Joe Scarborough highly critical of Sarah Palin and suggests GOP should do the same.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

In an Op-Ed piece for Politico, Joe Scarborough thinks the GOP should "man-up" and take Sarah Palin down a peg. "Republicans have a problem," Scarborough writes at Politico. "The most-talked-about figure in the GOP is a reality show star who cannot be elected." To make matters worse, Scarborough prods, Palin does all of this while demeaning the legacy of GOP standard-bearers that many hold dear, people such as former presidents Reagan, whom she casually downplayed as "an actor," as well as George H.W. and Barbara Bush, whom she deemed "blue bloods." In a particularly caustic passage, Scarborough seeks to draw a comparison between the legacies of H.W. Bush and Palin:

"I suppose Palin's harsh dismissal of this great man is more understandable after one reads her biography and realizes that, like Bush, she accomplished a great deal in her early 20s. Who wouldn't agree that finishing third in the Miss Alaska beauty contest is every bit as treacherous as risking your life in military combat? Maybe the beauty contestant who would one day be a reality star and former governor didn't win the Distinguished Flying Cross, but the half-termer was selected as Miss Congeniality by her fellow contestants." Source.

Ouch. Sarah Palin's seriousness was questioned as recently in October by none other than Karl Rove, who suggested that a presidential candidate who appeared in a reality television show wouldn't have much gravitas. Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's speechwriter fired off a few choice words to Palin, calling her a "nincompoop." While many defend St. Palin, suggesting it's the mean ole poopy-pant liberal media that has it "out" for her, there are plenty within the Republican party that also think Sarah is a lot of hot air.

Joe Scarborough's editorial.

Comments

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

Truly, the only way to escape this is to stop playing the "who you think can win" game, and just vote for who "want" to win. But most people won't do that, because they are too afraid of ending up with the alternative.

And with very good reason, because in 1984 and 1988, Democrats nominated the guys who were so single-mindedly devoted to advancing our principles that they didn't give a damn whether they were electable or not. The result of us voting for our principles, at the expense of worrying about our candidates' electability, was a second term of Reagan and the first (and only) term of Bush Sr. To be honest, since I'm in no rush to see the White House go back to the Republicans, I HOPE you guys will vote for who you WANT to win, without worrying about whether they CAN win, so that we can score a second term of Obama (and possibly even a first term of his Democratic successor).

Here's a funny joke ...

Q: What do you call someone who declares a "moral victory"?
A: The loser.

[light-over-me.livejournal.com]

Yeah. The reason we keep ending up with all these people in power that 'no one likes' is simply because voters are willing to compromise (often a lot), for the sake of winning and staying in power. Well, that's not the only reason, but it's a big factor. Another is that often, you'll get people who vote based on just one or two key issues that are important to them, and compromise on the rest-- like abortion, or gay marriage, or whatnot. It's possible for people to vote in someone they agree with on some things, only to get the wool completely pulled over their eyes on other issues.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

What do you call history being written by the losers?

The Classics and the Lost Cause.