Posted on 09/30/2011 10:46:38 AM PDT by el_texicano
CNN has posted an article by S.E. Cupp and I must say I disagree with Ms. Cupp completely. She argues that the Christie and Palin question is a detriment to the GOP. Add Ms. Cupp to the long list of people trying to tell us when it’s too late for this one or that one. Lately, it’s become an absurdity to watch. I can’t imagine that it’s possible that she believes her own impatience ought to drive the party’s choices, but there she is demanding: “Time’s up, Christie and Palin. In or out?” Excuse me if I fail to take Cupp’s complaint seriously, declared as if she has anything to say about it. Perhaps she should return to tweeting all things Tony Stewart. Maybe she would have told Reagan he had better jump in. Who knows, but more to the point, who cares? What Cupp’s column demonstrates is the arrogance of the media in its attempts to influence events according to their agenda. Besides, while this article is posted on CNN, I know that Cupp’s associations have included The Daily Caller, and of course FoxNews, so I’m not surprised to see her further this particular narrative.
I would like Ms. Cupp to substantiate the following claim:
“And now, the will-they-or-won’t-they game has flipped from fun and energizing to damaging to the party. Christie and Palin now do conservatives more harm than good.”
I disagree, and her article doesn’t explain this charge very well. It seems to consist of an assertion that Christie and Palin are taking “valuable resources and attention” from the rest of the field, but what goes unstated is that if the rest of the field was compelling, neither Christie nor Palin could get any attention. The very fact that they get so much attention makes it clear that her thesis is based on broken logic, and indeed, the very existence of her own article demonstrates the point:
“With the question marks still lingering in the ether, and pundits on both sides of the aisle still performing their daily trapeze act — swinging back and forth between “yes, he’s running” and “no, she isn’t” — the focus on Christie and Palin has taken valuable resources and attention away from the rest of the field.”
She doesn’t need to pay it any more attention if she doesn’t wish to, but then she writes an article giving it more attention. More, she goes on to make the claim:
“Because of those question marks, conservatives haven’t been able to invest fully in the candidates who are running. They haven’t been able to imagine one of them as president. They’ve held back support, money and endorsements, because they still don’t know that the field is settled.”
My laughter over this jewel cannot be quieted. Conservatives “aren’t able to fully invest in candidates?” Suddenly, Cupp’s argument seems more like a “Winning The Future” moment than any sort of conservative commentary. There is absolutely nothing forbidding conservatives from committing to any of the declared candidates. What Cupp offers here is actually an insight from the perspective of the establishment: These are people who hedge their bets, and the non-entries of Christie and Palin have essentially frozen a goodly sum of cash that might go into play should one or both ultimately announce, or swear off.
Cupp finishes off with this self-aggrandizing flourish:
“Time’s up, governors. If Chris Christie and Sarah Palin want to run, get in there. If not, definitively and convincingly take your names out of the running. Conservatives need to begin the arduous job of whittling down the field and picking their frontrunner. The fact that there have been five GOP straw polls in as many weeks with as many different winners is proof that these unanswered questions are creating a dangerous ambivalence among conservative voters.”
S.E. Cupp now runs the conservative movement? Does she speak for you? She doesn’t speak for me. For whom is she speaking, anyway? That should be the question that you take away from all of this. Which conservative voters have become “dangerously ambivalent?” I don’t know any. Ambivalence will be measured by turn-out during the primary season next year, and not by gauging the number of big-dollar contributors still clinging to their cash.
I’ll give Ms. Cupp her due: She did an excellent job of trying to advance a phony narrative. All I can say is “Better luck, next time.” As I pointed out in my coverage earlier Friday, this all comes down to strategy, and none of us should fall into the trap of believing Ms. Cupp doesn’t know that. What we should also recognize immediately is that Cupp’s article is a part of somebody’s strategy, and when taken together with Williams’ article on FoxNews, it begins to paint the picture more clearly as to the identity of the driver of this narrative.
That clip is a reason for the rules.
Absolutely right.
If there was a compelling candidate in the race, the current non-candidate Palin wouldn't take significant resources and attention way from that candidate.
I wish she would not include Christie in the same sentence as Gov Palin.
And to think I had a picture of SE from red eye on my board.
No matter when our primary is, we still have one. We still vote in the primary. We usually have little voice in who the nominee is. But in a way, it makes us more dogged about who others choose.
The primary system is actually pretty unfair. We can never seem to get it right. All of them should be on the same day.
As we move closer to the holidays, the average person will be busy with other things as they always are. People are busy and pay less attention.
Why do you think the dems wanted the Obamacare vote on Christmas eve?
A registered Republican at this point in time, but my whole family are conservatives. With the exception of a cousin who voted for Obama. She was the turd in the punchbowl at the last family dinner. LOL
It’s simple: If one is not running, there is no reason for one to wait to announce that.
bump for later
A great advantage of the Palin factor is it tells me who can be taken seriously and who I should ignore.
Reminds me of the 08 primary season, when I stopped paying attention to Charles Krauthammer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.