Sarah Palin Says She Has “The Fire In The Belly”

At the very least, Sarah Palin wants people to think that she’s considering running for President:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) hasn’t decided whether to run for president, but she insisted Thursday she has the “fire in my belly” to do it.

Fox News’s Greta van Susteren asked Palin, who has provided few hints about her decisionmaking process or timeline, if she has the “fire in your belly” to run, citing former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s claim that his “heart says no” to another presidential bid.

“I think my problem is that I do have the fire in my belly,” shesaid. “I’m 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.”

Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, is one of a few potential GOP candidates still sitting on the sidelines, along with Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.).

The ex-governor has said she is waiting to see how the field shapes up before she makes a decision.

“It’s a matter for me for some practical, pragmatic decisions that have to be made,” Palin added, saying she is concerned about public scruntiny of members of her family.

With Huckabee and Trump out, and potential candidates like Mitch Daniels and Jon Huntsman still relatively unknown, Palin does stand to rise in the polls of the GOP field. However, all of the negatives about Sarah Palin that existed before Trump and Huckabee bowed out still exist, and the fact remains that she is tremendously unpopular outside her conservative base. Rationally, running right now would be an incredibly dumb decision on Palin’s part. It would be far better for her to stay on the sidelines and take on the role of Republican kingmaker. Getting up on stage with the likes of Romney, Daniels, Pawlenty, and Hunstman would, more than anything else, reveal her weaknesses for all the world to see, and losing the nomination would make her a far less powerful figure in the GOP than not running at all. However, this is Sarah Palin we’re talking about so doing what’s rational isn’t necessarily what’s going to happen.

Will she run? Stay tuned.

Here’s the video:

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, Politicians, Quick Takes, Sarah Palin, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. michael reynolds says:

    Her real problem is that she’s moving from MILF to GILF. That’s going to cut into her base.

    Like any Democrat I of course would welcome Palin into the race. Good luck to the Three Bores (Romney, Pawlenty and Daniels) getting any oxygen with the Wasilla Wackjob in the race.

  2. Neil Hudelson says:

    Please oh please oh please oh please let this come true. If I could ask for one thing this rapture season, it would be for Palin to run for President.

  3. Jay Tea says:

    Her real problem is that she’s moving from MILF to GILF. That’s going to cut into her base.

    Poor michael. The site’s censors won’t let him use the c-word, and he’s just DYING to bust that one out.

    When liberal women are sexually demeaned by critics, there are howls of outrage. (And disbelief.) When conservative women are sexually demeaned by critics, they obviously have it coming to them for being uppity and not knowing their place.

    J.

  4. Moosebreath says:

    “Sarah Palin Says She Has “The Fire In The Belly””

    She could take some Rolaids to cure that. Far cheaper than giving up her lucrative private sector position, too.

  5. Jay Tea says:

    Correction: This site’s FILTERS. Not censors. My apologies for the misstatement.

    J.

  6. wr says:

    Poor Jay Tea. His little feelings got hurt because someone here wasn’t sufficiently polite about the Wasilla Grifter. I guess that means we all have to vote for her to make his tears go away.

    Hey, don’t laugh. It’s the only platform he’s got!

  7. anjin-san says:

    Now if she only had some brains in the ol’ noggin…

  8. hey norm says:

    @ M. Reynolds…I always thought that would be G-Milf.

    Anyway…if Sarah says she has the fire in her belly it only means she could care less. The woman is a pathological liar. Therefore any statement should be taken as meaning the opposite.

  9. anjin-san says:

    it only means she could care less.

    Oh, I think she cares. A run for President, or more likely, dropping endless hints she might run to keep the cash flowing is a good business opportunity for her. A lot of prominent Republicans seem to see presidential politics as more about personal brand building than anything else.

  10. Janis Gore says:

    Gawd, she’s become a bore.

  11. muffler says:

    For after subduing Africa and Asia, and reducing nearly the whole of Greece to submission, the Romans became perfectly assured of their freedom, and seemed to themselves no longer to have any enemy whom they had cause to fear. But this security and the weakness of their adversaries led them in conferring the consulship, no longer to look to merit, but only to favour, selecting for the office those who knew best how to pay court to them, not those who knew best how to vanquish their enemies. And afterwards, instead of selecting those who were best liked, they came to select those who had most influence; and in this way, from the imperfection of their institutions, good men came to be wholly excluded.

  12. […] Fox News contributor Sarah Palin hasn’t yet decided whether she wants to run for president or continue to be a Fox News contributor. You’ll remember that Newt Gingrich had to quit his Fox gig, while Mike Huckabee decided to keep his. (Hat-tip: Doug Mataconis.) […]

  13. Mike Farrell says:

    But, but Mataconis said “The idea that Sarah Palin is anything other than a political curiosity at this point is nearly too silly to be taken seriously,”

    Yet he writes column after column about someone that is apparently to silly to write about-PDS in extremis. Perhaps he should take the month off without writing about her which worked for others.

  14. Jay Tea says:

    There seems to be an inverse proportion between how important something is to Doug, and how much play he gives it. The birthers, Sarah Palin — he’s always telling us how little they mean.

    “The louder he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.”

    J.

  15. John Peabody says:

    I must agree with Jay Tea. The articles never stop!

  16. Wiley Stoner says:

    I understand Doug and Michael will have gay sex (as if that would be unusual) the day Sarah takes the oath of office for President of the United States. That should be about January 20, 2013.

  17. section9 says:

    Doug and the rest of the American Crossroads crowd have mucked up the Republican Party to such a degree that they can’t stand that someone from the outside might have a chance to actually pick up the standard that the Establishment so sullied.

    OF COURSE Mataconis wants Palin to be a “kingmaker”. Were she not to run, Palin would instantly be marginalized, along with her allied friends in the Tea Party. You can’t be a kingmaker unless you try first to be king. Palin knows this, and has played her cards brilliantly, while the Establishment has put forward the same old tired Bushite Store Mannequins who are guaranteed to get beaten like rented mules by Obama.

    THE ESTABLISHMENT, typified by people like Doug, always were uncomfortable with outsiders and grassroots movements. What Palin does is point out the intellectual and, indeed moral bankruptcy and corruption of the modern Beltway GOP, a group of Men in Clown Shoes who wouldn’t have won last year were it not for the energy of the TEA Party people.

    Palin consistently has highlighted the fact that the GOP Establishment would abandon any pretense of conservative principles for thirty pieces of silver should Obama find any swag lying around to hand out. Indeed, were it up to the Establishment, HCR would have passed in Obama’s first year, probably with Single Payer, and Paul Ryan and his Plan would have been thrown under the bus long ago by the Bull Elephants. That’s Palin’s secret that frightens the GOP; she’s got the steel that they don’t have, and indeed, may have lost long ago, if they ever had it at all.

  18. wr says:

    This yap about Palin having “steel” would be a lot more impressive if she didn’t quit her elective office when it got hard and stopped being fun.

  19. Janis Gore says:

    If she had any steel she’d do something and quit whining.

  20. Bleev K says:

    When liberal women are sexually demeaned by critics, there are howls of outrage. (And disbelief.) When conservative women are sexually demeaned by critics, they obviously have it coming to them for being uppity and not knowing their place.

    Everytime she opens her month, she insults somebody, so I think it’s fair game. Anyway, she doesn’t care about you, stop caring about her.

  21. Mike Farrell says:

    What Mataconis doesn’t seem to understand is that it matters not one whit what Palin’s standing is with the public outside of the GOP’s ranks so his link to the Pollster poll data (which includes the ludicrous CBS poll) is to use his term “silly”

    In the Gallup poll of Republicans Palin is only 2 point s behind Romney and has a 72% favorability rating. Those are the people who will decide her fate if she runs for the nomination not RINO’s/Dem’s Indies. Then, if she wins, the wider public’s views come into play-just like the time when Reagan was 30 points behind Carter in the election years and we know how that turned out.

    And Janice is such a bore.

  22. Janis Gore says:

    Goddammit, you could spell my name right.

  23. Scott O. says:

    No one can deny that a certain segment of the population stands firmly with Sarah
    http://www.buzzfeed.com/evh/sarah-palinmov-1lxe

  24. Mike Farrell says:

    Mataconis is going full blown PDS-just tweeted (after writing three articles in a week about her)

    “@dmataconis
    Doug Mataconis
    There is nothing stupider in my timeline right now than the idea that Sarah Palin actually has a chance of winning the 2012 General Election”

    He has “progressed from”it’s silly to talk about her ” to she can’t win the general election (which allows for her winning the nomination of course)

  25. Janis Gore says:

    She needs to do something. Down south we call it “shit or get off the pot.”

  26. jukeboxgrad says:

    Doug:

    Getting up on stage with the likes of Romney, Daniels, Pawlenty, and Hunstman would, more than anything else, reveal her weaknesses for all the world to see

    All her weaknesses have already been revealed for all the world to see, and the people who are hot for her are still hot for her. That’s not going to change, and that’s going to be enough to get her the nomination.

    It’s in the nature of their delusion, and in the nature of her shrewdness, that those weaknesses are viewed as strengths. When the sane world points out those weaknesses, the delusional just become even more deeply infatuated. Sane people describing her weaknesses is spun as, and seen as, the elite reacting in fear to this powerful and righteous insurgent force. One or more examples of that wacky perspective are conveniently present in this thread.

    ===================
    Mike Farrell:

    Yet he writes column after column about someone that is apparently to silly to write about

    Palin isn’t “to [sic] silly to write about.” Palin and Palinism are quite interesting and important. Just not in the way she intends. She’s not too silly to write about. And she’s also not too silly to be nominated (since the GOP has become quite silly). But sane people (including lots of people in the GOP) realize that she’s much too silly to be president.

    ===================
    Jay Tea:

    The birthers, Sarah Palin — he’s always telling us how little they mean.

    It’s not that Palin means “little.” She actually means a lot. It’s just that what she means is quite different from what she intends to mean.

    John Peabody:

    I must agree with Jay Tea. The articles never stop!

    Get used to it. You’re going to be hearing a lot more about Palin, because she’s going to run, and the GOP is going to nominate her.

    Here’s something you, Jay Tea, and Doug might all have in common: it seems to me that you would like to believe or pretend that the GOP is not in the hands of people like Wiley Stoner (“the day Sarah takes the oath of office for President of the United States … that should be about January 20, 2013”), section9 (“someone from the outside might have a chance to actually pick up the standard that the Establishment so sullied”) and Mike Farrell (“just like the time when Reagan was 30 points behind Carter in the election years and we know how that turned out”). Trouble is, it is. Which makes me very happy, of course.

    ===================
    Janis Gore:

    She needs to do something. Down south we call it “shit or get off the pot.”

    No, she doesn’t need to do something. It’s in her interest to play this game for a very long time, and that’s what she’s going to do. There are reasons why a conventional candidate couldn’t afford to do that, but those reasons don’t apply to her.

    Here is the current media narrative: ‘the current GOP lineup is pathetic.’ That narrative happens to be true. It’s in Palin’s interest for that narrative to persist for a very long time, as long as possible. That’s what’s going to happen. Then at 10 seconds before midnight she will issue this statement (via Facebook, of course): ‘I really didn’t want to do this, because it will be a terrible sacrifice for me and my family, but at this point I have no choice because my country needs me, and everybody knows there’s no one else who can do this job.’

    This will produce headlines almost as big as Obama catching Osama. And at that point, enthusiasm for the rest of the GOP lineup will be so low that she will walk right over them. Meanwhile, Democrats will be drinking lots of Champagne and eating lots of popcorn.

  27. jwest says:

    “I must agree with Jay Tea. The articles never stop!”

    Ah, but that is where John and Jay Tea are wrong. Articles about Palin did stop.

    Joshua Green, an avowed leftist author at The Atlantic, wrote a 3000 word article critical of Palin a few weeks ago, but Mataconis and Joyner said nary a word about it. This article was discussed on every political website across the internet except for OTB. Why? Because although Green is a liberal, he apparently has retained a bit of intellectual honesty. The article dealt with well-researched facts that the authors at OTB couldn’t contend with.

    So the pattern is set. If there is any scrap of innuendo that Doug can twist into a misleading headline about Palin, the articles will flow like water. If there is a serious article that deals with actual facts, OTB will ignore it.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/06/the-tragedy-of-sarah-palin/8492

  28. Jay Tea says:

    Ah, but that is where John and Jay Tea are wrong. Articles about Palin did stop.

    Here’s a riddle for you, jwest: when is a stop not a stop?

    When it’s a pause.

    Congrats, you’ve proven that Doug doesn’t use every single opportunity to bash Palin. That he occasionally lets one slide. But stop?

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    J.

  29. jukeboxgrad says:

    This article was discussed on every political website across the internet

    It’s a good article and it would be interesting to discuss it here, but as far as I can tell your claim (“discussed on every political website”) is bullshit. Yes, it was discussed at a bunch of liberal places, but it received very little attention at conservative places. As far as I can tell, here are the main examples of it being discussed by conservatives:

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/what-is-the-tragedy-of-sarah-palin/
    http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/the-tragedy-of-sarah-palin/
    http://townhall.com/columnists/debrajsaunders/2011/05/15/sarah_palins_birther_baptism_by_fire
    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/05/tragedy-of-sarah-palin-is-melodramatic.html

    That last one hardly counts, since her commentary consists of essentially nothing but this: “I haven’t read it..”

    Meanwhile, I believe it was never mentioned by any of these people:

    nationalreview
    weeklystandard
    glenn reynolds
    hotair
    michellemalkin
    redstate
    patterico
    ace of spades
    gateway pundit
    newsbusters
    et cetera

    Did I leave out any of your favorites? It seems that most conservative bloggers “couldn’t contend with” that article, for whatever reason.

    So your claim (“discussed on every political website across the internet”) is entirely correct, as long as by “every” you mean ‘many liberal blogs but hardly any conservative ones.’

  30. jwest says:

    Jay Tea,

    I stand corrected.

    The glaring silence from OTB about the Atlantic article would be better classified as a pause. Doug, James and Steven were either all on vacation at the time or they made a conscious decision to ignore how the article outlined her competence and effectiveness as governor. Apparently, they were afraid someone would compare and contrast her accomplishments to the unqualified ditherer that occupies the White House.

    I’ll try to be more accurate in my word choice when criticizing the lack of intellectual honesty at OTB in the future.

  31. […] Sarah Palin Says She Has “The Fire In The Belly” (outsidethebeltway.com) […]

  32. jukeboxgrad says:

    they were afraid someone would compare and contrast her accomplishments to the unqualified ditherer that occupies the White House.

    Yup, that must be why most conservative bloggers ignored the story.

    I’ll try to be more accurate in my word choice when criticizing the lack of intellectual honesty at OTB in the future.

    Your main problem with “word choice,” in this instance, is your peculiar interpretation of the word “every” (as in “discussed on every political website across the internet”). And “lack of intellectual honesty” is a perfect way to describe your use of that word. Especially given that the problem has been pointed out and you have nothing to say for yourself.

    Oh, and how could I forget? I made my list of conservative bloggers who ignored the story (since I guess “they were afraid someone would compare and contrast her accomplishments to the unqualified ditherer that occupies the White House”). And do you know who I forgot to mention? The blog where our own Jay Tea is an editor:

    http://wizbangblog.com/about.php

    So Jay Tea is chiming in to slap you on the back for claiming that “this article was discussed on every political website across the internet except for OTB,” and for suggesting that anyone who ignored it did so because they “couldn’t contend with” it. Meanwhile, Jay Tea’s own blog mentioned the article this many times: zero.

    Gosh, you guys are funny. Especially together. Keep up the good work.

  33. Jay Tea says:

    I have no idea what Juke is claiming I said, but I feel fairly comfortable in asserting I said no such thing. Because I see nothing I said here that bears the slightest resemblance to what he is accusing me of.

    Dude, get your meds checked.

    J.

  34. jukeboxgrad says:

    I have no idea what Juke is claiming I said

    Let’s review. jwest said this:

    Joshua Green, an avowed leftist author at The Atlantic, wrote a 3000 word article critical of Palin a few weeks ago, but Mataconis and Joyner said nary a word about it. This article was discussed on every political website across the internet except for OTB.

    You responded supportively (“Congrats”), even though your own blog (wizbang) also “said nary a word about it.” Which means you know that jwest’s claim (“this article was discussed on every political website across the internet except for OTB”) is false. But of course instead of chiming in to point out that he made a false claim, you chimed in to congratulate him. Why? Because you’re as much of a hack as he is.

  35. Jay Tea says:

    Good grief. Talk about obsessive. That “congrats” was SARCASTIC. Let me spell it out for you, adding in a clue for the obviously clue-impaired (meaning you:

    Congrats, you’ve proven that Doug doesn’t use every single opportunity to bash Palin. Aren’t you the SPECIAL little boy for being so clever. That he occasionally lets one slide.

    And I capped it off with a “Princess Bride” quote:

    But stop? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Juke, what you’ve proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is that you are utterly clueless. Which I already knew, but thanks for the stark black and white proof. Most considerate of you for the others who needed swaying.

    J.

  36. jukeboxgrad says:

    That “congrats” was SARCASTIC.

    You must think you’re addressing idiots. Yes, there was sarcasm in your remark, but your sarcasm wasn’t directed against jwest. It was aligned with jwest, and directed against the same people he was attacking. Your sarcasm wasn’t attacking jwest; it was supporting him. Even though his claim was based on a falsehood, and you knew it. And you still know it, and you refuse to acknowledge it. Just like he refuses to acknowledge it.

    Now I guess we have to go through a zillion rounds of you sticking with that hackish position until you finally give up and admit that you’ve painted yourself into a corner:

    https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/dear-birthers-stfu-gbtw/

  37. Jay Tea says:

    Juke:

    Lighten up, Francis. You are in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history.

    I was just noting that Doug has occasionally passed on opportunities to bash Palin. That’s a GOOD thing, that shows his obsession is not absolute. What else you read into that is your own obsession entirely.

    But if you want to unleash your PC wrath on a worthy target, might I point out michael reynolds? His first instinct was to lash out at Palin in a sexual sense. He felt the need to sexualize his contempt for her, to reduce her to a set of sex organs that he’d like to frak. I’m presuming he meant it in the sense of a hate-frak, as he’s expressed his contempt for her at pretty much every opportunity.

    Or you can continue to wallow in your frothy outrage and hatred. Makes little difference to me.

    I just wish you’d be a bit more entertaining in your outrageous outrage, though. You’re actually kind of tedious.

    J.

  38. jukeboxgrad says:

    I was just noting that Doug has occasionally passed on opportunities to bash Palin.

    No, you weren’t “just” doing that. That’s not the only thing you were doing, and it’s not the main thing you were doing. The main thing you were doing was responding supportively to jwest’s attack on OTB, even though that attack was based on a falsehood, and you knew it. And just like jwest himself, you’re too gutless to acknowledge the falsehood.

    And what’s remarkable is how you’re doing the same thing you did here:

    https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/dear-birthers-stfu-gbtw/

    In both instances, you speak up in support of something dumb (in the other instance, that thing was birtherism; in this instance, that thing was jwest’s fallacious attack on OTB), and then you run away from your own words by trying to pretend that you weren’t actually doing the thing you were actually doing.

    might I point out michael reynolds

    I understand your desire to change the subject. It’s what you always do when you’re caught trying to disavow your own words.

  39. […] you look at the current GOP field we have a major candidate from the previous cycle (Romney*) and the flirtations, at least, of the party’s VP nominee (Palin**).   Further, you have the last prominent […]

  40. Jay Tea says:

    junk, Palin and the birthers have this in common: they both are beloved of leftists as targets they can heap their scorn upon and make themselves feel superior and important.

    And both tend to get the leftists so excited, they forget to tell the truth.

    I meant exactly what I said, and no more: wow, Doug passed on an opportunity to bash Palin. That’s certainly worth noting.

    You, on the other hand, seized with both hands the opportunity to once again show yourself an obsessed, humorless, self-important, hysterical prat who thinks he can actually pull off the intellectual bully role, cudgeling others into submission with your overwhelming intellect and command of facts.

    Sorry, chump. Your mouth is writing checks your IQ not only can’t cash, but can’t even understand.

    But you are vaguely entertaining. Only slightly, but some.

    J.

  41. jukeboxgrad says:

    I meant exactly what I said, and no more: wow, Doug passed on an opportunity to bash Palin.

    You’re not in a position to claim that “Doug passed on an opportunity to bash Palin” unless you’re asserting that anytime anyone anywhere writes something about Palin is “an opportunity to bash Palin.” Which is an absurd, meaningless claim.

    That’s certainly worth noting.

    No, the fact that Doug doesn’t bash Palin every single time anyone anywhere writes something about Palin is not “worth noting.” What’s “worth noting” is that you think something so absurd and meaningless is “worth noting.”

    Your claim that jwest had “proven” something showed approval for his accusation and implied that his accusation was based on something other than a falsehood. You claimed that he had “proven” something even though he hadn’t “proven” anything at all, because his claim was based on a falsehood. And you still can’t manage to acknowledge that his claim was based on a falsehood, and you can’t manage to explain what it is that he had “proven.”

    Keep digging.

  42. Jay Tea says:

    Wow, I’m a better writer than I thought. I packed in so much more into that casual comment than I thought — or even thought possible. I’m AMAZING. I need to show much more responsibility when I say things.

    It’s a fact that Doug like to write about Sarah Palin in a negative fashion. And it’s a fact that I make a point of mocking him for his fixation. In this case, it was by using Jwest’s comment as a springboard for some sarcasm. No more, no less.

    I don’t understand just what you’re fantasizing about what I said, and that’s because it’s so mind-numbingly stupid that it reflects the obsession of a very twisted mind — and I don’t want to go there.

    Some semi-friendly advice, Junk: I repeat, find a new schtick. You simply don’t have the chops to pull off the one you’re trying here. All you do is make yourself look like a frothing, obsessed whackjob. Which, I guess, is a good thing if you’re worried about the “truth in advertising” laws, but not really a good selling point.

    J.

  43. jukeboxgrad says:

    I need to show much more responsibility when I say things.

    It’s taking a lot more effort than it should, but you might be starting to catch on.

    I’m trying to find the part of your comment where you explain why you said that jwest had “proven” something. It’s odd that you said that, since he hadn’t actually proven anything. It seems that you don’t know what “proven” means. Speaking of Princess Bride.

    You simply don’t have the chops to pull off the one you’re trying here.

    Yup, that’s why the last time we did this you whined for days and then finally admitted you were wrong:

    https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/dear-birthers-stfu-gbtw/

  44. Jay Tea says:

    Note to self: add “sarcasm” to the list of “things that are wasted on junk.”

    OK, here’s where “explaining the joke kills it” kicks in.

    Jwest said, in reference to Doug, “the articles did stop.”

    I chose to make a humorous, nit-picky, technical correction: since the articles started up again, they didn’t technically “stop,” as in “cease completely,” but merely “paused.”

    Jwest cited an article that was critical of Palin that got a lot of attention, but Doug did NOT talk about. I, once again sarcastically, said that this proved that Doug did NOT take every single possible opportunity to bash Palin, but had let one opportunity pass. This was, I said again sarcastically, a sign of hope for Doug and his obsession; perhaps in the future he’d pass on more opportunities to bash Palin.

    The whole intent was to poke at Doug for his Palin obsession, guised in a bit of nit-picking at Jwest’s use of hyperbole and absolute statements. I could have also singled out the “every political website” for more teasing, but I just didn’t feel like it — it felt like overkill, and I thought I’d made my point.

    Apparently — at least for you — I didn’t. So let me spell it out for you:

    The sole point of my comment that triggered your monomania was to use jwest’s comment as a springboard to give Doug a few pokes at his fixation on Palin, how he takes almost any opportunity to bash her (fairly or unfairly). You have invested far more meaning into my snipes than they deserve, and considerably more effort than I did.

    For what you engaged in this intellectual/moral masturbation I have no idea, and I really don’t want to know. But I hope it was good for you.

    J.

  45. Jay Tea says:

    The really funny part was that jwest actually DID get my point — that he wasn’t the target of my sniping.

    Jay Tea,
    I stand corrected.

    I’ll try to be more accurate in my word choice when criticizing the lack of intellectual honesty at OTB in the future.

    See what happens when you pay attention, junk?

    J.

  46. jukeboxgrad says:

    Jwest cited an article that was critical of Palin that got a lot of attention

    There you go, repeating jwest’s false claim. Among conservative blogs, that article got almost no attention at all. And you’re also dishonestly oversimplifying the situation by describing the article as “critical of Palin.” The article contained some criticisms, but it also contained quite a bit of praise. jwest alluded to this in his original comment (“although Green is a liberal, he apparently has retained a bit of intellectual honesty … the article dealt with well-researched facts that the authors at OTB couldn’t contend with”).

    I, once again sarcastically, said that this proved that Doug did NOT take every single possible opportunity to bash Palin

    The fact that you used sarcasm doesn’t change the fact that you said jwest had “proven” something. This claim that he had “proven” something is completely meaningless unless one accepts jwest’s false claim about how much discussion the article inspired. A false claim that you are still promoting.

    guised in a bit of nit-picking at Jwest’s use of hyperbole and absolute statements.

    How ironic, and revealing, that you directed an inconsequential criticism at what jwest said (about his use of the word “stop” instead of “pause”), while completely ignoring the glaring falsehood at the heart of his comment (“this article was discussed on every political website across the internet except for OTB”). You were perfectly happy to let that defamatory claim stand even though you knew it was false.

    I could have also singled out the “every political website” for more teasing, but I just didn’t feel like it

    You “just didn’t feel like it” because you were perfectly happy to align yourself with jwest while he made a false and defamatory statement about OTB, and you didn’t want to say anything that would undermine that defamation.

    And of course this is very much like what you did when you aligned yourself with birtherism, and then denied that you had done so:

    https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/dear-birthers-stfu-gbtw/

    You have invested far more meaning into my snipes than they deserve

    Your transparent hackery is entertaining, especially when you go to great lengths to pretend that it’s something other than transparent hackery.

    The really funny part was that jwest actually DID get my point — that he wasn’t the target of my sniping.

    Everyone knows that jwest wasn’t the target of your sniping. Your target was Doug and OTB. This is what I’ve been saying all along. That’s why I said this:

    Yes, there was sarcasm in your remark, but your sarcasm wasn’t directed against jwest. It was aligned with jwest, and directed against the same people he was attacking. Your sarcasm wasn’t attacking jwest; it was supporting him.

    I don’t know why you’re bothering to point out what I’ve already pointed out, but it’s nice to know that you agree with me.

  47. Jay Tea says:

    Good lord, you remind me of a certain idiot we finally had to ban from Wizbang at least six times. I say something, you insist that I meant something far more, and say I’m a liar for things only you read.

    1) jwest used a bit of hyperbole, but was correct: the Green piece got a lot of play. He specified the right; I said generally.

    2) The Green article contained criticisms of Palin.

    3) Doug has been extremely conscientious about publicizing things critical of Palin.

    4) Doug, for whatever reason, passed on that one.

    5) I “aligned” myself with jwest (whom I have also distanced myself from on occasion) in the fact that he was correct in substance — but wrong on some finer details, some of which I chose to correct him on.

    You’d be a lot less frothy, junk, if you limited yourself to what I actually write, and not go off on random tangents about what you think I “really meant” and “what I’m really saying.” ‘Cuz I took this whole discussion very unseriously.

    Not as unseriously as I take you, of course. Don’t let your feelings be hurt.

  48. jukeboxgrad says:

    the Green piece got a lot of play.

    It was ignored by most conservative blogs, including your own, so “got a lot of play” is misleading.

    He specified the right; I said generally.

    “He specified the right” is another falsehood. He said this: “this article was discussed on every political website across the internet except for OTB.” That’s not “specified the right.”

    jwest used a bit of hyperbole

    Saying it “was discussed on every political website across the internet except for OTB” when it was actually ignored by most conservative blogs goes way beyond “a bit of hyperbole.” It’s a falsehood.

    he was correct in substance — but wrong on some finer details, some of which I chose to correct him on.

    His comment was completely devoid of “substance.” If you can find some there, you should tell us where it’s hidden. And you chose to ignore, and are still glossing over, the central falsehood at the heart of his comment. And that falsehood is not properly described as “finer details.”

    You’d be a lot less frothy, junk, if you limited yourself to what I actually write

    What you actually wrote was that he had “proven” something. Trouble is, he hadn’t.

    Cuz I took this whole discussion very unseriously.

    The last refuge of every lying hack is to claim that they were only joking.

  49. Jay Tea says:

    The last refuge of every lying hack is to claim that they were only joking.

    That’s what your mother said.

    jwest’s point was, boiled down, Green’s piece had some negative things to say about them, the article got a lot of attention, and Doug skipped it. All entirely accurate.

    I used some of west’s inaccuracies (NOT lies — Christ, are you one obsessive little snot) to accentuate the main point — Doug passed on it, and good for him.

    You leaped on it like it was the key to the Enigma code AND the Grand Unified Theory all wrapped up in one and have constructed some grand expose’ out of a bit of mild tweaking of Doug. You’re as obsessed on the minutiae of this entirely frivolous sideblow as any Birther or Truther or Kennedy Assassination nut, and HOW DARE I NOT RECOGNIZE HOW INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT IT IS.

    I was tweaking Doug. Busting his chops, just a little. No desire or intent to get into some insane micturation match with a guy with a five-gallon bladder.

    I hereby concede this thread to you. I sign it over, free and clear, without mental reservations.

    Not the points, of course, because neither the subject matter nor you are worth the energy to get into the details, the nuances, the fine points that you probably have printed out and taped to your wall and highlighted and connected with bits of string to prove whatever the hell you feel the need to prove. It’s just I have better things to do than to constantly re-explain what was a very mild jape pointed at someone else to you.

    And I’m sure the authors of OTB are relieved that you’re here to defend their honor — especially on matters that they apparently don’t find offensive enough to merit their own attention. Tell me, Lee — did they deputize you to protect their honor, or are you just a vigilante, the soi-disant sheriff of these here parts?

    I know on Wizbang, I’ve had a few of my supportive commenters start acting like they have some kind of right and duty to “protect” it, and I’ve had to smack them down on occasion.

    J.

  50. jukeboxgrad says:

    jwest’s point was, boiled down, Green’s piece had some negative things to say about them, the article got a lot of attention, and Doug skipped it

    That’s a distortion of what jwest said. He said this:

    This article was discussed on every political website across the internet except for OTB. Why? Because although Green is a liberal, he apparently has retained a bit of intellectual honesty. The article dealt with well-researched facts that the authors at OTB couldn’t contend with.

    jwest was claiming that Doug ignored the article because it said some positive things about Palin. You’re glossing over this. And you’re still insisting that “the article got a lot of attention,” even though it got almost no attention at all from conservative blogs, including your own. So the claim that “Doug skipped it” is absurd and meaningless. That was true the first time jwest said it, and it’s still true every time you repeat it for him.

    You’re as obsessed on the minutiae of this entirely frivolous sideblow

    The substance of this isn’t what makes it interesting. What makes it entertaining is your hysterical hackery. Keep up the good work.

  51. Jay Tea says:

    Waaaahhhh.

    How pitifullee pathetic you are, stamping your feet and yelling “I exposed your lying lies, you lying hack!”

    Others make mountains out of molehills. You could take an anthill and construct a Dyson sphere.

    What a senseless, tragic waste.

    But funny.

    J.

  52. jukeboxgrad says:

    I knew you didn’t mean it when you said this: “I hereby concede this thread to you.”

    Even the smallest things you say can’t be considered trustworthy.

  53. Jay Tea says:

    All these years, Lee, you’re still a whiny git. And yeah, I knew you’d latch on to my “concession,” because you DO believe me, most of the time. You SAY that I’m always lying, but you go so hysterical when you think you “catch” me at it. If it was so common, it wouldn’t be worth always crowing over.

    The only thing more pointless at this moment would be for you to act all confused and not understanding what I’m saying. And no, I won’t tell you what was the fatal “tell” — there were a couple. This last little test was icing on the cake.

    J.

  54. jukeboxgrad says:

    All these years, Lee

    Who’s “Lee?”

    You SAY that I’m always lying

    Where did I say that? You’re not “always lying,” and I never said you’re “always lying,” but this is a nice example of you lying.

    I won’t tell you what was the fatal “tell”

    The fatal “tell” which revealed what? You’re being incoherent.

    This last little test was icing on the cake.

    What “last little test?”