Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CottShop
someone brought up a good poinjt the other day- mainly that Sarah simply does not sound presidential, and people NEED someone who ‘sounds presidential’ and can rise above attacks on them instead of whining about them-

I haven't heard Sarah whine ONCE. Complain, yes, as she has every right to do. Whine, not at all. In fact, she's made it clear she's turning the tables. That's why she was under attack all weekend.

As for 'sounding Presidential', just what exactly does that mean? Does it mean using 'Easter vocabulary', as an English professor of mine used to say? Fine words are nice, but if there's no truth or meaning behind them, they're useless. Does it mean not stumbling over one's words? I don't think there is anyone alive, who speaks contemporaneously, who has not done that.

From what I've seen, Sarah Palin is an EXCELLENT public speaker, who can truly engage a crowd. She may have stumbled a time or two in interviews, but who doesn't? And when she's finished speaking, her listeners can tell you what she said, and what she meant. That, in stark contrast to those who listed to That One during the campaign, who, when asked how they liked his view on issues, said they don't remember what he said about any issues, but he just make them FEEL so good.

We've had silver tongued Presidents who lied with almost every utterance. Do we need more of them, because they're well spoken? Frankly I'd rather have someone who stumbled in their speech every now and then, as long as they revere the Constitution, and keep us safe from our enemies.

Some of Sarah's problem in 2008 was just inexperience with the national media. Well, she received a Baptism of Fire in that campaign, and she's made it clear, with her resignation speech, that she's not playing their game anymore.

The MSM, and the Democrat and Republican elites are afraid of her, and what she represents; and they SHOULD be.

167 posted on 07/08/2009 9:46:54 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]


To: SuziQ

[[I haven’t heard Sarah whine ONCE. Complain, yes, as she has every right to do.]]

Complain- Whine- it all sounds the same, and a presidential candidate should rise above it- Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, while brilliant and while they are folks who point out hte obvious, would never win because of their alarmist natures which sounds liek whining to hte average Joe-

I agree Sarah had every right to complain- the attacks against her were vicious! However, as someone pointed out- there’s no need for a person to point out hte obvious attrocities against htem because their friends ALL see what is happening, and when you complain, you just give your oponents (who incidently have NO shame whatsoever) more amunition to throw at you- Your base KNOWS what’s going on- they see the low- gutter tactics of the far left- and those running for office really should just dismiss the attacks and vow not to engage in such rhettoric- and they WILL be seen as hte better person for having done so by those that really count.

[[As for ‘sounding Presidential’, just what exactly does that mean? Does it mean using ‘Easter vocabulary’, as an English professor of mine used to say?]]

I explained what it meant just fine-

[[From what I’ve seen, Sarah Palin is an EXCELLENT public speaker, who can truly engage a crowd.]]

With what? Canned answers? Propositions on just a few subjects which she knows well? While not being so engaging in areas she isn’t so well versed?

I’m NOT saying she can’t attract- she obviously can, but listening CLOSELY to her engagements with other candidates, her message was thin on several issues.

She DOES have strengths, subjects she knows well, and hwich DO inspire, but listening carefully to her WHOLE messages, she just needs to prep a bit better in my opinion

[[That, in stark contrast to those who listed to That One during the campaign, who, when asked how they liked his view on issues, said they don’t remember what he said about any issues, but he just make them FEEL so good.]]

I fully agree- Obama’s message was VERY weak as well- but hte difference was that he sold his nothing message much better than both McCain and Sarah- the people bought into Obama’s crap- But IF Sarah could manage a stronger messafge of hope- WITH answers- and do so in a dynamic manner such as ickface did- She could win in my opinion.

[[Frankly I’d rather have someone who stumbled in their speech every now and then, as long as they revere the Constitution, and keep us safe from our enemies]]

I FULLY agree- however, it’s HOW the message is old- HOW the substance is presented- whether or not it inspires confidence and hope and change (actually, the GOP did NOT need to change ANYTHING- they just had to drop their droning message and ramp up the excitement and rhettoric in their presentation-

McCain, while sort of spot on on many issues was just plain BORING- People didn’t want an old droning man in office EVEN IF His messages were more spot on correct- that’s just hte way it is in politics and in people’s minds unfortunately. YES, I’d much rather have someone who was honest and honestly cared abotu htis coutnry, even IF they don’t present hteir message well- but unfortunately, in htem inds of hte masjority of peopel in htis country- that’s not hte way to win elections. The Two Bush’s did NOT present htemselves very well, and hwile most of their policies were the right ones, the public was conned into thinking we needed ‘change’ by a more dynamic presenter unfortunately

[[The MSM, and the Democrat and Republican elites are afraid of her, and what she represents; and they SHOULD be.]]

I agree- and yes, well they should be- however, they were afraid of her last time she ran for VP, they were afraid her correct messages on topics she knew well would resound with hte public- but it did not unfortunately, and it’s my opinion that it was because of the way she presented tyhe messages- Yes, her fan base liked the messages quite well, but she and drone-head McCain could not win the independents and moderate Dems because they didn’t present hteir messages with the dynamic energy with promisses of hope that Obama did (and which he NEVER deleivered on- but He’ll present the same messages next election- conning hte people into beleiving his policies are working, but that he needs more time for htem to be fully realized- and hte people, because of his dynamic delivery, will buy into it hook line and sinker)

I’m not against Sarah by any means- and I think she WOULD make an excellent Pres- however, the people sent a clear message that both she and McCain did not have the goods in theirm inds- and it’s my beleif that Sarah has lost ground by complaining- which unfortunately, as explained, sounds like whining to people- the people want someone tough- someone who can weather the crap thrown at them- Her complaining just unfortunatyely made her look weak- EVEN though she had every right to complain-

What she hsould have done was hired a strong spokesperson to weigh in on the allegations for her, so that the people would have seen her in the background, fully justified in having someone come out to complain for her, and seen her as strong and better than her oponents by refusing to sink to their level or to complain herself- she would have been seen as much stronger, and more as the recipiant of false allegations by thugs in the mainstream media and on the far left. Bush should have doen the same hting- had someone defending him strongly agaisnt all those nasty allegations and rumors- but he didn’t- and the people just never really got to know him and his work because he was so silent (which incidently made him look weak as well)


261 posted on 07/08/2009 1:38:54 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson