We have plenty of professional pundits who can give us an analysis of the facts of the health care bills. We need leadership. The history of democracies has shown over (Wilson) and over (Carter) and over (Obama) that academics and writers are not what America needs to be successful. It needs leaders of action.
As I pointed out before, she made no attempt to address the issues she wants us to "engage."
Then why is her simple, uninspiring comment driving the news cycle? Her 'Death Panel' remark is making rationing the story of this debate. It could well cost the Democarats the senior vote.
Don't you think it's about time for her to stop with the bumperstickerism -- which in her case is just more of the same ol' same ol'?
Now you sound like the democrats complaining for eight years that Reagan was simple and senile while he cleaned their clocks. How many bumper stickerisms did Reagen give us?
Don't you think it's about time she stepped up to showing real leadership, which includes actual command of the issues?
She seems to have a very firm grasp of cut spending, limit government and protect national soveregnty. Picking apart line items and nuance is what congress should do. National leaders should be able to articulate ideas to the masses, such as 'this entire package is unconstitutional.'
You apparently have very low standards. I do not, which is why I don't have much patience for Sarah Palin right now.
Snobbery does not win elections. You don't have to like for the woman. She's not even running for anything. But you taking cheap shots at her doesn't mean I have low standards, it means you have an axe to grind.
What we've got is a bunch of pundits who write like Sarah Palin speaks -- short on details and long on soundbites. We have precious few (e.g., Steyn, Hanson, Krauthammer...) who are able to speak solidly on a broad range of issues. Would that we could find a few politicians like that, who have the depth to grasp a wide range of issues and make something useful from them.
We need leadership. The history of democracies has shown over (Wilson) and over (Carter) and over (Obama) that academics and writers are not what America needs to be successful. It needs leaders of action.
We need leaders who can deal with the facts of the health care bills -- just to name one thing -- themselves, and can lead on that basis. Unspecific calls to "engage" are not leadership. A leader clearly articulates a specific plan of action, and then actually leads people to make it happen.
Then why is her simple, uninspiring comment driving the news cycle?
Doubtful... But even so: a good soundbite is not leadership. It's the current state of politics, which is wretched.
Now you sound like the democrats complaining for eight years that Reagan was simple and senile while he cleaned their clocks. How many bumper stickerisms did Reagen give us?
To compare Sarah Palin to Ronald Reagan is like comparing a T-ball team to the Yankees. Simply to investigate the comparison is to realize how short Sarah Palin falls of the mark.
Snobbery does not win elections.
Experience-wise, Sarah Palin is only marginally ... very marginally ... more qualified than Obama is. We're already seeing the effects of amateur hour in the White House -- do we really need to propagate it?
You don't have to like for the woman. She's not even running for anything.
Oh, the heck she's not.
But you taking cheap shots at her doesn't mean I have low standards, it means you have an axe to grind.
It's not a "cheap shot" to point out that she's not offering leadership. If I have an ax to grind, it's toward those FReepers who are so caught up in Sarah Palin's celebrity that they can't see what she isn't: and that's "qualified for national leadership."