Posted on 02/03/2009 2:03:49 PM PST by lewisglad
To me, Sarah Palin offers a similar but flawed parallel to the Democrats’ experiment with then candidate Barack Obama.
The current president was referred to by skeptical critics - including yours truly - as a bit of an empty suit.
His lack of any serious resume entries or legislative accomplishments painted a picture of a hopeful and energetic contender with little proof to be found in his pudding.
However, Obama developed a cult of personality among his followers which proved unstoppable because of the high quality of glitz and glam layered over the thin foundation.
He was widely (and likely correctly) perceived as a highly intelligent person, and few could doubt his masterful oratory skills.
He was also, obviously, a hugely powerful symbol because of his race and upbringing.
This combination, along with his native skills as a politician, created a winning formula for the Democrats.
Sarah Palin is, in many ways, a portrait in contrast to Obama layered on top of some striking similarities in their base construction.
(Excerpt) Read more at themoderatevoice.com ...
In order for there to be a cult of personality, one must HAVE a personality. Haven’t seen any indications of that from That One, but Sarah is filled to the brim with it! And her fans, NOT ‘followers’ don’t exhibit cult-like behavior, unlike those who attended the speeches given by That One. Folks didn’t swoon at Sarah’s speeches, then come away not having one idea about what she said, but feeling real good about it anyway.
At least as long as he has a teleprompter...he's well qualified to be a news reader on TV, just not president of the most powerful nation in the world.
She could have been the uniformly most wonderful candidate, and the MSM would STILL have found a way to go after her, simply because she's a Republican, and she got the base fired up. The MSM couldn't have THAT happen, now could they?
He’ll have a record soon....hopefully it’s not that bad, for the sake of us all.
Alaska? Move to a state that doesn't run on freebees and get back to me in a few years.
Her basic problem is that she just can’t be credible as a fiscal conservative when her only record is governing a state that runs on free money. It would be like turning to a trust-fund baby who never did a day’s work in her life.
All governments run on money extracted from the citizens by force of arms. The rest is just details. And “balance budgets in the long run”? Sure ... so do I: if I die with debt, my heirs will have to pay it or default, sort of like the government of California.
That's why she's irrelevant. The list of issues for the foreseeable future is:
1. The Economy
2. The Economy
3. The Economy
4. The Economy
5. The Economy
...
99. Oh, yeah, did I mention The Economy?
Alaska manages to extract its money from non-citizens (of Alaska) -- taxpayers in the rest of the country and oil companies.
Frankly, having an approval rating of only 80% when you run a state that gives out free checks without making people pay any taxes is pretty damning, if you think about it.
With that logic, there would never be a change of government in Alaska. Ooops, there has been!
Say what you like, but she’s better than what we have now and she’d have been better than McCain (I was seriously hoping that McCain would develop “health problems” if he were elected...).
Now, if you CAN find someone better than Sarah Palin, I’ll be happy to vote for him.
I hope the Obama maniacs think the same way. Then they will leave her alone. But the truth of the matter is they are scared of her and also the MSM.
I don't know if we'll ever see the likes of President Reagan's quality of communications. But for the ability to articulate well, without stumbling with the "er, ah, uhms" like our current "president", it's hard to beat Gov. Bobby Jindal.
It remains to be seen whether Gov. Jindal holds fast to the conservative foundational beliefs for which many of us are looking in our next candidate.
That's why she's irrelevant.
If you really thought she was irrelevant, you wouldn't have posted an article yesterday that had been discussed for 2 full days on FR on at least 5 other threads, one of which had the exact same title as yours did.
You’re been against Palin from the beginning.
MCain was all about the economy and spending...didn’t work too well.
Reagan knew what counted as does Palin.
You’re not known as a social conservative around here, but we’ll keep a place at the table for you...it may be the children’s fold out table like for kids at thanksgiving but it’ll be there.
I swear.
Yeah yeah howling troll - is that you Mitt?
No, no. I defended her against the critics and smears during the campaign. It didn’t work. They need another strategy.
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.