Get ovah it, Tecs! Brain-o Spock from Columbia reads like a corpse-man drone while Univ Idaho hockeypuck brain wings it and brings the house down.
Oh, Marcia! Another round of Harpoon for room service please in the dank hovel of pain!
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Why Walpole? That said, OK, sounds like a fun speech, but nothing one can't figure out after 10 seconds of thinking of what's going on. Now, sure, politicos aren't supposed to come up with something really new in every speech (how could they?), but still, for 100K, she coulda come up with a new like. Did she?
Just being curmudgeonly.
Walpole? Just thinking of where the dank hovel closest to your swanky manor might be.
As to new, Palin drops the important part here.
Rejecting the cult of personality is a big thing for her to say because she has a cult of followers and because it makes the Obami look ridiculous.
To urge the GOP to accept primary challenges from further right and urge teapartiers into the GOP are important stances to take.
The Hofman thing was a debacle not to be repeated.
She should have gone after Shelby though...
..stressing the importance of principle and distrust of big-talkers is good too.
It was pretty solid, Tecs. I don't think Romney or Brown, say, could've pulled it off. Imagine either of those guys talking principle after having to adjust to the Massachusetts electorate.
Okay, okay, if you put it this way, yes, there was more substance in her speech that I initially gave her credit for. But I was just skimming through the article you posted, and the excerpts they give seemed kind of blah to me. Especially when compared to what, say, Steyn says on a slow news day.
Speaking of which, your comparison is not too fair -- especially to Brown. After all, Palin is neither in office (she just chickened out of her elected position in Alaska), nor (officially) running for anything -- not even dog catcher. Brown ran a brilliant campaign (I think) and is now a full-fledged US Senator. Of course he has to be more careful as to what he says -- after all, he's responsible to his electorate, and back Walpoleland, there are not that many Tea Partyers, or GOPers, for that matter. Plus, he has to face the electorate again in 2012 if he wants to serve a full 6-year term.
On the other hand, Palin right now is basically a media personality -- kind of like the Huckster. Actually, both Huck and her have some kind of shows on Fox, though Huck is the better one in front of a camera. Palin can be good from time to time, like in that skit with Shattner, but normally she's kind of stiff in front of the camera, whereas Huck is slick like a snake oilman (which he of course is, but that's another story).
At any rate, point is, of course Palin is free(er) to say whatever she wants to say than, say, Brown. (Though, of course, Mitt is too -- I don't know why he simply hunkers down.) Question is -- what palpable effect does that have on anything? I mean, since she holds no office, and ha no real job, except as a semi-talking head (where she's rather poor), and twitter (oh well, why can't she at least blog?)
Palin is running for president of the United States of America and has been governor of a state.
Brown asks her questions. Not the other way around.
What do you mean she's "running" for President? The elections are in 2012, and this is Feb 2010. I'm confused.
In the meantime, Brown is in the Senate, Palin is running around on the rubber circuit. Am I missing something?
Tecs, if that wasn't a stump speech, then I have never heard one.
Post a Comment