Posted on 06/26/2010 1:13:44 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Andrew Malcolm over at the LA Times is wondering what to make of Sarah Palin.
Her poll numbers are low, both when the polls ask if she is qualified to be president and also when asked if people would vote for those she supports, yet in this primary season a lot of those she endorsed have won victories in the primaries.
So what is going on?
The answer is that the polls forget that publicity can mean votes, and that having Mother Palin endorse you and your positions on her Facebook page means a headline for you, and a “headsup” to teaparty voters (both grassroots Republicans and Bluedog Democrats) that this person is fiscally conservative.
A lot of the political coverage in the US news seems to be horse races, with few details to help us judge a person on his or her integrity, or their long standing positions on issues.
When it comes to primaries, you get propaganda by the parties, but few good details. The result is the election of obedient hacks, who toe the party line in exchange for everyone overlooking their sweetheart deals and “campaign donations” that will result in their representing the rich and powerful (mainly business, but also unions) rather than those who vote for them.
Ergo having a person who won’t rubber stamp the decisions of the rich country club Republicans in Washington DC, and who can explain why a person might be good to vote for, makes a difference. We voters desperately need to know who is a hack, and who will be a good candidate.
And her endorsements have been personal and even quirky. From the Hill:
Palin’s endorsements this primary season have perplexed some observers. For the most part, she has endorsed conservative underdogs like Didier in Washington State and Bledsoe in Arkansas. But in other races she has gone with the establishment Republican — California’s Senate primary and Iowa’s gubernatorial primary are two examples.
The Hill article also notes that Romney’s endorsement record was better than Ms. Palin’s: (12 out of 13 won, versus 9 out of 12 for Palin).
Yet quick: Can you tell me of one person that Romney picked? (Can you even tell me who is Romney? I know, because I have relatives in Massachusetts, but I suspect a lot of people never heard of him).
Finally, the power of Ms. Palin, who is hated by the elites of both parties, is partly due to what some of us have called the “revolt of the yeomen”. When the NY Times blithely explains it is better to let inflation lower the deficit than cut spending, it sends a clear message to those of us who work hard, pay our bills, and try to save: We are suckers for doing so.
It is this disdain for ordinary folks that is causing the smouldering tea party rebellion, and it is one reason that criticism by the press and the elites in both parties is making a lot of us support Ms. Palin. (The Arab proverb goes: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.)
Both parties seem to be run by political hacks, we have a congress who passes expensive bills without reading them or explaining to us where our money is going, and most of them seem to be more interested in reelection than in the welfare of our country.
Hence the opinion of an outsider with common sense can influence the elections, at least in the primaries, and at least in the otherwise clueless Republican party.
No, Ms. Palin is not qualified to be president, but her executive ability and judgment seems to be good, and her real talent might be to influence US elections as “kingmaker” rather than as candidate.
******
Nancy Reyes is a retired physician living in the rural Philippines. She is a Democrat and blogs at Makaipa blog.
F'ing media hacks keep repeating the same meme over and over expecting it to stick. Palin has executive experience, is personable and seems to be able to rally people quite effectively. She doesn't have military experience, that's a minus, but she has family who serve.
She is certainly more qualified than the current community organizer in the WH now.
I remember Juan Williams saying before the election, when challenged by the rest of the round table on Obama’s total lack of experience, well he’s run a presidential campaign.
The killer from Wasilla, on the other hand, has sat on energy boards, been mayor AND governor. Heck, she captained her basketball team and played on a broken foot. She’s led by example from day one. She’s been a leader since she was a teen.
Obama is a shadow next to this vibrant woman.
Hmmm, her executive ability and judgment are good but she's not qualified to be president yet Obama has neither executive ability nor good judgment and he is president. How does that work???
I will do whatever it takes, to make sure Sarah carries my state, if she ever needs my help!
bttt
Nobody is really "qualified" to be president. It is just too big of a job. But all you really need is executive experience and a good team to work with you. Reagan had all that. Obama has none of that.
So, let me get this straight......Palin is NOT qualified to be POTUS, but a "kingmaker" in elections?
What am I missing here? Are not executive ability, judgement and "kingmakers" NOT qualified to be POTUS?
Am I getting this right?
No, Ms. Palin is not qualified to be president, but her executive ability and judgment seems to be good
TRANSLATION....
No, Mr. Obama is not qualified to be President, but his mezmerizing speeches and zombie armies are all powerful (meniacle laughter).
Evolution of the ciriticsm
Sarah “who”???
Where’s Alaska???
She hunts moose?!?!?!?!
She’s too extreme
She’s too inexperienced
She’s not part of the DC cocktail circuit
The public will never except her
Okay, she draws crowds, so what...so does the circus
Okay, the book sells, so what.....you want a medal or something?
Okay, her candidate picks are winning, so what
Okay, she’s got the support of the base, yeah, whatever
Okay, she’s building a base in Iowa, SC and other key demographics? It won’t take hold
Yadda yadda yadda...
Actually she has military experience. She was Commander in Chief of the Alaska Guard.
Sarah has been all over the place, and all over the election news, and had been endorsing winner after winner.
Is the Left still calling her a “quitter”?
There is something which is fundamentally flawed in the polls as they relate to Gov Palin. Perhaps those most likely to support her simply refuse to participate, or actively sabotage the poll by lying to the pollster. Perhaps there are one or more problems with the poll sampling. Perhaps all of the above, or perhaps it is something else altogether.
And then there is the intensity factor - those who support Gov Palin tend to do so with great passion. This intensity can have an outsized impact; a force multiplier, for lack of a better term.
But apart from this speculation - this much is certain - the woman has consistently had far more influence than the polling would suggest that she should have. And this means that the polls, in her case particularly, are just wrong.
The only "qualification" needed is the proper number of votes in the Electoral College.
Not just the "Left" but dozens of FReepers, sad to say.
You left out, "No, she's nothing but a quitter..."
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.