Among other brilliant statements, she declared: “It’s time to take our country back.”

I’ve been waiting patiently, but she still hasn’t clarified how many years she wants to take us back.

(2)
As I sat down to write this post, I did a Google News search for “It’s time to take our country back”. Just to see who in the mainstream media said what about it.

I really wasn’t prepared for the results. Just eight hits. One from CBS News, which played up the comment, making it the headline for the story. One from the comments section of a different CBS News story about Palin (which didn’t quote the “country back” statement). One from a LaCrosse Tribune blog post which has nothing to do with Sarah Palin. One in The Sarasota Herald-Tribune, more than a week after Palin made the statement. One from an ESPN story which has nothing to do with Sarah Palin. One from an archived version of this ESPN story. One false hit from a different ESPN story. And one from a lesser-known blog, which again has nothing to do with Sarah Palin.

So that makes just two media hits to Palin’s statement. What gives? (And let’s remember, this is Sarah Palin in Iowa, which is automatically supposed to be headline news, isn’t it?)

We’ve been breaking everything on our national poll this week down by whether respondents have ever smoked Marijuana before and here’s one I wasn’t expecting: Sarah Palin is the top choice for the 2012 GOP nomination among Republicans who have.

Granted it’s a sample size of just 83 and her lead is within the margin of error but it’s still kind of amusing.

Among Republicans who say they’ve smoked Marijuana:

Palin 25
Gingrich 22
Huckabee 17
Romney 17
Paul 8

Among Republicans who say they have not smoked Marijuana:

Huckabee 24
Romney 23
Gingrich 21
Palin 21
Paul 3

Nancy Pelosi may be the first woman speaker, but she wasn’t elected to the position just for being a pretty face.

Whereas it’s always been clear — and yet, somehow, becomes more so as the midterm elections approach — that Boehner has absolutely nothing to recommend him for the post other than that tan and his pretty face. (In all fairness, though, we can’t speak to his legs. Maybe he has lovely legs too?)

He has never been accused of exhibiting any leadership qualities. And he doesn’t seem to have enough brains in his head to even provide a viable DNA sample.

Two and a half weeks ago, I flagged a story by Dan Balz in The Washington Post, which I described as people starting to laugh out loud at how, with midterm elections rapidly approaching, the Republican Party is still floundering for a real agenda.

Balz’s piece focused on Boehner, and his complete inability to even come close to articulating what Republicans are actually for, what agenda they will pursue if they regain the majority in the House and/or Senate in November.

And it’s not even about intellect, or at least, not about actually possessing any. Boehner isn’t even able to put on a passably convincing imitation of having any grasp on policy matters that he knows perfectly well he’s going to be asked about by reporters. When your prepared responses to reporters’ questions sound like this, what’s the meaningful difference between you and Sarah Palin?

Asked whether partial privatization of Social Security, which Republicans pushed unsuccessfully in 2005, would be part of a GOP agenda, he twice replied, “I have no idea.”

This business of people starting to laugh out loud at Boehner’s complete asininity has now officially moved from the metaphorical realm to the literal. On Saturday, President Obama actually did laugh at Boehner’s stupidity on policy matters. In public, and on the record. In his weekly radio address, actually:

It was largely overlooked during a busy media week, but House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), who’s been reluctant to talk about his party’s policy agenda in detail, was willing to outline three measures he’d pursue as Speaker to create American jobs. The list made it painfully clear — to anyone who takes substance even a little seriously — that Boehner has no idea what he’s talking about.

In fact, the remarks were so patently ridiculous, President Obama devoted much of his weekly address to shining a bright light on Boehner’s understanding of job creation.
[...]
“This week, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives offered his plan to create jobs,” the president explained. “It’s a plan that’s surprisingly short, and sadly familiar. First, he would repeal health insurance reform, which would take away tax credits from millions of small business owners, and take us back to the days when insurance companies had free rein to drop coverage and jack up premiums. Second, he would say no to new investments in clean energy, after his party already voted against the clean energy tax credits and loans that are creating thousands of new jobs and hundreds of new businesses. And third, even though his party voted against tax cuts for middle-class families, he would permanently keep in place the tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans – the same tax cuts that have added hundreds of billions to our debt.

“These are not new ideas. They are the same policies that led us into this recession. They will not create jobs; they will kill them. They will not reduce our deficit; they will add $1 trillion to our deficit. They will take us backward at a time when we need to keep America moving forward.”

If you listen really carefully at the 3:44 mark, you’ll notice that the president actually chuckles, just a little, when describing just how ridiculous Boehner’s approach to job creation really is.

Back to an earlier post by Steve Benen for the closing summation:

With Boehner, it seems he’s just clueless, uninterested and ignorant about the basics of contemporary policy disputes. Can anyone think of a time they’ve heard John Boehner speak intelligently about any subject? Ever? Can anyone identify an issue where Boehner has demonstrated even the slightest bit of expertise? Or even knowledge?

One thing to consider when pondering whether Sarah Palin should run for president: Will she accept the pay cut?

ABC News reports that Palin has made at least $12 million since resigning as Alaska governor in July, thanks to book royalties, television deals, and speaking fees.

Palin would have to give up some of those revenue streams to run for president in 2012.

Of course, the fact that Palin reportedly resigned midway through her first term as Governor of Alaska in order to make “triple the money” may have something to do with the money-grubbing perception:

After she returned to Alaska following the failed presidential bid, Johnston claims she was different.

“Sarah was sad for a while. She walked around the house pouting. I had assumed she was going to go back to her job as governor, but a week or two after she got back she started talking about how nice it would be to quit and write a book or do a show and make ‘triple the money.’

(That’s Levi Johnston, the father of Sarah Palin’s grandchild, dishing out the inside dope.)

Still, all things considered, the USA Today article is pretty shortsighted.

Even if Palin has to take a pay cut, it doesn’t have to be for four years. Can you imagine the speaking fees Palin would be able to command once she adds the line “Former half-term President” to her resume? The temporary pay cut would be well worth it. And however stupid Sarah Palin may be about everything else, no one has ever accused her of not recognizing a positive NPV project when she smells one.

You had to wonder if Palin, who is nothing if not cunning, had sprung a trap. She knows all too well that the more the so-called elites lampoon her, the more she cements her cred with the third of the country that is her base. Her hand hieroglyphics may not have been speaking aids but bait.

If so, mission accomplished. Her sleight of hand gave the anti-Palin chorus another prod to deride her as an empty-headed, subliterate clown, and her fans another cue to rally.

No, Frank, you didn’t have to wonder. You could, since there’s no law against making a fool of yourself if you insist. But you certainly didn’t have to.

I am glad to report that Broder has now honed his comedy act by incorporating an impeccable sense of timing.

Yesterday, he put out, in the Washington Post a paean of praise for Palin:

The snows that obliterated Washington in the past week interfered with many scheduled meetings, but they did not prevent the delivery of one important political message: Take Sarah Palin seriously.

Her lengthy Saturday night keynote address to the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville and her debut on the Sunday morning talk show circuit with Fox News‘ Chris Wallace showed off a public figure at the top of her game — a politician who knows who she is and how to sell herself, even with notes on her palm.
[...]
Blessed with an enthusiastic audience of conservative activists, Palin used the Tea Party gathering and coverage on the cable networks to display the full repertoire she possesses, touching on national security, economics, fiscal and social policy, and every other area where she could draw a contrast with Barack Obama and point up what Republicans see as vulnerabilities in Washington.

There was much more, but I refuse to inflict it upon you. (This is, quite literally, putting lipstick on a pig.)

This embarrassing drivel came even as we learned, the very same day, via a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, what Americans think of Palin the presidential candidate:

And the new poll shows that the political standing of former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, who was the keynote speaker last week at the first National Tea Party Convention, has deteriorated significantly.
[...]
Although Palin is a tea party favorite, her potential as a presidential hopeful takes a severe hit in the survey. Fifty-five percent of Americans have unfavorable views of her, while the percentage holding favorable views has dipped to 37, a new low in Post-ABC polling.

There is a growing sense that the former Alaska governor is not qualified to serve as president, with more than seven in 10 Americans now saying she is unqualified, up from 60 percent in a November survey. Even among Republicans, a majority now say Palin lacks the qualifications necessary for the White House.

Palin has lost ground among conservative Republicans, who would be crucial to her hopes if she seeks the party’s presidential nomination in 2012. Forty-five percent of conservatives now consider her as qualified for the presidency, down sharply from 66 percent who said so last fall.

It’s hard to score this any other way but Broder 0, America 1.

Here are some of Sarah P.‘s more deeply devoted defenders explaining the 3-dimensional chess strategy behind the notes she had scribbled on her hand to help her answer an audience question at the Tea Party Convention:

CARLSON: I think she did it on purpose. I think she did it on purpose, yeah. Because it’s an exact opposite of reading off the teleprompter with a script written for you with every word in a sentence and here’s she’s just taking crib notes on her hand. It makes her look like she can just talk off the cuff and she just jotted down a few couple notes before she went out to give a big long speech.

DOOCY: I think she did it because she probably does it a lot. I do that all the time. [...]

KILMEADE: But to sit there and look at, and do the interview and look down at her hand, I think that is — like you said before, Gretchen — folksy, absolutely, down-to-earth, I can identify. But if you’re going to write on your hand, why not just say, ’staffer, hand me a card.’ And then it would be okay.

CARLSON: Nah, like I said, I think it was on purpose. But anyway, we we may never know.

So there you have it, folks! A brilliantly conceived and brilliantly executed (but 100% authentic folksy) plan to show up Mr. Can’t-even-speak-without-a-teleprompter-feeding-him-every-word. A plan that the ever-modest Sarah P. will refuse to take credit for in public, so we’ll never know for sure. Which is why not knowing shouldn’t be allowed to stand in the way of applause. Especially by practicing “journalists”. (Who knows, one day, with enough practice, …)

The weirdest part of the evening came not during the speech but during the following Q&A session. Asked what she thought that a Republican-controlled congress’s top three priorities should be, she answered: stop spending, energy policy and … well, here’s the whole quote, judge for yourself:
I think, kind of tougher to put our arms around, but allowing America’s spirit to rise again by not being afraid to kind of go back to some of our roots as a God fearing nation where we’re not afraid to say especially in times of potential trouble in the future here, where we’re not afraid to say, you know, we don’t have all the answers as fallible men and women so it would be wise of us to start seeking some divine intervention again in this country, so that we can be safe and secure and prosperous again. To have people involved in government who aren’t afraid to go that route, not so afraid of the political correctness that you know – they have to be afraid of what the media said about them if they were to proclaim their alliance to our creator.

This was, as befits anyone who lusts to be the next Republican president after Georgie Porgie, a pre-screened, pre-selected question. In other words, what her Palinality delivered was not an off-the-cuff response but a carefully pre-composed answer.

So if we’re going back to the glory days of seeking divine intervention in times of potential trouble — and, really, isn’t any time a time of potential trouble? — I dare say we should also restore the monarchy. Just for consistency. Plus, I so want to see Sarah Palin reigning for a good thirty or forty years, to be succeeded by Bristol Palin.

* Why should the acronym make any more sense than the movement itself?

According to Sarah P., using the word “retard” is derogatory to developmentally challenged children only if it’s applied to people one does not agree with:

This morning on Fox News, host Chris Wallace asked Sarah Palin about her public call for White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to resign after reports surfaced that he called a group of liberal activists “f—ing retarded.” Palin reiterated her call for Emanuel to “step down” and explained that while she’s not “politically correct” or “one to be a word police,” she was committed to “reaching out and to helping the special needs community.” But when Wallace asked Palin about Rush Limbaugh’s endorsement of the language, Palin said she was fine with Limbaugh’s satirical comments. “I didn’t hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with ‘f-ing retards,’” she said. “There is a big difference there”:
PALIN: I agree with Rush Limbaugh. He was using satire to politically correct —

WALLACE: He used the “r” word.

PALIN: He used satire. Name-calling by anyone, I teach this to my children and you teach it to your children and grandchildren, too. Name calling by anyone is just unnecessary. It just wastes time. Let’s speak to the issues and — [...]

PALIN: I didn’t hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with ‘f-ing retards’ and we did know that Rahm Emanuel has been reported, did say that. there is a big difference there. Again, name-calling, using language that is insensitive, by anyone, male, female, Republican, Democrat, is unnecessary. It’s inappropriate. Let’s all just grow up.

So, as best as anyone can tell from this developmentally challenged lady’s statement, even Sarah P. would not take any objection to the following statement: “Who does this dumb-shit lady think we are, effing retards?” (Cliff’s Notes adds this helpful gloss: note that the term, which would be objectionable if applied to those one disagrees with, is being applied to oneself and one’s cohorts. Hence, unexceptionable. Also, being used in the context of political satire. Hence, doubly unexceptionable.)

Here he is, putting Sarah Palin forward as their vice-presidential candidate in 2008:

Sarah Palin believed that Sen. John McCain chose her to be his running mate in 2008 because of “God’s plan,” according to a top political strategist in the Arizona Republican’s campaign.
[...]
Schmidt said he asked Palin about her serenity in the face of becoming “one of the most famous people in the world.” He quoted her as saying, “It’s God’s plan.”

Here he is, placing Michael Steele as chairman of the Republican National Committee:

I’m not defined by this job. When this job is over I will go back to doing something else but God, I really believe has placed me here for a reason…

And here he is, persuading Michele Bachmann to run for Congress:

God then called me to run for the United States Congress, and I thought ‘What in the world will that be for?’ and my husband said ‘You need to do this,’ and I wasn’t so sure, and we took 3 days and we fasted and we prayed and we said, ‘Lord. Is this what you want? Is this your will?’ and after long about the afternoon of day two, he made that calling sure.

With God so squarely on their side, and stage-managing key appointments, the Republican Party is in the sad and sorry state it’s in. Imagine how badly off they would be without God’s personal intervention.