Posted on 02/17/2010 8:27:21 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The Republican presidential nominee, an Arizona senator, was a maverick, which was part of his charm. He spoke and acted impulsively, which was part of his problem. Voters thought his entertaining dimensions might be incompatible with presidential responsibilities. For example, he selected a running mate most Americans had never heard of and who had negligible experience pertinent to the presidency. This was 1964.
Barry Goldwater, whose seat John McCain occupies, chose to run with Bill Miller, a congressman from Lockport, N.Y., near Buffalo. Miller, Goldwater cheerfully explained, annoyed Lyndon Johnson. After the Goldwater-Miller ticket lost 44 states, Miller retired to Lockport, where he practiced law and lived in dignified anonymity until his death in 1983. Although he had served as an assistant prosecutor of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg and spent seven terms in Congress, no one suggested he should be considered for the 1968 Republican presidential nomination.
Yet Sarah Palin, who with 17 months remaining in her single term as Alaska's governor quit the only serious office she has ever held, is obsessively discussed as a possible candidate in 2012. Why? She is not going to be president and will not be the Republican nominee unless the party wants to lose at least 44 states.
Conservatives, who rightly respect markets as generally reliable gauges of consumer preferences, should notice that the political market is speaking clearly: The more attention Palin receives, the fewer Americans consider her presidential timber. The latest Post-ABC News poll shows that 71 percent of Americans -- including 52 percent of Republicans -- think she is not qualified to be president.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
They believed as they wrote in their papers; read them and get educated.
You’re really transparent!
I wish they'd say "I just don't like her" and let it go at that.
Yet, they insist on making stuff up.
Nice definition of failure you have. It set forth the ideals that led to the Reagan Revolution 15 years later.
Sometimes real political change takes time, and the fact that you consider the '64 speech a failure simply because Goldwater lost might explain why you think Palin can change the world with 5 minutes on the political stage.
Your biggest problem is a total lack of analytical ability.
Failure is failure.
All it would take to prove me wrong is to give me a list of Founders that believed that "only Christians" should serve as President, WITH sources.
Then please explain why this huge majority of the Founders failed in getting even an affirmation of God qualification in the Constitution.
The Constitution says NO RELIGIOUS TEST!! Read it and educate yourself! You can start with Article VI.
Ummm... if Sarah Palin runs, she will be running against 0bama. Ergo, 0bama is the person to contrast and compare her to.
I don't think Obama is qualified either,”
53% of American votes thought he was qualified. That's what counts.
” but it has nothing to do with his 5 minute resume, it has to do with his corrupt and statist ideas.”
It has everything to do with it
Yup.
You pretty much covered it.
Using your standard, Palin's convention and stump speeches were also failures, because her ticket lost the election to a Marxist who admitted he wanted to "spread the wealth around".
“Now, it’s a battle of definitions..”
If it is a battle you have lost it. Populism is not as you defined it in your post.
Obviously you’ve not studied any American History. - Its not within the scope of this thread to bring you up to the 8th grade level, but dawn there at 5th grade you’re just a drag on this debate. You add no useful information.
What Obama admitted was not permitted to be revealed in the MSM.
Figure it out!
I haven't made anything up.
She doesn't demonstrate a competent knowledge of any issue outside of energy, which I deem her very competent on. I support Sarah Palin....for Energy Secretary.
Listen to her speak about foreign policy, and tell me she sounds like she know what's she's talking about. It's embarrassing to watch. She spouted double talk on things like her support/non-support of the Bridge to Nowhere, she speaks in broad generalities and platitudes, she couldn't field softball interviews with lightweights like Chuck Gibson and Perky Couric, and lastly, I'd rather avoid the political baggage of months long stories in the MSM about Levi Johnston on whether or not abstinence works.
Is that enough to be skeptical and open minded to other candidates?
Pretty much the same thing I asserted in my original post.
And quite different from what you've been asserting.
Words have meanings. Populism has a specific meaning. And it's not anything that Ronald Reagan ever subscribed to.
You've confused John Adams letter to the Mass militia as "all of the founders of this nation stated that only a Christian could be qualified to hold office".
No founder ever stated such a thing, and I challenge to find a quote showing such from one Founder, much less "all of the Founders".
Thomas Paine openly mocked Christianity, and both Ben Franklin and Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. That alone proves you wrong.
There were State Constitutions that had religious tests, but I'm not bound to any state constitution that contradicts the US Constitution.
A religious test in this country is ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. No amount of playing make believe will change this.
After Sarah Palin’s RNC speech, McCain/Plain DID take the lead in the polls
However, once McCain voted for bailouts (after the September 2008 financial crash under a Republican administration), when over 70% of Americans were against bailouts, that was the end of McCain. Nothing could save him after that.
That was the point of my post; it was rhetorical. I don't believe that Palin's speeches were failures, but using his standard, they were because McCain-Palin lost the election.
Your ignorant and false statements prove nothing but the fact that you lack even a basic education in American history.
As for franklin, he toured Europe after the constitution was ratified, and repetedly stated that the nation had thereby been founded on the Bible. And the myth that Jefferson rejected the diety of Christ is completely without written proof, and is disproven by the volumes of his sermons delivered during the worship services he held in the Capitol every Sunday for several years.
Why am I sure that you haven’t read a single one of them?
Franklin is on record saying he was unsure of Christ's divinity.
Do you have any manufactured history about Thomas Paine?
She makes perfectly good sense to me. There's nothing "embarrassing" about it.
Perhaps you're put off by her accent.
Is that enough to be skeptical and open minded to other candidates?
I'm open to other candidates, too. Palin isn't my gal. Not yet. We don't even know who will be running. Or if she will.
But I'm disappointed by the weak arguments some FReepers are making against her. By the utter unwillingness to withhold judgment until we know more about who is (or might be) running. A lot can happen in the next year-and-a-half. Palin might even gain our approval...or lose mine.
Look, you just don't like her, that's all. You've got your reasons. But I've got to believe they're better than the more-or-less artificial and contrived ones you've raised.
I say this with all due respect. You're certainly entitled to your position. I just wish I better understood it.
Since you seem like a reasonable fellow, I'd ask you to view this clip and give me your reaction:
Keep in mind that I think Katie Couric is a disgusting human being, but this question did not look at all like a setup and seemed very reasonable.
Maybe you'll find her responses compelling, but I just think they're cringe inducing.
By the utter unwillingness to withhold judgment until we know more about who is (or might be) running. A lot can happen in the next year-and-a-half. Palin might even gain our approval...or lose mine.
Look, you just don't like her, that's all. You've got your reasons. But I've got to believe they're better than the more-or-less artificial and contrived ones you've raised.
I say this with all due respect. You're certainly entitled to your position. I just wish I better understood it.
I appreciate the cordial tone, which I find is a little rare on these threads when I voice skepticism about Palin's bona fides as CIC. I honestly don't hold any personal animosity for her, and I voted for and supported her and McCain in 2008.
I think it comes from the fact that I felt silly defending her "executive experience" to my liberal acquaintances during the campaign; I didn't truly believe the arguments I was making about how mayor of Wasilla and 18 months as Governor made her qualified for the most powerful position in the world, and I'm not going to be put in that position again.
I do have a candidate that I'm backing, should he/she choose to run, who I believe is more qualified and offers a better chance of winning.
If you can guess who it is, I'll admit to it. But I have no wish to bring this person into the argument on FR here because I fear that the pro-Palin behemoth will immediately set out to destroy him/her.
I'm starting a website with a friend to draft this person into the 2012 campaign, so maybe I'll get a little more vocal once that's up and running.
But my criticism of Palin's qualifications and readiness for the office is not based on wanting to bring her down to build my guy/gal up; these are honest legitimate concerns that come from someone who voted for her.
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.