Posted on 07/11/2009 10:48:53 AM PDT by Bob J
We all loved Sarah. She rescued the sinking McCain campaign, said all the right things and holds pretty much the same positions of most FReepers.
They all love Obama. He rescued the sinking DNC, said all the right things and holds pretty much the same positions of most liberals.
Dems, liberals and the MSM are condemned for their all consuming adoration, virtual blindness to any mistakes or faults and slobbering worship of the man. Yet when the same thing happens to Palin it turns into a virtue.
Sarah was a real coup for conservatives. But when she announced her resignation many of us saw this for what it was, a deal breaker for a Presidential campaign. Oh she might run in '12 and she might even win the nomination. But she will not be able to shake the black mark of being labeled a "quitter" by her opponent and the MSM and it is very unlikely she will be able to garner the votes among right leaning dems and independents needed to win the general election.
Sarah decided to give up the hardship of public service. Hers was much harder than most, her opponents and the MSM were relentless in their vicious attacks and persecution. Instead she decided to go for the gold, writing books, the lucrative speakers circuit, not having to answer to a hostile critics and media.
I don't blame her, I think she did what was best for herself and family so I hold no animosity for it. But let's not deceive ourselves. She effectively has taken herself out of the game, a game in which we all were invested heavily in her political future. We NEEDED Sarah to lead a conservative revolution and anyone who thinks she can do it from the sidelines, the speakers circuit, is fooling themselves, just look at Newt. Sarah wnet for Sarah and we were kicked to the curb.
All I'm wondering is if the Palin cheering section, the one that praises every move, every decision whether it's good or bad, the ones that believe she can do no wrong, the ones who look to Sarah as a second coming of some sort, can you please take off the blinders for one second and see reality of the situation?
I ask this because I see these blind followers possibly leading us down a road to failure in '12. Let Sarah be, let her speak, write books, continue saying all the right things, make lots of money and establish some peace in her private life. She, of all, knows her decision has taken her out of the presidential ball game and she is good with it (if she doesn't then she does not have the political savvy to earn our support).
But quit with the relentless, vicious, nasty and foul attacks on your fellow FReepers who have taken the blinders off and made peace with what this all means. You're not doing Sarah any good and of she read some of things that are being written here I have a feeling she'd be the first to blush and ask it to stop.
I think she also did the best thing for Alaska given the circumstances. I guess selflessness is not a virtue in politics eh?
Another question is did Obama draw anybody other than hard leftists? The answer, of course is....No.
And the extension is that there is a sizable bloc of female voters out there to be won. I heard Greta (Fox News) opine that the piling on of Palin pushed certain buttons in women that men do not even know exist.
Here is something that Sarah and Obama have in common:
Sarah doesn’t think she is Barack Obama and neither does Barack Obama.
Sarah thinks she is just Sarah Palin.
Barack thinks he is G_D.
We don’t blindly “love” Sarah for the color of her skin but many, many Obama-bots love their black Messiah because he is black.
They didn’t know, or want to know, anything else about him - just that he is black.
And we won’t vote for Sarah because we believe it will prove to others we are open minded and not racist.
But that is exactly why many mindless liberal voters cast a ballot for Obama.
I second that yup.
But the impression I get is that Obamaworship is more hard core than the current Palin phenomenon.
If you love Sarah, you love her with all her flaws, and you'll hear a lot more about them before the media is done with her.
That's going to make the luster wear off over time.
In contrast, Obama fans don't usually know much about him and don't want to learn anything that will disturb their impression of him.
The way the media manages things, they won't have to hear anything negative about him for a very long time.
“And the extension is that there is a sizable bloc of female voters out there to be won. I heard Greta (Fox News) opine that the piling on of Palin pushed certain buttons in women that men do not even know exist.”
Here’s just one of the PUMA forums...
http://www.hillarysvillage.net/grand-central/
Notice the Palin sticky thread at the top.
There are many democrat women who are livid at Sally Quinn, etc., for their hypocritical, sanctimonious diatribes against Sarah. Greta is one of them.
Well for good or bad you’ve gone and done it now. Blinders can’t be removed like taking off a pair of sun glasses. It takes time for the reality to sink in and rational judgement to come forth.
Palin will at some point need to really sit down and assess what, when, how and where she intends to take her newly found appeal. Right now I don’t think she has even given that a lot of indepth thought from comments she’s made which range across a large spectrum.
If she intends to remain out of the elective process herself then getting out and campaigning for different candidates is okay to some extent assuming the candidate has invited her to do so. However if she has any intention of getting back into an elective campaign for her ownself then I think she needs to stay out of the campaigning for and endorsment business. Example: Texas governor, to which she’ll alienate a large portion of the voters of which he’ll need onboard her train if she chooses to run.
“Reaching across the aisle” is okay for someone that is going to be a promoter but not a candidate. To endorse and support an opposing party is only helping keep a vote in place for the oppositing when it comes down to crunch time. You can bet the party leaders will demand and get that vote on critical issues.
At some point actions have consequences. We’ll see later on down the line what the consequences are for Palin regarding stepping down, endorsing candidates, supporting opposition candidates, etc. etc. Until then it is a lot of verbage both oral and written that in reality won’t mean much.
Take care.
Thanks. As conservatives, we eschew race and gender and insist that our judgment is based on principles and beliefs. That is how I try to think.
We saw how strong the race card is in the last election. We’ve yet to see how strong the gender card might be.
You did ask. And...aren’t they? Are they based on any facts you can give me? They’re just Bob’s assumptions.
Didn’t you mention that we were basing our disagreement on assumptions. I laid out for you what my main concern was, and you ignored it and tried to focus back on Bob.
Look, I’m telling you why I object. It isn’t based on an assumption. There aren’t any conservative Democrats.
Give me a list of Democrats you think are Conservatives. Perhaps you’ll convince me. So far I’m not convinced, and it’s not based on an assumption. It’s based on observation.
What we think she's doing is twofold:
1. She's going after off blue-collar Democrat voters
2. She's sending a not-so-subtle message to the Republican party establishment. It goes something like this:
"If you continue to favor Vichy Republicans (like Crist) at the expense of conservatives (like Rubio), you will have lost the base. Continue to ignore the grassroots at your own peril. They are already angry with you, and if you do not show them some love, you will have lost them, possibly forever."
But that's our opinion.
...and I tend to agree.
I totally agree with you. No matter how the left tries to protray us, we look at the content and character of a candidate, not the color of their skin or their gender, when in fact it’s the ‘Rats who do that. They have quotas for their convention, for goodness sakes!
I read recently where support for the parties from women is narrowing, though the ‘Rats still retain the lead. However, that lead is now rather small, where it’s usually pretty significant. I’ve tried to find that poll, and failed to do so. Sorry...:o(
I said that she said she was going to support conservative Democrats. That is a fact. If there are none then she won’t support them.
There seems to be an assumption that she’s going to support just any Democrat and that is NOT what the lady said.
I agree with your version.
However, she said, “I WILL BE CAMPAIGNING FOR CONSERVATIVE INDEPENDENTS AND DEMOCRATS.”
She’ll be campaigning for Democrats if I take her at her word, but they won’t be conservatives because there simply aren’t any. Does she really think there are? Evidently so.
That’s why I think this statement was ill thought out and another mistake.
Reagan went after blue collar Democrats. He didn’t go on the campaign stump to get Democrats elected.
The woman thinks she’s going to find some Democrats who agree with her. If she does, then I have to consider if I agree with her.
And when all is said and done, and the Democrats still have the majority, how is that going to help an administration she hopes to head up?
If the Dems are the majority, they control what comes to the floor of the House. Translated, that means what things they are going to investigate. Do you begin to get the picture?
The Dems would have the majority representation on all the committees. How would that help out Palin, when any Democrat she helped to get into Congress, will only be appointed to insignificant posts?
Just dang...
I think it is a great idea, but the poll numbers indicate a large polarizing factor with her which Reagan did not have. In order to minimize or erase that factor she needs to work on the things that concern moderates and indies. She doesn't need to convince us. She needs to convince them. Without a serious position, whereby she could demonstrate competency, credibility, intelligence and leadership, I don't see how she's going to turn their perception of her around. Books and campaign stops will not do it(especially with the media working 24/7 on the Quayle effect).
All I can say is that every other dog in the race surely will bring us defeat so if that is your reasoning we are better off with a real Conservative like Sarah.
No, I didn’t miss it, which is why I knew that you were saying Palin was better than Obama when your words at face value indicate that she’s worse.
True. Thing is, these days, we've got RINOs more liberal than some dems. Nevertheless, she goes stumping for dems to get elected, we'll drop her like a hot potato. That's the big difference Bob J, WE worship God alone!
Thanks for the follow-up.
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.