Skip to comments.Charles Krauthammer on Sarah Palin's Chances in 2012
Posted on 06/01/2011 11:26:24 PM PDT by americanophile
This is a RUSH transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," May 31, 2011. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Impact" segment tonight: Fox News political analyst Charles Krauthammer, a very outspoken guy, as Donald Trump recently found out. So how does he see this weekend's Sarah Palin bus tour? Charles joins us now from Washington. So Hume and me, your humble correspondent, we feel that she's not going to run. First of all, do you concur?
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, FOX NEWS ANALYST: I agree completely. I think it would make no sense for her to run. I think her chances of winning the nomination are small. The chances of winning the general election are probably nil. I think, for the same reasons you articulated, 60 percent negatives. That's almost impossible to overcome. And it isn't as if that is forever. Hillary Clinton had very high negatives at many points in her career. But over time, they tend to soften.
O'REILLY: Yes, but the difference is -- the difference is that the press didn't hate Hillary Clinton, who was promoting her, and the press generally hates Sarah Palin. She's going to have a tough mountain whenever she goes.
KRAUTHAMMER: I'm not sure that Hillary has the political smarts and energy and star power of a Sarah Palin.
KRAUTHAMMER: So I would not underestimate her. She has a future. Why would you jeopardize it by running now and losing?
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
>>> I feel sorry for people who are governed by polls. They are such cowards.
I feel sorry for captains who send scouts ahead of the troop to determine the layout of the land and disposition of the opposition force. They are such cowards.
>>> He is saying that again: “I’m not sure that Hillary has the political smarts and energy and star power of a Sarah Palin. So I would not underestimate her. She has a future. Why would you jeopardize it by running now and losing? That’s high praise from this man. And yet I see the cultists attacking Krauthammer as if he should be burned at the stake for suggesting now isn’t the right time for a Palin presidential run.””
I caught that too but then again, I actually read the article without moondust glitter in my eyes. The kneejerk reflex is a very disturbing characteristic of the Sarah legion. They do her no favors in this respect.
You’re not “being called names”, and you can’t provide sources, because there are no “reliable” resources since “2008” to substantiate your false claims, despite the fact that you said, “Reality check FRiends. It’s true”, and stated that the “polls” prove your point. You’re the “FRiend who is in need of a reality check.
Oh, hold on a minute.... You managed to provide ONE.
You never were interested in debate. You’re just campaigning against Sarah Palin, and everyone here knows it.
An AP Poll? You’re listening to an AP Poll? You know the venerable AP just reported Weiner is a Republican, yes? And you’re listening to an AP Poll? Good luck with that.
The Rasmussen link tells me that I need to "go platinum" in order to see it. Not particularly useful.
You keep repeating the claims, yet won't provide useful links, including one for the original AP poll that Krauthammer quoted. YOU are the one making claims -- YOU are the one wanting to talk about data. Bring the data to the table, if you have it.
Six in 10 Rule Out Palin In the Hunt for 2012 Dec. 17, 2010
Ratings for Palin lowest since 2008 GOP convention Gallup, January 18, 2011
Sarah Palin's Popularity Slips to 60 Percent Disapproval Rate in Poll - Bloomberg - March 4-7, 2011
Sarah Palin losing more ground among Republicans, Post-ABC poll finds March 15, 2011
2008 election results.
McCain/ Palin 59.49%
Obama/ Biden 37.83%
ACTUAL results in Alaska last time she ran, They must not have read that Rassmussen poll.
You mean before she and McCain lost, before she quit as governor, before her reality TV show?
Thanks for your reply.
Thanks. That’s embarassing!
Sorry friend but these people do not wish to read the actual facts, it is like the 26% of the republicans that have said they would never vote for her, they just pretend that information has never existed.
The Obama/ Biden 37.83% started hitting her with a frivolous lawsuit every week. Through an oddity if Alaska law, she had to defend them out of her pocket. They even sued to keep her from having a legal defense fund.
But even worse, the goal was to bleed her white and keep her busy fighting them. She left them on the field of battle and has done a lot since then.
And also, she defused the screeching and feces flinging that would have ensued everytime she left the borders of Alaska. She would be leaving poor Alaska, adrift.
But she has spoken in the Asian Rim, India, met with the leaders of Israel, been very active in the TEA, spoke at Madison WI, and is now in the early stage of her campaign.
Funny how people from Alaska don’t seem to see her the way you do.
PS,, the reality show was the best promotion for the state ive ever seen. It seems to bug you far more than it does Alaskans.
no flame here ...Im fine with Palin if she wants this ...but K is right she should bide her time and win big when she wins
There is not much I can say for Sourkraut’s disdain for Sarah Palin that is not very succinctly stated here, for my thoughts about him would also be more crudely said.
“Dr. Krauthammer and Gov. Palin: Analyzing the Analyst
American Thinker ^ | June 2, 2011 | Tom Rowan “
It is. But let's get all the relevant documentation to the forefront at the beginning of the discussion next time, ok?
“Dishonest? No, where did you get that idea?”
... Just from an omitted comma in your sentence that altered the meaning of what you had said, before the words “to be honest”.
Meanwhile, this “debate” based on polls is nothing but conjecture. A few weeks ago, the “polls” had Trump leading the Republican field. Nobody, you or the media, knows what’s going to happen, especially based on any polls at this point.
Reality check FRiends. It's true.
As a bare minimum, were Palin to run, the republican party would have to entirely defuse the abortion issue somehow or other and that would probably mean publicly forswearing any intent to pass draconian laws particularly in cases of rape or genetic compromise. Women are fifty one percent of the electorate and that stuff just plain scares too many of them too badly.
I believe that Romney will be the nominee because the conservatives will be split by the wealth of good conservative and apparently conservative candidates in the early primaries. By the time that is whittled down to one conservative Romney, who will face no competition for the Left Republican and the Organization vote will have won the early crucial primaries and Iowa. AND: With the kenyan as the already in place Democrat nominee the Democrats will flood the Republican primaries and will vote for Romney, especially in the later primaries.
If Romney is the nominee because of that “electibality” quality then it won’t matter much to the country. In fact, the socialist project will move faster and more efficiently because of Romney’s undoubted managerial skills. A President Romney with a Republican House and and/or Senate is much worse for the country than the kenyan with one or both houses in opposition. Romney will get Single Payer and much more of the Eurosocialist agenda passed by the Republicans than the kenyan could.
I suppose it is incumbent on the Republican Party to choose a candidate that the MSM likes?
The kenyan comes closer to having that title than any other in the past.
“60 percent negatives”
That’s because a lot of voters don’t know Palin. Palin’s job is to convey to these voters who she really is. They’re in for a pleasant surprise in my opinion.
I hang with a lot of Conservative folks. And some of them have bought the MSM “Stupid & not ready for prime time” story of Palin Hook, Line and Sinker.
I see the passing of that torch in several ways. I fully believe SP studied or absorbed Reagan’s techniques and is replicating Reagan’s path to the Presidency with modifications for the present time. I would like to hear more from her about economic basics, perhaps just a citation of certain authors, to judge where she really is. Some otherwise really solid conservatives fall down pretty badly because they do not understand Economics. It is something dynamic personalities cannot bother with in school because it is a dull subject.
K is still one of the sharper tacks in the commentariat box.
I am a little leery of our best candidate running in 2012. I believe the kenyan must win it. Given that, then the immediate problem is somehow knocking Romney out of the lineup forever. Who is the next It’s-His-Turn candidate behind Romney? Republicans always seem to come up with another bobdole and do not really care about the Election so long as the next in line gets the proper party recognition/ nomination.
You had better be wrong, or say hello president obummer in 12.
The Republicans open the Primary season with “less than conservative” states, allow open primary voting in a number of states and have a number of Conservative candidates on the ticket that splinter the Conservative vote.
This allows the RINO to float to the top.
Then add in the “Conservatives” who pout and vote third party or stay at home and an Obama win is guaranteed.
Obama did not win NC. The 25,000 Barr voters gave it to him.
I make my fight in the primary and will get behind whoever comes out on top in the end.
I think he means that Palin would galvanize the Progressives to vote for Obama, rather than just staying home because they don't have the enthusiasm for him that they used to have. I do agree that that is a danger. But so be it. I'll vote for her to be the nominee anyway.
Do you have any links that actually work?
Five “polls”, and out of the FIVE, you’re including the Washington Post and Bloomberg?
So much for the “HUGE negatives”.
I understood what he meant, but it’s bull. He’s using the Appeal to fear tactic simply because he’s campaigning for his candidate. Period. And his “polls” are weak because the guy tried to use these MSM sources to sell his bogus claim.
The Progressive will turn out because they practically worship BO.
I think Krauthammer’s FR screen name was pissant!
Reality check, *********...it's not your job to ensure that our opinions are sufficiently balanced and nuanced to your tastes.
You should maybe spend less time analyzing the shortcomings of Palin's supporters...it's not your job, and tends to rightly p!ss those people off.
Oh...and it would maybe help if you could use phrases besides "moondust glitter," and "kneejerk reflex."
It quite predictably brings a desire to punch you in the mouth.
Of course, I'm just saying...
We disagree with you. In your world, that means we don't want to read the actual facts.
You sound like a 'progressive.'
The attitude of her supporter is another reason I would never vote for her. You just seem to be better than us average folk, we must be ignorant hillbillies. Oh, great seeing and all knowing. I am humbled to be addressed by your brilliance, I am almost blinded by the light, oh, the glow, the glow, which pot is the grape drink in.
>>> It quite predictably brings a desire to punch you in the mouth.
You illustrate my point completely. Like such a creepy outlook will bring the uncommitted together with the fans to form a winning majority. You know, that thing any winning presidential candidate HAS to do. Much to the amusement of the DNC Sarah’s best friends are turning into her worst enemies and yet the Palinites are blind to it.
Just a thought. Did Ronald Reagan’s supporters ever need to excite themselves with fantasies of pathetic veiled threats to punch out the skeptics. Or was their candidate actually good enough they could rely on principles, policies, and goodwill.
Of course, I’m just saying...
Straw man much?
Your post illustrates your mindset, not mine. I think you're wrong about Palin, but everyone is entitled to be wrong.
No, what creates the friction is describing her supporters as koolaid drinking, intolerant mindbots.
I assume you have reasons for what you think; I know I do. Unfortunately, when you disparage the process that her supporters use to form their opinions, there's nothing to talk about.
Limit your offering to why you think the way you do (and not insult those who disagree) and you'll find you'll hear "STFU" much less.
I have no desire to punch out any of the uncommitted...I am, however, fast losing patience with trolling behavior.
Your beliefs are not the issue; this is...
Sorry friend but these people do not wish to read the actual facts, it is like the 26% of the republicans that have said they would never vote for her, they just pretend that information has never existed...
As I said before, disagreeing with you (in your mind) means I am disregarding the facts...instead of me recognizing that such a statistic at this point in the 2012 campaign, in regards to a conservative the left fears(and has been actively trashing) is essentially meaningless.
Just a thought. Did Ronald Reagans supporters ever need to excite themselves with fantasies of pathetic veiled threats to punch out the skeptics.
Since the Internet did not at that time exist, it's unlikely to have been an issue.
When you cannot limit yourself to discussing opinions, but must attack the thought processes of those with which you say you disagree, it's not discourse; it's trolling behavior.
Of course. I have no idea if you are, in fact, a troll...but if you are sincerely a conservative, the fact that your comments cannot be distinguished from trolling should give you pause.
As for getting those who disagree to agree with you...is this...
these people do not wish to read the actual facts, it is like the 26% of the republicans that have said they would never vote for her, they just pretend that information has never existed...
...designed to sway minds? Please explain how that would work...and in the meantime, expect to get called on posts like the one in question.
Only morons believe the MSM pollsters. BTW that icludes Fox and basically all the pollsters