Posted on 08/20/2011 11:45:34 PM PDT by Windflier
I’ve been approached several times today by doubters who advance arguments as to why Sarah Palin cannot win the nomination, or if she secures it, why she can’t defeat Barack Obama.
All of the theories I’ve had pitched in my direction today share a couple common faults, and it’s important to point them out here. The most common reason I’ve heard today is the belief that the Media will destroy her. That’s silly. Is there a single Republican, never mind conservative, who the media will not seek to destroy to defend their darling, Barack Obama?
Anybody who watched the media in action after McCain’s nomination in 2008 should by now be thoroughly disabused of that shoddy notion. The Lame-Stream Media has been trying for three years running to destroy Sarah Palin, and there is no chance, having failed thus far, that they will improve results on their limited success.
The problem is that if the media narrative about a person is based on lies, in the longer run, those lies lose effectiveness as people learn the truth from other sources, and worse yet, the lies come back to haunt their purveyors because once the audience, having originally believed them, in the second instance realizes they’ve been scammed, they will thereafter no longer be inclined to believe another pronouncement given voice by that source.
The second most common flaw in the arguments I’ve been hearing and reading today is the dubious assumption that she’s an intellectual lightweight. Truthfully, there couldn’t be a more ridiculous claim upon which to base one’s criticisms, and yet this is the default argument of those who wish to suggest that Sarah Palin isn’t qualified.
It’s the constant harangue of the elite media types, and it has been a failure repeatedly. They tried to paint a similar picture of Ronald Reagan, and in fact, every Republican in my memory.
It’s a claim that falls on deaf ears in most quarters, because in the final analysis, it’s simply not believable given all she has already accompished. Having covered what critics have said, let me move on to my own list of reasons in opposition to these notions.
I firmly believe that Sarah Palin will run, win the nomination, and ultimately the Presidency.
His support is Texas astroturf ginned up by big money RINO donors desperate to keep Sarah out of the White House.
Solution: Perry should drop out.
Cheers!
You think Perry is going to drop out?
This from a guy who can't deal with a simple fact-Perry and Palin will split the conservative vote.
Don't tell me what you think he should do.
You Palin worshippers are living in fantasy world.
Oh, I forgot-cheers.
“Not only does Palin have the correct ideological orientation for most conservatives, she has honestly lived and governed by those concepts. Her twenty year track record of public service is replete with examples of her dogged determination to actually live up to her conservative ideals, despite what it might cost her, both personally, and professionally.”
There is NO doubt in my mind whatsoever that she has “personally” lived by correct concepts...her giving birth to Downs Syndrome child being a prime example. However, I keep hearing (yes I am talking “hearsay”) things about her governance in Alaska that I am not so sure about....NOT in fiscal matters but moral issues. For instance...DID she really sign legislation extending marital benefits to homosexuals in State employment? IF that hearsay is correct, she does not sound like someone that is not necessarily morally consistent in her governance. I hope the calumny about her is false, but I would like to get to the bottom on it. IF she is “homosexual” friendly (even moderately), then she is not someone I can vote for. I do not think homosexuals require special law protections (hate crimes) or any recognition of their status by the government to include domestic partnership....or health benefits as if they were married.
Reagan was a great President period! However I am 250% certain that you will not find a Sandra Day O`Connor on the Supreme Court after the Palin Presidency comes to a end in 2020.
Reagan does have one giant black mark against him, to an otherwise Great Presidency, that being Sandra Day O !!!
According to his post presidency notes, he claims to have never regretted her appointment, and even speaks unflattering of the Pro Life Crowd, something like they have their shorts in a knot over Sandra Day..paraphrase from memory.
Reagan went on to include Sandra Day in his planned funeral.
This is not bashing Reagan, so do not get your shorts in a knot folks.
It could well be that when the Palin administration is said and done, Palin will surpass Reagan.
I read your whole screed, and while I agree with what Obama has done, your conclusion to my points was:
“her signature issue is energy; she loves America; and she’s honest.”
And that’s the main selling point for Democrat leaners and independents? Seriously?
And I wouldn’t lean too heavily on the Reagan comparisons. Reagan’s 1980 resume dwarves Palin’s. There is just no rational comparison between the two in experience or political ability.
With regard to civil unions, etc., Palin believes in traditional heterosexual marriage, and does not support extending marriage or marriage-like benefits to any but traditional heterosexual marriage partners.
However,it is a pattern with her that she will not use executive power to overrule the judiciary. Some good, conservative evangelicals think she should, but our current administration demonstrates why certain other good, conservative evangelicals might think that is a bad idea. I once entertained the idea of dueling branches as a way to rein in a wayward judiciary, but if you get an executive like the Obama administration, where neither the judiciary nor his own view of the Constitution provide any check on his dictatorial inclinations, you are inviting despotism.
Bottom line, the Alaska Supreme Court said Alaska’s constitution required same-sex partner benefits, so she held her nose and vetoed a bill that would have banned such benefits in defiance of the Court’s ruling and thus, in her view, in defiance of Alaska’s constitution. The remedy, she said, was to amend the constitution, which would be the only way to solve the problem without creating a constitutional crisis. Clearly, it is one of her highest recommendations that she understands and honors with integrity our constitutional form of government, even when it sometimes leads to less than perfect outcomes.
Shouldn't be hard to track down the answer to that. If indeed she did sign such legislation, it may be a deal breaker for some. It's unfortunate that some would turn away from someone of Sarah's great worth and caliber over a single wart, but there are those for whom a single issue is the only barometer of a candidate's acceptability.
I 'friended' Day By Day yesterday. I should see every new strip as soon as they're published.
See my post at #228. Detailed info here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Sarah_Palin_Civil_Rights.htm
FTD,
I was just having a little fun with you after you posted the silly response that Palin rather than Perry should drop out.
I thought that you’d recognize the jest; sorry.
The remedy, she said, was to amend the constitution, which would be the only way to solve the problem without creating a constitutional crisis. Clearly, it is one of her highest recommendations that she understands and honors with integrity our constitutional form of government, even when it sometimes leads to less than perfect outcomes.
Thanks for that, SR. Yours is exactly the kind of fact-based analysis and reasoning that we Palin supporters are going to have to master, in order to counter the coming attacks in the primary.
Thankfully, the Governor herself will lead the way on that, after she steps in.
I check out DBD everyday from HotAir. It seems Chris really likes Sarah too and wants to see her run.
“The remedy, she said, was to amend the constitution, which would be the only way to solve the problem without creating a constitutional crisis.”
Did she at any time or way after this action, attempt to help those that would push for a referendum vote to ammend AKs constitution? Or did the matter simply gain zero traction and was dropped by her and others?
She did direct those who wanted this overturned to look to the amendatory process for a solution. I don't know what else happened after that.
I was just stating my concern about splitting the vote between two conservatives.
I apologize for not recognizing what you were saying was in jest.
I always have a high regard for your comments.
nathanbedford, though the years on FR your posts have been of consistently superior quality, with precisely one user name. I probably won't always agree with you, but you do write well.
That's not what I'm talking about. Every politician is 'down in the polls' at some point. I'm talking about a concentrated years-long bashing of a candidate who is loathed by the media that results in turning the public opinion against that person.
Reagan was considered a dunce or a loon by some in the media, but he never had to deal with the intensity and full-court press the way Palin has until after he actually won.
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.