Ace’s “special comment” on Palinistas
posted at 8:42 am on July 6, 2009 by Karl
Edited only slightly, so there will be some profanity:
It’s this insane idea that if you want something to happen, you will also of course agree that it will happen, and if you don’t agree it will happen, obviously you don’t want it to happen.
In other words, if you’re cheering for one side, you must of course believe that side will win, and if you suggest our side won’t win, well, gee, you must be cheering against us.
It’s insane. I wanted the Giants to win against the Eagles in the playoffs, but I predicted they’d lose, because the Eagles had their number and they were coming apart at the seams. They did lose, for the reasons I guessed (I think). That did not mean I wasn’t “on their side,” I’ve been on the Giants’ side all my life.
But there is a mentality in the nutroots that if you dare to post a poll showing Republicans down and say “we’re in trouble, we need a game-changer,” well, that means you’re secretly rooting against our side.
And if you say that Fred Thompson isn’t catching on as hoped, well, you hate Fred Thomson.
And if you do not believe that Sarah Palin has some double-secret probation plan for the presidency, you must hate her too, and you’re rooting against her, and cheering for the other side.
This is fucking insane and it must stop. I will not be bullied by this ludicrous magical thinking brigade who insists that only Nice and Positive Words must be uttered or else one is contributing one’s Evil Energy to the Wrong Side.
It’s insane.
I disagree with you. I have tried to do so pleasantly but I am tired of the imputation of bad motive simply because I am more realistic and less prone to flights of hopeful fancy than you.
If you think I’m wrong, say so. I do not mind being called wrong. I do, however, greatly mind being called a traitor, of harboring a secret agenda I hide from you in order to advance the MSM’s interests, etc., and all the rest of this insane bullshit.
Someone can be wrong honestly, without the need of claiming he’s wrong dishonestly, wrong because he’s actively intending to subvert the cause (so he can of course get invited to these famous DC dinner parties, etc.)
Stop jumping to claim some one is not just wrong but actively malicious.
It’s insane. It’s fruit fucking loops. and it’s tiresome.
And I do think I am taking off the week. You guys only seem to want to talk about Sarah Palin and furthermore you only want to hear the same thing — she’s running, this is a great move, she’s now perfectly poised for the race, etc.
It’s nonsense. And I hardly need to blog about it, because you all seem to know the words to the song. So you don’t need me as part of the chorus. You can sing the same words well enough without me.
I am really tired of this relentless nonsense and occasional nastiness whenever someone is believed to have departed from the conservativey correct line.
To anticipate some of the responses that comments like this have already generated, for the purpose of this discussion, I really do not care what Ace wrote about Palin’s resignation, any more than I care about what Ed Morrissey wrote about it, any more than I care about the advice Jonah Goldberg was offering Palin before her announcement. I can disagree with any part or all of their opinions without irrationally jumping to the conclusion that they hate Palin, or have thrown in their lot with David Frum and Colin Powell.
Indeed, I can point out what I think are some of the flaws in Goldberg’s piece. He overstates how much Palin has been out of Alaska since the election, while understating the degree to which her profile these days has been dictated by David Letterman, Vanity Fair’s Todd Purdum, and disgruntled McCain campaign officials dragging her (and her daughters) into the spotlight. But consider some of the over-the-top reactions against Goldberg’s writing and person when the piece was linked here at HotAir (Obviously, not all of the critical comments were over-the-top, but if you read them all, you’ll find a fair number of them). To grasp how off-kilter some of the vitriol was, consider that Goldberg argued that Palin can match Romney’s ability to talk policy if she wants to, but Romney will never have Palin’s charisma. How that qualifies as heresy eludes me. The notion that Goldberg is somehow “blowing up the conservative movement” by stating his opinion also seems to impute to him influence far beyond that which he actually has (and I would say the same of Charles Krauthammer, let alone a handful of conservative bloggers).
As for her resignation, my analysis would be closer to that of Mark Halperin than Ace or Ed. But I can disagree with them on Palin’s future prospects while utterly agreeing with Ace’s comment about Palin’s most rabid supporters, who are probably doing her no favors. I suspect that some of the reasons the Left has a special loathing for Palin are the same reasons why some on the Right seem to have an absolutely blind love for her. Should she decide to run for president, the Left will likely enjoy the prospect of using her most devoted followers to highlight her most polarizing qualities.
Granted, the knee-jerk defense of Palin is also a product of the sheer volume and bile of the attacks on her from the Left. But the unfair attacks of the Left will not go away, so long as Palin remains in politics. Nor do those unfair attacks justify unfair attacks by Palin supporters against others on the Right who have supported Palin, or simply called the balls and strikes as they saw them. It is possible to be mistaken without being evil.
Finally, consider this from R. A. Mansour’s profile at Conservatives4Palin:
Make no mistake, the beating she took during the campaign was wounding. She’s not as confident as she once was. You can see it in the difference between her pre-campaign interviews and her post-campaign interviews. There’s a stuttering nervousness about her now. She’s trying to get back on her game.
That could be read more than one way. Presuming that Mansour did not intend to paint Palin as someone who can be beaten down by the likes of Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson, it suggests that Palin recognizes that she needs to raise her game to meet The Narrative likely to be built against her — should she seek a national leadership position. If so, Sarah Palin and Jonah Goldberg really are not all that far apart.









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: « Previous 1 2
Some of them on their face are insults yet you find them reasonable. They are all taken out of context to make someone look like an aggrieved party who isn’t. Please don’t ask me to state the obvious again.
Blake on July 6, 2009 at 10:56 AM
something has gone awry with the promoting of this post I think Mr. Cap’n Ed
happyfeet on July 6, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Nice spin.
Blake on July 6, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Easy to say. Care to actually make a point and/or explain how what I said was wrong? From what I’ve seen of your comments here, everything that your are saying is kneejerk, emotional responses. I don’t mean that to be insulting, just to point out that you don’t seem to actually process anything that anyone else is saying that you don’t already agree with.
zerosheep on July 6, 2009 at 11:05 AM
You take a deep breath. My breathing is fine. As I already pointed out while C4P is an advocacy site it is fairer than HA and said why. I’m not going to repeat myself.
No, I’m not going to be tricked to going to some crappy blog. As I have said repeatedly, just because someone says something unbiased about Palin once in a while doesn’t mean they are not biased or their thinking sound. And this has a lot more to do than just Palin. People are not going to get in line just because a handful of bloggers tell them to.
And some of you who think that you are political strategist experts [snicker] better start worrying how this is going to reflect on your candidates in the future. Don’t demand the damn 11th Commandment when you have refused to play by it for years or insult people you disagree with.
Blake on July 6, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Not as easy as your dismissal of what thirteen28 posted.
No, it’s been addressed. You didn’t like the answer but had to post nonsense and pretended you rebutted what he said. You’re comments are kneejerk, emotional, not well thought out, and demonstrate that you do not bother to read or have poor reading comprehension skills. And I don’t say that to insult you, but at your age – somebody need to finally tell you the truth. hth
Blake on July 6, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Still no response from Blake regarding the actual post. And no one is claiming to be an expert, here. To the average person, what she did looks bad. Period. She is now going to have to overcome that perception, along with the negative perception the MSM already created for her to have any chance at an office that you don’t even know if she’s going to be seeking.
IF she does have some grand plan for all of this, it would be nice to know it NOW, so that there could be a legitimate defense made for what she did, instead of all the blind speculation/support. If she had a plan that would make sense of all of this, I would be the first to defend her.
OK_Nate on July 6, 2009 at 11:14 AM
This has all gotten pretty silly. The only people profiting from the infighting here is the “other side”. Do any of you seriously think that any one of you is going to trimuph as the “real” Palin defender, the “real” conservative? We don’t have to be a homogeneous idealogical group. We’re for freedom remember? I liked that quote from Churchill BTW. Pretty much sums it up.
Unless of course HA & co. needed to get us’in all riled up so we could we could generate some heat and lots of comments.
shmendrick on July 6, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Well, I’ll turn this around again – one problem I see is that any counter-argument to criticism is considered to be cultish behavior. Instead of acknowledging the counterarguments, those that make them are immediately branded as cultists for Palin, such that it is verboten to defend her against her critics on the right. This grates me especially when they mindlessly buy into the MSM memes against Palin, and ironically, it only adds fuel to the fire of those that truly are cultish in the first place.
thirteen28 on July 6, 2009 at 11:21 AM
The famous ‘bubblegum-glue’ defense; well played sir, well played.
Reading back, it certainly seems (in my mind at least) that I directly answered thirteen28, and I also fail to see that you have made anything other than a purely emotion-based argument anywhere in this thread.
I don’t ordinarily play with trolls, but sometimes I just can’t help myself. Give me one fact and/or logic based argument for your position beyond “I know you are, but what am I?” Failing that, try to actually read the actual article above.
The poster that suggested you go to DKos wasn’t far off; other than subject matter, you would fit right in there — and, yes, even at DU.
zerosheep on July 6, 2009 at 11:27 AM
That is a very good point, and I would argue against that as vociferously as I am against the ‘cultists’ like Blake here. The problem is responding emotionally rather than actually considering the argument or even whether the criticism is honestly given.
That said, in my opinion, the article addresses those that offer the kneejerk, emotional response rather than those that offer honest argument. That is how I read it anyway.
zerosheep on July 6, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Thanks. It’s nice to get at least one person to acknowledge that there has been bad faith on both sides of the divide.
thirteen28 on July 6, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Do you consider headlining a post “Is Palin’s national political career over?” with a “Yes” and “It’s easily the most bizarre resignation I’ve seen, and just about senseless”, and concluding “It’s a big disappointment, and it’s the end of any hope of Palin getting taken seriously as a politician on the national level in the future” mild and/or constructive criticism?
Just wondering.
I’m much more in the [thirteen28 on July 6, 2009 at 10:45 AM] camp on this and would consider Ed’s post neither constructive nor well considered. It may have borne of the frustration, as a supporter, with Palin but it comes off and derogatory, and considering the efforts Ed makes in most of his posts to add a sense of detachment and balance in even posts wherein none is due, I found it odd he’d offered none but downside.
In fact, I found myself thinking that Patterico’s admonition on the benefits of being careful in how/what you say, during the Rush “I hope he fails.” imbroglio applicable here.
Dusty on July 6, 2009 at 1:13 PM
I am completely baffled by all of the vitriol on both sides of this. I’m even more baffled by those that think Palin’s statement regarding her decision is completely incoherent. Maybe my not being involved in politics, nor a regular commenter, nor a blogger, somehow insulates me from the complexities of thinking required to completely miss her intent. She clearly stated why she decided to hand over governorship. She wants to no longer burden Alaska with the expense that her attackers bring to the state. Whether she is doing this for her own political benefit remains to be seen. She has not announced any intention to pursue presidency. Speculation on that intent is certainly warranted, and discussion of how this decision will impact that potential pursuit is also clearly warranted. Personally, I don’t know if or when she’ll run. I’m not certain if I want her to. But I understand her current decision. I think it was the right one for her, her family, and the state of Alaska.
I will say also that I, in my inability to understand why people are so clueless about her reasons, think that Ace, Ed, and Allah, from what I read, are in a sense wrong. However, I find it inexcusable to paint any of them as traitors, or any other such nonsense, just because in their convoluted way of thinking, this doesn’t make sense, or that they think this isn’t a shrewd decision for her in light of a possible run for the presidency. The fact that I don’t think the future possibility of her running for president played a significant role in this decision, means that for me, most bloggers seem to be missing the point. Most of the discussion is over a topic that if she considered it, it was likely a little ways down the priority list.
The whole thing is of minimal importance anyway. Real change to the governance and direction of this country isn’t likely to come from the top down. In my opinion, our only hope is for the states to assert their sovereignty over the federal government. Until that point is made by a majority of states, and done forcefully, the feds will continue to press on towards bigger, badder and more, eventually to the downfall of the country. No single person is going to change that, not Sarah Palin, not Mitt Romney, and certainly not that other guy (insert name of choice here
). So let’s focus more on what can be done, not speculation and in-fighting over that which doesn’t even really matter, please.
aelhues on July 6, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Especially when that helpful, constructive criticism of AP’s (and not Ace or Captain Ed) is given day after day. Oh, and has some anti-Christian nuance thrown in to be extra helpful.
andycanuck on July 6, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Never assign to treason that which can be explained by blogburnout.
A news fast all around would be a good idea at this point.
vanderleun on July 6, 2009 at 9:49 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2