Posted on 12/01/2010 7:48:56 PM PST by neverdem
Much of the punditocracy is obsessed with Sarah Palin. It's understandable on several levels. First, she makes for good copy and has a knack for coining catchy phrases ("death panels") and new words ("refudiate" -- it's now in the dictionary). She is controversial and opinionated, so given the choice between, say, a story on John Thune and one on Palin, it's a no-brainer to choose the best-selling author, TV reality show star and Tea Party darling. But conservatives suspect there's also some mischief-making afoot -- the desire by liberal-leaning members of the media and the White House to make Palin the symbol of the Republican Party, which they are convinced will translate into her presidential run, her nomination and a shellacking for the GOP at the polls in 2012.
You don't have to buy into a conspiracy to see that many in the media and on the left are convinced Palin will be the nominee. In fact, they seem to be in a bit of a time warp. Howard Kurtz recently praised her media savvy, an observation widely held by conservatives -- 18 months ago. Unlike conservatives who have had time to process the Palin phenomenon, non-conservatives are just beginning to evaluate her as more than a punchline or an object of ridicule. They suspect conservatives are oblivious to her shortcomings. But that's simply wrong.
For months now the real story on the right has been the search for new presidential contenders. There is far more awareness than many in the media imagine among conservative activists, Tea Partyers included, of Palin's limited appeal to independent voters. Her backing of questionable...
--snip--
And now there's Mike Pence...
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
Most of the bad parts, yes.
Outline to all of us Curiosity, just what those good parts of Romneycare are that you assert made it not worth rejecting in totality.
I AGREE!!!!!!!!!
Plus the Tea Party will play a big roll this time so if McCain wants to run he is going to face some the most intense scrutiny he has ever had to deal with in his lifetime and he will drop out. He want be able to swipe aside he links with the Tides Foundation this outing. That along should have disqualified him last time let alone the constant flip/flop,ing on key conservative issues.
Whoever the nominee is it will be a long hard row to hoe this time. We are going to be watching and participating in the primaries very heavily this time. No free passes for anyone anymore because if that happens we are screwed in 2012.
An excellent post over at Texas for Sarah Palin by Josh Painter which pretty well dissects Rubin. (I too remeber how she savaged Thompson from the TAS blog. Her positive columns on Palin made me think she had changed but she writes what she think her audience wants.) I was going to post something to this effect but can’t improve on his work:
Jennifer Rubin reverts to type
Rubin Version 1.0 returns
*
As a writer for Commentary Magazine and its Contentions blog, Jennifer Rubin consistently defended Sarah Palin against the left’s attacks. When the news broke that she had been hired by the left wing Washington Post to write about the right, many conservative bloggers and pundits hailed the hiring as a sea change. Finally, they trumpeted, WaPo had obtained the services of a real conservative to write about real Republicanism and conservatism. And hey, after the Weigel fiasco, any conservative would be an improvement.
We didn’t hail that particular bandwagon and ask for a ride, preferring instead to reserve judgment until after we had a chance to read Rubin’s Post postings for ourselves. Our skepticism was rooted in recent memory. The 2008 Republican primary race was not so long ago, and we recall that she was a big backer then of Rudy Giuliani, the most socially liberal of all the GOP candidates. We also recall that Rubin was especially critical of Fred Thompson, the only across-the-board Reagan conservative in the Republican presidential primaries.
After reading what she has written in her first five columns for WaPo, we see that Jennifer Rubin has downgraded to version One-Point-Oh. She’s conservative on three legs of the four-legged conservative stool, but hold the social conservatism from her order, please. It didn’t take Rubin long to start running down Sarah Palin now that the commentator is of the Post. In just her fifth WaPo column, she starts to pick on Palin.
According to Rubin, or at least the WaPo version of Rubin, the notion that Sarah Palin is the front runner for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination is just a liberal conspiracy because, you see, they want her to be the nominee, as she simply has no chance whatsoever of winning the general election, even against such a failed president as Barack Obama. Rubin hits all of the talking points from the elites of the left and the right - Sarah Palin has limited appeal among independents; golly, she sure did back some questionable candidates for the Senate, especially that awful Christine O’Donnell; her political judgment during a general election might be just too risky; most elected Republicans don’t think Palin is a front runner, etc.
That last one is a real gem. Has Rubin asked “most” elected GOP officials or conducted a survey? We don’t think so. Oh well, “when in Rome...” or perhaps better said, “while at the Post...” Are we accusing Jennifer Rubin of changing her own narrative to try to get the “progressives” who account for most of its readership to read her column? Not substantially, no. Only just a little. Actually, for Jennifer Rubin its more a case of her reverting to type rather than making a compromise. She’s a Rudy Guiliani conservative again. Apparently that’s not too conservative for either the people who buy and read the Washington Post or those who run it. And since being negative on Sarah Palin is part of the Post’s program, it’s good for Rubin that she has no problem with that. It didn’t seem to bother her to go negative on Fred Thompson three years ago, so this Palin-marginalizing should be a piece of cake.
http://texas4palin.blogspot.com/2010/12/jennifer-rubin-reverts-to-type.html
Back at Commentary as recently as last August, Rubin was praising Palin’s decision to back candidates in the primaries.(”Sarah Palin’s Certain Type of Genuis”) But since this is inconsistent with the meme of her new WAPO masters she is only too happy to jettison that position. Rubin’s “flexibility” reminds me of the character Syme in George Orwell’s 1984, who could pivot on a dime from having always been at war with Eurasia to having always been at war with Eastasia.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/347826
Old JP is part of Palin’s comical quick reaction squad. He needs a life.
When Bolton makes more statements on the subject than a brief comment, then we’ll be in a position to judge his ‘wholistic’ view on the matter. You are reading way more in than is warranted by his scant answer.
I believe you are right. Not that others aren't good enough to beat Obama but because they don't have what it takes to beat him. They are timid, afraid to "offend". A negative attack from the media or Democrat camp and they curl up in a ball. Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint aren't afraid to go on the offensive. They take what the enemy dishes out and tosses it right back at them.
What happens on the Right if Palin decides not to run? Will the constituency melt in disappointment?
The only person I see as a realistic alternative is Mike Pence. DeMint indicated he won’t run.
PDS = Palin Deification Syndrome. For the record, JP was the same clown who tried to pass off the career-long member of the Senate’s “Centrist Coalition” and global warming panderer as some rock ribbed conservative last time.
Bolton: "On abortion, Bolton invokes Ronald Reagan. “My position is the same as Reagan’s. As a form of birth control, it’s unacceptable,” he says, before launching several legal broadsides against Roe v. Wade—all while scrupulously avoiding the moral question of abortion. “Roe was an illegitimate decision that represents and illegitimate view of the Constitution. That doesn’t mean that people who favor more liberalized abortion shouldn’t be able to struggle politically on the federal and state level. The question that Roe poses is not whether the Court was right or wrong on abortion; it’s whether it was right or wrong as a matter of Constitutional jurisprudence. On that score, Roe was, and is, profoundly wrong.” Sensing a reluctance to wade into the moral component of the abortion debate, I ask Bolton if he considers himself pro-life. “I think that label fits me, and I appreciate that if I go forward, I’ll have to spell out my views in more detail.”
"Q: Why is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?
A: I think it should be a states’ issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I’m, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, it’s no secret that I’m pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that’s what I would like to see further embraced by America.
Source: 2008 CBS News presidential interview with Katie Couric Oct 1, 2008 "
Good post.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
- John Adams
Post #25 seems to confirm the sarcastic spirit of the comments -- law school is not journalism school; and the piece is dripping with condescension, to my ear.
Cheers!
Ronald Reagan did Borax commercials, was the show host for GE Theater and Death Valley Days and acted in about 53 movies. With today's standards, Ronald Reagan would have never got anywhere off the movie lot.
As a little coincidence, Ronald Reagan used the image of the bear to promote his qualities for office.
Palin is the best Consevative since Reagan, puppy.
I think it is odd that the worse the MSM treats her the higher her ratings go. Not only do they attack, berate and belittle her core values they choose the values that most Americans hold dear.
Not aborting her handicapped son to the media was a crime to most Americans she was a hero. The fact that she is Pro Life and supports handicapped children. Most Americans are Pro life or know someone that has a handicapped child and agree with her about both.
Instead of being objective they show their true colors, that they are mean spirited vindictive people that really scorn the average American.
You’re delusional. The left would like nothing better than to see such a lightweight as Obama’s opponent.
__________________________________________________________
The Left, and knuckle heads like you always show us who you fear!
Hey genius, let me ask you some questions: Do you see these guys going after Romney? How about Huckabee? How about Pawlenty? How about Newt? Get my drift...they aren’t! They don’t see these RINOs as a threat, but Palin? You Betcha!
This Lady’s got more courage than a little bed wetter like you.
Be gone you Troll!
Karl Rove hates these guys. They are all against his and Sarah’s wet dream amnesty plan.
_________________________________________________________
Oh, so let me guess; because Sarah felt obligated to campaign for McCain, she now supports open borders and Amnesty?
You’re going to have to do better than that...PROVE IT??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.