Posted on 03/11/2010 12:56:52 PM PST by Joy Angela
Last week I made a rare appearance on MSNBC (a network on which I have had numerous “YouTube moments” since the 2008 election, when they became the “Obama Network”) and shared some statements which apparently shocked some of my fellow conservatives.
Since even before the release of my documentary about the media coverage of Obama’s election, I have been described by many commentators (both as a compliment and as a condemnation) as Sarah Palin’s most ardent defender against the never-ending stream of unfair media attacks against her. What seemed to surprise people on both ends of the political spectrum was my assertion on “Morning Joe” that, based on her current path, and barring a literal act of God, there is absolutely no chance that Palin can beat Obama in 2012.
Since the television appearance was barely five minutes long and my view of this important subject is far more nuanced than can possibly be articulated in the microwave world of cable TV “news” (or even a later radio interview I did with host Joe Scarborough about this subject), I wish to fully explain my thinking so that any confusion about where I stand may be as limited as possible.
First, the reason I went on MSNBC is that Joe Scarborough and I have had a running (and sometimes rather pointed) e-mail exchange about his coverage of Sarah Palin which was escalated when his show did a seemingly endless segment on how intellectually deficient she supposedly is. Joe has offered me an open invitation to “debate” that and other issues related to Palin when I am next in New York where his show is broadcast. Since Palin was on the “Tonight Show” last week and because I live in Burbank, we decided the occasion might make for a good opportunity to do a quick “preview” of coming attractions. I also made it clear to him that there was something about Palin that I have wanted to get off my chest for several weeks. This was the issue of what her intent and potential is for the 2012 presidential race.
When I first met Palin at her home in early 2009, after our interview for my documentary we had a rather lengthy conversation, which of course eventually turned to her political future. Unsolicited, I offered my very strong opinion that, thanks to the media’s worship of Obama and their unfair destruction of her, that I thought it would be foolhardy for her to even consider running against him in 2012. My advice at the time was for her to run for Senate in 2014 and run in 2016 for President when presumably there will be no incumbent running and when the narrative about her (thanks to the media’s love of a good “comeback”) would likely be vastly more positive than in 2012. Palin was clearly listening intently but said almost nothing in response. Those who witnessed the conversation said she did not seem to like what she was hearing.
However, after the remarkable success of her book and the incredible decline in Obama’s political popularity, I started to think that, with any luck, Palin could win the Republican nomination and that she would at least have a shot against The One, assuming the economy didn’t significantly improve. But now I am thoroughly convinced that while Obama is somewhat vulnerable (if the economy improves, he wins big, if it stays the same, he wins very small, if it gets worse, he loses big), Sarah Palin has less of a chance to beat him than just about anyone else who is currently considered in contention.
The reasons I have come to this painful conclusion are numerous.
"As you can see from the next slide, I am a horse's ass.
Can you guess why?"
I'm afraid that you are correct.
Why should she want anything to do with him now after he said what he said on Joe Blow and by publishing this mish-mash of a piece.
If he truly supports Sarah, then he should have just sit quietly and kept his mouth shut and let her make her own decisions, or else discuss his concerns with her discreetly (which he already apparently did---and she dismissed) and leave it at that.
He's just diminishing himself by doing this now.
Or any other time for that matter!
Well said.
Ziegler is a tool and doesn’t see the big picture
Well, Mitt would be the MSM darling during the 2012 primaries. And if it came to pass that he would become the nominee, they would turn on him like a deranged pit bull. They like to give the weak ones a pass, the better to savage them once they win the primary.
He’s had this stick up his ass for over a year now. He is a loose cannon and has became part of the media malpractice he once exposed. Sarah rightfully realized Z-man is a hindrance to her publicly as well as privately. Sarah was just being accommodating to Z-man and that is all. His self-inflated ego told him he had more influence than he actually had. End of story.
This isn’t the first time Ziegler has made these comments.
Originally goes back more than a few months ago.
He can be a real drama queen.
Yep, and that's what gave his mendacity away.
Hates the Tea Party movement (which the American people love), hates Christian conservatives, who are the only real conservatives, and represent the founding principles of this country.
Basically he is Obama-light. No love for the real America; no belief in people that do.
Yep, got it; pretty simple.
That’s a great point about the Tea Party. And to Palin’s credit, she came down on the right side with regard to it. She at least grasps what they are trying to do, which is what causes me such intense indigestion when despite that she trots over the McCain and supports him. Just damn it.
I am quite amazed to see the number of rightward leaning people (on outside appearances) go catatonic at the mention of the Tea Party.
These people are clueless if they don’t see the Republican need to self correct to the point that there will be no need for the Tea Party. They’re not going to put an end to it by insulting supporters of the Tea Party and telling them to be good and come home.
The Tea Party arose from frustration. Earth to the RNC, you know that means frustration at you as much as any other thing don’t you?
You’re right about the MSM too. As if they won’t be taking down any person that stands up to Obama...
I started to realize something was up with Z-man in TV interview when he prefaced every negative talking point to make his point. If you go back and see some of his interviews you will see what I mean. I was a real turn off for me.
What an incredible waste for such a talent to burn out in the political irrelevance of congress!
.
I can understand Palin supporting, out of a sense of loyalty, the man who brought her to national prominence. I know she really doesn’t owe him, but I can understand where she is coming from. Also, in a way I think it’s her way of giving the finger to the likes of Steve Schmidt - that McCain comes to her and not Schmidt for help in his senate re-election campaign.
.
Ziegler is a foul smelling diaper!
Is that what you mean by spunk?
.
You are right. It's a waste of time. I read it and the guy is an idiot. He starts off with this absurd statement and then it goes downhill:
Ziegler: "But now I am thoroughly convinced that while Obama is somewhat vulnerable (if the economy improves, he wins big, if it stays the same, he wins very small, if it gets worse, he loses big), Sarah Palin has less of a chance to beat him than just about anyone else who is currently considered in contention."
Obama is somewhat vulnerable???
Wow! What rock did this guy crawl out from under?
He's 0-3 in statewide elections where he has inserted himself. His popularity is sinking at a record pace. And everything he does just makes the economy worse.
Other than that, he's doing great!
He can’t run for another term because of the new birth certificate requirements passed by numerous state legislatures.
I've been posting on that solution for the states since right after the election. But, I wasn't aware of any state passing it yet (although I'm aware of some putting a bill up in the legislature).
Could you direct me to the information on what states have passed it, as of now? Or just tell me the state[s] ... thanks... :-)
Hell hath no fury like an ambitious blogger scorned.
Name recognition isn't as important as many people think.
Was Clinton widely known when he won the Dem nomination in 1992? Was Kerry in 2006?
For the Dems, at least, it seems possible for someone with limited name recognition to get the nomination. Perhaps its harder for our party, but I don't see why it must be true.
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.