Posted on 01/26/2015 7:50:39 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Sarah Palin saying “Of course” she's interested regarding running for the presidency in 2016 has people buzzing. During that interview, Palin said we need a candidate who is ready for Hillary. I agree. Romney would be Mr. Nice Guy/gentleman unwilling to attack the girl.
As for Palin running, a woman wrote: “I have never given up on her (Sarah Palin). I am sooooooo hoping that she will be our spokesperson. My husband says the press and Obama have tainted her so much that it would be impossible for her to run. I say that 'with God, all things are possible.”
To this woman, I say, “Right on sister!” No offense to her husband, but I find his mindset frustrating. We complain that there are far too few politicians with the cojones to push back against Obama's unprecedented arrogance, lawlessness and tyranny. Despite their newly acquired control over the House and Senate, the GOP appears to be attempting to pull the wool over our eyes regarding amnesty. In their Spanish language response to Obama's SOTU, the GOP brought up immigration, desiring to “create permanent solutions” without mentioning immigration in the English version. What is up with that?
So tell me folks, how many politicians on our side truly are who they say they are; standing up for our principles and values – fighting for freedom and the Constitution? We lament that many politicians on our side are obsessed with winning an approving pat on the head from the MSM; reduced to political impotence. Oh if only there was a little blue pill for dysfunctional Republicans/conservatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I find the PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) label curious. I can’t speak for others, but I feel no “derangement” when it comes to Palin. I am just bored by her. She resigned her position as Governor, and since then has done not much. Her speeches are painful to watch; lots of folksy blather with zero substance. I see nothing that would convince me she’s a legitimate Presidential candidate.
Of course, here at FreeRepublic, there are multitudes who will instantly start screaming PDS!!! as soon as any criticism of Mrs. Palin is offered. She had her time. She could have run in 2012. She could have run for Senate. She didn’t. Her time has passed.
Yep.
Here’s a thought:
What if Ted Cruz has been serving as a stalking horse for Sarah Palin?
Yes, she can never run for anything. BUT she can still serve a good Republican President in many ways. Its sad really—she could have done so much more. Her beauty, drive, religion and accent all worked to make her a simple cartoon. Thank you Tina Fey and Saturday night Live.
The GOP needs some toxic and to grow a set of balls.
Sarah has far more experience as a leader than Ted Cruz, and I think her values are more fixed and reliable as well.
Mayor, governor, all the way back to her time as head of the high school basketball team, she has led, and others have followed her to victory.
Ted Cruz is a good guy. But he would be ideal as leader in the Senate or the House, in place of the wusses who are doing the job now. That’s where his experience lies.
Palin and Walker, with Cruz as the conservative counterpart of Dingy Harry, cleaning up congress and brooming out all those dolts and wusses.
Whether anybody likes her personally is a different issue as to whether she makes a good leader. Her speech in Iowa was - let’s be charitable - and say it was a disorganized stream-of-consciousness rambling, suggesting she decided to go off script. It was an opportunity to demonstrate why the world should take her seriously as a politician. Instead, she presented really nothing but a list of ad-hominem complaints that made her look embittered.
Like it or not, if you want to lead a nation, Statecraft has a certain protocol. There are trappings that go with the office - whether you’re a president or a prime minister. And one thing that is NOT statesmanlike is standing holding a sign screaming an expletive at Michael Moore. It’s juvenile, witless, and essentially the end of any argument you have. Once you descend to the level of personal attack, you’ve admitted you’re not up to the job required of head-of-state. Margaret Thatcher always said she was delighted when her opponents had stooped to the level of attacking her personally with ad-hominem, because that was the signal that they were basically out of ideas. It was the White Flag, intellectually speaking. So Palin descended to just that level with this ill-advised profane slam to Moore. It makes her look petty, common and unimaginative (there’s no witty intellect in reaching for profanity to make a point - any idiot can utter FU). Instead of reverting back to what makes a good politician, she’s reaching for the kind of public statements that you’d expect to see or hear from a banal, common, witless celebrity. Time to admit it: her 15 minutes was up years ago. She’s now proven she’s the GOP Crazy Aunt in the Attic.
Do we have to abandon him, too?
Are we only allowed to support candidates that the Left does not make fun of?
You have PDDS.
Palin Derangement Denial Syndrome.
That explains it... her existence makes me deranged and I don’t even know it!!!
My answer is YES!!!
She’s better for the conservative cause as a commentator. If she enters the race, it will allow the MSM to ridicule everyone who is running for the nomination. Not that they need an excuse - but - they will have a field day painting every GOP candidate with the same brush.
I like Sarah. Please, Sarah, do not run for President.
Oh please... REALLY?? If the persona of Mrs. Palin is so fragile such that being satirized by a late night comic proved her downfall, how do you think she would have fared once she hit the world stage?
SNL mocked Palin. So what. SNL has mocked politicians going back to Gerald Ford.
Of course, 7 years after 911, the United States of America, the greatest country on earth, elected a homosexual, Marxist muslim as it's president, so you could say I don't have a whole lot of faith in the average American voter.
Is Sarah too toxic?
Only if you’re a lefty and want a someone to demonize, because they are a threat to your ability to hold control.
You can pick Sarah Palin or a “sure thing”. By “sure think”, I mean a candidate who is SURE TO LOSE, i.e., Romney, McCain, Cruz, Bush, etc.
Mrs. Palin can count on my vote, besides I want to see the talking heads explode when she gets nominated.
Sadly she is not viable because too many voters are too STOOOOPID to realize that she is NOT actually the cartoon pantomime Sarah who was portrayed by Tina Fey on SNL.
Her prospects were cunningly destroyed by the media.
A person who drives a car "conservatively" is restrained in how he uses that car. A person who drives a car "liberally" drives it a lot and all over the place. A cook who is "conservative" with spices, is restrained in how he uses them. A cook who is "liberal" with spices, uses them a lot, open-handedly, liberally.
How do you define "conservative" in politics, Jim? What would be an accurate description of a "conservative" group?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.