Posted on 04/19/2010 5:52:15 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Perhaps what America needs right now is a President who personifies the American dream and the American spirit. Palin certainly fits that bill.
We need to start convincing all our immigrants that buying into the American dream and philosophy will be great for them. If we don’t, this country is on its way to balkanization. A President who is constantly apologizing for America is not going to inspire greatness in our citizens.
This is one of my favorite things about Palin: she is unapologetically and completely American.
She won’t be the first politician with issues to deal with in the campaign.
Clinton, famously, had the bimbo eruptions that everyone worried about. He was able to deal with it via a complicit media that simply refused to acknowledge it. Palin would get no such treatment from the MSM.
Do I think that the simple explanation: “She left the office to lay the groundwork for a run at the presidency and to counter a financial attack in Alaska.” would be acceptable to the American public?
I don’t see that as a bad explanation myself, so I don’t know why others would have that much trouble with it.
Will it win?
That’s why they have primary campaigns.
_____________________________
I don't think it will sway the 70 million voters she would need to win, especially since the attacks would be succinct to the point of utterly accessible simplicity - "quitter". In print. On TV 'news'. On SNL. On ubiquitous posters. It would be her scarlet letter.
And, the battle over the brand would increase the divide not bridge it. If she were to be forced to repeatedly 'explain' then they would have successfully diverted her energies and effectively subverted her message. If she were to choose to take the "I answered that already, let's move on" stance it would do nothing to stop the attacks. In fact, they would likely increase in vitriol (remember with whom we are dealing - Alinsky).
This type of assault causing the candidate to appear both defensive and off message was used successfully against Kerry in 2004 when he spent two very valuable weeks in October fighting the Swiftboat guys. It is a tried and true tactic.
I genuinely believe that because of this, and to a lesser extent, her slim resume, she is unelectable. If we nominate her I see four more years of disaster in DC.
We seem to disagree on that. Time will tell.
Her being present in any national campaign would make the answer to "quitter" also a one word response: "Strategist."
And her presence in the campaign would be the irrefutable evidence that her straterery had paid off.
The public grows weary of overly-aired complaints that are overtly political. Many politicians innoculate themselves against these issues by bringing them up early in the campaign and answering them over and over.
GWBush could have done this with his alcohol issue had he been foresighted enough to see that back in 98-99. Instead, it became a bombshell when dropped the last week of the campaign.
Even by the end of that week it had already started to stall.
And a DUI and a bout with alcoholism is far worse than a strategic campaign decision.
They rehabilitated Kerry, despite his obvious anti-war, Jane Fonda connections, to the extent that he damn near won the presidency. He's probably the worst candidate to run in my lifetime, but they managed to do it and to do it well.
Glad to hear you are no Romneyite.
Don’t really know much about Ryan to comment. I know he’s a pro-life, pro-gun conservative, so that’s an excellent start.
Ever since Coulter endorse Romney, I don’t listen to her candidate preferences. Really wish she hadn’t done that.
I listen to her opinions on other things, but not about candidates.
I was not aware that Ronald Reagan ever ran a samll business. And while it is good experience, why exactly that would make a great president and four to six years as a senator would not is to me a little puzzling. Are you saying all past and present Republican senators would make awful presidents? And to contend that Nixon's main goal was socialism is so absurd as to require no answer.
First, if you don’t realize that Richard “Run Right, Govern Left” Nixon was a socialist, you’re out in the woods for sure. We wouldn’t have Red China to contend with were it not for Nixon pulling their fat out of the fire in the early ‘70s, at our great expense. He could have blown them over with a feather at the time, and sealed the already acquired victory in Viet Nam in the process. A real Republican would have done opposite of Nixon in every instance.
Reagan ran several businesses, one of which was his ranch, but that’s irrelevent. Time spent in congress is destructive, not helpful in making a president. Most members of congress know nothing but the practice of law, which is also an impediment to governance.
Palin is the ideal president because she knows by experience how government works, but that it should not work that way. She knows that the present system has to be dug out by the roots, and none of the chaff candidatews have a clue, nor desire to do so. They’re used to profiting from the broken system.
Sure, go ahead...call him a socialist. Whatever.
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.