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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

You first, pu$$y! Yes, it was a hit piece.

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?

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?

Ever heard of “Allahpundit”?

Yes. Do you really think that Allahpundit does not have a unique proprietary interest in the name Allahpundit?

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.

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

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.

Are you like Cher? One name only?
Blake on July 14, 2009 at 10:11 PM

Ever heard of “Allahpundit”?

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

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.

How would you know what I’ve done if you don’t know my last name?

I didn’t say that – you did. I said:

…doesn’t even know his own last name. Blake on July 14, 2009 at 4:36 PM

Are you like Cher? One name only? If you want people to know your last name – use it.

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

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.

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

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

Sapwolf has a point though. If it’s Palin who energizes voters, how exactly is Romney relevant again?

Comments have been closed on this post but the discussion continues here.

Yep, that’s right, Sarah Palin is an enthusiastic Mitt Romney supporter!

JA on July 14, 2009 at 7:54 PM

This the video?

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.

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

The primary is so, like, 800 million years ago, dude.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Palin can’t win in 2012

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.”

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

How would you know what I’ve done if you don’t know my last name?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Where did that T come from?

PIMF – and I did.

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.

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.”

Excuse the pedantic nature of my initial comment, but the correct spelling here is “effect.”

The current leadership of the Republican party are almost as likely to give us all of those things as is Obama.

Based on how they vote, I’d say they are.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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

The current leadership of the Republican party are almost as likely to give us all of those things as is Obama.