Posted on 09/12/2011 10:29:20 PM PDT by RonDog
Dude they didn’t ‘tell’ me anything, it was right out in the open for all to see...
There are indeed.
There are also many examples of those who should have quit, but didn't.
Hitler jumps to mind...and the stain.....and little billy clintoon to name a very few.
Bill was a helluva writer, wahndn't he?
Your source for this fiction?
My serve then...
Non sequitur (no dash btw) nonsense! Your logic is that she abdicated her governorship to save herself and her troops to fight again another day, right? Elected governor + fierce opposition = resignation...mine is if elected president + fierce opposition = ?.... you have a 50/50 proposition stay or go? Based on past performance the weighting would be?
go! which was my conclusion. In most logic equations not considered a unexpected outcome...
Also as for your history lesson I’ll assume you meant GENERAL Washington and not PRESIDENT Washington as he did not become President until 1789, well after the war....
Will she do announce, for example, though a recorded VIDEO,Hopefully, she won't make the same ERRORS that Hillary! did.
as an homage to Hillary! -- and a secret signal to the PUMAs?
Check out THIS excellent analysis by FReeper MindBender26:
Senior TV Network Newsies Think Hillary's Announcement Huge Mistake.So, RonDog asks, will it be:
Network newsie friends | MB26
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 2:32:19 PM by MindBender26As many FReepers know, Im spent many years in TV network news. I polled old friends and acquaintances today and with one exception, all agreed that Hillary Clintons announcement today that she is running for President (yawn) is a HUGE misstep.
First, she did it at a time guaranteed to get her minimum television exposure.
The Saturday HUT (Homes Using Television) numbers are miniscule. When was the last time the Saturday Noon News was a must see for anyone?
In addition, anyone watching TV today or tomorrow is probably a man and he is tuned into sports. Not Hillarys target audience!
She should have announced on 4:00 P.M on Thursday, after appearing earlier in the day on GMA, Today, CBSMN, and especially The View to coyly announce that she just might have something importance to announce soon.
By announcing at 4:00 on a Thursday, she would have been the lead story on all that evenings newscasts. Thursday is often the second highest rated show of the week. Then she would have been topic #1 that night and all day Friday.
She could have been back on the AM shows and The View on Friday, perhaps even a quick Oprah appearance. Friday nights national news shows would have been all reaction stories, a visit to her hometown, yada yada yada, etc.
She would have owned 36 hours of prime TV.
As it is, she chose the absolutely worst time. The Sunday AM shows will be all over it, but no undecided voters watch those shows. She will get no mojo or movement from them. By Monday, its old news.
Next her method of announcement.
She posted it as a statement on her website.
Idiotic.
She could have gathered 2000 screaming, sigh waving supporters on the Capitol steps, balloons, a band, etc.
Could have been a huge hoop de do! CNN, FNC and others would have covered it live, etc. As it was, nothing! In the words of one senior editor, She mailed it in!
Thursday, September 15
or
Thursday, September 22 - the day of the Orlando GOP debate!
or
Thursday, September 29?
I'd hit it. But Todd would surely follow up with a 'hit' of his own!
So I'd be stiff indeed, but not so lucky. ;)
Ahem, sorry, but you have to know better than that. Remember Einsteins rule? Yes, you want to simplify an equation, but not to the point where it no longer represents the problem. And that is what you have done. You are still not using my logic, because my logic does not radically oversimplify the opposition term to a mere question of intensity; each time I presented my case, the opposition term was clearly qualified as to kind, not degree.
Consider: All people, and especially all politicians, face varying degrees of opposition to their objectives, including Palin. Indeed, she had to face down opposition of the most intense and intractable nature to reach her legislative objectives. Yet nothing in that opposition, however intense, impeded her public or private functionality, and she succeeded admirably.
But some opposition operates to create a real disability to function, where the only possible outcome of remaining in the state of conflict is to lose the game. This is not a question of intensity but structure. Some kinds of opposition can be overcome by toughing it out. Some can only be overcome by changing the game. From a game theory point of view, thats the whole point of a strategic retreat. The parameters of the game, if you stay in the game, restrict the event tree to certain fixed progressions given certain early choices, i.e., outcomes of those early choices become absolutely predicable, regardless of effort expended. No amount of effort can undo certain deterministic structures.
In our military example, our field commander is unable to move forward without inviting fatal fire. If it were merely a question of, say, muscular intensity, or raw will power, he could just push harder against some hypothetical resistive object and eventually reach his goal without retreating. But that is not the structure of the problem, is it? The structure is such that all choices but exit result in exposure to lethal fire. If his real interest is surviving to win later, he must execute the one option that allows that to happen.
And what you and so many others are doing with Palin is suggesting the structure of the problem she had to solve is irrelevant, that all forms of opposition are functionally equal. That is nonsense, and that is the fatal diversion from my logic.
I remember taking a course in Boolean logic in college. It was one of my favorite courses in my CS program. Solving Boolean equations of any significant complexity is usually a matter of completeness and patience. But you will never solve a problem that is incorrectly or incompletely expressed. All the terms must be there and must be correct. Over-complexity can be sorted out. Oversimplification is fatal.
At one point in the course, the teacher gave me a special assignment. I took it home, worked on it through the afternoon and into the night, and could not solve it to save my life. I felt terrible, as though I had been doing so well, then failed. At the next class, when I had to tell her I couldnt solve it, she told me no one else ever had either. What a relief. She gave it to me because she thought I might be able to do it. My own opinion is that there might have been some defect in the textbook, such that the problem could not be solved without correcting some errant expression buried in one or more terms.
The experience provided a valuable life lesson, though, on several levels. First, if you dont express the problem fully, you r solution may not be just a little off, but completely wrong. So always try to account for everything before you think you know the answer. I have found this beneficial in my law practice as well. I have beaten very talented, more experienced people, whose only deficiency is that they did not work as hard as I did at fully boxing in the problem at hand.
Second, sometimes life dumps puzzles in your lap that are just unsolvable if you stay within the parameters of the problem as stated. Such problems cease to be a test of your skill in puzzle solving and instead become a test of your judgment and character. Like Star Treks infamous Kobayashi Maru simulation, if you are irrevocably committed to never losing an unwinnable game, sometimes your best bet really is to reprogram the game. Thats exactly what Palin did.
BTW, yes, I noticed my temporal inconsistency with George Washington titles just moments after hitting the post button. Alas that we cannot edit our posts once sent, but such is life. And I knew you would pick up on it too. To clarify then, my point was that General Washington, the de facto Commander in Chief before there was one so designated by the Constitution, was an adept user of strategic retreat, and it was no impediment to his acclamation either as a good general or later as a good president. Its just something any good leader will use when necessary. Palin did use it, and under the circumstances it was the right and the best thing to do. As you have steadfastly refused to formally contest that point, I must assume you agree with it.
Continue if you wish. Ill leave the light on for you. :)
Peace,
SR
Well argued, however at this point in time the argument may be moot, because as of this writing, she hasn’t declared her intention to actually run....I also hear her ground game in Iowa is in disarray ans that’s she is having a bit of trouble with her inner cadre...we shall see...
Folks, I am hearing from a FB associate that someone who was listening to the show has heard it announced that Palin will be on Bob and Mark tomorrow AM, time uncertain, but roughly noonish for the middle of the country, well placed for a Rush relay. Can we confirm this? We should confrim this before going to Defcon 5, or whatever they call it.
OH MY GOODNESS!
THAT MEANS ANNOUNCEMENT DAY IS CONSTITUTION DAY, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 17! (just like I and others have guessed!)
|
Katie Couric would be better.
Is there show podcasted form today. Maybe someone can listen to see if this is correct.
That’s what I was thinking ...
We know when? How did I miss that news! LOL!
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.