Bedtime For Palin? Nope, Sarah's Got A 2016 Presidential Concern Troll

The LA Times' somewhat low-rent version of Jennifer Rubin -- a writer named Charlotte Allen -- is jumping into the deep end of the pool, along with most of the GOP, after Romney's election loss, but she says she's got THE answer. She's found the new

The LA Times' somewhat low-rent version of Jennifer Rubin -- a writer named Charlotte Allen -- is jumping into the deep end of the pool, along with most of the GOP, after Romney's election loss, but she says she's got THE answer. She's found the new conservative savior.

No, she hasn't found a strain of the infection that turns everyone into zombies on The Walking Dead so Ronald Reagan can comeback and lead the nation. What might this be from the lady who says that women are raping themselves with their slutty Halloween costumes. Are you ready for it....tick, tick, tick,tick. OK: Welcome to Sarah Palin 2016!

Hey GOP, take the Palin cure

The Republican Party has been doing a lot of hand-wringing and finger-pointing since the presidential election. Half the conservative columnists and bloggers say the GOP lost because it overemphasized social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. The other half says the party didn't emphasize them enough. And everyone denounces Project ORCA, the campaign's attempt to turn out voters via technology.But I've got a suggestion for cutting short the GOP angst:Sarah Palin for president in 2016.You think I'm joking? Think again.

I told you, it's true. And here's her rationale for choosing Palin: Sarah attracted more voters than Romney.

A national exit poll conducted by CNN asked voters whether Palin was a factor in their voting. Of those who said yes, 56% voted for McCain versus 43% for Barack Obama.Furthermore, Mitt Romney, the GOP's anointed contender this year, got almost a million fewer votes than McCain did in 2008. (Meanwhile, President Obama, although winning reelection, lost far more voters than the Republicans, with nearly 7 million fewer voters checking his name on their ballots than did in 2008).

So of all people who voted in 2008 and were asked if Palin was a factor, 56% voted for McCain. I think she's trying to make the point that more people voted for McCain than Obama when St. Sarah was part of the equation, but her logic doesn't make any sense at all. I'm just guessing now, but most of the people who had Sarah in mind when voting were probably Republicans, right?

She then gives an equally ridiculous reason why Palin is the perfect choice for 2016 -- namely, she can use her kids as bait for single moms and war vets. Then she needs to do is hire a few wingnut gay bloggers to cover the gays. Evidently, there's no Latino-vote strategy here.

Then she does actually bring out the zombie Reagan fangirl love and concludes with this:

Some Republicans will say Palin has too much baggage from 2008, and we need to look for a new Sarah Palin. But I don't see what's wrong with the one we've got. Ever since the 1990s, Republicans have been looking for the next Ronald Reagan. Reagan is now revered in bipartisan circles, but during his presidency he was, like Palin, ridiculed by liberals. They cited "Bedtime for Bonzo" and sneered at his no-name college degree. Sarah Palin is the new Ronald Reagan: charming and affable and unwilling to back down if she's right. I can't see what's wrong with that.

I sure wish Sarah had acted in a few movies. We all remember Turkey in the Slaughterhouse. That was a big hit. And do you remember her in Bedtime For Sarah? How awful was that? Garbage you say? And what was that no name basketball player ... oh, never mind.

About John Amato

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.