‘Helpless and Hopeless Creatures’

“Nobody cares about ‘social issues’ anymore, we have been told. Democrats have become the Pervert Party . . . and Republicans are now the Party That Dare Not Disagree. Morality is no longer a matter of the divine ‘thou shalt not’ that Jehovah declared to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. Nowadays, moral authority is determined by Hollywood, Harvard University and the New York Times. In post-Christian America, we have reverted to a sort of neo-heathenism, depending on guidance from secular wizards and a priestly caste of experts who gaze at poll numbers the way ancient astrologers looked for omens in the stars.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, “The New Abnormal,” The American Spectator, July 31, 2013

Mike Huckabee gave a speech yesterday at the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting that has been treated as scandalously controversial. Chris Moody of Yahoo News provided the full context of Huckabee’s remarks:

“I think it’s time for Republicans to no longer accept listening to Democrats talk about a war on women. Because the fact is, the Republicans don’t have a war on women. They have a war for women. For them to be empowered; to be something other than victims of their gender.
“Women I know are outraged that Democrats think that women are nothing more than helpless and hopeless creatures whose only goal in life is to have a government provide for them birth control medication.
“Women I know are smart, educated, intelligent, capable of doing anything anyone else can do. Our party stands for the recognition of the equality of women and the capacity of women. That’s not a war on women, it’s a war for them. And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government, then so be it — let’s take that discussion all across America, because women are far more than Democrats have made them to be. And women across America have to stand up and say, enough of that nonsense.”

Huckabee’s use of the word “libido” — a quaintly Freudian term for “sex drive” — was the specific button-pusher here, but let’s face reality: No one can say anything about women that deviates from Official Feminist Dogma without committing Thought Crime and, because Democrats control the terms of what is accepted as Official Feminist Dogma, the Thought Police are always more vigilant in scrutinizing Republicans for deviations from the script. Allahpundit:

Does it really matter what he said? The liberal thought process on this works this way, I think: “Known social conservative + something about women + something about sex and birth control = outrage.” Right? It’s basically Pavlovian.

Allah links Ace’s rant against social conservatives:

The elevation of strictly personal decisions . . . into a major political issue is childish and tribalist.
Yes we all have a preferred mode of living. News at 11. The law is not about preferred modes of living, and neither should we make “political issues” about it.

The problem, of course, is that it was feminists and their Democrat allies who decided that “the personal is political,” so that radical messages about How We Should Live are the constant theme of propaganda from the news media, Hollywood and academia.

Children are being indoctrinated in public schools, at taxpayer expense, about How We Should Live. If you are a parent who doesn’t want your daughters living the Disney Starlet Lifestyle — or if you don’t want your sons performing in “bareback orgy” videos — who is on your side?

Well, certainly not the Republican Party, I guess, because if any Republican so much as mentions the Culture War nowadays, he or she will be denounced not only by the Left, but also by conservative pundits who insist that the GOP must cede the field to Democrats on social issues and never say a word about how The Pervert Party benefits from America’s descent into decadence.

This position of pre-emptive surrender in the Culture War seems to have begun in 1992, when the GOP ran for cover rather than to defend Dan Quayle’s critique of “Murphy Brown.” It seems to have escaped the notice of most Republicans when, a year after that controversy, Dr. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead declared in the pages of The Atlantic Monthly, “Dan Quayle Was Right.”

Whitehead developed that article into a fascinating book, The Divorce Culture, but apparently I’m the only conservative blogger who read that book, because I never see Ace or Allah or anyone else acknowledge Whitehead’s critique of the “Love Family” ideology which “liberates sexual, compassionate, and parental love from its institutional and cultural moorings in marriage.” For that matter, have you ever seen any conservative blogger mention Carolyn Graglia’s Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism or Dana Mack’s The Assault on Parenthood?

My point is that social conservatism is more intellectually respectable than most people imagine, but for 20 years, those who are serious about fighting the Culture War have been shunted aside and told to be quiet, lest they cause Republicans to lose elections.

Oddly, however, the GOP’s active suppression of social conservatism has not translated to Republican electoral dominance. The nomination of John McCain — whose profound contempt for social conservatives is no secret — did not produce a GOP triumph, nor was the Massachusetts moderate Mitt Romney able to dodge the remarkably counterfactual Democrat propaganda that painted him as an extremist Trojan Horse, an agent of the Republican Taliban.

The fundamental problem here is probably too large to be reduced to a blog post, and I’m not in a mood to tackle the whole problem today, but let’s say this: Systemic incentives encourage conservative writers to devote themselves to the day-to-day political headlines, and to identify as “important” only those issues which directly and immediately affect the Republican Party.

Meanwhile, liberals — who comprise 80%-90% of journalists and academics — are writing about Everything Else, including sexuality, marriage and parenthood. So it is that, outside of whatever issues bear directly on the daily R-vs.-D political battle, nearly everything you read is written by liberals. This explains how the cultural “mainstream” is dragged steadily leftward, and most people don’t even notice the shift until Phil Robertson creates a firestorm by quoting the Bible, or one day you click an Internet link and find people arguing that high-school boys getting bareback butt-humped in porn videos is no cause for concern.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that, says Glenn Beck.

Almost unnoticed, a posture of enlightened non-judgmentalism has become compulsory, because liberal dominance of the intelligentsia means that nearly every articulate person has been indoctrinated in the Egalitarian Orthodoxy, and no critic of the Left’s social agenda has access to a vocabulary of rational dissent.

One afternoon last August, I found myself amid a crowd of feminists marching down the street and chanting about rape, and I was denounced as a misogynist for noticing that several of the marchers were displaying their bare breasts during this political parade.

“Nice tits” is now hate speech, even if the aforesaid tits are brandished naked in broad daylight in downtown D.C. By the same token, a Republican may not suggest a connection between “libido” and the demand for taxpayer-funded contraception.

What we are witnessing is the abolition of common sense and its replacement by a political ideology. Common sense tells us that it is unusual — indeed, the word abnormal is appropriate — for women to parade bare-breasted through the streets. Common sense likewise tells us that the Contraceptive Culture is directly related to the prevalence of licentiousness and promiscuity in society.

Has it been only 10 years since Lawrence v. Texas? Has it been only 15 years since Nina Burleigh said she would cheerfully give Bill Clinton a blow job to thank him for keeping abortion legal?

Am I the only one who has noticed how rapidly the “Emerging Awareness” doctrine has gained a death-grip on our culture?

Huckabee’s use of the word “libido” caught my attention for reasons entirely different than the reasons that made him the object of a leftist Two-Minute Hate. Huckabee is 58 years old. He graduated from Ouchita State University in the mid-1970s, and is therefore old enough to remember when Freudian ideas about “libido” were entirely respectable. Nowadays, Freud’s categories are mocked as obsolete, and neurobiology is made to explain what was once attributed to “Oedipal complexes,” repressed impulses and so forth. Whatever way you are, we’re now told, you were Born That Way, and never mind if this biological determinism is vaguely redolent of Nazi race doctrine.

This is Science with a capital “s,” and Progress with a capital “p,” and no enlightened person is ever supposed to question whether today’s ideas of Scientific Progress are really any more valid than the discarded ideas of yesterday’s Scientific Progress.

Lost somewhere in all this is the old-fashioned understanding that humans are creatures of habit, and that if one gets into the habit of indulging certain unruly appetites, those habits may become the shackles of lifelong slavery, impairing the individual’s capacity for happiness, and inflicting various forms of misery on society at large.

Where did Kathryn Camille Murray get the idea that having sex with a 15-year-old boy was a pleasant and harmless amusement?

Perhaps the answer is to be found somewhere among the penumbras and emanations where Justice Douglas found a “right to privacy” in Griswold v. Connecticut, a few decades before Justice Kennedy invoked the hitherto unknown doctrine of “emerging awareness” in striking down the Texas sodomy statute. And who knows whither the emerging awareness shall henceforth emerge?

 

 


We Are Once Again Reminded Why You Can’t Spell ‘Huckabee’ Without an ‘F’

Going back to 2007, at least, I’ve borne a grudge against Mike Huckabee. When the “Fredhead” phenomenon collapsed — when Fred Thompson proved to be a far weaker presidential candidate than we had hoped — the question became, “Who can stop John McCain?”

No conservative wanted McCain to get the nomination, but Republicans were horribly confused and divided in their search for an alternative.

Some people wanted Rudy Giuliani, but anyone with a lick of common sense could see that Rudy’s pro-choice position made him unacceptable: You can’t beat a “Maverick” with a liberal warhawk, OK? Mitt Romney thus became the consensus alternative — except for the Hucktards, who ruined everything and made possible McCain’s nomination.

Ann Coulter summed up the problem: Mike Huckabee is a pro-life Democrat. Whatever his merits as a Baptist preacher, or even a Fox News host, Huckabee is a wretched excuse for a Republican politician.

His presidential campaign organization included some of the least competent staffers ever employed in American politics. Ask anyone who worked on GOP campaigns in the 2010 cycle: Huck’s endorsement was quite nearly worthless, and the involvement of former Huckabee staffers was usually an omen of impending doom.

Are we in the least bit surprised to see the shadow of this familiar Arkansas albatross circling a certain doomstruck Missouri Republican?

Mike Huckabee: I’m All-In For
This Great Candidate Akin, and
If You’re Not, You’re a RINO

Dear God, why have you done this to us? What dreaded sin has America committed that you would have inflicted this damned fool on us? Why now, at such a crucial moment in our history? I’m driving to Tampa tomorrow. We’ll let Deroy Murdock have the last word for now:

Does Akin want to be the man whom history will recall as guaranteeing McCaskill’s reelection, possibly keeping the U.S. Senate in the hands of hardened liberal Democrat, Harry Reid?
Does Akin hope to be known in perpetuity as the cause of Barack Obama’s reelection, notwithstanding the multifarious merits of the Romney-Ryan ticket?

UPDATE: Allahpundit:

Now here comes the “social conservatives vs. RINO moderates” pitch. From the man who endorsed David Dewhurst in Texas.

See what I mean? Huckabee has an uncanny instinct for backing losers. It’s not a matter of ideology or grassroots, it’s just bad political judgment, and I share Allahpundit’s sense of exasperation:

Why are heavy hitters like [Tony Perkins] and Huckabee ready to fight and die on Magic Uterus Hill when there’s overwhelming bipartisan disgust at Akin for what he said?

My answer: Because we have been cursed by God, that’s why. The Almighty has determined to destroy America, Todd Akin is the weapon by which he means to accomplish this destruction, and Perkins and Huckabee are just following the Divine Command.

Is ‘Morally Repugnant Political Whores’ an Acceptable Synonym for ‘Democrats’?

Apparently, Mike Huckabee doesn’t think so, because he’s asking Citizens United to pull a fundraising letter he “wrote” that used that phrase to describe Obama’s advisers.

Our First Gay President Who Ate a Dog is the target of a $25 million TV advertising campaign by a conservative super-PAC:

Isn’t it weird how that ad completely ignores all the wonderful economic progress Obama has made? All the jobs he “saved or created” through the most reckless deficit-spending spree in history?

Memo From the National Affairs Desk: How’s the Weather Today in Vanuatu?

“Santorum is a social conservative, and everybody seems to have convinced themselves that social conservatives are a dead weight impeding the Republican Party and therefore no one should ever express support for any social conservative anywhere, under any circumstance.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, “Slouching Toward Cedar Rapids”

“How long, O Lord, how long? Where will it end?
“All I ever wanted out of this campaign was enough money to get out of the country and live for a year or two in peaceful squalor in a house with a big screen porch looking down on an empty white beach, with a good rich coral reef a few hundred yards out in the surf and no neighbors. . . .
“What worries me now . . . is the strong possibility that my involvement in politics has become so deep and twisted that I can no longer think rationally about that big screen porch above the beach except in terms of an appointment as Governor of American Samoa.”

– Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ’72

Among the Christmas gifts I received from Mrs. Other McCain today: New luggage, thermal underwear and a wool overcoat — appropriate and much appreciated by a guy who’s about to head out on the campaign trail to Iowa and New Hampshire.

This trip wouldn’t be possible without the generous support of readers who have contributed to the Shoe Leather Fund, and there are more tip-jar hitters to thank on my last night at home before I fly the friendly skies to Cedar Rapids: Ronald in Charlottesville, Joe in Olympia, John in West Hartford, Victor in Virginia, Lamon in Missouri, Stephen in Alabama, Philip in Englewood, Dewayne in Evansville, Mike in New Hampshire, Barry in Florissant, William in Dallas, and Scott in Ontario.

Before I pack up the laptop and hit the Hawkeye State, however, there are a couple of things that probably need explaining, which might have been mysteriously puzzling even to longtime readers. Continue reading Memo From the National Affairs Desk: How’s the Weather Today in Vanuatu? →

HUCKABEE WON’T RUN IN 2012

BREAKING . . .

UPDATE: Whew! That was scary! Allahpundit had an open thread at Hot Air. If you watched it live on Fox, you know how Huck started talking about polls and his supporters and how he was praying and — for a minute there, I admit it — I was feelin’ the doom. And then he said, “no,” and I was like, “YES!”

Because you know who this helps the most, don’t ya?

UPDATE II: Linked by Fire Andrea Mitchell, who wonders about that weird post-announcement appearance on Fox by Donald Trump.

UPDATE III: Video via Tommy Christopher at Mediaite:

UPDATE IV: Via Drudge, the story at Fox News:

Mike Huckabee said Saturday there would be no sequel to his surprisingly strong 2008 White House bid, in which he won the Iowa Republican caucus and finished second in the primaries to Sen. John McCain.
“All the factors say go, but my heart says no,” Huckabee, who was considered the GOP frontrunner in several national polls, said on his Fox News Channel show.

UPDATE V: Washington Post:

Huckabee noted that while all of the “external” factors pointed toward him running, he only found an “inexplicable inner peace” when he decided not to enter the race.

Linked by Don Surber — thanks! — and I owe a hat-tip to RightKlik for his Twitter tip about the Nate Silver 538 chart showing that Herman Cain stands to benefit most from Huckabee’s 2012 no-go.

Let’s face it: Cain has gone from “second-tier” to “damn near front-runner” in the span of two weeks.

UPDATE VI: Linked by Marfdrat — thanks — and now a Memeorandum thread.

UPDATE VII: Erick Erickson at Red State looks at the “cui bono?” question:

Tim Pawlenty. He becomes the evangelical governor in the race.
Herman Cain. He remains the Huckabee of 2012.
Sarah Palin. She and Huckabee would largely be fighting for the same crowd.

Well, if Palin wants in for 2012, now would be the time to do it. I dislike the “Huckabee of 2012” label for Cain, whatever that is supposed to mean. And as for Tim Pawlenzzzzzzzz . . .

Sorry, nodded off there for second.

UPDATE VIII: “Now that he’s officially not a candidate, maybe I’ll start watching his show.”

UPDATE IX: Steve Foley at Citizens for Cain:

It couldn’t have been easy for former governor Mike Huckabee to reach the decision not to run for president of the United States of America in 2012, seeing your beloved county heading down the wrong path naturally forces men of character to act, and we here at Citizens 4 Cain salute the Governor for his courageous decision and wish him all the best in every future endeavor. . . . Although supporters will be a bit disappointed in Huck’s decision and may need some time to process – Citizens 4 Cain would like to cordially extend an invitation to any and all Mike Huckabee supporters to join our Grassroots Army for Herman Cain here at Citizens 4 Cain.

Katrina Trinko at National Review has official statements from Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump.


Let’s Laugh Now: Palin Edges Huckabee Among Mississippi Segregationists?

While checking Memeorandum to keep track of the latest government shutdown developments Friday, I saw this headline at the liberal Talking Points Memo blog:

Nearly Half Of Mississippi Republicans
Think Interracial Marriage Should Be Illegal

Hmmmmm. So I went over to check the results at Public Policy Polling and found that, in a poll of “400 usual Mississippi Republican primary voters” — ostensibly intended to measure support for Gov. Haley Barbour’s GOP presidential bid, and Republican preferences for Barbour’s successor — liberal pollster Tom Jensen made this the 14th question in the survey:

Do you think interracial marriage should be legal or illegal?

Of course, no such legislative proposal is pending in Mississippi, but 46% of respondents answered, “illegal.” Frankly, I’d gone to the PPP site hoping to find out what percentage of Mississippi Democrats share that opinion, but Jensen has never asked Democrats any such question.

So we are left to laugh at the cross-tabs by which Jensen correlates (a) opposition to interracial marriage with (b) favorability of GOP 2012 contenders:

Haley Barbour . . . 79%
Sarah Palin . . . . . 74%
Mike Huckabee . . . 73%
Newt Gingrich . . . 56%
Mitt Romney . . . . 44%

Clearly, Romney’s got to do something to shore up his support among segregationists, or this could spell serious trouble for him in the crucial Mississippi presidential primary.

Huckabee: ‘Hey, Maybe I Shouldn’t Have Trash-Talked Luke Skywalker’s Mom’

We’ve finally found a Republican dumber than Dan Quayle:

Mike Huckabee walked back his criticisms of actress Natalie Portman for “glamorizing” out-of-wedlock pregnancies Friday, with a statement insisting he was only talking about society and that he’s glad the Oscar winner plans to wed her baby’s father. . . .
“I was asked about Oscar-winner Natalie Portman’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy,” he added. “Natalie is an extraordinary actor, very deserving of her recent Oscar and I am glad she will marry her baby’s father.
“However, contrary to what the Hollywood media reported, I did not ‘slam’ or ‘attack’ Natalie Portman, nor did I criticize the hardworking single mothers in our country,” he said.

History rather vindicated Quayle’s famous criticism of Murphy Brown (see “Dan Quayle Was Right,” by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead) but here’s the difference between that incident and this: Murphy Brown was a fictional TV series. The unwed preganancy of Candace Bergen’s character was one of those “push-the-envelope” stunts of the sort made famous by Norman Lear (“All in the Family,” “Maude,” “The Jeffersons,” etc.). Whereas, by contrast, Natalie Portman is a real person whose unwed pregnancy is not intentionally controversial.

We have no reason to believe that Natalie Portman became pregnant with any intention of “making a statement” or “pushing the envelope.” If Huckabee, the former Baptist minister, wishes to condemn fornication and bastardy, or to talk about the societal impact of our nation’s epidemic of fatherlessness, OK. But why drag the Star Wars star into this argument? Portman was already catching grief from the feminist ax-grinders for having declared motherhood “the most important role of my life.”

Good rule of thumb in politics: Find out what side of the issue feminists are on, and get on the other side. (If feminists ever bothered to denounce Islam’s brutal oppression of women, I might have to consider joining the Taliban. But feminists are too busy whining about “pay equity” to notice that Muslims are still stoning women to death under sharia law and forcing girls into arranged marriages.)

If Huckabee wanted to weigh in on Hollywood decadence, he could have swung his stick at the Charlie Sheen pinata and no one would have complained. As it is, I suspect Huck was trying to aim a carom shot at a certain Republican woman whose daughter is a single mom.

This his shot ricocheted badly and hit Huckabee between the eyes is one of those  results that makes you think God’s got a wicked sense of irony.

And yet another reminder, as if we needed reminding, that you can’t spell “Huckabee” without an “F.”

Palin, Newt, Huck and Cain, Oh My!

Rounding up some 2012 news: Both Doug Brady at Conservatives for Palin and Josh Painter at Texas for Palin liked my reaction to “worthless two-faced backstabbing crapweasel” Frank Bailey.

What Bailey has done — trying to cash in with a “tell all” book damaging to his former employer — is a breach of a fundamental principle, best expressed by Elbert Hubbard: “If put to the pinch, an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness.”

Think about it: The only thing that makes Bailey’s ax-grinding manuscript newsworthy is the fact that he once worked for Sarah Palin. So what he is selling (or attempting to sell) is the access he gained because of the services for which she paid him, and the trust she placed in him. She actually gave Bailey the password to her e-mail account! And this is how she is repaid? Ed Morrissey nails it:

Maybe someone should work on the title.  “Blind Allegiance”?  His allegiance seems to have been pretty conditional on getting favorable positions in the Palin administration, and when he didn’t get them, the allegiance apparently turned into dislike rather easily.

Of course, anti-Palin trolls (are these people paid to do this?) quickly infested the comments of my post about Bailey, citing this, that and the other thing “revealed” by disclosure of confidential communications.

Question: Why are we always getting these “insider” smears of Sarah Palin but yet we never see any leaked internal e-mails from Team Obama?

Answer: Because Democratic operatives actually believe in their cause, whereas too many GOP operatives are just in it for themselves.

Bailey seems to imagine imagine himself as doing God’s work in backstabbing his former employer. You may search Scripture to your heart’s content and I guarantee you will never find praise for selfish and disloyal servants.

Nor, for that matter, will you find any scriptural blessing for serial adulterers:

Newt Gingrich’s speech at the University of Pennsylvania Tuesday night quickly took a turn for the dramatic when the first student to question him brought up his admitted extra-marital affair and accused him of being “hypocritical” for espousing moral values.
“You adamantly oppose gay rights… but you’ve also been married three times and admitted to having an affair with your current wife while you were still married to your second,” Isabel Friedman, president of the Penn Democrats, said to Gingrich. “As a successful politician who’s considering running for president, who would set the bar for moral conduct and be the voice of the American people, how do you reconcile this hypocritical interpretation of the religious values that you so vigorously defend?” . . .
Gingrich has admitted that he had an affair with a staffer, now his third wife, in the 1990s — the same time he was advocating for the impeachment of Bill Clinton in the wake of the former president’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky. A damning Esquire profile last year shed light on that affair, as well as one he had with his second wife while still married to his first. While the source of Gingrich’s heckling Tuesday night was a Democrat, it nevertheless underscored the trouble many Republicans expect him to face with skeptical religious conservatives in Iowa if he ultimately decides to run for president.

Well, they’re not going to let him forget that, are they?

It has been said that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, but that doesn’t work too well as a campaign slogan. Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery, but forgiveness isn’t the same thing as a presidential endorsement.

Republicans almost universally acknowledge Gingrich as one of the great political thinkers in the party and admire his ability to articulate the conservative message. But a Gingrich presidential campaign involves little problems of a strictly biographical nature like that, to say nothing of his Dede Scozzafava problem.

Meanwhile, it looks like our friend Lisa Graas is on the Huckabee bandwagon for 2012, with a combination book review and interview:

In the book, Huckabee offers the pro-life view very eloquently, however he did not explain what legislation he would support on the issue of abortion, so when I spoke to him, I had to ask him about that. I decided that the best way to determine what his position is would be to ask him which sitting Supreme Court Justice he likes the most. He responded, without any hesitation whatsoever, “Scalia.”

You should go read the whole thing, because I like Lisa, even if I don’t like Huck. But you all know who I do like, and our friend Matthew Newman at Old Line Elephant has an interview with Herman Cain:

NEWMAN: Do you believe that never holding elected office will be a hindrance to your campaign?
CAIN: Many reporters and members of the elite political class would like you to believe that attending an Ivy League school or having a lifelong political career is essential to succeeding in public policy and public service. Such a perspective indicates how out of touch they are with the American people. Most Americans cannot identify with lifetime politicians. They can identify with someone who has run several businesses, raised a family, survived cancer and achieved his American Dream.
And besides, all of the people in Washington, D.C. have political experience. How’s that working out, for you?

Go read the rest of that. You’ll also want to read Cain’s column in Investor’s Business Daily:

Being in a leadership position without leading is called position-ship.
And when you truly lead, you will be criticized because working on the right problems, setting the right priorities, surrounding yourself with the right people and developing the right plans will not make everybody happy.

This column was called to my attention by a Cain supporter who pointed out that Sarah Palin promoted it on her Facebook page and her Twitter feed. That prompted me to do some thinking out loud at The American Spectator:

Was the former Alaska governor signaling that she might not run in 2012? Or, perhaps, was her promotion of Cain’s column — praising Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s leadership — a backhand dig at Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who punted in his own showdown with Democrats and unions?

Reading the tea leaves is a favorite game of pundits, and I don’t usually bother with guesswork and predictions. Best to stick with what you actually know, and what I know is that Palin did everything in 2010 that a presidential contender would do in preparation for a 2012 campaign. So she has put herself in position to run, but the decision to run or not . . . wow, that’s tough.

If Palin runs in 2012 and loses, all the naysayers will say, “See? We told you so.” And then she would be finished, unless she’s able to stage one of those long comebacks like Richard Nixon did after losing to JFK in ’60 and getting beat for California governor in ’62. On the other hand, if Palin were to decide against running, the naysayers will say, “Chicken!” So she’s damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t.

And so we are left to ponder this one little tea leaf — Palin pushing Cain’s column — asking, “Does it mean anything?”

Maybe she just saw the column, agreed with it, and wanted to share it, without consideration of Cain’s status as a potential 2012 rival. And it’s no sweat off her nose: She’s the Big Name no one can miss, whereas for many voters, he’s still “Herman Who?”

On the other hand . . . Well, I’m sure you can see what might be on the other hand.