Friday, October 31, 2008

Sarah the Formidable

Eugene Robinson, who really doesn't like her, thinks that Sarah Palin isn't about to disappear. I agree, and am really puzzled by the many people around who assure me that by mid-November she'll be gone forever. That just doesn't make any sense. The woman is a natural politician, she has acquired name-recognition most politicians would kill for, and why would she go away? I mean, look at our very own Bibi Netanyahu, who was painfully drubbed by the voters not once but twice, in 1999 and in 2006, and in 2009 he's going to be prime minister again. Not to mention Shimon Peres, who lost elections for three decades and along the way was the minister of labor, industry, defense, finance, foreign affairs, prime minister twice, and now is the president. Going away after losing an election is for suckers who probably didn't deserve to win the first time anyway.


Anonymous said...


First off, she's no Ronald Reagan!

And, it was a good thing that Reagan kept his crazy family hidden behind Nancy. So few people new how strange it was, to grow up in that household.

Where Palin comes on the scene with a 17 year old pregnant daughter. And, her own pregnancy, which she had when she was 43. And, she accepted the fact the kid was "Mongoloid." What is now called Down.

Believe me, all children can be a handful. To watch Palin parading around the stage with her "Trig" ... wasn't as cute as some religious nutters believe.

Oddly enough, there's an old habit of people looking at newborn infants; to the point that new parents talked of "evil eyes." (Meaning? Underneath the entrapment of civilized behaviors, lurk those of magic. Make-believe. And, fear.)

Is Palin a better mother because she gave birth? No. All she did was make a choice. While she stands there, next to McCain ... who blew away any lead he could have had ... by saying Roe, as a national law, will be "so yesterday." And, McCain "will help women who don't want their babies, but them up for adoption."


As if, before the 20th century, women weren't beset by "pregnancy issues." And, where when they came along the line to later pregnancies, they'd say "I wouldn't give you a plug nickel for another one!)

You think not? Well, what do men know?

So many women lost their lives. That in the past women died young. Leaving children to read Cinderella with an eye of knowing what it's like to be an orphan.

Not that it matters. "Article of faith" are just that. In Israel? Oh, boy. No great leadership has emerged in the 60 years you've been able to form Jewish governments. How so? Well, insiders form a group. And, they won't part with their powers. And, even right in the beginning you saw stinking deals.

Imagine that from all of the European Enlightenmetn; that separate out, even German Jews from the Polish. Or others "beyond the Pale," ... what remains? Haredim?

Good luck to ya. Because they, alone, multiply.

Creating a bed of problems Olmert never recognized.

And, in today's Israel? What are you going to do with the settlers? (At least in America, as big as Alask is, it's small in terms of population.) The population? About the same size as Delaware.

Palin, right now, is an artificial media-created "frenzy." Everybody knows where she stands.

And, most women wouldn't trade places.

More interesting to me, with the race yet to happen, is the fall out that gets reported as news. Seems McCain isn't so enamored of his "star" veep choice. (Which makes me believe she's no different than Nixon.) Nixon, in 1952, through himself in the veep spot. And, to Eisenhower, it wasn't worth the factional fight.

Later, the same thing happened to Reagan. He didn't "pick" Bush because he wanted to; only that the other choices to him were much worse. And, he certainly wasn't going to give the advantage to Nelson Rockefeller! Bush, at least, looked so dull nobody would notice the way he had imbedded himself into the GOP political fabric.

Oddly enough, Obama may not only win; he stands the chance of being a success. Make from the democrats all you want; but they're familiar with power, just the same. And, if history serves lessons?

Why did Bill Clinton focus so hard on the economy? Because with the elder Bush the economy was in the toilet.

Same thing, here, today. As it was, even worse, back in 1932.

That's the bear FDR tackled. And, that's how he grew a following. (Yes, FDR had the "great temperament.") Obama's not short of that. Just because he's Black?

People are no more ready, in America, to throw women back into the back alleys, then they would be if you want to "cure alcoholism, by bringing back Prohibition!

As to politics, some winds change. In Israel? It looks like Ehud Barak's insane behaviors are about to throw Labor under the bus.

Could it mean that Karl Marx isn't a favorite? Hello. He never, ever was! Idealism didn't last long enough to keep the cover going. That's all.

And, with the Haredi in Jerusalem behaving the way the Haredi do ... somewhere people notice that the Sephardic Jews are "less of a minority." But they got shafted.

Livni? Go look. She gains ground even though she opted for elections; instead of the prime minister's chair. Which currently sits on springs and coils.

Nobody knows the future!

But democrats in power? Obama will be "no worse" than Truman. And, he's also better educated than Truman. (And, the democrats will work hard to "stay in the middle.") Why not?

The real threat to Obama could be Hillary? She sure wanted to be the woman walking into the White House, now.

As to McCain's health? How would I know. I'm not predictor of future events. Any more than you are.

But there's a side to Palin that's not "stand up comedy."

Where she's good? I bet she can raise money! And, in a world where the belts are tightening, that, in itself, may be "something."

She can also go and scream her head off. But I read somewhere Obama said he'd sign THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT. (And, republicans should be grateful. They'll have to find something else to yell and scream for. And, if Obama wins in a landslide, their recovery will depend on how sane the base is; as it is asked to move to the middle.) On par with asking settlers to move?

What happens if there's a two state solution, and the settlers are told they only have to move if they want to move. But they won't be in Israel. Which would also make a lot of Israelis happy. You think there's only the one solution of riots?

What happens if bigots in America, go on a rampage?

Yaniv said...

She's the presumptive front-runner for the 2012 Republican nomination.

Of course, they said the same thing 4 years ago about Hillary and the 2008 Democrat nomination...

Anonymous said...


One of the things to watch now, is how the states pick their "red" or "blue" colors. For Obama to win big he needs a few "red" states willing to go "blue."

Then? Let's say Palin is the choice? By then? What you would know ... IF the cards play out this way ... is that Palin "could be a senator" ... if she could land on Ted Stevens chair. OR she could opt to run again for Alaska's governor.

And, yes. She's be loved by states that tend to have a "bible belt" feel to them.

Also, it will matter what Obama does in office!

The other way Palin runs in 2012 is if McCain wins. ANd, she's standing there when he drops dead, before 2012.

But life is very complex.

In most elections, re-elections tend to be the rule. The encumbents get this particular advantage.

On the other hand, IF Obama runs the way FDR ran ... which means very successfully ... Obama "could be the candidate" that not only runs and wins in 2012. But "pushes" the rules to run again, in 2016. He's young enough.

You just never know.

On the other hand? Candidates that cater to one group. (In the same way that Bibi caters to the right wing), get to look like they've got a following ... but it's all one variety. You don't see "the big tent."

Up ahead? Wow. If the GOP shrinks its tent ... meaning there are fewer talented GOP-Kiesters elected to office ... Then there are fewer candidates to stand for various upper posts. And, yes. In politics, you're dealing with a climbing game.

It's not all tele-genetics.

As to the GOP candidate, ahead? What if Guiliani wins the governor's chair in New York State?

What if this whole "throw women into back alleys" issue dies on the vine? Roe's been the law since 1972! And, it's only a segment of society that thinks the way it does.

They got their hands on politics since Jimmy Carter won the Baptist votes.

ANd, don't laugh. But if there's a game out there that can be lost; a country that values the Separation of Church and State, isn't one you can fiddle with by putting up a candidate blessed by Jesus. (There is no such blessing, folks.) You're being scammed by scoundrels.