Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

MSN: Palin’s speech draws fire from the right


Jumbo

Recommended Posts

Well, I tied like hell to find  "Palin" thread or a best choice for this other than to start a thread, but decided to to it this way. It's slow enough in here that this will be fine.

 

I still find Plain sort of interesting, these days mainly in the sense of "champions of stretching their 15 minutes of fame" into a longer lasting money-making enterprise.

 

She's not in Kardashian territory, but it's pretty notable. She does have tenacity (mama bear, bulldog, lip-sticked pig, whatever her spirit animal guide is).

 

It is also still of interest to me that even in her more "discredited" state the last couple years withing the GOP "mainstream" (supposedly), she is still apparently held dear to many of that constituency.

 

There's links to the speech and more of the article at the link below.

 

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/palin%E2%80%99s-speech-draws-fire-from-the-right/ar-AA8HGpj

 

 

 

They’re over her.

 

Sarah Palin’s odd, rambling speech last weekend before an audience of committed conservative activists in Des Moines has many influential voices on the right saying that the time has come to acknowledge that the romance has gone cold and the marriage is dead.

 

This is despite the fact that the 2008 GOP vice-presidential nominee told reporters upon her arrival at the event that she is “seriously interested” in running for president in 2016.

 

Her address was a 34 1/2 -minute roller coaster ride of cliches, non sequiturs and warmed-over grievances. One line that stood out: “GOP leaders, by the way, you know, ‘The Man,’ can only ride ya when your back is bent. So strengthen it. Then The Man can’t ride ya.”

The critiques have been devastating — and those are the ones from her friends.

 

“Quite petty,” wrote Byron York in the Washington Examiner. “A long and incoherent speech,” in the view of Craig Robinson of the Iowa Republican blog. “The foreordained culmination of a slow and unseemly descent into farce,” added Charles C.W. Cooke of the National Review.

 

Cooke’s assessment was a far cry from what National Review editor Rich Lowry had to sayabout Palin’s performance in the vice presidential debate, shortly after her dazzling national debut on the stage of the Republican

 

National Convention in 2008: “It was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America.”

 

Weekly Standard editor William Kristol was an early booster of Palin, all the way back to 2007, when she was a new governor little known outside of Alaska. Less than a year ago, hesaid on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that Palin “might be kind of formidable in a Republican primary.”

 

“Did I say it that recently?” Kristol said Wednesday when reminded of that comment in an interview. “The name Sarah Palin hasn’t come up in the past three to six months. . . . Maybe the speech Saturday was just a confirmation of her no longer being a major player, at least in these circles.”

 

Still others expressed concern that the GOP is damaging its own prospects by treating Palin as though she is doing more than promoting herself and her various ventures.

 

“Yes, Palin is still a draw. Yes, conservatives still empathize with her over the beating she took from the media in 2008,” York wrote. “But if there is indeed nothing behind her ‘seriously interested’ talk — and it appears there is not — should she be included in events leading up to the 2016 caucuses?”

 

There is also a tone of soul-searching and even repentance in some of the commentary, as pundits on the right reconsider their own role in stoking the Palin phenomenon.

 

“In hindsight I regret contributing to the premature deification of Sarah Palin,” columnist Matt Lewis wrote Wednesday in the Daily Beast.

 

He added that “maybe her early critics saw some fundamental character flaw — some harbinger of things to come — that escaped me.”

 

Among those critics had been Washington Post op-ed columnist Kathleen Parker, who also weighed in after Palin’s speech contending that the Republicans had themselves to blame.

 

“In the end, the story of Palin’s rise and fall is a tragedy,” Parker wrote. “And the author wasn’t the media as accused but the Grand Old Party itself. Like worshipers of false gods throughout human history, Republicans handpicked the fair maiden Sarah and placed her on the altar of political expedience.”

 

Last weekend was far from the first Palin appearance that has raised eyebrows among her onetime fans. At the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2013, she said of her husband, Todd: “He’s got the rifle. I got the rack.”

 

“What does feel new is that she has finally gotten around to roundly losing conservative opinion leaders,” Lewis wrote.

 

Many seemed mystified by Palin’s unglued performance Saturday.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

White, rich, and male. The moment the GOP veers off the tried and true formula they get nothing but shattered dreams and sadness. Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, and Herman Cain are some notable recent examples. They just can't find a national candidate that doesn't fit the profile but they seem to really want to, which is good.

I'm sure they'll find one soon enough and when they do, they'll play the race/gender card so often you'll think they've got no other cards to play. They've been saving them up, you see. Waiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

White, rich, and male. The moment the GOP veers off the tried and true formula they get nothing but shattered dreams and sadness. Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, and Herman Cain are some notable recent examples. They just can't find a national candidate that doesn't fit the profile but they seem to really want to, which is good.

I'm sure they'll find one soon enough and when they do, they'll play the race/gender card so often you'll think they've got no other cards to play. They've been saving them up, you see. Waiting.

On the flip side, the democrats are very much invested in trying to make any new potential, nonwhite and/or female candidate look like a crazy person.

It's quite funny to watch...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first thought after watching it was that she had been drinking.

 

Not that there is anything wrong with that ..... :)

 

Mainly just the establishment prepping the field for slaughter, some interesting moves going on behind the scenes to pave the way to unity.

 

She has largely made herself irrelevant as a candidate....but richer and more powerful.

 

 

Prosit. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the flip side, the democrats are very much invested in trying to make any new potential, nonwhite and/or female candidate look like a crazy person.

It's quite funny to watch...

 

The nonwhite/female candidates that Republicans prop up do this to themselves. Palin and Marco "Not a Scientist" Rubio aren't mocked for being atypical Republicans, they're mocked for saying and believing stupid things.

 

I think that candidates like Joni Ernst effectively play the Ann Coulter strategy of "knowing better, but saying it anyway" to win votes. It's still crazy, but it's working. Given that it works I'm not sure why you're concerned if you like these candidates.

 

It seems to me that you're irritated by the double standard here, that many lefties view the GOP's pushing of Palin/Rubio/Ernst etc as disingenuous and pandering but don't see Obama's nomination in the same light. Fair enough, but for every Obama voter basing it solely on race, there's one against him also solely based on race. I don't think someone like Ernst has to worry about those to the center and left voting against her just for being a woman. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that you're irritated by the double standard here, that many lefties view the GOP's pushing of Palin/Rubio/Ernst etc as disingenuous and pandering but don't see Obama's nomination in the same light. Fair enough, but for every Obama voter basing it solely on race, there's one against him also solely based on race. I don't think someone like Ernst has to worry about those to the center and left voting against her just for being a woman.

Well, sure. There are people that don't hold true to their claimed principles on both sides.

Don't get me wrong - the republicans have done plenty to deserve the rep they currently have and I desperately wish they would change it, but I don't see them doing anything meaningful to change it.

But right now the democrats have the upper hand in appealing to pretty much every demographic that is growing. Women, Latinos, blacks/affrican americans, illegal immigrants, etc. They have a clear interest in making sure any candidate the GOP puts on stage is categorized as a lunatic and/or some sort of 'token' person. And in furthering their interest, I have seen unfair and undeserved criticism of certain people in an attempt to keep that image in place. We had this discussion in another thread recently.

It's just an interesting (to me) observation I've made.

It's going to be interesting (at least, to me) to watch how the GOP combats the stereotype and tries to reach out to voting blocks they have spent a few years alienating (intentionally or not) and how that plays out over the next 20 years. If they fail to change their image they're going to find their supporters declining in numbers. Which I don't think is a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nonwhite/female candidates that Republicans prop up do this to themselves. Palin and Marco "Not a Scientist" Rubio aren't mocked for being atypical Republicans, they're mocked for saying and believing stupid things.

 

 

In fairness, that isn't exclusive to the nonwhite/female Republicans, those are mainstream Republican views. The issue is when the GOP trots out these candidates that are specifically meant to appeal to demographics that are traditionally Democrat strongholds, the demographics that they are pandering to very quickly see that they are just as clueless and empty of good ideas as the rest of the Republican party. That's why they are so easily mocked.

 

It also makes it difficult to pander to minorities with bad ideas when the rest of your party is doing a good job actively reminding said minorities that a solid chunk of the Republican voting base is racist and/or would-be-oligarchs whose desired political agenda is to royally screw over this segment of the population. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also makes it difficult to pander to minorities with bad ideas when the rest of your party is doing a good job actively reminding said minorities that a solid chunk of the Republican voting base is racist and/or would-be-oligarchs whose desired political agenda is to royally screw over this segment of the population.

This is the narrative I'm talking about. It's in the democrats favor to make sure as many people think this as possible. Regardless of the actual policies the GOP are advocating, regardless of the candidates they put forth.

If you can quickly label any new policy idea/candidate as fitting this stereotype then you can convince a large group of people to stop their analysis there, not bother looking into the idea/person any further, and write it off as the GOP as usual. This is why I don't think the GOP really understand the problem they face right now, and why I'm not convinced they're able to fix it.

I'm not a fan of the current incarnation of the GOP for a variety of reasons. But labeling "a solid chunk" of the party (and new candidates/policies, and supporters) as "racist and/or would-be-oligarchs whose desired political agenda is to royally screw over <everyone else>" works in regards to what I'm talking about.

It's the same thing as the GOP labeling all democrats (policies, candidates, supporters) as wanting to "punish success", or "redistribute wealth" or being "socialists."

Sure, sometimes the shoe fits. Not as often as is claimed though. But it works :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the flip side, the democrats are very much invested in trying to make any new potential, nonwhite and/or female candidate look like a crazy person.

It's quite funny to watch...

 

 

On behalf of the Democrats, I just want to apologize for having noticed that Sarah Palin was a shallow joke of a candidate right from the start.  

 

And that Herman Cain was nothing but a pizza salesman that the GOP put on the stage so that they could say they had their own black candidate.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

White, rich, and male. 

 

I think the hope inside R circles right now is that this primary comes down to Rubio versus Walker, with Fiorina taking a more prominent place than expected and ultimately being in consideration for VP. So we might get to test your theory.

 

 

On behalf of the Democrats, I just want to apologize for having noticed that Sarah Palin was a shallow joke of a candidate right from the start.  

 

And that Herman Cain was nothing but a pizza salesman that the GOP put on the stage so that they could say they had their own black candidate.     

 

The Vice President is Joe Biden. John Edwards was the future. Your Presidential nominee from 2004 threw his war medals over a fence and testified to Congress about US soldiers terrorizing innocent, helpless civilians. Hillary Clinton, whose list of accomplishments is here (www.blank.com) and who referred to an Indian asking a question as Mahatma Ghandi who runs a gas station, is your presumptive nominee (again). The other serious challengers appear to be a woman who told the world she was a native american in order to personally gain, a man who banned the grain and taxed the rain, and an actual socialist (taking the place of an actual communist who saw aliens). 

 

Heck, as we speak the left has people calling the American Sniper a racist murderer. 

 

Crazy is everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Vice President is Joe Biden. John Edwards was the future. Your Presidential nominee from 2004 threw his war medals over a fence and testified to Congress about US soldiers terrorizing innocent, helpless civilians. Hillary Clinton, whose list of accomplishments is here (www.blank.com) and who referred to an Indian asking a question as Mahatma Ghandi who runs a gas station, is your presumptive nominee (again). The other serious challengers appear to be a woman who told the world she was a native american in order to personally gain, a man who banned the grain and taxed the rain, and an actual socialist (taking the place of an actual communist who saw aliens). 

 

Heck, as we speak the left has people calling the American Sniper a racist murderer. 

 

Crazy is everywhere.

 

 

You are right about John Edwards.   He was an empty suit.

 

The rest of it is just a butthurt cut-and-paste conservative deflection rant.  The Democrats have never tried to foist off anyone remotely like Sarah Palin on the world.   In recent elections, the GOP primary debates have had Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Ron Paul and so forth up on the stage, gathering serious voting percentages.   Face it - the GOP lately has been fully embracing the crazy.   

 

False equivalencies are not compelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see more to like in Herman Cain than I ever saw in Joe Biden. Sure, he ran for President for likely personal reasons, but at least he was a fed chair. Take the PR out of it and I'd rather have Cain in charge of just about anything than Biden.

 

And Paul is our Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader. Idealogue, not a serious contender. Santorum is extremely right wing on abortion, but Pelosi can't say that birthed babies are babies. 

 

Crazy is where you see it if you open your eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On behalf of the Democrats, I just want to apologize for having noticed that Sarah Palin was a shallow joke of a candidate right from the start.  

 

And that Herman Cain was nothing but a pizza salesman that the GOP put on the stage so that they could say they had their own black candidate.

Hey now, I'm not saying they're always wrong :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The other serious challengers appear to be a woman who told the world she was a native american in order to personally gain, a man who banned the grain and taxed the rain, and an actual socialist (taking the place of an actual communist who saw aliens). 

 

 

The horror. I assume that's a dirty word to you.

 

I wish everyone in Congress was like Sanders. He was right about Iraq and wasn't afraid to say so. He actually defers to scientists. He supports changes to campaign finance laws. Voted against DOMA and considers nobody a second class citizen for their sexual orientation. And yes, he is against the idea of tax cuts for the wealthy. I will take 534 more dirty socialists if they come with the same foresight and principles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not even close. royal flush to a couple aces

 

Junior did surprise them though  ;)

 

Plenty close.  In fact, Bush Jr. ran start-to-finish on his family name.  Which, in the process, he ruined.  Jeb's climb is now far more difficult than it would have been without the albatross of his brother's comprehensive disaster of a presidency bending his back.

 

But Bush Sr. was the biggest loser there, politically.  Junior can go off and paint his unfulfillable dreams of a day when he is held up as a postmodern Polk (a more realistic aim than Neocon Truman).  But Senior lived to see his best foreign policy work blithely obliterated by his own idiot son.  Gutting for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see more to like in Herman Cain than I ever saw in Joe Biden. Sure, he ran for President for likely personal reasons, but at least he was a fed chair. Take the PR out of it and I'd rather have Cain in charge of just about anything than Biden.

 

 

I'm hearing that if the GOP wins in 2016, Cain has the inside track for the ambassador post to Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...