Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

I'm quite happy with a palin free month for certain people - Andrew Sullivan springs to mind, and most of the MSNBC hosts.

But I think the WaPo and Dana Milbank haven't quite thought this one through. In fact this idea is dangerous - to them. What happens if a large number of people decide to have a WaPo free month? Their readership is already dropping. A boycott by a significant number of internet folks might kill it

Their fear of Palin eclipses their fear of ANYTHING else. TEA parties, Fox News, Limbaugh, the GOP (no need for fear there....a bunch of RINOs, still), guys like Christie, Walker, Ryan....all feared. None like Palin. She (and the others) threaten their cushy lifestyles of telling others what to do, what to think and how to live. Destroying their enemies has worked for decades, but we "read (their) book". Now they feel the need to try something else, but personal destruction is so closely tied to their DNA that they may not be able to do anything else. Rush was absolutely right many years ago when he talked about how shrill the Left would be as they began to lose power. And how much more shrill it would get as they became marginalized. They are threatened with it now and it is clear they know it.

Do we have the strength and fortitude to drive them into the wilderness?

I find it humorous. They are making it clear who they think the real threat is.

We stopped having the WaPo delivered in 2004, when their coverage of OIF was egregiously slanted. I brought to their attention, with citations and facts, some items that they had published that were wrong, and they refused a correction. That was when I realized the WaPo minons were nothing more than smear merchants marketing a "position" rather than executing competent (and believable) independent journalism.

So, Dana Milbank is going to boycott SP. Who cares? Their 3 remaining readers?

I'm in favor too. I mean, it's not like they were saying nice things about her that anyone's going to miss. "Ok Sarah, we're not going to abuse you for a month. Take that!"

I don't want her to go for it this time because she promised she wasn't leaving her post to get ready for a run, and because I think she needs more experience with organizing and motivating a conservative side for the Republicans.

That I'm sick of everyone on the left and half the people on the right reflexively go off at great length about how unelectable she would be is a side issue, as is the "logic" that we can't consider if someone really really really pisses off a third of the country.

When I first linked my comment last evening about this Milbank "manoeuvre" as a response on your prior post "If 'She Can't Win,' Then Neither Can We," my sense was that this was less a matter of concern, and more a delicious opportunity.

I still do.

Now, I had seen that they had pulled their "agree-disagree" poll, which was really silly, but I must have missed the on-line Twitter feed.

Regardless, a Twitter feed may be a bit more personal than an up or down vote on whether one will "take the pledge" not to talk about Sarah Palin for a month, but who cares?

And, February is the shortest one, as one wag on Gateway Pundit wrily noted. So, we will not enjoy a full 31 days of his nonsense.

Frankly, considering the source, I quite welcome his pledge, and I would happily encourage all others of a similarly situated ideological twist of mind, to do likewise.

There may even come a time . . . perhaps sooner rather than later . . . when Sarah Palin will even want to write and thank Milbank!

I wish some Palin supporters would, without coordination from her, specify who the top 3 advertisers of WaPo are, and organize a boycott of those companies.

"WaPo is not honest to Palin, X company pays them to be not honest -- is X company being honest to its own customers?"

WaPo is not being honest ... (this is much easier to demonstrate than lying; did they cover the SEIU beating? Did they honestly report on the Tea Party demonstrations? etc).

Boycott the companies advertising in the WaPo. That's far more effective, and fearsome ... (and so few conservatives pay for the WaPo anyway.)

If the establishment media leaves the arena, Palin is then free. I think that's a great idea! Which of you brainwashed them into thinking that makes sense for them?

I'd be much more comfortable putting Palin aside if I could think of another candidate obviously better suited. But everyone has their flaws that seem to make them more or less equal to her.

If we get into an "Anybody but Obama" mindset, then maybe it wouldn't matter and we could go with a safer but dull candidate, though professor's right that we better expect our liberal friends to "suddenly" start hating them as well. It's going to be difficult to get them back from the brink they're on.

Palin's problem is that she is not educated enough to do well in interviews with antagonistic journalists like Couric and Gibson in '08. They've been prepared by their staff, so I don't credit the journalists with any kind of brilliance (in Gibson's case poorly prepared); but she was not thoroughly well versed on either the issues or the intellectual underpinnings of those issues. It's not a question of formal education, but I think a lifelong genuine desire to learn forged from that same lifetime's willingness to reconsider humbly any held viewpoint. Reagan was different, an effective autodidact who was once an FDR Democrat and thus really understood both sides of issues and cared enough to study them. The best are Gingrich and Giuliani; Romney is OK. But a presidential candidate has to be at least a "B-" on that aspect of the campaign and Palin is an F ... so far. With practice, she might get better, but I don't think she has the self-critical concern for her inadequacies to dedicate herself to the task.

so Palin is "unelectable" so is Jessie Jackson and a whole lot of candidates, but we never ever hear the media telling us they should not run and telling us repeatively

This is pretty simple to deal with. First, boycott he WaPo. Second, fill the vacuum that is sure to left as so many progressives think it's a clever idea and sign on. While they take a break from bashing her, bloggers should rally and print real articles about the truth of Sarah Palin's record, which is that she is the reformer we need. Submit to The Blaze, Daily Caller, etc, cross-post, etc. Fill the silence with positive noise.

Then sit back and watch as they make utter hypocrites of themselves. They will not be able to stand it.

My word, Jacobson, you're conflating why she can't win with media bias. It's not that the media dislikes her that she can't win, it's that a wide majority of Americans dislike her.

I think you've become blinded by REVERSE PDS!!! Just because the media dislikes her does not make her electable, or a good candidate.

55 percent of independents dislike her and will not vote for her. Do you want Obama to win? Keep pushing Palin...

It worked sooooo well with Christine O'Donnell!!!

Maybe it's just me, but this "new civility" being promoted by the secular media outfits like the Washington Post sure looks a lot like the old incivility they claim to be appalled by.

I'm compelled to comment again, because I just reread this piece... Jacobson, do you honestly believe that the only reason Palin is seen as unelectable is due to the media reaction to her? Why do you completely dismiss the quantitative data we have that suggests she is seen unfavorably by a wide margin of Americans?

I mean, unless you have some sort of ballot stuffing strategy, I just don't see how you can support your belief with facts? And I think you seriously mistake why people think Palin is unelectable, and it has nothing to do with the media.

It's not just liberals at WaPo. Some conservatives have said similar things, but it's "cute" when they say it.

How about Ross Douthat's recent: "If the press (including this columnist!) and Sarah Palin can’t quit each other, you can still quit us."? Or there's Matt Labash of The Weekly Standard with: "And good for Palin if she’s happy following her gut. Though there’s no compelling reason to suggest the rest of us should tag along behind."

55 percent of independents dislike her and will not vote for her. Do you want Obama to win? Keep pushing Palin...

Maybe the independents dislike her BECAUSE of the media bias. If she got anything close to a fair shake, a lot of her negatives would disappear I bet if you polled those independents and and them to clearly articulate why they don't like her I bet you will find most of the basis is from the impression left by the media and not at all rooted in fact. The media began savaging her the day she was announced and have not let up since.

So yes, media bias is what makes her unelectable because media bias is what is driving the opinions of most independents.

I'd love to see Sarah Palin elected President and send the libs even crazier than they are already.

But I do worry that unless she can appeal to more Indepdendent voters (who were the key to our big wins last November) that won't happen.

Now, Palin for VP-- THAT I would like to see! (Assuming she's made enough with speaking and books, and her show, to pay off the bills from those blanking attack lawsuits. I want her family to be secure. ^.^ )

I love the eternal "she isn't educated" or "she's not intellectually curious enough." Uh-huh, right.

If there is one thing that has become disturbingly obvious in this and other "conservative" threads is how deeply entrenched is the RINO mentality among so many Republicans.

You guys need to come to grips with one very startling (to you) fact: more than 40% of voters identify with the Tea Party while 31% identify as Democrats and 29% identify as Republicans. RINOs are not in a position to be lecturing anyone about "electability", particularly not on the bankrupt argument that conservatives have no choice but to vote for the "lesser of two evils".

We WILL destroy the GOP if that is what it takes because you guys are insisting on closing the process to us. The GOP is just like the many fraternal organizations (Freemasons, Elks, Rotary, etc...) who now find themselves stagnant with the average age of their dwindling membership approaching 80 years. Once processes become closed, they calcify and then die from lack of "oxygen".

Let us in already. We outnumber you and our democratic margin of advantage is growing. We may soon outnumber the combined Democratic parties. So what is it going to be?

@ sincrinon -

Yes. The media created a false Sarah Palin persona (helpfully on their side by Tina Fey) and has pushed it and pushed it and pushed it.

Never before has so much false "information" been put out there on a political figure in the blatent and openly touted purpose of destroying her. They continue because she refuses to sit down, shut up and go away like they want.

And they have done this, not because she is a threat to this nation. It is because she is a threat to them.

The liberal media has tried everything it can to marginalize Palin and it hasn't worked. Treating her as if she doesn't exist is their last straw, but it won't work.

This would be a golden opportunity for Palin. To be able to speak out for a whole month without any response from the liberal media... wow!

Gerald Ford was portrayed as a country-clubbing genial oaf and Bush I an out-of-touch but sinister New World Order crony capitalist/elitist. But, self-made Reagan and privileged son Bush II were mercilessly vilified as reactionaries and dolts who couldn't speak off script and who liked the unsophisticated rugged outdoors, horses, chopping wood and guns.

And so, as a Tea Partying self-made success who hunts, hikes, camps, fishes, logs and blogs in her spare time between media work and political presentations, "blithering idiot" Palin looks to be in pretty good company (even if Reagan or G. W. never looked good in a skirt.)

The Washington Post-It Notes has diminished itself to partisan yellow journalism that's losing its sticking power. Milbank should win a Pulitzer for meta exposing the lie that is his paper's and other elitist news orgs' "reporting" and "opinion." He couldn't have more clearly shown us that what they do is shill and be shrill as commercial organs of the Democratic Party.

I'd confidently vote for Palin, given how she invokes the vitriol of people I distrust and whose politics are discredited, to include those in the poor New Yorick Times, alas.

So I just came to a Tea Party Meeting - There was a very interesting Palin response - I know there were people in the meeting who like SP and would not vote for her. However, because the Establishment Repubs did not defend her, her support in the room grew - People are Really mad - the more establishment people slight her gratuitously, or fail to defend her when warranted, the more she will gain. It was an amazing thing to witness....

Charles Krauthammer is the only readable part of WaPo.

@sincrinon...you said:

" Why do you completely dismiss the quantitative data we have that suggests she is seen unfavorably by a wide margin of Americans?"

If not via the almost comically biased mainstream media,are we left to believe then that that *unfavorable perception" was developed through osmosis?

The Washington Post? I think I remember. Didn't they used to be a newspaper?

neomom, I'd have to disagree that committed statist media hurlers like Dana Milbank either desire or expect Sarah Palin to, as you put it, "shut up and go away like they want."

They may eventually want her to go away -- though only when they think are good and done with her. But it is not now, nor will it be out of desire.

Their real desire is for a political "consummation devoutly to be wished" . . . i.e., that she stays, thereby permitting them to fully conflate their patently false and ugly version of her in particular, with Republicans and Tea Party members in general, thus laying the foundation for a shift in public opinion, undoing the sudden new majority that unceremoniously ousted the Democrat liberals from power in November, and just now grasped the reins of Congressional power.

Milbank literally snapped over the realization that he, like dozens of other MSM writers and opinionists could not stop writing about her, yet their goal somehow remained as elusive as ever! She refused to succumb.

And, having just failed miserably to successfully connect her with the horrific murders in Tucson, she then called out that vile, scurrilous effort for exactly what it was.

So, is it not possible that an exasperated Dana Milbank consequently conceded, in the abrupt blurting, self-awareness language of an addict, that he simply could not stop?!

Consider this -- the first step in AA is for an alcoholic to admit that he or she is powerless over alcohol, and that his or her life has become unmanageable.

Here is how Milbank began his piece:

"Though it is embarrassing to admit this in public, I can no longer hide the truth. I have a Sarah Palin problem.

I have written about her in 42 columns since Sen. John McCain picked her as his vice-presidential running mate in 2008. I've mentioned her in dozens more blog posts, Web chats, and TV and radio appearances. I feel powerless to control my obsession, even though it cheapens and demeans me."
. . . .

Could anything sound more . . . dare I say it . . . pathetic coming from someone who, heretofore deigned to be viewed as a legitimate influencer of national public opinion? As such, surely Milbank would not dare do such a thing in a mocking way. No, I think we should take him at his word, and urge him to stick with it. We can only further hope he is able to convince others similarly situated of the gravity of their personal problem as well.

Who knows . . . eventually, he and other more shamelessly vile and direct accusers in the media, such as Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann or Markos Moulitsas, could eventually arrive at the door of later steps . . . making a list of persons they harmed, and become willing to make amends, including specifically apologizing to Sarah Palin for having falsely accused her of complicity in that horrible murder in Arizona. (Well, no, not Olbermann. He’s gone now.)

Therefore, for the time being (as for Dana Milbank) I wish him encouragement!

@sincrinon

So, you read the post twice and still missed the point. Good work. It's not that anyone was contending that the media made Sarah Palin unelectable, it's that the media is pathologically driven to convince us she's unelectable, but can't see the risible contradiction of spending so much time villifying someone who's so obviously unelectable.

The Left is terrified of her, indeed, can barely suspend their fear long enough to take a breath or a pause from attempting to destroy her.

The Left's worst fears will be fulfilled.

The Whining Wannabe from Wasilla has worn out her welcome in Washington.

alliteration
just like muhammad ali
all bark and no bite

whining wannabe
she is far far from over
John Q. Public likes

shaping narrative
we know what you are doing
let the 'ku flow, bo

call your congressman
third party is what they fear
TEA party, baby!

One wouldn't mind if they developed a more incisive style of coverage about her, but Dana's
last, tying with Hearst and his statements about
McKinley, really plumbed the depths

The Left seems to attack Sarah constantly. Whether she’s saying or doing anything or not. Going by the Left’s behavior, I only see one politician on the Right, that the Left considers the major threat.

I wish more people on our side would at least defend her. Don’t support her for president if she’s not the best choice, but she’s a fighter on our side. We should treat her as such.

In the primary, Republicans need to take it to the mattresses - no holds barred, but no contenders should allow the Left to pick our Republican nominee for us. That includes letting the Left diminish ones who they think, rightly or wrongly, are their biggest threat.

If the Left is successful at diminishing SP, it assures that they will target, freeze, polarize, and use whatever other deceitful darts and arrows they can conjure up on the next one of us THEY choose.

Not this time. United we stand.

Guys and Gals, you miss the point. It doesn't matter if the media's bias is what convinced independents, all democrats, and even some republicans that Palin is not fit for the presidency. It wouldn't matter if a magical elf did the convincing... an overwhelming majority of Americans will not vote for Palin in a general election.

Why waste the time and the OPPORTUNITY to elect a viable candidate instead of just throwing Palin into the ring. She. Cannot. Win. We have no evidence to suggest that she can. I understand that a lot of you really like her, and that's just fine. I think she has a lot of great qualities, but I don't think she can win, and I have evidence to back up that belief. You who say the liberals are scared of her... they're not. Just because she embodies what they hate does NOT mean that they're scared of her.

Find a liberal, any liberal, and ask them about Palin. You will get a diatribe full of vitriol... but then ask if they're scared of her running, and they will laugh at you. They want her to run, and even more they want her to run so she can lose.

Palin can't win. Stop wasting your time. If you want to elect Obama so bad, work for his campaign, don't waste the GOP nomination.

Remember you have no evidence to suggest that the significant majority of Americans who dislike Palin will change their minds about her. Therefore you're support for her is illogical, and plan stupid.

And Jacobson, the way you choose a nominee... smartly. Just because the media hates her, AND we happen to reject her does not mean that the media has decided for us. The ELECTABILITY is our criterion.

No O'Donnell redux please!

If you actually want to rebut me, show me a trend that she is becoming more popular with moderates. Without that vital piece of evidence we have every reason to believe she will lose.

rrpjr, sincrinon misses the point because he/she wants to miss the point.

As has been clearly noted in other recent posts, starting here, a search shows that Sincrinon just showed up, not just here but on the internet, having signed up under that name just a few days ago.

Which would be fine, except that sincrinon has made the risible claim in one of his/her first internet posts here a few days ago on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion:

"I was a strong supporter of your website during the Brown election in MA."

When even when challenged by others sincrinon refuses to respond, and moves on to the next post, leading to the somewhat inescapable conclusion that sincrinon is playing the part of a control troll here.

Let's be clear about what you want, no-name sinc.
You want us who support all good, popular Reps in running for Pres in 2012 (TWO years away), to decide now to oppose Sarah. Not merely not support her, but to actually oppose her.
What if she has the best policies?
What if she is the most popular among likely Rep voters?
What if she gets, by far, the closest scrutiny of any candidate, so there are absolutely no skeletons in her closet that aren't already well known?

Your goal is to convince us, because of anti-Palin polls today, to oppose her even running in the primary.
Right?

If not, then just let her run and let the primary decide.

Why am I even wasting my time, as a real person, on a virtual, anti-Palin Troll? Why?
Because we supporters of small gov't in America need to be ready for such unfair and dishonest attacks.
Not on policy, not on character, on "electability".
Bah.
Will you promise to vote for her if she wins the Rep Primary? If not, it is you who are supporting the Dems. I fully expect to support whatever Rep the nominee is.

I'm not sure Palin is the best choice, and won't be until she runs & wins the primary (if she does), but the irrational hatred of her, now, today, and the need to confront it and counter it, is what this country needs the most over the next year.

So keep it up, intellectual coward. Keep telling us the only reason for pro-life folks to stop liking Sarah is because of polls.
The only reason tax cut liking folks should stop Palin is because of polls.
The reason Strong America folks should stop supporting the Strongest American Republican, is because of polls.

Maybe more of us who make better jokes can make better fun of you, because that's what we need. More jokes. On you. And your kind.

sincrinon begs, "If you actually want to rebut me, show me a trend that she is becoming more popular with moderates. Without that vital piece of evidence we have every reason to believe she will lose."

You are clearly not a Tea Party supporter as your pessimism is an obvious trait of a typical leftist. Palin supporters believe in real hope and real change not theatrical bullshit.

The 2012 election cycle has not even started and these so-called moderates you rely on for your hopes and dreams haven't paid an iota of attention to the 2012 election.

When 2012 arrives and the normally uninformed middle has to choose between Obama or Palin the choice will be obvious. Even if the choice is not obvious to some of these moderates, the Jimmy Carter-ese first term of the Chosen One will doom him to a life of building houses in the name of charity while traveling the communist world complaining of the country that made him wealthy and recognizable.

I'm supposed to believe that independents won't vote for Sarah Palin because of a poll taken before the campaign has even begun? And a poll by CNN, no less?

Yes, she probably does have a problem with independents. I think she can overcome it on the campaign trail. Maybe she can't. But I'm certainly not going to accept that she shouldn't have the opportunity to try.

@Robert - well said, the issue is not whether Palin currently has been damaged with independents by the MSM, but whether so far in advance she should be disqualified because of it. Let's see where the economy and the fight against Obamacare are in a year, how Obama's fake to the right is working, and how the field sorts itself out. And of course, let's see how the MSM has savaged whoever is the frontrunner at the time. The one thing I don't want to be saying a year from now is "if only she had run ...."

When I went to Iowa to hear SP give the Reagan dinner address, I was amused at the level of outrage the MSM felt against her.

Digging a little deeper, the reason for their outrage sprung from the same complaint I heard over and over again as to why SP shouldn't be taken "seriously" or wasn't a "real" candidate:

She refused to meet with the "right" people, or do the "right" things that mainstream candidates are expected to do. It was clear she was forging ahead on her own path, outside of the "guidance" of the GOP apparatus and, to the chagrin on the MSM, in a manner that (to them) was unpredictable, and therefore couldn't be managed and controlled. Outrageous!!

Underneath it all, over and over again, this is what I "heard" from the MSM in Iowa:

Who does she think she is??

The reporter from the left-of-center German newspaper, Suddeutsche Zeitung, didn't even take notes. Instead, his paper ran the next day an article about the Reagan dinner which quoted Gibbs and HIS impression about what Palin's attendance meant.

They want to dismiss her, but can't.

Love it.

No O'Donnell redux please!

Then stop it.

We don't know if O'Donnell might have been electable without massive media attacks, all the "Smart" RINOs yelling she would fail (from day one...stay classy, guys; anyone notice the funding issues they suddenly have?) for the entire campaign-- and golly, she failed!

Couldn't have ANYTHING with the constant drumbeat that she was horrible from the Republican side, could it?

When talking electability, remember that the Dems until recently had the only KKK guy in congress. Can we do worse than that?

Meanwhile, our "smart" guys cut down anyone who isn't a RINO or helpful idiot to the Dems.
(I still haven't forgiven McCain for his first amendment stupidity, and if he hadn't been going against Obama I wouldn't have voted for him.)

Chew on this, "smart" guys: the rest of the party, who's been going along with horrible, luke-warm candidates, found out they don't have to. That's how we got O'Donnell.

So start finding some good conservatives you can stand, plug your nose and try not to slit our throats with your preemptive declarations of failure.

You think Sarah has no chance? Then start talking about how wonderful she'd be as a VP, or how with all of her interaction around the country she might know who would be a great president this time, and look for someone you CAN stand to go into the running.

Hint: if your "good" candidate involves cutting out either social or fiscal conservatives, you're doing it wrong.

Trochilus-
thank you for doing the research!

No O'Donnell redux please!

I find Miss O'Donnell an agreeable character and I find my views congruent with hers on a number of issues. However, she is a 41 year-old spinster, has revealed only fragments of her employment history, and has a history of neglecting her property and making a hash of her finances.

Gov. Palin has been married for 22 years to a man she has been affiliated with since high school, has five children, has no significant gaps in her employment history, is diversely skilled with a full and energetic avocational life, and has 12 years under her belt as a public executive. Why would you consider these two women equivalents?

And, as tomgrey sez . . .

"I'm not sure Palin is the best choice, and won't be until she runs & wins the primary (if she does), but the irrational hatred of her, now, today, and the need to confront it and counter it, is what this country needs the most over the next year."

Correct.

In the first place, her being forced out now in the wake of the calumny from the left would send an unmistakable signal to the craziest of the crazies over there that Republicans can be easily rolled.

That was one of the primary reasons why many of us disagreed with John Hinderaker.

The public never would have separated the two issues -- the vile and false narrative that claimed she was somehow responsible for the Arizona shootings, coupled with a few Republicans publicly beginning to make calls for her to prematurely exit the race, would have the lefties all gleefully carving big notches on their pea shooters (or, whatever it is that they pull out and play with when they feel artificially emboldened.)

John did indeed defend her from the false charge, but then way too quickly gave in to entirely speculative long-range conjecture, summarily concluded in his own mind that she could not win, and he posted about it accordingly.

* * * * *

By the way, to me, absolutely one of the most fascinating and related "links" to one of these recent posts here, was this one at Commonsense & Wonder dated Saturday, January 22, 2011, and quite simply entitled:

"There's no Bush so it's become Palin Derangement Syndrome."

At first, I was a little exasperated when I went there, only to find out that Jerry's entire post consisted of a link to the WaPo column by Dana Milbank. But in a sense, that headline really said it all.

For the left, to keep their little gremmies focused, there must be a "personification" of the enemy.

Besides, Obama has now sidled up to way, way to many of the key Bush policies, the vehement opposition to which, incidentally, was the horse he rode into town on!

So, reason never did and never could suffice to keep those gremmies screeching.

A few of them obviously sensed that they must have someone to hate. So, the lowest of their opinionists literally jumped up after the AZ shootings and falsely accused Sarah Palin of bloody murder.

The main stream media is trying to drive Sarah out of contention. R.I.N.O.'s wanting the nomination join in on the carping with friendly "advice" for Sarah--"do this"--or "do that". Dummies that want the media to pick Republican candidates play along so they will sound intelligent join in the chorus--"She can't win". Great! Let's do 4 more years of Obama and everyone is happy playing the loser game. Give me the Happy Warrior, Sarah Palin, she's drives the left nuts.

"Palin can't win. Stop wasting your time."

"Remember you have no evidence to suggest that the significant majority of Americans who dislike Palin will change their minds about her. Therefore you're support for her is illogical, and plan stupid."

I would call this really low-rent, Tokyo Rose.

The first paragraph is pure hysterical, preemptive demoralization. The same thing could have been said about Barack Obama in 2006, or Ronald Reagan in 1979 -- who lagged 20 points behind Carter and was widely viewed in the MSM as an extremist boob.

The second sampling is funny. Sincrinon places on Palin supporters a burden of proof that people will ever change their minds about Palin. Two years before the election. I'll only respond to this silliness by saying that this is what campaigns are about -- changing minds.

But this leads to the Big Fear, which positively oozes from Sincrinon's so-very-dire posts. That is, the fear of Palin as an actual candidate. That would mean Palin in the game, Palin on the street, campaigning, being recognized as such -- a whole other story and world from the pre-game show we're in right now when commenters are king. This is what they fear, and will go through endless verbal extrusions to keep from happening.

Palin will run, and when she does, it's a new game.

The game in not played on paper....it's played on the field.

---9.5 % unemployement
---Rising gas and fuel prices
---EPA regs/fees on engery
---Obamacare nightmare
---QE3
---The upcoming fights in DC

Nothing is a slam dunk. The MSM is spinning that the "anger is gone", approval polls are up, the ecnomomy is sunshine. Folks, if Palin gets into the game, gets a chance to put out her message (no more Schmitt to hold her back), gets on the trail with big crowds, and DEBATES on LIVE TV, then things can take a life of its own. The DNC's fear of "Palin inertia" becomes clear.