The last few weeks have been pretty hectic for me; I’ve been transitioning to a job where I have no computer access and I’ve been closing out my last semester.  So I haven’t had much time to engage on some of the important issues that have been engulfing the sphere.  Oh well.  Life requires priorities and I’ve preferred to spend my occasional free-time reading The Divine Comedy.  What I’ve missed I can’t make up.  Still, I do want to address, broadly, the argument DaveG has laid out, in multiple posts, pretty compellingly but ultimately, I think, wrongly.  In his post about the weakness of “The Perils of hyphenated conservatism” Dave laid into…yes, hyphenated conservatives.  Pawlenty was the prime target.  He writes:

The real issue with both Romney ‘08 and Pawlenty ‘12 is not that the Republican base demands pandering or phoniness — heck, if anything, the race for 2008 proved that the GOP base will reject rump-kissing, even if it’s the rump of the base that’s being kissed. Instead, the reason that Romney (and to some extent, Rudy and Huckabee) failed in 2008 and the reason that Pawlenty doesn’t seem to be going anywhere this cycle has to do with the delicate balancing act intrinsic in the candidacy of a hyphenated conservative.

The political class loves to play up the chances of hyphenated conservatives due to the supposed contradictions that lie within these candidates. “Sam’s Club Republicanism” gives pundits something to write columns about. “Compassionate conservatism” does the same. Rudy’s hawkish, soft libertarianism made Beltway types scratch their heads and think for a moment. So did Huckabee’s populist conservatism and Ron Paul’s hard libertarian realism. Folks who think about politics for a living find little to get excited about in a run of the mill, down-the-line conservative. It’s the heterodox that are interesting.

But while the chattering classes benefit from presidential runs by hyphenated conservatives, the Republican Party doesn’t. That’s because the hyphenated conservative comes out of the gate as a candidate who is by definition unacceptable to at least one segment of the Republican coalition, forcing the candidate to either change his views on those issues, making him inauthentic, or requiring the candidate to spend months and months emphasizing all the ways in which he is a “true conservative,” resulting is so much red meat thrown in so many different directions that swing voters become convinced they’re being asked to vote for Glenn Beck. The result is that a once perfectly respectable candidate ends up being branded a phony or a lunatic in the American political psyche.

There’s something to this, though I think Dave has fundamentally mislabeled the phenomenon.  The problem isn’t with hyphenated conservatism- all conservatism is hyphenated.  As is all liberalism.  Sometimes that hyphen is explicit- as in compassionate conservatism- and sometimes its not.  How often did Obama use the word liberalism, even in the primary?  Not very.  Instead he cut his liberalism with a dash of hope.  Hyphenated ideology is just political messaging and will exist as long as politics endures.  There’s a good argument that Bush destroyed the Republican coalition by governing as a compassionate conservative, but there’s no argument that he destroyed the conservative coalition by running as a compassionate conservative.

No, the seed of truth in Dave’s argument is this: candidate’s ought to be capable of satisfying the key elements of the coalition without having to lay wreaths at the grave of Ronald Reagan every day.  Still, it’s hard to see how this fits into the narrative DaveG has laid out about Pawlenty.  Whatever Ambinder and The Washington Post think, there is almost no evidence that Pawlenty has run hard to the right, or that he plans to do so.  He has, instead, run as the conservative he is.  Understandably, this disappoints the media corps.  Pawlenty has made a career of sounding more moderate than he is and, with Huntsman off in Shanghai, they’d counted on him to be their “good Republican”.

So the “Pawlenty is in danger of Romneyifying himself” meme is utterly predictable.  Still, there’s meme; Pawlenty, Sam’s Club Republican messaging aside, has a very conservative record.  In all likelihood, Pawlenty will finish governorship with an A grading, from CATO, in his final two years.  Occasionally, politicians manage A’s at the beginning of their term; Crist did, rather famously.  Jeb Bush did it, in his first term.  As did Matt Blunt and Bill Owens.  Even Arnold managed it.  If you’re in a relatively conservative state, or you’ve been thrust into a particularly challenging economic situation, it’s not impossible to govern conservatively when riding into office.  It’s much harder to keep governing conservatively or, more exceptionally still, to improve with time.  Jeb Bush fell to a C in his final two years; Bill Owens to a D.  Even Blunt only managed a B and he was governing a conservative state and had decided to become a one-termer.

In the entire time CATO has been running these analyzes, just 6 Governors have finished the final two years of a term with an A rating: Judy Martz, Paul Cellucci, Bill Janklow, Steve Merrill, Fife Symington,  and Doug Wilder.  Martz, Merrill, and Wilder were 1-termers; Celluci was less than that (he governed for 2 years).  Janklow was near to.  He’d been governor decades earlier and won 1 more term in the 90′s.  And Fife Symington’s no doubt promising two-term career was cut short due to his becoming a convicted felon.  In other words, not a blessed soul has governed for 8 years, and finished off as strongly, on fiscal policy, as Tim Pawlenty.  Mark Sanford might manage it next go around- might.  But then, Mark Sanford’s political career is as live as Symington’s.  So the idea that because Tim Pawlenty talks about a whole-sale store, while selling some of the most robustly conservative policies in the country, he’ll be rejected by fiscal conservatives, is ludicrous on its face.

They haven’t done so and show no signs of doing so.  Yes, he’ll have trouble finessing his environmental position, but I rather think the average fiscal conservative will be tickled that T-Paw managed to fob-off one of the country’s strongest environmental lobbies with speeches, a few million for alternative energy (which we ought to be investing in anyway), commissions, and non-binding environmental “goals”.  Yes, there’s a market for “punch a Democrat in the head”  politics, but even a majority of true believers will take their conservatism any way they can get it , and it’s abundantly clear, by his still positive image in Minnesota, that Tim Pawlenty is a way to get it.  Maybe THE way.

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com and at his Pawlentyesque blog

Sad to report that I am not, overall, impressed. Her heart’s in the right place, but her understanding still seems shallow, especially when it comes to Israel.

Also, here’s more of her interview with Rush Limbaugh, where she talks about taxes, NY-23, and more…

The Free and Strong America PAC posted its second highest monthly receipts for 2009 in October. Monthly FEC filings for Mitt Romney and Co. show that the PAC brought in $440,000 last month, while expending $211,000. This month’s total also pushes the PAC’s year-to-date total above $3 million, and leaves them with almost $1.2 million on hand. October’s high numbers follow on the heels of strong fundraising numbers for September as well.

How does this compare to other potential candidates for the GOP nomination in 2012? Well, it’s always hard to tell because the Free and Strong America PAC files monthly while the Sarah PAC and Huck PAC have opted to file bi-annually, and Tim Pawlenty’s Freedom First PAC is newly formed and has not yet made any filings.

July 1st of this year is the only point we can compare similar time frames. At that point it stood as following:
Romney: $1,908,000
Palin: $733,000
Huckabee: $304,000

A few points to add these sums: My guess is that Romney has by far and away continued to raise the most since July. Sarah Palin’s PAC was not formed until February, and she also raised funds for a defense fund. She is also focusing much of her attention in promoting her new book. Even so her numbers for the second half of the year will be much more telling. Mike Huckabee, though he has dismal fundraising numbers, has had extreme benefit from his show on FOX as well as his radio program. That kind of exposure probably has more monetary value than all of the $3 million Romney has been able to raise this year. On the downside, if he can’t translate increased name recognition and exposure into shear fundraising number he will have a hard time in the general election when he can no longer depend on his TV show.

Month by month fundraising and disbursement totals for the FSA PAC:

This is the beginning of the review by the only person on Earth who has had his writings on Sarah Palin linked to by both Andrew Sullivan and Conservatives 4 Palin members.

First, a little disclaimer: I hate memoirs. I realize that they’ve been all the rage for the past few years or so, mostly due to middle-aged women tripping all over themselves to get sob stories about beaten children and surface-level crap about the human condition. But mostly, I simply don’t care about the life of one individual unless he’s someone remarkable, such as Benjamin Franklin.

The first chapter of the book, “The Last Frontier,” is the fluffy human interest section of the book about Sarah Palin’s background before she entered politics. It’s alternately a sixty-page advertisement for the glories of Alaska, a tribute to her parents (and the love of reading and learning they instilled in her — methinks the lady doth protesteth too much), and a collection of anecdotes from her high school and college years.

Some parts of the book are very obviously from the hand of Lynn Vincent. Random jabs at the ACLU, for instance, simply seem out of character for Palin. But it seems like, overall, Vincent really was the collaborator here, not the ghostwriter. As a writer, I have learned that, at least as far as tone is concerned, I write very much like I speak. And if this rule holds true for Palin, too, then I can assure you that this is her work.

She defends her college record, noting that it took her five years to go through college because she had to take some time off at one point so she could pay her own way through: “I remember when this was honorable,” she notes. She trekked back and forth between different colleges because she needed changes of pace. This is fair, and should put the issue to rest. Other issues are not adequately resolved, though. I was dismayed that she still cannot admit the obvious: that she and Todd eloped because she realized that she was pregnant out of wedlock. She did the right and honorable thing, and it’s time she admits it to everyone else.

Elsewhere, there are cute anecdotes, such as her recounting that Todd told the boys in the locker room that Sarah didn’t know how to kiss. He thought it was an endearing sign of modesty; she was mortified. Others are more revealing, such as when, after her miscarriage, the doctor told her upon listening with a stethoscope that there was “nothing alive in there” and she was accidentally billed for an abortion rather than a D&C operation. Very sad. The best of the anecdotes, however, is something Sarah remembers from a softball game: a coach tells a weak player who is giddy about doing well to stop being so excited — that’s what she was put on the field for to do in the first place!

I’m well past the first chapter by now, but I pledged to take this bit by bit. Expect longer and more interesting articles to come. If you like Sarah at all, or are just curious about her, it’s a book well worth picking up, especially at the excellent prices that it’s going for.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

“she is the most normal politician in the country’

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

Reuters is reporting:

U.S. Republican Senator John McCain on Wednesday strongly defended the top advisers from his 2008 presidential campaign in the face of sharp criticism from his vice presidential running mate, Sarah Palin.

McCain, in a telephone interview with Reuters, singled out campaign manager Steve Schmidt and senior adviser Nicolle Wallace for praise after Palin blasted the pair in her memoir, “Going Rogue: An American Life.”

“There’s been a lot of dust flying around in the last few days and I just wanted to mention that I have the highest regard for Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace and the rest of the team … and I appreciated all the hard work and everything they did to help the campaign,” he said.

“I think it’s just time to move on,” he said.

Palin did some settling of scores in her best-selling book by criticizing several McCain staffers, in particular Schmidt and Wallace for their handling of her during last year’s election campaign.

She accused Wallace of pushing her to do an interview with “CBS Evening News” anchor Katie Couric that proved damaging to Palin.

Various former aides to McCain have said the charges amounted to exaggerations and fiction and that her comment that she was billed $50,000 for her own vetting as a vice presidential candidate was simply wrong.

McCain did not get into specific charges leveled by Palin but suggested any frictions were due to the pressures inherent in presidential campaigns. McCain lost the election to Democrat Barack Obama.

“Campaigns are high-pressure situations. The only more high-pressure situation that I’ve been in is combat and prison,” said McCain, a Navy flyer shot down during the Vietnam War and held prisoner for 5-1/2 years.

“But you know, I’m proud of Nicolle and Steve and (senior campaign official) Rick Davis and (senior adviser) Mark Salter and I’ll always have great affection for them,” he said.

He said the interest in Palin, as manifested by the 1,500 people who showed up early at a bookstore in Grand Rapids, Michigan, for her first tour event, showed “the strength of the base” of the Republican Party.

“I’m still really proud of her and the campaign she ran and I think it’s pretty obvious that she has a substantial base and interest out there,” McCain said.

McCain said he did not have the luxury of time to dwell on the campaign, citing the need to work on such issues as the weak economy in his home state of Arizona, healthcare legislation and the war in Afghanistan.

The President raised the possibility in an interview with CNN’s Ed Henry:

“You know, if – if I feel like I’ve made the very best decisions for the American people and three years from now I look at it and, you know, my poll numbers are in the tank and because we’ve gone through these wrenching changes, you know, politically, I’m in a tough spot, I’ll – I’ll feel all right about myself.”

The Vice President Biden vs. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton primary battle would be a contest that this conservative would just love to follow.

Don Rumsfeld gave 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Miranda rights when he was brought to Guantánamo Bay (a US military installation).

The decision to select a Manhattan courthouse as the trial venue was an flawed political calculation, made by Holder and Obama.  Certainly rural Pennsylvania would have been a superior choice over New York or Arlington, but this does not eliminate the fact that A.G. Holder must uphold the Constitution of the United States, which identifies Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as a criminal being held in a U.S. prison.

If the United States had declared war on the government of Afghanistan and proclaimed Al-Qaeda as a paramilitary wing of the government, and then proved that the former government in Kabul had directly or indirectly sponsored Al-Qaeda during the planning of the 9/11 attacks, then there would have been no reason to extend Miranda rights to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and imprison him as a criminal in a US military base.  The Bush administration with either unable or unwilling to make this legal connection, which is why they made the decision to bring the prisoners to Guantánamo.

This incident and the overall mismanagement of Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib prison operations must be a lesson for all defcons.  Leave the terrorists in the nations (sympathetic to the U.S.A.) that they were captured in and allow third parties to conduct the interrogations, so that our government is not forced to uphold our Constitution.

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

Sarah has indicated we soon may see just that:

Palin tells National Review Online that she’s looking into it.

“She suggests, meanwhile, that there might be encouraging news coming Marco Rubio’s way. She says she’s had a chance to look at the Crist-Rubio race ‘just on the surface.’ But she adds, ‘I’m just being asked about it really in the last week or two, so I’ll dig more into it. I’ll find out what the guys are holding in terms of positions and see where maybe I can help.’”

Marco Rubio has already said he would love to have Palin’s endorsement, and earlier in the interview Palin says, “What I love about the Republican party is how we invite — or at least we should be inviting — healthy competition in our primaries.”

So it seems that a Rubio endorsement is much more likely than a Crist endorsement.

An endorsement of Marco would certainly prompt the media to blare headlines of a McCain (who has endorsed Crist) vs. Palin squabble symbolizing the greater “struggle” between moderates and Tea Partiers for control of the GOP. On the positive side, the endorsement would boost Rubio’s profile even more and probably help him in primary polls.

Quinnipiac National Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

• Approve 48% [50%] {50%} (57%) [59%]
• Disapprove 42% [41%] {42%} (33%) [31%]

Among Independents

• Approve 43% [45%] {45%} (52%) [57%]
• Disapprove 46% [44%] {45%} (37%) [30%]

Among Men

• Approve 44% [46%] {45%} (54%) [54%]
• Disapprove 47% [45%] {46%} (38%) [36%]

Among Women

• Approve 52% [54%] {54%} (59%) [64%]
• Disapprove 37% [36%] {38%} (29%) [26%]

Among Whites

• Approve 41% [42%] {43%} (51%) [52%]
• Disapprove 49% [48%] {48%} (39%) [37%]

Among Blacks

• Approve 89% [93%] {91%} (94%) [93%]
• Disapprove 6% [3%] {8%} (0%) [2%]

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy?

• Approve 43% [47%] {45%} (52%)
• Disapprove 52% [46%] {49%} (42%)

Among Independents

• Approve 38% [40%] {41%} (47%)
• Disapprove 58% [51%] {53%} (46%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling foreign policy?

• Approve 49% [49%] {52%} (55%)
• Disapprove 42% [37%] {38%} (35%)

Among Independents

• Approve 45% [46%] {49%} (54%)
• Disapprove 49% [42%] {41%} (37%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation in Afghanistan?

• Approve 38% [42%]
• Disapprove 49% [40%]

Among Independents

• Approve 30% [41%]
• Disapprove 57% [43%]

Do you think the U.S. is doing the right thing by fighting the war in Afghanistan now, or should the U.S. not be involved in Afghanistan now?

• Doing the right thing 48% [52%]
• Should not be involved 41% [37%]

Among Independents

• Doing the right thing 51% [56%]
• Should not be involved 39% [35%]

Do you think eliminating the threat from terrorists operating from Afghanistan is a worthwhile goal for American troops to fight and possibly die for or not?

• Yes 65% [65%]
• No 29% [28%]

Among Independents

• Yes 67% [67%]
• No 28% [27%]

Do you think building a stable democratic government in Afghanistan is a worthwhile goal for American troops to fight and possibly die for or not?

• Yes 37% [39%]
• No 54% [52%]

Among Independents

• Yes 36% [40%]
• No 54% [53%]

General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has asked President Obama to send 40,000 additional combat troops. Should Obama send the troops or not?

• Yes 47%
• No 42%

Among Independents

• Yes 53%
• No 38%

(more…)

Public Policy Polling 2010 Missouri Senate Poll

2010 U.S. Senate

• Robin Carnahan (D) 43%
• Roy Blunt (R) 42%

Job Approval / Disapproval

• Pres. Obama: 43%/52% (-9)

PPP surveyed 763 Missouri voters from November 13th to 15th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-3.6%.

I thought I would pass along some thoughts from someone I will call “MO Insider Guy” who has their finger on the pulse of this race:

1. For the last 2 weeks, the League for Conservation Voters has run ads against Roy Blunt in Missouri. This 43-42 poll should be taken in that context. They have run ads in every media market in the state against Roy since the vote in House Energy and Commerce against the Cap and Tax bill.

2. The partisan breakdown is Dem+4. In January they ran their last poll which had Dem+3. Two points about that:

a. Is this poll claiming that the environment has gotten slightly better for Dems in Missouri since Obama’s inaugurantion? Granted, this is Margin of Error, but still…

b. That 1% in Dem identification is enough to give Carnahan her 1% advantage overall.

3. There is no question that this race is going to be close through the end. Missouri is always a very close state, coming down to the wire in 2006 and 2008. In 2006, McCaskill won by 2% and in 2008, McCain won after a week of counting. This environment is going to be a little better than that for Republicans in 2010.

The incredibly inept person currently holding the keys to the Oval Office keys has just declared that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be convicted and given the death sentence. Three things come immediately to mind:

(1) Does this mean that KSM is just a show trial?

(2) Is not a person innocent until proven guilty in American jurisprudence?

(3) Didn’t he just give the defense grounds for a mistrial?

***Update*** Our Attorney General Eric Holder is getting in on the act. He told the Senate this morning that if KSM is acquitted, not to worry. The Administration will never allow him to be freed into the U.S.

And this is not a Show Trial because….?

Selzer & Co. 2010 Iowa Gubernatorial Survey

If the election for governor were held today, and the candidates were Chet Culver and one of the following Republicans, for whom would you vote?

• Terry Branstad 57%
• Chet Culver 33%

• Bob Vander Plaats 45%
• Chet Culver 37%

[Survey] includes responses from 539 likely voters, with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.2 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Gov. Chet Culver’s job approval has fallen to a critical new low, and former Gov. Terry Branstad poses a major potential threat to Culver’s re-election, according to The Des Moines Register’s new Iowa Poll.

Just 40 percent of Iowans in the survey taken last week say they approve of the job the first-term Democrat is doing, reflecting a 10-percentage-point drop since mid-September.

In matchups posed to likely voters, Branstad, a Republican who served four terms, swamps Culver by 24 percentage points. Culver also trails Sioux City business consultant Bob Vander Plaats, a fiscal and social conservative who remains little-known to most Iowans.

Only 34 percent of Iowans think the state is headed in the right direction, the lowest score on that question in at least a decade.

About those phantom Congressional districts the Obama Administration is claiming the “stimulus” saved or created jobs in?

A reader suggested: “…[W]e should seize the moment and field candidates in the heretofore non-existent congressional districts.”

It’s been nearly a year since I completed my wildly popular, “Blogging the Right Thing”  series. 

I thought I was done, however there was a brand new paperback version out at Costco and it had…a new chapter.

This was good, because the publication date for Doing the Right Thing made sense from a publication standpoint as the book came out just a few days after the election, right before the Christmas shopping season. However, from a literary standpoint, it meant that with all the steps in publishing a book, Huckabee had to finish writing the book before the General Election, even before the Republican Convention. So, thus it was a 2008 election book written without knowing the outcome of 2008.

The book prior to the new chapter remains as it was, with the exception of a couple technical errors being cleaned up. Huckabee’s final additional chapter has a few nuggets in it.

Huckabee criticizes TARP and the Stimulus, writing of Stimulus supporters, and points to his opposition, as well as the hypocrisy of many of his primary assailants in opposing TARP. Huckabee wrote, “I watched in disbelief and disgust as some of the most vocal critics of my campaign lined  up like penguins to the march and said, ‘We have to do it.’ What? How dare they question my conservative credentials for balancing my state’s budget and then proposing something as leftist as having the government jump in, nationalize banks, pay off bad mortgages at the expense of people who took out good ones, and subsidize insurance companies, automakers, and Wall Street brokerage firms so they could stay in business.”

If Huckabee runs in 2012, expect the bailouts to be both a defensive and offensive weapon.

One thing, Huckabee does make clear is his opinion of Sarah Palin. The media has generally tried to take Huckabee out of context in order to create the Huckabee-Palin axis rivalry.

Huckabee writes in the book that Palin’s nomination was a “Lazarus, Come Forth” moment for the McCain campaign signifying that he believed Palin brought the campaign to life. While, he did believe that some interviews such as the Couric interview were fair, overall he felt the media’s treatment of Governor Palin wasn’t.

Huckabee writes simply, “I’m often asked if Sarah Palin will be a strong force in the future of the GOP. The answer?

“You betcha.”

Perhaps, the most fascinating fact to come out of the chapter was Huckabee’s contingency plan if Joe Lieberman had been nominated for VP. Huckabee planned to not appear at the Republican Convention “quietly” and to focus his attention exclusively on House, Governor, and Senate candidates. Critics will challenge the statement as self-serving after the fact as he didn’t say it publicly. However, given McCain’s oppositional syndrome, he’s not the time you threaten, because McCain will be more likely to do what you don’t want to show that he’s the boss.

Huckabee concludes the new chapter with  very good denunciation of the Obama Administration that’s a call to action for conservatives.

I’m now reading “A Simple Christmas.” And I’ll keep it simple and spare you the chapter by chapter review.

In the race for 2008, conservatives unhappy with their presidential choices frequently referred to the Big Three that year — Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain — as “Rudy McRomney,” three candidates with supposedly the same Democrat-lite substance. While I disagreed with that assertion, and still do, it was certainly the case that a huge vacuum existed in the race for 2008 for a down-the-line conservative, just as a vacuum is developing this year for an electable down-the-line conservative.

Today’s SurveyUSA polls, posted earlier today on the site, paint a pretty accurate picture of the race for the GOP nod right now. Much like in an old Western, the Big Three of the race for 2012 are metaphorically facing one another, each holding a pistol in either hand pointed directly at one of the other two. Mitt Romney seems to be the candidate of blue state Republicans, with the North and the West Coast giving him the edge over Huckabee. Meanwhile, the former Arkansas governor is besting Mitt in the South. Palin, meanwhile, has yet to break through in either region but is making a strong third place showing, hoping that Mitt and Huck will fire on each other and leave her as the only candidate left standing. But what if, in typical Old West fashion, the three fire on one another, leaving no viable candidate to take on Obama?

This scenario isn’t particularly far-fetched, especially since Romney and Huckabee are about to enter a two-year-plus slug-fest that will almost certainly leave each candidate’s supporters pretty much despising the other candidate. Blue state Republicans will never choose a former Baptist minister with a Dixie accent over a fiscally tight businessman from Massachusetts. And red state Republicans will never pass up the guy with the drawl and southern swagger for a formerly pro-choice Mormon. But by the end of the campaign, with all the mud that is about to be slung, about half of the Republican Party will be convinced that Mitt is Nelson Rockefeller 2.0, while the other half of the GOP will come out believing that Huckabee is William Jennings Bryan or Huey Long. Mitt and Huck will almost certainly exploit all of the ways in which the other is “not a real conservative” for the next two and a half years, meaning that the winner will face guaranteed skepticism from Republicans and will be smarting among Independents after having to spend the entire primary season proving that they are too a “real conservative.”

This could end up being very good for Sarah Palin, but that’s assuming that Sarah can convince Republicans that she’s actually electable. Right now Sarah is in sort of a Howard Dean position. Many Republicans who would otherwise like her are convinced that her image is beyond rehabilitation at this point and are likely to select someone who seems a stronger candidate against Obama. That’s not to say that things couldn’t change with regard to Palin, but like Dean, who Democrats insisted wasn’t even that liberal if you checked his record, Sarah Palin has been defined a certain way in the political psyche, and she will have to work overtime to change that. If she is unable to do so, she will probably remain in a Dean-like position as someone who Republicans just won’t trust with the nomination at the end of the day.

What all of this means is that this year’s Big Three of Mitt HuckaPalin provides a dark horse candidate with an opening, sort of the way Fred Thompson was able to enter the race for 2008 as a quiet, unassuming former senator and skyrocket into double-digits overnight simply because he had something no one else in the race did: a pristine conservative voting record. This year, the vacuum isn’t based on conservatism as much as it’s based on conservatism-plus-electability. In other words, conservatives were looking for Ronald Reagan in 2008 and they’re looking for Bob McDonnell in 2012.

If there is a Thompson-esque candidate who will jump in, though, I suspect it will not be one of the usual suspects. It’s not going to be Pawlenty, a hyphenated conservative himself, or Jindal or Thune, both of whom lack charisma. It may actually be someone particularly dull, but if so, it will be a candidate who will have such strong conservative economic accomplishments that the dullness will be cancelled out. Fred didn’t exactly light the room on fire, but he checked all the conservative boxes. This year, the boxes will be as follows: a) is the candidate a down-the-line conservative, b) does the candidate have a record of applying conservatism to economic problems to generate effective solutions, and c) has the candidate been able to improve economic conditions and/or the budgetary/fiscal outlook in his/her state/district without supporting tax increases? If a candidate who checks these boxes enters the race, particularly after a long Mitt/Huck street fight in 2010 and yet more soap opera style coverage of Palin, Republicans may rush to the new candidate to save them from a damaged nominee. I still say that Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels shouldn’t be counted out in this event, and the folks at RCP seem to agree:

At a time when Indiana was solidly red in federal elections, “My Man Mitch” as he was known in the campaign became the first Republican elected governor in 16 years in 2004, defeating incumbent Joe Kernan. His governorship was marked early on by some controversial decisions regarding daylight savings time and a plan to lease the state’s toll roads to a foreign entity. But his numbers rebounded as the state endured the worsening economic crisis better than some of its Rust Belt neighbors, and he cruised to re-election.

At a time when not just the nation’s economy but its growing debts are a mounting concern, Daniels’ credentials as a fiscal conservative are likely his strongest asset in a potential 2012 race. Indiana currently has one of the lowest budget deficits in the county as a percentage of its general fund, and was one of the few states not to implement new or higher taxes this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Though Daniels has been the subject of presidential speculation, he publicly ruled out a bid in June, saying: “I’ve only ever run for or held one office. It’s the last one I’m going to hold.” But behind the scenes, however, he may be sending other signals. U.S. News & World Report claimed just this week he’s been consulting with veterans of national campaigns, including former Vice President and Indiana Senator Dan Quayle, on a potential run. GOP12.com pointed out this week that Quayle himself said recently he “certainly would be fully qualified, very competitive and could possibly be the nominee and give Obama a good run.

If Obama is beatable — let’s say his approval rating is between 44 and 52 percent — Daniels would almost certainly take back Indiana (as would any of the other GOP candidates) and would probably make it next to impossible for Obama to win Ohio. His Syrian-American background would help end the notion that Republican support for the GWOT is based on any anti-Arab tendencies, but more to the point, Daniels was a governing conservative before it was cool to be one. If there’s a Bob McDonnell at the national level, it’s him. He’s the guy I can picture running as the “Jobs President,” and his entire campaign would focus on the economy and the big issues that emanate from the economy — jobs, health care, and the country’s long-term fiscal situation — all of which he has addressed in Indiana with conservative solutions. I have a penchant for boring, competent candidates of course (cough, Tom Ridge, cough), but perhaps the country will too after back-to-back charismatic presidents who led us into economic and fiscal ruin.

CBS News Survey on Afghanistan, Terrorist Trials, Fort Hood, Health Care & the Economy

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?

• Approve 53% (56%)
• Disapprove 36% (34%)

Among Independents

• Approve 45% (52%)
• Disapprove 40% (35%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling foreign policy?

• Approve 50% (48%)
• Disapprove 36% (28%)

Among Independents

• Approve 49% (45%)
• Disapprove 38% (24%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation with Afghanistan?

• Approve 38% (42%)
• Disapprove 43% (34%)

Among Independents

• Approve 30% (44%)
• Disapprove 49% (36%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy?

• Approve 49% (54%)
• Disapprove 43% (38%)

Among Independents

• Approve 40% (47%)
• Disapprove 48% (41%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care?

• Approve 44% (47%)
• Disapprove 48% (42%)

Among Independents

• Approve 38% (44%)
• Disapprove 50% (43%)

From what you know so far, which comes closest to your own view? 1. The economic stimulus package has already created a substantial number of new jobs in the U.S. OR 2. It will create a substantial number of new jobs but hasn’t done that yet OR 3. It will not create a substantial number of new jobs?

• Has already created jobs 7% [7%]
• Will, but hasn’t yet 46% [52%]
• Will not create jobs 42% [38%]

Among Independents

• Has already created jobs 5% [6%]
• Will, but hasn’t yet 42% [49%]
• Will not create jobs 47% [41%]

As you may know, for the past eight years the United States has been holding a number of suspected terrorists at a U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Based on what you have heard or read, do you think the U.S. should continue to operate the prison, or do you think the U.S. should close the prison and transfer the prisoners somewhere else?

• Continue to operate 50% {40%}
• Close it 39% {48%}

Among Independents

• Continue to operate 51% {30%}
• Close it 35% {60%}

When it comes to dealing with people suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks against the United States, which would you prefer: 1) Trying them in open criminal court with a jury, and a civilian judge, OR 2) Trying them in a closed military court with a military judge?

• Military Court 54%
• Criminal Court 40%

Among Independents

• Military Court 60%
• Criminal Court 34%

Do you think the U.S. military had information that could have prevented the shootings that occurred at the Army base in Fort Hood, Texas or not?

• Could have been prevented 51%
• Couldn’t have been prevented 29%

Among Independents

• Could have been prevented 54%
• Couldn’t have been prevented 25%

From what you have heard or read, do you consider the shooting incident at Fort Hood, Texas to be an act of terrorism or not?

• Act of terrorism 48%
• Not terrorism 38%

Among Independents

• Act of terrorism 46%
• Not terrorism 38%

From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Afghanistan, what should the United States do now–should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, keep the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan as they are now, or decrease the numbers of troops in Afghanistan?

• Increase 32% (37%)
• Keep the same 20% (17%)
• Decrease 39% (38%)

Among Independents

• Increase 34% (34%)
• Keep the same 18% (16%)
• Decrease 40% (39%)

As you may know, the Obama Administration is considering sending additional troops to Afghanistan. From what you have heard or read, do you think a troop increase would make the situation in Afghanistan better, make it worse, or would it have no impact on the situation in Afghanistan?

• Make it better 36%
• Make it worse 22%
• No impact 31%

Among Independents

• Make it better 37%
• Make it worse 21%
• No impact 31%

Survey of 1,167 adults was conducted November 13-16. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 5-8 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 19-23 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 12-16 are in curly brackets. Party ID breakdown: 37% Democrat; 24% Republican; 39% Independent.

I have heard that certain people here have been wondering about my extended period of blog silence – especially considering that a certain former governor with whom I am heavily associated is releasing a book this week. So, I wanted to clear the air.

First off, I did not plan on taking such a leave. However, I started a new job at the beginning of the month, and then spent a week in the hospital with pneumonia brought on by severely aggravated asthma (got out Sunday). I would have blogged from my hospital bed but there was no WiFi.

In addition, I have also had to make a sudden and unplanned change in my place of residence and have become tied up in other issues which I cannot discuss (for fear that my blog postings will be mentioned in court by the people against whom I am taking legal action.)

Needless to say, blogging has unfortunately moved to the bottom of my priority list – and for that I apologize.

That said, I have been agressively keeping up with the news, especially that surrounding Gov. Palin.

I will not be receiving my copy of Going Rogue until tomorrow, so I won’t comment on the book just yet. I will say that the media coverage thus far has surprised even me. Some of it has been interesting, and I am particularly impressed by unusual seriousness with which a certain Mr. Limbaugh has approached his coverage. Unfortunately, most of the so-called ”mainstream” coverage has been either laugh-out-loud funny or downright appalling.

I am amazed at how many supposedly serious journalists have become so unhinged at the mere mention this  book. I love the way they bloviate about the contents of a book which they have clearly not read (or at best skimmed), and then blast Rush Limbaugh for calling it a serious work – when, for better or worse, Rush has at least taken the time to read the whole thing cover-to-cover.

Say what you want about Rush, Palin, or the media - I just think it’s hilarious that people who have not read the book are spending so much time yelling at Rush (who has read it) about how many pages Palin spends dwelling on policy vs. how many pages are devoted to McCain aides or Levi Johnston. Rush actually read it, so he’s the one I’m trusting on what it says and what percentages are devoted to certain subjects.

There is much more to say, but not enough room to say it. So, for now I will leave it at that. Just rest assured that I have not gone totally incognito and that I will be commenting much more on Going Rogue.

—

Update: Palin on Rush.

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

At this moment on late Tuesday evening, the following pictures of Republicans are on the front page of Politico.com.  It’s as if Politico is trying to find the least desirable photos available.

As the leading photo at the top, with Pete Hoekstra, Rob Simmons, and Mark Kirk (left to right), we have this photo series (the three tenors, perhaps?):

(more…)

All too often during my four years working within higher education at Johnson County Community College, I watched as awards, titles, and jobs were given to candidates based not upon merit, but as a result of emotions and/or the candidate’s political views, skin color, or gender.  Indeed, the college’s current top employee, CEO/President Terry Calaway, is not fit to run a day care center.  I mean no disrespect toward day care providers.

Sports of all types maintain great popularity in large part because, in general, the greatest athletes succeed as a result of a combination of God-given talent, hard work, and taking risks.

With that, I congratulate all of the 2009 Major League Baseball award-winners, and in particular the Kansas City Royals’ Zach Greinke for earning the 2009 American League Cy Young Award.

From MLB.com:

Greinke received 25 of a possible 28 first-place votes and tallied 134 points. Mariners right-hander Felix Hernandez received two first-place votes and finished second in the balloting with 80 points. Tigers right-hander Justin Verlander received one first-place vote and placed third overall.

(more…)

From The Lobbyist:

Transparency is on at the White House- however, I expect President Obama wishes it wasn’t quite so transparent. Turns out information being sent in regarding what the stimulus has done to boost employment is somewhat inaccurate.

The Associated Press started the now-mainstream stimulus critique reports a few weeks back- doing a commendable job as watchdog- and put the White House on stimulus defense. Now, however, comes a new wrinkle in stimulus efficiency and White House competence- namely, the White House is reporting job numbers in congressional districts that don’t exist.

To be fair, I am not blaming the administration. It’s not their fault people reporting numbers don’t know what district they live in. However, it does not look good on the heels of the AP report (which was, admittedly, preliminary) and the other stories regarding stimulus measuring difficulties that have come out recently.

I first heard about this new debacle from The Heritage Foundation. However, like a good little newly-arrived blogger, I double-checked two of the claims Heritage made. Guess what? They are accurate.

Unfortunately, Democrats and liberals can defend against the claims the stimulus isn’t working. Yes, these public relations disasters makes President Obama, Democrats and the stimulus look rather dumb in the public eye. Yes, it’s great fodder for conservative blogs, newspapers, radio and TV shows and speeches. Yes, it speaks volumes about government incompetence and wasteful spending ($18 million to overhaul the site and this is the inaccuracy they get?). However, if the jobs were created- and for the moment let’s assume they were and aren’t overstated by the same people who don’t know what district in which they live- doesn’t that lend credence to President Obama’s claim that the stimulus worked?

Personally, I say no. I say it is another obvious harbinger for Democratic health care reform, the EFCA, cap-and-trade and the renewal of NCLB next year that government can run very little well, especially proven over the last decade. Maybe my libertarian college friend Jon O’Neill is right and a third-party candidate will win the 2012 presidential race. It would serve Republicans and Democrats right.

I GOT GOING ROGUE!

Chapter-by-chapter review coming soon…

Rasmussen Minnesota GOP Gubernatorial Primary

Suppose that in the 2010 Election for Governor of Minnesota the Republicans could nominate Marty Seifert, Tom Emmer, Laura Brod or Norm Coleman. Which of those candidates would you most like to see as the Republican nominee?

• Norm Coleman 50%
• Marty Seifert 11%
• Laura Brod 5%
• Tom Emmer 1%
• Some other candidate 7%
• Not sure 26%

Survey of 330 Likely Republican Primary Voters was conducted November 10. The margin of error is +/- 5.5 percentage points.

Rasmussen Survey on Terrorist Trial in NYC

Do you favor or oppose the decision to try the terrorist detainees linked to 9/11 in a civilian court rather than before a military tribunal?

• Favor 29%
• Oppose 51%

While they are being tried, should suspected terrorists be given all the rights of U.S. citizens?

• Yes 14%
• No 76%

How confident are you that New York City will be safe and secure during the trial of the suspected 9/11 terrorists?

• Very confident 20%
• Somewhat confident 38%
• Not very confident 28%
• Not at all confident 10%

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted November 15-16. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans and 56% of voters not affiliated with either major political party oppose trying the terrorist detainees in a civilian court. Democrats are more closely divided, with a plurality (46%) in favor of the administration’s decision to treat the cases as criminal matters for trial in a civilian court.

Democrats and unaffiliated voters are much more confident than Republicans that New York City will be safe and secure during the trial of the suspected terrorists.

SurveyUSA Los Angeles Poll on Sarah Palin and the Race 4 2012

Which of these Republicans would make a better president?

• Mitt Romney 25%
• Mike Huckabee 19%
• Sarah Palin 14%
• Newt Gingrich 11%

Among Conservatives

• Mitt Romney 27%
• Mike Huckabee 23%
• Sarah Palin 18%
• Newt Gingrich 12%

Among Republicans

• Mitt Romney 31%
• Mike Huckabee 26%
• Sarah Palin 13%
• Newt Gingrich 12%

Among Independents

• Mitt Romney 20%
• Newt Gingrich 19%
• Mike Huckabee 18%
• Sarah Palin 12%

Among Democrats

• Mitt Romney 29%
• Sarah Palin 15%
• Mike Huckabee 14%
• Newt Gingrich 7%

Is your opinion of Sarah Palin favorable? Unfavorable? Neutral? Or, do you have no opinion of Sarah Palin?

• Favorable 28%
• Unfavorable 47%
• Neutral 18%
• No Opinion 7%

Among Men

• Favorable 32%
• Unfavorable 53%
• Neutral 10%
• No Opinion 4%

Among Women

• Favorable 24%
• Unfavorable 41%
• Neutral 25%
• No Opinion 10%

Among Democrats

• Favorable 12%
• Unfavorable 64%
• Neutral 17%
• No Opinion 7%

Among Republicans

• Favorable 47%
• Unfavorable 25%
• Neutral 23%
• No Opinion 5%

Among Independents

• Favorable 32%
• Unfavorable 49%
• Neutral 17%
• No Opinion 7%

If you were giving advice to Sarah Palin, would you tell her to run for president? Or not?

• Run 22%
• Do Not Run 69%

Among Men

• Run 24%
• Do Not Run 69%

Among Women

• Run 21%
• Do Not Run 70%

Among Republicans

• Run 30%
• Do Not Run 58%

Among Independents

• Run 18%
• Do Not Run 73%

Is your opinion of Barack Obama favorable? Unfavorable? Neutral? Or, do you have no opinion of Barack Obama?

• Favorable 56%
• Unfavorable 26%
• Neutral 15%
• No Opinion 3%

Who do you respect more, Obama or Palin?

• Obama 69%
• Palin 22%

Among Men

• Obama 70%
• Palin 26%

Among Women

• Obama 68%
• Palin 19%

Among Democrats

• Obama 93%
• Palin 5%

Among Republicans

• Palin 48%
• Obama 40%

Among Independents

• Obama 65%
• Palin 24%

Survey of 500 adults in the Los Angeles metropolitan area was conducted November 16. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 42% Democrat; 27% Republican; 23% Independent. Ideology: 34% Moderate; 29% Conservative; 30% Liberal.

What are liberals teaching their children about homosexuality?

If they were enlightened and educated, they would be teaching the following: homosexuality involves the sexual and emotional attraction to members of the same sex. It is not a lifestyle. It is not an ideology. It is not an agenda.

It is with with great disturbance, then, that I relay the case of a 10-year-old Oklahoma boy named Will Phillips who is refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because he believes — or, rather, his parents believe — that the phrase “liberty and justice for all” does not apply to gay and lesbian citizens.

I have long been concerned, as a gay man, that there isn’t really any mass movement in this country dedicated to speaking the truth about homosexuality. For as much ‘progress’ gay men qua gay men are purported to have made in the culture, it has usually come at the expense of the truth: we are more accepted, alright — accepted as accessories for successful urban women, or as fashion designers, or as super-fabulous, promiscuous socialites. The gay man who does not choose to take part in this minstrel show is usually shut out of the media. Author Bruce Bawer long ago described this sad phenomenon: one may encounter twenty gay men on the way home from work, but the only one that anyone will register as gay is the flamboyant activist. And what sort of attitude does that breed?

Now, there is nothing evil about being effeminate or involved in political activism. One obviously has the right to live the way one pleases without fear of being emotionally terrorized. But the subculture-oriented among us are a shockingly smaller portion of us than the media would have you believe — they are simply more visible. The rest of us blend in, trying to live our lives just like other men. We don’t organize into a mass movement because we don’t have any serious complaints: the lack of marriage equality is regarded as an inconvenience, not an oppression. ‘Hate crime’ laws are viewed as unnecessary, if not draconian. Property rights are valued above government schemes to somehow ‘force’ equality. We’re concerned with political issues that have something to do with aspects of our lives beyond our sexual orientation. And we love America.

All things considered, there is nowhere on Earth that it is better to be a gay man than in the United States. Professional grievance lobbies would insist that one is a “second-class citizen” without the federal government conferring its stamp of approval on your sexual orientation, but it is only here that the fundamental human right of free speech is so enshrined and honored as to grant the average citizen no fear of expressing himself openly, conveying his opinions to his peers and the public, and shaping his own life as he sees fit. Obviously, circumstances are not perfect. But it is out of the spirit of American history for society not to move in the direction of acceptance and tolerance.

There is a great danger, though, as this news story witnesses, that the momentum of social tolerance is rapidly degenerating into a depressing nihilism. When Martin Luther King, Jr., raised his voice for racial equality, he spoke of it in terms of his love of country — the greatest ideals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He did not abstain from patriotism until racial equality was achieved — rather, he loved his country as much as he did because he believed that its essential character would inevitably shift momentum toward his goals. The contemporary movement for gay equality not only lacks anything remotely resembling a King figure, but it lacks that essential love of country and desire for integration that makes a mass movement culturally successful. In their do-gooder zeal, the parents of this young Oklahoma boy are doing mainstream gays and lesbians a great disservice.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

SurveyUSA Louisville Poll on Sarah Palin and the Race 4 2012

Which of these Republicans would make a better president?

• Mike Huckabee 24%
• Mitt Romney 21%
• Sarah Palin 18%
• Newt Gingrich 10%

Among Conservatives

• Mike Huckabee 31%
• Mitt Romney 25%
• Sarah Palin 22%
• Newt Gingrich 10%

Among Republicans

• Mitt Romney 28%
• Mike Huckabee 28%
• Sarah Palin 24%
• Newt Gingrich 9%

Among Independents

• Mike Huckabee 22%
• Mitt Romney 20%
• Sarah Palin 17%
• Newt Gingrich 9%

Among Democrats

• Mike Huckabee 23%
• Mitt Romney 18%
• Sarah Palin 17%
• Newt Gingrich 11%

Is your opinion of Sarah Palin favorable? Unfavorable? Neutral? Or, do you have no opinion of Sarah Palin?

• Favorable 36%
• Unfavorable 35%
• Neutral 22%
• No Opinion 7%

Among Men

• Favorable 42%
• Unfavorable 28%
• Neutral 23%
• No Opinion 7%

Among Women

• Favorable 31%
• Unfavorable 41%
• Neutral 21%
• No Opinion 6%

Among Democrats

• Favorable 21%
• Unfavorable 51%
• Neutral 25%
• No Opinion 3%

Among Republicans

• Favorable 66%
• Unfavorable 14%
• Neutral 16%
• No Opinion 3%

Among Independents

• Favorable 35%
• Unfavorable 28%
• Neutral 22%
• No Opinion 16%

If you were giving advice to Sarah Palin, would you tell her to run for president? Or not?

• Run 27%
• Do Not Run 70%

Among Men

• Run 30%
• Do Not Run 68%

Among Women

• Run 24%
• Do Not Run 72%

Among Republicans

• Run 41%
• Do Not Run 56%

Among Independents

• Run 23%
• Do Not Run 71%

Is your opinion of Barack Obama favorable? Unfavorable? Neutral? Or, do you have no opinion of Barack Obama?

• Favorable 42%
• Unfavorable 41%
• Neutral 16%
• No Opinion 1%

Who do you respect more, Obama or Palin?

• Obama 52%
• Palin 37%

Among Men

• Obama 46%
• Palin 44%

Among Women

• Obama 58%
• Palin 32%

Among Democrats

• Obama 74%
• Palin 19%

Among Republicans

• Palin 67%
• Obama 20%

Among Independents

• Palin 44%
• Obama 43%

Survey of 500 adults in the Louisville metropolitan area was conducted November 16. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 48% Democrat; 27% Republican; 22% Independent. Ideology: 39% Moderate; 31% Conservative; 20% Liberal.

SurveyUSA New York Poll on Sarah Palin and the Race 4 2012

Which of these Republicans would make a better president?

• Mitt Romney 27%
• Mike Huckabee 18%
• Sarah Palin 13%
• Newt Gingrich 9%

Among Conservatives

• Mitt Romney 34%
• Sarah Palin 18%
• Mike Huckabee 15%
• Newt Gingrich 7%

Among Republicans

• Mitt Romney 28%
• Mike Huckabee 23%
• Newt Gingrich 18%
• Sarah Palin 18%

Among Independents

• Mike Huckabee 26%
• Mitt Romney 22%
• Sarah Palin 17%
• Newt Gingrich 8%

Among Democrats

• Mitt Romney 30%
• Mike Huckabee 13%
• Sarah Palin 9%
• Newt Gingrich 8%

Is your opinion of Sarah Palin favorable? Unfavorable? Neutral? Or, do you have no opinion of Sarah Palin?

• Favorable 23%
• Unfavorable 46%
• Neutral 20%
• No Opinion 11%

Among Men

• Favorable 32%
• Unfavorable 43%
• Neutral 17%
• No Opinion 9%

Among Women

• Favorable 15%
• Unfavorable 49%
• Neutral 23%
• No Opinion 13%

Among Democrats

• Favorable 14%
• Unfavorable 54%
• Neutral 20%
• No Opinion 12%

Among Republicans

• Favorable 43%
• Unfavorable 26%
• Neutral 27%
• No Opinion 5%

Among Independents

• Favorable 28%
• Unfavorable 47%
• Neutral 16%
• No Opinion 9%

If you were giving advice to Sarah Palin, would you tell her to run for president? Or not?

• Run 21%
• Do Not Run 73%

Among Men

• Run 27%
• Do Not Run 69%

Among Women

• Run 15%
• Do Not Run 78%

Among Republicans

• Run 34%
• Do Not Run 63%

Among Independents

• Run 27%
• Do Not Run 67%

Is your opinion of Barack Obama favorable? Unfavorable? Neutral? Or, do you have no opinion of Barack Obama?

• Favorable 67%
• Unfavorable 23%
• Neutral 9%
• No Opinion 1%

Who do you respect more, Obama or Palin?

• Obama 76%
• Palin 15%

Among Men

• Obama 71%
• Palin 19%

Among Women

• Obama 80%
• Palin 10%

Among Democrats

• Obama 92%
• Palin 4%

Among Republicans

• Obama 45%
• Palin 32%

Among Independents

• Obama 67%
• Palin 23%

Survey of 500 adults in the New York metropolitan area was conducted November 16. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 51% Democrat; 18% Republican; 28% Independent. Ideology: 41% Moderate; 25% Conservative; 25% Liberal.

The L.A. Times says Palin’s way too stupid to understand the Christian philosopher Pascal:

Actually, the hand most obviously working throughout “Going Rogue” is  [collaborator Lynn] Vincent’s. The narrative is sprinkled with literary and philosophical references that one somehow doubts sprang from the copious pages of Palin’s diaries, including the role of Blaise Pascal’s philosophy in her girlhood conversion from Catholicism to Evangelical Protestantism.

“One somehow doubts,” ma’am? Meaning what? — No, no, we know what you mean. You mean what Chris Matthews meant, when he bashed Palin for working with a collaborator: “they’re admitting she can’t write!” — She’s stupid. Just say what you mean instead of masking it in patronizing innuendo.

One somehow doubts that any of these people cared as much when Hillary Clinton worked with multiple ghostwriters for her Living History tome. And why should they? Hillary Clinton is smart, people! Goodness. That boob Palin couldn’t possibly understand the Pensees or have had any passing interest in philosophy.

If only we could get more smart Democrats like Obama in office to “create or save” more jobs in non-existent Congressional districts.