Posted on 12/01/2010 12:06:59 PM PST by pissant
Editor's note: Ed Rollins, a senior political contributor for CNN, is senior presidential fellow at the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency at Hofstra University. He is a principal with the Dilenschneider Group, a global public relations firm. He was White House political director for President Ronald Reagan and chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.
(CNN) -- The first date is over. Not much happened. President Obama and his new governing partners, the House and Senate Republicans, met at the White House along with the Democratic leaders and discussed the unsolvable issues between them.
Even though they made no decisions and both sides went their separate ways, they agreed to start negotiations on extending the tax cuts. That in itself is the beginning of a positive process. They actually talked to each other and talked of a plan for action.
As with real dating, both sides have to get along or nothing will happen. So maybe this situation has more in common with an arranged marriage.
The American voters are the substitute parents, and they want this marriage to work or at least to be civil. And we, the voters, hold the shotgun.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Well, it's about time that people applied a little pressure on him to endorse Sarah now!
It will be important for us, our children and our grandchildren that Sarah Palin be elected in 2012.
I wonder if Ed Rollins has any grandchildren. ;-)
.
In 1958 JFK was re-elected to US Senate - and ran for President and won in 1960 -
JFK quit the US Senate 4 years before his term ended.....
Ho Hum -
.
Well, except that he's not president, I'm not First lady and we don't live in the White House and...
Oh, never mind.
****************************
Are you saying that Sarah has become less popular since she resigned?
I know that he’s no fan of Sarah’s, but am I wrong in thinking that he has stated that if she is our nominee he will vote for her?
I liked Fred too. Didn't work too well for us did it...
:-)
1- She would not be bankrupt. Her one book earned her millions. Lots of politicians write books while still in office.
2- She would be less visible on the national stage. Correct. But less visibility also has its advantages.
I suspect most the the anti-Palinistas have forgotten that tidbit as well, lol!
Fred. He broke my heart.
I made three donations to his campaign. I wish now that I had donated that money to Free Republic. Ah, well.
I would give you advise on your obfuscation and abject ignorance, but I expect you would just keep posting anyway, reproving it over and over again.
She not only ran, but cleaned up Alaska in bipartisan fashion in her time as Governor, where she also enjoyed top approval ratings.
Wait, Palin RAN for Governor?!? Next you will be telling me she is a woman! Looks like I need to do more reading. /s Once again we have another Palin koolaid drinker claiming that supposedly turning Alaska into Shangra-la over the 2 years of actual service is the equivalent of running California for 8 years. California, the 8th largest economy in the world.
She’d also have to convert from being a staunch Hollywood Democrat in that time, if you what to insist on taking the tortured Reagan comparison down the line.
And you believe that the Democrat party of the 50s is the same as it is today? If anyone is producing a tortured comparison it is you, who seems to believe there is a comparison to thump. Tortured comparisons was the point of the post you replied to. So glad you agree with me; wish you had actually figured it out w/ out having to be told, LOL
She has already accomplished much more than Reagan did at the same age and on the RIGHT side the entire time.
You complain about comparisons, then turn around and provide one, and a rather stupid one at that. Why is it stupid? Because no one is suggesting that Reagan was ready for the white house "at the same age", but you have no problem blithely believing Palin is. Many have drawn comparisons to Reagan, you included. Your comparisons, as an effort of support, are the obfuscation and abject ignorance that you "don't know where to start with".
I like her. I will continue to watch her. But I have reservations about some of her positions, and I am not at all convinced she is ready to be president.
OTOH, I am convinced I don't need to bother discussing this w/ you any longer. Flame away. Have fun. Figure out what VI is...
Heh. :)
In her home state of Alaska, I think that's unequivocally true, at least with the polling I've seen. Earlier this year, I saw a poll from Rasmussen that said "Just 41% of Alaska Would Vote for Palin for President". That's remarkable.
I think nationally, it didn't have too much of an effect, one way or the other. The people who didn't like her before her resignation, REALLY didn't like her after her resignation. And, the people who did like her before, were reflexively defensive of her decision. But, it's clear it didn't help
Now, did it give her an opportunity to make some cash? You betcha. And in that process, she gained a lot of face time - Oprah, FNC, Barbra Walters etc. But, that hasn't translated into an increase in the number of people who feel she's qualified to be president. She's just as unpopular (in that regard) today, as she's ever been. Of course, I'm speaking about the broader electorate, and not her base.
Your PDS is getting old and wearing thin. We get it that you are Palin hater. Now go away and STFU.
*****************************
Really? You think her base hasn't increased in number, particularly with her association with the tea parties?
What about the mid-terms? Nothing there either?
You might be surprised to learn that her popularity in conservative Texas isn’t what you’d expect. She’s held in quiet suspicion here by even those who don’t actively dismiss her. The liberals of course (which we have plenty) just hate her.
I was a Fred guy too.
And the lesson I came away with in 2008 is we need to rally around a single conservative early, otherwise we split the conservative vote and the establishment RINO wins with a plurality.
I’ve taken a lot of heat for this but I truly believe it:
A vote this time for anyone other than Palin is a defacto vote for Romney.
I hate to break it to you, but most American voters couldn't care less about the Country Class / Ruling Class dichotomy that fixates the folks who post on this board. In general, they are interested in finding solutions to our problems and political leaders with demonstrated competence and executive leadership skills who have the ability to implement them. I'm skeptical that Sarah Palin is that person, but I am prepared to be convinced otherwise. But, if she cannot get over that threshold the GOP needs to look elsewhere, and the fanboys on this board need to be realistic about the process. It just may be that you are more enamored with the Momma Grizzly than the majority of American voters. If so, we would all be better off accepting a more mainstream or heaven forbid moderate candidate than face another four years of national self-destruction under President Obama. Please be realistic.
I always liked Palin, but didn’t know if she could win. I had some serious doubts about supporting her, but more and more, I’m beginning to think that she is the only conservative that we can trust to do what she says.
“”Fred. He broke my heart. “
We should’ve known that he was for McCain all the way. Huckabee didn’t run to split the vote to give us McCain. Fred did.
I think the rise of the Tea Party proves you wrong.
The Tea Party is going to be the force to win over in 2012.
And we like Sarah.
A lot.
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.