Listen my children and I'll be tellin'
Of the mid-day tour by Sarah Palin
On the third day of June in Twenty-Eleven
Libs thought they'd died and gone to heaven
As she remembered that famous day and year.
"He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms uh by ringing those bells and making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free and we were going to be armed."
I didn't know that.
HMM: Another tough day for Palin's critics, including yours truly - Paul Revere did in fact warn the Brits, after being subjected to enhanced interrogation (under which, as Cheney's detractors insist, people will say anything except the truth. People other than Paul Revere, I guess.) However, one might note that Mr. Revere did not set off with the intention of warning the British, and I question whether Ms. Palin projected a Presidential level of confidence and authority as she brought these facts forward. I'll hide behind Patterico on this one.
"Palin makes Bachmann look like Longfellow."
I liked that line well enough that I thought I'd use it.
Posted by: anduril | June 03, 2011 at 06:57 PM
"I didn't know that."
Neither did Palin--till she opened her mouth. That's a problem.
Posted by: anduril | June 03, 2011 at 06:58 PM
C'mon in, gang, the water's fine!
Posted by: anduril | June 03, 2011 at 06:58 PM
She's laughin' all the way to the bank, ringin' those bells, and she's tellin' Uncle Sam that she's hirin' a clever tax attorney...
Posted by: anduril | June 03, 2011 at 07:05 PM
As a matter of fact, Reveere DID warn the British that the locals were waiting for him. Said so himself, according to Professor Jacobson. http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/06/so-now-all-these-people-will-apologize.html
Happened when Reveere was captured while on his famous ride. He never did complete his mission but, luckily, others did.
Posted by: joated | June 03, 2011 at 07:12 PM
Anyone who thought (or hoped) that TM had hit rock-bottom with his Palin-bashing will enjoy today's new low.
The "warning" to the British was the "announcement" (by resistance) that we were ready to fight.
If you watch the video, her statement makes sense, the transcript does not.
Posted by: mockmook | June 03, 2011 at 07:14 PM
You'd think people would have learned not to go up against Palin on Revolutionary War history.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | June 03, 2011 at 07:21 PM
If you watch the video, her statement makes sense, the transcript does not.
Almost as if it were done on purpose.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | June 03, 2011 at 07:22 PM
Anyone who thought (or hoped) that TM had hit rock-bottom with his Palin-bashing will enjoy today's new low.
He must've been talking to those snotty Connecticut crones again; the ones that said if we voted for Sarah we'd get an idiot for a VP.
Posted by: Captain Hate | June 03, 2011 at 07:31 PM
Oh, God, LI, the same site that had a "transcript" of Netanyahoo's "off the cuff" comments to reporters that somehow morphed into an official statement from the PM's office.
Posted by: anduril | June 03, 2011 at 07:33 PM
If you watch the video, her statement makes sense
Reminds me of one of the great lines from Fawlty Towers: It works, you don't.
Posted by: anduril | June 03, 2011 at 07:35 PM
I wonder what all them innerleckshal journals that Lesserlight reads will have to say about this.
Do I get points for a clever riff off a handle? Whose suggestion was that?
Posted by: anduril | June 03, 2011 at 07:40 PM
That hook nosed bastard Jacobson and his divided allegiance can't be trusted next to a real American historian like Ben Smith.
Posted by: Captain Hate | June 03, 2011 at 07:43 PM
Here is the section, imbedded in the meta link, in the piece
I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that.
When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back,
and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared
to have the command, examined me, where I came from,
& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he as-
ked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if
I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He
demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and
aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River,
and that There would be five hundred Americans there
in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.
He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us,
when all five of them came down upon a full gallop;
one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major
Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name,
& told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I
did not give him true answers, he would blow my
brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those
above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after
searching me for arms. He then orderd them to advance,
& to lead me in front. When we got to the Road, they
turned down towards Lexington. When we had got about one
Mile, the Major Rode up to the officer that was leading
me, & told him to give me to the Sergeant. As soon as
he took me, the Major orderd him, if I attempted to
run, or any body insulted them, to blow my brains out.
We rode till we got near Lexington Meeting-house,
when the Militia fired a Voley of Guns, which ap-
peared to alarm them very much. The Major inqui-
red of me how far it was to Cambridge, and if there were
any other Road? After some consultation, the Major
Posted by: narciso | June 03, 2011 at 07:44 PM
yeah, right, read every word of it, like, whatever.
They're saying Anthony's could be caught in a wringer if he used a government Blackberry to send his Weinerpix.
Like I said, it's all in the name. Who would care if his name had been Smith?
Posted by: anduril | June 03, 2011 at 07:49 PM
Another case of the crimson hexagon, guess who Wiener has retained as counsel:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/03/house-democratic-leadership-privately-push-weiner/
Posted by: narciso | June 03, 2011 at 07:51 PM
How does that compare with 57 states? With a Teutonic shift? With "my grandfather liberated Auschwitz?"
Posted by: Danube of Thought | June 03, 2011 at 07:52 PM
I am NOT a narcissistic anti-semitic crank obsessed with Sarah Palin!
Did you all know that the
JewsNew Yorkers have controlled America since day 1? Check out this link to a very convincingt analysis by B-Pep. You can tell he's an expert because he cites a Wikipedia article, which I'll copy and paste here in its entirety instead of just leaving a link:Posted by: anduril | June 03, 2011 at 07:55 PM
Doomed. I like Sarah, but I'm not about to do some "intellectual stammer" fluff to pretend she really had this correct, any more than I will pretend old 57 states has a clue. I'd love to go hunt with her or have dinner or just sit and talk Idaho.
Not to put to fine a point on it, we have to vote out Obama or he will so harm the country that my grandchildren won't be able to reclaim it. Sarah, for all her talents and the interest she commands, cannot possibly win. Please. Let us find someone who can win. We do not have the luxury of an internecine bloodletting.
Posted by: MarkO | June 03, 2011 at 07:57 PM
Time for my evening walk. Cool forum, Maguire.
Posted by: anduril | June 03, 2011 at 07:58 PM
andruil, would you mind telling us exactly where you are going to walk?
Posted by: MarkO | June 03, 2011 at 08:00 PM
"Please. Let us find someone who can win."
Like McCain or AGW fanatic / Obamacare Romney.
No thanks
Posted by: Bruce | June 03, 2011 at 08:01 PM
You know, if you don't want me to post here, you could just ask me directly to leave and never come back.
You don't have to get your dirty
JewNew Yorker henchmen to try to muddy the waters and make me look bad.Posted by: anduril | June 03, 2011 at 08:01 PM
I believe the government's theory in the Edwards case is flawed, and I'm surprised they sought the indictment. But I don't know whether Craig and Edwards will roll the dice on a trial.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | June 03, 2011 at 08:02 PM
We do not have the luxury of an internecine bloodletting.
I hope that doesn't mean we should all rally around a bloodless vacillator like Mitt Romney, on the presumption that he "can win". Because, frankly, I think Palin would do better against Obama than Romney would, and would make a better president.
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | June 03, 2011 at 08:03 PM
The conduit, LeBaron, is dead, that leaves 'Bunny' Mellon, as the heart of the case.
Posted by: narciso | June 03, 2011 at 08:05 PM
I'm sure you're all shocked 'gambling is going on, here':
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/06/government-accountability-board-said.html
Posted by: narciso | June 03, 2011 at 08:08 PM
Let me be clear. The fact that I don't think Palin can win has nothing to do with my support for any other candidate. I just cannot endure another 4 years of Obama. Similarly, if the GOP puts on blinders (which one has to do to get past this most basic of American stories and her misstatement of it), our insular egos will help destroy the country.
Just give me one semi-decent candidate.
Posted by: MarkO | June 03, 2011 at 08:12 PM
We do not have the luxury of an internecine bloodletting.
It needs to happen, though. It's time. Unless the conservatives all stay in and the moderates rally around one person, it has to happen. My preference would be that it comes down to two people: Mitt, Christie, whoever, and a conservative. I could go with Palin, Perry, or someone else as the conservative. Surely not Newt, but one conservative against one global-warming, mandate-loving moderate. Let's get it on. Whoever gets the Republican nomination will trounce Obama, even a moderate.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 03, 2011 at 08:14 PM
Christie IS NOT a conservative.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | June 03, 2011 at 08:15 PM
So MarkO, it is your opinion that Revere was not captured by the British and that he did not admit to them why he was riding express, so Palin is an idiot?
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | June 03, 2011 at 08:23 PM
The lady with the pink rifle, takes aim:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBXe3Kvg-qU&feature=channel_video_title
Posted by: narciso | June 03, 2011 at 08:26 PM
We do not have the luxury of an internecine bloodletting.
So we are all agreed, we are all supporting Palin.
I'm glad that is settled.
Posted by: mockmook | June 03, 2011 at 08:31 PM
No Republican can escape being fisked by the left. They can ask anyone who agrees to talk with them about a "Bush Doctrine" that doesn't even exist, or might have several possible definitions - or an Obama recovery - and whoever tries to answer the bogus questions will get the full weight of the left's attack in response. There's no escaping it.
Just look at the fisking the Boston Herald did of Romney's reasonable statements yesterday. I think narciso linked it earlier.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 03, 2011 at 08:36 PM
Count me in for Sarah :)
A comment seen on another web site: "Hope and Change have become Hoax and Chains, (signed) Buck O'Fama"
Posted by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA | June 03, 2011 at 08:38 PM
hrtshpdbox,
I agree. If it weren't for his seemingly endless supply of funds, Romney wouldn't even be in this race.
Posted by: Barbara | June 03, 2011 at 08:39 PM
Sara, it is my opinion that this lovely bit of supposed history was not at all in Sarah's mind when she stumbled through her pathetic account. She's not an idiot. But, what of your interest in hiding this rather obvious mistake?
What about the bells? Do tell, Sarah. The bells. Cite a source for me on warning shots and bells. His ride, as almost every confirmed historical report will attest, was to warn the Americans, not the British. What do you make of it? The equivalent of the “intellectual stammer” defense? She’s just smarter than all of us and was making reference to an obscure, yet potent, account of Revere’s mission?
Posted by: MarkO | June 03, 2011 at 08:39 PM
Embattled Rep. Anthony Weiner might be worried about the state of his marriage -- but his wife isn't.
Huma Abedin -- the deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton -- isn't fretting over the crotch shot sent to a comely co-ed from her husband's lively Twitter account, a close friend said.
"She's not worried about infidelity," said her friend. "She's confident and comfortable in her marriage."
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/wife_keeps_her_cool_wrU3AF9WSp0euDuqmE9ENM#ixzz1OGDdyuRd
Posted by: windansea | June 03, 2011 at 08:41 PM
That was actually the Minitrue bulletin, (AP)
which yet still appears In a NewCorp publication, just like their template, is the filling on a Clear Channel radio station, commercial breaks.
Posted by: narciso | June 03, 2011 at 08:42 PM
OT: Tired. Long Drive. Frederick and I have worked on his blog which is now up with a new post. Going outside to enjoy the last rays on the lake. What a neat cottage and lake. LUN
Posted by: Jack is Back! | June 03, 2011 at 08:44 PM
From yesterday:
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | June 03, 2011 at 08:45 PM
Count me as one who is fond of, and sympathetic toward, Palin.
Count me also as one who devoutly hopes that she does not run and, if she does run, that she does not get the nomination.
And count me, finally, as one who believes that if she is the nominee there will be am electoral disaster.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | June 03, 2011 at 08:49 PM
I've been touting 'rope and chains' for awhile, jim mcvusa.
=======================
Posted by: From a peak in Darien. | June 03, 2011 at 08:51 PM
Hmmm, watch Romney/Cain.
================
Posted by: Sarah is more voice of the Revolution than President, but were it so, she'd do fine at that, too. | June 03, 2011 at 08:54 PM
MarkO: Rather than go on memory or the poem we all had to memorize, I looked it up here. Paul Revere documented his ride and capture on three separate occasions, in his own hand. A draft deposition (1775), a "fair copy" deposition (1775), and later a letter to a friend/colleague (undated). These are all on file at the Historical Society.
Sarah and family, including kids and her parents, are visiting historical sites, and we often learn things we didn't know when visiting such sites. I don't find it odd at all that she would pull this fact out at this time.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | June 03, 2011 at 08:54 PM
No Republican can escape being fisked by the left.
This. Look at what they did to "my friends" 3 years ago after rubbing his tummy and towsling his hair for decades. After being their go to guy for as long as I can remember, they turned on him like rabid hyenas. I wish they'd have all killed each other but that didn't happen; because he's been sucking up to them by stabbing every conservative in the back after he got re-elected to his Senate seat (with the help of Palin in a loyalty trumps the best interests of the country move) to get those tummy rubs back.
Posted by: Captain Hate | June 03, 2011 at 09:01 PM
Lighten up.
After I viewed the video (linked in TM's comments above), it was clear to me that Sarah Palin was merely relating her reaction to her visit to the Old North Church - not providing a history lesson for the ages.
The MSM loved to do the same thing to Ronald Reagan - print out his extemporaneous comments, which by their nature were disjointed, and then make fun of him. They reveled in trying to make Regan, the man whose speeches were elevating, whose policy positions on foreign and domestic issues were crystal clear, look like a bumbler. I would hate to see us fall into that same practice.
Posted by: Barbara | June 03, 2011 at 09:06 PM
LI notes that Sarah's version is more accurate than the popular one that I learned.________
Palin's short statement on the video was less than clear; that sometimes happens but the part of the statement which has people screaming -- that Revere warned the British that the colonial militias were waiting -- appears to be true.
I've learned something new today, about Paul Revere.________
I'm dying to hear Mr 57 states version of Paul Revere
Posted by: Clarice | June 03, 2011 at 09:13 PM
Mark, was that really you ragging on Palin or is anduril up to some payback sock mischief. Quote me a Duke factoid that idiot wouldn't know as a test. Like name me two well-known Debils who played with Gene Banks.
Posted by: Captain Hate | June 03, 2011 at 09:13 PM
Be easy on TM, George Will, James Buckley and others of the left, right and center who can't imagine another Jacksonian in the White House. They'll get used to it. And I think this Jacksonian understands the importance of central banking. She is a Jacksonian with strong Polkian tendencies, which is just what this country needs at the moment.
It is hysterical to me that so many educated, intelligent people, many of whom I respect, misunderestimate Palin.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | June 03, 2011 at 09:14 PM
Finally able to settle down to a glass of wine, sit on the porch in a white wicker chair overlooking the lake and read JOM on my iPad.
I know we shouldn't feed the trolls and anti-semites but they do embarrass themselves and act like it is their right and priviledge to show us are arcane the depths of thei intellect. Well, I can't hold my breath or my nose that long to consider their tripe.
We just elected a President who as a lecturer in law doesn't understand the various articles of the constitution and we are worried about a un-teleprompted ad-lib speech the MSM got wrong as being a DQ?
Man up. This fight is only beginning. No shagging. They will look for any tiny weak point to make out to be a nuclear code football fumble. Keep the faith. I hear they are now complaining she is threatning life and property by making drive recklessly in order to follow her bus. See what she has to deal with? Well, so will any nominee even if they sit on a porch like me and say boo.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | June 03, 2011 at 09:15 PM
DoT, you may well be right, but whenever people try to portray her as an idiot, I will defend her, because she certainly isn't one. In fact, she's smarter than most presidential candidates in my lifetime.
Posted by: Clarice | June 03, 2011 at 09:16 PM
And she is natural born.
Posted by: Threadkiller | June 03, 2011 at 09:20 PM
My, my, my. The concern trolls are out in force, aren't they?
This reminds me of nothing so much as what happened during the Georgia/Russia mashup at Belmont Club. For those not familiar with Wretchard's blog, the regulars there are history nuts, war history nuts in particular. Lots and lots of military veterans. Anyway, of a sudden the trolls showed up singing The Internationale. Their English was quite polished but they didn't get the idioms. The regulars quickly started addressing them as "comrade". They pretty much went away.
OK - the trolls are pulling an Alinsky scam here. They're making you argue their points and then nitpicking to the point of distraction. Maybe we should start calling the Nancy or Hillary or something.
We are not electing a history professor or a constitutional lawyer here. Newt's out of here and the Perfesser is screwing the pooch. The people know what Palin is saying. That's the only important thing. The grammarians and the pedantists can pontificate 'til there faces turn blue. Don't matter. Nobody's listening. Let them think they're winning the points with their blather. It'll keep them distracted.
We've got some business to attend to here folks. Let's get on with it.
Posted by: Roy Lofquist | June 03, 2011 at 09:25 PM
Sarah, for all her talents and the interest she commands, cannot possibly win. Please. Let us find someone who can win. We do not have the luxury of an internecine bloodletting.
Way to follow your spitting on the best candidate with a plea for comity.
GFY. Palin clearly has a better grasp of RevWar history than most of the rest of us. Not hard to do, given the state of education, but especially amusing when people try to paint her as stupid by exposing their own ignorance.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | June 03, 2011 at 09:27 PM
I think she's smart as hell, Clarice. Smart in the sense of canniness, of instinctively understanding the feelings of the people she is addressing. She might or mght not do well on an SAT or IQ test, but if she's above 120 in the latter she probably beats FDR.
She is not well-informed--not even close. And that's really, really important.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | June 03, 2011 at 09:28 PM
And count me, finally, as one who believes that if she is the nominee there will be am electoral disaster.
Better to nominate an Obama-lite like Romney and lose by an equally large margin either way?
Feh.
Nominate the person who will lead, not the person who has spent their life drooling over the opportunity for graft.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | June 03, 2011 at 09:29 PM
I've got it. We can call them Markos and Arianna.
Posted by: Roy Lofquist | June 03, 2011 at 09:31 PM
TIPPING POINT.
Paul Revere wasn't the only man to mount his horse. He was the ONLY MAN WHO WAS EFFECTIVE. Getting farmers to jump out of bed, and grab their guns. As they ran for BREED HILL.
Somehow, the name got written down as Bunker Hill.
And, in Malcolm Gladwell's TIPPING POINT, you get to see why ONE INDIVIDUAL makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE.
You know, back in England, it was said by some idiot in parliament. While Ben Franklin was sitting there. Is that "all he'd need are 1000 British troops, to slice through all the Colonies. From Top to Bottom. From Main to Florida. BIG FOOL.
Obama won't be able to take away our guns, either. Not that he's going to be pleasant about losing.
Posted by: Carol.Herman | June 03, 2011 at 09:32 PM
what do you think she needs to be better informed on DoT. So far on economic issues she's been rather impressive. She's no dummy on energy either--probably savvier about it than most of the candidates. I never heard her make a dumb statement on international matters and she certainly is more solid on military matters than say Kerry or Obma.
Posted by: Clarice | June 03, 2011 at 09:33 PM
She is not well-informed--not even close. And that's really, really important.
*snort*
How the hell do you know? The only time you pay attention to her is when the left is savaging her and "conservatives" are getting their boots in.
Remember in 2000 when some dumb-ass reporter demanded Bush tell him who was chief executive in Pakistan? Bush was excoriated for not knowing.
But so what? That's what the fucking State Department's for. That's why the president has a cabinet. And, hey, maybe Bush didn't handle Pakistan as well as we'd all like, but he sure as hell handled them better than Mr. Pawkeestahn.
I don't give a rat's ass if someone can rattle off a million talking points perfectly aligned with the latest colon bleats of Charles Krauthammer -- I want a president who's dedicated to the proposition that the United States must stand for individual liberty and opportunity, that the United States is worth defending, that our greatness is not an accident. I want someone with the right instincts -- they'll get the data BECAUSE THERE'S A MASSIVE GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE BUILT TO GET IT TO THEM.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | June 03, 2011 at 09:35 PM
Hmmmm. If I didn't know better...
Anyway. I've been thinking. I may have been too hard on Palin. For example, I'll bet Palin is a lot smarter than a lot of JOMers. So, let's have a show of hands, so to speak: who here thinks Palin is smarter than they are?
Posted by: anduril | June 03, 2011 at 09:35 PM
Is she better informed than Obama? That's the worm-level standard.
What if a Constitutional question gets asked at a debate, and the Constitutional "professor" gets asked the same question as she does? Is there any question what would happen? The man doesn't even believe in the Constitution. Probably never even studied it, being Tribe's colleague and all, too good for normal assignments.
Ten to one he'd talk about Einstein's theory of the Constitution until the red light flashes.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 03, 2011 at 09:37 PM
I'm betting on a 3 way race!
With the GOP's nominee coming in 3rd.
Ross Perot, back in 1992, threw away votes, when he quit before the race began. And, he still collected 19%.
This gave Bill Clinton a plurality. NOT a majority! And, two-years later Newt Gingrich came in ... into the House. And, Bill Clinton "saw the light." He's still "the best" the democraps have.
Sarah Palin has twisted the MSM up in knots. And, Weiner, the standard democrapic schmuck ... came out with his underpants flying his flag pole. Which was not at half mast. But wasn't much of a piece of meat, either.
The MSM doesn't control the Internet.
And, the Internet has arrived to CHOOSE.
Plus, the more the MSM spits at Sarah, the more of the sympathy voters turn out to watch.
In 1976, Ronald Reagan was ROBBED! But, he played nice. He didn't go to an Independent run.
When I saw ONE NATION ... I saw it! It's UNITED WE STAND. And, it can achieve an electoral victory ... in states that don't listen to PBS. Kapish?
Posted by: Carol.Herman | June 03, 2011 at 09:37 PM
We are not electing a history professor or a constitutional lawyer here.
Absolutely.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | June 03, 2011 at 09:38 PM
((And count me, finally, as one who believes that if she is the nominee there will be am electoral disaster.))
and if she did get the presidency, the left would do to her a million times worse than they did to Bush, it would be brutal
Posted by: Chubby | June 03, 2011 at 09:38 PM
The Ride - Paul Revere short educational film piece
Posted by: Threadkiller | June 03, 2011 at 09:39 PM
Sort of reminds you of "Party like it's 1773," doesn't it?
Posted by: Uncle BigBad | June 03, 2011 at 09:40 PM
I have a question for those who think Palin can't win. Am I mistaken in the impression that MSM constantly dumps on her and ridicules her? If I am correct, why would they do this if she is the one Obama will clearly beat? I have another question. Has any politician while Governor been subject to such a coordinated attack of phony ethics complaints? And could any other GOPer have survived that and remained a prominent national figure? Or do you think I am exaggerating the extent of the unjustified ethics complaints against Palin?
Posted by: Thomas Collins | June 03, 2011 at 09:40 PM
She is not well-informed
And Zero the abject failure is? If not, then what is your point? That there is yet another double standard, that Republicans are held to and Democrats are not? I might get behind that one, but I did not sense it was the one you intended.
Posted by: Gmax | June 03, 2011 at 09:41 PM
After the “Joe Six-pack” pretend colloquialism, that never seemed to stop being said in her early speeches, I really hoped to never hear her speak again.
I think that stage is out of her system so I will give her a second look.
First “Larry Lunchbox” or “Mike Middleclass” carp and I am done.
Posted by: Threadkiller | June 03, 2011 at 09:41 PM
In the rider's wake there erupted the peeling of church bells, the beating of drums and the roar of gun shots - all announcing the danger and calling the local militias to action.
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/lexington.htm
Posted by: mockmook | June 03, 2011 at 09:41 PM
So far on economic issues she's been rather impressive. She's no dummy on energy either--probably savvier about it than most of the candidates. I never heard her make a dumb statement on international matters and she certainly is more solid on military matters than say Kerry or Obma.
And if anyone says "oh, those are just her writers and advisers", I'll spit back:
EXACTLY
She hires the correct advisers. She follows their advice.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | June 03, 2011 at 09:41 PM
Another question. What POTUS candidate has demonstrated the moral courage that Palin did when she made the choice to bring Trig into the world?
Posted by: Thomas Collins | June 03, 2011 at 09:44 PM
and if she did get the presidency, the left would do to her a million times worse than they did to Bush, it would be brutal
True, but whoever wins in 2012 could easily have both houses Republican. It would take a brave and principled Republican to make the most of that, and damn the left.
Which candidate would have the balls to do it? I'm open to someone else, but I don't see who that could be right now besides Perry.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 03, 2011 at 09:44 PM
Sort of reminds you of "Party like it's 1773," doesn't it?
Yep.
Even saw a leftard over at Legal Insurrection claim the British weren't out to confiscate any weapons.
Um...
Posted by: Rob Crawford | June 03, 2011 at 09:44 PM
--“I'll bet Palin is a lot smarter than a lot of JOMers.”--
Might be true. Do you consider yourself to be a “JOMer”?
Posted by: Threadkiller | June 03, 2011 at 09:47 PM
and if she did get the presidency, the left would do to her a million times worse than they did to Bush, it would be brutal
So what?
They'll do that to any Republican who wins.
We could run a guy with an inch-thick stack of PhDs, twenty thousand patents, twelve best-selling novels, and a handful of confirmed miracles and they'd still say he was an evil ignoramus.
They have to. If they ever admit the truth -- that Palin, lacking the Ivy League credentials and carefully crafted political career -- is smarter, wiser, more qualified, and just plain all-around better than Obama, then they'd have to admit that all the class markers they've surrounded themselves with are meaningless.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | June 03, 2011 at 09:50 PM
And a final question. Please understand that in asking this question, I fully understand that neither Palin nor anyone else has a God given right to be POTUS, and that reasonable people can disagree as to whether Palin, Romney, Pawlenty or Huntsman would be best for the country. My question is this: if Palin's supporters conclude that she was denied the nomination because of rank cultural bias, do you really think the GOP has a peehole in the snow chance of getting enough votes, money and volunteer efforts from Palin supporters in the general election to defeat Obama?
Posted by: Thomas Collins | June 03, 2011 at 09:50 PM
DOT: Can you give me an example of how Sarah Palin is not informed in your mind? Second, give me an example of how others in the field have demonstrated they are more informed? I don't ask to be snarky, I am really trying to get a handle on this not informed business.
In my opinion, she has shown more grasp of policy and the public mood than anyone else now in the race, declared or not. She has addressed nearly every major issue in the last couple of years. Who else has done that? Who else manages to come out ahead every time there is some controversy over something she says, making those who question her smarts, look like fools, since she displays again and again that she knows more than they do.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | June 03, 2011 at 09:50 PM
One last thing.
Sarah Palin is the only prospective Republican candidate who would, and could, laugh in the faces of the leftist media, and get away with it. Any of the others would appear on Face The Nation, Meet The Press, NYT Editorial Board meetings, etc. She would give the finger to all of the above, and no reasonable person would question that decision.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 03, 2011 at 09:50 PM
She hires the correct advisers. She follows their advice.
Anyone have a problem with the advisers that Bushie hired? I do. After all, look where they got us: war without end, spending without end, recession without end, worldwide deployment without hope, etc.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that Palin would hire better advisers. Moreover, Presidents sometimes get conflicting advice--then they get paid to get it right themselves. Uh, oh.
Posted by: anduril | June 03, 2011 at 09:50 PM
I've got my hand up Anduril. On the energy thing for sure.
I'll bet she couldn't hold a candle to me config'ing a Cisco ASA 5505 though.
If she could, I'd be impressed.
Ain't really the point though. She's got her area of expertise and I've got mine.
Although her ability to drive media types, libs and smarty-pants,deep-thinker Repub moderates is a plus, I'd want to hear a little more from her on other things before I pulled a lever for her.
Posted by: Not_Bubarooni | June 03, 2011 at 09:53 PM
TC,
I'd like to second every comment you have made. I can't add a thing except to say that it's a bit early for a knockdown drag out.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 03, 2011 at 09:54 PM
Obama kept the Bush administration advisors? If not, were The Bush administration advisors so powerful that future advisors are rendered helpless? Is this part of the IQ test?
Posted by: Threadkiller | June 03, 2011 at 09:56 PM
You know, if you don't want me to post here, you could just ask me directly to leave and never come back.
IIRC he already has. So why are you still here?
Posted by: Jane | June 03, 2011 at 09:56 PM
Prof Hasen at Loyola thinks Edwards might not have even been fined if the campaign contribution allegations had been made before the FEC as it is far from clear the money that went to Reille constituted "campaign contributions"
(Slate/VOlokh Conspiracy)
Posted by: Clarice | June 03, 2011 at 09:56 PM
May I whine just a little bit? Why isn't anyone using Kim Strassel's article that I linked? Strassel's not dumb about this stuff.
Kim Strassel:
Of all criticisms of Mrs. Palin back then, the most legitimate was that the relative political newcomer lacked knowledge and experience, in particular on foreign policy. A serious candidate, one who was determined to seize the frontrunner mantle in 2012, would've set about using the intervening years to bone up, to demonstrate accomplishments, and to build a brilliant team.
Mrs. Palin had a perfect perch from which to do this, as governor. She instead chose to quit that job and retreat to (let's be honest) the easier occupation of private citizen. Rather than build a team, she has cast herself as a one-woman-show. Her supporters love this spunk, but the aggressive insularity—Sarah against the "establishment"—has also served to alienate many of the local political leaders and organizers necessary to build a nationwide campaign. That includes fund-raisers.
Posted by: anduril | June 03, 2011 at 09:57 PM
More Strassel:
What is Mrs. Palin's position on Social Security? What's her idea of corporate tax reform? How would she handle Pakistan? Good leaders inspire, but they also perspire over the painful nitty-gritty of policy. If Mrs. Palin gets in, she starts from way behind.
The years since 2008 were Mrs. Palin's opportunity to redefine herself, to shake off the McCain tinge, to shatter the press stereotypes of her as a right-wing zealot. This was certainly within her ability. After all, prior to getting tapped in 2008, Mrs. Palin's reputation was as a clear-eyed, inclusive reformer—one with soaring bipartisan approval ratings.
Instead, Mrs. Palin has chosen to cater mostly to her loyalist base. She's purposely chosen to insert herself into nearly every national controversy—all but forcing voters to be for her or against her. Far from being reassured, many independents have felt confirmed in their fears about her temperament. She remains radioactive among a majority of voters, and she has even polarized Republicans. A March poll showed that 37% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents view her unfavorably, a number that far outpaced that of any other potential GOP candidate.
The stakes in 2012 are high. Mr. Obama is a sitting president. It will take a mighty GOP nominee (not to mention a lot of luck) to knock him off. Mrs. Palin would come into this race with little or no infrastructure, a near complete lack of a policy agenda, and eye-popping unfavorables. Nothing is impossible in politics, but her start is not encouraging.
Posted by: anduril | June 03, 2011 at 10:00 PM
She's laughin' all the way to the bank.
Posted by: anduril | June 03, 2011 at 10:01 PM
Someone get NPR the smelling salts:
Life News:
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | June 03, 2011 at 10:02 PM
Right, Kim. Her loyalist base is a sure source of fund raising. Hey, she's got her family's future to think of. She's entitled to make a living, and if she can fool some of the people most of the time she can make a damn good living.
Posted by: anduril | June 03, 2011 at 10:04 PM
With the notable exception of Ron Paul, who showed his stripes with his refusal to endorse the party nominee the last go round, I will be voting for the nominee of the Republican party. I have my rankings and some are far preferable, but all are ahead of the neophyte, abject failure socialist narcissist. I would name him, but I am quite sure that is descriptive enough to make it crystal clear.
Posted by: Gmax | June 03, 2011 at 10:06 PM
This reminds me of nothing so much as what happened during the Georgia/Russia mashup at Belmont Club. For those not familiar with Wretchard's blog, the regulars there are history nuts, war history nuts in particular. Lots and lots of military veterans. Anyway, of a sudden the trolls showed up singing The Internationale. Their English was quite polished but they didn't get the idioms. The regulars quickly started addressing them as "comrade". They pretty much went away.
I remember that; I didn't post much there because I was there to get informed plus, other than Buddy Larsen, I didn't know many posters. I thought of them collectively (of course) as Crazy Ivans.
Posted by: Captain Hate | June 03, 2011 at 10:07 PM
This is of course, the dissapointing thing, not only are not aware, but they are proud
of what they don't know, hence this corrective:
http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/06/kimberley-strassel-elitist-naysayer-de-jour.html
Posted by: narciso | June 03, 2011 at 10:09 PM
That's not really a serious question, is it?
The article is written in the same tone employed by other self-appointed pundits such as Charles Krauthammer and George Will who seem offended that Sarah Palin would be so bold as to even consider herself a viable candidate. Time will tell.
Nothing to look at here, folks. Keep moving.
Posted by: Barbara | June 03, 2011 at 10:13 PM
I'll lighten up for now, Rick. I just hope that the GOP Palin trashers understand that there are those of us out there who want Obama out, who find the GOP Palin trashing to be, let us say, indicative of a not so keen intellect, and are struggling how to react.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | June 03, 2011 at 10:14 PM
Anduril: Strassel obviously has never read a thing Palin has written in the past two years. And could you point me to anything that shows that the current crop of candidates is better informed on every issue than she is? In fact, she was just on my TV a few minutes ago talking at length (for the umpteenth time) about SS/Medicare, the Ryan budget, Nancy Pelosi's lies, etc.
And let's not forget that this so-called uninformed VP candidate wiped the floor with Joe Biden at her one and only public debate. Joe Biden who had chaired committees, was known as one of the best debaters in the Senate, who was a Washington insider of the first order ended up looking like the dunce he is.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | June 03, 2011 at 10:16 PM
Why do the JOMers want to turn the U.S. into a satellite of Israel?
Here are some of my buddies pointing out that the money-grubbing Palin twat may not be a true Jew, but she sure as hell is a Jew Toolette.
Do any of you dare to dispute this? No? Didn't think so.
Posted by: anduril | June 03, 2011 at 10:18 PM
TC,
I'm sorry to have written so poorly that you would think I was encouraging you to tone down. I've had it way beyond the very tippy top of my head when standing on a ladder with the Darien elitists and every other type of failed oligarch yearning for what never was and never will be.
Palin has principles and has made very difficult life decisions based upon them. The retread oligarch trash? Not so much.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 03, 2011 at 10:18 PM