Sarah Palin: There's a Sucker Born Every Minute (Vanity, not a Palin quote)

February 3, 2011 | techno

[Danae]

Let me start by saying this: I support Sarah Palin in the Primaries, and she is right now my choice for POTUS if she runs.

Now, that being said, the MSM heard from the Obama campaign that it was John McCain they would molst like to run against in 08. Mitt Romney was the one they least wanted to run against, he was more conservative and had FAR deeper pockets than McCain. Look who we got when the MSM started pushing McCain in the east Coast Primaries... His campaign was dead until THEY revived it, because that’s what Obama most wanted.

Now, in reality, who is the candidate that Obama FEARS to run against. Who is the one he would LEAST like to run against. God love Sarah Palin, but if she isn’t the one that Obama fears the most, then we should be searching for the one he does fear the most.

In light of this, who is the candidate Obama fears the most and why?

I want that cretin out of office. Preferably in disgrace. But failing that, I WANT HIM OUT. Therefore I want to take the smallest gamble, and maximize our chances of acheiving that very worthy, if not essential goal.

Who does Obama FEAR? Let’s answer that question in the primaries!

[JPG]

For someone who doesn't like Sarah Palin, you sure spend a lot of time on threads about her. I think you secretly have a crush on her.

[Padams]

You aren’t going to win any new converts for Palin by calling people who prefer other candidates “suckers”.

[techno]

I’m calling out any conservative who is politically and philosophically aligned with Sarah Palin but will not vote for her because the MSM tells them it would be “politically correct”, beneath one’s station or inconsiderate to your fellow Americans to do so.

[r9etb]

For someone who doesn't like Sarah Palin, you sure spend a lot of time on threads about her. I think you secretly have a crush on her.

Yeah, right.

I do confess, however, that I often enjoy looking in on threads like this to see what sort of masturbatory adulation is being slobbered forth.

It's not a healthy thing, I know .... it's akin to that irresistable urge to watch a train wreck. But there's also a good lesson to be learned by seeing what knots people will tie themselves into over a politician.

[t-dude]

Who does Obama fear?

Do you think it might be someone they constantly try to denigrate? Would it be someone they have been trying to destroy politically for over two years?

Do you think they secretly fear John Thune or Mich Daniels? LOL.

Get real.

Governor Palin is a stake through the heart of their statist agenda (of both parties) and the mere mention of her name sends them over the edge. She alone can change the public discourse with a single Tweet or Facebook post.

The fear that the Obama administration has of her borders on paranoia.

If you can’t tell Governor Palin is the one they fear the most, you don’t have your eyes open.

[RedMDer]

she will be the only Republican with the 'nads to call for drilling for our own oil.

Exactly. The only candidate speaking good common sense from her own beliefs instead of bending to whatever phrase will get a vote.

[OldDeckHand]

"No, it’s ‘logic’ (and a waste of millions of dollars) like yours that gave us Governor Whitman...oh, wait, indeed."

Christie Todd Whitman? WTF does a governor who left office in 2001 have to do with a discussion about the elections of 2010 & 2012? Are you saying that Haley Barbour - the person I was specifically addressing - is somehow analogous to Christie Todd Whitman. I'm all ears?

"It’s sad to see we have some sheep on here who can’t differentiate between reality and propaganda....but there you are."

Yes, there are and I believe you're one of them.

[JPG]

You and Dana Milbank definitely have something in common...that IRRESISTABLE urge for all things Palin. Maybe, for your mental sanity, you should take the ‘No Palin Pledge’ and avoid her like you would the plague.

[TheConservativeParty]

The first paragraph,,,wow. Might be easier to read if there were a few periods in there somewhere.That is one long damn sentence.

I am for Sarah Palin, 100 percent.

The dems, media and RINOs hate her. Everyone is gunning for her. This tells us that SHE is the one they fear as a presidential candidate.

If she runs,she will win and she will have the largest campaign war chest in history. My checkbook is at the ready.

(Notice the use of periods to break up sentences-wink,wink)

: )

[newheart]

It's a totally different matter if you simply believe that X is objectively a better choice for the job.

Exactly. And just in case anyone thinks I am suffering from PDS, I like Sarah Palin. I have donated money to her. If she is the nominee I will happily vote for her. but I do reserve the right to make up my own mind.

[r9etb]

Whatever. I’m not here because of Palin, per se. I’m only here to make fun of people like you.

[newheart]

I’m calling out any conservative who is politically and philosophically aligned with Sarah Palin but will not vote for her because the MSM tells them it would be “politically correct”, beneath one’s station or inconsiderate to your fellow Americans to do so.

With all due respect, it strikes me that those two things are mutually exclusive. It is hard to imagine someone who is "politically and philosophically aligned with Sarah Palin" not voting for her because of anything the MSM tells them. It is precisely because I am politically and philosophically aligned with Sarah Palin that I will vote for the candidate I think best suited for the job and it may or may not be her.

[JPG]

I’ll take that as a compliment. We’ll see who has the last laugh.

[t-dude]

Sorry, don’t know if you’re serious or not, but I was speaking of establishment darling Meg Whitman - backed by Rove and Romney and waster of multiple millions of campaign dollars. A far bigger disappointment than the long shots you mentioned.

For every Angle or O’Donnell there is a Dino Rossi/loser backed by the establishment that lost as well, you just don’t hear about that...

The narrative (that you are parroting) is Governor Palin and the Tea Party caused the Republicans to lose the senate. It’s total bullsh*t, as without them they would have never even gained the House. They SAVED the Republican party.

But idiots and sheep will continually bleat about those couple of loses because that’s the narrative they’ve been programed with.

My point stands, and you’re opinion of me is irrelevant to the discussion.

[OldDeckHand]

"Sorry, don’t know if you’re serious or not, but I was speaking of establishment darling Meg Whitman"

Even better. What in the world does Meg Whitman have to do with Haley Barbour? Is Haley Barbour a "media darling"?

"The narrative (that you are parroting) is Governor Palin and the Tea Party caused the Republicans to lose the senate."

No sport. That's not my narrative. My narrative is that ridiculously flawed and facially unqualified candidates who were blindly followed by some people because they (the candidates) had the right throwaway lines, is what prevented the Republicans from taking back the Senate.

The Tea Party backed some great people - Mike Lee, Toomey, Rubio as well as several others. And, in the year before, we had two governors in Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell who won in purple states on a clear message of competency and fiscal restraint. All of those candidates had one thing in common - they were ELITE. That is to say they all had remarkable academic and work experience CVs; They went to great, even blue-chip schools and almost every one of them had some kind of graduate degree. THAT is what wins elections.

Chris Christie - JD, Seton Hall
Bob McDonnell - JD, Regent
Pat Toomey - BA, Harvard
Marco Rubio - JD, U of Miami
Mike Lee - JD, Brigham Young, Supreme Court Clerk
Rand Paul - MD, Duke
Nikki Haley - BA, CPA Clemson

See the pattern here?

In purple state general elections, the person who is generally perceived to be more competent is the person who wins. Angle and O'Donnell (with good reason) were perceived to be wholly incompetent. To anyone who could think for themselves, and make a rational and objective analysis, this was plainly self-evident, and their losses were easily predictable. Thinking people knew they were unelectable, and the thinking people were right.

[t-dude]

Elite degree’s from the right schools are really important to you.

You must have really suffered under the Reagan administration. No one had ever heard of Eureka College after all.

Thanks for proving my point.

Whatever your ‘perception’ of Angle and O’Donnell, the time to express it was before the primary. Once the people of the state have selected them, it is not helpful to have our side trash them. If they don’t meet your high standards of educational snobbery at that point, just STFU.

The night O’Donnell won the primary, Rove was on national TV trashing her. Sorry, that’s not the time for that.

The national party gave very little support to her and she lost. At the same time they poured millions into RINO candidates that apparently meet your educational test and yet they lost as well...and it cost the party huge.

I am not in Nevada or Deleware and did not vote for or support in any way the candidacies of O’Donnell and Angle, but they won their respective primaries and didn’t deserve to be trashed by the elite establishment pukes. At that point we are always told it’s time to unite the party.

I blame Rove and the establishment for those loses. Just imagine what could have been had the party backed them financially and without the negative derision? Perceptions can be changed.

When a RINO wins a nomination (like McCain in 2008) conservatives are told to behave and support the ticket, it beats the alternative, blah, blah, blah, yet if a conservative wins that the RINO’s are uncomfortable with, they are free to trash and bash them?

This is why the Republican party is on it’s last legs. It will lose people like me, who care a hell of a lot more about principles than ivy league degrees.

Good luck

Puke

[Polybius]

...if Sarah is so unelectable why keep targeting her every day, every week????

For the same reason that the liberals targeted Dan Quayle.

For the same reason that Barack Obama still targets George W. Bush, at every opportunity, even though the 22nd Amendment bars George W. Bush from ever running for President again.

For the same reason that we still target Jimmy Carter, at every opportunity, even though the 22nd Amendment bars Jimmy Carter from ever running for President again.

For the same reason that we still target Nancy Pelosi although she is no longer House Majority Leader.

For the same reason that we targeted the bufoonish Billy Carter when his bother Jimmy was in the Oval Office.

It is one of the oldest tactics in politics:

1. You find an object of ridicule in Party X, the more ridiculous, the better.

2. You fan the flames of the ridicule, every day, every week.

3. You then associate the entire Party X and any candidate from Party X, especially the eventual Presidential nominee, with the object of the ridicule.

Sarah Palin makes the ridicule game very easy for the opposition.

Sarah Palin Calls Levi Johnston "Desperate" for Doing Playgirl ... The feud between former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and Levi Johnston, the father of her first grandchild, is back on.

Sarah Palin falls for the bait every single time by getting into public Tar Baby fights with everybody from trailer trash Levi Johnston to an obscure Washington Post blogger.

If you were a serious Presidential candidate and wanted to be taken seriously by voters outside of your own Fan Club, and did not want your name to be associated with the punchlines of jokes, would you have the common sense not to be doing a reality TV show episode with Tabloid Trash Queen Kate Gosselin?

I would bet that you would have that degree of common sense and not be caught dead doing a reality TV show with Kate Gosselin.

Sarah Palin does not have that degree of common sense.

Strange Bedfellows: Kate Gosselin, Sarah Palin Go Camping ..... In a much anticipated matchup, the two reality-show moms and their broods meet in Palin territory for a camping trip that will air on "Sarah Palin's Alaska" on Sunday.

Sarah Palin is a very successful reality TV personality and speaker that makes millions of dollars putting on an entertaing act, just like Kate Goselin and Paris Hilton do. Being entertaining and being laughed at can make you millions of dollars. Ask Steve Martin, Tina Fey, Paris Hilton and Sarah Palin. Be that as it may, being entertaining and being laughed at does not get you elected President.

Sarah Palin, with nation-wide "Unfavarable" polling numbers only 1% less than Nancy Pelosi, is not a viable candidate in a general Presidential election.

Gallup Poll: Palin's Unfavorability Rating Hits All-Time High ... In the last Gallup poll, from November 2010, Palin's unfavorability rate was 52%, compared to 40% favorable. The 53% of respondents who now say they view her unfavorably is on par with the 54% of respondents who said they viewed former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi unfavorably.

Sarah Palin, at a stratospherically high 53% "Unfavorable" rating, is just as electable in a general Presidential election as Paris Hilton or Kate Gosselin are.

Truthfully, now, if Sarah Palin, with her background and experience, were a bald man with a beer gut, would you or anybody else be giving Sam Palin a second thought?

Would bald, beer gut Sam Palin be considered a serious Presidential candidate after not even finishing his first term as Governor of a State with half the population of San Diego, California when his prior experience was as Mayor of a town of 6,000?

No. Sam Palin's Presidential candidacy would be considered a joke.

If Barack Obama's absentee father had been a blond, blue eyed Norwegian graduate student instead of a black Kenyan, would blond, blue-eyed Barry Olsen have been considered a serious Presidential candidate only two years out of the Illinois State Legislature?

No. Barry Olsen's Presidential candidacy would have been considered a joke.

Both Barack Obama and Sarah Palin are Affirmative Action candidates. Despite their lack of experience, one was chosen for the color of his skin and the other was chosen for her gender.

American voters fell for that once and they are having a huge case of Buyer's Remorse. They will not make that mistake twice.

Sarah Palin has been turned by many Conservatives into another Katherine Harris.

Nice Female Body + Conservative Views = Unquestioning Adoration

Even to the point of Photoshop grafting Katherine Harris' body to Sarah Palin's head.

If you remember, Katherine Harris was wildly popular with Conservatives that drooled over her body but disregarded her lack of political competence. In the end, Katherine Harris was an electoral disaster of Biblical proportions when she had to appeal to voters outside of her adoring Fan Club in a general election.

Twenty months before being elected President, nobody was talking about Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama as the next President. The talk was about previous, failed, Presidential candidate re-treads.

That is what the talk is like now; false choices between an unelectable candidate and failed re-tread candidates of the past: "You don't like Sarah Palin? You mean that you want Mitt Romney?

Between now and November 2012, in this country of over 300 million, surely there will emerge some new Conservative Presidential candidate that will be a viable alternative to the failed re-tread candidates of the past and one particular candidate with the absurdly high "Unfavorable" ratings of 53%.

[OldDeckHand]

Yours is one of the best posts I have ever read on this forum. You perfectly illustrate what should be plainly obvious to anyone who considers themselves even remotely knowledgeable with principles of political science, and modern-day campaign tactics.

[OldDeckHand]

"You must have really suffered under the Reagan administration. "

Ronald Reagan graduated with a BA in Economics. He also was a wildly successful, two-term governor of a state that had a GDP that surpassed most countries.

"The night O’Donnell won the primary, Rove was on national TV trashing her. Sorry, that’s not the time for that."

Karl Rove wasn't being paid by FNC as a cheerleader for the Republican party. He was being paid to give honest, insightful political commentary. As usual, Rove's analysis was perfectly accurate. O'Donnell's campaign was so horrific, that her bleed-over into the adjoining state of PA, nearly sank Toomey's campaign.

"I blame Rove and the establishment for those loses[sic]."

If you are such an incompetent candidate that your candidacy is sunk by a cable-television talking head, then I submit that you aren't much of a candidate at all.

"who care a hell of a lot more about principles than ivy league degrees."

Of all the people I cited in my previous post, only one had an "Ivy League" education. Just one. But, they all did have excellent academic credentials AS WELL as remarkable private and public sector records of accomplishment.

To most people in America, that's important. Apparently to you, it's not.