Posted on 03/19/2011 10:18:33 AM PDT by unseen1
Well, if the subject is "mildly retarded", I acquiesce to you. You, after all, seem to be the resident authority on that topic.
I'm not sure how that makes it better. If Barack Obama had said, "it's time we elect a black man to the White House", would the fact that he was talking about himself make it any less offensive?
I don't support sidelining hillary or braun. They ran and were defeated mostly because of their left wing ideas. But both women's qualifications were questioned for the simple reason they were women.
Do you think a woman can do as good a job as POTUS as a man?
That worked out well. lol.
BTW, I have always been pro-Palin. (although not Bristol, I think she might become a Lindsay Lohan)
I have seen no evidence of the MSM caring but I have seen much evidence that many in the country cares. Esp other conservative minded women....
See my post #89
Well, the one I was in was someone claiming that because West doesnt think anything will come from investigating the birth certificate, that he must therefore not care about following the Constitution. Then, as an aside, he said that West wasnt pro-life because he said he supported the “rape, incest, and harm” cases.
I dont know if it was Paulinistas, but it was definitely someone trying to clear the field for a favored candidate.
Just this year, I have seen the following called a RINo and unacceptable for President:
Newt
Romney
Huckabee
Thune
Santorum
Walker
Ryan
Cantor
Perry
West
Rand Paul
DeMint ( a few days ago, someone showed he supported Mitt at some point)
Pence
Daniels
It sure looks to me like someone is trying to clear any potential opponents by labeling them with a name that has no definition.
I want someone who has the intelligence and courage to shut the revolving door between the financial industry and Washington, the determination to shrink the federal government, and the patriotism to understand what makes America great. If it is a woman, fine. If it is a man, just as good. Talking points are good. The political game has to be played, but who will have what it takes to stop the debt, and get government out of the way of prosperity? I know it’s not Romney or Huckabee. They are just more of the same old establishment.
She could be a Manchurian candidate I guess, a really really good one. lol.
I understand your point but it is, as you say, “low-brow politics” and I don’t care for that. Why cater to that ‘feminist’ silliness? The point is not to ‘win-at-all-costs’ but to win through ideas and integrity.
“(or are some of you opposed to her no matter what she says or does?)”
I’m sure some are...just like some support her no matter what she says or does.
No offense, I don’t like anyone saying someone should be something just because of what gender they are. That argument is not going to sway me in the least. I want the most qualified and intelligent and most conservative.
Not only do they paint a broad brush of any other potential opponent of Palin a RINO, any Freeper not sipping the koolaid is given the same treatment.
I understand what your saying, and there should be a set of principles that you look for. What Im worried about is someone saying that DeMint backed Romney or Palin backed McCain, or Thune voted for the farm bill, or Rand Paul wants to cut the defense budget and then a vocal group not only crosses them off a list of good candidates, but vocally attacks them in every opportunity they get. I think that has the ability to discourage people from studying many candidates, and forces one “saviour” candidate upon us. I couldn’t support anyone who is called “the only person who can save “x.””
I’m with you. Even Herman Cain made a stupid remark about race this week — something like “the first black pres is a disaster, but look at the mess all the previous whites ones left behind.”
Just leave sex, race, age, etc out of it. Focus on preserving American and saving it from rabid leftists and commies.
I agree. A question was posed to her (about *us*, not her - are we, as a country, ready for a female President - whatever the dickens that means) and she answered it. I watched her entire performance and 3 things bothered me. I have never been satisfied with her answers on Pakistani terrorism. I think she would benefit from reading Dinesh D’Souza on that argument. It’s an area of obvious weakness. The other was when she didn’t correct the host when he asked a question about 0bama’s kicking off the bailing-out trend. She should have pointed out that it was Bush. It would’ve been accurate. I also wasn’t fond of what she said about China honorably building up its economy. With all the currency manipulation that’s going on, I would’ve liked to have seen her answer cogently.
Not her most elegant performance, but on that question, I can’t fault her. And on the question of gender as a qualification, you and I agree in the absolute.
granted most here don't vote that way neither do I. I support gov Palin for things like leaving AK with a $12 billion surplus, putting the corrupt pols in jail, cutting spending and governing as a consitutionalist. But there is a large part of the population that bases their vote on emotion and running a historic candidate against Obama is one way the gop can have to negate Obama’s strengths in that category.
Or do you think those that voted for Obama because he was the first black president are going to decide not to vote this time around?
Speeches by politicians are frequently repetitive. The venue changes but the oratory usually doesn't. Still, I would take a Palin speech over an Obama speech any day.
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.