am going to pronounce it a success. All I need for evidence is the complaints you anti-Palinistas keep posting here about her ‘obscurity’.

“She refuses to come right-out and say . . . . “

“Why isn’t she being ‘straight-up’ or ‘straight-forward’ with us?”

And other similar complaints. I say she’s being successful at political gamesmanship, and it has all of you who oppose her in a frothy, teeth gnashing fit. HAH !

listens2glenn on February 13, 2012 at 12:44 PM

listens2glenn on February 13, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Plus her sportsmanship is very good as well. Nicely stated. I’d leave of that frothy thing though. That will be used against you at some point.

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 12:47 PM

J.E. Dyer on February 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM

J.E., all in all I think it went well. I still owe ya./ Thanks.

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Seemed to me that Gov. Palin was using a teleprompter, looking first left, then right, but rarely in the middle.
MrLynn on February 13, 2012 at 11:44 AM

That’s odd. What was in that large red portfolio case that she kept looking down at during her speech? Pictures of her kids?

ariel on February 13, 2012 at 1:26 PM

J.E., all in all I think it went well. I still owe ya./ Thanks.

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Well, if you insist. :-)

Good times.

J.E. Dyer on February 13, 2012 at 1:42 PM

ariel on February 13, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Might as well have been pics of the kids. I’m pretty sure she has this type of boiler plate speech down pat. When its in your heart, no need for prompters, just notes with your kids pics on em.

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 1:43 PM

AH_C on February 13, 2012 at 10:54 AM

How about we let J.E. Dyer speak for herself? Okey dokey? Indeed, if Hot Air really wanted to know the answer to these questions they could probably contact Palin’s office and ask her to respond with a clarification…in two complete sentences.

Buy Danish on February 13, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Have it your way. Oh wait…

You’re asking the wrong questions, Buy Danish. The questions that would get a dialogue going are:

1. Why do you suggest that the meaning of “The door is open” is ambiguous, unfathomable, encoded, or otherwise simply different from what I have proposed? What do you think Palin should have said to “explain” it?

2. Why do you think I said “God” told Palin the time was not right? I didn’t say that. You appear to have overwritten my words with your own interpretation.

J.E. Dyer on February 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Like I said, if you have to ask, you wouldn’t understand. As others have noted, you tend to overread things. And now confirmed, overwriting others’ words.

And because YOU and your fellow phishes don’t understand, it’s automatically the fault of the author? Do take off the progressive tinfoil.

AH_C on February 13, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Plus her sportsmanship is very good as well. Nicely stated. I’d leave of that frothy thing though. That will be used against you at some point.
Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 12:47 PM

.
“Foaming at the mouth”, perhaps?

listens2glenn on February 13, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Did you notice that the only time she gave her notes anything more than a quick glance was when she recited the two Reagan quotes? Those words didn’t come from just her lips, they came from her heart. That’s why she connects with people whether she’s giving a speech or meeting them on a rope line. What she says is what she believes, not what someone has written for her, unlike Obummer or even Romney for that matter.

NoNails on February 12, 2012 at 5:48 PM

I did notice she was using a teleprompter, and she had a binder with notes gasp. Good grief people she’s just a person.

Buttercup on February 13, 2012 at 2:37 PM

“Foaming at the mouth”, perhaps?

listens2glenn on February 13, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Probably a better way to go. I saw what you did on that Sarah CPAC thread. See me?

Bmore on February 13, 2012 at 3:48 PM

You’re asking the wrong questions, Buy Danish. The questions that would get a dialogue going are…
J.E. Dyer on February 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM

I appreciate your response to my questions and for the opportunity to explain myself further -

1. Why do you suggest that the meaning of “The door is open” is ambiguous, unfathomable, encoded, or otherwise simply different from what I have proposed? What do you think Palin should have said to “explain” it?

Seriously? You stated:

I wonder, however, if one of the points she hammered throughout the speech really registered with her audience. Her signature line in this speech was “The door is open.” She meant that political conditions are becoming conducive to a renewed commitment to small government and liberty. People’s mindsets are changing. We are not governed by the “rules” of political seasons past; the door is open to choosing our candidates and charting our nation’s future on a different basis. The door is open to not accepting a continuation of the false compromises of previous decades.

You admit her meaning was sufficiently ambiguous that it did not “register” with the CPAC attendees. Isn’t your attempt to find meaning in that ambiguity (as well as divining why she didn’t run) the whole point of your post? Why do we have to interpret the meaning of her speeches as if we were participating in English Lit class, analyzing poetry or James Joyce?

Furthermore, while you mostly dismiss the idea, some of us might imagine she meant the “door was open” to another candidate via a brokered convention (or, ahem, to Sarah herself). Who knows for certain, but it’s not as if she hasn’t hinted at how fabulous it would be to wait until the convention. By golly, look what she said yesterday:

“People who start screaming that a brokered convention is the worst thing that could happen to the G.O.P., they have an agenda,” Ms. Palin said in an interview. “They have their own personal or political reasons, their own candidate who they would like to see protected away from a brokered convention.”

You said (and I digress a bit here, but think its an important point):

What strategic value was there for Palin in participating in the Cynical Media Slime-fest and All-Out Kick-em-in-the-Nads, mud-slinging, business-as-usual, expectations-on-autopilot primary season?

Okay, fine. She had a huge target on her back. But at the same time, Palin “slung mud” (or should I say, “spitballs”) at our own candidates in her Iowa speech and continues to do so to this day, so she’s is by no means above reproach. You go on:

After all, the business-as-usual approach – Karl Rove tells everyone how bad a candidate is, the media magnify his or her every quirk or mistake, the media and some (not all) of the other candidates pile on with allegations that range from hostile spin to outright falsehood – has so far felled our most conservative candidates.

Ah, so its likely Palin would have been defeated in primaries in part because of Karl Rove. It’s important to note he is an invaluable strategist, runs American Crossroads (which did yoeman’s work for the 2010 tsunami), and works for Fox News as an analyst. Unlike Palin, he is not a politician and has no conflicts of interest in that regard. Why is it bad, bad, bad when Rove does his job but praiseworthy when Palin offers her, er, “hostile” opinions about members of our team? Surely it’s not credible to blame Rove for those who have pulled out (Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Huntsman), nor is it fair to blame him for, say, Christine O’Donnell’s failures. And is it fair to note that Romney has been scorned for days now because he used the word “severely”? This criticism did not come from Karl Rove or the MSM.

2. Why do you think I said “God” told Palin the time was not right? I didn’t say that. You appear to have overwritten my words with your own interpretation.

I should have used a sarc tag, but that paragraph made her sound oh so Saint-like and I found it off-putting. After observing the attempts to deify Obama I am reflexively wary of what I sense are attempts to beatify Palin.

Palin stated her reasons for not running. She began by saying “After much prayer and serious consideration” (which is perfectly fine) and eventually we got down to brass tacks:

My decision is based upon a review of what common sense Conservatives and Independents have accomplished, especially over the last year. I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office – from the nation’s governors to Congressional seats and the Presidency. We need to continue to actively and aggressively help those who will stop the “fundamental transformation” of our nation and instead seek the restoration of our greatness, our goodness and our constitutional republic based on the rule of law.

I’m from the government Alaska and I’m here to help! What has she done to fulfill her promise? Suggest we Rage against the machine? Initiate her very own Operation Chaos by suggesting S.C. vote for Newt? Demand beyond belief that the candidates be “vetted”? (She wasn’t even aware of Perry’s “Vulture Capitalism” comments! Great vetting job, there, Sarah). Disparage Romney (in that cunningly indirect way of hers)? How is any of this helpful?

None of this is to say that this should be a coronation for Romney or anyone else. Nor am I unaware of each candidates weaknesses (including Mitt’s). But she is acting like an agitator and is stirring up a pot of doubt and anger, without any obvious person to fill the vacuum she seems intent on creating. This is a reckless strategy for our party, and rather than strengthen us we risk hobbling around with a mortal wound which slowly and surely does us in.

Election Day is Tuesday, November 6th. Our Convention is on August 27th. How the hell do we consolidate and marshal our forces and dollars to defeat Obama in 11 short weeks, while he is out there campaigning and raising funds every day? I can’t help but believe this is nothing short of delusional…

Buy Danish on February 13, 2012 at 4:05 PM

I like that woman. A lot. I trust her. Her background is much like mine. It’s much like anyone whose ancestors were pioneers.

Whimpy Womney couldn’t have taken the hits this woman took and still be standing (This is for that jailbait person, who is part of the Mormon mafia). She’s a good woman who gives a darn good stem-winder of a speech–just like William Wallace. If we succeed in derailing the socialist train this fall, I sincerely hope Americans come to appreciate what Sarah Palin’s courage and clear-sighted vision of freedom did to move the rebellion along.

Portia46 on February 13, 2012 at 4:25 PM

troyriser_gopftw on February 13, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Maybe it’s just a personal pet peeve, but I really detest the use of hater as a universal pejorative on the Internets. Hatred is a strong emotion but some things, people, movements and ideologies are worthy of hatred, such as communists, pedophiles, neo-nazis, and any painting by Thomas Kinkaid. Hatred is an emotional response. It isn’t wrong to hate, but sometimes inappropriate.

Yes! Priceless! And I too detest the use of “hater” as a universal pejorative…

Agree with this too:

I like Sarah Palin although I strongly disagree with her non-endorsement endorsement of Newt Gingrich, and also think her recent ‘door is open’ statement more or less invites her most ardent supporters to construe what she says as a veiled promise to exploit a broken convention, should it (very improbably) happen. The problem is she had to know such phrasing would raise hopes, and I think she was wrong in doing it. She’s teasing you, guys. She’s leading you on. She’s the cheerleader dream date on prom night in the back seat of your grandfather’s borrowed Lincoln who keeps promising Paradise but never comes through.

Buy Danish on February 13, 2012 at 4:54 PM

She either MUST run for office or go away. Funny that nobody ever feels that way about Rove, Rush, Hannity, or Levin.

Bitter Clinger on February 13, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Yeah… I never said that, I said “I think she should…” This is known as expressing one’s opinion. I never said she must do anything but I won’t personally like her until she quits preaching and gets to doing. Plus most of those guys you named have always been talking heads. That’s just what they do for work. What was Palin doing before she was a political celebrity? Wasn’t she supposed to be running Alaska? Oh wait, she bailed on her home state before her term was up.

reagant on February 13, 2012 at 5:01 PM

SP is a drama queen and not much else…”She gave a barn-burner speech.” Pretty safe enviornment with months to prepare…Actual candidates are on the spot nearly 24/7. They are giving hundreds of speeches and answering thousands of questions with the media hanging on every word for a “gotcha” phrase. Why am I supposed to be impressed that SP spoke well to a safe audience? I don’t think she’s a bad person and her heart’s in the right place. And yet, the question remains for me, why and the hell did she resign as governor? I think its highly probable that a publicist got to her with idea of turning her celebrity after the 2008 campaign into money…Her position in the eyes of serious voters would be quite different if she had served out her term instead of going Hollywood. Having made a lot of money in a few short years she now gets to play gadfly and spoiler. Her endorsement of Gingrich was a joke. She endorsed him to keep the race going…On what planet does that make sense. These guys have had fourteen or so debates. How long do we need this to go on??? Not ready for prime time.

Nozzle on February 13, 2012 at 7:42 PM

“What strategic value was there for Palin in participating in the Cynical Media Slime-fest and All-Out Kick-em-in-the-Nads, mud-slinging, business-as-usual, expectations-on-autopilot primary season?” What has strategic value got to do with anything? In order to win the nomination you have to go through the process. If you don’t want to go through the process then you become a spectator like the rest of us…SP is a spectator. And no, she’s not a Rove-like figure or kingmaker. Rove put GW in the governor’s office in Texas twice, as well as twice in the Whitehouse…And we saw how she did with Gingrich with her endorsement non-endorsement…She’s not a kingmaker either though she appears to want the role…

Nozzle on February 13, 2012 at 8:02 PM

But if she does run, it will not be because she has changed, but because we have.

This is the important line in the post. Agree 100%!

Conservative_Hippie on February 13, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Buy Danish on February 13, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Sorry, you still don’t get it. The answer to #1 is that JE thot some didn’t get it, namely Mittbots, Ronulians and the pro-establishment types. Those with conservative insticts got it. Call it a dog whistle if you like, but Sarah was motivating the conservatives to stick to their principles – don’t waver and give in to the panicked lemmings wanting to go with the “sure bet” on electability.

Then you pile it on with Sarah “spitballing” the candidates in her Iowa speech. Again, you interpreted Sarah as attacking candidates when she clearly made “those who we sent to Washington” the subject.

As for #2, only a person of faith would understand that – at least those who believe that each of us can have a personal and daily relationship with God. If God is just some spirit in the sky or a picture on the wall or a crucifix, then yeah, you won’t understand.

I’m betting Anchoress or Marcia Morrisey’s columns aren’t exactly your cup of mediatative tea, when you’d rather sling back a beer or two with Ace. Just saying.

AH_C on February 14, 2012 at 1:20 AM

The drama queen is playing a dangerous game…We need party unity to defeat Hussein. She’s doing her best to play spoiler even though she isn’t running. I’m afraid the damage is already done by Sarah and a handful of conservative bloggers trolling for blog hits…Millions of disappointed voters will likely sit this one out no matter the eventual nominee. So much for SP’s idea of keeping the race going…We’ll see.

Nozzle on February 14, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8