Posted on 01/11/2010 9:55:13 AM PST by Al B.
>That doesn’t sound like “declaring for the presidency” to me.
Agreed. What Presidential candidate ever did this.
Then again, I hope this is new ground, and the kind of transparency we can expect.
Besides, free press.
This would be like Ronald Reagan’s career in radio. His commentary kept him in the public eye and vastly increased his positives as the Great Communicator right up until he declared as a candidate for president. That kind of career?
***********************************
I stand corrected.
I can picture that: Good one!
Grooming herself to replace Rush.
Why do you think I would be upset, I am used to it. The Democrats never follow the law unless it suits their needs. Note how many CongressCritters have been under investigation for wrong doing, yet not one person has been brought to trial. I don't expect any charges, or demands to step down. They may however voluntarily do so after they destroy the country.
"No controlling Legal Authority." Remember that one?
RE :” The Democrats never follow the law unless it suits their needs.”
Didnt you in a previous post say the law is what ‘the people’ decide it is? But ‘the people’ are roughly split down the middle into lean left, lean right, right and left.
So were you not justifying dems doing it? Are you saying they dont follow the law so we shouldnt?
NPR mental patient Mara Liasson
Great line! But Liasson isn’t fit to wipe Sarah’s shoes much elss sit at the same table.
A vague reference to both the Congress, and the people through, "Jury Nullification."
I Like Megan, I just think she lets the law get in the way of common sense. She just quotes her opinion on the law as she sees it, it detracts from her apparent core beliefs. She seems in conflict.
Mean while The Obama administration has announced they will not be looking to charge pot distributors, in California, so California is moving to legalize all pot sates, not just medical. So much for the law. It is only the Law if they choose to enforce it.
Common Sense is more moral, than precedent.
For the record, I’m a HUGE fan of Palin and have willingly entered the debate with all doubters as to her potential. I just don’t think the FOX move is the right one for her political future. It may be great for her family, and I support that move. but - and I may be wrong about this - I think it limits her potential and makes her one of the chattering classes. I feel the same about the revolving door with all news contributers and their political aspirations.
Let’s hope I am 100% off the mark.
LIVE THREAD: Sarah Palin on O’Reilly Tonight
Posted on 01/12/2010 5:15:03 PM PST by Jean S
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2426953/posts
My views have been somewhat similar to that, perhaps a few different points being made, but we’re pretty much on the same page.
For this reason my emphasis has been on her going to school on debate tactics and foreign policy. I have urged that she take foreign trips and meet with various world leaders.
What it looks like, is that she thinks she’s arrived and now is prepared to become a televison personality.
I don’t think we’re quite there yet. That’s my take on it.
We’ll see how it goes.
When it defend Sarah from the left, it’s a bit different than when I am frank about the weaknesses I see.
Their attacks on her are disgusting. My thoughts on her are meant to urge her to do things that will enhance her, and cause her to become the best leader she can be.
I appreciate your kudos.
As in Will Robinson's alloy babysitter, or Jesse Ventura?
...help me Obi Wan Kenobe, you’re my only hope...help me Obi Wan Kenobe, you’re my only hope...help me Obi Wan Kenobe, you’re my only hope...
Laws can be wrong. For instance there were many laws on books about segregation before they were fought in courts. Before they were overturned the legal precedence was overwhelmingly opposed to desegregation. The rights of Blacks had to be championed and won through court cases that argued against the overwhelming preponderance of laws on the books.
I still remember as a child in the 60's going down south and being utterly shocked at the separate drinking fountains, doors etc. for blacks. My Grandfather was nervous about how shocked I was and concerned that I might speak out against it. He warned me to keep my mouth shut so that we did not get lynched. He knew I had a track record of confronting even grown ups vigorously if I felt that what they were doing was wrong.
That was not the issue being discussed. Obviously laws have been repealed or overturned.
These groupies were complaining because Megyn Kelly is tasked to be a legal expert by FNC (and she does it expertly) and they want her to instead give O Reilly type ‘morality vs the law’ speeches. She is not acting as political commentator. I actually like to see someone not cloud up all subjects with their personal views, vs those playing to the audience emotions like BoR or liberals (John Edwards is a good example.)
REf #208
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.