UK: Romney can't ignore Sarah Palin

PJ: The author of this piece has written several columns in defense and praise of Sarah Palin. He does this as a Cambridge educated journalist and historian of American politics.  Funny how he defends Mrs. Palin and promotes her as a leader for the US even though she has time and again proven that she does not understand domestic or international policy, law or diplomacy and has, since she was thrust onto the national stage, shown her ignorance of pesky little things like constitutional law and the First Amendment in particular*.  At times Mr. Stanley seems simply to be a political love-sick puppy, at others perhaps a die-hard supporter of Tea Party prowess.

 As a staunch US-style conservative, the author defended the Bush administration, which included the former VP Dick Cheney, saying that history would judge them more kindly.  Oh how times have changed!  Mr. Cheney can no longer count on Mr. Stanley's defense...not since the former VP had the cheek to tell the world that the Palin VP nomination was a mistake, stating uncatagorically that the woman (having been governor for only 18 months in the most sparcely populated state in the union) was in no way ready to be President of the United States). 

Whatever Mr. Stanley's reasons for his undying admiration, his fawning praise for Sarah Palin never ceases to amaze me.


The Telegraph

Romney can't ignore Sarah Palin in 2012. The Tea Party champ is more politically relevant than ever

By Tim Stanley
Love her or loathe her (and those seem to be the only options), Sarah Palin won’t go away. Despite holding no office and having no obvious intention of running for one, she continues to dominate headlines and divide the country. So how will Romney handle her in 2012? Presuming that he won’t nominate her for Veep (the smart money is on a really boring white guy), what role – if any – will she take in the campaign? Should the GOP embrace the Palin effect or pretend it doesn’t exist?

Palin’s national role in the last few days reminds us why she matters. Last Sunday, Dick Cheney told ABC News that he thought putting her on the ticket in 2008 was a mistake because she wasn’t “capable of being President of the United States.” Cheney’s idea of a perfect ticket would probably be Cheney and Cheney, so we might put this one down to ego. But his remarks highlight the fact that Palin’s pick in 2008 is still relevant to the debate over the GOP’s strategy in 2012. The choice is this: do they run a moderate ticket that doesn’t offend anyone or take a risk on a radical ticket that angers some but motivates others? How mavericky does Romney want to be?

Read it at The Telegraph
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100174209/romney-cant-ignore-sarah-palin-in-2012-the-tea-party-champ-is-more-politically-relevant-than-ever/


*  Palin  shows a total lack of understanding of the First Amendment in 2008 http://www.salon.com/2008/10/31/palin_first/, in 2009 in her defense of Carry Prejean (before Ms. Prejean's sexual and honesty antics made her a political pariah)  http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palinisms.htm, in 2010 http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/sarah-palins-first-amendment-confusion-deepens, and in 2012 http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2012/08/sarah-palin-reiterates-support-for-chick-fil-a-may-not-understan/:

For more of Palin's famous quotes which showed most of the world (but obviously not Mr. Stanley)  that she really was not qualified for higher office are recorded here:  http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palinisms.htm