Right Wing blog reads the tea leaves and decides that Palin is NOT running for President.

Courtesy of Red State:

“It’s fair to them to give them an answer here, in short order, so that they can jump on board with someone else.” – Sarah Palin August 13, 2011 

With those words, former Gov. Sarah Palin made it clear to me that she will not run for president in 2012. 

You don’t tell your supporters “they can jump on board with someone else” if you are going to run. It’s as simple as that. One could, and no doubt many will, say Palin was just inarticulate. I don’t buy that.

So what do you think?  IS Red State correct in this assumption, or are they simply judging Palin by what normal rational people would do in her circumstance?

Well I can tell you one thing, the folks over at the Sea O'Pee are not buying into Red State's assumption one little bit.

How Redstate came to the conclusion that this means she’s not running beats me. What Governor Palin said is that she’s seriously thinking about it and will make a decision shortly because ”IF”, and I emphasize ”IF”, she decides not to run it wouldn’t be fair for her to hold on to her supporters. 

What I take away from this response is that as far as the Governor is concerned she would wait longer to make an announcement, but she understands that a decision must come sooner so it doesn’t appear like she’s stringing people along. 

Redstate obviously wishes that Governor Palin won’t run, but just because you hope something won;t happen doesn’t mean it won’t. 

In any event the day Governor Palin announces, Redstate loses it’s credibility, whatever was left of it.

I wonder if the SPCA can charge Palin with cruelty to dumb animals?

Here are the Iowa Straw Poll results. Try to act excited.

Courtesy of the LA Times:

1. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (4823, 28.55%) 

2. Congressman Ron Paul (4671, 27.65%) 

3. Governor Tim Pawlenty (2293, 13.57%) 

4. Senator Rick Santorum (1657, 9.81%) 

5. Herman Cain (1456, 8.62%) 

6. Governor Rick Perry (718, 3.62%) write-in 

7. Governor Mitt Romney (567, 3.36%) 

8. Speaker Newt Gingrich (385, 2.28%) 

9. Governor Jon Huntsman (69, 0.41%) 

10. Congressman Thad McCotter (35, 0.21%) 

Well Michele Bachmann won which should come as no surprise to ANYONE. She is the flavor of the moment and she is a fellow Iowan, which gives her an advantage.

And that was BEFORE everybody watched her eat her corndog.

I have to say that I am somewhat surprised that Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum (Or as I call them Dweedle dipshit and Dweedle Dumbass), came in third and fourth, right after Ron Paul's second place showing.

I find it amazing that the press gives this stupid poll so much attention when the top five winners don't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination.  

What I think might be somewhat newsworthy is that Rick Perry, who was not an official name on the poll and only declared his candidacy this morning, was able to win a sixth place position as a WRITE IN. That should really cause the eventual nominee Mitt Romney some sleepless nights.

All of this media attention these candidates are getting must be driving Palin CRAZY, I wonder what she could possibly do to get them to look in her direction?  

 
Of course, what was I thinking?

It has been too long since Jack Cafferty has graced IM with his presence.

Cafferty asks "Are Sarah Palin and Donald Trump the answer to the country's problems?"

I think most of us could easily answer that question, but let's hear what Jack has to say about that.

My favorite portion was  as he referenced the poor performance of "The Undefeated."

"The popcorn stand at the theater took in more money."

Did President Obama get taken in this debt ceiling compromise, or did he quietly, and calmly win again?

Interesting analysis from The People's View:

Here's the quick and dirty (The White House has a summary here and more details here):

• $900 billion in initial cuts (below CBO's baseline) through capping discretionary spending (meaning that nothing is being cut right now). Both parties had largely agreed to these cuts during the debt talks. This is really only about $750 billion of actual cuts; the other $150 billion comes from saving on interest payments on the national debt. This also raises the debt ceiling by $900 billion.
• Initial cuts do not include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or programs for the poor. It actually increases Pell grants - even in Boehner's bill.
• $350 billion (almost half of these cuts) in cuts in the base defense budget - these are not simply the savings coming from winding down the wars. This actually cuts the base defense budget.
• Specifically protects the President's historic investment in Pell Grants.
• Sets up a bipartisan "supercommittee" of Congress (half and half Democrats and Republicans) to achieve $1.5 trillion in additional deficit reductions with both tax reform and entitlement reform on the table.
• They must achieve at least $1.2 trillion in reduction or automatic cuts set in of that amount, spread equally between security (Defense and Homeland Security, mainly) and domestic spending set in. Social Security, Medicaid, low-income assistance programs and Medicare benefits are exempt (yes, I know you can swear you read or heard on the ether that it is not so, but it is. Follow along below). These are the so-called "triggers."
• Either way, the debt limit goes increases additionally by a commensurate amount to the cuts (at least $1.2 trillion, at most $1.5 trillion).
• A balanced budget amendment is guaranteed a vote, but not passage. But Congress can avoid both the supercommittee requirement and the alternate automatic cuts if it sends a balanced budget amendment to the states (which. will. never. happen. - because Republicans won't agree to anything balanced in terms of the balanced budget amendment.).    

Remember that the President can still veto anything coming out of this committee and Congress (in which case the triggers go into effect).

 
Now let's get to the fun part: the triggers. The more than half-a-trillion in defense and security spending cut "trigger" for the Republicans will hardly earn a mention on the Firebagger Lefty blogosphere. Hell, it's a trigger supposedly for the Republicans, and of course, there's always It'sNotEnough-ism to cover it. No, the loudest screeching noise you hear coming from Krugman and the ideologue Left is, of course, Medicare. Oh, no, the President is agreeing to a Medicare trigger!!! Oh noes!!! Everybody freak out right now! But let's look at the deal again, shall we?  

From the White House fact sheet, here is what the President actually agreed to.   

"Consistent With Past Practice, Sequester Would Be Divided Equally Between Defense and Non-Defense Programs and Exempt Social Security, Medicaid, and Low-Income Programs: Consistent with the bipartisan precedents established in the 1980s and 1990s, the sequester would be divided equally between defense and non-defense program, and it would exempt Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement. Likewise, any cuts to Medicare would be capped and limited to the provider side. Read that again." 

That's what the media and the whiners are not telling you. The President agreed to no Medicare benefit cuts in the "trigger." None. The cuts, if they automatically happen, would go to whom? The providers. Who are these providers? Doctors, hospitals, clinics, Medical device makers, service providers, drug manufacturers. Who do you think they mostly donate to in the political season? 

The entire pressure on these Medicare cuts are on the private medical (and pharmaceutical) industry! So let's ask that question again. The Medicare "trigger" is a trigger really from whom again? As a matter of fact, both big triggers (Defense and Medicare provider cuts) are triggers for the Republicans.

The author of the post (Who by the way is a MUCH better policy wonk than I am) also makes the point that these "triggers" cannot go into effect until 2013, which is AFTER we have the next election.  In other words the make up of the Congress might have substantially changed by that point and the President may have MORE instead of less support. 

Go ahead and read the whole post, and visit the numerous links provided and determine for yourself who knocked who down and took their lunch money.

Personally I feel much better.

 

Despite the rhetoric coming from the GOP not ONE current Republican candidate, or potential Republican candiate, has a snowball's chance in hell against President Obama in 2012.

In a side by side match up with each of the potential Republican Presidential candidates for 2012, essentially Obama eats their lunch for them according to Real Clear Politics.

Here is the breakdown.


Against Mitt Romney, who will surely emerge from the primary much more battered, bruised, and politically damaged than he is right now, President Obama polls at 4.3% higher in a potential 2012 election match up.

(By the way, Romney is in fact the GOP's best hope.)

Against Libertarian favorite Ron Paul, President Obama enjoys a 9.8% lead in the polls.

(But believe me the American people do NOT yet know about the racism, crazy conspiracy theories, and batshit crazy ideas.  Once those come to light, Paul's chances shrink to somewhere between "slim," and his buddy "none.")

Against "Let God handle it" Rick Perry, President Obama maintains a very comfortable 11.6% lead.

(The thing about Perry is the farther away from him you are, the better he looks politically.  But up close?)

Tim "TimPaw" Pawlenty is nowhere even close to providing a challenge with Obama leading him at 12.3%.

(You know I was going to write more about Pawlenty, but I kept nodding off.  I understand that when sheep suffer from insomnia they count TimPaw's boring public statements until they fall asleep.)

Michele Bachmann is trailing right behind Mr. Ho-hum with the President enjoying a 12.4% lead over the batshit crazy, "pray away the gay" lady.

"I can't believe my numbers are that high. Maybe batshit is the new black."

Now Jon "The other Mormon" Huntsman is trailing behind Obama by about 14%.

(You might as well get used to seeing the picture above, because if Huntsman looks like he is actually presenting a challenge to any of the other GOP candidates, you will see it showing up in third party TV ads over and over again.)

Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich share the seventh spot, both trailing the President with an embarrassing 14.7%.

(After over thirty years in politics, I can only imagine how thrilled Gingrich is to be tied with the Godfather's Pizza guy!)

Okay well that is just about everybody, and NOBODY (With the possible exception of Mitt Romney) has any real shot against our President in a head to head match up.

Wait! Somebody IS missing. (Oh my God, who could possibly be lower than 14.7% this early in the polling?  They must have ZERO name recognition or something!)

In fact it is lower. MUCH lower.

In a match up with President Obama, everyone's favorite teabagging reality star, trails by a whopping 20%.

That's right Palin-bots, your idol trails the President by 20% and is in absolutely the LAST place on the list of potential GOP Presidential contenders for 2012, when it comes to viability.

You know somebody, the person's name escapes me right now, said that "2012 can't come soon enough."

I could not agree more.

(P.S. I just noticed that Santorum is not even on the list so I am guessing that he polled even lower than Snowdrift Snooki.  Ouch, that has to hurt!)

Iowa Straw Poll ballot will NOT include Sarah Palin. Palin-bot rationalizations to start in 3..2..1

"Flippin' Iowa! How am I supposed to keep shearing the sheep with you pulling crap like this?"

Courtesy of the 2012 Iowa Caucuses:

The official ballot for the Iowa straw poll will list nine names, including three declared candidates who have decided to not compete in the Aug. 13 event: Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman and Newt Gingrich.

But the door is wide open for Iowans to vote for anyone they like: For the first time, write-ins will be counted.

After a long debate, the Republican Party of Iowa’s state central committee decided today not to include two well-known candidates who are merely flirting with a bid: Rick Perry and Sarah Palin.

Oh, you just KNOW this is really going to piss all over the Sea O'Pee's little Palin presidential parade don't you?

And it is really such a shame considering just how hard Snowdrift Snooki was flirting.

Kind of nice to see that they don't exactly take Rick Perry very seriously either, don't you agree?

Just a taste of what this country is in for if Rick Perry miraculously made it into the White House in 2012.

"You know thinking makes my head hurt. That ever happen to you?"

Courtesy of the Huffington Post:

Texas lawmakers cut sex ed from two six-month courses to a single unit of "abstinence only" education. But early indications showed that the program wasn't working. In fact, teens in almost all high school grades were having more sex after undergoing the abstinence only program. By 2007, Texas had the highest teen birth rate in the nation.

Nevertheless, the program continued. By 2009, 94 percent of Texas schools, which at the time were educating more than 3.7 million students, were giving no sex ed whatsoever beyond "abstinence only," a curriculum that includes emphasizing that birth control doesn't work.

Instead of providing fact-based information, the programs use fear and Jesus -- over-emphasizing the risks of sexually transmitted diseases leading to cervical cancer, radical hysterectomy and death, together with Christian morality.

One Texas public school district's sex ed handout is entitled "Things to Look for in a Mate:"

I. How they relate to God
A. Is Jesus their first love?
B. Trying to impress people or serve God?

Another public school district uses this:

Question: "What does the Bible say about sex before marriage/premarital sex?"

Answer: Along with all other kinds of sexual immorality, sex before marriage/premarital sex is repeatedly condemned in Scripture (Acts 15:20; Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13,18; 7:2; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7).

The results? Teen pregnancy in Texas went up -- higher than before "abstinence only," and more than 50 percent higher than the national average. Even more troubling was that repeat teen pregnancy went up -- to the point that it, too, led the nation. It turns out that Texas kids thought that "if birth control doesn't work, why use it?"

But none of this seems to matter to Gov. Rick Perry. When confronted with the dismal statistics during an October 15, 2010 televised interview with Texas Tribune reporter Evan Smith, Perry's response was to reaffirm that "abstinence works."

The audience laughed and Smith pointed out the state's abysmal teen pregnancy rate. "It works," insisted Perry. "Maybe it's the way it's being taught, or the way it's being applied out there, but the fact of the matter is it is the best form of -- uh -- to teach our children." Smith asked for a statistic to suggest it works, and Perry replied that "I'm just going to tell you from my own personal life, abstinence works."

Like somebody suggested on an earlier thread, if Palin decides to pass on a Presidential run this time around, Perry has to be on her short list of those to endorse. 


Of course we have already seen what a Rick Perry presidency would look like during the eight years that George W. Bush ran this country into the ground.  I said once before that a Rick Perry candidacy really concerned me, and it does, but I cannot imagine the American people not getting a raucous case of deja vu every time this poor man's version of Jethro Bodine opened up his mouth.


That alone should be enough to doom his chances.

At least that is the hope I am hanging my hat on.

Palin supporters are STILL clinging to the idea that their idol can fundamentally change how a campaign is run and still win the GOP nomination. There is a word for people like this, but if I say it I will be accused of attacking Trig again.

Courtesy of Politicususa:

Greta Van Sustern asked Rove if Palin could run an unconventional campaign. Rove answered, “Her people think so. They’ve talked with people about it, whom I’ve talked to, and they’ve been very explicit about it — that she doesn’t need to go to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, press the flesh and go to all these local events in order to cultivate the local leadership. She can talk to people over that. She doesn’t need to cultivate the fundraisers and the bundlers, because her mere presence in the race will generate the cash needed for the campaign. She doesn’t need to do things in a normal way to lay out a message. She can do it on Facebook. She can do it by having a friendly producer release a movie that is seen in theaters, and that’s going to be the interesting thing.”

Rove then issued a warning about the Palin strategy, “I frankly think that the people in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, there are some of the niceties that you ignore at your own peril. There is a reason why, these people in the early states take it very seriously, and they expect to see you, be able to hear up close, be able to ask you questions, be able to see you multiple times before they make a commitment, and we’ll see if that old rule remains the same.”

He said that Palin is making it clear that if she runs, she is doing it by her rules. Nobody should be surprised that Sarah Palin wouldn’t want to hit the campaign trail, but the real stunner is that she arrogantly believes that she doesn’t have to fundraise either. She seriously thinks that the day she announces the floodgates are going to open and millions of dollars will pour in.

The real problem with the people who support a Palin run, besides their obvious lack of intellect, is that they keep confusing media attention with voter support.

Yes, if Sarah Palin decides to announce her candidacy she WILL receive a ton of attention from the media. And she will also attract a rather significant initial infusion of cash for her campaign. (If her sycophants aren't in the poorhouse after buying dozens of tickets to her crappy movie and several copies of Bristol's book that is.)

But then what?

She clearly cannot stand on stage and engage in a debate with the other GOP contenders, so she will have to find some reason avoid that. (Perhaps she could get a note from Michele Bachmann's doctor?)

She cannot appear on any cable, or network, news program to answer REAL questions from an interviewer who is not paid to resist the urge to embarrass her, so she will have to avoid that.

Every single potential scandal about her, including babygate, will be revisited by the journalists who, having no access to her, will feel the need to investigate them aggressively in order to answer voter's questions about her worthiness to be the President.

And finally the people who have agreed not to reveal the things they know about her, in the GOP and around Alaska, unless she decided to run for President, will suddenly start showing up on news programs all across the country, and telling tales that NO amount of public relations management will be able to suppress.

In other words, it would be insane for Sarah Palin to decide to run for President, but as we all know....

Personally I believe that Palin is currently caught in an internal war between her fantasy of who she is and what she can do, and the reality that keeps slipping through the cracks of her giant wall of denial and reminding her of her devastating limitations and how aggressive the press will be in revealing them.

That taken into account with the fact that her pool of supporters has diminished to the size of a mud puddle exposed to the Arizona sun, would seem to indicate that she will not run for office, and might instead work overtime to think up a viable excuse that will keep her supporters sending her money while she decides which candidate might be desperate enough to promise her some cushy appointment to their cabinet in exchange for her now relatively useless endorsement.

Marcus Bachmann gives interview to explain away allegations made aboutt him, his wife, and their clinic. Oh, and he is "flaming" mad too!

Michele Bachmann's husband Marcus Bachmann, agreed to an interview with the Star Tribune.

Here is Marcus Bachmann's response to the allegations that his clinic engages in reparative therapy:

"This individual came to us under a false pretense,'' Bachmann said. "The truth of the matter is he specifically asked for help.''

And the help he received was to repress who he was and live his life in total denial, for all eternity. Gee now WHY does that remind me of somebody?


 On calling gays "barbarians":

Bachmann said that someone must have doctored the recording of the interview, in which he addressed child discipline as well as homosexuality and sex education.

The recording also became a focus of media attention this week, including ABC's "Nightline."

"I was talking in reference to children. Nothing, nothing to do with homosexuality. That's not my mindset. That's not my belief system. That's not the way I would talk," Bachmann said.

"I think the strongest myth. ... is the myth that I have ever called a homosexual a barbarian," Bachmann said

Unfortunately for Marcus I am not sure that Americans are going to be that much happier with the idea of their children being called "barbarians" by a grown man.

Besides the blogger who first posted the video, states unequivocally that it was NOT doctored in any way.

In response to news that the Bachmann clinics accept federal Medicaid funds, while his wife attacks government funding:

Bachmann said federal and state subsidies flow to his business because it doesn't discriminate against patients in subsidized health-care programs.

"It's low income. It's people who are on limited income," Bachmann said. "It is a lower-paying insurance. It's not a money maker. ... So, gee, we get criticized because we take it. And somehow they tie it all in, into my wife because she's the big proponent of less taxes and less programs and so forth.

"So, over and over the bell rings about how we take this federal money," he continued. "Oooh, how evil that is. And I say to you: 'No. It would be evil not to.'"

"There are many grants that are just not that wise. This one actually made a lot of sense," Bachmann said. He said his business lost money by accepting the grant because the training kept employees from seeing clients.

"It had to go and rightfully so, totally to the employees. It didn't go into the pot where Bachmann & Associates could collect, receive, so that we could go on a little vacation or go to wherever," he said.

So it is okay to take government funds for providing widely discredited counseling, while your wife stands on a soapbox decrying government waste, because it "actually made a lot of sense?"


Well I guess it is not technically fraud unless Dr. Bachmann is not really a doctor of Psychology, but that would be crazy tal...wait what is that you say?

On his website Dr. Bachmann states he’s had 23 years experience. Simple math brings us to the year 1988. If Dr. Bachmann’s Ph.D. was completed prior to this date, he might have graduated from The Union Graduate School which offered ONLY a Ph.D. in Arts and Sciences. If he graduated later than 1986, then he would have graduated from The Union Institute (1986), or The Union Institute and University (2001) and his Ph.D. would have been in Interdisciplinary Studies.

Ohhh!  Well that is not good.  But I guess as long as he is a licensed clinician he should be fin...what...seriously?

Bachmann is not a licensed psychologist in Minnesota, but state law has allowed unlicensed therapists to see patients. According to the Bachmann & Associates website, he has been a clinical therapist in the Twin Cities for more than 20 years.

Unbelievable. These people may in fact be grifters ALMOST on the same level as the Palin Traveling Circus, and Baby Factory.


By the way, for any of you who might be interested, the Bachmann's just came out with a video to explain their views on marriage.

Do you remember all of that talk about Obama's "lost base" of support? Yeah, not so much.

"86 million? Now THAT is a pretty fucking big deal Mr. President!"

Courtesy of the First Read:

In a conference call with reporters this morning, the Obama re-election campaign used its fundraising numbers to signal that its base of supporters is engaged and energized for 2012.

Campaign Manager Jim Messina fired off the numbers: 552,000 individual donors, 260,000 new donors who didn't contribute in 2008, and average contribution of $69 per donor, 98% of total contributions coming from donations of $250 or less.

"This should end any chatter about our grassroots base," he said on the call.

Every time the media decides that Obama is losing something, he always proves them wrong. Isn't that right Bin Laden?

By the way I proud to report that I am one of these 552,000 individual donors. How about you?

The 43 individuals whose career will be ended (according to the Palin-bots), when Sarah Palin decides run for President and rub their elitist noses in it.

From Recovering Liberal:

These 43 assorted Beltway insiders, pundits, columnists, talk show hosts, political television show hosts, religious leaders,"progressive" and other bloggers all agree on one subject (or variations thereof) "Sarah Palin won't run for president in 2012."

In their "objectivity" they have variously described her as running a clown show, a reality TV show, an ego parade, a personal rehabilitation exercise, a narcissistic agenda, a revenge against the media program and other, varied, descriptions of Palin and her motives. These opinions pontificated from their elitist seats at the table of the oracle's temple.

I haven't included the mad "Trig truther" bloggers of course-not crediting them as seers (much less as human beings).The following pundits, linked to their statements so they can't run and hide/deny them, may,shortly, all have egg on their collective faces, damaged, hopefully irreversibly so, reputations, and will have been given a lesson by the master of the new Realpolitik. (What? He left me off? It must really piss this guy off that we are always right.)

Here is the list:
Joshua Green (Boston.com)
Taylor Marsh
Hot Air (Patrick Ishmael-Palin’s most likely role in the 2012 cycle would be as a coronator. I still believe that’s basically right.)
Thomas Taschinger
Ace Of Spades; Gabriel Malor "but my money says she's not running " June 26th/11
Newsweek
Dennis DiClaudio
Bill Kristol
Dennis Miller
Robert Paul Reyes
Eugene Robinson
Brit Hume
Bill O'Reilly
Party Hard Politics
David Letterman-Palin's not running, I wish she were, it would be entertaining.
Charles Krauthammer " Showed her power in 2010 as kingmaker and opinion shaper. Must know (I think) she has little chance at the nomination and none in the general election. Why risk it and the inevitable diminishment defeat would bring?. Mitch Daniels has 6-1 chance for nomination/Barbour 7-1.
George Will
David Brooks
Fred Malek
Michael Savage
Karl Rove
John Harwood
Michael Stickings (Moderate Voice)
Dan Karipides
Big Think
Grover Norquist
Franklin Graham
Booman Tribune
Tim Heffernan (Esquire)
Lawrence O'Donnell
Jonathan Capehart
Ann Coulter
Mark McKinnon
John Feehery
Opinion L.A.
Jason Campbell
Joshua Green (The Atlantic)
Jumping In Pools
Kathleen O'Brien (Star-Ledger)
Paul Harris (Guardian U.K.)
Opinion Writings
Ian Stevenson

Damn!  Is there anybody even left?  I mean isn't that just about EVERYBODY who has discussed Palin's potential candidacy? (Except foe the "Trig-Truthers" of course.)

Well personally I am leaning toward Snowdrift Snooki not running as well, but I will always leave open the possibility that she will launch some half-ass temporary campaign to reinvigorate her base, before unceremoniously quitting over some completely fabricated family crisis.

(BTW as you can imagine the Sea O'Pee loved this post and also linked to it. You know I love the smell of desperation in the morning!)

Everything you ever needed to know about Michele Bachmann contained on one poster.

You know the sad part is that for the demographic that wants her to run, NOTHING on this poster will bother them in the least.

In fact all it did was make them want her even more!

The Nostradamus of political predictions handicaps the "wild cards" in the potential GOP lineup. Not good news for Palin.

Courtesy of FiveThirtyEight:

Sarah Palin, 30-to-1 odds against (3.2 percent chance of winning nomination)

Ms. Palin’s numbers aren’t bad — she generally polls somewhere in the teens when she is included in a survey, and she led one poll as recently as two weeks ago. The numbers are down from where they had been before her comments about the shootings in Tucson in which Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona, was wounded, but are not off appreciably from a couple of months ago, and may even have improved by a percentage point or two.

Still, I consider Ms. Palin to be a long shot to win the nomination for three reasons.

First, we don’t have any real idea as to whether she is going to run.

Second, if she does run, it’s not clear how much effort she’ll be willing to put into her candidacy. Her fly-by-night approach — most recently evidenced by her unwillingness to stick to a schedule on her “One Nation” bus tour — is not compatible with the attitude that winning campaigns have taken.
Nor is it clear that Ms. Palin can count on running a “viral” campaign, with the media hanging on her every tweet. The share of media bandwidth that she earns has declined significantly, and although there would surely be an uptick if she were actually to start a campaign, she’ll have to compete against other candidates who draw their fair share of attention, from Ms. Bachmann to Newt Gingrich, as well as those with more traditional credentials. (The downside to the so-called 24/7 media cycle is that you can become old news in a hurry.)

And third, even if Ms. Palin’s campaign goes relatively well, there are a lot of Republicans who will want to see to it that she isn’t their nominee. She currently runs almost 20 percentage points behind President Obama. This cannot be attributed to a lack of name recognition since she might be the best-known politician in America aside from Mr. Obama himself; instead, it’s because almost 60 percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of her.

There have been some “extreme” nominees before, like George McGovern and Barry Goldwater; that precedent is why I think that Ms. Bachmann is a plausible candidate. But no candidate has been nominated with unfavorable numbers as high as Ms. Palin’s. If someone like Ms. Bachmann is on the verge of winning the nomination, I expect you’ll see some efforts to prevent that — but these would be constrained at some point by fears about inflicting collateral damage upon the party (like harming turnout among base voters who will be critical to Republican efforts to win control of Congress). Ms. Palin, however, may be regarded as such an unmitigated disaster that you could see a floor fight at the convention, or threats by either Ms. Palin or a moderate candidate to run as an independent.

The upshot is that Ms. Palin will have a high bar to clear. It probably will not suffice for her to win a narrow plurality of delegates (as someone like Mitt Romney could get away with), or even necessarily a clear plurality (the threshold that I suspect that Ms. Bachmann would need to reach) — rather, she might need an outright majority. That could require her to run a nose-to-the-grindstone, 50-state campaign — exactly the kind that Ms. Palin seems the least interested in.

I am actually in the "Palin won't run" camp right now (Though, like Palin, I reserve the right to change my mind if her Bi-polar disorder changes up and she becomes optimistic about her chances.), so I am only interested in these numbers as a reinforcement of my belief that Palin is really NO political threat to the President, or even to the ultimate GOP front runner.

She is simply a shiny distraction from a field of less than compelling Republican candidates, that the media likes to focus on occasionally to keep from nodding off before the 2012 election.

I still think she is a potentially dangerous individual when it comes to agitating the most unhinged members of the right wing radical fundamentalists, so she bears watching for that reason, but she will never be a serious political candidate for anything ever again in my opinion.

I mean really, a 3.2 chance of winning?  I think refrigerator mold has a better shot at the nomination than that.

Lawrence O'Donnell drives a stake through the heart of the idea that Sarah Palin has ANY intention of launching a Presidential campaign for 2012.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So essentially Lawrence O'Donnell, and Jonathon Capehart, are simply pointing out what most of the media are not inclined to point out. Which is that Sarah Palin is no longer a viable politician, but instead simply a celebrity along the lines of a Lindsay Lohan. Only without the cocaine abuse and wasted talent.

And the reasons WHY the other "journalists" are loath to point this out, is because so long as they keep the possibility of a Palin Presidential run alive they can get more clicks on their websites, sell more subscriptions to their magazine, and attract more viewers to their cable "news" shows.

Which makes it even more interesting that Fox News so quickly jumped on this story, and reported it without ever even contacting Palin first (Since they are in fact the only news outlet with the capability to do so), to get her side of the story.

It kind of makes one wonder if the relationship between Fox News and Sarah Palin has not subtly changed somehow.

Or perhaps NOT so subtly changed.

Rachel Maddow has waaay too much fun with the launch of Jon Huntsman's Presidential campaign yesterday.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I have heard a number of times that THIS is the guy that the Obama administration worries about the most.

Personally I don't think they have much to worry about.

Leah Burton explains truth behind the Dominionists view of Israel and how that relates to our current GOP candidates.

Courtesy of Politicususa:

So, my fellow moderates, now it is time for us to acquaint ourselves with our very own homegrown version of radical Christian fundamentalists. Do not confuse them with the majority of Christians in America who are mainline Christians. Mainline Christians are those who actually follow the teachings of Christ that promote kindness, compassion and love thy neighbor; don’t judge lest ye be judged; let them know you by your good deeds; and it will be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. THOSE Christians.

Christian Dominionists on the other hand believe that we are in the End Times and that they must proactively make the way for the 2nd coming of Christ. They ignore passages from the Bible written that Jesus said “you will not know the day, the hour…I will come like a thief in the night”. Instead they have a laundry list of duties that they must implement before Christ can return. Some of these include fulfilling the Great Commission (Matthew 28: 16-20 ) which they interpret to mean that they are to go forth and aggressively hound the people of the world into conversion, “harvesting as many souls” as possible. (Their words not mine).

Additionally, they are to prepare Israel for the return of all the Jews from around the globe – hence their pro-Israel rhetoric and schizophrenic “love the country – not the Jew” policies. (We have all witnessed how they apply that, the “love the sinner – not the sin” when they try to mask their homophobia). So, in order to have room for all these Jews who they see making their way to Israel soon, as was pointed out by Sarah Palin, there is no land to spare! Palestine just doesn’t fit into this plan, so negotiating a two-State solution is just out of the question.

It makes no difference that they discriminate horribly against the Jews otherwise, calling them “Jesus-killer”, “anti-Christian”, “the Yiddish are coming!”, and a plethora of hate-filled name-calling all in the name of God. Remember, they love the country – they are just not so fond of the inhabitants

Among the current Republicans running for President almost ALL of them are, either embracing dominionist views, or are full blown dominionists themselves.

These include Rick Perry, Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich (Though I really think Newt is faking it.)

Sarah Palin, who has not yet declared and probably never will, is DEFINITELY a dominionist!  In fact that may be the ONLY authentic thing about her.

I would suggest that Mitt Romeny, Jon Huntsman, and Ron Paul do NOT embrace the dominionist beliefs, which is why ultimately it will be VERY difficult for either of them to get the Evangelical support they desperately need in order to have any chance in the general election. (McCain overcame that obstacle by plucking Sarah Palin out of the wilds of Wasilla and unleashing her like a pestilence throughout the rest of America.)

By the way Leah Burton is my go to expert on all things dominionist or fundamentalist in nature.  She is one of the most well respected experts in the country and we have had several long and fascinating discussions on numerous topics in the past.  To learn more about her work, I suggest that you visit her site God's Own Party.

Desperate conservative blogger predicts Sarah Palin will announce her candidacy next week. Palin quickly crushes rumor.

From the American Spectator:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is expected within a week to make a decision on whether to enter the 2012 presidential campaign, according to one Republican source.

Vendors of campaign services who hope to work for Team Palin have been told that Palin, the 2008 GOP vice-presidential candidate, will decide soon one way or another on mounting a 2012 campaign.

This is clearly wishful thinking on this blogger's apart, and Granny Grifter was quick to put him in his place. (Which by the way is under her heel.)

Really? Hmm, guess they forgot to inform me what I'm "expected to do" next wk MT@AmSpec: Palin Decision Expected Next Wk http://t.co/Ewt2Miq
6 hours ago via Twitter for BlackBerry®

This compelled the now publicly humiliated Palin pantie sniffer to whine in response:

OK, fine, governor, but I was reporting what my source had been told. Has my source been misinformed?

By the way this slimy little punk is one of the blogging Palin-bots that Sarah and her attorney Thomas Van Flein sent against me back in 2009, and he was so thoroughly inept that he and his buddy Dan Riehl ended up inventing a whole bizarre conspiracy about my background that was so completely removed from reality that I STILL have no idea how they came up with it.  I am not at all surprised to see that he still can't find his own ass with both hands and a road map.

My prediction is that this kind of disappointing news will keep coming out of the Palin camp until the Winged Monkeys start cannibalizing each other in a frenzy of frustration, devouring the weaker ones, until there is only a handful of angry, spiteful, though surprisingly plump, supporters left.

And the really funny thing is that Palin has every intention of dragging this thing out past the 2012 election and into the future until the very last battered and bruised Palin sycophant loses their grip on the bumper of her speeding "All about me" tour bus and bounces lifelessly into a nearby ditch.

By the way if you go back and check those ditches now, THAT is where you will  find what remains of "Number one Palin-fan" Rebecca Monsour, after her unfortunate fall from grace. 

Michele Bachmann is terrified of lesbians. Not really very Presidential, but really are any of the other GOP candidates any better?

From the Daily Beast:

In April 2005, Pamela Arnold wanted to talk to her state senator, Michele Bachmann, who was then running for Congress. A 46-year-old who worked at the Minneapolis College of Art and Design, Arnold lived with her partner, the famed Arctic explorer Ann Bancroft, on a farm in Scandia, Minnesota. Bachmann was then leading the fight against gay marriage in the state. She'd recently been in the news for hiding in the bushes to observe a gay rights rally at the Capitol. So when members of the Scandia gay community decided to attend one of Bachmann's constituent forums, Arnold, wanting to make herself visible to her representative, joined them.

A few dozen people showed up at the town hall for the April 9 event, and Bachmann greeted them warmly. But when, during the question and answer session, the topic turned to gay marriage, Bachmann ended the meeting 20 minutes early and rushed to the bathroom. Hoping to speak to her, Arnold and another middle-aged woman, a former nun, followed her. As Bachmann washed her hands and Arnold looked on, the ex-nun tried to talk to her about theology. Suddenly, after less than a minute, Bachmann let out a shriek. "Help!" she screamed. "Help! I'm being held against my will!"

Arnold, who is just over 5 feet tall, was stunned, and hurried to open the door. Bachmann bolted out and fled, crying, to an SUV outside. Then she called the police, saying, according to the police report, that she was "absolutely terrified and has never been that terrorized before as she had no idea what those two women were going to do to her." The Washington County attorney, however, declined to press charges, writing in a memo, "It seems clear from the statements given by both women that they simply wanted to discuss certain issues further with Ms. Bachmann."

Lots of politicians talk about a sinister homosexual agenda. Bachmann, who has made opposition to gay rights a cornerstone of her career, seems genuinely to believe in one. Her conviction trumps even her once close relationship with her lesbian stepsister. "What an amazing imagination," marvels Arnold. "Her ideology is so powerful that she can construct a reality just on a moment's notice."

Seriously?  Well surely nobody really thinks that a woman who cannot even stand her ground when confronted by a lesbian, and an ex-nun, would be an appropriate choice to run for President?  Do they?

Indeed, no other candidate in the race is so completely a product of the evangelical right as Bachmann; she could easily become the Christian conservative alternative to the comparatively moderate Mormon Mitt Romney. "Michele Bachmann's a complete package," says Ralph Reed, the former Christian Coalition wunderkind who now runs the Faith and Freedom Coalition. "She's got charisma, she's got an authentic faith testimony, she's a proven fighter for conservative values, and she's well known." She's also great at raising money—in the 2010 cycle, she amassed a record-breaking $13.2 million in donations. (Bachmann's office didn't respond to requests for comment.)

I stand corrected.

Well bring her on then.  All the Democrats have to do if she becomes the GOP nominee is send Ellen Degeneres over to talk to her right before any debate, and after she runs screaming into the night, the President will win by forfeit. (Not that he would need to do anything except show up to beat this batshit crazy lady.)

But seriously go ahead and read the entire Daily Beast article, because this lady is several bricks shy of a full load.

Okay so we know that Newt's campaign is DOA, Rick Perry is a religious zealot, Tim Pawlenty is a coward,  Rick Santorum has a Google problem, Herman Cain has a racism problem, and Mitt Romney is apparently made of wood.

So that is ALL that the Republican have to offer?  Really?

I keep hearing some talk about what challenge that Jon Huntsman will present once he gets into the race.  What does he have to offer?

Perhaps we can learn that from his first campaign ad.



WTF?  Somehow I think that President Obama sleeps very soundly at night, don't you?

Is Mitt Romney too socially awkward to be the President?

Reporter Dana Milbank spent the other day following Mitt Romney around and reported on his strained attempts to connect with the little people.

Mitt Romney, the leading contender to become President Obama’s Republican opponent next year, had just finished working the room at Blake’s Creamery here when he paused for a photo with the restaurant’s owner, Ann Mirageas, and decided to tell her a joke.

“I saw the young man over there with eggs Benedict, with hollandaise sauce,” he said. “And I was going to suggest to you that you serve your eggs with hollandaise sauce in hubcaps. Because there’s no plates like chrome for the hollandaise.”

The proprietor laughed weakly. “Good luck to you,” Mirageas said.

WTF? Is this guy running for President, or is he a contestant on "The Gong Show."

And it did not get much better for Romney after that.

He talks about the weak economy with the proprietors of a feed shop, then abruptly pivots: “Okay, so what do you do about mosquito control? . . . This has been a mosquito-infested year with all the moisture. They flew away with my dog.”

At Mary Ann’s, a retro diner in Derry, N.H., the slogan on the owner’s shirt is “A blast from the past” — and the description suits Romney, too. He admires the Texaco “Fire Chief” gas pump and a jukebox (“You guys hear this music? ‘I want a caveman, I want a caveman.’ ”). Posing for a photo with his arms around the waitresses, he suddenly jumps forward, pretending somebody pinched his bottom. “Oh my goodness gracious!” he exclaims, then, “Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.” He later says the gag is “kind of fun to do.”

This last exchange, unfortunately for Romney, was caught on camera and broadcast on Hardball yesterday.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Perhaps this kind of thing plays well with the GOP base, who must still set bags of dog poop on fire on their neighbors doorstep before ringing the doorbell and running away, but this guy is looking to land a job representing ALL Americans.  And some of us are not uptight humorless mannequins.

Top Ten Things Rick Perry Does NOT Want You To Know.

From Think Progress:

(1) PERRY ALLOWED THE EXECUTION OF A LIKELY INNOCENT MAN, THEN IMPEDED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE MATTER

(2) PERRY WANTS TO REPEAL THE 16th AND 17th AMENDMENTS, ENDING DIRECT ELECTION OF U.S. SENATORS AND THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX

(3) PERRY PROPOSED LETTING STATES DROP OUT OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICAID

(4) TEXAS IS THE COUNTRY’S BIGGEST POLLUTER, BUT PERRY SUED THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT FOR DISAPPROVING OF THE STATE’S AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

(5) PERRY DESIGNATED AS “EMERGENCY LEGISLATION” A BILL REQUIRING ALL WOMEN SEEKING ABORTIONS TO HAVE SONOGRAMS FIRST

(6) PERRY GUTTED CHILDCARE SERVICES EVEN AS TEXAS CHILDHOOD POVERTY HIT 25 PERCENT

(7) PERRY WAS A STRONG SUPPORTER OF TEXAS’S ANTI-SODOMY LAWS

(8) PERRY IS A STIMULUS HYPOCRITE WHO LOUDLY CRITICIZED FEDERAL RECOVERY MONEY BUT USED IT TO BALANCE HIS STATE’S BUDGET

(9) PERRY SAID THAT TEXAS MIGHT HAVE TO SECEDE FROM THE UNITED STATES

10) DESPITE HAVING THE WORST UNINSURED RATE IN THE COUNTRY, PERRY CLAIMS THAT TEXAS HAS “THE BEST HEALTH CARE IN THE COUNTRY”

As I mentioned before Perry is perhaps the only Republican that really concerns me, simply because he is all hair, southern charm, and Texas bullshit, which is EXACTLY the kind of Republican candidate that comes right out of central casting for the GOP faithful.

Essentially he has the looks of Mitt Romney, the swagger of George W. Bush, and the fundamentalist religious credentials of a Sarah Palin. (Yes I KNOW hers are fake, but the bots don't give a rat's ass.)

They take on look at this guy and they will see, almost literally, a cowboy in a white hat ready to ride into Washington and run "Black Barack" right out of town.

However after reading this article I have to admit I do feel somewhat more convinced that he might self-destruct before November as well.  And that is how I like my Republican Presidential candidates; Full of hot air, and fatally flawed.