I always find it amusing when people loosely describe themselves as libertarians or independents only to fail the tests of intellectual honesty.
Charlotte Allen’s pro-Palin article over at the LA Times is getting the same predictable and humorous responses we’ve gotten used to over the years when anyone in the media dares to say anything nice about Governor Palin.
One response to Allen’s article is the completely false and emotionally-charged rant from Doug Mataconis. As such, plenty of Palin-deranged liberals have shown up in the comments section to sing his praises. They are also accompanied by a couple of alleged “Republicans” who say a Palin run would be bad for the Republican Party. (Of course, they won’t explain why Romney/Ryan failed to get as many votes as McCain/Palin.)
There are simply too many specific falsehoods and untrue characterizations in this piece to waste your time on. However; his points have basically been copied and pasted from any liberal rag available and can be summed up as follows:
A.) Palin never intended on running for President but wanted media attention.
B.) Palin hasn’t done anything significant since 2008.
C.) Palin isn’t qualified and lacks substance.
D.) The Republicans have “impressive candidates” and she should stay away because of “polling history.” (Gee, where have we heard this before? How did that work out in 2012?)
Facts and truth are stubborn. So allow me to list them in accordance with his copy-and-pasted liberal points:
A.) Governor Palin never promised to run for president. If Mr. Mataconis would like to produce one shred of evidence to the contrary, he’s free to do so. But he knows it doesn’t exist.
B.) Governor Palin endorsed and campaigned for over 60 candidates in 2010. As we all know, she had a pretty darn good success rate. Further, she endorsed Deb Fischer, Ted Cruz, Jeff Flake, and Orrin Hatch for the Senate in 2012 – all of them won. In addition, she backed many House candidates, too. In fact, Governor Palin had a better night November 6th than pretty much anyone else in the GOP.
C.) Mr. Mataconis complains that she talks in “sound bites” on Fox and lacks substance. In attempting to smear Governor Palin, he completely describes what’s wrong with sitting politicians in Washington ranging from the President, to the Senate, to the House. Further, “sound bites” are all we got from the candidates in the 2012 televised debates. Of course, he talks in general terms and won’t give us specific examples. Sadly, he won’t look at her record. He apparently doesn’t know she slashed spending even when she had a budget surplus in Alaska. He’s apparently not aware that in lieu of using that surplus to pay off special interests or reward campaign bundlers like both sides of the aisle are guilty of in Washington, she actually put billions away for the state’s future. Further, he has no clue on her national security credentials and doesn’t even mention the fact that she’s traveled all over the world since 2008. She’s been to Hong Kong, Haiti, South Korea, and has met with Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel just to name a few trips she’s been on.
D.) Among the “impressive” candidates he mentions, more than half of them were actively endorsed and supported by Governor Palin. The only two he mentions who I would give any promise to are Governor Walker and Senator Rand Paul. However; what specific foreign policy credentials do these candidates have? While Kelly Ayotte has limited experience with foreign policy, she has only been in the Senate for two years. She has no executive experience and Mr. Mataconis is ready to run her for president? Also, he doesn’t explain why any of the candidates he mentions would make a good president overall.
As Senator McCain said recently, it took Governor Palin’s energy to galvanize the base of the Republican Party to deliver most of the candidates Mataconis claims are “impressive.”
But sadly, some out there will use the kind of popularity that someone like Governor Palin has to gratify their own egos and pack their own parachutes.
Even so, they fall short on sincerity by displaying their own rushes-to-protest. She’s so ineffective, she’s so unqualified, and she’s done so little for the party that the first mention of her being a possible 2016 contender has them running out of their rat holes in hysterical droves.
There are simply too many serious problems facing our nation to allow such opportunism to trump principle. You’d think that after watching the establishment’s golden boy lose after completely distancing himself from Palin and the Tea Party that perhaps a lesson would have been learned from it.
Unfortunately, that appears unlikely.