In This Corner…Sarah Palin

2012 Contender Series: Sarah Palin

In this corner… is an ongoing series looking into the viability of potential candidates for the 2012 Presidential race.

(Editors Note: Palin officially declared her decision not to run for President on October 7th)

This is the first of a new series that we are calling the Contenders. We thought it would be useful to evaluate the potential candidates for the 2012 Presidential race. For the moment we’re going to skip President Obama unless circumstances or information surfaces that dictate we pay attention to his presumed incumbency.

Sarah Palin with a plank in her eye (courtesy Matt. 7:3)

I sort of drew the short straw and as a result will begin with Sarah Palin. Plus, there has been a challenge issued by Dana Milbank to make February a Palin free month. We thought we might attempt to accept that challenge so we wanted to get her out of the way this week. Each of us will tackle potential candidates on an irregular basis. We’ll provide background information along with public opinion polling to add to the conversation of viability.  And what better way to start the series than with possibly the best known person of the field of contenders?

Sarah Palin became an overnight sensation when John McCain’s political handlers decided he needed to bring sexy back during the 2008 Presidential campaign. McCain needed a Vice President and he also needed a public relations shot in the arm to combat Obama’s momentum. Palin was Governor of Alaska which sort of enhanced McCain’s ‘rogue’ image and she was also camera friendly. She was also intended to balance out the ‘different’ category. Obama was black; so McCain needed a woman. That’s progress, right? Plus, there were also all those disaffected Hillary voters or PUMAs to be had.

But Palin wasn’t vetted thoroughly. It turned out she came with all kinds of baggage that would play itself out in the ensuing months of the campaign such as complex family dynamics, questionable political strategies, questionable education background, possible legal problems, etc.

Sarah Palin in College

In retrospect it looks as if Palin was an empty skirt. She drifted through five colleges and used her beauty queen looks to achieve her objectives. As far as political saavy, there was little substance. But she talked a good game. Pitbulls, lipstick, teleprompters, ‘reload’.

Then, of course, the interviews. After the disastrous Katie Couric interview, it became obvious that Palin was a word salad shooter. This was followed by the shopping spree. The McCain campaign began to wince every time Palin opened her mouth. By the time we got to see her in the Vice Presidential candidate debate, the honeymoon of popularity peaked and had begun to decline. This was no realistic contender. It was painfully obvious to everyone that Palin had no business being one heart attack away from the Oval office (McCain was 72 by now).

Tina Fey vs Sarah Palin

Then there was Tina Fey. I honestly believe that Tina Fey’s impression had as much to do with the McCain campaign’s downfall as did his ‘I’m suspending my campaign’ gambit when the economy tanked at the end of Bush’s last year. Fey’s uncanny likeness combined with her spot on North Dakota accent illustrated the absurdity of nominating Palin in the first place. Fey won an award, McCain lost the Presidency. Coincidence?

We thought that might be the end of it but the chum was in the water. Palin went back to Alaska and did something remarkable; she quit her elected job. In a word salady type of press release she mumbled that she was patriotically leaving her elected post as Governor of Alaska not even two years into her position. Simultaneously, she became the darling of the newly emerging reactionary Tea Party who believed she could do no wrong. So Palin did what any politician with fading popularity does, she grabbed the bullhorn and stirred the Tea Party into a frenzy. She wrote a book (or somebody did and she took credit), started a speaking tour, and generally became a rock star of a political movement that had no foundation. Suddenly her net worth skyrocketed into the millions; far more than she could ever make as a politician. But she also began backing other Republican candidates who began to unseat incumbents (she also caused some candidates to lose for the same reason). With the help of a media with a morbid gawk-at-the-car-wreck mentality, she galvanized a counter movement to the change that President Obama was bringing about. Funny thing is that she really didn’t care about the movement; just the attention and milking it for all it was worth.

Tea Party. Drink!

On a personal note, Palin came to my little northwest college town to stump for the Republican party (an event set up before she became the Tea Party darling). I helped arrange a protest outside of the hotel where she was speaking. Much to her credit, Bristol Palin actually came out and spoke to us. Props for that. Bristol later went on to be a finalist on Dancing with the Stars.

Sarah Palin continued her tour across America as the Obama administration began grappling with the problems of the nation. There was frequent speculation that we would see Palin again as a Presidential candidate in 2012. There continues to be. It’s all the rage these days. Will she run or won’t she? She’s mum on the subject but doesn’t rule it out. And why not? Palin makes more money as long as she’s the center of attention.

Polling numbers suggest that it’s a losing proposition. Palin’s popularity is at an all time low particularly in the wake of her televised ‘I’m the victim’ statement following the assassination attempt on Representative Gabrielle Giffords. Her favourability ranks around 19%.

Is Sarah Palin still a viable candidate for the Republican nomination? Certainly. She still has an ardent following in the Tea Party. However, the Tea Party is difficult to quantify since it isn’t a legitimate body and you can’t really tell who is a member. Can she win? Not likely.

Many, including some potential Republican candidates, would like her to be nominated as the Republican candidate based solely on her unelectability. Many of the rest of us would just like to watch the slow-motion car wreck in action. Some, myself included, have contemplated switching political parties to vote for her in the Republican primary whereupon we would switch affiliations back and vote against her.

Sarah Palin is an enigma, wrapped in hysteria, slathered with a topping of ignorance. If she were ever to win, I call upon the four horsemen of the apocalypse to reign fire upon humankind because we would certainly deserve it.

About Mr. Universe

Mr. Universe is a musician/songwriter and an ex-patriot of the south. He currently lives and teaches at a University in the Pacific Northwest. He is a long distance hiker who has hiked the Appalachian Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail. He is also an author and woodworker. An outspoken political voice, he takes a decidedly liberal stance in politics.
This entry was posted in Contender Series and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to In This Corner…Sarah Palin

  1. Bartbuster says:

    If she were ever to win, I call upon the four horsemen of the apocalypse to reign fire upon humankind because we would certainly deserve it.

    I think you’ve got it backwards. If Caribou Barbie were elected president it would be a sure sign that the apocalypse is already happening.

  2. Mark says:

    Palin is a genius compared to Michele Bachmann.

    What is going on is, we have always assumed that very attractive, fit, and successful looking women were smart. I have yet to meet someone who looked like Palin or Bachmann who was not really smart.

    It took me a while to realize Sarah was an airhead. Airheads don’t get to be mayors, much less governors. But Sarah, as we learned from Steve Schmit, (McCain’s campaign manager) was uncommonly stupid. He was stunned himself. He was a victim of this same history — attractive fit women are seen as very smart. He was cured of that delusion.

    I thought Bachmann was much smarter than Sarah Palin. But now, we learn that Sarah has been reading – and reading a lot. She reads newspapers now, and maybe books. I am only being slightly sarcastic. She does read now.

    But Ms Bachmann? The woman is almost unimaginably stupid. If a junior high student said the things about history that she said, we should fire every teacher that supposedly taught that student.

    It will take a while for us as a culture to realize just because a woman is very attractive looking, very fit, very confident, she may be no smarter than some very unattractive (ugly) obese pockmarked woman with bad teeth.

    In other words, looks can be deceiving.

  3. Mr. Universe says:


    Generally agree.

    BUT… Nikki Haley. Smart cookie. I like her.

  4. She’s not a viable candidate. I’d be very surprised to see her even in the running in the primary.

  5. Mainer says:

    Oh she is runing. You can bet your last paycheck on that. And you know what? She has a better than even shot right this moment of getting the nomination. And should that come to pass we should institute a national day of ignorance with parades and floats and speeches made up of talking points and……I have to stop. I find I am ruining an otherwise fine lunch.

    I went for a bit over to freeper land. How fili does it routinely is beyond me. Oh crap now I have heart burn.

  6. mclever says:


    To expand on your theory of “fit and attractive” = “smart”, there’s actually more nuance to it.

    For a woman:
    Above average fit and attractive = assumed smart & competent
    Outstanding attractiveness = assumed bimbo & incompetent

    For a man:
    Above average fit and attractive = assumed smart & competent
    Outstanding attractiveness = assumed really smart & competent

    This has been shown in various sociology and political science studies. Both men and women who were rated moderately attractive got the “competence” premium, and scores for perceived attractiveness and competence tend to correlate very well up to a point. Then there’s a pivot for women, where if they are too attractive, then they are assumed to be incompetent. We can debate the likely sociological and cultural reasons for this if you like, but I can tell you from experience that some very attractive women get very annoyed at having their intelligence constantly underestimated, even going to the point of intentionally downplaying their looks to gain credibility.

    I suspect the reaction to Sarah Palin wasn’t so much “Oh, she’s attractive, so she must be smart,” but rather “Oh, me like,” which lasts just until the evident mental flaws overwhelm the potential physical attraction.

  7. mclever says:

    I’ll add one more under the man tally:

    Outstanding attractiveness + mega muscles = assumed dumb jock

    So, the attractiveness-to-competence correlation does have a pivot for guys’ assumed intelligence, too. It just has slightly different parameters than for women.

  8. shortchain says:

    Sorry, Sarah backers, but what we’re seeing is the inevitable regression to the mean. While she was more or less hidden from the public, and a blank slate, that portion of the public which needs a blank slate to project its wishes on (or at least the part of it that hadn’t projected its wishes onto Obama) could willfully avoid reality. Palin actively encouraged this by resigning as governor of AK. Had she remained in office, the truth of her emptiness would have come out much sooner.

    But as it has gradually dawned on everyone that she’s incapable of any intellectual feat more challenging than repeating right-wing talking points — and not infrequently messes those up in the delivery — she has strained the capacity for willing suspension of disbelief beyond the bounds of all but the most blind of her supporters.

    The perception of her that is taking hold is of a petty, small-minded person of little intellectual capacity. While intellectual dimness is not a bar for the Republican candidate, pettiness is, and that is going to mean she’s just going to fade into the background like Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly, and so many of the female lightning-rods of the right.

  9. Mr. Universe says:

    Damn, shortchain. Shoulda just let you have the keyboard.

  10. shiloh says:

    and so it begins as the media is hopin’/prayin’ she runs 😀

    Palin is a genius compared to Michele Bachmann. ~ damned w/faint praise.

    Interesting Bartles hasn’t chimed in yet re: his palin fetish, eh as he must be pacing himself.

    mama grizzly ~ a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma If only lol, but she is cute and perky ~ you bet’cha!

    apologies to Churchill …

  11. shiloh says:

    Bottom line:

    palin’s so called advisers, who have done an excellent job w/her so far lol have got to be considering how palin, if she decides to run, makin’ a complete frickin’ idiot of herself on the campaign trail will effect her yearly income ie will even teabagger groups not want to hear her speak after she totally implodes on her faux nomination path.

    Again, she may be bullet-proof as regards to her personal fortune having already shown herself to be a quitter, resigning from her strenuous AK gov position.

    Stayed tuned …

  12. mclever says:

    Palin has a very tricky path to the nomination if she decides to run, because every time she opens her mouth, she convinces more people NOT to support her.


  13. shiloh says:

    mclever, too funny ~ palin’s conundrum er Catch-22 lol god love her …

  14. Bart DePalma says:

    Palin will be interesting to watch.

    The media have savaged Sarah with the Indis. On the other hand, those very attacks have made her very popular with working class folks.

    On a related note, Palin will have to fight class and gender headwinds. Women like Fili think of the attractive working class Palin as a white trash bimbo.

    I do not see how Palin wins on just the white working class vote.

  15. NotImpressed says:

    mclever says. “Palin has a very tricky path to the nomination if she decides to run, because every time she opens her mouth, she convinces more people NOT to support her.”

    Palin doesn’t have a chance of getting elected. The question is whether she gets more money and more attention (which translates to more money) by running or by not running.

    It’s true that whenever she talks, she loses votes. But it’s not about votes for her. It’s about money. And whenever she talks, her worshipers send her more money. Even though her approval drops among everyone else.

    We have an excellent example in Bart. Palin worshipers make up crap about the people who don’t like Palin or her policies. This helps them keep their paranoia at a fever pitch. And it gives them an excuse to avoid looking a the real reasons people don’t want Palin anywhere near national politics.

    So I predict she’ll get into the early caucuses. She’ll do well, because caucuses are about participation of fanatics. She may do well in New Hampshire. Once there are actual primary elections. she’ll start losing. And as soon as stops being fun, Palin will bow out, and throw her support to someone equally insane.

  16. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    barted: “The media have savaged Sarah with the Indis.

    “We report, you decide”

    Lot’s of savagery there. ALL that has to be done is to simply air the tape without comment and she’d do a better job than anyone in the media.

    Guess the media reporting Bachman’s “Adams eliminated slavery” comment was savagery as well.

    What a maroon!” – Bugs Bunny

  17. shiloh says:

    apologies to white trash bimbos …

  18. mclever says:


    I agree, her decision to run (or not) will be based on a calculus of dollars rather than votes. Your predicted path of hanging around a few early primaries/caucuses to drum up contributions and then quietly bowing out when the votes aren’t there sounds pretty likely to me.

  19. Brian says:

    “On the other hand, those very attacks have made her very popular with working class folks.”

    No, it hasn’t.

  20. One thing I learned a while back is that people run for office for lots of different reasons. Money is a common one, especially among those who don’t stand a realistic chance of winning the general election.

  21. shortchain says:


    “Palin will be interesting to watch.”

    — in the same sense as a train wreck. For intellectual stimulation? No. For factual assessment? No. (Example of “non sequitur”.)

    “The media have savaged Sarah with the Indis.”

    — by actually covering her. Totally unfair.

    “those very attacks have made her very popular with working class folks.”

    — no. Her popularity is only high among the right wing. (Example of a false dichotomy: you are either a Palin supporter or some elitist”, not like working-class Bart.) Note that all of a sudden “Indis” aren’t “working class”. How did that happen?

    “Palin will have to fight class and gender headwinds.”

    — Like she had to prove herself by demonstrating her governing skills for a significant period before she was deemed by the right wing to be ready for a position of leadership. Yeah, those headwinds really put the brakes on her career: mayor of Wasilla, a commission, then governor, then VP candidate, Fox News, reality show queen, etc, etc.

    “I do not see how Palin wins on just the white working class vote.”

    — All of a sudden “working class” has turned into “white working class”. I wonder how that happened. Apparently, people who aren’t white don’t work, in Bart’s view. Is there any other reason why this suddenly changed, in the same comment?

  22. shiloh says:

    shortchain, Bartles is continually confused re: politics/political demos so please make allowances for all his deficiencies/flaws by showing “our” empathy!

  23. Mainer says:

    If Sarah can motivate and win with low information/ high emotion voters then she is in. If she has to do it with educated people that are capable of directed no emotional thought she is toast.

    So who are her likely supporters? Well as I couldn’t find this on the original site where I saw it I have borrowed it from the Educated Engineer site (good site I might add).

    Roper poll that was done for National Geographic and they found that those who identified themselves as Teabaggers today:

    1. One-third of respondents could not identify Louisiana on a map and 48 percent were unable to locate Mississippi.

    2. Less than three out of every 10 thinks it is not important to know the locations of countries in the news.

    3. Just 14 percent believe speaking another language is a necessary skill.

    4. Six out of every 10 could not find Iraq on a map of the Middle East.

    5. While the outsourcing of jobs to India has been a major U.S. business story for several years now, 47 percent could not find the Indian subcontinent on a map of Asia.

    6. While Israeli-Palestinian strife has been in the news for the entire lives of the respondents, 75 percent were unable to locate Israel on a map of the Middle East.

    7. Nearly three-quarters incorrectly named English as the most widely spoken native language.

    8. Six out of every 10 did not know the border between North and South Korea is the most heavily fortified in the world. Thirty percent thought the most heavily fortified border was between the United States and Mexico.

    So were or are Sarah’s supporters working class or just classless and clueless and find her a good fit with their own limited information base? Again from Engineer of Knowledge:

    Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent but instead thought it was a country, did not know the countries involved in NAFTA, or that North Korea and South Korea were two separate countries or how that fact even came about, and she could not name the countries involved in WWII who were Allied or Axis nations.

    At present all Palin is doing is sucking all of the air out of the Republican process to line up contenders for 2012. A bet to all of you. At some point some Republican is going to lose his cool over this but the explosion will let loose the flood gates and though the first may fall to last he will have opened the door and once open she is going to have to stand and deliver and as we have seen she is more of the cut and run type.

  24. Brian says:

    Seems like some of the Tea Party folks should be doing the Sporcle ( quizzes, which are awesome and improve one’s knowledge of geography (yay Kyrgyzstan!) and other things.

  25. filistro says:

    @Bart.. Women like Fili think of the attractive working class Palin as a white trash bimbo.

    Sarah Palin is hardly “white trash.” Her family is solidly middle-class, her upbringing was suburban and her parents are both college-educated professionals.

    Nor is she a “bimbo”… she has after all been smart enough to parlay limited personal skills into a multi-million dollar empire.

    She is, however, a quitter, a grifter and a poseur… and those are qualities the American public sniffs out as unerringly as a pig roots up truffles.

  26. Todd Dugdale says:

    Just what, exactly, makes Sarah Palin “working class”?
    Is it her early aspiration to be a sportscaster? Is it her positions as mayor and Governor? Is it her multi-million dollar book deal? Is it being the star of a cable show?

    It seems to me that Palin has spent her life trying not to be working class.

    The only thing that makes her appear ‘working class’ is her inability to speak with intelligence, logic, and persuasion. Everything else is just “us” vs. “them” blather, in which neither side is defined clearly. Apparently, “them” are those who actually examine what she says, and “us” are those who uncritically accept her words while glossing over the meaning.

    A person who wishes to be taken seriously does not wink when they speak. A person who wishes to distract you from what they are actually saying does, though.

  27. Mainer says:

    Her white working class support. Hmmmmm now I doubt she will receive all that much union support and to most of us except Bart those are working folks and still as I understand it predominently white.

    I’m not seeing her cleaning up in white women professionals as she is every stereotypye they have fought for years.

    White gay and lesbian workers (saw a statistic that said they as a group have one of the highest rates of employment, no clue why) probably are lost to her.

    If what Jewish friends tell me is correct she isn’t going to do very well with Jewish workers and that is one workng demographic.

    So who or what is this support demographic and just how big is it?

    That Sarah could game the Iowa caucaus system is quite possible but then there is NH. She might even do ok there but that is far from certain and then the minute there are multiple same day primaries I see the wheels coming off. I ay think the explosion I spoke of earlier will happen beforethat though. Not sure what the trigger will be but I suspect itwill be connected to her mouth.

  28. Number Seven says:

    I have to post the Palin as President site. I think a few goodies have been added.

  29. Mr. Universe says:

    She is, however, a quitter, a grifter and a poseur…

    Guess that makes her just dangerous enough to herself and to the rest of us.

  30. Mr. Universe says:


    Fun game

  31. GROG says:

    You all bash Palin and the right for vitriolic rhetoric, and then you bash her unmercifully with a hateful mean spiritedness like no other person in America.

    You’re all hypocrits.

  32. shiloh says:

    grog has a very hard time differentiating between harmlessly makin’ fun of a teabagger fool and “vitriolic rhetoric”.

    Whereas it is true both palin/bachmann are such easy targets lol

    Again, grog being the king of inane generalization ie You’re all much like his hero palin …

    grog, welcome back!

  33. Mr. Universe says:


    It’s Hypocrite. And no, we are not. Palin asks for it. We deliver.

  34. dcpetterson says:


    Which part of the comments about Palin suggests we “reload” and “rearm”?

    Which comment approached the destructive dishonestly of “death panels”?

    What comment here compares to Palin’s constant lies on FOX?

    In fact, which comments you have seen here (other than Bart’s) are untrue? Have you some examples of anything provably false?

  35. Bartbuster says:

    then you bash her unmercifully with a hateful mean spiritedness like no other person in America

    Grog, it’s not hateful or mean spirited if it’s true, and all the evidence suggests that Caribou Barbie is petty, shallow, and not very bright.

  36. Number Seven says:

    Mr U., thank you. I forget where I found it but have had it bookmarked for over two years now. Every now and then, little things seem to get added to it. The latest is the 2012 Palin t-shirt she has when you click on her. Either that or there are so many things to click on that you can never find them all. Freekin hilarious.

    My fave is still the way she says ‘oh oh’ after picking up the red phone 😉

  37. Mr. Universe says:

    Yeah, I picked up the red phone half dozen times. That and the six-pack. “Uh-oh”

  38. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    GROG!!! You’re back!

    Did you go back and see how badly you screwed the pooch on your debt calculations?
    Claiming $250B/yr avg Bush deficit. . .
    Using 1984 dollars for Bush deficit (of $360B/yr) to compare to current dollars for Obama . . .
    Using the WRONG year to take your new average from . . .
    Being stubborn and obstinate and refusing to admit your mistake.

    No wonder you rationalize to facts against the incurious Alaskan lady.

  39. Jungle Jim says:

    Why is SP unelectable?
    Quote of the Day
    “That was a tough speech to have to sit through and kind of try to stomach because the president is so off-base in his ideas. And his theme last night in the State of the Union was the ‘WTF,’ you know, ‘Winning the Future.’ And I thought, ‘OK, that acronym, spot on.’ There were a lot of ‘WTF’ moments throughout that speech.”

    — Sarah Palin, in an interview on Fox News, on President Obama’s State of the Union address.
    Only 4% of Americans viewed President Obama’s speech very negatively. SP is in that 4%.

  40. GROG says:


    You think Bush’s average budget deficit was $738 billion. You have no credibility on anything!

  41. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Show me your math, GROG.

    You have NOT defended YOUR assertions with the math as I did.

    You have NOT rebutted my math with anything but whines.

    You have NOT rebutted my demonstrated assertions concerning your errors with ANY PROOF of my making a mistake.

    How sad for you, young man.

    We shall let the forum decide who has, or has not, any credibility.

  42. GROG says:


    You take Bush’s 8 years of budget deficits. You add them up. You divide by 8. You don’t get $738 billion. I explained this to you several time before. (Why do you think no one on this forum is backing you up on this? Why do you think you cannot find anyone else on the planet to confirm your claim?)

  43. shortchain says:


    You say: “You all bash Palin and the right for vitriolic rhetoric,”

    No, it’s also her numbing dumbing-down of everything she discusses, and her pettiness.

    “you bash her unmercifully with a hateful mean spiritedness like no other person in America.”

    No, we also think Newt Gingrich is a massive hypocrite, Haley Barbour is a blatant racist, Michele Bachmann is a nitwit, and that the entire Bush administration was a collection of crooks. On that last one, we’re backed up by independent analysis.

    On the issue of Bush budget deficits — is there a point to this? Bush ran up the budget. There’s no argument on that. He didn’t even have the excuse of a massive recession. Whether the amount was 700 billion per year or 500 billion per year, and whether those are in inflation-adjusted dollars or not is not really that important.

    I tend to put more faith in Max than you, but if I really cared, I’m sure I could nit-pick his numbers.

  44. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    GROG: “Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah”

    Show us your math, GROG.

    I pointed out already that you started with the wrong year. You have not proven that assertion wrong. Even Dr. Bloch’s site showed you the WRONG.

    Look at the TreasuryDirect site that HE cites.

    Look at the Debt at the end of Clinton’s term. Look at the Debt at the end of Bush’s term. (Make SURE you use an eight year spread, not seven as you did earlier.) Subtract the first from the last. Divide by eight. Do it in your next comment. Show us what you get.

    Here, I’ll help you:

    09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
    09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75 * Last year of Bush budgets – 8
    09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49 * 7
    09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48 * 6
    09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23 * 5
    09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50 * 4
    09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32 * 3
    09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62 * 2
    09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16 * 1
    09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 * Last year of Clinton budgets – 0
    09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

    11,909,829,003,511.75 – 5,807,463,412,200.06 = 6,102,365,591,311.69 / 8 = 762,795,698,913.96. Now THAT is pretty damned close to $763 Billion!!!!

    Up to you to prove these numbers WRONG.

    Or, you can continue to be an ass. You decide.

  45. GROG says:

    I’ll just let PolitiFact prove you wrong the same way they proved Dick Durbin wrong:

    “At the end of calendar year 2000, just before Bush took office, the debt stood at $5.629 trillion.

    Fast-forward eight years — that is, just before Bush handed the reins to Barack Obama — and the federal debt stood at $9.986 trillion.

    We considered the possibility that Durbin’s office was ascribing the extra $2 trillion to policies begun under Bush that played out after Obama took office. But that didn’t seem right to us. While it’s true that the Congressional Budget Office did predict on Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before Obama took office — that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 would reach $1.2 trillion, that was a projection. The legislation that led to the actual deficits for 2009 was based on a blueprint inherited from Bush, but it was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by Obama himself.

    In addition, Durbin’s comment clearly talks about numbers at “the end of” Bush’s administration, not at a point in Obama’s first year. Finally, Durbin’s staff did not seek to raise this argument with us.

    For those keeping track, the debt estimate for the end of 2010 — two years into Obama’s term — is $13.787 trillion. That’s a 38 percent increase over two years. Looked at another way, the debt under Bush went up $4.357 trillion over eight years, while it has gone up under Obama by $3.801 trillion in two years.”

    It’s OK to admit you’re wrong Max. You might begin to earn back any credibility you once had.

  46. Max aka Birdpilot says:


    OK You counter facts and arithmetic with an article. Lets look deeper.

    The PolitiFact article use OMB numbers. So, I’ll spot you that one. Let’s use their numbers.

    By Table 7.1 from OMB site “”:

    (in millions)
    2000 5,628,700
    2001 5,769,881 * Last year of Clinton’s budgets, note I’m giving that for consistency – 0
    2002 6,198,401 * – 1
    2003 6,760,014 * – 2
    2004 7,354,657 * – 3
    2005 7,905,300 * – 4
    2006 8,451,350 * – 5
    2007 8,950,744 * – 6
    2008 9,986,082 * – 7
    2009 11,875,851 * – last year of Bush’s budgets – 8
    2010 estimate 13,786,615

    11,876,851,000,000 – 5,769,881,000,000 = 6,106,970,000,000 / 8 = 763,371,250,000
    (remember, this is from YOUR source, OMB, the PolitiFact article cites)

    Well, I’ll be damned!!!!!! $763 BILLION.


    Sorry, GROG, old son. Looks like YOU just screwed YOURSELF!!!

    Maybe you got something else??? Other than a whine, I mean.

  47. GROG says:

    Just in case you missed anything up there Max:

    $9.986-$5.629 = $4.357/8 = $544 billion

    PolitiFacts ruled Durbin’s claim (which is the same as your claim) as False and Durbin was man enough to admit it. Why aren’t you?

  48. Number Seven says:

    I’ve got a use for her mouth 😉

    It’s that whole naughty librarian look, lol

  49. GROG says:


    Are you noticing how no one is coming to your defense?

  50. Max aka Birdpilot says:


    Wait a minute.

    It was YOU who said we had to start counting the first fiscal AFTER the inaugural. Be consistent:

    “Bush’s first budget was 2002 (the number I USED!) and the deficit was 1.48% of GDP” – Jan. 22, 19:24 – GROG

    When you use the number of $5.629T from FY2000, THAT number was for a FY that BEGAN in October 1999 and ended on 30 Sept. 2000, before BUSH even won the election!!!

    Come ON, GROG!

    How many times are you going to make me rub your nose in your errors? Stop embarrassing yourself!

  51. shiloh says:

    grog, unlike yourself, Max doesn’t need any help burying you!

    May grog RIP!

  52. GROG says:

    OK Max. EVERYONE including PolitiFacts is wrong and YOU are right.

    Oh wait, not EVERYONE. You’ve got Shiloh on your side! I bet that makes you feel better!

    Let me know when you find anyone else other than yourself who thinks Bush’s average deficit was $763 billion.

  53. shiloh says:

    grog ~ You’ve got Shiloh on your side!

    Again grog, thanx for another shout out 😀 but repeating Max doesn’t need any help burying you! ie what side I’m on being totally irrelevant.

    take care, blessings

  54. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Since you don’t even honor YOUR OWN STATEMENTS:

    GROG says:
    January 22, 2011 at 16:56
    “If it wasn’t easy enough for you to just add 8 years worth of budget deficits and divide by 8 to get an average, I’ll try this for you.

    Fed Debt Fed Debt Adjusted for inflation
    Bush 2002 $6198 $6,923
    Bush 2009 $10,413 $8,218″

    GROG says:
    January 22, 2011 at 17:51
    “Republicans increased spending 35% in double that amount of time from ’02 …”

    GROG says:
    January 23, 2011 at 10:36

    (Where you cite Dr. Bloch’s article. Max)
    Go to the second graph of this link.
    “Since 2008-2009 was such an unusual year, I’ve included two rows for President G.W.Bush. The upper row is consistent with the treatment of all the other Presidents, effectively running from October of his first year in office through September after he left office
    (That’d be 9/2002. Max). The lower GWB row is based on only his first 7 years in office, ending in September 2008

    Poor GROG. You are soooo inconsistent. I may well contact PolitiFact for publishing what I believe to be an error. But you, failing on the Bloch article, failing on the TreasuryDirect numbers, failing to be consistent on YOUR own statements, you are just sad. You are ideologically blind. You cannot admit your mistake vs your own past assertions.

    So I’ll no longer waste my time or the Blog’ s bandwidth just to continue rubbing your nose in your own excrement.

    en garde!

  55. mclever says:

    I wise person once said that two sides will never agree if each insists on his own version of the facts.

  56. shiloh says:

    David Frum mentioned mama grizzly has raised 1.3 million PAC $$$ …

    and yet

    and yet

    and yet

    no new hires to her teabagger entourage.

    ie she’s probably not running, except to the bank!

    (((All Hat, No Cattle!))) much like Giuliani …

    Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way! ~ Thomas Paine

  57. Mainer says:

    And Michelle Bachmann raised some 13+ million and finished this years camgaign with 2 million on hand and has since raised more. All this pointing out that there is no direct relationship between IQ and ability to raise money.

  58. shiloh says:

    It is interesting after Jimmy I have sinned against you my lord Swaggart and Jim/Tammy Bakker had their plethora of religious scandals lol their flock of evangelical lemming sheep were still sending them $$$.

    Praise the lord and pass the collection basket! as forgiveness is a virtue, eh. But money rules the roost!


    The God I believe in isn’t short on cash Mister! ~ U2

  59. Mainer says:

    Odd that forgiveness doesn’t seem to extend to progressives, or minorities or any one not just like them. I have to get my hands on one of their Bibles it must be much smaller than mine and there fore much easier to tote around.

  60. Bart DePalma says:

    Rocking the house at the Safari Club International annual convention…Palin mentions how some media figures have pledged not cover her at all in February, and says the boycott “sounds good” to her: “because there’s a lot of chaos in Cairo, and I can’t wait to not get blamed for it–at least for a month.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s