Woman of the Year (Sarah Palin)

It’s a classic movie plot. Think “Woman of the Year,” with Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn. At first the man and the woman hate each other, then they fall into each other’s arms? Well, feature the fight that has erupted between the president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, and Governor Palin of Alaska.

The leader of Big Labor went to Anchorage to give a speech and attacked Mrs. Palin, accusing her of doing everything from writing notes on her hands to coming out with conspiracy theories about President Obama and his “death panels” to getting close to calling for violence. “Sometimes — about Sarah Palin — you’ve just got to laugh,” Mr. Trumka said. “ . . . But it’s not really funny.”

Mrs. Palin turned around and gave as good as she got, or better, in one of her patented Facebook postings, a demarche headlined “Union Brothers and Sisters, Join Our Commonsense Cause!” She wrote as a one-time card-carrying sister of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and United Steelworkers, cards she held by virtue of her husband’s membership in the two unions.

She asserted that it was “kind of ironic that a union boss has the gall to accuse anyone of threatening violence,” particularly in light of what she called the “violent attempts” by the Service Employees “to intimidate those who wanted to make their voices heard in last year’s town halls.”

She argued the real jobs problem was being caused by the policies of President Obama. Suddenly the Internet came alive like the silver screen, so much so that a columnist of the Washington Post, E.J. Dionne, issued a long complaint.

Seems that Mr. Trumka can’t get anyone to listen to, let alone write about, his usual speeches about what Mr. Dionne characterizes as “social CONTINUE

I wish I could think of the clown’s name from Market Watch whose column was posted today so could grab his quote, but he made your same point and went on some... Never before has one person had such an impact on primary races like Sarah. He admits or points out that all the media channels have their own charts tracking her picks, etc.

That union thug took her on yesterday and she shot him down and then went on to court the union membership. For that and more the NYSun editorialized her and titled it “Woman of the Year!”

Sarah deserved the recognition and I applaud the paper for giving it to her.

She argued the real jobs problem was being caused by the policies of President Obama.

Ain't that the truth! What I like about Sarah is her capacity to grasp what's going on and convey it using clear and coherent language so everyone can understand it, often bypassing the mainstream media filters and taking the message directly to the people.

She is perhaps the only national politician these days who demands transparency and accountability from Obama and his administration day in and day out. I haven't seen any other prominent national politician doing that as consistently or as effectively.

For some reaosn we seem to be arguing on a better level than earlier today. LOL.

Palin does ALOT of the right things. I’ve never argued that she has not contributed to our side or that she has nothing of value to add. And for those that REALLY like her, her volume of media/endorsement/tweet output is I’m sure exciting and solidifies their choice. But with volume also comes missteps.

I’m also positive she loves the country. Something that hopefully most all Republicans and more than a few dems (though evidence is scant) do.

I have about 5 or 6 MUST criteria to support a candidate: US sovereignty and illegal immigrant deportation (meaning no amnesty) are two of those. Sarah has red flags on those.

LOL pissant. You are really making a mockery of everyone.

Women, the forum, and even JR in denying there was a reason for his admonishment (which you "conveniently" now forget or are disinclined to address - so unusual/s).

In fact most of your comments on that thread were deleted because they were so unacceptable. It now turns out you flip-flop on your views too. That is no conservative.

"To: 1rudeboy Since I don’t think they should even be able to vote, what makes you think I’d want one as CIC.

13 posted on Friday, July 23, 2010 2:20:02 PM by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies | Report Abuse]"

And you replied to that post above:

"Friday, August 20, 2010 8:37:40 AM · 60 of 241 pissant to rintense

Yep. Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin hated women too. "

The key words are "hate" and "too".

For some reaosn we seem to be arguing on a better level than earlier today. LOL.

Well, you posted some thoughts in one post on this thread that were clearly analytical, and which deserved reasonable comment, so I did. I actually tire of all the bickering and street fighting. I'd much rather just have a casual conversation about things, to tell you the truth. I figured I'd thrown enough punches at you, and that it was time for someone to be the first to quit.

Peace.

...her [Sarah's] volume of media/endorsement/tweet output is I’m sure exciting and solidifies their choice. But with volume also comes missteps.

No disagreement there. I've listened to her in live interviews, and have read her tweets here on the forum, and I've noticed that when she's on a roll, she sometimes says things that can be either misconstrued, or spun by the opposition to cause upset.

I suppose our instant media culture is partly to blame for that, but Sarah is also the type that speaks her mind without filtering every thought she thinks through a pc filter before it hits her tongue. Sometimes, there's a price to be paid for such outspokenness.

I’m also positive she loves the country. Something that hopefully most all Republicans and more than a few dems (though evidence is scant) do.

Well, there's at least one point of agreement you share with her. You may get on my last nerve at times, but there's no question whatsoever that you love this country as much as any patriot.

I have about 5 or 6 MUST criteria to support a candidate: US sovereignty and illegal immigrant deportation (meaning no amnesty) are two of those. Sarah has red flags on those.

I agree that she'll have to do better at precisely delineating her stance on illegal immigration - in language that is certain, and unequivocal.

For my part, she's already convinced me that she does not support amnesty for illegals, and that she will not allow our southern border to remain open to illegal incursions. I also believe that she supports deportation of every illegal immigrant, back to their country of origin. What she hasn't fully described, is what I suspect, is her conviction that we need to review our legal immigration system to discover ways to speed the process for desirable immigrants.

My personal preference would be to deport every illegal we discover, close the border to everything but commercial traffic, and put a 20 year moratorium on ALL legal immigration. Our country needs that long to assimilate all of the recent arrivals who are already legally here.

I don't know if Sarah will ever take a position as strong on illegal immigration as mine, but that's not a deal-breaker for me. As long as she ensures that our laws are enforced, and makes real progress on the problem, I'll be happy with that.

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.