Geoffrey Dunn takes Oxford historian to school concerning idea that Sarah Palin would "have nomination sewn up by now."

I know that many of you read this ridiculous piece of fantasy written by CNN contributor Timothy Stanley, because I received links to it for about three days running.

I personally chose to ignore it because I actually felt it was simply too batshit crazy to even address.

However my friend Geoffrey Dunn simply could not resist giving this numbskull a good old fashioned dressing down.  And he did such a good job that I thought it deserved to be shared with all of you:

Palin, Mr. Stanley argues, "has always been a classy, well-choreographed performer." Apparently he doesn't recall that Palin's political operatives placed images of bulls-eye targets on Congressional seats during the 2010 election, and then, in the aftermath of the violent assassination attempt on Gabriel Giffords, Palin turned herself into a victim during a morally obscene response to the massacre, claiming that she had been a casualty of "blood libel" by "journalists and pundits." Classy she has not been. 

Mr. Stanley contends that Palin, unlike Santorum, would have never responded "bullshit" to a question posed by a reporter--but when asked about Santorum's vulgar response, Palin strongly defended it, asserting that "he and the other candidates, all of them, they need to do more of this." Palin has chastised Obama for lacking "cajones" and has further asserted that certain reporters for Politico were "impotent and limp." 

I'm not sure whom Mr. Stanley thinks he's fooling. 

As for her match-up with the GOP frontrunner, Mr. Stanley contends that "Palin would have been a far more effective anti-Romney candidate because her strengths accentuated Romney's weaknesses." That Palin is a bigger draw on the hustings goes without saying. So is Lady Gaga. But Romney has ground out an all-but-certain victory in the GOP primary by his steady performances in the debates, strong organizational skills, and a formidable fundraising ability--all of which would have made mincemeat out of Palin. 

The fact of the matter is that while a Palin candidacy certainly would have roused her narrow base--and generated considerable media coverage--she would have stumbled, almost with certainty, through the early primaries, and then faltered like all the rest of the angry mob before Super Tuesday. She possessed none of the grassroots organization required in Iowa (she had only a single operative on the ground); she is despised in New Hampshire (she alienated many GOP operatives during her visit to the Granite State in 2008); and her own protégée in South Carolina, Nikki Haley, came out early for Romney. 

Moreover, Palin's fundraising efforts tanked. A year ago, she had raised the most money of any potential candidates in the GOP field. But in the aftermath of her discordant response to the tragedy in Tucson, contributions to her political action committee, SarahPAC, slowed to a trickle. During the past six months SarahPAC has raised less than half of what it raised during the same time period a year earlier. 

But the real telltale numbers regarding Palin are her negative favorability ratings nationally. Had Stanley understood the political calculus of realpolitik, he'd grasp how facetious his argument really is. Ever since her disastrous Couric interview--her inability to name newspapers that she read was only the beginning of her problems-- Palin's favorability rating has trended precipitously downward. A CBS poll conducted last fall, right before Palin announced her decision not to run, showed that her favorability rating among all voters nationwide had sunk to 21 percent. 

Secured the nomination? That's a joke. Polling even with Barack Obama? Get serious. Anyone who's ever been involved in a real campaign knows those are numbers that cannot be overcome by any candidate.

That is but a mere portion of Dunn's brilliant  dismantling of this lightweight Palin Kool-aid drinkers argument.  To read the rest, and I strongly suggest that you do, please click here.

I am really glad to see Geoffrey back in the business of revealing Sarah Palin lies, and lies told on Palin's behalf. He is, without a doubt, one of the best, and he always makes sure to back up his writing with solid reporting and a truckload of facts.

Something I think a certain Mr. Stanley would do well to emulate.