Sarah Is Indomitable
Posted on 05/18/2011 5:39:22 AM PDT by paulycy
I do.
You fail to take into account that the State of Alaska benefitted from her "backing out" of her oath. That it was in the best interest of the people of Alaska for her to "back out" of her oath. That the State of Alaska thrived under further conservative leadership, unencumbered by phoney, expensive, distracting and time-consuming "ethics" lawsuits by her "backing out" of her oath.
Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Think about it.
Wow. Suggesting that by not liking Sarah, I would vote for Obama is quite a leap.
And if I were knee jerk reacting, I would have posted after the incessant posts comparing her to Reagan. The folks posting that either know nothing of Sarah, or they know nothing of Reagan.
Most of the folks posting on these threads like Sarah because she is beautiful. If the folks at DU posted “sexy” photos of Obama, you might suggest they were in some kind of personality cult.
So, please, do not accuse me of knee jerk reactions.
We can agree to disagree. But you fell to the one thing that will guarantee that you will lose. Calling me ignorant is just not a good argument. It does nothing to advance your position.
You guys have to do better than say we want her because we want her.
Speaking of explanations.
Who do you support?
I agree! No Rick Perry for me no matter how well he had done in Texas! He’s a little too “slick”. I’ll
I see no other candidate that I think will stand up for this country in a strong manner against our enemies, both foreign and domestic!
My predictions have been that Trump was not going to run, Huckabee was not going to run, and that Palin will run.
I'm 2-2 so far, with the last one still up in the air.
If I had to make my best guess as to when Palin will announce, I imagine it will be timed around the Iowa straw poll -- either right before to capture it with the announcement buzz, or right after it, so the results (if they go against her, especially since she isn't officially running at that point) can be dismissed and she can save the time, effort, and money that normally gets dumped into that dog and pony show.
Personally, I think she'll go with the latter, as I'm pretty sure she's not going to buy into the ethanol racket, and that means she's probably going to have a hard time in Iowa. When she jumps in, look for her to spend a lot of time in South Carolina and Florida.
Reading people's hearts and minds just isn't possible. My claims of your ignorance is based on the fact that you seem to think that it is and that you reach correct conclusions when trying to do so.
“My guess: Perry/Palin or Palin/Perry. Late entry and probably a winner.”
Perry/Palin sounds good to me.
Sarah Is Indomitable
No one.
I lived under Mitt for two terms. My wife works in the hospital business. I need not say more about that empty suit, weasel.
I liked Barbour because he did a decent job at the RNC and got through Katrina without whining, and he knows how to run a state in a crisis.
I am interested in Daniels. I am learning more about him.
This is what the primary season is all about.
The things I do not like about Sarah are not policy related. To me, she seems like a “type.” Someone that is in this more for themselves, than for the country. Someone that is always making the point—”Look at me.” Someone that has an angle.
I am turned off by her persona. I am turned off by the cutesy public image. When I have seen those types in the past—in private—they are narcissistic, demanding, and really, really unkind. Those are the things that trouble me.
Is it rational? Nope. But every time I hear her speak it is like fingers on a chalkboard. And I wonder why the masses that surround her cannot see what I see.
I simply do not trust her.
Yes, all politicians are generally weasels. They haven’t changed much since they were in high school. Some of my class mates are in Congress, and some are in the State House. I did not trust any of them when I was playing football with them, and I trust them even less now.
So, when it comes to trusting a politician, I pretty much figure that they are all out for themselves. They are all out for money and power.
I will support the nominee. I just won’t support her in any primary.
She swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as Governor to the best of my ability." I'm not sure how resigning to spare the state expenses and delayed business due to frivolous ethics complaints violates that oath.
If anything, her resignation under those conditions showed s greater fidelity to the principles behind the oath than staying and "fighting" to protect her own political position and future would have shown.
I appreciate your thoughtful opinion.
I was sure she was not running a while back, but I am not so sure now. The Republican field looks so pathetic now, especially with Newt on camera running making himself look stupid as usual,and so many Republicans believing Trump’s nonsense. Palin might just say “What the hell?”. Then again, she might not want to run if Bachman does. I wouldnt bet either way at the moment.
“When I have seen those types in the past—in private—they are narcissistic, demanding, and really, really unkind.”
-
You sure your opposition to Palin, is really about Palin?...
Perhaps because they are looking at HER and not at the inside of their own skull?
Bachmann announced that she is considering stepping in a month early. (May)
There is a wellspring of support suddenly coming in to her campaign office in money and bodies, she just had a secret meeting with Huck, (Perhaps he will endorse her and give her the money he has taken in, etc,,) but more importantly, Bachmann is a solid candidate with a solid background.
She only lacks name recognition right now which will change very soon, according to media sources.
That would be a horrible piece of data to base a "run/don't run" decision on, as Bachmann has absolutely zero chance of winning the nomination, even in this weak field. I think Cain has no chance either, but he'll be a real contender long before Bachmann is.
In my opinion, the only "stumbling block" for Palin would have been Huckabee, not because they are similar, but because a significant portion of their respective bases overlap. With Huckabee out, that dramatically increases the odds of Palin being in, if indeed she is basing any part of her decision on the moves of the other potential candidates.
Mind if I ask another? Can’t she do both?...Sarah has more energy than any five women rolled into one, so yes, I imagine she can put forth her best effort, but that's not the same as putting your family first, and I think every mom that can afford to do that should because kids grow up very quickly, and all of them can benefit by having a full-time mom which in turn benefits the country.
Very well stated. In fact, I believe you have explained the situation in one of the most succinct ways I’ve heard.
If Sarah doesn't run, I like Bachmann/Cain in some configuration.
I get really annoyed at the “Sarah quit” argument. It really pushes my buttons. That’s the best way I can think of to debunk the argument.
Thanks for your kind words.
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.
