As long as their centerfold Palin fantasy gets them off, the pud-whacks will keep whacking away, but once the feeling's gone, their impotent rage will be all that sustains them. We may thirst for death, but they're the ones drinking the kool-aid, Gerard.

Posted by: Jewel at January 19, 2011 3:26 PM

Oh, there's plenty lined up for a cold cup of critique on this side. Don't ever forget that.

Posted by: vanderleun at January 19, 2011 3:59 PM

Yes, it's quite true that the diablos (Democrats In All But Label Only) are willing to drink the roadside lemonade-snakeoil concoction. BUT. Glad to see that the House has voted in favor of repealing Obamacare.....can we come up with a more apt description, please? Maybe Sarah Palin can coin a more derisive term. She's good at that sort of thing. And we get the benefit of added pissoffage.

Posted by: Jewel at January 19, 2011 7:37 PM

An awful lot of people sure seem to be afraid of her for some reason.

Robin of Berkeley took a stab at explaining it today.

Posted by: rickl at January 19, 2011 10:59 PM

I don't understand the overt hostility, either.

But then, I think that hostility can be turned to advantage for conservatives in the long run. As Victor David hanson put in a recent article of someone with a similiar parallel career (I'd provide a link, but it gets trapped in the spam filters):
-----------------
"But more germanely, Palin need not run for the presidency in 2012 in the manner commentator and newly elected governor Reagan did not until 1968, and did not successfully until 1980 — all the while establishing a populist conservative persona as hated — and successful — during his near two-decade pre-presidential career as a younger Palin might be in the two decades ahead.

Palin is scary not so much in 2012, but that she could be around — and be around in an evolving way — for a long time to come."
-----------
I think having all these Elitists, Liberals, Old-Guard Feminists, And Good Ol Boys all stressing out over Palin for a long period of time is a good thing.

The longer, the better.

Posted by: Cond0010 at January 19, 2011 11:40 PM

VERY good article, Rickl.

Very Good.

Posted by: cond0010 at January 19, 2011 11:52 PM

Dear Mr. Vanderleun: That's some position you place anyone with doubts about SP (me, for starters.) Doubts are treated as heresy? i thought that was the Left's voodoo. E.g., no dissent about The One in the 2007-8 campaign season. How many Democrats today wish they had known then what we on the Right suspected of The Won all along, and even the louts in the press reluctantly admit now? E.g. closing Guantanamo?

I freely admit I have chronically underestimated SP. Nevertheless, my doubts remain. They spring from SP's unforced resignation. I freely admit the trials of facing bad faith ethics accusations was expensive and trying. Even so, they weren't cause to quit. Did:

a) Churchill quit in July 1940
b) Lincoln quit 1861-1865
c) Franklin Roosevelt quit in 1942-43
d) Grover Cleveland quit in his entire second term, complete with the worst depression up that time, and cancer of the palate?
e) Woodrow Wilson quit in August 1914 when his wife died
f) that obscure fellow Geo W. quit from 2005-8 with a ferociously difficult conflict overseas, constant accusations of treason at home, his Cabinet under chronic fire

There are many more examples. SP's situation is unpleasant, but nowhere near the ferocity of the six examples I've cited. Yet she quit. Why? Because "her work in Alaska was done?" Hardly. SP made her rep for political courage by facing down Frank Murkowski, and defeating him. After her resignation, she was not able to repeat her success with the odious Lisa Murkowski, nor even the dreadful hog Don Young. What price bestselling ghostwritten books, and a reality show compared to this? The Tea Party is not noted for approving of politicians cashing in on office. Who thinks Joe Scarborough is a hero for grasping at MSNBC loot?

The other objection is the historical case. As conservatives, we aren't slavishly obedient to the lessons of the past, but recognize that there's much practical wisdom in them. In the 200+ years of state electoral politics, how often has a sitting governor resigned for personal reasons(i.e. not health, not family illness, not taking another, higher job as Geo W. did when he resigned the Texas governorship) and then come back to the same or higher ranking office? I can only think of one: Nelson Rockefeller, who resigned as New York guv in 1973 and was Vice President a year later, being appointed to replace Gerald Ford. Not an encouraging precedent. yet that is what SP is trying to duplicate. "And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things," said Machiavelli in chapter 6 of THE PRINCE. The old boy knew what he was talking about.

It's no good either to say that she would be a better Prez than The One? Who WOULDN'T be? But once in office, would she measure up? The last two years have been a horrifying expensive education in showing delirious joy is no substitute for character in the face of odds. As Governor of Alaska, SP showed some of this character, enough to make her a rising star. But since she resigned? What has she done? Let the SP backers tell us.

I likely would not work for SP in any primary. But should she get the nomination, I would work, donate, and vote for her. 2012 is too important. Not only does the nation face four more years of The Once, but control of the Senate is up for grabs. Senate races will be affected by the presidential race. It's an appalling two years we face. Here's just one example:

The Right is reasonably confident that the state suits against Obamacare will succeed. But this is betting that Scalia, who will be 75 this year, doesn't kick the bucket. Let Scalia go, and The One gets to nominate, and the still-Democratic Senate gets to confirm. Filibuster! SP may cry. That's a protection against such liberal bigots as Sotomayor, or sleazy careerists such as Kagan. But what protection would it be from The Once slithering out into the Rose Garden, smirking at the adoring press, and announcing his new nominee, Lindsey Graham? What would the response be to that? Let Graham get on the bench and he would march left in the approved manner of Anthony Kennedy and so many other justices appointed by GOP presidents. That would bring Obamacare home, with the consequent expansion of federal power without limit.

That's what's at stake in 2012. Enraging the Left by the vocabulary challenged is trifling stuff, not worthy of discussion. SP may be the candidate for the job. But I'm still waiting for answers beyond the idiotic "She's a VPILF/Mama Grizzly" or "Everyone I know would vote for her." Just like Pauline Kael couldn't understand why Nixon got in in 1972---no one she knew voted for her.

In particular, I would like to learn of more successful cases where governors resigned for personal reasons and came back.

My apologies for the length.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

Posted by: Gregory Koster at January 20, 2011 12:49 AM

Gerard, thanks for responding to my question. I have an acquaintance, a self-made multimillionaire who was so put off by Sarah Palin that he voted for Obama. I did not want to probe him on this because – for some reason – the reaction to Palin seems to surface from some primitive level rather than an intellectual one.

Gregory Koster puts his focus on her resignation as governor. When she resigned most of the “really smart people” wrote her off. Today she is the most powerful political force on the Right. Let’s get in the Wayback Machine and put her back in the Alaskan governor’s office. Now we have the Governor of a state that’s of little consequence electorally, is so far away the logistics make it impractical to travel throughout the rest of the country, is so tied up with lawsuits and state business that she can have little impact on the national scene, is in the process of being financially destroyed by lawsuits – which she has to defend personally – with no opportunity to earn extra money (see lawsuits again). In other words, a political eunuch, but she would have Mr. Koster’s admiration, if he ever gave her a second thought. I thought her resignation showed her ability to think outside the box and a brilliant move. The “really smart people” made me question myself until I realized they were trapped in a mindset created by decades in Washington. They can’t help themselves.

Posted by: Moneyrunner at January 20, 2011 3:14 AM

Gregory Koster: "I freely admit I have chronically underestimated SP."

There's the heart of your problem. If you keep doing something wrong, isn't it time to try another route?

Posted by: sehoy at January 20, 2011 8:46 AM

Speaking of quitting.

It was common knowledge that Wilson's wife ran the White House in his last year while Wilson was stroked out and in bed.

Horrified visitors would leave meetings with FDR in his last months and ask Marshall what was going on. He would reply very frankly that he had been that way for some time. Meaning senile.

Robert Byrd, Arlan Specter, Strom Thurmand, career politicians in general...when did not quitting become such a virtue?

Even Neville Chamberlain knew he should and must resign. One wonders if we have anyone left who would ever think so. That is no virtue.

Palin stepped outside the box in which she was being drawn, which infuriates the political artists.

Posted by: james wilson at January 20, 2011 9:24 AM

Koster has some reasonable points and, I think,Moneyrunner effectively answers the most cogent of them.

My position is that Palin could win if she chooses to run in the primaries and could win the presidency should she be the nominee. But more than that, my main point at this point is that it is early innings for everybody. Too early in fact.

This was taken up at greater length today by Hugh Hewitt:
===

What The Hedgehog Knows About the GOP Presidential Race - Hugh Hewitt - Townhall Conservative

If somebody says “Look, I think this is so-and-so’s challenge, and I don’t think they’re going to be able to to overcome it, I don’t think they’re going to be able to find an answer,” that’s one thing. But to say “Look, it’s over right now,” I’m not certain I would be that definitive.

What Rove knows and has known for a long time, and what I learned in 2007 and 2008, is that no one knows what the next 15 months holds for the GOP field. What I thought I knew in 2007 and 2008 was that there was one certain thing, and only one: John McCain couldn’t be the GOP nominee. McCain couldn’t be the GOP nominee because of his advocacy of immigration reform that the base thought was amnesty. Because of his sponsorship of the Gang of 14. Because of his opposition to the Bush tax cuts and his authorship of the McCain-Feingold reworking of campaign finance laws.

McCain couldn’t be the nominee, I concluded, because he had run against the party and the conservative base so long and so hard.

....[snip...]

Almost everything written in 2007 was irrelevant to the actual events of 2008. That is what Rove knows.

The foxes at Townhall.com, Politico.com, NationalReview.com and the Washington Post, the Washington Examiner, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and every other newspaper with political reporters know many things, but the hedgehog Rove knows one thing: We don’t know –cannot know-- how this will shake out or why.
=====

Posted by: vanderleun at January 20, 2011 9:41 AM

Robin of Berkeley is worth reading today on this subject as well:American Thinker: Why the Left Hates Sarah Palin

Some conservatives believe that the hatred is a result of brainwashing; this is true, as well. Liberals respond robotically, like Pavlov's dogs, whenever Palin's name is uttered.

But there's a darker reason for the abject hatred of Palin, and the clues can be found in that Catskill Mountains bunk. Because evil can manifest when people project their own badness and shame onto another.

People on the left hate Palin for one simple reason: because she is everything they are not. She is their polar opposite because her life journey has diverged from the prescribed liberal path.

Posted by: vanderleun at January 20, 2011 9:48 AM

Oh ferchrissakes C'mon.

a) Churchill quit in July 1940
--He's Prime Minister already.

b) Lincoln quit 1861-1865
--He's President already.

c) Franklin Roosevelt quit in 1942-43
--He's President already.

d) Grover Cleveland quit in his entire second term, complete with the worst depression up that time, and cancer of the palate?
--He's President already.

e) Woodrow Wilson quit in August 1914 when his wife died
--He's President already.

f) that obscure fellow Geo W. quit from 2005-8 with a ferociously difficult conflict overseas, constant accusations of treason at home, his Cabinet under chronic fire
--He's President already.

I see a pattern here.
Epic Fail.

None of the above compare to Palin's situation. The closest I can actually think of is Nixon after losing the CA governor's race where he said "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore" and Palin has said nothing close to that.

I almost hope that Palin doesn't run in 2012, because I can't stand to see somebody that basically decent go through the sort of media rape that's been ongoing.

And GvdL is correct about not knowing what the future will bring. That guy over at Powerline is a dumb ass, and their blog has been trending toward dumbassery for a while. One more pundit not to waste time on.

Posted by: Eric Blair at January 20, 2011 10:38 AM

It's not only early innings for 2012, it's early innings for Palin and the presidency. At 47 he's got many, many elections in front of her. Look for a lot more foreign travel in the near future.

Posted by: vanderleun at January 20, 2011 12:03 PM

Dear Mr. Vanderleun: Many thanks for your kind response. I think your point and Rove's is strong: who knows what tomorrow brings? As I have said, I have underestimated SP in the past, and might be doing so now. Yet the case I made still has not been answered:

a) "Eric Blair" can only parrot "He's President/Prime Minister already" over and over, thus proving his capacity for arguing with an echo, trying to get the last word. But take his argument: none of the 7 leaders I mentioned quit. Why then did SP quit? She was "governor already." "Eric Blair" is rightly silent about why she quit. An honest answer hurts SP. A dishonest answer would put "Blair" in with the leftists he doubtless despises.

b) You yourself make the cogent point in your 12:03: "It's not only early innings for 2012, it's early innings for Palin and the presidency. At 47 he's got many, many elections in front of her." True, and all the more reason SP should not have quit. Resigning implies that 2012 is her only chance. I don't agree with this. Resigning has also put a "quitter" tag on her. She'll have many who will defend her, but as even the pseudonymous "Moneyrunner" might admit, defense is weak. You don't get to be Prez by defending yourself.

c) Let's examine some of the pseudonymous "Moneyrunner's" arguments:

i) "Now we have the Governor of a state that’s of little consequence electorally..."

That's the way to win the Alaska vote! That's also the way to persuade voters that SP is a serious candidate dedicated to public service instead of an opportunist grabbing for the main chance and a big payday. Who is worthy of respect, Billy and Hllly Clinton who got the hell out of Arkansaw for Noo Yawk by 21 January 01 or Geo W. who lives in Crawford?

ii) "...is so tied up with lawsuits..." Imprecisely, Moneyrunner is referring to the ethics complaints against SP. He's quite right about their intent and their expense. But this opens another charge against SP: she has to do everything herself. National politics is not a solo act. SP needed help in defending herself. She had it: a legal defense fund It's true, in the fund's original incarnation, it was declared improper, and had to be dissolved. But it was reconstituted and is flourishing. I will give long odds that of all the money "Moneyrunner" has ran, not a dime ran to this fund. I will give shorter odds that you and I are the only ones on this thread who have even heard of SP's legal defense fund. Such a fund would take care of the legal expenses. Yet SP quit instead of fighting. This leads us to another "Moneyrunner" point:

iii) "Today she is the most powerful political force on the Right."
Moneyrunner" seems to define 'powerful = getting your name before the public.' By this measure Arnold Schwarzenegger is the most powerful man in California politics and has a bright future---in the Obama administration. A funny fellow, our "Moneyrunner!" If only this humor was intentional...All right. What other measures of power are there? You could examine the results of the candidates SP endorsed in the 2010 races. Here is solid evidence. SP's record, while not perfect, is strong. It's strong in part because of SP's phenomenal ability to connect with a large number of voters. But this evidence has a sharp sting in it: her failure to get rid of Lisa Murkowski from the US Senate seat from Alaska. This failure is telling. It's never a good sign when a pol can't control events in her base. It's even more telling because that is how SP made her name, by knocking off Lisa's old man. More, the odious corruptionist Don Young still is Alaska's federal Representative. They are in SP's political backyard, full of malice and opportunities to cause mischief.

Yet another "power" issue. "Moneyrunner" rightly yells that SP faced bad-faith "lawsuits" i.e. ethics complaints. The complaints were the product of a transparently flawed ethics law, a law that could have been chagned by the Alaska legislature. How much power did SP have that she couldn't get that law changed by a nominally GOP-controlled state legislature?

d) As for James Wilson, his grasp of history is too weak to be taken seriously. He can't cite one contemporary source for his assertion that: "Horrified visitors would leave meetings with FDR in his last months and ask [George]Marshall what was going on. He would reply very frankly that he had been that way for some time." But grant him what he is too ignorant to prove: that FDR wasn't up to the job. So he should have quit and let HENRY WALLACE be PrezUnitedStates? Good God! The hammer and sickle would be flying over DC today if that had happened. As for his assertion that it was "common knowlege" that Edith Wilson ran the country, let him tell us ten deicsions she took. I can tell you of a mass of decisions that were NOT taken because of Wilson's incapacity. This means that the country drifted in 1919-20, not that Edith Wilson ran the show.
Mr. Wilson does not address my question: what sitting governors have resigned for personal reasons and returned to equal or higher ranking office? He can't, so put him to one side and let those with knowledge take up the task.

It's worth asking what the SP backers on this thread want: to bash my humble self in the manner of gaining "pissoffage" to use an illiteracy, or to develop effective answers to the charges that will be hurled at SP. "Moneyrunner" has at least tried, not successfully in my opinion, but I could be wrong. "Eric Blair" characteristically, has chosen the ineffectual: he doesnt' read POWERLINE anymore. John, Scott, and Paul are reeling with shock at this response, wounded beyond belief at this "Blairian" pummeling. Meanwhile they continue to broadcast their views to, say, 25000 readers every day. Views that do not help SP. That's showing them, "Eric!"

Why not try to develop the case for SP? As the proprietor of this site has observed, it's early days yet. SP will need help to gain office. You can donate money to her defense fund or PAC---hey, why is everybody running away? All right, all right, I won't ask you to do something that requires sacrifice. You can come up with answers, a positive case for SP. At present, SP is a better campaigner than executive. Her record shows promise in her executive talents. But think of all the idiotic Lefties who thought The One was the answer. How many of them would vote for, say, Hillary, today? The nation does not need another good-campaigner-but-lousy-exec Prez.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

Posted by: Gregory Koster at January 20, 2011 2:36 PM

Somewhat off topic, but I'm inclined to think we would have been better off if Wilson had resigned in 1914. He was a ghastly President.

I was just reading up on his Vice President, Thomas R. Marshall. I can't say whether he would have been any better, but at least he had a sense of humor, unlike Wilson.

Posted by: rickl at January 20, 2011 5:02 PM

Vanderleun, As a huge American Digest fan I'm honored that you find my work worthy of posting. Thanks!

Posted by: Maksim at January 20, 2011 8:20 PM

"Gregory Koster" said: 'Mr. Wilson does not address my question: what sitting governors have resigned for personal reasons and returned to equal or higher ranking office?'

What woman has been elected President?

I guess since it has never happened, it never will happen, right?

And "Gregory Koster" completely misses the point about all those Presidents and why "Gregory Koster"'s analogies fail. Those men were already in the highest office in the land. I thought that's what this was about; whether Palin could be President or not.

Announcing from on high that she can't is basically ignorant. Willfully so.

And then "Gregory Koster" claims that he wants to 'develop effective answers to the charges that will be hurled at SP'.

"Gregory Koster" is a concern troll.

Posted by: Eric Blair at January 20, 2011 8:34 PM

Dear "Eric Blair": Nope. My point in bringing up the 7 leaders was that they faced cataclysmic situations, either personal or political, but did not quit. SP faced a difficult political situation and----

Mr. "Blair," what answer do you have to the charge that SP is a quitter when things get tough? That issue will be raised, if only by the odious Sullivan. Easy to blast me, but that isn't going to win SP any votes. Further by 2013, this nation will be in a parlous state. Great skills in campaigning will be less useful than resolution. Or don't you think 2012 is that important an election? If so, why did SP act as if 2012 was a "now or never" election for her.

As for your red herring, viz:

"What woman has been elected President?

I guess since it has never happened, it never will happen, right?"

No. The question is, what guv has resigned office for personal reasons and come back to equal or higher ranking office later? We've had 200+ years of electoral history in which that strategy could have been tried. So far Nelson Rockefeller is the only guv who made it work, and his precedent isn't encouraging. Once again, Machiavelli on trying to see through a new order of things is worth noting.

I never claimed to want to develop effective answers to the "quitter" charge. I'm not an SP backer. You give the impression of being one. Why not come up with effective answers. "Moneyrunner" tried. The proprietor of this site thinks they weren't bad. Why not try your own hand at it? If you are going to back SP, you are going to need them sooner or later.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

Posted by: Gregory Koster at January 20, 2011 9:31 PM

Concern troll "Gregory Koster" said: 'Mr. "Blair," what answer do you have to the charge that SP is a quitter when things get tough?'

--She carried that Down's syndrome child to term when she could have aborted it.

But the whole 'quitter' charge is irrelevant, since Palin's political career has not been traditional or typical.

You'll have to come up with something better than that.

Posted by: Eric Blair at January 21, 2011 5:59 AM

Maksim,
You are a living national treasure.

Posted by: vanderleun at January 21, 2011 7:59 AM

Mrs. Palin is a quitter? Her political foes wish that was true. They've tried every vicious smear and libel they could think of to get her to crawl off in a corner somewhere and just die.

And she just keeps on coming at them. Quitter? If she was a quitter you would never have heard from her after November 2008, and you wouldn't have people announcing, repeatedly, that her political career is over. Over again after Tucson. Just like it was announced it was over when McCain was defeated. Or when it was announced when she resigned as Alaska Governor. Or when she said 'death panels'. Or when her daughter went on 'dancing'. Or when her tv show was announced.

Her foes dearly, fervently wish she was a quitter because her continuous presence is driving them up the wall.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at January 21, 2011 10:56 AM

I like the "Thirst for Death" bumpersticker. I liked this one too:

"Prog, my Young Republican peed in your pool."

Posted by: MarkJ at January 21, 2011 1:54 PM

Ah, Greg, her opposition to QE 2, the START treaty,the GZ Mosque (in a rather wistful way,
not Newt's hyperbolic style) her defense of the mission in Afghanistan, calling out that wretched
Julian Assange, those are just somethings since the last time we spoke

Posted by: narciso at January 21, 2011 8:19 PM

Re: the quitter label. I consider Palin to have been a victim of a real life Kobyashi Maru, a no win scenario. Let's recap:

Palin is being relentlessly slimed by an endless series of baseless/groundless lawsuits. Unfortunately, even getting those cases dismissed takes money. And AK law does not allow for legal defense funds for sitting governors. Palin can (a) leave the office in the hands of a decent conservative and be able to now defend herself as a private citizen or (b) stay for four years and become bankrupt. If she chooses (a), she gets labeled as a quitter. If she chooses (b), the stench of corruptions sticks to her and makes her persona non grata. Either way, Palin loses.

A liberal friend of mine rolled his eyes about her resignation. When I said that she was getting tired of going into debt to defend herself against baseless accusations, he responded "Maybe she stop doing things that get her into legal trouble." Of course, sin Palin's only real since was governing while Republican, it didn't matter what she chose to do. She's either a quitter, a corrupt politician, or both.

What's the answer? I have no idea. Personally, I think that she'd make a fine president. The question I have is whether or not the GOP powers that be could stand to have her leading them. My current guess is that they'd do everything in their power to defeat her.

Posted by: physics geek at January 27, 2011 9:30 AM