Palin endorsing Trump makes the circle complete

Palin-Endorses-Trump-AP-640x480

Any political party in which the endorsement of Sarah Palin is considered valuable is a party in intellectual crisis. But of course, the same is even more true of a party in which Donald Trump is leading in almost every poll in almost every state.

Palin and Trump, a perfect match. And let’s be clear: Without Sarah Palin, there probably would be no Trump. One reality star paved the way for the second. By lowering its standards enough to embrace Palin, the Republican Party left itself no defenses against a Trump or a Ted Cruz.

Eight years ago, remember, the GOP establishment and media shamelessly defended Palin as a legitimate candidate, even after they had glaring proof of her ignorance and incompetence. She had no business in big-league politics, they knew it and they did not care. They thought that she could be sold and packaged and handled, just as they thought that her supporters could be handled and packaged.

And when the press dared to point out the obvious — that Palin knew nothing about policy, and what she thought she knew was spectacularly wrong – they were dismissed as elitist and biased. Republicans were so enthralled by her ability to stir a crowd, to say the unsayable, to sense and then amplify the resentments of the GOP base that they paid no attention to her utter lack of qualifications. They told their base that it didn’t matter, and their base believed them and believes them still.

You reap what you sow.

And it’s funny, in a sad kind of way, to watch some elements of the conservative movement coming to grips with what has happened to them. Eight years after the fact, with the damage already done, they are now echoing the very same descriptions of Palin that they once found so objectionable when voiced by others.

At RedState, founder Erick Erickson was once so adamant in support of Palin that he launched “Operation Leper” in the wake of the 2008 election, devoted to ferreting out all Republicans who had dared to speak ill of Saint Sarah to the press. His goal was to ensure that they never again worked in Republican politics. These days, RedState itself tells us that “the Palins are just such ridiculous people” and describes the Trump endorsement as “today’s crapshow.”

Likewise, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard now proclaims himself appalled by Trump and everything that he represents, accusing him of “soiling the robe of conservatism and dragging it through the dust.” Yet this same Bill Kristol was a stalwart champion of Palin and everything that she represents. Back in the day, he even took credit for discovering Palin and for pressuring the McCain campaign to nominate her.

And at National Review, Charles C.W. Cooke dares to complain that when you talk with a Palin fan these days, “you will be told in a matter of moments that to oppose her is to oppose ‘real America.’ Talk to a Trump fan, and you will be told that to knock him is to knock ‘We the people’ — of which, it is made abundantly clear, you are no longer a valued part.”

Why does that sound so familiar? Perhaps because that “clash of civilizations” argument between the elite and “real Americans” is precisely the argument that conservatives — including those at Cooke’s own publication — long deployed against Palin critics.

Again, Palin’s essential nature is not something that slowly became apparent over time. It was glaring the moment that she first opened her mouth in an unscripted setting. But those in the party who should have spoken out chose to stay silent.

“The prospect of a mass movement that was earnestly committed to libertarianism was always a little too good to be true, but even I didn’t imagine it ending like this,” a crestfallen Cooke wrote yesterday just before the Palin endorsement. “All that talk of the Constitution and the Declaration; all that energy expended against the cronies and the rent-seekers; all those purifying voter drives — and for what? So that Sarah Palin could add a few zeroes to her bank balance and Donald Trump could go from the purchaser to the bought? Today was the day that Rick Santelli’s famous yelp finally melted into populism and avarice. Today, at about ten minutes past six, P. T. Barnum beat out Hayek for the soul of the insurgent Right. Today, the rebels became the charlatans they had set out to depose.”

Cooke got everything right but the timing. The decision to sell out came eight years ago; this is just the devil coming to claim what is his.

Reader Comments 0

701 comments
RantNRave
RantNRave

"At the same time imo the youth that do have religion now are more intense in their beliefs and more spiritual than they were 20 years ago. "


@TD4321


Evil people rely on the  naivete' of the young


to allow them to continue with their evil. 


 And the youth tend to save the whole world


while their parents struggle to save theirs!


K

tireOfIt
tireOfIt

After today’s speech, Palin said it was a refreshing change to be the most intelligent person on stage. “Trump brings the star power, I bring the brain powder” she Tweeted.

Peachs
Peachs

@ByteMe I think the foreign powers know he full of it and are not as nervous as we are, but hell who knows, have a great day Bite, we'll be here when ya get back. 

Peachs
Peachs

It is amazing how much air time Trump gets on CNN.  He is practically doing a infomercial, the interviewer is agreeing with Trump's assessment and telling the audience how hated Cruz is in the senate or how immature Rubio is, all I totally agree with, but Trump does not need these people's help, this is what keeps him in this race, an endorsement in unofficial practice from the cable news channels.

Peachs
Peachs

@ByteMe @Peachs it has taken the Republican Party by surprised or they are loving it, can't tell, but last election it was a poll leader a week, the impulse buyer, this time not so or a least not so far. 

ByteMe
ByteMe

@Peachs He's good for ratings.  Simple as that.  Media is doing themselves no service by taking a side in the battle, but they'll do it for money because their bosses tell them to.

tireOfIt
tireOfIt

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says that if he had been present for the Paris terror attacks, he would have personally shot the attackers.

ByteMe
ByteMe

@tireOfIt He does have a bit of the TV show "24" in him... but he'll need a stunt double.

Peachs
Peachs

@ByteMe @tireOfIt if he does get in office and cowards like Bush during those first few hours of 9/11 all this bluster will work in reverse and there will be real panic in the streets. 

Honky4Herman
Honky4Herman

Libs are besides themselves.  There is no way the US will elect a socialist, male or female.  

honested
honested

@Honky4Herman 

Another math challenged individual.

Do you realize that 20% support is really a tiny minority?

tireOfIt
tireOfIt

Republicans claim that government is the problem. And when you elect them, they set about proving it.

Honky4Herman
Honky4Herman

@tireOfIt Many have claimed that Trump's election will destroy the Republican Party.  Great!  It doesn't look any different than the Democrat Party now.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

Longtime comments page regulars know that I often rag on the NFL for its sleazy business practices and tend to prefer the beisbol version of sportsball.

That said, reading a story like this reminds me of just what a bunch of regressive knuckle-draggers still run MLB. It's insane that the NFL beat them to it on something like this. (And it's insaner that MLB doesn't have any female umps at this stage of the game.)


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/bills-hire-nfl-full-time-female-assistant-coach-article-1.2504048


The Bills announced Wednesday that they have hired Kathryn Smith as a special teams quality control coach, making her the first full-time female NFL assistant in the NFL.

“Kathryn Smith has done an outstanding job in the seven years that she has worked with our staff,” Ryan said in a statement released by the team. “She certainly deserves this promotion based on her knowledge and strong commitment, just to name a couple of her outstanding qualities, and I just know she’s going to do a great job serving in the role of Quality Control-Special Teams.”

foo2u
foo2u

Can PTSD actually be cured?... If so, why isn't the president out there personally curing all of our soldiers who sacrificially sacrificed so much and exist in thier woundedness awaiting?

And who funds the VA?

Derp...

foo2u
foo2u

Tried to compose a post with Palin babble... It took ten minutes because the auto spell check on my iPad wouldn't do it...

Honky4Herman
Honky4Herman

All the naysayers are going to wet themselves when President Trump takes office.  He will CRUSH either of the socialist candidates!  Sorry, proggies, NOT. 

foo2u
foo2u

9-9-9?

Anyway, all the blog wingnuts have been wetting themselves for 7 years.... I s'pose we proggies could stand to do a little catch-up...

Derp...

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

Plausible take on why 13 Hours isn't doing so great.


http://www.moviefone.com/2016/01/17/box-office-13-hours-michael-bay/


Bottom line: Maybe audiences just weren't very interested in revisiting the subject matter. Maybe they were back when Paramount greenlit the movie, but, in recent months, we've seen Benghazi hashed over by eight Congressional investigations, and we've seen Hillary Clinton withstand an 11-hour grilling over the event.

At this stage, when liberals consider Benghazi a settled issue and conservatives consider it yet another Obama scandal for which no one will ever be held accountable, many Americans may no longer be interested. Certainly no one is likely to change their minds, or learn anything that doesn't confirm their pre-existing opinions, from watching a Michael Bay movie.

ByteMe
ByteMe

@Visual_Cortex Or it could be that you don't release a film in January or February unless you're looking to dump it during the traditional movie slow period that's used for dumping "dogs".

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@ByteMe @Visual_Cortex

That, and apparently there were very limited review screenings, which indicated that the studio didn't have much in the way of expectations for it.

And seriously, why does something told from the vantage point of fundamentally unsympathetic characters, mercenaries for hire who are clearly spinning a self-serving tale get green-lit in the first place? 

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

To rimsky:


I finally answered your question/statement to me, further below.  Just saw it.  Good evening, everyone.  Should be a nice day tomorrow.

td1234
td1234

IMO, Breck and MES are both right to a certain degree. More and more of the youth of the nation are abandoning religion but I say these are the people that were part time church attendance in the past. 


At the same time imo the youth that do have religion now are more intense in their beliefs and more spiritual than they were 20 years ago. 

honested
honested

@td1234 

It refreshes me to see the youth of America casting off the chains of superstition!

Just think, in a generation, many of the stupid, specious arguments that waste so much time and money in our government may just be bad memories!

breckenridge
breckenridge

May 23, 2015 -  America continues to trend secular. According to a recently released Pew Study, almost one in four Americans, 23 percent, now identify as religiously unaffiliated, up from just 16 percent in 2007. This continues a shift that began in the early 1990s, when the percentage of religiously unaffiliated was in single digits. The rise of these “Nones” comes mainly at the expense of Christianity, which saw a drop from about 78 percent to 70 percent in the last eight years.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201505/why-are-christian-numbers-dropping

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@breckenridge 

This link is consistent with the reflections in my last post to you and it, in no way, "proves" your contention.  Do you not see that?

rimsky
rimsky

This is for Mr. Liberal.  FYI the scientist have synthesized 4 brand new elements and completed the 5f row of the periodic table.  Now the periodic table looks full for now.

PaulinNH
PaulinNH

@rimsky   The new ones filled up the p-orbital section.  The f elements (Actinides) were created over 20 years ago.    IUPAC should name 3 of the elements for Hahn, Heisenberg and Bethe - but they probably won't.  Took them a long long time to come up with Meitnerium.  Not to mention Rutherford and Bohr - and all they did was show the basic structure of the atom.

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

@rimsky


Now THAT is interesting. We have a poster named Bruno who is super deep heavy on math and science topics. Went to Harvey Mudd college and is perty smart on this type of stuff. He hasn't been on here much lately but if you ever seem him feel free to raise the latest and greatest in science and math topics. He'll be sure to dig that stuff and speak at your level. 

rimsky
rimsky

@Doom Classical liberal @rimsky Thanks.  I would love to talk to Bruno too.  May be Mr. Bookman can give politics a rest and write something about science.  I know he can do it.  He is to me a good writer.

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

@PaulinNH @Doom Classical liberal @rimsky


Yeah. I peeked in and saw that. He sure is missed. But the blog has kinda died this past year. The rudeness and incivility has gotten way out of hand and few people want to have a serious debate or discuss different ideas. Bruno's discussions on science topics and math were insightful. I think he kinda gave up on it as it got worse and worse. I rarely have time to comment during the day but sometimes I peak in for 5 minutes. Its been reduced to td making comments for the con position and the usual 5 or so progs doing more than than making personal attacks on him. And that's about it. 

td1234
td1234

@rimsky He only cares about the fake science of global warming. 

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

@rimsky @Doom Classical liberal


Since you're new Bruno comes on Friday evenings when Jay releases weekend music at the end of the day. He posts some music tunes but if you see him be sure to introduce yourself and bring up whatever latest science and math topics interest you. He would understand whatever it is you bring up. Nice guy too. 

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

@PaulinNH @Doom Classical liberal @rimsky


No insults on friday night. Everyone ideally puts their politics aside for Friday night music and just trade tunes. I think we should expand it probably to music and perhaps some other off the wall topics like science and math that rimsky and Bruno would like to talk about. As long as we keep the politics out of it. 

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

@PaulinNH @Doom Classical liberal @rimsky


No. Never read that about Mill? Now dang. That's funny. 


I tell you who I would love to have a beer with from history. Benjamin Franklin. He loved beer, women, and still had time to do all manner of incredible things in his life. If I could bring back one person from time and show him all of man's achievements and the good as well as the bad and see both the wonder and shock on their face as they saw everything from jets to Iphones to Ipads to the internet to tv, movies, space stations, skyscrapers, etc. it would be Franklin. And you know he could knock down a 12 pack with you going over everything that's happened since he died. Alexander the great would be  2 or Aristotle would probably be 2 or 3. Jesus would be omitted cause I don't think I would be able to wonder him with anything. 

PaulinNH
PaulinNH

@rimsky @PaulinNH   I never did any nuclear chemistry so I am no way qualified to opine on it, but there is a school of thought (wishful thinking?) that out past element 119 there may be some stability in the elements.  Certainly everything past uranium (92) is unstable, becoming increasingly so as atomic number increases.

PaulinNH
PaulinNH

@Doom Classical liberal @PaulinNH @rimsky   DCL - the Mill comment was a joke.  You never heard the Monty Python "Philosopher's Song"?  It was a favorite drinking song when I was at Uni in the mid 70's.  Franklin?  I'd like to meet Da Vinci, Einstein or Dirac.

rimsky
rimsky

@PaulinNH @rimsky We shall see.   I just keep up with new discoveries.  To me it is interesting.  I am in the chemical field and I do produce some chemicals.  But when I was young I had lofty priorities.  But making a living took me in a different direction.

honested
honested

@td1234 @rimsky 

And there it is, floating in the punch bowl.

Tell me, what is this 'fake science' you speak of?

Is it the product of those institutes of predetermined thought that profit if the population is permanently damaged?

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

@PaulinNH @Doom Classical liberal @rimsky


I didn't click the link. I love Monty Python but I forget a lot of their monologues. Probably cause half of them didn't make sense when I was very young. Later on, when you have an appreciation of history and learning then Monty Python is much funnier. 


Davinci would certainly be up there. Einstein not so much because I think Einstein was so far ahead of his time that he wouldn't be that awed by the changes he saw. I don't think he would be that amazed. 


Dirac I actually had to google. I've read a lot about other scientists , physicists and mathematicians, people like Maxwell but Dirac had escaped me. And if he died in 1984 he probably wouldn't see too much that had changed. 


PaulinNH
PaulinNH

@rimsky @PaulinNH @Doom Classical liberal   Dirac had stepped down from his professorship about 4 years before I started at Uni.  The Theoretical Chemistry folks spoke about him as if he was God. 

Oppenheimer was good - but he was too "out there" with some of his work - well ahead of his time

PaulinNH
PaulinNH

@Doom Classical liberal @PaulinNH @rimsky   With Einstein, I think he would be fascinated by some of the ideas from the last 25 years.  He spent a large part of his life trying, in vain, to combine the 4 forces of the Universe - and he always had a problem with quantum mechanics. 

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

@PaulinNH @Doom Classical liberal @rimsky


Yeah.I'm sure that's true. About 10-15  years ago a friend read a science article that said the store of human knowledge was doubling every 5 years and that has stuck with me. So in that span of time I guess he would see a lot that has changed. I just think it would much more interesting to see the reactions of great minds from long, long ago that had no idea of the things to come like Franklin and people going all the way back to Plato and Aristotle. 


Been following ya'lls conversation on the elements. I had no idea of all the new elements. I would think most people who are supremely ignorant of these advances, myself included, would find any of these new discoveries fascinating. Too bad they're not talked about more or that the people who make the discoveries don't get more newspaper time. 

PaulinNH
PaulinNH

@Doom Classical liberal @PaulinNH @rimsky   It's not just that the store of human knowledge is growing so fast.  I read an article in the last year or so talking about the "half-life" of what we know - basically how new discoveries have shown old ideas to be false (one example would be Einstein v Newton).  In some disciplines the half life is extremely long (e.g. mathematics).  In others it is very short.