Sophisticated Sarah: Palin Is Part Hepburn, Part Loren, Part Thatcher, Part Annie Oakley

thebulletin.us ^ | Saturday, December 19, 2009 | MICHAEL P. TREMOGLIE

[GonzoII]

Watching the video of Sarah Palin’s appearance with William Shatner on the “Tonight Show” with Conan O’Brien, the one word that came to mind was style. Yet, there was more to it than that.

After all, she entered the arena of late night television, a stage that has excoriated her routinely — the “enemy camp” as Chris Matthews might say. Mrs. Palin's has been scoffed at before by Mr. O’Brien. The show has featured William Shatner mocking Mrs. Palin’s tweets by reading them as dramatic recitations.

Still, Mrs. Palin handled her appearance with the aplomb of Beyonce at the MTV Video Music Awards. She exuded the charm of Sophia Loren; the dignity of a Katharine Hepburn.

The blend of these qualities, with the feistiness and intellect of Margaret Thatcher and the forty-something feminine beauty of a Demi Moore, is what makes Mrs. Palin so dangerous to the political establishments of both parties.

She has a certain manner, an allure about her that has endeared her to a wide swath of the American public in a short period of time. She is upsetting a lot of apple carts and the entrenched politicos resent it. They have directed their fire at her.

Indeed, Mrs. Palin has weathered a torrent of vitriol. While her primary critics are liberal Democrats, the bien-pensants of both parties fear and loathe her.

This was evinced recently by Michael Petrilli’s hortatory article in the Wall Street Journal. Petrilli’s haughty piece titled, “Whole Foods Republicans,” had this to say about Mrs. Palin, “…there's Sarah Palin, whose entire brand is anti-intellectual.”

Mr. Petrilli’s remarks about Mrs. Palin’s supporters echoed what liberals have said about military personnel in Iraq (Senator John Kerry, D-Mass.: “you get stuck in Iraq”) and the audience of the Limbaugh show.

[rabscuttle385]

Your entire post 56 is all about winning.

If you have to sell your soul and compromise your core beliefs in order to win, then your win is what is otherwise known as a pyrrhic victory.

"What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?"
Mark 8:36 NIV

The election in 2012 is about far more than just winning.

It is about the future of this Republic.

The sad reality is that today, the United States has just over $12 Trillion in on-balance-sheet public debt, and mind you, a significant chunk of that debt was created by Republicans, and at least $57 Trillion in off-balance-sheet liabilities, largely relating to Federal entitlements, and that's not even counting all the other foreign and domestic guarantees and promises made by the United States (or any of the debts of the various States).

If we do not elect an executive and a Congress that are willing to downsize the Federal government, then it's really quite pointless.

Poking more fingers in the debt dam and simply trying to hold it back may not cut it any more in the few years because there are simply too many holes to be plugged now.

[dirtboy]

Your entire post 56 is all about winning. If you have to sell your soul and compromise your core beliefs in order to win, then your win is what is otherwise known as a pyrrhic victory.

Well, then, should have Reagan told all the GOP moderates and democrats who voted for him (and made it possible for him to win) to get lost?

Conservatives are only 40 percent of the electorate. When that number reaches 50.1 percent, we can talk about not needing moderates to win the White House.

And BTW, we are facing record deficits precisely because the GOP did not win in 2008. So winning does matter in the end. The trick is to win with a conservative reaching out to moderates, instead of attempting to win with a RINO reaching out to conservatives.

[rabscuttle385]

McCain isn’t just another Senator to Palin. He turner her into a national star by picking her as his running mate. Do you REALLY expect Palin to not help out McCain now?

If Palin feels that excessive loyalty to McCain on her part is necessary, then perhaps she should not serve as the leader of the conservative movement, since her admiration for the man has clearly blinded her and is now a liability, not just to her, but to the conservative movement, if she were to become its leader.

As stephenjohnbanker wrote at post 59, McCain is a vile man and a traitor. I agree with this assessment.

If Palin is unwilling to confront McCain, or at least get out of the way of other conservatives (like Hayworth) who are willing to confront McCain on his repugnant political record, including his post-election moves to continue shaping the Republican Party into a lite version of the Democrat Party, then she has a serious problem on her hands.

[rabscuttle385]

And BTW, we are facing record deficits precisely because the GOP did not win in 2008. So winning does matter in the end. The trick is to win with a conservative reaching out to moderates, instead of attempting to win with a RINO reaching out to conservatives.

The majority of the approximately $5 Trillion in on-balance-sheet Federal debt created under the Bush administration was created during the 2000 to 2007 time period when Congress was controlled by Republicans.

Merely attempting to shift the blame to the Democrats is not going to work; both parties are at fault for the present situation, to various degrees. That the Democrats are worse than the Republicans does not excuse the conduct of the Republicans while they were in power.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Well, then, should have Reagan told all the GOP moderates and democrats who voted for him (and made it possible for him to win) to get lost?”

Are you KIDDING?? Reagan stood fast to his consevative principles, and THEY came to HIM, not the other way around.!

[rabscuttle385]

The trick is to win with a conservative reaching out to moderates, instead of attempting to win with a RINO reaching out to conservatives.

I am all for reaching out to fellow Americans who may not necessarily share our political ideology, so long as we are the ones convincing them to join us, rather than adapting our agenda to suit them, particularly if such adaptation requires flagrantly violating our core beliefs or straight up buying their votes through the establishment--excuse me, I meant, "reform"--of more Federal programs.

[dirtboy]

If Palin feels that excessive loyalty to McCain on her part is necessary, then perhaps she should not serve as the leader of the conservative movement, since her admiration for the man has clearly blinded her and is now a liability, not just to her, but to the conservative movement, if she were to become its leader.

40 percent.

Until that number changes, your advice is political suicide. The real question is, where will be the base of the next GOP nominee? On the right, reaching leftwards (Palin), or on the left, reaching rightwards (Romney)?

The former sounds much better to me than the latter. The GOP cannot win national office without some moderates. The trick is to win those moderates and still get a sound conservative into office. You are so driven by purity that you turn the perfect into the enemy of the good.

McCain turned Palin into a national figure. We would not even be having a conversation about Palin being a national figure without such. Palin knows it, and so do the realists - you know, the people who try to figure out how to add 10.1 percent to 40 percent every four years.

[WVKayaker]

So are you running for office or not WVK?

The decision will be made after the first of the year, but I am leaning that way. I see nobody challenged the incumbent D in the last election. He got 90+% of the votes. I will be running for WV-1, if I commit. I don't beleive Greenbrier Co. is in WV-1.

You certainly don't need to be elected to anything, but you're sure politicking awful hard for somebody. There is no other reason for the constant Sarah-bashing. Are you that afraid that she may get elected and not perform to your specifications. I can guarantee that fact. Nobody will do that for you, or me, either. It's called give-and-take. Yes, it's called "expediency", too.

It isn't bashing to raise legitimate questions...

For me, my constant endorsement is not worship, FRiend. It is admiration and respect. I think she is a remarkable person with a chance to make a difference in our country. We are in the biggest battle of the Republic, for more than just a single principle. Conservative purity would be certainly central to our hearts, but the most important criteria at this point in history, is who can beat the black guy raping and pillaging our children's future? I see nobody else, but you obviously disagree.

It's possible you just like negatives, instead of positives. Negativity's the best tool in the world. What you're doing is trying to "swiftboat" her, or use a "push poll" tactic. Whatever the reason, it's because she is an obvious target. She's winning and everybody's talking about her. EVERYBODY. The problem is she can actually see Russia from part of Alaska, and we all get to make up our own minds!

I don't have access to her mind, so I can't comment on her actions toward McLame and the other RINOS. I would like to get rid of them, too. But, I don't get everything I want, either. I have (and will) sent money to SarahPac.

I've got a great idea. Why don't you start a political party and promote your own ideal. The Republican Party will never meet your expectations, it appears from reading your posts. You can even post threads on FR and we will all come to pick out the things we don't like about him/her and dump all the crap we can editorialize about, without care for what it does to the future of America. That is the impression I am getting most from your tactics.

BTW, did you know that Sarah has more than 1,115,901 supporters on FaceBook now?

click for SarahPAC

[dirtboy]

Are you KIDDING?? Reagan stood fast to his consevative principles, and THEY came to HIM, not the other way around.!

Are you kidding? Reagan reached out to moderates in the general election.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Sarah Palin would still be a relatively unknown governor without McCain. She will be loyal in return, that is just common sense.”

No, that is being loyal to a man and an organization that mistreated her from day one. Even Palin agrees with that. Being loyal to a traitor is not “common sense”. If she goes full bore with McCain in the primary, she has no character, and STANDS for NOTHING. Look, we don’t know what she is going to do with McCain, but she is off to a poor start.

[dirtboy]

The majority of the approximately $5 Trillion in on-balance-sheet Federal debt created under the Bush administration was created during the 2000 to 2007 time period when Congress was controlled by Republicans.

And that was a problem - however, compare that to the debt the Dems are creating now. If the GOP does not figure out how to win in 2012, Obama will just keep on signing off on those trillion-plus annual deficits.

[rabscuttle385]

40 percent.

You presume that 100 percent of the electorate will show up to vote, which has never actually happened.

You are so driven by purity that you turn the perfect into the enemy of the good.

I am merely insisting on adherence to a set of core principles.

If you feel that it is necessary to violate those core principles, or not to have any at all, in order to merely win, then go right on ahead.

I won't be joining you.

[rabscuttle385]

And that was a problem - however, compare that to the debt the Dems are creating now.

I will not engage in political relativism or buck-passing and blame-shifting.

[dirtboy]

You presume that 100 percent of the electorate will show up to vote, which has never actually happened.

However, you still need to reach a majority. Pretending you can win without some moderates/independents defies electoral history.

If you feel that it is necessary to violate those core principles, or not to have any at all, in order to merely win, then go right on ahead. I won't be joining you.

If Palin follows your advice, it would become moot. We'll be watching Obama take his second oath of office in 2013.

[rabscuttle385]

Being loyal to a traitor is not “common sense”.

Coddling the enemy usually makes one the enemy too.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Are you kidding? Reagan reached out to moderates in the general election. “

You know very well that Reagan did not become a RINO when he reached out. He said” Come on board. These are the principles I stand for and live by.. There is nothing for you with the Democrats”

Dole
Bush
McCain......all RINO’s

Jim Rob “Yes...Bush is a RINO!”(in red ink)Rabs has posted this several times, for those who are not clear on the concept.

[dirtboy]

I will not engage in political relativism or buck-passing and blame-shifting.

I am doing nothing of the sort, just pointing out that, as bad as the GOP was back then, the Dems are vastly worse. If you want to shove your fingers in your ears, squint your eyes shut and go 'nyah, nyah', well, feel free. I'm sure there will be a GOP candidate in 2012 akin to Duncan Hunter that will win about 10 or so delegates and who will pass muster with you.

[Focault's Pendulum]

That could NOT have escaped the leftist loons and I imagine more than one head exploded spectacularly.

I personally know of two that exploded, three have major leakage, and one with just some minor seepage. Of course that one considers herself some weird sort of moderate libertarian, whatever the hell that is!

[dirtboy]

You know very well that Reagan did not become a RINO when he reached out

Please point out where I said that.

I didn't.

My entire point is that we need a nominee that can reach out to moderates from the right side of the party. Palin fits that. And you can stomp you foot and say she should not back McCain, but McCain made her into a national figure. She would not be in a position to run for the GOP nomination without him.

[rabscuttle385]

However, you still need to reach a majority.

Depends on which majority you are talking about.

As you said, conservatives comprise 40 percent of the electorate. So, if only 50 to 60 percent of the electorate shows up to vote in an election, you need a majority of that fifty to sixty percent, or twenty-five to thirty percent of the general electorate, which can be easily filled with high conservative turnout.

Now, you might not even need an overall majority, as was demonstrated in the 2000 elections; all you need to win the presidential election is an electoral college majority, which does not necessarily require an overall majority but only a majority in the States whose electoral college votes you need.

As for winning, the American Revolution was won by a minority. That's something to think about.