Posted on 03/17/2011 1:41:15 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Edited on 03/19/2011 8:37:18 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
It’s truly astonishing the lengths that some will go to in order to try to discredit Sarah Palin. Sure, the left-wing media loons are a given, but what about the folks on the Right who relentlessly brand her as unelectable, unintelligent, unpresidential, and/or unqualified? What is their basis for those assessments? And if she is so darn unelectable—why the need to consistently, near-obsessively attempt to tear her down?
What’s most interesting about the repeated attacks on Palin – from the Left and the Right – is that they are routinely empty. They are often featured in online hit pieces that are void of any reference to her record and/or her contributions over the past two years to discussions of national and international significance. They focus on absurd criticism of her TLC series, which so many elitists deemed anti-intellectual and so many regular Americans deemed relatable. They call her a “quitter” because she resigned from the governorship, but don’t reveal the reality that she was faced with numerous frivolous ethics charges made by political operatives that were costing her state hundreds of thousands of dollars and her staff countless hours to refute. The fact that she made the right decision for Alaska, and that the charges were all ultimately dismissed, get buried under the frenzied need some have to try to sabotage her at all costs.
And let’s not forget the manner in which the authors of these hit pieces so often compile every possible negative quotation on Palin they can find, particularly from the mouths of whom they consider to be the conservative intellectual elite. The quotes are typically nonsensical and/or erroneous, and mark embarrassing moments for those who uttered them, as they tend to reflect a complete lack of awareness of Palin’s accomplishments, writings, and outspoken stand on policy initiatives.
Excerpt... http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42340
Reagan's intrinsic political strength in 1980 was far greater than Palin's is now. Reagan had run for President before in 1976 and, in 1980, ran a classic campaign for the nomination.
In contrast, Palin's political operation seems run more like a fan club than a conventional political campaign organization. This risks embedding long term structural weaknesses into her eventual campaign effort.
See my post #261.
Go away.......if you don’t know “unconventional” which has been the benchmark of Palin throughout her political career then you are ignorant after all.....if what is acceptable to you is having a bunch of political hacks for hire as meaning something right then you are lost
Way to out yourself, troll-boy.
You're projecting.
Here’s the unhappy news about politics: in the long run, you cannot win if you limit your appeal to sincere and dedicated patriots who agree with you in all respects. Since a mjority is required for election, one must aim to secure the votes of as many idiots, weasels, moderates, RINOs, opportunists, and so on as one can. The trick is to do it without alienating your political base or compromising your principles.
Have you noticed the trend among the Ivy League is to adopt the sexual immorality for which they have derided the Deep South?
E.g. the prof from Columbia having an affair with his daughter; the prof from Princeton who advocates bestiality.
What's the difference between that and Mississippi, except that the one abrogates for others, what it allows to itself as a marker of being truly avant-garde...
Cheers!
Not at all. One of the marks of a cult are the insults and abuse they hurl at outsiders who resist the message. I have had quite a few such comments hurled at me by ardent Palin supporters here.
Yeah, a regular Tet Offensive on their part.
Did you notice the look on her face as she strode away from the podium after making the resignation speech?
And look what followed: two New York Times bestsellers; a cable TV show (she didn't pay for the publicity which showed her in a sympathetic light where she called the shots: she got paid *for* it); singlehandedly stopping the momentum of Obamacare with the single "Death Panels" phrase; position as a commentator on Fox News; unofficial chaperone of the Tea Party candidates in the 60-year sweep of elective offices by the GOP.
Nice try, though.
Not among real Republicans with an IQ over the low 30's and anything approaching a functioning set of balls.
Cheers!
"As in almost everything, the best approach in politics is the conservative approach: learn and respect the accumulated wisdom of practitioners and experts who know more than you do. Cleverness and innovation have their place, but they rarely negate the fundamentals."
Obama will have over a trillion dollars in federal budget money to buy votes with. It's already started.
That alone brings a whole new urgency to the race. You have to assume that every possible vote that can be bought will be bought by the left. Its what they do, its basically all they have.
To counter that IMHO, you bring forth someone so honest so forthright, so incredibly focused on what is right for the country with the managerial ability to put it forth that those who have not already been bought off will chuck the Socialists and go back to the roots of the country.
Palin is the only one who can accomplish this task.
she is basically the only one not bought and paid for by big GOP/RINO interests who has a shot at the prize.
She can win.
Yeah, just like the credit for the downfall of the Soviet Union goes to ol' Splotch (Mikhail Gorbachev).
You *do* realize people see right through your propaganda here, don't you?
Better go back and tell Cass Sunstein he's not getting his money's worth out of you.
Cheers!
Yah, just like that disorganized astroturfed by the Koch brothers mob of racist Nazi haters called Teabaggers would never amount to anything.
How'd that one work out for you, Nancy?
Cheers!
Here's the happy news about Palin: that's not what she's doing.
If you'd read Going Rogue instead of Going Rouge, you'd know her strategy and marvel at how well she's accomplishing it.
Cheers!
Hadn't heard about either one, but I'm only mildly surprised. "How low can you go?" seems to be a class-warfare thing .... Paul Fussell called this a game, gave it the name "epater les bourgeoises" (shock the middle class), and said that privileged snots use it as a kind of aggression. It would be really unfriendly, and probably against the rules of this forum, to say what it would take to cause that kind of behavior to taper off.
I can’t stand ANY of them; but with everything they are guilty of, all 3 are regarded as paragons of wisdom and virtue in some circles. I failed to include the SARC disclaimer; my bad.
I think the hand of God really IS on Mrs. Palin, and if that is the case, as stated in Romans 8:31, the Tommy Tucker version paraphrased: If God be FOR Sarah Palin, who shall prevail against her?! Thanks for the reply.
For bestiality, it's Peter Singer from Princeton, see The Princetonian.
Cheers!
Wow, great post.
Number 5 proves you have PDS, and probably other infectious diseases.
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.