Sarah Palin, Barry Goldwater's Heir?

Peter Suderman | November 16, 2009

Jon Meacham says Sarah Palin is "an heir to the Goldwater tradition," which is sort of like saying Michael Bay is an heir to the Jean-Luc Godard tradition: Sure, they're both movie directors, and both are known for their signature brands of impressionistic editing, but unless you're trying to make the inverse point that Godard was a brilliant and incredibly influential innovator and Bay is a hack (admittedly an often highly entertaining one), for anyone who actually knows anything at all about movies, the comparison's basically useless.

Same here. Meacham stakes his analogy on the idea that "Goldwater was seen in real time as an extremist, as the embodiment of unflinching conservative dogma"—a politician so fringe that "even Nixon wanted to distance himself from the nominee." That's right: Nixon, a president so devoted to purist conservatism that he imposed price and wage controls, and so off-the-map extreme in his right-wing ideology that liberal icon Paul Krugman recently discovered a newfound appreciation for the guy.

What Meacham totally misses is that Goldwater's politics were based in a broadly principled opposition to expanding the authority of the federal government. Yes, he relied in part on an Western-flavored, individualistic attitude to help popularize his ideas, but stubborn principle was the key to his appeal, his political goals, and his lasting influence.

Palin's politics and appeal, on the other hand, are based almost exclusively on attitude. Instead of principle or policy, she sells a carefully crafted resentment shtick. As anyone who watched her campaign interviews last year saw firsthand, when it comes to discussing policy details, she's one of the least competent, least reliable major political figures in recent memory. Voters don't trust her on the issues, and even Palin's most ardent defenders are now saying that, if she's to have any chance of rehabilitating her flagging public image, she needs to "strengthen her policy credentials."

As Palin's book hits this week, we'll get a glimpse of whether Palin's particular appeal has any staying power. But whether or not it does, it won't have anything to do with Barry Goldwater.

Read more from Reason on Barry Goldwater here.

Comments

|11.16.09 @ 2:09PM|#

"Sarah Palin, Barry Goldwater's Heir?"

Fuck no.

|11.16.09 @ 2:15PM|#

And BTW, can you please not stick her mug on every ad you post in the margins?

|11.16.09 @ 2:24PM|#

Why not? She may be an imbecile, but she's a very pretty imbecile.

|11.16.09 @ 2:29PM|#

It's true, she is a MILF. However, I rotate semesters working/going to school. As a 21 year old male, I find it disturbing that my standards change drastically while I'm away from school.

"What? She's only 35? Not bad..."

I should be looking at 20 somethings with mountains of daddy issues.

Slut Bunwalla|11.16.09 @ 3:15PM|#

I would warn you to stay away from the ones with daddy issues, but, uh...they all have daddy issues. Every last one of them. Not just the 20-year-olds, either. All girls/women, everywhere.

|11.16.09 @ 4:07PM|#

Actuall Sarah would be a GILF

|11.16.09 @ 4:15PM|#

Doesn't "GrandMILF" sound more appealing than GILF?

|11.16.09 @ 2:33PM|#

I am actually surprised ABC advertises at Reason.

Spanish Bombs|11.16.09 @ 3:51PM|#

"Sarah Palin, Barry Goldwater's Heir?"

Fuck no.

Yeaaaahhhh...

Xeones|11.16.09 @ 2:16PM|#

But they're both MAVERICKS, don't'cha know.

Urkobold™|11.16.09 @ 2:16PM|#

GOLDWATER'S WHORE? IT'S POSSIBLE, THOUGH THE URKOBOLD THINKS SHE'S TOO YOUNG TO HAVE PROFESSIONALLY SERVICED GOLDWATER.

Episiarch|11.16.09 @ 2:17PM|#

Bay is a hack (admittedly an often highly entertaining one)

SUDERMAN FAIL

Michael Bay is not entertaining. Ever. The only thing that would be entertaining would be a live broadcast of his torture and execution. By Jerry Bruckheimer. Who would then be fed to giant mutated rabid rats. Shit, I think I'm getting a boner thinking about this.

|11.16.09 @ 2:18PM|#

"giant mutated rabid rats"

You mean ROUSs?

Episiarch|11.16.09 @ 2:23PM|#

I mean Ben from Willard. With prejudice.

|11.16.09 @ 2:22PM|#

You still haven't explained what was wrong with Con Air.

Episiarch|11.16.09 @ 2:25PM|#

First of all, Michael Bay had nothing to do with Con Air--that's all on Bruckheimer's plate. And secondly, if I have to explain it to you, you're already too far gone for me to help.

|11.16.09 @ 2:29PM|#

Con Air sucked on all levels.

Stormy Dragon|11.17.09 @ 8:49PM|#

The entire premise? I was unable to suspend disbelief enough to accept:

1.) Nicholas Cage playing an Army Ranger
2.) A Texas jury convicting a combat veteran for killing a rapist

Johnny Longtorso|11.16.09 @ 2:24PM|#

It is Ape Law that this video must now be posted:

MICHAEL BAY PRESENTS: EXPLOSIONS!!!

Jesse Walker|11.16.09 @ 2:25PM|#

Michael Bay is not entertaining. Ever.

He made a pretty good ad for Levi's once.

Episiarch|11.16.09 @ 2:32PM|#

You're too nice, Jesse. Always a good word for everyone, even the Bay creature.

|11.16.09 @ 2:27PM|#

I liked Ronin.

Episiarch|11.16.09 @ 2:31PM|#

That was John Frankenheimer, who made brilliant stuff like the (original) Manchurean Candidate, The Train, Seven Days in May, and the surreal Seconds (with Rock Hudson!).

|11.16.09 @ 2:27PM|#

Palin's politics and appeal, on the other hand, are based almost exclusively on attitude. Instead of principle or policy, she sells a carefully crafted resentment shtick. As anyone who watched her campaign interviews last year saw firsthand, when it comes to discussing policy details, she's one of the least competent, least reliable major political figures in recent memory. Voters don't trust her on the issues, and even Palin's most ardent defenders are now saying that, if she's to have any chance of rehabilitating her flagging public image, she needs to "strengthen her policy credentials."

You could replace Palin with Obama and she with he in this paragraph and all would still be true.

You could replace Palin with Obama and she with he in this paragraph and all would still be true.

|11.16.09 @ 2:27PM|#

What the...?

JB|11.17.09 @ 11:14AM|#

Yup, but Suderman probably knows lots of his friends and reason buddies voted for Obama.

He doesn't want to make fun of them. If Palin wasn't qualified as a governor, then Obama wasn't qualified.

And as we are seeing, he isn't qualified to be shit in a toilet.

The Gobbler|11.16.09 @ 2:17PM|#

Over the last couple of weeks, several other journalists have pondered, and written pieces comparing Palin to Goldwater, just like this one. Why so late to the party, Peter?

Xeones|11.16.09 @ 2:21PM|#

Shit, I think I'm getting a boner thinking about this.

Aha! I'd always suspected you were secretly Roland Emmerich.

Episiarch|11.16.09 @ 2:36PM|#

No, I'm Uwe Boll. With a secret desire to fail on the level of Michael Cimino.

|11.16.09 @ 2:22PM|#

She's no Goldwater because she won't get the nomination. All the Republicans need to do to win in '12 is put up a warm body that hasn't acted a fool on tv.

yet another dave|11.16.09 @ 2:27PM|#

and I wish them a hearty

Good luck with that!

|11.16.09 @ 2:30PM|#

I hear Lou Dobbs is thinking about a political run

Brian Defferding|11.16.09 @ 2:22PM|#

That blog headline made me spit up my drink. You guys owe me a new keyboard.

|11.16.09 @ 2:25PM|#

What Meacham totally misses is that Goldwater's politics were based in a broadly principled opposition to expanding the authority of the federal government. Yes, he relied in part on an Western-flavored, individualistic attitude to help popularize his ideas, but stubborn principle was the key to his appeal, his political goals, and his lasting influence.

I wonder if Goldwater's little green men in space saucers came from his individualist streak or were broadly principled.

|11.16.09 @ 2:26PM|#

she's one of the least competent, least reliable major political figures in recent memory. Voters don't trust her on the issues,

I don't think she's Goldwater at all. But voters didn't trust Goldwater on the issues, and they viewed him as an unreliable crazy person who would start a nuclear war. Psychologists came out of the woodwork to assert that he was fundamentally crazy.

Absolutely, none of that makes her Goldwater. But you badly underestimate how Goldwater was viewed by both the public at large and by the mainstream elite and the media.

Presidential candidates don't win only 38.4% of the popular vote by being seen as someone with a reliable command of the issues, damn the electorate.

Mike M.|11.16.09 @ 2:37PM|#

Any candidate that the Republicans run who looks like he has a chance to win will be attacked with everything in the lefty arsenal, then decades later when they're retired or dead will be looked back upon wistfully by the same lefty punditry in an effort to try to make the new guys look bad.

The Gobbler|11.16.09 @ 2:46PM|#

"But you badly underestimate how Goldwater was viewed by both the public at large and by the mainstream elite and the media."

Because he's not old enough to remember and can't be bothered with in-depth research that ultimately won't fit his predetermined narrative.

The Gobbler|11.16.09 @ 2:47PM|#

"But you badly underestimate how Goldwater was viewed by both the public at large and by the mainstream elite and the media."

Because he's not old enough to remember and can't be bothered with in-depth research that ultimately won't fit his predetermined narrative.

The Gobbler|11.16.09 @ 2:49PM|#

But I repeat myself.

John Tagliaferro|11.16.09 @ 2:29PM|#

If we write Sarah Palin enough in the comments an ad for her will appear in the second banner from the top.

|11.16.09 @ 2:33PM|#

one last snark and then I'm off to pretend to work...

I welcome a another Parah Sailin run just for the comedy gold that will ensue

Mad Max|11.16.09 @ 2:35PM|#

If this is Reason's equivalent of Sweeps Week, then how about:

'Who would win a nude Jello wrestling match among Sarah Palin and the young Ayn Rand, and Lobster Girl? Katherine Mangu Ward and Kerry Howley debate the issue in this video feed.'

|11.16.09 @ 3:08PM|#

Yes it is. The Rand threads are like the public service shows radio stations run at 6 am on Sunday mornings. No one reads them or cares, but it makes the Reason staff feel like they work for a serious publication.

The Palin threads are WWE or a local news station exploring the need for breast examins by having on the newsbabes do one on camera during sweeps week. Yeah, they are sleezy and exploitive. But damn have you seen those ratings?

Xeones|11.16.09 @ 2:35PM|#

I would too, yet another dave, if not for the fact that almost no amount of comedy is worth another term of Obama.

|11.16.09 @ 2:41PM|#

ok one more comment... comedy gold and I'd be extremely doubtful she'd get past the early primaries but hey who knows anything can coughObamacough happen

|11.16.09 @ 2:50PM|#

If people like Suderman don't shut up, they may really get Palin. If things go to shit between now and 2012, people are going to be looking for revenge on the assholes who sold the country Obama more than anything else. Palin, thanks to said assholes obsession with her, pretty much has a monopoly on the revenge brand.

The only other person that could compete with her would be Dick Chaney. No kidding. If there is a big terrorist attack say in 2011, Bring Back Dick, might be a reality.

If they really think Palin is so stupid, they need to shut up about her and start ignoring her rather than making her the "unObama". Or maybe Palin isn't so stupid and knows how to bait them and use them to create a political brand. Just a thought.

|11.16.09 @ 2:36PM|#

Meacham stakes his analogy on the idea that "Goldwater was seen in real time as an extremist, as the embodiment of unflinching conservative dogma"—a politician so fringe that "even Nixon wanted to distance himself from the nominee." That's right: Nixon

How about you ignore Nixon, and consider that a politician that only won 38.4% of the popular vote just maybe was seen as an extremist? Especially considering that, unfortunately, a fair amount of that 38.4% came from idiotic racists deserting their traditional racist party? (Even though, of course, Goldwater himself was anything but racist.)

Way to fight a bad argument with worse arguments.

Yeah, Goldwater was as principle libertarian with whom I agree a lot. That doesn't mean that he wasn't viewed as a dangerous and crazy extremist by most voters and by the policy elite and the media. It doesn't mean that consensus at the time didn't find his broadly principled views to be ignorant, dangerous, unreliable, and incompetent, no matter how much we disagree with that consensus.

|11.16.09 @ 2:36PM|#

Say what you will about Con Air, it includes Steve Buscemi saying this:

"What if I told you insane was working fifty hours a week in some office for fifty years at the end of which they tell you to piss off; ending up in some retirement village hoping to die before suffering the indignity of trying to make it to the toilet on time? Wouldn't you consider that to be insane?"

|11.16.09 @ 2:43PM|#

And occasionally a piece of corn survives a trip through your intestines to be shat out nearly intact. Doesn't keep it from just being part of a giant turd.

marlok|11.16.09 @ 3:36PM|#

pure poetry

Jim Treacher|11.17.09 @ 6:23AM|#

Don't hate on Cyrus the Virus.

|11.16.09 @ 2:37PM|#

As Thacker points out above, Suderman is astoundingly ignorant of history. Goldwater was considered a derranged nut by the establishment in 1964. The infamous daisy picking ad worked because it tapped into the preception at the time (In your gut you know he is nuts). Goldwater was every bit as verbotten among elitist blowhards in 1964 as Palin is to elitist blowhards like Suderman today.

Might I also mention that Suderman has never met Palin or interviewed her. Granted, a nobody like Suderman is unlikely to get an interview with Palin, but it would be nice if he tried. Instead, he calls her essentially the dumbest woman in history on the basis of a couple of interviews during the campaign. More importantly, even if Suderman is right and she is uninformed, that doesn't mean that she doesn't have principles or isn't committed to small government. No, Suderman never gives any examples of where he disagrees with Palin or where Palain has not acted out of princple. He just calls her stupid and by extension unprincipled because apparently that is what all right thinking people think. Yet, somehow he expects everyone to take his criticism of her seriously instead of just the result of him an elitist prick who doesn't have the stones to think outside the comventional wisdom.

Suderman is right in that Palin, more by accident than plan, is the resentment brand. Supporting Palin is the number one way of giving the finger to blowhards like Suderman and his fiance who sold the country the village idiot in 2008. The more the blowhards put her down, the more popular she will become.

Episiarch|11.16.09 @ 2:46PM|#

John, I really, really want to understand why you're so invested in Palin. It's utterly mystifying to me. There's something psychological going on here, and I want to know what it is.

John Tagliaferro|11.16.09 @ 2:50PM|#

I think she's hot. Not sure why you are asking.

|11.17.09 @ 12:12AM|#

Her daughter is not too shabby either, is it wrong to fantasize about a 3some there?

|11.16.09 @ 2:51PM|#

I will explain it to you. I am so much not invested in liking Palin as much as I am invested in disliking people like Suderman. She absolutely drives some of the right people completely insane.

Jim Treacher|11.17.09 @ 6:25AM|#

Why are so many people invested in being anti-Palin?

The Gobbler|11.16.09 @ 2:52PM|#

"blowhards like Suderman"

is "blowlimps" a word? Blowflacids?

|11.16.09 @ 9:08PM|#

"Supporting Palin is the number one way of giving the finger to blowhards like Suderman and his fiance who sold the country the village idiot in 2008."

Booyah.

John Berger|11.16.09 @ 2:40PM|#

The only reason I was even marginally excited when she was announced as VP candidate was because I wanted to bang her and/or her daughter. I've come to equate Palin with Paris Hilton; marginally attractive women with shit for brains who happen to be randomly iconic. At least Paris Hilton put out on tape, she even seemed like a very giving lover. Palin's just a tease!

In all seriousness(but I really wasn't kidding)I wouldn't mind her if it wasn't for all the Christian and pro war BS. The first couple weeks the tea parties were around I was almost hopeful that the Republicans had turned the corner and realized maybe heading Libertarian would be a good thing. After going to a tea party and realizes more than half the audience was cheering rabidly after an xenophobic rant, an anti-lgbt rant and a Christian rant I decided I'd had enough... Now I just think their a lost cause with fruit loops like Palin on board.

|11.16.09 @ 2:45PM|#

There is no evidence that Palin is much of a Christian. She went to an evangelical church, but it doesn't seem to talk about it much. And nearly every politician goes to some church. Someone like Huckabe who spends every speech talking about how Jesus would run the country is a "Christian politician". But Palin doesn't seem anything like. People just assume that she is this big evangelical because she didn't kill her disabled son. I guess having a disabled child is a sin of worse things in some circles.

creech|11.16.09 @ 2:42PM|#

Goldwater was a successful businessman, air force officer (brig. general, flew fighter jets) and several termer in the U.S. Senate.
Palin couldn't carry his kachinas.

|11.16.09 @ 2:49PM|#

A Sarah Palin-controlled GOP will give Obama the 2012 election on a silver platter.

|11.16.09 @ 2:53PM|#

I don't think so. I think people grossly underestimate her. I think also people grossly underestimate the amount of resentment out there about the media and the alledged genuiuses who sold us Obama. As I said above, if Suderman really hates Palin, he needs to start ignoring her.

|11.16.09 @ 3:04PM|#

John and Sarah, sitting in a tree,
D-R-I-L-L-I-N-G!

Mike M.|11.16.09 @ 3:05PM|#

I do think that Palin has almost no chance of getting elected President, because most women despise her, which is the kiss of death politically. This is because most women are insanely jealous and can't stand any other woman who is better looking and/or more successful than they are.

But I agree with you that the attitude seen here is incredibly annoying. Personally, I think Palin is more libertarian in her pinky finger than Suderman is in his entire mealy-mouthed self.

Episiarch|11.16.09 @ 3:11PM|#

Your hatred of people who hate Palin is causing you to make the exact same mistake you are warning Suderman against, John. You're supporting a loser candidate based on emotion, and if you and your GOP buddies continue this, you will get hammered for it.

Just a friendly warning.

|11.16.09 @ 3:16PM|#

Who ever said I was going to vote for Palin? Regardless of who I vote for in 2012, I will continue to call out idiots like Suderman who make dumbass baseless attacks against Palin.

No one here has responded to any of my points or Suderman's complete lack of evidence to support his claims. They just all sit around and nob their heads because slamming on Palin is a way to fit in. Group think is not exactly healthy. And that is all that is going on here.

Episiarch|11.16.09 @ 3:21PM|#

Uh, John, you might want to reassess "group think". Your anger at people who punk Palin is a form of it; there are a lot of other people out there who are exactly on your wavelength regarding it. I consider anyone who gets overly worked up about Palin--whether pro or con--to be merely proxy warring for TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE.

|11.16.09 @ 3:25PM|#

I rip on Republicans all the time. I think Huckabe is the spawn of Satan. there are tons of Republicans that I think are functionally retarded and depraved. I can give you a long list of Republicans that I would shoot in the head and sleep soundly after doing so.

There is no "Red Team" versus "Blue Team" about it. Everyone on here decided that Palin is stupid. Yet, as I point out above, none of them ever listen to what she has to say or has any idea what she beleives. Often they believe flat out untruths (that she is a crazy evangelical like Huckabee for example). I think that sucks. It has gotten to the poin that criticizing her is just a way of posing. I way of fitting in. And I don't do that shit.

Episiarch|11.16.09 @ 3:28PM|#

And criticizing the criticizing of her is merely another pose. So I guess you are doing that shit. You say below that it's all KULTUR WAR shit, which is true; yet you then wade right into the shit, just like all the other KULTUR WAR assholes.

|11.16.09 @ 3:34PM|#

So defending someone from untrue hyperbolic attacks is just a pose? Everyone is supposed to nod in agreement instead of calling bullshit? I am sorry, I will call bullshit when I see it. And most of what is said about Palin is bullshit.

The Gobbler|11.16.09 @ 3:38PM|#

And I will support your call.

|11.16.09 @ 7:05PM|#

Damn, you lost a long time ago, sit down!

Jim Treacher|11.17.09 @ 6:36AM|#

And criticizing the criticizing of her is merely another pose.

Whereas criticizing the criticizing the criticizing of her is not.

Jim Treacher|11.17.09 @ 6:34AM|#

In November 2005, had you even heard of Barack Hussein Obama?

Nobody knows what's going to happen.

|11.16.09 @ 2:51PM|#

That's the worst insult to Barry Goldwater I've ever heard.

If Goldwater could see the current republican party, he'd be disgusted. To compare any current "Republican" to goldwater is simply asinine. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are far to the right of Barry Goldwater - that's how much things have changed.

And never forget that Goldwater despised the religious people who were hijacking - and did hijack - the GOP.

You could power 10 city blocks from the energy produced by Barry Goldwater spinning in his grave.

The Gobbler|11.16.09 @ 2:55PM|#

Peter Suderman. Greening America, one ignorant column at a time.

|11.16.09 @ 2:55PM|#

"Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are far to the right of Barry Goldwater"

Your right or my right?

|11.16.09 @ 2:59PM|#

"Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are far to the right of Barry Goldwater - that's how much things have changed."

So Goldwater wanted socialized medicine and to nationalize the banks? Are you on drugs?

|11.16.09 @ 3:01PM|#

That's why I was saying he got his hands mixed up...

The Gobbler|11.16.09 @ 3:10PM|#

There's an aid for that. If you hold you hands up in front of your face so that you are facing the back of your hands (with your thumbs and fingers pointing straight up) and then lower you thumbs 90 degrees, the left hand makes the letter L. Coincidence or Intellegent Design?

|11.16.09 @ 9:54PM|#

Coincidence or Intellegent Design?

Neither, RC'z law!

|11.16.09 @ 2:55PM|#

Palin derangement syndrome on Reason?

Can she be the catalyst Goldwater was? She is certainly positioned to command a large enough audience who likely aren't as of yet involved with the process... This time around the resurgence of classical liberalism has many faces who have yet to pick a central figure, I guess in time we'll see.

Simply by living in Alaska she has proven to have more love for individual freedom and individual responsibility (particularly self sufficiency) than most of us soft handed city dwellers could hope to exhibit.

The fact remains that Mrs. Palin is the closest thing our nation has seen to true citizen representation rather than elietest oligarchy in a few hundred years. Sadly the establishment and those who carry their water realized this and effectively(?) put her and the rest of us back in our place, odd to see Reason joining in.

|11.16.09 @ 4:09PM|#

Simply by living in Alaska she has proven to have more love for individual freedom and individual responsibility (particularly self sufficiency) than most of us soft handed city dwellers could hope to exhibit.

Mooseshit.

|11.16.09 @ 4:10PM|#

That link:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/w.....arks_N.htm

|11.16.09 @ 7:09PM|#

Take a page from Ron Paul on the political equivalent of taking back money that was stolen from your constituents.

May as well get back all that you can since they certainly won't stop stealing it if you refuse to use it.

Kevin|11.16.09 @ 2:57PM|#

Never underestimate the Republican Party’s ability to shoot themselves in the foot. She will be their nominee for president in 2010 and lose in a forty+ state landslide.

Sarah Palin is the embodiment of the so-called conservative talk radio culture. She regurgitates the daily taking points of Limbaugh, Hannity, & Levin verbatim. Palin is their creation and she knows it.

What most people don’t realize about Palin is despite the rhetoric, she is just your typical big government, statist Republican.

|11.16.09 @ 3:00PM|#

"Sarah Palin is the embodiment of the so-called conservative talk radio culture. She regurgitates the daily taking points of Limbaugh, Hannity, & Levin verbatim. Palin is their creation and she knows it. "

Links please? I love how people are so covinced she is crazy and just says objectionable talking points. But no one ever seems to link to or quote to anything the woman actually says. It is just what all right thinking and upstanding people think right?

The Gobbler|11.16.09 @ 3:12PM|#

"Sarah Palin is the embodiment of the so-called conservative talk radio culture. She regurgitates the daily taking points of Limbaugh, Hannity, & Levin verbatim. Palin is their creation and she knows it."

[citation needed]

|11.16.09 @ 3:25PM|#

"She will be their nominee for president in 2010"

2012, genius.

|11.16.09 @ 3:28PM|#

Sorry, Kevin. She's not a regurgitator of talking points. She generates them quite independently.

|11.16.09 @ 3:05PM|#

Palin has three years to learn something resembling composure on camera. She's prone to snap answers without being good at giving snap answers. She's publicly petty and vindictive and blames everything wrong on someone else. She is charismatic without being able to project even fake gravitas.

She's good at throwing red meat to the base, and not much else. Her alienation of the McCain moderates is extremely foolish and shortsighted and based on the idea that a vote for Obama was a vote against McCain--it was really a vote against Bush.

Palin is a bear on a motorcycle. That we hear anything about her at all is just due to novelty value. She'll fall off the motorcycle one too many times, or crash into the audience, and the novelty value will be over.

|11.16.09 @ 3:09PM|#

SugarFree, you're just ignorant. Everything bad ever attributed to Palin was actually said by Tina Fey, and anyone who dislikes her is either an elitist scumbag or enraged by her decision not to sacrifice her infant son to the Great God Baal. Shame on you for spreading such lies.

|11.16.09 @ 3:13PM|#

"She's publicly petty and vindictive and blames everything wrong on someone else."

Being petty and vindictive will certainly keep her from being a successful polician. Not.

"Her alienation of the McCain moderates is extremely foolish and shortsighted and based on the idea that a vote for Obama was a vote against McCain--it was really a vote against Bush."

Hold it. Isn't the party line around here that McCain is a warmonger RINO and one of the worst human beings in history? I think Matt Welch may have written a book on that. Yet now Palin is wrong for alienating the "McCain moderates" all four of them?

Further, didn't people, around here at least, dislike McCain because they thought he was going to be a "big government" Bush II administration? That is what I thought anyway.

If any other Republican came out and ripped on McCain and his staff and incompetant campaign the way Palin has, you would be all over it. But, when Palin does it you take it as more evidence of how wrong she is even though you dislike McCain and his politics just as much today as you did in 2008.

|11.16.09 @ 3:26PM|#

Being publicly petty and vindictive makes you an easy target.

When have I ever followed the party line? I think McCain ran a terrible campaign and I think he would have been a fairly shitty president and Palin a farcical vice president.

But... the way the McCain people treated a show pony hail-mary VP candidate brought in to prop up a doomed presidential bid is not a useful or devastating critique, and certainly not worth alienating the people in the GOP who did/do like McCain.

Her negatives outweigh her positives on any set of criteria you can imagine.

|11.16.09 @ 3:31PM|#

Apparently she never says a bad word about McCain in the book. Just his moronic staff. And the people who do like McCain aren't going to care about his staff.

Look, McCain is a medal of honor winner. As much as his politics can annoy me, I would be one of those people you speak about who would be alienated if she attacked him personally. But she didn't do that. She just attacked a bunch poltical hacks in the campaign.

As far as her negatives outweighing her positives, maybe maybe not. Time will tell. But, I can think of a lot of good people whose political negatives outweigh their positives. In fact, in this day and age most people who have any integrity or intelligence have political negatives that outweigh their positives. What her political negatives are says nothing about who she is or in anyway gives jackasses like Suderman the right to make gross generalizations about her.

Jim Treacher|11.17.09 @ 6:49AM|#

She's prone to snap answers without being good at giving snap answers. She's publicly petty and vindictive and blames everything wrong on someone else. She is charismatic without being able to project even fake gravitas.

She's good at throwing red meat to the base, and not much else.

Obama might not be the most masculine guy, but it's a bit petty to keep referring to him as "she."

T|11.16.09 @ 3:16PM|#

Palin amuses the crap out of me because of, well, this thread. She absolutely inspires reactions out of all possible proportion to her actual importance. It's freaky to watch.

So, anybody got a tape of Sarah Palin and Meghan McCain? That's what I need to see to decide which major party disappointment to be slightly less dispirited about.

|11.16.09 @ 3:21PM|#

"Palin amuses the crap out of me because of, well, this thread. She absolutely inspires reactions out of all possible proportion to her actual importance. It's freaky to watch."

I agree. She is a ligtening rod for the culture war. And the Christian versus dirty hippie and bra burning feminist culture war we have grown used to in the last 40 years. She is the embodiment of a new culture war.

I am working on how to describe it. But it seems to be a culture war between the over educated and or priviledged and the self made. You see people who should agree with Palin or at least consider her just another politician hate her guts because she doesn't fit the mold of what they consider an important person should be. And then there is the whole neurosis women have over a woman that good looking with a successful marriage and that many children doing so well.

There is something totally new going on here.

|11.16.09 @ 4:27PM|#

"it seems to be a culture war between the over educated and or priviledged and the self made. You see people who should agree with Palin or at least consider her just another politician hate her guts because she doesn't fit the mold of what they consider an important person should be. And then there is the whole neurosis women have over a woman that good looking with a successful marriage and that many children doing so well."

I think you have something there maybe it is her lifestyle from running a fishing boat to hunting for her own food; from happily having and raising her own children to maintaining a healthy relationship with her husband; from being more honest than "politically savvy" to finding her own way rather than taking the approved elitist vetting path... Maybe it is simply that she is the embodiment of the independent salt of the earth Americans who have made this nation great, the exact people leftist controlled institutions have been villainizing all along.

|11.16.09 @ 5:05PM|#

That is a good way to put it. It drives me crazy how people who have never done anything but go to the right school and pontificate look down their noses at someone like Palin who managed to pull herself up from nowhere.

Tony|11.16.09 @ 4:36PM|#

What exactly is "over educated"?

You mean too educated to buy a stupid freakshow like Sarah Palin as a serious politician?

|11.16.09 @ 4:39PM|#

"What exactly is "over educated"?

The antonym of "Tony".

Just like shooting retards in a sandbox.

|11.16.09 @ 7:08PM|#

And you have held which office, and can EVER be taken seriously for office when?

Turnkey|11.16.09 @ 10:02PM|#

In the context, I'd imagine it is anything past 10th grade.

Because education, science, and engineering never helped anyone.

Jim Treacher|11.17.09 @ 6:52AM|#

In the context, I'd imagine it is anything past 10th grade.

Because education, science, and engineering never helped anyone.

And now, let me tell you about those doctors who'll cut off your foot for a quick buck.

|11.16.09 @ 11:29PM|#

Oddly enough I'm thoroughly sick of the "stupid freakshow" of collectivist statism directly attributable to the serious politicians you apparently love so dearly.

|11.16.09 @ 3:17PM|#

The differences are that Goldwater was a principled conservative, and wasn't stupid. Although he didn't read "every" one of the newspapers in the world...

|11.16.09 @ 3:19PM|#

America would never elect someone with that irritating of a voice. I don't know why the left is trying so hard to knock her down, she is no threat to them.

|11.16.09 @ 3:23PM|#

Apparently, you don't remember the sound of Jimmy Carter's voice.

The Gobbler|11.16.09 @ 3:41PM|#

AAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Episiarch|11.16.09 @ 3:48PM|#

Well, he is history's greatest monster.

Joe|11.16.09 @ 4:30PM|#

till now.....

smartass sob|11.16.09 @ 5:19PM|#

Apparently, you don't remember the sound of Jimmy Carter's voice.

Or Lyndon Johnson's. Or Kennedy's.

|11.16.09 @ 10:22PM|#

"America would never elect someone with that irritating of a voice."

They damn near elected Al Gore. Even his staunchest supporters don't think Al has the best of speaking voices.

Jim Treacher|11.17.09 @ 6:54AM|#

America would never elect someone with that irritating of a voice.

Ah feel yurr payyyn.

|11.16.09 @ 3:28PM|#

So Libertarians can tout Ron Paul till they grow hoarse, but Sarah Palin has no chance of winning the GOP nomination. Riiiight. Sometimes I think people just like to shoot themselves in the foot. It must feel real good.

|11.16.09 @ 3:31PM|#

Pick a script and stick to it. Either we're (T)reason, the dastardly bastards who doomed Ron Paul with our disloyalty, or Ron Paulettes who blindly marched with him off a cliff.

Sarah Palin has a chance to win the nomination. And it would be disastrous for you guys, especially if she actually became president.

|11.16.09 @ 3:35PM|#

She has no chance. She's like a second tier Huckabee, and Huckabee/Romney will stomp all over her. Ron Paul at least has his own movement with principled, young supporters and isn't the flavor of the month.

|11.16.09 @ 3:36PM|#

I don't know if alwaysfired up has a history regarding Ron Paul around here so maybe he is not being consistent. But he makes a fair point here. The same libertarians who loved Ron Paul and said that people need to understand winning isn't everything, now say that Palin is evil for no other reason that she can't win.

Maybe there are good reasons to dislike Palin. But being unpopular is not one of them. Maybe the mob is full of shit?

|11.16.09 @ 3:42PM|#

Because Paul, while being completely 100% unelectable, at least brought a discussion of ideas we embrace to the table. Palin hasn't evidenced much yet beyond the standard mushy GOPisms and some attitude. If she'd like to come out as a libertarian, more power to her.

So far her only political position seems to be "not Democrat." That doesn't go very far around here.

|11.16.09 @ 3:57PM|#

Then talk about her priciples and why you disagree with her and not why you think she is unpopular. If she is so horrible, you should have no problem pointing out things she has said and done that you disagree with.

|11.16.09 @ 4:06PM|#

She hasn't made a stand on anything. That's my criticism. Her political philosophy so far is "Not Democrat."

I'm a libertarian, the Earth would have to rotate backward on its axis for me to vote for the standard issue GOP platform at this point.

|11.16.09 @ 4:09PM|#

Bullshit. Did you read her facebook post on Obamacare? Not the death pannel one but the one on the bill itself. It actually really smart and thoughtful. You don't think she stands for anything because you only listen to people like Suderman.

|11.16.09 @ 4:40PM|#

Did you know that Suderman spelled backwards is still Suderman? Funny that.

|11.16.09 @ 3:43PM|#

It's not a fair comparison really. Paul began his campaign with basically less than 1% and no help from the establishment, and has probably built that up to 5-8% support now. Palin was the choice of everyone from Kristol and McCain and began with 60% favorability, and has squandered that in short order to a point where most of the country hates her. The two are trending in opposite directions.

|11.16.09 @ 3:47PM|#

The difference is that Ron Paul has publicly stated what his political philosophy is.

Sarah Palin has yet to establish herself in that regard. The GOP campaign people kept her out of the public eye because she bombed interviews. She made a few speeches, that someone else probably wrote for her. But no definitive political philosophy other than Christian, social conservative, GOP.

Because the majority of voters won't really take the time to research who they vote for, they're going to show up at the voting box with whatever picture of the candidates the media decides to paint for them.

At this point, she's controversial, not popular. And she has a lot of history to overcome before she's ready to be a viable candidate.

|11.16.09 @ 3:49PM|#

I agree with you. Lets see what she has to say and how she does over the next few years. She may bomb. Time will tell. Even if she doesn't and really does a great job of articulating small government views, Reason will never admit it or give her credit for it.

|11.16.09 @ 4:00PM|#

If she wants to run in 2012, she's going to have to become an intellectual.

Even with all the ammunition that Obama's opposing candidate is likely to have, I have trouble seeing Palin refuting Obama's smooth, silky, almost logical arguments and buzzwords in debates and interviews.

|11.16.09 @ 4:08PM|#

People forget that Reagan stopped being governor of California in 1968. He spent the next 12 years doing the speaking circuit and becoming conversant with the arguments. The media protrayed him as an idiot, but he was wicked smart and kicked a lot ass in debates. Palin needs to do the same thing. She is really young. She would be dumb to run in 2012. She needs to have some patience, raise her kids and make her money and as outside the beltway figure. She will still be plenty young in 2016 or 2020.

dave c|11.16.09 @ 4:21PM|#

Minor point, Regan left office in California in 1975

|11.16.09 @ 4:23PM|#

You are correct. I knew he did two terms in the 60s. I should have known it was later than 68. But I didn't realize it was that late. But, nonetheless he spent five years out of office before he won the Presidency.

MJ|11.16.09 @ 9:13PM|#

She cannot become an intellectual. The chattering classes will never accept her as such no matter what bona fides she establishes. The narrative almost always that the left candidate is intellectual and the right canndidate is embarrassingly middlebrow. This is in part because of the ideologies driving. The ones in favor of social engineering require an air of intellectual superiorty, the one who sell themselves as caretkers can afford a more common man approach.

|11.16.09 @ 7:09PM|#

Jealously is ugly, sugar tits.

|11.16.09 @ 3:30PM|#

Politics aside, I just don't think Palin inspires confidence, especially the way she handled herself in interviews during the election. It reminded people of beauty pageants. You had the pretty girl trying to answer questions about how to solve world hunger, and she just stumbled all over herself.

If McCain was elected, there was a higher than usual chance that he would kick the bucket while in office. People didn't like the idea of Palin being that close to being president. Student council president? Maybe. But not POTUS.

I think she might have tried to take the cult of personality thing too far. It was all personality and very little substance.

She may well be a very intelligent person, but she didn't show it when she was in the public eye. You have to be dominant during an election. There's a time to wink at someone and a time to sock them in the mouth.

Jim Treacher|11.17.09 @ 6:59AM|#

Biden.

guy in the back row|11.16.09 @ 3:33PM|#

Obama to the right of Goldwater? Palin running for president in 2010?

Wtf is this, the apocalypse?

|11.16.09 @ 7:16PM|#

Free the drugs man! Peace not war on drugs...

The Libertarian platform like any other attracts some single issue people who are frequently less than well informed.

Irving Babbitt|11.16.09 @ 3:34PM|#

This shows how far we have fallen.

George|11.16.09 @ 3:36PM|#

Palin is equivalent to Goldwater!!! Get you head out of your bum man! How conventional and uninformed can Meachum be on this topic. He should stick to talking about crusty American prod religion.

George|11.16.09 @ 3:37PM|#

Thanks a lot McCain for giving us Sarah Palin!
Gov. Johnson for President!

M o n k e e|11.16.09 @ 3:53PM|#

haha

The day that Palin turns around and says that the republican party has become a vehicle for religious extremists

I'll believe it

Palin is the epitome of what made Goldwater (quite rightfully) lose faith in the party

Short Bus Barry|11.16.09 @ 4:08PM|#

Today, I'm announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. And this marks the conclusion of a careful policy review, led by Bruce, that I ordered as soon as I took office. My administration has heard from our military commanders, as well as our diplomats. We've consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, with our partners and our NATO allies, and with other donors and international organizations. We've also worked closely with members of Congress here at home. And now I'd like to speak clearly and candidly to the American people.Psych!

- Barack Obama (March 27, 2009)

Lee Cruz |11.16.09 @ 4:14PM|#

Another awesome thread. The people who can't stand Palin are posting and as usual John is at bat(Flipping off the establishment by supporting the person they can't stand?). But the question is why? Don't answer, I don't even wanna try to understand it.

Interesting though about that guy posting the trends: Paul's influence growing vs Palins appearing to have already climaxed.

I think Palin could definitely take the nomination. The reality is, an Obama vs Palin Election would continue the trend of things just getting worse for America. Who came out w/ that study , Princeton, showing how the vocabulary in the last Presidential Debate was equivalent to a 5th grader?

|11.16.09 @ 4:18PM|#

The only Republican to sound remotely like Goldwater was Ron Paul. As for Palin, if the GOP wants to lose, they'll run her. The media is already grooming her to be the candidate so they can rip her to shreds once nominated. All of a sudden she's on Oprah and Barbara Walters? You think they won't take an axe to her once she is a contender? I've seen this show before!

|11.16.09 @ 7:10PM|#

Anyone listening to Allen West?

Jim Treacher|11.17.09 @ 7:01AM|#

The media has yet to give its axe-arm a rest.

|11.16.09 @ 4:29PM|#

"The media is already grooming her to be the candidate so they can rip her to shreds once nominated."

I would say the media pretty much eats the furniture whenever her name is mentioned. I can't see how they would rip her anymore than they already have. It has gotten to the point where it is counterproductive. If they really wanted to hurt her, they would start being nice to her.

|11.16.09 @ 4:39PM|#

I will say one thing about 2012, as much as I hate Obama, him losing in 2012 might be worse than him winning. If Republicans win big in 2010, he won't be able to do much. But at this point I am not convinced that the Republicans are fit to own both government. Four years of a completely self destructing second Obama term, might actually set things up for real change in 2016. Giving the Republicans the keys to everything in 2012, would just cause them to fuck things up and bring the Dems back even worse in 14 and 16.

|11.16.09 @ 8:37PM|#

If Obama gets a second term or even retains significant power in 2010 the super statist oligarchical collectivist utopia will be so deeply entrenched that the classical liberal influenced nation our founders envisioned will be little more than a forgotten dream.

Lee Cruz |11.16.09 @ 4:51PM|#

How can the Republicans/Democrats do anything but fuck up. Even their compromises suck.

Solution 1- The Public wakes up and begins to systematically tear down the Federal Government. This will never happen.

Solution 2- The cost of Empire will finally cost the USD it's position as the world's currency. The US Government will nolonger be able to exist at it's record setting size.

Solution 3- We get invaded by aliens and on the 4th of July we lead a massive counter that gives us the win the last 15 minutes of the movie.

|11.16.09 @ 4:55PM|#

You would do well to stop using the term "Empire". It just makes you look crazy. All of the money we spend on defense every year, won't even get you a McHopey stimulus package. If the value of the dollar gets destroyed it won't be becaue we have an "empire". If we had an "empire" we might actually kill our enemies rather than trying them in federal court. Only anti-semetic douschbags like Pat Buchanan use the term empire.

creech|11.16.09 @ 4:55PM|#

Why isn't Dondero trying to convince us Palin is a libertarian? Heck, she did say "Hi!" to the Libertarians manning a booth in Alaska one time!
What the heck more evidence do you need?

|11.16.09 @ 4:57PM|#

Palin's popularity is partly a reflection of how much people hate every other mainstream politician. She reminds many "regular" guys of the mom in the kids soccer league they'd like to bang and many "regular" gals of themselves... if they looked like the mom in the kids soccer league all of the husbands want to bang.

smartass sob|11.16.09 @ 5:35PM|#

Well one thing's for sure - no one would want to bang Hillary.

Lee Cruz |11.16.09 @ 4:59PM|#

Oh what would you call our current position today?

|11.16.09 @ 5:00PM|#

"Palin's popularity is partly a reflection of how much people hate every other mainstream politician."

You betcha it is. It is a reflection of the hatred of the entire faux intellectual and corrupt culture that gave us Obama.

Lee Cruz |11.16.09 @ 5:34PM|#

Is that the Same Corrupt Culture that leads the Democrats and Republicans in Congress?

|11.16.09 @ 5:58PM|#

I don't have a particular opinion about the substance of this article, but I would like to point out that Armond White, head movie critic for the NEW YORK PRESS, actually *has* made the case that Michael Bay was the stylistic heir of Godard. It's right here in his review of the MADE IN USA and 2 OR 3 THINGS DVDs that came out this summer: http://www.nypress.com/article.....d-x-2.html

There ya go.

MIZUNA|11.16.09 @ 8:00PM|#

If Sarah Palin looked more like Brry Goldwater and less like a naughty librarian, she wouldn't be national news.

Makes me long for Jeb Bush to emerge by 2012...

Jim Treacher|11.17.09 @ 7:04AM|#

Whereas Obama has triumphed in spite of his looks.

Naaaaaaaaah|11.17.09 @ 12:30AM|#

* reason.com
* reason.tv
* reason.org
* Donate
* Site Search:

* Subscribe
* About
* Staff
* Contributors
* Topics
* Print Archives
* Cover Gallery
* Hit & Run - Blog
* Daily Brickbats
* Podcasts
* RSS Feeds
* Advertise
* Subscriber Services
* Donate
* Reason Stuff
* Events
* Submissions
* Contact Us

* Reason on Facebook
* Reason on Twitter
* Reason on YouTube
* Reason RSS

Get Reason E-mail Updates!
First Name Last Name Email
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptions
Site comments/questions:

Mike Alissi
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Chris Mitchell
[phone]
Editorial & Production Offices:

3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
[phone]
advertisements
Print|Email
Sarah Palin, Barry Goldwater's Heir?

Peter Suderman | November 16, 2009

Jon Meacham says Sarah Palin is "an heir to the Goldwater tradition," which is sort of like saying Michael Bay is an heir to the Jean-Luc Godard tradition: Sure, they're both movie directors, and both are known for their signature brands of impressionistic editing, but unless you're trying to make the inverse point that Godard was a brilliant and incredibly influential innovator and Bay is a hack (admittedly an often highly entertaining one), for anyone who actually knows anything at all about movies, the comparison's basically useless.

Same here. Meacham stakes his analogy on the idea that "Goldwater was seen in real time as an extremist, as the embodiment of unflinching conservative dogma"—a politician so fringe that "even Nixon wanted to distance himself from the nominee." That's right: Nixon, a president so devoted to purist conservatism that he imposed price and wage controls, and so off-the-map extreme in his right-wing ideology that liberal icon Paul Krugman recently discovered a newfound appreciation for the guy.

What Meacham totally misses is that Goldwater's politics were based in a broadly principled opposition to expanding the authority of the federal government. Yes, he relied in part on an Western-flavored, individualistic attitude to help popularize his ideas, but stubborn principle was the key to his appeal, his political goals, and his lasting influence.

Palin's politics and appeal, on the other hand, are based almost exclusively on attitude. Instead of principle or policy, she sells a carefully crafted resentment shtick. As anyone who watched her campaign interviews last year saw firsthand, when it comes to discussing policy details, she's one of the least competent, least reliable major political figures in recent memory. Voters don't trust her on the issues, and even Palin's most ardent defenders are now saying that, if she's to have any chance of rehabilitating her flagging public image, she needs to "strengthen her policy credentials."

As Palin's book hits this week, we'll get a glimpse of whether Palin's particular appeal has any staying power. But whether or not it does, it won't have anything to do with Barry Goldwater.

Read more from Reason on Barry Goldwater here.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
StumbleUpon| Digg| Reddit| Twitter| Facebook

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
← One Interactive Map "Created or Saved"… | Main | Last Call on Comment Survey →
See all 135 comments | Leave a comment
James|11.16.09 @ 2:09PM|#

"Sarah Palin, Barry Goldwater's Heir?"

Fuck no.
reply to this
James|11.16.09 @ 2:15PM|#

And BTW, can you please not stick her mug on every ad you post in the margins?
reply to this
Nick|11.16.09 @ 2:24PM|#

Why not? She may be an imbecile, but she's a very pretty imbecile.
reply to this
James|11.16.09 @ 2:29PM|#

It's true, she is a MILF. However, I rotate semesters working/going to school. As a 21 year old male, I find it disturbing that my standards change drastically while I'm away from school.

"What? She's only 35? Not bad..."

I should be looking at 20 somethings with mountains of daddy issues.
reply to this
Slut Bunwalla|11.16.09 @ 3:15PM|#

I would warn you to stay away from the ones with daddy issues, but, uh...they all have daddy issues. Every last one of them. Not just the 20-year-olds, either. All girls/women, everywhere.
reply to this
bendover|11.16.09 @ 4:07PM|#

Actuall Sarah would be a GILF
reply to this
RuthenianCowboy|11.16.09 @ 4:15PM|#

Doesn't "GrandMILF" sound more appealing than GILF?
reply to this
joshua corning|11.16.09 @ 2:33PM|#

I am actually surprised ABC advertises at Reason.
reply to this
Spanish Bombs|11.16.09 @ 3:51PM|#

"Sarah Palin, Barry Goldwater's Heir?"

Fuck no.

Yeaaaahhhh...
reply to this
Xeones|11.16.09 @ 2:16PM|#

But they're both MAVERICKS, don't'cha know.
reply to this
Urkobold™|11.16.09 @ 2:16PM|#

GOLDWATER'S WHORE? IT'S POSSIBLE, THOUGH THE URKOBOLD THINKS SHE'S TOO YOUNG TO HAVE PROFESSIONALLY SERVICED GOLDWATER.
reply to this
Episiarch|11.16.09 @ 2:17PM|#

Bay is a hack (admittedly an often highly entertaining one)

SUDERMAN FAIL

Michael Bay is not entertaining. Ever. The only thing that would be entertaining would be a live broadcast of his torture and execution. By Jerry Bruckheimer. Who would then be fed to giant mutated rabid rats. Shit, I think I'm getting a boner thinking about this.
reply to this
James|11.16.09 @ 2:18PM|#

"giant mutated rabid rats"

You mean ROUSs?
reply to this
Episiarch|11.16.09 @ 2:23PM|#

I mean Ben from Willard. With prejudice.
reply to this
Tulpa|11.16.09 @ 2:22PM|#

You still haven't explained what was wrong with Con Air.
reply to this
Episiarch|11.16.09 @ 2:25PM|#

First of all, Michael Bay had nothing to do with Con Air--that's all on Bruckheimer's plate. And secondly, if I have to explain it to you, you're already too far gone for me to help.
reply to this
Pro Libertate|11.16.09 @ 2:29PM|#

Con Air sucked on all levels.
reply to this
Johnny Longtorso|11.16.09 @ 2:24PM|#

It is Ape Law that this video must now be posted:

MICHAEL BAY PRESENTS: EXPLOSIONS!!!
reply to this
Jesse Walker|11.16.09 @ 2:25PM|#

Michael Bay is not entertaining. Ever.

He made a pretty good ad for Levi's once.
reply to this
Episiarch|11.16.09 @ 2:32PM|#

You're too nice, Jesse. Always a good word for everyone, even the Bay creature.
reply to this
joshua corning|11.16.09 @ 2:27PM|#

I liked Ronin.
reply to this
Episiarch|11.16.09 @ 2:31PM|#

That was John Frankenheimer, who made brilliant stuff like the (original) Manchurean Candidate, The Train, Seven Days in May, and the surreal Seconds (with Rock Hudson!).
reply to this
Nick|11.16.09 @ 2:27PM|#

Palin's politics and appeal, on the other hand, are based almost exclusively on attitude. Instead of principle or policy, she sells a carefully crafted resentment shtick. As anyone who watched her campaign interviews last year saw firsthand, when it comes to discussing policy details, she's one of the least competent, least reliable major political figures in recent memory. Voters don't trust her on the issues, and even Palin's most ardent defenders are now saying that, if she's to have any chance of rehabilitating her flagging public image, she needs to "strengthen her policy credentials."

You could replace Palin with Obama and she with he in this paragraph and all would still be true.

You could replace Palin with Obama and she with he in this paragraph and all would still be true.
reply to this
Nick|11.16.09 @ 2:27PM|#

What the...?
reply to this
The Gobbler|11.16.09 @ 2:17PM|#

Over the last couple of weeks, several other journalists have pondered, and written pieces comparing Palin to Goldwater, just like this one. Why so late to the party, Peter?
reply to this
Xeones|11.16.09 @ 2:21PM|#

Shit, I think I'm getting a boner thinking about this.

Aha! I'd always suspected you were secretly Roland Emmerich.
reply to this
Episiarch|11.16.09 @ 2:36PM|#

No, I'm Uwe Boll. With a secret desire to fail on the level of Michael Cimino.
reply to this
James Ard|11.16.09 @ 2:22PM|#

She's no Goldwater because she won't get the nomination. All the Republicans need to do to win in '12 is put up a warm body that hasn't acted a fool on tv.
reply to this
yet another dave|11.16.09 @ 2:27PM|#

and I wish them a hearty

Good luck with that!
reply to this
yet another dave|11.16.09 @ 2:30PM|#

I hear Lou Dobbs is thinking about a political run
reply to this
Brian Defferding|11.16.09 @ 2:22PM|#

That blog headline made me spit up my drink. You guys owe me a new keyboard.
reply to this
joshua corning|11.16.09 @ 2:25PM|#

What Meacham totally misses is that Goldwater's politics were based in a broadly principled opposition to expanding the authority of the federal government. Yes, he relied in part on an Western-flavored, individualistic attitude to help popularize his ideas, but stubborn principle was the key to his appeal, his political goals, and his lasting influence.

I wonder if Goldwater's little green men in space saucers came from his individualist streak or were broadly principled.
reply to this
John Thacker|11.16.09 @ 2:26PM|#

she's one of the least competent, least reliable major political figures in recent memory. Voters don't trust her on the issues,

I don't think she's Goldwater at all. But voters didn't trust Goldwater on the issues, and they viewed him as an unreliable crazy person who would start a nuclear war. Psychologists came out of the woodwork to assert that he was fundamentally crazy.

Absolutely, none of that makes her Goldwater. But you badly underestimate how Goldwater was viewed by both the public at large and by the mainstream elite and the media.

Presidential candidates don't win only 38.4% of the popular vote by being seen as someone with a reliable command of the issues, damn the electorate.
reply to this
Mike M.|11.16.09 @ 2:37PM|#

Any candidate that the Republicans run who looks like he has a chance to win will be attacked with everything in the lefty arsenal, then decades later when they're retired or dead will be looked back upon wistfully by the same lefty punditry in an effort to try to make the new guys look bad.
reply to this
The Gobbler|11.16.09 @ 2:46PM|#

"But you badly underestimate how Goldwater was viewed by both the public at large and by the mainstream elite and the media."

Because he's not old enough to remember and can't be bothered with in-depth research that ultimately won't fit his predetermined narrative.
reply to this
The Gobbler|11.16.09 @ 2:47PM|#

"But you badly underestimate how Goldwater was viewed by both the public at large and by the mainstream elite and the media."

Because he's not old enough to remember and can't be bothered with in-depth research that ultimately won't fit his predetermined narrative.
reply to this
The Gobbler|11.16.09 @ 2:49PM|#

But I repeat myself.
reply to this
John Tagliaferro|11.16.09 @ 2:29PM|#

If we write Sarah Palin enough in the comments an ad for her will appear in the second banner from the top.
reply to this
yet another dave|11.16.09 @ 2:33PM|#

one last snark and then I'm off to pretend to work...

I welcome a another Parah Sailin run just for the comedy gold that will ensue
reply to this
Mad Max|11.16.09 @ 2:35PM|#

If this is Reason's equivalent of Sweeps Week, then how about:

'Who would win a nude Jello wrestling match among Sarah Palin and the young Ayn Rand, and Lobster Girl? Katherine Mangu Ward and Kerry Howley debate the issue in this video feed.'
reply to this
John|11.16.09 @ 3:08PM|#

Yes it is. The Rand threads are like the public service shows radio stations run at 6 am on Sunday mornings. No one reads them or cares, but it makes the Reason staff feel like they work for a serious publication.

The Palin threads are WWE or a local news station exploring the need for breast examins by having on the newsbabes do one on camera during sweeps week. Yeah, they are sleezy and exploitive. But damn have you seen those ratings?
reply to this
Xeones|11.16.09 @ 2:35PM|#

I would too, yet another dave, if not for the fact that almost no amount of comedy is worth another term of Obama.
reply to this
yet another dave|11.16.09 @ 2:41PM|#

ok one more comment... comedy gold and I'd be extremely doubtful she'd get past the early primaries but hey who knows anything can coughObamacough happen
reply to this
John|11.16.09 @ 2:50PM|#

If people like Suderman don't shut up, they may really get Palin. If things go to shit between now and 2012, people are going to be looking for revenge on the assholes who sold the country Obama more than anything else. Palin, thanks to said assholes obsession with her, pretty much has a monopoly on the revenge brand.

The only other person that could compete with her would be Dick Chaney. No kidding. If there is a big terrorist attack say in 2011, Bring Back Dick, might be a reality.

If they really think Palin is so stupid, they need to shut up about her and start ignoring her rather than making her the "unObama". Or maybe Palin isn't so stupid and knows how to bait them and use them to create a political brand. Just a thought.
reply to this
John Thacker|11.16.09 @ 2:36PM|#

Meacham stakes his analogy on the idea that "Goldwater was seen in real time as an extremist, as the embodiment of unflinching conservative dogma"—a politician so fringe that "even Nixon wanted to distance himself from the nominee." That's right: Nixon

How about you ignore Nixon, and consider that a politician that only won 38.4% of the popular vote just maybe was seen as an extremist? Especially considering that, unfortunately, a fair amount of that 38.4% came from idiotic racists deserting their traditional racist party? (Even though, of course, Goldwater himself was anything but racist.)

Way to fight a bad argument with worse arguments.

Yeah, Goldwater was as principle libertarian with whom I agree a lot. That doesn't mean that he wasn't viewed as a dangerous and crazy extremist by most voters and by the policy elite and the media. It doesn't mean that consensus at the time didn't find his broadly principled views to be ignorant, dangerous, unreliable, and incompetent, no matter how much we disagree with that consensus.
reply to this
Jose Ortega|11.16.09 @ 2:36PM|#

Say what you will about Con Air, it includes Steve Buscemi saying this:

"What if I told you insane was working fifty hours a week in some office for fifty years at the end of which they tell you to piss off; ending up in some retirement village hoping to die before suffering the indignity of trying to make it to the toilet on time? Wouldn't you consider that to be insane?"
reply to this
SugarFree|11.16.09 @ 2:43PM|#

And occasionally a piece of corn survives a trip through your intestines to be shat out nearly intact. Doesn't keep it from just being part of a giant turd.
reply to this
marlok|11.16.09 @ 3:36PM|#

pure poetry
reply to this
John|11.16.09 @ 2:37PM|#

As Thacker points out above, Suderman is astoundingly ignorant of history. Goldwater was considered a derranged nut by the establishment in 1964. The infamous daisy picking ad worked because it tapped into the preception at the time (In your gut you know he is nuts). Goldwater was every bit as verbotten among elitist blowhards in 1964 as Palin is to elitist blowhards like Suderman today.

Might I also mention that Suderman has never met Palin or interviewed her. Granted, a nobody like Suderman is unlikely to get an interview with Palin, but it would be nice if he tried. Instead, he calls her essentially the dumbest woman in history on the basis of a couple of interviews during the campaign. More importantly, even if Suderman is right and she is uninformed, that doesn't mean that she doesn't have principles or isn't committed to small government. No, Suderman never gives any examples of where he disagrees with Palin or where Palain has not acted out of princple. He just calls her stupid and by extension unprincipled because apparently that is what all right thinking people think. Yet, somehow he expects everyone to take his criticism of her seriously instead of just the result of him an elitist prick who doesn't have the stones to think outside the comventional wisdom.

Suderman is right in that Palin, more by accident than plan, is the resentment brand. Supporting Palin is the number one way of giving the finger to blowhards like Suderman and his fiance who sold the country the village idiot in 2008. The more the blowhards put her down, the more popular she will become.
reply to this
Episiarch|11.16.09 @ 2:46PM|#

John, I really, really want to understand why you're so invested in Palin. It's utterly mystifying to me. There's something psychological going on here, and I want to know what it is.
reply to this
John Tagliaferro|11.16.09 @ 2:50PM|#

I think she's hot. Not sure why you are asking.
reply to this
John|11.16.09 @ 2:51PM|#

I will explain it to you. I am so much not invested in liking Palin as much as I am invested in disliking people like Suderman. She absolutely drives some of the right people completely insane.
reply to this
The Gobbler|11.16.09 @ 2:52PM|#

"blowhards like Suderman"

is "blowlimps" a word? Blowflacids?
reply to this
John Berger|11.16.09 @ 2:40PM|#

The only reason I was even marginally excited when she was announced as VP candidate was because I wanted to bang her and/or her daughter. I've come to equate Palin with Paris Hilton; marginally attractive women with shit for brains who happen to be randomly iconic. At least Paris Hilton put out on tape, she even seemed like a very giving lover. Palin's just a tease!

In all seriousness(but I really wasn't kidding)I wouldn't mind her if it wasn't for all the Christian and pro war BS. The first couple weeks the tea parties were around I was almost hopeful that the Republicans had turned the corner and realized maybe heading Libertarian would be a good thing. After going to a tea party and realizes more than half the audience was cheering rabidly after an xenophobic rant, an anti-lgbt rant and a Christian rant I decided I'd had enough... Now I just think their a lost cause with fruit loops like Palin on board.
reply to this
John|11.16.09 @ 2:45PM|#

There is no evidence that Palin is much of a Christian. She went to an evangelical church, but it doesn't seem to talk about it much. And nearly every politician goes to some church. Someone like Huckabe who spends every speech talking about how Jesus would run the country is a "Christian politician". But Palin doesn't seem anything like. People just assume that she is this big evangelical because she didn't kill her disabled son. I guess having a disabled child is a sin of worse things in some circles.
reply to this
creech|11.16.09 @ 2:42PM|#

Goldwater was a successful businessman, air force officer (brig. general, flew fighter jets) and several termer in the U.S. Senate.
Palin couldn't carry his kachinas.
reply to this
SugarFree|11.16.09 @ 2:49PM|#

A Sarah Palin-controlled GOP will give Obama the 2012 election on a silver platter.
reply to this
John|11.16.09 @ 2:53PM|#

I don't think so. I think people grossly underestimate her. I think also people grossly underestimate the amount of resentment out there about the media and the alledged genuiuses who sold us Obama. As I said above, if Suderman really hates Palin, he needs to start ignoring her.
reply to this
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson|11.16.09 @ 3:04PM|#

John and Sarah, sitting in a tree,
D-R-I-L-L-I-N-G!
reply to this
Mike M.|11.16.09 @ 3:05PM|#

I do think that Palin has almost no chance of getting elected President, because most women despise her, which is the kiss of death politically. This is because most women are insanely jealous and can't stand any other woman who is better looking and/or more successful than they are.

But I agree with you that the attitude seen here is incredibly annoying. Personally, I think Palin is more libertarian in her pinky finger than Suderman is in his entire mealy-mouthed self.
reply to this
Episiarch|11.16.09 @ 3:11PM|#

Your hatred of people who hate Palin is causing you to make the exact same mistake you are warning Suderman against, John. You're supporting a loser candidate based on emotion, and if you and your GOP buddies continue this, you will get hammered for it.

Just a friendly warning.
reply to this
John|11.16.09 @ 3:16PM|#

Who ever said I was going to vote for Palin? Regardless of who I vote for in 2012, I will continue to call out idiots like Suderman who make dumbass baseless attacks against Palin.

No one here has responded to any of my points or Suderman's complete lack of evidence to support his claims. They just all sit around and nob their heads because slamming on Palin is a way to fit in. Group think is not exactly healthy. And that is all that is going on here.
reply to this
Episiarch|11.16.09 @ 3:21PM|#

Uh, John, you might want to reassess "group think". Your anger at people who punk Palin is a form of it; there are a lot of other people out there who are exactly on your wavelength regarding it. I consider anyone who gets overly worked up about Palin--whether pro or con--to be merely proxy warring for TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE.
reply to this
John|11.16.09 @ 3:25PM|#

I rip on Republicans all the time. I think Huckabe is the spawn of Satan. there are tons of Republicans that I think are functionally retarded and depraved. I can give you a long list of Republicans that I would shoot in the head and sleep soundly after doing so.

There is no "Red Team" versus "Blue Team" about it. Everyone on here decided that Palin is stupid. Yet, as I point out above, none of them ever listen to what she has to say or has any idea what she beleives. Often they believe flat out untruths (that she is a crazy evangelical like Huckabee for example). I think that sucks. It has gotten to the poin that criticizing her is just a way of posing. I way of fitting in. And I don't do that shit.
reply to this
Episiarch|11.16.09 @ 3:28PM|#

And criticizing the criticizing of her is merely another pose. So I guess you are doing that shit. You say below that it's all KULTUR WAR shit, which is true; yet you then wade right into the shit, just like all the other KULTUR WAR assholes.
reply to this
John|11.16.09 @ 3:34PM|#

So defending someone from untrue hyperbolic attacks is just a pose? Everyone is supposed to nod in agreement instead of calling bullshit? I am sorry, I will call bullshit when I see it. And most of what is said about Palin is bullshit.
reply to this
The Gobbler|11.16.09 @ 3:38PM|#

And I will support your call.
reply to this
BruceM|11.16.09 @ 2:51PM|#

That's the worst insult to Barry Goldwater I've ever heard.

If Goldwater could see the current republican party, he'd be disgusted. To compare any current "Republican" to goldwater is simply asinine. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are far to the right of Barry Goldwater - that's how much things have changed.

And never forget that Goldwater despised the religious people who were hijacking - and did hijack - the GOP.

You could power 10 city blocks from the energy produced by Barry Goldwater spinning in his grave.
reply to this
The Gobbler|11.16.09 @ 2:55PM|#

Peter Suderman. Greening America, one ignorant column at a time.
reply to this
James|11.16.09 @ 2:55PM|#

"Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are far to the right of Barry Goldwater"

Your right or my right?
reply to this
John|11.16.09 @ 2:59PM|#

"Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are far to the right of Barry Goldwater - that's how much things have changed."

So Goldwater wanted socialized medicine and to nationalize the banks? Are you on drugs?
reply to this
James|11.16.09 @ 3:01PM|#

That's why I was saying he got his hands mixed up...
reply to this
The Gobbler|11.16.09 @ 3:10PM|#

There's an aid for that. If you hold you hands up in front of your face so that you are facing the back of your hands (with your thumbs and fingers pointing straight up) and then lower you thumbs 90 degrees, the left hand makes the letter L. Coincidence or Intellegent Design?
reply to this
David|11.16.09 @ 2:55PM|#

Palin derangement syndrome on Reason?

Can she be the catalyst Goldwater was? She is certainly positioned to command a large enough audience who likely aren't as of yet involved with the process... This time around the resurgence of classical liberalism has many faces who have yet to pick a central figure, I guess in time we'll see.

Simply by living in Alaska she has proven to have more love for individual freedom and individual responsibility (particularly self sufficiency) than most of us soft handed city dwellers could hope to exhibit.

The fact remains that Mrs. Palin is the closest thing our nation has seen to true citizen representation rather than elietest oligarchy in a few hundred years. Sadly the establishment and those who carry their water realized this and effectively(?) put her and the rest of us back in our place, odd to see Reason joining in.
reply to this
Spill|11.16.09 @ 4:09PM|#

Simply by living in Alaska she has proven to have more love for individual freedom and individual responsibility (particularly self sufficiency) than most of us soft handed city dwellers could hope to exhibit.

Mooseshit.
reply to this
Spill|11.16.09 @ 4:10PM|#

That link:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/w.....arks_N.htm
reply to this
Kevin|11.16.09 @ 2:57PM|#

Never underestimate the Republican Party’s ability to shoot themselves in the foot. She will be their nominee for president in 2010 and lose in a forty+ state landslide.

Sarah Palin is the embodiment of the so-called conservative talk radio culture. She regurgitates the daily taking points of Limbaugh, Hannity, & Levin verbatim. Palin is their creation and she knows it.

What most people don’t realize about Palin is despite the rhetoric, she is just your typical big government, statist Republican.
reply to this
John|11.16.09 @ 3:00PM|#

"Sarah Palin is the embodiment of the so-called conservative talk radio culture. She regurgitates the daily taking points of Limbaugh, Hannity, & Levin verbatim. Palin is their creation and she knows it. "

Links please? I love how people are so covinced she is crazy and just says objectionable talking points. But no one ever seems to link to or quote to anything the woman actually says. It is just what all right thinking and upstanding people think right?
reply to this
The Gobbler|11.16.09 @ 3:12PM|#

"Sarah Palin is the embodiment of the so-called conservative talk radio culture. She regurgitates the daily taking points of Limbaugh, Hannity, & Levin verbatim. Palin is their creation and she knows it."

[citation needed]
reply to this
alwaysfiredup|11.16.09 @ 3:25PM|#

"She will be their nominee for president in 2010"

2012, genius.
reply to this
SugarFree|11.16.09 @ 3:28PM|#

Sorry, Kevin. She's not a regurgitator of talking points. She generates them quite independently.
reply to this
SugarFree|11.16.09 @ 3:05PM|#

Palin has three years to learn something resembling composure on camera. She's prone to snap answers without being good at giving snap answers. She's publicly petty and vindictive and blames everything wrong on someone else. She is charismatic without being able to project even fake gravitas.

She's good at throwing red meat to the base, and not much else. Her alienation of the McCain moderates is extremely foolish and shortsighted and based on the idea that a vote for Obama was a vote against McCain--it was really a vote against Bush.

Palin is a bear on a motorcycle. That we hear anything about her at all is just due to novelty value. She'll fall off the motorcycle one too many times, or crash into the audience, and the novelty value will be over.
reply to this
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson|11.16.09 @ 3:09PM|#

SugarFree, you're just ignorant. Everything bad ever attributed to Palin was actually said by Tina Fey, and anyone who dislikes her is either an elitist scumbag or enraged by her decision not to sacrifice her infant son to the Great God Baal. Shame on you for spreading such lies.
reply to this
John|11.16.09 @ 3:13PM|#

"She's publicly petty and vindictive and blames everything wrong on someone else."

Being petty and vindictive will certainly keep her from being a successful polician. Not.

"Her alienation of the McCain moderates is extremely foolish and shortsighted and based on the idea that a vote for Obama was a vote against McCain--it was really a vote against Bush."

Hold it. Isn't the party line around here that McCain is a warmonger RINO and one of the worst human beings in history? I think Matt Welch may have written a book on that. Yet now Palin is wrong for alienating the "McCain moderates" all four of them?

Further, didn't people, around here at least, dislike McCain because they thought he was going to be a "big government" Bush II administration? That is what I thought anyway.

If any other Republican came out and ripped on McCain and his staff and incompetant campaign the way Palin has, you would be all over it. But, when Palin does it you take it as more evidence of how wrong she is even though you dislike McCain and his politics just as much today as you did in 2008.
reply to this
SugarFree|11.16.09 @ 3:26PM|#

Being publicly petty and vindictive makes you an easy target.

When have I ever followed the party line? I think McCain ran a terrible campaign and I think he would have been a fairly shitty president and Palin a farcical vice president.

But... the way the McCain people treated a show pony hail-mary VP candidate brought in to prop up a doomed presidential bid is not a useful or devastating critique, and certainly not worth alienating the people in the GOP who did/do like McCain.

Her negatives outweigh her positives on any set of criteria you can imagine.
reply to this
John|11.16.09 @ 3:31PM|#

Apparently she never says a bad word about McCain in the book. Just his moronic staff. And the people who do like McCain aren't going to care about his staff.

Look, McCain is a medal of honor winner. As much as his politics can annoy me, I would be one of those people you speak about who would be alienated if she attacked him personally. But she didn't do that. She just attacked a bunch poltical hacks in the campaign.

As far as her negatives outweighing her positives, maybe maybe not. Time will tell. But, I can think of a lot of good people whose political negatives outweigh their positives. In fact, in this day and age most people who have any integrity or intelligence have political negatives that outweigh their positives. What her political negatives are says nothing about who she is or in anyway gives jackasses like Suderman the right to make gross generalizations about her.
reply to this
T|11.16.09 @ 3:16PM|#

Palin amuses the crap out of me because of, well, this thread. She absolutely inspires reactions out of all possible proportion to her actual importance. It's freaky to watch.

So, anybody got a tape of Sarah Palin and Meghan McCain? That's what I need to see to decide which major party disappointment to be slightly less dispirited about.
reply to this
John|11.16.09 @ 3:21PM|#

"Palin amuses the crap out of me because of, well, this thread. She absolutely inspires reactions out of all possible proportion to her actual importance. It's freaky to watch."

I agree. She is a ligtening rod for the culture war. And the Christian versus dirty hippie and bra burning feminist culture war we have grown used to in the last 40 years. She is the embodiment of a new culture war.

I am working on how to describe it. But it seems to be a culture war between the over educated and or priviledged and the self made. You see people who should agree with Palin or at least consider her just another politician hate her guts because she doesn't fit the mold of what they consider an important person should be. And then there is the whole neurosis women have over a woman that good looking with a successful marriage and that many children doing so well.

There is something totally new going on here.
reply to this
David|11.16.09 @ 4:27PM|#

"it seems to be a culture war between the over educated and or priviledged and the self made. You see people who should agree with Palin or at least consider her just another politician hate her guts because she doesn't fit the mold of what they consider an important person should be. And then there is the whole neurosis women have over a woman that good looking with a successful marriage and that many children doing so well."

I think you have something there maybe it is her lifestyle from running a fishing boat to hunting for her own food; from happily having and raising her own children to maintaining a healthy relationship with her husband; from being more honest than "politically savvy" to finding her own way rather than taking the approved elitist vetting path... Maybe it is simply that she is the embodiment of the independent salt of the earth Americans who have made this nation great, the exact people leftist controlled institutions have been villainizing all along.
reply to this
John|11.16.09 @ 5:05PM|#

That is a good way to put it. It drives me crazy how people who have never done anything but go to the right school and pontificate look down their noses at someone like Palin who managed to pull herself up from nowhere.
reply to this
Tony|11.16.09 @ 4:36PM|#

What exactly is "over educated"?

You mean too educated to buy a stupid freakshow like Sarah Palin as a serious politician?
reply to this
Enough About Palin|11.16.09 @ 4:39PM|#

"What exactly is "over educated"?

The antonym of "Tony".

Just like shooting retards in a sandbox.
reply to this
Adam R.|11.16.09 @ 3:17PM|#

The differences are that Goldwater was a principled conservative, and wasn't stupid. Although he didn't read "every" one of the newspapers in the world...
reply to this
James Ard|11.16.09 @ 3:19PM|#

America would never elect someone with that irritating of a voice. I don't know why the left is trying so hard to knock her down, she is no threat to them.
reply to this
Galt1138|11.16.09 @ 3:23PM|#

Apparently, you don't remember the sound of Jimmy Carter's voice.
reply to this
The Gobbler|11.16.09 @ 3:41PM|#

AAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!
reply to this
Episiarch|11.16.09 @ 3:48PM|#

Well, he is history's greatest monster.
reply to this
Joe|11.16.09 @ 4:30PM|#

till now.....
reply to this
smartass sob|11.16.09 @ 5:19PM|#

Apparently, you don't remember the sound of Jimmy Carter's voice.

Or Lyndon Johnson's. Or Kennedy's.
reply to this
alwaysfiredup|11.16.09 @ 3:28PM|#

So Libertarians can tout Ron Paul till they grow hoarse, but Sarah Palin has no chance of winning the GOP nomination. Riiiight. Sometimes I think people just like to shoot themselves in the foot. It must feel real good.
reply to this
SugarFree|11.16.09 @ 3:31PM|#

Pick a script and stick to it. Either we're (T)reason, the dastardly bastards who doomed Ron Paul with our disloyalty, or Ron Paulettes who blindly marched with him off a cliff.

Sarah Palin has a chance to win the nomination. And it would be disastrous for you guys, especially if she actually became president.

Statist