Politics

The Palin Experience

Understanding the media's reaction to Sarah Palin

|

These days, where you fall on the crucial issue of Sarah Palin tells the rest of us all we need to know about your character. You're either A) a scum-sucking, terror-loving elitist or B) a radical, tea bag-loving simpleton.

Yet believe it or not, one can (as I do) admire Palin's charisma and roots, appreciate her dissent on the policy experiments brainy folks in Washington are cooking up, and, at the same time, believe she has no business running for president in 2012.

In fact, all you haters out there motivate me to root for her.

There's nothing wrong, for instance, with The Associated Press' assigning a crack team of investigative journalists to sift through every word of Palin's book, Going Rogue, for inaccuracies. You only wish similarly methodical muckraking were applied to President Barack Obama's two self-aggrandizing tomes—or even the health care or cap-and-trade bills, for that matter.

The widely read blogger and purveyor of all truth, Andrew Sullivan, was impelled to blog 17 times on the subject of Palin on the same day Americans learned that the Obama administration had awarded $6.7 billion in stimulus money to nonexistent congressional districts—which did not merit a single mention. To see what is in front of one's nose demands a constant struggle, I guess.

And it's not just bloggers. What choice do media outlets have but to provide comprehensive coverage of pistachio salesman and Playgirl-posing Levi Johnston, doltish erstwhile father of Palin's grandchild, a man whose only discernible talents are the possession of operational sperm and the ability to humiliate the former vice presidential nominee?

How could a major magazine such as Newsweek be expected to use a cover photo of Palin campaigning or spending time with her child who has Down syndrome when editors simply could borrow a shot of the 45-year-old mother of five decked out in her exercise tights—nudge nudge, wink wink—from a Runner's World piece and slap the headline "How Do You Solve A Problem Like Sarah?" onto it?

Newsweek must have a point. Palin is a populist dead end. "Just over half of Americans," a new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds, "have an unfavorable opinion" of Palin overall, "as many say they wouldn't consider supporting her for president and more—six in 10—see her as unqualified for the job."

Similarly, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll recently found that 48 percent of Americans disapprove of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a woman busy writing policy that affects all of us. Does this not require a "How Do You Solve A Problem Like Nancy?" headline from the venerable magazine?

Who knows what is to become of Palin? Today, though, there is little doubt the left is using her to create ugly stereotypes and attack limited-government types across the country.

Palin claims that a presidential run is not on her "radar screen right now." She may have gone rogue on John McCain—joining the rest of America—but Palin will have to work to articulate her positions, show more intellectual curiosity, and fuse her magnetism with more substantive thinking.

But because of the stupendously nasty campaign waged against her, she might not get the chance.

At least, that's this scum-sucking elitist's opinion.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his Web site at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Georgia Cops Nab 16 Bottles of Bubbly, and a City Councilwoman's Scalp

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Here we go again.

    1. Palin Gives Oprah Her Biggest Audience In Two Years

      According to the Hollywood Reporter:

      Oprah Winfrey’s interview with former VP candidate Sarah Palin scored the talk show host her highest rating in two years.

      Monday’s episode of “The Oprah Winfrey Show” drew a 8.7 household rating and 13 share ? the best since Oprah had the entire Osmond family on the show in 2007.

      That means Palin also topped Oprah’s heavily viewed interviews with Whitney Houston at the start of the season.

      1. The real question is: Did she out-draw the lady whose face was chewed off by a chimpanzee?

  2. Please, lord, keep this one under a hundred posts.

      1. The posters were not unresponsive.

    1. We laugh at your puny attempts to confine us!

  3. hey david, there’s only room for one cathy young here

  4. You’re either A) a scum-sucking, terror-loving elitist or B) a radical, tea bag-loving simpleton.

    Or C) an opportunistic website proprietor looking for another 200+ comment blog posting.

    [I keed, I keed.]

    1. Another clever and witty post…FOR ME TO POOP ON.

  5. pistachio salesman and Playgirl-posing Levi Johnston, doltish erstwhile father of Palin’s grandchild

    Erstwhile father”? Does he have a time machine or something?

    1. Biofather he is. Real father, not so much.

      1. Sperm donor

    2. The correct title for him is “freelance inseminator.”

  6. I think a lot of her problem is that she was utterly ill-suited to the McCain campaign and it showed. I often wonder, if she had not been selected, finished out her term as Governor in relative isolation, and then chose to run in 2012 based on her record and not her celebrity, whether we and many others would actually be rather inclined to like her.

    I imagine she would still come across as being out of her league, but I doubt there would be all this vitriol and she might even get some serious attention now and then. I can imagine her being a Sam Brownback type in the Republican primary.

    So I do kind of have to fault the McCain campaign more than her specifically for this whole monstrosity.

  7. Get it right!

    I’m a radical tea bag-loving elitist sneering prick.

    1. Hi, I’m a sneering prick . . . .

  8. NRO has an interview with her up today. It is not bad.

    I wish they would have just printed the damn interview. Instead it is cut up and written like an article. Some of the more interesting parts.

    “Palin famously intervened in the NY-23 congressional race, endorsing Doug Hoffman. Newt Gingrich went the other way. Gingrich’s take on the race “was reflective of the way that some within either political machine, Democrat or Republican, operate,” Palin maintains. “There is, however, a desire for change in our country to move away from that kind of machinery within a party.”

    She doesn’t like the Republican establishment. I can’t see how that is a bad thing. She really brutal on RINOs. Even if you hate her, if she got rid of a few Lindsey Grahams it would be a good thing.

    On where she came up with Death Panels as a term.

    “It wouldn’t be a Palin interview without asking about “death panels.” How did she come up with the phrase? “To me, while reading that section of the bill, it became so evident that there would be a panel of bureaucrats who would decide on levels of health care, decide on those who are worthy or not worthy of receiving some government-controlled coverage,” she explains. “Since health care would have to be rationed if it were promised to everyone, it would therefore lead to harm for many individuals not able to receive the government care. That leads, of course, to death.”

    “The term I used to describe the panel making these decisions should not be taken literally,” says Palin. The phrase is “a lot like when President Reagan used to refer to the Soviet Union as the ‘evil empire.’ He got his point across. He got people thinking and researching what he was talking about. It was quite effective. Same thing with the ‘death panels.’ I would characterize them like that again, in a heartbeat.”

    That is pretty well thought out for the “dumbest woman in politics” according many of the Reason staff.

    On medical marijuana of all things

    “Here are some other issues that came up. On medical marijuana, which has been in the news recently: She says she does not support its full legalization, but “I’m not going to get in the way of a doctor prescribing something that he or she believes will help a cancer patient.”

    Ideally she would be for legalization. But, that is a better answer than most politicians are giving. She didn’t come out and give the BS drug war line about how the evil herb is killing children. Kind of goes against the “she is a crazy evalgelical right winger” charge.

    1. while reading that section of the bill

      If this is true, that she actually did read the bill, it impresses me considering many congressmen (you know, those stupid cocksuckers whose fucking job is to read bills) couldn’t be bothered to read the bill that they were going to impose upon us.

    2. Wow. She read the bill. That’s more than can be said of some of the elected shit heads.

      1. sorry for the seemingly double post. My first one was labled spam…. and….might I add… quickly posted as soon as i complained.

    3. IMO – Gov. Palin needs a lot more seasoning and savvy to be elevated to a top position in the federal government – but there is no denying her moxy. That being said, I like her more after the reading the last two paragraphs. 😉

  9. Obama saved Andrew Sullivan’s pothead butt. You really think Beard-O is going to write something bad about him now? I bet if Bush had done the same, Sully would have forgiven him for gay marriage.

  10. WHY THE FUCK ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT PALIN?

    1. Her book is out, which means the rest of the week is going to be all Palin, all the time.

    2. Just think of what it’s gonna be like when it’s President Palin and she’s the first woman in office…

      1. everything will be pink, it’ll look awful…

        1. I have seen pictures of her in her house and to be honest she has better taste then Obama and wife.

          1. But does she have better arms?! THAT’S the real question that folks need to ask?

            1. Michelle “Claire Huxtable” Obama has killer arms!

          2. You have a problem with shag carpets and red velour furniture? Racist!

        2. What is wrong with pink? Vaginas are pink. And i like Pink Floyd.

    3. Because we needed a break from Ayn Rand

  11. WHY THE FUCK ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT PALIN?

    Because John won a bet with the Reason staff.

    1. The article itself is basically the comments from the last Palin thread all put together.

    2. No. If I had won my bet Suderman and Weigal would be getting my coffee, laundry, and waxing my car when they were not acting as a foot rest.

  12. Similarly, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll recently found that 48 percent of Americans disapprove of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a woman busy writing policy that affects all of us. Does this not require a “How Do You Solve A Problem Like Nancy?” headline from the venerable magazine?
    Please god, no pictures of Nancy in workout gear!

    1. Exactly what I was going to say.

      1. Nancy on a sex swing, then?

  13. Yes! Another Palin post. Finally, a return on my $25 investment.

  14. Are the MSM really trying to discredit Palin? Or are they setting her up as the heir to the tea party movement. My interpretation so far is that her views on government are much less dangerous to TPTB then Ron Paul.

    1. Ron Paul has a few ideas that aren’t so popular, such as getting rid of Homeland Security and the FBI.

      If need be, it’ll be relatively easy to make him seem like a crazy old man. A good example was during the republican presidential debates when Paul mentioned that some of our foreign policy may have something to do with the current hatred that the radical muslim community has for the US. He was immediately called unpatriotic by “9/11 survivor Rudy Guiliani” and dismissed as a legit candidate.

      Palin has yet to take a position as radical (and therefore easily marginalized) and is therefore more a threat.

      1. Ron Paul has a few ideas that aren’t so popular, such as getting rid of Homeland Security and the FBI.

        … and abolishing the fed, and closing all overseas military bases, and repealing the income tax, and ending the Cuban trade embargo, and so forth…

        sure would be great if these things WERE popular. but they ain’t. not even repealing the income tax (we need the roads, the schools, the fire department… for the children’s sake!)

        1. I too wasted hundreds on RP, but prefer to think of it an an investment. Money is one of the few things that talk in politics and I think his fundraising was noticed in and out of the establishment. Hopefully it will give people with similar ideas enough incentive to run with some of his ideas.

          At least that’s how I console myself for not using the cash to buy a big screen TV.

        2. right, it would be great of those were popular, but holding those political views essentially make you unelectable on a national scale. At best, it makes you an easy target for your opponent.

          Very few people have the rhetoric skills to convince millions of people about issues such as those in a short period of time.

        3. I would place these things as lukewarm popular with most people. However, to the folks who stand to lose if these things were to come to pass, I would put their opposition temperature just under nuclear. Ah, to be a squeaky wheel.

  15. You’d think a nation of 300 million should have something better to offer…

    1. The heart hath its reasons that reason knows not of.

    2. Apparently not, we got Obama.

  16. WHY THE FUCK ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT PALIN?

    Otherwise it’s another post about Rand. There is only two women in the world of politics.

    Embrace the Suck.

  17. Caption Contest!

    “JESUS! Don’t you guys have a different picture of her?”

    1. JESUS! Don’t you guys have a different picture of her?

      You need to turn off your banner ad blockers.

  18. The elites have totally fucked up the country. We are in for a period of populist rage. As an outlet for that rage, Palin is pretty benign. The problem is that if the media succeeds in destroying her the populist rage will find a new outlet. And that outlet might not be so benign. People are pissed off. They are pissed off at the entire government both R and D and the entire political and media establishment. The rage is going to find an outlet somewhere. We would be very lucky if it finds its outlet in a hockey mom from Alaska.

    1. Really? A person whose first response to a question about foreign policy is a comment about her state’s proximity to Russia is “not that bad”? Heck, she could have talked about the oil pipeline done in conjunction with the Canadian government for some credible foreign policy dealings, but instead goes for the ludicrous example of being near Russia.

      If we were playing Risk, OTOH, adjacency to Kamchatka would be very important.

      1. I will tell you why she is not that bad, she doesn’t plan to burn the entire place down. When populist rage gets out of control, you can have real harm done. She is not a populist demogogue. We are about two inches from having a real no shit populist demogogue in this country.

        And as far as claims she is stupid, look at the interview I posted above, those are all very reasonable answers. A hell of a lot more reasonable than anything coming out of the whitehouse.

        1. That true populist demogogue is probably around 15 years away. It’s gonna take the insolvency of the entire social safety net to unleash it. Coincidentally, I’ll be entering my prime for political opportunism right around the same time.

          1. That is my plan to. One of us is going to have to eliminate the other. There can only be one.

            1. Combine forces and split the prize? I take the west you take the east.

              1. Duel emperors. It worked for the Romans.

                1. Sorry, I already have dibs on the Lousiana purchase.

                2. That didn’t work out so well for Jack Black and Kyle. Just make sure not to drink the wine.

            2. Who do I send my resume to?

            3. I want the inland empire near Spokane.:-)

        2. A serious question here: is Ron Paul considered by most to be a populist?

          I ask because he seems to have an interesting combination of some basic populist sentiments, along with an elite intellectual background. That’s an interesting combination that you don’t see in many people in the leadership class nowadays.

        3. And as far as claims she is stupid, look at the interview I posted above, those are all very reasonable answers. A hell of a lot more reasonable than anything coming out of the whitehouse.

          This is what I was thinking. That she isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer isn’t a negative in my book. Take this idiot demi-god that whom many considered brilliant because he edited the harvard law review. He is fucking shit up at a pretty good pace.

          What is important is the quality of people she would surround herself. And, unfortunately, we wouldn’t know that until she was elected.

        4. I didn’t read anything that especially wowed me. Reciting a rote response on an expected question on death panels from a friendly interviewer, yawn.

          As for your fears of DOOOOM, I’ll take them as seriously as your claims that the inauguration will be a bigger disaster than Katrina.

          1. Of course you didn’t read anything that wowed yuo. You are a liberal. I am sure you think Obamacare is great.

            1. Nothing impresses me about bland talking points. Sorry, I don’t enjoy giving rim jobs to either party.

    2. “””They are pissed off at the entire government both R and D and the entire political and media establishment.”””

      Aside from talk, where’s the proof? Look at the percentages between D, R, and 3rd party in any election. We elected a president from a body of Congress which we give low ratings. Hell, 3 of the 4 people in the general election was from Congress. The only one that wasn’t was Palin. Her side lost.

  19. The article itself is basically the comments from the last Palin thread all put together.

    But he put “intellectual curiosity” in it, so Donald Sutherland won’t point at him.

    Palin is clarifying. She makes everybody show their ass. I’d always figured D.H. for assless. Now we know he’s a pod (of ass).

  20. How come every time I refresh the page, Aaron’s Moustache is the first name to appear in the flashing donor bar? What did he do, buy you guys a Keurig coffee maker and a year’s supply of flavored jo?

    1. Off the top of my head, because it’s an alphabetical list?

  21. “You’re either A) a scum-sucking, terror-loving elitist or B) a radical, tea bag-loving simpleton.”

    Or C) Longing for the day when the scope and influence of the Federal Government on my life is so limited that the choice of presidential candidate is only slightly more significant than what style of bust-head I’ll be swilling tonight.

    Or does that qualify as choice “B”?

    1. There will be only one style of bust-head: Roosevelt Light Lager.

      1. You, Sir, need to expand your horizions. There are whole worlds of post debauch pain and regret that await you if you will but open your mind.

        1. Those will all be illegal under The Obama.

    2. I agree. It shouldn’t matter what sort of an imbecile we elect as President. The President shouldn’t have enough power for it to matter what his or her view are on religion or evolution or drugs or a million other things that people like to factor into their pick for President. Any marginally functional person should be able to do the job because there shouldn’t be that much to do. Dubya probably would have been a great President had he not had the power to fuck things up so monumentally. Likewise, however much of a collectivist/socialist Obama is should not make any difference if he were constrained as was originally intended at the founding of this country.

  22. I think this article is rather spot on concerning Palin. I personally question her intellectual rigor for the office, the depth and passion of her principles on limiting government, and her overall ability. I don’t consider her to be a solid choice for the presidency. However, I like the fact that she is an outsider, as far away from the corrupt Washington cespool as one can get, and an altogether new political phenomenon. I also find it entertaining how the normally “feminist” news media like Newsweek tries so hard to objectify and sexualize her and thereby discredit whatever substance she may have.

    1. OOOOO…Newsweek used a photo THAT SHE POSED FOR…they are so eviilll and stuff. What a dumb argument.

      In any case, Palin’s interview with Couric and he performance during the debate is enough evidence that she wasn’t ready for prime time. America will remember her for seeing Russia from her house (never mind that’s Tina Fey instead of her).

      1. the picture that she posed for she posed for for a frigging running magazine. Its like the ultimate photographic red herring. How would people react if Newsweek put a photo of Obama shooting hoops on their cover with the title, “How Do You Solve A Problem Like OBama?” Just imagine that: RACISM!!!! RACISM!!! THEY GOT THE BLACK GUY ON THE COVER JUST PLAYING HOOPS TRYING TO SAY HE’S NOT A SERIOUS POLITICIAN. The knife cuts both ways. I think Sarah Palin has a grasp on the major issues or is intelligent or knowledgeable enough to be a serious candidate for major office? NO. But do I think the attempts to discredit her, especially by the so-called feminists of the left, are juvenille, contradictory, and duplicitous? Most certainly.

  23. Arrrrgghhh! Sarah Palin is not a proponent of limited government. When she was in office she was just as pork-hungry as any other politician. Plus, the fact that each Alaskan citizen receives a check funded by oil profits makes that state much more socialist than any other in the Union.

    1. Didnt mean to suggest she was a fan of limiting government. That should more accurately read, “wants to grow the Leviathan slower than the current or past tyrants.”

    2. Alaska has had the oil payouts for decades. It is not like she invented them. By your standards, everyone who ever served in Alaska government is a socialist. Hell Ron Paul served in the House. Does that mean he is a socialist since the country has Social Security and medicare? Further, Paul did nothing to stop his district from getting ear marks. Does that mean Ron Paul doesn’t beleive in small government?

      1. considering the extent to which the oil industry is subsidized by taxpayers, it seems a small yearly “dividend” paid out to Alaskans is merely a good start (until of course those subsidies are abolished by our utopian libertarian unicorn congressional caucus some day.)

        1. Of course the oil industry is prevented from drilling in most of the known reserves in the country. If we subsidize the oil industry it is by preventing drilling and driving up the value of where they can drill.

          What is your point here? Do you think Palin is going to nationalize the oil companies and pay out everyone a check like Alaska? Last I looked she was for actually using our natural resources and drilling, which makes a hell of a lot more sense than refusing to use our own resources in the name of gia worship.

          1. my attempt at a point was that it’s hardly “socialist” to get some of your tax dollars back from a massively subsidized industry. ideally there wouldn’t be subsidies in the first place. however, until then, “refunding” money back to the taxpayers via a “permanent fund dividend” or whatever is at least one way to get money back in the hands of the taxpayer where it belongs.

            or something. anyway, when I lived in AK I loved the yearly oil cash. and the no state income tax or sales tax. and the reindeer sausage and such.

            1. My mistake. I misunderstood you.

      2. Palin did go out of her way to increase the payments when she was governor.

    3. but…. then again…. this is a good point, too.

    4. Working within the system to better the situation for your state, is not at all the same as not being for limited government, unless you can’t separate the difference between state and federal governments. I personally am perfectly fine with social programs if they are handled in smaller regions, I just think that based on the constitution, efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness, it is wrong for the federal government to be running any social programs.

      Reagan would likely have not been considered a proponent of limited government before running for president. Yet he was the best we’ve had for quite some time.

      1. I agree with your first paragraph, but that’s why I’m not libertarian.

        The second paragraph is questionable. Maybe the best we’d had in awhile, but most of it was his image. I still much prefer Silent Cal.

        1. How exactly was Reagan a limited government type? His economic policy created a problem for his VP when he was elected president. Yeah, he might have kept taxes kinda low but Bush sr had to pay Reagan’s bills. He increased the debt, expanded our military and used the military in conflicts that a limited government type like Paul would not have. A neocon could make the arguement that Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon after the Marines took a big hit. He did what he could to affect elections in Central America. He supported amensty for illegals.

          I don’t think Reagan was a bad president, but he wasn’t of the limited government type. I dare say no president will ever be, because they want to use their power for whatever they believe is good for the country, and they want to increase their ability to do so.

          1. He supported amensty for illegals.

            I’m waiting for conservatives to explain how exactly expanding the immigration enforcement bureaucracy coalesces with their vision of limited government…Not that I’m for citizenship rights for illegal immigrants, but I support allowing non-criminal (besides being undocumented) immigrants to stay and work without harassment or threat of deportation – seems more small-government-like.

            1. When it comes to law enforcement. They are as big government as it comes.

    5. Really? The government giving surplus revenue to private citizens to spend as they choose, rather than politicians spending it all, is socialist?

  24. “[O]ne can admire Palin’s charisma and roots, appreciate her dissent on the policy experiments brainy folks in Washington are cooking up, and, at the same time, believe she has no business running for president in 2012.”

    My feelings exactly.

  25. The fact that only 48% of Americans disapprove of Nancy Pelosi is the most depressing thing I’ve heard all week.

    1. I’m not sure which possiblity is more depressing: that 52% of Americans approve of her, or that 52% of Americans don’t know who she is.

  26. Palin is smarter then Bidin. She is better on the economy then Obama. She is popular.

    I really don’t see why she has no business running for president.

    I will not vote for her still if the catastrophe known as Obama can become president i fail to see why Palin has no business trying to gain the same office.

    1. You have to remember, Palin is just not one of them. The Reason staff thinks she is icky. We need to keep her out of politics so there is room for the real geniuses like Joe Biden and Al Gore.

      1. No, no. Keep her in politics! Make her the Republican nominee in 2012.

        Remember the National Review cover that had Howard Dean on it with the headline “Please Nominate This Man”? Now imagine a cover of The Nation with a picture of Palin and “Please Nominate This Woman” on it.

    2. She is a dumbfuck and knows nothing about the economy.

      1. Really? Links please? What has she said about the economy that makes you say that? Specific quotes not generalities and invective.

      2. Compared to Obama? Or Biden? Who would be better on the economy that might run? (other than RP who apparently can’t win)

    3. She is not popular. But keep telling yourself that; Obama and Democrats in general would love for her to be the GOP nominee in 2012.

      CBS News Poll. Nov. 13-15, 2009. N=873 adults nationwide. MoE ? 3 (for all adults). RV = registered voters

      “Is your opinion of Sarah Palin favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven’t you heard enough about Sarah Palin yet to have an opinion?”

      23% favorable, 38% not favorable, 20% undecided, 17% haven’t heard, 2% refused.

      ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Nov. 12-15, 2009. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ? 3.5.

      “Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Sarah Palin?”

      Favorable 43%, unfavorable 52%, unsure 5%.

      There’s plenty more here:

      http://www.pollingreport.com/p.htm

      1. So what if she is not “Popular” whatever that means. Since when is being popular the measure of someone? She certianly has a lot of people who like her.

        1. Well, if one wants to run for president, being popular is kind of a requirement.

          If she doesn’t, then why should we care about her? It doesn’t look like she will run for an Alaskan state-wide office ever again. If she just becomes another pundit on TV, who cares?

          1. Judging from your comments you are liberal, so why should you care about her? I don’t care about Howard Dean. If you don’t care about her, stop posting on the thread and worrying about her so much.

      2. I hope a better candidate than Palin gets the nomination, but even if it’s her, she ain’t running in a vacuum. Obama’s heading down rapidly and should be at Carter levels of love well before 2012. Coupled with a likely GOP-controlled Congress in 2010, I think he’s likely to lose to a well-spoken duck.

        1. At worst, Obama is Clinton, not Carter. The Dems might lose control of one or both houses of Congress in 2010 (mostly depends on the unemployment rate on election day), but Obama will be re-elected, IMHO, unless some great white hope emerges from the ether on the GOP side. Right now, Palin, Romney, everybody would lose to Obama.

          1. Clinton was a two term governor and Rhoades scholar who completely tracked to the center in 95 and 96. And even then he had the benefit of a third party challenge in 1996. Obama is no Clinton. He is Carter. He is actually worse than Carter. Carter was in some ways an economic conservative. Obama is a committed leftist who has no idea how the economy works or what to do about the recession. There is no reason to believe that unemployment won’t be 10% or worse going into 2012. Obama’s only idea to fix it is to pass cap and trade and Obamacare. If the economy doesn’t turn around, he is going to be so unpopular I wouldn’t be surprised if he is challengd in the 2012 Dem primary.

            1. At this point, I put Carter above Obama in terms of effective leadership.

              1. Carter got Camp David, deregulated the airlines and gas industries and hired Paul Volker at the Fed. What has Obama done? Oh hired Tim Geithner.

                1. Don’t forget home brew . . .

                2. Oh hired Tim Geithner.

                  …who is a tax cheat. Ain’t that some fucking shit? Don’t pay your taxes and you too could possibly become head of the Department of Treasury. It kind of like a Vietnma deserter become head of the Joint chief of Staff.

                  1. “It kind of like a Vietnman deserter become head of the Joint chief of Staff”

                    Or Senator from MA.

                3. Who’s on his way out now that the news about his showing preferences to his favored companies during the bailout has come to light.

                  Inspector General: Geithner Overpaid AIG in Bailout

                  Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is in trouble again, and this time he may not be able to save his job. You’ll recall that his confirmation was threatened by revelations of cheating on his income taxes. Now he’s accused of paying billions too much for the bailout of AIG and allowing the insurance firm’s Wall Street creditors — Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia — to be paid in full for their derivative contracts with $27.1 billion in taxpayers’ money.

                  The accusation comes from Neil Barofsky, the inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in a report issued yesterday. At the time of the bailout in September 2008, Geithner was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..59919.html

          2. You forget, Clinton went to extraordinary lengths to reinvent himself during and after the 1994 “revolution.” Obama is showing virtually none of Clinton’s political acumen and will likely either fail to moderate or will do so in visibly opportunistic ways, which will just piss off Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.

            1. His only attempt to “moderate” has been a continuation and expansion of wars with no clear objective and that are generally considered iffy by the electorate. Obama is quite simply a fool. At least Bush knew he was a baffoon. The problem with Obama is that he still thinks he’s the smartest guy in whatever room he walks into. Power is scary enough. Arrogance and feelings of superiority (though Bush has that in a moral sense, I don’t think he ever considered himself the intellectual guiding light) combined with such power are genuinely dangerous.

            2. Well, he was elected as a liberal. More importantly, there is no Reagan to challenge him. Palin ain’t it. Neither is Romney or any of the other GOP possibilities.

              In some ways, he might be a mirror image of Bush. Hated by a large segment of the population, but still wins re-election, in part due to a weak opponent from the other party.

              1. You forget. Bush had a good economy. Had there been 12% unemployment and a housing bust in 2004, Bush would have been lucky to get 45% even against Kerry.

                The economy drives elections more than anything else. If it doesn’t turn around, Obama is toast.

                1. The unemployment rate will not be 12% in November, 2012. It won’t even be 10%.

                  Now, it might be 10% in November, 2010, which would result in major Democratic losses in Congress.

                  1. Wanna bet? What do you think cap and theft is going to produce millions of “green jobs”. The UE rate is not going anywhere but up.

                    “Unemployment will likely remain at historically high levels well beyond next year, Federal Reserve officials said Tuesday as they forecast a sluggish, jobless economic recovery that will be vulnerable to shocks. ”

                    http://www.washingtontimes.com…..-recovery/

                    1. I wouldn’t be surprised if unemployment was, say, 8.5% in November 2012, which would be higher than any time in over two decades. But it won’t be double digits.

                    2. UE is only 8% now. Obama told me so, eight months ago.

                  2. Yeah, it’ll be 20% or worse.

                    1. It’ll be 110%!!!!

                      Be serious.

              2. He wasn’t elected as a liberal. He was elected by pandering to the same fuzzy “united not a divider” notion that Bush did. How I long for a politican who runs saying, “I’m gonna be hated by most every constituency in the country, but I’m gonna be right and I’m gonna do what’s best for the country as a whole and that includes pissing off every fractuious sub-group in the country.” I know. In the words of Aerosmith: Dream on.

                Either way, Obama was elected by positioning himself to the right of Hillary on everything except wars. His healthcare plan was supposed to be to the right of Hillary. The only thing that he has governed anywhere near the right on is wars.

                But beyond all that, Obama wasn’t elected because of his policies at all. He was elected because of 1) Bush’s policies 2) he is new, young, hip, and black. 3) because McCain was older than the pyramids at Giza and hated by a considerable portion of the conservative base.

                1. He wasn’t elected as a liberal. He was elected by pandering to the same fuzzy “united not a divider” notion that Bush did.

                  That’s at least partially accurate, although he wasn’t really a moderate either, in the Snowe/Lieberman/Nelson/Collins/Specter/Arnie sense of the word.

                  But my main point is this: There is no Reagan in the Republican Party right now. And it takes a Reagan (or a Clinton) to unseat an incumbent President.

          3. Obama rode a wave of joy and enthusiam into the office. The Democrats control both houses and even have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Except for the continuation of the Bush-era bailout, he has not signed any legislation of note into law.

            His first year in office will become THE textbook example of how to fuck up a presidency.

            1. The Democrats control both houses and even have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

              …and they still can’t get any shit done.

              1. I call that a good thing.

            2. He still has a positive net approval rating, about 12% more thinking he’s doing a good job than a bad one. Plus, there really hasn’t been much time for anything other than the poor economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, and health care. It will look bad if he doesn’t get a major health care bill, although right now it looks like it will squeak through.

              1. It’s all about rate of change. Obama’s trajectory is negative and getting worse. He will certainly hit Carter’s numbers and Bush’s numbers (when he eeked out last place from Carter a couple of years ago) by the end of 2010 or the start of 2011.

                He doesn’t have the political wits that Clinton had. So the crash and burn on “health care reform” leading into major losses in Congress next year will probably be fatal for him.

              2. That is just flat out wrong. His approval ratings are terrible.

                “Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. That figure includes 40% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Overall, among all voters, 52% now disapprove. ”

                http://www.rasmussenreports.co…..cking_poll

                And as far as healthcare, it is a grossly unpopular bill. If it goes through he will be even more unpopular. Worse still, he will have not only passed an unpopular bill over the objection of the public, he will then own every problem with the healthcare system going forward. Any horror story that comes out can and will be blamed on Obamacare by his opponents.

                1. You pick the one Republican leaning poll. Here’s the dozen or so you didn’t pick, for the past month:

                  Approve Disap-
                  prove Approve
                  minus
                  % % Disapprove

                  CNN/ORC
                  55 42 13 11/13-15/09

                  ABC/Washington Post
                  56 42 14 11/12-15/09

                  AP-GfK *
                  54 43 11 11/5-9/09

                  Pew
                  51 36 15 10/28 – 11/8/09

                  CNN/ORC
                  54 45 9 10/30 – 11/1/09

                  Ipsos/McClatchy *
                  53 43 10 10/29 – 11/1/09

                  FOX/OD RV
                  50 41 9 10/27-28/09

                  NBC/Wall St. Journal
                  51 42 9 10/22-25/09

                  CNN/ORC
                  55 43 12 10/16-18/09

                  ABC/Washington Post
                  57 40 17 10/15-18/09

                  http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm

                  1. You pick the one Republican leaning poll.

                    “Republican leaning”? Thou hast outed thyself.

                    1. Rasmussen is known to have a Republican bias; that is, their polls, in general, show the Republican candidate with higher scores than most other polls. There are pollsters with Democratic house biases as well.

                      This poll shows exactly that. Obama has an unfavorable rating in the Rasmussen poll; but in all other polls, he has a favorable rating, usually by about 12 percent.

                      The only thing I “outed” here was the truth.

              3. The 2010 campaign is already starting. The smarter Dems in the House and Senate will be positioning themselves to say that failure of the health care reform effort was the fault of Republican backstabbing.

                There will be many Dems that decide that no reform is better for them than watered down reform.

                It’s dead.

              4. His policies doom the economy and in turn doom him. He’s trying to use the economy but he’s getting Keynesian advice (because he doesn’t know better) and just like with FDR his policies are making things much worse. Unlike FDR he won’t be able to use the same tactics to stay in office in the information age, and there is no world war on the horizon to distract people.

                If the health care bill or cap and trade passes it will tank the economy just that much faster. He’s pretty much doomed by his own economic ignorance.

                1. He’s more like Hoover.
                  Both Hoover and FDR were “progressives” that saw more government as the answer to every question.
                  Roosevelt was just lucky that he entered office when the economy was at rock bottom, and able to claim credit for any rebound from that bottom.

                  Obama is like Hoover, the slide down is happening on his watch.

              5. I call Bullshit.

                Link please.

  27. Enough of the soap opera crap. Palin needs to nip it in the bud. “Oprah, where Levi spends Thanksgiving is none of your business. What is everyone’s business is where our military forces spend their Thanksgiving. The President is about to make a decision that will effect thousands of soldiers and their families. Here’s what I think about U.S. military action in Afghanistan………………”

    1. She was too nice. She should have crushed Oprah. She really would be my hero, rather than an interesting politician, if she had told Oprah it was none of her damn business.

  28. Abdulwahid Bidin was an excellent jurist. Palin is not fit to shine his shoes.

    1. Sorry i meant Biden, but i am pretty sure you knew that.

  29. Chemtrails! Chemtrails!
    Please god let the chemtrails troll find this thread!!

  30. Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin. It’s sad to admit it, but I miss Tricky Dick.

  31. It’s refreshing to read a piece that aptly describes where a lot of the country is when comes to Palin.

    Is she the buffoonish character that would fit in to the set of Deliverance seamlessly as the liberal left likes to paint her, or is she the populist raging supermom who cannot be stopped by mere voters alone?

    The answer clearly lies somewhere in the middle, and I suspect much of the country probably hasn’t met this version of Ms. Palin. We’ve been force fed one or the other, and it would be nice to see more honesty in reporting.

    I do not think Ms. Palin is ready for a presidential run, but she certainly isn’t incapable of improving her resume before future political battles, and she clearly inspires a large percentage of Americans. Whether she decides to run or not, she doesn’t deserve the treatment she gets in most of the media, and it’s ridiculous the way people ignore her considerable accomplishments whilst dressing down her aspirations.

  32. Re: John,

    You have to remember, Palin is just not one of them. The Reason staff thinks she is icky.

    John, that is pure genius (no, I am not being facetious). That is the reason she is so hated: She is not part of the Beltway, she’s not Skull & Bones or from the Ivy League (yuck). She may be a bit neocon-ish for my libertarian taste, but it is still fascinating to see how the Beltway folk despise her.

    1. Thank you. I don’t she is some kind of genius or Ronald Reagan or something. But, if you look at what she actually says, she is a pretty common sense plain spoken politician. Reason should like her or at least tolerate her. The fact that they don’t is entirely cultural.

      1. Or it might have something to do with her not being a libertarian.

        1. Jeff Flake or Mark Stanford (before his scandel) are not libertarians. Yet Reason has lots of good things to say about them. There is like one Libertarian politician of consiquence in the country. You don’t have to be a Libertarian to be liked by Reason.

          1. Flake and Stanford aren’t libertarians either. I doubt all Republican claims of small government allegiance, because they never follow through.

            No more lesser of two evils voting for me.

            1. Good for you that you don’t like them. But we are talking about Reason. And Reason finds lots of ways to praise politicians who are not strictly speaking libertarians and often are no less objectionable than Palin. They only single out Palin because she doesn’t fit the beltway mold.

              1. Populism is why they don’t like her. I find nothing objectionable about disliking populists. You don’t either as long as they are liberal populists like John Edwards.

                Being ruled by the Republican mob is not better than being ruled by the Democratic mob.

                1. I will ask you the same question I asked Ryadar above. What specidically does she say and do that causes you to call her a “populist”? She looks like a garden variety conservative republican to me.

                  When you say “populust” you are not talking about her or anyting she stands for. You are just saying “people you don’t like or consider inferior like her”. That is really it. A populist is someone who calls for protectionism and shutting down Wall Street and the like. She to my knowledge has never said anything like that.

                  Again, provide some links and quotes from her and explain why she is a populist rather than someone who has fans off the approved cool list. Until you do that, you are just talking out of your ass.

                  1. “Populist” has even a less clear definition than liberal, conservative, or libertarian.

                    In general, people say “populist” anytime someone of note attracts the attention of a wide swath of “real people”.

                    This means that lots of “liberal”, “conservative”, and even “libertarian” thinkers get labeled “populist”.

                    In reality, Palin has said nothing that I can attribute to the political philosophy of populism (which would be anti-libertarian).

                  2. You are the one touting her as a populist. Populism is not low-key anti-capitalism. It’s rallying political support by playing up the contrasts of the “virtuous lower class” vs. “the elites.” That’s exactly what you have said constantly on this thread that you admire about her.

                    I may be talking out of my ass, but you are certainly just typing with your erect dick. We get it. You want to fuck her. That doesn’t mean she should be president.

                    1. Name one thing she has ever said SF that can fairly be described as “low-key anti capitalism”. I mean one thing. Until you can, you are full of shit.

                      As far as wanting to fuck her, I want to fuck a lot of women. I would fuck any number of leftist nitwit Hollywood babes before I ever touched Palin, and I don’t want any of them in public office. Sex and lust is far too important and interesting to mix with a boring topic like politics.

                    2. Wrong again. I’m not saying she exposes “low-key anti-capitalism.” I’m saying, in response to this by you “A populist is someone who calls for protectionism and shutting down Wall Street and the like.” is that “low-key anti-capitalism” is not what populism is.

                      It’s what I said it is, and it’s still what you like about her.

                      Saran Palin is a populist. You admire the exact qualities that make her a populist. I don’t like populists. I don’t like Sarah Palin.

                      I might be a snob, but I’m fine with being a snob. The unwashed masses hold little appeal to me. And they won’t for you either if ACORN was out whipping them up.

                    3. If she were a populist, she would be Ross Perot, who I absolustel loathed. I don’t see anything about her positions or actions that are populist. Is she popular among average people? Yes. But that doens’t make her a populist. All you are saying is you don’t like her because you don’t like the people who support her, which is fucking stupid.

                    4. And you like the people who slobber all over Obama?

                      A politician that has said and done nothing to impress me is, in turn, adored by people who political opinions are abhorrent to my ideology.

                      Why in the world would I like her?

                    5. You don’t have to like her. As I said below, she is a conservative Republican not a liberarian. Just get off her ass and at least dislike her for the right reasons. If you don’t like her positions on things, fine. I just can’t stand the viceral response to her.

                    6. She’s a run-of-the-mill Republican. I’m a libertarian. I dislike her for all the right reasons already.

                    7. Good for you Suger Free. Dislike her just like you dislike every other politician. But stop it with the “she is an idiot” “she is a populist” crap. And also give her credit when she deserves it. When she does things like torpedo that RINO in New York or cause Lindsey Grahm heartburn, you ought to give her credit.

                    8. John’s piss went the farthest.

                    9. I wouldn’t say populist so much as the old advertising trope of “plain folks”.

                      She is an idiot, but so are lots of people. Like people that think she accomplished something for Republicans (since you used RINO) by helping elect a democrat in a long time R stronghold.

        2. Re: SugarFree,

          Or it might have something to do with her not being a libertarian.

          No, that’s not it – she’s not Beltway, that’s the main reason. Reason also found Ron Paul just as “icky” after he started to make a lot of buzz during the 2008 campaign, and it is difficult to find a politician that’s as libertarian as Dr. Paul, if not more. So even a libertarian, if he or she’s not beltway, can suffer Reason’s wrath just as easily as Sarah.

          1. Sorry, but that wasn’t how it went down. They polished Paul’s knob until he became unelectable due to the racist newsletters. They adored his grassroots charm and thought it was a viable path to the presidency. I disagreed, but admired Paul for being ideologically libertarian, even while still mired in the GOP muck.

      2. Actually Reason pretty consistently calls out the populist, “Not In My Backyard” political spirit she represent so well. Besides, I think “tolerated” is the perfect word to describe her status at Reason. They really don’t pay all that much attention to her one way or the other.

        1. “Not In My Backyard” political spirit she represent so well.”

          How does she represent that? What has she ever said or done that would cause you to say that? Seriously.

          1. Meh, I don’t care enough to dig around for links honestly. Go ahead and vote for her, if you even get the chance.

            1. So you have no evidence that she thinks that way, but will chose to believe it anyway because it makes you feel better I guess.

              1. Not really, I just don’t feel like shooting links back and forth all afternoon and arguing about something I really don’t care about.

                1. Or maybe you are just talking out of your ass.

                  1. OK whatever you say. Thanks for the input.

        2. You need to got read the dictionary to see what “populist” really means — cause “not if my backyard” has nothing to do with it.

          Populist theory is anti-libertarian. There is no segment of human life which cannot or should not be regulated by the government.

          1. You need to got read the dictionary to see what “populist” really means — cause “not if my backyard” has nothing to do with it.

            So, the fear-mongering about immigration, or the grandstanding surrounding the movement of Gitmo prisoners — those aren’t populist appeals?

            1. When did she ever “fear monger about immigration”? Further, a lot of people object to trying KSM in New York and giving international terrorists gold plated federal court trials. That is hardly a populist position. I am anything but a populist but think trying the GUITMO detainees in federal court is a stupid idea.

              She is not a populist. She is a main line conseravtive Republican. Now, you may not like that, which is fine. But at least dislike her for the right reasons instead of reasons you make up in your head.

              1. I’m not making anything up. The whole Joe Sixpack, anti-“elitism”, folksy thing is a perfectly fine example of populism. It’s all based on an emotional appeal to the masses, not an actual strategy of governance.

                She’s worked very hard to define a “real America” that is diametrically opposed to the “elite” political and media culture, and then set herself up as a victim of that elite culture (thereby making her part of that Real America). That’s pretty much populism defined.

                1. First, pretty much any successful politician tries to identify with the masses because they kind of need the masses vote. That whole kissing babies thing and all. You just described pretty much every successful politician in history. Runing on the “I am not one of you, I am smarter and better than you” doesnt’ win a lot of votes. By your definition every politician is a populist. Further, every Republican runs against the media and claims the media are a bunch of elitist assholes. There is nothing new about that.

                  As far as a “strategy of governance” you have yet to give one example of what her stategy is. There are lots of quotes from her on this thread from her book and the interview with NRO that seem pretty reasonable and supportive of the free market and small government. If you think that is not what she believes or object to it, fine. Tell us why. As it is, you are just whining that she is a politician who actually tries to appeal to voters.

            2. No they’re not. Isolationism is not the same as Populism — not even close.

              Each end of the political spectrum has splinters that tend to go hard over for Isolationism.

              1. Populism is about tactics, not policy. Pretty much any policy you choose — isolationism, libertarianism, socialism, etc etc — can be couched in populist terms. As long as you define terms like “underdog” and “oppressed” correctly, you can set any sort of policy up as a fight for the oppressed underdog.

                1. You are really grasping for straws. As I said above, every politician in history who has ever managed to win an election claimed to be speaking for the common man and fighting for the underdog.

                2. Your talking some other language than English.

                  The four political ideologies are liberal (progressive), populist, conservative, and libertarian (all lower case).

                  liberal == against social regulation; for financial regulation

                  progressive == for social regulation; for financial regulation

                  conservative == for social regulation; against financial regulation

                  libertarian == against social regulation; against financial regulation

                  Too many people corrupt the language by saying the populism is merely trying to appeal to the unwashed masses.

                  1. Populism is a political discourse that juxtaposes “the people” with “the elites.”

                    So wikipedia supports Rhayader.

                    Another word lost to social evolution.

                  2. Huh? You listed populism as one of the four political ideologies, and then didn’t even define it among your four definitions. I’m confused.

                    Too many people corrupt the language by saying the populism is merely trying to appeal to the unwashed masses.

                    Is it better if they call it “political ideas and activities that are intended to represent ordinary people’s needs and wishes”? Those sound like the same thing, but we can be more specific if you’d like.

                    http://dictionary.cambridge.or…..;key=61566

                    John is right — nobody has ever been elected without some sort of populist appeal. But there needs to be a policy backbone for it to actually mean anything. Palin needs to hone her policy message and forget about playing the role of the persecuted underdog fighting against media and political elitism.

                    1. Typo:

                      populist == for social regulation; for financial regulation

                      But it’s moot per the next post.

                    2. Oh haha, it was a typo, didn’t mean to call you out on that.

                    3. Fair game.

      3. Palin has a long and prosperous career ahead of her as a public person, but not as a politician. I thinks she’s smart enough to recognize that.

        1. Yeah that’s what I’m envisioning too, kinnath.

          1. Talk show host. The stained undershirt set will finally have a national voice.

            1. It’s not clear to me that she could survive the grind of a daily show.

              I see her as hiring a staff of ghost-wrighters and churning out a stream of books.

              The book-tour and/or dinner-speach circuit could earn her 7 figures a year for a long time.

              I think her future is what we see now.

              1. Well, you might be right. But then I never thought a greasy mouse fart like Rachel Ray could do an hour long show either.

                1. Food Nazi. It is funny the foodies hate Ray, who can actually cook, but then love Alton Brown who is nothing but a filmmaker with a support staff. Take thier staffs away and Ray would kick Brown’s ass.

            2. She’s young enough she could stretch out the will-she/won’-she run issue for at least two or three election cycles.

              1. Nah. If she doesn’t run in 2012, she will be a permanent has-been.

                1. I disagree. The number one complaint is her lack of experience. If she follows the “Gore model” to become lecture circuit expert on some topic that is of particular concern to the political right, waiting until her late 50’s may be a very smart thing to do.

                  1. Exactly what I was thinking.

            3. When you say “populust” you are not talking about her or anyting she stands for. You are just saying “people you don’t like or consider inferior like her”. That is really it. A populist is someone who calls for protectionism and shutting down Wall Street and the like. She to my knowledge has never said anything like that.

              Thank you for proving my point Suger Free. Your dislike of her is all about snobery and nothing to do with anything she actually says or does.

          2. I agree. I think she’s done with being a politician and looks to influence politics as an outsider. Being that she quit her last job, I doubt she could win a republican primary for national office. Forget about liberals claiming she’s a quitter, the other republicans in the primary will beat her to a pulp with it. Besides, the attacks on her and her family have been little compared to the attacks if she runs for president. If that was the true reason she left office, she wouldn’t be interested in a run. If she does run, then she will be called a liar for lying about why she quit, by republicans first, the dems if she makes the primary, which I doubt.

  33. By the way, after looking at that Newsweek front cover photo (undoubtedly chosen to denigrate her), I have to say: she is h-o-t!

    1. She has a fantastic body for dropping that many kids. A lot better looking than that reformed fatty Tina Fay.

      Also, the whole point of the Newsweek article is how she is killing of RINOs and making it impossible for Republicans to compromise with Obama. If that is true, you would think Reason would love her for it. Doesn’t Reason hate big government Republicans?

      1. I’m going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there, John.

        Tina Fey is fine.

        1. Yeah, funny is sexy.

        2. She is okay. But she really is a reformed fatty. That is why she was a writer on SNL before she ever got on the air. She was too fat. Like five feet 170 pounds.

          1. Well, she must give aweome head from back in those fat girl days.

            1. Never thought of that. I bet she did learn to put out some effort back when she was fat. Perhaps Tina should be higher on my list.

              1. Imagine if she went to Catholic high school, too. She could be a freakin’ champion.

                1. Or better yet was Jewish. Jewish girls have no Christian guilt about sex.

                  1. Neither do Catholics.

                    I kid. I kid.

          2. As an unreformed fatty, I’d fuck her even at 170.

          3. I don’t really care what she used to look like. She’s hot now. And props to her to her for dropping the weight, it takes work.

            1. Is nobody going to point out the positive correlation between cushion and pushin’? Come on now.

              1. “In my experience, fat girls do more stuff…”

      2. But Reason isn’t a big fan of social conservatives, which make up the core of Palin’s base. Plus Libertarians tend to like intelligent politicians of the Ron Paul/Goldwater stripe. The Palin/Quayle/Bush approach of courting Joe Sixpack by being as dumb as Joe Sixpack doesn’t play well with a crowd that’s convinced they’re a lot smarter than the average American.

        1. They definitely think that. And of course they are always shocked when the average American, whom they distain so much, won’t vote for them. I mean the nerve of those proles.

        2. A Goldwater/ Paul team….wait, I am awake….

    2. By the way, after looking at that Newsweek front cover photo (undoubtedly chosen to denigrate her), I have to say: she is h-o-t!

      Agreed, and that’s the biggest reason why she has virtually no chance of getting elected President, and no woman that your typical normal American guy would likely find attractive ever will.

      Whoever ends up becoming the first woman elected President will be a Hillary Clinton type hag who doesn’t threaten the average woman’s self-esteem.

      1. Thatcher. We need an American Thatcher.

      2. Janet Reno.

        1. Death Match 2012 . . Reno versus Zombie Thatcher.

        2. No, woman president.

      3. So true. One of my dearest friends is an MBA. Her brother is a lawyer and her father a judge, but because she also happens to be hot (Midwestern blonde homecoming queen hot) everytime she gets promoted, people say it’s was due to her hotness.

        People suck ass.

      4. There is actually a lot to that. Women are nasty to each other. Also, Palin has a good looking husband and a bunch of kids. Every old maid hag out there who never got married because they were too important and couldn’t find a man who kissed their ass enough, hates Palin.

        1. Hence the incessant caterwauling from the NPR/N.O.W. types of the left, and the school-marmish on the right.

      5. I don’t think this is necessarily true. There’s certainly a stereotype – pretty girls don’t have a brain in their head.

        I’m not saying Palin’s stupid, but she certainly doesn’t have the understanding of the economy, foreign affairs, healthcare, etc that many people would like to see in a presidential candidate. Not yet, or at least she hasn’t shown it very well.

        During the election, she only encouraged the stereotype. The winking was seen as flirty, and while it quickly made her famous, people saw her as a cheer leader instead of captain of the debate team.

        Any attractive woman running for office has a chance if they only do nothing to encourage that stereotype. You don’t need to give the media any more of a reason to portray you that way.

        1. Palin was born in 1964. That puts her at 48 in 2012; 52 in 2016; and 56 in 2020.

          I’m guessing by her mid-50’s she will lose a lot of the “cute” and turn into a very striking woman.

          If she can build the necessary experience should could be quite an appealing politician in 2020.

          1. I agree. In the mean time she can go around torturing the Republican establishment and driving liberals insane. I really don’t see what is not to like about the woman.

            1. I suppose if she really is destined for political office the hair will go a vibrant silver color.

              The naughty librarian look will turn into the stern school-marm look.

              She’ll be able to stare anyone down.

  34. This is me applauding the article. Great points made! I don’t think she will or should run. She wants the influence but less of the microscope that another presidential campaign would bring.

    1. Except the comparison to Pelosi, most of the points made in the article were already made in the comments of the last Palin thread.

      Still good points, but nothing new.

  35. I’ve just noticed that Andrew Sullivan stopped blogging because he is so obsessed with Sarah Palin that he “cannot focus on anything else.” In his post he mentions that his blog went silent for only the second time. The only time I know it happened was in September 2008 when he apparently had a mental breakdown after a torrent of posts about Palin’s pregnancy. It’s impolite to imply it but he probably needs some professional help here.

    1. She’s so darn hot, even the gay men can’t stop thinking about her!

  36. You’re either A) a scum-sucking, terror-loving elitist or B) a radical, tea bag-loving simpleton.

    Can I be a scum-sucking, terror-loving, elitist, radical, tea bag-loving simpleton?

    1. You’re Canadian. All those things are implied.

    2. This is America, you can be anything you want. Just work hard and stay in school.

      And, say no to drugs!

      1. Oh, a Canadian, never mind.

  37. “and, at the same time, believe she has no business running for president in 2012. “

    She and anyone else has every right to run, because we have the right to vote for her without the chattering classes stacking the deck for us. I would prefer Lynne Cheney, but I would like to pick from whoever can muster the support to get noticed. I generally agree with the article, but am getting tired of the choices being limited to those approved of by writers, lawyers, and media mouths. You know the ones: those people who actually produce nothing of intrinsic value.

    1. “Intrinsic value”? You may want to brush up on the subjective theory of value.

  38. MOST OF THE ARTICLES ABOUT PALIN CAN BE SUMMARIZED IN A TWEET: I HATE HER BECAUSE I HATE HER.

  39. From the WSJ Sarah Palin wrote in her new book:
    “[W]e tried growing government to save the economy back in the 1930s, and it didn’t work then either,”
    “Massive government spending programs and protectionist economic policies actually helped turn a recession into the Great Depression.”

    To the poster who said she doesn’t know anything about the economy, she seems to know more than everyone up on the hill(excluding Ron Paul).

  40. I hope a better candidate than Palin gets the nomination, but even if it’s her, she ain’t running in a vacuum. Obama’s heading down rapidly and should be at Carter levels of love well before 2012. Coupled with a likely GOP-controlled Congress in 2010, I think he’s likely to lose to a well-spoken duck.

    From your keyboard to God’s ears.

  41. absolutely, perfectly right on. what’s interesting is that if you don’t give a rat’s fat ass what Palin is up to, don’t view any left-wing media, er, 90% of television media. i’ve been playing a game when watching news outlets on tv: flip over to msnbc and see how often Sarah is looking at me. what to do about Sarah?

  42. Of course, the number of American-born, 35 or older, well-spoken ducks is few indeed.

    1. I think that one in the aflac commercials will be over 35 by 2012. He would get my vote.

      1. He has a ton of policy cred on that whole health care issue.

    2. I hear they float like witches.

    3. I blame the chinese and their succulent peking dish variety.

  43. the dems biggest obstacle running for any office in any race in the future won’t be Sarah Palin. it will be the lack of W to run against. without W, there sure as hell wouldn’t be an O. thanks W.

    1. What you mean in 2012, Obama can’t claim it is all Bush’s fault?

      1. I believe the warranty on that claim does not expire until January 21, 2013, although there is an option to renew through January 21, 2017 if certain conditions are met.

  44. FYI: It’s been four hours since they put a donate now post.

    1. Repitet, sil vous plait.

  45. FYI: It’s been four hours since they put a donate now post.

  46. I honestly wish Palin would go crawl back under the rock from which she emerged!

    Russ
    http://www.privacy.24ex.com

    1. I could say the same about 535 congressidiots, 1 President, 1 VP, 50 governors,…

  47. How ’bout those chemtrails, huh?

  48. How ’bout those chemtrails, huh?

    They’re just seeding the atmosphere to ignite when they finally get HAARP working right. No biggie.

  49. Attractive femal politicians?

    Yulia Tymoshenko, the prime minister of Ukraine isn’t bad.
    There was also Alessandra Mussolini.
    There were also the various strippers and escorts that Silvio Berlusconi promised to get elected.

  50. If people don’t mind my asking, how much of the opposition to Ms. Palin is cultural (or more specifically subcultural)? It strikes me that I’ve yet to see much from her that is decidedly less intelligent than what I hear from the rest of the political class (and much of it more honest). On the other hand, I will agree that Ms. Palin generally exudes an aura of the petit bourgoisie. And if not, why does so much of the criticism of Ms. Palin focus on questions of style (cough cough “intellectual curiosity” cough cough)?

    1. Al Gore said in some interview this week that the core of the earth was millions of degrees. Just imagine if Palin had said something that stupid. It would be a punchline forever. But Al Gore says it and not a word.

      1. Wait, didn’t Al Gore invent the earth’s core?

  51. If people don’t mind my asking, how much of the opposition to Ms. Palin is cultural (or more specifically subcultural)?

    All of it. Also, all of her support is cultrual (and subcultural) as well.

  52. I watched a Bill Hicks dvd this weekend, pretty good stuff.

    Could of done without the conspiracy theories, and the feed the world crap, but other than that I enjoyed it.
    He had a mixture of cynicism and idealism that I have found in most libertarians I have known, myself included.

  53. Palin is awesome and she speaks without any fear or consideration to Political Correctness.

    That most of you people have allowed yourself to be manipulated by the MSM is not a good show of your intellegence.

    Tell me what is wrong with this..

    From the Weekly Standard:

    She commented on the trail of evidence linking the alleged Ft. Hood shooter, Maj. Nidal Hasan, to militant Islam. “There were such clear, obvious, massive warning signs that were missed,” she said. “This terrorist, even having business cards” that identified him as an “SoA” or soldier of Allah. Palin blamed a culture of political correctness and other decisions that “prevented — I’m going to say it — profiling” of someone with Hasan’s extremist ideology. “I say, profile away,” Palin said. Such political correctness, she continued, “could be our downfall.” If the upcoming investigations into the attack reveal bad decision-making on the part of senior officials, Palin continued, those officials ought to be fired.

    “Does KSM deserve constitutional rights?” I asked.
    Palin’s response: “Not no, but hell no.”
    And she went on: “That was an atrocious decision,” she said. “And it makes a mockery of our judicial system.” She focused in particular on the fear that “war criminals” like KSM and his accomplices will use the trial as a “platform” to denigrate America.
    =======================

    From Newsmax

    In an exclusive Newsmax interview, former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Tuesday sharply criticized President Obama’s deep bow to the emperor of Japan, and charged Democrats “purposefully” are holding back details on their healthcare reform proposals from the American people to avoid an open debate.

    On tour promoting her best-selling book, “Going Rogue: An American Life,” the former Alaska governor also told Newsmax she was so embarrassed by a Newsweek magazine cover depicting her in running shorts that she sent an e-mail to her family saying “I almost feel like I have to apologize.”

    Palin cited the contrast between Obama’s comportment in bowing to Japanese royalty and the leadership style of former President Ronald Reagan.

    “There is where his steel spine strengthened our entire nation,” she said of the Republican icon. “The leadership he provided, where he allowed us to believe in ourselves as a superpower ? not in an abusive way as a superpower, but as a power and a light and a hope for the rest of the world.

    “That allowed us to be a healthier, safer, and more generous nation to help other nations. So those things that Ronald Reagan did . . . he said on national security issues, he said you know: ‘We win. They lose.’ Leadership like that we need today. [It] allows a very clear path in front of us we’d be foolish not to follow.”

    In criticizing the bow, Palin underscored the distinction between Reagan’s view of American exceptionalism and President Obama’s efforts to cast America as but one member of the community of nations.

    “That [bow] made me and many of us uncomfortable, and I don’t think it was just an accidental breach of protocol

    ==================================

    Barbra Walters:

    The woman who was John McCain’s running mate last year hails the tea party movement. She says that the McCain campaign was wrong to support the first bailout package.

    “That very first bailout, yes. Now we have learned, too, it didn’t fulfill the promises that were made by Congress, and by the White House, that bailing out these businesses that were ‘too big to fail,’ ” Palin said. “That did not put our economy back on the right track. So we learn from our mistakes. The tea party movement, beautiful. It energizes our country. More power to these people who are showing up there.”

    ===================

    Who else is speaking up like this in politics..

    NO BODY

    The Democrats are burning the country down.. but she’s the stupid one.

    So say the smart people. Retards

  54. And this was a snippet from her interview with Rush.

    But oh all you smart fucking people want to talk about Oprah.

    RUSH: What are your thoughts on the congressional health care reform bills going through the House and the Senate?

    GOV. PALIN: Well, we don’t really know, do we, what’s in that Senate version, the Senate consideration? It will be soon but we have no idea of costs. We don’t know how many will be insured. We’re waiting to hear that. We don’t know if the tax funding of abortions will be in this new version that’s sitting over on the Senate side. We don’t know if those who choose not to purchase this government-mandated level of coverage will face jail time as punishment. There are so many questions unanswered. I don’t like the idea, in general, of the federal government thinking it needs to take over health care — which essentially this is — and control one-sixth of our economy. Not when there are commonsense solutions to meeting health care challenges in our country, like allowing the intra- and interstate competition with insurers, tort reform, cutting down on the waste and fraud that the Obama administration insists if we just did that we’ll pay for this one-point-some trillion-dollar health care reform package. So lots of commonsense solutions that need to be plugged in before ever considering federal government taking it over.

    RUSH: You mentioned earlier you wanted to talk about national security, that you hoped it came up. Well, here it is: What do we face? What are our threats, and are we prepared, or not?

    GOV. PALIN: Well, I think domestically a threat that we’re facing right now is the dithering and hesitation in sending a message to the terrorists that we’re going to claim what Ronald Reagan claimed. Our motto is going to be: “We win, you lose.” The way that we do that is allow McChrystal to have the reinforcements that he’s asking for in Afghanistan. That sends that message to the terrorists over there that we’re going to end this thing with our victory. We need to start facing Iran with tougher and tougher sanctions that need to be considered. We need to work our allies with the Iranian issues, like Britain and France and not allow access to favorable international monetary deals. That’s a great threat that I think would kind of shake up Ahmadinejad and get him to listen. We need to look at halting Iran’s imports of refined petroleum products. They’re quite reliant on imported gasoline, and we need to use that hammer to wake up the leadership there, too. Those are two big challenges that we have right now, domestically and in naming those two countries, Afghanistan and Iran. Two big challenges there, too.

    RUSH: Thirty seconds: Immigration. Can you do it in 30 seconds before we have to go?

    GOV. PALIN: I can’t do it in 30 seconds but just know that… You know, let me put it simply: Illegal immigrants are called “illegal” for a reason. We need to crack down on this. We need to listen to the border states where the governors there have some solutions and we need to get serious about that

    1. Methinks she has been educating herself on the issues – and it is sounding like she’s hitting all the right notes, so far.

  55. Vince,

    She is a straight up small government conservative. Libertarians ought to disagree with her about foreign policy and immigration and agree with her about the economy and size of government. Nothing more nothing less.

    Whatever her faults are, in libertarian terms, concerning foreign policy and immigration, she is the only politician who actually talks in no bullshit terms about small government. And that is worth something.

    1. “””she is the only politician who actually talks in no bullshit terms about small government”””

      That’s easy to when you’re not in the Whitehouse. Take Bush jr for example. He was talking small government in no bullshit terms in 2000, that’s one of the reasons I voted for him then. But in hindsight, it was just talk and when he became president he took another path. There is no proof, no evidence, that Palin wouldn’t change like Bush jr did.

      1. There is no evidence that any of them wouldn’t change. Unless you can bring back Jesus to run, you have to vote for someone and figure they are going to disapoint you.

        1. In what way do you think Palin will disappoint you?

  56. Vince is almost as good as the contrails dude. I’m satisfied.

  57. MSNBC glamour girl Norah O’Donnell was forced to lower herself and travel to Grand Rapids to mingle with the yokels waiting in line to see Palin. O’Donnell can barely conceal her scorn for the food-court-smelling hicks. But she got a little revenge for this assignment, correcting one of the rubes on a policy matter. Those tea-baggers are so stupid.

    1. Is the smell really that noticeable?

      1. O’Donnell’s eyes seemed to be watering. But maybe she was mourning her career.

  58. I am so tired of Sarah Palin and her brood I’m hoping Michael Jackson dies again.

    Did not RTFA or the 200+ comments.

    1. Do you like Bill Hicks?

  59. I am not defending her per se, but in the attitude of fairness Couric ambushed her. If you ever read the book, or the excerpt, one of the advisers pushed Palin into it. She said Couric wanted to focus on the mom angle, Couric had low self esteem and admred Palin, etc. Then she gets there and of course there are all these foreign policy questions. I think this is where the ‘dumb Sarah’ perception is mostly stemming from. She wasn’t ready which was bad but I’m not sure that counts for a whole lot. I’m not a Sarah supporter but I do want a president who leads, not follows the polls. He/she doesn’t have to know it all coming in, they just need to exercise wisdom with the facts they are given and put things together well. A leader has vision and when confronted with issues gets educated. It is not so much what they know going in as much as what they do proceeding from a situation/issue. And that is where Obama is a horrible failure. Smug, arrogant, and yet with all the problems he ‘inherited’, with total control of the house & senate, he does nothing except whine and increase the debt.He isn’t leading us forward. If he isn’t stagnating, then we are tumbling backwards.

  60. Thanks John

    What I cant stand is that the people who are so invested in denigrating her show no indication that they actually know that much about her.

    (going into a general rant now)

    People should ask themselves… do the people in the media who attack her represent the same things you believe in. Does Katie Couric share a common interest with you? David Shuster?

    These are the people who are attempting to destroy Palin.

    You dont see them trying to destroy Elizabeth Dole or Kay Bailey Hutchinson. That’s becasue ED and KBH pose no threat to the Constitution-destorying agenda of the Left.

    Palin is instinctively thoroughly American.. Something the Uber-educated despise.

    And look at the state of the country right now.. that’s where those people have brought us.

    1. Take a deep breath. If you’re using “ubereducated” and Katie Couric and David Shuster in the same argument, you’re off on a cul-de-sac.

      1. Take a deep breath. If you think I think they’re “ubereducated” you’re off on a cul-de-sac.

        That’s what they think of themselves.

    2. Just because it’s a two party system doesn’t mean “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” always applies.

    3. Does Katie Couric share a common interest with you?

      We both like pussy.

      David Shuster?

      Gladiator movies. And Hannah Montana.

    4. And look at the state of the country right now.. that’s where those people have brought us

      You mean Bush and the Republican controlled congress from 1994-2006, right? Plus the conservative dominated Supreme Court. Why do you think Palin would be an improvement on those clowns? She’ll just follow the same Orthodox GOP playbook that’s led us to total failure. At least someone like Huckabee might, just might, take on Wall Street.

  61. Look, the woman got her ass handed to her by Katie Couric of all people…She’s not a mental giant…

    1. As opposed to BO, who has never had a confrontational interview in his life. Our current President can’t handle Rush Limbaugh or Fox news. Yet, I am told he is some kind of a mental giant.

      1. Yeah, that’s like saying Dick Cheney couldn’t handle CNN.

        1. Cheney did interviews with CNN. No politician in my lifetime did more hostile interviews than Cheney. Ever watch the guy on the Sunday Talk shows? He was unbelievable. You may not have agreed with him, but that was a guy who could handle a hostile interview. Obama in contrast, won’t talk to anyone he thinks might not ask him a “what is it like going up as baby Jesus” question.

      2. She got pwned by KATIE COURIC for Pete’s sake.

        Katie freaking Couric.

        1. Did you read the interview with Obama by couric posted below? I would say she is butt fucking him on National TV. Obama is a disaster when he doesn’t have a teleprompter and has to think on his feet. He just doesn’t do that well. He can deliver a great pre-written speech, but he is terrible when he is off script. He says “um” about every five seconds.

          1. John at 4:15 :”BO, who has never had a confrontational interview in his life”

            John at 4:27 : “Did you read the interview with Obama by couric posted below? I would say she is butt fucking him on National TV.”

            btw-I replied to the posting of the interview segment below

  62. It’s amazing to see some of the same people who regularly charge Obama with having a mediocre record of accomplishments in life rally around Palin. What are that woman’s accomplishments? 3rd place in the Ms. Alaska contest? Gig as a tv sports reporter?

    The one notable thing she accomplished she gave up on half-way through…

    1. Who is saying Palin should be President. You are right, Obama had no business being President. And he is proving that nearly every day. But Palin didn’t even run for President. She ran for VP, which involves mostly going to funerals.

      Stop moving the goal posts.

      1. So do you admit the woman is pretty devoid of actual accomplishments in her life?

        1. I don’t think she is devoid of accomplishments. I think coming from nowhere and becoming governor of Alaska is a pretty big accomplishment. I would like to be governor. I also think managing to turn a losing VP race into being one of the most important poltical figures in the country is pretty good to.

          Does it make her qualified to be President? Probably not. But, Obama’s career of failed community organizer, adjunct professor, junior Senator and autobiographer didn’t qualify him either. Would I say Obama is devoid of real accomplishments? No. He was just not qualified to be President.

          And you can’t say that about Palin either unless you are just being a fuckhead, which is what you are doing.

          1. Er, most governors of Alaska are born in, er, Alaska. So the fact that she came from Alaska to become governor of Alaska is a bit less than remarkable to me…

            Her only accomplisment was the one she quit half in…

            1. She quit half way through to write a book and make millions. We should all be such failures. More importantly, just because someone is not qualified for the biggest job in the world, doesn’t mean your life is devoid of accomplishment. Neither one of us is qualified to be President, but you can’t say we are devoid of accomplishment.

              It is pretty clear a year in, Obama wass completely unqualified and unprepared to be President. He is writing the book on how to fuck up a Presidency in his first year. I don’t think the people like you who sold us that pig in a poke, really have any standing to comment on other politicians’ accomplishments.

              1. John
                I guess you are somewhat new here, I was no fan of Obama. I backed Mark Warner and Bill Richardson. I thought Obama was woefully unaccomplished. Ask the other long-timers.

                1. The point is that no one is saying she should be President. They only saying her critics are assholes and that she makes a lot of good points and is a good politician.

                  1. I agree she shouldn’t be President.

                    More like Wassila City Council.

                2. I have no idea who you supported. If you didn’t support Obama, good for you. If you did, you will not be the last person denying it in embarassment.

                  1. I supported Obama over McCain, but I vigorously opposed Obama’s nomination.

                    If Obama had run against McCain in 2000 I would have voted for McCain in a heartbeat. I’ve always said he is a great man. I held my nose and voted Obama because eight years of GOP rule had led to corruption and incompetence on a scary level. They had to be turned out.

                    1. And will you work to turn out the Obama administration? Because they’re not much – if at all – better than the LAST gang of overspending powermongers.

                      BTW, McCain/Feingold prevented McCain from faithfully executing his oath of office.

                      Sorry, but 2008 was like a replay of Bush/Dukakis. No choice either way.

              2. So she wants to be a millionaire, and may or may not desire the presidency. So if she suceeds, and gets the presidency, how will she be NOT like the elitists.

            2. Ah, what the hell are you talking about? I think getting elected governor of any state is a pretty big accomplishment even if you are from that state.

              1. Like I said, it was her one big accomplishment and she backed out of it half-way in…

                1. Comments is that once you get down a few levels, it all becomes one undifferentiated mass of mixed up replies to replies. It’s like some mutant combination of the worst of the old and the worst of the new.

    2. At the time of the election Palin had made more executive decisions as Governor then Obama had.

      So it would be my opinion that during the 2008 campaign Plain was more qualified to be president then Obama was.

      Also it has become crystal clear that Obama is not qualified to be President.

      Note: I would not and did not vote for either Obama or Palin.

      1. Uggg!!!

        2008 campaign Plain was more qualified

        Plain = Palin

  63. Next to her, other politicians Palin comparison.

  64. Here is genius:

    Couric: “You raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, ‘Why?’ ”

    Obama: “What I was referring to, and I’ve consistently referred to, is the need for a strategy that actually concludes our involvement in Iraq and moves Iraqis to take responsibility for the country. … What happens is that if we continue to put $10 billion to $12 billion a month into Iraq, if we are willing to send as many troops as we can muster continually into Iraq? There’s no doubt that that’s gonna have an impact. But it doesn’t meet our long-term strategic goal, which is to make the American people safer over the long term.”

    Couric: “But do you not give the surge any credit for reducing violence in Iraq?”

    Obama: “No, no … of course I have. There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our U.S. forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence. … So this, in no way, detracts from the great efforts of our young men and women in uniform. In fact, that’s one of the most striking things about visiting Iraq is to see how dedicated they are, what a great job they do.”

    Couric: “But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000….

    …additional troops … help the situation in Iraq?”

    Obama: “You’ve asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There’s no doubt.”

    Couric: “But yet you’re saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn’t support it … so I’m just trying to understand this.”

    Obama: “It’s pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that’s money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan.”

    Couric: “Do you think the level of security in Iraq … would exist today without the surge?”

    Obama: “Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there’s no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq.”

    1. I’m not sure what is supposed to be so embarrasing about this exchange. Obama’s position seems to be pretty plain: that while the surge had some positive results the money and effort that went into the surge would have been better spent in Afghanistan, and we could have got positive results from simply pressuring the Iraqis on political reconciliation.

      You might not agree but it’s certainly not impossibly incoherent or stupid.

      1. You mean the good war? The one he currently can’t make a committment to?

    2. It’s a stop-gap measure at best he’s saying. A 10 to 12 to 200 billion stop-gap measure. Ron Paul has basically said the same thing.

      So John, will you support Obama here where he is libertarian on foriegn policy as you advocated libertarians support Palin on her domestic agenda?

      1. You will never hear me say a bad thing about what Obama has done in Iraq or Afghanistan. I will call out people like you who supported him while screaming that our involvement in Iraq was the end of the world. But that is only calling out your hypocrisy. I have never criticized Obama for his handling of Iraq, nor will I until he does something I object to.

        I am also agnostic about Afghanistan. I am not sure what the right thing to do is, so I will support what he does and trust he knows more than I do and hope for the best.

        1. Again John, where did I “support him while screaming that our involvement in Iraq was the end of the world?”

          1. You supported the war in Iraq? If you did, good for you. If so, you are the only Dem I know who did.

            1. I opposed the war, but I certainly wasn’t supporting Obama while he opposed it. I worked for his opponents until they dropped out, and then I told anyone who would listen he was a poor candidate.

  65. Parroting instead of thinking is real genius.

  66. You can’t say small government and support our foreign policy. It’s the redistribution of wealth to a special interest group that was lovingly referred to as “The Military-Industrial Complex” by Eisenhower.

  67. And Here is a photo of a bare-chested Palin.

    I’m not kidding – you have to check this out!

    1. N1 again.

  68. I think the number is 6.7 million not billion. just sayin.

  69. North Dakota’s 99th Congressional District? Wow. And we’re supposed to seriously believe that that the feds are going to do a better job run America’s health care system.

  70. Nice lady with some good views. Not worldly enough for a national office. Even Joe Biden could give a quick answer to a question on newspaper reading habits. I see her as a celebrity. Perhaps a conservative version of Arianna Huffington. Enough of the whining about the (obviously) biased coverage by the lefty media. She is set for life with the new book and personal appearances.

  71. Hey, Reason, here’s a thought: How about, I don’t know, interviewing her?

  72. I’d rather see the space devoted to Ron Paul. End The Fed!

    1. Did Ron Paul get photographed in a running suit?

      Or kissing a lobster?

      1. No, he did not. That right there shows you the mainstream media and its’ brazen ability to marginalize 3rd party candidates! 😉

  73. MNG, Palin was born in Sandpoint, Idaho. Her family moved to Alaska when she was an infant.

    1. She would certainly not be the first person to win the governorship of a state she was not born in…

  74. It turns out that the photographer who took the now-famed photograph for Runner’s World breached his contract with Palin by selling it to Newsweek before the expiration of the non-reuse period.

    But I suppose that’s what you get for trusting these creeps in the media nowadays; most of them are completely unethical scumbags.

  75. Two thoughts on her popularity:

    1) She’s a small-town, folksy, Christian conservative who was propelled into the national spotlight. Naturally, she has a huge fan base of a similar background that is overjoyed with having someone in the national spotlight as opposed to having to see the “elites” in the spotlight.

    2) Americans don’t like ugly people. They like attractive people. Palin is attractive. I suppose Americans are fascinated by ugly people in the circus-freak sense, but if Palin looked like Roseanne Barr, she would have been yesterday’s news after the 2008 election.

    Food for thought: with her rapid book sales, talk show host potential, and, as a consequence, huge earnings potential, will the same folksy, rural types start to view her as more of a sell-out down the road? Will she have to try harder to maintain that folksy, small-town image that attracts such a huge following?

  76. Wow, for a magazine called reason that was an awfully nuanced opinion.

  77. America’s elite and Palin-haters worldwide should not be so quick to dismiss or disregard the future of Sarah Palin. No other national political figure so completely fills Middle America’s vacuum of frustration and hate for the Left and Right as Sarah Palin.

    Middle America has been abandoned by the Left and Right, who have saddled it with a $700 billion taxpayer bailout, an unnecessary and costly war, a soaring deficit, and an overall neglect of the pocketbook issues that impact Middle America every day. Where are job creation, quality public education, affordable healthcare, and fiscal responsibility, to name a few?

    Middle America is mad as hell at the Left and Right and they just might be willing to roll the dice on someone like Palin, who lacks an Ivy League education, is a working class hockey-mom with a disabled child, and who has blue-collar roots like many of the folks in Middle America. The status quo on the Left and Right have produced nothing material for Middle America, which may toss conventional wisdom into the toilet and throw the lever for Palin, figuring it has nothing to lose, and it may be right.

    The Ivy League educated on the Left and Right have delivered little to nothing for Middle America, perhaps precisely because they are out of touch with the issues that someone like Palin understands personally.

    However, to say that Palin is a salmon swimming upstream is an understatement. The results of a CBS News survey released Monday indicate that 66 percent of respondents do not want her to run for the White House in 2012. Seventy percent of respondents to a CNN/Opinion Research poll said she is not qualified to be president.

    More difficult for Palin is the fact that the trend is not her friend?public opinion is moving in the wrong direction right now.

    In the CBS survey, 43 percent of GOP respondents said Palin would have the ability to be an effective president. Only 11 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents agreed.

    However, there is an opportunity for Palin among independents, where Palin’s rating is 41 percent favorable, and 48 percent unfavorable, according to Gallup.

    These numbers are not great, but there is plenty of time if she can move the needle by appealing to Middle America and independents, which is where elections are won or lost.

    Clearly, Palin has put the monkey on her back, especially with her resignation from Alaska’s governorship in July, a self-inflicted wound that will be difficult to explain away. However, don’t put it past Palin to put lipstick on this pig and paint herself as a victim of politically motivated and baseless ethics charges that prevented her from successfully serving the people of Alaska, forcing her to do the noble thing and take the bullet by resigning.

    We can say what we want about Palin, but no Republican in recent history has created such frenzied excitement across the country as she has. Just take a look at the fervor she stirs as she wheels across Middle America on her book tour.

    Perhaps this is a misreading of the tea leaves, but one could argue that she creates a wee bit more excitement than Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, the two Republican front-runners for president in 2012. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed woman just may be queen.

    A. Muser
    http://americanmuser.wordpress.com

    1. Good stuff, A.Muser…

  78. Whatever else you can say about Palin, she does have a forceful persona. It make her easier to find than the cardboard cut-outs in politics and makes her an easy target.

  79. Her skin is way too thin to be running for office. She makes even Obama look thick-skinned, which is pretty sad. I mean she wrote a book of grudges blaming everyone else for her problems on the campaign trail. So she’s treated unfairly – cry me a river.

    The fact is most people were underwhelmed by her and put off by her resentment politics, class envy and inconsistencies, and felt she was ignorant of the issues and unprepared for national politics despite her executive experience. She was treated badly by the media for a wide variety of reasons, but had she demonstrated more competence (as the Obama campaign did) in spite of the obvious handling by the McCain campaign, the media would have had a more difficult time turning her into a straw-woman and punching bag.

    By the way, she was “handled” by the McCain campaign because McCain was the presidential candidate and therefore gets to set the policies. The vice president generally has to go along with the president whether they agree or not, and the campaign wanted to make sure she would not undercut or confuse McCain’s message and policies which had been established well before she was invited on board. So little sympathy for her there – I’m sorry if she was treated in a sexist manner, but don’t act like “YOU” should have been the focal point of the campaign and should have been given free reign to do and say whatever you wanted when you were really the last person on board.

    As a final note, lots of people relate to her views, and her “normal American” story but the reality is most Americans just don’t want a “normal American” to be president. Look how well Jimmy Carter worked out…

    1. Sure, but there’s still that group which was not put off by her and, instead, went wild over her.

      The question is this: Does this group matter?

      The more this group is insulted by the elites, the more they shout for Palin, whose appeal may be not only her views but the fact that she doesn’t insult them when they’re not looking.

      1. They matter, but they are a smaller group, and both groups are pretty adamant about where they stand on her. The problem is the Palin supporters are substantial enough to win her the primary nomination but small enough to end us up with 4 more years of Obama. I hope people who like Palin vote with their heads instead of their hearts.

    2. Class envy?

      When did Palin become a liberal?

      1. She did use the concept that the poorer, small towns and rural area were the “real Americans” quite extensively. As opposed to the wealthy, Ivy League-educated, anti-American urban elites. The idea of breaking America down into two “Americas” seems to come straight from John Edwards’ populist playbook.

      2. Every time a conservative whines about “elites,” it either smacks of class envy or pure hypocrisy (if it’s coming from the mouth of an Ivy-educated conservative pundit or politician.)

        1. I believe Palin does speak to a constituency that is afraid that Americas’ brighter days are behind her. She reminds them of the ‘all-american’ prom queen and she has struck a chord with a demographic that is feeling more and more marginalized by both the GOP(corporatist republicans) who want to seemingly pull up the draw bridge and ignore them and the left(socialist democrats) who want to tell them what they can eat, drive, say, and who they can associate with. JMO.

  80. Remember the “palling around with terrorists” crap? The smile when she whipped up the mob to shout “off with his head” and “kill him” she stood by and smiled…she deserves every bit of the hit job she’s getting…This profoundly ignorant woman can’t be elected dog catcher.

  81. So what’s everybody talking about?

  82. Palin for White House Press Secretary!

    Nice column, David. Palin will shake up the status quo, but not from elected office.

    Comments posted back are a scream so far. Time to send money.

  83. Supposed to attack these head-on and you will find a deep sense of gratification thatwill fuel your happiness.

  84. Here is a brief, but complete description of Sarah Palin’s knowledge: You give her a set of talking points (because she can’t make up her own) and she’s perfectly capable of reciting them from memory when ever cued to do so.

  85. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on.

  86. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.