They knew it the first time they saw her.
It's why they go insane every time they think of her.
Posted on 01/22/2011 8:13:05 AM PST by Kaslin
After Tucson, Ariz., shootings, Sarah Palin's unfavorable rating in the CNN poll rose from 49 percent before the midterm elections to 56 percent now. It was not the left-wing charges that Sarah Palin had somehow incited the Tucson shooter by her aggressive political rhetoric that did her damage. Polls show that voters discounted these statements and even Rep. Giffords' husband has made clear that there was no political motive involved. It was Palin's response to these attacks that got her in trouble. Her highly publicized accusation that the criticism was a "blood libel" turned voters off. As sincere admirers of hers, we hope she learns a lesson from this exchange.
The lesson is simply this: She should not become a battering ram hammering at liberal critics -- getting down into the mud with them -- answering every attack, no matter how low, personal or undeserved it is. She is a potential presidential candidate for the Republican Party. As such, she needs to keep her own head unbloodied and intact. Battering rams don't find that easy to do.
The left plays Sarah like a fiddle. They pile on with totally outrageous attacks aiming at her personal life, her children and her family, and -- now -- linking her to murder. These disgraceful attacks do not score points with the voters. In fact, they tend to trigger a sympathetic feeling toward Sarah when they are leveled. But, for some reason, Palin feels compelled to answer them, to reply, to tell her side of the story (aka the truth).
The result of the exchange is that both sides lose: Her attackers and Palin herself both suffer. But the attackers aren't running for anything. They just go on to the next attack. They are after ratings and circulation, not votes -- and the more sensational their accusations and the more vulnerable the target, the better. But Palin has an image to protect, and when she is hurt in these exchanges, it matters politically.
Palin's basic point was, as usual, sound. These killings were the act of an evil madman, not anything related to our political dialogue. But this sensible point got buried, and many voters looked at the "blood libel" statement as self-indulgent and thin-skinned. To them, Palin seemed to be the one using the murders to besmirch her enemies, even though she was only answering their charges. Critics charged that she looked more concerned about defending own personal reputation from the attacks than with the national tragedy that had just taken place.
The point is that Palin should not and cannot answer. She needs to rise above the attacks. If she is going to run for president, she needs to be presidential. She can't descend to the level of her critics. She needs to do what makes her look good, fighting for less government and conservative causes, not what makes her look bad -- fighting with her enemies.
If Palin took the high road -- as Obama did -- and decried the violence in our society and stuck to condemning the killings, she would not have been hurt by the liberal charges. But, by answering, she exposed herself and got hurt.
Next time, we hope she learns her lesson.
“I don’t think any fair minded person would think you should either.”
Clearly this does not describe these people. :)
The attacks on her are personal - she brought it on her self, she interjected herself when things were dieing down, she was mean spirited, she should have responded more quickly, she should have kept quiet. If you notice, the press says nothing about the substance of her response because she’s DEAD ON (vitriolic rhetoric intended).
If they talk about what she actually said, they expose themselves as the liars. The term ‘blood libel’ was the absolute correct term to use. She defended herself as well as others who were defamed by the ‘let’s give Obama his Oklahoma City’ movement. She didn’t draw anything away from the dead - the media did that before the blood spilled on the ground Jan. 8th was even dry. How dare they?!!
Sarah probably has more support now and a higher approval rating then she did before this latest attack on her. For years, Bush let the left’s attacks continue without addressing them. The right howled in agony. Now, we have someone who counters the attacks and the right howls in agony. Please, conservatives, shut up and stand up. It’s time to put our money where our mouth is. We’re not in high school any more.
As I said in a post last night, Sarah Palin has something that there is not much of these days and that is exceptionalism. The same qualities in her that tweeks insecurities in some people, endear her to others. I believe she an exceptional leader, as well. And she’s smart like a fox.
My husband and I both support Palin. We have never felt as strongly about a candidate in our lives. She offers the last, best hope for this country and the left knows it. That’s why she’s being attacked with such vigor. Palin 2012!!
Ditto. Dick’s advice may be hard to swallow but it helps her in the future. You know the scumedia is going to libel her again.
Interesting. Time will tell, won't it? My belief is that everyone benefits from advice. Perhaps Palin is that unique one who doesn't.
AMEN. If you aspire to be President, your rivals are Barack Obama and other GOP hopefuls. NOT DailyKos, Huffington Post, TPM, or MSNBC, ABC or CNN.
Bingo! If the Republicans ahad a pair among the whole lot of them, she wouldn't have to defend herself. They would rise up and defend her. [Tut tut, ol' bean. That wouldn't look good down at the club.]
Imho, Morris is simply adding fuel to the fire, and in doing so keeping himself in the public eye. He’s despicable.
All of your posts on this thread: well done!
They knew it the first time they saw her.
It's why they go insane every time they think of her.
The “blood libel” statement really hit a nerve with the lamestream media (they hate being called that as well). They are using proxies to come at Palin for making them look like a bunch of ghouls. I think the media, particularly certain of their glorified dingbat pundits came out poorly from this skirmish (am I allowed to use that word anymore... I’ll have to check with CNN).
Not just the shooting; not just Sarah; not just the "blood-libel"; but *all* of them in conjunction?
When Palin was on Hannity, she said that right after the shootings (I believe she said the same DAY!), her cell phone, and Todd's, were lit up with calls from reporters seeking 'comment'.
She gave a standard, tasteful tweet of condolences, and waited for facts and development, while the left-wing nutcase sheriff Dipstick and others tied her, by name, to the killings, without evidence, and it was plastered all over the press.
Methinks that after the cell phone calls, she smelled a rat; so she waited further developments -- even though her enemies, from a cousin of Tiller the baby killer who called her to defend herself, to the lefty columnist accused her of hiding in a cave like "Sarah bin Palin".
She has had quite a balancing act: trying to be sensitive to the victims, defend the free speech rights against the left using the Tucson shootings as a springboard for censorship, and a base for attacks on her. And on top of this, she has to get the tone, timing, and length of her response 'correct' according to a dozen conflicting standards, all of which change according to the whims and convenience of her enemies.
I suggest that the last round (followed by the National Enquirer's publicizing of a rumor that Todd had an affair with a masseuse) is *really* the left's Tet Offensive against Palin. They are going all in and getting slaughtered: the Tea Party members would do well to compare the vile accusations against them ("Nazis", "racist", "violent", "racial slurs", etc.) to those against Palin; and the TV show Sarah Palin's Alaska (tho' scripted) shows a very different persona than the supposedly hate-consumed, deranged fanatic presented on MSNBC.
I'd say she's doing well: Keith Olbermann has been fired, and Dana Milbank is attempting a "Palin-free month". (This speaks volumes about her *real* internal polling, not the propaganda CNN issued. And she's a half-term governor of a low-population state who failed in her bid for the White House as VP. Not bad, not bad at all. Tell me again what Geraldine Ferraro or Jon Edwards have done on the national POLITICAL / newsmaker scene lately?)
Please pass this on to other pro-Palin posters if you feel it merits repeating...
Cheers!
Thank you, FRiend! (blushing)
:)
Folks,
Paul Ryan is the candidate! So far, I have not heard a single negative remarks by any side of the isle. He is smart, articulate, good looking and he can sweep the midwest. Ideal for suburban votes that can tilt the race to one side. May be palin/ryan ticket will sweep the floor !
My comment: “You see. Sarah Palin does not need an adviser.”
Your reply: “My belief is that everyone benefits from advice. Perhaps Palin is that unique one who doesn’t.”
Sorry. You can’t tweak my comment and move on. I said Palin did not NEED an adviser. She might benefit from advice, but that would depend on what the advice was, who gave it and how it was given. Dick Morris is not giving advice to help her. He is trying to build his own creds. If he really wanted to give her advice, he would do so privately,as I am sure many do. ANd if the advice made sense, I am quite sure she would follow it.
But a political adviser? Someone who tells her what to say, how to say and when to say it, as Morris is doing? No way. Her instincts are far, far better than any of them. She does not NEED them. She might listen to them, might even adopt a suggestion here and there.
One only BENEFITS from advice if it is GOOD advice. However, her record so far suggests that her own instincts and judgment (whether her decision to resign and to go national; to blow the whistle on the death panels; to engage in contested primaries to increase conservative numbers) was the right strategy in spite of the fact that the advice from the “experts” would have been contra on every single one of these issues.
“Perhaps Palin is that unique one who doesn’t”
Yes. She does not NEED advice. Reagan was always at his best when he trusted his own instincts. If you doubt that, and are really interested in how over-rated advisers are, check out Rendezvous with Destiny by Craig Shirley or the portion of Going Rogue that deals with the 2008 campaign and how Palin was mis-advised by the so-called experts.
If you can name an adviser whose judgment is superior to Palin’s, based upon her performance during the last two years (in the face of a ferocious onslaught), I am all ears. There ain’t one.
If someone accuses a person of inciting murder, they ought to answer the accusations. - Sarah would have been damned if she did and damned if she didn’t. It’s the only way the RINO’s and the left can get the candidate they want. Note: I’m not voting for Mitt, no matter how much the RINO establishment tells me I HAVE to hold my nose and vote RINO. - Oh, and yeah, I’m sick of McCain’s gibberish about what a patriotic President we have. I held my nose and voted for him, but that’s it.
They say a broken clock is right twice a day, old dickie is all face and no hands.
CNN doen't say jack_hit when Obama's poll #s drop 30 points in a day, but let Palin drop 1/2 point and see what happens.
Sarah is doing fine. The MSM is not. Keith Olbermann is out and down, Sarah is still standing.
The world has change and Dick is not on board.
Not very many. No television here. I do have FNC and CNN available via XM satellite radio.
FR is my primary news source.
Does that disqualify me from having an opinion?
At one time, "I will not dignify that with a response" was a legitimate reply to an outrageous question / accusation.
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.