Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Feedback for Jimmie, too

by Smitty

I was just questioning the near-term focus of Power Line. Turning attention to Jimmie at the Sundries Shack,
Barnes aimed at the wrong target entirely. Instead of counting out Palin because of her perceived shortcomings, he should have been targeting the Republican Party establishment for running so many boring nominees.
Boring, or too Progressive?
The GOP has been very lucky since Ronald Reagan but, as Barack Obama proved, luck only lasts until the other guys find your weak point.
I don't think luck exists, in an existential sense, or is politically relevant. You can argue that, tactically, the GOP had to run Bushes to win the White House. But I'd argue this has to do with having ceded the ground to the Progressives. Lack of Constitutional grounding did that to the GOP in a strategic sense.
The simple truth is that people don’t want experience and know-how nearly as much as they want someone who inspires them and demonstrates enough charisma to catch and hold people’s attention.
I don't dispute the realpolitik of this, but there has to be an educational commitment on all our part if there's ever to be improvement past that nitwit (troll?) commenter Anna on your thread.
Sarah Palin does both of those things, which is why I think it’s extremely foolish for conservative pundits and the Republican Party to slam the door on her now.
If those pundits are preferring a Progressive GOP candidate (say, Romney) to keep their sorry butts employed, then their moves are completely rational.
J.R.Dunn comes to the same conclusion, except that he doesn’t see the GOP getting the point until after 2012. He thinks Sarah could very well be ready by then, but the party will not be even close to ready for her.
Hey, you know, up the GOP. They've been saying toe-may-toe to the Democrats toe-mah-toe for so long that we're now enjoying the Obama Administration. Doom on us.
I really don't care who represents the traditional, Constitutional bent of American politics expressed in the Tea Party movement. The Tea Parties, overall, may be slightly pale, but that, too, is a function of needing to educate the rest of the spectrum of peoples in this great country as to what it's all about. And it's absolutely not about failed Euro-socialism.
I hope that this has not been a Helpy Helperperson post.

The Vodkapundit's Hair of the Dog segment mostly summarizes Sarah Palin on the Sunday talking head shows, generally to negative effect. However, juxtaposing Mike Mullen and George C. Scott's Patton is worth a "heh."


  1. Very well written, Smitty. I find myself in a dilemma -- I agree with Jimmie at Sundries Shack so much I nearly got whiplash nodding but you raise salient points.

    Smitty, the "committed" will gnaw over the "Federalist" position of this or that candidate and will consider other factors to make what they hope is a responsible decision. These "committed" will most likely vote, even in the primaries. But whether we like it or not, we are not going to change the electorate en masse and a party needs candidates that can both satisfy platform purists and those with a somewhat shorter attention span. We must excite those that need exciting. Maybe that is not the ideal but that's what we face. Whatever Palin lacks in purity she clearly makes up in charisma -- she draws crowds and donors, both very important things. Elections have consequences -- no greater example can be had than what we have transpiring before our eyes -- and being "correct" but relegated to the back benches doesn't accomplish much of anything ("told you so" is a sad form of victory).

    I do not know how well Palin will fare in a POTUS race. She won handily in Alaska but that is hardly a litmus test for any other office outside of Alaska. Perhaps Palin will "excite" but wind up disappointing people like me who want perfection but will accept a close approximation. But how will anyone find out about Palin if she's flushed before she even gets out of the gate? It seems to me there is a strange chorus of a few on the right who want Palin out before she even gets a warm up. Why is that? It does make one wonder.

  2. It seems to me there is a strange chorus of a few on the right who want Palin out before she even gets a warm up. Why is that? It does make one wonder.
    I think they're overtly Progressive, or passively centrist enough not to know/care about the current danger besetting these States United.
    Pay attention to foreign policy with respect to Iran and Honduras. There's a message written between those words, and I fear it's not a positive one.

  3. Considering that the Democrats consistently run "progressive" candidates, if the GOP does the same, those candidates will be seen as boring. So in this context they are prretty much identical terms.

  4. That's the thesis being pushed across my last half-dozen posts: the Progressives are _the_ party in the US, and the electoral scrimmages between Democratic and Republican candidates are mostly for entertainment value.
    But that's bordering on a troll, innit?