The reality is—it’s possible
In reply to a reader who said she supports Palin, I said:
Notwithstanding my own statements that I don’t regard her as a plausible national leader, let alone as a genuine conservative leader, and that I wish the whole Palin phenomenon would go away, I acknowledge the possibility that she could be the next GOP nominee and the next president. Some Palin critics think it’s completely impossible for her to be elected. I don’t agree.
I wrote to Paul Mulshine of the Newark Star-Ledger, an outspoken critic of Palin:
Apart from your own views on Palin, apart from whether you think she’s competent and plausible as a national leader, do you think it’s possible that she could be nominated and elected?Paul Mulshine replies:
I think she would fall apart in the primary debates. But I certainly hope she runs. I’m almost positive Ron Paul will be running, so she will have to drop any claim to the paleo section of the party. Huckabee will take the “Cross of Gold” crowd. So it would be fun to see just where she would end up on the spectrum.David B. writes:
I just saw your comment in which you say that it IS possible for Palin to be elected. I agree.Sage McLaughlin writes:
One reason I’m convinced Palin will never be a credible conservative leader is that her supporters seem incapable of defending her except through either mindless invective or leftist rhetoric. The latest line, I gather, is that the crude jokes going around the leftist blogosphere about the notes written on her hand (don’t ask) are, wait for it, “misogynistic.” And “sexist.” Try pointing out to them that the jokes are simply signs of the degeneracy of people who comment at Democratic Underground, and that it’s a bad thing for conservatives to start mouthing left-wing rhetoric and acting as a mutated version of the PC Police, and they respond with unreasoning fury. Think of it. In the last week, we’ve seen Palin and her supporters call for a man’s job because of his casual use of the word “retarded,” we’ve seen her sticking up for McCain, and we’ve seen yet another instance of denouncing her detractors as sexist.LA replies:
I think you’re saying two things: that the silliness of her supporters indicates a candidacy that would be silly and that could not be taken seriously; and that this silliness means that she could not be nominated, or, that if she were nominated, she could not be elected.James N. writes:
Sage makes a few good points, but my question to him is, “Where do you think this process is taking place? In the Agora? In Palmerston’s House of Commons? In the Virginia of 1786?”LA replies:
“Can she lose?” I don’t get it.February 11
Ben W. writes:
Has Palin’s ubiquity and noise had any positive effect? According to an ABC-Washington Post poll (and most other polls), people still find her unqualified for the presidency:LA replies:
But David Broder, the dean (though, as I’ve described him, the exhausted and brain-dead dean) of liberal Beltway opinion writers, in today’s Washington Post says she is at the top of her game and a force to be reckoned with.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 10, 2010 09:10 AM | Send