« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Sarah Palin Hits David Gregory’s Best Curveball Out Of the Yard

By: Repair_Man_Jack (Diary)  |  May 20th, 2011 at 11:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Newt Gingrich got one thing magnificently right last week. He called Barack Obama “The Food Stamp President.” Newt’s old; a bit behind the times. It should have been “The EBT-Card President.” Still, the shoe fits, and Obama should get stuck wearing it in November 2012.

The American Left, with its typical intellectual brilliance, assumed that Newt Gingrich only called Barack Obama “President Food Stamp” because he was black. Newt would have called a white president “Captain Safety-Net” instead. I remember all the times Ronald Reagan went around thanking Jimmy Carter for all the social welfare he handed out in the late 1970’s. Gingrich was clearly and obviously RAAAAACIST!

David Gregory interviewed Gingrich and furrowed his eyebrows in deep and sober concern over Gingrich’s use of coded language. His potential post to the Stuff Leftist White People Like website follows below.

“You gave a speech in Georgia with language a lot of people could be coded racially tinged language, calling the president, the first black president, the ‘food stamp president.’”

(HT:Politico).

While I typically would classify Sarah Palin’s philosophical beliefs as American Pragmatism and Reality Television, she can slyly go Postmodern on leftist twits with the best in the business. She “Deconstructs” the implicit favoritism towards those of The Caucasian Persuasion underpinning Gregory’s worldview quite exquisitely below.

“Well, talk about racism – that was a racist-tinged question from David Gregory,” Palin declared. “He made it sound like that if you’re black you’re on food stamps and the president is referring to you being on food stamps. I think that’s racist.

(HT: The Daily Caller)

And then, God Bless her, Sarah Palin did something unique. She not only pointed out that David Gregory is your typical bigoted Limousine Liberal, a veritable Ethanol Ethnocentrist. She suggests a solution for the problem that the David Gregorys, who infest the so-called journalistic profession, present. Sarah raves on below.

Why do we let the press, the media personalities get away with such? …. The real issue is we have 40-something million Americans on food stamps. You know why? Because we don’t have a robust economy …. because government has overreached, overtaxed and overspent and got us in debt and there isn’t enough private sector money out there creating jobs. That needs to be the focus, not allowing David Gregory to falsely charge Newt Gingrich as being a racist because he’s making a statement of fact about how many people are on food stamps.”

So how then, Governor Palin, do we reach this state of nirvana? She was totally on her game. She had that angle covered as well. More of Sarah Palin at her finest below.

“Well, I think to start with, we ignore some of these reporters and their requests for us to comment and be interviewed,” she said. “We know going in to it what they are going to do to a conservative. So why participate in their game? Instead, candidates need to get their message out via new social media, via fair and balanced reporters who will just allow the facts to get out there. Don’t participate in that goofy game that has been played now for too many years with the leftist lamestream media trying to twist a candidate’s words and intent and content of their statement.”

(Daily Caller, ObCit).

This is why Palin is like kryptonite to these people. This interview alone is worth three columns of unsolicited gynecological theorizing from the detestable Andrew Sullivan. Tina Fey’s pager is going off as we speak. Governor Palin just can’t be allowed to say such heretical things. It’s as bad as Copernicus claiming the Earth went around the Sun.

Tedious, maundering leftists like David Gregory have probably watched two or three episodes of “The Wire” on HBO to learn about American urban life. They are as obsolete as The Model T. They have nothing to add to the national conversation and dogmatically report left-wing “settled science.” Sarah Palin was correct to recommend we avoid this type of Journalist the way hotel staff should avoid high-ranking officials with the IMF.

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • chihank

    I’d like to see primary polls showing the directions of Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich. On Twiiter, the Daily Kos pollster, Public Policy polling, says that Cain is passing Newt in their preliminary polls. In the next few weeks, we’ll see if its a trend. Herman Cain could be referred to as the Presidential candidate from GA, while Newt could be called the Other GA candidate.

  • JimmyGee

    Someone, anyone, please, please tell me how Sarah Palin is not electable? Is she unelectable as in Michael S. Dukakis? Or like an unelectable Ronald Reagan? If I had my fantasy ticket it would be Cain/Palin ticket. Why Cain first? He is older. He is President for 8 years, then Sarah takes over. But alas, it is just a dream.

    • altexas

      I suggested that same matchup here on Red State when Herman gave up his radio shjow.

    • acat

      is to look at her favorable/unfavorable poll numbers. They stink on ice.

      That her numbers are bad is not surprising – what’s surprising is that she’s had so little success since 2009, and especially since the end of the 2010 election, in changing them.

      If she wants to win in the general, she has to reduce the number of voters who have an unfavorable view of her, obviously, and so far .. hasn’t happened.

      The really frustrating part for me is that I like Palin – I supported McLame only because he had the good sense to pick her. McCain now looks more like a broken clock – right only one or two times a day – to me, but .. he did make a gutsy call* at the time, but she hasn’t managed to reverse her negatives, and she can’t win until she figures it out.

      The lack of visible effort, by the way, is why I think she’s not actually going to run. My guess is she’s waiting for someone she likes to get in the race – Perry, forex – and then she’ll throw the weight of C4P behind that candidate.

      Mew

      * arguably more gutsy than Obama waiting several months to do his job…

      • msctex

        . . .but Obama is a lock for re-election. A shoo-in. No reason to even bother to have a Republican Primary; it’s a done deal. And he’ll certainly be the Democratic Nominee. No reason to even ponder any other possibility. The polls are meaningless.

        You’ll note it is the same people who endlessly repeat both the former and the latter. Ridiculous as it may sound, when your primary focus is upon manipulating Perception as opposed to shaping Reality, endless repetition of the provably false can have a slight effect towards one’s goals. Not nearly enough, of course, but they can only work with what they’ve got.

        It is another example of being confronted by adults behaving as though they had the minds of children, where wishing can make it so.

        • acat

          I expect the b-side of Chicago-style politics – the fact that nobody gets to the top without somebody knowing how to bring them down – to come into play.

          Look at the Senate map for 2012. It’s dismal for the Dems, and if the economy continues to suck, and Obama’s poll numbers – specifically, the same metric, favorable/unfavorable, that I pointed out for Palin – continue to suck, the Dems will have two choices – a drubbing to make 2010 look tame and no chance of stopping the GOP, or rolling the dice with a different POTUS nom.

          Do let me know when you discover a fact to refute either Palin’s numbers, or Obama’s.

          Mew

          • msctex

            The sarcasm seems to have eluded you, but I would think what followed should be sufficient to make my intentions clear.

          • acat

            I must now conclude you’re not interested in a serious discussion.

            Too bad.

            Mew

          • msctex

            The first few lines are meant as sarcasm. As indicative of the desperation which is or is about to permeate the Democratic Party. I AGREE with what you said about “. . .the Dems will have two choices – a drubbing to make 2010 look tame and no chance of stopping the GOP, or rolling the dice with a different POTUS nom.” So there is little for us to discuss, as I suspect we already agree on the particulars. You just seem to be itching for an argument, but tried to find one with someone on your side of the fence, who expressed a shared idea in a manner which you misunderstood.

          • acat

            I am not “itching for an argument”, I’m just expecting one.

            Historically, almost every time I point out why Palin is not my first choice in the primary, or why I think Palin would have a very hard time winning in the general, I’ve ended up with a fight …. (been called a tool, a fool, a hater, a misogynist (although it was misspelled) and an establishmentist, among other things)

            I am happy to agree that the Dems have to move – soon – to replace Candidate Obama. Perhaps once they realize just how badly he’s screwed up on Israel …

            Mew

          • msctex

            she is “electable,” given the fact that due to Obama’s performance Republicans could probably nominate and elect a potted plant, as it would at least do no damage. I am by no means convinced she is an appropriate choice, but I would be far happier with Palin than someone like McCain, who arguably qualified as a plant of a different sort.

            Now replacing Obama, this is where we get into murky and bumpy waters. If the “billion” figure they have supposedly raised for his re-election is factored in, things get positively dangerous. I’ve no idea how the laws regarding this sort of thing work, but if that money is not transferrable to whomever the Dem nominee turns out to be if not BHO, they would appear to be stuck with a lame horse midstream.

          • acat

            The DNC and Obama have been gathering money together, and splitting it – with the bulk going to the DNC.

            Any money Obama does not spend on his own campaign, by the way, can be given to other candidates. He can also funnel some of it to his own pocket.

            (this is why I say Buddy Roemer is running for the benefit of his retirement account…)

            Mew

          • msctex

            Too many bad noire movie scenarios come to mind were that money locked down to a first-term lame duck candidate. I’m sure Obama will keep whatever he can get away with, but it is good the money will find its way to where it was intended to go, even if we disagree with the ultimate goals.

            The alternative is a very ugly situation.

          • Viator

            Palin Leading Presidential Polls
            http://www.newsmax.com/Entertainment/sarah-palin-us-news/2011/05/20/id/397102

            Poll shows Palin, Romney atop wide-open GOP field
            http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20064072-503544.html

            Palin – 96% Name recognition, 18% choose first ballot, 16% intensity
            http://www.gallup.com/poll/147584/Huckabee-No-Clear-GOP-Front-Runner.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_term=Politics

            “Palin has the opposite pattern, appealing to middle to lower socioeconomic households far more than upper-income and more educated households. At the same time, her appeal is fairly uniform across regions and by ideology.”
            http://www.gallup.com/poll/147452/Romney-GOP-Supporters-Tilt-Upscale-Palin-Downscale.aspx
            Some of those people were once called Reagan democrats.

          • acat

            If this were the late spring of 2012, I would be concerned if the general public couldn’t name the GOP candidate, but .. at this point? It’s a non-issue.

            As such, these polls are also a non-issue.

            Mew

          • Warrior

            above, viz:

            “That her numbers are bad is not surprising – what?s surprising is that she?s had so little success since 2009, and especially since the end of the 2010 election, in changing them.”

            What exactly is she supposed to do to change them? Put on a state fair? Go on The View? Wait, I think she did that already. But, really, she’s a private citizen. She even had a reality show which was fairly entertaining as such things go.

            Indeed, anything she did do would be proclaimed “blatant self promotion” by the resident talking-heads on both sides.

            If you read her autobiography, you can see she’s not really a self-promoter. She was asked by her neighbors to run for city council in Wasilla. She was asked by the city’s citizens to run for mayor. She was asked by McCain to run for VP.

            Any so-called “self-promotion” she’s done since ’08 has been an effort to pay off millions in legal fees used in defending herself from politically-motivated and totally ersatz ethics charges from her days as governor. Taking the unpopular move of resigning the governorship to protect her family shows integrity and a swift “up yours” to popular opinion polls. People like that.

            Can you imagine her and the cig smoking, completely vacuous Mac Daddy in a T.V. debate? He’d come off as phony as a two-and-a-half-dollar-bill.

            When she makes public proclamations, she does so to further the debate andd kick David Gregoryesque butt.

            Ideal ticket:

            Bachmann/Palin in ’12

          • acat

            Were she to try to run, the second or third thing a good campaign manager would do is to check what her favorable/unfavorable numbers are.

            Said manager would then point out that her strengths are in (a) reducing issues to their core sound bites and (b) being Sarah. From that, they’d devise a media strategy that lets her go on interviews and, as Martin Knight proposes (link for your convenience: http://www.redstate.com/repair_man_jack/2011/05/20/sarah-palin-hits-david-gregorys-best-curveball-out-of-the-yard/#comment-3009) , actually turn the tables on the interviewer. That would be both good TV and good Sarah-being-Sarah.

            She has not done this. In fact, she has advised other conservatives to specifically not do this, which is foolish because the New Media still has not got near the reach of the Old Media and (again, as Martin points out) the power of “and” must be used, both New Media to telegraph punches, and Old Media to land them on liberal broadcast talkling heads. Candidates need to know how to react to a hostile interview, and need to go into the lions den boldly.

            From this, I conclude one of two things. Either Sarah Palin has gotten some bad advice, or Sarah Palin is not, herself, running. I conclude the latter is more likely because, as you say, she wants to protect her family.

            Mew

          • Viator

            “Volunteer regional directors and county teams are ?intensively? working to organize in Iowa, said Organize4Palin?s Iowa leader, Peter Singleton, who has been scouting for Palin fans here since November. ?I consider the other guys pretty formidable. They have lots of money and lots of skilled operatives and the like, but I think they?re underestimating her grass-roots base here in Iowa.?

            http://iowans4palin.blogspot.com/

            New Hampshire4Palin

            http://nh4palin.com/Home.html

          • acat

            Show me a paid campaign manager and paid staff, and I’ll show you someone who’s running.

            She’s keeping her powder dry, likely to endorse and back someone else.

            Mew

          • Warrior

            to get back. Some of your points are well taken (from both of your posts immediately above.)

            Still, one sure way to defang the Old Media is to to bleed them of controversy. I think Sarah is offering a good first step.

            Besides, who says Fox or some conservative reporter cannot offer a “hostile” interview. Note: “hostile” has a different meaning than, say, “biased” “gotcha” “argumetative” “taken out of context” and “spun.”

            I know it is somewhat off your point, but the last time Sarah had a “paid staff” (i.e. McCain’s) they mishandled her monstrously.

            They did not realize, as I suppose most folks still don’t, that they had a tiger by the tail.

            Roar.

          • acat

            was that if you avoid the media, they’ll just make {excrement} up …

            Mew

          • Viator

            “Palin has the opposite pattern, appealing to middle to lower socioeconomic households far more than upper-income and more educated households. At the same time, her appeal is fairly uniform across regions and by ideology.”

            Your comments are a non-issue

          • acat

            Where’s the poll’s internals? Who did they ask? What questions did they ask? Palin appeals more than who? Generic candidate? Obama?

            Head-to-head polls are useless this far out, they boil down to name recognition.
            ‘
            You have yet, in any of your posts, to answer when she’s going to turn around her favorable/unfavorable ratings.

            You’re welcome to dismiss me, Viator. Know that if Palin does, in fact, have a campaign manager, she’s hearing the same stuff – gotta turn around the numbers…

            Mew

          • Viator

            Hey, what you think and what I think matter very little. We will shortly find out in real time

            1) Whether she is running or not. That is will she leave the 100s, possibly 1000s, of volunteers some of whom have been working for months in Iowa hang out to dry? Or whether she will in turn leave the 1000′s of people who have been working for months and sometimes years in other forums, including the 100s of active websites dedicated to her election hang out to dry. And whether she will leave the donors to her many websites many of who gave on the understanding they were donating for her nomination.

            2) Then we will find out about this so called electability factor. My memory is that there hasn’t been a politician in a long time, with the exception of Obama, who connects more with voters than Palin. As Andrew Breitbart said there is only one potential GOP candidate who knows how to use pop culture politically, that is Palin. Further she has demonstrated a masterful sense of tactics, strategy and unconventional political warfare. She actually has been running for quite a while carrying on a conversation with a great many Americans via the popular culture. We will watch and see what forces coalesce behind her candidacy. No less a Palin hater than Chris Matthews has outlined several times her route to the GOP nomination, a route that only has become easier as events unfold. At that point the many anti-Obama forces will have to choose. Events will unfold in their proper time. I’m putting my money literally and figuratively in Palin.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            1. Would she leave the volunteers? Heck, she left the voters of her home state who elected her governor when she ran out the back door of the statehouse rather than fight an ethics violation. (And she is likely guilty of it.)

            2. Sarah connects? Tell that to Independent voters who are about -30 on F/U with her. Oh, and they are the ones who will elect the next President.

          • Viator

            Good job regurgitating Democrat/Journolist talking points!

          • acat

            Seriously, Viator – when presented with facts, ya can’t just say “Dem talking points!” and expect to be taken seriously.

            If you have a poll that shows Palin’s favorable/unfavorable numbers closing, then by all means post it!

            If you have a formal statement from her indicating her intention to run, then post it!

            You want her to run. Obviously. I’m apathetic, I think she’d be better than Obama, but I think we can do better. Not sure where Becker comes down these days.

            This kind of outburst, though, is not helpful… and it’s not the first time you’ve done so.

            Mew

          • Viator

            My friend, I posted all kinds of information which you ignore either omission or commission. What are you the mother around here?
            When presented with facts, ya can?t just say this kind of outburst, though, is not helpful. As I said watch and learn.

          • acat

            This cat ain’t nobody’s mother. Father, yes. Figure it out yet?

            You posted information, yes, but the conclusions you’ve chosen to base on it do not logically follow, for reasons I’ve already explained.

            1) Head to head polls this far out are just reading name recognition.
            2) Palin’s favorable/unfavorable numbers have not improved.

            Those are facts.

            From those, I conclude:

            3) Any campaign manager who can read a poll would adivse Palin that if she does run, she’s got a very slim chance.
            4) Especially in light of her decision to avoid the Mainly Stupid Media.
            5) Therefore, she’s going to not run and will back someone else.

            Now, if you can find a non-head-to-head poll that refutes 1) or 2) above, go ahead and post it.

            Mew

          • Viator

            http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/05/21/20110521sarah-palin-home-scottsdale-arizona-brk.html

            The Coming Storm?Sarah Palin Versus the Establishment?What Kind of Campaign Will She Run?

            http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2723266/posts?page=32

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            And so what. I suppose she could run against Jeff Flake for Jn Kyl’s seat in the Senate. She could run for governor in four years, but she’d get her head handed to her in that race. And I suppose if she was going to run for President getting out of Alaska where her Favorables are in the mid-twenties would be a good thing.

            What kind of campaign will she run? In the primary she’ll run her standard red-meat-harpy campaign which will further drive a big wedge between her and independents, insuring – should she win the primary – a devistating loss, and likely across the board, in the general. SteSarah™’s problem is that she has a visceral need for everything to be “about her”. We win by making the race about Obama.

          • Warrior

            about Obama. If we do that, they simply make to race about race and we lose.

            How do you think we lost to this stiff in the first place?

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Not the same as last time.

            We’ve got two years of his failed policies to hang around his neck. We’ll have $5.00 gas. We’ll have a 9% unemployment rate. We’ll have HUGE budget deficits and no Democratic plan.

            Last time it was personal, and frankly it failed because our guy wouldn’t carry out personal attacks. If he had, he’d have won. This time we personalize his policies. They’re a millstone around his neck.

          • powertothepeople

            it does not predict anything.

            If it is her, it could be simply they are making the move to be close to Bristol who just bought a home in Maricopa right down the road from Scottsdale.

            If she were to run, she would now have yet one more thing that the media hits her with similar to her clothing expenditures. Spending that much money on a “political headquarters” will not sit well with a bunch of people especially considering the fact that so many are losing their homes in that area. It will be perceived as excessive.

            But we have to go back to the fact that Palin was already behind when it comes to winning over the voters, and you can argue that all you want to, the fact is she is not favorable among a ton a voters even on our own side. Now she is even further behind considering candidates like Cain and TPaw have been campaigning now for months. TPaw will most likely take the Haley endorsement which means Palin would not take SC which would sink her before she even starts.

            And last but not least, Palin took a drubbing after the 2008 election from all sides. Some was warranted some was not. But, she has been able to make it through all of that and remain a powerhouse in fund raising and king making. If she were to run, she has to know she does not stand a chance at winning even in the primary. If she were to take another big loss, which would happen, it would hurt her current strengths. She would be viewed as toxic and new candidates would stop seeking her endorsements or her help. She would fade into pundit status and even then it would only be soundbite status.

            Palin will not run this time, but what I do expect is for her to get involved in someones campaign, take a cabinet position or adviser position that allows her to wash away much of the negativity she has around her over the next 4-8 years should we win. She will get actively involved in the new presidents administration and then you will see her step back into the political race with a much better chance at winning and with a ton more fans (should she be effective and competent).

            She will not run even if this home is hers. Although I would not be surprised to see her in a congress race soon if she does not get on the team of one of the candidates. I think she is simply biding her time to see who is the clear front runner between Cain and TPaw, then she will be the biggest supporter.

          • Warrior

            worked so well for Hillary…

          • powertothepeople

            with you, but please explain this moronic comment. If you are going to run around this site showing your complete inability to post anything but badly spelled Sarah shrine nonsense, at least make it more than one line absurdities.

          • aesthete

            Flake would make a terrific Senator: far better than Palin, I would wager. She can go carpetbag somewhere else, or try running for one of the AK seats currently occupied by non-GOPers.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            You have yet to present one fact. And your opinions are NOT facts.

          • acat
          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            stupid season.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            1. Did Palin not resign under ethical charges that were never resolved? (Hint, the private emails are “supposed” to be released this month.)

            2. Have Palin’s F/U numbers with independents – or Republicans for that matter – improved or gotten worse in the last year?

            3. Has Palin made one media appearance where she was asked questions and challenged?

          • acat

            Palin manages to create with her followers.

            This is not a diss, not an insult, not a complaint, it’s merely an observation. Palin mnaages to inspire some people to “go to the mat” for her.

            In itself, that’s not a bad thing.

            As you say, though, there’s a legitimate – and very serious – question of what happens if she either doesn’t decide to run – and donates her war chest to others, as she did in 2010, or, worse, if she runs and loses?

            Do her emotionally-attached followers stay home? Do they vote for whoever she endorses? Do they form a 3rd party?

            My guess is she can reach most of her supporters with a message of “We must support X” – she did it in 2010 – but it’d be easier if she decides to endorse instead of running, rather than after a primary loss….

            Mew

          • aesthete

            Bush had nowhere near the cult of personality that Palin has, and was still allowed far too much leeway simply because of cultural affinity. Letting an untested rookie who may or may not govern conservatively have a controlling interest in conservatism and its definition *is* a bad thing, as is the way that it makes non-cultists uneasy about her. She’d essentially be the Ron Paul of conservatism in that sense: a personality that dwarfs the ideology itself.

          • acat

            Simply because I’m not sure “Conservative” means anything anymore.

            Does it mean a religious statist? They claim it does…

            How about a politician who just wants to change the names on the doors, not reduce the size of the Fed? Many examples of this bunch…

            That’s without even addressing hyphenated conservatives, Social-, Fiscal-, Paleo-, Libertarian-, etc. etc.

            I don’t think “Conservative”, by itself, means much anymore, so don’t much care what Palin does to it.

            Mew

          • Warrior

            i.e. “…a personality that dwarfs the ideology itself.”

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            His personality complemented his ideology and sold it.

            Palin’s personality (and RonPaul’s) dwarf their ideology because they don’t have much in the way of foundational ideology, just buzz words for a texting generation.

            In Reagan’s case, his campaigns and his administration was only about ideology. In Palin’s case, everything she’s ever done is about her, and ideology comes in a distant fourth. Same for Paul. And the first three would be: her/him; her/him; her/him.

          • Warrior

            spoke to Americans who knew about and responded to ideaology.

            30 years later, Palin speaks to Americans who respond to “buzz words” because they are from “a texting generation.”

            And Palin has been asked to run for every office for which she has ever campaigned. Sorry, not the modus operandi of a narcissist. Not even close.

          • aesthete

            Gee, sign me up now. The last thing America needs is yet another clutch of buzz words or textspeech from a politician: Paul Ryan is doing better than alright at fostering an adult conversation (well, at least his end of the conversation), and has had more success moving the austerity aims of Republicans forward than a thousand loudmouths comparing Obama to Hitler or warning about the imminent gulags.

            This is really where the Reagan comparison breaks down: Reagan ran on ideology not as a means to connect to voters, but because he believed in what he said heart and soul. The Reagan of 2011 would not have discarded ideology and gone LOLspeak if that’s what would have gotten him votes: that was not him, and fundamentally he was a willing vessel for his ideology to be implemented in the real world, not a bobble-head who used ideology as a lure to get votes. Lest we forget, Reagan’s ideology was not popular when he ran, even less so than it is today, and was not an asset for him at the time.

            Palin, at her heart, is not an ideologue: while she is broadly conservative, she is not particularly interested in the workings of her ideology, and it shows: much of what she speaks and posts on is about trivialities, and what she does post or speak on that relates to ideology often contradicts itself (case in point: her recent foreign policy utterings). Reagan was: he wrote white papers on a plethora of subjects, familiarized himself with both the broad strokes and specifics of legislation that he opposed or supported, and could speak lucidly and with grace and humor to the adversarial press core that sought to trip him up concerning what he believed and why. In that, and almost every other, sense he is Palin’s opposite. It is not that Palin is dumb or a philistine: she’s simply not interested. That has made her political career inconsistent, and her governing record un-conservative.

          • Warrior

            the analogy is that both are great communicators. Reagan was speaking to an America which he fundamentally understood. The man had been a shoe salesman at one time. He knew the average bear of his generation.

            I hate to say it, but the mentality of the avg American has indeed slipped a notch or two since his time. (You can thank publik skools for that.) Now, to communicate with the masses one must indeed use popular, read “new”, media.

            Look dude, the reason that movie resonates with so many people (including yourself) is because they see it coming to fruition in many cultural venues or see it as a distinct possibility in the near future. Hopefully, someone with guts, like Palin, could get rid of teachers’ unions or neutralize them quite a bit, and we will not have to continue inevitably slouching towards Gomorrah — or Idiocracy.

            And yes, as 20jan2013 points out below, not only is Palin a conservative, her life is actually informed by conservative values and not just her speech…

          • 20jan2013

            Saying you’re pro life could be arguably “buzz words.” This woman found out early she had a Down’s baby on the way, and could have quietly gotten an abortion. Instead, she walked her talk. THAT’S some heavy-duty FOUNDATIONAL ideology right there. You and I are the ones who are heavy with mere buzz words; this woman has been through the wringer and come out strong.

            But where you really make a complete idiot out of yourself is when you allege that Palin has only ever done things for herself. She has an honorable resume of public service, including saving the McCain ticket from absolute destruction had she said no thanks and we’d have gotten stuck with Lieberman or some squishy moderate instead. I wouldn’t have even bothered voting had it not been for McCain’s decision to add Palin to the ticket–and Palin’s decision to accept that spot.

            Ideology is not a dirty word, and this woman has great ideas, ideas that will turn our country around from the socialist ditch Obama has driven us into.

            You can criticize her for quitting the governorship early, but don’t you dare accuse her of just being about the buzz words.

            Signed,
            Someone who thinks Bachmann or Cain would be a better match than Palin against Obama, but I respect the hell out of Palin and her intentions, motivations, and conservative bona fides.

          • aesthete

            I agree that it’s a wonderful thing, but it’s not a political or ideological gesture — there are plenty of liberals out there who have instilled wonderful family values in their children, but who believe in gay marriage and the rest of the social liberal evangel. Their personal preference for values that one might associate with cultural-conservatism has no bearing on their politics or ideology. As far as ideology goes, yes, it is a wonderful thing: which is why I wish Palin had been more ideological (in the right way) while governing in AK, and why I wish that she would bone up on conservative ideology now that she is a spokesperson for conservatism.

          • 20jan2013

            what has she said that you think reveals her failure to espouse properly conservative ideology? I don’t see the need for her to “bone up” on anything.

          • Warrior

            this is typical of every Palin critic out there. Ask them for specifics and the screen goes dark…

          • acat

            Might it, perhaps, mean that Asthete is doing his job or sleeping after working a night shift, or volunteering at the local homeless shelter? (I have no idea what he’s actually doing, these are some obvious guesses)

            As for what she’s done – as actions are a better indicator than words – I can cite that she broke and ran under fire by libs using legislation she championed and signed, she raised the state payout to citizens (a funny form of welfare, but welfare nonetheless – money for nothin’) and even when she was in charge, didn’t govern as a conservative.

            Nothing she’s said since her “come-to-reagan” moment matters as much as that record.

            As for posting facts, Warrior, I’m *still* waiting for you to post a favorable/unfavorable poll that shows Palin closing the gap.

            I’m not opposed to her as POTUS. I think we can do better.

            Mew

          • acat

            I’m going to go mow the lawn now, Warrior. Then I’m going to run over to the nursery and see if they’ve got a ground covering vine that I like. Vinca or maybe pachysandra.

            If you want to read into that silence that I’m still waiting for you to cite an instance where Palin’s favorable/unfavorable ratings are getting better among independents, that’s fine too.

            Mew

          • Warrior

            And BTW, you might want to drop by your psychiatrist’s office as well. Try and discover why you feel you must be at the center of attention in every and all threads.

            As to your so called points, I will destroy them one by one if you don’t mind. You say:

            “she broke and ran under fire by libs using legislation she championed and signed,”

            Her husband is a fisherman and she was a housewife until elected to office. Neither did she enrich herself in office. (And this is why you sound like a lib. More below.) She did not have the money to defend herself against a bunch of lame charges. And yes, her opponents were seeking revenge for her aggressive ethical stances — do you applaud that? Should we do away with all ethics legislation? She had no choice but to cash in on her unsought recognition to spare her family penury. Do you not recognize that as a conservative value? I wonder.

            You say: “she raised the state payout to citizens (a funny form of welfare, but welfare nonetheless – money for nothin?)”

            If you think living in Alaska is “nothin’”, you ought to try it sometime. The suicide rate alone would be enough to scare most folks away. Since it is a strategic wilderness state, it is a special case anyway. Yes, we pay people to live there — maybe you think we should cede it to the Russians. And finally, who else should get the profits from a state’s natural resources than the citizens of that state? (I can’t wait to hear the answer to that one.)

            You say: “and even when she was in charge, didn?t govern as a conservative”

            How so? She busted the graft and corruption in HER OWN PARTY. How much more conservative can you get? Again, what is your alternative? Should she have turned a blind eye and looked the other way? Skimmed some of the profits for her family and friends? You seem to be saying that she should have been as corrupt as everyone else, not rocked the boat, and then she would not have had to endure the retribution of the very fat cats she brought down. You know, politics as usual.

            In case you haven’t noticed cat, revulsion at politics as usual is what is driving the tea party, the conservative unrest, the whole conservative movement and the entire country with it. Now along comes a politician who defies the “usual politics” image and you want to strangle her for doing so. Brilliant. With you around, we will never again be in power: presidential, congressional, state, local or otherwise.

          • acat

            You’re blowing so much smoke and hot air they’re gonna be after you!

            Seroiusly, you replied to me. I said my bit quite a while ago – Sarah Palin’s favorable/unfavorable numbers are abysmal. She hasn’t changed them. Any sane campaign manager would recognize this. I doubt she’s running.

            Every reply from you, Jeffy, Viator, and others after that has been bloviation, hot air, fertilizer, and manure. You’ve proven zilch. You’ve resorted to ad hominem and lies – the tactics you decry when used by Ron Paul supporters.

            Look. At. The. Log. In. Your. Own. Eye.

            As for living in Alaska, I’ve met several Alaskans and I’m aware it’s no picnic. I’m also aware that being abrasive and agressive is something of a state sport.

            I’m also aware that once a person turns 18, it’s their choice to stay or go. Let those who cannot stand it leave.

            As for the mineral wealth, in the rest of the States it tends to be owned by the land owner, although oil and water have some different rules, especially in the western half of the country.

            In Alaska’s case, that means either the State or the Fed own most of it. Regardless of who owns it, the point is it’s a check from the government for doing nothing – it’s remarkably similar to welfare, and even if there’s a rationalization for it, it’s still caustic to the entrepreneurial spirit, it encourages generational dependence.

            Palin’s rep as a corruption-buster was not earned when she was Governor, that was from the previous job that she quit – and I respect her for that decision. I do not accept your argument that she had no recourse in leaving the Governorship.

            She quit the governorship because of complaints filed under a law she championed and signed, after all. If the complaints were related to her doing her job, she had the recourse of going to the A.G. and getting the State to defend her. She also had the recourse of filing a RICO lawsuit – there were pretty clear coordiations of effort by the compaintants, making it expensive for them to proceed would have been an appropriate reply.

            I don’t have a good reason for her to have not taken one or both of these paths. Do you?

            What I’m saying, Warrior, is while there’s a lot to like about Palin – I supported the McCain campaign because of her, and I would support her in the general – I think we can do better.

            Mew

          • acat

            For you to both claim to be a long-timer and to think I’m titling a post “Kowalski” because I think I need his help (or think he’d show up on my behalf) is telling….

            Specifically, it’s telling me you’re either lying, or you cannot read for content.

            Mew

          • Warrior

            Mr. oh so competant Redstater. I’ve been on this board pratically since the beginning. I answered all of your so-called “points” before. Yes, oil and gas money often goes to bloated and wasteful gubmints. That’s ashamed. I believe the oil companies should make a good profit. I believe they do. Any surplus should go to those who provide the infrastructure, both human and otherwise, for it all to happen.

            Believe me, I live in a small southern state with oil reserves. The oil companies send large revenues to state coffers where it is simply blown on unions, graft and a plethora of wasteful junk. I could do much better with a chunk of it myself, although in no way could it be considered “welfare” since I’ve been working and paying taxes in this state my entire life. It is OUR country, not the gubmint’s.

            This perspective of yours, that the gubmint owns everything, is yet another indication that you are something other than a conservative – even a “moderate” one.

          • acat

            in one form or another, national parks, arrmed services bases, designated wilderness areas (ANWR) etc. etc. The bulk of the State isn’t in private hands.

            In your small southern state, who owns the minerals under the land they hold title to? Why are coal companies allowed to “mountaintop” coal?

            See how you’ve just beclowned yourself yet?

            Last time I checked “time in grade” was a union metric for respect, not a conservative one.

            Mew

          • streiff

            read your email

          • aesthete

            This is why I hate Presidential politics.

            “If you think living in Alaska is ?nothin??, you ought to try it sometime.”

            Living in an inner city ghetto is tough, too — I forget how that makes it OK to steal someone else’s property to subsidize that lifestyle. (And do you really think that the Russians repossessing AK is a threat such that it requires these payments? Please.)

            [Ethics charges, etc]

            The state AG (a Palin appiontee) could have certified that her actions were appropriate and in keeping with her duties as Gov — in so doing, the state would have been obliged to pay for her defense. So why didn’t she do that? I’m not a mind-reader, but I’d guess that she either has something in those emails that she’d rather not let get out, or it was clear that it was a case that she couldn’t win. My guess would be the latter: using private email for business is a big no-no at any Fortune 500 corp, and a mid-level manager would have gotten fired for doing what she did with those emails. She got hoisted by her own specially-designed petard, simple as that.

            “You seem to be saying that she should have been as corrupt as everyone else[...]”

            Do you have to pay per word that you put in someone else’s mouth, or is it a flat fee? That isn’t even close to what acat was saying: it’s just a fact that AK government ballooned under Palin, and that her signature accomplishments were not particularly conservative.

            “You seem to be saying that she should have been as corrupt as everyone else.”

            Way to sound like Palin’s ’08 running mate.

          • Doc Holliday

            The Dems and their media allies have invested everything in this guy, no they will not primary him, I would bet anything on that one.

      • 20jan2013

        Just ask Trump. Once she declares and gets into some debates, you watch her and Bachmann show the boys how it’s done–it being the kind of solid red meat she is quoted as saying in this diary entry.

        I’m voting for a woman or a minority for president and it ain’t going to be Hillary or Barack.

  • johnt

    n/t

    • Warrior
  • bobojake
  • dmacleo

    and I think she is more helpful in this position where she is allowed to speak openly.

    • rogershru2

      She may be a good candidate some day, perhaps even next year if she runs, but I think all those conservatives who are pro or anti-Palin realize she did a tremendous amount of good last fall. If she doesn’t run, then she could do the same for whichever candidate she backs.

      • YnotNOW

        rather than be the candidate herself. It is what she has proven to be very good at, and many of the R candidates will need the boost of her enthusiasm. (and it pays better, too :) )

  • rogershru2

    ?Well, I think to start with, we ignore some of these reporters and their requests for us to comment and be interviewed,? she said. ?We know going in to it what they are going to do to a conservative. So why participate in their game? Instead, candidates need to get their message out via new social media, via fair and balanced reporters who will just allow the facts to get out there. Don?t participate in that goofy game that has been played now for too many years with the leftist lamestream media trying to twist a candidate?s words and intent and content of their statement.?

    I understand her point, but isn’t this mode of media interaction what is so wrong with Obama? He refuses to face tough questions or put himself in any situation in which he might conceivably face a question that is not prestaged. I don’t think Sarah Palin is suggesting she go to the extreme that Obama is doing, I understand that. But I would rather have someone who is smart enough and quick witted enough to face and win those exchanges. Obama most certainly is not. If our candidate is, then he or she will destroy Obama in the debates. I understand that through editing it’s not really a fair game and that is probably part of her point.

    Newt handled himself fairly well on the food stamp issue, although it would have been even better had he told Gregory he was showing racism by asking such a question. Of course maybe I missed that part or maybe he did and Gregory edited it out….

    Whoever is the candidate needs to be able to handle those encounters in the way that Reagan or Thatcher did. (search Thatcher socialism on youtube) Maybe Palin has improved since last election and will be able to if she does run.

    • Locked and Loaded

      Then either way would be fine, IMO.

      The interviewees should quit treating these biased reporters as though they are not part of the equation with their “hard-hitting” (R) / softball, enabling (D) questions and comments. These knotheads should not be off-limits. They should be called on the carpet – confronted and forced to answer – for their part in this national disaster.

      If it gets us disinvited from any future interviews, it will still work out for good, because it is bringing truth into the light and leaves the (D)ying media with some forced introspection.

      • rogershru2

        We’re saying the same thing.

        • Locked and Loaded

          and see where you mention calling Gregory out on the question. I just got the impression you were calling mostly for someone who takes the biased question and answers well. I am calling for direct challenges to the motives of the ones exhibiting the bias, whether their biased questions get answered or not. These Democrat operatives who call themselves journalists should be put back on their heels – publicly and often. And certainly they will edit to their advantage; we already know this. They must be confronted to the extent that no editing will fix it.

          • rogershru2

            I think you just didn’t have PID before you opened fire.

            Seriously though I agree completely. Rather than avoiding the conflict of biased interviews we need someone who can make them look like fools. It shouldn’t be that difficult to do for someone who is actually willing to do so.

  • romeg

    have available. It harkens back to Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”. Never mind that The Democrat Party spent more than a hundred years first enslaving Blacks and then denying them their standing as Americans; When they finally decided to shred the Constitution and prostitute themselves and abandon all principles to solicit the votes of their former chattel, it is Nixon, and by extension All Republicans who are the racists.

    It matters not one whit that our candidate might be Black and a veteran of the Jim Crow era who has decided that he is a non-hyphenated American (He actually corrected me on that score in a conversation with him when he ran for the Senate when I referred to him as an African-American. “I am an American. PERIOD.” or words to that effect.) But you can bet your bippy that he will be portrayed as a Race Traitor and a racist if that hasn’t already happened.

    • jeffreywturner

      “When they finally decided to shred the Constitution and prostitute themselves and abandon all principles to solicit the votes of their former chattel, it is Nixon, and by extension All Republicans who are the racists.”

      You summed it up so well here. We really need to start dispelling the popular myth that the GOP and the Dems “switched places” during realignment and that “all” or even “most” of those old Dems changed parties. Most were simply replaced by Republicans at the ballot box, and the GOP did NOT replace the Dems as the racist party – the GOP simply stayed put and the Dems leapfrogged over them.

  • sundaycombo

    You could look at numerous polling data that show her negatives are sky high but that would be missing the obvious.

    She’s not electable because she never intends to stand for public office again. In a sense she is like Lyndon Johnson in 1968 who famously said , “If nominated I will not run. If elected I will not serve”

    • romeg

      Johnson said “I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.”

      Same idea but not nearly so colorful as Sherman’s quote.

  • audax

    Thank YOU Erick! My words exactly:

    ??as the Palin hate (hate is too strong a word, let?s use?.fear)?.?

    • acat

      …because it’s not clear to this cat that she wants the Oval Office for herself.

      Mew

  • jerbush91

    By staying out of the race she speak to the issues of the day with the fear of the focus group. She is has special interest to appease or bow down before like so many others.

    Newt’s problem is that he has gotten to love hearing himself speak. He is a smart guy but he is love with his status. He has been told of his brilliance for so long that he is like obama almost in his love of himself. I like Newt and I grew up watching him and always thought he was great guy but his mouth is engaged before him mind has thought about what he going to say.

    • earlgrey

      stuff so that Obama and D Sen/Reps. can still look good, although their standards are not all that high.

      I see Sarah playing this role, and enjoying it.

  • oldbird77

    I’ve been arguing this point over on talking points memo. . . because I like arguing, that’s why. it came down to, if Newt is using “dog whistle” rhetoric (code words only racists can hear). . . what does it mean that only liberals heard the dog whistle?

    • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

      and it’s a solid point.

      Maybe it really IS a dog whistle.

  • http://www.sheetanchor.org Sheet Anchor

    Latest polls show her 12 points down, and her support among Republican voters will grow, as she unfolds an aggressive campaign about the truth of her record, and articulates her policy postions, as she has been doing for in excess of the last year on her Facebook page, and numerous policy speeches here and abroad.

    Twelve points down is nothing with the kind of grass roots support that she will generate. There are only two individuals who can pack a stadium: one is the President of the United States; the other is Governor Sarah Palin. She is as tough as nails, possesses an iron will, an unyielding determination, and a happy warrior spirit, and that is why President Obama and the Democratic Party supporters in the main stream media have had her in the crosshairs for the last two years. They fear Governor Palin like no one else on the Republican side of the isle, as she will unite social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and national security conservatives. Add the charisma and electricity factor, her fundraising capacity, and it is easy to see why she is still the top target for the Democratic establishment.

    The Democratic establishment expects Governor Palin will come out swinging, and once she starts, she will not relent. They know she can win this fight for America?s soul, and future.

    • acat

      If it’s a head-to-head, it’s got a very limited value…. they’re mostly name recognition at this point, which is part of why Trump did so well in polling…

      Mew

      • http://www.sheetanchor.org SheetAnchor

        can’t seem to now locate the source of the poll cited, but the most recent Rasmussen Reports (3/10 – 3/13 2000 LV Obama 48 Palin 38 = Obama +10) showed Palin trailing Obama by 10. More recent polls have her down by as much as 19.5, but these polls are of adults or registered voters, and as such are meaningless, as the only polls which are credible are “Likely Voters,” reflected in the Rasmussen polls. RCP link below:

        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_palin_vs_obama-1169.html#polls

        • acat

          The catch is, that’s still a head-to-head poll, so .. doesn’t matter if they’re polling likely voters who voted in every election for their entire lives and who are in perfect health… this far out, these kind of polls boil down to “whose name do you recognize”. If this were May 2012, I’d be interested in these kind of polls, but .. really, not before then.

          If Palin wants to win it, she has to overcome her unfavorable perception among likely GOP voters … and from what I’ve seen, she’s not moved the needle at all.

          I like Palin, and would definitely support her in the general, but I don’t think – because I’ve seen no strategy of trying to improve her favorables in the last 6 months – that she’s going to go for it.

          Mew

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            I’m with you, in that I don’t think she could appeal to many of the GOP, and she would have a very difficult time appealing to the moderates, whom we have to sway in order to win a general election. But if she could win the GOP nomination, I would support her with no reservations whatsoever (something I could not say about McLame, though I voted for him anyway)

    • sandbun

      It would be one thing if most people didn’t have an opinion on her, then there’s room to grow. But most people do have an opinion on her, generally a very unfavorable one, and she’s had more than enough time to turn it around if she was going to.

  • arnd

    Gregory went a long away to boost Obama in 2008 and constantly attacked birthers, who, perhaps for bad motives, were only asking for basic information that any other president or presidential candidate would have immediately offered up. Has he ever condemned Andrew Sullivan’s fantasies about Sarah Palin’s private life?

    Obama didn’t climb to the presidency after decades of hard work in the public eye, like LBJ, Nixon, or Reagan. Obama was elevated by people like Gregory, who made criticism of the president into racism. Gregory should bashed and put out of work in 2012 as much as Obama should be.

  • hilltop

    Any hunters out there know that if you show yourself to soon, the prey escapes, you lose. If you stalking a herd that can shoot back you must be verwy verwy careful because it ain’t wabbit hunting. You evaluate every step, you make your move when you are prepared and have the advantage. So pay attention folks, to what she has been doing, Listen to the differance in her delivery, her voice, the experience she’s getting and the increase in her networth. Right now most of the republicans look like cannon fodder, I think she may be smarter than the whole bunch.

    • carolina

      I think this is a good race to wait to begin. The www has vastly increased the amount of coverage political candidates receive. Anyone who wants can find out everything about a particular candidate in a short amount of time. The election is over a year away. Just how many stump speeches about issues can a candidate make before it all gets totally redundant and boring?
      The need to raise campaign funds does drive them to get started. However, there is some truth to “familiarity breeds contempt”.

    • carolina

      I think this is a good race to wait to begin. The www has vastly increased the amount of coverage political candidates receive. Anyone who wants can find out everything about a particular candidate in a short amount of time. The election is over a year away. Just how many stump speeches about issues can a candidate make before it all gets totally redundant and boring?
      The need to raise campaign funds does drive them to get started. However, there is some truth to “familiarity breeds contempt”.

  • Martin Knight

    Dodging or “boycotting” the MSM is not a good idea. Sure, it’s emotionally satisfying to boycott the media and all that, but all it does is leave them with all the room they need to really mess with you up without being afraid of being hit back.

    The better approach is to do a Condi Rice vs. Lawrence O’Donnell – only much much less “polite.”

    Condi did something most Republicans under fire don’t – refusing to let Lawrence O’Donnell “move on” when he realized that he’d been caught in a lie. She didn’t politely let it slide as the average Republican would have to show how “good-natured” he or she is, instead, she forced him to stay on the topic and painstakingly made him eat his words.

    This, is the sort of thing Sarah Palin needs to do to rehabilitate her image with the American people – a significant plurality of which think she’s the dumbest thing since rocks. She should accept invitations to interviews on every network and make it an extremely painful experience for her liberal interlocutors.

    Was she not a journalist once herself? Why can’t she ask them questions about *their* views as she answers their questions? Why can’t she force them to define and defend their premises before she answers a question? Refuse to let them change a topic once it becomes uncomfortable for them? Force them to eat their words – ambush them.

    PS: The new media ideas are perfectly fine as well – embracing the power of “and” means one can do both – MSM and new media. How the heck else is Chris Christie making every Republican go weak in the knees?

    • jeffreywturner

      Had Palin not done the interview with Katie Couric, Katie would have probably lost her job a lot sooner. Palin did her a favor and kept her on the air longer by doing the interview.

      Don’t you think its better for Conservatives to simply refuse biased forums, thereby denying them ratings and causing them to bleed viewers over to more balanced venues?

      • Martin Knight

        Don?t you think its better for Conservatives to simply refuse biased forums, thereby denying them ratings and causing them to bleed viewers over to more balanced venues?

        No.

        Actually, let me expansiate on that; if Conservatives are going to go on biased forums like they’re not in enemy territory and act all “polite” i.e. obsequious and accommodating (like they mostly do now), then it is better for all concerned if they simply refuse to participate.

        Going on a show and having a full-on brawl with an interviewer by challenging the premises of his questions, exposing them for the biased talking points they are, asking him your own questions, staying on a subject to forcefully correct the record when it’s slanted, aggressively defending and promoting your own policies, etc.

        That’s what I’m talking about …

        Which one, the on-air brawl or simply refusing to appear, would lead the average viewer to realize that the forum is biased? Which one is more likely to persuade and convince?

        As for Katie Couric, Palin may have done Couric a favor, but she certainly didn’t do herself any favors by allowing the McCain campaign to get away with refusing any more interviews and hiding her for the rest of the campaign.

        One bad interview is not enough to torpedo a candidate … a good interview following the bad one would usually erase it from the public consciousness. But Palin immediately went dark after that and the Press was successfully able to use it to define her.

        Palin should have immediately accepted other interviews, prepared and war-gamed for hostile questions and gone in from then on prepared to go for the jugular.

        • acat

          to unleash her, and I suspect that by then he knew she overshadowed him.

          I agree with all your points – conservatives do need to brave the lions’ den boldly, and conservatives need to telegraph their punches via new media.

          Mew

      • rogershru2

        They should be faced head on and exposed.

        Unprepared candidates may not do well in them, such as Palin in ’08 apparently was. But prepared candidates will shine through even in these venues. They should be direct and challenge the interviewer, not letting them get away with bias. We should be the party that is not afraid to do so because we have truth and reason on our side. The liberals have neither and so we see every day how Obama is afraid to face legitimate questions.

        • catt

          Condi is a good example. Chris Christie doesn’t shy away from interviews and town halls … or from telling people things they don’t want to hear … but he turns it to his advantage. Don’t let anyone tell you it isn’t possible. For some it’s not possible but the fact that some people manage to do a good job of it shows that it IS possible.

          To handle tough adversarial questioning and do a good job of it requires three things: a quick mind AND a thorough grasp of issues and principles AND the ability to stay cool and think clearly under adverse conditions. Those are all things I’d want to see in a Presidential candidate.

          Going into the lions den is a good test of a candidate. Look at what happened with Newt … better to have all of that exposed early and have him knocked out than to let him do only softball interviews and maintain an illusion.

        • blooch

          for Republican candidates to go into the viper pits.

          It’s great fun slinging red meat to the crowds at campaign stops, or cans of corned beef hash at primary debates, but I’ll crawl a mile across jagged broken promises to vote for the one who can take a flanksteak and slap the coiffure off a talking head, and do it with such force and repetition that it’s impossible to conceal with editing.

          • Warrior

            Yes, but unless the venue itself is totally neutral, as would have to be the editing and broadcast processes as well, the left will just shape/spin the final product any way they want.

            Besides, isn’t this what Obama is doing NOW and did do during the campaign? Remember the female reporter from FL who alleged ‘O’ was a socialist. She was allowed no more interviews. Even a few days ago, some newspaper devoted too much column space to an op ed critical of the big “O” and guess what? That’s right, no more ticket to the press plane. “Solly Chally, no mo room on plane. You take bus, O.K.?”

            If a conservative tried this, the lamestream lapdogs would be crying “CENSORSHIP” to the high hills. Palin is exactly right. Why play their game any more?

            In fact, what does dodging “tough” questions, which usually means coping with impossibly biased set-ups, show anyway? Mac Daddy was the Oh-So-Smooth Joe Cool answering all those questions during the campaign (except the ones from Joe the Plumber.) He even earned a reputation for being ‘highly articulate” (not to mention “clean.”) And what’s the truth of the matter? He can’t make a complete sentence without a fully loaded Tele-Promp-Ter nearby.

            The dino media got away with painting Bush ’43 as “dumb” even though he made far better grades than Jean Francois. Algore (inventor of the internet) was another nut the lamemedia got away with describing as “intelligent.” And I remember how they constantly castigated Reagan for being asleep at the wheel while someone else, usually portrayed as Nancy, pulled the strings. And all this without one word of interview “evidence” from the protagonists. So what if Bush II pronounced it “nucler”? The man’s from Texas for crying out loud.

            No, the less fodder we give them, the less damage they can do. People must be reminded that leftist critics like Tina Fey and Katie Couric are ALWAYS reading from scripts. They couldn’t answer real questions under pressure if their vacuous, self-absorbed lives depended on it.

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            Agree to interviews only when they are broadcast live. It’s going to mean being on location and being on-time, but that was when Reagan did his best work. Sure, the Lamestream media can edit it for their own purposes for a later re-broadcast, but the original will be available at a million locations on the web, and the manipulation will be obvious to anyone with more than half a brain.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan, in ANY sense of the term.

            Live on TV with the ability to ask follow up questions and SteSarah™ will get handed her head. She knows that. That’s why she tries to deal with the media with her little Facebook offerings. In front of real questions – and I’m not talking John Stewart – and she’ll make a complete and total fool of herself. Except, of course, to her loyal messianic following.

          • jeffreywturner

            Really, it is good that you can be so dedicated to something – I just wish it was something helpful to our side.

            As to this particular unprovoked attack on Palin, I think it is pretty clear that you are wrong on two fronts.

            First, I saw her interviewed live by Wolf Blitzer about energy issues last year and she did quite well. Also, she always does fine with Greta Van Susteren, and Greta isn’t just some conservative ideologue like Hannity or Rush who only tosses softballs at Sarah.

            Finally, to imply that she has no parallels with Ronald Reagan is simply not true. I’m not gonna claim that she is on an even keel with the man who was easily the greatest President in modern times, but anyone can see that she is similar to Reagan in at least two very critical ways. First is the sincerity and honesty of her ideological beliefs and second is her ability to connect with common people on a personal level.

            I don’t know what it is with you and Sarah. Attacks on her make up, what, probably 50% of all of your posts on this site? I mean your record of attacking and obsessing over Palin alone could get you a job at MSNBC. Maybe you went to high school with her and she rejected you when you asked her to the prom. I don’t know what the heck it is, but you need to get over it and just lay off of her. Heck, on the rare occasion that you are not obsessing over Palin, some of your posts actually make sense and add to the conversation. I’d love to see more of that.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            I don’t hate Palin. I think she’s a valuable commodity for throwing red meat to a small section of the base, distracting the Democrats and raising money. She is, however, way out of her league when it comes being POTUS. Like it or not, she’s a hack politician, was at best a mediocre governor whose signature legislation – little that it was – is either being ignored to death or rewritten, and whose ratings in Alaska are in the low 20s. She’s got a huge F/U gap – like minus 30 or so – and has done nothing in the last year to address it.

            You obviously either weren’t born during the Reagan years or you were in a drug induced haze. She has absolutely nothing in common with RWR. Nothing. Reagan spoke to the vast center of America. Palin speaks only to you and ignores the people she needs to be elected. Etc, etc, etc.

            Actually, few of my posts address Palin. And when I do write about her it’s to blunt the BS, misinformation and outright lies that you and the SteSarah™ brigade piss on the floor. I don’t obsess about Palin. Frankly, I could care less about her and if she does run, which I seriously doubt, she’ll implode pretty quickly and run and hide just like she did when she bailed on the Governor’s job that she was elected to do.

            Zip up and go read the funnies. You can probably figure them out.

          • jeffreywturner

            “A small section of the base”? You are treating her as if she was Ron Paul.

            Without even being a Member of Congress, Sarah Palin was able to get an entire provision removed Obamacare simply by uttering two little words on her Twitter account. That is more than ANY of the other potential GOP POTUS candidates were able to accomplish and some of them were actually in Congress at the time the bill passed. Clearly Sarah’s influence stretches well beyond a “small section of the base”. As much as it may pain you, the fact that she is a headliner and has real influence well beyond a small section of the base is undeniable to any objective observer.

            But that isn’t even the point – no one was even pushing Palin as a POTUS candidate when you felt compelled to attack her, and Rickbull didn’t even compare her to Reagan when you decided to start recycling Lloyd Bentsen’s worn out lines.

            By the way, I will take your failure to address my points regarding her live interviews with Blitzer and Van Susteren as acquiescence on that point.

            Now I happen to agree with you on Palin’s value outside of being a candidate herself. Funny thing is, I don’t see many posts from you praising her for that.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            And I’ve probably written about her non-candidate role fifty times.

          • acat

            there’s now a meme in the wild that refers to the Tea Party as having two wings – the Palin wing and the Paul wing.

            It’s unclear to me whether the Paul in question is Rand or Ron, I’ve seen both mentioned, but … yeah. The chattering classes are now refering to the Tea Parties as being either drawn toward her or one of the Pauls.

            Figured you may appreciate the irony, given Mr. Turner’s first sentence. The comparison is quite obvious and rather apt.

            Mew

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Frankly, having gone through the 08 RonPaul wars, the SteSarah™ crew is significantly more obnoxious and removed from reality than the Paultards. They are just stupid. These Palidiots are simply entranced with the sound of her voice and nothing else matters. It’s really pathetic.

          • acat

            The best way to describe it is, I think, to call it a desire to protect the downtrodden damsel. There’s nothing intellectual to it at all, unlike a more run-of-the-mill cult-of-personality. (cue Living Colour)

            This matters only in how we approach the two groups. Mockery is much more effective against Paulistines as they’re barely able to get that the joke’s on them. Palinites take it as yet another attack.

            My concern is the 2012 election, and ending the Dem control of the White house. I’m willing to bet that most Paulistines will vote only if (a) they’re not stoned and/or hung over and (b) they remember.

            Palinites are a different kettle of fish – and I’m concerned that whoever the nominee is – especially if Palin runs and is defeated – will have to run without them.

            That’d make taking back D.C. tougher .. and be made easier by using a modicum of tact now. Even, in the case of Viator above, where tact was not on its’ mind in dealing with me.

            Mew

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Except that the RabidOnes™ on both sides of the normal curve are a very small, albeit very vocal, group of idiots who will stay home. They won’t effect the results because I doubt this election will be all that close. It will either be a Republican landslide or we nominate Palin and lose it all. That said, I still will be surprised if she runs. I think the decision point will end up being the release of the emails in Alaska and the reaction to them – which I don’t think will be pretty.

          • 20jan2013

            but in the end you’re just

            spinning…

          • acat

            Go forth and put the following into google:

            “paul wing” “palin wing” “tea party”

            (the quotes matter – otherwise you’ll get stuff about wings of birds and airplanes)

            What I pointed Becker to is that this meme is in the water.. There are some similarities between the supporters of both… which, being blunt, is not meant as a compliment.

            Mew

          • rightwingmom52

            I don’t put any credibility in what spews forth from Huffpo, the Kos kids, Olbermann, and liberals in general. I’ve been pretty involved with our local Tea Party for a couple of years now (although due to Cold Warrior’s diaries, I’m putting most of my energy in the local & state GOP). Most of our members are waiting for the debates to see who they support (kinda like many around here). To say that they’re split between Paul & Palin is just not true. Neither is saying Palin supporters are idiots – some are just misinformed. Calling Palin’s supporters names is not going to educate them nor is it likely to get their votes which we will probably need,

          • acat

            to my post above, that 20jan2013 replied, entitled “it’s an emotional bond…”, you’ll see that I’ve reached the same conclusion.

            What I’m seeing is that the emotionalism is blocking the exchange of information needed to allow Palin supporters to become .. “un-misinformed”.

            Mew

          • rightwingmom52

            Something we tend to forget is that there are still a lot of middle class and elderly folks who do not have the instant access to the information we have. For example, my parents (in their ’80s) do not have nor do they want a computer. They’ve only had satellite for a few years because they live far enough out in the country that for years cable & satellite wasn’t accessible. Cost was an issue as well. Accordingly, they don’t get to read redstate. However, they do a pretty good job of reading between the lines of the news stations they watch (mostly Fox & their local channels), and they ask me and other family members a lot of questions. Note that they decided all on their own that they don’t think Palin is the best choice even though they like her for the same reasons I do (tenacity, makes heads explode, not an elite, etc.). During the 2000 recount, I called my mom every day during carpool to give her an update because they had only local tv and newspapers. My sisters and I do our best to keep my parents and other relatives and friends in the same boat informed. Sometimes it’s simply lack of access.

          • acat

            that doesn’t exactly apply to the discussion here, eh?

            (clearly, those discussing Palin on Red State do have internet access…)

            Again, I’ll support her in the general election. I just don’t think she’s the right candidate, so will not support her in the primary, and will ask questions of those who do support her.

            Mew

          • rightwingmom52

            the insulting comments about Palin supporters were solely limited to those on redstate.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            There are some who are very thoughtful, recognize that she’s got a huge hill to climb to be competitive in the general election (and maybe even the primary), for instance there’s azaeroprof here at Redstate. There are others, but I’ve had a couple of discussions with him lately and he popped to mind. He understands that Palin is just like every other potential candidate, she’s got pluses and minuses and he understands the reality of the situation, and he’s a pleasure to have a discussion with because he’s rational and can frame his argument based on facts.

            And then there are the bozos upthread. They’re the equivalent of 13 year olds with a Hustler magazine hidden in the basement. They wouldn’t know a fact if their life depended on it and base their arguments on totally irrational assumptions. They make the Paultards from 08 look like rational, intelligent people.

          • acat

            is that I’m closer to azaeroprof’s position than yours on Palin herself .. but I’m closer to your position on a subset of her supporters.

            Mew

          • 20jan2013
          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            I deal in facts, labeled as facts. When I offer opinion, it’s labeled as such. I also understand that all candidates have pluses and minuses and I deal with them.

            You fools, and the Paultards, don’t know the difference between a fact and opinion. You also would die before you admitted that your candidate had issues with which to deal in order to win. You refuse to define those issues and you blow them off with infantile arguments that employ neither reason or logic.

            Collectively, you are pathetic.

          • 20jan2013

            Unlike yourself, we conservatives are willing not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Far from being in denial about the issues of conservative candidates, we embrace the hope they represent for important, dramatic change in the leadership of our country.

            I would rather be a cheerleader for a good cause than to be a sniper attacking every imperfect one.

          • Doc Holliday

            who says Tea Party types are only into Palin and Paul? BTW, Rand Paul is that candidate we SHOULD run, but can’t. Experience has nothing to do with it because our field bites. Freshmen like Paul and Rubio are head an shoulders above Juniors like Pawlenty and Romney.

            But back to the point, I don’t buy the idea that Ron Paul has any material support in the tea party. I can see Cain catching on. BTW, the Tea Party is nuttier than the Libertarians if they think they should run canidates, rather than changing the Repubs for the better.

          • acat

            but consider that, as many have pointed out (Scope, Night Twister, and others) Ron Paul has made several moves to re-brand his movement as a part of the Tea Party… the bad doctor has made it easy for outsiders to further marginalize Palin’s influence.

            Mew

          • jeffreywturner

            There was one other person I was gonna compare you to and I couldn’t remember who it was, but alas that poster was kind enough to remind me – its acat.

            The funny thing is, my point was going to be that I was beginning to think that you and acat might be the same person, because it never fails: if there is a thread of any significant length involving Palin, one of you two (mbecker or acat) will assail her, then if someone challenges on the point or defends Palin in any way, the other one will chime in and back the first one up.

            I’m sure mbecker and acat are probably not the same person, but you really are a lot alike – enough to make people wonder. I will say this, if you are indeed two different people, then you better be careful because if one of you makes a sharp turn it will probably break the other one’s nose.

            I don’t know if I have ever seen a Palin thread without at least one attack from both of you. You really should develop some hobbies – I mean all this obsessing over Palin can’t be emotionally healthy for you.

            Funny thing is, I’m not even a Palin supporter – I’m a Herman Cain guy. I just get tired of the same two douchebags having nothing better to do than bash a good person, insult her intelligence and disparage anyone who disagrees with them.

            FYI: If you are wondering if the douchebag label applies to you – here is a hint – if you like to refer to people as “Palidiots”, then yes you are a douchebag.

          • acat

            You have no facts to refute what’s been said.

            You ignore facts that don’t fit your narrative. The fact that I’m not opposed to President Palin, I just don’t think she’s going to run.

            Are you, by chance, a journalism major? If not, consider it as a possible career choice, you’ve got the skillz!

            Mew

          • jeffreywturner

            then you don’t have to cheer on a jerk-off like mbecker when he calls people “Palidiots”, etc.

            I presented plenty of facts to refute his claims. However, rather than debate, he decided to denigrate all Palin supporters (and again, I’m not even one of them) by hurling insults.

            He is particularly nonsensical when he makes his “electability” arguments. All that matters in running against an incumbent President is the economy. It doesn’t matter who the GOP nominates – Romney, Palin, Daffy Duck or whoever – if the economy hasn’t improved significantly, Obama loses, if it has, he wins. Period. The “electability” argument went out the door in Nov. 2008 when a respected, established centrist Senator was defeated by the most inexperienced, far-out left-wing member of the Senate.

            Even better though was in a thread a few weeks ago I think, when mbecker was regurgitating that “troopergate” nonsense about Palin that he and Keith Olberman love so much, and someone came in and absolutely choke-slammed him with the facts and a link to the official report setting the record straight.

            The guy clearly just has PDS and that makes otherwise rational people lose all sense of reason.

            Forgive my crassness, but my point to you is, if you don’t want people to think that you are a douchebag, then don’t hang out with douchebags.

          • Warrior

            These two turkeys are always bashing Palin. “mbecker” is just trying to impress his pal art chance (achance.) But this “acat” character resembles some kind of troll. I wouldn’t doubt if he was planted by the Dems or is somebody Daily Kos sent over here to keep the lid on Palin enthusiasm.

            In any event, who do they propose for prez? Mitt Romney? As I’ve said repeatedly (and as you re-stated mastefully above about McCain) no white guy is going to beat Obama in ’12. However, your conclusion is incorrect because it will not matter what the economy is doing. The “O” crowd will simply turn every criticism back and label it “racist.” Only a black or a woman will be able to resist such taunts. (Remember when McCain got “tough” during one of the ’08 debates, pointed to Obama and said, “That one, that one over there.” He was heavily criticized for using “racist code words.”

            As you said above, “The ?electability? argument went out the door in Nov. 2008 when a respected, established centrist Senator was defeated by the most inexperienced, far-out left-wing member of the Senate.”

            —It is still “out the door” regarding any white male Republican candidate in ’12.

          • jeffreywturner

            I confused “acat” with “achance”.

            When I was thinking of the other douchebag who is mbecker’s Palin-hating Siamese twin and general butt-buddy, I was thinking of achance. My sincere apologies acat. However I’d still caution you about aligning yourself with such jerks, lest people think you share their condescending attitudes.

            As to the idea of having to nominate a woman or a black guy in order to defeat Obama next year – I can’t say I agree. In your line of reasoning, a latino candidate would actually be more effective, because that would not only blunt the racism attack, it might also even attract a few votes.

            No, I think the key is still the economy. Remember, the only time McCain was actually leading Obama in 2008 was between the time of Palin’s acceptance speech and the time of the financial meltdown. See – the economy.

            Now, if 15 months from now we are right in that very narrow grey area where the economy is showing better signs of improving but not quite as fast as people are hoping for, and Obama’s approval is stuck right at about 48-49%, then yes, the candidate we nominate could actually make the difference. That is highly unlikely though. But still, even in that unlikely case – I don’t think we need to nominate a black or female candidate. You are clearly correct in assuming that every line of criticism on Obama will be deemed racist by the media. However, that doesn’t mean we HAVE to nominate a black or female candidate to win, we just need to nominate someone who has cajones and isn’t afraid to call out race-bating for what it is. Now Palin did do a great job of that on the David Gregory question, but that isn’t just because she is a female. I’d like to think there are at least a couple of white guys out there as tough as Palin.

            All that said, it just so happens that I am supporting a black guy as of now (Cain), and unlike Obama, he isn’t artificially black, he is a legitimate, authentically black guy who didn’t just get everything in his life handed to him on a silver platter like our current so-called black president.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            zip up now.

            In the world of bots, you guys should be running a school. Pathetic. Neither one of you is even close to reality and neither of you would actually know a fact if it landed on your empty heads.

            If you’d like to see what an intelligent, cogent Palin supporter looks like check out azaeroprof. He’s in touch with reality and a solid commenter. Unlike the two of you.

          • jeffreywturner

            n/t

          • Warrior

            mbecker’s head barely fits through the door now…

          • aesthete

            agreeing with each other on a site that promotes congregating with people of like mind to achieve political goals — weird. Guess it must be a conspiracy. BTW, it’s pretty amusing to think that either acat and ‘becker, or Achance and Becker, were even close to being “Siamese twins” on their general take on issues.

          • Warrior

            mere agreement. Either they are the same peson or they share a room. One follows the other like night follows day… maybe they call each other up and pass along an alert that someone on RS is celebrating Sarah Palin…

          • acat

            You have yet to post a fact to refute Palin’s favorable/unfavorable numbers.

            You’re now reduced to calling me a troll.

            In keeping with Franz Rule, I’ll just post this.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwZvxUJDNJk

            Mew

          • Warrior

            that I stated only you “rsembled” a troll. Try paying attention. And a year out, those numbers mean noithing.

            And again, nothing original from you.

          • acat

            Because those polls, this far out, can tell us a great deal, unlike the head-to-head polls that, this far out, just mean name recognition.

            Since you have yet to reply to my frequent requests asking for you to show a favorable/unfavorable that indicates Palin is doing better, I presume you either don’t have one, or can’t tell the two apart.

            I have stated my position on Palin – tolerable in the general, but not my pick in the primary. I have explained why that’s the case. As you’re the one who wants to change my mind, the burden of proof is on you. I don’t have any reason to post anything new, you still haven’t answered my previous issues.

            Mew

          • Warrior

            more about polls than you will ever know. And I don’t care about changing your mind.

            You still have not answered how your boy Romney or other whitebread will stave off charges of racisim the first time they offer a criticism of Obama.

            I’ve been on this board a lot longer than you have, try learning something for a change.

          • acat

            it’s no wonder you can’t figure out that Art Chance got one or two things right…

            We?ve been called racists enough now that it shouldn?t bother us any more.

            -AChance, http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2009/11/03/what-men-may-do-we-have-done/#comment-24463

            Dems do “voting blocs” and “groupthink” .. why are you stooping to their level and demanding the GOP do the same?

            Mew

          • jeffreywturner

            you did catch above where I apologized to you because I had confused you with achance right?

            You don’t have to accept it of course, I just wanted to make sure you knew it had been offered.

          • acat

            I don’t take being confused with Art Chance as an offense, actually.

            Art was abrasive, but that’s a common trait among Alaskans. His anti-Palin bias came from actual experience working with her administration, so while it was very much a bias, it contained some kernels of truth. Think of it as trying to discern the truth by reading a New York Times piece and you’ve got the idea.

            Art was also banned in 2009, so I’m a little surprised you’d think .. two years later .. that I’m him.

            I do accept your appology, for whatever that’s worth.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            More importantly, who cares? Every Republican since Nixon has been subject to those charges — big deal.

          • jeffreywturner

            I mean, you are right, in every campaign there comes a point where the Republican nominee is called racist, or at least insinuated to be racist / racially insensitive by the Democratic nominee or the Democratic nominee’s surrogates.

            However, never until now has it gotten to the point where every single word uttered by any Republican at any time on any subject is immediately deemed to be racist.

            What Palin did with Gregory’s asinine question was masterful. However it was really too little too late. We need candidates who will do that on the spot, directly to the questioner, and do so relentlessly until the media stops playing that game, or alternatively the disinterested masses actually realize what is going on and begin to discount the media as the partisan hacks they are.

          • acat

            First they laugh, then they shout.

            Then they send in the SEIU goons.

            The reason the racism charge is coming more and more to their lips is because they’re more and more desperate.

            Maybe a medical analogy is in order. Familiar with MRSA at all? Nasty stuff, a strain of bacteria that is resistant to most antibiotics.

            Dems are reacting to conservatism the same way hospitals react to MRSA – they keep throwing racism at us because it’s the only thing that works.

            Ironically, it was Art Chance who said that we’ve been called racist so often it shouldn’t bother us anymore.

            Put a little differently, “Reputation is what other people know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself.” –Bujold

            I know I’m not a racist. I don’t give a {donkey} what the libs may say of me.

            Mew

          • jeffreywturner

            I think what you say is true – ie: we do hear the racism charge more and more as the desperation of the left grows, but I think there is another fairly obvious aspect to it. The fact that our current President happens to be black (at least nominally) certainly gives them lines of criticism previously unavailable.

            Oh yeh – as far as achance – I agree he’s great when the subject is anything other than Palin. The problem arises when he hooks up with mbecker and they just feed off of each other like a pack of rabid dogs in their seething hatred of Palin, and by extension anyone who dares defend her. PDS does that to people.

          • acat

            And last time I checked, Art is still persona non grata due to his support for the cow from Alaska. Having read his arguments at the time, he makes sense .. sorta.. but I disagree with his conclusions.

            The problem with your theory, by the way, is that there’s just as much a tendency – due to the emotional nature of the bond Palin forms with her supporters – for a rather rabid response to anyone who questions her.

            This is why I’m more concerned about her supporters than about her. She showed, with the McCain endorsement, that she’ll do the party thing if she has to. Consider two possible scenarios, though.

            If she doesn’t run and throws her weight behind either Cain or Pawlenty, what will her supporters do?

            If she runs and loses – for whatever reason – and then backs the nominee, what will her supporters do?

            Can they turn and back a person who she chose not to challenge, or worse, who she lost to?

            Politically, it makes sense. Emotionally, and this is a bad analogy, but it seems a little too close to the girl ending up with the abusive boyfriend. (he beat her! how can she endorse him?) There was some of this around the McCain endorsement, if you’ll remember.

            What do the Palin supporters do if they can’t support her in the general? I don’t see them voting for Obama .. but I can see them shutting down… not voting at all.

            Mew

          • jeffreywturner

            I can’t imagine any significant swath of Palin’s loyalists staying home on election day. What I mean is, the kind of people who support her are not drugged-out hippies like all those college kids who voted for Obama and would have stayed home if he weren’t in the race. (for that matter, the same description applies to many of Ron Paul’s supporters)

            I think her supporters are really good about supporting the people she endorses, for better (think Rubio) or worse (think O’Donnell). Sorry to bring that one up, but it is still a sore subject with me. That O’Donnell debacle was by far Sarah’s worst blunder of this last cycle.

          • Doc Holliday

            Acat is a Daily Kos Troll?

            No white guys is going to beat Obama in ’12?

            Only a black or a woman will be able to resist such taunts? (what the crap does this mean?)

            wow, this place has turned crazy, I am glad I have been laying off this pipe lol.

          • Warrior

            a troll the way he keeps dissing Palin but offers no real alternative…

            And yes, I’ll bet you money no white Repub male wins in ’12 against Obama…(did you not pay attn in ’08?)

            Only blacks and women can credibly (by MSM “standards”) ward off accusatins of racism which will be hurled by the MSM at any white guy who criticizes the “O”. Is that difficult to understand?

            Geez, try paying attention…

          • acat

            It’s not my fault you can’t pay attention, or don’t know how to use google.

            Mew

          • Warrior

            you write. When I say you have no alternatives, I mean you do not respond to any of the glaring points staring you in the face. Like how will Mitt, with half the respect and twice the baggage, be able to fend off charges of racism when McCain could not?

          • acat

            you’ve implied I’m a Romney supporter.

            Let me show you how this works. Put the string “acat pawlenty cain site:redstate.com” into google and press the button.

            Given your signature, the hypocrisy of your demand for a candidate for whom racism “won’t matter” is deep and foul. Kindly focus your attention on the railroad tie in your own eye.

            Mew

          • Warrior

            racist. Well, that figures. Those who are bereft of ideas usually resort to ad hominem attacks at some point. Unfortunately for you, I am used to it.

            Now, here’s what your boy Pawlenty can expect:

            PAWLENTY: “The truth is, people getting paid by the taxpayers shouldn’t get a better deal than the taxpayers themselves. That means freezing federal salaries, transitioning federal employee benefits, and downsizing the federal work force as it retires.” _ Campaign announcement.

            THE FACTS: A federal pay freeze is already in effect. Obama proposed and Congress approved a two-year freeze on the pay of federal employees, exempting the armed forces, Congress and federal courts.

            PAWLENTY: “ObamaCare is unconstitutional.” _ USA Today column.

            THE FACTS: Obama’s health care overhaul might be unconstitutional in Pawlenty’s opinion, but it is not in fact unless the Supreme Court says so. Lower court rulings have been split.

            PAWLENTY: “Barack Obama has consistently stood for higher taxes.” _ Campaign announcement.

            THE FACTS: Obama’s record shows more tax cutting than tax raising. The stimulus plan early in his presidency cut taxes broadly for the middle class and business, and more recently he won a substantial cut in Social Security taxes for a year. He also campaigned in support of extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all except the wealthy, whose taxes he wanted to raise. In office, he accepted a deal from Republicans extending the tax cuts for all. As for tax increases, Obama won congressional approval to raise them on tobacco and tanning salons. The penalty for those who don’t buy health insurance, once coverage is mandatory, is a form of taxation.

            PAWLENTY: “For decades before I was elected, governors tried and failed to get Minnesota out of the top 10 highest-taxed states in the country. I actually did it.” _ Campaign announcement.

            THE FACTS: Minnesota remains among the 10 worst states in its overall tax climate, according to the Tax Foundation. In its 2011 State Business Tax Climate Index, the anti-tax organization ranks Minnesota 43rd, making it the eighth worst state. The ranking slipped from 41st two years earlier. The index considers corporate, individual, sales, unemployment insurance and property taxes.

            PAWLENTY: “I stood up to the teachers unions and established one of the first statewide performance pay systems in the country.” _ Campaign announcement.

            THE FACTS: The system may be statewide, but it is voluntary and most school districts have not joined. Out of the 340 school districts and charter schools in the state, with 830,000 students, 104 districts and charter schools serving 254,592 students are currently enrolled in the performance-pay program.

            PAWLENTY: “There’s only four governors in the country that got an A grade from the tough-grading Cato Institute for fiscal management. I was one of them.” _ ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

            THE FACTS: Cato may be a tough grader, but it is hardly objective. The institute holds staunch libertarian views, including a passion for smaller government, and graded governors in 2010 according to their success in cutting taxes and spending. Pawlenty tied for third with Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, behind South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, both Republicans.

            PAWLENTY: “I could stand here and tell you that we can solve America’s debt crisis and fix our economy without making any tough choices. But we’ve heard those kinds of empty promises before.”

            THE FACTS: Although politicians typically talk about the need for hard choices, Pawlenty actually does name several. He proposes to phase out ethanol and corporate subsidies, raise the Social Security retirement age for young workers and restrain cost of living increases for Social Security recipients who are wealthy.

          • Doc Holliday
          • Warrior

            And I’m not your pal…

          • Doc Holliday
          • Warrior

            And may I say that’s very clever for a ten-year-old. Let me know when you turn eleven and I will send you a new bicycle to play with…

          • Doc Holliday
          • Doc Holliday
          • jerry39

            Acat does not spend all of his time attacking Palin. He spends at least as much time promoting socially liberal candidates and socially liberal ideas under the “only way to get the moderate vote” theory. He has a 3 volume series entitled “10,000 Ways to Defend The Truce Comment” I wonder if there is a connection?

          • acat

            faced lie there, Jerry.

            I’ve not supported a moderate. I’ve said that I think Daniels misspoke, but that I also think he was taken the wrong way… and it’s nice of you to bring it up since it’s no longer germaine.

            I’ve not attacked Palin. I’ve pointed out some facts about her that Warrior and Jeffy don’t like, but .. they’ve not fired back with any facts to refute.

            I’ll just go ahead and file you under “sock puppet”. Tell me, are you the hand, or the sock?

            Mew

          • Warrior

            Your remaks resemble those of some kind of moderate RINO from what I can tell. Moderate, middle-of-the-road wishy-washy-ness is exactly how the Dems stay in power (and how we got Obama. Remeber the big “centrist” McCain?)

            We’ve answered all your so-called facts, but you seem impervious to the responses, always falling back on what this or that poll means at this time of year.

            Here’s a good idea of what polls are worth:

            “Dewey Defeats Truman”

          • acat

            Pointing to one poll with a rather obvious – in hindsight – bias doesn’t invalidate all polling – and you have yet to cite one that shows Palin’s favorable numbers climbing.

            As for calling me a RINO, you’re just being stupid. I was prepared to sit 2008 out until McCain picked Palin as his running mate, and was annoyed that he and his team kept her muzzled.

            In short, you are an example of why I’m more concerned about Palin’s supporters than Palin herself.

            Congratulations.

            Mew

          • 20jan2013
          • Joe Cor

            And then, don’t back down, call the reporter out for bias, not knowing the facts, double-standards, dtc., at every opportunity. Turn the interview arround, become the interrogator, instead of the interrogated. Don’t let the reporter “move on” until he/she has answered your concerns. Even if it’s edited later, the original will be out there, on you-tube, and in the minds of all who did see it live.

            Not all politicians can pull this off, however. Sarah is good with speeches and facebook essays, but I’m not sure she would be good at this. People with the last name of Cheney can pull this off, but I’m not sure who else out there can do this.

            More Republicans could cultivate this skill, however, if they just stopped respecting and liking their opponents so much. I’m not talking about hating, just stop liking them, pretending they’re wonderful guys and gals, and just “good folks.” And stop being intimidated by these people, including reporters. Many of them are about as sharp as a dull butter knife, so there’s no reason in the world to let them get the best of you in an interview.

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            The Left consider HATE to be a family value, if you read their blogs. The hate for Sarah Palin is out there for anyone to see.

            Conservatives replace hate with pity. We don’t hate liberals, we pity them because they really just “don’t get it.”

          • acat

            Conservatives, generally speaking, can laugh at ourselves.

            Liberals, generally, cannot.

            Mock them and they react with hate. Every. Single. Time.

            We really need more good conservative candidates who’ve developed rapier wit and comic timing. One of the key points in Reagan vs. Carter was the early debate, where Reagan threw in the line “There you go again” …

            Mew

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            and issues of age, wherein Reagan made the comment that he would not use Walter’s youth and inexperience against him.

            I do think that the defining moment of the ’80 campaign came during the Republican primary and the “microphone” incident. If you are not familiar with it, you can watch it here:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO2_49TycdE

          • acat

            And Cain has demonstrated a knack for this that Palin never has shown.

            There are two different skill sets – Palin can boil an issue down to the marrow and release a perfectly framing sound bite. Cain may not get the sound bite, but he can get close enough *live, without a net*.

            I can’t help but think Cain will ignore Palin’s advice to avoid interviews.

            Mew

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            can serve him well when it comes to dealing with the media.

            Palin needs to stay on the sidelines and continue her role as kingmaker that she did very well in 2010, and she may have a future in elected office, but not for the presidency, and not in 2012. Perhaps in 2014 in a challenge for Mark Begich’s senate seat, or 2016 against Lisa Murkowski. Alaska needs to replace both of those two.

          • blooch

            than our guys running from the media. I know we have folks who can stay on message, parry, thrust ,throw the interviewer off, or charm the socks off ‘em. Maybe they’re only good at one or two of those, but if they can think on their feet and memorize the simple playbooks of their media adversaries, they have a good chance to succeed.

            Sure, the MSM piled on W and Reagan, but look who won two terms? And yes, they fluffed Lurch and Algor, but where are those guys now? As far as Barry, it has to be embarrassing for him to be tooling around on training wheels at this age, gently nudged along by his media, mostly because he’s been shielded from tough rooms.

            I suppose it’s possible to run for office and from the MSM at the same time, but there’s alot to be said for taking on the talkng heads if a Republican candidate wants attention, respect and most of all, votes.

          • rogershru2

            But we are asking them to be leaders. A competent leader with knowledge, ideas, judgment, wit, and confidence will make that obvious even with a bad interviewer. A good-hearted conservative who does not have some of those of those qualities may not do well. That means we could do better.

          • Martin Knight

            Bring your own camera.

            If Michael Jackson, crazy as he was, could think to have his own recording of his interview with Martin Bashir, I find it amazing that not one single GOP staffer has thought of this.

          • acat

            YouTube and conservative web sites then let any conservative decry any creative edits and further shred the media cloak of infalability.

            Good call!

            Mew

          • blooch

            in terms of what the MSM will sacrifice to get an interview and what the intentions are in the final presentation. Not to mention the Legal Department opinions.

            Pretty soon, every Republican candidate is going to get the full TSA treatment when leaving the green rooom.

          • Martin Knight

            Remember back in 2008 when every network was clamoring for an interview with Palin? Do you honestly think any network would have refused an interview if she’d insisted on bringing her own camera and camera crew to unobstrusively record?

            Not a chance.

            Openly tell them you’re bringing your own camera and give them the reason why: I don’t trust you.

            As for the legal part, sign an agreement that you’re not going to release your tape until after a certain date, and/or until they’ve published/aired (or reveal in any way the content) your interview in whole or in part.

          • blooch

            “Sarah Palin, thank you for agreeing to this interview. I know right now your time is a hot commodity, and we have much to cover in a short time, but I’d like for you to start by addressing your controversial and unprecedented demand that someone from your own team be here to record this interview, on the grounds that the news media cannot be trusted. Some have said that tis is evidence of paranoia on the part of your campaign. Others haven’t gone quite so far as that, but they do worry that a demand like this will give voters the impression that you have a rock star ego, or that your lack of experience causes the need for an excessive entourage to protect you from making mistakes. What do you say to those critics?”

            And that would be the end of that. Sarah might well have given a great answer, but she’d still have been on the defensive and negatively framed. Other pols would get the message and be less inclined to push the media envelope in this way.

            If a Republican is unprepared on the issues and is not expecting ambushes in a most likely hostile interview, his own camera will just give him a personal copy of his @$$ being handed to him. And in the end–even today with New Media,–voter judgment will be more affected by the edited version they see on TV, and not the pol’s versions on YoTube or blogs.

            There’s no substitute for intelligence, thorough preparation and good media kung fu. If a Republican has all three, it will shine through the editing.

          • Martin Knight

            PALIN: {smiles} Thank you for the question, though I believe that the economy and jobs is the number one issue on voters’ minds rather than camera arrangements. And anyway I’m pretty certain the people saying all that stuff about “paranoia” and a “rock-star personality” are really just partisan actors for the other side who are just doing their jobs.

            But I appreciate that this is something that is extremely important members of the press, like yourself. Look, we all know that a lot of this interview is going to end up on the cutting room floor, and there are always questions that’ll be asked afterwards on both sides. My belief is that having the full interview, unedited and available would actually provide more information to the American people, which is always better than less information.

            So to answer those “critics”, rather than hiding my mistakes, I’m actually going to be putting them online, on YouTube and on my campaign website where everyone can see them. Why would they object to that?

          • Warrior
          • blooch

            None of the second two paragraphs ever make it to the packaged product, and the interviewer follows up with:

            “If you believe that attention to jobs are of paramount importance to Americans, then why do you place such imporatnce on getting special treatment in the editing process…special treatment which requires us to surrender our proprietary material to you, with no control over how our material is edited or corrupted by your campaign or otherparties who may acquire it? Has it ever occurred to you and your attorneys that what we present, and the laws governing its presentation might actually protect your interests more than the system you seek here?”

            We could war-game an interview like this,and it might be fun, but the idea that the Media/Entertainment Complex can be cajoled or bullied into allowing bootlegs of their bread and butter to be scattered all over the internet is just wishful thinking. The MSM, while it may suffer from eroding credibility for editing practices and many other reasons, will not give up in this particualr fight if it is pushed on them. You can look at their brethren in the music industry to see how the battle would be fought.

            And don’t you think there is irony in the thought of Sarah Palin or some other Republican candidate arguing against property rights? If that point ever gets made in an interview, it would be awfully tempting for a loose cannon GOP partisan to edit that out of their “uncut” version. Or Lefties posting other various “uncut” versions just to muddy the waters? Or GOP Primary opponents AND Lefties Accusing the interviewee of “augmenting” his “uncut” version?Yeah, I know…that’s just crazy talk. It could never really happen.

            Meanwhile, over on the Left, they’re taking the high road by not asking for their own cameras, and scoring political points. It doesn’t matter that they don’t need their own second camera, because they already own the first one in most cases.

            Understand their game, know your positions, keep your guard up and make them foul you.

            Don’t ask them to change the rules.

          • Martin Knight

            PALIN: {raising eyebrows} Let me get this straight; are you saying that bringing my own camera to an interview means I don’t care about jobs? I don’t see how that follows – I don’t see how that’s logical. Anyway {getting up} look, if all you’re interested in talking about here is cameras instead of the serious issues that are affecting people’s lives, then I’m not interested in having this interview.

            PS: I don’t know about you, blooch, I honestly don’t see anything low-road about paying for and bringing your own camera so people can see your interviews unedited. Neither do I see any number of voters getting all huffy and outraged about it.

            I also don’t remember anyone screaming at the sheer gall of Obama in insisting that his interviews on FOX in 2008 all be live.

            Second, if I’m recording the interview with my own equipment and crew, then it’s not proprietary to the media company – especially if I specifically establish it with them that I’m releasing my recording only after they’ve aired their program.

            And oh yeah …

            None of the second two paragraphs ever make it to the packaged product,

            Maybe not in their recording. But they certainly will make it in Sarah’s recording that she uploads to YouTube. And it would make it in their version as well, if she does something simple like have a clock in the background.

          • acat

            Include the line “I’m paying for these cameras”.

            Echoes of Reagan’s “I’m paying for this microphone” statement …

            Mew

          • blooch

            and insisting on your own camera crew. I’m not aware of Obama requesting his own camera crew, but he would be just the one to try it. We rag on Obama for trying to bring his TelePrompter everywhere, and a TeddyCam would just be a baby step for a small man.

            You can call me Old School, but there is something tacky about paying for and bringing your own camera to a network studio full of cameras…kind of like bringing fast food with you into the steakhouse.

            I guess it’s OK to sit in a theater and bootleg a movie as long as I get permission from the theater manager, or sign an agreement with the producers to only watch my bootleg copy at home.

            Something simple, like a clock in the background? two (sort of) words:
            Birthers, Truthers…and two actual words: digital manipulation.

            I guess what I’m trying to say is that if BYOC was such a masterful tactical maneuver, somebody would have done it by now. Maybe someone has tried, but I bet some legal department grabbed his shoulders and pointed him toward the small print. It ain’t gonna happen.

            And as for acat’s “I’m paying for these cameras”…really? All of them, or just that one on the tripod over in the corner by the clock? If you want full creative control, hire an interviewer and an ad agency and distribute the interview on the campaign’s dime. The publicity of an MSM interview comes cheaper and spreads farther, but the trade-off is that you are going to sacrifice control. That’s just how it works with free enterprise. That reminds me…there’s probably a very special he// in Campaign Finance Reform law which is reserved for the imagery in your second camera.

            And what about the possibility that pols actually like the status quo? They might be quite happy blaming MSM editing for their on-air suck by claiming that all the good stuff ended up on the cutting room floor, when the floor is actually littered with nothing but more suckiness.

            I don’t think you’ll find too much support for the Second Shooter Theory, Martin…but I could be wrong. I am out of step with much of what passes for contemporary culture. Heck, folks are allowed to bring their own wine into some restaurants now.

          • Martin Knight

            Big difference between insisting on a live interview and insisting on your own camera crew. I?m not aware of Obama requesting his own camera crew, but he would be just the one to try it. We rag on Obama for trying to bring his TelePrompter everywhere, and a TeddyCam would just be a baby step for a small man.

            I am in no way suggesting that a candidate should insist that his interviews be filmed exclusively by his own camera crew. I’m saying a candidate should insist that his own camera crew also be recording the interview. And second, how exactly is bringing your own camera to an interview in order to have a raw and uncut recording of it in any way similar to bringing a teleprompter to read off of?

            You can call me Old School, but there is something tacky about paying for and bringing your own camera to a network studio full of cameras?kind of like bringing fast food with you into the steakhouse.

            Well, that’s your opinion. But here’s the thing – we’re not playing by the “Old Rules” where TV journalists are supposed to have your full and unalloyed trust, where bringing your own recording device to an interview is the height of uncouthness and a lack of sophistication. Times and the rules have changed.

            Considering recent events (where practically the entire profession of journalism threw their lot in with Obama), and the in-the-toilet esteem and trust in which the media is held by the public, as I see it, there is absolutely nothing tacky about it, much less being on the same level as bringing fast food to a steakhouse.

            They have their equipment and you have yours (and it could be nothing more than a camcorder on a tripod with a good directional mike). Is it tacky to bring a staffer along to take notes when being interviewed by a newspaper reporter?

            I guess it?s OK to sit in a theater and bootleg a movie as long as I get permission from the theater manager, or sign an agreement with the producers to only watch my bootleg copy at home.

            Where is all this stuff about bootlegging coming from? A candidate sits down to an interview and has his own people unobstrusively recording off to the side and all of a sudden he’s a tacky bootlegging small man (or woman)?! Really?

            It’s not bootlegging to have your campaign record your own interviews.

            I guess what I?m trying to say is that if BYOC was such a masterful tactical maneuver, somebody would have done it by now.

            You know, I used to think that way – if this idea I have is so good, someone would have thought of it and done it by now. Then I experienced the Bush administration and it’s refusal to lift a finger to challenge the BushLied™ narrative.

            I was far from the only one who wrote here on RS that this was stupid and politically suicidal – but I encountered more than enough people here who were also quite adamant that challenging BushLied was a bad idea, because if it was such a good idea, why hadn’t Rove thought of it and done it?

            Bush leaves the Oval Office with approval ratings circling the drain, a plurality of Americans believing he lied America in War, costing the lives of 4400 American troops, and eighteen months later, Rove writes that the biggest mistake he made in the White House was not challenging BushLied™.

            And as for acat?s ?I?m paying for these cameras??really? All of them, or just that one on the tripod over in the corner by the clock?

            Actually – it is just that one on the tripod in the corner by the clock.

            If you want full creative control, hire an interviewer and an ad agency and distribute the interview on the campaign?s dime. The publicity of an MSM interview comes cheaper and spreads farther, but the trade-off is that you are going to sacrifice control. That?s just how it works with free enterprise.

            I don’t think you’re getting this; the candidate will not and cannot exercise any form of editorial control over the recording done by the news station on their equipment. They are free to chop it up and splice it back however they wish. All he’s doing is uploading the recording captured by that camera on the tripod in the corner by the clock to his YouTube channel and his website right after the network has aired their version in whatever manner they so choose.

            How this impacts the principles of free enterprise in a negative way is something that escapes me.

            And what about the possibility that pols actually like the status quo? They might be quite happy blaming MSM editing for their on-air suck by claiming that all the good stuff ended up on the cutting room floor, when the floor is actually littered with nothing but more suckiness.

            If a candidate doesn’t want to record, for whatever reason, he doesn’t have to. I am not recommending any law or ruling compelling a candidate to record his interviews on his own camera, and neither am I in favor of any law or ruling to compel the candidate to upload or otherwise release the recording if he does so.

            I don?t think you?ll find too much support for the Second Shooter Theory, Martin?but I could be wrong.

            Well, I think you are. Wrong that is.

            Been a while since I got so engaged in a thread. Thanks.

          • blooch

            The News station, network or whatever entity owns the broadcasting equipment and the license, has a very strong legal argument for rejecting demands that a camera which is not under their creative and editorial control be allowed to function in their domain and in a competitive fashion. The MSM Lawyers know that, and the candidate’s legal team knows that as well. Maybe the campaign lawyers are down with the billing they could do in such a fight, but a candidate who has such star power that he thinks he can upend the media culture probably has some savvy advisors who would advise very strongly against it. And we haven’t even gotten to the part where they have to deal with the Unions.

            None of the media are required to subsidize opposing viewpoints or accept payment for providing access to their domain or proprietary material…yet. Your best bet for getting a second camera probably lies in the return of the Fairness doctrine.

            I think you miss my point about candidates liking the status quo. It’s not that they fear being required to record and expose every second of an interview to the public, it’s that they are comfortable with the familiar, especially if they are successful, established pols who have good working relationships with members of the MSM. They may even have “special arrangements” regarding edits which give them more than they would get by having a watchdog camera. And these are just about the only kind of candidates who would have the leverage to attempt your tactic.

            Look, I detest the MSM gatekeepers as much as you, Martin. But to me, this route of attack is like a banzai charge agains a fortress. A crumbling fortress, but still, a fortress. The second camera sounded like a good idea at first, but I just get more skeptical the more I think about it. The time may come when the MSM is more parlous and persuadable to making this kind of concession, but it is not now. And if, in the future, they feel compelled to grant this access–whether in return for payment or not–it will likely mean that their influence and credibility has been degraded to such an extent that many candidates may choose not to patronize their venues or pay their tolls.

            And yes, this has been fun. I usually throw out one-liners, but you got me thinking about this idea. Sorry if I sound like an eeyore though.

          • Martin Knight

            The News station, network or whatever entity owns the broadcasting equipment and the license, has a very strong legal argument for rejecting demands that a camera which is not under their creative and editorial control be allowed to function in their domain and in a competitive fashion.

            But that’s the issue, isn’t it? Is bringing your own camera being in competition with them, especially if you agree not to release your recording until after they’ve released theirs? And especially since, without you, they wouldn’t have the interview to be competing about in the first place?

            I seriously doubt that right after Palin gave her acceptance speech, any network would have balked at a demand by her to be allowed to have her own camera recording any interviews. She was a prime get – a sure ratings bonanza – they would have moaned and whined but they would have jumped at it.

          • blooch

            media outlet and history to even consider the possibility.

            Palin was at her peak at that point for sure, and the MSM was probably the most open it has ever been to your idea, but one crucial element was not lined up: History.

            Palin had not yet been edit-burned by Katie Couric, and despite whatever she had learned about combat with the media in Alaska, she probably would not have tried your tactic had it been suggested, because history had not taught her the hard lesson she needed to learn. By the time she might have learned and acted, events had already dragged her down and sapped whatever leverage she might have had to make such a demand.

            And even if history had taught her well enough to seek every advantage that she could with the MSM, she had already been pulled away from the perfect alignment by a large, gaseous, dying star named John McCain, who probably would have gone supernova if he found out she was dickering with the MSM over her own camera in an interview. Talk about upsetting a “special arrangement” with the MSM.

  • Warrior

    “This interview alone is worth three columns of unsolicited gynecological theorizing from the detestable Andrew Sullivan.”