CNN: “Why Palin may be ready to jump in”

All I can say is, “JUMP! PLEASE JUMP!”

Of course, we may have to endure many cringe-fill moments. And repetitions of the all too obvious criticisms of her. Indeed, our decision in January to go along with the idea of a Palin-free February probably relieved a number of people, and it certainly meant fewer teeth-nashings were reported. And I don’t think I really could sit through a debate between her and Obama. Still, convervative politicians will see vividly the ideas they have encouraged in the US and may actually learn they don’t have a mandate to remark the country in the Tea Party’s image.

More seriously, the Republicans seem to be figuring out that getting rid of entitlement programs is going to be a hard sell. With Palin as candidate they may see that the fracturing they are doing is leaving them with a smaller share.

And if she gets elected, there’s always Canada! :)

14 thoughts on “CNN: “Why Palin may be ready to jump in”

  1. My original prediction was that Palin was using the attention to get a sack o’ money. I’m sticking with it. Bachmann has usurped her niche in the Republican Party and she needs to get it back for one last cash grab.

  2. I’m with Matt. If FOX News hasn’t fired her yet, they certainly aren’t taking her seriously as a presidential candidate. Which, come to think of it, is the first time FOX News and I have ever seen eye to eye.

  3. Oh, I’d love to see Palin go tete a tete with Obama or Jack Layton. That would be as comical as Kirk Cameron and Hawking. Or Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny :-D

    Absolutely no way no how could that woman have a political career up here. Anti-choice, pro-gun and anti-health care, anti-immigrant? She’d be finished before she even got started. Don’t even get me started on what our Beloved Moose Activists would do to her. Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas could and likely would come up with a don’t-be-cruel-to-moose skit involving shoving Palin into a beer bottle to get free beer for thirsty moose. They could call it “Hey Bro, I Shrunk the Crazy Teabagger”.

  4. Man, I must do something about that walleye of mine. If she DOES–not DOESN’T–get elected, there’s always Canada. Of course y’all are welcome here if the lunatics take over your country. As long as you’re liberals, the more the merrier. Just be nice to our moose and watch out for our killer beer :-)

  5. I think that if Palin gets elected, i might go to Belgium and drinks lots of over the top killer brews. E.g., die in a bath of duvel.

    I am far from sure we can attribute set intentions to Palin. But even she’s jjust a candidate for the nomination, we can hope for a lot of damage. She’s a walking dilemma: if you are for her, you lose most of the country; if you are against her you lose the tea party, which will come after you. In either case, Repub politicians lose.

  6. Yeah, that’s exactly how our liberals stayed in power for most of our country’s history. The Obama Administration, and the Clintons before them have taken cues from our politicians on some issues. They’d be wise to remember how the Chretien and Martin Liberals stepped over our fractured right to keep winning elections through the nineties and into the millenium.

    Like I said, more fun than Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny ;-)

  7. As someone who is living in a Wisconsin, where the Tea Party has taken over the three branches of Government, I don’t find Palin’s run humorous. I find it toxic, and part of degeneration of the political process. I also find it puzzling how a blog dedicated to Feminist Philosophy with many entries about implicit bias would turn around and mockingly applaud a person who has been so divisive and harmful to women. The consequences of this are felt in many families…my mother barely speaks to me because of her avid support of Palin, and my belief that the Tea Party is making the U.S. even less humane.

  8. Sheri, I’m sorry but I’m not getting the problem you see. Encouraging her (in fact non- ironicaaly) to enter the race for the Rep candidacy so that the Reps in effect get trapped by their own destructive actions and rhetoric seems at least consistent withthe feminist principles the site endorses.

    I’m thinking something about the way I put it didn’t convey what I wanted to.

    I am very sorry to hear of your problems with relatives. I’ve totally given up with my family, many neighbors, etc.

  9. JJ
    Thanks for your response. One way of looking at it is exactly as you say that is having republicans trapped by their own illogical arguments. Another way of looking at it is that Palin’s extremes makes others look less extreme, and as a result has moved the center to the right. This might be okay, if there were anyone on the left to compete in the media space with Palin, Fox News, etc. Rachel Maddow is not as far to the left as Palin is to the right. Michael Moore is closer, but he rarely gets any mainstream press. So while it may be fun to pick apart Palin’s lack of arguments for any of her positions. She is taking up valuable media space. Moreover, some of the coverage of Palin and Christine O’Donnell is sexist. Ron Johnson (Wisconsin’s Tea Party Senator) espoused the same idiotic ideas as O’Donnell but did not get the press coverage. No one remarked about reports of his pubic hair (where there was a expose on O’Donnell’s) That it was somehow okay to do so, I think points to a double standard, and something I as a feminist want to criticise, even if I think that O’Donnell was unqualified to be a senator. I guess, I’m writing all of this to say, that the sport of politics has causalities.

  10. Not so jokingly, I have taken to looking at ads for houses in Canada.

    I just do not know what is going on in this country. I certainly hope that Palin (and/or Bachmann) on the GOP ticket would mean the end of their right wing nuttery.

  11. This sounds bad, but if the public wouldn’t vote for Hilary, they’re certainly not going to vote for Palin, no matter how many reality TV shows she has.

    The American public simply isn’t ready for a woman to run the country.

  12. I find little reason to believe that the public would not vote for a woman. Hillary Clinton didn’t lost because she’s a woman. She lost because Obama had superior rhetoric (he wasn’t as saddled by Iraq, Hillary engaged in too much Iran warmongering, Obama was the much more plausible “change” candidate in a change election) and superior organizing in the early caucus and primary states.

  13. While on the topic, it seemed to me at the time that the most interesting gender issue in the Clinton/Obama primary was: did Hillary Clinton engage in all that Iran warmongering because she was worried that the public would perceive her as “weak” if she took an anti-war stance?

Comments are closed.