Posted on 05/16/2011 6:40:48 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
From the moment Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech electrified the Republican convention, she was seen as an unbending, hard-charging, red-meat ideologue—to which soon was added “thin-skinned” and “vindictive.” But a look at what Palin did while in office in Alaska—the only record she has—shows a very different politician: one who worked with Democrats to tame Big Oil and solve the great problem at the heart of the state’s politics. That Sarah Palin might have set the nation on a different course. What went wrong?
It’s hard to escape Sarah Palin. On Facebook and Twitter, cable news and reality television, she is a constant object of dispute, the target or instigator of some distressingly large proportion of the political discourse. If she runs for president—well, brace yourself! But there is one place where a kind of collective resolve has been able to push her aside, make her a less suffocating presence than almost everywhere else: Alaska.
During a week spent traveling there recently, I learned that Palin occupies a place in the minds of most Alaskans roughly like that of an ex-spouse from a stormy marriage: she’s a distant bad memory, and questions about her seem vaguely unwelcome. Visitors to Juneau, the capital and a haven for cruise-ship tourism, are hard-pressed to find signs of the state’s most famous citizen—no “Mama Grizzly” memorabilia or T-shirts bearing her spunky slogans. Although the town was buzzing with politics because the legislature was in session, talk of Palin mainly revolved around a rumored Democratic poll showing her to be less popular in Alaska right now than Barack Obama. The only tangible evidence I saw was her official portrait in the capitol and a small sign in the window of a seedy-looking gift shop advertising “Sarah Palin toilet paper.” Alaska has moved on.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
“That sounds suspiciously politically incorrect.”
###
The adverb is disappointing. LOL.
I need to work harder at being more blunt and direct when characterizing those who are destroying our nation.
Finally got to the point. If she had only acted more like a leftist the "media" would have portrayed her more favorably. After all, look how well it worked out for President Bush.
There needs to be a fresh new candidate like Cain who is not an easy MSM target. Like it or not, that is the reality of 2011 American Politics.
I rarely watch reality TV, but when Sarah had that phoney baloney good time whining Kate Goselin freezing in the Alaskan rain, I knew she was the next Margaret Thatcher and worthy to be my President. Meanwhile Goselins blessed (but abused) little kids were crawling all over her dad to learn about fish and bugs, and stuff. Todd was on the other side of the island minding his own business. This woman has it and I mean to support her anyway that I can. This is from someone the libs would call sexist, etc.
Anyone who has an (R) behind their name and is causing damage will be tarred the same way.
If you think Cain is the only one immune to this, I think you ought to look at how the MSM has treated other black candidates with an (R) behind their name.
Your logic fails here, and you should stop repeating this misinformation, because it's flat out wrong.
If she runs, she'll have the opportunity to change minds. If she runs she'll have a full throated campaign. If she runs, she may be the one candidate who can run her campaign directly at the MSM, rather than kow tow to the meme that conservatives have to sit down and shut up.
Your desire that we modify our message is so entirely wrong at this juncture in history.
We need bold candidates who draw bold differences in truth, not mushy, mealy mouthed moderates who simply echo the Marxist agenda while the country dies.
There is no such thing as a Republican candidate that won’t be an easy MSM target. No matter how broad their appeal was before announcing the media will attack relentlessly and unapologetically until said Republican is considered extreme.
Still angling to be Huck’s replacement, I see. And still the same old and dead arguments, too.
This story is like a murdering rapist who writes a glowing obituary about the senseless and tragic death of the wonderful and accomplished woman who was his victim.
Baloney!! You are either part of the problem or have been hoodwinked by those who are. The political consultants are always parroting the same line as you and they always help elect a Democrat.
Why do Democrats modify their approach and move to the right during election time? They do it to seem less threatening to the "moderates" than they really are. When we modify our position and move toward the left we simply water down our message and it ends up tweedle dee vs tweedle dum and with the media, the unions, Wall Street, voter fraud and the stupid on their side they always win.
This country is mostly conservative, not progressive. When we field a candidate that is a true conservative and who sticks to the conservative message, we win. The last time was Ronald Reagan. Bush 1 simply rode on Reagan's coattails and Bush 2 was better than Gore but even at that he barely won. Neither Bush had a strong conservative message. How did we take over the House and improve our position in the Senate? Conservatives who ran as conservatives won.
Palin is our best chance and the fact that the media has been after her since her first speech at the Republican convention should be proof enough that she is who the Democrats are most afraid of. That McCain's political consultants tried to shut her up so as to not detract from McCain's moderate image is further proof.
Cain would be fine with me as would Allen West. We actually have a number of fine candidates as long as none of them follow your advice.
The atlantic should change its’ name to the mud puddle. Nobody reads it anymore.
Looks like the 'Pubbie field is contracting faster than I thought possible......Huckbee withdraws, Newt self-destructs, and now Trump........who next??
Let me see. the Pubbies I can stand in order are: Palin, Santorum, Bachman, Rubio, Walker, Demint, maybe Daniels
re: “...and questions about her seem vaguely unwelcome.”
Is it possible that is because they are sick of the agenda-driven press intruding into their ‘independence-loving’ lives.
And candidate BO wasn’t polarizing? Or Hillary?
_______________________________________
Just last week there was a thread that was full of palinistas enegetically touting her solid t-shirt sales as proof that she is America's clear choice for POTUS. Now you say that this is how the left judges things.
You guys had better get your stories straight.
The writer seems to be basing his judgment on what he found in Juneau. Which, being the state capitol, is full of liberal bureaucrats and is about as representative of Alaska as Austin is of Texas.
An event which has been exhaustively investigated. And in which Palin's actions were found to be completely ethical.
Yet, the writer feels compelled to repeat the standard liberal template of "more serious ethical breaches" without their being an ounce of support for the assertion.
Why post a three month-old article that has been posted here before? What is your motive?
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.