Will the Pitbull with Lipstick Throw Her Hat In?

Posted by Anthony Gregory on June 29, 2011

I know, I know. It was considered sexist three years ago to make disparaging remarks with any reference to Sarah Palin’s hockey mom/pitbull joke. But she brought it on herself, and one can’t help but think she basks in the insults as much as the praise. If someone wants to consider a pitbull a good animal to compare herself to, the least I can do is respect that choice.

Palin is in the race, according to the Telegraph. Or she will be. Can we believe it? Another way of asking the question: did she ever stop running since 2008?

Many have long argued that she would have no chance at the presidency. Only half the Republican voters like her, and none of the Democrats do. Obama is polled to easily defeat her in her own state of Alaska.

Perhaps I am playing into the media zeitgeist by not being a lot more substantive in this discussion. What about Palin’s political positions? Well, she has flip-flopped and equivocated on a quite a few questions. But it would be fair to say that she is slightly more fiscally conservative than Obama, in the same ballpark in terms of foreign policy (although with the distinct possibility of surprising us in either direction), and otherwise comfortable with the status quo of bailouts, corporatism, entitlements, huge government, and central management of the economy, with some perfunctory areas where she mildly dissents from the Washington consensus. In other words, she is a typical Republican politician, who might sound a little better than the Democrats when she is out of power, but who always has the potential to prove a neocon in the White House.

Yet it is a mistake to assume the above is the most substantive thing to be said of her. Palin was primarily always a culture-war figure: a rallying point for the heartland to unify and cry out that it had enough of the coastal elitism of the central state and media giants. Yet what were they rebelling against in 2008? Was it the Bush legacy that had voted for? He was, after all, a counterfeit middle American, a Connecticut transplant in the heart of Texas who always advocated big government. The biggest issue to unify the proto-Tea Party uprising of 2008 was, of course, the gigantic Wall Street bailouts, which were advocated and supported by Palin, as well as McCain and Obama. Palin had the problem of running on a ticket calling for hope and change when the Democratic opposition had already trademarked those slogans and was running against the sorry record of her own party’s mismanagement of the economy and two wars. Now the setting is ripe for a run against Obama-style elitist liberalism. The problem is, Palin is a TV star and her own very red state backs the incumbent over her.

There’s lots of talk about whether she can beat Michelle Bachman. Maybe not. Nevertheless, I still don’t think it’s impossible for her to be president one day, if not in 2013 then down the line. Palin is still very young. She could run every election cycle until 2028—five elections, inclusive—before she’s any older than Hillary Clinton was in 2008. Think of that. Even if she’s decisively defeated this time, she has plenty of opportunities to make a comeback like Richard Nixon, or Peewee Herman, or Freddy Kreuger, depending on how you regard her.

I for one welcome Palin into the race, as I find her entertaining and somewhat refreshing. My appreciation is nuanced, as I do not think she is any sort of champion of freedom but rather an establishment politician, but it can be fun watching the liberal media stumble over themselves to attack her for cultural reasons, perennially and invincibly clueless that much of the country is on board with her social values. Part of me even wants her to win the White House, not because she will be any better than Obama, necessarily, but because it would serve to educate at least some people. Either the liberals will learn that she is not the devilish threat to their social democracy as they’ve been fearing, or some conservatives will learn that the problem wasn’t Obama but leviathan, or some feminists will learn that a woman in the White House doesn’t mean a more peaceful or less corrupt executive branch any more than a black president means a less predatory criminal justice system. The problem is political power itself, and no modification to the cultural lipstick worn by the empress will mean a damn thing. Perhaps Palin will help bring us closer to the day when Americans recognize that.

Categories Big government, Federal Budget, Liberty Politics, Republican | Tags:

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yoz6-xEY7A Rhonda

         No, Sarah Palin will not throw her hat in, as is thought. She has to follow what she started making it her obligation to endorse Ron Paul. You see, last year she endorsed Rand Paul for his Senate seat. She has come back on the scene, but there is no reason for her to be one of the candidates unless she wants to do what Michele Bachmann is doing and that is to be the hook to draw the fringe or on the fence people into her web at which time the people will start to get tired of her and the newcomer on the block, that Bilderberg guest, Rick Perry, will takeover and Michele Bachmann will turn her supporters over to back him up. That is the only reason that Sarah Palin should throw in her hat, but then turn her followers over to Ron Paul. Remember, by what the establishment claims. unless you are either a senator or a governor, a Congress person cannot be elected as president. What is Michele Bachmann’s present governmental status? Now, what is Sarah Palin’s governmental status?

         Her endorsement of Rand Paul was for the reason of getting her to have a stronger foothold into the Tea Party, at least in name; but she did it and therefore she needs to be the maverick all the way to the end and endorse the real father of the Tea Party movement whom the people created in honor for, their inspiration, Congressman Dr. Ron Paul. The two of them would be dynamite. She might even be offered a real position in the Ron Paul administration, like maybe the 1st woman vice president.

         So remember to remind her and her people to now take hold of the reins and finalize her endorsing onto Ron Paul

    Rhonda
    July 7, 2011/Thursday

  • http://profiles.google.com/davej728 Dave Johnson

    You really are a dick. Just had to stop by and prove it to myself.

  • Azjen

    John, not to be rude…but I don’t think now is the time to get into a discussion about Ms. Palin.  I’m not smitten with the woman…but I see no sense in putting her down when none of us really know for sure what her future plans are.  Right now would be the right time to concentrate on the future.  I did give money to your campaign against Ms. Pelosi & unfortunately, it was not the wisest choice on my part.  I guess what I’m trying to say to you, John, is to remember the saying about the vinegar & honey…which will get you further?  I think the answer to that one is obvious.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yoz6-xEY7A Rhonda

         I am glad I did not see Dave Johnson’s comment until after Azjen’s was left. I thought Dave was referring to me, but after reading Azjen’s comment, I now wonder since Dave did not leave a name of his referenced person.

         If Dave Johnson was referring to me, I guess being called a”dick” could be a complment by some stretch of the imagination. Of course if he as Azjen, was referring to Anthony Gregory, the postor of this article, then having John’s name as part of the statement(s) is in error or is meant to mean something else that has not yet been brought up and out to anyone here. Therefore I will make the assumption that both comments are meant against or to the article’s postor unless the author in this case could be different and that author could then maybe be John (Dennis?).

         So, if you read my own comment before this, I think I somewhat confirm that there is an importance of being up on Sarah Palin since as is said in the article, she has been on this scene since 2008. She endorsed Rand Paul and even though endorsements tend to go by the wayside, they hold a truer more powerful meaning to them. Put such terms as Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Tea Party in the same area and you can easily see that they are in deed (and I do mean that to be two separate words) very much related. I fully back this article and think it has been well thought out and the phrasology is well chosen.

         Involving endoresements, Sarah Palin also endorsed Michele Bachmann, but ah, she only endorsed her for her Congressional run. I am not even sure if the term Tea Party was ever used within that endorsement. Sarah Palin was forthright when it came to endorsing Rand Paul for his Senate seat, though. She brought up the subject of the Tea Party movement, deliberately making sure that she never spoke of any Tea Party organization such as the Tea Party Express or Tea Party Nation. Those who use the name of a given organizational group after the first two words of “Tea Party”, give themselves an out or a clarifier that they really are not having anything to do with the original Ron Paul Tea Party movement. That is how Michele Bachmann was able to get away with talking about her role in being the chief of the Tea Party Express or whatever name she gave during that phony June 13th CNN debate. These people are experts in their own right and they have experts helping them to look over their shoulder. Sadly, that is one reason why Ron Paul probably held back in challenging Michele Bachmann that day. So what does Sarah Palin’s usage and endorsements involving it mean? It means she is a player now just like the author here, Anthony Gregory, brings out.

    Rhonda
    July 9, 2011/Saturday

blog comments powered by Disqus