Posted on 07/17/2011 1:52:01 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The new Sarah Palin documentary, The Undefeated, opened to solid box office numbers this weekend. Oddly, the Atlantic tried to cook up a quick hit piece on the Palin film by sending the hapless Conor Friedersdorf to an unadvertised midnight showing in Orange County on a Thursday night. He proceeded to note at great length that not many people were in the theater.
This story was quickly picked up and run by other media outlets, in an attempt to construct a “flop” narrative, quickly rendered as hollow and irrelevant as an Obama economic prediction.
Friedersdorf, and the others who ran with his story, cannot be stupid enough to think that theater attendance at 12:45 AM on a Thursday night, at an unadvertised screening of a documentary, while one of the year’s most anticipated summer blockbusters was rolling out, could be truly indicative of The Undefeated’s opening weekend performance.
They had to work fast to manufacture this hit, since the eagerness of Palin fans to see The Undefeated was not exactly a secret. Their goal was to pump one more anti-Palin story into the billowing cloud of toxic smog pouring from major media outlets. They did it so that liberal readers who won’t go anywhere near a screening of this movie can high-five each other and chuckle about what a bomb it was, providing the ”reality-based community” with another of its many fables that survive any chance encounter with contradictory evidence.
I want Palin to run because I want a candidate who inspires that kind of desperation in the Left. I want someone who drives them to sit in little circles around their campfires and tell ghost stories.
This might sound harsh, but I also consider the way Palin brings out the knuckle-dragging misogyny of liberals to be a plus. Modern liberalism is an ideology of hatred and envy. Its blood burns hotter as every product of its imagination becomes a titanic failure in the real world. It has nothing left but hatred now. Liberals have sunk so low that they openly value punitive taxation more than avoiding national default. They spend their time looking for targets, not solutions.
Similar levels of shrieking hysteria are directed at the Left’s other class and ideological enemies. The sexist fury they unleash against Palin is a useful reminder of their true nature to voters that should understand what kind of future they are voting for, when they vote for a liberal. Palin has proven she can take the heat.
Some of the other 2012 GOP contenders strike me as the sort who will be very surprised by what crawls out of the media’s Hellraiser puzzle box after they win the nomination… especially the ones that want to run as “moderates.” Sorry, fellas, but nobody to the right of this radical President is going to be anointed as a “moderate” once the general election campaign begins. If you don’t fill out your Tea Party application now, rest assured the press will do it for you next year.
The media has no surprises left for Sarah Palin. She handled their combined onslaught when major news outlets were openly calling her an accessory to murder in the Tucson shootings. Not all of her potential 2012 competitors were quick to stand by her side, but they should have been. If you can’t swiftly and forcefully defend your party’s tireless, highly visible former vice-presidential candidate from such disgusting slander, what kind of Republican are you? I want Palin to run because she’s a candid voice in an age of lies and deceit. Her running mate in 2008, John McCain , buried his own candidacy in a shallow grave by refusing to speak candidly about Barack Obama ’s shady background and penchant for falsehood. Palin did that, and was excoriated as a “bomb thrower” in the media. She was right. Everything she said about Obama was right. We’ve lost trillions of dollars and millions of jobs because not enough voters listened to her.
The debt ceiling debate has given America a long, hard look at the sick and degenerate politics of Democrats. The President of the United States just lied about opinion poll numbers during a major press conference, in a desperate attempt to make himself look like less of an extremist. This came after days of fraudulent threats to default on America’s financial obligations and freeze Social Security checks. Americans don’t need another presidential candidate who wastes our time being excessively deferential to someone who lies to us and threatens us incessantly. We need one who calls him out the way Sarah Palin always has.
Palin has been dead right about a lot of important issues. She outperformed quite a few high-performance economists in her assessment of the Quantitative Easing monetary strategy. She’s always been right about domestic energy production, and it gets more obvious by the day. How does her record of accurate predictions stack up against the President and his wise men over the past two years? Some other candidates can do a pretty good job of dissecting the Obama record. Palin did it in advance.
She walks eagerly into the crossfire to support people like Rep. Paul Ryan, even back when he was still working on his “Ryan Roadmap,” the precursor to his “Path to Prosperity” budget. Few of the other presidential contenders have done as much for the Republican Party, and the conservative movement, as Palin over the last few years. That will count for a lot, when the new President must assemble congressional majorities to pass crucial legislation. I can remember many crucial moments since 2008 when Sarah Palin took a firm position on important issues with a whole lot of empty space around her, where other Republicans should have been standing.
Most importantly of all, I like Palin’s aura of confidence… not just in herself, but in the people of the United States. There is something luminous about the way she expresses it. Her cheerful reverence and affection for ordinary people is both comforting and inspiring. Many candidates give impressive performances. Not all of them seem as impressed by us as Palin does. To Palin, we are “the undefeated.”
The great struggle ahead of us will involve returning liberty to a nation that has lost confidence in its government, years after the government so obviously lost confidence in us. Our enormous national debt means that Washington sees the American people as so feeble that the rest of the world must be induced to fund government programs to take care of us.
It is said that we must indenture our children for generations to come, in order to finance welfare benefits for today’s population of adults, who are helpless in a growing number of areas without government supervision. The bumbling descendants of the Greatest Generation must be told what kind of car to drive, what kind of light bulb to use, which kind of inefficient and overpriced energy should fuel their businesses, and how to handle their health care needs. A stagnant, jobless economy is presented as the “new normal.” Things would be even worse, if the Democrats hadn’t told the future how to spend four trillion dollars of its wealth.
The leader who challenges that dark fantasy must have a great and inspirational belief in the strength and wisdom of the American people. Where the State has failed, free men and women will succeed. Where regulation has failed, enterprise will triumph. The rot of central planning will burn away in the light of private sector risk and investment. It shouldn’t have taken us decades to remember that politicians don’t know squat about running a business… but better late than never.
I want Palin to run because she gets all that, and doesn’t need stare into a mirror before TV interviews and remind herself to believe it. The people who look down their noses at her have an equally low opinion of the public they have failed so utterly. Worship of the State is all about submission. I don’t see anything coming out of the Left that I feel like submitting to any longer.
We the people of the United States stand on the verge of withdrawing our consent from a collapsing system that will curse us with its dying breath. That’s going to take guts. Sarah Palin honestly believes we can do it. So do I. The time for doubting ourselves is over.
Hi Hoot, Sorry for the late reply on this.
“Norm you are correct, but we have had two presidents lately that couldn’t pass even a low security background check.”
Exactly why we need them. This is gonna get wordy as is my wont, but hang in there:
Part of this goes to exactly why they should be required - to ensure another Clinton cant sell high grade Sat-Tech to China or Obama to fund Muzzie terror groups.
If the Repubs mandate ‘per the rules’ a bkg check in their own party and the Dems do not, that is a huge coup in PR for the Repubs. But most importantly, the PEOPLE will be far less likely to vote for a person that cannot.
Imagine the scenario where the BKG is in place - say 2016 and the Dems run an Obama like figure as the candidate. He refuses or fails the check. That’s pretty hard to spin when the other party ALL has checked candidates.
BUT!!!
If we were to get power in the House Senate (H/S), we can set ALL H/S rules, Party and Electorial as it relates to the H/S, that in order for ANY candidate to be backed by H/S members, they must pass the check. Again, no LAW required as the H/S has the total Constitutional authority to make it’s rules any way they see fit... and there are many cases of/with precedence to back up them doing so.
So Even if the Dems wer to run another Obama, the H/S CANNOT back him without the check per the rules. If they did, they could be LEGALLY thrown from office. What chance would that candidate have in a general?
None.
As I said/hinted at earlier, Palin CAN force the issue and bring it to the people. AKA “So you want to elect people with a clean record? Or Do you want the Dems to get more people in power like those that wrecked the economy and nearly the country in just 2 years?
THEN just spam the records of the Rangels and Geitners and the Pedo-loving ‘school safety Czar” and stick it in the Dem’s face every single time they cry “BLACKLIST!!”
Again, note that this does not require SP to claim or use powers not held by the president, nor any “LAW” to be passed. All of it is 100% legal and doable by H/S rules and common authority and ability.
In the end it comes down to guts and huevos. SP has both. The Repubs can go along and become the party they are supposed to be or the holdouts can be tossed with the Dem/Libs onto the ash heap of history.
And again, no “dictator” or “coup” needed. This is all by the book stuff and the Dem/Libs/Rinos cannot do a damn thing about it. Go along and fix the problem, or be publically shown as PART OF the problem. They will quickly fall in line.
Lastly, to the point that plenty of good people have screwed up, paid the price and are now good citizens. Absolutely true. I know many. But there are plenty who never have as well. It still comes down to my original premise.
“Do we want people that cannot pass a simple FBI background check sitting in the largest seats of power on the planet...especially when we can elect people who can?
I patiently wait for the AMC in my area to show this movie. I have a feeling they will be sold out every night in my area.
Don’t think that Sarah is not running. I think that Bristol let the cat out of the bag and told what Sarah said, was to be kept on the boat. I think she is quietly setting up her communications network and is testing out its circuits. Her campaign needs to be quick to react to the enemy’s media hits which will be wide spread and stinking with lies.
Spot on!
Basic Sun Tzu - Art of War. That is EXACTLY what she’s doing. But in the face of reality, some still drool out “She ain’t running/She can’t win” all over the keyboard and I suppose it makes them feel good.
None of the PDS brigade bothered to notice that the Iowa setup is being played out quietly in states across America. Their media buddies didn’t report on it so it must not be happening I suppose.
Those of us paying attention have been watching it unfold for sometime now, sit back and laugh at the ‘experts’ here on FR.
What was that Ronaldus Magnus said about those types? Oh yea...”They know so much that just isn’t so.”
Would instantly support Palin of she ran. Absent her, first choice among viable candidates, Perry. Absent him, first choice among announced, Bachmann.
Romney is a non-starter. He loses Iowa, doesn't score a knockout in NH, loses SC. Loses $ input, is dead after SC.
VP, Rubio, because among things, he locks election with Hispanic vote.
Would instantly support Palin if she ran. Absent her, first choice among viable candidates, Perry. Absent him, first choice among announced, Bachmann.
Romney is a non-starter. He loses Iowa, doesn't score a knockout in NH, loses SC. Loses $ input, is dead after SC.
VP, Rubio, because among things, he locks election with Hispanic vote.
We are so fortunate to have Sarah with a BA in Journalism to give her an unique advantage in the media war—the Sun Tzu—she will fight. What is even more to her advantage is that she has been sharpening her skills much longer than the other candidates. What would throw a Michelle Bachmann off her game, would be quickly dealt with by Sarah. A candidate cannot afford a campaign setback with bad press. It destroys fund raising and it demoralizes the volunteers on the grassroots. Sarah is light years ahead of the other candidates in this regard.
Sarah already knows the workings of a national campaign. She has already done the apprentice thing. She is now ready to sit in the captain’s chair.
Absolutely. That experience in journalism of hers in invaluable. Not so much the journalism degree itself, but knowing the inside of a newsroom and how they think. I was in the biz for a number of years in both print (mostly) and net. They are pretty much are the dens of iniquity that people think they are. It’s all about sales, advertizing and keeping the media outlet’s ‘friends’ serviced. Truth really plays a minor role and very much depends on whose ‘truth’ the Ed wants covered. And how. MSNBC/NYT and their ilk prove this daily.
As you said, she knows that environment and what/how the attacks will come. Plus, she has friends at Fox and others ‘behind the scenes’ that will feed her the same way the Dems have their ‘sources’ in the industry.
Yup, she’s ready for the big chair. All the crying from her detractors on FR will not change the fact that barring some unforseen disaster, she will get it.
I was a journalism student at the University of Washington, but left to get a degree in English Lit at a smaller private college.
Good move. The EL degree has a purpose and is useful. One Ed I worked with told every new J-School hire “Forget everything they taught you. This is how “I” do things.” There are many like that.
Plus the starting pay isn’t too great in most areas.
Look at the history of Goldman Sachs--they were heavily involved in the margin trading that in the end caused the 1929 stock market crash--a crash made worse because bank assets were affected by that crash, resulting in thousands of bank failures all over the USA. And the same company got heavily involved in a lot of the new-style investments like derivatives, hedge funds, and credit default swaps, which made the company a lot of money but to the literal expense of everything else in the US economy, as we've seen from how well Goldman Sachs managed to survive the 2008 stock market crash.
One of FDR's few smart moves was to sign the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act--an act that provided a lot of stability to banks because bank assets were "firewalled" from the ups and downs of the stock market. And it was this "firewall" that literally protected the US economy from the 1987 stock market crash (because bank assets were not affected) and protected the economy from the effects of the 1997-1999 Asian financial crisis.
Look at what happened after Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999: banks got heavily into the investment business. So while from 2000 to 2006 they made a LOT of profit, once the housing bubble burst, these banks started to lose money at a huge rate, and when the stock market finally crashed in September 2008 many banks failed just like what happened after the 1929 stock market crash.
As such, this is why I want those controls I mentioned earlier in place. This protects bank assets, very important because too many people's life savings are stored in those bank assets, and we all read from history what happened during the spate of bank failures before Glass-Steagall was signed into law.
The problems ( there were far more than just buying on low to no margins )that caused the Crash of '29 were somewhat covered, after the fact ( much,much after ) by regulations. OTOH, If Joe Kennedy Sr. and his cartel hadn't been shorting the market, as J.P. Morgan and his buddies ( whom Hoover had asked to help out), that CRASH would have recovered ( as it initially did! )and stayed recovered. Instead, Joe kept pounding it down and as a result of that, FDR made him the first head of the SEC, because FDR figured that such a crook and blaggard would know all of the "tricks/corruption" that needed tending to.
You've fallen into the MSM trap of calling everything "WALL STREET" and blackening the eyes of firms and contracts that had/have nothing whatsoever to do with the mess of '08.
I probablly know the history of Goldman-Sachs better than you do. I know that I understand "the Street" and markets better than you do and as I said earlier, you are wrong, vis-a-vis your pledge by a candidate.
There have been many BUBBLES, CRASHES, PAINICS, RECESSIONS, and yes, DEPRESSIONS, not to mention MORTGAGE/BANK COLLAPSES during the entire history of this nation. There was a time when very few people actually bought stock. There was a time, that almost nobody, outside of an extremely low number traded commodities, and more recently, there was a time when even fewer people traded options and futures.
I would more or less agree with you, re bringing back the full force of Glass-Stegall. As to the rest of what you have proposed, I am completely against it, for very good reasons, one of which I have stated, quite clearly, farther up on the thread.
I know that lots of people want Rubio as someone's VEEP, but he has repeatedly said that he isn't interested. We'll just have to see what happens.
Romney,like his father, will never be president!
Wow!! I read almost everything anyone writes about Sarah and this is the first time I’ve seen her compared to Churchill. I must say it is an apt comparison. I remember his strength when the rest of his countrymen were ready to roll ove and die. Sarah has the same qualities.
I will vote for her... Again!
Please, boor is the best nicest thing I could think of.
You are ZOTTED. Your posts will not be seen by me nor replied to in the future. I don’t waste time with people like you.
"Boor" is also a badly chosen word on your part and if the others you thought about calling me were a no go ( gutter language ), then I suggest that you go buy yourself a good dictionary and/or thesaurus; you truly need both books.
And nobody reading your posts to this thread believes that Governor Palin is your first choice, should she throw her hat into the ring.
Not a coward at all, dude.
In fact, try this on for size:
Note to any interested FReepers, please take a look atMindBender26's full profile, not just the part I excerpted to set him up for an ad hominem snark.
...then tell me what part of his homepage screams "genuine conservative Palin fan."
(Yeah, I read your posts downthread from the post that this is in reply to. Why didn't you lead off by saying you would support Sarah if she happened to win the GOP nomination? And if you're comfortable voting for her in such circumstances, as indicated in Post #186, why the strange reluctance to help bring it about?)
And for someone whose signup date is listed as 1999, and who claims to have been on FR before that, you show a strange misunderstanding of the word "ZOTTED" in Post #197.
Cheers! Cheers!
I would support Governor Palin as my number one choice, if she runs. Right now, she has not announced her intention to run. I am a maxed-out donor to SarahPAC, because I know that the candidates she supports, as she does, are important at all levels.
Likewise, I understand that if she chose to run, it would be a very difficult battle for her, because of the undeserved negatives she carries. She understands that the most important thing is beating Obama, and she follows the Reagan Rule: “Nominate the most conservative candidate in the primary, who can win the general.”
That said, I expect her to not run, but follow her own dictate and support the most conservative candidate who can win the general.
Because you are obviously either not a student of American presidential election history, or are just a far-left DU disruptor trying to mess with real conservatives by espousing so-called far-right positions, knowing they are BS, you will be Zotted and not seen on my replies in the future.
Why? You are rude, crass, obviously a lower-class person, and simply not worth my time.
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.