Home > Election 2012, General, US Politics > Scarborough tells Republicans to man up and confront Sarah Palin

Scarborough tells Republicans to man up and confront Sarah Palin

November 30th, 2010

Joe Scarborough is attempting the impossible dream–he is admonishing is fellow Republicans to man up and confront Sarah Palin.  Today, on Morning Joe, he desperately tried to get Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona to admit that Sarah Palin was simply not qualified to be president.  The good congressman talked around the question and Joe kept asking.  Shadegg  never would say it publicly.   Mika and Joe both insist that every Republican they talk to off set says Ms. Palin simply isn’t qualified.  However none will publicly state their opinion:


Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Here is what Joe Scarborough said in his opinion piece in Politico today:

Republicans have a problem. The most-talked-about figure in the GOP is a reality show star who cannot be elected. And yet the same leaders who fret that Sarah Palin could devastate their party in 2012 are too scared to say in public what they all complain about in private.

Scarborough outlines the problem until he begins to discuss  President George Herbert Walker Bush.  Then Scarborough takes on a more personal tone:

Palin was perturbed that a former president and his wife would dare to answer a question about whom they preferred for president in 2012. Perhaps her anger was understandable. After all, these disconnected “blue bloods” had nothing in their backgrounds that could ever make them understand “real America” like a former governor from Alaska who quit in the middle of her first term and then got rich.

Maybe Richards and Palinwere right. Maybe poor George Herbert Walker Bush was born witha silver spoon in his mouth. Indeed, he was so pampered growing up that on his 18th birthday, the young high school graduate enlisted in the armed forces. This spoiled teenager somehow managed to be the youngest pilot in the Navy when he received his wings, flying 58 combat missions over the Pacific during World War II. On Sept. 2, 1944, “Blue Blood” Bush almost lost his life after being shot down by Japanese anti-aircraft fire.

With his engine shattered and his plane on fire, Bush still refused to turn back, completing his mission by scoring several damaging hits on enemy targets. His plane crashed in the Pacific, where he waited for four hours in enemy waters until he was finally rescued. For his bravery and service to this country, Bush was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, three air medals and the Presidential Unit Citation for bravery while in combat.

What a spoiled brat.

I suppose Palin’s harsh dismissal of this great man is more understandable after one reads her biography and realizes that, like Bush, she accomplished a great deal in her early 20s. Who wouldn’t agree that finishing third in the Miss Alaska beauty contest is every bit as treacherous as risking your life in military combat? Maybe the beauty contestant who would one day be a reality star and former governor didn’t win the Distinguished Flying Cross, but the half-termer was selected as Miss Congeniality by her fellow contestants.

And now a point of personal privilege. I work hard every day to assume the best of Americans who engage in public service. But I am offended by Palin’s attempt to build herself up by tearing down great men like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Palin is not a stupid woman. But like the current president, she still does not know what she does not know. And she does know how to make millions of dollars, even if she embarrasses herself while doing it.

That reality hardly makes Palin unique, but this is one Republican who would prefer that the former half-term governor promote her reality shows and hawk her books without demeaning the reputations of Presidents Reagan and Bush. These great men dedicated their lives to public service and are too good to be fodder for her gaudy circus sideshow.

If Republicans want to embrace Palin as a cultural icon whose anti-intellectualism fulfills a base political need, then have at it. I suppose it’s cheaper than therapy.

But if the party of Ronald Reagan, Paul Ryan and Marco Rubiowants to return to the White House anytime soon, it’s time that Republican leaders started standing up and speaking the truth to Palin.


 It appears that it’s the “in thing” to bash the Old Guard of the GOP.  Corey Stewart did it early in the week.  His remarks will not go unpunished.  Neither will Sarah Palin’s.  Regardless of how Tea Party and against the establishment in Washington these 2 upstarts want to get, there is just something about honoring those who have paved the way.  Dissing Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush or even George Allen isn’t the ticket to ride to higher office.  It is political naivete on a scale that simply disqualifies these 2 for public office. 

Good for Joe Scarborough for saying what needed to be said.  His opinion piece can be read in full at Politico.com.

  1. November 30th, 2010 at 23:51 | #1

    I’m sooooooo gonna laugh if she wins the election. How about Joe manning up and confronting those Democrats that show up on his show about corruption and out of control spending? Oh. That’s right. He might lose his cushy job.

  2. December 1st, 2010 at 00:03 | #2

    I care more about my country than that. the only hope I would have is that she would quit.

    Tell me, which of her proposed policies makes you feel she would make a good president?

    Are you offended at what she said about Presidents Bush and Reagan?

    You obviously don’t watch Morning Joe.

    Cargo, have you ever given thought to the fact that you might be too partisan?

  3. December 1st, 2010 at 00:04 | #3

    Sigh, I guess the Reagans and Bushes are now Rinos.

  4. Wolverine
    December 1st, 2010 at 05:54 | #4

    If I am recalling correctly, Morning Joe quit in the middle of a House term — with an astoundingly unique reason that he wanted to spend more time with his family. Even had to have a special election in Florida to fill his vacated spot. He went back to lawyering for awhile but quit that job too. Just couldn’t resist those broadcast jobs so he could earn big bucks while sending his opinions out over the airwaves to a nation waiting for them with bated breath. He even wrote a book, by gosh. Damn, if that doesn’t sound familiar somehow!

  5. Emma
    December 1st, 2010 at 06:46 | #5

    @Wolverine Funny that the Morning Joe pot is calling the kettle……

  6. Need to Know
    December 1st, 2010 at 07:40 | #6

    What did Palin say to diss Ronald Reagan? I must have missed that. I’m with the Republicans who consider bad-mouthing Reagan an unforgiveable sin. I have a very high regard for George H.W. Bush also, and volunteered for both of their campaigns.

  7. December 1st, 2010 at 09:12 | #7

    Morning Joe isn’t running for president. He would probably be the last person to endorse himself to do so.

  8. December 1st, 2010 at 09:15 | #8

    I’m a fan of Reagan. But he wasn’t perfect. He did what he had to do during those times. He had to deal with an entrenched, partisan Democrat Congress on spending.

    Bush, Sr. is a good man. He’s your typical limousine Republican. His son is similar. They were as close to the center as one can get. Neither were small government conservatives.

    I did not hear Palin’s opinion on them. Don’t care what she says. They are gone.

    For one thing, pointing out that current policies are hurting the country when they ARE hurting the country IS doing something and its more than many of the current crop of elected Republicans are willing to do. Cantor has revealed his true colors AGAIN. Earlier he spoke about repeal of Obamac… Health Care Reform. Now, its all about saving parts and being bi-partisan.

    She also spoke out against monetizing the debt. From the pols…..(crickets chirping)……..

    “There is no shame in being the ‘party of no’ if the other side is proposing an idea that violates our values, violates our conscience, violates the Constitution,” is a quote that I can support.

    Is she less of a conservative than portrayed? Probably. But I was willing to vote for McCain. You fight the war with the army you have. And this IS a war. If she wins the primaries, IF she runs, I’ll vote for her. Unless the Democrats put up someone even more conservative.

    (Just heard on TV…Obama speaking, “The American public did NOT vote for partisanship. They DID NOT vote for gridlock.” BWHAHAHAHAHAHA! He is either clueless or so ful of bulls…uh, spin that he should be dizzy.) As PJ O’Rourke stated, “That wasn’t a vote on Nov. 2nd. That was a restraining order.)

  9. Elena
    December 1st, 2010 at 09:17 | #9

    You know what I find really interesting. When democrats are too liberal they are villifed for being out of the mainstream by republicans. Republicans get too conservative and they are likened to being the “common man”. Does that sound hypocritical to anyone else besided me? Sarah Palin is a one woman side show. Entertaining to watch but
    G-d help us if she actually was the most powerful person in the world. Sound bites and silly one liners do not create sound policy…..PERIOD!

  10. Cato the Elder
    December 1st, 2010 at 09:17 | #10

    Every last one of you is in here shooting the messenger. I’m not a fan of Morning Joe but he’s got a point: Palin is a vapid, small individual with the brain of an egg timer. Her record of governance (if it can be called that) is not that of a conservative as I’ve outlined in other threads. She’s not in the same league as a Daniels, Jindal, Rubio, Ryan, Christie etc. She’s not even in the same zip code.

    I don’t begrudge anyone their opinion, but do we really want another inexperienced, snide narcissistic figure in the White House?

    How well has that worked out over the past two years?

  11. December 1st, 2010 at 09:18 | #11


    He finished out a term from the ’94 election, 96. 98. and resigned 5 months into his 2000 term. And again, he wasn’t running for president.

  12. Elena
    December 1st, 2010 at 09:19 | #12

    So if this past election was a restraining order, what was it when the Democrats took back the house and senate in 2006? What was the overwhelming win of Obama in 2008 if not a mandate? What is the difference?

  13. Cato the Elder
    December 1st, 2010 at 09:20 | #13


    I hear ya about going to war with the army you have, but my wallet and spare time will be fully engaged to prevent her from winning the nomination.

  14. December 1st, 2010 at 09:24 | #14

    NTK, the Reagan dissing is in the Politico link to the opinion piece. Peggy Noonan also had a fit over it. http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2010/11/06/peggy-noonan-on-sarah-palin-and-ronald-reagan/

  15. December 1st, 2010 at 09:35 | #15

    Palin spoke out about monetizing the debt like a parrot, not because she had deep knowledge of the subject. She CAN read, after all. She offered no other reasons for her opinion. Yawn, empty dress…or make that fishing boots.

    I certainly am not a great defender of all Reagan and Bush policies. However, there is a certain amount of tradition we Americans go through and part of that tradition involves reverence for those who are deemed ‘Great Americans.’ Now…unless I have been reading a bunch of crap from faux Republicans for the past 30 years, most Republicans think that Ronald Reagan is pretty much their #1 man. He certainly has been the best thing that has happened to the party in a long time.

    As for Daddy Bush, good lord, he is a war hero. Have we now started dissing war heroes? Thanks to Joe Scarborough for reminding us of that spoiled young ‘blue blood’ who became a fighter pilot at age 18. He also said in recent years that the commissioning of the USS George H.W. Bush was one of his proudest moments in his life. Who can forget watching that entire ceremony.

    These upstarts, whether Palin or Stewart, need to show some respect for their elders and for the elders of their party.

  16. December 1st, 2010 at 09:39 | #16

    This past election just showed how fickle the American public is. Nothing more, nothing less. The only constant seems to be the phenomena of the mid-term election cycle.

    America remains pretty much divided down the middle. Some are more motivated to go out and vote than others, and presidential election years are always the elections that drag out the less than motivated. Those folks rarely show up at the polls in 2 years. It was all just a flash in the pan. So mandates? retraining orders? Not really. Just the old pendulum swinging.

  17. Elena
    December 1st, 2010 at 11:00 | #17

    Noonan says:

    “The point is not “He was a great man and you are a nincompoop,” though that is true. The point is that Reagan’s career is a guide, not only for the tea party but for all in politics. He brought his fully mature, fully seasoned self into politics with him. He wasn’t in search of a life when he ran for office, and he wasn’t in search of fame; he’d already lived a life, he was already well known, he’d accomplished things in the world.”

  18. Need to Know
    December 1st, 2010 at 11:17 | #18

    Moon – thanks for the link. Peggy Noonan’s comments are worth quoting here. I’ll let her speak for me about Palin.

    “Conservatives talked a lot about Ronald Reagan this year, but they have to take him more to heart, because his example here is a guide. All this seemed lost last week on Sarah Palin, who called him, on Fox, “an actor.” She was defending her form of political celebrity—reality show, “Dancing With the Stars,” etc. This is how she did it: “Wasn’t Ronald Reagan an actor? Wasn’t he in ‘Bedtime for Bonzo,’ Bozo, something? Ronald Reagan was an actor.”

    Excuse me, but this was ignorant even for Mrs. Palin. Reagan people quietly flipped their lids, but I’ll voice their consternation to make a larger point. Ronald Reagan was an artist who willed himself into leadership as president of a major American labor union (Screen Actors Guild, seven terms, 1947-59.) He led that union successfully through major upheavals (the Hollywood communist wars, labor-management struggles); discovered and honed his ability to speak persuasively by talking to workers on the line at General Electric for eight years; was elected to and completed two full terms as governor of California; challenged and almost unseated an incumbent president of his own party; and went on to popularize modern conservative political philosophy without the help of a conservative infrastructure. Then he was elected president.

    The point is not “He was a great man and you are a nincompoop,” though that is true. The point is that Reagan’s career is a guide, not only for the tea party but for all in politics. He brought his fully mature, fully seasoned self into politics with him. He wasn’t in search of a life when he ran for office, and he wasn’t in search of fame; he’d already lived a life, he was already well known, he’d accomplished things in the world.

    Here is an old tradition badly in need of return: You have to earn your way into politics. You should go have a life, build a string of accomplishments, then enter public service. And you need actual talent: You have to be able to bring people in and along. You can’t just bully them, you can’t just assert and taunt, you have to be able to persuade.

    Americans don’t want, as their representatives, people who seem empty or crazy. They’ll vote no on that.

    It’s not just the message, it’s the messenger.”

  19. hello
    December 1st, 2010 at 11:40 | #19

    “Just the old pendulum swinging.” – Ill agree with you there Moon but you do have to admit that it was one hell of a swing! :-)

    The biggest in anyone’s life time that reads this blog (that’s assuming your under the age of 70).

  20. December 1st, 2010 at 11:47 | #20

    The 2006 election was a notice to conservatives that they had better start living up to their own rhetoric. The 2008 election, for Congress, was the proof that conservatives will no longer support Republicans that take them for granted. McCain was the last straw. Also, after two GOP terms, it would have been almost impossible to elect a Republican. Obama’s candidacy was “historic” and a “chance for healing.” So many voted for him because, bluntly, he was black. When you combine those two conditions, McCain was doomed. He ran a brilliant campaign that promised everything and had no specifics. He was even honest about his intentions, but, since most Americans are completely ignorant about political theory, philosophy, or parties, they listened to how well he could read a speech, now what he actually said.

    I don’t think that the 2006 elections could be considered a mandate for anything since, only 38% of the eligible voters bothered. The 2008 election showed 57% of the eligible voters showed up to vote. Obama won 53% of that vote. However, the Democrats did not greatly increase their majority in 2008, at least, not as much as they expected.

    This election was also a historic happening for the GOP. Not only did they gain a huge amount in the House, they swept the state elections, too. Now, they had better deliver.

    Palin’s attraction is that she comes across as a fighter and and anti-DC politician. No other Republican other than DeMint is fighting for a smaller government. What we conservatives see is that many of those that oppose Palin as a candidate because she’s “so unqualified” even as a VP, voted for this incompetent that currently in the White House. Heck, he’s worse than incompetent. At least an incompetent isn’t INTENTIONALLY trying to ruin America.

  21. December 1st, 2010 at 12:46 | #21

    “Americans don’t want, as their representatives, people who seem empty or crazy. They’ll vote no on that.”

    Really? Have you looked at Congress during the last…oh, 30 years?

    Maxine Waters? Grayson? Tancredo? Ron Paul (at times)? Apparently the voters don’t mind corrupt ones though.

  22. December 1st, 2010 at 13:16 | #22


    I am under 70 and I believe I have seen bigger. It depends on what you mean by swing. You should have been around when the Nixon administration finally turned over.

    We are speaking of lower house of congress.

  23. December 1st, 2010 at 13:22 | #23

    Cargo, you talk like uber conservative Republicans are the only game in town. They aren’t. I know plenty of moderate Republicans. In addition, there are a whole bunch of moderate Democrats out there who simply cannot stand the social issues that have been shoved down the Republican Party’s throat.

    Many of us, and there are lots of us, would lean left rather than buy into the social bull crap that goes with the R’s. It is easier to drag the left towards center than it is to deal with the anti everything. There are many of us who are repulsed by the God, Guns and Guts family values set.

  24. December 1st, 2010 at 13:24 | #24

    Smaller government will get em every time. Close the borders. Protect us from terrorism. Do something about the N. Koreans. Fix our highways. Produce flu vaccines.

    Its all rhetoric.

    I hear ya.

  25. marinm
    December 1st, 2010 at 14:15 | #25

    I guess I don’t see the point to this thread.

    Let the -R’s figure out who they want to run based on their primary and that person will challange Mr. Obama. It’s in the best interest of the -Ds that the -R’s field an unwinnable ticket so IF that happens to be Ms. Palin and IF she’s unwinable — what difference does that make it to the -D’s other than y’all will win?

    I guess I see this as a conversation from another parent trying to tell me how to raise my kid. Wrong or right let me do it my way.

    If Ms. Palin gets the nod I will vote for her. If Romney gets it I’ll sit home, vote D (haha), or write in Mickey Mouse.

    I would think that the left would WANT her to run so that she could lose.. The pure FEAR people on the left for Ms. Palin takes me by surprise.

  26. Elena
    December 1st, 2010 at 15:27 | #26

    If I used your theory, than democrats should do what republicans did and become tea partiers, forcing out the moderates.

  27. Elena
    December 1st, 2010 at 15:31 | #27

    “demorat” tea partiers as a clarification.

  28. December 1st, 2010 at 16:45 | #28

    Marin, the point is to stimulate conversation. We have been dealing with political wannabes who think the road to election success is by trashing those who are fairly revered in the GOP. I don’t consider #28 comments too shabby.

    A blogmistress/meister’s goal is to get people talking, especially a mixed blog like this one. My feeling is that if we are talking, we eventually will find common ground. If people find common ground, life wont be so do or die.

    Look at some of our common ground we have inadvertently discovered.

  29. December 1st, 2010 at 17:16 | #29

    Actually, the Democrats need some Tea Partiers as the traditional Democrat party has been hijacked by the political philosophy known as Progressivism. And the Democrats HAVE forced out the moderates or force them to vote party lines. Conservative Democrats are becoming fewer and fewer.

    “Many of us, and there are lots of us, would lean left rather than buy into the social bull crap that goes with the R’s. It is easier to drag the left towards center than it is to deal with the anti everything. There are many of us who are repulsed by the God, Guns and Guts family values set.”

    Many of US would rather lean right than buy into the social bull crap that much of the Dems spout. Sorry that you are repulsed by the ideals under the mantra of God, Guns, and Guts.
    If it was easier to drag the left towards the center, then why have the Democrats become more leftist in the last 20 years?
    What “anti-everything” would that be? The only thing that the GOP has in its platform that you find objectionable, from what I can tell, is that it pro-life or for you, anti-abortion at will.
    You are pro-military, apparently pro-2nd Amendment, pro-financial thrift…

    The TEA party has arisen because, apparently, its easier to drag the GOP left than drag the Dems rightward. When GW Bush is considered a right wing demagogue even though he passed a huge amount of things that would make Ted Kennedy proud, that shows that the Dems think that the center is somewhere near socialism. Obama is described as a centrist.

    Because the Tea Party, by nature, and because the GOP is its natural target, includes conservatives, BUT, its platform or platforms, as the case may be, predominantly and forthrightly only concerns itself with financial programs, taxes and the size of the government, is considered to be a “social conservative” hotbed, then no common ground can be found.

    This is demonstrated in Congress. Any common ground or “bipartisanship” always means that the conservatives bend THEIR principles and meet the liberals and pass the liberal agenda. Well, no more. Let’s have the battle of ideas. The Tea Party demands that the GOP, if no one else will, follow the Constitution, and their stated platform of personal responsibility and smaller government. If America rejects that and elects more socialists to office, we deserve what we get. America goes broke, we become a minor power, we are owned by China. Our children pay for what we spend today. We become a version of what England is today. Except I believe it will be worse. At least England has fired 500,000 government workers and is making hard decisions. Now. Finally. Hopefully, its not too late.

  30. Need to Know
    December 1st, 2010 at 17:19 | #30

    I’ve been sort of neutral about Palin. She’s a rousing speaker for the conservative base and a good fundraiser, even if not the strongest prospective presidential candidate in the current Republican line-up. However, if she continues putting Ronald Reagan down, and comparing herself favorably to him, she’ll get on my bad side fast.

  31. December 1st, 2010 at 17:21 | #31


    If I can hold my nose and vote McCain, then I would ask you to vote for whomever the primary picks. The battle is in the primaries. Make sure our candidates win in that. We have to go to war with the army we get. This country CANNOT afford another term of Obama or have Hillary Clinton. And I don’t see any other possibles on the Dem’s side that are ANY better. Schumer? Dodd, again?

  32. Wolverine
    December 1st, 2010 at 19:04 | #32

    Heck, Cato, in my case at least you may be confusing the target of the posts. It is up to Palin to prove whether she truly has the stuff to win over the electorate. You could well be right. In the end she might be seen by too many to have the will and spirit but not the right equipment and be unable to find the trump cards. But there is no way anybody has the right to tell her to get out of the arena. That transgresses against everything our system stands for. Besides, I am not seeing too many bright light bulbs in either major party at this point. That may change after I see what the new House majority does with the gift they were handed last November. There are a couple of people in that pack whom I will personally watch very closely.

    For me it is simply all this sniping, no matter in which direction it is aimed, that is becoming mighty irritating and a damned turn-off. Left or Right or in between, we have developed a bunch of self-appointed political commentators who, while having no real skin in the game themselves (like actually presenting themselves to the public as candidates), seem to believe that God has reached down an almighty hand and touched their brains with the ultimate wisdom of the ages. Morning Joe is just another face in that crowd. If he thinks Palin is a jerk, then he ought to get out of the commentator’s chair and try putting his own behind back in the arena in some capacity. Coming from an ex-pol who himself fled from that arena at one time, I find his pomposity rather irritating. It’s one thing to address the quality of a candidate’s views and ideas but quite another to smartmouth about how that candidate ought to be ganged up upon by the other guys and booted out of the place. Who in the Hell does Morning Joe think he is? Moses come down from the mountain?

    O.K., we bloggers often do the same damned thing. But I sure as Hell have never received a fat check in the mail for trying to imitate Moses. I just put the diatribes on a computer screen and run like Hell before Elena or the Moon find them…..O.K., you guys. That was just a joke.

  33. December 1st, 2010 at 19:08 | #33

    Wolverine, as always, you say what I’m thinking. Except you’re a lot more articulate.

  34. December 1st, 2010 at 20:21 | #34

    By the way, ol’ Jeb doesn’t agree with his momma:

    “Jeb Bush bobbed and weaved in order to keep giving Palin praise, saying: “You’re not going to get me in trouble with disagreeing with my beloved mother of 85 years, who occasionally from time to time says things that give us all great joy, and sometimes some consternation.””

  35. December 1st, 2010 at 20:27 | #35

    The entire family is entitled to their own opinion. Now…what does Jeb think about what Palin said about his family?

  36. marinm
    December 1st, 2010 at 23:24 | #36


    No doubt and no offense was meant, obviously. I just think that the question of Ms. Palin’s suitability should be settled at the primary and not by talking heads like Joe.

    @Cargo, I hear you. Time will tell. We have two years and we haven’t gotten to the primary yet. I know that there is some love here for Romney but I can’t stand the guy. Give me a Christie, a Rubio or a McDonnell any day over a Romney.

    “As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” – Rumsfeld

  37. December 2nd, 2010 at 05:50 | #37

    I do think Joe has every right to an opinion and if people are saying one thing to him and another in public, then he is calling them out.

    I still don’t see the substance…but if one can govern of sound bites, have at it.


  38. December 2nd, 2010 at 06:04 | #38

    Did you all see SP clubbing halibut over the head with a club. No one had better mess with her. Apparently when halibut are caught and brought aboard, they flop around on the deck so hard that they bruise their meat. So they are clubbed. Bristol wouldn’t do it.

    Then she fileted them.

    She really could make much more money being the spokesperson for Alaska. And she does an excellent job of promoting her state.

  39. Scout
    December 2nd, 2010 at 06:45 | #39

    Alaska is fascinating, even if Mrs. Palin is in residence there (an increasingly rare circumstance). As long as she is out of earshot (difficult to ensure in an electronic age), I would enjoy spending time there, winter or summer.

  40. Morris Davis
    December 2nd, 2010 at 07:17 | #40

    Former Reagan political director Ed Rollins writes “Palin, I Knew Reagan. You’re No Reagan.” http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/01/rollins.palin/index.html?hpt=Sbin

    Rollins says: “I know you were only 2 when Ronald Reagan was elected by a landslide to the first of two terms as governor of California in 1966, but I would have hoped somewhere along the way through the five colleges you attended that you would have learned a little history. And I can tell you being governor of the most populous state is a lot tougher than being governor of one of the least populous ones.”

    “Ms. Palin, serious stuff needs to be accomplished in Washington.

    If you want to be a player, go to school and learn the issues. Put smart people around you and listen to them. If you want to be taken seriously, be serious. You’ve already got your own forum. If you want to be a serious presidential candidate, get to work. If you want to be an imitator of Ronald Reagan, go learn something about him and respect his legacy.

    If you want to be a gadfly, just keep doing what you’re doing.”

  41. marinm
    December 2nd, 2010 at 09:12 | #41

    Moon-howler :I do think Joe has every right to an opinion and if people are saying one thing to him and another in public, then he is calling them out.
    I still don’t see the substance…but if one can govern of sound bites, have at it.

    You assume Joe is truthful about the whispers. I assume he’s not. Without proof either way – we don’t know.

    But, if people have to sneak around and try to take pot shots at the SP from the dark I would argue those people (who can’t even summon the ability to create a soundbite) aren’t fit for office as well.

    The one thing I *do* enjoy about these threads is reading the FEAR on the left over her. That part *is* delicious. 😉

    • December 2nd, 2010 at 10:33 | #42

      @Marin, do you always assume people are lying?

      What I heard on TV was during Morning Joe. Both he and Mika said that people they had on the set told them she was not presidential material but then would not say so publically. That is what prompted him.

      Why would he say that if it weren’t true? He isn’t running for office. Pat Buchanan was present when they said what they said.

  42. marinm
    December 2nd, 2010 at 10:37 | #43

    I give more weight to something publicly provided where we can see the source, determine the credibility of the information and the provider and do 3rd party fact checking.

    An unnamed source providing one guy a ‘story’ from which he is making money is very convinient. As Mr. Morris has said over and over…When you hide behind a screen name… or, in this case when your an un-named source not wanting to go on the record.

    The sources should man-up, go on the record and take the licks for doing so. Otherwise, I’ll assume they’re part of the biased left wing liberal elite media. :)

  43. December 2nd, 2010 at 10:50 | #44

    they’re part of the biased elite. :)

    fixed it for ya.

    SP is being hit from both the left and the right. The “traditional” pols don’t like her because she advanced to her position without using the good ol’ boy network and the “consultants”. Yes, I know that one of those good ol’ boys picked her and put her in the spot light. She wasn’t liked by them, then. She used consultants to advise her now, but not to “position her” or advance an opinion.

  44. marinm
    December 2nd, 2010 at 11:28 | #45

    Point taken.

  45. Wolverine
    December 3rd, 2010 at 05:11 | #46

    Did you ever consider that the Republican pols keeping mum and NOT Morning Joe may be the smart ones? Whatever your opinion of Palin and her qualifications may be, she does have a substantial slice of the public that really likes her, couldn’t care less what the chattering class says about her, and thoroughly enjoys it when she causes the self-annointed “elite” and the old boy networks to start cussing, spitting, and grumbling. Plus this person is a woman in a country where, not all that many years ago, within my “political” lifetime, so to speak, women were told to stay home, bake cookies, go to PTA meetings,and let the men handle the serious stuff. Now, truly, under contemporary circumstances you would have to be a mighty dumb male to be seen ganging up on that female person and telling her that not only do you think she is unqualified and cannot win, but that she ought to get out of the arena and go home. No, you let that gal stay in the primary arena and sink or swim on her own merits. You try to bully that woman into submission in any way other than through straight primary votes up or down and you had better forget about a serious slice of the public if you have any ideas for a bigger future for yourself. “Male chauvinist pig” might at last become a bipartisan invective. Wouldn’t that be a lark?!!

  46. marinm
    December 3rd, 2010 at 08:25 | #47

    Wolverine, you don’t read Huffington much, do you?

    Women don’t belong in politics if you we’re to take those editorials and articles seriously.

  47. December 3rd, 2010 at 22:33 | #48


    Joe Scarborough is part of the liberal elite? Pat Buchanan? No way.

    Mika, yes. But not the others. All of them confirmed what Joe said.

  48. December 3rd, 2010 at 22:37 | #49


    If it weren’t for the good ole boys she would still be an unknown up in Alaska.

    I had no idea that good ole boy was as much of a flip flop as he has proven himself to be.

  49. December 3rd, 2010 at 22:46 | #50

    NO one is bullying SP to my knowledge. However, there is no reason her readiness for a job she seeks cannot be discussed. it amazes me that not one of you all even blinked over the way Hillary was treated. It was actually fairly amazing that in 2008 some of that stuff went on.

    The question of Sarah isn’t about her gender. The question of Sarah is that many people, especially ones in her own party, don’t see her as presidential material. Its the winking, the tweeting, the undignified answers, the picking fights, the lack of solid position that many people find very troubling.

  50. Wolverine
    December 4th, 2010 at 06:16 | #51

    As I said, Moon. Let any of those Repub old boys start pinging on Palin to the point of suggesting that she should pack her bag and go back to hearth and home and hubby, and they will be taking a big risk with a lot of people. No, there is no bullying right now from that direction because the old boys are not stupid. They are keeping their mouths shut. Morning Joe doesn’t count. He is a non-player and just another talking head who can disappear at the touch of a remote. The winking and tweeting and whatever else Palin may do which displeases some out there are small potatoes in this kind of situation. Those Repub old boys have to play this one very carefully, understanding that, along with the Tea Party, came the first time activism of many conservative women in this currently volatile political arena.

    As for Hillary. You betcha I remember this issue as a palpable thing during that shift toward Obama in the the 2008 primaries Here you had a woman who felt that she had the best chance of any female in our history to become the first of her gender to claim the Oval Office. She would probably have taken the day if the top rival was only a male. But she got a double whammy with the male AND Black thing. In my opinion, you could almost smell the “feminist” tension rising in that one. I think it came mighty close to breaking open at one point, but somebody managed to keep the lid on.

    And please don’t tell me that gender isn’t a factor in these things. Just ask Rick Lazio what happened in that NY senatorial debate with Hillary when Lazio moved over to her podium to try to make a point. The media made Lazio into a instant bully boy.

  51. December 4th, 2010 at 11:53 | #52

    Let me rephrase…it isn’t about gender with most democrats and independents. It is about qualifications. A male Sarah Palin would meet with the same response from them.

    Afraid I can’t say the same for Republicans but I wouldn’t speak for them anyway.

    Check out this opinion piece.

    And Wolverine, may I give you the same advice I give Mr. Howler? (I don’t ask him permission.)


  52. December 4th, 2010 at 15:14 | #53

    Apparently it IS about race though. Obama didn’t get elected on his qualifications. Hilary had more than he did. Which still wasn’t much.

  53. Wolverine
    December 4th, 2010 at 17:13 | #54

    Moon, you’ve got to realize that this gender thing is comparatively new for the Repubs, which is why they are handling it so gingerly with Palin. The conservative elements of the Repubs were largely feet draggers and came very late to that game called “Break the Glass Ceiling.” It was mostly liberal Dem women and a few moderate-to-liberal Repub women who were the first to start wrestling in earnest with that ceiling, with the principal non-liberal exceptions being in the business world rather than the political world. Consequently the Repubs are, in my opinion, on sort of unfamiliar ground and are trying to avoid mistakes here because, for the first time in years, there is a larger percentage of the female vote which tends to be conservate or moderate-to-conservative and is available if the strategy is right. The Tea Party opened this box, and there isn’t a man jack in the Repub leadership who should be stupid enough to try to close it back up now.

    If the Repub “leadership” starts firing artillery salvos at Palin in any other way than what is clearly a gender neutral political contest, many of those salvos will start going past Palin and landing in the very area where you do not want to lose support. There seems to be no point in taking such a risk this far out from the next election. Where the gender neutral opposition kicks in is when the conversations and subsequently the debates turn for real to the issues and require more detail. That is when Palin will have to show if she has the right stuff. We are still in the soundbite stage, with more concentration focused on the new Congress. Until we see what that Congress does and how Obama handles the new set of circumstances, the public debate will remain, in my view, largely soundbite — as in “cut the damned spending” rather than providing a detailed list of cuts from the perspective of those outside the Congress and Administration. But, when the next phase does arrive, it is very plain that Palin will no longer be able to depend on the soundbites and will have to learn to swim or she will sink just like any other pol who can’t cut the mustard when the devil is in the details..

Comments are closed.