Will Kate Gosselin Cost Sarah Palin Votes?

Fox ^ | 8/9/10 | staff

[andy58-in-nh]

Speaking in specifics, rather than generalities, what qualifications does the next R Potus candidate need?

That is a fair question, but one that will certainly generate some disagreement as to specifics. After all, reasonable people can differ on matters of policy unrelated to first principles, right?

So it is those fundamental principles I will focus on. I would like the next GOP nominee to possess the following qualities, in that he or she:

1. Must publicly identify as a Conservative first, and a "Republican" second. As a practical matter this means support for free enterprise, personal responsibility, limited government, strong national defense, and sound money.

2. Must commit to restoring constitutional governance to the United States, meaning that the powers not delegated to the Federal government must be returned to the states, or to the people, as specifically required in our founding documents. Must offer unwavering support for the entire Constitution, not just parts of it, and agree to nominate as Supreme Court justices only those who will strictly interpret its language in terms of history and original intent.

3. Must support secure and defensible national borders as a precondition to any other effort at immigration reform. May offer support for English as our national language and restore minimum standards for citizenship so that legal immigrants will have a real chance to succeed as productive citizens.

4. Must unapologetically defend America as a force for good in the world, but not as the world's policeman. Re-establish good relationships with our freedom-loving friends, and agree to oppose our socialist/collectivist enemies when their aims are militarily expansionist and threaten international commerce and stability.

5. Must have had some executive work experience, preferably in the private sector, but also as a state governor for at least four years. Senators tend to make terrible national leaders because they are blowhards and grandstanders by nature, as opposed to statesmen.

6. Must be knowledgeable enough about a range of policy issues in order to discuss them with conviction and confidence. Typically, this means a period of work and/or study of at least 10 years, and more likely, 20 years. He or she should be generally well-educated, but preferably not at an Ivy League school, and not a lawyer. We've had entirely too many of their sort.

[pissant]

No. Apparently yours, though. You are the one constantly sticking up for the useless amnesty queens in the party.

[ReneeLynn]

Nay. I was right over the target and scored a bullseye, darling. Otherwise you wouldn’t be so wee wee’d up.

[Politicalmom]

It’s totally ridiculous. How are these people any different than those who worship The One?

The woman is above criticism? She’s better than anyone else? She can do no wrong? That’s how tyrants are made, as we have ample proof at the moment.

[pissant]

What bullseye did you hit, dumplin? And the day a retarded cultist gets me me wee wee’d up, will be the day I commit suicide.

[ReneeLynn]

“What bullseye did you hit, dumplin? And the day a retarded cultist gets me me wee wee’d up, will be the day I commit suicide.”

Tsk, I think someone’s wee wee’d up. That’s not good for your blood pressure, Pissy. And who would be about to post those Duncan Hunter phone interviews if your bp got you? Breath.

[pissant]

"I think..."

I've yet to see any evidence.

[GatorGirl]

So if we’re not for Palin, we must be for Obama? Really?

[gogeo]

Use a reasoned argument, not a stupid “Palin-envy” comment...

I'm thinking we would all benefit if we tried to generate a little more light, and a little less heat.

[andy58-in-nh]

Paul Ryan (R-WI), for one. Eric Cantor (R-VA) for another - he’s not as articulate but very bright. Also, Gov. Chris Christie (NJ) is running rings around an entrenched Democrat machine by quite literally outsmarting them. As a general rule, most career politicians of whatever party are not all that smart, just clever and often, very good liars.

[ReneeLynn]

It’s tough to recognize when you’ve had so little experience at it. But, it’s there.

Now, my Hunter friend, I must be going. It’s been fun. Take care of that blood pressure.

[The Pack Knight]

They don't have to justify why they don't like her, but I'm asked to justify why I do...it's a snapshot of what the country is coming to...loss of freedom.

I wasn't asking you to justify your support for Palin. I was wondering: 1) why you accused Politicalmom of hypocrisy when all Politicalmom did was point out what a boneheaded political move Palin is making here; and 2) why you would imply that Romney, Huckabee, and Gingrich are our only choices besides Palin.

Meanwhile, everyone is railing over Romney with his major failure of an obama-lite socialized medicine, or huckleberry who released a convicted felon, or Newt who dumped his sick wife for his secretary and caved in everything he had built to date in the Republican revolution.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't seen many people on FR lately pushing Romney, Huckabee, or Gingrich for President. The Huckster was never all that popular here, few here think Newt would be a good Presidential candidate, and most of the louder Romney backers have already been run off the forum.

There may be more people running that don't come to mind right now, but I'm sure if they were that outstanding, I would have heard of them by now, as I am retired and I'm on FR most everyday and I watch a lot of news.

There have been plenty of other names floating around; Haley Barbour, Bobby Jindal, Mitch Daniels, Jim DeMint, Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, Chris Christie, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, and probably several others I'm missing. Now, I don't think all of them are running, nor are all of them people I'd vote for, but I'm pretty sure at least a couple will run and there are several on that list conservatives could get behind.

So far the only negatives I hear from the right is that she endorsed McCain, and she should control her daughter; of course, I realize there are people who won't like her because her makeup is the wrong shade, or she says "you betcha". That's fine.

I can't speak for anyone else on this forum, but I can say that I don't care about her daughter, that I don't care about her makeup, and that I don't care if she says "You betcha" except when she uses it as a catch-phrase. I fully understand why she endorsed McCain - it would have been foolish for her to do otherwise if she is planning to seek office in Washington.

However, I am not impressed with Palin's experience and I am not impressed with her ability to articulate coherent positions on the issues. I was disappointed in her decision to resign from the governorship of Alaska less than one term in, and I don't buy the excuses set forth by her supporters. I was not impressed when I saw her speak in person during the 2008 campaign, and I was not impressed with her performance in the debate with Biden. And now, with her decision to do a TLC reality show that will feature Kate Gosselin as a guest, I am even more suspicious of her dubious political judgment than I was before.

While I don't think Palin would be a very good President or Presidential candidate, I don't have a problem with her personally. I do have a problem, however, with her deification in some conservative circles and on Free Republic, and with the populist and anti-intellectual tone of her personality cult. Some of the breathless comments I've seen from her supporters - such as "Sarah is the only one who can save America!", "Sarah is one of us!", "Sarah would have plugged the oil leak and cleaned up the mess by now!", "If the conservative movement rejects Sarah, it deserves to lose!", and "President Palin will make me proud to be an American again!" - are reminiscent of the personality cult surrounding Obama and are unbecoming of conservatives. Forgive me if I prefer to leave the political hero worship to the Democrats.

[imfleck]

It’s nice to know that Sarah, presumably, poops in buckets.

[The Pack Knight]

Hey, I’d take that as a compliment. By their logic, the personal attacks on you mean you’re a serious threat to Palin.

[Deb]

Pissant isn’t a “serious threat” to a baked potato. If lies, misstatements and ignorance constitutes a “threat”, you’re obviously a Democrat.

[imfleck]

Actually, I’m not sure she poops IN buckets. But I’m reasonably sure she poops INTO buckets...

Nice visual, right?

[Catsrus]

Sarah is a private citizen and can do as she darn well pleases. Gee, is this worse than the zero hanging out with thugs, crooks and white haters? No, it isn’t. People just want to criticize for the sake of criticism.

I don’t care what she does. Her doing a reality show with Kate doesn’t affect my future vote for her. It just shows she’s a real person, as opposed to the faker now in office, who only hung out with feminazis and marxists.

I wish people would stop the darned nitpicking. As long as she turns this country back around, I don’t care if she hangs out with Mickey Mouse.

[The Pack Knight]

Ok. Then that suggests that attacks on Palin do not in themselves mean that she is a serious threat to the left.

That’s all I was saying.

[pgyanke]

Do you know that? I mean . . . . REALLY? Honestly, I can not think of a logical reason for her to connect with Kate Goslin. None of this is making sense to me - UNLESS - you add the dollar signs.

Unless Sarah Palin has completely changed into another human being, I can say that with confidence. Look at her record... at nearly every step of her public career, she has worked to cut her own pay or refused pay increases. She has gotten rid of luxuries and conveniences and opted for common modes and home-cooking. Now, she uses her money and influence not for personal pampering but to further the national discourse.

I can think of one reason she might connect with Kate Gosslin... she wants to touch her demographic. Kate might be a trainwreck... but she has a large following.

[The Pack Knight]

Sarah is a private citizen and can do as she darn well pleases. Gee, is this worse than the zero hanging out with thugs, crooks and white haters? No, it isn’t. People just want to criticize for the sake of criticism.

If she remains a private citizen, then I absolutely agree. If she is planning to run for President, however, then this is very relevant to her chances of being elected President and to the issue of whether she has the political judgment necessary to be a successful Presidential candidate and a competent President.

Also, forgive us if we do not use Obama as the standard by which to judge conservative politicians. Contending that Palin is "not as bad as Obama" really is damning her with faint praise.