Fleischer: Palin Hasn't Got a Chance

[Conan71]

Kind of a DUH! moment:

Ari Fleischer says there's no "way, shape or form" Sarah Palin can lock the Republican nomination.

"I cannot see any way, shape or form that she can win the Republican primary," Fleischer, the former press secretary to President George W. Bush, said as reported by the Idaho Mountain Express.

Fleischer, who was in Ketchum, Idaho to speak as part of the Sun Valley Center for the Arts' Lecture Series, said he'd never seen such a wide open Republican field, but that the former Alaska governor was not among the serious contenders.

The Palin and Bush wings of the Republican party are often at odds, as evidenced by the war of words between Palin and former First Lady Barbara Bush late last year.

Palin likened the Bush clan to "the blue-bloods who want to pick and choose their winners instead of allowing competition" after the former first lady's much repeated suggestion that Palin should "stay in Alaska."



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51404.html#ixzz1GmKdeWy1

[Teatownclown]

Devouring each other....AF stands for another footnote. History will see a footnote that he was an accomplice in the big lie. Palin on the other hand will be seen as a pawn, or the GOP red light district maiden.

[we vs us]

I agree with Fleischer at this point . . . to a degree.  I think Palin can still be something of a kingmaker, though Bachmann is slowly stealing her thunder as the loudest and craziest Mama Grizzly.  One way or another there's a segment of the GOP voting bloc that loves the Loony Ladies. 

[Gaspar]

Devouring each other....AF stands for another footnote. History will see a footnote that he was an accomplice in the big lie. Palin on the other hand will be seen as a pawn, or the GOP red light district maiden.

Welcome back!

[Ed W]

Does Palin truly believe she has a shot at the nomination, or is her PAC and coyness based on a cynical money making ploy ala Newt Gingrich?

[Gaspar]

Does Palin truly believe she has a shot at the nomination, or is her PAC and coyness based on a cynical money making ploy ala Newt Gingrich?

No.  I think she is a willing participant in what seems a very transparent political strategy.

She is the prime focus of liberal hatred now.  With every tweet, interview, and appearance, she grows stronger as a magnet for vitriolic dialog.   As the election approaches she will shift her dialog to be less controversial (standard Morris strategy).  This will encourage the left to find new ways of attacking her.  The image of negative or attack politics is what turns off independents and moderates. When Newt announces his official candidacy the liberal dragon will turn and breathe fire in his direction, but the public will take less notice because they have grown tired if the screaming.

She is a lightning rod, and a damn good one!

[Townsend]

No.  I think she is a willing participant in what seems a very transparent political strategy.

She is the prime focus of liberal hatred now.  With every tweet, interview, and appearance, she grows stronger as a magnet for vitriolic dialog.   As the election approaches she will shift her dialog to be less controversial (standard Morris strategy).  This will encourage the left to find new ways of attacking her.  The image of negative or attack politics is what turns off independents and moderates. When Newt announces his official candidacy the liberal dragon will turn and breathe fire in his direction, but the public will take less notice because they have grown tired if the screaming.

She is a lightning rod, and a damn good one!

I disagree with you.  I think she's a harmful person and will do more damage until she's left to the side.  Hopefully sooner than later.

[we vs us]

No.  I think she is a willing participant in what seems a very transparent political strategy.

She is the prime focus of liberal hatred now.  With every tweet, interview, and appearance, she grows stronger as a magnet for vitriolic dialog.   As the election approaches she will shift her dialog to be less controversial (standard Morris strategy).  This will encourage the left to find new ways of attacking her.  The image of negative or attack politics is what turns off independents and moderates. When Newt announces his official candidacy the liberal dragon will turn and breathe fire in his direction, but the public will take less notice because they have grown tired if the screaming.

She is a lightning rod, and a damn good one!

So this is liberal elite rope-a-dope?  And the beneficiary will be . . . Newt Gingrich? 

That's one of your more convoluted theories, Gassy.  Not sure I agree.   

[Ed W]

I don't think the Gingrich, Palin, or Bachman are credible candidates.  Newt has too much baggage, both personal and professional.  He and Sarah are in it for the cash and the possibility of being king makers.  I expect both will dance around the prospect of actually declaring, then bow out with a well-written speech about doing so for the 'good of the party and the good of the country.' 

Bachman is just too extreme to be credible, either, but she may not be driven by the same cynicism as Gingrich and Palin.  She's a dyed-in-the-wool ideologue, a true believer in the tea party as the vanguard of all that's right and just in our country.  There's a strong scent of fanaticism around her, and Americans don't tolerate fanatics for long.

That still leaves a bunch of contenders, some with more gravitas than others. 

[Conan71]

I don't think the Gingrich, Palin, or Bachman are credible candidates.  Newt has too much baggage, both personal and professional.  He and Sarah are in it for the cash and the possibility of being king makers.  I expect both will dance around the prospect of actually declaring, then bow out with a well-written speech about doing so for the 'good of the party and the good of the country.' 

Bachman is just too extreme to be credible, either, but she may not be driven by the same cynicism as Gingrich and Palin.  She's a dyed-in-the-wool ideologue, a true believer in the tea party as the vanguard of all that's right and just in our country.  There's a strong scent of fanaticism around her, and Americans don't tolerate fanatics for long.

That still leaves a bunch of contenders, some with more gravitas than others. 

Wow, you and Wevus sure can crank out the pretty prose. 

Don't underestimate Newt's ego.  I believe he thinks he can win and that he's got all the answers.  I think he's going to run all the way to the convention unless they find a dead body in his trunk.  He's an incredibly brilliant man and brings a lot of good experience to the table.  He has no more baggage than any other candidate.  The far right are going to have to get over themselves on personal peccadillos and religious affiliation of qualified candidates.

That said, I hope people will remember Newt as the Godfather of modern shrill partisanship.  I really don't care one way or the other about his affairs or previous ethics issues near as much as I care about how bad a stiff partisan like him would be in the White House and the ramifications with either an opposing majority in the legislative branch (log jam) or GOP majorities (blank check like they did for President Bush).  There is no way in Hell I'd support him in the primaries.  I think he's a smug egotist who has been able to continue to spew his opinion, pretty much unchecked, from the sidelines for the last how many ever years and the deeply conservative media continues to lap it up.  I don't disagree with many of the points he makes, however, I don't think he has much interest in being a centrist and that's really what we need, IMO.

Bachman isn't extreme to her followers and they seem to be a pretty good bloc.  You guys keep calling her nuts and running her down, but I've still not found really anything that audacious about her other than she's somehow got the libs scared enough they are full bore on personal attacks.  I don't know enough about her to form an opinion.  I'll be interested to see how serious Trump is and whether or not Romney wants to take another shot at it.

[Gaspar]

So this is liberal elite rope-a-dope?  And the beneficiary will be . . . Newt Gingrich? 

That's one of your more convoluted theories, Gassy.  Not sure I agree.   

I suppose we will just have to see it play out.

[Townsend]

Bachman isn't extreme to her followers and they seem to be a pretty good bloc.  You guys keep calling her nuts and running her down, but I've still not found really anything that audacious about her other than she's somehow got the libs scared enough they are full bore on personal attacks.  I don't know enough about her to form an opinion.  I'll be interested to see how serious Trump is and whether or not Romney wants to take another shot at it.

Someone's followers will never see them as smack-you-in-the-face crazy.


http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/republicans/a/michele-bachmann-quotes.htm

http://www.thebachmannrecord.com/thebachmannrecod.html

http://www.minnpost.com/minnclips/2009/08/07/10734/michele_bachmanns_most_extreme_quote

[Conan71]

Someone's followers will never see them as smack-you-in-the-face crazy.

She's no more of a gaffe master than our current President nor more of a buffoon than our current Vice President.  That's what's really scary.

[Townsend]

She's no more of a gaffe master than our current President nor more of a buffoon than our current Vice President.  That's what's really scary.

I see her leading at the moment.

[Hoss]

I see her leading at the moment.

Agreed.

I thought this one was a hoot:

"Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas."

Might ask NASA and the crew of Apollo 13 if CO2 isn't harmful.  I'm guessin' they'll have a bit of an argument with Rep. Bachmann.