Posted on 05/27/2011 9:41:30 AM PDT by Nachum
LOL!
Now that's something you don't see every day.
Think you may have invented a new word to describe PDSers and their pontifications.
In particular, they would find it easy to answer what newspapers and magazines they read instead of giving a vapid answer.
Wow. It took you all of that time to come up with that outdated and debunked tripe? Amazing.
It’s a pity FR doesn’t have an “ignore” feature.
But if she does win the “nom”, will yo vote for her?
That’s hilarious! Hadn’t seen that one. Made me kind of wonder, though, what kind of tantrum will the progressives throw if there actually is a Palin Administration?
You know they called Ronald Reagan a stupid actor. Just saying.
Santorum, Paul, Pain, Johnson, and Gingrich are not.
I disagree (on Palin and your first list)—and I appreciate your answer.
FRegards
I wonder what it would have been like if we had Free Republic back during the Carter years?
Because this thread, along with all the other Palin threads, sounds so similar to the arguments I heard from fellow Republicans about how Ronald Reagan could NOT win against Carter. He was dumb. Just an actor. Too old. A cowboy. An old-fashioned, unabashed lover of John Wayne’s America, an America that never truly was and everyone was leaving behind.
And yet look what happened.
I lived through all this; was a big Reagan supporter against the RINO Ford in 1976, going so far as to vote for Carter over him to punish the Repubs for kicking Ron to the curb (and I admit, a big mistake on my part)...
So when RWR came back in 1979, we knew in our hearts it was HIS election to win, while all else, even fellow conservatives, had a list of all the reasons he wouldn’t, couldn’t win. I very much remember the, “I paid for this microphone, Mr!” moment in New Hampshire that year, and am getting the same feeling about Sarah.
I think doing Rolling Thunder is a GREAT opportunity for her and will set her right with those real Americans out there who are not afraid to unabashedly love their country.
Another thing about Sarah’s negative numbers....
Could they go any lower? I don’t think so. Will they start to go up? Yes, I believe so, especially if she starts doing things like Rolling Thunder. We Americans need that SPIRIT. Reagan had it. I hate to say it, but so did Clinton, to a much lesser degree. Bush, GHW and GW, didn’t. Obama does NOT.
We’ll see, no matter what anyone says.
If she runs in Alabama’s Republican party, I will vote for her. If she wins the nomination, I will certainly vote for her in November, 2012.
I can tell you of a sure, absolute scenario where Sarah Palin doesn’t win the White House. It’s when she doesn’t run.
Run, Sarah, Run!
Please thoroughly and comprehensively express in specific detail how it is “outdated and debunked tripe.” I look forward to your answer.
You may not like it but this is true. I'd compare it to the adulation of Obama on the Left. It's off-putting and dangerous. Cults of personality are always problematic.
We need to be alert and critical even of political figures we like or support in large measure. These are real people with real flaws, not minor deities.
Feel free to be dismissive of the poster's listed Palin negatives but your self-denial won't make them go away. Only Palin can make up ground there and she'll have to in order to win.
Amen, brother!
Might as well honor his latter day lackeys with a fitting description.
Thanks!.
I was actually coming around on Mitch Daniel until he dropped out. Now I don't know who to support.
Reagan would've been trashed as not conservative enough, not pro-life enough, too Hollywood, lacking family values... Large numbers on FR would support some fringe candidate without a hope in hell of winning the nomination, maybe Phil Crane—I don't know the '80 primary field well. Some would swear off voting if Reagan's the nominee, they would return envelopes to the RNC with tirades enclosed. GHWBush as the running mate would be proof Reagan is a liberal RINO.
Of course I will vote for her. What kind of question is that?
It’s outdated, because it refers to a single interview from nearly 3 years ago. It’s debunked, because said interview was an editing hack-job, and more recent appearances belie your suppositions and conclusions.
And it’s tripe because you know the previous two points perfectly well (and if you don’t, you have no business discussing the subject at all), and yet still post it anyway, carrying water for the leftist media.
Speaking of a lack of intellectual curiosity, all of your examples are 2 1/2 years-old.
Palin gave her explanation about what happened with the Couric "newspaper" question. Why don't you show some intellectual curiosity and find out what Palin said about that question instead of being such a dumba$$ PDSer.
The kind of question that leads to others. Would you devote any personal time to help get her elected? Contribute any money? How much? Try to convince others that it is socially acceptable to vote for her and even help out in the campaign? or would you just offer lukewarm support? Just wondering what your level of support would be if she were to win the nomination.
Please state specifically what parts of the interview were a editing hack job and what her real answers were. Did they lift words and cut and splice? Which ones and where? Did they airbrush Palin's face on another woman's body during the interview as well? Did they use a ventriloquist? The only thing I heard from Palin against the interview was her whining about “gotcha questions.” She does do a great whining job, I must admit.
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.