Former Sarah Palin aide's tell-all coming to bookstores near you

Politico ^ | April 18, 2011 | Andy Barr

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"I agree with the poster that Bush should have defended himself more than he did"

I agree. However, it doesn't change the fact that Sarah needs to quit going after every two bit critic out there. There's a happy medium somewhere. I think the example is how Reagan took on his critics.

[Texas Eagle]

Bailey is an admittedly disgruntled ex-aide who feels as though he was unjustly sidelined as part of Palin’s operation.

Awwwww....did the mean ol' Gubberner huwt the widdle baby's feewings?

[Jo Nuvark]

Intolerant? You betcha.

If it means not standing by and allowing bully
liberals abuse people of faith and virtue, then
darn straight, I’m intolerant.

PROUD TO BE INTOLERANT ... of liberalism.

PROUD TO BE INTOLERANT ... of Christian and Israel haters.

PROUD TO BE INTOLERANT ... of violent Jihadists.

PROUD TO BE INTOLERANT ... of a complicent, corrupt media.

PROUD TO BE INTOLERANT ... of dumbed down deviancy.

PROUD TO BE INTOLERANT ... of those who stand by and allow our flag,
our constitution and our values be picked off by elitist, educated dumb people.

PROUD TO BE INTOLERANT ... of affirmative action KNOW nothings.

PROUD TO BE INTOLERANT ... of political thugs, special interest groups
and bullies in the White House.

PROUD TO BE INTOLERANT ... of Government education.

[geologist]

I so agree with your idea.

Sarah is great. Good family values, not afraid to stand toe to toe with liberals progressives, and NOT CORRUPTED BY WASHINGTON POLITICS, SMART, a great communicator. Her actions in Alaska were excellent. On oil, On cutting spending, in returning her Governors airplane, on all Alaskans getting a greater share of the oil revenues. etc. Sarah believes in Christianity, she is anti Abortion, she is a true conservative, for gun rights, for the Constitution, for a strong defense, she would choose a conservative for the U.S.Supreme Court, if it came up, she is for closing our borders, ...

Republicans time after time eat our own best and end up splitting our votes. Democrats do not split their votes, they are 100% behind their one candidate and united behind their whole tickets.

When a candidate is chosen conservatives must unite behind said candidate. Our only hope and prayers to God for a candidate that loves America and the will of the people. A restoration to America's former successful values.

No one is perfect. Lies and all knives will be out in full force for the conservatives candidate.

God help us in our day, protect Sarah and her family, in Jesus name amen.

[onyx]

GAME ON!


FIGHT LIKE A GIRL!

GAME ON!


FIGHT LIKE A GIRL!

GAME ON!


FIGHT LIKE A GIRL!

[Springfield Reformer]

I lived through the Reagan era, and I do not remember it being the way you are saying. Yes, Reagan had many critics, but the critics of Palin are legion, owing largely to the multitude of new venues for leftist vitriol. And Reagan was not above pushing back, though he had a stylish way of doing it, unlike Bush, who allowed himself to disappear into the caricature of him created by the left. Palin is, I believe, looking at Bush as a lesson learned, what NOT to do, and is strategically counteracting those missiles that can do damage to the conservative brand if left unanswered. It is, in part, that street fighter in her that stirs such loyalty among her supporters. We know the good cause she’s fighting for, that she means business, and that she has a better chance than most of winning that fight. She is the American Braveheart. Especially after the Madison speech.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"I lived through the Reagan era, and I do not remember it being the way you are saying."

As did many of us. I think you're memory is fading. His critics were vicious.

"And Reagan was not above pushing back, though he had a stylish way of doing it, unlike Bush, who allowed himself to disappear into the caricature of him created by the left."

And that's what I've been trying to say in this whole thread. Emulate Reagan. He fought back, but he didn't go after every critic and the ones he went after he did in a way as to not demean himself and to rise above his critics. A perfect example is his memorable quote: "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so". He hits his enemies hard, but not directly at one of them. And he does it with humor that makes a point. She's capable of doing this at times, but too many times she falls into the trap of the interviewer and the left who drag her down.

[Springfield Reformer]

My memory is faithful enough. Thank you for your concern. I never said his critics were not vicious, but the gutter tactics in play now are definitely a few notches lower by any measure than what Reagan had to deal with.

Having said that, I don’t disagree that any politician could learn a thing or two about responding to critics with the wit and charm of Reagan. But it bears stating that we don’t have electronic records of all the private, behind-the-scenes responses Reagan had to his opponents, so we really don’t know what an email dump of Reagan would look like, as we will with Sarah.

Furthermore, those criticisms that have been simple-minded sexual vulgarities present a special tactical problem. Being a man, Reagan could never be called a bimbo, or a “c,” etc., so we can’t learn by comparison. And those attacks are not attacks on her, per se, but on an entire gender. If she responds to those statements, she will look to some like she is responding on her own behalf, and that would seem petty. But if she fails to respond, she opens herself up to the charge that she is passively letting all women be diminished without putting up a fight. And in view of the greater cost of not fighting, she chooses to fight. I think she is right to do so.

And another thing: Reagan was, to my memory, never accused of causing a Democrat politician to be shot. I watched her Tucson response, and to me it was her most presidential moment since the 2008 convention. She did not let it become personal or petty, but how could she let such putrid accusations stand without betraying the entire conservative movement to the left’s scheme to suppress free political speech through fear and intimidation? She had to stand, and she did.

As for humor, she has also used that. Remember the palm-writing incident? I loved it.

So I think she’s on track to becoming a force to be reckoned with, and her intelligent response to criticism is part of what is getting her there. True, few could do it as well as the Great Communicator, but those are big shoes to fill. Even so, she is well on her way.

[Jo Nuvark]

God help us.

Amen to that.

He is our only Salvation.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

I said previously that there are times when she gets it right. However, I don't think the Tuscon incident was one of them. I thought that was needless chatter. People were already out there defending her. Many people had already pointed out the Democratic national committees add targeting republicans with bullseye. Any normal thinking person would dismiss it. And any person who believed that she was responsible for Gabby Giffords shooting was a left wing nutjob who wasn't going to vote for her anyways.

"But it bears stating that we don’t have electronic records of all the private, behind-the-scenes responses Reagan had to his opponents, so we really don’t know what an email dump of Reagan would look like, as we will with Sarah."

Every politician of every era has to deal with their unique set of circumstances. Reagan was a prolific writer and many notes are out there in the public domain. Reagan had the benefit (or foreknowledge of people take your pick) to pick mostly loyal aides who didn't rat on him. Instead of e-mail back then they had official memos, etc.. Politicians and people in general need to learn that if you put something out there electronically it just like writing an inter office memo used to be. Quit making excuses for her. That sounds like the left. We expect more out of our political leaders than leftists do.

[battousai]

So Obama's election is George Bush's fault? Wow, even our side now is falling into this canard.

Certianly the GOP leaderships fault for giving you McLame, and Bushes fault to an extent for allowing himself to be defnined by the media... I put it to you this way, if Palin had been in Bushes place do you think she would have allowed the media and the left to get away with all that they did to Bush?

And frankly while Bush is a 100 times better than Obama, I am not so convinced with his conservative creds, to begin with many of the people he surrounded himself with have shown us their true colours in recent days, from Powell to Rove.

So the fact that Bush and his handlers were wishy washy gave us Obama, who with his fawning media stooges, hoodwinked the people into thinking hey he's not so bad...

[battousai]

Of course in the end there is no one to blame really but the American people, who are more enamoured of their media tripe such as the various talent(less) TV shows rather than the future of their country... to the detriment of the whole world.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"So the fact that Bush and his handlers were wishy washy gave us Obama, who with his fawning media stooges, hoodwinked the people into thinking hey he's not so bad..."

Bush is certainly to blame for his own failures. School choice, another entitlement in perscription medicare. However, I won't blame him for John (Bob Dole) McCain's failures. I'm more pissed that some clown who is not even a Republican got to vote and pick my party's nominee in New Hampshire. It was already decided by the time I got a chance to vote in the primaries.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Of course in the end there is no one to blame really but the American people"

Amen to that. The sentiments of Benjamin Franklin apply here. When questioned after leaving the constitutional convention, what type of government did you decide upon. He said a Republic if you can keep it.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Last time I checked, George Bush won election to the Presidency and re-election.

Both victories by razor-thin margins.

Sarah Palin lost an election to the Vice Presidency

Thanks to the bubbling clown McNut at the top of the ticket

and does not look to be running this time. Of course that could change.

Yeah, keep speculating. You don't know what she's going to do.

So exactly how can Sarah lecture George Bush on winning elections?

First of all, Sarah defeated an incumbent Governor and an ex-Governor in the same race.

Second of all, Bush allowed the liberals to define him. Yes he won both of his elections, but at what cost? The GOP almost got destroyed.

[Republic of Texas]

I think Republicans should have an intense focus on how the media covers them. I think they should fight back using every available means instead of cowering in the corner. I think they should expose media hypocrisy at every turn and embarrass the media whenever possible.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Yes he won both of his elections, but at what cost? The GOP almost got destroyed."

Face it, Juan McLame lost the 2008 election and gave us Obama. The primary voters in New Hampshire et al. who voted for McLame before I ever got a chance to pick our candidate gave us Obama. George Bush had no part in it. George Bush had a lot of faults, but he can't be blamed for Obama.