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 ...
“Their values change with the candidate.”
#####
Most notably they deploy the Palin Standard which is uniquely applied to discredit her alone.
Too, they have no stated candidate of their own, so they can take selective pot-shots at whatever the fabricated Palin mis-step of the day is.
It is tiresome, but they are getting absolutely nowhere with this stage play.
Given that he didn't run in until 1976, it's pretty obvious even Reagan himself didn't think he was ready to president in 1957.
This whole “ready to be president” bullshit is a wholly NEW construct fabricated
Not at all. The same issue has been brought in many elections where an inexperienced candidate was running. Just off the top of my head, Hillary brought it up with Obama, and moderators pressed him about it during the debates. IMHO, they were right. Obama was most ephatically NOT ready to be president in 2008 (and he's still not).
Michael Dukakis had to deal with the issue, too, despite having served three terms as governor (there it was his inexperience in foreign policy).
One reason you don't remember it being as common in the past is because few candidates as inexperienced and unprepared as Palin have ever gotten very far. Regretfully, Obama is one of the few exceptions.
That is no historically proven of objective metric. There are many reasons why Reagan didn’t run until 1976. Your “he didn’t think he was ready” projection, is just trying to shoehorn it into your construct.
Isolated citations of past lukewarm, half-hearted applications of the politically-driven and of course largely undefined “ready” question prove how asymmetrically and stridently this is being applied to Governor Palin.
Reagan was a great President not because of his executive experience or any past foreign policy exposure, he was great because he had the courage to boldy act upon his convictions, and seek out expert counsel in areas in which he was not knowledgeable.
Sarah Palin has already demonstrated ability in both of those areas.
Ture. Politics is an art, not a science.
There are many reasons why Reagan didn’t run until 1976. Your “he didn’t think he was ready” projection, is just trying to shoehorn it into your construct.
Say what you like, but the fact is he didn't even consider trying to become president until he had successfully served two terms as governor.
He didn't quit two years into his first term, spend the next two years signing books and doing reality shows, and then try to run without a resume.
Isolated citations of past lukewarm, half-hearted applications of the politically-driven and of course largely undefined “ready” question prove how asymmetrically and stridently this is being applied to Governor Palin.
Name a single presidential candidate, other than Obama, who was as inexperienced and unaccomplished as Palin who managed to even become a contender for his party's nomination.
Reagan was a great President not because of his executive experience or any past foreign policy exposure, he was great because he had the courage to boldy act upon his convictions, and seek out expert counsel in areas in which he was not knowledgeable.
Well, then by your criteria, Jimmy Carter should have been a good president. He had strong convictions and boldly acted on them. He also sought out lots of expert counsel. And yet, he was a horrible president.
Having convictions, courage and expert counsel isn't enough. A great president has to have the right convictions, understand why he arrived at them, and then be capable of convincing others of them. I have yet to see any evidence of Palin possessing these traits.
Here's a link about her suport of the Law of the Sea Treaty:
http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/b/2008/10/15/palin-supports-law-of-the-sea-treaty.htm
Here's a link about her support of illegal alien amnesty:
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002985.html
She reiterated that position recently on O'Reilly.
As to her support of bailout and cluelessness during the financial crisis, I merely refer you to the vice presidential debate she had with Biden.
What really turned me off of her is that the only thing she ever said about the financial crisis was that it was caused of the "greed and corruption on wall street." And then she kept repeating it, over and over and over again.
That tells me she has no knowledge of economics and couldn't even be bothered to study up on functioning of the financial system before going into the debate. And now you want that ignoramous to be president?
But unlike the sniveling worshipers here that constantly tell us "only Sarah" can win,
Name more than one. I don't converse with anyone who says that.
That is why I like Pence, DeMint, Bolton, Rounds and several others
DeMint is not running, has said so over and over again, which makes you a complete fool to pretend you like him as a candidate. Pence is a freaking congressman, and will end up with as much support as your man-god Duncan. the others, good grief get hold of yourself, they won't even get 1/2 a per cent of any vote anywhere, this just shows your incredible lack of sanity when you give your "list".
On the contrary, I'm shining the light on her record
There's no contrary about it other than your brain. You never do anything but report old crap, even posting years old articles as if they were relevant. You post her "views" as a vice presidential candidate as if they were hers, which is just total crap, you've been called on it again and again, yet you repeat it ad nauseum. It's why the word troll fits you perfectly.
The confusion is sown when idiots like you lie to make her more palatable to conservatives.
Name one lie. Just one.
I've said a dozen times that not all Palin supporters are worshipers or cultists
Garbage, almost every post you give to Palin supporters is wrought with "worshiper" or "cultist", and so far you've only found one who fits that mold. One. Yet you, the original cultist and worshiper on FR, can only point to one.
The worshipers, OTOH, like to deny reality about her sparse record
Bullsh*t. You've been given ample links and articles about her record, you just ignore them and say it's proof of "cultism". And then you go giving us candidates that have absolutely no record of executive achievement as alternates. It just shows how insane you've become with your PDS. You like John Bolton but Sarah Palin isn't qualified.....
What you fail to grasp, is that even after 'repaying' McCain by campaigning for him, as she said she would, she went on to say in a 2010 interview that she "agreed with him on immigration". Sharky, do you know that John McCain, for all his BS protestations to the contrary, is still in full support of amnesty?
There you go again. I'm no McCain lover, but his official policy now is no amnesty, and secure the borders. Hell, he's even holding firm on the lame duck bill that is minuscule. Now, he may not stay there, it's been his nature to be an amnesty guy, but unfortunately for you, he ain't your whipping boy on amnesty until he officially changes again. Moron.
Did you also know, that months later, Palin once again, laid out her amnesty plan to Bill O'Reilly on national TV.
You are pathetic, she did no such thing. In that interview, she says to Bill that she will do anything necessary to seal the border. Clear enough for you yet, or do you need a hearing aid? She mentions "registering illegals" but never says for what, never says they will be allowed to stay as a result, yet you keep saying she does. It just shows what syncro calls your lying, deceptive nature. You lie. You deceive. You have a sickness about this.
Sure, she has come out in favor of SB1070 and for border security.
An inconvenient truth for you. She was the first national figure to come to Brewer's side on that, and wrote lots of things chiding Obama, and taking an anti-amnesty stance. But you don't care, you're just so sure you have the magic and secret decoder ring and you "just knowwww" she's an amnesty queen. Please go shove your decoder ring up your rear end. She's not for amnesty, she wants to secure the borders, and she repeats this over and over again for the hearing impaired. Got it?
Nuff said for now, I'll be back again with more deconstruction of your stupid post and your insane lack of perspective of who you've become. I'm just sick of your lame and dishonest antics, and so are most people on this forum. Go join another, as JR says, you embarrass yourself, or as syncro says you're not a conservative, you're just a deceptive nutjob.
I apply the same standard to all candidates. I opposed Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo for the same reason I opposed Palin: lack of a resume, though I would add that both men possess a much better grasp of policy issues and are far more articulate than she is in explaining their policy ideas.
I also have noted repeatedly that Obama in 2008 was just as unprepared for the presidency as Palin is now, and the consequences have been disasterous.
Too, they have no stated candidate of their own,
I have one: Mitch Daniels, who holds more experience and policy knowledge in his little finger more than Sarah Palin in her entirety.
I believe you meant Title IX feminist claptrap.
I was hopin’ no one noticed.
Her quote was a good one. It showed strength in the face of an ongoing tide of liberal MSM criticism, and it showed character and grace in the midst of the horror of the liberal attacks on her.
It wasn't so different from Reagan's humor and tweaking of the media, and in spite of your own protestations, it's a great quote.
To imply you can only be happy or strong is incorrect. You can be both. She seems to have both qualities in spades.
Oh, oh......can I say that Reagan did too? Oh, the horrors.........a Reagan comparison......
I'll look into your links, but please don't put words in my mouth.
No, the movie was about done about when Reagan was in his mid-40s, as is Sarah now.
And Sarah isn't doing DWTS, she was just in the audience applauding her daughter. In 1978 or there abouts, Ronaldus Magnus might have been applauding his son at the ballet.
Seems pretty similar to me, except for the fact that Sarah didn't play 2nd fiddle to a monkey in an B-movie. Oh, right ... there was that McCain thing. My bad.
Makes me even more glad that they lost that election.
Also, Dukakis would've allowed Saddam Hussein to take over the Saudi oil fields and he'd still be there.
“Mitch Daniels, who holds more experience and policy knowledge in his little finger more than Sarah Palin in her entirety.”
####
Your ridiculous, grossly inaccurate hyperbole betrays your zealotry for The Cause, despite the charade of evenhandedness.
But thanks for playing.
“....with many in the audience told ahead of time to jump up and applaud.”
#####
For years I thought I was the only one who had noticed that.
When the shriveled, WrinkleTurd Bentsen croaked that stupid line, the response was just too immediate and well-orchestrated to be natural.
Thanks for making my night!
Whoops.
Post #673 should have gone to you.
Thanks.
Actually, she did. Listen to her comments on O'Reilly. She'd deport those that don't register. Then, she makes the comment regarding the remaining millions of illegal aliens that "there has to be an expectation they will work and they will contribute." She also says that "immigration reform" will outline steps to follow in order to stay in the country and work. In other words, they will be forgiven (amnesty) for illegally entering the country as long as they follow some new checklist. "Immigration reform" is the same old lingo touted by McCain for the past several years, to which Sarah has consistently stated her agreement.
BTW, Rudy was big on the "registration" thing in preparation of only sending criminal aliens home. There is no good reason to create a new bureaucracy to catalog 20 million illegal aliens if you plan to remove them from the country.
Now you hit the nail on the head of why she is NOT Reagan. She can rally the already true believers(especially when she's not in any office forced to make unpopular positions), but she does not rally independents like Reagan did. Reagan was not primarily an attack Grizzly like Palin is, he was a true visionary and communicator who made you believe better days were ahead for the USA.
And as we know, picking a liberal Republican presidential candidate to sway independents is a loser too.
It's killing me, but, yes, it is possible.
Her quote was a good one. It showed strength in the face of an ongoing tide of liberal MSM criticism, and it showed character and grace in the midst of the horror of the liberal attacks on her. (emphasis mine)
Fine. Fine, Mr Lakeshark, it was the quote of the century.
Again, I will repeat myself, In an increasingly(*) unstable world, there is a huge difference between saying that you are hoping that you will "always be happy and your enemies know it" (Palin) and "the bombing starts in 5 minutes."(Reagan)
I wasn't certain what "enemies" Mrs Palin had referred to. Apparently, it is the liberal MSM. Or, as you yourself put it, "the horror of the liberal attacks on her."
Puh-leeze. There are people at home and elsewhere who genuinely want to kill us. Sorry, but I just can't get too worked up over the leftist media treatment of Republicans. The liberal MSM almost never gives Republicans a fair shake. It has always been this way. Deal with it.
(And, I might add, quite frankly, Mrs Palin brings much of this upon herself by constantly keeping herself in their crosshairs with her never-ending parade of stupid publicity stunts)
To imply you can only be happy or strong is incorrect. You can be both. She seems to have both qualities in spades.
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I think it's one or the other. You are correct--happiness and strength is not some Machiavellian dealie like fear/love. I mean that I would rather my enemy (defined as someone who wants to physically kill or maim me, not print a "hit piece" about me) sees me as strong in order to act as a deterrent to genuine violence.
Oh, oh......can I say that Reagan did too? Oh, the horrors.........a Reagan comparison......
Ok, you may say that RR did that too. Only because I'm laughing at your fine print.
(*)Oh, ha-ha, I typed "uncreasingly" in the original post. Wow! It's a made up word! Can I say that I'm just like Shakespeare, too?
I think I will need to again cease any further comment on Mrs Palin. I liked me much better that way. Besides, it is not a productive use of my limited time and even more limited talent.
A pleasant evening, to you, Mr Lakeshark.
You are wrong.
Read the legislation that was passed in April and then read the legislation that was passed in July. I've only told you that "100 times". Why don't you actually do that.
Then read every single news article on the subject in July.
Roll Call 519 in July was the House vote on the Paulson plan. It was a vote on raising the debt ceiling 800 billion, it was the vote on granting power to the FHA for a possible take over, and it was the vote on all the other Paulson crap. There was no Paulson plan in April. NONE! There was only a weak plan offered by the Senate Democrats that was passed.
Hunter voted no on the April bailout and he voted "hell yes" in July on the Paulson uber bailout.
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.