Saturday, January 21, 2012
Andrew Sullivan leaps to a conclusion
In another lame attack on Sarah Palin, Andrew Sullivan unrolled this bit of ill-informed snark:
I increasingly suspect the primary reason Palin is not running right now is McGinniss' book. She knows there's more where that came from. She fears journalism - which is why she only appears on Fox.I have no idea whether Sarah Palin "fears journalism," but it is highly unlikely that is why she "only appears on Fox." I have had the privilege of private conversations with people (other than Sarah Palin) who have contracts with Fox News, and if they are paid for their appearances (many people are not paid) then they may not appear on other networks. Sarah Palin is so paid, so unless she was able to negotiate a unique deal her contract does not allow her to flap her gums on other networks. Sullivan is almost certainly wrong. Money is the the probable "why," not "fear."
10 Comments:
By 
Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sat Jan 21, 05:36:00 PM:
I have to wonder what Andrew Sullivan fantacises should happen to Sarah Palin, so obsessed is he. Is he still on this Trig thing? Really?
By 
, at
Sat Jan 21, 06:03:00 PM:
Hatred is a terrible emotion. He writes things about Palin that make him look like a fool.
By , at
Sat Jan 21, 08:40:00 PM:
Sarah Palin used to appear on other networks. They didn't treat her very well. She is not running for office, so why should she hang around people that hate her. Wouldn't most of us avoid haters if we could?
By , at
Sun Jan 22, 10:09:00 AM:
I didn't run because I knew it wasn't my time. Simple as that. My time may come, or not. But it's not about me.
If you've been listening, I've had a lot to say over the last year. And I'll have a lot to say for a long time.
But I've learned that I have to be careful on how I get my message out. Else it gets distorted.
That, and I have a deal with Fox. Truth be told, Fox can sometimes be as bad as the others but I need an outlet on TV. And they pay me. Win-Win.
Newt won the evangelical vote in South Carolina. I helped a little. I never scored much as point guard. But I always had a boatload of assists.
If Newt can pull of Florida it'll be wide open. South Carolina already has everone in a tizzy.
My oven alarm just went off. Got to go. TTYL.
By Georg Felis, at
Sun Jan 22, 10:34:00 AM:
"Sullivan is almost certainly wrong."
That pretty much goes without saying...
By , at
Sun Jan 22, 03:44:00 PM:
Yesterday's vote in South Carolina confirmed everything that Anon Attorney and I have been saying here about Mitt Romney, the Latter Day Gordon Gekko.
Newt can be a horse's ass, but he won in South Carolina because he's the best non-Mitt populist left in the field Does anyone doubt that Newt would clobber Mitt in Florida, were it a two-man race? Expect Mitt to max out at 30% - 35% in Florida; Paul to get his usual 15%. The outcome will depend on how much Santorum takes away from Newt -- which in turn may depend on how much Mitt spends on anti-Newt negative ads.
Even if Mitt ekes out a win in Florida, he's still not electable in the general. He'll be more challenged there than he's been in Republican primaries against a weak field.
Before Old Fan goes off, Newt only pulled the "One Quarter Nelson" on Mitt over Bain Capital. (Mitt had his surrogates shiv Newt in Iowa. So Mitt asked for it.) Obama & Co will do the Full Nelson on MItt. Obama's surrogates will also tell us how Mormonism is the Taliban of the west as far as women's rights go -- there goes the Soccer Mom vote ...
I resent Mitt's wrapping himself in the flag of free enterprise and his then saying that any criticism of him is like an attack from the left on Mom and Apple Pie. Mitt really doesn't want to give out more than a couple of years of tax returns because it will expose "carried interest" and deductions for Mormon tithing, and possibly more surprises. This isn't fair, but fairness has nothing to do with it. Mitt thought he could skate through the nomination without dealing with this, and then take his chances in the general. Not to be.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sun Jan 22, 10:42:00 PM:
Ignoramus, you are mixing your hopes and your imaginings with your analysis. It's tiring. A lot of your predicting is self-fulfilling if conservatives keep insisting it.
And last time, that gave us Obamacare, so thanks a bunch. Going on about how damaging certain things will be helps make it true. Talk about issues and preferences, that's a conservative approach, and if you don't like Romney, fine. But when you try to play the political horse-race game, you help hand elections to Democrats. You tell them exactly what it will take to make conservatives stay home. Brilliant. For what? To prove you and your guys are more-conservative-than-thou?
Okay, I'm picking on you as representative of a group, perhaps unfairly. But I've watched conservatives get this wrong repeatedly since 1992. We nearly lost in 2000, even though the country was sick of Democrats, because of this crap.
By Gary Rosen, at
Mon Jan 23, 12:34:00 AM:
"you help hand elections to Democrats. You tell them exactly what it will take to make stay home."
AVI, do you really think that BO, or more precisely his handlers (i. e. Axelrod) couldn't figure this out on their own? I share the fear that many have that if Gingrich wins the nomination he will get steamrolled by Obama. But there are good reasons why Romney is unsatisfying as a candidate, not just he is too "RINO". If he is succumbing to Newt's attacks among Republicans imagine what the Dems will do to him. He needs to learn who to address them now.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Mon Jan 23, 03:08:00 PM:
Gary, fair point about Axelrod, but there is certainly ongoing confirmation of seeing strategy work; and there is still a bandwagon, self-fulfilling aspect to conservative purists (not really) trying to drum up worry that if ___ is nominated, the Democrats will run ads about ___!!! Oh no! Because the Democrats aren't going to run any ads and make any accusations otherwise? They don't have to be truthful or fair and they're going to run ads. We can't eliminate that, though perhaps we can be alert to that to manage it.
Far more than Democrats - and perhaps this is somewhat a New England thing - Republicans make these pronouncements about who can win, or who is vulnerable to what, all of us amateur pundits talking like we understand the thinking of some large percentage of the voters' minds. I don't, and I doubt Ignoramus does either.
By , at
Mon Jan 23, 05:09:00 PM:
Romney has particular vulnerabilities that weren’t widely known but will be. I’ve been absolutely sure they’d be made widely known after the August convention, if Romney got the nomination – given Axelrod – and that it’d be a disaster for the entire Republican ticket.
In most election cycles, these Mitt vulnerabilities wouldn’t matter as much. But “jobs” and “taxes” are sure to be big themes. Romney touts his business experience as his major selling point, so he’s asking for it.
Until now Romney’s supposed better electability was being sold to Republicans as to why we should just fall in line. But it’s a false premise. Newt has issues, but he’s more electable than Mitt. That’s not just me talking – it’s what South Carolina exit polls just showed.
Yes the Democrats will attack and demagogue any Republican candidate – but Latter Day Gordon Gekko is Axelrod’s dream. Ignoring this is asking for failure.
There’s still time to open this up. Newt’s not the best candidate, just better than Mitt.
Alternatively, Mitt could put it all on the table and take his chances now, but he won’t. Instead he’s taken to calling Newt a “disgrace”. Latest polls show Newt with a big lead in Florida. Calling Newt names won’t change that. The more I see of Romney convinces me he has no natural talent at politics.
I blog here for giggles and to be one voice in a large, hopefully constructive multitude. That’s democracy.
