I've chosen the name "Uncommon Sense" for this, the blog's new feature. Like the "Circus News" feature, "Uncommon Sense" will run when it's warranted, as when "common sense" has run off the road, rolled over and burst into flames.
Now, I've read that Sarah Palin is "cautiously" courting what she calls the "lamestream media," because, "Everyone has just come to the conclusion that being silent while other people talk about you and try to define you hasn’t netted the results that we’d necessarily like,” according to Tim Crawford, a Palin aide, who is quoted in a story written by Politico writer Kenneth P. Vogel.
But saying more isn't going to help Sarah Palin. There is a reason why Republicans told her to "sit down and shut up." With every Tweet, interview and Facebook rant, voters' opinion of Sarah Palin solidifies into something perhaps best described by the Russian "nyet." American voters are "nyet" happy with Sarah Palin.
How unhappy? The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart has written -- as usual, with a lot of uncommon sense -- "Palin vs. Obama: No she can't," which links to some polls that tell of the dire straits Palin is in with respect to electability. Sure, Palin told ABC News that polls change, but she has so thoroughly surrounded herself with a cheap, tawdry, one-trick-too-many, white trash aura that she's got an insurmountable job ahead of her. Voters expect more of a President; they expect the President to be better than they are.
"Common sense" is going to hell in a handbasket, and it's being carried there by Sarah Palin. When Sarah Palin tells ABC's Robin Roberts that running for the presidency is a "prayerful consideration," then you must surely begin to doubt God's omnipotence. Why would He (She? (It?)) need Sarah Palin? Why can't It (Think about it! If God is immortal, then why would God need to reproduce?) effect It's will without her?
Here is an excerpt of Palin's interview with Robin Roberts:
Now, think about it. Do tax cuts create jobs? No. A business creates a new job when the cost of employing another person is less than the additional revenue the new employee will generate. Why? Because that spells p-r-o-f-i-t.
A tax cut may artificially boost a business' profit, or, more likely, reduce a business' losses. But tax cuts don't require innovation, increased productivity, increased sales, superior products or any of the other things businesses have traditionally relied upon to increase their profits. Tax cuts are corporate welfare; they foster government dependency. If Sarah Palin supports Free Markets, why would she want to artificially prop-up marginal businesses that would otherwise fail? In a Free Market, businesses dependent on tax cuts for their survival should fail.
Don't be bamboozled by Sarah Palin. She doesn't know what she's talking about.
P.S: ABC News has an article about the Washington Post/ABC News poll, here. The Atlantic Wire also considers the polls, here.