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 ...
Jeez, the Palin Patrol is now down to you and the guy that believes in Geocentrism.
God help us.
Yes, by the end of the year. But they peaked in the summer and didn't start to crash until after the fiscal year ended (fiscal 2008 and calendar 2008 aren't the same). That accounts for virtually of the state's revenue increase.
Now did you care to look at what happend to state revenues during fiscal 2009?
You are kidding right?
Why on earth would I "throw Aristotle under the bus"?
Aristotle is no friend of mine, so I couldn't possibly throw him under the bus.
Believe it or not, old as I am, Aristotle was far before my time.
It's fine if you want to read Aristotle. But when you go about claiming that reading Aristotle is a pre-requisite for being president of these United States, that's where I draw the line. Reading Aristotle has nothing to do with whether one is a very good effective president or not.
Right now, our # priority is that we need someone who is tough enough to slash spending(despite loud squealing from the lefties), and bring down our crippling debts.
These Ivy League drunkos we have in Washington don't know the meaning of the words “cut spending”.
Jeez.
The Ivy League progressives like Timothy Geithner, who have been running this county for decades, are the ones that lead us into crippling debts.
It wasn't people like Sarah of Wasilla that run up $13 Trillion federal deficits.
We need less Teleprompter inspired “clean, well spoken negroes” with ZERO real life business expedience, and more people who have had real life business experience, met payrolls, and been through the hard times of business cycles, tightened their belts and survived with crippling their business with debts. Aristotle reading idiots, who don’t even know how to balance a budget, need not apply.
Bingo.
You first claimed that people who read Aristotle, Friedman, and Locke, somehow ruined the country.
Now you're saying that since a pencilneck know-nothing like Geithner is in charge of DOT, that somehow that makes room for someone like Sarah Palin.
I'd have no problem with Sarah the Governor, Sarah the Congressman, Sarah the Senator, Sarah the Secretary of Energy. But the tangents you've gone on to make the case for Sarah the President are just weak. Real damn weak.
I can't believe that you don't think that there's even another candidate out there that might be a better fit. It fits my original point that this is a big case of celebrity worship. I haven't seen any reasons from you that make the case that she is the best person for the job.
Funny you should ask that.
She tried a novel idea when oil prices fell in 2009, and Alaska's revenues fell.
It's called SPENDIG CUTS.
Now we all know 0bama doesn't even know the meaning of anything called “spending cuts”.
0bama could learn plenty from Sarah Palin.
Thanks.
Meeting a payroll is a matter of paying your staff within your available budget.
I've read Article II of the Constitution, and "meeting a payroll" isn't really in the job description.
I have a friend who works for ADP; he knows everything there is to know about meeting a payroll and what's involved. I don't think he's ready to be President though.
Given that people ao attend the Ivy Leagues are likely to have read Aristotle, as compared to say a guy that drives a tuck, or runs a fishing boat business, and given that it was the same Ivy Leguers who have been running our government for decades, its not exactly libel to say that the Ivy Leaguers drove us into deep debts is it? Look at 0bama(an Ivy Leaguer), in just 12 months he quadrupled our budget deficit, and is already making projections of doubling our total debts in just a few short years, yet he keeps right on spending.
That's something, that neither 0bama, nor most of his cabinet have ever done.
Even Blanche Lincoln, a Democratic Party Senator, was forced to ask 0bama, why close to none of his cabinet have ever met a payroll?
The 0bama government couldn't meet it's financial obligations within budget wright now, if tey out a gun to their heads. They have no idea how.
But it looks like you're main argument for Sarah Palin is that she's not Barack Obama.
Well, that's great, but there's 300 million other people in this country who are also not Barack Obama. I believe that there might be a really solid crop of candidates for the job, but her negatives, inch deep knowledge of the issues, and ditsy delivery make her a liability.
I'm going to need something more than "She's not Obama" to vote for her in the primary.
Like I said, I'll support her 100% for an appointment to Energy Secretary, but the Presidential race is serious sh*t. I'm not going to turn it over to someone who can't even get through a Katie Couric interview without sounding like an 8th grade speech class student.
No, I believe you forgot Ford and Johnson. So your point is that 4 out of the last 10 Presidents have been Governors, and since Sarah Palin was a Governor for two years, she automatically ready to be President?
Sorry, I don't find that compelling.
I don't have the greatest confidence in the "voting masses", since last time they gave us McCain in the primary, Obama in the general, and a continued Dem Congress.
The fact that she was popular for the brief period while she was Governor might be admirable, but staying popular for a short period of time is not really a challenge.
If you want to gauge GWB's Presidency for just the first two years, he was probably one of the most popular Presidents in history. What is difficult however, is keeping that popularity going, and keeping a long record of good decision making. Even Reagan wasn't a perfect President across two 4 year terms. Would Palin have been the most popular Governor in the nation if she had served two full terms? History tells us that's doubtful.
One thing I wish Palin supporters would realize, is that the left does not 'fear' Sarah Palin. The meme around here seems to be that the left bashes her because "they're so scared of her".
I can assure you that's not the case. If you talk to any leftist or peruse the lefty blogs, they're literally praying that we nominate her. It's similar to the way we felt about Howard Dean in the 2004 race. They literally think she's a potential laughing stock, and are optimistic about Obama's re-election if she's nominated, and I think they're right.
Sorry. I just can't see what you're seeing.
I fear that what many are seeing (even FReepers) is a provincial accent (JFK had one, too), a less than Ivy League education (Reagan didn't have one, either) and what the mainstream media wants them to see.
I'm not necessarily in her camp. But I feel compelled to defend her against what I see as unwarranted attacks.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Ford never got elected by anybody. He was first of all nominated to be Vice President, then became president when Nixon resigned.
Anyone can be nominated, if they don't have to work at getting elected.
Lyndon Johnson first became president when Kennedy died, not by winning an election by running for president, albeit he later won by himself in 1964.
“and since Sarah Palin was a Governor for two years, she automatically ready to be President?”
You bet.
0bama was US Senator for 2 years, with no legislation or accomplishment to to his name. That never stopped him from running and winning as president. I'll take a 2 year governor(2 1/2 years actually), over a 2 year US Senator any day.
“Sorry, I don't find that compelling”
That is relevant how?
“The fact that she was popular for the brief period while she was Governor might be admirable, but staying popular for a short period of time is not really a challenge. “
The fact that she had the highest approval ratings of any governor in the country while she was governor, based on solid accomplishments, is the only thing that counts.
If you think it's easy to retain high approval ratings for a “short time” just go ask 0bama. His approval ratings were in the toilet after just a few short months, after starting with super high approval ratings.
“If you want to gauge GWB’s Presidency for just the first two years, he was probably one of the most popular Presidents in history”
Any president will have super high ratings after 9/11. Bush's ratings were heading down fast before 9/11.
Better comparison is 0bozo’s fast sinking ratings, which started after only a few months. And that is with the media in 0bama’s pocket 24/7.
“One thing I wish Palin supporters would realize, is that the left does not ‘fear’ Sarah Palin”
Oh yes they are.
You can't have the left, on the one hand keep insisting that someone is “irrelevant” and is “not a thread in 2012”, yet spend more time attacking her than any other politician in the country. You only constantly attack the source of your fear. That's basic psychology. If someone is not a threat, you don't waste most of your life attacking them.
I can assure you, you are talking nonsense.
” If you talk to any leftist or peruse the lefty blogs, they're literally praying that we nominate her”
Chortle.
I have read some of those articles too. They are dripping with fear and hatred. On the other hand, the leftists who are more honest with themselves, have actually come out and written articles, that essentially say that any leftists who dismiss her chances for 2012, are only fooling themselves. Some of the more astute leftists, who are clued in, have even gone as far as to admit that the way things are going, she has a very good shot at clobbering 0bozo in 2012.
” It's similar to the way we felt about Howard Dean in the 2004 race”
Howard Dean flamed out in just a few short months, and was reduced to side show. On the other hand after the 2008 elections, the liberal media swore that was the end of Sarah Palin. Today she has written her book, sold 2 million books in just a few weeks, had thousands wait in sub zero temperatures to see her for just a few seconds, is in demand everywhere for speeches at 6 figure sums, is a sure fire high TV ratings magnet, and is going from strength to strength.
Let me know when thousands of people wait in freezing cold to see Howard Dean, or anyone pays Howard Dean $100,000 just to hear him speak will ya?
“They literally think she's a potential laughing stock,”
Yeah...like how they thought Scott Brown was a laughing stock and had zero chances of winning in Massachusetts..as late as just 3 weeks before the election...till he clobbered them.
Chortle.
” and are optimistic about Obama’s re-election if she's nominated, and I think they're right.”
No less a person that Dick Cheney declared just yesterday that 0bama is a one termer. I agree.
The CNN poll just this week had only 44% of voters ready to reelect 0bama.
No president with with approval ratings of just 44% has ever won re-election.
Really? In a direct comparison with the totally experience-free Obama. And what could be the defining difference between Alaska and, say, Arkansas? And since when did we have a higher bar for the Vice-Presidency than for the Presidency?
I honestly don't think the problem was with you. Instead, it was the pig-headedness of your liberal acquaintances.
That said, I rate the mayoralty of a small town as legitimate executive experience. And the governorship of a small state as not dissimilar from the governorship of a large state. Alaska, after all, does have 17,700 employees.
After a certain point, size isn't really a measure of experience. For example, would you rate the CEO of, say, Dr Pepper as less qualified than the CEO of Coca Cola?
Moreover, those jobs she's had, she appears to have done very well. Accomplishment counts, too.
Speaking of which, exactly what did Clinton accomplish in Arkansas? As distinct from what he claimed to accomplish?
I respect your tone, as well. We'll just have to agree to disagree. We can re-visit the argument as the primaries approach.
I'll be anxious to learn your secret candidate, as well. I'm not committed to Palin. There are other candidates whom I might support (none of them ran in 2008, however). But I believe her candidacy (if there is one) is something I could vote for. But, even though I'm not in her camp, I feel compelled to defend her from what I perceive to be unwarranted attacks.
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.