Posted on 03/30/2011 8:45:50 PM PDT by curth
Although I have written several columns expressing my admiration for Sarah Palin, I admit I have never taken her seriously as a 2012 presidential candidate. I've always felt that her greatest asset was as a kingmaker and behind the scenes advisor. In addition I've assumed that she wasn't that interested in pursuing the job but rather enjoyed making waves in the liberal media. The more I read the continuing attacks on Palin and her family I've started wondering why the Democrats and their media lapdogs fear her so much. Even some conservative pundits have determined that she is unelectable because of her high negatives. Those negatives are actually bogus and based on lies and misinformation and there is really only one word to describe Sarah Palin - indomitable.
Bill Maher played to the lowest common denominator and insinuated that Palin was a "dumb tw**t" and his moronic audience cheered. Ari Fleischer, a former press secretary in the George W. Bush administration, said recently that he couldn't see "any way, shape or form that [Palin] can win" the White House. Naturally there was a Public Policy poll that determined that Democratic and Independent voters would vote for Charlie Sheen over Sarah Palin. The fact that there was even such a poll should indicate the vigorous campaign to minimize her credibility as a serious candidate. Who's paying for these skewered polls anyway?
The anti-Palin campaign stretches to foreign media where Canadian TV columnist John Doyle writes in the Globe and Mail that television forever killed Palin's chances to be president. He writes: "television duly destroyed the Palin authenticity. The arc of her national political career began with a defining speech at the Republican National Convention in September, 2008,
(Excerpt) Read more at irishexaminerusa.com ...
Tear her to shreds?
She’s ALREADY been torn to shreds. What politician in our lifetime has ever been called a c^%t in front of the world, and yet managed to not even flinch — still on air, still turning out her opinion — still wildly watched and relevant.
I don’t think outside of physically harming her, that they CAN knock her down. What else could they do? (outside of physically harming her which is all they have left at this point ...and is what I fear, actually).
With your logic, you wouldn't have voted for him in 1980, rather poppy Bush or Howard Baker.
Shhhh..... I was trying to be subtle about it ;-)
The list of the candidates on your home page leads me to suggest the lord leads you to those who can't be elected as president in 2012.
Duncan Hunter, Eric Cantor, Jim DeMint-has a strike against him for defending Romney care, Jeff Sessions, Richard Shelby, John Duncan, Mike Pence
Maybe they can take out the garbage.......
:-)
I did vote for Reagan in 1980s primary. Sorry to destroy your magnificantly crafted, fully developed theory.
What did he accomplish that made you vote for him?
Your logic suggests he had to have some great accomplishment, so what was it?
Odd this idea of submitting to a president? I thought conservatives viewed the president as an elected politician who works for us, not someone we submit too.
I guess that just reveals people with the submit view are really Obama maniacs lurking here. That side is big into submitting to government officials.
LLS
"We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is NOT a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our GOD-GIVEN rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of Life."
~Jim Robinson
You just got pwnd again, didn't you? You can't even answer a simple question, or defend your own posts, yet you come to these threads and spew vomit all over them.
Is that supposed to imply that we are to support only one candidate who the owner of this forum chooses? Realistically, it means what the Constitution provides and protects.
“We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION.........”
I applaud Jim for creating this platform for our cause.
She would certainly have the money or be able to get it. I would dip into my notoriously thin wallet for all I could do, and millions would do the same.
Do you have any idea how this conversation started?
“We do not need four more years of frigging amateur hour.”
Barack Obama is not an amateur in his professed role of Fundamental Transformer of the American federated constitutional republic with a regulated capitalistic economic system into a collection of provinces ruled by a central socialist government headed by an autocratic ruler. He has been well and fully trained and fitted for his historic role.
And, just for the record, Gov. Palin has a well-thought out philosophy of government, which has been public displayed at both the municipal and state levels.
Are you making the case against Reagan?
My dream ticket is Palin/Rubio as well. I agree with every word written here, both yours and the author’s. Bob
Obviously, more than you realize. You pointed out that FR is not a site for debate and posted several statements from the owner trying to assert that theory.
Anyone who has been here a few years knows better than that. Debate is what makes this forum keep going.
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.