Fred Malek: Palin’s not doing what she needs to do to run

HOTAIR.COM ^ | 16 APRIL 2010 | ALLAHPUNDIT

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Who’s Fred Malek and why should you care? Think of him as sort of the Beltway-insider equivalent of John Ziegler. Like Ziegs, he’s a Sarahcuda defender par excellence, and like Ziegs, he doesn’t think she’s angling for a serious shot at the presidency. From a WaPo profile last year describing him as “the authority on Palin”:

[EveningStar]

[FreeReign]

Now you've associated me with Paul, then Huckabee. Who's next on you desperation list? How about Mitt?

You are of course a self proclaimed third party supporter.

Which third party candidate did you vote for in the last election?

[ex-snook]

Palin is running. Running to the bank.

[FreeReign]

I personally think it’s rather obvious that she has either not made her mind up to run OR she has made her mind up and would rather play king-maker in the process.

She has said that she would run if the situation is right for her family and for the country.

Why not take her at her word?

[EveningStar]

I don’t think she’s running for President.

Neither do I.

[pissant]

I didn’t excuse Tanc’s endorsement of Flipper. I was pissed because Hunter was still in the race. Nor did I excuse Hunter’s of Huckabee. He should have refrained altogether.

WHy do you come up with fictitious things I said. I’m just now learning to forgive the bastard Tancredo for that.

[EveningStar]

go f yourself then ESAD

More love-filled commentary from the Palindrones.

[pissant]

BTW, I wholeheartedly disagree with the premise of this thread’s article. Palin is getting more exposure than any unannounced candidate in all of human history. She’s in a perfect spot if she decides to run.

[Jacob Kell]

They’re all reliable conservatives who Sarah supported.

[rabscuttle385]

That’s a non-issue now which will have no impact on her future ambitions.

Not unless McCain ekes out a win and then turns around and stabs her in the back.

It's funny how Palin supporters twist themselves into intellectual pretzels in order to rationalize away her "loyalty" to a man who is decidedly disloyal to everything Palin claims to stand for.

[rintense]

You said Tancredo endorsed Romney because Romney had the best immigration plan. Then you said Hunter endorsed Huck because HE had the best immigration plan.

So, since both Huck and Romney were still in it when Tancredo left, why would he endorse someone who's plan was not as good as someone elses? We know the answer.

You stating Hunter endorsed Huck because he had the best immigration plan is the exact same reasoning others here on FR are flamed for- a single issue.

Now, no one is saying immigration isn't an important one.

But be fair in your criticism of candidates.

[Bob J]

“It's funny how Palin supporters twist themselves into intellectual pretzels in order to rationalize away her “loyalty” to a man who is decidedly disloyal to everything Palin claims to stand for.”

Well, if one believes someone has been chosen by God at this exact moment in time to lead them out of whatever wilderness they believe themselves to be in, then anything that person says or does no matter how inconsistent or hypocritical, is subordinate and trivial to achieving the end game...or maybe this case, the end times.

The problem is that is not going to fly with the middle road, independent and blue dog dem votes one will need to to gain 50%+1 and the oval office.

Personally, I'm a little scared of what Palin might do with nukes vis-a-vis Israel and middle east countries.

[Mojave]

She’s certainly not helping herself by supporting flaming socialist McAmnesty.

And Romney.

[McGruff]

To win, Sarah would have to build name recognition, and I rarely hear mention of her in more than one or two stories per day on the morning and evening news, on Sunday morning interview shows, in White House press conferences, on her schedule for speeches in 20 states, or in discussions in a business settingTo win, she would have to build a reputation for understanding a broad range of issues, from nuclear weapons and defense to health care and the Constitution, and I rarely hear more than two or three sensible positions that she has taken on those issues in a particular day.

You forgot the [/sarcasm] tag. She is the only one that the MSM criticizes on a daily basis. That should tell you something.

Or as John McEnroe would say "You can not be serious!"

[Republic of Texas]

I hope you are correct.

[A CA Guy]

She's not going to run, but IMO she will help others do so.

She makes too much money on the sidelines.

The hassle for her is probable three times more so than other candidates at this point.

[Man50D]

You are not worth my time when you can't even say who you support and deflect the question.

And yet you feel compelled to respond anytime someone questions any of Palin's positions.

And.....all who can read will see that your questions have been answered, several times, on this thread and many previous threads.

Now you speak for all people? There are several on this thread who have disagreed but you conveniently ignore their remarks. All my questions have been answered if you exclude Palin's support for amnesty.

Your problem? Sarah Palin is not perceived the way a handful of detractors on FR like to portray her.

You perceive anyone who dares to question Palin as a problem.

The FR Palin bashers have shown no respect for the owner of this site as he said just 3 days ago..."enough!" and pulled an entire thread similar to this one.

Now it's a matter of disrespect! That's a new tactic. You Sarahbots just keep reaching out a little farther to avoid discussing Palin's support for a flaming socialist over A Conservative. LOL!!

You all are starting to look more like paid political trolls than concerned citizens.

Yeah, that's it. Anyone who disagrees with you is part of one big socialist conspiracy. Hurry, click on the report abuse button to have me zotted before I destroy FR!!!!!

[onyx]

Personally, I'm a little scared of what Palin might do with nukes vis-a-vis Israel and middle east countries.

Oh dear, BobJ.

Your worries are misplaced.

[Man50D]

Not the same old anti-Palin rubbish again!
Tell me something, did you follow the 1980 GOP primaries between Reagan and Bush Snr at all, before Bush became Reagan's VP candidate that is?

Rubbish? That's a new label to minimize her amnesty position. Good one! Now you want you turn the clock back 30 years to avoid discussing Palin? Why not revert back to the Lincoln-Douglas debates? Every time I think I've seen the depth of desperation of Palin supporters you prove me wrong.

[Man50D]

You are of course a self proclaimed third party supporter.

Which third party candidate did you vote for in the last election?

Don't you Sarahbots ever get tired of this lame tactic to distract people's attention away from Palin?