Comments on: Palin is No Nixon http://www.theamericanconservative.com/postright/2009/11/03/palin-is-no-nixon/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=palin-is-no-nixon Wed, 02 Mar 2011 20:49:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Thomas http://www.theamericanconservative.com/postright/2009/11/03/palin-is-no-nixon/comment-page-1/#comment-2638 Thomas Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:16:27 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/postright/?p=1213#comment-2638 Palin is not going to beat Obama, but John is right, it is far, far too early to claim that Obama is surely going to be re-elected. A major possibility is a second wave of financial crisis (particularly with commercial property). If official U3 unemployment is 12-13% (so unofficial U6 at Depression level 25-ish), Obama won't win. Perhaps he was even set up for failure. The sad part will be that this would likely only result in an increase of redneckdom resentment at blacks and the election of some God-awful, Club for Growth hack in 2012. Huckabee could beat Obama possibly even in a good year, but the atheist banksters wouldn't approve of his nomination. Palin is not going to beat Obama, but John is right, it is far, far too early to claim that Obama is surely going to be re-elected. A major possibility is a second wave of financial crisis (particularly with commercial property). If official U3 unemployment is 12-13% (so unofficial U6 at Depression level 25-ish), Obama won’t win. Perhaps he was even set up for failure.

The sad part will be that this would likely only result in an increase of redneckdom resentment at blacks and the election of some God-awful, Club for Growth hack in 2012. Huckabee could beat Obama possibly even in a good year, but the atheist banksters wouldn’t approve of his nomination.

]]> By: John Carpenter http://www.theamericanconservative.com/postright/2009/11/03/palin-is-no-nixon/comment-page-1/#comment-2631 John Carpenter Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:12:10 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/postright/?p=1213#comment-2631 The three flaws in "PostRight's Nixon/Palin Analysis: 1. Fortunetelling: the assumption that 2010, 2011, and 2012 cannot degenerate into a degree of national "chaos" equal to that of 1998 is nothing more than conjecture that ignores a critical variable: the lower tolerance americans have for war--10 American troops killed in wars today are as newsworthy as 100 dead during the Vietnam war. 2. Jumping to conclusions: the fact that a presidential candidate and civil rights leader was killed in 1968 does not preclude equally horrific national tragedies of violence from occurring in the next three years. 3. Jumping to Conclusions II: There is no reason to suspect that the sheen will remain on Obama's halo for the next three years making the run for the White House a race contested on charisma. It may very well be there is an exponential degradation of his popular appeal predicated on scandal, national or international events he mishandles, or any of the numerous challenges presidents fail to meet. 4. False Equivalency: Palin needs to be as smart as Nixon to defeat Obama. Not really. She merely needs get more votes. If intelligence put people in the oval office, Adlai Stevenson would have had the job during his lifetime. Obama, thus far, has not given any suggestion he is particularly politically savvy at the executive level nor has he, coming to the end of his first year, done anything to suggest that he is "growing" into the job. It may very well be that he peaked during his campaign. 5. False Correlation I. Palin need be as ambitious and corrupt as Nixon to win the White House. Nixon won the 1968 election by laying low after his disgraceful, rambling concession speech subsequent to losing the California Governorship to Jerry Brown. He rehabilitated his public image by making himself available to whoever needed him in the party until it was realized he still had some heat on his fastball. He did not win the 1968 election unlawfully or by being Machiavellian. The three flaws in “PostRight’s Nixon/Palin Analysis:

1. Fortunetelling: the assumption that 2010, 2011, and 2012 cannot degenerate into a degree of national “chaos” equal to that of 1998 is
nothing more than conjecture that ignores a critical variable: the lower tolerance americans have for war–10 American troops killed in wars today
are as newsworthy as 100 dead during the Vietnam war.

2. Jumping to conclusions: the fact that a presidential candidate and civil rights leader was killed in 1968 does not preclude equally horrific national tragedies of violence from occurring in the next three years.

3. Jumping to Conclusions II: There is no reason to suspect that the sheen will remain on Obama’s halo for the next three years making the run for the White House a race contested on charisma. It may very well
be there is an exponential degradation of his popular appeal predicated on scandal, national or international events he mishandles, or any of the
numerous challenges presidents fail to meet.

4. False Equivalency: Palin needs to be as smart as Nixon to defeat Obama.

Not really. She merely needs get more votes. If intelligence put people in the oval office, Adlai Stevenson would have had the job during his lifetime. Obama, thus far, has not given any suggestion he is particularly politically savvy at the executive level nor has he, coming to the end of his first year, done anything to suggest that he is “growing” into the job. It may very well be that he peaked during his campaign.

5. False Correlation I. Palin need be as ambitious and corrupt as Nixon to win the White House.

Nixon won the 1968 election by laying low after his disgraceful, rambling concession speech subsequent to losing the California Governorship to Jerry Brown. He rehabilitated his public image by making himself available to whoever needed him in the party until it was realized he still had some heat on his fastball. He did not win the 1968 election unlawfully or by being Machiavellian.

]]>