From Wednesday night’s Fox News All-Stars.
On Sarah Palin announcing that she will not seek the 2012 GOP nomination, leaving the question of whether she might run as an independent:
I heard my friends parsing every sentence that Paul Ryan said over the last six months to find Jesuitical reasons to explain why he really was going to run if you merely read the text in the correct way.
I don’t think it [Palin’s including the word “GOP”] means anything. I think she’s not running [for anything].
Two days in a row the sun rises in the east – yesterday, Christie; today, Sarah Palin. And I have, actually, new news. I just spoke this afternoon with someone in the Godot camp, and Godot is not going to run for the presidency this year. …
Look, I was fooled by Palin for two weeks when she made the announcement about the Iowa speech on September 3, which looked as if this was going to be something big. But otherwise, except for that two-week delusion, I’ve been saying for a year, year and a half, she isn’t going to run … If she were to run, she is already a celebrity, she’s already a former nominee. If she runs and loses, which she absolutely would have, she would be diminished.
If you come out of nowhere like a Huckabee in ‘08, or a Cain today, and you do well, then you become a player in the Republican Party and national politics for years to come. With her, it would have been the opposite. It made no sense at all. And that’s why I think it’s again the sun rising in the east.
On the implication that Paul Ryan’s decision not to run was preordained and therefore his weeks of considering it were a charade:
I don’t deny that with a Ryan (or with a Daniels) they really went through a process. I don’t think it [i.e., not running] was decided in advance. But if you looked at it objectively … if you’re an outside observer and you thought: If I were him, would it make sense? I think the answer in all cases [Ryan, Daniels, Palin] was no. And therefore you would intuit that if Ryan gave it a good long thought, which he did, he would come to the conclusion that he [eventually] did.
On Eric Holder and the Operation Fast and Furious scandal:
Look, I think his one defense is inadequacy, and there’s a history here. Remember, I think it had to do with the Arizona law that he opposed — before Congress. And he was asked if he’d read it. And he said no. And it’s not a long bill. So that was a rather startling admission of incompetence.
So, perhaps incompetence will be his defense [in the Fast and Furious case]. He’ll say, yes, I got the memos but I never read them — the same way I never read the Arizona law.
But it is clear that what he said — I think it was on the third of May — before Congress under oath is false, in which he was asked: Do you know about Fast and Furious?, and he said no, or at least not until a few weeks ago.
The defense that Justice is now putting up … [is that] he was speaking about the irregularities in the program. But that is not the question that was asked of him. He was asked about whether he knew anything about the program. His answer was no. It clearly isn’t so.
So I think in the end he will have to claim incompetence — hadn’t read it, hadn’t remembered. You know, you get a lot of memos as attorney general, you might skim some. But it’s a hell of a defense if you’re the attorney general of the United States and you’re a repeat offender on the inadequacy charge.