The number that matters to her is in here, from PPP's crosstabs (PDF):
The number that's important to her is 78% -- the percentage of conservatives who think the press treats her unfairly. That's her ace in the hole. As long as that number is extremely high, she believes (correctly, I think) that she has a shot at the GOP presidential nomination -- that number means that a large bloc of voters see her as a martyr crucified on a liberal cross (and think voting for her is the best way possible to piss liberals off).
More than 3 in 4 conservatives agree that Sarah Palin is treated unfairly, and that's something she has masterfully cultivated for more than two years now. It's doubly effective: she represents the constant victimization mentality of the Tea Party right, and all her personal foibles and failures she can lay at the feet of the unfair media.
Sarah Palin's performance in the last week was 100% aggrieved martyr, and while it may have turned off the left and much of the center, she doesn't care about them, nor does she need them until she wraps up the nomination. She's playing Peoria to Peoria.
More than anyone else with 2012 aspirations, Sarah Palin understood the lesson of 2008: there's no way a moderate Republican will ever make it past primary season. The attacks from David Frum and Newt Gingrich and the like are coming from people who simply don't understand what the 2012 GOP Presidential primary is going to be like.
The only survivor in this crucible will be the person who can forge their own reality the best. Far and away that person is Sarah Palin. Logic doesn't matter. Issues don't matter. Her positions don't matter. All she has to do is keep playing the martyr and blame the media and she'll schlep her way right into the nomination and very possibly the White House.
The closer she gets, the more she'll be attacked from both the left and the right, and the more she'll wave the victim flag. That's what she wants, and that's what makes her exceedingly dangerous. More and more moderates and even some Democrats will defect towards her if she gets the nomination.
If the economy is as bad as I think it will be in 2012, she has an honest chance of winning the whole ball of wax. The only reason we're not calling her Vice-President right now is McCain blew it with his infamous "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" speech in September 2008 when the Dow was dropping 350 points and lost the election. Palin nearly won it for him.
Do not count out Sister Sarah of the Village Stigmata. That martyr factor is her ticket in and she damn well knows it.
Posts
21 comments:
Sarah Palin's performance in the last week was 100% aggrieved martyr,...
You forgot to add this to that part of the sentence:
"...after we on the left slandered her for over a week,..."
That's better.
In the spirit of Clinton's 'teflon president' moniker, I propose 'cast-iron queen' for Palin. However, unlike teflon, cast-iron's nonstick qualities are the result of a patina of carbonized detritus from past events.
Just forget about putting her in the dishwasher.
On topic - 78% isn't enough, though. Not even 100% would be. Look at those 84% and 64% numbers. She'll never get enough of those votes to do anything but serve as a spoiler. Which is where my money is.
"...after we on the left slandered her for over a week,..."
The right has slandered Barack Obama for two years -- three, really. I didn't see him in Tucson whining, "WAAHHHH! What about my feelings!?"
Well, if she wants to be Christine O'Donnell on a national stage, it's possible that she'll get her wish. But as for having a shot at winning the general election, things would have to be so bad for that to happen that there wouldn't be much of a country left for her to mismanage, in my opinion.
I think Palin really blew it over the Tucson thing. You're right to note that she generally needs only to play to the base before the GOP primary; that's usually the case. However, fairly or not,* the shooting did focus national attention on her, and people other than the base were watching.
Palin bungled it badly. That's what comes of surrounding oneself with sycophants.
*It was 100% fair, in my opinion, to question whether or not Palin's rhetoric and campaign imagery played a role in the shooting for this simple reason: The primary target of the assassination attempt herself called Palin out on TV for the violent imagery and language months before she was shot.
Palin and her wingnut media enablers conveniently omit this fact when talking about her persecution. And because some of the condemnation from the left really was over the top, they might have succeeded in glossing it over if Palin hadn't released her disastrous, pity-party of a video.
Steve M.:
The right has slandered Barack Obama for two years -- three, really.
Not relevant to the tragedy in Tuscon.
I didn't see him in Tucson whining, "WAAHHHH! What about my feelings!?"
He wasn't accused by the right of being an accessory to murder, was he? No, he wasn't. Hell, you all can't even be honest about doing that to Sarah Palin, just as Zandar had done and Betty Cracker did in her most recent comment, cloaking it in such language as if you're really just asking a "question"; you aren't, you accused her of a crime.
Betty Cracker:
*It was 100% fair, in my opinion, to question whether or not Palin's rhetoric and campaign imagery played a role in the shooting for this simple reason: The primary target of the assassination attempt herself called Palin out on TV for the violent imagery and language months before she was shot.
Another moron from the "I'll never let the facts get in the way of the narrative" cesspool.
SteveAR, first of all, let me respond in kind with a hearty fuck you, you blithering idiot.
Now that we've got the niceties out of the way, I'll point out that it is YOU who aren't letting facts get in the way of your narrative.
Gabby Giffords went on TV in March and expressed alarm about the elevation of violent rhetoric and gun sights Palin depicted over her district. This is an independently verifiable fact.
Gabby Giffords was subsequently shot in the head. This is also an independently verifiable fact.
Now, was it proper for people to leap from that to "It must have been a deranged Palinite who shot Giffords"? No, and I said as much in my comment above. But it was inevitable -- and I would argue proper -- for the media to examine the effects of violent rhetoric and imagery in the aftermath of the shooting since the victim herself (hint: not Palin) brought it into the conversation.
If you disagree, you have a choice: You can explain why previous warnings of the victim herself (again, NOT Palin, Giffords) should have been barred from the discussion. Or you could call us a bunch of LIEbrul poopy heads as usual. Whatever.
'Another moron from the "I'll never let the facts get in the way of the narrative" cesspool.'
I'm wondering how SteveAR managed to type that sentence without his computer reaching up and slapping his face and screaming, "You're projecting, asshole! Stop using me to tell the deepest truths about yourself, disguised as insults to your intellectual and moral superiors!"
If you disagree, you have a choice: You can explain why previous warnings of the victim herself (again, NOT Palin, Giffords) should have been barred from the discussion.
Because those "facts" you mentioned are immaterial and irrelevant. You accused Palin of a crime, and you need evidence; what you presented is wouldn't even be considered as hearsay. We know this because we know who the shooter is, the apolitical Jared Loughner, someone who is either insane or just an evil person. We know for a fact he stalked Giffords beginning in 2007, before Sarah Palin was even known to anyone outside of Alaska, and long before there was a Tea Party. We have evidence about Loughner from those who knew him about what he was like.
RFK, Jr. recently wrote a piece in HuffPo to exploit the Tuscon tragedy and JFK's murder by blaming the right for his uncle's assassination in 1963. The only problem is that in his piece, RFK, Jr. left out the name of the assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald was in no way affiliated with the right. But that wasn't going to stop RFK, Jr. from his slander.
Like RFK, Jr., you completely left out the name of the Tuscon killer, Jared Loughner. Apparently, facts and evidence aren't enough to stop the "LIEbrul poopy heads" to commit their slanders against Palin or conservatives, either.
Once again, SteveAR, you ignore the facts and put words in your opponents' mouths (I think Allan is onto something with this "projection" thing).
I never accused Palin of a crime. I even said it was inappropriate for anyone to hold her directly responsible for the actions of a deranged individual. (This is the 3rd time I've said so in this single thread.)
What I did say was that, since the victim herself had specifically expressed alarm at the escalation of violent rhetoric and imagery, it was 100% natural and appropriate to discuss whether or not that violent rhetoric and imagery could have been a contributing factor.
My point is, it's not like the media pulled this out of their ass -- here was this clip on TV of Giffords specifically mentioning Palin's ad. Here was this addled woman named Sharron Angle yapping about "2nd Amendment solutions" during a senate campaign. Here were these assault weapon-toting goons showing up at political rallies in a country with a long, sad history of political violence. Of course it came up!
Also, please note that wondering whether or not something is a "contributing factor" does not equal "murder accusation." This point seems to elude Palin's defenders, who seem to be insisting that we exclude from consideration any outside effects on the shooter's diseased mind -- not just in a court of law, but in general discussion of a tragic event.
This is somewhat odd since these tend to be the very people who have been telling us for 40 years or so that Hollywood licentiousness, the ejection of religion from the public square, etc., have put this country in a hand-basket bound directly for hell.
As for RFK, Jr., take it up with him. He doesn't speak for me.
Palin is a symbol of the low quality adult that infests this era. Grift and blabber to cater to an utterly insecure segment of the population that lives more in a cartoon world than reality and have abusive drunk type personalities.
I never accused Palin of a crime. I even said it was inappropriate for anyone to hold her directly responsible for the actions of a deranged individual.
In other words, you're a hypocrite. You hold Palin indirectly "responsible for the crimes of a deranged individual" (which would make her a party to the crime), but are upset that you got caught making a false accusation and are upset that you are accused of making a false accusation. So, you keep trying to weasel your way out of it. Not gonna happen.
Also, please note that wondering whether or not something is a "contributing factor" does not equal "murder accusation." This point seems to elude Palin's defenders, who seem to be insisting that we exclude from consideration any outside effects on the shooter's diseased mind -- not just in a court of law, but in general discussion of a tragic event.
You're point hasn't eluded Palin's defenders at all. You keep targeting (and that is the right word) the wrong things; e.g., conservatives, Palin, guns. And yet, you ignore the obvious, the shooter's diseased mind. There is plenty to discuss about how those like Loughner can be somehow forced to get medical help before turning dangerous to minimize another like him from being able to get a gun and committing similar horrific crimes. But that has been completely lacking from the left. Instead, you stick to the "narrative" of the left: the right is bad, guns are bad, harsh political speech from the right is bad, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Odd then that whenever one of these shootings happens, we hear the same thing from conservatives: "It's unfortunate that this single person caused this tragedy, they were clearly crazy and not representative of gun owners at all, in fact if we expanded the number of guns in the country this would happen a lot less because madmen would never go on a rampage against a visibly armed population."
No narrative here. And it's always "let's have more guns."
What's "odd" is that after decades of federal gun laws failing to protect people that anyone would think more anti-gun laws would stop criminals from getting guns and killing people.
"In other words, you're a hypocrite. You hold Palin indirectly "responsible for the crimes of a deranged individual" (which would make her a party to the crime)..."
SteveAR, your reading comprehension skills seem to be breaking down in at least two places that I can identify. Maybe I can help.
First, there is a difference between "contributing factors" and "accessories to criminal acts." Let's leave aside the legal definitions and forget about whether or not Loughner had ever heard of Palin for a moment and focus instead on the difference between "contributing factors" and "accessories to criminal acts."
Here's an analogy: Say I left my car unlocked with a loaded assault weapon stashed in the backseat. Let's further stipulate that I am legally entitled to store the gun in my car and not required by law to lock my car.
With me so far? Good. Okay, some asshole breaks into my car, steals my gun and commits a crime.
Am I responsible for the asshole's crime? No. Would it be fair for the criminal's victims -- or anyone else for that matter -- to criticize me for leaving a loaded gun in an unlocked car? I say yes.
Okay, now onto to reading comprehension breakdown number 2:
"...but you are upset that you got caught making a false accusation and are upset that you are accused of making a false accusation.
I'm not upset. Period. And I haven't made any false accusations. I've expressed an opinion -- that it's appropriate to discuss whether or not an escalation of violent imagery and rhetoric was a contributing factor in a mass murder. Please note that I haven't even said definitively that it WAS a contributing factor, just that the DISCUSSION is appropriate.
The fact is, we don't know what was going on in Loughner's squirrely brain. You've concluded that he was unaffected by any of the political hullabaloo surrounding him, which I think is just as ill-advised as making a direct connection to Palin without all the facts. Because we don't know all the facts.
So, you keep trying to weasel your way out of it. Not gonna happen.
How is spending my valuable time attempting to reason with someone who started off the conversation by calling me a "moron" trying to weasel out of it? I've been pretty fair and courteous, under the circumstances, and have made an honest attempt to address the points you've raised. Which is more than I can say for you.
What's odd is that after complaining about federal gun laws that don't let your average Joe McRedneck have military-grade hardware that removing those laws would scare your average criminal from getting military-grade hardware and killing people with THAT.
But hey, I'm just one of those filthy, gun-hatin' commie traitors.
I second Betty's post. I also want to add that there are NO circumstances where the right will accept blame when someone takes their conspiracy theories as reality. Loughner is a mixed case, and he seems to have borrowed from both sides, though I would mention that he'd have to burrow pretty deep to find trutherism anymore or lefty diatribes against currency or anti-government - not so much with folks like Alex Jones and Glenn Beck buggering up the media with weird theories that make no sense.
But look at more clear cut cases, like Byron Williams or Adkisson, people who have directly stated that were inspired by Fox and their celebs. Did they dial it back? No, they did the same thing they did in this case. 'We're not responsible if some nut bar takes my words out of context'. And maybe so, but when you consistently suggest that one party is a bunch of traitorous deviants on a consistent basis for as long as Fox and talk radio has, you cannot be surprised when some people take you on your word.
It makes no sense to be told of 'the impending tyranny of Obama's one world government' and just cluck your tongue and vote someone into office in 2 years. If you really believed that you will be under some yoke any day now, you would not rely on voting to solve your problem. IF! you really believed it.
But they don't. How can they? How can they say that Obama is a dangerous Muslim leading us towards sharia, when they have no evidence? They bleat about communism, and fascism and tyranny, and at the end of the day, it's just words they made up, to rile people who mostly know better, in the hope that they'll vote GOP in the next election. And so it goes, and so it goes.
And when a crazy person listens and pulls a trigger or blows something up, it's not their fault, just like a single cigarette can't be proven to cause cancer. And they will continue to harp on about secession and revolt and wear tri-corner hats to give their tirade the patina of patriotism. And if we call them on it, we're the ones being mean.
It's going to be a long and crazy 2 years.
Here's an analogy:...
Look at the analogy you provide. It's not based on what happened in Tuscon. A more appropriate analogy for the Tuscon murders would be as follows: you leave a loaded gun in your car; a criminal uses a loaded gun to commit a crime, but did not use your gun (which means the criminal didn't steal it). Are you responsible for the crime? No. Is it fair for the victim to criticize you for contributing to the crime, even though your gun wasn't used? No. Palin's "targeted list" is the same as the loaded gun in your car that wasn't used in the crime. This is based on the facts that show Loughner was not political although he hated George W. Bush, was not a Tea Party member, did not watch cable news, did not vote in the last election, neither opposed or supported Palin, none of that.
These are facts that you should know because they've been out there for a week. Instead, continue to make statements like this:
First, there is a difference between "contributing factors" and "accessories to criminal acts."
Give me a break. From minutes after the shooting, the left has tried to tie Loughner with Palin, the Tea Party, conservatives, and so on (like Zandar did) before anything was known. Even as the facts about Loughner have come out, facts I stated above, you all have doubled down on keeping with the narrative. You are trying to say conservatives were accessories to murder, no matter how much you want to dress it up.
So if you want to keep up with your "narrative", allow me to introduce one. Read this. These are the consequences for those who support Roe v. Wade. Congratulations.
It's really sweet of SteveAR to keep trying to rescue his masturbatory fantasy girlfriend from her eventual lethal injection for the murder of a federal Judge, but sadly, Sarah herself explicitly endorsed the theory that irresponsible and inflammatory statements in the media could inspire someone to commit a violent act against the target of that vitriol.
Quoting Queen Esther herself:
"But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47478.html#ixzz1BWDaVJd5
Q.E.D.
SteveAR, I'm forced to conclude you're either being willfully obtuse or are too dim to grasp the point.
In setting up my analogy, I made it CRYSTAL clear that I was not trying to directly compare the situation in Tucson to my example but was instead trying to illustrate the difference between "contributing factors" and "accessories to murder" -- a difference you've attempted to obfuscate ever since the discussion began, for example when you said (addressing me), "You accused Palin of a crime," something I have not done.
There is a difference between those two concepts, SteveAR, and if you can't wrap your mind around it -- even using hypotheticals unrelated to the Tucson incident -- then perhaps you could ask a brighter friend to explain it to you.
As for the facts that have come out about the shooter, I already addressed that repeatedly, and the bottom line is this: It looks like this guy was a deranged nutbag, but nobody really knows what affected his thinking.
Therefore, it's just as dumb for you to jump to the conclusion that Loughner was wholly unaffected by the amped-up crazy surrounding our politics for the last couple of years as it was for others to conclude that Palin's relentless gun-humping MUST have been a factor. We just don't know.
As for your link, I think Allan nailed it: Congratulations, blood libeler! BTW, you have no idea what my views on Roe v Wade are, so it's doubly dumb for you to attempt to use that as a rhetorical flourish.
In setting up my analogy, I made it CRYSTAL clear that I was not trying to directly compare the situation in Tucson to my example but was instead trying to illustrate the difference between "contributing factors" and "accessories to murder" -- a difference you've attempted to obfuscate ever since the discussion began, for example when you said (addressing me), "You accused Palin of a crime," something I have not done.
Yes, you did. As Zandar said here, "Feeling guilty, are we?" Are you?
As for your link, I think Allan nailed it: Congratulations, blood libeler!
Allan is an idiot. I'm a blood libeler? To whom? People who think killing innocent humans in the womb as a form of birth control is a right? Look at the tens of millions who have died for this "right". Zandar himself whined about how there are all these restrictions being placed on abortions. Well, here is an example of what happens when it's unrestricted and unregulated.
That part of my comment wasn't meant to be directed at you since I don't know if you support Roe or not. It was to be directed at those who do support it.
SteveAR, you are either a bald-faced liar, a moron or both. I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to discuss something with you. I should have just left it at "fuck you."
Post a Comment