Negative Railroad

Candidates endorsed by Sarah Palin have won two-thirds of the time. A little more than half of those winners were non-establishment or Tea Party candidates.

Somewhere in disussions about the power of Sarahcuda, I caught this comment, worthy of a Snark Award:

I can see November from my house!

It is important to keep in mind that almost all the elections where Palin’s horse won were primaries. The dynamic is different when it is a Democrat against a Republican. People still tend to vote for the team instead of the candidate.

But I can’t help but grin when I think of all the leftoids who tried to dismiss Palin as a rube who’s 15 minutes expired two years ago.

Neo-neocon poses a question:

Who would have been the best president to handle the oil spill crisis?

Whatever else you may think of her, I think the answer has to be “Sarah Palin.” She’s got the experience dealing with the oil companies, and the requisite gumption to do so.

And, if they were being honest, the left would have to give the same answer: Sarah Palin. And that fact must enrage them no end.

Awesome!

I had forgotten about Palin’s genuine experience in this area:

In my speculations about breaking the 60-vote Senate majority, I suggested Sarah Palin may offer some stealth support to Republican underdog Scott Brown. If she’s helping, it is so stealthy that nobody has noticed. But even by her absence, Palin is a factor in the Massachusettes Senate race:

In a Washington Post editorial, Sarah Palin distances herself from politics as usual:

Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda.

What? Government policy has costs? All I’ve been hearing about are benefits. Who is this dimwit telling us that there ain’t no such thing as a free unicorn!

And, in the paragraph prior that outrage, Caribou Barbie seems to suggest that executives should act within the letter and spirit of the law:

Another righty waits for God to give a political sign:

Talk-show host Sean Hannity, a vocal opponent of Barack Obama's policies, said today he would not rule out a bid for the presidency in 2012.

Egged on by radio colleague Bill Cunningham, Hannity said he would consider entering the front lines of the political fray if God directs him.

"I've never made a decision in my life without – whatever destiny God has you've got to fulfill it," he said. "I'm not sure that's my destiny."

I’ve seen plenty of righty speculation that part of the reason Sarah Palin drives lefties crazy is her staunch display of the value of human life. She didn’t abort Trig. Instead, she is proud of him and full of love.

She has been ridiculed as an intellectual lightweight. Yet, she is the one who put the label “Death Panel” on Federal health legislation:

I’ve never had a President. The common construction, “He’s my President,” or, “He’s our President,” doesn’t fit my perspective. The relation between citizens and government leaders is not ownership. Presidents, as the Constitution was drafted, are chief executives. They fill a role in a bureaucracy. They’re not idols.

A President is just “the President”, not much different from the local Fire Chief or the CEO down at the widget factory. That a voter has some infinitesimal influence in determining who becomes President does not create ownership. Not to me, anyway.

The language of possession reinforces the passions. Campaigners exploit this. Once people begin to perceive ownership, the candidate becomes intertwined with their identity. The portion of reason or logic guiding choice and response diminishes.

Remember during the campaign how Sarah Palin was always referring to “the Great State of Alaska”? I think nearly everyone heard that like an air-headed cheerleader at a pep rally waving her poms and yelling, “Yay! for Alaska! It's so great! Give me an A…”.

She wasn’t being a cheerleader any more than Governor Pawlenty when he talks about Minnesota’s lakes. Or when Governor Doyle mentions Wisconsin’s fine cheese.

Do you believe Sarah Palin said she, “could see Russia from her house?” If so, you’re in agreement with 86.9% of Obama voters. But Palin never said it. It was a line from Tina Fey in a Saturday Night Live sketch.*

In Iraq, coalition forces defeated the Iraqi military quickly and decisively. Saddam lost control of his nation. This was the “mission accomplished” that the lefties willfully misunderstood. We won the war, but winning the peace did not come so easily.

Barack Obama defeated John McCain. It was perhaps not quick, but in combination with gains in the Senate, it was a decisive victory for Democrats. Now the Dems have to manage the aftermath of their win.

And McCain left a bomb for them. Sarah Palin.

[T]he single worst major party candidate for high office in living memory, a proudly ignorant political automaton whose only notable qualities are a pretty face, a sufficient lack of awareness to [be blind to self-incompetencies] and a quality of ambition that can only be described as voracious.

Another bilious righty smear of Obama?

Nope.

Mostly a snooze.

Palin is one long run-on sentence. Her, Palin’s, sentence construction, also makes it hard to follow her points. Due to her sentence construction. And running on, also.

Biden likes numbers. He claims McCain voted 20 times for something Obama voted for 6-1/2 years ago. Or 7. Which is 39% of 4-billion-dollar tax breaks to ExxonMobil that McCain voted for. Just like Bush.

So…I got nothing substantive to examine.

Palin is outstanding at being herself. She glows when talking about American principles and the privilege of representing the public.

In the previous post, I made a distinction between “pork eaters” and “pork producers”. Palin seems to grasp that distinction. Zip ahead to 2:59 in this clip:

Following are excerpts from the StarTribune's comment section on an Associated Press story titled McCain equates earmarks with corruption even though Palin is seeking earmarks herself.

First, a bit of AP’s reporting for context: