The GOP can't be led by Sarah Palin. But can it live without her? (From Client #9's sidekick)

The Washington Post ^ | November 10, 2010 | Kathleen Parker [WaPo's CINO]

[freedumb2003]

>>All candidates are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in different ways and proportions, and only in relation to other candidates.<<

Hmmm — and all this time, I evaluated candidates based on their relationship to a set of standards.

Dopey me! Now I understand that the New Conservatism is just grading on a curve.

All that work I used in agonizing over candidates when all I had to was compare them to each other.

Thanks, the road 2012 will be a lot easier — for me anyway!

[reasonisfaith]

Palin didn’t cause loss of the senate, so the claim itself was wrong.

Maybe “this nefarious plot to stop Sarah Palin” doesn’t really exist. Maybe the ruling class is supportive of Palin.

Maybe Bachus says things that are obviously attacks on Palin not because he wants to attack her, but because he thinks the words sound sort of musical rolling off his lips.

[trappedincanuckistan]

The seething hatred barely comes through rofl.

[ResponseAbility]

If Sarah Palin wins the primary, will you support her candidacy?

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Manicheanism is not a good fit for politics.

[freedumb2003]

>>If Sarah Palin wins the primary, will you support her candidacy?<<

Yes, with no hesitation. Once we have a candidate, especially one with all the proper bona-fides, it is our duty to put bickering behind us and support the best Conservative candidate we can.

But I am hoping she won’t run, much less win. I don’t have a substitute, but she is more of a liability than an asset.

[freedumb2003]

>>Manicheanism is not a good fit for politics.<<

And non sequiturs are certainly problematic.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Manicheanism politically would be the belief that some politician is either perfect or evil.