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 ...
The one makes you look principled, the other like someone who has been nailed as a disruptor.
Your choice entirely.
Good night.
But you do have time to whine in pure drama queen mode for hours about how unfair I am.
*snerk*.
Have a good night, PDSgirl.
IBTZ
Right now my deal breaker is promoting those that refuse to step up to the plate and put their own skin in the game. But you seem to have no similar criteria. You attack others for being critical/skeptical of Palin as a candidate but why? Is she your ultimate candidate? Yes/No? If yes the following I asked you before should be easy to answer:
You must really believe in her.
Would you say that it is Palin’s patriotic moral duty to run 2012 to head off Romney? To save the country?
asked before at#275
No sulking here. And not being willing to waste my time posting to you lengthy treatises on all of my political beliefs does not equate to a refusal to "stand by my beliefs." My conservative positions on most every issue have been posted here on FR for all to see. That you prefer I prepare some sort of CliffsNotes version, just for you, is utterly ridiculous.
The one makes you look principled, the other like someone who has been nailed as a disruptor. Your choice entirely. Good night.
Ah, great. So now, since I won't comply with your lenghty demands, I'm "unprincipled"? You really, REALLY are a piece of work. I tell you what: when you quit trashing FReepers in good standing, I won't "disrupt."
Standing up for FReepers and good conservatives is not "whining."
And cut the namecalling crap.
That, and she's far more intelligent than anyone gives her credit for: and that includes "savviness" as well as "street smarts" as well as IQ.
People forget that P.A.M. Dirac (relativistic quantum mechanics) ended up at Florida State, and Linus Pauling (two Nobel Prizes) at Oregon State.
Intelligence is not exclusively found at Harvard / Yale--as our last few Presidents have shown, an Ivy Degree can build supreme arrogance, even in the face of reality itself.
Did I say "savvy" ? Yes. Look at the look on her face as she walks away from the podium when she had just announced her resignation as governor.
I see a determined women, saying to herself, "You MOFOs have no CLUE what you just let yourself in for."
(As a private citizen, she was no longer subject to endless manufactured "ethics" charges which she had to pay for out of her own pocket, by state law. One of the lawsuits sued her for using the word 'Official' on her legal defense fund, which she did to distinguish it from the scam defense funds set up by others, not to imply it was "official" in any governmental sense. If she were one-tenth as bad as her detractors claimed, the people behind such lawsuits would have been imprisoned or worse, by the Arctic MafiaTM.)
When you're in the kill zone, taking hits, you don't stand around to prove your purity. You haul ass so as to be able to survive and fight another day.
And she did: but what's more, she didn't retreat. She moved to an even more advantageous position than the one she first held. That's savvy.
Did I say "street smarts"? Yes. "But what about her infamous interview with Kouric, her interview with Gibson?"
First, she was set up by Steve Schmidt and others.
Second, even at that, she did a pretty good job.
Gibson lied through his foul teeth on the air, when he asked her about what he said was a quote of hers; she challenged it, and he persisted, saying, "Exact quote."
But it wasn't, and he got away with it.
Couric's interview took what, four or six hours, unedited.
And yet out of all that, with an explicitly hostile questioner and editor, they could only come up with two sound bytes to hang her with?
Yep, she's smart.
IQ? Beyond a certain competence, (say 120-140), who cares?
The idea is to have the intelligence to following the predigested info your cabinet and other aides bring up, not to come up with ab initio policy formulations in real-time response to new crises.
And Sarah is smart enough, and more importantly, HUMBLE enough, to admit that she doesn't know everything, and so to pick good advisors who love the country as she does, not Communist moles and queer agenda operatives.
And she's Christian.
As far as her policies, I think she shoots from the hip, but she is willing to learn and be corrected when she is wrong. And her goal is to restore America to greatness, not "fundamentally change it" or redistribute wealth.
She really wants to drill here, drill now; she really loves a strong military; she will cut down on government/big corporation collusion; she wants to cut the deficit, and NOT by raising taxes; she is unspeakably pro-life, and pro-Israel; and she is a strong Christian.
As well as pro-gun.
And anti-Obamacare ("death panels").
She has the ability to encapsulate a complex issue into a sound-byte to go AROUND the MSM; and she is media savvy enough to use Facebook and Twitter to help her do so.
And she is pro-traditional marriage: the vile calumny about her choosing a pro-abort judge in Alaska leaves out the fact that she did not have carte blance to PRESENT the candidates: she had to choose among the ones chosen FOR her, and chose the one closest to a strict constructionist.
Which, by the way, she is.
Is that specific and detailed enough?
Cheers!
You didn't name any.
When you mentioned politicians, you mentioned Romney, Huckabee, McCain, and Guiliani.
(Remember the bug-zapper thread?)
Cutting and running like Obama when being asked to put your cards on the table *is* whining.
Put on your big girl panties and deal with it.
Cheers!
You are disruptive.
Pleasant pissant dreams.
bang bang.........you die!
slowly by FR fire pit roast after being forced to watch cats ..cats...and more cats
/s
seriously do you like pain or is pissant paying you
*pissant should be forgiven...crudeness has never been top reason for a perma ban here...I mean come on really
ROTFLMAO!
Some mental images I prefer not to deal with :^)
There’s that reading comprehension thing again. I didn’t stand up for stand up for Romney, Huckabee, McCain, and Guiliani. (Last I checked, none of them were FReepers)
I was referring to Duncan Hunter and LowOil.
As to the rest of your juvenile comments and namecalling, I’ll ignore them.
Goodnight.
What's with all the juvenile crap, Onyx?
EveningStar has been a valued California FReeper for decades fighting for conservatism alongside you and many others.
That he doesn't agree with you on one candidate is reason to publicly ridicule him? Must we all march in lockstep or be labeled deranged or trolls?
Can't we have mature debates anymore?
From post #289, I wrote:
"When you mentioned politicians, you mentioned Romney, Huckabee, McCain, and Guiliani."
See? Politicians, not FReepers.
But here, this will cheer you up.
Pissant is going to come back to FR.
Cheers!
My mention of those politicians was in your response to which Presidential candidates I had criticized.
If you read real slow, you will see I mentioned certain FReepers and was referring also to Duncan Hunter.
As to Pissant, I assume you mean “April Fools”
You’re so funny and clever. I can hardly stand it.
So, because you don’t want to have a discussion with someone, you feel it appropriate to publicly ridicule him?
You don’t think posting juvenile child game photos is a tad disruptive?
I’m not sure what on that link you are referring to. It is just a list of articles he posted — of which very few are related to Sarah.
Dang... I need to hit the hay
should be: My mention of those politicians was in response to your question re: which Presidential candidates I had criticized.
I'm traveling this weekend, but if I get time, I'll look up your posting history to see who you *do* support.
You quoted Reagan a lot on your about page, so there's hope.
G'night.
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.