Palin announces she will not run
The story is at
Drudge.
My beseechings to Palin have been answered. As I wrote last May 20:
Today RCP quotes Sarah Palin saying:
I think my problem is that I do have that fire in my belly. I am so adamantly supportive of the good traditional things about America and our free enterprise system and I want to make sure that America is put back on the right track and we only do that by defeating Obama in 2012. I have that fire in my belly.
Sarah, PLEASE get rid of that fire—which you yourself, in a Freudian slip, call a “problem.” Have an iced drink. Go for a nice cool trek on the North Slope. I’m not saying that you have nothing to contribute to politics. But your main effect on politics is to generate massive burning torrents of irrational love and irrational hate. PLEASE don’t run.
- end of initial entry -
James N. writes:
My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that Herman Cain will not be able to go the distance, first, because business success and success in politics are very different things, and second, his health issues will become more important than they have been heretofore.
I don’t think Perry can revive. Michele Bachmann may be able to.
It is very likely that Romney will be the nominee. He’s the one who I’m pretty sure Obama can beat.
I need a drink.
Paul K. writes:
James N. writes: “It is very likely that Romney will be the nominee. He’s the one who I’m pretty sure Obama can beat.”
I am not enthused about Romney, but I think he’s the candidate who is the most likely to be able to beat Obama. I have far less confidence in the others, Bachmann in particular. Romney represents a safe, sober alternative to Obama with whom even many liberals would be comfortable. Perhaps James can explain his view.
James N. replies:
Happily.
Romney is a manager who is very influenced by “experts.” The consensus of “experts” in healthcare, in sexual ontogeny [?], in tax policy, in managed trade, is decidedly leftist.
Mitt is a weak leftist who doesn’t care for personal immorality, but who regards it as a personal choice.
To paraphrase Harry Truman, “Given a choice between a weak leftist and a real leftist, the people will pick the real leftist every time.”
Also, Romney is in no position to deconstruct Obamunism. In terms of Obamacare? Romney invented it.
Obama is a passionate and charismatic version of Romney. Romney is the worst possible choice, by far.
Therefore, I expect the Stupid Party to do what comes naturally.
Pathetic.
Paul K. writes:
James explained why he doesn’t like Romney, and I don’t disagree with his criticisms, but I don’t agree that those criticisms make Romney easy for Obama to beat. Obama’s “passion” and “charisma” have worn thin on most people as he’s proven his incompetence. Voters are in a panic about the economy and they will gladly give the steady-seeming businessman a chance to repair it. While you consider Romney a leftist, the media will be painting him as a right-winger if he gets the nomination, so voters won’t see it as a choice between a weak leftist and a real leftist.
I’m not saying I’d like the way Romney is likely to govern. I just think it’s a mistake to write him off because we don’t care for him.
James N. writes:
Sorry about “ontogeny.”
I was in a hurry. I was looking for a short word to encapsulate the conjoined phenomena of homosexualism, marriage issues, abortion, and public immorality/amorality. [LA replies: But you still haven’t explained what it means in this context.]
Mitt has the exemplary personal standards we would expect of an LDS stake President and bishop, but he regards all of the above as matters of personal taste. Were he more of a scholar, he might say of homosexual “marriage”, “degustibus non disputandum”. [I think this means, “There is no arguing over differences of taste,” but I’m not positive.]
For me, this will not do.
James N. replies:
Yes, it means, “There’s no disputing (or you can’t dispute) taste.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 05, 2011 07:22 PM | Send