August 5, 2012

Palin's Clout Continues

This just in: Sarah Palin: Senate kingmaker - David Catanese -

“She’s a rock star right now in Republican Senate primaries. She’s hit a pretty strong streak,” said Scott Bensing, a former executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “She gives the impression that she has deeply held beliefs she’s willing to take on water for and doesn’t really care what her critics think. She comes off resolute and principled.”

Reminds me (courtesy of an attentive reader) of this from November, 2010:

[AGAIN] LET'S REVIEW: How Sarah Palin Will HAS Become the Most Powerful Republican... and [UPDATED] will be the next President of the United States.

NOVEMBER4, 2010: This just in from SarahPAC

Just who do you think that grizzly is?

UPDATE: NOVEMBER 4, 2010 At Morgan's place where the daggers are being drawn, sheathed, and drawn again in the comments:

House of Eratosthenes

Obama will be challenged, and He will lose. There isn’t time for the Tea Party to form, recruit, organize, and offer a candidate. Libertarians don’t have the flexibility to ever become relevant. It all comes down to, a Republican is going to be sworn in on January 20, 2013. There really isn’t any avoiding it.

It won’t be Sarah Palin…if she doesn’t want to do it.

Or if she’s hit by a bus, or eaten by a bear.

Or if aliens abduct her.

Or if a majority of Americans become simultaneously transfixed and enamored with Newt, or Huck, or Mitt. The three erstwhile gentlemen who have almost completely sat this whole thing out, while Palin has been out stumping and speechifying and endorsing, and generally being a potent force.

She’s easy on the eyes, too. Plus, she owns this night like nobody else in the country does, except maybe Rick Santelli.

At lot can happen in twenty-six months. But at this point, an awful lot would have to happen to stop her from being the next president. None of these events are terribly likely, and a whole bunch of loudmouths yammering over and over again how much they’re irritated by her, aren’t going to make it happen.

Like it or not, it would be entirely reasonable to pick out the perfect bearskin rug for the Oval Office. If that makes you mad, you can get just as mad about it as you want to. She’s headed in that direction and there’s nothing in her way.

UPDATE: NOVEMBER 4, 2010 -- Sarah Palin today:The Midterms: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward - National Review Online

"In the coming weeks there will also be a debate about the viability of particular candidates. Anyone with the courage to throw his or her hat in the ring and stand up and be counted always has my respect. Some of them were stronger candidates than others, but they all had the courage to be “in the arena.” The second lesson of this election is one a number of the candidates had to learn to their cost: Fight back the lies immediately and consistently. Some candidates assumed that, once they received their party’s nomination, the conservative message would automatically carry the day. Unfortunately, political contests aren’t always about truth and justice. Powerful vested interests will combine to keep bad candidates in place and good candidates out of office. Once they let themselves be defined as “unfit” (decorated war hero Joe Miller) or “heartless” (pro-life, international women’s rights champion Carly Fiorina), good candidates often find it virtually impossible to get their message across. The moral of their stories: You must be prepared to fight for your right to be heard."

UPDATE: Drudge, September 1, 2010

LAST YEAR Note: First published July 10, 2009. [ "Speaking of Palin, she will stump for five GOP candidates, four of them will win, everyone will talk about the one who didn’t." ** -- Predictions for 2010 @ House of Eratosthenes

Commenting from that same time: Morgan was right then and he's becoming more correct with every passing day. She's top dog right now and the Republican establishment, pundits and pols, cannot or will not see it. But they will. She can shift votes and enthusiasms by endorsing. She can get followers to come out and doorbell for her choices. She can get lawn signs planted and voters driven to the polls. She can raise money for her choice of candidates. Lots of money. And, win or lose, when this election is over just imagine how many political markers Palin will have collected.]

Aikido is performed by blending with the motion of the attacker and redirecting the force of the attack rather than opposing it head-on. -- Wikipedia
"I can't fight for what's right when I'm shackled to the governor's seat." -- Palin

In the last [week][month][year] Sarah Palin has moved herself from the periphery to the center of power in the Republican party. The Party just doesn't seem to know it... yet. But they will. Palin will draw them into her orbit like the law of gravity.

By resigning as the Governor of Alaska, Palin has positioned herself as the single most valuable power broker for the GOP in the 2010 elections. Simply put, in close primaries pitting Republican against Republican, and in close general elections for the Senate or Congress, Sarah Palin's endorsement and/or campaigning for a candidate can get that person elected. In addition, Palin can also raise money for a party and for candidates who would otherwise be strapped for cash. These are formidable political powers and only by freeing herself from Alaska will she be able to exercise them.

While it is true that, had she remained governor, she still would have had the power to attract crowds and energize the Republican base for the Republican cause, it would have been an effort mostly at a distance and, as a consequence, an effort of second intensity. The logistics of moving between Alaska and the lower 48 while still performing the duties of governor would have limited her involvement. Her resignation at this moment gives her time for family, to rest and reflect, raise money, organize a core staff, and still have time for a lot of quiet meetings and walks on the beach with various Republican hopefuls on the city, state, and national levels.

The question is not who among the Republicans won't want Palin's endorsement in 2010. The question is which Republicans in close contests, incumbent or challenger, would be able win without it. This raw political fact will become especially visible in the last few weeks before the 2010 polls when Palin will give a new meaning to "barnstorming."

The elections of 2010 are rightly seen as critical to the future and fortunes of the Republican Party, as well as the nation. For the Republican/Conservative cause it may very well be the last bus stop. Failure to recapture a significant number of seats in the House and the Senate in order to bring balance back to the legislative branch will be a sign that the Party's present thirst for death has been successful beyond their wildest dreams. There will be a lot of must-win and closely contested seats available as the present malaise in the economy and breakdown in the international order becomes clearer and clearer.

2010 is a make or break election for the Republicans. And the person in that year that can make and break Republican candidates is now Sarah Palin. She's not only a star, she's the only star the Republicans have or are likely to have. Love her or hate her, the Republicans must have her, and she must be available for active campaigning across the country.

And as Palin will benefit the Party in 2010, so will she benefit from any electoral victories (primary or general) that she will have had a hand in securing. Politics raw runs on money and markers. An endorsement or appearance by Palin brings crowds, commitment, enthusiasm, and donations -- not from the interior old-guard of the Party -- but from the rank and file conservatives and the center-right feminists. These people form the mass of the Party. It might ignore them between elections, but it will need their lawn signs, donations, and door-belling in the primaries and general elections. Palin can give all this --the people -- to the candidates of her choice. She can do this by simply showing up.

A retreat from the public eye for a bit will not diminish her stature but enhance her myth. Myth, as we have seen in 2007-2008, is a powerful force in elections.

What will Palin get for bringing in victory and money? She'll get what she doesn't have now -- markers. At the present time it's hard to think of any markers that Palin holds. You have to actually deliver money or victory to a politician to get a marker from a politician. If she campaigns broadly and effectively for various Republicans in 2010 she'll have a sheaf of markers going into 2012. She'll also have a core staff already tempered by the 2010 elections, most likely a book, and an enhanced myth. By the end of 2010 Sarah Palin will have become the most powerful person in the Republican Party. Palin will be, at the very least, a kingmaker, at most a populist Queen.

Her enemies in all parties may not have quite figured this out yet, but they sense it. Sensing, they fear her. And that's why the hate goes on.

** Update: Ambivalent about Palin? You might want to check Morgan's long list of "What I Notice About Palin-Bashers" @ House of Eratosthenes
19. If they’re Republicans, they long for a return to the halcyon days when the Republican party was known for its intellectual depth, and won elections that way. I, too, think that would be kinda cool. They aren’t ready to clue me in on when in the last hundred years that ever happened, or how likely such a thing ever is to happen again. Haven’t they noticed in columnist-world, the conservatives have a monopoly on intellectual wherewithal? Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Sowell, George Will…their counterparts are Keith Olbermann and Arianna Huffington? And that there’s a filtration process in place to keep that from ever translating into our elections, so that when it’s time to vote suddenly it’s the liberals who are the eggheads. What do they think is going to happen to upset that? What should be done to overturn that canoe? They aren’t ready to discuss this, not in the slightest. One would reasonably expect they’d be chomping at the bit.

Posted by Vanderleun at August 5, 2012 8:28 PM
Bookmark and Share



"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.

Just sent this off to Peggy Noonan regarding her recent column that trashes Palin:

Ms. Noonan.

If you'd exercised only a fraction of your now laser-bright skepticism on Obama - your righteous concerns about the future worthiness of the next conservative candidate wouldn't rankle so much.

You stated:

"For 30 years the self-esteem movement told the young they’re perfect in every way. It’s yielding something new in history: an entire generation with no proper sense of inadequacy."

Well, now that the rose-colored glasses are off, are you able to see how completely that comment applies to The One - that arrogant narcissist whose praises you trumpeted throughout the land?

And this?

"This is a time for conservative leaders who know how to think."

If a woman with your mental capacity was so duped by the aura and glam of Obama - the 'tingle up the leg' delight of ushering in an historic moment . . . . what hope have we for clear-headed leadership from a more nuanced thinker.

Guess I'll settle for a solid woman who knows when to duck and when to pull a trigger.

Catherine Wilson

Posted by: Cathy at July 10, 2009 7:54 AM

I've been waiting for you to give us the final word on this Gerard. You know what. That is EXACTLY the answer I gave my girlfriend the other day....And I have not followed this story because 99% of what's said was superfluous as Michael Jackson's life.

Necessity is the mother of invention and one would think based on that universal law that a conservative leader would have already emerged full blown. I mean a real firebrand, a fist pumping, spittle flinging, rabble-rouser. Someone, in a word, that would channel the energy and intention of that guy in the youtube video you posted beating a PC monitor with a bat as he utterly eviscerates the statism that we are now force fed daily. I pray Palin is that person. I fervently pray that the GOOD will wake up to the fact that it's evil twin has been on a winning streak these past few decades and that it is high time that sulphurous stink suffered some defeat. Sometimes I have wondered if GOOD was still in the game even. Justice is crying out from the very rocks for its turn.

Posted by: John P. at July 10, 2009 8:41 AM

The mark of truly superior writing is that my insatiable curiosity -- not my ideological like-mindedness, but my genuine curiosity, which is a horse of a different color -- compels me to keep on reading even though you're in the middle of belaboring the obvious.

Well done, sir. However, in your close you went above and beyond even that, and cracked the iron crust of the unknown:

Her enemies in all parties may not have quite figured this out yet, but they sense it. Sensing, they fear her. And that's why the hate goes on.

What is this ability they have, to arouse such heated passion over things they haven't systematically deconstructed and inspected component by component? Is it that this brand of hate comes so naturally to them? Is this an ability we all have, but the life-decision to feel-over-think versus think-over-feel enhances it, whereas conservatives, with their greater propensity to adhere to rules of common sense and reason, suffer from a sort of atrophy in this skillset? Is it a "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" thing? Is it a professional thing, where as pencil-pushers, bureaucrats, mediocre schoolteachers, shrinks and lawyers -- and deadbeats -- they remain safely insulated from the consequences of bad decisions, and therefore fail to respect the disciplines that are involved in avoiding them?

This is a mystery I fear I shall never figure out, even if I live to be 500. How one senses things, to the point one can react to them so heatedly, without having true understanding of them. Obviously, the cynical and phony attempts at Letterman/Stewart "humor" tie into this. But how does it work, exactly? Are these people raised from infancy by insects or something? Seriously, how's this work?

Posted by: Morgan K Freeberg at July 10, 2009 8:59 AM

They won't make it easy Gerald, more and more your two aphorisms are coming true. Christie in NJ, turning down a rally for her, without having been asked, Wolf in Va, similarly is just asking
to be 'reassigned' back to private life. And Noonan, well we saw how clueless she was last fall

Posted by: narciso at July 10, 2009 9:06 AM

Great insight. I disagree with only one thing - you use of the word "may" in reference to whether Sarah Palin will become a Republican icon. For all the reasons you describe, the Demoleftimediatainment sector will go into full hate mode against her as soon as they begin to understand what we already know. They will not be able to help themselves, as it will sell like hotcakes for a while. But by attacking her, they will make her into the sympathetic figure that no media suckup like McCain would ever be allowed to become.

She will end up with the votes of all of us who are sick of the media picking our nominees and our winners for national leadership. She will end up, whether she wants to or not, running against the media, with the promise of destroying its abusive, unaccountable power. And she will have the support of millions of us in doing so!

Someone needs to photoshop her head onto a picture of St. George holding a lance, riding on a charger, and driving the snakes out of Ireland. The identity of the snakes will be self-evident.

Posted by: sherlock at July 10, 2009 9:35 AM

The most original take on Sarah Palin's resignation yet, and also the one making the most sense. I am sick of the conservatives constantly using the word "quitter" when they haven't had to walk in her shoes. I would bet most of them would have bailed a lot sooner. Sarah Palin is a tough woman, and I think she speaks the truth in saying she could no longer do her job.

Posted by: bill at July 10, 2009 10:46 AM

I do not want a star. I want principles, not principals.

We, as Americans, should not base our politics on heroes. Our country, was founded on a proposition, not on a person. Our politics should be about ideas not personalities.

Let the liberals search for their anointed, the Won, who is the embodiment of their desire. Let them wake in the morning hungover, disillusioned, bitter, and wondering who is the rube*.

“Put not your trust in princes, in mortal men, in whom there is no help. When his breath departs, he is buried in the earth; and his powers perish as his body perished.”**

Our standard must be Our Country, Our Constitution, and the American people.

*If you have to ask who the rube is …

**Ps 146:3-4

Posted by: Fat Man at July 10, 2009 2:46 PM

That's been my hope since I heard about the resignation. I don't want her to be a candidate, I want her to be a voice, a spokesman and a central figure leading the public face of conservatism.

But make no mistake, her enemies understood immediately how potent a figure she is and will be, that's why the hateful, continous efforts to destroy her.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 10, 2009 2:58 PM

From your lips to God's ears, Mr. Van Der Luen.


Posted by: waywardinn at July 10, 2009 2:59 PM

Meanwhile, the "smart" set are pushing Romney. Again. Wake me when he's over.

Posted by: chuck at July 10, 2009 3:43 PM

An entire political culture is beginning to notice that twinkle in the sky that stays visible even in daylight.

The dinosaurs didn't know what an asteroid or comet was. They were too busy being huge, clumsy, and oblivious.

Oh, hi, Peggy. Sorry, didn't see you there.

It might not be Palin. But it will be somebody none of us have ever heard of, otherwise.

Posted by: TmjUtah at July 10, 2009 6:44 PM

Good post, Gerard. I found another good one last night at the blog Conservative Talk, by member Thresherman:

Much has been surmised about Sarah Palin's decision to step down as Governor of Alaska, but what I find astounding, is how much of it on the Republican side has been shaped by the media onslaught against her.

Think about it, every single opinion that we have seen or read by any GOP leaning pundit has been a response to how the media has shaped the debate about her, rather than a dispassionate and thoughtful reading of how what she did will affect the GOP.

From those who proclaim that her political career is over, (care to count how many times that has been said about those who went on to sit in the Oval Office or any other head of state? Teddy Roosevelt and Winston Churchill spring to mind, just to name a few.) or other wild speculations that need not be repeated ad nauseam.

But let us pause and look at this from an angle that might not have been so out of step not very long ago.

Palin is under an unrelenting assault from the left, the likes of which have never been seen since the return of the Vietnam Vets, a truth that they have tried to scholarly dismiss, and as such was going to have struggle to complete her term let alone be re-elected. If you doubt the effectiveness of this tactic, I refer you to how the public viewed the Presidency of George W. Bush in the election of 2008

So Palin, seeing this scenario play out again, decides that she is not going to be a party to it.

Instead of focusing on the negatives of her action, let us act like thinking adults and also consider the positives of her act.

We know that if Palin ran for Governor again, the left would pour money like there was no end into the state to defeat her and they would also file an ethics challenge on every attempt of hers to raise money to counter-act that. The plan being to either defeat her or make it impossible to raise enough money to mount a Presidential campaign, let alone govern the state.

Faced with this, no one and I mean no one, seems to realize that Palin made a very shrewd political move. Months ago she met with her Lt. Governor and carried on a set of meetings that would enable for a smooth transition of power and of a continuance of her policies after she left office.

Thus instead of being forced to either being forced to go though a re-election campaign that would have brought enormous amounts or money into a small state just to see her squashed, Palin upset the apple cart and put a new Governor in place who would carry out her popular policies and will then run as an incumbent.

With the value being placed on the amount of Governorships held, do you understand why the Democrats are screaming to the high heavens about their plan being thwarted by some yokel who didn't have the decency to graduate from an Ivy league school?

Even more so, how dare she escape the carefully laid trap that they put out for her?

But most heinous, she is now free to sue them for their attacks on her and her family and now they have to adopt a defensive mode regarding her rather than an offensive one. Now do we see why she went after Letterman so hard instead of shrugging it off as average Republicans are so wont to do?

We shall see, but I think that Palin has looked at the self defeatist attitude that seems to rule Republican politics and declared herself "Independent" of it and hence the timing of her announcement

Political pundits seem to share a common thread with sportscasters, they always seem to be caught flat footed when someone decides to not share their predicted outcomes.

Posted by: rickl at July 10, 2009 8:59 PM

rickl & gerard-

My hope is that Palin does exactly that. It may become plain in the next few months how 'done' the GoP is. I believe that it will be obvious in about 6 months. In that case, Palin is then free to approach a group like the Constitution Party with a modified platform based upon lessons learned from the TEA Party movement and the demise of the GoP. Then she and others can be free to really change what needs to be changed inside the US. I think #1 is the end of the elitist and exclusive professional political classes which are fed from the Ivy league and have absolutely NO resonance with the rest of the country.

"Throw The Bums Out In 2010 & 2012 - Reboot Congress"
Vote AGAINST the incumbents in 2010 & 2012.

Posted by: robohobo at July 10, 2009 11:36 PM

In one brief article ... all the hours and pages of blather blown to bits.

Posted by: Brett_McS at July 11, 2009 3:19 AM

I'm not sure I agree with this, but it's an interesting take.

As far as those who keep repeating the claim that the Left is afraid of Palin, that may be true on some level, but I don't honestly think that is their primary motivator. I think they are far more offended by her mere existence, then afraid of her. She's a far more suitable figurehead of the opposing side of ideology then Bush was ever shoehorned into. To them, she represents everything backward, ignorant, and uncultured, and the perfect pinata to punch around as a living, breathing caricature of an America they fervently wish did not exist. To some conservatives, I fear she's become the same thing, except as a spear to poke the other side in the eye. Because of that usage on both sides of the political divide, she's hardly the unifying figure the conservatives need to win the center in the next round of presidential elections - she polarizes far too much - by design it seems.

Posted by: Colin at July 11, 2009 5:34 AM

I woke up during the night and it occurred to me that after what Palin has endured, there is no happy ending for either the media Liberals or Palin. One has to lose, big time.
Palin, the Media and the Gestapo
Can we all agree that the Gestapo/SS has a - what can we call it – bad reputation? As the enforcers for the National Socialist Workers Party (NAZI) they handled the detail work of taking care of the Third Reich’s enemies.

How did they acquire such a bad reputation?

Before you dismiss this as a stupid question, can we agree that during World War 2 atrocities were committed by all sides? Innocent civilians were killed by all sides; that’s the nature of war, especially war with dumb bombs and unguided weapons. Both the Axis and the Allies killed their enemies ruthlessly, both openly and surreptitiously.

The reason that the Gestapo/SS is viewed as such a heinous villain is twofold. First, the Axis lost the war. If they had won, a much different history would have been written because “history is written by the winners.” Second, the atrocities that were committed by the Gestapo/SS were vicious and grotesque. Cruelty was a feature, not a bug, in their system. They were not just killing their enemies; they were setting an example to all would-be enemies. The message was: cross us and you will not only be dead, you will be tortured to death. Hurt one of us and a hundred of you will die. Threaten the Reich, and not just you but your entire family will be killed.

The “treatment” that Sarah Palin has received at the hands of the Liberal media brought the reputation issue to mind. The defamation of Palin and her family is so over-the-top, so absolutely gutter ugly, so repulsive that a point has been reached that has only two outcomes. Either Palin or her enemies will go down in history with a horrible stain on their reputations.

On the one hand you have an attractive woman, a Christian, a good governor with an attractive family who is the very image of middle America. On the other side you have – as an example – a "bareback" homosexual like Andrew Sullivan disputing the MATERNITY of Palin’s youngest child – and David Letterman whose idea of good fun is to joke about raping one of Palin’s daughters. Let’s not even go to the Camp of the Feminists who are outraged that Palin did not abort her Down ’s syndrome baby.

Keep in mind that the worst atrocities committed by the Gestapo/SS were as the Axis was losing the war. I only note this to observe that the MSM is in a death spiral the end of which is hard to discern.

Posted by: Moneyrunner at July 11, 2009 1:02 PM

Everyone here needs to recall the friggin' PRIME DIRECTIVE of American politics:

First WIN! Then do good!

Woe unto ye who sit upon "principles" or who proclaim "We can't stoop to the opponents' level"

You can ponder your fine philosophy at will in the Left's/Dems'/Progressives' re-education camps!

Posted by: Earl T at July 12, 2009 9:02 AM

Yeah, I think this story is right on the money. However, by the same token, I think Palin is angling for a position even more powerful and influential than Prez.

Namely, "Karl Rove on Steroids."

Posted by: MarkJ at July 12, 2009 5:22 PM

This article is prescient.

The MSM, Republican Party consultants, Peggy Noonan, etc. are quite quick to label Palin a quitter and hope that doing so will be enough to make her disappear from the political horizon.

Silly them.

The Republican Party is utterly bereft of leaders (or even followers (if you mean following their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution)).

It is Palin's values (not just her personality) which appeal to so many of us.

She stridently supports the values I hold dear and cares not what anyone thinks.

I concur with the poster who finds Romney (yawn) to be a dullster.

Watching the results of RomenyCare in Mass. unfold while Obama and Congress try to chart a similar national path should be enough to taint him for 2012, but that really won't be necessary because he is a lightweight.

Palin draws large fervent crowds, the type which will be winning elections after Obama and Congress have firmly fixed our nation onto the path toward financial Armageddon.

And Palin truly is the ONLY bright spot in the Republican Party.

It wouldn't bother me a bit if she dropped the Republican Party and, with the help of other Constitutionalists, forms a new Constitutional Party.

The Republican Party needs Palin more than she needs it.

Posted by: molonlabe28 at July 13, 2009 10:18 AM

Don't know if you read it this weekend, but Willie Brown gets it.

[Yup, I saw that. GV]

Posted by: newton at July 13, 2009 11:52 AM

If a woman with your mental capacity was so duped by the aura and glam of Obama...

Noonan, Althouse, Camile Paglia -- all fooled -- what's going on here?

I love Palin, but I don't want her to run for President. She should help change the government, and then get a TV show, become a white Oprah, and do something more important -- change the culture.

Posted by: Salt Lick at January 8, 2010 9:52 AM

It should be self-evident by now that Presidents do indeed play a significant role in changing the culture through inspiration, raw example, and/or through their part in setting the conditions that culture exists within. They are not just reflections of 'the culture' that birthed them and allowed them to attain the powers of leadership. Presidents are cultural leaders in and of themselves.

As Ronald Reagan had led us back to that shining city on the hill through the shadows of the fever-swamp that Jimmy 'the genius' Peanut had malaised us into, I can but hope that a President Palin can manage to inspire us to return to our hearths with what remains of the authentic American culture.

I for one would much prefer the cultural leadership of Sarah Palin over the cultural leadership-wreck of BH 0bama and his socialist paladins.

Posted by: monkeyfan at January 8, 2010 12:05 PM

Sarah says "All your heads are belong to me" to the Dems. And clearly, that's how the Dems act.

Posted by: Sam L. at January 9, 2010 7:07 AM

If you question Sarah Palin's principled, deep, direct, Reaganesque savvy, read her Hong Kong speech, presented to an international business group [excerpt available at her Facebook site]. She used simple, but comprehensive truth like a meat ax to separate the PC gristle and brainless bone from the meat that matters in international relations.

I believe she is developing to be an American Joan of Arc, with a happier ending for herself and her American compatriots.

Bravo Gerard, son of the Lion, and no mere cub himself!

Posted by: FamouslyUnknown at January 9, 2010 11:41 AM

Vanderluen, you are obviously a Democrat, wishing/urging the Republicans to accept Palin as their leader.

Posted by: David Sucher at January 9, 2010 9:52 PM

I believe she is developing to be an American Joan of Arc

I have made that explicit comparison myself, elsewhere.

America needs Sarah Palin, or else someone so much like her so as to be nearly indistinguishable from her.

Right now I don't see any other potential Republican Presidential candidate who even comes close.

Posted by: rickl at August 31, 2010 8:16 PM

I don't know if she'd be a great president.

She'd be better than what we have now. Of course, by 2012 we'll be ready to draft a reasonably competent Zamboni driver...

I wouldn't have voted in 2008 if she hadn't been on the ticket.

Posted by: TmjUtah at August 31, 2010 8:27 PM

Dear Mr. Vanderleun: Nope, wasn't convinced by your piece in 2009, and I'm still not. I'm a bit hesitant about expressing reservations about SP as I've underestimated her previously. Nevertheless, being doomed, let me mount the scaffold and make the case:

a. SP has been grossly vilified in unspeakable ways. See Andrew Sullivan. She did and does not deserve this vilification.
b. The attacks on SP as underqualified are embarrassing considering The One's blank slate.
c. SP's capacity to connect with the largely ignored by GOP and Dems alike masses is phenomenal. This political talent will carry her far leaving everything else out.
d. SP has had some executive experience worth noting, namely making a budget. This requires saying "no" to many of your supporters without estranging them permanently.

The Case:

1. In the 220+ years of electoral politics, how many sitting Governors or Senators have:

i) resigned for personal reasons, not to take another job to which they had been elected to and

ii) later returned to their previous office, or a higher ranking one.

In all those years, I can only think of one such miracle worker: Nelson Rockefeller, who resigned as New York Governor in December 1973, and two years later became Vice President---by appointment under Amendment 25 to the Constitution. His nominator? Gerld Ford, another appointed Veep who became Prez after Nixon quit.

This is not an encouraging precedent for Palin. If there are other cases of Governors/US Senators following the path outlined in 1) and ii) I'd be obliged to the Palin supporters for their names.

2. The notion that a sitting Governor/Senator can't influence the process while in office will come as news to

a) Franklin Roosevelt in 1932
b) Robert Kennedy in 1968
c) Bill Clinton in 1992

Two of these three won through, and the third was a strong contender before being murdered. Or look at it from the opposite view: Winston Churchill was out of office from 1929-39. He did his best to spread his message on rearmament during that time. Was Britain better for having WSC out of office eloquently shouting his message, or would it have been better for him to be in the Cabinet, acting on it?

3. The notion that SP was in an impossible position as Governor because of the trumped up ethics complaints filed against her is damning. That it was unpleasant, is beyond question. But none of the complaints stuck. All were thrown out, even the one that tied up her legal defense fund. Abe Lincoln had a tough time from the day he was inaugurated until he was murdered. He never considered resignation. Winston Churchill likewise had a trying time in 1940-45. Did he consider quitting? Even LBJ didn't quit, though he did decide not to run for office. If SP is friendless enough to have to withdraw in the face of small bore gunfire as the ethics complaints were, that's a serious fault. If SP had to withdraw because she lacked the stamina and will to prevail, that's an absolute bar in my view.

4. What do we know of SP's views? Two ghostwritten books don't go far. The model to compare her to is Ronald Reagan. It's true that RR's first autobiography WHERE'S THE REST OF ME? was written in open collaboration, but that's not the writings I'm looking at. Look at Reagan's syndicated columns and radio spots from 1975-79 about two-thirds written in his own hand. What can SP show by comparison?

5. A great part of the support SP has is detestation of The One and his smelly gang of press elitists. Grant that SP can defeat The One in 2012. Then what? SP supporters do not want to fall into the trap The One's supporters did on Election Night 2008, beleiveing The One's own bunk about his election meaning the planet would heal, the oceans recede, and Michelle would wear decent clothes...Well, maybe not quite all of that.

But once the 2012 election is done, the President will have to deliver, and deliver from the most horrific mess since the runup to World War II. What in SP's record justifies such confidence? I think she'd do well domestically, with a lot of government shrinking zest taking her far.

It's foreign affairs that worry me. Not only the armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the financial strains The One's profligacy has loaded onto the nation. Can SP do it? It is a high risk gamble, a gamble that makes me hesitate.

SP supporters should also note the lyrical warbling that surrounded Scott Brown of Massachusetts immediately after his election: "Brown for Prez! By now reality has set in, and the 2012 Brown posters are already trampled underfoot, victims of an inflated reputuation.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

Posted by: Gregory Koster at August 31, 2010 11:05 PM

Well, it's true - the title "Father of our Country" is already taken.

Posted by: goy at September 1, 2010 5:47 AM


It wasn't just unpleasant. [That it was unpleasant, is beyond question.] It was impossible. Palin says that responding to those 'ethics' charges was using up all her working time, and that of her staff. I have no reason not to believe her. Have you never had to deal with interrogatories?

If debilitating health issues had arisen, sufficient to adversely affect her job performance, should she not then have resigned? How is this different?

Posted by: David Davies at September 1, 2010 11:03 AM

Used to run into Morgan at Jaded Heaven trying to get Daphne's head out of her ass. I see she is gone now. Long live Morgan. Self governance is the lesson we are learning as a people, I hope. Palin isn't my favorite yet but I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.

Posted by: John Hinds at September 1, 2010 1:31 PM

Ah, Greg you don't frequent the JOM haunts anymore, wonder why, maybe ignoring her speeches,interviews, et al for the better part of a year works for you.
She actually has a platform of positions, common sense, or as Morgan has put it; "Change you'll be begging for" Letting her just be cheerleader means
handing the ball, to folks who might very well fumble it, and we don't want that

Posted by: narciso at September 2, 2010 10:58 AM

Dear Mr. Davies: Taking your second point, sure, resigning for health is perfectly acceptable. The corollary is any candidate who resigns for health isn't going to be running for office in three years. Do you believe that SP is not going to run for Prez in 2012? I don't. I think she's planning and watching her opportunities. Nothing wrong with that. But quitting the Guv's office leaves a "quitter" stain on her, starkly at odds with the "mama grizzly" image she is cultivating (an image, I add, that has a huge amount of truth to it. Ask the Murkowskis.)

As for your first point, what else can SP say, but that the ethics inquiries were taking up all her time? If she says anything else, she's admitting she's a wimp. I don't take what she says literally. She and every staffer she had was answering interrogatories sixteen hours a day, seven days a week? Nope, don't buy it. I do buy that it was a trying, difficult situation to be in. It does show a weakness of SP's, I think: she does well in a crisis, as her earlier resignation from the Alaska Oil & Gas Commission because of ethics problems withe GOP state chariman shows. But in a chronic problem, she has trouble. I think that's why she quit: she faced a problem that would not go away, and she couldn't do anything about it:

a) she couldn't get the Legislature to change the law that allowed the anonymous assassins to fire at her.
b) she knew that the assassins would continue to fire. They would never be successful in the sense that one of their complaints would turn out to be true. But they could wear at her.

They succeeded. This success was despicable. SP deserves sympathy for this onslaught. She has mine. But she did quit:

a) unlike Lincoln in his entire Presidency
b) unlike Franklin Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor
c) unlike Churchill in the summer of 1940, or in the winter of 1938-39 when the Conservative establishment tried to boot him from his seat in Parliament.
d) unlike Ben-Gurion in Israel, facing a nominally much superior Arab force in 1947-1949

These are high standards. But SP hopes to compete in the competition that produced these giants. She'll be judged accordingly. Tell me: do you think her resignation has gone unnoted in the Kremlin? Or Beijing? Consider this scenario:

SP is elected Prez. The day after her inauguration, the Chinese announce that not only will they stop all new purchases of US Treasuries, but will sell or redeem $5 billion a week. They could sell $5 billion a week for three years, and still not empty their portfolio. What would SP do? This isn't a crisis, though it might provoke one. It's long arduous crawl, that will have to be endured, just as Lincoln, Roosevelt, Churchill, and Ben-Gurion had to endure. I will add that this is a fair question for ANY Prez candidate in 2012. I focus on this because my biggest concern is foreign affairs. I think SP's notions and principles will serve her well, domestically. Foreign affairs? Bring on the question marks.

Note how the supporters of The One thought that getting rid of Geo. W. was all that was needed. Ergo, a great campaigner would be enough to finish the job. How'd that work out? One poll I'd be interested to see is how many One voters now wish that Hillary had been the nominee...

Narciso, if you have a particular speech, interview, or article that SP has made in the past year, I'd like to see it, or a cite where I could look it up. I may have missed something. I should make it clear: at present, I wouldn't vote for SP in a primary, But if she won the primary and got the GOP nomination, I'd vote for her without hesitation, send money to the campaign, ring doorbells, call people, put up signs. She is miles better than The One. Trouble is, who isn't miles better than The One.

As for the sharp folks in the commenting crowd at Just One Minute, I was too far out of step with them. I felt no need to provoke people whose opinions I didn't share, but whose brains I respected. That my work schedule suddenly increased and varied around the clock, making Internet surfing much harder, made withdrawing easier. Finally there's the well known Koster fault: long windedness, on display as usual. That's a serious drawback in the aphoristic atmosphere of JOM. I'll stick to reading and enjoying (mostly) JOM's posts and comments.

Your point that you don't want to run the risk of some other candidate "fumbling the ball," is well taken. But SP has her own risk. The press will be merciless, with a belt being the upper boundary of all their "reporting." The Democratic base, already unable to pass an IQ test, will also fail a rabies test if SP is nominated. It's true that the effectivene of press and base is much diminished. But my main point, what happens after SP wins? still remains. It's a dangerous world out there. I'll stipulate that SP could handle the domestic agenda well, even superbly. But abroad?

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

Posted by: Gregory Koster at September 2, 2010 10:53 PM

Well the HK speech last fall, for one, which outlined a direct contrast with the shameless groveling to Ahmadinejad and Chavez that would go on in NY the following day. You think the Okhanitsa, would knuckle under to Putin or whoever the siloviki would put up next as their proxy. Or the PLa's ruling clique, yet I'm sure Romney, Huckabee, or some character to be named later, would surely fold. The peculiarities of the Alaskan ethics reform, arising from the Allen scandal, which placed no penalty on those who filed the complaint was the problem, that cost the state thousands of hours, and millions of dollars, that could better be used productively.

Yes the press, is rabid, 'dumb as a stump'partisan in ways, that James Callender would envy. Now you think if she doesn't run they would not target their fire on another candidate, that is delusion of the highest order

Posted by: narciso at September 3, 2010 8:23 AM

Dear Narciso: We both agree that the Alaska ethics scheme was a trap for SP. Why didn't SP get the Legislature, with a nominally GOP majority,(the Senate being run by a "coaltion" of maverick GOP Senators and the Dems) to change this law? By resigning, she left the loaded ethics gun on the table to be used against the GOP in the future.

So far as the press goes, we agree about its rabidity and witlessness. I do not think for a moment that any other GOP nominee will get impartial, let alone favorable, treatment. One of the most exasperating features of 2008, was McCain's idiotic belief that the press liked an admired him. All they did was use the "maverick" sayings to club the GOP. It was sourly amusing to watch the dismay on McC's face when his buddies turned on him and beat him vigorously.

Anyway. Suppose for a moment that Mitch Daniels gets the 2012 GOP nomination. Daniels is the Guv of Indiana and Geo. W.'s former budget director. What is, say, Andrew Sullivan, going to write about Mitch? Compare: what would Sullivan write about SP? SP would unify the press against the GOP far more effectively than any other candidate. That's not an insuperable obstacle, but it should be considered. (By the way, if you want to read my notions on Sullivan, go here to the comments.)

Many thanks for the Hong Kong speech reminder. I'm rather puzzled that I can't find a complete transcript, but here is an extensive excerpt. It's impressive, adding weight to SP's credentials. I would question her assertion that Indonesia is a successful demonstration of Islam and democracy peacefully coexisting. Freedom House's reports tell a rather different story.

Jumping to the meat, I applaud SP's notions as expressed in the speech. But what this requires is Big Government, a continuation of the PATRIOT Act etc. Do her supporters go along with this? I think many do, particularly those from 2008, those whom Walter Mead refers to as "Jacksonians." But the purist limited-government folks may have trouble swallowing this necessity.

The speech also doesn't address the other troubles we face abroad. I'd like to hear SP's ideas for what to do in the event China stops buying and starts selling American Treasuries. I'd also like to every other candidate answer this question. It's a dangerous world we live in, and the Tea Party's tendency to focus inward, bothers me. I could imagine a Tea Party - lefty Dem Congressional coalition ganging up on the services, which are the preeminent government agency lefties would cut. Small government purism on this facet of political life could be dangerous.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

Posted by: Gregory Koster at September 3, 2010 8:20 PM

Considering it's size and complexity, Indonesia has evolved from the dictatorship that it was back during the Time Obama was living there, Wahid in particular, is one of the strongesrt crusaders against Wahhabism in the region, Now has Mitt, Huckabee, or Daniels even broached this area, don't
get me started on Newt. I don't see how she is calling for a big government solution, she has made an explicit point of quarantining the military from
the bulk of these cuts,

Posted by: narciso at September 4, 2010 7:52 AM

Dear Narciso: Sure, Indonesia has evolved, as the Freedom House ranking show over time. But it isn't a democracy, any more than the Turkey of 2005 was. It's too soon to say as SP did:

"Australia rightly reminds us to keep our eye on Southeast Asia, where Indonesia has proved that Islam and democracy can co-exist. Indonesia has fought extremism inside its own border and is consolidating a multi-ethnic democracy that is home to hundreds of millions of Muslims. Those who say Islam and democracy are incompatible insult our friends in Indonesia."

Not yet it isn't. Grimly, the most favorable sign that democracy has a chance in Indonesia are the renewed bombing attacks.

You are quite right that Mitt, Newt, Mitch et al. have not been pressed as I am pressing SP. They should be pressed with the same questions, and just as vigorously. But SP is rightly perceived as the front-runner in the 2012 contest for the GOP nomination. She is also the most unifying figure of the press's hatred as Gail Collins's latest spew of bitchery proves. So she will take the most heat. It's unjust, I grant you.

The role we should be asking of our military is going to require big government. No way around that. A citizen militia in the manner of the American Revolutionary War is not going to do the job, not even as "An Army of Davids" as Glenn Reynolds might put it. Already the attitudes of Big Government have infected the service leadership. Don't believe me? If you are ready for some mental agony, read the sludge that is the Defense Department's final review of the Fort Hood shootings. Political correctness has infected the leadership of Defense, no matter how strenuously General Casey bawls that it isn't so. Can this infection be rooted out? The PC culture has been around in Defense long enough to spread widely and deeply.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

Posted by: Gregory Koster at September 4, 2010 10:38 AM

You're being argumentative, Greg, by the standards of the region, except for Imam Rauf's Malaysia and
the Thai military regime, it's fairly democratic.
The problem with Ft. Hood has little to do with
small or big government, she had the right instinct
by the way, whereas as Huck, Mittens, and co, fall upon PC platitudes

Posted by: narciso at September 4, 2010 4:00 PM

Dear Narciso: Well yes, I am being argumentative. I thought arguing was what we were doing...

Note the quote from SP once more:

"...Indonesia has proved that Islam and democracy can co-exist."

"Co-exist." SP's word, not mine. I don't agree with that notion at all. The democrats in Indonesia are putting up a good fight, and deserve all the help and encouragement we can offer. But it is too early to proclaim peaceful coexistence between Islam and democracy in Indonesia. Look what is happening in Turkey. It could happen in Indonesia.

As for political correctness, I'd like you to show me a "small government" that follows politically correct attitudes. I don't think you can do it. PC attitudes reside in big governments (and big organizations generally, though not always.) Our military has PC attitudes. Ergo, our military is part of big government. I think this is unavoidable; small government is not up to the job of combatting terror, and I refuse to follow the Pat Buchanan and REASON crowd's "isolationism will take care of everything" mantra(I admit the REASON gang are much less dogmatic about this.) Personally, I think SP realizes that big government is a necessary evil in fighting terror, and would do her best to manage the conflict. Could she do so and still keep faith with her followers? That's a daunting challenge. She's had some experience with this balancing act as Mayor/Governor, but I'd be happier with more. I'd be less concerned if I didn't see the occasional sign at a Tea Party rally, Keep your government hands off my Medicare! That's a sizable hunk of cognitive dissonance. SP has not addressed this dissonance. Nor have most other GOP candidates. Paul Ryan is a notable exception, and its scandalous that more GOPers are not flocking to Ryan's plan.

I've seen Huck's PC attitudes, but not Mittster's. Can you give me a cite, please? I say this as a big 2008 Mitt man, who is almost completely disillusioned after seeing what Romneycare has done to Massachusetts. Mitt is too sharp a fellow not to have realized what he was putting into motion with Romneycare. If he did it anyway, hoping for the best, he's not fit to be Prez.

SP may be fit to be Prez. I think now is the time to be hashing out what her qualifications are and if she is the best candidate. Taking her as The New One is full of horrifying pitfalls. You need only read RIEHL WORLD VIEW in the last four months to see that Dan Riehl, a sharp fellow, worthy of high regard, has devoted himself to The One's annihilation. Good; I share that goal. But the day after the annihilation, then what? How many Bush haters latched onto The One, and are now furious, but don't dare look in the mirror, lest they see The Dupe Who Is To Blame. I repeat, I'd like to see a poll of One voters being asked if they now wish that Hillary had been the nominee. Such a poll would make the nation resound with laughter, such laughter being fully deserved. I think it likely that Dan Riehl will have cause to regret some of the things he is writing these days should he succeed. Not that any public acknowledgement that he might have been a wee bit harsh is likely from that quarter.

I don't want such a poll of GOP voters in 2014 to have a similar result. The way to do that is to find the best candidate. That means asking tough questions now. I regret that such clever bloody fools as Christopher Buckley, or David Brooks, or Peggy Noonan above all, have made such questioning unpopular and disreputable. But it needs doing. The questioners may be wrong or dumb. But shucks, that's a risk any question brings.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

Posted by: Gregory Koster at September 4, 2010 9:56 PM

Or if a majority of Americans become simultaneously transfixed and enamored with Newt, or Huck, or Mitt. The three erstwhile gentlemen who have almost completely sat this whole thing out, while Palin has been out stumping and speechifying and endorsing, and generally being a potent force.

I think it is a bit unfair to say that Mitt has "almost completely sat this whole thing out." I realize he hasn't been out there in front of the people/cameras as Palin has, but I'd bet my last dollar that he has done plenty behind the scenes, just as he did for Scott Brown. I remember wondering why Romney wasn't supporting Scott in MA during his campaign, only to find out later that Brown, himself, credited Romney for his win due to all the behind the scenes support (and money) he generated.

I love Sarah Palin. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't regret my late Mother's passing shortly before Palin hit the national scene. I know that Mom would have been her biggest fan as she was also an outdoorswoman, fiercely independent, smart as a whip (earned her masters in economics UC Berkeley at age 19) and just as feisty. And she knew what it was like to be really good at what she did and still be treated as a ditzy woman. I once overheard one of the men who was on a Board of Directors with her say, "It is criminal that such great legs are wasted on such a brilliant woman because no one wants a smart woman around." She had dressed down and put forth a rather plain look because her father had told her that men are threatened by smart women. Then she met my Dad, a Big 10 jock/frat, voted most popular guy and he taught her to dress, to walk with confidence and take control of a room or a meeting. He was her biggest fan. She told me that his big personality and fearlessness gave her rather geeky one confidence to go out and take the world by storm. She gave my Dad all the credit for her own success, while he wondered why this woman ever gave him a 2nd look. Somehow, I think Sarah gives Todd that same respect and credit, something the feminist will never understand since men are always the enemy, the competition that has to be emasculated.

Going back to Mitt Romney, I cannot help believing that economically we would be in a far better place today were he the president. At least he understands how businesses are run and has a clue about international finance. And no one can say that he isn't truly intelligent, not the pretend intelligence of the dOne. Sometimes I wish Palin would open a school for candidates to teach them what my Dad taught my Mother, how to grab a crowd and keep them excited, how to present themselves so everyone can identify with them. Like that a$$hole said about my Mother, I look at Romney and think, what a waste of leading man gorgeousness on a man who cannot project charisma, yet is so smart in every other way. I saw him working in a fire ravished area of San Diego in jeans (definitely not Mom jeans) and a tee shirt, hair falling down in his face and he looked fantastic, even covered in mud. Sexy even. Whew! He needs Sarah lessons.

As to whether Palin will throw her hat in the ring for 2012, I'm not sure she even wants it. She is probably one of the most powerful women in America right now and I think she has found the perfect niche for her considerable talents. She wants to be a Queen Maker and advance talented women. I'm going to watch what she begins to do now that the election is over. We know she can raise buckets of money and generate huge crowds, so let's watch what she does next to start building gravitas that will dispel the last of the naysayers. I have no doubt at all that she can do it, if she sets her mind to it.

Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) at November 5, 2010 2:04 AM

I view Sarah Palin as possibly the next great symphonic composer and conductor of a new American symphony. Standby to get on board that old-fashioned political bandwagon given rebirth this time by a women whose spirit we men just wish we could match!!

Posted by: Jimmy at November 5, 2010 8:01 AM

I love Sarah. Except when she speaks. Whether it is the frequency, the register or pitch, her voice hurts me. I'm not trying to be silly or petty, but the human voice is a powerful tool. She wields it quite deftly, to be sure. What she has done is inspired millions of people to hope, and more than that she has inspired women, conservative women, to run for public office.
But that voice. Ouch.

Posted by: Jewel at November 5, 2010 10:18 AM

I disagree, Sarah Palin is useful in her position, but she's more Markos Zuniga than Ronald Reagan. She couldn't get Murkowski out of the Senate; in a Liberman event she won as an independent. That's a serious black mark on her already troubled record.

Palin should stay as the spokesperson for Conservatism and a popular face of the right, not a politician.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at November 5, 2010 1:54 PM

We've been waiting for a new "morning in America" - a new Ronald Reagan - and Sarah Palin is just the man for the job.

Next year, we celebrate Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday - and I intend to party all year. What a perfect way to introduce Palin as our new Reagan. And what a great opportunity to contrast Barack Obama as the anti-Reagan (it's gonna be so much fun - even more fun than reading that MSNBC suspended Olbermann and watching Pelosi's removal as speaker of house).

Palin is our anti-Bush, anti-Hillary and anti-Obama candidate in one single beautiful bright energetic All-American package. She gets stuff done - she affects policy... from facebook!... She is a modern day Ronald Reagan, only younger, prettier and maybe tougher. I'll take her on our team any way she chooses to serve.

Posted by: Red Carolina at November 5, 2010 2:26 PM

Sarah sleeps with a hard corps libertarian (Todd). That is good enough for me.

Posted by: M. Simon at November 5, 2010 8:01 PM

Romney Care. Newt - the ex-wives club. Hukabee - "I'm a socialist. But I'm against abortion."

I'll vote Libertarian before I vote for any of those mopes.

Posted by: M. Simon at November 5, 2010 8:06 PM

Don't ever compare her to that rat, Markos, do you not understand that this is a proxy war, being waged through the Courts, the Election Dept, always
changing the rules, showing supreme disrespect to the people

Posted by: narciso at November 5, 2010 10:33 PM

Markos may be a rat, but I think Palin is the right's equivalent. She failed to defeat Murkowski, who went on to be a winning independent after Palin's work got her defeated in the primary. Remember Lieberman and Lamont?

She's an effective, popular voice of conservatism, she's a winning speaker and a force for fundraising. That's good enough, why not stay as that? I don't think she's qualified or up to the job as president.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at November 6, 2010 11:11 AM

I got an email yesterday from a now ex-friend in England who said something like "I know nothing about the Tea Party but Sarah Pallin (sic) should be locked up in a mental institution before she does any damage in politics."

I wrote back to say 82% of Republicans polled liked her this week and, btw, remember how Europeans were ecstatic when Obama took office.

Yeah I'd vote for Sarah, early and often.

Posted by: Kate Rafferty at November 6, 2010 1:12 PM

What M. Simon said.

Oh, and add "gratuitous gun-grabber" to Romney, "economic illiterate" to Huckabee, and "wannabe Bonaparte" to Noot.

Posted by: Ken at November 6, 2010 1:17 PM

She is a 'force of nature' as one Argentinian acquaintance of mine remarked, however, she is not omnipotent against a party establishment determined
to twist every law to accomodate their chronie.

Posted by: narciso at November 6, 2010 9:12 PM

Sarah Palin as the Markos of the right. Let me think about that. Sarah Palin, whatever you might think about her qualifications for the presidency, appears to be relatively sane.

Posted by: Rich Fader at November 7, 2010 9:13 AM

And here's to you, Barak Obama
Jesus loves you more than you will know (Wo, wo, wo)
God bless you please, Barak Obama
Heaven holds a place for those who pray
(Hey, hey, hey...hey, hey, hey)

We'd like to know a little bit about you for our files
We'd like to help you learn to help yourself
Look around you, all you see are sympathetic eyes
Stroll around the grounds until you feel at home

And here's to you, Barak Obama
Jesus loves you more than you will know (Wo, wo, wo)
God bless you please, Barak Obama
Heaven holds a place for those who pray
(Hey, hey, hey...hey, hey, hey)

Hide it in a hiding place where no one ever goes
Put it in your pantry with your cupcakes
It's a little secret, just the Communists' affair
Most of all, you've got to hide it from the kids

Coo, coo, ca-choo, Barak Obama
Jesus loves you more than you will know (Wo, wo, wo)
God bless you please, Barak Obama
Heaven holds a place for those who pray
(Hey, hey, hey...hey, hey, hey)

Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Going to the candidates debate
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Ev'ry way you look at it, you lose

Where have you gone, Sarah Palin ?
A nation turns it's lonely eyes to you (Woo, woo, woo)
What's that you say, Barak Obama
The Sarah has left and gone away
(Hey, hey, hey...hey, hey, hey)

with apologies to Simon and Garfunkle

Voldemort Delenda Est !
Sandy Daze

Posted by: Sandy Daze at August 9, 2012 9:19 AM