Palin can post on Facebook, give speeches, write books, and use a multitude of other outlets to express her views. My point is that she is not capable of expressing her views on the fly, without knowing the questions in advance. That is her Achilles heel.
Maybe intellectual is the incorrect term. Well versed in the issues of the day, with a knowledge of their historical precedents and significance is maybe a better explanation of why I am not a Palin fan. She does not exhibit a depth of knowledge on issues when she has to speak off the cuff. You can write a Facebook posting about any issue and seem well versed if you take a few minutes and make Google your friend. Being able to go toe to toe with someone who you disagree with live on TV, or take random questions from a live audience takes a little more brainpower than posting on Facebook. Palin has not shown me that she has that ability.
That's what you say, but I see no evidence that she can't. What you describe as "expressing her views on the fly" is no more than been there, done that. That's just a matter of appearing before audiences for the next two years. It's not a noteworthy skill or achievement.
Maybe intellectual is the incorrect term. Well versed in the issues of the day, with a knowledge of their historical precedents and significance is maybe a better explanation of why I am not a Palin fan.
I remember the first day of American History 151. I came prepared to memorize dates and names. The teacher, a campus favorite, explained that's not how it works. History is a series of themes and forces, and if you understand the themes and forces involved the dates and names will magically come to mind. They become mere details.
Palin understands the premises of foreign policy. The rest she needs to know, she can get from a John Bolton in less than 40 hours.
I'm looking for a President who understands that imperfect premises combined with perfect logic produces flawed conclusions. She'll be hip deep in flawed premises.
The rest is just details. As another poster noted, as an adult during the '70s, I've seen this movie before.
The problem isn't that Obo doesn't understand foreign affairs, it's that he views the US as fundamentally flawed. It doesn't matter how many experts you have on staff, it doesn't matter how well Obo understands the subject matter. Any policy that results will be fundamentally flawed.
She gets people, and she gets human nature. Obo doesn't, not in anything other than a shallow, cynical way.
She does not exhibit a depth of knowledge on issues when she has to speak off the cuff.
Funny, that's what they used to say about Reagan. In fact, one of the famous descriptions of Reagan was that he was "intellectually incurious." He could only speak from a script, they said.
Funny how impressions can be so flawed.
You can write a Facebook posting about any issue and seem well versed if you take a few minutes and make Google your friend. Being able to go toe to toe with someone who you disagree with live on TV, or take random questions from a live audience takes a little more brainpower than posting on Facebook. Palin has not shown me that she has that ability.
That's what they used to say about Reagan's speeches.
Look, I understand that you have issues with Palin. I have issues with Palin.
But a person who means to speak to how conservatives have to run for office should be at least somewhat familiar with the Lessons of Reagan.
Reagan, for his flaws, was the most successful conservative politician of my time, the best return from votes I'll ever cast.
This really is a case of been there, done that.
The more time we as a community spend discussing issues that have a history easily understood, the more time we spend answering the vapid accusations of "Quitter!" the less time we'll spend discussing the issues that we should be discussing.
Such as...we assume there's one way to run a successful campaign. Yet, it's basic that the rules for running a successful RAT campaign are much different than a conservative one. Understand that, and you'll understand the promise of Palin.
We're in a rut in regards to our analytical framework. We think of the good guys/bad guys, liberal/conservative.
Given the history of the last 10 years, should we not be thinking in terms of inside versus outside?
Puts the significance of Palin in a whole new light.
Re SP debating skills:
You may have a point, but, there will be debates and a primary elections, so then Sarah will be tested in that way.
Do you flunk a student 2 years before the actual exam takes place based on what the student knows today? Do conservatives throw in the trash great prospects merely because they lack polish for an event 2 years from now?
Good grief, conservatives! get a grip! She’s not running for president in Nov 2010. And if she comes across as poorly as you believe she will, she will not get the nomination! Don’t worry about it! Let’s worry about other good contenders running, no more rinos.