Posted on 12/16/2011 2:18:42 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Greencastle, Ind. — "Is Palin electable? Absolutely," says Mark Tatge, Eugene S. Pulliam Distinguished Visiting Professor of Journalism at DePauw University, tells the Christian Science Monitor. Tatge is cited in an article headlined "Sarah Palin speaks, but are Americans heeding her anymore?".
The professor sees Palin as a viable contender to potentially serve as running mate to Newt Gingrich, should he emerge as the GOP nominee. "Such a partnership is not out of the question,” Tatge tells the publication, adding that he believes that Palin would likely need to "atone for quitting the job of governor."
Gloria Goodale writes, "Less-likely candidates, he says, have made it to the top spot. 'Consider the former B-movie actor who was seen as a bit of a lightweight with a messy divorce in his past,' says Professor Tatge, 'and Ronald Reagan not only got elected but went on to become a two-term president.'"(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at depauw.edu ...
You actually think YOU know better than her what she wants.
Where the hell are you getting that from? Put up and support that claim or shutup.
Well, you do not. She does not want the job. If she did, she would have run.
I didn't in any way shape or form say she wants the job. What is wrong with you?
Why is it people like you can’t listen to what a person says. She said she did not want to run. Got it?
Extreme irony. Why can't a person like you respond to what I said instead of making things up.
There is something seriously wrong with you.
No, I am fine. Your problem is YOU.
Because they can’t face what surely amounts in their minds to betrayal and the resultant loss of face.
The poster you are agreeing with is lying about what I said.
Your post is idiotic.
You're a liar.
And it's there for all to see.
What am I lying about? Please do tell? Am I lying that Sarah Palin said she does not need a title and that she does not want to run this time? What, tell me, about that is a lie?
She has other things she enjoys more than tickling the fancies of obsessed people who want to make her into what she does not want to be.
She took the path she preferred. How is that a lie when the facts say otherwise?
And getting more so by the moment. Apparently the current field finds the effort of running competent campaigns way too shackley.
What am I lying about? Please do tell?
Okay, roll tape...
Good grief, leave her alone and let her pursue the things that she likes. She does not want elected office.
You actually think YOU know better than her what she wants.
Your answers ar not based on what Palin thinks. You actually think YOU know better than her what she wants. Well, you do not. She does not want the job. If she did, she would have run.
Why is it people like you can’t listen to what a person says. She said she did not want to run. Got it?
All of your above claims are false. I didn't say that Palin wants to run, I didn't say that Palin wants the job (of president), I didn't say that I know what she wants better than she does, I didn't say that she wants elected office and I didn't try to make her into something that she doesn't want to be.
Why did you say that I said all of that?
Did you mistake me for another poster? Are you lying? Are you nuts?
Explain.
It’s interesting that you attack ME, with name-calling yet,
for having a different opinion about somebody who isn’t a
candidate for any office.
I think maybe you are a little too much emotionally involved with Palin.
Why do you care so much that I dislike her?
Is she a relative of yours? A business associate?
Or are you just being faithful to the memory of what might have been?
She played you like a pawnshop guitar and the sooner you realize it the happier you’ll be.
That is a morally invidious construction on your part that you'll need to support a lot better. Maybe you didn't like Palin -- you seem to dislike any celebrity very easily -- but burdening her motives like that is going to be tough sledding. I don't think you can make a fair showing on that charge.
In the primaries, that may be a liability but, at the convention, it's a huge bonus. He's the most conservative member of the Senate, he's willing to buck even his own party at times when they want to cave and he's not so poorly known that the Tea Party and others won't immediately embrace him.
The media will *have* to pay attention to him if he gets the nomination. Sure, they'll demonize him but they'd demonize anyone to get Barry re-elected. The difference is that they've already ruined Sarah in the minds of most Americans but there won't be enough time to trash DeMint the same way because he hasn't run for national office.
He's Sarah's policies without Sarah's baggage.
This is true.
I don't think you can make a fair showing on that charge.
I needn't.
It's an opinion.
Like "I can't stand Lima beans". No data required.
Wrong. I didn't attack you for having a different opinion. I slammed you for your snide, small minded comments about somebody who isn't a candidate for any office.
I don't care about people disagreeing with me, but I do have a problem with disagreeable people. Like you.
Well good for you. I'm glad you can define your problem.
I slammed you for your snide, small minded comments about somebody who isn't a candidate for any office.
And how would you categorize your comments to me?
I'm not running for any office either.
We don’t have the space here to list the nazi schemes being run by Obama that would not occur under any of the GOP candidates. Get a grip!
You're the one who needs to get a grip.
Study Mitt Romney's record carefully, and come to grips with the fact that the odds favor him doing little to nothing to roll back Obama's Marxist agenda. The man is a big government liberal with no core values, and will flip-flop on important issues every other day of the week. He's weak willed, and falls easily into fellowship with our domestic enemies.
In short, he would be only marginally better than Obama as president.
Oh, I see -- well, perhaps I misconstrued it, since your comment was structured as an observation or statement of fact.
She played you like a pawnshop guitar.....
One could get the idea it's a concrete, verifiable fact. Semi-verifiable, anyway, since there is an imputation of intent, and it's always necessary, in court, to convince people of intent since it's so hard to demonstrate. That's why prosecutors invented the formulary maxim, "Intent follows the bullet" since in accidental-discharge cases it most manifestly does not; but where findings of intent are necessary to reach a conviction (on first-degree murder versus, say, involuntary manslaughter), one must lead a jury by the nose, by instructing them as if they were seven years old.
Got a formula to help us determine Sarah's intent in renting that big bus?
1) Fundraising ability ten times greater than all the current candidates combined.
2) Voters from across a very broad spectrum that no other running mate could rally.
3) Boots-on-the-ground support, with a more vast and inter-connected network of grassroots supporters than all the current candidates combined.
Very valid observations.
You need a formula for that?
Clearly "LOOK AT MEEEE!" was the message, it was painted right on the bus.
While polls are often flawed and many are absolutely biased, I have seen a consistent trend that any particular GOP candidate VS Obama consistently loses, given a choice between "Any Republican" and Obama, the Republican wins handily. What this means is that the majority of voters, about 75% in the GOP in fact, are totally unhappy with the choices offered.
It is my considered opinion that an overwhelming majority of both Republican rank-and-file, and independent voters alike, are seeking someone to challenge Obama....other than the candidates offered.
Who does this leave?
As I recall, some four months ago, about the time of her triumphant tours and speeches, Sarah Palin stated that she "would run the most unconventional campaign ever." To this point, if she reverses course and comes in late to the fray, that would be the "most unconventional" move ever!
These endless and largely meaningless drivel-driven so called debates have done little more than pissed off many conservatives. By opting out in October, Sarah was insulated from this nonsense, and actually strengthened her desirability.
If, and this is a big IF, she decided to reenter any time before the Iowa caucus, she would likely show amazing support.
On the other hand, waiting to come in after the January mayhem, when deep divisions have made a clear frontrunner's unlikely, who better to fill the void?
Or even, with no leader in delegate count going into the convention, and with the prospect of internal war within the party, who better to be selected to heal the divisions and lead the GOP to victory?
Lets face it folks, we could well see the most unconventional campaign for nomination in the history of our nation!
But then, there is also another option........
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.