She's still going to get a bump in the polls from this latest wave of publicity. 99% of America knows as little about foreign policy as she does, and most of that 99% thinks it's always a good idea to kill brown people when their leaders look at you crosswise.

Yes, yes, that's the ticket. War with Iran and undying fealty to Israel. Rapture here we come!!!

I'd be very surprised to learn that the Democrats are not contributing to Sarah Palin's political ambitions, and surreptitiously greasing the slipways for her. I would - she's the best potential vote-splitter to come along in years. The Conservative strategists won't run her, because they know her base is too small to win and the rest of the country thinks she's a colourful halfwit. However, there is an element of the electorate that will accept no other candidate but Palin. Unelectable, but impossible to ignore - charismatic, but numbingly ignorant. What's not to like?

It's limitless because it's zero. She is, like a sociopath, incapable of shame.

Dumb is as dumb does. Nauseating on so, so many levels.

Pretty scary to think that the voting machines in '12 will be rigged to make her our next President...

-Z

If she runs in 2012 she may be the first presidential candidate in history to get single digit percentage of the vote.

SaintZak: if we learned anything from the '00 and '04 campaigns, it should be that the GOP candidate doesn't actually need to win to be (s)elected President.

-Z

Palin, is a fundamentalist Christian, with virtually no foreign policy experience or understanding (GOP seems to like this type). Thus she is reliant on advise from others and she choose neocon and McCain war adviser Randy Scheunemann as her chief fp counsel. This dude is a complete lunatic. Should Palin get elected he would likely start a war with Iran, provoke N Korea and allow Israel to expand settlements. All of this will be fine with Palin who literally believes the end of the world in coming in the form of a religious war in the middle east. Making fun of her F-ed up family, clothes, are all fun and games but we should also be mindful of the catastrophic consequences of her presidency.

Was she the governer of Alaska or Alabama? In either case all I can think is "Run Forest, run!"

Man, you have to really try to get this stupid; Gawd save us all.

Even Republicans are making fun of her stupidity.

On mourning Joe:
Andrea Mitchell wrote the names of everyone on her hand and showed it to the cameras.

Chuck Todd said that republicans don't know how to get ride of her w/o alienating a hug portion of the base and they don't want her there.

Joe Scarborough said she has an inability to dig deep on policy.

They all made comments about Chris Wallace rolling his eyes after the interview and clowned on her quitting her job. Basically, she's no Ronald Reagan.

She is done. I suspect they will keep her around to capture her fan base during the election, but after watching them throw her under the bus, she doesn't have a any chance of running.

What really irks me is not one of those clowns mentioned their support of her just over a year ago. They were all fawning over her and talking her and her experience up w/o any disregard for the welfare of the country.

Ms. Palin only needs to obtain a percentage of the vote equal to her IQ and she will be the next president. You betcha!

The link below is hard, acerbic stuff about the Palinista/Teaparty crowd:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Archives2010/KunstlerFeb08.html
The LATOC folks are too pessimistic though, we have to believe there's something to do or there certainly won't be.

Clearly Pat Buchanan is a terrorist sympathizer.

My favorite comment from the election still applies.
Richard Wolfe to Keith Olberman

Keith, " I am going to be as restrained as I can be... but this is the most mindless, ignorant, uninformed, comment that we have seen from Governor Palin so far and there's been a lot of competition for that prize."

She keeps exceeding her own bar

However, as for the idea it's good for Sarah to run and then lose: I don't think so. Maybe "rational" Republicans are deliberately promoting her behind the scenes and not Democrats. Maybe they figure it's better to have a candidate like that run and lose as a martyr, and take advantage of the vast bitterness and resentment those who voted for her will feel. If they have a truly viable candidate, sure they'll run such but otherwise: might as well cause as much damage losing as they can.

La Palinista: "Say he decided to declare war on Iran"

Am I mistaken, or doesn't Congress alone have the power to "declare war"? Just cuz W did it doesn't mean it's right.

...come out and do whatever he could to support Israel...

I'd be shocked half to death if she could find Israel on a map of Israel.

The only reason democrats continue attacking the Governess is because she's a woman, and she's hot.

what karen said at 10:58...

Palin is the sociopath litmus test for ol' sinclair's flag-draped holy babble-bibble.

What Sarah REALLY wants, is for a seat to become available on "The View". . .

I was thinking this morning what private negotiations between Sarah Palin and, say, Vladimir Putin would be like.

Would she be able to discuss missile throw weights, nonproliferation, oil pipeline routes, North Korea, human rights, Iran, NATO? Or would she just write on her palm, "peer into his soul?"

Why she even thinks her "academic" background in sports broadcasting qualifies her to be Commander in Chief is the epitome of ingnorance combined with hubris. She is a dolt -- all style and, literally, no substance. It's frightening that people would pay her $100,000 to hear her make fun of a "hopey-changey" Columbia- and Harvard-educated Nobel Prize- winning statesman.

The truly scary thing is that she speaks for millions of utter morons who simply don't care about reality or facts. Pointing out that she is so dumb that she took the opposite meaning from something a fellow conservative wrote will mean exactly zero to these people. Listening to the tea-party crowd's knee-jerk seal-barking in response to her lying to them (and generally acting like an asshole) always reminds me of the horror movie "End Of The Line".

"Dumber than we thought?"

Impossible!

PJ - it's proof positive that she has no idea what the presidency involves if she believes that someone like herself is capable of doing it.

Hmmmm:

If Obama decided to declare war, he could go to Congress for a formal declaration or he could drop an A-bomb just like Truman did. I think you guys are missing the point though. She read Buchanan's piece and DISAGREES with his conclusion. Nothing wrong with that.

Sorry can't comment

Trying to read Palin gives me a headache.
Oh hang on a sec,
I can say something that is almost as equally noisy:

Palin, the pinhead, should shut the fox up.
(pinhead: Bill O'Reilly's fav word for retard.)

"It's a shame mildly-sophisticated foreign policy ideas -- such as who supports which war -- can't find on the palm of a hand."

Uhh... I hate to bring it up again, but your ability to punch out statements that make no sense because of poor proofreading seems similarly to be limitless. Can't "fit on" the palm of a hand? Can't "be found on" the palm of a hand? It'd be petty if this were the only example, but it isn't. I realize you want to get the discussion point out there as fast as possible, but the path is strewn with nutjobs who, nutty as they are, can read and spell and are waiting to scream, "Corpse Man!! Corpse Man!!! You mispronounced/misspelt a word, so you're an idiot and your whole message is suspect!!!"

Proper spelling and grammar are cheap routes to credibility.

While I don't agree with Buchanan's ideas, what he said was, "Should the president declare he has gone the last mile for a negotiated end to Iran's nuclear program and impose the 'crippling' sanctions he promised in 2008, America would be on an escalator to confrontation that could lead straight to war. And should war come, that would be the end of GOP dreams of adding three-dozen seats in the House and half a dozen in the Senate."

So when Palin says that Buchanan's idea that war with Iran would change people's thinking and therefore change the political environment, she read it correctly.

You did not. Yes, Buchanan is against a war, and he says that Obama's own party is restricting his options, but the article doesn't say that a war with Iran would work against Obama. In fact, he echoes Pipes' theme.

She read Buchanan's piece and DISAGREES with his conclusion.

What on earth makes you believe that there was actual reading and disagreeing done on her part? Nothing in what she actually said suggests anything of the sort.

always reminds me of the horror movie "End Of The Line".

reminds me of "Idiocracy". I'll need to rent that again if Palin runs for Prez.

If Obama decided to declare war, he could go to Congress for a formal declaration or he could drop an A-bomb just like Truman did. I think you guys are missing the point though. She read Buchanan's piece and DISAGREES with his conclusion. Nothing wrong with that.
Posted by: JakeD

You have to be a fan of Palin or at the very least an intellectual equal because the US declared war on Japan long before the A-bombs were dropped. Idiot, that is like 3rd grade history.

Speaking of notes or prompting, Palin couldn't dump piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the bottom.

I really don't think this is quite fair against Palin. I mean, you can't expect her to get passed the headlines when she has to read ALL newspapers, as well as write all those important Facebook messages. There are only so many hours in a day, people.

ScottW:

I am a fan of Palin's, but I never said Congress didn't declare war formally on Japan. Are you doubting that Obama could drop a nuke on Iran short of a formal declaration by Congress?

Are you doubting that Obama could drop a nuke on Iran short of a formal declaration by Congress?

Did you even read your previous post?

JakeD: We had already declared war on Japan long ago, the decision to drop an A-bomb was tactical and not requiring Congress's input per CIC responsibilities. Do you really want to reinforce the pitiful image of Palinistas?

And you and kevino: First REM that Palin was wrong to even refer to a President declaring war on a nation. Buchanan, being knowledgeable, meant about imposing crippling sanctions which might "lead" to war (which Iran might start first.) Well of course being in a war would "change people's thinking" and voters might not want to change horses in a crisis etc. But that would be an awful result for us in general, and Buchanan has been against neocon interventions for awhile. As for whether Iran really can do much with Uranium even now, see this:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/more-empty-threats.html

Anyone else getting the feeling that Palin fans Google her all day long and run to defend her every criticism. There are a bunch of idiots making comments I don't recognize.

We get it, like GWB, Palin is an intellectual heavy weight who is misunderstood. Nothing is ever a republican's fault and democrats want to turn the US into the Soviet Union. We get it.

Actually DH Walker, it isn't supposed to be possible but GWB and his fans surely believed he could have dropped a nuke on Tehran without any approval.

Scott:

Don't forget that other staple of Palin defenders: something's not a lie so long as one person believes it.

D H Walker:

Yes.

Neil b:

No.

Scott W:

Care to actually answer my question to you?

Anyone else getting the feeling that Palin fans Google her all day long...

I rather suspect that they ogle her all day long instead.

-Z

Neil:

Oh, sure, and that's clearly what JakeD was suggesting. And when called on it, he (naturally) pretends like he understood that all along, even if that blatantly contradicts his own post from ten minutes earlier.

We need someone to do research on the effects of tanning beds on cerebral functions.

I know a great subject for such a study.

You betcha.

How's that hopey changey workin out for ya now?

Palineses has become a new language.

Jake:

And I'm still waiting to hear your explanation as to how you know Palin actually read Buchannan's piece rather than just repeating the "war card" phrase that she "got" from it.

Well?

Palin believes in "the rapture" but if she gains more power and influence she is clearly working towards "the rupture." - The rupture of a rational civil society working together in the public interest.

In Blink! Malcolm Gladwell describes what is known as the Warren Harding Error. Basically it amounts to a massive electoral failure - an extrememly attractive, charismatic politician, spouting slogans and empty populist rhetoric, causes people to get dumber and stop using their brains to make choices.

More and more, I hear this about Sarah, also, too. The more you listen to her the dumber you get. At the rate she is infecting the Tea Party, they won't be able to enunciate a complete sentence by November.

Are you doubting that Obama could drop a nuke on Iran short of a formal declaration by Congress?
Posted by: JakeD

That question ?

Are you serious ? Is this one of those 'can I', 'may I' lines. Can he physically do it, yes, will he, not a chance in hell will any American President detonate a nuclear weapon on a Muslim country. Even your precious isn't that fricken stooooopid.

Only an idiot living in some other place then reality would even think such a idea is something worth discussing. What's next, the viability of bombing China to rid ourselves of debt ?

Good enough JakeD ?

[Please stop feeding the troll. He is being shown the door at this very moment. --Mod]

I agree with kevino. Palin may have been inspired by what she read (or was told about) from Buchanan; she's not representing Buchanan's position. Criticize Palin's position on war with Iran, but her attribution of Buchanan is not worth nitpicking.

JakeD, do you even understand the usual context and meaning of "could" in political discourse? You know, Obama or Bush or whoever "could" pull out a tommy gun and blast away at members of the other Party, and so on ad nauseum. He "could" give the order and mindless scions would follow it. He "could" do something unconstitutional, and worry about consequences later. Some of that has of course been done, especially by GWB - and with that and his debt buildup, why do you cons love him so? But the use of "the President can" is suppose to be about "may" he do it, in propriety. I guess we should indeed use "may" instead of "can".

BTW, I guess you'd just love having our gas go up to $10/gallon just so Israel can be safe for Revelation prophecy games? And sure, reflexive support for a nation founded by a religion rejecting that Jesus was the sort of savior Xtianity believes, is the proper goal of evangelical Christians? Sure, it makes so much sense. Just like voting for a guy who worshiped Reagan who "taught us deficits don't matter" as Cheney said but now deficits are suddenly horrible, and so on.

What I don't understand is why Former Half-Term Governor Box O'Rocks doesn't have better handlers who can keep her from humiliating herself?

And Mark, from one who is a professional editor -- please lighten up. I'd bet we all knew what Steve meant. If you're hoping to get hired by the Washington Monthly as a proofreader, try honey rather than vinegar.

Well, DH Walker, she cites to his article as the basis for such a hypothetical, but I wasn't there to personally guarantee she read each and every word in said article.

Ah, so you didn't understand the question, then.

What did Palin say (actual, you know, substance) that involved an understanding of Buchannan's points? Obviously, she lifted the "war card" phrase - that's clear to everyone, even you. But what has she said that involves, responds to, or engages Buchannan's substantive points?

Or is comprehension of insight way to complex for you to understand what I'm talking about?

What I don't understand is why Former Half-Term Governor Box O'Rocks doesn't have better handlers who can keep her from humiliating herself?

Humiliating her in the eyes of who, though? It's very clear that absolutely nothing will make her look bad to her supporters. NOTHING. If she were caught on camera strangling a baby, all you'd hear for a week from these people would be lengthy explanations of how the baby was asking for it.

This is a different riff, but I saw a bumper sticker about a week and a half ago with "How's that Hopey Changey thing working out for you?" written on it. So even her "clever" little sniping one-liners are borrowed from other Talibaptists. She is unlikely to have ever had an original idea in that pathetic excuse for a brain of hers, imho.

In view of some quibbling over how well Palin understood Buchanan's specific points: that isn't the most important thing here, sure! That she imagines declaring war on Iran as a viable option (and the COTUS ignorance about who declares war) and political tool is the damning thing, not with respect to Buchanan's talking points as such.

Ahh.... another finger-in-the-dike appearance by the Fightin' Teaboarders.

Few realize that this is all a subtle initiative on the part of the GOP to annex Afghanistan as a state. They'll insist that terrorists be captured instead of killed, but argue that their underwear presents too high a risk to Americans to allow them to be tortured in the U.S. The only suitable site for that would be Baghram AFB: ipso-facto, Afghanistan must be made a state of the union.

I hear Pete Sessions is short-listed for governor. Oh, and it'll have to be called something else; "Afghanistan" has bad associations, and doesn't sound American anyway. How about "Freedom Corners", or "Del Boca Kabul"?

Oops! I accidentally posted that in the wrong thread - I meant it for the one above.

Ignore the troll JakeD. He used to infect TPM all the time, and is likely being paid, despite his past claims to the contrary. Palin needs folks like him to keep the lies below the radar of the MSM.

Giving Palin the benefit of the doubt, I don't read her comment as actually advocating going to war with Iran. I think she was only commenting that doing so would boost Obama's chances of reelection. Of course, one of the problems with Palin is that she is so inarticulate most of the time that it's nearly impossible to figure out what she is actually saying or what she means. That degree of inarticulatness often reflects a lack of clarity in the thought process.

DRF:

I think it's clear that at the very least, Palin is saying that insane wars are so politically popular that it makes sense to think of them in terms of electoral prospects. Which is, you know, insane.

Humiliating her in the eyes of who, though? It's very clear that absolutely nothing will make her look bad to her supporters. NOTHING

Who cares about the tiny minority of people who support her? It's the non-braindead we need to worry about. And as long as she's so clueless as to not hire people to tell her what to think, she'll have no chance of ruining this country.

I actually think it's a GOOD thing that Palin has such diehard supporters, as she might actually rethink her strategy if she didn't have a small mob encouraging her wherever she went. Her supporters might be large enough to win her the Republican nomination (though I wouldn't bet on it), but it'd get her trounced in the general election.

BTW, a recent CBS poll showed that Palin only had a 25% favorable rating, while 56% of Republicans thought she shouldn't run for President. While those numbers are unfortunately better than I could do, they're nothing to worry about. Palin is a joke that keeps getting funnier.
http://www.pollingreport.com/p.htm

Really two questions.

1. Would it be advisable to do the neocon thing again and instigate hostilities against Iran as Bush did against Iraq? Buchanan, our greatest thinker and analyst, says no. Palin says yes. Palin has poor judgement obviously, but no worse than Congress and a president who invariably kowtow to AIPAC and the Israel lobby.

2. Would going to war with Iran make people rally around the president? I would say it depends on who started the hostilities. Few would put up with another warmonger like Bush, but if Obama is keen to go to war he could do an FDR or LBJ and cynically squeeze Iran into making the first attack, or maybe do another Condi and BS the people into thinking a mushroom cloud is imminent.

It's difficult to imagine she would argue that attacking Iran would be a net positive for Obama, but wasn't advocating it. That said, she's just a buzzword generator who samples hard-right opinion only to see what the flavour of the day is, without looking any deeper. The word "vapid" was more or less invented for her. It bothers me that she holds her audience in such contempt that she believes repeating provocative phrases and tipping them the occasional coquettish wink is enough to make them drool on cue. It bothers me more that such is frequently the case. D.H. Walker @ 11:26 is so prescient on this that he might be her therapist.

You could make a constructive argument that you're not legitimately advocating a particular course of action if you know nothing at all about it.

Oh, and even Fox News shows that in a hypothetical match-up between Obama and Palin, Obama wins 55-31. That puts her four points below Romney's loss and two points above Gingrich's.
http://www.pollingreport.com/2012.htm

If Palin's plan is to make a lot of money without working for it, she's doing it brilliantly. But if she actually thinks this is a strategy to get her into the Whitehouse, she's as dumb as she seems. I'm guessing it's a mix of the two: She's doing it for the green, but is dumb enough to think she might get the presidency out of it.

Palin is a half-term half-wit.

Who cares about the tiny minority of people who support her?

I'm not worried about Palin per se. But she serves the same purpose as Limbaugh, Coulter, and Beck - envelope-pushers so batshit insane that they make the merely insane (like Huckabee, for instance) seem like a reasonable compromise.

"Sure, Palin's a goofball. But now that war with Iran has been brought up, let's talk about it." We've gotten to a point in this country that we're having "rational" discussions about torture, for God's sake.

"While those numbers are unfortunately better than I could do, they're nothing to worry about."

Don't sell yourself short, Doc. You wouldn't even have to look as good in a skirt. If the amount of money and effort were poured into a campaign to make you a Republican star as was dedicated to Palin, you'd swamp her in the first week. Don't get conceited, though - it could likely be done with the Maytag Repairman, too. Not a day goes by that I'm not thankful the Republicans don't have a charismatic, articulate candidate with exquisite manners, an easy smile and an attentive manner, not to mention some sensible ideas.

It'd be a slaughter. The only thing that keeps them on the lunatic fringe is....well....their lunacy.

Buchanan's article was too long to fit on her hand.

Would going to war with Iran make people rally around the president?

Luther - I can guarantee you that, no matter who started it, Republicans would become anti-war peaceniks faster than you can say "Noam Chomsky." Remember, they strongly opposed Clinton's war and continue to insist that it was a bad idea to this day. These people don't give a damn about anything, beyond gaining power and attacking liberals.

Were Obama to "play the war card," he'd lose the entire left-side of his base (which is already quite shakey) and gain almost no one; and the effort would cripple him as much as Bush was towards the end. Whoever decided that unending war was a political miracle should be shot and dissected. People like victory; not war.

Mark:

Absolutely. What would prevent her from advocating something insane like war with Iran? Morality? A remote understanding of how astonishingly terrible an idea it is? Not wanting to hear the thundering approval of her brainless thug minions?

Whoever coined the phrase, "You can't polish a turd" probably died with the belief that his truism remained unchallenged. I doubt he lived to witness the improbable semi-rise of Palin.

Just as well.

"And Mark, from one who is a professional editor -- please lighten up. I'd bet we all knew what Steve meant. If you're hoping to get hired by the Washington Monthly as a proofreader, try honey rather than vinegar."

I apologize if the complaint sounded snotty - I'm aware that speed is important to getting a story out while its still current, but I maintain there should still be time to read it over once first. I'm not immune to stupid typos myself, and while you could certainly figure out what was meant, it just looked sloppy. "Sloppy" usually translates to "easily dismissed as nonsense" in some minds, and why not correct something so easily avoidable? For what it's worth, I don't believe Mr. Benen was offended, and he usually just makes the change without comment.

I wouldn't make a very good proofreader, as somebody in that capacity would have to be available to do nothing else all day or hold up generation of the article. I'd like to do nothing all day but read the news, but I can't. Again, I'm sorry if I came off as pompous, because that's not the way I meant it.

Wow, I had heard that Charlie (Jake) died of a huge MI. I guess the dead do speak.

Mark,
Steve's constant typos and grammar massacres drive me nuts, but I am not a child of the insta-communication age. It's not clear to me why he doesn't type up his posts in a word processor, which could spell-check and grammar-check them, before posting them. I also don't understand the need to respond to "everything" that occurs each day with a posting. Ye olde CalPundit sure never did that.

Anyhow, my solution is: I now only skim what Steve posts, and when I hit an egregious grammatical train wreck of his, I just jump to the next post. Works like a charm.

I'll say one thing for Alaska's erstwhile former half-term governor: She certainly doesn't embarrass very easily.

Mark, it's just that you seem to comment on the typos a lot. I've come to accept that it is what it is.

And that I myself will occasionally end a statement with a question mark? :/

bcinaz,
"In Blink! Malcolm Gladwell describes what is known as the Warren Harding Error. Basically it amounts to a massive electoral failure - an extrememly attractive, charismatic politician, spouting slogans and empty populist rhetoric, causes people to get dumber and stop using their brains to make choices."

I haven't read Blink!, but this is pretty terrifying. A scenario where FHTG Palin becomes President -- but there's no there there. And you know how Cheney abhors a vacuum.

Maybe Palin should stop reading and thinking as just keep trying to memorize the talking points she has been fed.
That's what Bush did and he was quite successful in his own pathetic, murderous, ruinous way.

Of course he has a rich, powerful amoral daddy to help him, and Palin doesn't so her self prostitution will have to be total.

"I'm not immune to stupid typos myself"
Mark on February 9, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Clearly:

"getting a story out while its still current"

Or did you do that deliberately, for ironic impact?

"I wouldn't make a very good proofreader"

Duly noted.
I really shouldn't be so harsh, though, as I basically agree with Mark's point.

She is so dumb and yet you liberals are still so afraid of her. You can't stop talking about her everyday. What has Obama done that has been so brilliant? He has had an entire year and what do we have to show for it? It's ok, keep it up you think you are so smart and yet each election you lose. Who's message are more people supporting? Calling someone an idiot everyday now that's what we want to hear. Let us know when Obama has made it to all 57 states.

Elray B, the Republicans keep obstructing Obama and the Democrats all the time. No wonder he doesn't have much to show for it.