It won’t be long now til we have a new Republican Vice-Presidential nominee. Will it be an affable heartland himbo, a blue-eyed wonk, or a stay-at-home mom turned reformer? Who can tell? The only thing we know for sure is that the selection will be a cagey, game-changing move that puts Democrats on the defensive. It was a little less than four years ago that supposedly centrist people were saying things like this about Sarah Palin’s insane convention speech:
Still absorbing her speech last night, I’m trying to understand how Sarah Palin could be so apparently unfazed by her current situation: She’s in charge of a state government, just gave birth to a Down syndrome baby, has a pregnant teenage daughter and now it’s “Gotta run, John McCain wants me to be vice president.” But she’s not only coping with the slings and arrows; she has fired back with gusto. It must be more than just religious faith, ambition or ideology.
She reminds me of another prominent Republican woman from the West: former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
[….]Maybe there’s something about growing up in a challenging, male-dominated physical environment (desert, tundra), in a family where everyone’s expected to get his or her job done (and there’s no time for drama, fuss or introspection), that turns certain girls into very confident women — women who love to play against the big boys, and love to win.
Just imagine what they’ll write about Rob Portman or Paul Ryan.
Update. Yes:
there’s no time for drama, fuss or introspection
Heh indeedy.
Hunter Gathers
I wonder who will throw the bigger fit on election night; the GOP or the Press?
c u n d gulag
I so hope it’s Paul Ryan.
He and Mitt on the stage at their Convention will look the centerpiece on a Gay wedding cake!
cathyx
Rick Santorum is cleaning up his website and getting rid of all the negative things he said about Romney. I think he’s hoping for the nod.
dmsilev
Palin: Well, *MAKE TiME* Goddammit!
t jasper parnell
What’s odd about the Lane post is that extent to which the comments on Palin from her opponents nail her personality and potential almost perfectly.
Marcellus Shale, Public Dick
well, at some point romney is going to go from being the guy no one wanted, to the guy 40+ percent of the electorate loves so much it would break your heart. the media will fulfill their role, and make much note of the momentum, because that is how they cover things. they won’t attribute it to romney picking up the votes a red dog could get, it will be all about raw money.
i am gonna guess that the gop veep will be anyone with one of those genuine authentic personalities.
RalfW
Very self-absorbed and self-aggrandizing (and stupid) people often don’t grasp the dangers headed their way, nor how hard they are expected to work.
That Sarah was unwilling to actually work that hard but rather enjoy it all as a grift-ride also helps explain the preternatural calm.
But of course pundits reacting to a convention speech couldn’t have been expected to, y’know, report and thus understand any of the actual background of a potential global leader. So we get inane “I don’t understand…” admissions.
General Stuck
I don’t think it will be a woman, person of color, or anyone else not white and with an IQ above room temperature. I think it will be a bible thumpin’ Baptist type from the south or southern border state. Someone like Huckleberry from Arkansas, or a likeness of Rick Perry.
The GOP has boxed themselves in with alienating so many potential voting blocks, that really only one remains a well to be tapped, and that is the evangelical conservatives, not necessarily the obvious political type thumpers of the base, but the invisible ones who only marginally acknowledge mortal governance in the physical world, that exist on earth as a way station to the next gig upstairs, that rarely vote, unless they can connect with a kindred jeevus loving spirit in a political candidate. There are millions of them out there.
And also to blunt their looking at Romney as some kind of idol worshipping blasphemer secretly with 5 wives and magic underwear. We are entering the zoo era of GOP politics, not just the usual snake oil salesman. But a traveling circus with bearded ladies and fire eaters, trapeze artists and lots and lots of clowns.
kdaug
Go here.
Good morning.
Nancy
One needs a functioning brain to realize one is in way over one’s head.
Omnes Omnibus
I really don’t understand what happened to Charles Lane. He seemed such a nice guy as played by Peter Sarsgaard.
jeffreyw
@kdaug: Muppet abusers!
MattF
Anyone (anyone) who gets the Republican nomination for President or Vice President is automatically a Serious Person, worthy of Serious Praise and Serious Commentary. Democrats, on the other hand are invariably fat, cowardly, Kenyan soshalist hillbillies who don’t have a good attitude. Why that is, one can only wonder.
Schlemizel
@General Stuck:
I have been taking shit here for some time saying Rev. Huckleberry would be his choice. (HEY! its a guess & as good as anyones at this point). Frothy is purging his web site so as to appear to get behind the GOP pick but there would be way too many great sound bites of him demolishing Willard. Besides he wants to remain clean for 16 went he can destroy the GOP for a generation (pasta please hear our prayer).
I also suspect little Ayn Paul is on the list. Partly to reward daddy dearest for his help during the primary but also to get the young & stupid Paultard vote.
Given the recent debacle it now makes sense that Willard would like an estrogen enhanced running mate. That would put Nikki Haley into play (plus she can pretend to be Indian when she is whiter than I am that would be huge for the GOP, a white who they can pretend is colored)
PurpleGirl
@kdaug: I like the dancing Grandma… and the Muppet puppet. (The band is pretty good too.)
Chyron HR
Since the Romney campaign is betting it all on his wife’s persecution complex anyway, where in the Constitution does it say he can’t pick his very own hockey grizzly mama pit bull with the lipstick also, too for VP?
Hell, he can just say that all those “Romney” primary votes were for his wife and put her on the top of the ticket, since she’s America’s sweetheart (theoretically).
Marc
“there’s no time for drama, fuss or introspection”
Hey, give the Post some credit–one out of three ain’t bad.
Anya
@Chyron HR: Did you see that creepy NRA speech the Romneys did together. Forget about talking about motherhood at an NRA event that’s all about guns, testosterone and kill, kill, kill ….… but this whole “ann is an asset to the campaign” looks very forced. They should stop trying too hard.
danielx
I’m thinking that intellectual marvel Rep. Todd Akin (R-Dipshit). Willard would get a twofer – a Teabagger and an attack dog who’s already gone on record as being in favor of impeaching the Kenyanislamofascistmooslimsoshulist imposter. Paul Ryan is a little too bloodless, plus he has pretensions towards being smart. Then there’s that whole bit about taking from the poor and giving to the rich, which is also right out there in the open.
Come to think of it, Mittens has quite some number of choices available. It could be just about anyone who:
1. is not troubled by logic or intellectual consistency
2. creates his or her own reality
3. froths at the mouth after hearing the name Obama
Louie Gohmert, anyone?
RSA
@Omnes Omnibus:
I want a career in which it’s possible (not even uncommon) to fail upward.
mai naem
I think it may be Nikki Haley but she does have that alleged affair issue. Also too, I am not sure southerners will come out to vote for a brown person, in addition to having to coming out for a Mormon. I hope its Rob Portman so that we can talk about the Bush recession, the Bush Tax Cuts and the Bush Budgets. I would love Paul Ryan because Biden would make mincemeat out of him. And, it’s so obvious he’s got a thin skin. OMG, the SNL skits would be awesome. I also think he may go with Tim Pawlenty.
runt
It’s a miracle that these pundits have learned to read, let alone write. But if baboons can do it, I guess it’s within the mental range of people like Lane as well.
Linda Featheringill
@Schlemizel:
I also think that Paul the Younger is on the list of possibles. I could even offer some arguments supporting his candidacy.
Of course, I really want Ryan as VP candidate. Romney/Ryan would be sooooo cool!
Still waiting for Team Romney to call me for a consultation. :-)
Davis X. Machina
My guess, a Mountain-MidWestern-Western senator of relatively short service, or governor, ditto.
The same thing that makes Romney possible makes another Romney inevtiable.
The GOP’s captivity to the Confederates and the god-botherers, which the small slice of the actually-existing persuadeables do not like, is now a real general-election problem.
You have to hope base will climb over broken glass to get That Awful Negro out of the White House, regardless.
MattF
@Davis X. Machina: Maybe, in that vein, VA Gov. Bob McDonnell. McDonnell is a hard-core conservative, but doesn’t give the impression of being dogmatic. It would be a good choice.
kindness
Off topic but…
My condolences John on the Penguins/Flyers game last night. That was quite a spanking.
General Stuck
Here is a little mood boost if you are a democrat
This leaves Obama needing only 28 electoral votes to win, and I like our chances in several of the toss up states listed by AP
Davis X. Machina
@MattF: I’d take Heineman, the guy from Nebraska who had the temerity to oppose the pipeline.
Tell the energy companies “Shut up for now, we’ll fix it later when we’re in.”
Green-wash the ticket. He’s plenty orthodox otherwise.
t jasper parnell
Also it’s going to be Scott Walker.
JoyfulA
@Chyron HR: VP can’t be from the same state as the president, hence Cheney’s rapid reversion to being from Wyoming and not Texas.
But maybe that’s why the Romneys have houses in various states—
Villago Delenda Est
@General Stuck:
Yeah, but once again, it’s April. Anything can happen between now an November.
I’m pulling for a nod to Ryan, Mittens is clueless enough to do it, too.
Arm The Homeless
@Schlemizel:
If the GOP actually had a functioning ‘elite’, I think there is an avenue for Mittens to try to pick up a candidate like Bloomberg. It would tickle all the Village taints, show how serious and bi-partisany he is, plus you can almost taste Steve Forbes as ‘Tax Czar’.
Luckily, the modern GOP are mental midgets
eemom
meh, I’m not gonna speculate.
I will, however, take the Palin reminiscence as an opportunity to note that Jane Hamsher was one of the first at the time to gush over how effin briiilllliaaaant a move it was for McCain to tap her.
(Yes, I know Hamsher has pretty much dwindled into well-deserved obscurity these days, but I kind of miss my own personal troll brigade trotting out to tell me I’m obsessed with her.)
eemom
@c u n d gulag:
teh internets. You winz em.
nellcote
Will LaPalin have a primetime speaking spot at the convention? Will anyone mention Bush?
Nutella
@mai naem:
Agreed. I think Rmoney’s going to go for a white Christian, a white fundie if he can find one.
Unless he falls for the weird “we’ve got one of those kind of people too!” attitude that brought us Palin and Keyes.
ericblair
@nellcote:
They’re as likely to say the name “Bush” as they are the name “bin Laden.” So no.
I can’t possibly guess who they’re gonna run as the tomato soup can veep candidate. Look at the past two WTF choices they made and tell me how you could have predicted it.
Chris
@Nutella:
Nah, McCain already tried the “we have one too” thing and look where that got him – and Romney has a bigger problem with the Angry White Conservative base than he did. It’ll be a white social conservative, probably Southern or Midwestern.
FlipYrWhig
My guess is that Romney will pick someone who isn’t a politician. A retired general or a business magnate. And he’ll run with a message that it’s time to work on practical, real-world solutions, not government money and airy theories. Call it a hunch.
g
Well, I’m old enough to remember an earlier time when another rich man with a rich wife was running against an incumbent president.
Republicans hated Teresa Heinz Kerry, likened her to Eva Peron and Zsa Zsa Gabor (this was when Zsa Zsa slapped a cop) – never mind that her first husband was a Republican.
But that year the outrage machine worked in reverse – Teresa clumsily said that Laura Bush had never worked a ‘real job’ – and the predictable Right Wing Outrage Machine went into high gear.
That time, it was the rich, pampered elitist millionairess who was dumping all over the poor humble schoolteacher. Remember when Republicans thought schoolteachers weren’t evil government leeches?
Laura Bush, to her credit, was gracious about Teresa’s remarks and accepted her apology without further drama – something Ann is going to have to learn if she even hopes to be First Lady.
But let’s face it, folks. With the Right Wing Wurlitzer, it doesn’t matter who’s wealthy or not, who’s a stay-at-home or not – whatever someone on the left does or says it’s an outrage for them to exploit.
feebog
If it is going to be a White Male Conservative that appeals to evangelicals, Bob McDonald is the logical choice. Plus, it arguably puts Virgina, one those swing states listed by General Stuck in post 27. Of the rest, Rubio, Ryan and Paul the lesser all have their upside and downside. The other choice is Pawlenty. He has been a loyal surrogate since dropping out early, and he is the safe choice.
One thing I think you can take to the bank; it won’t be a woman.
FlipYrWhig
@feebog: I think Rubio and McDonnell are the two leading candidates for 2016, and I don’t know to what degree they’ll want to get linked with the tone-deaf and uncharismatic Romney campaign. Also, I have a feeling that picking one over the other would lead supporters of the other to carp and kvetch about what a bad choice it was. I think they cancel each other out.
Alex S.
It’s going to be the ex-gay Abu Ghraib veteran.
eemom
@FlipYrWhig:
did you see that recent poll showing Obama squashing Romney here in Ye Old Virginny even WITH Bobby McD on the ticket? Wasn’t that delicious?
catclub
@FlipYrWhig: That worked so well for Ross Perot with Admiral Stockdale.
Getting up to speed as a politician, in a few days, is pretty tough.
Plus, Bill Gates is unlikely to agree to run, but it would make Romney the not-so-wealthy workman of the ticket.
Dwight Eisenhower is both dead, and far too liberal. Colin Powell must be 80 years old by now. Petraeus is too smart, plus has been promoted repeatedly by Obama.
Somebody else mentioned Bloomberg, which makes sense to sane people, but not to evangelicals who demand anti-abortion cred.
JGabriel
__
__
Charles Lane:
__
I wonder if Justice O’Connor ever re-reads that and sends Lane death threats? I can’t imagine anyone would arrest her for it.
.
Nutella
Here’s an interesting article on Romney’s choice when he was running for governor.
He chose someone obscure who had never won an election for anything and had no base of support so he could call all the shots.
Remember when he fired his debate coach after the guy got good publicity for coaching him really well? This is a guy who does not like to share the limelight.
VOR
Pawlenty won’t help with the fundies and won’t stir any excitement. He won’t do anything to help in Minnesota as he left a giant fiscal mess behind and the local Republican party is doing their best to forget him. He went down the Minnesota memory hole just like George W. Bush has on the national level. The one way he could help is to reinforce the outside the beltway motif Romney has tried to promote.
Horrendo Slapp (formerly Jimperson Zibb, Duncan Dönitz, Otto Graf von Pfmidtnöchtler-Pízsmőgy, Mumphrey, et al.)
Well, to be fair, it sure seems like she didn’t have any time for introspection, at least…
JCT
If I were Sandra Day O’Connor I would commit ritual suicide over that quote.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@catclub:
To say nothing of his anti-gun stances, which I think would tear the party apart as much as a pro-choice veep. and what @Nutella: said. Romney is not someone who wants to stand on stage with an equal, which is one of many reasons I think Christie’s out. Pawlenty and McDonnell strike me as very willing to play Waylon Smithers to get a leg up in 2016 (or ’20, anything’s possible).
catclub
@Nutella: “does not like to share the limelight.”
So Paul Ryan goes down in likelihood.
TBogg
@eemom:
Jane on Palin:
Considering what was known about Palin at the time, Jane was wrong where?
(Block quoting seems wonky. All 3 paragraphs belong to Jane)
BarbCat
@JCT: In my dreams. I blame SDO for the make-up of the SCOTUS as is. If she regretted her Bush v. Gore decision so much, she should have waited to retire. Her husband had already forgotten who she was by the time she left the bench.
I vote for David Petraeus, but maybe that would be too wise a choice.
eemom
@TBogg:
Why, how very noble of you to show up and defend your landlady against little old me!
Where was she “wrong”? Oh, I’d start with the ludicrous pretense at “neutrality” that pervaded her entire “coverage” of the Democratic primary and general election:
Then there’s, you know, the ridiculous implication that the ONLY reason a voter concerned with women’s issues would choose Obama would be if HRC were on the ticket.
Gee, that’s funny — “as a woman” I found her selection intuitively APPALLING right from the get-go, “even though” I politically disagree with everything she believes in and would never in a million years vote for her. What do you suppose the “appeal” could have been based on? Did Jane harbor a Rick Lowry-esque crush on Palin?
Um, yeah.
What the fuck did that even mean “considering what was known about Palin at the time”? What did she “stand for symbolically” even then — other than the raw political opportunism of her selection??
Sheeyit. I had more respect for you.
mai naem
@eemom: I don’t particularly care for Hamsher but I can tell you I thought initially Sarah Palin was a good pick too. The reason I say this is because I had been watching the Senate races in 2004 and sent money to Tony Knowles the Dem Senate candidate in Alaska. He was running against Lisa Murkowski. Knowles impressed me enough that even though he lost in that race I sent him money again when he ran against Palin in 2008. I followed the race a little and I remember Palin coming across as a run of the mill conservative.. She sure as heck did not come across as we know her now. A total whackjob grifter.
sloan
My favorite post-speech Palin fluffing will always be Michael Reagan’s article titled Welcome Back, Dad:
He knew exactly nothing about her at the time this was written. So awesome.
eemom
@sloan:
heh. Nothing weird about THAT, a-nope.
FlipYrWhig
@catclub: It didn’t work with Stockdale because he was old and doddering. But think of someone like Ray Odierno. The knock would be inexperience. But if you’re running on anti-government skepticism, you can flip that into a positive. And the advantage is that there’s no paper trail of things the guy supported because of the party line or to honor a compromise. I don’t think Romney would win by doing this, mind you, but it’d be a different kind of changing the game that actually sidesteps both the #1 guy’s lack of charisma and his ideological chameleon nature. Instead of running “to the center,” he’d be running towards practicality. Watch for it.
@eemom: Hadn’t seen that… Sweet!
Marc
@TBogg:
“With the last Rasmussen poll showing that 28% of [HRC’s] voters still won’t vote for Obama,” for starters.
Also, most of the stuff before and after.
R Johnston
@Marc: Not to mention that Palin was already well known to be a right-wing loony and an idiot. She was a wingnut theocrat darling and notoriously lazy governor who refused to work with other people–or pretty much to work at all–well before she was announced as McCain’s running mate, and a few seconds with the google machine would have made clear that she was a disaster waiting to happen.
David Koch
The best part was when the PUMAs (like Jerome Armstrong) immediately bonded with Palin because she had a vajayjay and started saying she was a younger version of Hillary Clinton.
BWHWHAAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH
Good times.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@David Koch: Armstrong still hasn’t gotten out of the fetal position has he?
David Koch
@TBogg: Dude, how can you associate with a racist who gives Norquist hand jobs?
David Koch
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: No, he quit his own blog. And he still hates Obama, saying he’ll never vote for a Democrat, again. Of course, this will change in 4 years when his idol Hillary runs.
For the life of me, I don’t get it. All of us have supported candidates who didn’t get the nomination, and none of us devolved into 2nd grade tantrums like the PUMAs.
I mean, let’s be honest, the blogosphere didn’t like Obama during the primary, the loved Edwards. When he lost, they were upset, but they didn’t pout and throw endless hissy fits, they acted like adults.
eemom
@David Koch:
Hamsher never loved Edwards. She was shilling for Hill the whooooole time, calling everybody who said boo against her a sexist and misogynist and banning people right and left — all the while maintaining the aforesaid ludicrous joke that FDL was “neutral.”
I don’t think it’s cuz she really loved HRC all that much, either. Her boundless ambition just had fixated on the prospect of a second Clinton presidency as her best shot to entry through those pearly gates to the Village that she has SO desperately been trying to claw her way into ever since her ass landed in Washington after Hollywood booted it out.
Hell, she wasn’t even a sincere PUMA.
FlipYrWhig
@David Koch: I can understand the hurt feelings of people who backed Obama as the liberal, antiwar, anti-DLC alternative to Hillary Clinton and then felt let down when the limits to his liberalism (some having to do with his temperament, more having to do with the Republicans’ absolute no holds barred obstructionism) became clear. But I’ve never understood the people who insisted, and continue to insist, that Hillary Clinton was The Real Liberal, or the Working Class Champion. Both of them are technocrats and consensus-builders, and neither is a radical. If you want a economic populist, you’re barking up the wrong tree with both of them.
FlipYrWhig
@eemom: I think there’s a TON of wishful thinking about the blogosphere as agent of change, and both Moulitsas and Hamsher were heavily invested in that, especially after Dean ’04. Both of them badly wanted credit as kingmakers, leaders of a new and indispensable interest group, like the Christian right or gun owners. And the way they handle grudges meshes very well with that niche in politics, IMHO.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@FlipYrWhig:
to say nothing of Democratic obstructionism. I always chuckled when Krugman indulged (and I doubt we’ve seen the last of it) in his “I told you so” shit. He apparently thinks that as the trusted sidekick to Hillzeena Warrior President he could have gotten his Big Enough Stimulous past Bayh, Nelson and McCaskill.
@eemom: building on the above, I think a whole lot of people who saw themselves in the cabinet, much bigger players than Hamsher, would’ve been disappointed to be left on the sidewalk by HRC. There were just too many of them. Whenever Ed Rendell is passive-aggresiving Obama on MSNBC, I want some smart ass to ask him if he thought he was going Mr Ambassador or Mr Secretary.
TBogg
@eemom: Since your shrieking “WHAT IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN!?!” intensity is equal or greater to what comes out of Michelle Malkin’s mouth, the loss of your respect is the least of my worries or concerns.
But I must say I appreciate everyone’s amazing prescience about Palin (even without using the magic and benefits of hindsight … kudos!) despite the fact that McCain actually got a nice bump in the polls (for exactly the reasons that Jane pointed out) before Palin opened her mouth and it all went to hell (as Jane also pointed out).
Look, you guys don’t like Jane, but now you’re just making shit up to feed to feed your hate flame.
Whatever.
David Koch
My favorite — Hamsher’s “neutral” “analysis” of the Super Tuesday results:
Yes, in the fevered “reality” at lake batshit, Obama lost the nomination on Super Tuesday. Never mind that Obama won more states 13-9 and more delegates 847-834.
BarbCat
@David Koch: And began the now-well-known-bin Laden strategy (now in use by Team RMoney) of bankrupting your foe.
FlipYrWhig
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Like you I never understand why so many commentators and pundits, both professional and amateur, want to act like all Democrats are liberals and that all Democrats would definitely hang together with a little yanking of the chain. Democratic “moderates” really, truly dislike many of the progressive efforts the liberal blogosphere embraces, and they are comfortable running against liberal Democrats to get elected and re-elected. It’s maddening, but it’s a true phenomenon that can’t be wished away with “framing,” psychodrama, or even good sound economic reasoning.
eemom
@TBogg:
Good, cuz you just lost what little was left. Asshole.
No need to wonder anymore what a talented guy like you has been doing in that cesspool all these years. Evidently Jane has your balls in her trophy collection just like all her other eunuch-lackeys’ — or you’re a click-whore just like she is.
I notice you didn’t respond to my shrieky-Malkin question — or anything else I said.
R Johnston
@TBogg: Palin was being drooled over by right-wing loonies as a possible Veep pick as of March 2008, long before she was announced or in the national news. Hell, she was even being confused with Tina Fey at that point. I knew back then after a couple of seconds with google that Palin was a complete lunatic. There is no excuse for anyone having ever bought into her.
And just in case you don’t believe me, here’s a link. That’s a heavily wingnut-leaning discussion board I used to frequent–not formally wingnut and definitely fully allowing the airing of non-wingnut views, but still very heavily libertarian-wingnut leaning–and the thread is dated.
mainmati
@c u n d gulag: Of course, this is not the first time a GOP Presidential candidate has been mocked this way. The sharp-tongued Alice Roosevelt Longworth, daughter of Teddy Roosevelt mocked perennial GOP presidential candidate Gov. Thomas E. Dewey in 1944 as “the little man on the wedding cake” (alluding to his neat mustache and dapper dress.
mainmati
@Arm The Homeless: Bloomberg is way too smart to tarnish his brand by being a Romney VP. I’m certain he is completely contemptuous of him even though he is from the same social circle.
TBogg
@eemom: Addressing the willfully obtuse is such a waste of time.
The difference between you and people who call everyone an Obot (which is also apparently something I am) wouldn’t buy you a stick of gum.
TBogg
@R Johnston: They were also talking about Palin at Wonkette months before she was selected, but at that time, nobody knew anything about her but her looks. I can’t say that your link was inhabited by anything more than “Oh, wow, I’d tap that” and not a whole lot of substance other than that.
Limbaugh mentioned her in early 2008 but it was more of the “Look at the hot Republican woman” kind of banter. She didn’t become the “it girl” with the movers and shakers until Bill Kristol and few others were wooed by her while they were on an Alaskan cruise, and even then it was a matter of her giving them a boner.
eemom
@TBogg:
And you’ve got SO many better things to do with yours — as is evidenced by your spending Saturday evening twisting yourself into nifty pretzel shapes trying to get around the simple point R Johnston made above about actual FACTS regarding Palin that Mistress Jane could have learned on September 3, 2008 through 5 seconds of googling.
That’s ok though — even I didn’t mean to hold your Dominatrix to the standard of actual fact-checking. My point — which you of course failed to address — was that (1) her remarks were on their face motivated by her hatred of Obama; (2) her arguments about the female vote were hyperbolic bullshit; and (3) neither she — nor you, lo these four years later — can come up with the slightest explanation of what she found “intuitively appealing” about Palin’s candidacy, or what her “symbolic” value was.
Unless it’s ALL about the fact that she was a woman, despite the fact that, as Mistress herself admitted, every position she was then known to hold was diametrically opposed to everything the “woman’s vote” is all about.
Which leads me to my original question: did Jane have one of those famous boners? Because there is nothing else — other than her grudge again Obama — to explain her attitude.
TBogg
@eemom: I can’t and won’t speak for Jane, but I will say that she was in all likelihood addressing the fact that the Republican party was going for a hail Mary pass with Palin with the selection of Palin in an effort to pick up disaffected Hillary fans and women looking for a woman candidate. You may call it “hyperbolic bullshit” (and you seem to be quite the expert on it) but that was the feeling of many people at the time. Obama wasn’t my choice at the time, nor was Hillary, but you go to war with… etc. etc.
Having said all that, I apologize for even addressing your concerns or whatever these things you write are. One thing I have learned with regards to the BJ comments is that, historically, you are irreducibly strident in all of your opinions which makes you,at best,unpleasant, or, more to the point: kind of a dick.
I should have known better.
eemom
@TBogg:
You didn’t “address my concerns,” dearie. You asked me what I thought was wrong with what Jane said and I answered — at which point you bombarded me with a tirade of insults (shrieking Malkin, willfully obtuse) that had zero to do with the substance of a single thing I said.
Now, six hours later, you suddenly realize you “can’t speak for Jane” and offer up some tropes about “hail Mary passes” and “going to war” which, again, have ZERO to do with anything I said.
So yeah, let’s talk about what a dick I am.
TBogg
There is an old joke:
Q: Why don’t we send women to war?
A: Because they don’t know when to quit.
Marc
@TBogg:
I’m sure it had nothing to do with the gigantic political convention and the four days of free advertising that concluded just before the bump started.
Also (sincere question), what reasons did Hamsher lay out? The only one I see in the excerpt you quoted is “as a woman, there is something intuitively appealing about her selection,” which says a lot more about Jane Hamsher than it does about Sarah Palin.
eemom
@TBogg:
and yet, here YOU still are.
TBogg
@Marc: Oh jeez.
Yes, I can’t imagine why a woman might find a woman candidate “intuitively appealing”.
Must be some kind of weird vagina-y thing…
TBogg
@eemom: I think this proves my point.
See ya, folks.
David Koch
@TBogg: dude, didn’t you cringe in shame when your “feminist” boss said Elena Kagan, the first female dean in the history of Harvard law and the first female Solicitor General in US history was unqualified to be a Supreme Court justice?
Doesn’t it make you feel the least bit dirty to be associated with such an ODS kook?
Marc
@TBogg: So, no answer to my question, then?
FlipYrWhig
@Marc: From the excerpt, Hamsher is imagining that with a woman on the Republican ticket and not on the Democratic one even after Hillary’s candidacy, both parties would be spending time cultivating the support of women and speaking about women’s concerns. (Come to think of it, it’s kind of reminiscent of the claim that putting Ron Paul on the ticket would bring to the forefront of the conversation issues of civil liberties.) The problem is, Sarah Palin’s contributions to that discussion were limited to some rah-rah talk about how mamas defend their cubs, and as far as I recall, nothing about policy affecting women.
As it turned out, it was a lousy prediction on Hamsher’s part, but, while I love you, eemom, I don’t know if it was uniquely or outlandishly so.
eemom
Hey y’all, breaking dispatch from the “progressive” front:
A Woman Candidate Is Appealing To Women Because She’s A Woman!
Doesn’t matter if she’s an anti-abortion….or anti-contraception…..or anti-anything else you believe in. She’s a woman, and that appeals to your Womanly Intuits!
W.o.w.
eemom
@FlipYrWhig:
I didn’t mean that anything she said was unique or outlandish. I meant that what she said was wholly disingenuous.
For example, her proposition that women’s concerns would be “front and center” — or, as you put it, “both parties would be spending time cultivating the support of women and speaking about women’s concerns.”
Let’s take that proposition and examine it more closely. How could the presence of Palin on the ticket — a woman diametrically opposed to EVERYTHING that normal women are concerned about — lead to any kind of intelligent discussion about “women’s concerns”? From the perspective of Palin, that discussion would center on the desirability of overturning Roe v. Wade and setting women back 100 years. That was going to advance women’s interests how?
Marc
@FlipYrWhig: Yeah, that seems like a pretty big stretch of the imagination. And more to the point, it’s a stretch that says nothing about Palin–that excerpt is almost entirely about Hamsher’s own grudge against Obama and her conviction that all women shared it. (Hey, if Rasmussen says so it must be true.) I don’t see any trenchant analysis, more like a wish fulfillment fantasy that was about to go horribly wrong.
David Koch
@TBogg:
Hmmmm. Somehow, Jane, as a woman, didn’t find a female trail blazer like Elena Kagan intuitively appealing.
Hmmm. How could Jane find Palin appealing and Kagan unappealing. Hmmm. What could the difference have been?
Surely, it couldn’t have been Jane’s opposition to all things Obama.
What could it have been?
I guess, we will never know.
Keep fucking that chicken, TBogg.
eemom
@David Koch:
oh, he will.
And he’s still reading, too.
Probly won’t grace us with another response though, cuz then he’d have to admit that either
(1) it’s not just women who “don’t know when to quit” (and hey, how’s THAT for a graduate of the Jane Hamsher School Of Anti-Sexism-And-Misogyny); or
(2) I’m right about where his balls are.
FlipYrWhig
@Marc: Agreed, it proved to be a stretch, but it wasn’t THAT off the wall. Compared to having Joe Lieberman on the ticket, it should have been the case that having Palin in that spot would mean some attempt to get women’s issues on the table. And if the GOP was going to make a play for women, the Democrats would have to outflank them by appealing to women themselves rather than taking their support for granted. A lot of people thought that would happen. (My mouthy feminist mom was gobsmacked when a co-worker said she must have been excited about Palin.) So there I think Hamsher was only as wrong as many other big-name pundits and casual observers were. On Kagan, that was much more just raw contrarian animus, as was Hamsher’s assessment of the relative merits of Gillibrand and Caroline Kennedy.
FlipYrWhig
@eemom: I didn’t say it was a GOOD plan. I think the whole comment is much more about the projected implications of Some Republican Lady as a play for the Hillary vote and almost none about Palin qua Palin, neither her record or her skill.
eemom
@FlipYrWhig:
I dunno. I think the point I’ve been trying to make is that it is a fairly mind-boggling insult to women in general — and much more so to the progressive women for whom Hamsher, over my
dead bodyvehement objection, dares to purport to speak — to assert that just because a candidate IS a woman her candidacy has some kind of value to women in general — no matter what her personal beliefs or agenda may be, and no matter how inimical to the rights and interests of other women they are.eemom
….or again, to put it in your terms: “some republican lady as a play for the Hillary vote”??
You need to think about what that MEANS. It means assuming that the Hillary women voters were SO stupid, or SO intent — for God only knows what reason — on having a woman, any woman, on the ticket, that they would be willing to overlook the KNOWN fact that Woman Palin, more than any man, was an avowed enemy to everything they believed in.
How the fuck could anyone envision that to be a credible appeal to any woman who supported Hillary Clinton?
It was NOT credible — and it is not credible that Hamsher believed it, either.
FlipYrWhig
@eemom: I think it was daft in a Mark Halperin kind of way. It has Beltway logic. But that’s also why I can’t find it in me to single out Hamsher for blame. A buttload of people thought it would happen that way. Palin was just incapable of even trying. Ann Romney is about to try all over again.
FlipYrWhig
@eemom: But also, I think her point in the quoted passages is less about Palin and more that the presence of any woman means that both parties are going to try to make a case to women, which means more discussion of women’s issues than any male VP pick would. She’s looking forward to both parties having to woo the female vote, because it means Democrats will have to hone their own message to keep one step ahead of the Republican effort. If McCain had picked Lieberman, there would be no dialogue about wooing women — but there would be one about, in theory, wooing the Jewish vote. To me Hamsher on Palin here is almost exactly like Greenwald’s thing about Ron Paul: they’re saying it’s a good thing because it forces different issues to the forefront. Now, like Greenwald/Paul, there’s a ton of wishful thinking and grudge-nursing going into the fantasy too. Of all her bullshit, this wouldn’t be near the top of my list. “Kill the bill,” now THAT was some stupid shit.
Another Halocene Human
@FlipYrWhig: Yeah, I gotta agree. I was scared of Palin for a while because she seemed to be a fairly successful “compassionate conservative” bullshit machine (goobernator! also! too!). I’m pretty sure the internet dished up a video of her going on about abortion or gays at her Assemblies of God church within a day of her being tapped for VP, so, really, the Katie “Affable Eva Braun” Couric ambush journalism takedown of La Palin by asking what newspapers she reads, surely a softball every Srs Politico/a has had rehearsed for eons, was loads of delicious Schadenfreude. Evil AND stupid?! YES! MY DOG, YES!
Another Halocene Human
@FlipYrWhig: She’s looking forward to both parties having to woo the female vote, because it means Democrats will have to hone their own message to keep one step ahead of the Republican effort.
As a female-bodied person of the queer persuasion I didn’t take it as fighting over the women’s vote (although plenty of Villagers did, for sure). I took it as tone-deaf pandering and quite frankly, a massive insult. Either her political views or her rank stupidity ALONE would have been an insult. Apparently GOP men think all women are as dumb as Lou Sarah? Apparently.
And she was incredibly dumb. That was glaringly obvious from the get-go. It didn’t help that her righteous pig-ignorant SC Teen Beauty Queen elocution was giving me Dubya 2000 flashbacks.
Another Halocene Human
Hah, maybe I mean “evil and inept”. I mean, it’s one thing to be stupid; being a complete fail machine is something else entirely.
I have no idea of W or Lou Sarah is the dumber of the two, but Sister Sarah is by far the lazier. Her deer in the headlights when asked about the Bush Doctrine was classic. At least Shrub knew what his party’s planks were and could defend them with his folksy charm and heinous smirks.
Of course, he did get PWNED* by an audience member in one of the town hall debates. Couldn’t understand why anyone voted for him. Pack. It. In. And that STILL doesn’t match Palin’s epic fail of botching a friendly interview.
*-and by pwned I of course mean caught in a lie
FlipYrWhig
@Another Halocene Human: I think it was also all of that. But I’m mostly just trying to get inside the head of the Hamsher passage. And there is a logic to it. It’s just that the logic was massively outweighed by the ridiculousness of the messenger for it, Sarah Palin. But “not recognizing the ridiculousness of Sarah Palin quickly enough” isn’t for me very high on the list of dumb things Jane Hamsher has done.
RalfW
@VOR:
Interestingly, Pawlenty would probably fit in Nutella’s intriguing theory right above VOR’s comment. T-paw would be willing to be subservient, I’m pretty sure.
He’s remarkably milqtoast and at the same time Romney-esque in his desire to please his betters.