Palin Will Step Down

A couple weeks ago, I predicted that Joe Biden would step down as VP candidate and allow Obama to nominate Hillary or a Hillary-clone in his place, to counter the Obama-neutralizing advantages Palin brought to the McCain ticket.

Recent events have been illuminating.

I had the right idea, but the wrong VP candidate. Palin will step down.

Tell everyone you meet you read it here second.

ps: I recommend Mitt Romney as a Palin replacement. And then I recommend McCain switch places so that Romney is at the top of the ticket and McCain is attending third world dictators’ funerals. Now we’re cooking with gas!





Comments


  1. Not going to happen. It would be widely viewed as an admission of failure on McCain’s part.

    Like


  2. Palin is a net asset, electorally.

    However, Thursday’s debate will determine much. If she does well against Biden, she’s disspelling a lot of doubts about her.

    If not, I think she’s still staying. She brings in more votes than she loses. And I’m not even that sure she costs the ticket any votes. She drives the Left to conniption fits, along with a tiny sliver of ultra-rationalists like Half Sigma, who is in New York state, and is voting for McCain anyway.

    Like


  3. Romney = electoral Bud Dwyer for the Republicans.

    Like


  4. It would be hard to say I heard it here second, since various pundits and pundit-wannabes in the press have been saying this nonstop practically since the announcement of her candidacy a month ago. It sounds as stupid now reading it here as it did then. If Palin is gone, McCain loses. If Palin stays, he might win.

    Like


  5. I only watched for a while, but I thought Palin did OK in the Alaska 2006 Governor’s debate: http://tinyurl.com/3g8gak (link leads to C-span, skip to the 7 min mark or so). I’ve seen some old footage of George W Bush speaking during the early nineties and he seemed to be way more eloquent back then:

    Like


  6. Only if she bombs the debate. And I mean BOMBS the debate. Any performance by Palin that does not invoke comparisons to her alleged 5th-born will be enough to get her by.

    Whether her IQ is 110 or 120 is irrelevant to 95% of Americans – Roissy/Sigma/Sailer readers are a special breed. Palin remains a brilliant strategic choice.

    Like


  7. Just to be clear, I’m not a huge Palin fan. But given the choice (as we are) between nutjob religious fundamentalism and creeping socialism, the former scares me less at the moment.

    I wonder what Condoleeza Rice is up to now? She’s sharp, and with a little makeup and a smile she’d be kinda cute.

    Like


  8. Not going to happen. It would be widely viewed as an admission of failure on McCain’s part.

    Have to agree. Taking her out of play so close to the debate will look like he’s running scared and is a poor decisio maker. Plus is it will totally alienate women whose hopes were reinvigorated after seeing Hilary taken out.

    And if he does this move AFTER the debate, it would be even worse cannon fodder for his liberal critics. Let’s get real, she’s going against Joe Biden, super gaffe machine. As long as she’s not functionally retarded she should be able to at least eke out a draw. He’s not really that articulate or bright. Do a search on Youtube for “biden gaffe” to see how stupid he is on a regular basis.

    Like


  9. Fuck the heck?

    Like


  10. The Republicans voted for Mr. Senile and Mr. Religious fundamentalist over the guy who was first in his class at Harvard, and then supported Ms. “I can see Russia from my house”…and all over ridiculous social issues.

    The party deserves the McCain-Palin ticket. Let ’em fail

    Like


  11. If Palin steps down that’ll be a sign of poor judgment on McCain that he picked her in the first place and McCain will lose. McCain is screwed if Palin can’t bring her game up to a higher level. But she’s got such a short period of time in which to do it.

    McCain is probably screwed anyway due to the economy. The party in power always loses in a recession. Note that is from a post I wrote in February 2008.

    Something unrelated to the economy can become decisive in an election (e.g. a terrorist attack). I think in the future the country is going to split more heavily along ethnic lines. But I still think economics is most important in this election.

    Like


  12. I’m tired of all the Ivy league-worship in our society, I don’t really care if a guy is first in his class in Harvard. John Kerry, Obama and GW Bush are all Ivy grads and none of them have a fraction of the common sense of a Ron Paul, who went to Gettysburg College and Duke University.

    Witness Ron Paul SCHOOLING the experts on Austrian economics:

    Fuck a Harvard. If you think Mitt Romney was a better choice on issues and policies, fine, but please don’t say it’s because he went to Harvard.

    Like


  13. I heard it here 5010th. It’s nearly accepted wisdom in the Kos-osphere.

    And it ain’t never gonna happen.

    However disastrous a VP pick is (and there is no evidence Biden or Palin are harmful picks), dropping your own VP selection at the last minute is many times more damaging.

    So (literally) nothing short of brazen neo-nazi associations will push Palin off of the ticket.

    Like


  14. Yes, Romney would have been a far better candidate. But no, it’ ain’t gonna happen. None of it. Absent heart attack or something.

    Romney with Palin would actually be killer. (Palin would add the needed populist message. Romney was by far the most competent candidate of either party, rivaled only by Giuliani. He has plenty of experience; leadership of men is the only experience and more importantly testing crucible really needed anyway. O’Bama has never shown himself to truly be outstanding the way that Romney has, but instead has always been chosen more for who he is (and isn’t-not a firebrand, but is a people of color advocate) than what he has or can actually do.

    That’s still the case. His record is getting essentially zero scrutiny because people just want him, the diversity and multiculti messiah. I mean if O’Bama isn’t it, then who is??

    Exactly.

    Like


  15. She is not intelligent enough to be president. She is in way over her head. Her interviews show a lack of intelligence, irrespective of her lack of experience: she finds it difficult to complete a long sentence, she meanders, forgets where she started, forgets the original question, and just blandly repeats whatever half-remembered neocon cliches AEI or whoever have been pumping into her over the last few weeks. This is a problem of IQ, not experience. An astonishing choice that would have worked if she were smart. The republicans made some really terrible terrible decisions.

    Like


  16. Romney = electoral Bud Dwyer for the Republicans

    For those who aren’t familiar with Bud, this video explains all.

    Like


  17. Listen to her response here. This women would fail a mediocre job interview.

    Like


  18. Palin’s problem is that she does not understand the national gaffes that she must avoid.

    A gaffe is a pol speaking the truth. Like Biden admitting that he and Obama are really against clean coal.

    Palin must avoid admitting that the economy is in the tank because energy prices being up saps everything out of the economy. Energy is the biggest input into the economy, make it cheap, the economy expands, make it expensive, it contracts. Simple, the truth, must never be uttered.

    She can’t say our problem is with Muslims, that polygamy plus nuclear proliferation = dead US cities. The truth, it must never be uttered.

    There are a whole amount of “pretty lies” that must never die in DC, contra Roissy, because they keep both political party structures and the media and everyone else in power.

    Dumb pundit Peggy Noonan wonders why she has to be treated poorly in the Airport Security lines? Because of PC, that’s why. We can’t profile Muslims. It would undermine our pretty lies.

    As soon as Palin learns the national truths she must at all costs avoid uttering, she’ll be fine. She did take down the incumbents of both parties in AK, so she’s got skills. Just lacks experience in finding the National land mines.

    Unlike say, Biden, she’s never had to quit the Presidential race for plagiarism.

    Like


  19. You think Peggy Noonan is dumb? I’d have to disagree. When she asks why she has to be profiled, she knows perfectly well it’s because of PC and pretty lies. I think that’s her point in bringing up the question.

    Like


  20. Whiskey,
    I spent a good part of my weekend reading your blog. Excellent stuff! Glad to meet ya.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  21. I’m pretty sure that InTrade has a betting market on whether Palin is knocked off the ticket.

    http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=638242&z=1222648841705

    A contract paying off at $10 if Palin is withdrawn as VP nominee is trading at 83 cents. So, 8.3% chance of her being stood down. If you think that’s wrong, go make some easy money.

    Like


  22. on September 29, 2008 at 2:11 am Honest_Or_Smart

    So, do you want the person who manages your money to be smart, and a lying thief, or another person who is slightly-above-average intelligence but who is an honest person and who wants you to make money?

    Do you want a smart, beautiful, high-powered ball-snipping DC lawyer-slut chick for a wife, or a slightly-above-average, beautiful, 5 partners tops, reasonably successful saleperson/manager for a wife?

    So, do you understand now why making ‘intelligence’ your primary or secondary criteria(not that you do, you just like to think you do) is a horrifically bad idea for your personal happiness?

    If you won’t run your money, or your, uh, other interests, with “intelligence” at the top, or in second place, then why the obsession?

    NOTE:
    Palin is almost certainly naturally smarter than Obama.

    She just was not used to another women rabidly attacking her like the Couric creature. She’ll adjust, and get used to the rabid attacks faster than you think. And of course the Couric creature editted the interview.

    Look, it’s Obama displaying his Skilz:

    Of course, he may not even have the right to wear that bracelet:

    Like


  23. 12 T. AKA Ricky Raw

    Problem is that finishing first in your class at HARVARD generally means you’re a pretty smart guy. That’s in contrast to being one of the worst in your class at the Naval Academy while admitting you don’t know much about the economy, or running half your ticket on 9/11 and Islamic terrorism, or making your entire platform the Fair Tax.

    Romney was easily the best of the Republican candidates.

    Also, on the topic of Ron Paul, my own opinions are here: http://moaes.blogspot.com/2008/09/government-vs-private-culpability.html
    IE, if there was a general “easy credit” era, we should be seeing all sorts of bubbles all over the place: instead, we see an economy where the non-financial, non-auto, non-construction is growing a relatively brisk pace.

    Considering Ron Paul pretty much talks exclusively about the money supply, I’d have to say his understanding of the economy is weak. Impressive, but weak.

    I’d also say that Ron Paul’s understanding of economic history is pretty weak: he says at :40 that we tried to “prop it up” by “keeping the system together” whatever that means, but Hoover definitely wasn’t trying as hard as FDR to keep the banking system afloat, which is probably why the first 3 years of the Depression were so damn bad.

    I also don’t see why you think Ron Paul is so much smarter than the rest of the “Ivy League grads” based on that interview. It’s not as if the world just doesn’t hear Ron Paul

    22 Honest_Or_Smart
    John McCain, charter member of the Keating Five.
    John McCain, conducting the biggest flip-flop ever on immigration.
    John McCain…reformed Maverick!
    Seriously, I don’t trust him anymore than I trust anyone else. To actually think that I could judge a man’s soul just by watching him on television! It’s the pinnacle of utter lunacy. This is why we focus on developing systems designed to produce good results (like checks and balances) instead of relying on finding a “good man.”

    I reiterate: The Republican Party is getting just what it deserves.

    Like


  24. Roissy, I’m surprised you haven’t done an alpha male comparison from the debate. I think Obama out alpha’d McCain by a lot, as does this write on HuffPo, but I’d be curious to see what you thought.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frans-de-waal/nervous-old-male_b_129903.html

    Like


  25. Heh. Wait till Sarahcuda rips out Biden’s prostate and feeds it to him during the debates. And Romney is more plastic than Max Headroom.

    #18 Whiskey – A gaffe is not just when a politician tells the truth. A gaffe is when a politician inadvertently states what he actually thinks, not necessarily whether it is factually valid or not, but when it disagrees with his stated public position, or is just so clearly nonsensical that everyone around WTFs. Thus, when McCain calls Pakistan a failed state, it’s not a gaffe, because it doesn’t clash with his other public statements (plus, face it, that’s as fucking failed as they come this side of Sudan.) However, when Biden talks about President FDR getting on the TV to talk to the people in 1929, that’s a gaffe. Of course, Biden’s has had thirty-odd years of putting his foot in his mouth far enough to kick his own ass, so there’s not much surprise there.

    Like


  26. As much as I would like to see that, it’s not gonna happen Roissy. No way. Never. Not a chance in Hell. I’ll bet you any amount against it.

    Like


  27. Problem is that finishing first in your class at HARVARD generally means you’re a pretty smart guy.

    Yes, but what type of smarts? To me it symbolizes being really skilled at rote memorization, regurgitation and having high degrees of self-discipline and organization (as in, the person was great at getting assignments in on time, doing all their work, being prepared for tests, juggling lots of work). And many people with high IQs are especially not great leaders, often because they (1) have very poor judgment and (2) grow up with a sense of entitlement and (3) have poor street smarts and common sense from being raised in insular environments around other high IQ people plus spending a lot of time in their own heads..

    I’m not saying that there aren’t people with high IQs and Ivy educations who also happen to have good judgment and leadership skills. It happens. What I am saying though is that Ivy League and high IQ alone does not necessarily indicate leadership, toughness under fire, or good judgment like so many of the Ivy and IQ worshippers seem to think. Look at the lack of common sense of high IQ Eliot Spitzer. Look at the horrible financial fiasco engineered by high IQ Ivy educated finance people and high IQ, Ivy educated lawyers turned politicians. Smart people do dumb things all the time, and they get entrusted to high power positions that allow them to do dumb things precisely because everyone around them keeps saying “He’s smart and Ivy, he must know what he’s doing” every step of the way until it becomes painfully obvious the person doesn’t, at which point it’s usually too late.

    How many Ivy league academic eggheads for example still think socialism is preferable to the free market? How many high IQ eggheads did it take to construct our modern welfare state, one of the most spectacular failures in common sense ever? (“Hm, maybe if we reward people for being poor and having kids out of wedlock, it will make povery worse? Nahh!!!”)

    There are many books dedicated to theories as to why high IQ people can be prone to huge mental blind spots and staggeringly dumb decisions especially when taken out of their intellectual comfort zone. Here’s an article that touches on it:
    http://questioneverything.typepad.com/question_everything/2008/05/why-do-smart-cl.html

    Like


  28. many people with high IQs are especially not great leaders

    Very true, for the reasons you explained. Also, having too high an IQ makes it difficult to relate to average people, and sometimes.

    Also as we see among our own elite, having a high IQ — or at least high credentials correlated with a high IQ — engenders a contempt for average people.

    All qualities that make for poor leaders.

    There are, however, high-level IQ people who also are good leaders. I’m guessing that many NFL coaches belong to that category, or someone like Gen. Schwartzkopf (of Gulf War I fame)

    The 1990s movie “Glory” about a Black regiment during the Civil war, was a good study on effective leadership. The movie made a case that honor transmitted via institutional traditions, plus respect for one’s men, can make good leaders out of otherwise mediocre ones.

    Matthew Broderick’s character, Colonel Shaw, was a young man who had some of the same disadvantages that T. describes: an insular upbringing, poor preparation for hardships, and probably a very high IQ. In fact, he was a coward in his first skirmish.

    However, the best of military tradition plus a respect for his men, made him an effective leader.

    Like


  29. There are, however, high-level IQ people who also are good leaders.

    Oh definitely, and I hope it didn’t come off like I was saying otherwise. There are many people throughout history with Ivy credentials and high IQ who were also great leaders and had common sense and good character. My pet peeve though is when people act like someone is AUTOMATICALLY suited for any position or is a default authority on any topic simply because they have a high IQ and Ivy league education. Plus high IQ and education credentials too often lead to an entitlement mindset and the feeling that society would be better run if planned primarily by intellectuals, two tendencies that tend to lead to socialism and too much central planning:

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n1-1.html

    If someone says Mitt Romney is better than John McCain and gives tangible reasons relating to character and accomplishment to support that, I’m totally with that. I just hate the whole mindset where people say “He went to Harvard and she didn’t, so he’s automatically more qualified, end of story.” I’ve seen so many disastrous decisions from too many morons given too much authority, all a result of this climate of IQ and Ivy worship.

    Like


  30. on September 29, 2008 at 3:45 pm Large Hadron Colider

    This economic “meltdown” seems so small to me small compared to the Big Bang.

    Like


  31. “Problem is that finishing first in your class at HARVARD generally means you’re a pretty smart guy. That’s in contrast to being one of the worst in your class at the Naval Academy…”

    Class rankings at the Naval Academy are only partly based on grades, unlike at other schools. The rankings are mostly based on the number of demerits received over the four years of school. Demerits primarily denote behavior, not intelligence. McCain had more demerits than most of the men in his class, and yet tested well enough to get one of the most sought-after careers for aspring officers.

    So, Romney’s Harvard rankings aren’t in contrast to McCain’s Naval Academy rankings at all. The two are unrelated.

    Like


  32. McCain is locked in. The Rove playbook he is using does not allow for admitting mistakes, and dropping Palin from the ticket would be just such an admission. As her folksy ignorance and not-ready-for-prime-time media skills became more and more evident, her drag on the ticket will increase. Efforts to shield her from public scrutiny will correctly be viewed as evidence of fear on the part of the campaign and an attempt to run out the clock till election day. Those efforts will fail. By Nov. 4, most people will be asking themselves how McCain can claim to “put country first” while installing this vindictive, hard-right rube a heartbeat from the presidency? There is no comforting answer to that question.

    Like


  33. on September 29, 2008 at 7:10 pm Comment_IQ_Leaders

    When people started talking about High IQ’s making bad leaders, something occurred to me.

    Lack of ability to “relate” to normal people can easily become a very serious problem.

    Because you design policies to function based on a certain level of capability. If your policy requires more capability on the part of the people in it/using it/effected by it to work, then it fails a little or a lot.

    It’s kind of like a great warrior leading an army, and not being terribly concerned about being outnumbered. After all, he has personally been outnumbered all the time, and it hasn’t caused him any problems. Granted, intellectually, he may know that his soldiers aren’t equal to him in ability, but his “gut” is hyping them up.

    Like


  34. Neither VP choice will be altered.
    Arguably, both should.
    Thus are politics in 2008.

    Like


  35. Yes, but what type of smarts? To me it symbolizes being really skilled at rote memorization, regurgitation and having high degrees of self-discipline and organization (as in, the person was great at getting assignments in on time, doing all their work, being prepared for tests, juggling lots of work).
    &

    CV Champ saidThis is why we focus on developing systems designed to produce good results (like checks and balances) instead of relying on finding a “good man.”

    Excellent Excellent points.

    T said:My pet peeve though is when people act like someone is AUTOMATICALLY suited for any position or is a default authority on any topic simply because they have a high IQ and Ivy league education.

    Mine too and we know who thinks like this don’t we.

    Like


  36. Sarah Palin is an insult to all Americans. This vapid woman is equal parts preening ambition, plastic hokeyness and naked pandering.

    She needs to step down and go take care of her newborn Down’s syndrome infant.

    So-called “conservatives” who defend this hypocritical Whoreacuda need to get a reality check. They would never put up with her behavior or her lifestyle if she were a liberal Democrat.

    And roissy doesn’t even see the glaring contradictions in his own pronouncements about Palin. One day, he’s saying he isn’t attracted to her because she’s “too masculine”. The next week, he’s praising her “femininity”.

    Well, which is it, roissy? I realize that Palin is an icon for the drooling hard-right, but at least one would think that a paragon of rationality like roissy would be consistent in what he writes about her.

    Like