Short: Oh no, she isn't!

Sarah Palin 'seriously interested' in 2016 bid

That's the headline to this Politico story. Is anyone stupid enough to believe this bimbo charlatan? Answer: probably yes. Plenty of idiots believed in her in 2008 and then in 2012, when she teased and teased.

However, the piece shows how unserious she is. "I'd rather talk football" sums it up. Gaaagggg!

Looney Tunes for President

Image: looneytunesshow.wikia.com

Same day update. The Hindenburg windbag Donald Trump says he's thinking about running for president too. This jackass circus is brought to us by the "Freedom Summit" in Iowa. 

The Tea Party gears up to strike out, yet again

The Tea Party really, REALLY wants to crucify Obama, but they'll settle for impeachment. Boehner is trying to buy them off with a pansy-waist lawsuit, but some of them aren't taking it. Erick Erickson is howling for Congress to man up on impeachment. So is Sarah Palin.

• Not so fast, according to John Boehner and Bob Goodlatte, chair of the committee which would have to handle impeachment. 
• Not so fast, Erick Erickson changes his tune. 

Oddly, one day after Palin's rallying cry for impeachment, Erickson decided that impeachment won't work. He's sticking with his assessment that a lawsuit is a stunt, so that leaves the power of the purse--the shutdown and default strategy that didn't work last time.

Palin called for impeachment on July 8, and by July 9, she had that sinking ship pretty much to herself. On July 13, William Kristol declared that "No responsible Republican has called  for impeachment." I could say Palin had been hung out to dry, except that she's a gutless, witless, second-string toady who doesn't even realize how lame and stupid she is. She hangs herself out to dry just by opening her mouth and letting stale conservative talking points crawl out. Then, she doubles-down on her own stupidity, as in this insipid column on all the non-specific wrongs Obama has committed.

Today there's a poll showing that 35% of the country want Obama impeached. I'm betting on a far different number within six months, if there's any poll at all. The impeachment mania has peaked, and now it's going downhill. Should someone like Ted Cruz push for impeachment, they will get slapped in the face with a dead fish. They won't get ushered into the driver's seat, as happened last year.

I wonder how long before the majority of Tea Partyers realize this. How long before Palin realizes? What will they do when they do realize it? That might be interesting to observe. Usually, however, bad ideas end with a whimper, not a bang. That's probably what will happen here.

To be completely honest, I didn't realize how dead impeachment was when I started this post. But I figured it out, and much faster than Palin will.

Boehner's nuts ... or Palin's marbles?

Image: oops, lost the reference

Extras. Impeachment was so last February. A humorous summary of Palin's complaint.

Update 7/16/14. More Republicans say impeachment is unworkable. I guess Sarah missed the memo.

Update 1/2/16. Not much on the impeachment front in all of 2015. Some deluded people in a red state. A comical twist with the delusion here. Waves of mixed messages here.

Outrage du jour

So a leading major high-profile semi-recognizable star person from a reality show got rather anatomical when he was explaining why he didn't understand homosexuality or perhaps he was being a homophobe. I don't know why anyone cares because reality TV participants aren't filmed for their mild observations or platitudes, but for their crazy antics.

Then a gay pressure group pressured the cable network (A&E, but it could have been any of them), and the network caved immediately and "suspended" the "star." Publicity ensues. Charges of abrogation of the First Amendment ensue. The news media is delighted because it finds next injection of controversy, especially needed right now because the congress critters (Damn them!) patched together an agreement and went home for Christmas.

I've never given a damn about what a reality star said. Not anyone on Jersey Shore, not one Survivor, not any of the numerous glitzy, boozy, over-made-up Housewives. These people are the lowest, and I don't know what they are doing on my TV (a topic that might deserve a discussion), but what they say is of NO CONSEQUENCE AT ALL.

So ignore it. Don't get involved in a controversy about what an empty-headed media whore says. That also goes for: Ted Nugent, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Rush Limbaugh, etc. And Sarah Palin too. She has to decide whether she's a reality star (which is how she behaves) or a politician. If she's a reality star, she doesn't have to been careful. Instead, she can trash talk all she wants. If she's trying to be an influential political leader, her words should matter, and they shouldn't fall to the low level of the reality TV personality, like these:

"Just finished a long week-thinking in a few weeks we could be living in a very different America-pls Excersise your right and Vote.Pls"

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care." 

"Our opponent though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."

"Don't Retreat. Reload."

 Image: humorismy.biz

Extras. Other stupid Palin quotes. More here and here and here. Some people laud stupid. More on the Duck Dynasty person here and here, if you want to research it more. Personally, I regret the time I've wasted on this story, but I did decide one thing: Call them stupid and move on. No boycotts required.

Finally, to be honest, one of the Palin "quotes" above came from a real (dumb) celebrity. Read the other celeb quotes and then you'll realize why we can't hold celebs to the same standards as our politicians, reporters, or pundits.

Short: Iowa pre-pre-preview

There was a conservative dinner in Iowa that garnered some major guests. Mike Lee seems to learned from experience that he can't bring down Obamacare in the current configuration of government. So, instead of doubling down on that failed strategy, he's working on new ideas. They seem fuzzy to me right now, but at least he's in the correct sphere--one that looks at reality rather than denying it. He's also thinking strategically:

"The senator from Utah noted that there is a gaping hole in the middle of the Republican Party today, and offered a solution on how to fill it."

I'm so glad to hear someone say this. Mike Lee is going to be worth watching. I hope he had bridge that gaping hole.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is basically a cheerleader with no brain for policy. Rah, rah! I've got no tolerance for an empty-headed politician, so I wish Palin was over already. She's an idiot, and she's steadfastly remaining one. Enough already!

Come on, you're not serious.

Image: dailymail.co.uk

Hat tip to Bob Costa. The only twitter I follow.

Short: The continuing slide of Sarah Palin

I try hard to stay positive even in criticism. Maybe that's why I don't write too often about the latest outrage. I certainly try not to crow over someone's fall. But the latest story about Sarah Palin has been a while in the making.

Sarah Palin will no longer be a Fox News contributor. I've watched a few of her appearances, and I was surprised by how Fox treated her. They would start the interview, she would prattle on mostly about tactical issues, then Fox would cut to some real news and leave her waiting for 20 minutes or more. It's not that she deserves any better. I've never heard her say anything new and insightful. Her speeches and observations always been a chewed-up mess of pre-digested talk radio rhetoric.

So Fox News gives Sarah Palin the heave-ho by way of an insulting contract offer. She says contradictory things in her brief interview published online: conservatives must widen their audience, but then she praises Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and Breitbart.com. These are not commentators who are broadening the audience for conservative ideas. Mark Levin and Breitbart.com are proven conservative fabricators who will lie endlessly if they perceive political advantage. Of course they supply conservative spinners like Sarah Palin with a lot of material, so she better be grateful.

For Fox News, it's reasonable to flush out the stable, but I doubt the replacements are better. I'll have to watch to see.

Image: perezhilton.com

P.S. I wish Fox News would flush Juan Williams too as another commentator who spits out only warmed-over analysis. I haven't missed him on NPR in the least.

Romney learns from McCain's mistakes

I have long suspected that the Romney campaign's greatest strength is its caution. A great deal of care and planning goes into the campaign's choices. They also don't react in a scatter-shot fashion to setbacks, such as Gingrich winning S. Carolina or the surging popularity of Santorum in February. Maybe they have dozens of contingency plans in their vault. If something, or anything, happens, they are ready.

If I'm right about this, I also suspect that they aren't going to repeat McCain's mistakes in the 2008 campaign. Neither will they lie to themselves about what those mistakes were. I googled "2008 McCain campaign mistakes" and got several different takes on what McCain did wrong. And just for fun, I'll present it as a quiz:

In 2008, McCain's bid was washed up when he:

a) chose Palin for VP.

b) hurried to Washington to help with the financial crisis.

c) didn't talk about tax cuts in response to Obama's tax proposals.

d) moved further to the right after the primaries.

In my opinion, the answer is (b), but (a) and (d) didn't help either. Just to be safe, Romney won't be repeating any of these errors. He'll choose someone with plenty of experience for VP, he won't run around like a self-proclaimed savior if there's a crisis, he will talk about cutting tax rates (but will be vague about how he'll reduce deductions), and will continue toeing the not-quite-hard-conservative line. He'll resist calls to make additional conservative pledges, like lowering all taxes or shutting down the EPA. He'll stay right where he is. That way conservatives can't prove he's going soft for the general election, but moderates will see that he's not a pawn of the hard right or Tea Party.

He'll also remain measured in his attacks on Obama, challenging the policies and the introduction of European-like programs, but not insulting Obama's personality or patriotism. Those wanting blood on the campaign trail will be disappointed because Romney will keep his Mormon reserve -- no swearing, no heart-pumping stimulants like coffee or Coke, no inhibition-reducing elixirs like whiskey. Romney will handle Obama the way he beat Gingrich in Florida--repeating Obama's own words back at him with hard precision. Both men have a cool, controlled style, so this contest will feel different from any other race. Perhaps it will feel like a Reagan vs. Kennedy match-up, though Romney is a less forceful speaker than Reagan.

With that thought, I'm actually looking forward to the general campaign. Boy have I set myself up for disappointment. (And sooner than I thought. See the comments.)

Squint and he looks like notMcCain  Romney

Other top mistakes:

• McCain tried to be a populist against Wall Street.
• McCain attacked the media during a crisis when people were hungry for news.
• McCain's brother was loud and obnoxious.
• McCain had a weekly dose of pressure from conservative bloggers. The Daily Caller recommends Romney repeat this mistake.
• McCain had a ludicrous proposal for the uninsured.

Telegram to Mr. Gingrich

Mr Gingrich COMMA According to Intrade trading data COMMA you have one half of one percent chance of being the Republican nominee STOP That means you have a slightly better chance than Sarah Palin who clocks in at four tenths of one percent chance STOP Many people are rejoicing at this news STOP

SIGNED ModeratePoli

Non-telegram style: Gingrich - 0.5% chance. Palin - 0.4% chance. Woohoo!!!!

Reflections on unqualified candidates

I read a very interesting article (with video) about a high staffer from McCain's campaign. He was talking about the choice of Palin for McCain's Vice-President:

"When a result happens that puts someone who's not prepared to be president on the ticket, that's a bad result... Both parties have nominated people in the last decade who were not prepared to be anywhere near the Oval office." -- Steve Schmidt

First, we would have to define 'unqualified' in a non-partisan way. According to most of the opposition party, your candidate isn't qualified for the high office of the presidency. I'd also like to craft a definition that wouldn't rule out someone like Lincoln, who served only two years in government office and was a failed Senate candidate, but was known as a passionate speaker and advocate.

Actually, maybe it's better to debate whether a particular person is unqualified rather than try to create a definition that works in all cases, including the case of Lincoln.

Unqualified in '08

In the 2008 presidential elections, we had two candidates who had questionable credentials: Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. Neither had been in high public office for very long-- only 3.5 years for Obama and 1.5 years for Palin. Obama had never had executive experience or responsibility for managing a budget, while Palin did.

Obama, though clearly less qualified in terms of experience, was nominated (in part) because he had a better chance of winning than Hillary Clinton. Palin, also clearly less qualified in terms of experience, was nominated because she brought good speaking skills, excitement, and appeal to women and evangelical Christians.

Is it OK to nominate some who is unqualified because it gives your side a better chance to win, and you believe that your candidate, despite lacking some important qualifications, would do a better job than the opponent? Both the Democrats and the Republicans said 'yes' to that question in 2008.

Should We Risk It?

Sometimes you take that bet, you embrace that risk, in pursuit of a higher reward. Sometimes it's because that bet is the only one that might pay off, so you accept it knowing the problems. We, as a democratic people, are proudly unruly and somewhat disrespectful of rank and office. We will, no doubt, sometimes nominate and even elect the 'unqualified' person because we see some special characteristic that mitigates a lack of qualifications. Neither the opponents nor proponents will have an unbiased judgment about whether a candidate is unqualified, or whether failure ensued due to lack of qualifications. There is no way to scientifically test qualifications and discover what is necessary and what isn't.

So be ready to debate the candidate's qualifications, but know that being 'unqualified' isn't a veto on running or winning.

Extra: Biblical qualifications.