Posted on 01/15/2010 6:04:13 PM PST by reasonisfaith
Ok, I just watched about two minutes of O’Reilly talking to Glenn Beck as both of them outsmarted themselves.
Actually, they were both outsmarted by Sarah Palin. They thought they could suggest Palin was less than qualified for the presidency because she wasn’t specific enough in naming her favorite among the founding fathers.
Both O’Reilly and Beck have been left in the dust by Palin, as many here would expect.
Palin’s answer, showing a general regard for the ideas of the founding fathers rather than focusing on their individual personalities, is in fact consistent with John Adams’ idea that we are a nation of laws, not men. If we jump first to memorialize and immortalize the men behind the ideas, we forsake the ideas. It’s the ideas that matter.
Palin gets it. Beck and O’Reilly don’t.
Link to video of Beck & BOR - Beck comes off as really goofy and BOR is his typical arrogant ass attacking Sarah on her accurate FF question.
http://video.foxnews.com/?playlist_id=86926#/v/3969963/palin-joins-fox-family/?playlist_id=86923
I had history in school, got what was in the books, enjoyed it but never felt that I personaly knew any of them enough to pick a ‘’favorite’’, how could I, it all happened 200 years before I came along. The text books merely gave me the info ‘’second hand’’, condensing it all quite a lot, out of neccessity.
When he gets intellectually slashed, by his means, he usually buries it or conceals it, or he selectively picks his guests he knows he can most easily build himself up with. (Barry Obama) With such a guest as Palin, he thought for a nano second that he had become Commie Catie Couric and that he could hit on Sarah's greatest weakness; Her intellect. Which in turn would have made him a journalistic legend in which he sees himself.
Beck, on the other hand, who is a razor sharp Constitutionalist and who O’Reilly learned earlier not to mess with, was visually stunned by the way Palin ripped them both a new one. (As well as deeply impressed.)
I would suppose you would rather watch CNN, PMSNBC or the other 3 loser networks, newbie TROLL?
Here at FR we're always jumping on people for not taking on the lefties with hard questions, and we dissect every word the dems say in interviews.
We pride ourselves on not taking part of the cult of personality stuff.
In my posts I've been skeptical of the "Palin for President" move. I really like and respect Palin, but I don't think she's presidential material. Lately, though, I've been coming her way.
I don't care for Beck, but what surprised me about this piece was that he seemed completely honest, in his comments to O'Reilly and in the interview pieces.
Palin was BSing. She didn't know what to say. She gave the most generic answer anyone could give to such a question, and when pushed gave the name of the one FF everyone knows.
Oh, no, I'm now going to be called a Palin-basher. That's what happens these days when you hold Palin to the standard one must DEMAND of someone who could be our next president, but that's a small price to pay for honesty.
If we're unwilling to give her even the SLIGHTEST criticism--and saying she couldn't name a favorite of the founders when she obviously couldn't so she punted isn't the harshest thing one could say--then we're no better than the followers of The One.
You’re anonymous, why should we listen to you?
Thanks for that intelligent response. Gave me a lot to think about.
P.S. What makes you think I care if you listen to me or not?
Beck is one of the best weapons we have against the left. Don’t slight him.
I agree with you my friend.
That was interesting...the 'live Beck/Palin' thread resulted in 500 posts, whereas the Hannity segment received little mention. I'm no fan of Hannity (the 'rinse and repeat' show), but that struck me as unusual.
No, no, you’re supposed to do that in FReepmail, not where everyone can SEE you! ;) /jk
I;m sure I;ll get slammed for it .
What is stupid is how far this ridiculous dissection of what is meant by Palin’s answer and her intellect continues. THIS IS ALL THERE IS TO DISCUSS?! It’s ridiculous and absurd that you think it’s laughable she’d end up picking Washington because he’s the ‘one everybody knows’. Well, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Hamilton are pretty damn well known and amongst the most popular answers as well, but are you all seriously going to try to argue Palin, daughter of a schoolteacher, had no clue?!! This is so incredibly stupid on the part of people actually having discussions on this and reading that 0’Reilly actually brought this up with Beck last night(Palin needs to slam him next time she appears because this is really beyond absurd). I just think the fretting over her not initially putting a ‘favorite’ name out there is really showing how extreme some people are. We’ll continue on with this stupidity though because the Palin critics tend to dwell on this crap and it really is absurd. STILL WAITING FOR O’REILLY TO CRITIQUE OBAMA AND THE 57 STATES!
She did name a founding father....glenn beck was interrupted her and a perfectly good answer:
Palin: You know, well, all of them because they came collectively together with so much diverse
Glenn: Bull crap. Who’s your favorite?
Palin: so much diverse opinion and so much diversity in terms of belief but collectively to form the union.
Glenn: (Inaudible.)
Palin: No. And they were led by, of course, George Washington. So, he’s got to rise to the top. Washington was the consummate statesman. He served. He returned power to the people. He didn’t want to be a king. He returned power to the people. Then he went back to Mount Vernon. He went back to his farm. He was almost reluctant to serve as President, too. And that’s who you need to find to serve in government, in a bureaucracy, that’s who you know will serve for the right reasons, because they’re reluctant to get out there and seek a limelight and see power. They’re doing it for the people. That was George Washington.
He’s also a bit wacky with the meladramatic mannerisms. So, yeah, he’s good at pointing out the facts about the extremism of 0bama and the Demon party, but Limbaugh and other commentators are and have been just as good and Palin is a different political influence who has held office and is still in the process and is showing she has what it takes to expose what is truly going on and putting it in hard-hitting, straightforward terms.
These constant Palin critiques are laughable at this point. These are the great arguments about whether she is prepared or not! As you can see, she did end up giving a TOP NOTCH ANSWER(she’s right in the excellency of George Washington), but that wasn’t good enough because she wanted to say she found something appealing in all of them and what they did. But here is yet another absurd thread and the fact that this was a big point of discussion to 0’Reilly and Beck is really waiting for a response from Palin. She’ll be back on and let them take it up then!
“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”
Thanks for including this quote.
Here’s the point, and I’ll be concise (cult of personality is not demonstrable here):
1) Names of people, and attributes belonging to those people (i.e., the FF).
2) Ideas made into laws (i.e., those in our Constitution).
It may be true that Palin hasn’t memorized #1. But such things are completely irrelevant to the function of a president.
But we know Palin understands #2. These are the things which separate good presidents from bad presidents.
Beck and O’Reilly were proceeding as if #1 were related to presidential quality, so they were as lost in this segment as the most ignorant of the Obama voters.
Good post. But I’ll be keeping my eye on Beck.
You say you don’t think she’s presidential material. But for anyone who thinks this way—have you really thought about it, giving full power to your ability to think? (I’m calling for accountability in thinking which demonstrates respect, not its opposite.)
If “Palin isn’t presidential material” is a valid claim, her deficits are demonstrable in plain English. That is, various and specific presidential duties can be described, and held up next to a description of Palin’s particular deficits.
Let’s look at this one more time:
If the claim is true, then VARIOUS AND SPECIFIC PRESIDENTIAL DUTIES CAN BE DESCRIBED, AND HELD UP NEXT TO A DESCRIPTION OF PALIN’S PARTICULAR DEFICITS.
This should be very easy, no need to spend much time on it.
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.