Sarah Palin applauds newly elected Senator's guts after he suggests doing away with the Senate. Did I mention he is a newly elected Senator?

'Now that's guts! I also admire electricians who want to do away with electricity."

Courtesy of Glacier Gidget's Facebook page:  

This is why we respect this guy... his guts and gumption in expressing what many Americans recognize as a foundational problem resulting in an insolvent, less sovereign nation - and his commitment to taking action. 

I appreciate him taking responsibility "...to blow the whistle on these problems so Americans are aware of them." 

Thank you, Senator Ben Sasse. 

Now your first instinct after reading that Sarah Palin is impressed with somebody, should be "Oh what stupid thing did this Sasse guy do to deserve that?"

And if it was you have good instincts.

Palin's Facebook page then links to an article on the defunct Breitbart news site, and as it turns out THIS is what Ben "Soon to be out of a job" Sasse said during his maiden speech on the floor of the Senate:  

If the Senate isn’t going to be the most important venue for addressing our biggest national problems, where is that venue? Where should the people look for the long-term national prioritization? Or, to ask it of ourselves, would anything be lost if the Senate didn’t exist? Again, this a thought experiment, so let me be emphatically clear: I think a great deal would be lost if the federal government didn’t have a Senate, but game out with me the question of ‘Why?’ What precisely would be lost if we had only a House of Representatives, rather than both bodies? The growth of the administrative state, the fourth branch of government, is increasingly hollowing out the Article I branch, the legislature, and many in Congress have been complicit in this hollowing out of our own powers. So would anything really be lost if we doubled-down on Woodrow Wilson’s impulses and inclinations toward administrative efficiency by removing much of the clunky-ness of legislative process?

Now Ben Sasse is a former university president and has a Master's degree in Philosophy, so you would think he might know better than to introduce a topic as easily misrepresented as this one.

First he expects folks like Sarah Palin to understand what a "thought experiment" is when they really do not understand the concept of "thinking."

Second he is essentially attacking the very institution that he campaigned long and hard to join, which is never a good thing.

And thirdly, WTF is his point really?

Does he really think that the Congress, now overrun with moronic teabaggers, should be allowed to run amok without the checks and balances provided by the Senate?

What am I saying, this is a guy endorsed by Sarah Palin, of course he wants the government to fail.

I don't know what I was I thinking.

By the way Salon has decided that Palin would be a shoo-in as moderator of the GOP debates:   

Sarah Palin – This one seems so obvious I have to think someone has suggested it already. Palin’s proclivity for speaking in word salad that even the most powerful Star Trek universal translator likely couldn’t make sense of is well known. Anything she says would likely be a stream of babble that would trail off into nothing, leaving the candidates free to just opine about whatever talking points they would have spouted even if asked a coherent question.

They have a point.  If you wanted somebody who would not challenge the candidates with facts, or embarrass them by demonstrating a superior intellect, Sarah Palin would be the obvious choice.

God could you just imagine?

Two hours of Sarah Palin asking ignorant questions and the candidates trying to make sense of them, or just giving up and proselytizing to the flock instead? It would the TV equivalent of receiving a colonoscopy from a doctor who just found out you were banging his wife.