Palin 'becoming Al Sharpton'?

Palin’s flamboyant rhetoric always has thrilled supporters, but lately it is coming at a new cost: a backlash, not from liberals but from some of the country’s most influential conservative commentators and intellectuals.

Click to expand...

What is the meaning of this, you ask? I would call it Conservatives coming to their senses.

Article is here.

Love that independent streak running down your back, Dan. Yellow as a buttercup.

Ed Gein said:

Love that independent streak running down your back, Dan. Yellow as a buttercup.

Click to expand...

:lamo Yeah Dan, if you dislike Sarah Palin, you're obviously a liberal.

But I can see the OP's point, there is a certain resemblance.

spud_meister said:

:lamo Yeah Dan, if you dislike Sarah Palin, you're obviously a liberal.

But I can see the OP's point, there is a certain resemblance.

Click to expand...

Yup, puts me in the same company as that other dastardly yellow-bellied Liberal, George F. Will. :rofl

spud_meister said:

:lamo Yeah Dan, if you dislike Sarah Palin, you're obviously a liberal.

But I can see the OP's point, there is a certain resemblance.

Click to expand...

Looks a tad like Pam Grier in COFFY.

danarhea said:

What is the meaning of this, you ask? I would call it Conservatives coming to their senses.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

This is good news. I've been watching/listening and been worried that she'd end up a nominee. Well, I guess she still could, but I really don't think she could win it. And that's a very good thing in my book. Just can't figure out what her game is...unless it's "shill."

MaggieD said:

This is good news. I've been watching/listening and been worried that she'd end up a nominee. Well, I guess she still could, but I really don't think she could win it. And that's a very good thing in my book. Just can't figure out what her game is...unless it's "shill."

Click to expand...

Ya yellow Leebrul. LOL.

Seriously, though, we are not on the same side on most issues, but Palin is good at bringing people together. Look how she just brought us together. :mrgreen:

I'll buy you a beer at the Tavern.

Hyperbole much?

American said:

Hyperbole much?

Click to expand...

Wasn't my quote. You'd better ask Matt Labash, a Conservative writer for that Conservative publication, known as The Weekly Standard. It's his quote. Hehe.

Next time, I suggest you read the link before posting. It always helps. LOL.

NOTE: Sorry, I just couldn't resist. You were even easier than usual this time. :mrgreen:

Ed Gein said:

Looks a tad like Pam Grier in COFFY.

Click to expand...

Um... come to think of it, I have never seen Pam Grier and Sarah Palin in the same room. Have you?

danarhea said:

What is the meaning of this, you ask? I would call it Conservatives coming to their senses.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Just so they're not running for anything, I guess they won't get hurt too bad. Palin has a loyal following that doesn't take kindly to Palin bashing.

MaggieD said:

This is good news. I've been watching/listening and been worried that she'd end up a nominee. Well, I guess she still could, but I really don't think she could win it. And that's a very good thing in my book. Just can't figure out what her game is...unless it's "shill."

Click to expand...

Well, obviously you're a liberal like Dan.. :2razz:

Ed Gein said:

Love that independent streak running down your back, Dan. Yellow as a buttercup.

Click to expand...

Liberals want to see Palin run for president... Palin/O'Donnell that's the Liberal dream ticket... :2razz:

danarhea said:

What is the meaning of this, you ask? I would call it Conservatives coming to their senses.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Conservative elites? The same folks that mocked Reagan? Supported McCain... That tell us we must be bi-partisan and compromise?

Those guys?

Once more, I bring up the quote that IS the name of this thread. It was made by Matt Labash of the Weekly Standard. And what did Labash have to say about Reagan? Let's look at his latest article about Qadaffi:

The Mad Dog of the Middle East | The Weekly Standard

He isn't mocking Reagan here at all.

How about this article?

R U Lovin

He is quite complimentary of Reagan, although he pounds Palin to a pulp.

Reading is fundamental, guy.

I haven't really been paying attention but I'm curious to hear what exactly it was she said that finally got fellow conservatives to speak up.

MrVicchio said:

Conservative elites? The same folks that mocked Reagan? Supported McCain... That tell us we must be bi-partisan and compromise?

Those guys?

Click to expand...

Except McCain and Bush both claimed to love Reagan... I wouldn't say Bush was much of a compromiser either, not until the economy was doomed... oops

danarhea said:

Once more, I bring up the quote that IS the name of this thread. It was made by Matt Labash of the Weekly Standard. And what did Labash have to say about Reagan? Let's look at his latest article about Qadaffi:

The Mad Dog of the Middle East | The Weekly Standard

He isn't mocking Reagan here at all.

How about this article?

R U Lovin

He is quite complimentary of Reagan, although he pounds Palin to a pulp.

Reading is fundamental, guy.

Click to expand...

Oh it is, so is not cherry picking information. Labash didn't write the article, but let's address the OP first. I shall, since you are so keen to use this article, turn to a conservative thinker I admire. Sounds only fair does it not?

he corporate hate for Sarah Palin at Politico is obvious. The latest is here Palin 'becoming Al Sharpton'? - Jonathan Martin and John F. Harris - POLITICO.com
But if you google Politico and Palin, the evidence of a Politico agenda is overwhelming. And the manner in which Politico’s editors pursue their hate-Palin agenda is to cherry-pick the individuals they quote to make the point they want made.
A couple of quick things: 1. As I demonstrated last week, remarkably George Will missed the Reagan Revolution not only in 1976 but as late as 1980. In the 1979 Republican Presidential Primary, his first choice was Howard Baker, his second choice was George H. W. Bush, and his third choice was Reagan. Not until days before the 1980 general election did he write on November 3, 1980 that Reagan deserved election. For all his wonderful columns, the Republican electorate better understood the needs of the nation and the excellence of a potential Reagan presidency than Will. It is hard to believe he was so wrong about a matter of such great import, despite Reagan’s presence on the national scene for many years. 2. Charles Krauthammer was not only wrong about Reagan, as late as 1980 he was a speech-writer for Vice President Walter Mondale. Krauthammer, like Will, not only missed the significance of the Reagan candidacy, but was putting words in the mouth of a terribly flawed politician from a philosophical perspective. I certainly do not begrudge, but in fact encourage, liberals becoming conservatives or Democrats becoming Republicans.

Click to expand...

Oh as for a little more back ground, this little tidbit from the blog I used to find the above quote. I happened to hear the above on the radio the night of the 14th and just now found it. I was actually a bit amused to see someone here had posted that politico peice after listening to the Great One rip it apart, I figured no one would be that foolish. Thanks for ruining that thought Dan.

First, one of the Palin-haters Martin cherry picks is Matt LaBash from the David Frum wing of conservatism. LaBash hilariously criticizes Governor Palin for fighting back against, among other things, the obvious sexism she has faced, then refers to her as a “naughty librarian”. Priceless. Martin also quotes George Will, he of the impeccably elite credentials (and impeccably coiffed toupee), who has all but endorsed a candidate and, shockingly, it’s not Sarah Palin. But the most revealing — and idiotic — quote in the piece, I think, belongs to fellow long-time Palin hater and self-anointed intellectual, Heather Mac Donald

Click to expand...

Mark Levin Rips Jonathan Martin and Pollutico a New One; UPDATED | Conservatives4Palin
*I will try to find the transcript of the above from a different source, however that was google's first hit and it had was I was looking for, the bit from the Great One.



Oh as for your boy Labash... I found this to be enlightening. Dan, the "real Goldwater" conservative "independent" around here... well, I think it says it all this next quote.

And let's please dispense with this whole "influential conservative" meme, not only for Labash, but for most of the rest of the all too often foolish, self-congratulatory and self-professed elitists at TWS and many of our other Beltway publications. From the Standard's website.

Every issue of the magazine reaches each U.S. senator and representative, top congressional staff, major media outlets, and key opinion makers throughout the nation. Opinions and ideas borrowed from The Weekly Standard shape critical arguments in Congress—on both sides of the aisle. (see Congressional Comment.) The Weekly Standard has a growing circulation of more than 60,000. Affluent and well-educated (see Demographics), our subscribers are leaders on the job and in their communities and are politically involved. In fact, nearly 50% of them have directly contacted an elected official in the past year on a political issue.

Wow! He writes for a bunch of political hacks in DC the country mostly loathes, to the extent they think on them at all, and ... a whole 60,000 people?? Oh, I forgot, he's also a big favorite of David Brooks. That pretty much tells us all we need to know about Labash as conservatives.

"Matt Labash of The Weekly Standard is consistently one of the best magazine writers in the country," David Brooks, editorial columnist for The New York Times wrote in his December 25, 2007 column. Brooks named Labash as one of the winners of the "Sidney Awards" — the columnist's annual naming of the articles he considers the best of the year.

Click to expand...

Riehl World View: Influential Conservative Matt Labash Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

One has to feel sorry for Matt Labash. He's a political humor writer, and uses his personal and family experiences in his writing. His bio at The Weekly Standard gives his two sons names: Luke and Dean, and he includes them in his writing by name, age and with conversational snippets. Yet, Labash apparently thinks it is Sarah Palin's fault that her children get savaged in the press because she exposes them to the public.

Unfortunately Labash does his share to make sure that mean personal reaction gets published in the national press, like The Weekly Standard. Labash doesn't publish this trash in the context that there is something wrong with the tweets, but implies that there is something wrong with Sarah Palin (and, by extension, her husband Todd) for being in a television series on Alaska with their children.
". . . [T]he online hyenas circled, then savaged Palin and her family. They reamed 9-year-old Piper for disturbing wildlife with 'racist anti-bear calls.' They mocked Willow when a boy snuck upstairs as Palin busied herself on her BlackBerry. They came up with baby names for any forthcoming Palin children: Snausages, Musket, Hugh Betcha, Pander, and Mooseknuckle.

"Does any of this matter to Palin? Probably not. She must be used to it by now. But her family is not acclimating so seamlessly to their new reality-television roles. Her daughters, just a few days ago, got in a widely reported Facebook scrape, with Willow electing to defend the family honor when the show was trashed by an old classmate for 'failing so hard.' Willow, in turn, invited him to 'stfu, Your [sic] such a faggot.' Willow has a lot of growing up to do. Literally—she’s only 16, and what 16-year-old would want those growing pains played out in public?"
The lesson Labash seems to take away is that the Palin parents should stay out of sight, even so innocuous sight as a series promoting the beauties and wonder of Alaska, so that no one will bother the Palin children.

Click to expand...

Terrance this is stupid stuff: Matt Labash Lives in a Glass House

Truly Dan, you have found Conservative Intellectualism that fits you.

SheWolf said:

Except McCain and Bush both claimed to love Reagan... I wouldn't say Bush was much of a compromiser either, not until the economy was doomed... oops

Click to expand...

What the hell does that have to do with anything? /boggle

upsideguy said:

Um... come to think of it, I have never seen Pam Grier and Sarah Palin in the same room. Have you?

Click to expand...

No...I haven't. Curious.

As much as I'd like Palin to be the Republican nominee for purely cynical reasons, I don't think it's going to happen. According to InTrade, she's now the FIFTH most likely nominee, behind Romney, Pawlenty, Daniels, and Huckabee. In fact, InTrade is skeptical that she'll even run for president at all. Her odds of announcing a presidential bid by the end of 2011 are only trading at 43%.

Kandahar said:

As much as I'd like Palin to be the Republican nominee for purely cynical reasons, I don't think it's going to happen. According to InTrade, she's now the FIFTH most likely nominee, behind Romney, Pawlenty, Daniels, and Huckabee.

Click to expand...

For those of us not in the know, can you give us a quick heads-up on where each of those 5 potential nominees lie in the GoP spectrum? Which is the trad. con? Which the libertarian? Which neo-con interventionist? Which isolationist? Just the basics.

Kandahar said:

As much as I'd like Palin to be the Republican nominee for purely cynical reasons, I don't think it's going to happen. According to InTrade, she's now the FIFTH most likely nominee, behind Romney, Pawlenty, Daniels, and Huckabee. In fact, InTrade is skeptical that she'll even run for president at all. Her odds of announcing a presidential bid by the end of 2011 are only trading at 43%.

Click to expand...

Romney:
Dead in the water. Reason? Romneycare.

Pawlenty:
Dead in the water. Reason? "We should have listened to Jimmy Carter"

Daniels:
Had potential, but no go. Reason? "Healthy Indiana Plan"

Huckabee:
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA No.

Andalublue said:

For those of us not in the know, can you give us a quick heads-up on where each of those 5 potential nominees lie in the GoP spectrum? Which is the trad. con? Which the libertarian? Which neo-con interventionist? Which isolationist? Just the basics.

Click to expand...

Romney - I consider him a moderate. He's traditionally been relatively liberal on social issues (although he hasn't shown much backbone on them), supportive of health care reform, and pro-business. On foreign policy, he echoes a lot of George Bush's ideas, although without the swagger and arrogance that would likely lead us into another ill-conceived war. He's mostly supported by upper-class, educated, urban, moderate Republicans.

Pawlenty - Ever since he waded into a possible presidential run, I think he's been trying to position himself as the generic Republican who toes the party line and doesn't piss anyone off. I think that strategy is unlikely to work, but it is what it is. Although he hasn't taken strong stances on much of anything, I would describe him as a "big government conservative." He'll probably appeal to the few people who don't like any of the other Republican candidates. Not a winning strategy IMO.

Daniels - Although not a libertarian by any means, Mitch Daniels is probably the closest thing to a small-government conservative among the serious contenders. As a governor, he has been a big proponent of busting unions and cutting spending. He's asked for a "truce" on social issues, which I interpret as an indication that he's moderate-to-liberal on them. He has shown little interest in foreign policy, indicating that he may be more supportive of a moderate approach than he lets on. I think he appeals to well-educated libertarians and conservatives.

Huckabee - Mike Huckabee tends to be the most overtly religious candidate in the race, and wears his Christianity on his sleeve. He's plainly a social conservative, but has sharp disagreements with the Republican orthodoxy on foreign policy. He described Bush's foreign policy as "arrogant" way back in 2007, even before it was cool for Republicans to do that. On economic issues, I think he's a moderate populist who probably fits into the "big government conservative" category as well. I think he'll mainly appeal to evangelical Christians and rural Republicans.

Palin - She's the populist of the crowd, constantly attacking government bureaucrats, bankers, universities, the media, and the elite. She favors an aggressive foreign policy, a conservative social agenda, and lower taxes. It's unclear if she has any plans to cut spending. I think she appeals mainly to the low-income, uneducated subset of Republicans. But she may not even want to run for president.

MrVicchio said:

Romney:
Dead in the water. Reason? Romneycare.

Pawlenty:
Dead in the water. Reason? "We should have listened to Jimmy Carter"

Daniels:
Had potential, but no go. Reason? "Healthy Indiana Plan"

Huckabee:
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA No.

Click to expand...

Ya, but keep in mind that there was a laundry list of reasons why each of the potential Republican nominees in 2008 was unacceptable to the base. And they all were, to some extent. But the problem with this reasoning overlooks the obvious fact that SOMEONE will win the nomination.