Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Palin Panic: The establishment starts trippin' over Palin

The establishment's Palin Panic has begun in earnest. Starting with yet another Palin hit piece from Politico. This time Politico did not use unnamed lefty sources, instead they quote members from the right wing establishment.
Politico: “Matt Labash, a longtime writer for the Weekly Standard, said that because of Palin’s frequent appeals to victimhood and group grievance, “She’s becoming Al Sharpton, Alaska edition.” [...]
The appeal of conservatism is supposed to be people taking responsibility for their own actions,” said Labash. “But if you close your eyes and listen to Palin and her most irate supporters constantly squawk or bellyache or tweet about how unfair a ride she gets from evil mustache-twirling elites and RINO saboteurs, she sounds like a professional victimologist, the flip side of any lefty grievance group leader. She’s becoming Al Sharpton, Alaska edition. The only difference being, she wears naughty-librarian glasses instead of a James Brown ‘do.”
Along with Politico, The Hill runs a lament from Republican senator and Judd Gregg who sees Palin winning the nomination but losing the general election.
Because the nominating process has become so dominated by primary elections, with the vast majority of the delegates chosen by direct vote, it is entirely possible that with no presumptive winner or even favorites, a candidate who runs second or third in a great many primaries could go into the convention with a sizable block of delegates.

Who would this favor? Does Sarah Palin come to mind? Although she is not viewed by most as strong enough to win, she is viewed by many as a person worth voting for to make a statement. And primaries tend to be populated by people who go to the polls with the purpose of making a statement.

Finishing second and third isn’t really a big deal — until you get enough delegates to be the nominee. And picking a nominee who it seems would be easily defeated by President Obama might not be the best statement.
Gregg's stated scenario is the supposed cover story as to why the establishment is now in Palin Panic mode. They fear she will be defeated by Obama. Sorry, but I am not buying this reasoning.

If the establishment were truly worried about Palin losing the general election to Obama, they would be equally worried about Romney and Gingrich. Romney's State's Rights excuse for RomneyCare is completely inadequate to argue against the repeal of ObamaCare. What is to stop Obama from saying, OK, lets have 50 state versions of ObamaCare and Romney approves? Gingrich is morally weak against Obama. Say whatever you like about Obama's policies, but on the husband and father front, Obama is impeccable.

No, the establishment's Palin Panic is truly about self serving interests. First and foremost, they fear that Palin as an outsider could win and then would owe the establishment nothing. She would be totally free to bring in new names to the halls of power. Such people would only owe Palin and not the establishment. Thus the establishment would be out in the cold with the possibility of never being connected to power again.

To a lesser but still significant degree the establishment fears Palin's past history of throwing wayward Republicans under the bus. Palin is one of those "true believers" who actually believe that government exists to serve the people. In Alaska she devastated the Republican Party and their cozy relationship with the oil companies. How many cozy little relationships would Palin break up in Washington if she were president? The establishment clearly doesn't want to risk finding out.

Finally, the establishment is annoyed that with Palin in the race so many of their second choice favorites will immediately be lost in the shuffle (paging Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty and Haley Barbour). If the nomination quickly becomes a slug fest between Palin and Romney who will bother to notice Pawlenty, Daniels or Barbour?

Whatever the reason, the establishment needs to knock off the Palin Panic because it is futile.

No one can deny that Palin has more than earned her right to run for the nomination. When conservatives took to the streets to fight the fundamental transformation of America, Palin rolled up her sleeves and joined the battle. Where exactly was Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty and the rest of the gang? Now that the hard work is done, these guys want to walk in and be crowned top dog. Well too bad for them
, they still have to compete against the girl who did her homework.

Even if Palin chooses not to run, she will still be able to influence the outcome of the nomination. One Facebook post or tweet on Twitter in support of or in opposition to a candidate and the landscape will change.

If the establishment wants one of their candidates to prevail in 2012, they are just going to have to do it the old fashion way, and that is to put their best foot forward and hope for the best.

Via: Memeoranudm
Via: Politico
Via: The Hill
Graphic h/t: 365 t-shirt designs


Just a conservative girl said...

The most recent bloomberg poll has her unfavorables in the sixties.

It appears more than just the republican establishment has their doubts.

The Palin fans have to realize those numbers give people cause to doubt her ability to win the general.

Clifton B said...


Those numbers are indicative of today. Come January 2012 who knows. Just a month ago Egyptian freedom was the hot topic of the day, today it is Japanese nuclear plants, who knew? As time passes, new issues in politics emerge who knows how those issues favor or hurt Palin or Obama in 2012.

Let Palin run in the primary. If she is that awful of a candidate it will become very apparent. However, if she turns out to be the best, then let her have her crack at Obama.

A strong performance during the primary maybe just the thing to turn her numbers around. There is no need to write her off before hand.

Just a conservative girl said...

I would never say that anyone shouldn't run. I am not a believer in that. The bigger the field, the more voices are heard. That can only be a postive.

What I am saying is that with unfavorables that high (they have never really been below 50) people who are very interested in seeing Obama be a one term president have not just the right, but the responsibility to speak out about it.

My biggest frustration is that anyone that dares says things that they believe to be true they get called a bad conservative or fearful. I am not jealous, but I am fearful that her nomination gives Obama a second term. I am far from the only one who feels that way.

You at least will get on board with the nominee, but many Palinistas have flat out said they won't vote for anyone else but her and some are threatening a third party.

I also have come to conclusion that she won't run. She did a facebook or tweet about Cain recently. If she gets the nomination, I will get on board and I will go out and knock on doors and phone bank. I truly believe it will be a waste of my time, but I will do it. Palinistas need to say the same.

bd said...

abc - pow! kaboom! crunch!

abc v jacg: no problem w/ handicapping among compatriots; but hopefully will keep it as an intramural quibble and not get caught inviting the trolls such as one of the main points of this post(?)

for all of abc giving sp generously fair coverage; have not yet seen an "endorsement uber alles"; point: can defend/elevate w/o subscribing to "single-issue idolatry", litmus tests, "perfect political alignment", cult of "pro/anti" celebrity...

"palinistas" don't need to confess fealty, "we" need to speak of understanding, defending, and promoting core beliefs and then develop/convey supporting political strategies;

could not, in good conscience, insist that one "should" support an electable tepid conservative over a polarizing principled conservative

(e.g. jm was an establishment disaster as a candidate and may have been an even greater disaster as president: america would have continued devolving into a country of entitled slaves and elitist masters w/o the benefit of clarifying ideological and political battle lines such as is happening now)

Justin said...

Honestly, Palin's nowhere near my top choice (Cain in 2012, baby!) But you're right that the elites are going after her for no reason other than that they see her as a threat to THEIR OWN power base(s). It's impossible to believe that Romney and/or Gingrich wouldn't enter a race against Obama with AT LEAST AS MANY negatives as Palin would. If she did win the nomination, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. At least conservatives might get a little taste of how it feels not having to "hold your nose and vote."

Bill589 said...

Her “unfavorables” are high because of all the lies repeated about her. Don’t let the GOP elitists, or the Dems and their media, sway our opinion of any candidate. Either way.

For me, if they are continually attacking Palin, for over two years, and she is still standing and fighting, that is evidence she should be our next president.

When she starts campaigning, more people will learn the truth about her. She especially shines in debates. The more truth people know about Palin, the lower her “unfavorables” will go.

rosewood59 said...

I'll support Palin if she runs. She has been thoroughly veted by the Media, Rinos, Political Pundits, etc. Nothing to hide.

Now re: Labash at the Weekly Standard and his "naughty-librarian glasses" - what a dismal freak show comment. WinTheFuture (WTF) is a pair of non-naughty-librarian glasses? Such a jack-ass comment from a Weekly Standard contributor!

Janelle said...

I would prefer that Sarah Palin continue to do exactly what she is doing....being a total burr under the progressive saddle. She does a magnificent job of bringing out their worst traits for all to see.

Clifton B said...


I don't believe for a second that you would say Palin should not run in the nomination. Your position has always been that she cannot win the general and therefore we should look elsewhere. I understand your position and disagree.

I agree that Obama must be gone by 2012, but I don't believe that Palin isn't capable of dispatching.

Yes, Palin's polls today look awful. However, when I think back to March 2007 if you had asked me to choose between Obama and McCain I would have said I was going to stay home on election day and let the chips fall where they may. When push came to shove and those were my real choices in 2008 I held my nose and voted for McCain. A lot of these people who hate Palin today, will pull the lever for her tomorrow if she is their only choice. That is what happens when reality stares you in the face.

I agree Palin supporters can be a tad over zealous, but can you blame them given all the shit she has been through? Crap coming at her from the right is just seems like a little too much for them to let pass.

Should Palin not run or lose the nomination, the vast majority of her supporters will back the nominee over Obama. Just like I said before, because reality is quite sobering.

Although Palin said she would not run if someone satisfied her needs in a president she would not seek the nomination, I would not take her early admiration for Cain as a sign she isn't running. At this stage of the game for all we know her admiration could mean she found her VP. (Palin/ Cain 2012, I am totally loving it).

I too will work for the nominee whomever it might be not matter what I think the outcome might be, because in the end I know they will be an improvement over Obama. That being said, I firmly believe that in order to beat Obama, our candidate must be able to deliver a crystal clear message and be ready to fight the campaign of their life. Right now, only Palin fits that criterion. Any candidate who cannot do those two things is going to loose to Obama.

Clifton B said...


The hash out JACG and I are having, is the hash out all Republicans should be having NOW. There are some serious differences and serious views that need to be settled before the race officially begins. Clearing the air now only helps. After all our goal is the same, make Obama a OTP.

Now to be truthful, yes, I am supporting Palin as my number 1 choice. This is because I see messaging and toughness as crucial factors in beating Obama in 2012 and Palin has proven she can do both.

Furthermore, I realize that undoing the damage Obama/Pelosi/Reid wrought will require someone who isn't worried about 2016 and again Palin has proven her willingness to die politically to do the right thing.

Palin supporters may very well hold out for a "true believer", but in the end they realize the reality, Obama must be gone. The true conviction will only help to ensure that we elect a strong candidate.

Clifton B said...


A very well connected political friend of mine told me that the GOP establishment is very ready to accept Obama's second term, if it means they can retain their well connected positions. The establishment's goals are NOT our goals and therefore we should ignore their comments.

Should Palin win the nomination, I assure you, Obama would finally get a real opponent throwing real punches at him for the first time. It will make for one hell of an election.

Clifton B said...


We follow the same logic.

Clifton B said...


I'll support Palin if she runs. She has been thoroughly veted by the Media, Rinos, Political Pundits, etc. Nothing to hide.

Bingo! There would be nothing worse that picking a candidate and then with only weeks to go before the election the left spews out some devastating new dirt against our candidate.

With Palin all they have left are nitpicks.

Clifton B said...


Should Palin not run in 2012, she would be the perfect bomb thrower to distract the left from our candidate. Then they would have to split their hate between Palin and the nominee.

The only thing that must happen is that the nominee must be someone who is willing to die politically in order to accomplish the big things. So far Palin seems like the only one.

bd said...

ref comments/responses (abc/all): thanks

all well-said, all helps in coalescing my own views/opinions wrt evaluating possibilities...

sp not my "perfect choice", but so far, only emerged choice for all the reasons noted in comments (e.g., hc too new to me, cc et all not yet "targeted" by the progressive piranhas or vetted by serious/"trusted" conservatives)

Jim McKee said...

Excellent analysis. I believe you nailed it, sir.

Related Posts with Thumbnails