Heh...does that include THIS man?
Posted on 11/23/2010 1:52:05 PM PST by dselig
Last week was the week when the idea that Sarah Palin is going to run for president began to sink in properly. As I explained, she is an immensely viable candidate for the 2012 Republican nomination.
Frank Rich, in the New York Times, argues that she is a shoo-in for Republicans because time is ripe for her populist stance, and because her defects are no greater than George W Bush’s when he jumped into the 2000 primary race.
I am not so sure. The debates would prove a stiff test of her grasp of detail, and if she found the slings and arrows of running as vice-president and governing Alaska hard to cope with, how would she fare in the brutal terrain of a presidential race?
Palin is the best known quantity among the likely candidates. As First Read notes, her main task would be to broaden her appeal among a primary electorate that in the past has always opted for the candidate most likely to win the general election. With her negative numbers among Democrats and independents still high, that is quite a challenge.
Karl Rove’s comment that she lacks the gravitas for the top job continue to define the battle over Palin among Republicans. Barbara Bush, with the ultimate back-handed compliment, has now underlined how the old school views the Alaskan queen as an upstart. Palin’s unique style has already changed the game, but to win the nomination she may well need another game changer
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
I'm listening to HER read it again on an audio version that is unabridged. Sharp tongued and confrontational puts downs are cute but it won't carry her.
If she can’t win Indy and Moderate voters she can’t win. You don’t win the Presidency with just conservative voters. And she does have an image problem with Indy voters. Thats just the fact.
You dont know thats the only thing I agree with you on.
Do you think the American people are stupid?
What is an independent in the face of tyranny and marxism?
The sad part of it people like you and Rove would choose tyranny over conservatism which is why RINOS are truly radicals and need to be defeated.
I think we live in a more partisan America than we did in 1980 and 1984. Back then there were still a lot of Scoop Jackson Democrats. I’m not saying that a Republican can’t get the votes of moderate Dems. It sure is harder though.
It is the mid-1970s and Margaret Thatcher's aides send for a voice coach. The rest is history. The Conservative leader ditches a voice that could strip the paint off the door of No10 for something deeper and more resonant. It might still make small children cry when it booms out of the television and cause Whitehall buildings to crumble when raised in anger against a cabinet “wet”. But there is no doubt that this voice has authority. Thatcher goes on to win three general elections.
Are you going to name one who is running and can win?
You'd be taken a lot more seriously if you did.
No, I would not disagree with that at all. It's measures more partisan than it was. It's also considerably "darker" today, than it was back then, and that complicates things as well.
Im tired of people like you calling people liberals and Romneybots just because they don’t like Palin. You and your ilk are simply hurting the conservative cause (of which there are others besides Ms. Palin who are viable presidential material.
Lighten up.
Where does one begin with the glaring differences.
Reagan managed to appeal to Californians, who are fickle as Governor. He didn't serve half a term and pat himself on the back. Alaska has only 500,000 people. Guess how many Californian had when Reagan was around? Look at the budgets. While being head of the Alaskan National Guard is nice ... it's not at all like being in charge of the military.
Reagan was charismatic - Palin is NOT. You couldn't help buy LOVE Reagan with his humor. Palin's "humor" is cutting and sarcastic in a shrill way. Palin’s sharp tongue and shallowness wear thin. Her heart is in the right place but the substance is NOT there. We really need another Reagan type candidate.
She is also preoccupied with a throw back to the old feminine days where women were held back. Wake up Sarah - those days are GONE so DEAL WITH IT. Sarah is quite enamored with this aspect of herself - being female and "breaking through the "old boy network." GEESH! Heck, you'll NEVER hear Condi Rice get all self absorbed over her accomplishments. COndi is smart. THERE is a COMPETENT woman that is comfortable with herself and working with men. Palin is not in the Condi Rice league.
Someone like Jim DeMint, maybe. But unless he's playing it ultimately coy, he's not running. Romney? You gotta be kidding. The Hucksterjoke? Pawlenty? Pawlease. Gingrich? Good grief. Barbour? Jeb? No more Bushes! Who ya gonna call?
Palin has the support to keep idiot establishment favorite RINOS like Romney OUT!!
Of the current field, I'll go with Palin!! If she runs.
No one’s holding Sarah back.
You: Are you going to name one who is running and can win?
You'd be taken a lot more seriously if you did.
Me: I am telling you I, yes I, am NOT part of your Palin cult and WHY. Stating THAT is not dictating who will win or who else might run. What’s the matter with you? I am also giving you my opinion on WHY she will NOT win.
Me: So, because I don't have a magical crystal ball and can not state with 100% certainty on who will run and who will win then
“You'd be taken a lot more seriously if you did.”
????
I suppose YOU know with 100% certainty who will WIN and WHO will RUN? What's the matter with you? Oh, I forgot, you are part of the Palin cult. Never mind.
You're not going to get any argument from me.
I'll take that to mean you can't name one.
I also knew your original premise was flawed. She is a conservative. I just wanted to know who you thought was better, but you couldn't answer.
I have been enjoying a quiet read until I came upon your missive.....Pray tell; who is your very, very best candidate suggestion....We need to clear the air here. Thanks.
What does she need to win? Probably about 1200 delegates and 270 electoral votes.
She’s a conservative. Of course, one of the ways to pigeon hole someone and try to defeat them is to apply terms which have myriad meanings but imply the ‘worst’ of those meanings. So, what do you mean by populist?
..the agrarian movement fighting against corporations, banks, the rich elites?
..the ‘clasical’ conservative populist movement to have government by the people not an elite class of people which is what our founding fathers used to create this great country and in the modern U.S. a movement back to those constitutional basics and limiting the Federal government?
..the U.S progressive movement trying to establish a socialist government and redistribute wealth on ‘behalf of the people’ based on a European model socialist government?
And so many more. It means whatever the particular country, group of people, religion, political party, want it to mean, though they all chant ‘for the people, for the people’. Populist in general just means the ‘common’ people as opposed to the elite. I have to think that Sarah Palin supports the ‘common’ people, opposing the elite, the elite in the political parties, in government etc.. Beyond that she is a conservative with regard to big government, the constitution, the people’s liberties, etc., etc..
So you believe what the leftist media tells you?
- JP
Well then, you're free to vote for Obama since you're of the "anybody but Palin" mindset.
Heh...does that include THIS man?
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.