23 thoughts on “Sarah Sequestered

  1. Dennis Lang says:

    Beautiful. I remain mystified by whatever it is about us that would somehow allow this person such an evidently prominent political role in an educated 21st century America. (I guess someone like Glenn Beck has harnessed the same magic.)

  2. PM says:

    Does Sarah really need to do all of those things? What if, via a combination of Fox News, Twitter, Glenn Beck, and enthusiasm, she can pull it off without major endorsements or media access?

    Obama changed the game in 2008, why can’t she do it in 2012?

    Are you gaming out the last war instead of the war to come?

    1. Well, as I said, that would be her strategy. For it to work, however, Palin would have to somehow take the vast network of media in which American presidential politics are imbedded out of the equation. And the risk is that such tactics would only bury her that much deeper inside the insular world that is her small constituency to begin with. How does she expand her appeal if she won’t talk to anyone beyond the true believers?

      As one Iowa citizen told the New York Times over the weekend, you can’t earn votes in that state only by making speeches. You have to put yourself in front of the people and take questions. And remember: the ‘mainstream media” isn’t just the big national newspapers and television networks…it’s also the Des Moines Register and the Manchester Guardian and the St. Petersburg Times. It’s local channels 2 through 11. They all ask the same kinds of questions as their national counterparts.

      Palin’s act is a novel one, I’ll grant. But I don’t think she can rewrite all of the rules. Is she crazy enough to try? Maybe…but I’m betting against it.

  3. Newt says:

    I am not a Palin proponent only because she isn’t a true conservative.

    What I observe is your complete disdain for middle America – you elites can’t hide your contempt for the conventional.

    In November, get ready for another 1992 but on steroids. You people don’t see it coming, which is to be expected. But I can already hear hear your wailing.

    1. Another 1992 you say? You mean the year Bill Cllnton swept into office and launched eight years of economic growth, widespread prosperity, and, in the end, a budget surplus?

      I say, bring it on.

    2. Dennis Lang says:

      Am I the only one in blogville who doesn’t understand what “contempt for the conventional” means in this context?

    1. Newt says:

      Yes thanks, Komrade Lefty. You are correct about 1994.

      After Clinton brought the nation to its knees, the GOP retook Congress after 46 years.

      Only this time, it will be worse.

  4. Jim Leinfelder says:

    “Only this time, it will be worse.”

    Indeed, if it happens, I’ve no doubt it will be worse than the work of Gingrich and his peers post ’94.

    1. MasterBearBater says:

      Oh great, another over-educated elitist on TSRC. What? Nick Coleman still sleeping one off? Just because Mr. Souder can spell Burkina Faso doesn’t mean its of any significance at all to the people demanding real revolution in this country. I expect to read next that biopsies cost less in France and that Sweden, a cesspool of Socialist decline, has a better “quality of life” than we do here. May I suggest that your new hire, Mr. Souder, pull his head out of all the scholarly manuals he’s been reading and have a meaningful conversation with his stablehands or Mercedes mechanic about the need to put Christian values, like those promoted by attractive conservative women like Sarah Palin, to work in our government and financial systems. Until then, may God protect his threadbare secular soul.

      1. MasterBearBater says:

        Damn … what’s with that picture popping up? (I’m just trying to buttress Newt and Kennedy, who are clearly out of gas.)

  5. Mike Kennedy says:

    Me, out of gas? Hardly. I am every bit the gassbag that any liberal is on here, and I take offense that you imply anything to the contrary.

Comments are closed.