Palin: To root or not to root?

palin2

During a speech last week, Sarah Palin wondered aloud why the phrase “In God We Trust” had been moved from the center to the rim of the dollar coin, saying, “Who makes a decision like that? It’s a disturbing trend.”

The former vice presidential candidate was clearly pointing the finger at President Obama, which is funny considering:

A. Anyone with half a brain would figure it must take more than 10 months in office to change the face of currency.

B. The coins were actually commissioned in 2005 by the Republican-led government.

C. Then-President George W. Bush approved the change.

This is my long-winded way of asking whether Democrats like myself are better off rooting for Sarah Palin to fail in her efforts to earn the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, or to succeed. It’s a toughie.

If Palin fails, we’re left with Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee. While I strongly, strongly, strongly disagree with the stances of those politicians, I can’t argue that they’re qualified to be president. All three men have done some impressive governmental work, especially Romney (who I despise/respect at the same time). And all three men would seem to be better candidates to head the Republican ticket.

If Sarah Palin is the nominee, I think Obama wins. Big. Really big. Obama may well be a liberal (thank God), but he’s a moderate liberal. Palin, on the other hand, is an arch-conservative. Arch, arch. She also quit her only impressive job, as governor, before completing her term. She also supported and opposed the Bridge to Nowhere. She also has a Fruit Loops-crazy family. And says bizarre things, like the “Death Panel” line. She came off as woefully unprepared during the 2008 campaign, but certainly will get up to speed during the four-year gap.

The risk, however, is a huuuuuuuge one. What if Sarah Palin (egad) wins? What if she runs a perfect campaign, or Obama runs a miserable one? Truth be told, I’d take a third Bush term over a Palin first. Without question.

So what do I want?

I want Obama-Palin.

And I want him to trounce her.

16 thoughts on “Palin: To root or not to root?”

  1. Not only am I rooting for Palin to win the nomination, I almost wish she would win it all. No, not really. I guess my amusement isn’t worth all that. But man, what I would pay for some sort of video simulation of what would happen with her as President. The level of chaos, the press conferences, can you imagine the cabinet? The random strange initiatives…
    Plan 9 from Outer Space.

  2. Reminds me of why I always want the teams I hate to reach the World Series/Finals/Super Bowl. So they can loose it. Of course, sometimes it backfires (Yankees 2009 Champions)

  3. If Obama is a moderate-liberal, I hate to think of what a liberal-liberal would do!

    Seriously, I can understand your concern — but as a Republican, I think it is unwise to take sides on the other campaign — many of my brethren had such a visceral dislike of Hillary that we rooted for Obama to win the nomination, and look how that turned out for us.

    As for Palin herself, she was defined by the media to a degree that I don’t think she can ever escape. I am not saying she didn’t make a lot of self-inflicted errors -but the media was crazy-unfair in such a way that I cannot ever debate media bias – because to me it exists with as much certainty as my own existence. As for her governance, she governed as right-centrist.

  4. I should add – that media bias is the reason I am rooting for Romney, even though I like Palenty, becauase I think Romney would be the most educated and effective debater, and that will be the GOP’s sole candidate opportunity to define himself. McCain was horrible in the debates.

  5. The recent elections in NJ and VA should send a message loud and clear to the liberal base. No more free spending and taxing every move we make. Enough already.

  6. “but the media was crazy-unfair in such a way that I cannot ever debate media bias”

    Yeah. Imagine writers writing about what the candidate said and not doing the legwork to probe into her inner most thoughts to figure out what she really meant.

    Bastards.

  7. lunchbouy reads the drudge report too much. obama had nothing to do with nj and va… incumbency had more of an impact on their elections. hilarious how dems can lose two states and its a mandate against obama, while repubs can lose 30 seats and still be so fucking smug.

    anyways, i think if you believe the world is only 6,500 years old as palin and huckabee believe, then that should automatically disqualify anyone from running this country. and mitt romney believes jesus is from st. louis.

    joe lieberman should run for the repubs, since hes a shill for them anyways.

  8. Thanks for telling me what I read and telling me about my smug attitude. Since you are so smary Jayson, could you also tell me what type of healthcare I need, how much of my income I can keep, and how much of my estate will continue to stay in my family. Oh wait, you already are! That, asshole, is quite fucking smug of you.

  9. wow lunch, relax. someones a little defensive. all i meant to YOU specifically was that nj and va were in no way a mandate on obama. that whole obmama mandate bs holds as much water as the 9/12 movement.

    you act like obamas been in the office for the past 8-9 years. im sorry, but just because you dug your head out of the sand now doesnt mean we have to wait for you to smarten up.

  10. In Lunchboy’s defense, I’m sure he has been tireless throughout the last decade, taking the government to task for its out of control spending. When Cheney said deficits didn’t matter, I’m certain he was all over the webs, cursing the Republicans for their freewheeling ways. When the Republican controlled House and Senate approved the highest Budget deficits in the history of the country, higher than WW2 even, he was certainly livid. And, in light of Bill Clinton’s having once balanced the budget and handed Bush a surplus, I have no doubt that Lunchboy was supporting his wife in the primaries.

    Leave Lunchboy alone.

  11. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

    View the link. Simply put, there was never a surplus handed to Bush from Clinton. Here are a few more years to look at:

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

    (TreasuryDirect is brought to you by the U.S. Department of the Treasury Bureau of the Public Debt.) Please stop trying to rewrite history guys. Look at it this way: Bush took office in Jan. 2001 and therefore played a lead role in crafting the Fiscal Year 2002-2008 budgets. Bush and Obama share responsibility for the Fiscal Year 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years. Facts are facts, seek them out, and then decipher them with your own mind. And, please for the love of all that is high and mighty, stop behaving like lemmings. It’s totally unbecoming (but expected at this point).

    Today I had a small cup of chili and a nice ham and cheese sammich on a potato roll. I washed it down with a Wild Cherry Pepsi and had some sour cream and onion chips on the side. It was delicious!

  12. The debt and the deficit are not the same thing. The debt is money American has borrowed since inception. Our Founding Fathers decided that debt was necessary, and a fair trade for having a United States.

    A surplus comes when revenue exceeds spending. When there is no deficit spending (again, unrelated to the debt), we arrive at a surplus. And, that surplus can be used to pay off a piece of the national debt, if we so choose.

    But we prefer to give tax rebates instead. And why not? Does anyone really want to pay France back for the Revolutionary War?

    Anyway, the debt is scary, yes, but we will never pay off the debt without many years of budget surpluses. So the short term goal is a surplus. The long term goal is to pay down the debt.

  13. Which is to say: I agree with Lunchboy.

    If Obama were to double the debt he inherited, it would be as bad an idea as it was when Bush did the exact same thing.

  14. I think anyone who writes that Obama is a “moderate liberal” disqualifies himself from ever having his political thoughts being taken seriously again.

Leave a Reply to Lunch Boy Cancel reply