Sarah Palin 2012 Three different views

Posted: December 6, 2010 in elections, opinion/news, politics
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Tom Harkin on 2012:

Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) tells NRO that if President Obama caves on tax cuts, and agrees to extend the Bush-era tax rates for those making over $250,000, then he “better hope and pray that Sarah Palin runs” in 2012.

Mike Murphy would agree with this and said that if Palin is nominated Republicans will get destroyed.

Meanwhile Bobby Jindal said this to Politico:

Palin is “absolutely” electable, Jindal said in a weekend interview with Bloomberg Television responding to Joe Scarborough’s call in POLITICO for the GOP to stand up to Palin and tell her to get out of the race.

Politico being politico they of course lead this quote by saying:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is one Republican who isn’t going to “man up” and tell Sarah Palin not to run for president.

So Politico immediately paints Jindal as unmanly for not hitting Palin, a cheap shop from a suppository “non-partisan” site.

Ok we’ve heard from pols, and we’ve heard from possible candidates, and from political insiders but it takes Mike Potema to find a piece of reality

I am convinced that the question is not, “How can she win the GOP nomination?” but “How can she not win it?” When you have anywhere between five and fifteen GOP candidates, all expressing basically the same conservative views, how can anyone other than the only one with the passionate fan base possibly win?

And as for the Pols who are terrified of both hitting her and her winning the nomination he educates them thus:

The most basic underpinning for this view is the notion that she can’t beat Obama, and I think this is a profoundly mistaken assumption. It is based on a too-abstract understanding of the qualifications for the presidency: It holds Palin up against an ideal presidential résumé, and finds her inadequate — which is true enough, but neither fair nor quite relevant. It’s important to remember that in a 2012 general election, she would be confronting not an ideal presidential profile, but an all-too-human flesh-and-blood opponent. The choice between Palin and Obama, phrased in the least flattering (to Palin) possible way, is a choice between a woman who may turn out to be seriously inadequate to the job and, therefore, become a failed president; and a man who has already convincingly demonstrated that he is seriously inadequate to the job and, therefore, already is a failed president. This rather changes the “electability” issue, doesn’t it?

And remember that is the least flattering interpretation.

This is plain as day yet nobody is seeing it, nobody is talking about it, why? Because the media wants her to lose, the GOP establishment want her to lose, the feminist establishment want her to lose and the various groups sucking at the government teat REALLY wants her to lose.

Keep those facts in mind when you see the media talk about Sarah Palin and you will get it. Remember the left will tell you who they fear.

Comments
  1. My parser went into total failure mode (parts flying around, smoke, the whole nine yards0)
    trying to make sense of “So Politico immediately paints Jindal as unmanly for not hitting Palin, a cheap shop from a suppository “non-partisan” site.”

    Are you kidding me?

    As a side issue, why are we listening to people who think re-electing Obama is a good idea?