Posted on 07/10/2011 10:31:40 AM PDT by kristinn
I agree. Later...
I agree. While it’s not a great picture, I’m not sure it’s particularly unflattering like has been said on here. I have to admit, in that pose it’s difficult to focus on her face. She simply has a fantastic body for a woman her age.
Pawlenty can't win. He lacks the forceful personality required of the job. He is smart, has good ideas, I like him, but he can't win.
Palin can't win. I'm from Texas and we're about as conservative as it gets. I meet people all the time that like Palin in general, but not as a candidate. I think they view her as scattered and not earnest. She doesn't know what she wants and Texans like to know what a person's intentions are. My mom is 89 and hardcore republican, but wouldn't vote for a "woman" as president. Old school, thinks the job is cut out for a "man." Disagree or agree, you have to ask yourself how many others share that view, even if you don't.
Romney could possibly win. I hope he doesn't. He has the money, name recognition, stature and personality. His being Mormon will cost him a lot of votes. Agree or disagree, just how it is.
Cain doesn't stand a chance. Nobody knows him, not a very eloquent speaker. Mirrors a lot of other candidates' thoughts. Good dude, just not ready for the big seat yet.
Bachmann actually plays better to a lot of Texans that I know, than Palin. For whatever reasons, they like her better. But she lacks the killer instinct. Has a deer in the headlights expression when caught off-guard. People don't like that.
Gingrich is toast. Good-bye. George Will lit your raft on fire and sent you downriver, single-handedly. Adios.
Santorum doesn't have the money or mustard to get it done. Good dude, I like him. Not gonna win...sorry.
Ron Paul. goodbye. Return to the looney bin now.
Rick Perry. Hear me out now. Here, you have a tall and handsome Texan with swagger. He has the stage presence of a Romney. The little old ladies are gonna like him. His religion is mainstream. Good track record. Creates jobs. Pro-business. Got it done in a huge state, during a horrible national economy. Served in the Air Force, former pilot. I think this is the guy that can rise to the top in a hurry and WIN against Obama.
Get your butt in the race Mr. Perry.
Thanks for your very sensible post, Gondring. I just want to add the following comments.
There is nothing "deranged" about not liking any particular politician. Quite the opposite actually. Skepticism of ALL politicians is a healthy thing, no matter what their individual points of view. I've met enough of them in my life to know. Conservative, liberal, Dem or Rep, makes no difference. They are first and foremost human beings with all the strengths and weaknesses to which we are all subject.
Anyone who looks for ideological purity to the "nth" degree is playing a fools game, because you will never find it in any politician. Like all human beings, a politician's first concern is self-interest. That is, whatever the politician believes to be in his or her best interest always comes first. Like it or not, believe it or not, the fact is "what's best for the people and nation" is usually pretty far down any politician's list of importance.
So yes, I'm skeptical of Palin. You betcha. So far she's shown me nothing of substance to get excited about. Yes, she's a political conservative, but that's not enough for me. I set the bar for my vote much higher than mere ideology.
Wonderful, well-reasoned post, mikhailovich. :)
Good, thoughtful post.
Thank you. :)
Well posted. I like Perry, my only concern is that people will get sucked into “another Texan governor like Bush”. I loved Bush the man and Commander in Chief, I did not like Bush the politician spending like a drunken sailor.
I also think Romney can win and is the one candidate that will get votes from both sides, but his Mormonism will be a problem.
Bachmann, she is a soundbyte away from total implosion.
It’s Perry or Romney in my opinion, they are the only two that can beat Obama...you and I are on the same page.
Bronze
Reagan was my Governor...I get it. Reagan led the most populous state in the union and did it well. Bachmann and Palin should not even be mentioned in the same breath if you were breathing a 3.0 into a breathalizer. No comparison.
You are right that many people said Reagan couldn’t win, but he at least had real world experience that voters could accept. A Congresswoman just doesn’t have it. Palin...I’m sorry but if the Democrat nominee was a governor and quit 1.5 years into their term we would be grilling them left and right as a quitter. Seems beyond hypocritical that we don’t do it to Palin. She quit on her state.
10-4. and ditto.
My gut tells me people are so ready for improvement, they might overlook that this time around. Gonna be interesting if he enters.
That is because more than 28% of all voters would believe that the shetland pony's unknown owner (who would actually be ruling) may actually be a good President.
Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has worse negatives than that shetland pony. (See February's FOX News poll below).
For a sitting President, Obama has pathetically bad poll numbers. In the April Gallup Poll, 46% of all voters stated that they will "definitely NOT" vote for Obama. (See April Gallup Poll below)
How can such a President possibly get reelected in 2012 with such toxic polling?
Simple. Just pit him against a candidate who polling is far, far more toxic. Just pit him against a GOP nominee that 65% of all voters have stated that they will "definitely NOT" vote for. Just pit him against Sarah Palin.
===========================
FOX News Poll (February 7-9, 2011)
Question 3: I am going to read you a list of names. Tell me if you think that person would make a good President or not.
Sarah Palin:
.................YES.........NO.......DK.....Never heard of
ALL...........23%.......72%.........4%.......1%
Dem ...........7%........87%........5%.......1%
Rep ...........40%.......56%.......3%.......1%
Ind ...........25%........69%.......3%.......1%
===========================
FRiends and lurkers ... observe. The behavior of many (not all, but many) Palin detractors reveals flaws that should tell you something about the kind of "thinking" that dislikes Palin.
1. That she "quit" on her state. Informed and HONEST people of any party -- including the low-life Democrats who nearly brought about her and her family's financial ruin through the frivolous lawsuits that forced her to leave the Governerorship -- know that implying that she "quit" the governorship because she couldn't take the political heat, is certainly disingenuous. It is misrepresentative of the whole truth, and it is calculated to make people think less of Palin ON FALSE PRETENSES.
2. That you and I, ethical conservatives and Republicans, would stoop to the same low, the same falsehood, the same deliberate using of partial truths in order smear a Democrat. I will tell you true: IF it was a Democrat governor who left the office because he/she was being pushed to personal bankruptcy because of frivolous, wasteful, nuisance lawsuits filed by Republicans, those Republicanas would have my contempt. Two wrongs don't make it right.
Here -- amply demonstrated -- is the mindset of those who reject Palin. I hope it gives many on the fence serious pause. Are these the kinds of people, these the kinds of values and honor (or lack of), that you want to throw in with?
True, there are some sensible folks who have reservations about Palin, and while I disagree with them, I respect their reasons. BUT THIS kind of thing? Needing to resort to that kind of deception to persuade others? I have contempt for it, and it tells me that in SUPPORTING Palin, I'm probably on the right side with right and honorable people.
These PDSers really do serve a purpose for good: they help lurkers and fence-sitters see which side has honor ... and which side lacks it. They HELP Palin, although that is not their intent.
I hereby beg your forgiveness ;-)
I’m looking for someone whom I can trust, and that’s Sarah Palin, NOT Perry. Just b/c some people have been duped into thinking that she’s “scattered and not earnest” thus far doesn’t mean that our best candidate shouldn’t give it her best shot. Those who believe this about her are showing their gullibility. I believe that she can and will turn these silly perceptions around. And I guarantee you that among those who would “never vote for a woman” President, a very large percentage will change their minds. Maybe not in the 89yo group, however. LOL Bob
You are truly pathetic — posting the same MEANINGLESS garbage polls, over and over. You truly have a bad case of PDS.
Fred, first of all, you forgot a year. But she has been intricately involved in politics for two decades, works her butt to the bone and has successes against all odds. She also has a love for America, its Constitution and a belief in citizen sovereignity that shines through every time she speaks.
YES, she does remind me of the Gipper, and she is the best candidate America has had in three decades. I will make no apology for my fervent support of Gov. Palin. Bob
Time for review, class. Remember the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution? Remember the confrontation clause? If you’re accused of a crime, you have a right to confront your accuser face to face. Who is your accuser? The one who alleges he caught you in a crime. With me so far?
And why do you suppose the police officer who caught you speeding has to show up in court? Because he is your accuser? Yep, that’s it. Without him showing up, the 6th is violated, and you go free. But can't he just show one of his friends the video and the radar data, and then go golfing, and have his friend go to court in his place? No he cannot. The one who did the catching must do the accusing. Are you with me so far?
But what if your offense was “recognized” (as in “discovered”) by a machine? Who is your accuser then? The machine? Courts have found you cannot confront a machine. Robocop cannot be your accuser. What about the nameless, faceless people watching a video of your violation? But they are not the ones who “recognized” the violation. The machine did that. So you cannot confront them either.
This problem of the missing accuser under the 6th has been so nettlesome to the municipalities trying to implement speed cameras (think “lost cases” & “mounting legal fees”) that some have given up, and those that haven’t given up have created a two-track ticketing system, where those violation events that meet confrontation clause requirements are under a criminal set of penalties, but for violation captured by Robocop, the penalties are civil, not criminal, mostly fines, thus escaping the confrontation requirement.
However, this bifurcation of penalties for the same act introduces yet another set of constitutional challenges, this time under the equal protection clause. You can’t have uncertainty in the law, of the kind where on one day an act might be punished one way and another day or another individual the act might be punished differently, depending on how you were caught.
Bottom line, whether it’s Robocop or Barney Fife, even speed camera violations are treated as discovery at the time the actual violation is occurring, i.e., while driving, and by analogy to our gubernatorial question, while serving out the term, exactly as explicitly required by AS 39.52.910. The fact that “automated discovery” is constitutionally infirm and human discovery is not really should resolve the question of how to view the Alaskan discovery rule.
Because what you are asking for, really, is not immediate Robocop recognition, but indefinitely delayed recognition, i.e., recognition that does not occur, potentially, until years after the event in question.
Let’s try an example to make this more clear.
Let’s say that in Wasilla, AK, there is a security camera for a parking lot. By a mere coincidence, the camera happens to also show an intersection. Let’s now say that Palin (make it Todd, for objectivity), in 1995, speeds through the intersection at 90 mph and runs the stop sign. Nobody but Todd and God saw it happen. But the security camera caught it all on tape. Then the tape is archived. Years later, in September of 2008, Sarah Palin’s political enemies find the tape and post it on YouTube to embarrass Palin. They can probably do that. But no official real-time capture of a violation occurred during the event itself and Todd will never be charged with a driving violation based on that event, recorded or otherwise. Sorry guys. And who would want to live in a world like that anyway? Would you really want the law to work like that? Yeesh. The Constitution is your friend.
Peace,
SR
Sarah needs no excuses or apologies, not even from the 24,000 pages of stolen private e-mails.
“B-A-D visual!”, McCain in a skirt.
Speak for yourself!! *cough*
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.