Meghan McCain: Sarah Palin Is Anti-Intellectual and Anti-Education For Using The Term "Blue Bloods"
PS: By The Way, I Had To Google The Meaning of "Blue Bloods" Because I Had Never Read This Extremely Common Term Before

Blue bloods = the aristocracy, my poor sweet dumb babboo.

Read on as she Googles the term... and still gets it wrong.

Welcome to the echo chamber! This week's (or possibly month's) latest rhetorical talking point is "blue bloods." And guess what? In the way it has been used I am probably considered one and so is the entire Bush family, not to mention countless others.

"In the way it has been used" she "probably" would be considered one.

In the way it has been used, as opposed to... the way it's otherwise used?

Dearie, it's only used in one way. It means aristocracy. Not new money, old money (and "old money" in America usually means somewhat new money, in comparison to old money in Europe).

And who else would deliver such a catchy media talking point than, yes, Sarah Palin.

Um, anyone who ever heard the term before, which is 98% of us.

The reference to "blue bloods" was made after former President George H.W. Bush and his wife Barbara said in an interview that they thought Mitt Romney was essentially the man to watch in 2012, followed by an extra zinger from the notorious straight talking former first lady Barbara Bush who said she thinks "Sarah Palin should stay in Alaska." Sarah Palin responded on the Laura Ingraham radio show saying "of course they think that, the Bush's are blue bloods."

I actually had to Google what the meaning of "blue bloods" was, although I could surmise that it was some kind of knock against education and coming from a family of some success. Yes, in essence that is what this statement meant.

No, that is not "in essence" what this statement meant. It has nothing to do with education (although the rich, of course, do send their kids to Ivy League schools or, lately, since Ivy League schools are harder to get into just based on cash-money background, into expensive private schools like Bennington. But that's an incident of wealth.)

The term means "old money aristocracy," period.

"Blue blood" has a variety of tones to it. Blue bloods think of it as a good term. Often it's used in a purely descriptive, neutral way -- people are objectively "blue bloods." Same as saying they're wealthy. Not really open to much debate.

And sometimes it's used derisively, as in "entitled little beer-empire princesses who supposedly go into Columbia based on nothing but academic potential (wink, wink) and yet never read a single book in which the very common term 'blue blood' was used."

What is that common put-down of Sarah Palin? Oh yes: "She doesn't know what she doesn't know." Meghan McCain obviously doesn't know what she doesn't know, or she'd be too embarrassed to note that she had to Google a term that is not only common, but is part of any educated (or semi-educated) person's active vocabulary.

This isn't some obscure term like, I don't know, petit bourgeoisie. (Which isn't all that obscure, either.) I mean: Come on.

The rap on "blue bloods" is that they rule by happenstance of lucky birth with little objective, personal qualification or merit or accomplishment to recommend them.

Sort of like an entitled beer empire princess who presumes to be a professional writer and political analyst but still has to Google terms from a seventh-grade vocabulary list.

Oh, but she's not done. She's still complaining about this term which she never heard before in her entire life.

Families that work hard and achieve a long line of successful people are "blue bloods" and thus, she implied the opinions of said people are jaded and elitist, even if that family lineage has a long history of public service and leadership within Republican Party.

Yes, Meghan, families that work hard and create a long line of successful wealthy descendants are "blue bloods." Note the distinction here: Your family -- that is, people not you -- worked hard and had success. They were successful, whereas you are merely rich.

But Meghan's not done.

Of course, Sarah Palin is also living the American dream, albeit a different one without the help of any kind of family lineage. She has a successful career that probably most Americans would want by earning millions for her reality show, appearances on Fox, and getting paid to go places and speak her mind. Both of these narratives exemplify why this country is still as Ronald Reagan famously put it "a shining city upon a hill." America is a place where people can create their own success so their children can have more opportunities than they did. Neither the Bush family's success nor Sarah Palin's are relevant to the political conversation regarding who is best suited to be the next GOP leader. Both stories are simply the American dream and taking issue with one kind of path towards success versus another is very dangerous. Lest we forget, Sarah Palin herself is now a multi-millionaire.

In this incoherent passage, this supposedly Columbia-educated paid professional author argues, I think, that "some people earn it themselves through their own sweat and toil, some people have it handed to them as an infant for no better reason than winning the birth lottery, who's to say which is a prouder tradition?"

Um, one doesn't have to be an anti-aristocratic extremist to say the former is better, Meghan. McCain here equates her own "success" and "accomplishment" -- which principally consists of, um, surviving the birthing process -- with Sarah Palin's.

I'm not a particular fan of Sarah Palin's anymore but, you know: F A I L.

Okay, one more thing: Meghan McCain is an idiot, and has had everything handed to her, and is such an idiot she never even realized there was a word for this. So, in other words, she just discovered, within the past week, that there is an entirely new (to her) personal insult that applies to her.

This of course accounts for her hysterical, defensive whining, and attempting to equate the accomplishments of J.P. Morgan with his great-grandson J.P. "Johnny Chugs" Morgan, one man who built a banking empire, and one man who knows all the rules to Mexican.

So this is all very personal to her.

Will she admit that? No, of course not, she has to claim her hysterical ignorance is all in the service of country or something.

I take particular issue with the "blue blood" rhetoric because in case Republicans haven't realized, we are still losing a public relations battle. Instead of sitting around and opining about who is too much of an elitist or a "blue blood" within our own party, our leaders need to start educating this country about the shortcomings of the Obama administration and why smaller government is a fundamentally more effective way of governing.

Right, you're screaming like an infant because you're worried that this exciting neologism "blue blood" may distract from the effort to thwart Obama. Okay.

By the way, for what it's worth: I know playing the "elitist" card (and the "blue blood" variation) is like catnip to some people, and it explains everything (that is, politics is for some less about specific policy outcomes and more about a generalized assertion of primacy over the "elite"), but I'm really tired of it myself, and am especially tired of Sarah Palin's use of it to explain practically everything, and explain away every knock on her.

That is, every knock on her is dismissed as "elitist" impulse, which frankly fails to address the real reasons often offered for doubting her capacity to serve as president. Which is the point. By constantly claiming that all (and I do mean all) criticism of her is essentially illegitimate as it is born of nothing but "elitist" disdain for the common man (or woman), she never actually has to rebut such criticisms.

I'm really not digging what I find to be a crudely reductivist, single-dimensional model of politics that many have seized on (Palin most prominently), that politics currently consists of almost nothing at all but "elitists" vs. the common.

What about ideas? Why is every dispute being turned into a personal one, a dispute in which the power of ideas matter far less than the personal credentials of the person offering the idea?

Do the elite engage in the fallacy of the argument to authority, offering their status as the credentialed elite as a reason to support their ideas? Yes, they do. But what bothers me about this whole damn anti-elitist panic is that it replacing one appeal to authority with another appeal to authority which is nearly as odious, and actually a bit more when you add in the hypocrisy factor.

The old appeal to authority is rotten and horrible, you should not credit anyone who says "listen to me because I hail from the credentialed elite;" that's why we need to replace it with a new appeal to authority: "Listen to me because I hail from the striving low-to-middle class."

What?

I do not see the great benefit of replacing one regime of sneering dismissiveness based on happenstance of birth with an opposite regime of sneering dismissiveness based on happenstance of birth.

Well that's not entirely true-- I do find the latter regime, Palin's preferred regime, preferable to the former. I would rather that regime of sneering dismisiveness to the older one. But I don't much like either.

And another thing I'll just put out there: I rarely post on Sarah Palin anymore because everything with her seems excessively personal. Do we have arguments about ideas when it comes to Sarah Palin? No, we only have arguments about her as a person. It's like high school. Political "coverage" consists largely of hit-trolling by engaging in the never-ending and childish reportage of "This person talked smack about Sarah Palin" and "Sarah Palin dissed this person right back!"

To some limited extent, this isn't Palin's fault, but her critics on the left (and in the nastier corners of the supposedly-"civil" "moderate" wing of the Republican Party, like Frumj and Scarborough) who personalize every attack on Palin.

On the other hand, I have to say that Palin is largely responding in personal terms, which I find less than presidential. It's all this "elitist" sort of stuff -- you call me a name, I'll call you a name -- and there just doesn't seem to be a criticism that Palin can let go unanswered. So while I'd like my presidential nominee to be an expert on one field of government policy or maybe a couple, I am finding that Palin is creating her own personal field of expertise which consists chiefly of defending the good name of Sarah Palin and snarking her critics.

I don't really care about this "expertise." At all. And I am just tired of this never-ending, highly-personal high-school sort of smack-talk and disses.

From both sides, yeah. I've always been pissed off that the left, and Palin's supposedly more conservative critics too, have engaged in this sort of childish personal taunting. But now I've really had as much I can take of it from Team Palin, too.

This isn't the Delgrassi Junior High or even the Godfather. Not everything is about personal status and standing. Politics isn't just about people. When it descends to just being about nothing but people and personalities, it ceases to be politics, and become simply a different form of Extra/TMZ/Perez Hilton celebrity gossip show.

I know Palin didn't start this. But if I, personally, am ever going to be able to support Palin, I need her to stop this, and start addressing policy questions in policy terms -- not personal terms -- and put away her go-to "I Win" cards of "elitist" and the like.


Posted by: Ace at 11:16 AM



Comments

1 Hey, you forgot to mention O'Donnell. Only Ace could turn a Meghan McCain rant into a Sarah Palin rant.

Posted by: Bill Lumbergh at December 01, 2010 11:22 AM (K/USr)

2 Don't through around made-up shit like "nouveau-riche" around me, either!


Everyone knows that's a tasty pastry!

Posted by: Meghan McCheese at December 01, 2010 11:22 AM (BP6Z1)

3 "Blue Bloods"? You mean it's not just a cop show on CBS?

Posted by: Meghan McCain at December 01, 2010 11:23 AM (DTzwU)

4 Since aristocracy means "rule by "the best"" in Greek, I think lil Ms. McCain should be disqualified from all pretense of admission.

Posted by: Techie at December 01, 2010 11:23 AM (SzvZF)

5 Slow news day. That's a lot of words about nothing. Allah is that you ?

Posted by: wildwood at December 01, 2010 11:24 AM (VSWPU)

6 She's not gonna run for President. She's on our side to be the smashmouth. Good Lord, some has to be. Everyone can't be a mealy mouth wuss on our side if we hope to win.

Exit question: Why is Sarah Palin the one required to take the high road and not her bottom feeding critics?

Posted by: blaster at December 01, 2010 11:24 AM (MrMxG)

7 I know Palin didn't start this. But if I, personally, am ever going to be able to support Palin, I need her to stop this, and start addressing policy questions in policy terms -- not personal terms -- and put away her go-to "I Win" cards of "elitist" and the like.
Ace, when are you going to come out of the closet?
Aren't you and Andrew Sullivan getting a little crowded in there?

Posted by: Lindsey Grahamnesty licking Rahm Emanuel's salty shaven balls at December 01, 2010 11:25 AM (pfMMA)

8 Looks like the blue bloods took one to the lip.

Posted by: tarpon at December 01, 2010 11:25 AM (g0QB8)

9 Megan McCain should remember the first rule of life my father gave me:
Tis better to keep your mouth shut and have people think your a dunce than to open it up and dispel any questions.

Posted by: Mallamutt at December 01, 2010 11:25 AM (OWjjx)

10 How was I supposed to know what "blue blood" meant? The term was created before I was born!

Posted by: Meggie Mac at December 01, 2010 11:25 AM (9hSKh)

11 Oh boy. Hope you packed a shit-proof umbrella in your suitcase, Ace.
I agree with you in part and disagree with you in part. There is clearly a social prejudice that colors nearly all political and personal criticism of Palin, but that's mostly due to the fact that you don't see too many middle-class schlubs on either side of the commentariat.
But you're quite right that she needs to either rebut on policy, like her note today about tax cuts, or just let it go. That goes double for the quick-to-anger bunch at Conservatives 4 Palin. Not every liberal twit deserves a response, people. It makes your patron look thin-skinned.

Posted by: Lou at December 01, 2010 11:25 AM (IH3P2)

12 InRe: M. McCain. Why do you bother? Old Chinese proverb: "Dog Poo only Stink if you try to smell it."

Posted by: Don Morrissey at December 01, 2010 11:25 AM (GkYyh)

13 This isn't the first time the Bush's have been described at "Blue Bloods"

Posted by: Barney Frank at December 01, 2010 11:25 AM (tE8FB)

14 Meghan is thick. And to save her time looking it up I mean in the fat and dumb meaning of the word

Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 01, 2010 11:26 AM (1Jaio)

15
Raaaaaaacist!Eliiiiiiiiitist!

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at December 01, 2010 11:26 AM (xJfxg)

16 BTW, what was the commentary on Palin's speech about QE2?

Posted by: blaster at December 01, 2010 11:26 AM (MrMxG)

17 but I'm really tired of it myself, and am especially tired of Sarah Palin's use of it to explain practically everything, and explain away every knock on her.
You may want to take up blogging books or sports for a couple of years. There is a war on right of center between elites (ooh, there's that word again) and the rest of us; and the rest of us plan on hitting back, hard. 2012 will be more of the same, but worse.

Posted by: Bill Lumbergh at December 01, 2010 11:27 AM (K/USr)

18 Is it just me or do the family trees of blue bloods branch less than, say, someone out of a trailer park in Arkansas?

Posted by: Dave C at December 01, 2010 11:27 AM (vjkov)

19 Shouldn't we start teaching children the importance of not speaking out if your an idiot?

Posted by: Drew in MO at December 01, 2010 11:27 AM (R8S84)

20 Tis better to keep your mouth shut and have people think your a dunce than to open it up and dispel any questions.
Alas, Meggie Mac doesn't need to speak at all for one to confirm her status as a dunce. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at December 01, 2010 11:28 AM (9hSKh)

21 Meh.

There is a serious problem with the Republican establishment. We need to open up the Republican leadership to conservatives and stop giving positions to people because it is "their turn". I'm Bob Dole!

It is certainly true we need to make sure that the people we do select are qualified. Hey, I'm the Man of Steele - wanna go clubbing? But qualifications include backbone as much as anything else. And Palin is indeed one of the precious few Republicans that have that.

Absent the State Media feeding frenzy in 2008 Palin would have been what put McCain over the top, even with the pathetic campaign he ran.


Posted by: 18-1 at December 01, 2010 11:28 AM (7BU4a)

22 7
Exit question: Why is Sarah Palin the one required to take the high road and not her bottom feeding critics?







Posted by: blaster at December 01, 2010 11:24 AM (MrMxG)
Because part of the reason we hate her critics is that they choose the low road? Let's win on ideas, not snarky back and forth garbage. There is a value to having attack dogs on our side, but not as our standard bearer.

Posted by: robviously at December 01, 2010 11:29 AM (s0hlt)

23 Only a fag could possibly want to turn Sarah Palin into a JFK School/Woodrow Wilson School government policy career woman bull-dyke witch [with the mullet haircut to match].
Sarah Palin as Hillary Clinton?
You people are nuts.
It really is time for Ace to come out of the closet.

Posted by: Lindsey Grahamnesty licking Rahm Emanuel's salty shaven balls at December 01, 2010 11:29 AM (pfMMA)

24 What does a fat chick and a brick have in common ?









They'll both eventually be laid by a Mexican.

Posted by: wildwood at December 01, 2010 11:29 AM (VSWPU)

25 Given the Bushes were referred to as blue-bloods back in the 80s (if not before), MegMac really needs to do some reading. Heck, it was the basis of the famous "George (HW) Bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth" speech at the (was it '88 or '92?) DNC.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 01, 2010 11:29 AM (p05LM)

26 Nothing about QE2?

That wasn't policy enough?

Posted by: Dave C at December 01, 2010 11:29 AM (vjkov)

27 Ace, I would agree, if it wasn't for the way the 'elites' (far from the best term) keep proving exactly why no sane and reasonable person should let them run anything more involved than an 'open mic' night at the local coffeehouse. (And even that's kind of questionable, to be honest.)

Of course, I'm forced to put out that your otherwise quite valid point--about using generalizations for making personal attacks against those you find 'unworthy'--was undermined considerably when, um, you pretty much engaged in such in the same thread. I won't specify the target, though others will; to be honest, it could be against Oscar the Grouch and it would still undermine the argument.

This isn't a knock on your opinion, just a friendly reminder that expressions of such work so much better when you don't step on your own landmines...

Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© at December 01, 2010 11:29 AM (GBXon)

28 I know Palin didn't start this. But if I, personally, am ever going to be able to support Palin, I need her to stop this, and start addressing policy questions in policy terms


You've twisted your case in two sentences. You concede that "Palin didn't start this." "THIS" is a personal attack by a silly former first lady, not a "policy question."

And evidently you're not aware that Sarah is addressing policy quite handily on Facebook and even, I dread to say, on Hannity.

Posted by: arhooley, conflicted Californian at December 01, 2010 11:30 AM (dJPN1)

29 FLAME WAR! FLAME WAR!

Palin really needs to cut this out-its annoying and doesn't advance anything. All it does is piss off independent voters that aren't white working class and moderate republicans.

But Meggie Mac is what Brit satellite radio calls a "C U Next Tuesday." Not worth anybody's time or bytes.

Posted by: Whatever at December 01, 2010 11:30 AM (fXkKU)

30 PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT MEGHAN MCCAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: BJ at December 01, 2010 11:30 AM (K25Ot)

31 Meanwhile the Mav is blubbering like a fucking idiot about how much he will miss his good friend Russ Feingold. Always the team player.

Posted by: Captain Hate at December 01, 2010 11:30 AM (ccPlf)

32 New Money Always Cries

Posted by: Ben at December 01, 2010 11:31 AM (wuv1c)

33 "Let's win on ideas, not snarky back and forth garbage."

Can we win on both?

Posted by: Drew in MO at December 01, 2010 11:31 AM (R8S84)

34 You put more thought into this than Meggy Mac deserves, ace. Like too many other "thinkers" -- say, David Frumpy or Mo Dowdy -- the rotund daughter of high-profile parents has been given status far beyond any demonstrated intellectual ability. She was in the right place at the right time.

In some respects, the same can be said for Sarah Palin. An engaging -- to some -- personality and a boost from that hated RINO, John McCain, followed by a lot of media exposure ginned up by people who can see profit in riding the Palin Train, have created a whole that is far more than the sum of its parts.

They are two sides of the same coin, with the exception that some of us would still support Palin's political ambitions if she actually, you know, did something, and laid off the Facebook soapbox and the Fucks News tongue baths.

Meghan McCain will fade quickly. She has nothing of substance to offer, except as food for the outraged outrage of Palin fanboiz.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 01, 2010 11:31 AM (Ulu3i)

35 20
Shouldn't we start teaching children the importance of not speaking out if your an idiot?

pfft, we can't hurt the little darlings' feelings these days. Everyone is special, see?

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at December 01, 2010 11:31 AM (9hSKh)

36 Sarah knows you can't eat elk with a silver spoon, but Meghan is breaking an old blue blood rule by punching down. She is supposed to ignore the rabble, keep a stiff upper lip, and carry one. This pandering and worrying over a lower caste's tweets just won't do.

Posted by: Jean at December 01, 2010 11:32 AM (lnUW/)

37 Meghan McCain isn't a blue-blood. Blue-bloods don't self-portrait with their cleavage show to best advantage and then, in a sop to bourgeois morality, act all abashed when someone notices. Bue-bloods are shameless in letting it all hang out. See, Hilton, Paris.

Posted by: Schreiber at December 01, 2010 11:32 AM (CKV9z)

38 Ace, just FYI -- this post was excellent. Totally agree about the high school vibe.

I Just. Don't. Care. about that sh*t when the adult political stakes are so astronomically high. We need to retake the WH in '12 in order to repeal ObamaCare and keep the SCOTUS from flipping.

Very little else matters. I think Palin has been wronged by a lot of the crap people are throwing at her, but I just don't care about that one-thousandth as much as I care about kicking Obama out of office and preserving some remnants of republican government.

Folks on the right need to drop the personality-driven crap and get laser focused on the issues.

Posted by: P.M. at December 01, 2010 11:32 AM (2AfKV)

39 "She has a successful career that probably most Americans would want by earning millions for her reality show, appearances on Fox, and getting paid to go places and speak her mind"

The girl who wrote this went to college?!?

Posted by: lasue at December 01, 2010 11:32 AM (S25IC)

40 Meggy would be far more interesting with a cock in her mouth, instead of a pen in her hand.

Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at December 01, 2010 11:32 AM (eCAn3)

41 We hate her critics not because they choose the low road but because they are wrong, they are statists who want to take our freedom - that covers her critics that are Democrats and Republicans.

Barbara Bush is supposed to be nice and polite, but she starts an intramural spat. SHE STARTS the intramural spat. What was Palin supposed to reply? That's her opinion? Well of course it was her opinion, duh, and some people who think George H W Bush was the best Republican ever are listening to it.


Look, let John McCain take the high road. Go ahead, say your opponents are fine people who would be great at the job.

Posted by: blaster at December 01, 2010 11:33 AM (MrMxG)

42 Personally, I would like to see all of the ex-politicians-turned-pundits step into the background for a bit so we can keep our attention on the incoming class of Congress-critters. I'm most interested in seeing what they can do.

My own view of Palin has evolved. I was very enthusiastic when McCain chose her as his VP running mate (after initially being a Fred! supporter). Her presence on the ticket motivated me to donate to McCain. I backed her up against the attacks - external and internal - throughout the campaign and a bit after. But I think (hope) we can do better for a 2012 POTUS candidate.

There's a lot about her I like - and I admire her personal life story tremendously - but right now I think of her as sort of the female Rush Limbaugh. She has the ability to be very useful in advancing conservative messages, but she is a pundit now, not in public service. And I agree with ace that anything involving Palin turns into a personal thing, partly of her own making.


As for the folks criticizing ace for making this about Palin -- Meghan
McCain's post was about Palin. How do you treat one without addressing
the other?




Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 11:33 AM (IDL9N)

43 Didn't Megan McCain go to yale or harvard or something? Hasn't she ever read The Great Gatzby? Hell I read it in 9th grade.
What a stupid person she is.

Posted by: Ben at December 01, 2010 11:33 AM (wuv1c)

44 >>>There is clearly a social prejudice that colors nearly all political and personal criticism of Palin, but that's mostly due to the fact that you don't see too many middle-class schlubs on either side of the commentariat.

But they're in politics, right? Bill Clinton is clearly born of the low-to-middle class. Tim Pawlenty, similar -- workin' class guy.

This is sort of good stuff... As SUBTEXT. Like, I am more inclined to like a Clinton, a Palin, or a Pawlenty based on their middle-class/working class/lower class birth.

But when subtext becomes text -- that is, instead of this stuff lurking in the background, or subconsciously, subterraneanly, it instead becomes the stated explicit text for supporting one policy over another, then I balk.

I think many people do. There's a sense that many have that this is not elevated, educated discourse, which should focus (at least superficially) on the ideas and their merit. It keeps getting turned into this personality-driven smacktalk, which is low-to-no-intellect sort of stuff.

Posted by: ace © at December 01, 2010 11:33 AM (nj1bB)

45 How do you make love to a fat girl?


How do you make love to a fat girl?Roll her in flour and go for the wet spot.

Posted by: wildwood at December 01, 2010 11:33 AM (VSWPU)

46 "Blue Bloods"?
What have the Bushes got to do with Smurf gangstas in L.A.?

Posted by: Schmegpan McLame at December 01, 2010 11:33 AM (J74Py)

47 MEMO:

I am the only true spammer for UGG's here --especially the UGG's for dudes.

Accept no substitutes!

Posted by: Tom Brady, Designated Ugg Pimp at December 01, 2010 11:33 AM (BP6Z1)

48 So who wants to bet on if H8rs against Palin and for Cons4Palin would actuallypay attention to her if she made substantive comments on policy.
I already know the media won't.
Has she? I honestly don't know because I don't really follow her too closely.
Ace, do you really think substantive comments on policy matter in politics? Especially after Nov 2008?
Really??

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 01, 2010 11:34 AM (fLHQe)

49 Blue blood, big boobs, whatever.

Posted by: kansas at December 01, 2010 11:34 AM (mka2b)

50
I actually had to Google what the meaning of "blue bloods" was, although
I could surmise that it was some kind of knock against education...

I love this quote! Meghan is so educated she had to google blue bloods.

Posted by: Soothsayerwing Plover at December 01, 2010 11:34 AM (uFokq)

51 Sorry, fearless leader. I disagree.
The problem that the right has had for some time is that we allow the left to play by one set of rules and then submit to their set of rules for us.
I give you Exhibit A: Ambush interviews of Palin from MSM cretinswho, according to conventional wisdom,we are supposed to play nice with. While the President of the United States (not a candidate--THE President) disses conservative media voices by name.
Enough.
Katie Couric is not our friend. Republicans who get the vapors overpublic disputes that they startand, God help us all, math should get over themselves. Screw the New York Times and Paul "There Will Be Blood" Krugman. The fate of this country is at stake--really.
We need to get serious and stop being distracted. Let's begin by questioning why so many insist on trying to distract us with the same logical inconsistency they tried to force on us concerning George W. Bush: Sarah Palin is either an idiot or she is an evil genius plotting the creationist and snowbilly takeover of the country.
These are the same people who engaged in a conspiracy to ensure a thin-resume partial-term U.S. Senator with no executive experience was elected President. They do not get to question my motivations--or for that matter, anyone else's. Including Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, the Koch family...anyone.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at December 01, 2010 11:35 AM (B+qrE)

52 Any one check on AllahP? He's probably rubbed himself into a coma by now. The only thing that would make big mac more attractive to him is a strap on.

Posted by: Dr. Eviler at December 01, 2010 11:35 AM (BHXNW)

53 36 A Fight Club quote for the kids, "You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake."

Posted by: Drew in MO at December 01, 2010 11:35 AM (R8S84)

54 Because part of the reason we hate
her critics is that they choose the low road? Let's win on ideas, not
snarky back and forth garbage.


Posted by: robviously at December 01, 2010 11:29 AM (s0hlt)
In 2008 the Presidency was given to the guy who was "cooler". Most people don't follow politics closely and it is actually more important to win on the personal stuff then the political points in the area of elections.So, yeah, I'd love to live in a world where the public is actually swayed by detailed, accurate discussions. But we don't live in that world.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 01, 2010 11:35 AM (7BU4a)

55 >>>As for the folks criticizing ace for making this about Palin -- Meghan McCain's post was about Palin. How do you treat one without addressing the other?

Thanks, but I easily *could have* and in fact almost did.

But this has been bugging me for a while, bubbling up, and only lately have I begun to found the words to express why I'm so down on Palin -- it's this whole over-personalization of everything. I feel, seriously, like politics is just seventh grade smacktalk now. Everything's personal. EVERYTHING.

People can't really talk or discuss or debate when everything is personal. If it's personal -- it's emotional. And if it's emotional, it's all hurt feelings and insults and etc.

And I do think that Palin is pushing this sort of emotional style of response.

Posted by: ace © at December 01, 2010 11:36 AM (nj1bB)

56 Everybody who has attacked Sarah Palin is pretty much a terrible person, but I have to spend 400 words explaining why I'm too good for her. The bitch.

Posted by: The Westminster Shorter Ace at December 01, 2010 11:36 AM (Wnhy1)

57 Sarah is bypassing the traditional media gatekeepers; these shows, the tweets, etc. go right to the voters. Does it annoy some, sure, but I'm willing to bet that those that are getting annoyed were already committed politically - not the great unwashed. I would not underestimate what she is doing - if she is still doing all of this a year from now - then I think we can question it.

Posted by: Jean at December 01, 2010 11:36 AM (wgkZv)

58 Ace is back with a vengeance. Ride her, cowboy!

Posted by: maverick muse at December 01, 2010 11:36 AM (H+LJc)

59
She writes a college sophomore. I love it!

Posted by: Soothsayerwing Plover at December 01, 2010 11:37 AM (uFokq)

60 The problem that the right has had for some time is that we allow the
left to play by one set of rules and then submit to their set of rules
for us.

Well said. And there are precious few leaders on our side that seem to understand this.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 01, 2010 11:37 AM (7BU4a)

61 @39-That's why Palin can't be the nominee until and unless she gets better coaching. Her personal forays into everything distract from the issues, and could let the "MFM-certified not-crazy and hella-smart" Obama back into power, just in time for Obamacare to start paying out benefits and destroy conservatism.

(Before you stone me as a decadent blue-blooded RINO, I would vote for Palin if she were the nominee. After drinking a fifth of Val-u-rite.)

Posted by: Whatever at December 01, 2010 11:37 AM (fXkKU)

62 In November 2008, Obama won the popularity contest. In November 2010, Bristol Palin won. Wonder whose going to win the next one, and if the will allow text voting.

Posted by: kansas at December 01, 2010 11:37 AM (mka2b)

63 This is an innovative way to drum up web hits.

Posted by: Barbarian at December 01, 2010 11:37 AM (EL+OC)

64 They are two sides of the same coin, with the exception that some of us would still support Palin's political ambitions if she actually, you know, did something, and laid off the Facebook soapbox and the Fucks News tongue baths.Dancing with Bristoland Sarah Palin's Alaska probablyinduce more swing voter name recognition than would $250 million in direct politicaladvertising.
Sarah "gets it".
You elitist dinosaurs who think that we can still win by sending our candidates out once a week to behumiliated onMeet the Depressed, Slay the Nation, and This Week with Step-on-All-of-Us "richly" deserve the extinction you're about to experience.
PS: The first rule of trench warfare inpolitics is to NEVER allow a smear to go unchallenged. And Sarahdiligently responds to the smearswith hercounteroffensives onFacebook.
Again, she "gets it".

Posted by: Lindsey Grahamnesty licking Rahm Emanuel's salty shaven balls at December 01, 2010 11:37 AM (pfMMA)

65 @53 - brilliant. Well done and said.

And as for Meggie, she really needs to cram another pie down that hole of hers and otherwise STFD and STFU. Your 15-minutes were over the instant your Daddy gave his concession speech in 2008, sister.

Posted by: DocJ at December 01, 2010 11:38 AM (R6+Om)

66 People can't really talk or discuss or debate when everything is
personal. If it's personal -- it's emotional. And if it's emotional,
it's all hurt feelings and insults and etc.



And I do think that Palin is pushing this sort of emotional style of response.

Do you honestly think that if conservatives go back to only using reasoned debate and discussion that this will change anything? Other then lose us more elections?

Posted by: 18-1 at December 01, 2010 11:38 AM (7BU4a)

67 Meghan is so educated she had to google blue bloods.

Alanis could use that example in an updated version of her song, the one where she finally figures out what "irony" means.

Posted by: Waterhouse at December 01, 2010 11:39 AM (Brjev)

68 And Meahgan McCain is who again?

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 01, 2010 11:39 AM (0GFWk)

69 Ahh, the innocence of youth is so refreshing. To see things for the first time, through the eyes of a child, is ambrosia for the soul.
For a "political figure", not so much.
Someone remind me why we're paying any attention to her at all...I mean, apart from the shits-and-giggles factor?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at December 01, 2010 11:39 AM (b6qrg)

70 Ace:

I know Palin didn't start this. But if I, personally, am ever going to
be able to support Palin, I need her to stop this, and start addressing
policy questions in policy terms -- not personal terms -- and put away
her go-to "I Win" cards of "elitist" and the like.

Okay, Ace. Why don't you write a book review of Palin's latest opus? I've not read either of her books, but it appears that they include plenty of policy positions. Pick a couple and have at it. There's more to the lady than the latest episode of Sarah Palin's Alaska, or the latest slam in Politico or the Atlantic.

Her Facebook post du jour supports renewal of the Bush '43 tax cuts. And she quotes Thomas Sowell. Man, that's real personal stuff, there.

Oh, and ... Death Panels

Posted by: mrp at December 01, 2010 11:39 AM (HjPtV)

71 "George (HW) Bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth" speech at the (was it '88 or '92?) DNC.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 01, 2010 11:29 AM (p05LM)

That was Ann Richards who said he was born with a silver foot in his mouth. She was a lefty nobody high school teacher who rose to power in Texas politics. I don't know much about the history, but she had to have been backed by the LBJ "blue bloods" to get where she did.

Posted by: Yahoo Answers at December 01, 2010 11:39 AM (70OJl)

72 Sarah punches back. I like that. If Meggie's father knew how to punch back he would be President.

Posted by: SurferDoc at December 01, 2010 11:39 AM (o3bYL)

73 I keep saying - Palin won in Alaska by taking on the corrupt Republican machine there. That is why she has critics in the GOP - they are not afraid she will lose, they are afraid she will WIN.

But I think she counts coup a little differently. She won't run for President, she is going all Munich on her opponents.

Posted by: blaster at December 01, 2010 11:39 AM (MrMxG)

74 It's a fair criticism of Palin... but I don't really think putting on thicker glasses and just really starting to talk about boring policy wins the White House anymore. Outside of complete political junkies, it's just not what people want. And reacting against the elites ona gut level is at least something back int he right direction.
I mean, come on, if knowing all the ends and outs about how to reduce the budget worked, people would be demanding Paul Ryan for President. And they hella aren't.

Posted by: Will at December 01, 2010 11:40 AM (77TeU)

75 Geez, Ace. Got anything more to say on this? The woman is a fucking cretin. Just leave it at that.

Let's poll the ladies of The View. See what they think of the blue-bloods.

Posted by: Boris Yeltsin at December 01, 2010 11:40 AM (4sQwu)

76 "rhetorical talking point"

Huh?

MegaMac should just restrict herself to grunts. She sounds more intelligent that way.

Posted by: iknowtheleft®© at December 01, 2010 11:40 AM (G/MYk)

77 Meggie,
I grew up back East and the Bushies are blue bloods you annoying fucking twit. As are the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, the Vanderbilts and the like.

My Lord you are stupid.

Posted by: mpfs at December 01, 2010 11:41 AM (iYbLN)

78 There's a sense that many have that this is not elevated, educated
discourse, which should focus (at least superficially) on the ideas and
their merit. It keeps getting turned into this personality-driven
smacktalk, which is low-to-no-intellect sort of stuff.

Sadly, that's a perfect fit to the majority of the market. Like it or not, folks like us who, y'know, actually educate ourselves about and argue the issues are an excruciatingly small minority, even on our own putative 'side'. Given the amount of effort our counterparts of the other viewpoint have taken to rig the field to their advantage, we're always going to be on the short end if we limit ourselves to what we're comfortable with.

This is not 'lowering ourselves to their level'. This is 'putting boots on the battlefield'. And before anyone talks about high ground, allow me to remind you that when your high ground is surrounded by an enemy that greatly outnumbers you, this is seldom a favorable position.

Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© at December 01, 2010 11:41 AM (GBXon)

79 I think miracles exist in part as gifts and in part as clues that there is something beyond the flat world we see. And I hate Palin, too, Ace. There, I said it.

Posted by: Peggy Noonan at December 01, 2010 11:41 AM (K/USr)

80 >>>Ace, do you really think substantive comments on policy matter in politics? Especially after Nov 2008?

You know my theory on this, right? I've posted it three times.

The short version: yes, political choices are mostly made in the gut and based on non-intellectual grounds, like feeling someone "shares your concerns." Or is "cool."

however, that appeal only works if it's kept to subtext. The text, the surface, explicit pitch, must be made on intellectual grounds. You pitch to someone's mind, pass an easy test there (are these ideas ballpark workable) and then you allow the subtextual, subterranean stuff to work. Silently.

My problem with Palin is she is turning what works fine as subtext into text (and a lot of that text!) and it doesn't work like that.

"Vote for me, I'm from the middle-class and not some jerkoff blue blood or wannabe aristocracy-of-the-Ivy-League elitist" works -- but it works when it's lightly alluded to, when it's mostly implication, under the surface.

When it becomes an actual offered argument, it's revealed for the thin gruel it is, being just another version of the appeal to authority fallacy.



Posted by: ace © at December 01, 2010 11:41 AM (nj1bB)

81 @65-You're creating a false dilemma (just like Teh Won (past tense)!). There is a third way other than the Sunday show/DWTS dichotomy you created. It is Chris Christie porn. Those intellectual beat-downs not only go viral but also show up on the news and would make great campaign ads if he decided to run.

Posted by: Whatever at December 01, 2010 11:41 AM (fXkKU)

82 Good article along these linesfrom yesterday's American Spectator if anyone would care to read it. http://tinyurl.com/39ckuy8

Posted by: PoconoJoe at December 01, 2010 11:41 AM (txywl)

83 "I actually had to Google what the meaning of "blue bloods" was, although
I could surmise that it was some kind of knock against education..." McFatty bleach blonde

I love this quote! Meghan is so educated she had to google blue bloods.

It didn't matter that Cindy's NOH8 gag was still on since mumsy didn't know, either.

Posted by: maverick muse at December 01, 2010 11:42 AM (H+LJc)

84 Have we seen where these thoughtful Republicans just did to us, yesterday, they nearly stole our food supply, and that's not exageration, Brown, buried us some months back with another bill he didn't bother to read, Murkowski, the one who was flacked by the NRSC until it was too obvious to notice

Posted by: justin cord at December 01, 2010 11:42 AM (V3JdB)

85 I like Sarah Palin, I think she is great for conservatism and an excellent standard bearer but at the same time I don't think she is experienced enough to be President... and she was more experienced then Obama when he won. The vast majority of the attacks always come out as sneering leftist elitism, what they say about Sarah is how they feel about the average American. In my own family I have an aunt who grew up poor worked hard and became a elitist liberal educator, I am always shocked by the pure vitriol she spews towards Sarah.

Posted by: Drew in MO at December 01, 2010 11:42 AM (R8S84)

86 I think Sarah Palin would make a fine president. Unfortunately, her brand is too damaged for her to make a fine presidential candidate. At least she understands, as few Republicans do, that the media are the enemy.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at December 01, 2010 11:42 AM (PLvLS)

87 Right, you're screaming like an infant because you're worried that this
exciting neologism "blue blood" may distract from the effort to thwart
Obama. Okay.

If you had ended here this would have been a very good post. Pithy as Bill would say. It went down hill from there and you rode it all the way into the ditch. Sometimes less is more. Most times really.

Posted by: Rocks at December 01, 2010 11:42 AM (Q1lie)

88 You know why I like Sarah? She pisses off all the right people.

Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at December 01, 2010 11:43 AM (eCAn3)

89 That was Ann Richards who said he
was born with a silver foot in his mouth. She was a lefty nobody high
school teacher who rose to power in Texas politics. I don't know much
about the history, but she had to have been backed by the LBJ "blue
bloods" to get where she did.


Posted by: Yahoo Answers at December 01, 2010 11:39 AM (70OJl)
I think my take on rape had something to do with it. . . .

Posted by: Clayton Williams at December 01, 2010 11:43 AM (BP6Z1)

90 Notice how she says it [thinking this way] " is very dangerous."

She has learned that meme nicely. Well, folks, ever since my first tea party I have understood myself - formerly an upstanding, law-abiding citizen - to now be a "dangerous" individual, somehow. Along with all the other "enemies of the state" who aren't Obama supporters.

Yep, it's dangerous, all right, to let people go around thinking and saying whatever they think.


Posted by: Alana at December 01, 2010 11:43 AM (/N/wg)

91 That sounds profound, Ace. Except it doesn't explain how Obama won doing what Sarah is supposedly doing.

Posted by: SurferDoc at December 01, 2010 11:43 AM (o3bYL)

92 >> petit bourgeoisie
I tried that on a sammich once.
Didn't really care for it.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 01, 2010 11:43 AM (WvXvd)

93
Question: Do you think we'd better off or worse off if Sarah Palin would shut up and go away?

*that reminds me, we need more poll questions here at AoS. I'm curious to know how you shitbirds really think.



Posted by: Soothsayerwing Plover at December 01, 2010 11:44 AM (uFokq)

94 Posted by: Lindsey Grahamnesty licking Rahm Emanuel's salty shaven balls at December 01, 2010 11:37 AM

Ooooh! So we should give up on all that "policy" shit and elect America's first Facebook President?

Wanting a president who has a record of accomplishment -- don't start on the half-term as Alaska governor, please -- is something only "dinosaurs" should care about?

The cries of the fanboiz for an inexperienced, unqualified candidate who stirred supporters with hormones and not accomplishments are what got us Osama Obama, you know.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 01, 2010 11:44 AM (Ulu3i)

95 She has learned that meme nicely. Well, folks, ever since my first
tea party I have understood myself - formerly an upstanding, law-abiding
citizen - to now be a "dangerous" individual, somehow

Isn't it odd how the people that actually contribute to society are the ones our government now views as a threat?

Posted by: 18-1 at December 01, 2010 11:45 AM (7BU4a)

96 >>>Do you honestly think that if conservatives go back to only using reasoned debate and discussion that this will change anything? Other then lose us more elections?

see my post 81. Yeah, that's what I think, sort of... that needs to be the actual pitch.

Look, if I'm selling you a car, right? Let's say a sportscar. What is my REAL pitch? My real pitch to you is "if you buy this car, attractive women are more likely to give you a handjob."

But do I SAY that? Unless you come off as the sort of guy I can say that freely to, then no, I pitch it terms of performance and elegant german engineering, right? I let YOU figure out that attractive women will give you handjobs if you drive this car.

But I don't say it, right?

Posted by: ace © at December 01, 2010 11:45 AM (nj1bB)

97 SP on the policy of QE2..
Here
http://on.fb.me/dxpaFT
and here
http://on.fb.me/fL0aci


On the policy of extending the Bush Tax Cuts
http://on.fb.me/eHmh6Z

She does more than the "High School Flame War"

I wouldn't expect the MFM to pick up on this though.

Posted by: Dave C at December 01, 2010 11:45 AM (vjkov)

98 Barbara Bush is supposed to be nice and polite, but she starts an intramural spat.
Barbara Bush'ssmear of Geraldine Ferraro as a "rhymes with rich" was, in retrospect, what the witch doctors call a "Freudian Projection".
Babs is trying to lay the foundation for a run by either Jeb or [the half-blood] George P.
Which meansbarring from the playing field any competitioncoming out of thetrailer-trash wing of the party.
The more I watch the Bushes, the more I loathe and despise them.

Posted by: Lindsey Grahamnesty licking Rahm Emanuel's salty shaven balls at December 01, 2010 11:45 AM (pfMMA)

99 what a a bunch of h8terz!

sarah eats moose burgerz!

lulz

Posted by: Meghan Macaroon at December 01, 2010 11:45 AM (BP6Z1)

100 87I think Sarah Palin would make a fine president. Unfortunately, her brand is too damaged for her to make a fine presidential candidate. At least she understands, as few Republicans do, that the media are the enemy. Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at December 01, 2010 11:42 AM (PLvLS) With what you say here you really should read my link at #83

Posted by: PoconoJoe at December 01, 2010 11:45 AM (txywl)

101 And before anyone talks about high ground, allow me to remind you that
when your high ground is surrounded by an enemy that greatly outnumbers
you, this is seldom a favorable position.

Add to that situation having inferior coverage vs. superiority over the air waves.

Posted by: maverick muse at December 01, 2010 11:45 AM (H+LJc)

102 Palin addresses policy all the time and you ignore it. Then you write here how you want her to talk about policy lol.

Surely, you can read her countless facebook notes on policy, or go online and watch the countless hours of her speeches, or read her books where she discusses policy in common sense language.

Why do you ignore it? She has talked more about policy than any other 2012 contender. That is a fact. The so called men are hiding out during tough debates, to shield themselves from criticism from the LSM.

It should also send up a few red flags that Palin's enemies are the far left, david brooks, david frum, joe scarbarough, kathleen parker, and meghan mccain. I would not want to be on their side in the coming ideological battle, but thats just me. Oh I know, your not like them, you just happen to agree that Palin is "unserious."

Just the fact that those people spew bile at her 24/7 should tell you that she is who we need! lol

Posted by: Dan at December 01, 2010 11:45 AM (1jzSs)

103 Question: Do you think we'd better off or worse off if Sarah Palin would shut up and go away?

Easy one, we'd be much better off!

Posted by: The Democrats at December 01, 2010 11:46 AM (7BU4a)

104 That sounds profound, Ace. Except it doesn't explain how Obama won doing what Sarah is supposedly doing.
Because no one asked the guy a single tough question until after noon on January 20, 2009.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at December 01, 2010 11:46 AM (B+qrE)

105 I disagree. The reason she keeps talking about the elites is that they are the source of the problem. We've been told that they are wiser, smarter, better. Yet they have made an utter hash of every sphere of policy since Reagan left office. There was a slight break in the 80s, when the man in charge was the first to reject the elitist consensus since Eisenhower. With HW it came back full force: people who went to Yale and Harvard law are experts at everything, even things that have nothing to do with law. It has continued for the last 20 years, this notion that a tiny subset of the subculture of academia is a wise priesthood that can guide the country, fine tune the economy, and fix problems if only you let them. It's a bipartisan thing. Basically Harvard and Yale, especially the law schools, pick teams when they graduate. Then, they switch over running things as Team Red and Team Blue trade the White House.

The reason Palin attacks the elite is because they have run the country for 20 years and have utterly fucked it up. Yet they still claim the ability to decide if someone else is qualified. I reject that premise that the people who brought you the Iraq War, the TSA, the housing bubble, No Child Left Behind, and every other worthless governmental tumor on the body politic are qualified to judge a goddamn wet tshirt contest. I'm not judging potential leaders by the standards of the people who screwed everything up. That's insane, and it's asinine.

Posted by: Britt at December 01, 2010 11:46 AM (+lDY6)

106 Okay, let's take two of these juicy morsels of argumentativeness.

First: The issue is that we are against the "aristocracy" or "the Blue Bloods" AS SUCH. Our entire nation was built on the idea they had no actual right to rule. Our Founding Fathers- all great men- we also all (or almost all) self-made men. That tradition continued for quite a while. Even JQ Adams was quite accomplished himself and was elected as such, not just because he was related to John Adams.

The Blue Bloods think in terms of "the right background." The "right" schools, the "right" jobs, the "right" contacts and acquaintences. This is the same thing as the English Crown and House of Lords. No, to join you don't have to be officially ennobled, but they're functionally the same otherwise.

You want to be a Blue Blood aristocrat: fine. Enjoy your mansion and your servants and your high-falootin' edumacation. The rest of us will do something with our lives. BUT- if you're going to rest on your own families laurels, I do not believe you are qualified to represent me in my Government.

They don't "Rule" us. They don't (or, at least, shouldn't) "Govern" us. They are supposed to Represent us, and George HW and Barbara have about as much chance at "representing" me, my family, and our interests as a Russian Czar would have had "representing" the interests of some West African tribesman.

As for Palin needing to debate issues: Have you not been paying attention? Her tweets are mainly personal, 'cause there's no room for real discussion in a tweet. Her interviews often get personal because interviewers ask those questions and she's not going to lie. But look at her facebook posts. Look at her speeches and answers to substantive questions in interviews. She's got the ideas/policy thing down. You have to be almost (almost) willfully ignorant not to be aware of that.

You may disagree with her policies and ideas, but don't claim she doesn't have them.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 01, 2010 11:46 AM (8y9MW)

107 Good post in the second part, but please...can we cut MM's oxygen supply right now?

This is punching down--barely a notch above Oliver Willis.

MM is just the latest barnacle the other MM (mainstream media) wants to attach to conservatives a la Ron Reagan junior. Despite being a complete neophyte because she's the progeny of somebody we're supposed to give her creds.

She is an idiot. If we want a discussion of *ideas*, we have to start by ignoring the "Politically Incorrect" standard of discourse: everyone has an opinion and we all sit around shooting the breeze about it as though they're all equally valid. She is not even in the top quartile of thinkers in the general populace, but any cudgel to hand for those who want to set the house of the right against itself.

If I want gushy, vapid tripe by a pseudo conservative, there's always Andrew Sullivan. True, he doesn't have big tits, but he can at least put a sentence together, whatever his other shortcomings as a thinker.

Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at December 01, 2010 11:46 AM (KktlX)

108 It is certainly true we need to make sure that the people we do select are qualified. Hey, I'm the Man of Steele - wanna go clubbing?
But qualifications include backbone as much as anything else. And Palin
is indeed one of the precious few Republicans that have that.

Absent
the State Media feeding frenzy in 2008 Palin would have been what put
McCain over the top, even with the pathetic campaign he ran.




Posted by: 18-1 at December 01, 2010 11:28 AM (7BU4a)

I agree with this.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 01, 2010 11:47 AM (/G5LI)

109 >>>If you had ended here this would have been a very good post. Pithy as Bill would say. It went down hill from there and you rode it all the way into the ditch. Sometimes less is more. Most times really.

You know damn well you don't object to my verbosity, but that I turned my fire against Palin; so why not just say so?

Posted by: ace © at December 01, 2010 11:47 AM (nj1bB)

110 PS: The first rule of trench warfare inpolitics is to NEVER allow a smear to go unchallenged. And Sarahdiligently responds to the smearswith hercounteroffensives onFacebook.
Again, she "gets it".
Exactly--- what did we learn from 2008 that will carry to 2012? That we are the oddballs and the exceptions. 80 to 90% of the rest of the country votes on coolness, the guy they like, the person than identify with. Issues? A few, but little ones. The average voter can't tell you squat about this week's legislation--- they're too busy shopping.
However, even my most cut off from the world, shut in relative watches TV, listens to talk radio and most of all, is on the net (FB especially).
Sarah sees the big, popularity constest, this is the way you fight this war, issues and substance in small bites, picture. Stuff guys in stuffy shirts making stuffy remarks that only handful of rabid political followers understand won't cut it today. Obama made the point.Its all American Idol now--- the Presidential version.

Posted by: EZB at December 01, 2010 11:47 AM (Ty06w)

111 Something weird is happening here, are the McCains playing good cop/bad cop? Every time Juan Mac overly praises Palin, Cheesy Mac disses her, although sometimes Cheesy goes first. Now I don't agree with my parents all the time, but the older I get the wiser I find them to be, so it could be that, but I am starting to suspect a game.

I suppose a third possibility is that Cheesy learned from her father how to keep being a favorite of the MFM and attack conservatives.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at December 01, 2010 11:47 AM (JcRgg)

112 I won't mention COD is ready to vote for Hillary. Nope. Won't go there.

Posted by: Barbarian at December 01, 2010 11:47 AM (EL+OC)

113 Here's the problem for Palin-as-candidate, as I see it. She can communicate however she wants - on substance or fighting fire with fire. I would prefer she did less of the reality show type stuff, but ultimately it doesn't matter to me. I don't think she has an adequate public policy background or sufficient experience to be POTUS.

I wish she would pick an endeavor - whether it be in the political/public arena or in the private world (either as a CEO of a publicly held company or of a large, non-profit) - roll up her sleeves and accomplish something.

Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 11:47 AM (IDL9N)

114 Ace I think you are getting Palin all wrong - you are criticizing the caricature of her that her opponents have drawn - she does NOT say well I am cool because I am anti-intellectual - she does not appeal to her middle classness as an authority. She said:

I think the majority of Americans don't want to put up with the blue bloods. And I say it with all due respect because I love the Bushes. The blue bloods who want to pick and choose their winners instead of allowing competition to pick and choose the winners.


This is a VERY Tea Party sentiment - we don't need a dynasty in the Republican Party telling us who is and who is not acceptable. We need to have a real competition - elections - and go from there.

It's a strawman, argument, Ace, and unfortunately, I am not surprised to see you fall for the Leftist MSM spin on things.

Posted by: blaster at December 01, 2010 11:47 AM (MrMxG)

115
Alanis could use that example in an updated version of her song, the one where she finally figures out what "irony" means.

/guffaw!

Posted by: Soothsayerwing Plover at December 01, 2010 11:48 AM (uFokq)

116 I wish Ace would stop accepting the premise of the opponents. He gets burned every time he does, yet keeps doing.

Ace: Hey, the media wouldn't actively lie, right? Just distort and twist, but fabricate whole cloth? Of course not! *a week later* Oh shit. The media flatly lied.

Posted by: Tom in Korea at December 01, 2010 11:48 AM (+gX1+)

117 Ooooh! So we should give up on all that "policy" shit and elect America's first Facebook President?

Scribs, have you read any of her Facebook posts? Like the one about tax policy with multiple cites to the likes of Thomas Sowell?

Posted by: Ian S. at December 01, 2010 11:48 AM (p05LM)

118 These bloody Brahmins with their fancy shmancy college diplomas can shove it.

Posted by: swamp yankee at December 01, 2010 11:48 AM (3DIBw)

119 Palin is actually practising a bit of Alinski; the personal is political, in firing right back at her detractors. And frankly, the leftards have gone unanswered by the right for far too long, in the name of "comity" or some other high minded sounding concept that simply means surrender to the lefts demands.
I think it's the appropriate response to the lefts PDS; mocking and ridiculing their hysteria and pointing out that the "credentialed" Ivy Leaguershave no special powers or gifts thatpromote them for Government power, over that of the rest of us. Which was the point of the Revolution.
I'm not too concerned with her acting "Presidential" as she isn't the President. Given the choise I think I would rather have her in attack dog mode than as our President.
Also, most of the criticisms of competence or comportment that are showered on her could easily be applied to Obama (or any number of the over-educated idiots walking around DC of both Partys), who is much less accomplished personally and professionally. But somehow Obama got a pass. Why? It was based, partly, on great speeches.But mostly he got a pass based onthe expectations of his competence due to his Ivy League credentials and being elected to the Senate as a liberal Democrat, which is elitism defined.
Palin is doing a good job hammering the governing elites. They deserve that hammering. They have completely fucked our nation.

Posted by: SGT Ted at December 01, 2010 11:48 AM (arV2e)

120 Your 15-minutes were over the instant your Daddy gave his concession speech in 2008, sister.
Posted by: DocJ at December 01, 2010 11:38 AM (R6+Om)
Ahhh, but in addition to our candidates, the media also picks our pundits.
And apparently some people who say they despise the media and its playbook still fall victim to its tired old plays.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 01, 2010 11:48 AM (fLHQe)

121 I agree
This Palin chick should just lay back and be a nice girl and enjoy the vile, baseless, incessent insults, lies and smears by the left/media/establishment hive and not fight it.
It'll go easier for her the long run.
She should just get up , straighten her dress and not worry her pretty little head .
She asked for it by acting and dressing so provocatively and uppity and deserves to be mothballed in perpetuity as the 'female Dan Quayle ' for having the temerity fight back against the wonks and weasels .
That'll show her.
(I wonder if this will get lost in the countless AOS ass-kissing comments?)

Posted by: LeBron Steinman at December 01, 2010 11:48 AM (7FG+k)

122 Babs is trying to lay the foundation for a run by either Jeb or [the half-blood] George P.
Enough dynasties. We're Americans,and our leaders should not bevariants of the retarded useless Christmas ornaments from the House of Windsor.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at December 01, 2010 11:48 AM (B+qrE)

123 *that reminds me, we need more poll questions here at AoS. I'm curious to know how you shitbirds really think.Posted by: Soothsayerwing Plover at December 01, 2010 11:44 AM (uFokq)

Yeah...cuz it's really hard to tell from the comments. /s

Posted by: Tami at December 01, 2010 11:48 AM (VuLos)

124 I think my take on rape had something to do with it. . . .

Posted by: Clayton Williams at December 01, 2010 11:43 AM (BP6Z1)

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that... a most unhelpful analogy.

Posted by: Yahoo Answers at December 01, 2010 11:49 AM (70OJl)

125 Elections are popularity contests. Always. The average voter doesn't know jack or shit. They 'like' or 'don't like' based on subjective factors.

What it all boils down to is can the Democrats, the MSM and the Republicans turn off enough people to Sarah Palin or will her personal charisma beat them at their own game. That is the only election issue.

Posted by: SurferDoc at December 01, 2010 11:49 AM (o3bYL)

126 Because part of the reason we hate
her critics is that they choose the low road? Let's win on ideas, not
snarky back and forth garbage. There is a value to having attack dogs
on our side, but not as our standard bearer.


Posted by: robviously at December 01, 2010 11:29 AM (s0hlt)

Does no one remember the "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher? She was about the snarkiest politician in my memory, and she used it to ruthlessly disembowel her verbal opponents on many occasions. It is ability which I admired in her, and I admire it in Palin as well.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 01, 2010 11:49 AM (/G5LI)

127 >>>This is punching down--barely a notch above Oliver Willis.

>>>MM is just the latest barnacle the other MM (mainstream media) wants to attach to conservatives a la Ron Reagan junior. Despite being a complete neophyte because she's the progeny of somebody we're supposed to give her creds.

>>>She is an idiot.

I know; it's a silly post, about a silly person. I wrote it because I like to start my blogging off with an easy one, you know?

But yeah, she is pretty much beneath notice, and it's an indulgence to waste time on her. It's really for entertainment's sake.

The only "bigger picture" thing you can get from her is that a lot of people who are quite sure they are smarter than Palin are in fact an awful lot dumber.

Posted by: ace © at December 01, 2010 11:49 AM (nj1bB)

128 "I think Sarah Palin would make a fine president."

And I think that Fred Thompson decided against selling out all principle when he saw up close and personal the puppet show we call the Presidency of the USA.

So sure, Sarah Palin would make as good a puppet as anyone.

Posted by: maverick muse at December 01, 2010 11:49 AM (H+LJc)

129 It was based, partly, on great speeches.
A speech. A speech. Singular.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at December 01, 2010 11:49 AM (B+qrE)

130 44Didn't Megan McCain go to yale or harvard or something? Hasn't she ever read The Great Gatzby? Hell I read it in 9th grade.
She has a bachelor's degree in art history she earned from Columbia University.
Meggic Mac's CV should negate any further claims that W only got into Yale because of his daddy.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at December 01, 2010 11:50 AM (9hSKh)

131 Jealousy is an ugly thing. Meggie McMeatball sees Sarah Palin get a whole TV series all about herself and it gets huge ratings. However, all Daddy's Little Attention Whore can do is occasionally get invited on a late night talking head show that fourteen people watch while half-baked on Cribari from a jug or something stronger from the medical dispensary/head shop down the street.

I expect to see confirmation of proton decay before I see anything useful come out of the McCain family.

Posted by: George Orwell at December 01, 2010 11:50 AM (AZGON)

132 It's interesting to note that the ones on 'our side' with the most vitriol towards Palin and social conservatives refuse to criticize the people on the left that show disdain and hatre for conservatives. And babs can suck my balls.

Posted by: Dr. Eviler at December 01, 2010 11:50 AM (BHXNW)

133 If Obama used Facebook or Twitter to one/tenth the effect Sarah Palin does, he'd be hailed as a genuine 21st Century pioneer of American political connectedness.

But she just does it cuz she's dumb.

Posted by: Lincolntf at December 01, 2010 11:50 AM (Z6Mgb)

134 There have been enough classist knocks on Palin's background to lend weight to her charge that many of her fiercest critics are elitists. As a populist leader, she is right to seize on this argument.

1. It emphasizes her unique frontiersman biography.
2. It reminds people of her reformist credentials.
3. It distances her from both Bush and Obama, whose policies are similar.

Sure, it's about as effective as Obama's race card. But that's pretty effective, and it's fun watching her beat up on the media.

At some point, she will have to discuss policy. But Palin outmaneuvers the media who are very good at distracting from serious issues during an election. If McCain's campaign had let her be herself, Obama would have lost.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 11:50 AM (mHQ7T)

135 92
That sounds profound, Ace. Except it doesn't explain how Obama won doing what Sarah is supposedly doing.

That's easy. Obama was a fabrication of the Democrat party. He was hand-picked, coddled, and elevated by the Progressive Democrats. Yes, there was the Clinton faction, but Obama had enough support from the right people to prevail. Once he did, the Left put everything they had into getting him elected.

Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 11:51 AM (IDL9N)

136 "Ambush interviews of Palin from MSM cretins who, according to conventional wisdom, we are supposed to play nice with.."

Ambush interviews?

Seriously, I loathe Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson as much as anyone, but asking a potential candidate for President what newspapers they read, and stumble right out of the gate, is not exactly an "ambush".

Stupid question? Probably, but hardly an ambush.

Sure, the MSM will highlight the weaknesses of conservative candidates, and downplay them for Democrats, but that is expected, and nothing will change.

Face it, Palin lost a lot of credibility when she quit her first term as governor. Plain and simple. And why did she do it? For a reality show? Some book deals?

And yes, Barack Obama is no more qualified...he was a half-term US Senator for god's sake, with no real-world experience, and Senators generally make the worst Presidents, in my opinion.

Ace is 100% right, Palin needs to rise above it all. Geraghty had an interesting post a week or so ago, about how Sarah Palin is making inroads in popular culture with her TV show, the Fox appearances, DWTS, the whole bit, relating it to how Obama did in 2007-2008. The difference is the media was on his side, and they despise Sarah Palin. That's a fact of political life, and that will never change, no matter how much a GOPer cozies up to them (see McCain, 2008 campaign). Right now, most people see her as tabloid fodder, not very presidential.

Ace is 100% right. If she wants to be President, she should rise to the office, not play down to her critics.

Posted by: Olliander at December 01, 2010 11:51 AM (6uiF7)

137 97: You'll forgive me if charging into landmines doesn't look remotely like a working strategy to me. And unless we're doing something to soften up the instinctual responses to our arguments that our adversaries have managed to put in place, that's exactly what that's doing I'm afraid.

It would also help if someone would do something about that whole dishonest media establishment that's providing cover for them. Until I see a legit attempt to bring that to heel, you'll excuse me if I have anything but skepticism for the idea that honest debate is a viable approach.

Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© at December 01, 2010 11:51 AM (GBXon)

138 CORNELL AM!

Posted by: Keef Olbermann at December 01, 2010 11:51 AM (WvXvd)

139 This matter will only be properly settled after T. Coddington Van Voorhees, VII has weighed in.

Posted by: Andy at December 01, 2010 11:51 AM (5Rurq)

140 A lot of people only seem to look at Sarah Palin and her potential bid for for presidency from an isolated point of view. Would she be a good president/candidate? I don't know. It might be a better question to ask, "compared to who"?

Would Sarah Palin be a better predient/canidate compared to:

Huckabee
Romeny
Christie
Ryan
McCain
Zombie Reagan
etc...

Until pundits/analysts start putting their criticism into context (as compared against other potential candidates), I see no need to listen to meaningless conjecture.


Posted by: Sam at December 01, 2010 11:51 AM (Cxsey)

141 In my own family I have an aunt who grew up poor worked hard and became a elitist liberal educator, I am always shocked by the pure vitriol she spews towards Sarah.
Serious question: How many [biological] children has your aunt given birth to?

Posted by: Lindsey Grahamnesty licking Rahm Emanuel's salty shaven balls at December 01, 2010 11:51 AM (pfMMA)

142

If Sarah Palin was politically savvy, which she's not, and if she were running in 2012, which she's not, she'd assemble "think-panels" including her and some distinguished guests to discuss policy.

Then post it on yootoob.

Posted by: Soothsayerwing Plover at December 01, 2010 11:51 AM (uFokq)

143 They were successful, whereas you are merely rich.

That's good stuff, Ace. Very good stuff.

Posted by: an erection lasting longer than four hours at December 01, 2010 11:51 AM (ao9DD)

144
(CNN) — Senate Republicans promised Wednesday to block legislative action on every issue being considered by the lame-duck Congress until the dispute over extending the Bush-era tax cuts is resolved and an extension of current government funding is approved.
All 42 Senate Republicans signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, vowing to prevent a vote on “any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers.”

Posted by: Barney Frank at December 01, 2010 11:51 AM (tE8FB)

145 >>>PS: The first rule of trench warfare in politics is to NEVER allow a smear to go unchallenged. And Sarah diligently responds to the smears with her counteroffensives on Facebook.

Was that Reagan's rule?

Posted by: ace © at December 01, 2010 11:51 AM (nj1bB)

146
But do I SAY that? Unless you come off as the sort of guy I can say
that freely to, then no, I pitch it terms of performance and elegant
german engineering, right? I let YOU figure out that attractive women
will give you handjobs if you drive this car.

52% of the electorate voted for the guy that promised them handjobs and skittles in the last election. So yeah, I want our candidate to do what will win. I simply don't care anymore about winning nice. And that means getting personal.

And yes, this then requires follow through. We need someone that can 'seduce the electorate' who also has the ability and willingness to push the country back away from socialism.

I don't know if Palin can do all that. But I *like* the fact she hits back just as hard as she gets hit with every method at her disposal and tells the nominal rule keepers to go lewinsky themselves.


Posted by: 18-1 at December 01, 2010 11:52 AM (7BU4a)

147 Only Ace could turn a Meghan McCain rant into a Sarah Palin rant.
Posted by: Bill Lumbergh at December 01, 2010 11:22 AM (K/USr)

This.

Ace you seem to ignore the fact that Palin can influence major political debates with a Facebook post. She's got plenty of ideas. She communicates them regularly. Not her fault some people don't listen. Don't be jealous they passed on your hobo-killing show for Palin's Alaska.

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at December 01, 2010 11:53 AM (WZFkG)

148
shitbird is a term of endearment

Posted by: Soothsayerwing Plover at December 01, 2010 11:53 AM (uFokq)

149 Case in point: "The Speech" was trite crap, smoothly delivered, totally phony to anyone with a brain. But people 'liked' him as a result of hearing his inspiring and reassuring lies, unlike George Bush, whom they had been taught to hate. Done deal.

Posted by: SurferDoc at December 01, 2010 11:53 AM (o3bYL)

150 any of her Facebook posts?

Palin has a staff of advisers. Go figure.

Posted by: maverick muse at December 01, 2010 11:53 AM (H+LJc)

151 She has a bachelor's degree in art history she earned from Columbia University.

In other words, an Mrs. degree. She even failed at that, judging from her marital status.

Posted by: George Orwell at December 01, 2010 11:53 AM (AZGON)

152 With what you say here you really should read my link at #83

Posted by: PoconoJoe at December 01, 2010 11:45 AM (txywl)

------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------
But first, I will blow you.
Wait, I that's not right.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at December 01, 2010 11:53 AM (PLvLS)

153 Shouldn't we start teaching children the importance of not speaking out if your an idiot?


Posted by: Drew in MO at December 01, 2010 11:27 AM (R8S84)

Where would Olberman's career be if he followed that rule?

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 01, 2010 11:53 AM (xxgag)

154 Ace, I'm looking for your post on Palin's take down of QE2. Did I miss that? heck, even allahpundit covered it, along with WSJ and everyone else. And I'm sure you also covered her take down of Obamacare, although at the moment I can't seem to find it. I would have thought that a guy like you who wants policy discussions from his candidate would be all over those two points, at the very least.

Posted by: Bill Lumbergh at December 01, 2010 11:54 AM (K/USr)

155 That column was a slog. Meghan McCain is a terrible, terrible writer.

Concerning what family you come from or what opportunities an individual
has or has not been given does not, in fact, negate that person's
opinion.

It's stupid wrapped up in idiocy surrounded by a shroud of crappy grammar.

Posted by: Slublog at December 01, 2010 11:54 AM (0nqdj)

156 "You know why I like Sarah? She pisses off all the right people.
Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at December 01, 2010 11:43 AM (eCAn3)"

THIS.

And it's very interesting, watching so many people out themselves as the "right people".

Don't use Facebook! Instead, go on Meet The Press and engage in pitched rhetorical combat with David Gregory and David Brooks!

Whether it works or not, she's gonna do it her way.

Posted by: tsj017 at December 01, 2010 11:54 AM (4YUWF)

157 Face it, Palin lost a lot of credibility when she quit her first term as
governor. Plain and simple. And why did she do it? For a reality
show? Some book deals?

Posted by: Olliander at December 01, 2010 11:51 AM (6uiF7)



you can not be serious.

Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at December 01, 2010 11:54 AM (eCAn3)

158 "the Bush's"
All this blather froma dumbass who doesn't knowwhen and when not touse an apostrophe.

Posted by: La Mauvaise New Yorkaise at December 01, 2010 11:55 AM (8uZ8A)

159 Meh, I don't agree with you ace. Palins made quite a few arguments based on policy such as Bernake's recent infusion of another $ 600 Billion, Obama's failure to go after Assange 6 months ago, a recent reasoned argument against taxing the rich. Problem is that people never address the serious stuff she says and only focus on her defending herself and then they take it out of context.
Her point referring to the Bush's as bluebloods was that people aren't happy with republican elites deciding who should and shouldn't run for office and only in a response to Barbara Bush's wishing she would stay in her place in Alaska. The point being maybe voters should decide who they elect.

Posted by: robtr at December 01, 2010 11:55 AM (hVDig)

160 Scribs, have you read any of her Facebook posts?
Like the one about tax policy with multiple cites to the likes of Thomas
Sowell?

Posted by: Ian S. at December 01, 2010 11:48 AM

I haven't read all her Facebook posts, I admit.

But praising her because she -- or someone who advises her -- cites Sowell? I can do that. You can do that. Charles Johnson can do that. I'm not impressed.

I would still prefer to see action, not talk. You don't hire someone who quotes Sandy Koufax to pitch in the World Series unless you've seen them on the mound first.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 01, 2010 11:55 AM (Ulu3i)

161 "I know Palin didn't start this. But if I, personally, am ever going to be able to support Palin, I need her to stop this, and start addressing policy questions in policy terms -- not personal terms -- and put away her go-to "I Win" cards of "elitist" and the like. ACE"
ACE=Meghan McCain
Ace,
Is reading difficult for you?
Sarah Palin has posted and discussed in some detail on
ObamaCare
QE2
Wikileaks
Raising taxes
among others...IF you disagree with her viewpoint on POLICY, state it in POLICY TERMS...or is reading a difficulty for you...I recommend "Reading if Fundimental".
I should just leave this routine idiocy alone, YET continually there are illusion's to lack of policy discussion/arguments on Sarah Palins behalf. I await the day where there is a discussion thread on her actual policy statements. Probably won't happen, as those crying out for policy, ARE NOT capable of discussing POLICY/s
Regards,

Posted by: the Dragon at December 01, 2010 11:55 AM (Y8C1Q)

162 103
Palin addresses policy all the time and you ignore it.

Fred! talks policy all the time and I ignore it, even though I love teh Fred! You know why? Because he's not fucking running anything. He's not actually doing anything that matters. He's a pundit.

Fred! is too old to resurrect his political career. Palin is not. But the fact of the matter for various reasons she stepped out of public service prematurely. Now is she is a pundit and power broker, of sorts. And she's a celebrity. All of that is her choice. We can debate about whether or not Bristol's appearance on DWTS helped or hurt her mom. And we can disagree about the value, positive and negative, of Sarah's Alaska tv show. But there's no arguing that nothing that Palin is doing right now is enhancing her ability to govern.

Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 11:56 AM (IDL9N)

163 Seriously, I loathe Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson as much as anyone, but asking a potential candidate for President what newspapers they read, and stumble right out of the gate, is not exactly an "ambush". Yeah, because that's a policy question. Right? Producer meeting: "I know let's ask the ignorant snowbilly if she reads the NYT or the WaPo--that will expose her." You've only proved my point.
Also, remember all those quotes from his books that Obama was questioned on? Yeah, not so much.
Like I said...enough.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at December 01, 2010 11:56 AM (B+qrE)

164 In 2008 the Presidency was given
to the guy who was "cooler". Most people don't follow politics closely
and it is actually more important to win on the personal stuff then the
political points in the area of elections.So,
yeah, I'd love to live in a world where the public is actually swayed by
detailed, accurate discussions. But we don't live in that world.


Posted by: 18-1 at December 01, 2010 11:35 AM (7BU4a)

Emphasis mine.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 01, 2010 11:57 AM (/G5LI)

165 Sarah. Sigh. We're going to be sick of talking about her by the time 11/2012 rolls around. Credit where credit is due: she's apparently well versed in energy policy, which makes sense since she's from an oil state. She also seems to be bringing herself up to speed on economic issues. This is all to her credit. I'm not as worried as Ace seems to be about her responding to personal attacks on a one-to-one basis, since Republicans could use some lessons in smash-mouth football, which Democrats get to play as much as they like without being called to task about it.

The problem with Sarah is that she's been labeled a lightweight and an idiot and the label has stuck. I don't know if there's time for her to get that label off and quitting the governorship didn't help her in this respect. I don't think she should run for president since I think it would be too easy for the MSM to run against the label and not the woman behind it. Sarah should work from the outside looking in and leave the task of unseating Obama to someone who has not been successfully pigeonholed.

Posted by: joncelli© at December 01, 2010 11:57 AM (RD7QR)

166 You know damn well you don't object to my verbosity, but that I turned my fire against Palin; so why not just say so?





Posted by: ace © at December 01, 2010 11:47 AM (nj1bB)

I really don't Ace. I don't care about Palin a whit. I like her sentiment and in your face attitude but she isn't there yet and I don't see how she gets there but I could be wrong. What I object too here is your obsessive need to preface a Palin criticism with some pats on the head. Is this fear or sympathy? The MM bit was funny and you killed it. By the time I got to the end I had almost forgotten the point of the post was MM. I'm betting it would have been even funnier if you hadn't seen it simply as a preface to a Palin. point.

Posted by: Rocks at December 01, 2010 11:57 AM (Q1lie)

167 She isn't Reagan.

Posted by: SGT Ted at December 01, 2010 11:57 AM (arV2e)

168 This is a VERY Tea Party sentiment - we don't need a dynasty in the Republican Party telling us who is and who is not acceptable. We need to have a real competition - elections - and go from there.
.This week alone has been an re-education for me--- the emals and FB stats from the Rinos on why they voted a certain way is so condescending, it's almost a movie caricature of the 'out of touch, snobbish politician'. It's as if the second they set foot in DC and breathed the air, they really believed they were superior to all those lesser, dumber beings that they rule over.
I personally am totally fed up with the snots.

Posted by: EZB at December 01, 2010 11:57 AM (Ty06w)

169 Matt Damon!

Posted by: Somebody has to say it at December 01, 2010 11:57 AM (b6qrg)

170 Nobody deserves what Palin gets.
Nobody.
Paris Hilton gets better treatment by the media.
You expect her to act "presidential"? I would too, if Obama got treated this way. But presidents don't get treated this way. Not even W. If you remember, we blamed him for not fighting back. Well, Sarah fights back.
As to whether it's the elites against the non-elites? Look at the food bill. Who cared about it? Nobody? Cui bono? Agribusiness. Look at the health bill -- excemption after excemption.
We have an entire government of rent-seekers and it goes very deep. It isn't about elitism? Look at what is happening: Bank bailouts, union bailouts, have the ear of the right politician and you are in like Flynn.
It's not surprising, of course, that the elites hate her. Palin didn't do the ultimate rent-seeking -- go to law school. Isn't that what you are supposed to do? You're supposed to party hard, avoid difficult courses like math, take the LSAT, sleep for three years of a bastardization of an easy polisci master's, take a bar prep course and rake in the dough.
And every law school grad hates her for it. Every law school grad thinks they are a fucking god entitled to 1/3rd of the wealth and toil of every other American. If they get to be a judge, so much the better, they are so wise that their decisions have to be "independent."
Of course they don't like Sarah Palin. They'd handle her lack of an Ivy League education or lack of a law degree if she'd just know her place like Patty Murray. They'd be OK with her being so damned (ick) working class if she'd just hide away and take corrupt money like Charlie Rangel.
I am a research mathematician under 40 who was educated in American public schools and whose parents never went to college. So, I know what wisdom comes more often from people who do not venerate their weak educational credentials (Obama) or the arrogance of those whobelieve in their own wisdom(Sotomayor).
Sarah doesn't have the patience for the surfacetrappings of intellectualism -- the academic angel-counting, the creased pants, the raised chin, the interminable "er"s and "ah"s, the tedious pompousity. She knows what's important and what the essentials are. That's good enough for me.
Ace, if you want to bitch about Palin or wring your hands about her candidacy, fine, but don't act like she's doing any of this on her own. Her use of "blue bloods" is in response to an attack. When you accuse her of being too gratuitous with the burnishing of her working class credentials, make sure she's actually being gratuitous.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 01, 2010 11:57 AM (BvBKY)

171 As for Palin needing to debate issues: Have you not been paying
attention? Her tweets are mainly personal, 'cause there's no room for
real discussion in a tweet. Her interviews often get personal because
interviewers ask those questions and she's not going to lie. But look
at her facebook posts. Look at her speeches and answers to substantive
questions in interviews. She's got the ideas/policy thing down. You
have to be almost (almost) willfully ignorant not to be aware of that.You may disagree with her policies and ideas, but don't claim she doesn't have them.

This...^^^^^

Posted by: Dave C at December 01, 2010 11:58 AM (vjkov)

172 Only Ace could turn a Meghan McCain rant into a Sarah Palin rant.


Reconsider the recent "all about Sarah" point from Krauthammer, whether from opponents or supporters. The "all about" phenomena is by no means an Ace monopoly. Whoever comments about Sarah jumped on that bandwagon on his own. We all have our motivations that intersect through her permeation of this period's political zeitgeist.

Posted by: maverick muse at December 01, 2010 11:58 AM (H+LJc)

173 How come ace ignores Palin's writing and speeches on policy? How come he ignores her record of accomplishment? I have posted many times on this in the comments over the months with bullet point facts, often with a link even though I hate tiny url lol.

Posted by: Dan at December 01, 2010 11:58 AM (1jzSs)

174 Hoping for another Reagan is not a plan. Flipping the left's playbook many months out is.

Posted by: Jean at December 01, 2010 11:58 AM (xkJak)

175 She isn't Reagan.

Posted by: SGT Ted

And thank God she isn't a Bush.

Posted by: maverick muse at December 01, 2010 12:00 PM (H+LJc)

176 Let's set a bit of the record straight. George H.W. Bush was a good President. Much stronger in foreign policy than domestic; his response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the fall of the Soviet Union were very good. I did not agree with his decision to leave Saddam in power at the end of Gulf War I, but as has been noted there were logistical considerations as well as diplomatic affecting the situation, and I am not going to second-guess him from my armchair. He also handled the SL crisis well, took out Noriega in Panama, etc. etc. His one big mistake was to let the Democrats bluff him into a tax increase, but it's a tough job and not everyone gets every decision right.

And Barbara Bush did not make a personal attack on Sarah Palin. She said she is a lovely woman, and hopes she stays in Alaska. In other words, she's a nice person but doesn't want to see her run for President. How is that a personal attack?

Finally, G.H.W.B. and Barbara did not resort to the "argument from authority" fallacy, and should not be treated as if they did. They are both intelligent, accomplished individuals, and they stated their preferences when asked. Which they are entitled to do; even though I don't agree with G.H.W.B. in his preference for "Mittens", I am not going to call him names (which Sarah Palin did).

Posted by: HT at December 01, 2010 12:00 PM (UowFi)

177 I thought "Blue Bloods" was a polite way of saying "Crips?"

Posted by: The guy who really wants to dork Fatty McFattyfat Babboo's squeeker at December 01, 2010 12:00 PM (GwPRU)

178 also, i thought blue blood is what drips out of the dead hobo i left outside during the winter.

Posted by: Ben at December 01, 2010 12:00 PM (wuv1c)

179
Nobody deserves what Palin gets.
Exactly. And you know what else? Sarah Palin has never once shit on the base (us) to score points with the media.

Posted by: Soothsayerwing Plover at December 01, 2010 12:01 PM (uFokq)

180 163, she has government successfully for many years in various executive positions. She already has proven that.

Posted by: Dan at December 01, 2010 12:01 PM (1jzSs)

181 146: If Reagan's 11th Commandment were being followed, I doubt we'd even be having this discussion. Sadly, his spirit seems to have absented the premises.

Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© at December 01, 2010 12:01 PM (GBXon)

182 I really like Palin, but I got to the same point as Ace about two to three weeks ago. It's just turning me off.

Posted by: WillOTP at December 01, 2010 12:01 PM (+Uv5V)

183 The word to describe Megan (other than idiot or ignoramus) is epigone.

Posted by: c at December 01, 2010 12:01 PM (4I0g4)

184 The Bushes are blue bloods. That's not vecessarily a problem, but it is why they stayed above the fray and let their ruthless enemies (the Left) paint them as idiots, murderers, etc.

That's a mistake Plain does not make. She is the fray.

Betcha MegaRack doesn't have to Google "True Blood". 'Cuz vampires are hot and shit...l8r!

Posted by: Cheeses Saves! at December 01, 2010 12:01 PM (h86wX)

185 Palin's FB post on Assange was pretty good. Obviously not "policy" but it does reveal what her priorities/questions are. They're a lot like mine.

Posted by: Lincolntf at December 01, 2010 12:02 PM (Z6Mgb)

186 She also seems to be bringing herself up to speed on economic issues.

Pray tell in a nutshell.

Posted by: maverick muse at December 01, 2010 12:02 PM (H+LJc)

187
Enough dynasties. We're Americans,and our
leaders should not bevariants of the retarded useless Christmas
ornaments from the House of Windsor.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at December 01, 2010 11:48 AM (B+qrE)
This is Palin's argument in essence. The wealthy and powerful are an entity to themselves who hold enormous sway with our elected officials. Of course, they will lobby to protect their own interests at the expense of others who would like the same advantages they once had when making their fortunes. But they would rather bar the gates and pass their money onto useless blobs of protein like Meghan McCain.
We all like GWB. His old man, not so much. His cronies got him onto Reagan's ticket. GWB was an effective end to the Clinton administration. Democrats fear GWB, and that's the best thing about him. It took some pussy with a tan to beat him after he'd finished two terms. McCain was such a bad candidate, most Americans only remember his VP and Bush.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 12:02 PM (mHQ7T)

188 since Republicans could use some lessons in smash-mouth football, which Democrats get to play as much as they like without being called to task about it.

A lesson George Bush refused to learn, to his everlasting defeat. We no longer live in the days where there were a handful of news outlets and attacks could be answered at leisure. New communications demand new communications tactics. Libtards and Palin-haters (you know who you are) are having fits over getting as good as they give.

Posted by: George Orwell at December 01, 2010 12:02 PM (AZGON)

189 Her Facebook post du jour supports renewal of the Bush '43 tax cuts. And she quotes Thomas Sowell. Man, that's real personal stuff, there.

Oh, and ... Death Panels


Posted by: mrp at December 01, 2010 11:39 AM (HjPtV)

This is exactly how I see it. Her tweets shake the very foundations of government. "Death Panels" very nearly derailed the whole sorry mess, and it is STILL doing damage to the Democrats.
At this point I am convinced that Sarah Palin is a Napoleon of politics.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 01, 2010 12:02 PM (/G5LI)

190 And thank God she isn't a Bush.

Posted by: maverick muse at December 01, 2010 12:00 PM

Are you suggesting she's a Brazilian?

Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 01, 2010 12:03 PM (Ulu3i)

191
Maybe Sarah Palin should just go away. If she did, we wouldn't have to put up with the likes of Cher and Joy Behar and Bill Maher talking crap about her and insulting us by extension.

So, yeah, that'd be a relief.

Posted by: Soothsayerwing Plover at December 01, 2010 12:03 PM (uFokq)

192 Where would Olberman's career be if he followed that rule?


Posted by: WalrusRex at December 01, 2010 11:53 AM (xxgag)
A successful businessman.

Posted by: Yahoo Answers at December 01, 2010 12:03 PM (70OJl)

193 But they're in politics, right? Bill Clinton is clearly born of the low-to-middle class. Tim Pawlenty, similar -- workin' class guy. I am the son of a MILL WORKER. Come to me like a man

Posted by: John Edwards at December 01, 2010 12:03 PM (wuv1c)

194 @ 185

*necessarily
*Palin

More coffee, dammit!

Posted by: Cheeses Saves! at December 01, 2010 12:03 PM (h86wX)

195 Flipping the left's playbook many months out is.
There you go.
Those people have NO NEW IDEAS. None.
Put the math out there. Do not apologize for it and, most of all, do not cede ground when some dipshit lefty says "That's mean."
We could learn a great deal from Chris Christie at this point, who is not exactly Mr. Diplomacy. He puts the math out there.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at December 01, 2010 12:04 PM (B+qrE)

196 But there's no arguing that nothing that Palin is doing right now is enhancing her ability to govern.

And what exactly would that be? Ace's original post claims she needs to talk about policy. She's demonstrably doing that, although apparently it's not valid because she has a staff or something, just like every other remotely political person in the Western Hemisphere.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 01, 2010 12:04 PM (p05LM)

197 Was that Reagan's rule?
Posted by: ace © at December 01, 2010 11:51 AM (nj1bB)
You weren't blogging then, but in fact,Reagan took it to the Rockefeller Republicans, nka RINOs, when he had to. His runsin 76 vs Ford and in 80 vs GHWB were rough at times.
You seem to want Palin to respond to smears like W did--ie, ignore them. He and WE got killed by that strategy. No thanks--my candidate for 12 is a fighter.

Posted by: Bill Lumbergh at December 01, 2010 12:04 PM (K/USr)

198 The 2012 primaries are going to be a frigging blast.
Everyone be sure to bring a knife.

Posted by: John Edwards at December 01, 2010 12:04 PM (wuv1c)

199 If Reagan's 11th Commandment were being followed, I doubt we'd even be having this discussion. Sadly, his spirit seems to have absented the premises.

What he said. Sweet Jeebus on a snickerdoodle, I thought this post was supposed to be about the waste of protoplasm and $1.97 in chemicals that is Meghan McCain. Who is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a conservative.

Posted by: George Orwell at December 01, 2010 12:05 PM (AZGON)

200 Palin is preparing the battlespace for the next election. She isn't running herself. She's got a way better job than the President, she's making zillions as Alaska's best spokesman, and RULES the internet.

She's a rock star and the base LOVES her. Is anyone camping out overnight at the Costco for Tim Pawlenty's book?

There is value in that kind of popularity, and you want that kind of person on your side.

So, you know, whatever. Go ahead, play the Democrats game and pile on, call her stupid, demand policy statements then deny that she has any, and if she does, claim some ghostwriter did it because she is obviously too dumb....


Haters gonna hate, I guess, but, don't be surprised when you earn the alienation of those who really think she has a lot to offer and/or think that they have something personally invested in her.




Posted by: blaster at December 01, 2010 12:05 PM (MrMxG)

201 BTW, the term arises from the aristocracy not being tanned (when tanning meant outside labor not recreation) and therefore their veins showing through their skin in northern (english) europeans. Only those who had the means to avoid all sun exposure would have visible"blue blood".

Posted by: dagny at December 01, 2010 12:05 PM (aDnLR)

202 This is exactly how I see it. Her tweets shake the very foundations of government. "Death Panels" very nearly derailed the whole sorry mess, and it is STILL doing damage to the Democrats.
And by the way--She was right. She. Was. Right.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at December 01, 2010 12:05 PM (B+qrE)

203 sock off

Posted by: Ben at December 01, 2010 12:05 PM (wuv1c)

204 Sarah has proven to be fairly saavy at media control, but the show, the book and DWTS was overkill. She is overexposed at the moment..

Posted by: swamp yankee at December 01, 2010 12:06 PM (3DIBw)

205 I recall the term blue blood originates in the fact that the moneyed aristocracy of old Europe took it as a status symbol that they would never lift a finger in their life lest it disturb their comfort. Their aerobic conditioning as a result degraded to the point where blood was only marginally oxidized leaving the lungs giving all of their blood vessels a blue appearance. Opposed to a good red blooded man, who might by the sweat of his own brow accomplish great works, but would of course be flush with the effort.

In short, it has less to do with money, education, or even how you got your money, but more to do with how you live your life with your money; whether you, when the need arises and time permits are willing to grab a post hole digger to dig a hole, or if such mundane matters are so beneath you as to be left to the underlings, even if the task at hand would be expedited by personal effort.

BTW Ace. Spot on with the name calling analysis. If our discussion of quality candidacy can't more illumative than "She's a Dirty Commoner/She's an elitist blue blood" we are never going to survive this crisis.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose© at December 01, 2010 12:06 PM (0q2P7)

206 Pray tell in a nutshell.


Posted by: maverick muse at December 01, 2010 12:02 PM (H+LJc)


Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy
studies at the American Enterprise Institute and a Bloomberg news
columnist, Says Palin's criticism of the Federal Reserve and
its second round of quantitative easing was `Surprisingly Thoughtful' Nov. 10 (Bloomberg)

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 12:06 PM (mHQ7T)

207 139
CORNELL AM!

Posted by: Keef Olbermann at December 01, 2010 11:51 AM (WvXvd)

Get lost, pretender!

Posted by: Andrew Bernard at December 01, 2010 12:06 PM (BP6Z1)

208 She isn't Reagan. Posted by: SGT TedAnd thank God she isn't a Bush.
She is certainly no Franklin Pierce

Posted by: Ben at December 01, 2010 12:06 PM (wuv1c)

209
What about ideas? Why is every dispute being turned into a personal one, a dispute in which the power of ideas matter far less than the personal credentials of the person offering the idea?

It turned into a personal dispute when every fucking establishment critic decided to make their criticism of Palin personal, and by extension insulted every non-establishment conservative living in flyover country.

A lot of Palin's appeal stems from people's personal connection to her background and apparent values.

And when every snotty Ivy League type lined up to take a shot at her, it felt like a personal attack on us. And you know what? It was. When liberals and establishment Republicans make snide comments about hillbillys and huntin', I think, "Motherfucker. You just insulted my in-laws, who I love, admire and adore."

Palin is as much the face of an ongoing cultural battle as much as she as political one. One that wouldn't likely exist, I might add, if we didn't have a bunch of self proclaimed elites ceaselessly lecturing the rest of the country about how stupid and backward we all are.
The old appeal to authority is rotten and horrible, you should not
credit anyone who says "listen to me because I hail from the
credentialed elite;" that's why we need to replace it with a new appeal
to authority: "Listen to me because I hail from the striving
low-to-middle class."

This appeal resonates because the "credentialed elite" have had their way with things for quite some time now ... and have done nothing but make a mess of our country. People are damned tired of being governed by a bunch of arrogant, incompetent crooks who's only relevant credentials appear to be theirwealth and personal connections.

None of this is a defense of Palin's approach, but there's a reason for why it attracts followers.

Posted by: Warden at December 01, 2010 12:06 PM (C98vQ)

210 That's enough of me talkingabout me.
Now tell me what you think about me.

Posted by: Meggie Mac at December 01, 2010 12:07 PM (b6qrg)

211
He and WE got killed by that strategy.

Bush's passivity killed the Republican brand. It's amazing we did so well this year. Bush was such a shitty representative for the Republican party and for conservatism, his legacy was Barack Hussein Obama.

Posted by: Soothsayerwing Plover at December 01, 2010 12:07 PM (uFokq)

212 The 2012 primaries are going to be a frigging blast.

Everyone be sure to bring a knife.

Huh? I'm bringing the XM-25.

Posted by: George Orwell at December 01, 2010 12:07 PM (AZGON)

213 172 Yep.
She framed the whole health care debate from one tweet. I love the way people on the right adopt the cultural biases of the left without even knowing they are doing it. Palin is dumb, Obama is a good speaker, tax cuts, pro-choice, etc.

Posted by: dagny at December 01, 2010 12:07 PM (aDnLR)

214 Drew in MO- if you are still on this thread, then I would like to know how many children your aunt has given birth to.
Seriously.

Posted by: Lindsey Grahamnesty licking Rahm Emanuel's salty shaven balls at December 01, 2010 12:08 PM (pfMMA)

215 The blood in Meaghan McCain's gigantic, stretch marked, veined milk bombs looks pretty blue to me.
Maybe, I should get in for a motorboat and have a closer look.

Posted by: swamp yankee at December 01, 2010 12:08 PM (3DIBw)

216 Ace- Palin's just doing something that a Senior NCO in Special Ops told me that I found to be quite profound: If you can't get out of it, get into it.

Posted by: Minuteman at December 01, 2010 12:08 PM (502+o)

217 How many people here know who Luigi Zingales is? Don't google it. Or knew who he was before Palin talked about him in her latest book?

He is a respected economist known mostly in academic circles who teaches at the University of Chicago. I attended a lecture given by him once as I live in Chicago and work in investments. She draws a great deal from his economic writings. He is a free marketer, who also understands the difference between pro-market and pro-business. IE, he and Sarah are against crony capitalism where the government jumps into bed with big business.

This is policy. This is the foundation of an economic agenda. It is all written out for you in plain english by Sarah Palin herself.

Why is it ignored?

Posted by: Dan at December 01, 2010 12:08 PM (1jzSs)

218
Posted by: ace © at December 01, 2010 11:41 AM (nj1bB)
Someone else already posted it, so I'm only repeating it but...Obama did the exact thing you say doesn't work. Period. End of story. You're clearly very wrong on that.
There was a time I'd agree with you, but after Obama, reality disagrees. I admit to knowing little of Palin's policy positions because I only hear what you and a few other bloggers and the MSM put out.
In a very short time, following the links posted on this thread I've learned that Palin actually holds some substantive views. I can't base that off her interviews because the media doesn't ask her about her views. Again, that's reality.
I'm still not sold on Palin as a viable candidate other than the "she pisses off the right people" line.However, your opposing commentariat is more convincing in this thread.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 01, 2010 12:08 PM (fLHQe)

219 87
I think Sarah Palin would make a fine president. Unfortunately, her brand is too damaged for her to make a fine presidential candidate. At least she understands, as few Republicans do, that the media are the enemy.


Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at December 01, 2010 11:42 AM (PLvLS)

Now THIS argument has some merit. Whether Sarah's too badly damaged by the Media/Entertainment complex is yet to be determined, but I'm leaning in the direction that she is.
I keep saying, a wind up toy monkey would be an improvement over Obama, therefore virtually anyone who is not him would do a better job. At the moment, i'm not seeing ANY reasonable alternative to Palin. Perhaps Alan West?

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 01, 2010 12:08 PM (/G5LI)

220 People here bitched and moaned about W. not responding to anything.. To criticisms or complaints... He took it all in stride... All the while, commenters here screamed and typed in bold why? Why was he not responding? My left nut for some sort of response..

And now this little lady from Alaska stops by, writes a Facebook note, mentions Death Panels... Democrats nationwide get their panties tied up into knots and she's told to go home for her troubles..



What did I miss?

Posted by: Dave C at December 01, 2010 12:08 PM (vjkov)

221 As I said before, I kind of like Palin, but I won't be voting for her.
That said, if she doesn't run in the primaries it will greatly benefit Mike Huckabee. I think i read an article by Jay Cost or one of those pollsters who showed that the majority of Palin voters become Huckabee voters int he primaries and vice versa if one of them were not to run. It always said a lot of Romney voters might sit out if he loses.

Posted by: Ben at December 01, 2010 12:08 PM (wuv1c)

222 OW

The stupid, it hurts.

Posted by: Gmac at December 01, 2010 12:09 PM (k2Fyd)

223 The blood in Meaghan McCain's gigantic, stretch marked, veined milk bombs looks pretty blue to me.

Maybe, I should get in for a motorboat and have a closer look.

Okay, that just put me off my lunch.

Posted by: George Orwell at December 01, 2010 12:09 PM (AZGON)

224 181
163, she has government successfully for many years in various executive positions. She already has proven that.

C'mon. A couple of years as governor of a state so unique that the CATO institute doesn't even bother grading the governor there. Prior to that, serving as the lay-person chairwoman of a three-person energy commission (basically heading a committee; not an executive role). Prior to that, mayor of a tiny town where de facto the population had shared interests and was relatively homogeneous.

Even her business experience is mom and pop.

And now nothing she is doing is advancing her ability to govern effective.

I'd like to see her serve a complete term in some role in which she is accountable to a diverse group of people, either shareholders or citizens of a state or a community of people served by a national or global non-profit.

I don't think that's too much to ask.

Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 12:09 PM (IDL9N)

225 Hmmmmm,,,,,,,we're back to high school, aren't we? The dumb chick with the big rack is taken seriously because here daddy is famous.

Every society has an aristocracy and a gentry: An upper one percent within an upper five percent which pretty much makes all of the substantive decisions about Who gets What, and When, and How

Even in Soviet Russia, where the commie bastards killed or exiled the former aristocracy and gentry, those Class Enemies were replaced with Party members--who until the 70s were five percent of the population

Same in Nazi Germany: Only about five percent of Germans under Nazi rule were Party members. Every society organically grows and maintains ( or creates after bloody revolutions ) a top one and five percent.

So Megs notices What Has Always Been, Amazing. Next she'll discover gravity. ( that's what makes her big boobs sag )

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at December 01, 2010 12:10 PM (UqKQV)

226 I'd like to see her serve a complete term in some role in which she is accountable to a diverse group of people, either shareholders or citizens of a state or a community of people served by a national or global non-profit.

I've got that covered, baby. And I won.

Posted by: B. Hussein Obama at December 01, 2010 12:11 PM (AZGON)

227 "183 I really like Palin, but I got to the same point as Ace about two to three weeks ago. It's just turning me off.
Posted by: WillOTP at December 01, 2010 12:01 PM (+Uv5V) "
Fair Enough,
While I CANNOT think of anyone, yet presume there might have been a handfull; WHEN has ANYONE in the Republican establishment of Conservative movement, come to the DEFENSE of Sarah Palin and the vitriol spewed her way for the past 2+ years? Maybe the random bleat.
It would be nice if she could just sit and take it. Maybe you and Ace could get someone with the stature and access to defend her once and awhile.
Regards,

Posted by: the Dragon at December 01, 2010 12:11 PM (Y8C1Q)

228
Sarah has proven to be fairly saavy at media
control, but the show, the book and DWTS was overkill. She is
overexposed at the moment..

Posted by: swamp yankee at December 01, 2010 12:06 PM (3DIBw)
It would be nice if her reality show was less product placement (herself as a 2012 contender) and more educational, like actually showing off Alaska. It strengthens the argument that Palin quit Alaska for lucrative TV gigs and is a mistake for that reason. DWTS was a good move for Palin. The kingmaker stunts during the midterms were annoyingly self-aggrandizing, and I agree she has jumped the shark. Still waiting to see other Republican challengers. Pence, Jindal, Pawlenty, Huckabee and Romney are nonstarters.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 12:12 PM (mHQ7T)

229 That said, if she doesn't run in the primaries it will greatly benefit Mike Huckabee.
Mental exercise: If Palin is UNELECTABLEtm, then why is Huck in the discussion? He'd get drilled to the wall.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at December 01, 2010 12:12 PM (B+qrE)

230 McCain here equates her own "success" and "accomplishment" -- which principally consists of, um, surviving the birthing process -- with Sarah Palin's.

Don't undersell my accomplishments Ace.
I also survived Fat Camp and didn't end up in drug rehab like other well off kids.

Posted by: Meghan McCain at December 01, 2010 12:12 PM (+Uv5V)

231 Oh, and Mitch Daniels. No, thanks.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 12:12 PM (mHQ7T)

232 197
But there's no arguing that nothing that Palin is doing right now is enhancing her ability to govern.

And what exactly would that be? Ace's original post claims she needs to talk about policy.

--

I've outlined three roles that would meet the criteria. Twice.

I'm not arguing ace's point. Actually, I am arguing something else. I'm saying that any of these politicians-turned-pundits (Palin, Huckabee, Romney, Fred, Gingrich) are second-tier candidates in my book. I want someone who knows how to govern in these difficult times. Nothing Palin has done since the campaign demonstrates that to me and she does not have a long history of high-level public (or private) service on the state or national level.

Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 12:13 PM (IDL9N)

233 The more I watch the Bushes, the more I loathe and despise them.



Posted by: Lindsey Grahamnesty licking Rahm Emanuel's salty shaven balls at December 01, 2010 11:45 AM (pfMMA)

Amen. I fault George HW Bush's naive stupidity (breaking his no tax pledge, trusting democrats, kinder gentler bullshit) for getting Clinton elected, and all therefore all the fallout from having that fuckwad for president. As if they haven't done enough damage, the Bush's are popping up to try and do some more.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 01, 2010 12:13 PM (/G5LI)

234 Look at her speeches and answers to substantive questions in interviews. She's got the ideas/policy thing down. You have to be almost (almost) willfully ignorant not to be aware of that.You may disagree with her policies and ideas, but don't claim she doesn't have them.That's the thing isn't it? "She isn't serious, I haven't heard her talk about policy." Except she does.
Why are we talking about her blue bloods comment? Because Meghan McCain ain't gonna write an article about QE2.
I cannot tell you how many times I have seen people post, "Why doesn't Boehner say something about this?" Then you find out that he did -- both in an interview and a written statement. The media just doesn't report it.
Why is Palin so shallow? Because everyone reports only her shallowness. We only hear what the media tells us.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 01, 2010 12:13 PM (BvBKY)

235 George H.W. Bush was a one term failure and his wife is a mouthy bitch who never accomplished anything in life but taking up space. Their opinion is worth the same as mine. Jack shit.

Posted by: SurferDoc at December 01, 2010 12:13 PM (o3bYL)

236 183 I really like Palin, but I got to the same point as Ace about two to three weeks ago. It's just turning me off.
Palin is the patron saint of scrappy bitches everywhere. For everyone that is being turned off and wants 'serious politics' (please louise, it's WWE in nicer outfits these days) the rest of us are getting oiled and sweaty ready to jump into the ring as her back up.
The face of politics in this country has changed radicially in just 2 years. It's changing now almost daily, it's not about Meet the Press anymore (who the fuck cares about MTP other than politicians masturbating their egos and the 2 dozen politican fanatics who watch?) Seriously, go on the street and ask
However, a tweet? FB? Emals, blogs? Damn straight, that's where the action is.The change in the delivery system, the mindset of the public and venues for delivery plus the fact that the average voter who sat back and 'let the nice men in suits in DCtake care of them' are long gone.
So yeah, blue bloods or scrappy snowbillies. Since I'm a redneck female, I'll go with the snowbilly.

Posted by: EZB at December 01, 2010 12:13 PM (Ty06w)

237 I'd like to see her serve a complete term in some role in which she is accountable to a diverse group of people, either shareholders or citizens of a state or a community of people served by a national or global non-profit. See me post at 53. We sure are good at submitting to rules that others do not abide by.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at December 01, 2010 12:14 PM (B+qrE)

238 Next she'll discover gravity. ( that's what makes her big boobs sag )


Posted by: SantaRosaStan at December 01, 2010 12:10 PM (UqKQV)
Nicely done.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 12:14 PM (mHQ7T)

239 By constantly claiming that all (and I do mean all) criticism of
her is essentially illegitimate as it is born of nothing but "elitist"
disdain for the common man (or woman), she never actually has to rebut
such criticisms.

And just what was this criticism that Palin should have rebutted in a more direct and focused way? That she is pretty and should stay out of national politics. That's it. The sum and substance of Barbara Bush's detailed criticism of Palin is that she is pretty but that she she just go away.

Palin's response made it clear that she will not go away and she will fight fire with fire. When the establishment Republicans fantasize aloud that they wish she would go back to Alaska, she calls them out for what they are.

Never mind Palin, how would you defend against such criticism leveled against yourself? That kind of content-free slur deserves to be treated as such.


Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at December 01, 2010 12:14 PM (fnFAP)

240 I don't think that's too much to ask.

Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 12:09 PM
Oh, but it IS too much to ask, Y-not. Just look at the fanboiz' responses above....


Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 01, 2010 12:14 PM (Ulu3i)

241 Hmmmmm,,,,,,,we're back to high school, aren't we? The dumb chick with the big rack is taken seriously because here daddy is famous.

Man, you ain't kidding. Same can be said about Eliot Spitzer, philandering pervert prosecuting prostitutes pooches prostitutes personally, and he gets a TV show.

My expectations of the mid-terms were way, way too high. Few people are serious about reducing the size of government, too many are pointing fingers about "who is cool and who isn't," and I'm only talking about conservatives here. Femember the saying that politics is show business for the ugly? Well, apparently it's actually High School Drama Club for the Ugly, not even real business.

Posted by: George Orwell at December 01, 2010 12:15 PM (AZGON)

242 Fixing your typos would allow you to deliver a more convincing argument.
"princesses who supposedly go into Columbia"

Posted by: Nancy at December 01, 2010 12:15 PM (IZdFZ)

243 Funny, I like actual Americans not european wannabes

Posted by: dagny at December 01, 2010 12:15 PM (aDnLR)

244 201
Palin is preparing the battlespace for the next election. She isn't
running herself. She's got a way better job than the President, she's
making zillions as Alaska's best spokesman, and RULES the internet.



She's a rock star and the base LOVES her. Is anyone camping out overnight at the Costco for Tim Pawlenty's book?



There is value in that kind of popularity, and you want that kind of person on your side.



So, you know, whatever. Go ahead, play the Democrats game and pile on

---

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. She is only relevant because she is dangling a possible presidential run. Otherwise, she'd just be another talking head... and reality tv star.

If she's not running, why do we have to lock-step behind her? I could see if this was the general election and she was our nominee -- but why now?

Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 12:15 PM (IDL9N)

245 Maybe Sarah Palin should just go away. If she did,
we wouldn't have to put up with the likes of Cher and Joy Behar and Bill
Maher talking crap about her and insulting us by extension.

So, yeah, that'd be a relief.


Posted by: Soothsayerwing Plover at December 01, 2010 12:03 PM (uFokq)
Particularly considering that if Palin did go away, the usual suspects could then switch targets to whoever else supports reasonable government becuase you either support socialism or you are stupid.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 01, 2010 12:16 PM (xxgag)

246 Haha. Sarah Palin would get beat like a cheeto-encrusted cock. Now that Mike Hucklebee, he's a scarey guy we'd be scared of running against. Whoa nelly, are we intimidated by his intellectual heft and just general electability. Nothing like that silly Palin chick.

Posted by: Your Friends Across the Aisle at December 01, 2010 12:16 PM (Wnhy1)

247 I dropped out of art school and I know what blue blood means.

Meghan McCain seems like she'd be fun to have drinks with, but I don't know why she thinks anyone should give her political musings any consideration. Oh right, her long "family lineage" of "public service and leadership within Republican Party". That'd be like me walking around job sites offering criticisms of the masonry work based on the fact that I come from a line of bricklayers.

Here is why I don't get too worked up about Meghan McCain:

A) Nobody takes her seriously (except M McC)
B) She has never run for anything or held any public office
C) Her political experience is being the daughter of a politician and blogging about being one
D) Her points are never coherent
E) Her punditry is mostly self promotion
F) She has the same qualifications as most every other political pundit (A, B, D, E above)

Posted by: DM! at December 01, 2010 12:16 PM (UiMay)

248 Hot Air has a post about the PPP poll showing that Romney supporters would vote for Obama over Palin if she becomes the Rep nominee. As pointed out already, Palin talked about policies all the times, but the dishonest left wouldn't want to talk about them because she simply had the winning arguments. I am somewhat surprised that the people on our side would follow the left on this front! Anyway, if the purely "fiscal conservatives" would rather vote for Obama over Palin, then so be it. If they want to attack Palin to promote someone like Romney and turn around to vote for Obama if he doesn't win, then we know what the battle is about. I am willing to vote for someone else better than Palin in the Rep primary. However, until a better candidate is available, I will vote for her. At least she is addressing the important policy issues and taking the fight to Obama/the left while taking quite a few "friendly" shots herself. If Palin wins the Rep primary, expect a Castle redux.

Posted by: LAI at December 01, 2010 12:16 PM (R4ub4)

249 Fred! talks policy all the time and I ignore it, even though I love teh Fred! You know why? Because he's not fucking running anything. He's not actually doing anything that matters. He's a pundit.

Lol, you ignore him because you're immature.

He's hosting his own show interviewing guests whose credentials and research substantiate his constitutional conservative platform, and that certainly matters.

Though Fred swore off his own campaigning in '08, do note well how many listeners call Rush or Hannity begging them to run for political office. Bill Krystol dismissed Thompson's campaign saying that Fred should use his celebrity to influence the political tides, aka the public engagement with government that has emerged since to be called the Tea Party movement. And Fred Thompson's endorsements initiated attention towards candidates whom Palin subsequently endorsed, as well. As per experience, don't even try to say Palin's is anything at all compared to Thompson's.

The idea that Palin is now doing anything different than Thompson never took off, being a lead balloon filled with lead.

Fred's not going to run for potus again. But reading some twit regurgitate the progressive rationale translated as if he was unelectable because he knew too much and didn't act the egomaniac with heartburn is worse than seeing another palin spool of thread unwinding.

Posted by: maverick muse at December 01, 2010 12:16 PM (H+LJc)

250 That said, if she doesn't run in the primaries it will greatly benefit Mike Huckabee.
Mental exercise: If Palin is UNELECTABLEtm, then why is Huck in the discussion? He'd get drilled to the wall.
I was just mentioning an article i read by a respected pollster. take from it what you will. It was just pointing out that many of the people who would vote for huck are palin voters. So if one drops out, it benefits the other one. Whereas if they both run, it could cause them to split their vote.

Posted by: Ben at December 01, 2010 12:16 PM (wuv1c)

251 Oh, and one basic point.

We, as conservatives, have to be willing and able to learn from political success.

Obama and the Democrats didn't win by accident in 2006/8. And the left as a whole has been generally winning in getting policy enacted for 20 years.

If we want to do more then perhaps slow down the move to the left we have to learn why they efforts have been successful and what we can implement.

And that includes plenty of things we'd rather not - like the Politics of Personal Destruction, How to use New Media, and so on.

So, we should be supporting candidates and political for showing the ability to adapt their strategies in such a fashion, and yet it is actually far more common we snipe at them for not pursuing politics in a idealized version of the way Washington, Jefferson, and Madison did.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 01, 2010 12:17 PM (7BU4a)

252 Some more googling ideas for Meghan:

"atkins diet"
GED+study+guide
valtrex

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at December 01, 2010 12:17 PM (+lsX1)

253 Ace - right on!
I find Meghan McCain's bull shit piece a screed of irony wrapped in hypocrisy on a turd lilly pad.
First lets start withthe fact that blue blood is a pejorative term that denotes a caste system leveled in birth right versus accomplishment. And isn't it curious that Meghan bejewels nearly her entire thesis around the blue blood matter without even comprehending the fact that it is not a lofty enterprise as much as it is a system of favors, quid pro quo and advancement by name.
I highly doubt Ms. McCain would have gained entry into Columbia, let alone write the thrilling and hard hitting tome, 'Dirty Sexy Politics' or whatever the hell her book was named, BUT FOR the fact she's a McCain and her mother's worth over 100M.
So Meghan sets apart a woman named Sarah Palin who rose essentially from nothing, not a drop of blue blood, to become Governor of Alaska to become someone Meghan's father chose to be his presidential running mate.
Sarah Palin has endured the most vitriolic and harsh media coverage of any modern day politician and despite all of this including meritless lawsuits, thousands of reporters and DNC operatives who descended upon Alaska to smear her name, in addition to a slime ball creep named Joe McGinnis who rented a house 15 feet next door from the Palins - All of this would have likely driven a blue blood loony.
However, Sarah Palin prevailed and continues to prevail by capitalizing on her momentum and guiding her party by using the media to her advantage and her party's advantage.
Hey, Meghan McCain, how about you put a sexy cork in your inglorious pie hole and give us a break with your sophmoric blues.

Posted by: journolist at December 01, 2010 12:18 PM (LwLqV)

254 Ace,

The problem with the elites like Brooks, Frum, Parker, Noonan, etc is that they believe that "credentials" are enough. Ivy League degree, check. Intellectual book on the coffee table, check. Important names on the address book, check. Award from fellow elites, check. I can't think of any one of them who've actually done anything other than write about other people who do things.

Americans are results oriented while the elite are credentials oriented. In the mindset of the elites, Mike Lupica would be the best choice to be coach or GM of the NY Giants because he's written so many books, talked about sports, wears glasses, and uses big words to sound deep and intellectual. Tom Coughlin never read any deep sports books, so in their minds Lupica would be a better coach than Coughlin.

Posted by: kbdabear at December 01, 2010 12:18 PM (vdfwz)

255 Sorry, you can't have it both ways. She is only relevant because she is dangling a possible presidential run. Otherwise, she'd just be another talking head... and reality tv star.

If she's not running, why do we have to lock-step behind her? I could see if this was the general election and she was our nominee -- but why now?

Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 12:15 PM (IDL9N)

Your false dichotomy is explained in bold above.

Nobody has to lock step behind anybody. Just kindly quit bleating (D) talking points. They're:
A) stupid
B) wrong
C) unhelpful
D) all of the above

Posted by: Your Friends Across the Aisle at December 01, 2010 12:19 PM (Wnhy1)

256
That's enough of me talkingabout me.

Now tell me what you think about me.

Posted by: Meggie Mac at December 01, 2010 12:07 PM (b6qrg)

I think there's a stick of butter calling your name.

Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at December 01, 2010 12:19 PM (eCAn3)

257 Hot Air has a post about the PPP poll
I stopped there. Nancy Pelosi quoted the New York times....

Posted by: dagny at December 01, 2010 12:19 PM (aDnLR)

258 I don't think that's too much to ask.

Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 12:09 PM (IDL9N)
Palin did take on the Murkowski's ( Alaska's version of La Cosa Nostra ) and defeated The Machine. That ain't everything, but it's something--and more than CATO members have ever, ever done or will doBut--She's like Gingrich in that they both have been Media Slimed so badly that they're ( in re Seinfeld ) UN-ELECTABLE !!. She gave the media too much ammo, as did Newt. Candidates from the Right need to be media-savvy enough to deflect the types of Shit that will inevitably be heaped upon themShe can be the Matriarch of the GOP, but not the candidate for Prez. Sorry, Palin fans, but that dog just won't hunt. I like her a lot and admire her, etc, but I want that POS Obama voted out and I don't think she can do it.

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at December 01, 2010 12:19 PM (UqKQV)

259 DM!,
She's one of those people who are famous for being famous. No real accomplishments.
Also, i remember reading a review of her book that ace linked to in which she said she's real down to earth because he brother was in the military. As though her brothers military service somehow transfered over to her.
She's a dumb person. I refrain from using the term bitch lest i be accused of sexism. Her stupidy transcends gender.

Posted by: Ben at December 01, 2010 12:19 PM (wuv1c)

260 I grew up in both Connecticut and on the north shore of Massachusetts, among the blue bloods -- the Winthrops, Sears and Cabots, et al (and went to school with their damaged children). Palin could not have used the term more correctly in both a political and social sense. This McCain brat is a waste of time. I can't for the life of me understand the attention she generates.

Posted by: rrpjr at December 01, 2010 12:20 PM (WLEUV)

261 Posted by: Yahoo Answers at December 01, 2010 11:39 AM (70OJl)



Well, part of the reason for that comment by Richards is because H.W. (and family are blue-bloods.



George Herbert Walker Bush has three lines that go back
to King Edward I of England. He also is descended from King Henry I and King
Henry II, both of England, and William I and Robert II, both of Scotland. Bush
has common ancestors with 15 American presidents: Washington, Fillmore, Pierce,
Lincoln, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Cleveland, both Roosevelts, Taft, Coolidge,
Hoover, Nixon and Ford.

He never made that big deal about it that I remember but I think he might have mentioned it, or at least inferred it, in the '80 primary. Then again it might have been the press inserting some controversy in the race.
-------

I do appreciate your latter points, Ace. Well said and appropriate, with one qualification. It's an impression, not a solid point as I don't follow Palin closely. And that impression is that Palin does address policy and promote ideas, both abstract and concrete, and those are separate from the her addressing her critics personal comments. The bigger problem is that everyone -- often led by the MFM coverage -- covers the personal tussles, and ignores the policy and ideas since few attack her there.

All in all, though, she should be steering her responses to the personal attacks in ways that address the ideas and policies that tend to initiate the attacks.

Posted by: Dusty at December 01, 2010 12:21 PM (3fASo)

262 Americans are results oriented while the elite are credentials oriented. In the mindset of the elites, Mike Lupica would be the best choice to be coach or GM of the NY Giants because he's written so many books, talked about sports, wears glasses, and uses big words to sound deep and intellectual. Tom Coughlin never read any deep sports books, so in their minds Lupica would be a better coach than Coughlin.
THIS!
Especially if you've ever seen that pompous ass Lupica on TV.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 01, 2010 12:21 PM (BvBKY)

263
Hot Air has a post about the PPP poll showing that Romney supporters
would vote for Obama over Palin if she becomes the Rep nominee.


then fuck the lot of them. in the squeakhole, sideways, with a stale huckabee.

Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at December 01, 2010 12:22 PM (eCAn3)

264 146
>>>PS: The first rule of trench warfare in politics is to NEVER
allow a smear to go unchallenged. And Sarah diligently responds to the
smears with her counteroffensives on Facebook.





Was that Reagan's rule?

Posted by: ace © at December 01, 2010 11:51 AM (nj1bB)

Regan could pull it off. Mere mortals have to fight back.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 01, 2010 12:22 PM (/G5LI)

265 It isn't both ways. She is not "only" relevant because she is dangling the possible run out there. I saw the tents in the Costco parking lot LAST YEAR. And it was farging cold.

Here is what people are missing - she was a journalism major. Think about that - she READ THEIR BOOKS! She knows how it works.

We don't have to get in lock step with her, but we should 1) not impose on her rules and strictures that we do not ask of others on our side 2) not impose on her the rules that our opponents want us to use 3) not go out of our way to personally insult her. She is on or side and she carries a big stick. Come on, wanna be pragmatic, what could be more pragmatic than treating a powerful friends with RESPCT? It isn't fealty, it isn't obeisance, just RESPECT.

Next year we will be arguing about some other person who is a candidate - but it will be on turf prepared by Palin and the Tea Parties.

Posted by: blaster at December 01, 2010 12:22 PM (MrMxG)

266 She's a dumb person. I refrain from using the term bitch lest i be accused of sexism. Her stupidy transcends gender.

This is probably a parody. Otherwise, it is hard to see that someone is dumb enough to say this as a matter of fact!

Posted by: LAI at December 01, 2010 12:23 PM (R4ub4)

267 You know whom this controversy benefits?

And once I lose the general in 2012 I'll have a slot for life on Fox. Obama is gangbusters for my career.

Posted by: Mike Huckabee at December 01, 2010 12:23 PM (AZGON)

268 @227I've got that covered, baby. And I won.

Posted by: B. Hussein Obama at December 01, 2010 12:11 PM

What's your point? Seriously. What is it?

Obama is a crappy president and not simply because he is wrong on every major public policy issue. He's a crappy president because he didn't have the experience needed to govern a nation. I'd rather not repeat that experiment.

A lot of you seem focused on the electability issue of Palin. I don't care about that right now. I am focused on whether or not she's got the chops to be an effective POTUS, not just a right-thinking POTUS. In my opinion, she doesn't. And all of the potential candidates out there who left public life and are just talking heads are in the same boat. The longer they are out of public life, the less interested I am in their experience. And, let's face it, some of them have much more experience than Palin, whom I prefer on philosophical grounds. It sickens me to think that Huckabee has a better chance to be the nominee than Palin when, had Palin stayed in office or chosen some other public role (meaning CEO of company, non-profit, or in governance) she would blow him out of the water in the 2012 primaries.

Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 12:23 PM (IDL9N)

269 'Blue blood' is not a pejorative term, Journo. It's one the ways that the non-gentry can speak wistfully of their Betters, dissing while envying. American ideology ( to the extent there is one ) has always had very mixed feelings about wealth

Our culture says we all can and should earn it; reality routinely reminds us that it ain't likely to happen. Those that got will keep what they got--and keep the Unwashed out of the country clubs. Watch Caddyshack.......

That movie will tell you more about the gentry than piles of fancy footnoted books

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at December 01, 2010 12:24 PM (UqKQV)

270 The term "blue bloods" has its origin in the breeding habits of European nobility. They tended not to marry outside of their class and, because the "noble" class was small, marrying first cousins was not unusual.
As all of us know, this type of interbreeding leads to abnormalities caused by two people breeding who have identical copies of a recessive gene that allowsa normally suppressed genetic trait to become manifest.
One of these normally suppressed genetic traits is inherited hemolytic anemia which is a condition where the red blood cells are weak and easily break down. The body cannot manufacture red blood cells fast enough to replace these cells and, so, the bloodturns "blue" because of the lack of oxygenated red blood cells.
Not every aristocrat had this trait but the trait was common enoughamong them compared to common people that hemolytic anemia or "blue blood" came to be associated with the aristocracy.

Posted by: senor correspondent at December 01, 2010 12:24 PM (PbwkF)

271 Meggie never met a potato salad she didn't like.

Posted by: SurferDoc at December 01, 2010 12:25 PM (o3bYL)

272 Bottom line: Show me a better candidate now so that we can do the vetting the Palin has gone through to make sure!

Posted by: LAI at December 01, 2010 12:25 PM (R4ub4)

273 I know Palin didn't start this. But if I, personally, am ever going to
be able to support Palin, I need her to stop this,

Again.. Is she supposed to sit back and take it? The way GWB did? How did that turn out?


and start addressing
policy questions in policy terms -- not personal terms -- and put away
her go-to "I Win" cards of "elitist" and the like.


I've linked to a couple off her policy positions.. Several others have mentioned them.. They are out there if you look hard enough.. Just because MSNBC doesn't report them doesn't mean they don't exist..

Posted by: Dave C at December 01, 2010 12:26 PM (vjkov)

274 Successively Republicans as varied as Dwight Eisenhower,Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater, George Romney, Gerald Ford, RonaldReagan, George H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle, Bob Dole, Jack Kemp, GeorgeW. Bush, John McCain and now Sarah Palin have been presented assome version of the following: bumbling and unimaginative(Eisenhower), a tricky, un-classy smear artist unworthy of being onthe same stage as the polished liberal champion JFK (Nixon), ashockingly unstable dumb idiot with psychiatric problems(Goldwater), dumb as a post (Romney), dumb jocks (Ford and Kemp), alightweight (Bush 41), a vapid pretty-boy (Quayle), a boring,clueless old man from Kansas (Dole) and run-of-the-mill dumbidiotwith degrees from Yale andHarvard who was really dumb because he loved the Forbidden Cultureof Texas(Bush 43). Well worth reading the rest of this article: http://tinyurl.com/39ckuy8

Posted by: PoconoJoe at December 01, 2010 12:26 PM (txywl)

275 Meaghan Mccainv. Sarah Palin in a mud cage match.
It'll be a short match.
That's all I got.
I'll be in my bunk. That'll be short too.

Posted by: Max Entropy at December 01, 2010 12:26 PM (lH6z9)

276 Nice post.

Posted by: rdbrewer at December 01, 2010 12:26 PM (ZzF6C)

277 But this has been bugging me for a while, bubbling up, and only lately have I begun to found the words to express why I'm so down on Palin -- it's this whole over-personalization of everything. I feel, seriously, like politics is just seventh grade smacktalk now. Everything's personal. EVERYTHING.

Yeah? And you're ugly.

I think the only value in linking the Meghaton McCain "article" is to further point out her utter vapidity. She's so fucking stupid that she has no idea that she's stupid. I think the greater sin is that she promotes herself as Teh Hawt while being completely oblivious of her unfuckability.

However, I don't for a second believe that Sarah Palin is going to run for President. As governor, she was a stationary target and she's shown unwillingness to keep above the fray. I think she serves the party best as a political operative and fundraiser, and I think she's savvy enough to see that.

And another thing, motherfucker, you "could like Clinton?"

He played a saxophone on the Arsenio Hall show, ace.

Arsenio. Fucking. Hall.

I have to turn my back on you now.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 01, 2010 12:27 PM (TATbF)

278 Paul Ryan 2012

Posted by: Ben at December 01, 2010 12:28 PM (wuv1c)

279 Why is Meggy Mac like a lobster? All of her meat is in her tail.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 01, 2010 12:28 PM (xxgag)

280 In other words, she's a nice person but doesn't want to see her run for President. How is that a personal attack?

No, the old bitch said she once sat by Palin and observed she is "beautiful." That means she had no interest in speaking to her and implies she is an idiot trading on her good looks. Then she said she hopes Palin "stays in Alaska." That implies she is not qualified to run for POTUS, another personal attack. That was some incredibly weak defense for weasel wording.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 12:28 PM (mHQ7T)

281 I think the only value in linking the Meghaton McCain "article" is to
further point out her utter vapidity. She's so fucking stupid that she has no idea that she's stupid. I think the greater sin is that she promotes herself as Teh Hawt while being completely oblivious of her unfuckability.


Good self-parody here!


Posted by: LAI at December 01, 2010 12:28 PM (R4ub4)

282 Not impressed with Bush's lineage. I'm a descendant of Abraham Lincoln; apparently so is Tom Hanks ( Lincoln's mother's family ) and Tom Hanks is a retard

My father ( with a shout out to the 110th Mountain Signal Company ) has reams of docs showing that Honest Abe's genes are in my pool. Maybe that's why I feel so drawn to Gettysburg........

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at December 01, 2010 12:29 PM (UqKQV)

283 When Palin was first named McCain's running mate, her Alaska Governor ratings at home were high. Before that campaign ended, they weren't.

Her first and only two years as Governor were successful but she didn't stick around to weather the storm after her popularity fell at home and prove managerial leadership amidst political opponents. Whatever credit exists for successful conservatism in Alaskan state politics today is Parnell's to claim, or even Joe Miller's if he wanted to claim anything, but not Palin's to own.

Remember that Obama's inauguration was full of Hopenchange and the Republican Party was written off as dead. Two years later, things changed. If Obama takes Palin's lead, he'll resign and allow Biden to ascend into the Oval Office, and go back to grass-rooting where he was a happy boar and where he should stay away from the general population of the American citizenry.

Posted by: Barbara Bush at December 01, 2010 12:29 PM (H+LJc)

284 I have to disagree with you on this one, Ace.

With both the Dims and Reps playing the Alinsky/"You are a total dumbass" game with total cooperation by the media, Palin really has no choice.

She has to fight back because to do otherwise is to accept the shame and opprobrium the left and certain Rep A-holes wish to dump on her.

She has to show that she's a fighter. Not only that, but that she's going to be our fighter, our champion.

However, I do agree with you that she needs to pivot. Probably, shortly after the first of the year.

Palin needs to find a way to humorously dismiss her critics. In as short a fashion as possible. And when possible do it a substantiative point behind it. (Call me. I'm available.)

She needs to look as if she's running for Pres even if she's unsure at this point.

That means taking the fight directly to the Dims and Obama.

Downplay the personal in a way that makes them look small. Blast them on policy. And in the last part of next year- go on hostile shows and confront critics on policy. With Reaganesque good fellowship and humor.

But surrender right now to the constant personal attacks.....no.

Posted by: naturalfake at December 01, 2010 12:29 PM (+kzvp)

285 Someone else already posted it, so I'm only repeating it but...Obama did
the exact thing you say doesn't work. Period. End of story.

Except it isn't. He had a complicit media that helped make it work. No conservative will have that; they'd mercilessly shred someone from our end who tried that--hell, look what they did to Palin, who honestly had a much more solid resume.

We cannot save the republic without a free press. Sadly, we currently lack this.

Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© at December 01, 2010 12:30 PM (GBXon)

286 As per experience, don't even try to say Palin's is anything at all compared to Thompson's.

maverick,

I think you completely missed the point of my comments.

Yes, Thompson's experience vastly outweighs Palin's, but there's a shelf-life. How someone governed in 2001 is not as informative to me as how they navigate through today's political and economic climate. Hell, even if someone running a large corporation today has more relevant experience to today's issues than a politician from 9 (or even 2) years ago.

And I stand by the Fred relevancy point I made earlier. There are only so many pundits I can track. I don't listen to talk radio often, so I'm more likely to catch Krauthammer on Fox or read someone via a blog. It's not that Fred doesn't have great ideas -- it just doesn't build him up as a POTUS candidate.

Same thing with Palin. I'd like to see less talk and more action.

Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 12:30 PM (IDL9N)

287 ( Lincoln's mother's family ) and Tom Hanks is a retard

Lincoln's wife was crazy.

Posted by: Barbara Bush at December 01, 2010 12:30 PM (H+LJc)

288 Paul Ryan 2012
He would be a good choice. Ask him to run and promote him and take the fight to Obama and the left. It is dumb to attack people on our side.

Posted by: LAI at December 01, 2010 12:30 PM (R4ub4)

289 And before anyone talks about high ground, allow me to remind you that when your high ground is surrounded by an enemy that greatly outnumbers you, this is seldom a favorable position

No shit.

Posted by: G.A. Custer at December 01, 2010 12:30 PM (R2fpr)

290 She's talked policy ad nauseum, but you never see fit to post it. Did you post ANYTHING about her thoughts on QE2, which were lauded by economists, NRO, and the WSJ editorial board? Which other candidates have laid out as detailed and technical a critique as she has? Have you read her books? Her Facebook notes? Her Hong Kong speech? She talks policy all the time, it's just that the media would rather focus on minutiae and style rather than substance.

Also, try watching her interviews on Fox Business instead of FNC. The hosts there actually know what they're talking about and like to talk policy, unlike Hannity, BOR, and half the other nitwits on FNC who would rather talk about her celebrity side or use her to stir up controversy that they can then ruminate over for the next week.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at December 01, 2010 12:31 PM (IoUF1)

291 Same thing with Palin. I'd like to see less talk and more action.

Good point. I have seen plenty of actions with Palin. That 's why the left is so mad at her.

Posted by: LAI at December 01, 2010 12:31 PM (R4ub4)

292 But as Sowell later points out, having a proven time-tested policy isn’t enough if we don’t articulate it. We need to remind people that tax cuts help everyone. And we should also remind the Democrats that many of the so-called “rich” they’re dismissing are our small business owners who account for 70% of all job creation in this country. At a time when we need job growth, we should not target job creators with tax hikes. Closing our deficit gap requires us to cut spending, but we also need to spur economic growth. With that in mind, the last thing we should do is hamper our economic innovators and entrepreneurs with excessive taxes, overly burdensome regulation, and more uncertainty. This is not a difficult argument to make. It’s common sense.

Ace, while you are covering cat fights, Palin is talking taxes. Too much policy for u, or not enough?

Posted by: The 52 % at December 01, 2010 12:31 PM (kK4Nu)

293 It sickens me to think that Huckabee has a better chance to be the nominee than Palin when, had Palin stayed in office or chosen some other public role (meaning CEO of company, non-profit, or in governance) she would blow him out of the water in the 2012 primaries. For you maybe, but for the average voter,it wouldn't make one wit of difference. It's about if youre liked.
It's that simple.That's just it.... we're already talking others running who have less experience (West). The reason we keep gettting our asses handed to us is that we try to play be rules and make our candidates do far more than they demand of theirs.
We it comes to poltics, conservatives suck.

Posted by: EZB at December 01, 2010 12:31 PM (Ty06w)

294 Look, something that our team has to remember: We aren't going to win on ideas alone. WE HAVE THE RIGHT IDEAS. Our ideas are the timeless ones with a lineage going all the way back to the Revolution. Their side has vague feelings about "fairness", envy of the rich, watery internationalism, and pseudo-Marxist claptrap. If elections were about ideas alone, we'd win every one. But the reason why their team wins is because of IMAGE. They are the "cool kids", the urban trendy hipsters, while we are the old boring fuddyduds. So we have to hit back on the image front. We should be the team of the common man, fighting against the entrenched elitist snobs who deign to rule over us. So as much as I think Palin is unelectable in a general election, I'd still take her over a real blue-blood snob like Romney.

Posted by: chemjeff at December 01, 2010 12:32 PM (i7Wd9)

295 Hot Air has a post about the PPP poll showing that Romney supporters
would vote for Obama over Palin if she becomes the Rep nominee.

PPP is telling you that they're pushing Romney as the MFM's choice to run against their chocolate god because that's who they think would be the weakest candidate. They know that the conservatives wouldn't bust their ass for him, some would stay home, and the "vast moderate middle" would swallow the MFM loads and pull the lever for Obama. like they usually do.

You can tell who the strongest GOP candidates are by how vicious the MFM is against them, and how weak they are if they're the MFM's New Best Republican Friend

For what it's worth, most of those "Romney supporters" would probably still vote for King Barry even if Mittens is the nominee


Posted by: kbdabear at December 01, 2010 12:32 PM (vdfwz)

296 And another thing, motherfucker, you "could like Clinton?"


Yeah, that's some Christine O' True Conservative grade stupidity. Unless, you mean you could objectively appreciate why some would find Clinton likable. Blowjobs and Big Macs are endearing in a personal ad way, perhaps.


Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 12:32 PM (mHQ7T)

297 Nobody has to lock step behind anybody. Just kindly quit bleating (D) talking points. They're:

A) stupid

B) wrong

C) unhelpful

D) all of the above

Well, since I don't read TPM, Politico, HuffPo, or Kos, where am I getting these talking points?

Wrap your mind around the possibility that the criticisms of Palin coming from the Right can be valid and are independent of the MSM and the Left.

Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 12:32 PM (IDL9N)

298 I do not see the great benefit of replacing one regime of sneering
dismissiveness based on happenstance of birth with an opposite regime of
sneering dismissiveness based on happenstance of birth.

Oh, yeah, Ace. Another four years of Obama would be indistinguishable from a Palin presidency. No doubt about it.

Posted by: trentk269 at December 01, 2010 12:32 PM (jYeT0)

299 Tarp, Tarp, Tarp.

Posted by: Pelvis at December 01, 2010 12:33 PM (LlaBi)

300 Palin needs to learn to "pick her battles" so to speak. I think alot of the attacks on her deserved a response, but others.. she should have just let it go. The remark by Babs Bush? Let it go. Willow's use of the word "faggot".. let it go. She doesn't need to address EVERY SINGLE thing said about her or her family. I am a huge Palin fan, but I agree with ace, it's getting a bit tiresome.

Posted by: jewells45 at December 01, 2010 12:33 PM (l/N7H)

301 "Let's win on ideas, not snarky back and forth garbage."
Yeah but let'stry toremember that if ourideas that we "win" with are just rehashed slightly watered down left leaning ideas then WE DIDN'T WIN. We got PLAYED. We got shucked, jived, ground, mixed, kneaded, baked, iced, sold, and dunked in fucking coffee at breaktime.
Also, just who the fuck do you think your are kidding with this 'fair play right here and now'horse shit under a banner about hoisiting roger and slitting throats witha scary eqok picture labeled by threatening sexual jargon?You aren't on the high road. You don't even know where the high road is and neither does your Garmin or your smart phone apps.
Most "criticisms" of Palin so far have been some combination of venality, dismissiveness, knee jerk anger, strained misconstructions of her statements, wild stretching disguised as code-breaking(Sullivan, McCain), or other lame cactegories of worthless shit wrapped up in a very thin wash of serious policy oriented criticism that just about everyone sees well through before the criticism itself is has even been finished.
It HAS been elitist and for the most part it HAS been stupid as hell and has made the would be 'serious objective yet regretfully iconoclastic critic' look likesomenervouslyhysterical wack-tard trying real hard to fit in with other hysterical wacktards who they just got a mildstink-eye from at the buffet table.
Maybe the calls for serious criticism of Sarah Palin haveseemed so shrill because of the laughably dishonest tone with which they have generally been uttered after the usual round of "already heard em all" gratuitous potshots and the sneers and winks. One seems to kind of kill the fuck out of the other.
If you want to criiticze her in a serious objective way on the grounds of her supposed professed policy and principlesand what she stands for then go right ahead but spare me the whole 'Palin supporters are alwaysflinging dookie and never listening to the dulcet, well aged enlightened wisdom of their glistening elf-haloed betters' crap. Just get to the 'your policy vs. her policy' differences and tell me what you think it all means.
Puh-lease.

Posted by: cackfinger at December 01, 2010 12:33 PM (Elbt6)

302 Here's another take on this--maybe after suffering through some of the nastiest, most personal attacks ever visited upon a modern candidate and her family ... and maybe after facing financial ruin due to frivolous lawsuits ... maybe ...

just maybe ...

Sarah Palin decided that no one ever again gets away with a personal cheap shot against her or family without getting a dose of their own medicine right back.

And that includes bitchy, comments from former First Ladies.

And maybe ...

just maybe ...

This is good for our country.

Maybe it's good for the Joe the Plumbers of the world. Maybe it's good for all of us for the establishment to finally get the message that they can't smear their opponents with impunity.

I don't think Sarah Palin can win the presidency. I won't be supporting her in the primary.

But the more I think about it, I can't see how she can be blamed for responding to all these nasty personal attacks by fighting fire with fire.

She didn't make the rules. They did. What the hell is she supposed to do, just take it?


Posted by: Warden at December 01, 2010 12:34 PM (C98vQ)

303 Ace, while you are covering cat fights, Palin is talking taxes. Too much policy for u, or not enough?

Hey, these are just standard conservative talking points, you know! Unfortunately, we don't have enough manly (except a few like Palin, Christie, Jindal) to take these "talking points" to the left!

Posted by: LAI at December 01, 2010 12:34 PM (R4ub4)

304 I'm a Romney supporter and I talk to a bunch of them online. That PPP poll is good for one thing, to show exactly who the Libs are most scared of for 2012. I'm sure you can find a nutjob Romney supporter or two, but the vast majority are not going to vote for Obama if we lose in the primaries. Never heard anyone say they would.
I'd even have to vote for that worm Huckabee, it pains me to say.

Posted by: Lincolntf at December 01, 2010 12:34 PM (Z6Mgb)

305 264

Hot Air has a post about the PPP poll showing that Romney supporters
would vote for Obama over Palin if she becomes the Rep nominee.


then fuck the lot of them. in the squeakhole, sideways, with a stale huckabee.


Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at December 01, 2010 12:22 PM

--

Actually, that's not what the polling numbers showed.

The conclusion that Romney supporters would vote for Obama was made up out of thin air. Read the thread.

Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 12:34 PM (IDL9N)

306 Sorry for all the silly typos. Fat fingers and caffeeine are no substitute for proof reading.

Posted by: cackfinger at December 01, 2010 12:35 PM (Elbt6)

307 Even cleaning people are worthy of respect.

Posted by: hillary clinton at December 01, 2010 12:35 PM (S5YRY)

308 Another chapter in the PDS saga:

"Passenger defaces Sarah Palin books at airport bookstore"

LINK

Posted by: mrp at December 01, 2010 12:36 PM (HjPtV)

309 But the reason why their team wins is because of IMAGE. They are the "cool kids", the urban trendy hipsters, while we are the old boring fuddyduds. So we have to hit back on the image front. We should be the team of the common man, fighting against the entrenched elitist snobs who deign to rule over us. So as much as I think Palin is unelectable in a general election, I'd still take her over a real blue-blood snob like Romney.What you said. We're rapidly becoming a more visual, more image oriented society. And yes, I will never hold my nose and vote again. I've been a good slave to the cause and voted repeatedly for men who made my skin crawl. I will never do it again.

Posted by: EZB at December 01, 2010 12:36 PM (Ty06w)

310 Palin needs to find a way to humorously dismiss her critics. In as short a fashion as possible. And when possible do it a substantiative point behind it. (Call me. I'm available.)Posted by: naturalfake at December 01, 2010 12:29 PM (+kzvp)
Here you go.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at December 01, 2010 12:37 PM (IoUF1)

311 And Chris Christie shrugged off the flack from the teachers union wishing that he would die? No. he turned it around and used it in two ways; he gained attention calling out the duisgusting behavior AND made the claim that he was interested in improving the state and that the union was simply fighting anyone who dared oppose them.

Personal AND policy.

He and his campaign did the same thing when the 'fat' slurs came out.

He also called out a reporter for using charged words in a question. How is that staying strictly on policy?

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 01, 2010 12:37 PM (R2fpr)

312 I'm conflicted on this one.

On the one hand, I think Meghan McCain is an idiot, but on the other hand I'd really like to have sex with her.

Similarly, I can't honestly say that Sarah Palin's very smart either, but then again I'd really like to have sex with her, too.

Posted by: Thinking things over at December 01, 2010 12:37 PM (8/DeP)

313 Palin needs to find a way to humorously dismiss her critics. In as short
a fashion as possible. And when possible do it a substantive point
behind it.

She needs professionals advising her. As formidable as her own political gifts are, Matthew Scully is no longer writing her speeches, for example. Agreed.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 12:37 PM (mHQ7T)

314


This thread has about 90% too few comments about Beefy McCheese Mac's © funbags.

Fix this situation now, morons.


Posted by: s'moron at December 01, 2010 12:39 PM (UaxA0)

315 "I couldn't put it down." TvG

Posted by: shivas Irons at December 01, 2010 12:39 PM (qu2SW)

316 He and his campaign did the same thing when the 'fat' slurs came out.

In fact, Christie's going on Don Imus and admitting, "Hey, I'm a big guy," endeared him to voters and possibly decided the election for him. It showed he can stand up to bullying and laugh at himself. In the end, people vote for human beings and character.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 12:39 PM (mHQ7T)

317 @294

Again, I think you're talking about electability (what the voters might care about). I'm talking about effectiveness governing as POTUS.

We aren't even in the primaries yet. I think we should be looking for people who will make a great conservative president. I think Palin is a great conservative (although a little too populist for my taste), but I don't think she would be an effective president.

Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 12:40 PM (IDL9N)

318 "Wrap your mind around the possibility that the criticisms of Palin coming from the Right can be valid and are independent of the MSM and the Left."
'Can be valid and independent of the MSM and Left' and yet there is a startling amount of congurity to be explained away for most of them...

Posted by: cackfinger at December 01, 2010 12:41 PM (Elbt6)

319 Lincoln's wife was crazy.

Posted by: Barbara Bush at December 01, 2010 12:30 PM (H+LJc)
True dat: Mary was barking, as the English say. Bat-shit crazy. Tom Hanks is the eventual result of mating with deranged females. Although he is tall............

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at December 01, 2010 12:41 PM (UqKQV)

320


On the one hand, I think Meghan McCain is an idiot, but on the other hand I'd really like to have sex with her.Similarly, I can't honestly say that Sarah Palin's very smart either, but then again I'd really like to have sex with her, too.

That's the kind of initiative I like to see. Why not take both, the dumb blonde princess and the scorching MILF?


Posted by: s'moron at December 01, 2010 12:41 PM (UaxA0)

321 But the more I think about it, I can't see how she can be blamed for responding to all these nasty personal attacks by fighting fire with fire.She didn't make the rules. They did. What the hell is she supposed to do, just take it? Rape victims were often asked 'why didn' you just lay back and enjoy it?' (Because rape hurts?)
Conservatives keep telling their candidates to take the high road which is pretty much saying lie downand smile while being sodomized. The issue is, NO one respects the victim and everyone fears/respects the attacker. So that high road really leaves you all alone in the midde of nowhere.
Again, when it comes to political fighting, conservatives are wimps.

Posted by: EZB at December 01, 2010 12:41 PM (Ty06w)

322 Posted by: Y-not


No fair expecting people to actually read the link.
Far easier to enjoy their two minutes of "class warfare, Republican style" if they just post first, read never.

Posted by: Lincolntf at December 01, 2010 12:42 PM (Z6Mgb)

323 Similarly, I can't honestly say that Sarah Palin's very smart either
Sure, it should be easy to nominate some "smart" conservative to beat her. She has talked/written plenty about policies. Show her how to take the fight to Obama and the left. It is not very smart to do otherwise!

Posted by: LAI at December 01, 2010 12:42 PM (R4ub4)

324 On the one hand, I think Meghan McCain is an idiot, but on the other hand I'd really like to have sex with her.

Here's some flour, you know the rest of the drill

Posted by: kbdabear at December 01, 2010 12:43 PM (vdfwz)

325 You'll listen to Meghan McCain, but not me?!

Posted by: donkey hotay at December 01, 2010 12:45 PM (BP6Z1)

326

Tarp, Tarp, Tarp.


Unfortunately, TARP is being repaid fairly well, now looking to be a cost of "only" $24 billion. Not nothing, but hardly the $700 billion either (only $400 Bil or so of which was paid out)


Posted by: s'moron at December 01, 2010 12:45 PM (UaxA0)

327 Sorry Ace, but you were mad at Bush for NOT responding to personal attacks, and mad at Sarah for responding. This doesn't make a lot of sense.


Posted by: Oldcat at December 01, 2010 12:46 PM (z1N6a)

328 "I'm really not digging what I find to be a crudely reductivist,
single-dimensional model of politics that many have seized on (Palin
most prominently), that politics currently consists of almost nothing at
all but "elitists" vs. the common."

I'm not digging what I find to be Ace's crudely reductivist,
single-dimensional model of Palin's politics: that it currently consists of almost nothing at
all but "elitists" vs. the common. I would love to see discussion of her stands and actions on various issues in comparison with other prominent Republicans, but some people don't want to discuss her anymore, even though she's been the most substantive Republican politician on the national scene for many months.

What other leading Republican has Barbara Bush ever made such a snide remark about? I believe it's a short list. Palin seems to be on everybody's short list of snark victims.

Posted by: Ken at December 01, 2010 12:46 PM (3ar4L)

329 Not impressed with Bush's lineage.

Hey, he's my cousin. My grandmother traces her lineage back to the House of Hanover (I really need to bother my dad for the details). That and $5.01 gets me a value meal at Arbys; her father was an Ohio dirt farmer and she had to go to work as a domestic in some rich guy's house to pay for 2-year teaching college. Any "privilege" I have that I'm supposed to feel guilty about (like having married parents who read books to me when I was a child) comes from her and my grandfather, and my other grandparents, working their asses off in obscurity to get my parents an education.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, other than "privilege theory" disgusts me.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 01, 2010 12:47 PM (4ucxv)

330 @313 I'm conflicted on this one.

On the one hand, I think Meghan McCain is an idiot, but on the other hand I'd really like to have sex with her.

Posted by: Thinking things over at December 01, 2010 12:37 PM (8/DeP)

Yeesh,

Just dig up the corpse of Divine. They look about the same and the corpse is smarter.

Posted by: naturalfake at December 01, 2010 12:47 PM (+kzvp)

331 This thread has about 90% too few comments about Beefy McCheese Mac's © funbags.

Fix this situation now, morons.




Posted by: s'moron at December 01, 2010 12:39 PM (UaxA0)
--Nothing fun about those funbags.It's like the difference between drinking from a water fountain, and drinking straight from a firehose.

Posted by: logprof at December 01, 2010 12:48 PM (BP6Z1)

332 'Can be valid and independent of the MSM and Left' and yet there is a startling amount of congurity to be explained away for most of them...
I mean mix these criticisms all up in a hat and draw them out randomly most of these left-originated and independent validright originatedcriticims are awfully hard to tell apart.
Most criticisms I've seen arent' policy oriented at all but shots at her seriousness, populism, supposed lack ofgravitas, status as an office quitter, a target who can;t get anything done,or herinherent polarizing effect. A few have even been the old sassertians that he's stupid/ a lightweight/a christian fundamentalist who will make bizarre theocratic encroachments on the lives of everyone else, a simplictic black and white speaker, a dishonest person fooling the dumwads in the lower reaches of the right... etc.
It's mostly junk.

Posted by: cackfinger at December 01, 2010 12:48 PM (Elbt6)

333 She isn't Reagan.
Posted by: SGT Ted at December 01, 2010 11:57 AM (arV2e)
Ronald Reagan? More like Ronald RAMNESTY lolz amirite?

Posted by: True Conservative Hero at December 01, 2010 12:48 PM (DsHk0)

334 This thread has about 90% too few comments about Beefy McCheese Mac's © funbags.

I've seen better.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 01, 2010 12:48 PM (4ucxv)

335


pics or GTFO donkey

(actually, on second thought, I don't think I want to see erg's pics)

Posted by: s'moron at December 01, 2010 12:48 PM (UaxA0)

336 Hilarious.

Posted by: Darcy at December 01, 2010 12:49 PM (+Z6FM)

337 Didn't make it through all the comments because I can only say, that I greatly admire the way the entire Palin family has weathered the incessant attacks. I, having been there myself, would give them a wide berth on how they decide and how theyneed to respond. They have certainly never responded in kind. And I don't know anyone I have any respect for who never punches back.

Posted by: BA at December 01, 2010 12:49 PM (GkYyh)

338

If Palin runs...she will debate, put out position papers, etc....just like she did for her other campaigns. Adding to the many, many, positions she has taken for the last two years in her writings.

Why all the pretense that she and only she must speak as if she is NOW a candidate??

And why all this faux "disappointment" that she responds to the establishment and elites?

THEY started the fire.

THEY are teaming up and demanding that she "stay in her state". Why tell a good conservative and Republican that they dare not even run??

THEY are telling/joining the MSM, the Democrats; "how dare she run for President of the United State", "how dare she even think that she is capable to do this job".

THEY are telling an American who is thinking of running in the Republican primary, that they are not good enough, nor educated enough.

And it is THEY (the smart set) who got the US in this mess in the first place.

So ACE....no more lectures on shutting-up...it is way too late for that....as a matter of fact, we have waited way too long to begin speaking up and protesting the DC elites, the MSM and RINOS that ruled our lives for 40 years running.




Posted by: pam at December 01, 2010 12:50 PM (uDwml)

339
Note the distinction here: Your family -- that is, people not you -- worked hard and had success. They were successful, whereas you are merely rich.

Heh. But if she had been born poor, she'd have done alright. Might have had to go to a land grant public university, but her boobage guarantees success. Could have paid for college by being a part-time stripper or hooker pr0n-star high-class escort.

our leaders need to start educating this country about the shortcomings
of the Obama administration and why smaller government is a
fundamentally more effective way of governing

Hey, Meggie Mac, maybe you should pull your dad aside and remind him of the above. You might intuitively understand this had you needed to work part-time to pay your way thru school.

Meggie Mac: pinup girl for the Cocktail Party wing of the GOP, the most aristocratic lot this side of Beacon Hill.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at December 01, 2010 12:50 PM (1hM1d)

340 pics or GTFO donkey

(actually, on second thought, I don't think I want to see erg's pics)



Posted by: s'moron at December 01, 2010 12:48 PM (UaxA0)
--Actually donkeyhotay was/is palin steele

Posted by: logprof at December 01, 2010 12:50 PM (BP6Z1)

341 Which is the point. By constantly claiming that all (and I do mean all) criticism of her is essentially illegitimate as it is born of nothing but "elitist" disdain for the common man (or woman)...


Um, it is.

For fuck's sake, the people telling us she's unqualified GUSHED over Obama. Because he's one of Them, and she's Not.

And, Ace -- get over yourself. You'll never be welcomed into their circle, no matter how much tongue you apply to their anuses.

Posted by: Zombie Taft at December 01, 2010 12:51 PM (IuKAf)

342 We aren't even in the primaries yet. I think we should be looking for people who will make a great conservative president. I think Palin is a great conservative (although a little too populist for my taste), but I don't think she would be an effective president. I'll admit I'm educated white trailer trash, so Palin is normal to me, not populist. She speaks to me, not at me. I don't instantly dislike or distrust her like Hukcabee or Romney. The problem is, there isn't anyone who meets all the criteria, from being 'electable' to showing ability to govern to who is actually willing to runthat isn't the second coming of Cottage Cheese or Jeffery Dahmer.Honestly, I don't want to break my 36 years of always voting, but as of this year, I will. I'm tired of being fucked without a kiss goodnight--- So I want to do my damndest to get folks in place that I'm happy to vote for.

Posted by: EZB at December 01, 2010 12:51 PM (Ty06w)

343 The 'socio-economic class' aspect of Palin-hating is............fascinating. No other word for it.

Palin is an extraordinary woman from the lower regions of the middle class who worked her way up from mom to mayor to gov, etc. It is amazing, and compelling.

However ( favorite academic word ), Palin is NOT of the gentry and therefore threatening. I love the way that the very sight or thought of her drives Leftoids crazy, but she needs a lotta work.


Posted by: SantaRosaStan at December 01, 2010 12:51 PM (UqKQV)

344
But you're quite right that she needs to either rebut on policy, like her note today about tax cuts, or just let it go.

Because she never makes any comments about policy.

Which is to say, you never read anything she says about policy. Because you decided she never talks about policy. So it doesn't exist, because you can't be wrong.

Posted by: Zombie Taft at December 01, 2010 12:52 PM (IuKAf)

345 We all know the repubelicans are gonna pony up romney and that he will lose badly.

Which is a good thing. Nothing is going to get fixed until things get a lot worse. Too many people can still retreat into their fat, dumb, happy lifestyles...

Posted by: Uncle Jed at December 01, 2010 12:52 PM (k4x4B)

346

What's wrong with a firehose?

You still get wet.

Now, she might have gotten larger than I saw her last several months or more ago, and she was right at the break-even point for increasing the good parts with any more weight, so if she's added girth since then, it won't be in teh right spots.

Still, a well-rounded woman, suitably youthful and still retaining a womanly waist is a nice thing to see.

A beetle grub in a dress I can pass on. Where is Beefy McCheese Mac © now?



Posted by: s'moron at December 01, 2010 12:53 PM (UaxA0)

347 281 In other words, she's a nice person but doesn't want to see her run for President. How is that a personal attack?No, the old bitch said she once sat by Palin and observed she is "beautiful." That means she had no interest in speaking to her and implies she is an idiot trading on her good looks. Then she said she hopes Palin "stays in Alaska." That implies she is not qualified to run for POTUS, another personal attack. That was some incredibly weak defense for weasel wording.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 12:28 PM (mHQ7T)
Okay, I just gotta ask here...are you fucking serious? Takes some amazing mental gymnastics to turn "beautiful" into a viscious personal attack. Exact;y the shit people are getting tired of.

Posted by: Paul at December 01, 2010 12:53 PM (DsHk0)

348 I cite as exhibit A: Boner & Cantor's performance yesterday.

Posted by: Uncle Jed at December 01, 2010 12:53 PM (k4x4B)

349 Wake me when she shows us her t!t$ again.

Posted by: MM at December 01, 2010 12:54 PM (ROz/H)

350 323
Posted by: Y-not


No fair expecting people to actually read the link.
Far easier to enjoy their two minutes of "class warfare, Republican style" if they just post first, read never.


Posted by: Lincolntf at December 01, 2010 12:42 PM (Z6Mgb)

give me a good reason to read hotair. so far I've never heard one.

Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at December 01, 2010 12:55 PM (eCAn3)

351
So ACE....no more lectures on shutting-up...it is way too late
for that....as a matter of fact, we have waited way too long to begin
speaking up and protesting the DC elites, the MSM and RINOS that ruled
our lives for 40 years running.

But, you see, Ace longs to be in Their Circle. He wants to be One of Them. He cannot imagine not wanting to be Accepted.

So he spits on the rest of us and tells us it's for our own good. Because he thinks that's how you get in Their good graces.

Posted by: Zombie Taft at December 01, 2010 12:55 PM (IuKAf)

352 I'll admit I'm educated white trailer trash, so Palin is normal to me, not populist.

It's not her background that makes her seem populist to me. I find her personal life story very compelling and impressive. She has lived the American Dream. I'm all for that.

But during some of the financial crisis stuff, she made some statements that I found drifted away from blaming the crappy policies Frank and his co-conspirators thrust down the financial industry's throat and instead seemed to be echoing the personal demonization of the people in the the financial services industry. It bothered me.

And, no, no one in my family - immediate or extended - nor none of my friends are bankers, AIG execs, etc.

Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 12:56 PM (IDL9N)

353 Which is to say, you never read anything she says about policy. Because you decided she never talks about policy. So it doesn't exist, because you can't be wrong.
Caribou hide their heads behind treesbecause ifthey can't see you--you can't see them. Same mindset.

Posted by: EZB at December 01, 2010 12:56 PM (Ty06w)

354 oh, and also, blow me.

Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at December 01, 2010 12:56 PM (eCAn3)

355
give me a good reason to read hotair. so far I've never heard one.

Sometimes someone shoves something down "Allahpundit"s throat?

Posted by: Zombie Taft at December 01, 2010 12:57 PM (IuKAf)

356 For fuck's sake, the people telling us she's unqualified GUSHED over Obama.
Posted by: Zombie Taft at December 01, 2010 12:51 PM (IuKAf)
See, now this is just provabley false. It's akin to saying the sky is green. Why do you people just make shit up like this? I KNOW that you know this isn't true, and that ace or AP never GUSHED over Obama. What purpose are you trying to serve?

Posted by: Paul at December 01, 2010 12:57 PM (DsHk0)

357 However ( favorite academic word ), Palin is NOT of the gentry and therefore threatening.

Her socio-economic rise would have been OK if she had done it with the "help" of ruling elites and/or changed her views to match theirs once she made it. Most of the Black Congressional Caucus didn't have rich Ivy League parents, either.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 01, 2010 12:58 PM (4ucxv)

358 Palin is an extraordinary woman from the lower regions of the middle class

C'mon. Her dad was a teacher. How lower middle class is that? That's middle class.

Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 12:58 PM (IDL9N)

359 But during some of the financial crisis stuff, she made some
statements that I found drifted away from blaming the crappy policies
Frank and his co-conspirators thrust down the financial industry's
throat and instead seemed to be echoing the personal demonization of the
people in the the financial services industry. It bothered me.

You were bothered that she didn't demonize the group you most wanted to see demonized, but instead demonized the people literally sleeping with that group?


Posted by: Zombie Taft at December 01, 2010 12:58 PM (IuKAf)

360 Takes some amazing mental gymnastics to turn "beautiful" into a vicious personal attack.

Yeah, a little less class from Babs would have found her complimenting Palin's ass on the Newsweek cover lifted from Runner's Weekly.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 12:59 PM (mHQ7T)

361 The point that is being missed is that the liberal elite always appeal to their own authority as elites -- which position is based on theirown childishand groundless rejection of the authorityof the WWII generation.
At least the previous elitesappeal to authority was grounded in human experience. Our new elites authority is grounded in an infinite number of lies and rationalizations: it is no authority at all

Posted by: Call me Lennie at December 01, 2010 12:59 PM (GOsSG)

362
See, now this is just provabley false. It's akin to
saying the sky is green. Why do you people just make shit up like this? I
KNOW that you know this isn't true, and that ace or AP never GUSHED over Obama. What purpose are you trying to serve?I'm telling the truth.Ace and AP are just echoing the David "Creased Trousers" Brooks line on Palin. They have nothing original nor insightful to add to the subject.
They're too busy trying to kiss ass to realize they're just playing #3 in a human centipede.

Posted by: Zombie Taft at December 01, 2010 01:01 PM (IuKAf)

363 But during some of the financial crisis stuff, she made some statements that I found drifted away from blaming the crappy policies Frank and his co-conspirators thrust down the financial industry's throat and instead seemed to be echoing the personal demonization of the people in the the financial services industry. It bothered me. Okey Dokey--- I remember that and I remember my response being quiet the opposite, but to each their own.

Posted by: EZB at December 01, 2010 01:01 PM (Ty06w)

364 Did she respond in kind when she was burned in effigy?
Did she respond in kind when people advocated kidnapping and raping her?
Did she respond in kind when the church they attended was firebombed?

Did any of this happen to any Democrat candidate?

And also please notice that people here are buying into the " I don't think that she's very smart' meme. Based upon what? In comparison to whom?

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 01, 2010 01:03 PM (R2fpr)

365 Yes Oldcat, historically Republicans/Conservative officeholders do not fight back because they simply reflect the base that put them there.

And the base...(as you see here)..is uncomfortable with this, it is not in our DNA to be activists or to gain attention from verbal combat. We LIKE our pols passive, and kissing MSM/DNC arse. It is much more comfortable that way.

If not, we have only misery and pain with the MSM wrath that befalls us with an "outspoken" candidate.

So when said candidate is "damaged" by the MSM and Hollywood we throw them away for a shiny new one. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Sort of like battered woman syndrome. The urge to return to "being good" for the MSM/DNC is so great
that we gladly throw Conservative candidates under the bus.

Because the RINOs are much more paliteble to the press, the DNC, the moderates.

As long as the RINOs continue to be critize Conservatives, all remains calm in the world.

Posted by: pam at December 01, 2010 01:03 PM (uDwml)

366 You were bothered that she didn't demonize the group you most wanted to
see demonized, but instead demonized the people literally sleeping with
that group?

I didn't ask for her to demonize the Democrats. I expected her to focus the attention on the elected officials who created the environment that led to the mess, particularly given that they were from the opposition party, rather than being hung up on how much money some guy in Connecticut or NYC makes. Aren't you all asking for us to focus on the Democrats? We're not even running for anything or governing a state, but we are expected to only focus criticism on Democrats, the media, or people labeled RINOs. But Palin, Governor of a state, directs attention to private citizens instead of the crooks in Congress and that's ok.

Anyway, I think she is a great conservative, but a bit of a populist. I think the latter tendency runs counter to true conservatism when it manifests itself as class-warfare. I don't think Palin is guilty of going that far, but she skirts around the edges of it.

Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 01:04 PM (IDL9N)

367 Our new elites authority is grounded in an infinite number of lies and rationalizations: it is no authority at all

Yeah.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 01, 2010 01:04 PM (4ucxv)

368 See,I like Sarah Palin, but I agree that I don't want her as President, or even a presidential candidate. This kind of one-upmanship and "I know you are but what am I?" behavior is unbecoming of a President, which is one ofthe critics' biggest knocks against Obama and his infamously thin skin. In a candidate it's more allowable, but even then it has to be tempered with policy discussion so that the electorate understands that you're serious.
But I like how Sarah Palin doesn't just sit back and let the leftists swipe at her. She swipes back. Wasn't this one of the biggest complaints a lot of us had in themiddle years of the W presidency? The liberals and the media (I know, the same thing) would talk all kinds of smack about him and his administration, and there'd be crickets in the Oval Office. Again, a President shouldn't strike back like a tempermental toddler, but nor should he (or she) simply sit back and let the opposition's poisoned arrows fall like rain.
Like it or not, a lot of average people view Palin as an Everyman (or should I say Everywoman), but an Everyman with a voice loud enough to be heard. The old media and the old Washington are used to all but their most laudatory words disappearing into a vacuum, never to be resurrected. Palin turns that on its head and holds up the mirror to them. "You're not used to this kind of treatment, huh? You're used to being fawned over, right? Well not anymore. Taste your own medicine." She brings the embarrassment, and she brings it hard, and the Average Jane on the street -- whose congressman only ever acknowledges their existence via a form letter asking for campaign contributions -- CHEERS. "At last, someone who's NOT a "blue blood political elite" is saying what I've been saying for years!"
That's why I want Sarah Palin to stay where and what she is: a political firebrand. Do the lecture circuit; gin up support for conservative candidates; keep the GOP establishment on their toes; and above all, keep holding up that mirror. I think she can do acres more good as a private citizen with political clout than a career politician with no room to flex her muscles and let loose the dogs of scorn (sic).

Posted by: MWR at December 01, 2010 01:04 PM (4df7R)

369 I'm all for American blue-bloodery - I think if Grandpa built his banking biz he has a right to do to make his heirs prosper, safe, advantaged - even defined as "have stuff handed to them."

Scions can stay old money through prudence or become useless wastrels or protected ninnies, but Grandpa built it, he gets to pass it to his heirs for good or ill. In Meghan's case, the ninny prospers and I guess that's alright as long as nobody grants her any special ninny license to shape my destiny.

I'm also weary of the "ruling class" crap and the blue-blood crack, while quite true, was a sour note and better left to others to perceive as obvious without help from SP.

Posted by: SarahW at December 01, 2010 01:05 PM (Z4T49)

370 You know that Ace guy, all he ever posts is jokes about ball dipping or hobo necrophilia or wanting to ewok face hump Marc Rubio. Why doens't he raise the discourse some. He never talks about policy...

Posted by: Darksbane at December 01, 2010 01:07 PM (pv8vN)

371 Sort of like battered woman syndrome. The urge to return to "being good" for the MSM/DNC is so great that we gladly throw Conservative candidates under the bus.

Meanwhile, what sort of punishment will Rangel actually face for the 11 ethics charges they slapped on him?

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 01:07 PM (mHQ7T)

372 Irony abounds! Blue stocking. Meghan McCainmistook "blue blood" for "blue stocking". The smugly ignorant un-educated bimbo bashed Palin for the wrong thing. Blue stocking: an offensive term for a woman who has intellectual, scholarly, or literary interests. At leastMeghan can't be mistaken herself for a blue stocking, although Sarah could be if she were frumpy. Will Meghan Meghanandanna say, "Nevermind" ?

Posted by: starboardhelm at December 01, 2010 01:07 PM (ctMcG)

373 And also please notice that people here are buying into the " I don't
think that she's very smart' meme. Based upon what? In comparison to
whom?

She went to state schools that don't have BCS teams?

Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 01, 2010 01:08 PM (4ucxv)

374 I agree
This Palin chick should just lay back
and be a nice girl and enjoy the vile, baseless, incessent insults,
lies and smears by the left/media/establishment hive and not fight it.
It'll go easier for her the long run.
She should just get up , straighten her dress and not worry her pretty little head .
She
asked for it by acting and dressing so provocatively and uppity and
deserves to be mothballed in perpetuity as the 'female Dan Quayle '
for having the temerity fight back against the wonks and weasels .
That'll show her.
(I wonder if this will get lost in the countless AOS ass-kissing comments?)



Posted by: LeBron Steinman at December 01, 2010 11:48 AM (7FG+k)
Well said. If a man was fighting back against the smears and lies.. he would be a hero. (Chris Christie comes to mind... even though he is for 90% a conservative hates.)
A woman does it.. ...

She does write policy stuff all the time on Facebook. NOBODY covers it. Wonder why? The media prefers the little woman to be labeled an idiot.Amazing ACE wont even read it.. guess the media is doing a good job when a conservative wont even read what she writes.

Posted by: Timbo at December 01, 2010 01:08 PM (ph9vn)

375 #352

I know, I see his tweets...along with Andy Levy..other "rightwing" bloggers, and MSM reporters.

Hard to tell them apart sometimes.

Posted by: pam at December 01, 2010 01:09 PM (uDwml)

376 But, you see, Ace longs to be in Their Circle. He wants to be One of Them. He cannot imagine not wanting to be Accepted.So he spits on the rest of us and tells us it's for our own good. Because he thinks that's how you get in Their good graces.

Posted by: Zombie Taft
Agreed.

Anyone who has ever used the word "Pecker Snot" in print will never.. Never be a part of the GOP inner circle.

Never.

It may be a carrot dangled in front of their noses but never granted.


Posted by: Dave C at December 01, 2010 01:09 PM (vjkov)

377 McCain is always going to have an immense bug up her ass about Palin. After all, the low point of her life was finding out her parents didn't trust her to know about the selection of Palin for the VP slot before the official announcement. So, on top of McCain being an utter ninny, I'm not inclined to trust her objectivity on the subject of Sarah Palin.

Posted by: epobirs at December 01, 2010 01:09 PM (cSH12)

378 And also please notice that people here are buying into the " I don't think that she's very smart' meme. Based upon what? In comparison to whom?
You just mentioned the tip of the iceberg! Name one other candidate who has had people brag on HuffPO about trying to hit their baby with rocks at a book signings. Or long gang rape scenarios written out on DU. Or had their daughter named the most despicable person in the world? I have never in my life seen things said about any politician that I've have about her-- just for existing.The fact that Palin is still smiling and hasn't gone on a machine gun rampage says that she has more internal strength than 99% of the pencil dicks being offered as candidates.

Posted by: EZB at December 01, 2010 01:10 PM (Ty06w)

379 But praising her because she -- or someone who
advises her -- cites Sowell? I can do that. You can do that. Charles
Johnson can do that. I'm not impressed.I would still prefer to
see action, not talk. You don't hire someone who quotes Sandy Koufax to
pitch in the World Series unless you've seen them on the mound first.Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 01, 2010 11:55 AM (Ulu3i)
I've got news for you: supply-side economics wasn't Reagan's idea, it was Art Laffer's (and he undoubtedly drew on Friedman's ideas, and Friedman on the ides of previous economists). Paul Ryan's Roadmap isn't exclusively his either, it's an amalgamation of ideas put forth by think-tanks that he (or most likely his staffers) fine-tuned and ran the numbers through the CBO. Fred Thompson's economic platform last time around looked awfully similar to Ryan's Roadmap.
I don't see why it's a problem that Palin cites and gives credit to Tom Sowell, Luigi Zingales, Art Laffer, and the rest of the economists she reads and consults with for the policies she supports.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at December 01, 2010 01:10 PM (IoUF1)

380 That's why I want Sarah Palin to stay where and what she is: a political firebrand.

Dynamite is nothing until you light the fuse. We're at war with the left, and Palin is one of the toughest weapons we have in our arsenal. Buying into the traditional memes about her dilutes her potency. If she wants to run, let her run. It's a free country.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 01:10 PM (mHQ7T)

381 I'm really tired of it myself, and am especially tired of Sarah Palin's use of it to explain practically everything, and explain away every knock on her.

That is, every knock on her is dismissed as "elitist" impulse,
which frankly fails to address the real reasons often offered for
doubting her capacity to serve as president. Which is the point. By
constantly claiming that all (and I do mean all) criticism of her
is essentially illegitimate as it is born of nothing but "elitist"
disdain for the common man (or woman), she never actually has to rebut
such criticisms.

I'm really not digging what I find to be a crudely reductivist,
single-dimensional model of politics that many have seized on (Palin
most prominently), that politics currently consists of almost nothing at
all but "elitists" vs. the common.

What about ideas? Why is every dispute being turned into a personal one, a dispute in which the power of ideas matter far less than the personal credentials of the person offering the idea? Yes How dare Palin launch this attack on Mrs. Bush unprovoked for no purpose.

Barbara Bush who said she thinks "Sarah Palin should stay in Alaska."

Hmm, "stay in Alaska you snowbilly" is both not elitist, and also is not a single-dimension model of politics? It's a well thought out rational process by which you go away because we do not approve of you... or something?

Sorry, Palin's call on this one seems entirely accurate. If it isn't "elitism" that prompted the "stay in Alaska".. then what was it?

Posted by: gekkobear at December 01, 2010 01:11 PM (X0NX1)

382 In Meghan's case, the ninny prospers and I guess that's alright as long
as nobody grants her any special ninny license to shape my destiny.

Well, that's the problem here. If she was just a self-absorbed slut who tweeted solely about fashion/pop culture like other rich ninnies with successful forbears, that would be OK. But she's pushing policies and people that are going to lead to more control over our lives, and make it harder for our kids to achieve what her ancestors did.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 01, 2010 01:12 PM (4ucxv)

383 So if Palin started ebay or ran HP shed be suitable?

Posted by: blaster at December 01, 2010 01:12 PM (1xOjE)

384 Because the RINOs are much more paliteble to the press, the DNC, the moderates. As long as the RINOs continue to be critize Conservatives, all remains calm in the world.You get the candidate you deserve....Which is why we got McCain.

Posted by: EZB at December 01, 2010 01:13 PM (Ty06w)

385 It is my understanding that Ace lives in New York. I cannot help but think that his surroundings and contacts heavily influence his perspective regarding Palin. Since most people in New York have accepted the media and elitist's pronouncements regarding her, it subconsciously and consciously influences everyone elses (in the vicinity) opinions.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 01, 2010 01:13 PM (/G5LI)

386
In Meghan's case, the ninny prospers and I guess that's alright as long
as nobody grants her any special ninny license to shape my destiny.


And yet, that is exactly the license that Meggie Mac aspires. Haven't you figured it out? you're too stupid to live without the government!


Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at December 01, 2010 01:14 PM (1hM1d)

387
The fact that Palin is still smiling and
hasn't gone on a machine gun rampage says that she has more internal
strength than 99% of the pencil dicks being offered as candidates.

Posted by: EZB at December 01, 2010 01:10 PM (Ty06w)

Exactly.. show me ONE republican MAN who could put up with that.Just one... show me ONE.

Posted by: Timbo at December 01, 2010 01:16 PM (ph9vn)

388 In this country anyone who meets the criteria set forth in the Constitution can run for President.

I say, go forth Sarah and conquer. The world is yours if you choose. But it is YOUR choice.

I have had enough of the elites telling me who I should nominate, vote for and support. Fuck them all.

Posted by: mpfs at December 01, 2010 01:16 PM (iYbLN)

389 As a strong Palin supporter I think these are all good points about Sarah. Regarding the comment about why we Palinistas don't often debate about Sarah's policies, in general, we don't have to. If you go down the list of conservative issues Sarah gets a checkmark on every single one of them. She has no RINO one-offs like RomneyCare, anti-Iraq war, pro-abort, pro-bailout, pro-amnesty, anti-gun, etc. So, among true conservatives, there's essentially nothing to debate about her policy platform.

Should she be snarky and personal if she has presidential ambitions? Probably not, although I'm glad someone has the balls to put Obama and the Bushes in their place. But looking at the flipside of the critique, are you more concerned about your preferred candidate acting presidential or going in with the right policy ideas about everything?

Posted by: Crusty at December 01, 2010 01:20 PM (GvSpB)

390 They punch down. She punches up. She wins.



...and for those with no clue whatsoever, Sarah not only likes to win, she likes to fight. A lot.

Posted by: SurferDoc at December 01, 2010 01:20 PM (o3bYL)

391 I don't know if ace is influenced by his locale or what but he keeps taking the other side at face value and then following that with a facepalm.

Posted by: blaster at December 01, 2010 01:22 PM (1xOjE)

392 Exactly.. show me ONE republican MAN who could put up with that.
Just one... show me ONE.
They'd withdraw from the raceand say nothing about the vile bordering oninsaneattacks on their wives/children. However,it'd leak that the Mrs. Thune-Romney-Pawlenty-Jindal-Huckabee-Whomever told him that if he didn't withdraw, he have body parts removed in his sleep with a rusty spoon.
This is the elephant in the room that all ignore and that makes all the difference.

Posted by: EZB at December 01, 2010 01:23 PM (Ty06w)

393 Bless you Ace. You expressed howa lot of other conservatives and I feelwhen it comes to Sarah Palin. Everything about her IS PERSONAL. It's just an endless series of "I'm rubber, your glue" playground style back and forth. The public at large has had over two years now to development a pretty concrete impression of her, and the verdict is in......the majority of people in this country do not look at her favorably. Does anyone think that is going to change in the next two years? It seems that if she ever intended to reinvent herself as a serious policy wonk she would have kept her job as Gov. of AK and spent her spare time boning up on domestic and foreign affairs. Instead she left as Gov. midway through her term, went on a book tour, became a Fox News pundit, made audience appearances on dancing with the stars, and stars inher ownreality show....and oh yeah, she takes time to answer each and every slight and insult hurled against her.

Back to work I must go, but trust me, I'm only getting started. People who want to nominate this lady simply because they feel her honor has been besmirched have got to be completely out of their senses.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at December 01, 2010 01:24 PM (b68Df)

394 Ace, bugger off with your closing statement. Who cares if you support Palin? You think she's losing sleep over your endorsement? She's written and done endless policy stuff and they still say she's stupid. Why don't you start reading what Palin has written before you make such a lame closing comment? All you're doing is maintaining the Liberal and blue blood meme against Palin. As for Meghan, fer cryin' out loud, girl, shut up! We already know you're as dumb as a box of rocks. Stop rubbing our faces in your idiocy.

Posted by: apodoca at December 01, 2010 01:24 PM (JCHdz)

395 Sorry, Palin's call on this one seems entirely
accurate. If it isn't "elitism" that prompted the "stay in Alaska"..
then what was it?


Posted by: gekkobear at December 01, 2010 01:11 PM (X0NX1)

Dont forget it was shit like this that Hilliary famously said "I didnt stay home and bake cookies".... remember that? Millions and millions of women supported Clinton after that. Millions of women HAVE to work. No CEO of an oil company, Yale graduate, blue blood husband supporting the wifey in pearls.

Posted by: Timbo at December 01, 2010 01:24 PM (ph9vn)

396 She is also a smart enough woman to smile, look pretty, and look them right in the eye while she is thinking, "I will beat your ass and you won't see it coming."

Posted by: SurferDoc at December 01, 2010 01:25 PM (o3bYL)

397 C'mon. Her dad was a teacher. How lower middle class is that? That's middle class.

Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 12:58 PM (IDL9N)
C';mon. "Lower regions" of the middle class is middle class. I was adopting a suitable elitist viewpoint, in the spirit of bi-partisan Togetherness, and Looking Down.
Stop being a Harpie. Maybe take a breath and explain what it is that I said which you find worthy of Scorn.

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at December 01, 2010 01:26 PM (UqKQV)

398 Sarah not only likes to win, she likes to fight. A lot.
Posted by: SurferDoc at December 01, 2010 01:20 PM (o3bYL)
This is the best thing about her. The general unwillingness of Republican candidates to actually FIGHT the f*cking enemy is a source of frustration and anger for me year after year. I hate their weakness - their chinless, limp-dicked persona of passivity. That's a big part of why those who vote for them are simply voting "not-democrat." The Reps are all to often nothing more thanthe lesser evil - especially the worthless RINOs. We've not had a realfighter in the ring since Reagan.
We need candidates who not only have the right ideas, but also a Patton-like love of smashing the foe.

Posted by: Reactionary at December 01, 2010 01:26 PM (xUM1Q)

399 To all the Palin wafflers and whiners out there in cyberland ask yourself one question.

Who would you rather have going toe to toe with Vladimir Putin?

A man/child who would want to solve problems by shooting hoops with him
OR
a strong woman who can stand toe to toe with him while fishing, shooting weapons, or hunting?


Who do think Putin would respect? The guy with great hair or the woman who could kick his ass?

Posted by: mpfs at December 01, 2010 01:26 PM (iYbLN)

400 "I am focused on whether or not she's got the chops to be an effective POTUS, not just a right-thinking POTUS. In my opinion, she doesn't. And all of the potential candidates out there who left public life and are just talking heads are in the same boat. The longer they are out of public life, the less interested I am in their experience. And, let's face it, some of them have much more experience than Palin, whom I prefer on philosophical grounds. It sickens me to think that Huckabee has a better chance to be the nominee than Palin when, had Palin stayed in office or chosen some other public role (meaning CEO of company, non-profit, or in governance) she would blow him out of the water in the 2012 primaries.
Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 12:23 PM (IDL9N)"
This is just not very compelling.
As if two more years fighting frivolous lawsuits in a remote state would have somehow made her the political heavyweight that is Mittens/Huck/Newt. Yep two more years as AK's guv would have given her "chops". Please.
We have career politicians who have run this fucking country in the ground and are determined to start digging. I know these guys have these magic "chops" to which you refer.
You don't want to repeat the mistake of electing someone without whatever this intangible level of experienceyou're focused like a laser on(see Obama), so you'd rather see other people who have the street cred of socialist lite, or have a history of running their home state into the ground? Seriously, your argument sounds good upon first hearing. Put in a realistic context, not so much.
Honestly, I'm in the camp that thinks she's damaged goods form the media's bullshit coverage and that's why she should stay out of it. But all this crap about not having "chops" or enough "experience" (when you prefer her philosophy???), or not having positions on policy (when she obviously does)?
Weaksauce.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 01, 2010 01:27 PM (fLHQe)

401 Each and every insult? I don't think she's ever writtent about Andrew Sullivan. She knows which ones matter. Barbara Bush holds some sway. She wasn't c,alling her a blueblood to besmirch her personally as just about everyone thinks she's a nice lady. She was pointing out the very Tea Party point that there are are those who think they should pick and choose and those who don't agree

Scozzafav anyone?

Posted by: blaster at December 01, 2010 01:28 PM (1xOjE)

402 ...and for those with no clue whatsoever, Sarah not only likes to win, she likes to fight. A lot.Look at the leaders of the rest of the world who see Obama as weak, girly, effeminate etc. These are all men with macho images (Sardosky with his mistresses, Putin killing bears, the Saudis falconing etc) We're the prisses in this game of men and more men.
Imagine them face to face with Romney-- then Huckabee--- then Palin.

Posted by: EZB at December 01, 2010 01:28 PM (Ty06w)

403 Can I complain about her crappy grammer? The plural of "Bush" is "Bushes." As in... "The Bushes are a bunch of Yankee blue bloods."

The singular possessive form of "Bush" is "Bush's." As in... "Mrs. Bush's pearls are lovely."

Seriously, Ms Columia Grad, that's third grade English, right there.

Posted by: Ella at December 01, 2010 01:28 PM (DmnMk)

404 "But if I, personally, am ever going to be able to support Palin, I need her to stop this, and start addressing policy questions in policy terms -- not personal terms -- and put away her go-to "I Win" cards of "elitist" and the like."
It's past time to talk about whom you don't like and why.
It's high time you start pimping him whom you do like and defending his sorry ass(yeah, I'm anticipating the sort a putz would go for).
You don't get to control who runs, black-balling the 'unelectable', grow a pair.

Posted by: gary gulrud at December 01, 2010 01:28 PM (/g2vP)

405 Meghan reminds me of that Peter Sellers line, "Don't you DARE call me that again until I've looked it up!"

Posted by: Crusty at December 01, 2010 01:29 PM (GvSpB)

406 Ace is influenced by his background. Converts from progressivism don't always shed the old habits quickly; some of the old ways tend to show, much later on.

This isn't a knock. I was once in that camp too, though my return to sanity is further back; I still feel the impulses, even fifteen years on. You do have to fight it. It's a damned insidious thing, and half the time you never even realize it until you step back and look at it.

So while I do correct and chastise from time to time, I do understand how he gets there...

Posted by: XM-28/29 'Davy Crockett' at December 01, 2010 01:32 PM (GBXon)

407 Blasted, radioactive sock...

Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© at December 01, 2010 01:33 PM (GBXon)

408 Her socio-economic rise would have been OK if she
had done it with the "help" of ruling elites and/or changed her views to
match theirs once she made it. Most of the Black Congressional Caucus
didn't have rich Ivy League parents, either.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 01, 2010 12:58 PM (4ucxv)
True. Much of this Fuss is about class: Her accent; her kid's names; her state college degree after several transfers, etcThe gentry learns how to talk; they're good at using their voices and they pay very close attention to how other people use words and tone and phrasing.It's how they recognize each other, instead of twin bite marks or evidence of alien probes.....She's not one of Them and won't kowtow to Them--and for that They will never forgive her, and never let go of their hate.

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at December 01, 2010 01:33 PM (UqKQV)

409 Because part of the reason we hate her critics is that they choose the low road? Let's win on ideas, not snarky back and forth garbage.

Posted by: robviously at December 01, 2010 11:29 AM

In 2008 the Presidency was given to the guy who was "cooler". Most people don't follow politics closely and it is actually more important to win on the personal stuff then the political points in the area of elections.

So, yeah, I'd love to live in a world where the public is actually swayed by detailed, accurate discussions. But we don't live in that world.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 01, 2010 11:35 AM

Yep. Let's recall that too many people formed their opinion of Sarah Palin in 2008 not from her RNC speech nor her campaign speeches, but from Tina Fey mocking her on SNL.

I was talking with a former friend of mine about a month before the 2008 election and she asked me my opinion of Sarah Palin. I told her how I was impressed with her background and went on to detail her political history, accomplishments and her fight against corruption in Alaska at every level. I spent about 5 minutes talking about her. She responded in a silly, mocking tone with "and she can see Russia from her house!"

She went on to tell me how she was so impressed with Obama and she was wearing an Obama pin on her purse and was proud to put an Obama sign in her parents yard, etc. I then went on to ask her how in the world she could support such a radical leftist for the Presidency given his background and went on to detail all I knew about him, from Ayers to Raila Odinga to the Born Alive Infacts Act to "voting 'present'" to Rev Wright. She responded with "uh, where do you get your information?" When I told her that I do my research online, reading blogs, etc, she responded with "oh, okay, good, just wanted to make sure you don't get your info from Fox News". Yet, she was a big fan of Olbermann and Maddow.

We then got into a debate over why she didn't like Republicans, because they didn't provide funding for her line of work (she was a social worker working with foster parents). I asked her if she was referring to the S-CHIP program, which was in the news at the time and she said she didn't want to go into it at the moment. Well, I researched S-CHIP and the Wisconsin S-CHIP program (State in which she worked). I wrote two long e-mails detailing my research about the program, giving examples of corruption and inefficiency and why the Democrats' proposals for reform were ridiculous and the GOP's ideas were better. She responded with... nothing. Never answered any of my policy arguments. Which told me she didn't really care about them.

And this is the case for too many Americans these days. They could care less about policies, they form their opinions based on SNL, Comedy Central and the lies and smears spewed by the MF-ing media.

By the way, as I understand it, the general consensus of Ace and the rest of the blog authors here is that 'policy positions' do not win elections, selling a brand wins elections. Wasn't that the mantra by Ace and others during the 2010 elections? That we shouldn't focus so much on specific policies, but general talking points? But now Ace is saying that Sarah Palin should not be selling a brand, but focusing more on policy positions (which she actually does in her Facebook posts and her discussions on FNC)?

I really don't know why Sarah Palin is being held to this ridiculous, impossible standard. If she doesn't take on the smears and criticisms, she's allowing the Left to define her and that's not good. If she does take on the smears and criticisms, she's not being Presidential and that's bad. When she takes on Obamacare and talks about "death panels", she is criticized for not having used the right words.

She just can't win, no matter what she does. And that's fine, but it would be nice if her critics would stop with the "she needs to do this instead of this, etc" stuff and just come out and say you don't like her and there's nothing she can do to change that opinion.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 01, 2010 01:35 PM (NITzp)

410 give me a good reason to read hotair. so far I've never heard one.Sometimes someone shoves something down "Allahpundit"s throat?

Posted by: Zombie Taft at December 01, 2010 12:57 PM (IuKAf)
Yes, and while Allah is blowing moderates, Capt Ed is giving hand jobs to every hack and blowhard ( pun intended ) he can scrounge up. Plus, the comments are.......scintillating !!!!!!!!1111111111111111

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at December 01, 2010 01:37 PM (UqKQV)

411 "Imagine them face to face with Romney-- then Huckabee--- then Palin."
I may not get the drift but I think Palin has Huckabee by the short hairs. With Massachusetts Health Care ridin' shotgun Mittens is a scalp looking for a belt.

Posted by: gary gulrud at December 01, 2010 01:39 PM (/g2vP)

412 BTW, Sarah's Dad might tell you that if you really want Sarah to put everything she has into doing something, you might try telling her she can't do it.

Posted by: SurferDoc at December 01, 2010 01:44 PM (o3bYL)

413 Oh please, she took a political risk in AK....either quitter or CONSTANT HEADLINES ABOUT CORRUPTION, INDICTMENTS, ETHICAL VIOLATIONS (all dismissed btw).

Hussein goons followed her home. Reportedly got Levi a Hollywood agent (Rahm's bro helped), Dem lawyers to harass her with false ethics charges, and even a lawyer for Levi's drug trafficing mom.

If the "haters" didn't have the resignation, they would be whining about her being damaged from corruption "scandals".

Strange that she was the most popular Gov in the country when chosen by McCain...glowing writeups in the MSM, many interviews on energy with Charlie Rose, high-fives on oil company negotiations, working with "the other side" on legislation, signing many conservative bills too.

Strange that no oil co, Dem, State, media was running away with their hair on fire shouting...."she is too stupid to deal with!"

Why do you think McCain picked her? Even after his staff vetted her in AK. The editorial pages were crowing at the time about her being the first Gov to meet with them without her lawyers and aides.

So why suddenly AFTER 08 is she a dumb hic who cannot function?

Why suddenly after the MSM/DNC/Hollywood war room do a number on her (with no Republican "man" helping, for FEAR of getting burned as usual), is she not qualified or capable?

We get the candidates we deserve when let SNL choose them.


Posted by: pam at December 01, 2010 01:47 PM (uDwml)

414
Megan McCain, I think, shows the same problem that I've seen in many intellectuals: she uses her own mind as the measure of the world. If she knows something, then it must be common knowledge. If she doesn't know something, then that something is obscure/stupid/wrong.

Of course, we all do that to a greater or lesser extent; but most of us realize that we don't know everything, and it's worth looking something up before pontificating on it: a quality of mind usually called "humility", and it's a quality that McCain and other like her (in particular, The One) conspicuously lack.

Posted by: Brown Line at December 01, 2010 01:47 PM (VrNoa)

415 Dear Meghan:

Google the etymology of "blue blood." It comes from the unfortunate practice of inbreeding among European royals, resulting in offspring with thin white skin, hemophilia, and congenital mental problems.

Own it, honey.

Posted by: iowahawk at December 01, 2010 01:47 PM (veL4N)

416 Okay, Ace. Why don't you write a book review of Palin's latest opus? I've not read either of her books, but it appears that they include plenty of policy positions. Pick a couple and have at it. There's more to the lady than the latest episode of Sarah Palin's Alaska, or the latest slam in Politico or the Atlantic.

Her Facebook post du jour supports renewal of the Bush '43 tax cuts. And she quotes Thomas Sowell. Man, that's real personal stuff, there.

Oh, and ... Death Panels

Posted by: mrp at December 01, 2010 11:39 AM

I get the feeling that this is the core problem with people like Ace and others regarding Sarah Palin: they don't actually follow Sarah Palin, they follow others who follow Sarah Palin, and then come to a conclusion about her based on the summation of others. This is like coming to a conclusion about a movie by reading a review instead of watching the movie yourself.

Ace -- and other bloggers as well -- do this a lot with Rush Limbaugh as well. Instead of actually listening to his show on a daily basis, they form their opinion of him based on someone's article about his show or listening to a short clip of a segment of his show.

I think Ace's decision to not write about Sarah Palin based on "it gets too emotional" is a copout. Ace could easily write on a weekly basis about Palin regarding her Facebook posts on policy, her appearances on FNC where she discusses policy or by reading her books and writing a review of her policy positions she articulates in there. But he chooses not to do so. He instead only writes about her when there are these 'emotional' topics regarding her. I think Ace would garner a lot more respect from Palin's supporters if he would simply not write about Palin regarding the emotional issues and focus on writing about her only regarding her policy positions. Why he chooses to do the reverse, I don't know.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 01, 2010 01:47 PM (NITzp)

417 Oooh zing Iowahawk!!!!

Posted by: mpfs, Go forth and conquer Sarah at December 01, 2010 01:47 PM (iYbLN)

418 As if two more years fighting frivolous lawsuits in a remote state would
have somehow made her the political heavyweight that is
Mittens/Huck/Newt. Yep two more years as AK's guv would have given her
"chops". Please.

I didn't say she had to stick it out as governor of Alaska.

What I said was that she left her job prematurely (I didn't characterize it as the wrong thing to do, incidentally) and that the path she has chosen for herself - pundit and media personality - does not enhance her ability to be an effective POTUS. I think she needs more experience, for the reasons I've outlined in earlier comments upthread. For her to be a top tier prospect in my book, she needs to be running something in which she is accountable to a large, diverse group of people.

I also specifically point to the other former politicians turned
pundits, including the three you name, as being in the same boat as
Palin.

It seems that the Palin thing has become so volatile that people are not actually reading the diverse points of view conservatives have about her, or they are discounting them as liberal talking points or violations of Reagan's Rule. It's a shame.

Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 01:47 PM (IDL9N)

419 My one irritation with Meggie Mac's swipe at Palin (and I do not profess to be a Palin fanboi) is this: Meggie....if you really do not like Ms. Palin, or more importantly, her prominenance in Republican politics, you know who you blame, right.....you call him Daddy.
You see, Meggie, if your Daddy had any amount of balls, he would have done what he wanted to do and named Joe Liebermann as his VP candidate. Instead, he listened to Mark McKinnon and Nicole Wallace (2 people who by the way, now frequently critize Ms. Palin) and selected Sarah Palin as his VP choice. Thus, your Daddy thrusted Ms. Palin on the stage. And once put there, she was supposed to do what.....STFU and fetch you another donut from the back of the campaign bus?
If your Daddy had not named Sarah Palin as VP, odds are she would have probably just been re-elected for a second term as Alaska governor and would be considered a dark horse candidate for 2012. Instead, she is one of the front runners because of your Dad.
So, Meggie, until you want to blame Daddy, do everyone a favor and STFU.
On second thought, don't even wait for Daddy, just STFU.

Posted by: Mallamutt at December 01, 2010 01:49 PM (OWjjx)

420 "Wanting a president who has a record of accomplishment -- don't start on the half-term as Alaska governor, please -- is something only "dinosaurs" should care about?

The cries of the fanboiz for an inexperienced, unqualified candidate who stirred supporters with hormones and not accomplishments are what got us Osama Obama, you know.
Posted by: MrScribbler© at December 01, 2010 11:44 AM (Ulu3i)"

From that American Spectator article linked above:

"This mother of five with a successful marriage, the woman who, without benefit of a famous name or marriage, has been elected successively to positions as city council member, mayor, president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors, served as the appointed (by the then-governor) chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission before being elected governor herself -- this before becoming only the second woman to be tapped for a major party vice-presidential nomination, a successful author and bona fide TV star like Reagan -- this is the woman who is now presented by everybody from GOP Establishment types to liberal enemies as just a vacant Barbie"

Maybe I'm simple, but that seems like a list of accomplishments to me.

Posted by: tsj017 at December 01, 2010 01:53 PM (4YUWF)

421 I liked the last bit about Sarah responding to a lot of the cheap shots. I'd like to see less of it, but I do admit to getting a chuckle out of her style. Which definitely is not presidential, which was another good point.
I don't see Sarah as a presidential candidate. I sure hope she's not it. But the reasoning for that has nothing to do with any lack of respect for this absolutely amazing, strong, extremely bright (yeah, she is) woman. The reasoning is complicated and I don't even know if I can articulate it, but I'm so grateful for the force that she is. So grateful.

Posted by: Darcy at December 01, 2010 01:53 PM (+Z6FM)

422 It's a shame.

Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 01:47 PM (IDL9N)
It's a shame you never actually make a coherent point

Posted by: Joltin' Joe Biden at December 01, 2010 01:54 PM (UqKQV)

423 give me a good reason to read hotair. so far I've never heard one.

Sometimes someone shoves something down "Allahpundit"s throat?



Posted by: Zombie Taft at December 01, 2010 12:57 PM (IuKAf)


hmmmmm, nope still not even close to a good enough reason. Allahpussy can fuck himself.

Posted by: Unclefacts, Confuse A Cat, Ltd. at December 01, 2010 01:57 PM (eCAn3)

424 Yes, Palin is too fucking stupid and inexperienced to craft genius ideas like TARP, Fannie Mae Bailouts, Stimulus I-II-III, Smart Diplomacy, Reset buttons, and Cash for Clunkers.

Posted by: iowahawk at December 01, 2010 02:00 PM (veL4N)

425 Well, I researched S-CHIP and the Wisconsin S-CHIP program (State in
which she worked). I wrote two long e-mails detailing my research about
the program, giving examples of corruption and inefficiency and why the
Democrats' proposals for reform were ridiculous and the GOP's ideas
were better. She responded with... nothing. Never answered any of my
policy arguments. Which told me she didn't really care about them.

The reality is that voters find arguments about policy exhausting. People who work in government side with Democrats, because Republicans will try to cut funding for social services. All that rugged individualism is too cruel when there are people born into psychotically dysfunctional families where children are lucky to survive, let alone enter adulthood prepared to compete with others who have far less baggage. Sometimes you don't have church, family and friends. Government should be a resource available to the needy. But need should not excuse corruption, incompetence and outright theft, which is what the Obama administration brings us. This is preferable to nothing, though, when you're talking to progressives. GWB tried compassionate conservatism, and it got him nowhere. Really, we have to rely on the pendulum, unless the electorate evolves.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 02:01 PM (mHQ7T)

426 It's a fair criticism of Palin... but I don't really think putting on thicker glasses and just really starting to talk about boring policy wins the White House anymore. Outside of complete political junkies, it's just not what people want. And reacting against the elites on a gut level is at least something back int he right direction.

I mean, come on, if knowing all the ends and outs about how to reduce the budget worked, people would be demanding Paul Ryan for President. And they hella aren't.

Posted by: Will at December 01, 2010 11:40 AM

Yep, we have to remember how the Democrats and Obama won. They railed against 'the rich', 'evil corporations', 'big oil', 'special interests', etc. Did they talk about policy and how things actually worked? Hell no. They used emotional talking points, class warfare, etc.

Recall when Obama was asked about lowering the capital gains tax rate. He was explicitly told that lowering it brings in more revenue and would help lower the deficit. He responded by saying he didn't care about that, he cared about 'fairness'.

Recall Obama's bumbling and stumbling about something to do with healthcare and a boy using a breathalyzer. Or his claim that doctors were amputating legs, etc.

Or just recall whenever people talk about Social Security. The GOP talks policy and how SS needs reform, while the Democrats reply with "Republicans want to take money away from the elderly!"

Or how about the debate over S-CHIP. The GOP talked policy, while the Democrats trot out some poor, poor family which would be worse off if the Republicans get their way.

This is how the Democrats win EVERY issue: on emotional bullshit.

The GOP have the facts on their side, have the policies on their side, have history on their side. Yet, all that gets trumped by the Democrats and MF-ing media trotting out their emotional bullshit, mud-slinging, smears, hate and vitriol.

The GOP is not losing, because of a lack of focus on policy. The GOP is losing, because the electorate cares more about emotional bullshit than they do about policy.

That's why Obama won, despite having a background proving he is an America-hating, Marxist radical.

Hell, just look at the debates. Do they ask about policy? No, they ask about stupid bullshit and just touch on policy.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 01, 2010 02:04 PM (NITzp)

427 I've always been a staunch Palindefender, and I'dvote for an inanimate object over Obama, so if Palin's the nominee, she'smy nominee.
I appreciate the fighting fire with fire ethic she's got. I get it. I'm a conservative in avoting district that went 86% for Obama. I'm a conservative in a fairly liberal profession. At some point, I decided, I'm surrounded by people who hate me, so why don't I speak up anyway? They'll continue hating me, but at leastI'll have made myself heard. So I understandthe perspective and I think a certain amount ofvitriol that the establishment lacks is necessary.
That being said,conservativesdon't have the requisite "herd immunity" toget away with this on the regular. And the catch-22comes about oweing to the fact thatwe don'thaveit because when someone like Palincomes along,conservativeseat their own (I'm looking at you Ace), play circular firing squad in front of the MSM,or retreat into safe harbors like talk radio to defend ourselves.The early defense of Palinnever took place with sufficient consistency and force, so, for better or worse,Palin's become an isolated animal who'sperceived as lashing out with hackneyed phrases and folksy repetition. This is all chicken/egg stuffat this point.The brand's beenirreparably damaged in the eyes of the wider public.
As one of my friends said, the job of conservtives is to make other conservatives feel comfortable enough to speak out and be conservative. It seems like Palin has taken this on as her primarymission, butwhetherone person canmaintain that as a long-term position in the face of so much effrontery remains to be seen.She's a strong person, but I don't want to see her "lose it".

Posted by: La Mauvaise New Yorkaise at December 01, 2010 02:04 PM (8uZ8A)

428 2008: Goddam that George W. Bush, he never fights back!

2010: Goddam that Sarah Palin, she always fights back!

Posted by: thirteen28 at December 01, 2010 02:04 PM (s8N54)

429 Iowahawk # 416
See comment #271

Posted by: senor correspondent at December 01, 2010 02:06 PM (PbwkF)

430 Sometimes you don't have church, family and friends. Government should be a resource available to the needy. But need should not excuse corruption, incompetence and outright theft, which is what the Obama administration brings us.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 02:01 PM

What I tried to explain to her was the reason that enough money was not getting to the proper families was because of corruption and inefficiency (ie there were plenty of families that were not qualified to receive the money, but were getting it anyway which was taking it away from qualified families and the part about defining "child" as 'up to the age of 26'). That was not going to be fixed by... throwing more money at the program. That is the Democrats' solution to everything. The GOP solution is to look at the policy, show how the program may be good, but there is too much corruption and inefficiency and if we just get that fixed, the money will get distributed to the right people and there is no reason to give the program MORE money which will just mean MORE money to fall into an already corrupt and inefficient system.

Gotta fix the corruption and inefficiency before finding out if more money is needed.

But, like you say, people -- specifically progressives -- don't want to hear all that. Yet they turn around and whine about the deficit, which is mostly caused by the corruption and inefficiency in their programs, but they refuse to fix it. It's absolutely assinine.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 01, 2010 02:11 PM (NITzp)

431
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.


During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about

this office? Enchanted you the most from serving in this office?

Humbled you the most? And troubled you the most?

Posted by: Cockgobbling Buttkiss Reporting For the NYT at December 01, 2010 02:11 PM (mHQ7T)

432 I know Palin didn't start this. But if I, personally, am ever going to be able to support Palin, I need her to stop this, and start addressing policy questions in policy terms -- not personal terms -- and put away her go-to "I Win" cards of "elitist" and the like.
Ace, I agee with you more often than I disagree with you. But, if I am advising Palin, this is not the advice I would give her.
That "do not respond, rise above it advice" has been tried before.....go ask Mike Dukakis how it worked. If someone hits you, the rule in modern politics is real simple: you have to hit back. You may not like it, I may not like it, everyone may not like it, but it is what it is. So yea, as long as idiots like Meggie Mac and Joe Scarborough are gonna hit you - you have to hit them back. And hit them back hard.

Posted by: Mallamutt at December 01, 2010 02:14 PM (OWjjx)

433 But, like you say, people -- specifically
progressives -- don't want to hear all that. Yet they turn around and
whine about the deficit, which is mostly caused by the corruption and
inefficiency in their programs, but they refuse to fix it. It's
absolutely assinine.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 01, 2010 02:11 PM (NITzp)
These are the same progressives who celebrate the Clinton surplus that Bush squandered on two wars. They are completely emotional. That's what the 60s culture wars brought us, youth culture and zippy slogans. It's another reason the left loathes Sarah Palin and her children. She destroys every argument for aborting your economically inconvenient, potential child. Without the sexual revolution and the civil rights marches, they'd have little moral high ground.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 02:18 PM (mHQ7T)

434 I understand completely why her detractors on the right do not want her run, or win. And of course it remains to be seen if she can hold up in a primary.

Because it will be exhausting defending her...it will be "hold your breath" time, every minute of every day.

She since she does not have a built in circle of fund raisers, PR firms, Hollywood/MSM, think tanks, aides and experts, etc.

She must do EVERYTHING on her own.

And that is unseemly.

Like her AK show, books, paid speeches, Fox pundit, tweets, and Facebook postings.

Unseemly. And self-promoting.

But how else to let the public know you and your family as human beings? How else to run against multi-millionaires? How else to get your policy positions, opinions, feelings, and your issues across to the public?

All Dems and Rinos get these things for free...from other people who promote them....they get OTHERS to attack their opponents.

SP hasn't that luxury, and maybe she never will.




Posted by: pam at December 01, 2010 02:19 PM (uDwml)

435 Most of the Black Congressional Caucus
didn't have rich Ivy League parents, either.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 01, 2010 12:58 PM (4ucxv)You'd be surprised. True of the Rangel generation but as someone whose parents didn't go to college, I think at least half have more privileged backgrounds than me and probably more than Sarah.I'm tempted to do some research on this. Should I take the time?
True. Much of this Fuss is about class: Her accent; her kid's names; her state college degree after several transfers, etcThe
gentry learns how to talk; they're good at using their voices and they
pay very close attention to how other people use words and tone and
phrasing.It's how they recognize each other, instead of twin bite marks or evidence of alien probes.....

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at December 01, 2010 01:33 PM (UqKQV)
Oh, God, this is so true. The pretensia is everywhere. It's what I called the "trappings" of intellect. Being a mathematician, I am not very impressed at all with what passes for intellectuals these days, let alone the Obama crowd.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 01, 2010 02:23 PM (T0NGe)

436 I don't want to hear policy wonk speeches from a President. They don't have to be experts in anything besides communication and high level management guided by a strong backbone and an adherence to conservative principles. That is enough to serve this country very well, much better than it is being served now.I heard an anecdote about Reagan via a friend who knew someone who served at the White House under his administration.
Basically, the story goes like this. There is an introductory meeting with key cabinet officials and presumably big-wigs from the Fed, andReagan walks in and says that he wants his administration to work on three things: reduce the size of the Federal government, end the cold war, and kill inflation. He then said it was up to them to figure out the details, and then walked out. While I heard this second hand, it certainly does ring true to Reagan's style of governing.If Palin were elected her job would be to appoint competent officials, clarify the principles and priorities to everyone, spend time understanding what they are doing so she can articulate and sell it to the American people, and be willing to fire anyone within a nanosecond if they deviate from said priorities and principles, or show themselves to be incompetent and don't show results quickly.She can communicate very well. I don't think she suffers fools. Her principles are intact and she is extremely tough. And there are lots of talented folks who can be delegated authority and live within the parameters set by the Commander in Chief. A few token firings of those who wander off the range would serve as a nice head adjustment for the entrenched bureaucrats.
As to the personal mud-slinging? You are in Washington D.C. Get a dog.

Posted by: fapo at December 01, 2010 02:23 PM (eOdp2)

437 My own view of Palin has evolved. I was very enthusiastic when McCain
chose her as his VP running mate (after initially being a Fred!
supporter). Her presence on the ticket motivated me to donate to
McCain. I backed her up against the attacks - external and internal -
throughout the campaign and a bit after. But I think (hope) we can do
better for a 2012 POTUS candidate. There's a lot about her I
like - and I admire her personal life story tremendously - but right now
I think of her as sort of the female Rush Limbaugh. She has the
ability to be very useful in advancing conservative messages, but she is
a pundit now, not in public service. And I agree with ace that
anything involving Palin turns into a personal thing, partly of her own
making.

/\ /\ /\ This is about where I'm at with Palin (Fredheadedness included). I like her a lot. And if it comes down to her and Obama in 2012, I will be there with bells on to vote for her over the chump. But she seems to have looked at the example from the W. admin (don't respond to personal criticism, EVER- which turned out to be a big mistake) and taken it to the opposite extreme.

Look, I get frustrated when people make idiotic statements about Palin, too. I have a close relative who's about two steps away from being a hobo- a situation of his own making, BTW- and has swallowed all the liberal talking points about everything because he believes his lack of worth, wealth, and everything else is someone else's fault. He hates Sarah Palin with the fire of a thousand suns. So much so that he's actually watching her TV show- I'm not even watching it because I can't stand "reality" tv- and the sole purpose of his watching is so that he can make fun of her and her family. He literally spent half of Thanksgiving Day following me around, regaling me with moment-by-moment recaps of the show and telling me how amazingly stupid, hillbilly, fake, etc, etc, etc. Palin and her family are. I wanted to punch him in the mouth.

So, yeah, I get that there are a lot of people who just personally hate her. But I really don't think she does herself any favors by having to respond to every little thing said about her. It only serves to take away any focus that might have been given to her (very excellent, BTW) policy statements and shine it exclusively on the tabloid-type stuff. It's not helpful at all. And it's gotten to where I don't even bother sharing policy statements she's made (like her statement on QE2) because it always ends up being turned into something about Palin's personal life instead of what she actually said. The argument that inevitably follows is just not worth it to me.

I'm holding out hope we'll get a Pence or Bolton candidacy so that we don't have to rehash all the old Palin stuff over and over again for the next two years (or 6+ if she ends up being president).

Posted by: Mandy P. at December 01, 2010 02:27 PM (MK6Kx)

438 " and one man who knows all the rules to Mexican. "

Whuh?
Are some words missing here or what?

Posted by: Stoop Davy Dave at December 01, 2010 02:28 PM (sYLLI)

439 Takes some amazing mental gymnastics to turn "beautiful" into a vicious personal attack.

Oh, bullshit.

It's called damning with faint praise.

If she had been asked about Mitt Romney and responded, "I think he has very nice hair and I hope he stays in Massachusetts," would you be slinging this bullshitty argument that she was being complimentary?

Jesus Christ. Talk about being willfully obtuse.

Posted by: Warden at December 01, 2010 02:30 PM (V6HDd)

440 If Palin were elected her job would be to appoint competent officials...

This is why her endorsements in the midterms bother me. There was no love lost between Miller and the Palins, but she knew about his baggage and his character, and she still had to use him to claim Murkowski's scalp. That was a bad move, as was her O'Donnell endorsement. I still don't know what she was trying to prove, but it backfired and demonstrated poor judgment.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 02:32 PM (mHQ7T)

441 404
Can I complain about her crappy grammer?

Not anymore, you can't.

Posted by: Warden at December 01, 2010 02:36 PM (V6HDd)

442 "Back to work I must go, but trust me, I'm only getting started. People who want to nominate this lady simply because they feel her honor has been besmirched have got to be completely out of their senses."
At primary time I'll only vote for someone right-of-center, a non-lawyer, executive, fiscally sound. Legislators are a complete non-starter.
I see a case for Jindahl despite short coat-tails, Barbour, Palin. Maybe Daniels will make strides to fix IN pensions and deny uttering VAT(and maybe get hair plugs).
At crunch time I might relax a smidge, then again they'll run Ron Paul's mummy.
You please the Reggies of this world and you can forget me.

Posted by: gary gulrud at December 01, 2010 02:38 PM (/g2vP)

443 I've noticed that Ace likes to walk chin first into a buzz saw about once every ten days. Seems to get his creative juices flowing, once he reassembles the pieces that is. Now looking forward to the good stuff.

Posted by: Bill Lumbergh at December 01, 2010 02:44 PM (K/USr)

444 Look at all the words, Daddy!

If not for conservatives wasting their breathe and bandwidth responding to this ignorant twit, no one would be paying much attention to Ms. McCain at all.

Posted by: Adjoran at December 01, 2010 02:46 PM (VfmLu)

445 394The
public at large has had over two years now to development a pretty
concrete impression of her, and the verdict is in......the majority of
people in this country do not look at her favorably.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at December 01, 2010 01:24 PM (b68Df)
That, unfortunately, is the truth. She can't win just by appealing to people who already like her.She's saturating the media with her brand, basically adopting the "celebrity strategy" that Obama used to win in 2008. I just don't think she can out-celebrity the celebrity president. I think we'd be better off running someone who is the complete opposite of Obama (not just politically) against him in 2012.

Posted by: robviously at December 01, 2010 02:47 PM (6rLSO)

446 I don't want to hear policy wonk speeches from a President....
....I heard an anecdote about Reagan via a friend who knew someone who served at the White House under his administration.
That's the thing. Reagan was giving policy speeches for about three decades before he was elected president. Most werewritten himself on a yellow legal pad.He almost never spoke about himself. You can find video of him debating Euro-college leftists via satellite (with RFK) or going toe-to-toe with Yale students.
I can't imagine Palin doing that.

Posted by: CJ at December 01, 2010 02:55 PM (9KqcB)

447
Mandy's sentiments align with mine. Like I've posted earlier I could use a boring president, we all could. That being said if Palin is nominated I'll be there for her and it won't be unenthusiastically.

President George W. Bush's biggest failings were:

1.) Deviating from conservative principles mainly fiscal conservatism
2.) Being too loyal to people who were incompetent or had their own agenda
3.) Unable to communicate
4.) Unwilling to get down in the mud and confront people who were undermining the country.

Based on what I see with Palin, she trumps Bush on all four points.

Posted by: fapo at December 01, 2010 02:56 PM (eOdp2)

448 I've noticed that Ace likes to walk chin first into a buzz saw about once every ten days.
I also think he really believes this about Palin. Don't forget that.

Posted by: CJ at December 01, 2010 02:57 PM (9KqcB)

449 This is why her endorsements in the midterms bother me. There was no
love lost between Miller and the Palins, but she knew about his baggage
and his character, and she still had to use him to claim Murkowski's
scalp. That was a bad move, as was her O'Donnell endorsement. I still
don't know what she was trying to prove, but it backfired and
demonstrated poor judgment.
How about her other endorsements? Renee Ellmers? Nikki Haley?

She endorsed about two dozen.. not just the two you mentioned.

And Miller's loss is somehow her fault?

Posted by: Dave C at December 01, 2010 03:00 PM (vjkov)

450 Hey Ace, can we start calling you Allah Frum??

Posted by: ChuckTX at December 01, 2010 03:03 PM (yFxqm)

451 How about her other endorsements? Renee Ellmers? Nikki Haley?

Miller and O'Donnell were guaranteed to garner national attention. One was a highly publicized feud between Palin and Murkowski on her home turf. The other was a special election to fill the Vice President's former seat.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 03:07 PM (mHQ7T)

452
I can't imagine Palin doing that.

Posted by: CJ at December 01, 2010 02:55 PM (9KqcB)
She's not Reagan, but she shares his optimism and political gifts. Reagan had a better sense of humor.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 03:10 PM (mHQ7T)

453 That was a lot of words for something so stupid. (what she said was also stupid)

Posted by: s☺mej☼e at December 01, 2010 03:11 PM (glsV4)

454 Palin is a woman who kills and skins moose. For fun.

Is it any wonder that our sissified cultural elite finds her horrifying?

She's a serious person. She shouldn't be underestimated.

Also, I absolutely refuse to accept that the media has made her unelectable. I refuse to give the likes of Tina Fey and Katie Couric veto power over our presidential candidates. We can't allow them to have that power . . . and they can have it only if we give it to them.

Posted by: tsj017 at December 01, 2010 03:13 PM (4YUWF)

455 It's always personal, it's never about ideas or policy, huh? Overgeneralize, much?

How about TODAY: http://tinyurl.com

Or, recall how she popularized the term 'Death Panels' which instantly changed a lot of the policy discussion surrounding Obamacare.

What I tire of, Ace, is the hyper-criticalism aimed at Sarah Palin...from our side. It's expected from the left, but really. In the words of the first Republican president: We can't spare this woman--she fights.

Posted by: BobInFL at December 01, 2010 03:14 PM (edlRB)

456 I don't comment here that often but I can't help noticing that Ace seems to have a real problem with political candidates (current or past) who happen to have a vajayjay. Ace is fine with squishy male candidates like Pawlenty and Jindal (he has wet dreams over Romney!) but those icky females, well, he can't really support them. In fact, he goes to great lengths to undermine them. Nikki Haley - there were 2 guys who claimed to have had affairs with her. No matter that they were both guys that NO female with any self-esteem would ever even touch with the proverbial ten-foot pole. I think I even read something Ace wrote that went along the line, "one rumor is bad enough, but two must be true".

Sharon Angle was too radical. And don't even get Ace started on COD. Ace had the nerve to actually write that COD was responsible for Buck and Rossi's losses in CO and WA respectively. Hey Ace, Rossi's loss couldn't possibly have something to do with the fact that he was a stale, dismal, twice-failed gubernatorial candidate who ran a crappy campaign now, could it? No, it was that witch COD.

And Palin? Palin - not enough policy. Seems Ace doesn't know about a little thing called Facebook. Either that or he won't can't read anything but the endless left-wing garbage written about Palin.

Yeah Ace, Palin fights back. Something no other Repub has ever seemed to do. Get used to it.

Ace, you really need to stop writing this garbage that starts out with the pretense of defending/supporting female candidates but winds up bashing/trashing them. It's really getting tiresome.

Posted by: NunyaBizness at December 01, 2010 03:16 PM (CTz8q)

457 Most of Palin's critics ARE elitists though. Most of their attacks are personal in nature meant to diminish her stature or intelligence. To elevate oneself above another person is elitism, instead of treating an individually as equals simply with a difference of opinion

Posted by: oic at December 01, 2010 03:19 PM (VnEwA)

458 -ly

Posted by: oic at December 01, 2010 03:20 PM (VnEwA)

459 That was a bad move, as was her O'Donnell endorsement. I still don't know what she was trying to prove, but it backfired and demonstrated poor judgment.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane
Yeah. We could have had 15 Republicans voting for new taxes and increased food costs today.

If she was interested in merely ingratiating herself to the party and positioning herself, Palin would have gone with Castle. her decision reflects either a scattershot decision making process or one that seeks to move the party instead of merely moving herself. The majority of her picks won. Obama can't claim that.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 01, 2010 03:25 PM (R2fpr)

460 @ NunyaBizness

Ace's ideal candidate is Mike Pence. I've never gotten too much love for TPaw, Romney or Jindal from him. But I think he would prefer any of those three to Palin. He stuck up for O'Donnell admirably.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 03:25 PM (mHQ7T)

461 her decision reflects either a scattershot decision making process or
one that seeks to move the party instead of merely moving herself.

You're talking about the same principled conservative O'Donnell who sued the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and came out in support of Hillary for POTUS recently (after incorrectly identifying her as a Senator she would work with?)

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 03:28 PM (mHQ7T)

462 @423
Thanks for making my point for me.

Posted by: Y-not at December 01, 2010 03:29 PM (IDL9N)

463 I could care less what Meghan McCain has to say, but I thought the use of the term blue bloods was just good old fashioned class warfare. In truth Barbara Bush is 85 years old and it would not hurt Sarah Palin to just let this go by. What is next? Power to the people? Rise up against your capitalist overlords?

Sarah Palin needs to get a thicker skin. I know that the media has been rough on her and has been just plain silly when it comes to her family, but she really does not need to respond to every slight, real and imagined. Politics calls for a tougher hide than that. Especially if she actually intends to run for President.

Posted by: Terrye at December 01, 2010 03:35 PM (j8jdm)

464 A percentage ofSarah Palin's fans have gone over-the-edge. They're starting to remind me of Ron Paul devotees in their endless, shriekingdedication to their candidate.

Posted by: Lurk Ness Monster at December 01, 2010 03:37 PM (munpK)

465 In truth Barbara Bush is 85 years old and it would not hurt Sarah Palin to just let this go by.

It was a former President and First Lady in a Larry King interview!

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 03:40 PM (mHQ7T)

466 I think we'll just have to change it from GOP to GP - The Grenade Party.

Hell, by 2012 the MFM won't even have to smear our candidates anymore, we'll do it for them.

Fuck everybody, seriously. I mean, why not, y'all are screwing each other over 24/7 anyway, why shouldn't I get in on the action?

Posted by: Merovign, Strong on His Mountain at December 01, 2010 03:44 PM (bxiXv)

467 She's not Reagan, but she shares his optimism and political gifts. Reagan had a better sense of humor.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 03:10 PM (mHQ7T)
But not a key political gift: being able to debate policy, anywhere, anytime.
Maybe she can grow, or maybe not, but she'sa Peoplemagazine candidate right now.

Posted by: CJ at December 01, 2010 03:45 PM (9KqcB)

468 "Ace's ideal candidate is Mike Pence."
And the last fellow to jump from the House to the WH, anyone?
Frankly, I doubt the assertion.

Posted by: gary gulrud at December 01, 2010 03:46 PM (/g2vP)

469 Jeebus.... Megan...fat and stoooopid

roflmao

Posted by: donabernathy at December 01, 2010 03:46 PM (rR3pN)

470 The bigger problem is that everyone -- often led by the MFM coverage -- covers the personal tussles, and ignores the policy and ideas since few attack her there.

All in all, though, she should be steering her responses to the personal attacks in ways that address the ideas and policies that tend to initiate the attacks.

Posted by: Dusty at December 01, 2010 12:21 PM

This is exactly what the MF-ing media does with Rush Limbaugh. If he talks about 10 topics per day and 9 of them are brilliant monologues about policy and 1 is a silly segment for entertainment purposes, guess what is talked about? They ignore the 9 brilliant segments about policy that matter and choose the 1 silly segment to smear Rush.

Then, you get bloggers like Ace -- who refuse to listen to Rush on a daily basis and instead just read articles about his show -- who listen to the media reports and then form their opinion of Rush based on that alone.

The same thing is happening with Sarah Palin. 9 out of 10 things she'll talk about will address policy, while 1 of those will be something personal. Instead of Ace choosing to write a post about the 9 policy issues she addresses, he chooses the 1 personal one and ignores the rest.

As far as your latter point, it really doesn't matter. Rush, on a daily basis, connects his silly segments to larger policy points and it doesn't matter. The MF-ing media smears him anyway. Just take the "Barack the Magic Negro" song for example. That was about Black liberal journalists pontificating about Obama not being "Black enough". Rush made it into a funny segment for entertainment purposes, but also to articulate a broader, valid point. But what did the MF-ing media do? They smeared Rush as a racist.

This is the game the Left has set up, rigged in their favor. And many people on the Right just don't seem to get that.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 01, 2010 03:47 PM (NITzp)

471 #443 You please the Reggies of this world and you can forget me.
Gary, it ain't about what pleasesyou or me. It's about the best person you can find who can reasonably be expected to get over 50% of the electoral college vote. Otherwise it's another four years of Hussein. I've never seen a single poll that gave me any hope that Palin could meet that threshhold. She has to have strong support among independents to win, and a majority of them simplydon't like her. They've had two years of mega-exposure to her and their opinion remains the same.....negative. If you can envision a scenario where they changes in the next two years, I'd be happy to hear yououtline it.


Posted by: Reggie1971 at December 01, 2010 03:50 PM (b68Df)

472 Hey Meghan... image google meghan mccain dumb as a stump

yep...got that one right

roflmao

Posted by: donabernathy at December 01, 2010 03:51 PM (rR3pN)

473 Maybe she can grow, or maybe not, but she'sa Peoplemagazine candidate right now.

Posted by: CJ at December 01, 2010 03:45 PM (9KqcB)
I'm inclined to agree with you here. Palin does address policy here and there, but then there are her godawful tweets. Sure, Twitter is a new medium, and it is a useful way to go around the traditional media. But her sophomoric "2" and "4" and "r u" is embarrassing. Choose your 140 characters wisely. Palin was flustered by BOR for crying out loud. Obama can avoid him, though it makes him look weak. But Palin should be able to talk argue or defend policy with a fellow FOX personality. She choked during the oil spill, which is her forte supposedly. You could tell she knows the subject, but she failed when it came to articulate that experience.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 03:54 PM (mHQ7T)

474 Palin has ideas. They attack her not on her ideas, but on her personhood. Then the one time she defends herself to send a message to the "establishment" which totally include ALL the Bush's by calling them a name, she is attacked by Ace.

Has she ever called Frum a name? Beyhar? Megan? Scarbobo? Olberman? Parker? I think her husband even did an interview with Parker a few months ago. These people attack unmercifully aginst her like nobody in the history of politics. Yet no response from Palin.

Ace thinks the most attacked person in the history of politics should play the pinata 100% of the time, instead of 99%. I disagree. I think the point of her pushback was to say enough attacks from her own side. She is still on their team. But if they keep this crap up to destroy her politically before she even runs, she will fight back and it won't be pretty.

Breaking apinata can be fun, but its messy, often painful, and the next day EVERYBODY will have a belly ache. Careful what you wish for "liberal, elite, establishment, bluebloods" or whatever you wish to call yourselves. You just might get it.


Posted by: Keven at December 01, 2010 03:54 PM (yO+uQ)

475 This is the game the Left has set up, rigged in their favor. And many people on the Right just don't seem to get that. Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 01, 2010 03:47 PM (NITzp)
They *get it* without getting it. They know the game is rigged, but they keep shoving quarters in.Be the fucking change you want to see in the world, people. If you want to increase the policy discussion and you have a public voice, then talk policy.If you want Sarah's responses to be about policy, then you could "help out" but putting out a policy-based response to something.Or, alternatively, you could bitch about how sad it is that the MFM is gatekeeping your political choices and yet jump to comply when they do.The MFM still rules the information market because we LET THEM. Well, I don't, I tell everyone I know what liars reporters are, with specifics, but people who play the game do.

Posted by: Merovign, Strong on His Mountain at December 01, 2010 03:55 PM (bxiXv)

476 #443 Like I said you're on your own when giving me a choice between Dims.
My first opportunity to vote for POTUS was Nixon vs. McGovern back when the Socialists were the third. I stayed home and would againexcept Bachmann's my Rep.
Pound sand.

Posted by: gary gulrud at December 01, 2010 04:03 PM (/g2vP)

477 Palin has ideas. They attack her not on her ideas, but on her personhood. Then the one time she defends herself to send a message to the "establishment" which totally include ALL the Bush's by calling them a name, she is attacked by Ace.
How was this an "attack?" That's so indicative of this whole thing. Any time you disagree with her it's an "attack." Ace is like a lot us: Tired of hearing Palin talk about Palin. Yes, others keep asking her such questions. Sometimes "no comment" or "I don't want to talk about that " is useful.
Increasingly, the argument for supporting Palin is that "the liberals hate her." Period. We got burned when that was all we needed to defend W and the Republicans the last time they were in charge.

Posted by: CJ at December 01, 2010 04:09 PM (9KqcB)

478
This seemed like two different posts to me. I completely agreed with the first part about MM and her drivel but the second half left me scratching my head. I agree with arhooley in Post #29 and Rocks in Post # 167 more than anything Ace wrote in the second half of that essay. What, is Palin supposed to just lay back and enjoy the inevitable? By striking back she is essentially saying F*ck You to the media and those who continue to take cheap shots at her. And like Rocks I think she should strike back and blow up their narative. Why let them set the parameters for political dialogue anymore since they blew all credibility by going 'all in' for Obama in 08. When they hit you, hit back at them twice as hard! Didn't somebody just say that? Dont Believe The Hype Ace! These same people told us that Reagan would push the button and get us all killed! Then by the mid 80's you couldn't find anyone that would admit to voting for Jimmy Carter. B. Obama is this generations Jimmy Carter ( he is Jimmy Carter with a tan!) You don't have to like her, just don't shit on her with the rest of the usual suspect fuckwits.

Posted by: hughie at December 01, 2010 04:14 PM (v6JKx)

479 "We got burned when that was all we needed to defend W and the Republicans the last time they were in charge."
Not a serious person.

Posted by: gary gulrud at December 01, 2010 04:15 PM (/g2vP)

480 In truth Barbara Bush is 85 years old and it would not hurt Sarah Palin to just let this go by.
It wouldn't have hurt Barbara Bush to shut her bitchy mouth, either, now would it?
Don't start shit you can't finish. Like Sarah Palin needs any more fake conservatives piling on her.

Posted by: Warden at December 01, 2010 04:16 PM (HzhBE)

481 469And the last fellow to jump from the House to the WH, anyone?Posted by: gary gulrud at December 01, 2010 03:46 PM (/g2vP)

James A. Garfield, in 1880. And he has been the one and only to do so.

Posted by: ya2daup at December 01, 2010 04:17 PM (UzjcV)

482 How was this an "attack?" That's so indicative of this whole thing.
Any time you disagree with her it's an "attack." Ace is like a lot us:
Tired of hearing Palin talk about Palin. Yes, others keep asking her
such questions. Sometimes "no comment" or "I don't want to talk about
that " is useful.

Increasingly, the argument for supporting Palin is that "the liberals
hate her." Period. We got burned when that was all we needed to defend W
and the Republicans the last time they were in charge.

She talks about policies and Obama/dems all the times! What are your problems with her policies? She is supposed to lie down and accept the personal attacks against her and her families? I think overall she has been behaving very admirably as a team player on our side. She has been taking the fight to Obama and the left while fending off more furious "friendly fires". I am waiting to see some "smart" people on our side to show real actions (not just talks) about advancing the agenda and taking the fight to the other side. I like ACES, but I think this post is somewhat beneath him. It seems that he is in the nit-picking or fault-finding mode to justify his opposition to Palin now! Maybe it is the Castle syndrome?


Posted by: LAI at December 01, 2010 04:24 PM (R4ub4)

483 Sarah doesn't play victim, in fact, she refuses to be a victim. Point in her favor.

To the "she quit" business. To me that showed economic common sense. She knew that by staying it would not only bankrupt her family, but bankrupt her state. She weighed the choices and took the correct and reasonable approach.

When it comes down to governing, which of the prospective choices would sit down and actually gut government. Sarah is the only one.

When sitting down with world leaders, who would blink first, again, it wouldn't be Sarah.

Which of the prospective choices would have to buy balls at Amazon...again, Sarah already owns her own.

You may not like her, which is fine, but saying she doesn't have the "experience" necessary to govern isn't really true. She has the spine to make hard and correct choices after weighing the options. That is what we need from our next leader, not the correct pedigree.

The only reaching across the aisle I want to see is to bitch slap rinos, marists and associated assholes back into reality.

Posted by: SJR2 at December 01, 2010 04:26 PM (oCbCP)

484 281 In other words, she's a nice person but doesn't want to see her run for President. How is that a personal attack?

No, the old bitch said she once sat by Palin and observed she is "beautiful." That means she had no interest in speaking to her and implies she is an idiot trading on her good looks. Then she said she hopes Palin "stays in Alaska." That implies she is not qualified to run for POTUS, another personal attack. That was some incredibly weak defense for weasel wording.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 12:28 PM

Okay, I just gotta ask here...are you fucking serious? Takes some amazing mental gymnastics to turn "beautiful" into a viscious personal attack. Exact;y the shit people are getting tired of.

Posted by: Paul at December 01, 2010 12:53 PM

I think Tattoo's take is spot-on. It's basically akin to a response of "she's beautiful, but she should just stay in the kitchen". If a man dismissed a woman in that manner, he would be called a misogynist. Mrs. Bush gets a pass on the misogyny since she's a fellow female, but she did dismiss Palin, so it's credible to interpret the dismissive comment as stemming from elitism ('blue blood-ism')

Again, this is really just another form of misogyny, only in this case instead of a man being dismissive of someone because she's a woman, it's an elite -- blue blood -- being dismissive of Palin because she's not an elite.

Imagine back during the women's liberation movement if a man were asked about the chances of a woman making it in the business world and responding with "oh she's beautiful, but she should stay in the kitchen". That's what Mrs. Bush is saying here. Think of this as the non-elistist liberation movement. Instead of men telling women to just "stay in the kitchen", we have elistists telling the non-elites to "stay in Alaska".

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 01, 2010 04:27 PM (NITzp)

485 "We got burned when that was all we needed to defend W and the Republicans the last time they were in charge."
Not a serious person.
I don't remember many conservatives - that includes around here - needing much more than that. Unless you can remind us of some. Right now, a bunch of cheerleaders are giving Palin the W treatment.

Posted by: CJ at December 01, 2010 04:29 PM (9KqcB)

486 Very late to the thread, and not willing to jump in on the Palin circus with respect to one point I see coming up quite a bit:
"Bush failed because he never pushed back. Palin's not making that mistake."
Bush failed because his policies were awful. Anyone that started two wars, cut taxes dramatically across the board, spent like a drunken sailor domestically, AND appointed Fed jerkoffs who created artificial booms through continued lower interest rates is not a failure based on "messaging" and "tenacity."
Palin seems to support the first two (more war and lower taxes) and, based on her astute QE2 speech, stands against the last two.
That's better than Bush/Obama, but not quite enough. But her relentless focus on parrying every attack thrown her way is unbecoming of a president (case in point: the thin-skinned Obama).
Bush had the right approach personally and was terrible from a policy standpoint. Now, he can't touch policy, but he's still himself as a person. This may explain why America is remembering why they voted for the guy two times and why his book and publicity tour has been a great success.

Posted by: The Q at December 01, 2010 04:29 PM (2dOeM)

487 Hey CJ, Ace in post 110 said that "he turned his fireagainst Palin". If that isn't an attack, I don't know what is.

Posted by: Keven at December 01, 2010 04:30 PM (yO+uQ)

488 James A. Garfield, in 1880. And he has been the one and only to do so.
And no vice president had made the jump before GHW Bush (I think). And not since JFK had a senator made the jump until Barry.Patterns break.

Posted by: CJ at December 01, 2010 04:32 PM (9KqcB)

489 Wait a minute?
I thought "Blue Bloods" was that crappy new cop show with Magnum and Marky Marks brother?

Posted by: trooper york at December 01, 2010 04:34 PM (NHCvu)

490 417 I think Ace would garner a lot more respect from Palin's supporters if he would simply not write about Palin regarding the emotional issues and focus on writing about her only regarding her policy positions. Why he chooses to do the reverse, I don't know.
Clyde,
I don't want to speak for Ace too much, but for me personally, I don't particularly care about the solutions of a non-elected official or somebody not currently running for office. It's the same reason I roll my eyes when Captain Ed has one of his weekly Pawlenty handjobs on HotAir.
If Paul Ryan puts out a plan, it might make waves in the House because he's a Rep. If Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, or Tim Pawlenty do so, it doesn't matter quite as much yet because they are not in a position, or with the potential to be in a position, to make waves.
It's why Sarah's greatest value was in shooting down ObamaCare (from a helicopter known as Facebook). In her position (like Rush Limbaugh), she can rally the troops to stop destructive policy, but she can't propose constructive policy just yet.

Posted by: The Q at December 01, 2010 04:35 PM (2dOeM)

491 485 That implies she is not qualified to run for POTUS, another personal attack.
That's a professional criticism, which conservatives shouldn't be shy in expressing. I'll state categorically that my Mother and my best friend are not qualified to run for POTUS. In fact, I don't believe any of my friends or relatives are up to it. How this would qualify as a personal attack on them....I don't know.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at December 01, 2010 04:36 PM (b68Df)

492 Hey CJ, Ace in post 110 said that "he turned his fireagainst Palin". If that isn't an attack, I don't know what is.
Can't deny that the word "fire" sounds rough. But he also said, correctly, that he rarely writes about her, and even this post started out as targeting McCain.
And the post itself just cannot be construed as an attack, not in words or certainly its spirit:
I know Palin didn't start this. But if I, personally, am ever going to be able to support Palin, I need her to stop this, and start addressing policy questions in policy terms -- not personal terms -- and put away her go-to "I Win" cards of "elitist" and the like.

Posted by: CJ at December 01, 2010 04:37 PM (9KqcB)

493 CJ, this is a moderate, center-right blog and forum.

So I think the goal is to elect Rinos who will not take on any MSM/DNC fire...or very little.

And naturally this will leave them unscathed (along with being social libs which gives them even more protection from attacks)...therefore campaigns and winning will be much easier for Republicans.

Now, who are the fearful thin-skinned ones again?


Posted by: pam at December 01, 2010 04:42 PM (uDwml)

494 But he also said, correctly, that he rarely writes about her, and even this post started out as targeting McCain.

Yup, how long ago did Ace write a post "disagreeing" with Palin using Steele as a foil? We are smarter than that! I didn't see a similar post elsewhere. It is OK if ACE wants to pick nits or find faults with Palin. It is his choice. I don't think it is the best use of his talent though.

Posted by: LAI at December 01, 2010 04:43 PM (R4ub4)

495 I saw the McCain stuff as cover for his fire. And the fact Ace rarely posts about Palin had nothing to do with what I said about this post by Ace today. I found the writing to be an attack on Palins presidential matereal status. If you prefer "disagreement" on Palins presidential matireal status, thats cool too. Just doesn't sound right though.

Posted by: Keven at December 01, 2010 04:48 PM (yO+uQ)

496 I didn't read this that Ace meant that Palin should just sit back and take all criticism. Just that he'd like to see her let some of this go. I would, too. I thought Barbara Bush was being incredibly bitchy (and I love Barbara), but I'd have liked to have seen Sarah shrug it off.Answer the substantive criticisms.Rise above the rest.
Good advice.

Posted by: Darcy at December 01, 2010 04:49 PM (+Z6FM)

497 Ugh. "I didn't read this that..." Editing.
And hi Trooper!

Posted by: Darcy at December 01, 2010 04:51 PM (+Z6FM)

498 #457 I couldn't have said it better myself, NunyaBizness. Quite tiresome.

I suppose I could start griping about people who are without much life experience and seem to think they have all the answers, but I will forswear such stuff.

Instead I just want to point out that Palin is going where the votes are. Her job (should she choose to run) is to get votes. It is not to entertain ace with policy questions. She probably thinks he should simply read what she has written.

Posted by: Miss Marple at December 01, 2010 04:52 PM (Fo83G)

499 keep chasing your tail ace...

Posted by: loosey at December 01, 2010 04:59 PM (kgs/Q)

500 Barbara Bush is an 85 year old woman who simply said what she thought. If her comment is being interpreted correctly, it simply means that she doesn't think Sarah Palin should run for President. It's not as if she called her a whore. At worst Barbara had a moment of excess bluntess, which a woman her age is prone to have. Sarah should have realized that and let the comment roll off her back.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at December 01, 2010 04:59 PM (b68Df)

501 Palin's fine. She can just keep on doing what she's doing, still be influential, and provide a wonderful life for herself and her family. People who think the sole key to victory is being conservative and pugnacious will love her no matter what she does, and continue to marvel at her brass balls when she busts some establishment figure in the chops for being insufficiently respectful.

Right now, Palin has every conservative figure in the land treading very lightly. You will never, ever, hear a disparaging word about her cross the lips of any talk radio host. Every would-be presidential candidate walks on eggshells when her name comes up for fear of alienating her base.

The very instant she announces her candidacy, all that ends. She's not going to run for president.

Posted by: Walt Gilbert at December 01, 2010 05:00 PM (PmZ9N)

502 I know you're a good guy Ace, but I will never understand your dislike of Palin.
do policy statements win elections?
the people who will be the ones knocking on doors and sitting on phone banks are mostly big supporters of Palin's will they show up for a Romney or a Huckabee, not enough, not nearly enough, but they will show up for her.

Posted by: Shoey at December 01, 2010 05:09 PM (ehKDD)

503 Another strawman...SP does not respond to everyone, not even close.

She responded to Mrs. Bush because the comment was so typical of the Palin foes....it was a good opportunity to remind folks that the Bush philosophy of "compassionate conservatism" and calling RR economy "voodoo economics" have FAILED.

She said we tried the smart set, the blue bloods, the establishment Rinos....and look where we are.

SP also confronted the idea that it is just A-ok for the establishment to demand that an American should "stay in their state" and not run for President? (Especially a good Republican like Palin who has spent years defending GWB's foreign policy?)

It was uncalled for, and unbecoming for Mrs Bush to say that......at her age, she should know better.

Posted by: pam at December 01, 2010 05:12 PM (uDwml)

504 Barbara Bush is an 85 year old woman who simply said what she thought.
If her comment is being interpreted correctly, it simply means that she
doesn't think Sarah Palin should run for President. It's not as if she
called her a whore. At worst Barbara had a moment of excess bluntess,
which a woman her age is prone to have. Sarah should have realized that
and let the comment roll off her back.

That 's fine if you want to spin it that way! But to use this as an excuse to "disagree" with Palin 's "presidential material"? Rove and then Barbara Bush? Maybe it is just a coincidence. BTW, Romney is elder Bush 's first choice. Of course, she also named others. Good luck to us if Romney is our candidate. BTW, you can go to NRO to see a post about W 's op-ed on AIDS (compassionate convervatism).

Posted by: LAI at December 01, 2010 05:14 PM (R4ub4)

505 It's why Sarah's greatest value was in shooting down ObamaCare (from a helicopter known as Facebook). In her position (like Rush Limbaugh), she can rally the troops to stop destructive policy, but she can't propose constructive policy just yet.

Posted by: The Q at December 01, 2010 04:35 PM

I completely agree. However, my point still stands. There's no reason for bloggers to go TMZ when writing about Sarah Palin. Ace admits that he chooses not to write much about Sarah Palin. Yet, when he does choose to write about her, instead of writing about a policy post of hers, he chooses the radioactive TMZ-type crap about her, such as this Meghan McCain crap. Why?

If he cares so much about policy, then focus on policy.

My guess is that he really doesn't like Palin, chooses not to follow her at all, and only finds out about what she's doing by following others who follow her and report on her in a TMZ-type fashion. Thus, all the news he gets about Palin is TMZ crap and so he believes the policy stuff doesn't exist.

I don't know why he doesn't just write his "Sarah Palin is not the Hill to Die On" post and get it over with admitting that he doesn't like Palin and never will.

And then get on to the important issues of whom we should start following for 2012.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 01, 2010 05:23 PM (NITzp)

506 At worst Barbara had a moment of excess bluntess,
which a woman her age is prone to have. Sarah should have realized that
and let the comment roll off her back.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at December 01, 2010 04:59 PM (b68Df)
Why isn't Palin entitled to a similar bluntness? After all, that's how she makes her living these days, as a news analyst. When a former First Lady speaks to a media legend like Larry King, that is newsworthy. If Barbara Bush can dish it, she can take it. And calling her a "blue blood" is merely pointing out that her sole claim to fame is marrying old money and having some children who later became politicians. She "stayed in the kitchen." So, bully for the old slag.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 05:24 PM (mHQ7T)

507 That's a professional criticism, which conservatives shouldn't be shy in expressing.

Not when it's prefaced by a back-handed compliment on her looks. How is she even qualified to pass professional judgment on Palin, a happily married woman and the only subject on which the former First Lady is an authority?

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 05:33 PM (mHQ7T)

508 It's really telling that the gutless wonders behind this latest attack on Palin sent an 85-year-old woman to do a man's job. Typical.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 05:35 PM (mHQ7T)

509 #505 Good luck to us if Romney is our candidate.
Though Romney is not my first choice as our nominee, I fail to see how he'd be any less electible than Sarah Palin.
Facebooking, twittering, and her crusade against all forms of elitism all have one thing in common. They are taylored to please people whose support she already has. Please tell me what she has done in the past two years that is designed to impress that portion of independents that are dubiousof her. She has played to her fan base, pure and simple. That's fine if she intends to be a king/queen-maker in the party, or start her own talk show. It is a loser strategy if she wants to be POTUS. Tea-party votes are not enough.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at December 01, 2010 05:37 PM (b68Df)

510 Though Romney is not my first choice as our nominee, I fail to see how he'd be any less electible than Sarah Palin.
Facebooking, twittering, and her crusade against all forms of elitism all have one thing in common. They are taylored to please people whose support she already has.
Please tell me what she has done in the past two years that is designed
to impress that portion of independents that are dubiousof her. Yup, RomneyCare is a good example of fiscal conservatism. This is strictly policy. Romney is known as a smooth talking (ie shifting with the winds) politician. Stopping Obamacare should endear her to the independents I hope unless people on our side simply want to attack her! Death panel is right on and brilliant. QE2, wikileaks, Bush tax cuts ... She wrote about them. She even debated QE2 with Bernanke Co. on Wall Street Journal. I don't understand why our side can not promote these positions and joined her in the fight instead of taking pot shots. It is not very smart and may be damaging to our prospect in 2012. Go get a better candidate than Palin. Romney is definitely not. What has he done in the last 2 years?

Posted by: LAI at December 01, 2010 05:45 PM (R4ub4)

511 504
Another strawman...SP does not respond to everyone, not even close.She
responded to Mrs. Bush because the comment was so typical of the Palin
foes....it was a good opportunity to remind folks that the Bush
philosophy of "compassionate conservatism" and calling RR economy
"voodoo economics" have FAILED. She said we tried the smart set, the blue bloods, the establishment Rinos....and look where we are.SP
also confronted the idea that it is just A-ok for the establishment to
demand that an American should "stay in their state" and not run for
President? (Especially a good Republican like Palin who has spent years
defending GWB's foreign policy?)It was uncalled for, and unbecoming for Mrs Bush to say that......at her age, she should know better.

Barbara Bush is 85 years old. And no Palin did not have to call the entire family blue bloods because a blunt old lady made an off the cuff remark Palin did not like. This is the problem with some of Palin's more ardent defenders and Palin herself..somethings you should just let slide. The need to jump on everyone and anyone who says anything less than adoring about Palin is thin skinned. Think of all the really nasty things Barbara Bush has heard people say about her husband and her sons over the years and think of all the times she bit her tongue. Sometimes it is better to rise above this sort of thing.

Besides, using a term like blue bloods is demagoguery, class warfare, all of that and it was not necessary.. BTW, would George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have been considered blue bloods? After all, they were aristocrats in their time. Does that mean they did not really know what it was like to be Americans or that they did not speak for the American people?

Posted by: Terrye at December 01, 2010 05:53 PM (j8jdm)

512 Barbara Bush is 85 years old. And no Palin did not have to call the
entire family blue bloods because a blunt old lady made an off the cuff
remark Palin did not like. This is the problem with some of Palin's more
ardent defenders and Palin herself..somethings you should just let
slide. The need to jump on everyone and anyone who says anything less
than adoring about Palin is thin skinned. Think of all the really nasty
things Barbara Bush has heard people say about her husband and her sons
over the years and think of all the times she bit her tongue. Sometimes
it is better to rise above this sort of thing.

Yup, Palin has been a strong defender of W in the last 2 years. I don't know why the anti-Palin people are so thin-skinned about this! Remember Bush 's attack against McCain in SC during the 2004 primary? This is mild. I think the anti-Palin side is simply in fault-finding mode at this point. This is not even worth bringing up unless you simply want to find some excuse to "disagree" with Palin!

Posted by: LAI at December 01, 2010 06:01 PM (R4ub4)

513 Bottom line: go find a better candidate than Palin. That 's a more constructive use of our energy.

Posted by: LAI at December 01, 2010 06:02 PM (R4ub4)

514 508 Not when it's prefaced by a back-handed compliment on her looks.
What if BB had simply said "I think she should stay in Alaska" when asked that question by Larry King? I think she prefaced it by saying Sarah was beautiful simply to be nice. Anyway, again, we are talking about an 85 year old woman.
And yes, Sarah Palin is perfectlyentitled to call them "blue bloods". I suppose she's entitled to devote as much of her time to responding to slights andattacks as she wants. That said, it might be a wiser investment of her time to study domestic and foreign policy a bit more to give deeper answers when on those stupid shows like Meet The Press and Slay the Nation. That is what is going to inspire greater confidence in the independent voters she needs. The "you betcha" and "momma grizzly" schtick doesn't seem to cut it with them.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at December 01, 2010 06:03 PM (b68Df)

515 That said, it might be a wiser investment of her time to study domestic
and foreign policy a bit more to give deeper answers when on those
stupid shows like Meet The Press and Slay the Nation. That is what is
going to inspire greater confidence in the independent voters she
needs. The "you betcha" and "momma grizzly" schtick doesn't seem to cut
it with them.
Yup, Wall St. Journal debate is too dumb a place now for reaching the independents now!

Posted by: LAI at December 01, 2010 06:04 PM (R4ub4)

516 Anyway, good luck in your fault-finding mode. Maybe we all shouldn't be too thin-skinned about it. Enough said!

Posted by: LAI at December 01, 2010 06:05 PM (R4ub4)

517 I already addressed this waaay up thread....too late to lecture SP or anyone on the right to shut-up.

Been there done that for 40 long years. (on Rino's advice I might add) Huge FAIL.

And being preached too by the thin-skinned Rinos who are so afraid of the media and the Democrats that they eat their own, shoot their wounded, and are traitors to their base and party....is rich.

I say it is time for the snivelers and sissies to shut up about "taking the high road" against an enemy who just stole your families earnings and private healthcare, FGS!

(Which, btw, Barbara Bush, her husband, and GWB refused to comment on...just like they are AFRAID to slam ANY Democrat)

Being a chicken-shit is detestable not something to be admired.




Posted by: pam at December 01, 2010 06:31 PM (uDwml)

518 Pam if you will have me.....

Posted by: Pelvis at December 01, 2010 06:55 PM (LlaBi)

519 Thread appears to be winding down...so I'll blather a bit more and then cool it.
Bottom line is that Sarah Palin is extremely talented at firing up the conservative base. She's the best in the country at that as far as I can tell. That's something she should be proud of.
I honestly don't think she intends to run for POTUS, but I wouldunderstand her reasoning for not announcing. She would instantly lose much of her influence if she showed her cards too early. I will say that if she didn't constantly respond to the hateful and idiotic attacks of the left, and at the end of the day announced she wasn't going to run, it would make their comments look all the more hysterical and pointless.
That said, I don't think it's improper to discuss the hypothetical. I kinda doubt Newt Gingrich will run, but considering the possibility that he may I don't see the harm in getting a head start in "contemplating the ifs".

Posted by: Reggie1971 at December 01, 2010 07:01 PM (a9/3v)

520 Just got around to it. Kee-rap, what a long tirade. Good, but long.

Posted by: Banjo at December 01, 2010 07:04 PM (nnZ5F)

521 "Increasingly, the argument for supporting Palin is that "the liberals hate her." Period. We got burned when that was all we needed to defend W and the Republicans the last time they were in charge.
Posted by: CJ at December 01, 2010 04:09 PM (9KqcB)"
NO! Actually, I'll take Ace, you or others seriously WHEN you discuss policy.
I don't give a rat's behind if you like/support Palin. Maybe it would be good IF she retired to Alaska, and I WILL ENJOY giving your favorite Candidate a "Colonoscopy" along with the Lamestream Media. Please don't complain...it's unseemly.
I suspect you will feel ill done. LIVE WITH IT!
Regards,
ps: For the last 1+ years there has been 1 person brave enough to speak out about what's been going on. Well that's not quite true, I am sure Romney has spoken out, yet no one hears or cares. Ditto, Pawlenty, Huckabee, Pence, Daniels...
Palin has a platform, mostly because of the disdain she gets from the Media. What is striking is just how many who say they are on the Conservative side, fire on Palin with their crib notes copied from Media Matters.

Posted by: the Dragon at December 01, 2010 07:17 PM (gRSqy)

522 I guess Sarah should fight personal attacks with policy statements such as:
Hope and change......
We are the ones we have been waiting for.....
Yeah, that should work Ace.

Posted by: Dogbert at December 01, 2010 07:33 PM (jp117)

523 What if BB had simply said "I think she should stay in Alaska" when
asked that question by Larry King? I think she prefaced it by saying
Sarah was beautiful simply to be nice. Anyway, again, we are talking
about an 85 year old woman.

It has already been pointed out that this is what is called damning with faint praise. Babs was reminding us that she is a woman when she mentioned the social nature of their brief acquaintance and the former governor's looks. So, then she decided to tell Palin how to run her life. She should be old enough not to know stooping to such cattiness and snobbery is undignified. That was the best part of the "blue blood" remark. Money can't buy manners.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 07:45 PM (mHQ7T)

524 Ace,
I find it funny that you think Palin has advanced no policies nor positions. Talk about a left wing talking point. You name a topic and Palin has most likely talked about it. The problem is that the GOP establishment and the left can not debate Palin on poliices nor her posiitons because they reflect the majority of voters or at least the majority of GOP voters. Therefore they must attack her personally. Way to see the tree and miss the forest.Ohyeah and I find it really funny that you don't post on say Palin's position on the tax hikes and instead post on Megan's attack on her. Or Palin's Qe2 position or Palin's nk/Sk conflict position, or Palin's position on wikileaks, Palin's position on the Ryan roapmap, Palin's position on etc etc.Yeah she has no positions/

Posted by: unseen at December 01, 2010 07:51 PM (aVGmX)

525 And no Palin did not have to call the entire family blue bloods because a
blunt old lady made an off the cuff remark Palin did not like.

People of the highest social level: aristocracy, blue blood. Prescott Bush was a Wall Street executive banker and a US Senator representing CT from 1952 until January 1963. His father was a railroad executive, then a steel company president, and, during World War I also a federal government official in charge of coordination and assistance to major weapon contractors. His son George Herbert Walker Bush was Director of the CIA, then Reagan's VP, then President. GWB was a two-term President. Dynasty is putting it mildly.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 07:59 PM (mHQ7T)

526 Bushism sucks. Deal with it. Palin will run as the anti-bush and anti-obama. when she does the blueblood idiots that attack Palin personally instead of debating her about policy are the only ones to blame. Them and the blueblood water carriers.

Posted by: unseen at December 01, 2010 08:05 PM (aVGmX)

527 bush family is blue blood old money and hands on the levers of power for a long long time. don't rock the boat remember voodoo economics and stability when ussr fell and new world orderrrrrr. fuck the bushes oh and gentler and kinder than reagan. fuck the bushes

Posted by: pd at December 01, 2010 08:12 PM (ZR8/4)

528 Prescott Bush served as the treasurer of the first national capital campaign of Planned Parenthood and was also involved with the American Birth Control League throughout the 40s. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Barbara Bush said the Republican
Party should drop an anti-abortion plank from its national platform. The Bushes have always been moderates, and I bet Barbara Bush's real gripe with Palin is more than just where she went to school.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 01, 2010 08:20 PM (mHQ7T)

529 The debate about taking the high road versus getting down in the gutter for a cat fight reminded me of "All The King's Men". (For you morons out there, that is a famous novel by Robert Penn Warren whose protagonist is fashioned after Huey Long.)

"Yeah I heard the speech, but they don't give a damn about that. They aren't alive, most of 'em, and haven't been for twenty years. Hell their wives have lost their teeth and their shape, and likker won't set on their stomachs, and they don't believe in God, so it's up to you to give 'em something to stir them up and make 'em feel alive again. Just for a half hour. That's what they come for. Tell them anything. But for sweet Jesus's sake don't try to improve their minds."

Politics hasn't changed much since this was written. However most wives of twenty years still have some teeth.


Posted by: fapo at December 01, 2010 08:24 PM (TcaE8)

530 Blue bloods is a well enough known phrase that it's been used for Tom Selleck's new television cop show. In that case "blue" meaning police, and together "blue blood" meaning multi-generations.... being *born* to it.

Which is exactly the idea of blue blood.... multi-generation born to money and privilege. Inherited. Aristocracy.

Posted by: Synova at December 01, 2010 08:36 PM (P0X9Q)

531 My late husband, who was one, called it the "lucky sperm club." Love the reference to Miss McCain's primary accomplishment- surviving the birthing process!

Posted by: Annie Oakley at December 01, 2010 09:31 PM (olZMK)

532 I thought Blue Bloods were Americans that can trace their lineage back to people that arrived in America on the Mayflower. I know someone whose family tree is documented to have arrived on the Mayflower. That family is quite proud to be Blue Bloods. They are neither aristocratic nor wealthy.

Posted by: Mayflower at December 01, 2010 09:47 PM (Epj2t)

533 time, the overall development of the enterprise, an indelible contribution to the strength of their Puma Ferrari Shoes

Posted by: Puma Ferrari Shoes at December 01, 2010 10:21 PM (fbf0W)

534 Mama Bush slams her, for no reason other than Larry King, or Larry King's dead body, wanting to start controversy, and it's Sarah's fault?

Palin had it right. The Bushes are blue bloods and absolutely inept at politics, both father and sons, and deserve their little snapping.

After 8 years of the "let us not defend ourself" posturing, it's refreshing to a presidential candidate that can take it and dish it out.

As far as McLame, she needs to lose weight, but not from her tits.

Posted by: PCP Smoker at December 01, 2010 10:23 PM (soTZT)

535 I thought Blue Bloods were Americans that can trace their lineage back to people that arrived in America on the Mayflower.

Many, many people can, since the Bay Colony had a very high birthrate. And not all of them are rich or socially connected. (Heck, wasn't there recently a story about how Palin and Obama are very distant relatives? While their ancestors didn't come over on the Mayflower, they are descended in part from the early British settlers.) I don't think it's just bloodlines, it's the combination of pedigree and money that makes one a blue blood.

Ironically, the passengers on the Mayflower were hardly "blue bloods" themselves. Most were small tradespeople and craftsmen - blacksmiths, carpenters, bakers, etc. Not desperately poor, but not aristocrats either. The real aristocrats - the younger sons of English lords, who were not in line to inherit estates in England - settled in Virginia. They are the ones who set the template for the "Southern gentleman." Robert E. Lee, for instance, was descended from pretty grand English nobility.

Posted by: Donna V. at December 01, 2010 11:13 PM (3xt7b)

536 I think Sarah Palin will make a Great President. If, she decides to run...

I think anyone with an open mind (and a brain) has to agree that we know more factual and un-factual info about her.

Please spend some time actually reviewing her speeches, and facebook posts - the lady is much sharper than most if not all of her peers (males included).

I do think she could use some very sophisticated biting humor to elegantly rip her detractors to bits.

I also think she could slow down quite a lot when she speaks... '08 convention?

I feel sorry for those on the right and the left who seem to have trouble with basic courtesy, (respect?).

I agree that the 'blue blood' ruling class (right left) are terrified - Sarah does not like corruption and ALL of the ruling class are corrupt.

Sarah is a very sharp street fighter and that is exactly what we need.


Posted by: Not Quite An Ace at December 02, 2010 12:13 AM (e/szV)

537 I could be wrong but seem to recall 'bluebloods' datingto Ancient Egypt. The pattern of marrying within extended relations led to heart defects(others are noted from mummified remains)popping up routinely.
Hence the blue blood.

Posted by: gary gulrud at December 02, 2010 12:53 AM (/g2vP)

538 Palin doesn't address policy? What exactly are those facebook pages about? She was talking about death panels months before Paul Krugman was talking about them.

To say Palin doesn't engage in policy discussions is a display of ignorance.

When is the last time you heard a beltway Republican discuss policy? I hear or read Palin's thoughts on policy all the freakin time.

Just a couple of days ago she wrote an article about the latest wikileaks ordeal. She discusses policy on fox news all the time.

The rules of the game are determined by the aggressor (i.e. the dem party and the blue bloods in the GOP).

Posted by: Jim-stlmo at December 02, 2010 05:40 AM (Er/xb)

539 Yerli yabanci vizyondaki tum film izle ve seyret

Posted by: neregizlendim at December 02, 2010 09:12 AM (qHvJA)

540 Ace, I am really starting to get worried about you.

I'm not quite sure how you turned MM being a giant uneducated douche into a Palin shouldn't talk about anything but technical policy wonk topics but WAKE UP MAN! Palin covers foreign and domestic policy numerous times on a weekly basis.

Your attitudes of ignoring the attackers (and thats what they are) is asking her to commit suicide. It;s not just the left she is having to fend off. They don't care about her policy talks all they want to do is paint her with the misguided idea that she is not capable. They accurately conclude that if they say the lie enough times the majority of the uneducated will believe it. Palin is already having to deal with high negatives because of that very tactic.

I dare you to talk to an average person that says they don't like Palin and get them to tell you why. They can't do it. They dont know anything about her. All they know is the sound bites these jackasses like MM and the fucktard Barbara Blueblood Bush spew out.

That is the actual battle that Palin is having to fight because the left and the elitest won't fight Sarah on the actual issues!

Ace, you screwed the pooch.

Posted by: brainpimp at December 02, 2010 10:11 AM (fHP/A)

541 Ace, didn't you and yours notice? Meghan ("they're real, I swear!") McCain is not only an ignoramus, she's an ungrammatical ignoramus; and in doing so she attacks whom she intends to defend, along the way sullying the reputation of a silly, but hardly evil, first lady!
What are we to make of this circumlocution from Meghan ("these lips are useful for something, I swear!") McCain?
"...followed by an extra zinger from the notorious straight talking former first lady Barbara Bush..."
Poor Babs,once just plainsilly; now notorious.
Meghan Dear, it's called an "ADVERB", it usually ends in
"-ly", and is used to qualify adjectives and verbs--you must know what those are, don't you?
Oh! and Sweetie! The plural of a proper name, like Bush,does nottake an apostrophe; so one Bush, two Bushes, not Bush's!
Geez, what the heckam I doing, giving grammar classes to a pure-bred blue blood, whenwe all know that inbreeding limitsIQ!

Posted by: elixelx at December 02, 2010 10:23 AM (TSDgg)

542 Good God, Ace! Do you have a shrink? Look this one up, "brevity." Something just aint right with you and Palin. Try not to overthink things. It causes heart disease. Gotta agree with #6: "Slow news day. That's a lot of words about nothing. Allah is that you ?"

Posted by: bowregard at December 02, 2010 11:21 AM (ywLUS)

543 Ace -

That is arguably the greatest analysis of Palin ever put to paper.

Want a working definition of great writing? Here it is: great writing happens when the writer manages to explain and illustrate your own thoughts and feelings better than you can do yourself.

That's what you just accomplished.

I suspect there are a great many folks like me: strong conservatives (especially fiscal conservatives and foreign policy wonks) who tend to personally like Palin a lot, who find her charismatic and compelling, who respect her ability to move the conservative base ... but who have many, many questions related to policy and experience and credentials.

And when we ask questions - or even try to really ascertain what exactly her policies might be on specific issues - we run into this overwhelmingly personal approach to politics.

At which point it usually gets very ugly and very pointless.

And this is when the criticism comes from people who WANT to support her; when criticism comes from actual opponents, it immediately becomes even more ugly and pointless.

Why is it so offensive to her supporters to ask 1) how exactly she is qualified to run the United States and 2) what exactly her policies will be in specific instances?

The sad irony the Palinistas don't notice is that in so many ways, she's becoming our own Barack Obama. Her supporters mirror the Obama craze of 2008 almost exactly.

I'm not elitist if I ask a few questions. Is that really a controversial statement?

Thank you for voicing what I've been trying to explain for a couple years now.

Posted by: Professor Blather at December 02, 2010 11:51 AM (qxwCi)

544 This was the best argument for an Estate Tax I have seen in quite awhile.
Thanks.

Posted by: James A. Stickman at December 02, 2010 12:46 PM (UNDnz)

545 The Repubs will field an unbeatable combo - Palin/Romney 2012! One a moron, the other a Mormon.

Posted by: jjllss33 at December 02, 2010 01:12 PM (8Hqk5)

546 548
"Why is it so offensive to her supporters to ask 1) how exactly she is qualified to run the United States and 2) what exactly her policies will be in specific instances?"
1.) Natural Born Citizen 35 years of age. (From Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution...
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
She is as "Qualified" as any of the 8-15 other named potential candidates.
Sorry if that seems snarky, yet any other qualification is in the mind of the voter.
2.) She has posted many of her POLICY ideas on Facebook, AND, should she decide to run, many more policy ideas will be forthcoming during a Primary run. BUT, I AM NOT sure what you are actually looking for here, because I doubt you can produce a "full blown" policy analysis (above and beyond discussions/statements on random issues)for ANY other potential Primary candidate.
"The sad irony the Palinistas don't notice is that in so many ways, she's becoming our own Barack Obama. Her supporters mirror the Obama craze of 2008 almost exactly."
I guess it is possible to view things that way. I see it a bit different. She was attacked visciously by the LEFT during the 2008 campaign. Few if any Republicans OR Conservatives defended her.
Shortly after the 2008 campaign the Republican Establishment started their attacks WHICH CONTINUE, and almost all are PERSONAL in nature.
She has found a way to get her ideas out without the filter of the media.
Maybe it's because she has been out there fighting OBAMA tooth and nail, and is the most visable at it, because of the Left's AND Establishment Republican's disgust, when she speaks, it seems to require a response from LEFT Media (I am sure many others have spoken out as well, they just don't often get heard).
I've got her back, because she has proven she's got mine.
Regards,

Posted by: the Dragon at December 02, 2010 01:54 PM (27rqF)

547 I get the feeling that this is the core problem with people like Ace and others regarding Sarah Palin: they don't actually follow Sarah Palin, they follow others who follow Sarah Palin, and then come to a conclusion about her based on the summation of others. This is like coming to a conclusion about a movie by reading a review instead of watching the movie yourself. Ace -- and other bloggers as well -- do this a lot with Rush Limbaugh as well. Instead of actually listening to his show on a daily basis, they form their opinion of him based on someone's article about his show or listening to a short clip of a segment of his show. I think Ace's decision to not write about Sarah Palin based on "it gets too emotional" is a copout. Ace could easily write on a weekly basis about Palin regarding her Facebook posts on policy, her appearances on FNC where she discusses policy or by reading her books and writing a review of her policy positions she articulates in there. But he chooses not to do so. He instead only writes about her when there are these 'emotional' topics regarding her. I think Ace would garner a lot more respect from Palin's supporters if he would simply not write about Palin regarding the emotional issues and focus on writing about her only regarding her policy positions. Why he chooses to do the reverse, I don't know.
------

This. You nailed it. I'm a Palin supporter that had been a little worried that she wasn't readying herself for a run at 2012, thinking that perhaps holding off for the next election would be wiser. Those concerns were been alleviated over the Summer/Fall after seeing her impressive positions on the environment, Fed policy, etc. She has a sharp mind and even sharper instincts. It is terribly frustrating that many peeps on "our side" aren't giving her credit for doing her own research and putting her own thoughts on the day's issue down on paper. AoS HQ, all we ask is a post once every two weeks when she does weigh in on an issue in the news. We can go elsewhere for the drama. I mean, how can you cover conservative politics but NOT cover Pain?

As for the "elitist card" criticism. Sure, that's a valid point and I agree that Palin reaches for it a little too often. But, she mostly seems to use that point when answering petty put downs, usually prompted by a interviewer. As of now, she is not actively running for anything, so defending her record and qualifications has not been her focus. If and when she decides to run, she will have better answers.

Posted by: Serious Cat at December 02, 2010 08:18 PM (bAySe)

548 I agree completely that Palin needs to stop calling her detractors "elitists" and start calling them what they really are: stupid. But she's a politician, and as a politician she can't exactly go around calling everyone who hates her stupid. So calling them biased is not a bad strategy. Unfortunately, stupidity doesn't allow for the non-elistist, non blue blooded Palin detractors to accept that they are not the object of her dirision. They are the people who take her defense of herself and her good name personally.

Posted by: Jaynie59 at December 03, 2010 09:42 AM (YjQWV)

549
Rip Blu-ray for Mac with Blu-ray Ripper for Mac, snow Leopard included.- Free Download and have a try.



Ultimate Blu-ray video converter is actually an 3-in-one software including Blu-ray Ripper, DVD Ripper and Video Converter.

Blu-ray ripper
enables you directly rip and convert your Blu-ray movies and general
DVDs, even the protected DVDs and Blu-ray DVDs into other popular audio
and video formats.||Blue ray Ripper Mac give you a hand on ripping Blue ray on Mac

Blu-ray to MKV Converter Mac is specially designed for Mac users to convert Blu ray to MKV Mac

As an easy-to-use software, Blu-ray to MKV
Converter can quickly convert Blu ray DVD (.m2ts) files and DVD (.vob)
movies to MKV with just a few clicks, which make convert Blue ray to MKV
as easy as 1 2 3.Blu-ray to DVD, shrink Blu-ray to DVD perfectly||How to rip Blu ray- Guide show you the easy way

Blu-ray Disc burner- burn videos to Blu-ray DVD rapidly

MKV to Blu-ray
can convert and burn MKV to Blu-ray video discs and AVCHD DVDs easily
and quickly, and even create BDMV ISO and AVCHD ISO from MKV videos.


Posted by: Blu ray for mac at December 06, 2010 01:58 AM (Mq+LU)

550 blu moon clothing

Posted by: blu moon clothing at December 09, 2010 07:29 AM (JmRE7)

551 yorii komasi
Useful information like this one must be kept and maintained so I will put this one on my bookmark list. Thanks for sharinng....

Posted by: harry at July 05, 2011 03:18 AM (ZG6WW)

552





Normal
0




false
false
false

EN-NZ
X-NONE
X-NONE






































































































































































/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}



Amethyst
Rings Shop

Peridot
Rings Shop

Pearl Rings
Shop

Turquoise
Rings Shop

Mini
Trucks for Sale

Posted by: Amethyst at July 13, 2011 07:39 AM (ySWCA)






Processing 0.1, elapsed 0.1211 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.046 seconds, 561 records returned.
Page size 420 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat