Cheers!
Posted on 02/13/2010 7:56:47 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Since Sarah Palin won't rule out running for the presidency in 2012, her performance recently at the Tea Party convention in Nashville deserves more scrutiny. Voters may have to soon evaluate her as a future leader of our nation and defender of the free world. Which makes her strikingly vapid answers to the softball questions thrown her way all the more frightening.
When Palin barnstormed the country as Sen. John McCain's running mate, she had a glaring lack of comprehension of national issues. But then, she had a lot to learn in a short time.
By now she should be prepared, particularly since she quit her day job. But she's not. While her written remarks at the Tea Party were intelligible, her performance during the question period demonstrated that Palin has no command of issues and has little to offer beyond platitudinous and confused rhetoric.
Sitting in a comfy armchair, she answered questions put to her by the adoring Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation.
Palin was asked: "We hear about the Obama plan. What's the Palin plan?" Her answer on her national defense plan -- the entirety of it -- was this: "And when it comes to national security, as I ratchet down the message on national security, it's easy to just kind of sum it up by repeating Ronald Reagan when he talked about the Cold War. And we can apply this now to our war on terrorism, you know. Bottom line, we win, they lose. We do all that we can to win."
Compare that bit of nearly indecipherable triumphalism with the answer President Barack Obama gave at a news conference Tuesday when asked about Iran's decision to further enrich uranium -- which is too long to reprint verbatim.
First he spoke about efforts to negotiate with Iran and the country's rejection of the offer to convert "low-enriched uranium" into the "isotopes that they need" for medical research and hospitals. Then Obama said bluntly, "That indicates to us that, despite their posturing that their nuclear power is only for civilian use, that they in fact continue to pursue a course that would lead to weaponization."
He went on to discuss the "regime of sanctions" being developed to isolate Iran, and the role China and Russia might play.
Whether you agree with Obama's approach or not, it was an articulate briefing that gave context to, and specific action for, a vexing national-security issue.
Back to Palin, who was asked at the Tea Party for her three top things to get done if conservatives win majorities in Congress.
It was here that Palin peeked at her hand for some palm-prompter help, meaning she was probably given advance notice of the question. Even so, her answer was a garble of attack-Obama talking points and pandering to the Christian right.
Palin: "We've got to rein in spending, obviously, and not raise it extremely high budgets and then say, OK, we are going to freeze a couple programs here. That doesn't do us any good really. We've got to start reining in the spending."
Palin's excruciating syntax aside, she's a jejune thinker. Without notes, she could barely conjure the words to cryptically criticize Obama's budget.
Her second priority, she said, is domestic drilling and mining for fossil fuels -- "oil and gas and our coal." She offered a fuller energy policy in her prepared remarks, but extemporaneously, the equivalent of "drill, baby, drill" was all she could muster.
Palin's last must-do for Congress is to allow "America's spirit to rise again." To do this, she said, we should seek "some divine intervention again in this country so that we can be safe and secure and prosperous again. To have people involved in government who aren't afraid to go that route."
Gee, is there really a dearth of religious politicians? I can't seem to find any who aren't. But I don't doubt some miracle for our nation would be needed, desperately, if Palin-like conservatives took Congress.
During the Q&A, Palin called on people to run for office who have no elective office experience and don't have "some kind of fat elite resume in their back pocket." I guess that is one way to make herself sound cogent by comparison -- dissuade candidates with training, education and knowledge.
All I can say is in 2012, I "hopey" we don't "changey" to this embarrassing woman.
Sorry, but she’s no Maggie Thatcher.
One of Zero's 'articulate' briefings on Iraq during the presidential campaign.
I am a monthly donor to SarahPAC and yes she could do better and with time I believe she will. She is not running for president right now. I remember Reagan and I was never enamored of his one on one interviews; he was a better stump speaker and campaigner, just like SP. She has gotten better in the last few months. She was much better with Chris Wallace than the TP interviewer.
BHO of course is wrong on all issues and a vapid sophist, taking 2 minues to say basically: we can’t trust Iran with any nuclear devices.
Is “weaponization” even a word? Plus he is a liar and fraud.
There is no contest on integrity issues
I think she will get better; she has already gotten better. She debated the 2 other candidates in the AK governor race and acquitted herself well enough to get 50%, IIRC.
Her facebook postings and op-ed columns shows she can understand the issues; she needs to translate that into debate speech, which is really what these interviews are. She needs to prep for them like a debate.
If she can do that, nothing will stop her. Even now she gets traction, but she may lose some if in a debate with Romney etc, she can not put him in his place and he looks to have more command of facts.
Obama talks a lot but says nothing.
Palin can say 5 words and I know exactly where she stands on an issue.
Obama can say 500 words and says nothing.
Another entertaining find. You make my night shift fly by.
Whereas Robyn Blumner is possessed of all the wisdom of the ages....
The media hates Sarah Palin. The polls are tampered with to make her look bad. People who loved Ronald Reagan also love Sarah.
It would be smart to not let the media decide who the Republican Presidential candidate will be.
If it is not Sarah Palin, the media wins again. They gave $800 million of free propaganda to Zero. Ronald Reagan could not have won and his poll numbers would be where Sarah’s are today if they did to Reagan what they are doing to her. Remember how McCain’s numbers were so good until he was running against Zero! The media manipulated the election and the polls.
We would be wise to take back the media by going around them and not letting them dictate our nominee.
We could strike a blow to them once and for all by doing all we can to get Sarah elected!!
The biggest reason they hate Sarah are her Pro Life Stand and her Christian faith which she doesn’t hide.
Use the security council to put sanctions on Iran? Gee, why didn't anyone think of doing this before. Oh yeah, because China and Russia are trading partners with Iran and threaten to veto any meaningful sanctions, as they have for years. What dope this lady is.
Cheers!
yes this would be really “smart” to do. define yourself, corner yourself into pin point policy positions three years out. Do that instead of what every other politician does so that their political enemies do not use their own words against them.
If she followed this advice it would be like the saints showing the colts their playbook before the Superbowl.
How stupid do you think she is?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!
Amusing as it's coming from a defender of the reader of the TOTUS, devoid of original thought.
EVERYTHING that Obama says is written by someone else and then printed on the teleprompter for him to just read, Sarah had a few general keywords and they make this a comparison?
I'm sorry, but I think Obama is the worst speaker I ever heard. He makes no sense and has that irritating halting speaking style that makes me want to puke. He's a national embarrassment.
“Jourbalist” used to be ib the title. Now it is gone.
You probably thought I said Gerbilist, which, though potentially appropriate, would be mean.
You have to decode these lefty columnists.
“She displayed a stunning lack of comprehension of the issues.”=”She’s not liberal.”
And beSideS, there are thoSe infuriating whiStling Ss.
She’s a big time lefty:
“Robyn Blumner is a civil liberties and labor law expert who writes about individual freedom, trade, globalization and workers’ rights.”
Rest of her bio:
http://www.tmsfeatures.com/bio/robyn-blumner/
All I can say is in 2012, I "hopey" we don't "changey" to this embarrassing woman.
Opinion: The author just lost her 15 moments of fame with that unprofessional, petulant and catty bottom line.
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.