Sarah Palin’s run for Congress
posted at 1:55 pm on July 14, 2009 by Repurblican
regular view
Sarah Palin is taking one heckuva gamble. Weeks after the Letterman controversy, Palin, who’d been continuously battling frivolous ethics complaints in Alaska, resigned her governorship to as she put it, “affect positive change outside government, at this moment in time, on another scale.”
It’s the “on another scale” comment that fascinates me. As we’ve seen, Palin’s resignation has evoked a wide array of reactions, but here’s my favorite assessment (from the LA Times) which combines bits of both the positive and negative camps:
Wow. I didn’t see that coming. But I have to say I think it’s a great chess move on her part. Honestly, if only Palin’s intellectual abilities matched her political instincts she would be truly formidable.
Don’t misunderestimate her. While there’s been plenty of talk about possible 2012 ambitions, the discussion oftentimes misses one important interceding event: the midterms, a point which didn’t become glaringly obvious to me until this little tidbit came out of the Washington Times.
“I will go around the country on behalf of candidates who believe in the right things, regardless of their party label or affiliation,” she said over lunch in her downtown office, 40 miles from her now-famous hometown of Wasilla — population 7,000 — where she began her political career.
Sarah Palin should run for Congress. All of it. And that may actually be her plan.
Imagine a midterm election and its historically low turnout (29% to 60% for Midterms vs. 48% to 78% for Presidential years). Imagine an agitated conservative base after two years of Obamanomics and a wary public likely concerned about the economy and the government’s leftward tilt. Now imagine a full-time crowd-raising money-machine candidate without a national office to run for, with a free hand to back Democrats and Republicans — many of whom will no doubt invite her in — and a grudge against just about everyone, including many “party insiders” over whom she’d love to lord a few Palin-powered victories. Like I said when the NRCC revoked its fundraiser speaking offer to her in June,
if you hear an ominous “squeeaaaak” echoing across the halls of Congress, that’s the sound of Palin-affilliated money spickets shutting off all over the country.
That money’s Palin’s alone to access now, assuming she commits to the cause I’m contemplating here and amasses a few Ron Paul-styled money bombs… unconstrained, of course, by the fundraising caps of traditional candidates. She doesn’t have to win states. She has to win districts, a great many of which are quite friendly to her. While she may say she’ll back anyone, by and large she’ll be backing GOP challengers and vulnerable incumbants.
And it’s a good political move, too. There are lots of districts where she can help, especially in an off-election year, whose candidates, if they win, will be quite grateful for her assistance. Based on the 2008 election, I count at least 19 seats that went narrowly for Democrats and could go narrowly, or better, for Republicans with enough nudging and some good candidates:
Between Palin and the NRCC, the Republican Party could make some definite plays here, ideally meaning that the NRCC can devote more time to finding candidates for districts outside the 2008 narrow-loss band. It’s the double-edged sword of the NRCC’s Palin situation; the list of GOP-accessible seats may go up with Palin’s intervention, but its power to compete for the hearts of those GOP delegates, and thus maintain its current power structure, will probably be compromised by their inability to get at her donors or control her messaging.
That doesn’t mean I think Palin would run for President in 2012, or that she should. Getting back into the electoral mix too early could doom any higher aspirations for good, and whether Palinistas like it or not, she’s not ready to head up the GOP ticket, at least in so far as the Palin political climate is concerned. The fact that she could play the role of king- or queenmaker in some pivotal Congressional districts would go a long way to securing her hold as a player within the GOP while putting time between herself and her 2008-caricatured-Tina-Fey-pop-culture self. Palinistas should want her stronger if and when she runs again for higher office, and there are ways to make that happen. For example, I wouldn’t be surprised to see her throw her support behind someone like Mitt Romney — two decades her elder and himself a very strong fundraiser — allowing the GOP to rebrand, recover, and reorient while keeping Palin every bit as relevant. If Romney wins following a positive 2010 midterm, it’ll be Palin running in 2020, and stronger than ever, probably with a significant chuck of Romney donors to go along with her own. So far those camps have been discrete groups. She needs to merge them. Eventually. And this is one way to make that happen.
Maybe it’s wishful thinking that the next one, three, or more years will play out this orderly. (Okay, maybe it’s a lot of wishful thinking.) But while Palin’s resignation certainly risks her own personal ambitions for higher office, it also opens up her hand to do the some of the free-wheeling, unfiltered campaigning she couldn’t do last year, with the prime beneficiary the center-right cause. If Palin wants to strengthen her political future, I can’t think of a better way to do it.
Update: A lot of talk in the comments about whether Palin would support Romney. The video below is from before the end of the Republican primaries. I welcome your thoughts.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Greenroom Feed
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
Agree with much of the above – especially your major point about SP’s potential power in a mid-term, and you didn’t even mention how primaries can magnify her influence even further – though I remain equally interested in the political black swan scenarios.
In other words, the Rs can be expected to make a good comeback in a 10% unemployment/encroaching stagflation scenario, but things COULD be a heckuva lot worse than that, or feel that way, and what may suddenly move the masses of voters to demand things, with no real force to able to oppose them, is hard to predict.
Even without throwing up your hands at the unpredictability of human beings individually and in crowds, it’s not hard to envision SP coming out of 2010 with a tremendous amount of momentum – especially if the slow-motion Obamaist decline (or sharp collapse) pushes the lever further down and down on the other side.
CK MacLeod on July 14, 2009 at 2:17 PM
I’d love to see Sarah flip several Dem seats next year. I hope your scenario comes true.
OhioCoastie on July 14, 2009 at 2:36 PM
All I can say is … Duh!
The day the resignation story broke, this is what I hoped she’d do; take her new-found celebrity, name recognition, and ability to produce donors and use it to do some good in close districts and in primary races – while at the same time building a list of names in congress who she can go talk to.
The step after this, in 2012, is not to run for anything but to back a candidate and, in turn, get an appointment to a cabinet-level or czar-level post. Interior might work well for her, for example. Something to let her work inside DC for a time, adding some higher level executive experience, and (ideally) working out some programs that can be made visible and that actually help Joe Citizen.
Mew
acat on July 14, 2009 at 2:37 PM
The only big problem is that if she starts trying to play puppet master, a la the Clintons of old, then she loses her role of “outsider” and instead becomes kingmaker.
Abby Adams on July 14, 2009 at 3:10 PM
I`m sorry I HATE Romney. I wouldn`t vote for that creep. If he ran against the devil I`d just stay home. Romney stinks on ice!
Jayrae on July 14, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Good analysis IMO. I think this is pretty close to what she’s doing- target Congress, Senate, and Governor seats and help put more Conservatives in office. Huge upside if it works.
I do disagree about endorsing Romney for ‘12 (of course- I’m a Palin cultist!) If she chooses not to run and he wins, of course she endorses him at the end.
I think she’ll support McCain as well. May give some of us heartburn, but she’s loyal and publicly appreciative of him. I do like seeing her support for Perry in Tx based on issues & long-term relationship as govs. I was worried she would overrely on gender and pull for KBH. I think she should support women candidates when possible, but Perry will be a better gov than KBH IMO.
cs89 on July 14, 2009 at 3:16 PM
FIFY
smfoushee on July 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Not take Congress back for the current GOP; a GOP where the RINOs have been kicked to the back bench. And that means a significant change in the current Party.
michaelo on July 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Given that Youpoll has democrats taking the blame for the economy at a 2-1 margin, I don’t think it will take much to have a tsunami in 2010. The important thing is getting the right candidates for the GOP.
Vashta.Nerada on July 14, 2009 at 3:53 PM
If she supports Romney, or even Crist down here in Florida (and NOT Rubio), she will badly damage her conservative brand. I would question her credibility if she strongly supported either one.
stenwin77 on July 14, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Sorry, but the GOP hasn’t done Palin any favors; she needs to tell them to go get bent. Once she’s done that, she can rally conservatives, and then lead a conservative tsunami across Washington.
Vic on July 14, 2009 at 3:57 PM
No, job one is helping conservatives take back congress.
MarkTheGreat on July 14, 2009 at 3:58 PM
I tend to agree with this. Not that I am enamored with Romney, nor against Palin, but I see 2012 as a referendum on Barry (one in which he will be earning a failing grade). The economic mess will still be present, which means that someone with financial acumen will be best suited to win. The electorate basically took a chance with a youngster in 2008, and got burned. They will not be ready in 2012 to try another. Assuming the Palin and Romney camps got together and coordinated strategy along these lines, I see potentially 15-20 years of conservative domination.
Vashta.Nerada on July 14, 2009 at 4:00 PM
I could see this happening, except for the fact that the NRCC and Inner Circle RNC crowd have been brutal in their contempt for her. So brutal, that it will be hard for THEM (Not her) to admit that they screwed up with their attacks on her. Sarah might forgive & forget, but “Palinistas” won’t.
portlandon on July 14, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Disagree with a lot of this.
First of all – it appears that Palin will be fighting to get CONSERVATIVES elected – regardless of party affiliation. That means she could campaign for someone like Gene Taylor in Mississippi – a Democrat who rarely votes with the Democrats on anything. This is counter to the goals of the NRCC – who are STRICTLY PARTISAN … and will endorse a liberal Republican over a conservative Democrat. If Palin goes down the path to help Conservative Dems (and she should) … this will put her at odds with the Republican Party.
But it WILL NOT put her at odds with the Republican base at the grassroots level.
Let me say this LOUDLY …
1. Sarah Palin is on the loose – and she can be a positive force for the GOP – if the GOP Ayatollah’s can bury their resentment of her and listen to their base. If not – she can quite possibly destroy all hope the GOP has in the coming elections – and even possibly end the party as a national contender.
2. There is a Tea Party movement of disaffected Conservatives out there who more and more don’t give a damn about the Republican party.
If FACT #1 and #2 converge – the GOP Ayatollah’s better watch out.
But their tactic right now seems to be to attempt to discredit Palin – and that’s going to make the convergence of #1 and #2 more likely. If I’m given a choice of following Cornyn or Palin – there is no choice there for me. I will follow Palin. There is NO WAY I will follow that scumbag Cornyn – who runs the NRSC like he’s a Grand Ayatollah and endorses RINO’s like Charlie Crist over good Conservatives like Mario Rubio. Hell no.
But if Palin talks me into supporting Cornyn – if Palin tells me that Cornyn and the Ayatollah’s “get it” and are worthy of our support – then I will.
So the Ayatollah’s can take that advice for what it’s worth. Personally – I hope they continue to crap on her – and I hope she starts a Conservative Party – which leave the GOP in a THIRD PARTY STATUS.
HondaV65 on July 14, 2009 at 4:01 PM
How can conservatives take back Congress when they never had it to begin with?
spmat on July 14, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Be careful what you wish for. If you don’t like socialized medicine and cap and trade, how will you feel about mandatory pay scales for everyone, or being told your house is now government property, etc? If the GOP becomes a third party, dems will not lose another election. Better that everyone mend fences now and work together, because if the GOP splits, it effectively means socialist domination for all.
Vashta.Nerada on July 14, 2009 at 4:07 PM
If Palin does run for president, be it 2012, 2016, or 2020, having a history of being willing to cross party lines in order to support true conservatives, that this will endear her to the independant voters, who also care more about what a candidate can do, and less about the party affiliation.
After a few years of the hyper patrisanship of the Obama administration, a candidate with a history of working across party lines will be attractive.
It will also make her more attractive to conservative and moderate Democrats. (Assuming Obama hasn’t driven them alll from the party by then.)
MarkTheGreat on July 14, 2009 at 4:11 PM
I don’t see Palin waiting until ‘20. Since the 1952 election the only time a party has held the White House for more than 8 years was when the GHWB rode the Gipper’s coatails and Dukakis’ tank to victory. If Romney had 2 terms, there would no doubt be ‘GOP fatigue’ like last year and SP would have to run in the same climate as in ‘08 or wait until ‘24, by which time she would surely be very, very old news.
She’s got to ramp up in hurry, but her best window of opportunity is in ‘12.
Lou Budvis on July 14, 2009 at 4:12 PM
The current leadership of the Republican party are almost as likely to give us all of those things as is Obama.
MarkTheGreat on July 14, 2009 at 4:12 PM
I’m convinced we’re no better off with the GOP in power. All of those things would come about with a Republican President. It wasn’t Obama that passed TARP and forced the banks to take the money – it was a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT that did it.
And let’s also remember – that the GOP Presidential nominee even suspended his campaign to help get it passed.
And let’s also remember that the prescription drug plan and “no child left behind” was brought to you courtesy of the Republican Party.
And let’s also remember that Rush Limbaugh had to go nuclear on the Republicans to stop the amnesty bill.
Dude – there’s no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. The Colin Powell’s are in charge of the party now.
So unless there is a revolution in the GOP – then I’ll vote for true Conservatives … like Palin … or I’ll vote for the Democrats. If you ask me – the Democrats have done wonders for this nation since we put them in power. Yeah – I just said that.
And by that I mean that Americans are finally getting an education that elections have consequences.
HondaV65 on July 14, 2009 at 4:14 PM
I’m really hoping for a Rubio endosement from Palin. That act will LOUDLY proclaim her intentions imo.
Muletrain on July 14, 2009 at 4:25 PM
If her op-ed in the Washington Post is any indication, Sarah Palin could be more powerful as a kingmaker than as a “queen”. She might be able to team up with a few more experienced party leaders in recruiting and supporting candidates who agree with her vision–she could definitely get some policy lessons from somebody like Newt Gingrich, although she doesn’t have his baggage and can be a good messenger for his message. She has no problems with “rallying the base”, drawing much bigger crowds than McCain ever did–but can she win over the Independents?
Has Sarah Palin sacrificed her own political career to inspire others with her political vision? Time will tell, but as Obamanomics plunges the country into massive debt, her folksy common sense might start sounding like true wisdom.
Steve Z on July 14, 2009 at 4:26 PM
I know what you are saying. In fact, I am reading a great book, Leviathan on the Right, which details the neocons and big government conservatives’ methods of growing government. That being said, to get enough votes to win an election means compromise here and there (in small ways) so that we get 80% or so of what each wants, while shrinking the government at each opportunity. It took many years to grow the monster, and will take many to cut it down to size. An all or nothing approach will likely lead to failure. Recall that Reagan accumulated a huge backing, and did shrink government bit by bit, for six years, but he didn’t do it all at once, and even then was regarded as a madman. IMO, all the factions need to find commonality, mend fences, win elections, and start taking the axe to the government bit by bit, prioritized by which cuts get the most support from the winning coalition – instead of trying to kill the beast all at once. Just my opinion.
Vashta.Nerada on July 14, 2009 at 4:32 PM
MarkTheGreat on July 14, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Based on how they vote, I’d say they are.
fronclynne on July 14, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Got to love it. More unsolicited advice to Palin from somebody who has never ran for office or ran a campaign and doesn’t even know his own last name.
Blake on July 14, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Excuse the pedantic nature of my initial comment, but the correct spelling here is “effect.”
disa on July 14, 2009 at 4:37 PM
I agree with most of what you said and reached much the same conclusions just yesterday after reading her op ed. I don;t know if her intrest is in national office at this point but she will be in position not to add to a ticket but to decide the ticket. She brings to the table several million voters who if they have not abandoned her up to now are not likely to. If she backs and actively works for her choice she brings votes and money and that is tough to beat. Looking at obama’s polling numbers he will be much easier to beat if the economy does not turn around but there are other thing that can dethrone him as well Cap and Trade ….. Health care …. and there is a constant drip of the little niggling things Birth records, the AG mess, continuing many of Bush’s policies will continue to reduce support for obama ….. I for one hope it is Palin’s support that ends his presidency ……… I enjoy having the last laugh and this one would be oh so sweet
Aggie95 on July 14, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Sarah Palin has been very clear in her statements. John Ziegler lays it all out in his analysis of her telegraphing her intent.
I believe she is on a “Conservatives to Congress in 2010″ forced march. That is why her timing of resigning the Governorship had to be now.
A President needs a Congress she can work with. Failing that, there isn’t much point in taking on the DC quagmire.
As far as 2012 goes, maybe that is “Conservatives to Congress – Part IIT. that would serve the USA quite nicely, and I think she’ll be happy that she’s done her part.
I’ll let you know after I attend the Aug 8 – Reagan Library event. Got an invite, check is in the mail.
Jimmy Doolittle on July 14, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Part II”
Where did that T come from?
PIMF – and I did.
Jimmy Doolittle on July 14, 2009 at 4:46 PM
A few thoughts.
First, the 3rd party thing. I think it’s a shame to split our side. We’d most likely lose to THEM. That being said, if the third party option is Sarah Palin, the vote’s gonna split anyway, and I’d rather be on the right side and go down with honor. I’d think, “Let the Republican Party wail and gnash its teeth. It serves them right.”
When you have multiple parties, though, you have to make the rule about two or more parties uniting to form a government. I lived in Sweden for a long time, and the Social Democrats couldn’t scrape together 51% – so they had to bring another party in to bring the total to over 51%. Then comes the back room dealmaking, and the announcement.
In that kind of environment, a multiparty system would not take down the majority parties, but they WOULD have to get some concessions. They’d have potentially more power they have now. Ron Paul could be a force to be reckoned with.
disa on July 14, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Sorry, they WOULD have to MAKE some concessions
disa on July 14, 2009 at 4:57 PM
While I can enjoy the idea of Palin being a “kingmaker” and helping like minded people get elected – she goes this route “I wouldn’t be surprised to see her throw her support behind someone like Mitt Romney ” at her own peril.
Many of her supporters would take her throwing support and/or money behind Romney poorly and it would make her conservative credentials as suspect as his. Not being part of the business as usual crowd of politicians is what her supporters like her for – they aren’t going to want her to just become the pretty face of the old boys club of the GOP.
katiejane on July 14, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Sorry Patrick, you lost me when you said Romney.
He’s not a conservative. He only talks it.
Hey Palinistas,
You notice how all the Romneyites here want to ride her skirt to the WH but then not let her be the POTUS?
Outside of Newt and Sarah, there is NO conservative out there.
Sapwolf on July 14, 2009 at 5:16 PM
I’m not sold on her running in 2012, either. Mainly for the fact that it is difficult to unseat an incumbent and I don’t think she should be asked to fall on her sword after the way the GOP treated her. If she does have a chance in 2012 and decides to run, I will trust her judgement to run over any one else’s.
Blake on July 14, 2009 at 5:21 PM
How would you know what I’ve done if you don’t know my last name?
What is all this animosity about? Palin can’t win in 2012. If she’d been let loose in 2008, she probably would be our vice president right now. But don’t talk down to the rest of the conservative and libertarian movement because not everyone shares your devotion to Palin.
Patrick on July 14, 2009 at 5:23 PM
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…during the primary, Palin did an MTV interview and was asked which candidate she liked. First words out of her mouth were “Mitt Romney”. She said she had spoken to him and he was the only one saying all the right things about energy. The only other candidate she even mentioned was Ron Paul. Feel free to google it. Last time I checked, it was on youtube.
JA on July 14, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Risk Takers – Who’s Your Momma. Everyone wants to play safe politics. Where’s the fun in that?
Dr Evil on July 14, 2009 at 5:46 PM
You may think you KNOW that, but you don’t KNOW that. You can’t unless you’re claiming to have a mainline to God.
1) Assume the Dems are badly weakened
2) Assume that your Palin congressional strategy works like a charm
3) Assume that Sarah-Nation, Obamanaut-like, dominates the Republican primaries
And then she picks a borderline RINO, some eminent, maybe military & foreign policy kind of reform centrist, for VP – a McCain type, but younger – Rudy maybe.
Just as one example.
Why the Heck not?
Imagine a gallon of gas at $6, or a Depression, or both, if it makes it easier for you. Odds? 50/50, 1 in 5 – who can say. 1 in 100 is different from “can’t.”
CK MacLeod on July 14, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Not by much. It may be better to say that among the “can’ts” out there, mine was meant as a very low probability description, not a 0% description. But a “1 in 100″ shot is not the sort of shot she should be taking, nor one that the Party should take. She shouldn’t run in 2012, and by shouldn’t, I mean the probability of her winning is very, very low, and thus the likelihood of right leaning values being advanced would be similarly low as a result, assuming she was the nominee. Those holding those values, myself included, should take that into account when contemplating who can (25 to 50%-ish) and can’t (1 to 20%-ish) win.
Patrick on July 14, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Bingo!
After, what?, two weeks?, someone with a forum finally realized what us groundlings knew all along, Palin can make the biggest difference for Republicans – and eventually for herself – by playing to her strengths: energy policy, Reaganomics (that is, the only kind of economics that works), and fund raising.
Knott Buyinit on July 14, 2009 at 6:44 PM
She has the potential to merge both the social cons and the econo-cons, especially if she touts energy independence, low taxes, self-reliance, and small government.
Iblis on July 14, 2009 at 6:46 PM
Exactly.
Patrick on July 14, 2009 at 6:52 PM
Patrick on July 14, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Frankly, I don’t like making predictions of any kind, because it often reinforces the same biases that may have tipped the predictions – intellectual feedback loop.
However, and especially since you don’t strike me as prejudicially anti-Sarah, I’m wondering what your premises are. I’m also guess that you acknowledge that “advancing right leaning values” and “winning” aren’t always the same thing, but are refraining from acknowledging it.
In my view, a strongly motivated, organized, and ideologically relatively (for Americans) disciplined mass movement is as or more important than who happens to win the presidency. If you were in the Civil Rights movement, it was very helpful to have LBJ, but if you had to choose between the movement and the politician, it wouldn’t have been any choice at all. LBJ without the movement wouldn’t have done very much. The movement with almost any other president still would have won sooner or later.
So, I can see several scenarios under which it would be better for the right for Palin to run in 2012 than not, and not all of them turn on her winning or even of starting out with good odds of winning. I’m guessing that my other views may be more radical than yours, both in the sense of how shaken up the country might be ca. 2012 and in what kind of change it’s worth getting very interested in.
CK MacLeod on July 14, 2009 at 6:53 PM
She mentioned McCain…she mentioned Jindahl, there was one other she was high on, can’t remember, but you apparently didn’t remember those two.
right2bright on July 14, 2009 at 7:04 PM
The interview I’m referencing took place early on in the primary and I don’t believe she talked about McCain or Jindal (Jindal wasn’t even running, so why would she have mentioned him?) She was specifically asked which candidate she liked and her immediate answer was “Mitt Romney”.
Yep, that’s right, Sarah Palin is an enthusiastic Mitt Romney supporter!
JA on July 14, 2009 at 7:54 PM
The primary is so, like, 800 million years ago, dude.
disa on July 14, 2009 at 7:56 PM
And Palin was speaking as Governor of Alaska, not as a possible contender for anything in 2008.
disa on July 14, 2009 at 7:58 PM
What difference does that make? The fact is that Mitt Romney was her first choice when asked which candidate she liked. Just wanted to point that out when I saw some of you saying that Palin would never endorse Romney because it would supposedly ruin her conservative credentials. Apparently, she thinks pretty highly of him.
JA on July 14, 2009 at 8:02 PM
This the video?
Patrick on July 14, 2009 at 8:12 PM
This post has been promoted to HotAir.com.
Comments have been closed on this post but the discussion continues here.
Allahpundit on July 14, 2009 at 8:36 PM
Sapwolf has a point though. If it’s Palin who energizes voters, how exactly is Romney relevant again?
ddrintn on July 14, 2009 at 9:05 PM
I didn’t say that – you did. I said:
Are you like Cher? One name only? If you want people to know your last name – use it.
Animosity means disagreeing with you. Gotcha’
YOU are the one talking down to us because we have the audacity to not share your devotion to Romney.
Blake on July 14, 2009 at 10:11 PM
Are you really that naive? Do you think people are required by law to hold the same opinion of someone that they did a year ago no matter what has happened in the intervening year? Get real.
Blake on July 14, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Get a grip girl. Yesterday Baseball Crank ran a story which recaps all the despicable things the media did to Palin and you concluded… that it was a “hit piece” on Palin. Must have been the one comment that her speech was “disorganized” that set you off.
What’s your last name “Blake”? What campaigns have you run? What office have your run for? How do you know that Patrick has never run for office or run a campaign unless you know his last name? What right do you have to give “unsolicited advice” by commenting at this blog?
/rhetorical questions.
Ever heard of “Allahpundit”?
Buy Danish on July 15, 2009 at 6:58 AM
You first, pu$$y! Yes, it was a hit piece.
I comment under the moniker Blake. When I publish what I write, I use my full legal name. Children and Cher use only their first name. So, what’s this guy? A child or a fag hag? Whether I have run for office or not is irrelevant, because unlike you and your ilk, I don’t claim to have more knowledge on how to run a campaign than someone who has actually run one. How pretentious of you people! I didn’t say I didn’t know his last name. Apparently, you suffer from the same lack of reading comprehension skills as he does. And since no one has claimed he has run for office, but only falsely claimed that I don’t know his last name, therefore I don’t know if he did or not, is proof that he has not run for office and is talking out of his butt — just like you have been doing. I gave no advice, solicited or unsolicited. You’re a dishonest little fk, aren’t you?
Yes. Do you really think that Allahpundit does not have a unique proprietary interest in the name Allahpundit?
Blake on July 15, 2009 at 9:17 AM
Running for congress would be a serious step down for her, They’d use her position there to trap her ad frame her for some bs ethics charge.
She should stay as far away from that crowd as possible; she might catch Potomac River Fever a terrible incurable disease. Once infected, a person is never able to return to normalcy.
HonestConservative on July 15, 2009 at 12:32 PM
You’ve got to be shitting me, JA. I just watched the video. She said that she hadn’t even spoken to all of the candidates, but confirmed that Romney had “said all the right things.” That means developing Alaska’s resources, which is something she is pushing, and will continue to push. That doesn’t mean that she “prefers” Romney or that she would support Ron Paul for prez. The only passion I heard in that clip was for Alaska and America.
disa on July 15, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Bingo. I still think she’s keeping her options open, and may never run for office again. Situations change; this one is no exception. It’s no doubt a rare thing for a politician to become wary of public office. I think Sarah is like a bear that had a close call with a trap. Or maybe, she had to bite her own foot off to escape the Governorship of Alaska.
“oooo, she’s a quitter!” Ptui!
You know, I’m still staggered by the number of people who don’t blink an eye at what’s been done to her and her family.
disa on July 15, 2009 at 4:15 PM