By The Right Scoop


Levin says it would be better if some of these ‘conservatives’ on Fox News who reject Sarah Palin would just come out and say it instead of telling us over and over she can’t win. He specifically calls out Brit Hume, Charles Krauthammer, and Bill O’Reilly and says it’s remarkable that they know who can win and who can’t. He goes on:

It’s just remarkable to me. What sages! I mean, they know right now who can win and who can’t! So all we should do is take a poll of the people who on these programs and they’ll tell us who should run and who shouldn’t! The hell with the process, the hell with the debates!

Levin also added this sobering statement to make his point:

Let me put it to you this way. If we can’t win the Presidency with a conservative today, meaning this time around, we’re doomed anyway.

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • http://doorwaybuck.com CM Sackett

    They are going to have to get medical attention, at this rate…

    The little bulldog “Great One” is biting their #ss, as the Mamma GRIZ scares the Pringles out of ‘em. :)

  • Dead Fish Go With The Flow

    Mark is the best. Hey party machine…The drain plug has been loosened and is slowly rattling counterclockwise.

    • stevenbiot

      Mark is unmatched in talk radio. That guy makes liberals look so idiotic that my four year old will say, “Daddy, why would you want to be a liberal?” I tell her, “because you don’t have to work and you get everything for free.”

  • han_solo

    This is the EXACT same thing they do to Ron Paul even though be is in the top 2 or top 3 in every poll and even has better numbers head to head polling against Obama than any other republican they still say ‘he can’t win’.

    Rememer when you hear someone say this about Ron Paul it’s just as bad as when they do it Palin.

    Its the same thing in both cases, zero facts and just a convenient new way for pundits to say ‘I don’t like that candidate’.

    The media know they have power and know if they repeat this often enough on tv the masses will believe it’s true. Will we ever get tired of the media picking our candidates?

    • rjcylon

      In Paul’s case, I think he can’t win. I don’t think it’s the same thing between him and Palin. She has a bigger name and more support among likely voters.

      If you said the GOP primary was between Palin and Paul, Palin would win.

      It’s just not the same thing when comparing Palin to Obama. And I don’t dislike Paul.

    • stevenbiot

      I agree totally, even though Ron Paul is extremely unlikely to win. Since when do we let media, who have obviously turned off the majority of people, according to ratings, dictate who our candidates will be? It is extremely weak that voters believe in a specific candidate, but say to themselves that their candidate can’t win because of media hype, and then fall into a trap and pick the popular media acceptable candidate. Weaklings!!! These are the same people who buy a Prius because the media tell them to. We don’t want you cowards choosing anyway; you vote on popularity, not substance. Stay home instead of voting. Global warming will nuke you on the way to the polls, anyway.

  • ElvisWasAHero2Most

    T#RD ALERT…

    …trash taken out.
    CM Sackett

    • voted against carter

      HELLO CONCERN TROLL.

      LOL!!!! The gift that KEEPS on giving.

      CONCERN TROLL:
an an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with “concerns”. The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you’re an ally. – Urban Dictionary

      See you around the web

      Silly libratard

  • DavesRight

    FOX can join the rest of the losers in the LSM corner – our loyalty is to Sarah, not Ailes. Wanna p1ss us off? Turn on SP and see how quick your ratings take a nosedive.

    • Rich

      Was Fox not killing their competition before 2008? In other words, were millions of people not watching Fox before they ever heard the name of Sarah Palin?

      • DavesRight

        Yes, they were. But how many of those millions do you suppose are ardent SP supporters? There are enough of us to tank their ratings if they keep on. The American people are tired of being told what and how to think. FOX risks a backlash of epic proportions in choosing this path. No one stays on top by pissing off their audience.

  • voted against carter

    Sarah Palin is the MOST FEARED conservative out there as far as the left is concerned.

    JUST LOOK at how much the LIBRATARDS are going out of there way to trash her.

    IF she was NOT a THREAT would They be saying anything??????

    They KNOW Sarah Palin IS electable,…

    AND IF she runs against barry in 2012,…

    She WILL CRUSH him with indisputable numbers.

    Rush is RIGHT about the establishment Republicans ALSO FEARING SARAH

    All the “serious” (sarc) pundits feel this way too. WHY else  would they go OUT of their way to trash her.

    THEY ARE TERRIFIED OF SARAH.

     they are all peeing in their pants at the thought of her running.

    Remember,.. the MORE they say how easy she will be to beat or how stupid she is etc,.. 

     one word.

    TERRIFIED.

    • Surly Curmudgen

      Sarah already has in effect won the primary and the general. The rest of the field all know they are seeking the second hat.

      Personally I like Alan West for VP. He comes across as being capable of kicking ass and taking names much like Dick Cheney. Cain would do very well as secretary of defence. Romney would make a fine post master in Point Barrow Alaska.

  • voted against carter

    Yea I remember that on Howard Baker. Reagan was dismissed COMPLETELY.

    A has been actor. RRRIIIGGHHHT. How did that work out?

  • rjcylon

    I know I’m pointing out the obvious, but the reason Palin “Can’t Win” is because the left is afraid of her, and the republicans wish they had a more “refined” candidate (read: life-long politician).

    Those have nothing to do with how many votes she can get in an election. And (obvious part) if for some reason they manage to get Palin to run home with her tail between her legs, the next GOP hopeful will be “unelectable”, until they get to the weakest, most milquetoast candidate. The one you know stands no chance in the contest of personality required to beat Obama. Once they’ve found the perfect wuss, the person who will look slow and simple compared to The One, then they will have found the “electable” GOP candidate.

    • voted against carter

      Right now that is Huntsman or Romney.

      Barry would LOVE to run against either of them.

      So would the lame stream media.

      WHY else do they continually site BOTH as Repub. candidates as candidates barry fears?

      Oh NO,.. please don’t throw me in the briar patch.

  • HopeHeFails

    A wise man once said if you can’t vote for a hot woman for President, then you should vote for Hillary. :)

  • halfmadjesus

    If she chose to run, I could see Sarah Palin winning the Republican nomination despite the fact that establishment Republicans would align against her. There’s enough support among Christians and conservatives to put her over the top, I feel, and her celebrity actually would help her in this case.

    In a national election, I think she’s got problems, and I say this as someone who would happily vote for Palin if she were the nominee. The polls are not favorable towards her on a national level. A lot of people who would not consider themselves strongly aligned to either party – call them Independents, or lukewarm Democrats and Republicans, or a little of both – have made up their minds about Sarah Palin based on the media’s portrayal of her, and it’s not positive.

    That’s not to say this is something Palin couldn’t overcome on the campaign trail. But it is to say that perhaps more than any other candidate, Palin has an uphill battle in changing people’s perceptions of her. I think Levin’s right to defend her, but I also think a lot these guys “criticizing” Palin are simply pointing this out.

    • stevenbiot

      How do you know so much about Independents? Everything I have seen shows Sarah as being favored by independents. If we have someone as unaccomplished as president currently, Sarah has a great chance at securing the presidency. Capitalists and free market individuals don’t care much about what the media and establishment think of our principled contenders; we want a president that knows that the private sector makes policy in this country. Worrying about what the media thinks is pointless. They will never sway towards the right, so accept it and move on and stick to your guns and grow a pair.

      • halfmadjesus

        Well, the Washington Post/ABC poll that said 59% of Americans would never consider voting for Palin comes to mind. As does the April USA Today/Gallup poll that put the number at 65%. There’ve been numerous polls in the past year or so that suggest Palin’s support among Independent voters is shaky at best, and her national favorability numbers are low.

        But I’m sure you’ll say polls don’t matter, they’re all biased against her, etc. And maybe that’s the case, or maybe it’s a case of Palin having to overcome what the media’s done to her over the past 2-1/2 years, like I said. Either way, you and others shouldn’t be so eager to shoot the messenger just because the message is something you don’t want to hear.

        • stevenbiot

          Your answer lies in your own poll posting. Look at your numbers: one says 59% and the other says 65%; there has to be a large standard deviation, no? Accounting for standard deviation, questions asked and the amount of people polled makes those statistics relatively insignificant. Liberals account for most of the polling of Washington Post/ABC polls. If I took a vote at a liberal convention, asking how many people supported a conservative, I would expect a small number of hands to go up. For example, in the 80’s presidential election, every poll had Carter to beat Reagan, yet Reagan won by a landslide. Polls are for people that don’t know how to do research and make their own decisions. They are biased and the questions asked are misleading and partisan. You would expect that mainstream organizations that sway liberal would design their polls in favor of the candidates that support their agenda, just like conservative organizations for their candidate. Polls are, just like any human endeavor, flawed and inconsistent. Sticking to values and not voting the popular candidate into office seems the most beneficial way to vote. If we voted based on popularity, a liberal would always win, because they are the candidates focused on utopian ideas and don’t seem to focus on reality. Who wouldn’t vote for that kind of message? Conservatives seem to maintain that transforming society and living off someone else’s dollar will ruin our society; this message doesn’t inspire votes by a populace dependent on food stamps and envious of the rich. Damn conservatives always raining on the parade!

          • halfmadjesus

            In the case of the two polls I mentioned, the 59% is simply an earlier one. If the numbers are to be at all believed, then it indicates a slip in people’s willingness to vote for Palin in the intervening months.

            Palin’s poll numbers have actually risen among conservatives and republicans recently, which is why I originally stated I feel her chances to win the primary look increasingly good, if she runs.

            Clearly polls are not the only arbiter, some may even be widely inaccurate or biased, and they can always change. The overall point, though, is that they are information that commenatators like O’Reilly go by to form their opinions. The guy refers to polls every night on his broadcast. That someone like O’Reilly simply points out where Sarah Palin’s poll numbers are at does not necessarily make him critical of her. People need to have thicker skin about these things.

            • stevenbiot

              I see your point. Polls are definitely something to gauge questions about candidates on, but I hope people vote for candidates that align with their ideals and morals. I agree that O’Reilly and others are just commenting on new data concerning candidates; that is what they are supposed to do as broadcasters. I think Cain is becoming a valid candidate, but we’ll see. Have a good day.

  • stevenbiot

    Fox news is something I turn on when I work out. If I want real political insight, Mark is the one I take notes on. Palin and Herman Cain would be a killer duo, with Cain president and Sarah as vice president. I could see both of them being extremely hard to coax into compromise, which is a plus.

  • TeaPartyPatriot4ever

    I love mark levin.. He tells the Truth. He’s a real Patriot and a true Constitutional Conservative.. unlike the arrogant self-proclaimed intellectual elitist journalists, commentators, analysts, and pundits, like Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Bill Kristol, Brit Hume, and even Bill O’Rielly, etc., etc.. They were all wrong about Ronald Reagan in 1980, and they are now, today..

    It is their absolute arrogant elitism, that gives them away, as they have absolutely no humility, no respect, and no idea, that they are, what they are, let alone why they are, the way they are..

    Almost as if they were text book examples of moral relativism.- The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines moral relativism as something that one accuses another of, rather than something to which one proudly admits.

    How dare they.!! How dare they even dare to think and state as such, their imperial intellectual elitist current opinion, is the fact and truth of the future, as decided for the People, because they see the People as too stupid to make the right decision, or to correct a bad decision theyu made in the first place..

    Only the people will determine the future, in the future.. and not these self-admired ball of fortune telling pimps.!!!

    • stevenbiot

      They are truly, like you said, political pimps.

  • direnation

    The more they say she cant win the more I support her! Krauthammer said she needs more “schooling”. Obviously he has had so much schooling he cant recognize common sense when he sees it. Rove, Hume, Krauthammer, Frum, Will, Rollins, Morris, Steele and all the rest of the inside the beltway “republicans” can shove it! SHE CAN WIN HELLO! They act like November 2nd 2010 didn’t even happen.

  • Jaynie59

    The thing that really annoys the hell out of me when these pundits talk about Palin running is the notion that she somehow has more to lose if she runs than if she doesn’t. Krauthammer said the other night that he thinks she won’t run because she’ll be worse off if she runs and loses than if she doesn’t run.

    Since when has that scenario ever applied to any presidential candidate? Ever? If Palin is so “far right wing” and so “polarizing” as they think she is, she is exactly the kind of candidate who benefits from a presidential campaign. Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson, Ron Paul. They have no chance of winning but that doesn’t stop them.

    Look at Rudy Guiliani. He ran arguably the worst Presidential primary campaign in modern America history and yet he’s the front runner in some recent polls. Losing didn’t hurt him a bit.

    I think they spout this narrative that she won’t run because they don’t want her to run. Their reasons for why they think she won’t run make no sense.

  • Persephone

    I was really disappointed to hear Brit Hume be so dismissive of Palin…I’ve always been a big fan of Brit.

    It’s almost like FoxNews doesn’t want to see Sarah break out and run, so that they can keep her in their back pocket as a part-time pundit.

    • stevenbiot

      I think Fox is trying to gather an audience that aren’t principled conservative, free market believing patriots. They are trying to be middle-of-the-road, polite intellectuals, instead of realizing that they are great just sticking to their values. But, I guess when you try to appease everyone, you can’t be so “constitutional,” that really turns people off. Weiners!