Odd how every one of these Palin hit pieces involves the author telling us what they personally feel about Palin, not any reasoned argument against her.
They would make Saul Alinsky proud, wouldn't they? Most of these serial Palin Bashers we see on FR are Paulbots, and scorched-Earth Libertarians who see RINOs around every tree, but throw in a few Mitt, Hunter, Huckabee supporters and a few leftist Trolls as well. But all together they are still a minority here.
The posted article makes a lot of good, fact based, arguments about why the author feels that Palin is currently not ready for the presidency. I can't say I agree with all of them but they are there.
I like Palin. I think she's a valuable voice for conservatism. I think the media and McCain treated her terribly unfairly.
At the same time, I don't think she is doing what's necessary to win the presidency. She seems to be working towards being a TV personality/commentator not a chief executive.
.
“Odd how every one of these Palin hit pieces involves the author telling us what they personally feel about Palin, not any reasoned argument against her.”
.
Not really odd at all when you consider that feelings are all they have to work with; the facts are all on Palin’s side.
.
From the article:
ALL OF WHICH IS NOT TO SAY that Sarah Palin lacks the right stuff -- the right values, the right determination, the right gumption, the right toughness -- to serve our nation in high office. She certainly has abundant and admirable amounts and quality of all those virtues, no matter how viciously the left tries to smear her.
Another political advantage is Palin's preternatural ability to turn a pithy phrase to convey powerful messages. Perhaps this is partly a function of her training as a TV journalist -- and a sports reporter at that. Far more than print journalists, TV scribes learn and learn and work and work to hone their reports to short, well-turned phrases. Sports especially, as an entertainment medium, provides a milieu for memorable verbiage.
Hence Palin's brilliant ad-lib (she truthfully says it was not part of the written text) in her national convention speech about a hockey mom being a pit bull with lipstick. Hence her incredibly potent warning against "death panels" -- a warning based just enough on the substance of health care rationing, as detailed by the Washington Times, that it stopped just short of demagoguery. (Again, though, this skill only serves to further highlight the difference that relevant experience can make for the better -- or, by logical extension, that a lack of experience can make for the worse. Discimus agere agendo, indeed.)
Some hit piece.
I think some folks define a "hit piece" as being any article that is not 100% lavish praise.
Pretty much the CORE issue with all Liberals who attack her.