Posted on 02/23/2009 9:19:15 PM PST by VinL
If Barack Obama has been the most remarkable phenomenon of the recent political scene, Sarah Palin must be second. The emotional responses to each-- especially by the media and the intelligentsia -- go beyond anything that can be explained by the usual political differences of opinion on issues of the day.
That liberals would be thrilled by another liberal is not surprising. But there are conservative Republicans who voted for Barack Obama, and other conservatives who may not have voted for him, but who are quick to see in various pragmatic moves of his since taking office an indication that he is not an extremist.
Anyone familiar with history knows that Hitler and Stalin were pragmatic. After years of denouncing each other, they signed the Nazi-Soviet pact under which they became allies for a couple of years before going to war against one another.
Pragmatism tells you nothing about extremism.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Well, I'm glad you back your unfounded accusations up with facts.
Unfortunately, Palin doesn't need any help in the "smearing" department. She's doing just fine all by herself.
As for purposeful, You betcha! If she's the GOP nominee in four years, Barack Obama will stroll into another four year term Some of us aren't going to let that happen.
“In the final analysis, that’s not Sarah Palin.”
And you know this...how?
The ‘Cuda is the only known leader in the United States today; the only leader we’ve seen since Ronald Reagan.
Good post. Too many folks at FR aren't thinking clearly about this weak potential candidate.
“I say hit them hard with everything we got!”
Absolutely.
Remember back in the 60s when the left had pamphleteers on every street corner?
Even today, all the “alternative” newspapers I know of are left wing.
The left got where they are by yelling, disrupting, and threatening, not by being right about anything.
“How in the wide world of sports do you have idea what my “life experiences” may or may not be?”
By reading what you write.
“there’s a percentage of Americans that think it’s a badge of honor to graduate from college “just barely” and while there to demonstrate ZERO intellectual, social or cultural curiosity.”
1. When you work your own way through college, as some of us did, “just barely” can be damned heroic. Not that you’d be able to see that.
2. You have no idea how much “intellectual, social or cultural curiosity” Sarah Palin demonstrated at any time.
Bearing false witness is not a good thing.
“Lastly, for someone with a journalism degree (incidentally, journalism is by far one of the easier degrees to obtain), her performance during media interviews was remarkably poor.”
Has it really escaped your notice that her “interviews” were edited to make her look bad?
And that was the fault of McLame’s people for demanding that she submit to them.
“her performance during media interviews was remarkably poor. Her vocabulary is stunted and her extemporaneous speaking skills are abysmal.”
Ridiculous.
I judge Sarah Palin by what she did (or in her case didn't) say and how she said it.
When asked absolutely fundamental and rudimentary questions, like "What do you read or what have you read?", she completely fell down.
This was a open ended question that she could have and should have knocked out of the park. Instead of recalling the first time she read Adam Smith, Buckley, Friedman or Goldwater she stammered. Why? Because she hasn't read ANY of those people. When you do, you remember. You don't have to be rich, or come from money or go to an Ivy League university to read the pillars of modern day conservatism.
Furthermore, she couldn't name one, NOT ONE, newspaper, periodical or pamphlet that she reads on a semi-regular basis. Why? Because clearly she doesn't.
Lastly, if the question offended her (as she has later claimed), then she should have said so at the time. Someone with capable communication skills could have teed Couric up as demeaning, biased or grandstanding. Palin didn't'. She didn't because she was intimidated by Katie Couric. President's of the United States can't be intimidated by Katie Couric.
-- Tenn, not in a good mood today, choosing fights that might actually stand a minuscule chance of being won.
Meanwhile, I'm crossing my fingers and buying her a subscription to Human Events.
Thank you , exactly right, Armstrong Williams is the Republican pundit who was unclear just weeks before the election. Whew.
One lesson learned and a half dozen cropped up anew. I was mildly aware of some doubt surrounding my post but went ahead anyways. As you can see from the response to my post, I drew some flak.
On the bright side I’m now more familiar with Mr. Sowell’s works and am wondering about chances for a 2012 candidacy. Given the politicization of race today, wouldn’t a Sowell candidacy be worthy of an in-depth discussion?
Had you remembered the Williams interwiews, or were you thinking the worse, that widdle wabbit had made the time worn mistake of not being able to differentiate one black pundit from another, lol?
Thanks again GLDNGUN, got to go watch the Commander in Chief address the Joint Session Of Congress, God help us.
And just how do you know that?
By reading what you write.
Thank you. :^)
You know, that term "alternative" always fried me. I did some spot writing for them for awhile. One I wrote for years ago had a "Flush Rush" bumper sticker in the office. It was a great and prosperous little paper, but that was no thanks to its politics. It was thanks to its advertising.
I always wanted to ask the editors (and I think I did once or twice, but the answers didn't stay with me), "Alternative to WHAT?" But then again, some of the Weeklies were and truly are alternatives in that regard, so it's bad work to badmouth them entirely. The sad secret is that what was once a loosely bound network of independent small newspapers, were all bought up and conglomerated as one company. They're about as independent and unrelated as the L.A. Times, which owns (or vice versa) the Chicago Trib, along with KTLA Channel 5 news in L.A. All L.A. Times, in spite of the different names. Same now with about 90 percent of the weeklies, the last time I looked, though it's been awhile. I do see they're overwhelmingly activist liberal in their ideas of what's newsworthy.
Pamphlets ... advertising that works ... hmmmmmm ...
I wonder, was she expecting the question? Had she been led to believe that such questions woudln't be asked?
YOU, x, are in front of rolling cameras and Pinhead Couric or any of the major MSM frowing, moralizing, "curious" Heads asks you point blank:
What newspapers and magazines do you read to inform yourself?
If you answer "The L.A. Times" or "Newsweek" or "Drudge Report" or "Free Republic" or "Washington Post" or Washington Times" or "Foreign Events" or "Hoover Digest" or "Foreign Affairs" or whatever -- it'll be the wrong answer. WRONGO. Frankly, anybody who tells me that they are informed mostly by the L.A. Times and radio or tv network news, I will know they are stone-cold ignorant idiots.
Anybody who tells Catie Couric otherwise will be spun as a stone-cold ignorant idiot.
We can all sit here and second-guess and armchair quarterback and talk about how Palin should operate on the media stage amid hot personality conflicts, and remember too that God made Palin drop-dead gorgeous, which proves He has a sense of humor. But consider this, gentlemen and ladies:
Do you think Sarah Palin has ever actually watched "Oprah"? I'm a woman. I have never watched more than a passing few minutes of the show or its adds promoting guests and topics ... and have never had the slightest desire to watch it. I know two kinds of women -- the kind who watch "Oprah," and the kind who would find it about as engaging as "The Flintstones." I'm pretty sure I know which one Palin is, and which one Couric is.
My point is that Palin is pioneering some new American territory with regard to women ... well, not "new," because there's nothing new under the sun (that is very great comfort to remember from Ecclesiastes) ... but she is working in a whole different dynamic with regard to expectations. Oprah types, Daddies and feminized men have problems with it, I think maybe!
Sarah Palin doesn’t much strike me as a reader of anything...
Again, I say to you the learned scholar who currently occupies (dare I say usurps) the oval office has many of those credentials and more and so far he’s the worst we’ve had. No thanks I’ll take Sarah from good ol Idaho State, you can keep all the duds with their fancey school’n.
btt
An excerpt:
Why do the pampered poodles of the elite media loathe Sarah so much? Let’s go down the list.
She’s only 44 years old. She’s just not seasoned enough - and if you don’t believe me, just ask Gloria Steinem, age 74, or Barbara Walters, age 78, or Sally Quinn, age 67, or Eleanor Clift, age 68, or Andrea Mitchell, age 61, or Gail Collins, age 62.
Why, up on the stage, it has been noted that you can distinguish Sarah’s ankles from her calves. She’s never had a Botox injection. The hags of the Hamptons speak as one on this issue. Snow White Palin must be stopped. Anybody got a poisoned apple?
....................
And finally, we return to the real reason they hate her. She’s younger than they are, and better looking. Good looks is a deal breaker with this crowd, and if you don’t believe me, just ask Diane Feinstein, age 75, and Nancy Pelosi, age 68, and Hillary Clinton, age 61, and Barbara Boxer, age 67, and Barbara Mikulski, age 72.
Beautiful People indeed. In this case, the phrase is meant figuratively, not literally.
You also invite me to expand and brag on the ones who you would talk to and see for five minutes and come away thinking they were crippled hicks, only to learn later that they were pretty darned successful in their current blue-collar or manufacturing endeavor, and had been a former professional orchestra violinist, or college-degreed engineer, or former restaurateur with a science degree -- you'd assume they were hicks wrongly. There are a lot of pretty smart folks you'd never even recognize.
You are like the Cowardly Lion in the Wizard of Oz, thinking that a medal confers courage. No more do diplomas, awards, certificates, and honors confer intelligence or ethics.
Listen, what we’re dealing with here and with Big Monkey(?) are what I perceive are the country club pubbies. These are the “conservatives” (McCain-backers) Sowell was referring to. They don’t like a common man’s candidate you can tell it how much disdain shown in their comments. Probably both high-end income earners (not mad at that) but the attitude is one of superiority and pedigree. The Republican Party is changing and we’re going with the plain spoken salt of the earth types. I’m no longer going for the professional politician nor the “It’s my turn because of my upbringing, background, and heritage” types-—bump that give me Sarah and Fred Thompson and Rush Limbaugh types.
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.