Posted on 09/07/2011 10:18:27 AM PDT by Lakeshark
I guess that makes me a Scientologist, because I’ve posted repeatedly that Palin holds a special position because there is no one — not even George W. Bush — who has been the subject of the Democratic, mainstream media and left-blogosphere smear machine to the extent Palin has.
So yes, I do take it personally when conservatives lash out at Palin not because of her policy positions or what she’s done or not done in her career, but with personal invective.
It’s not religion, its a cold hard understanding of what is to come, and how those who call Palin a diva or a tease or any of the other names coming from media conservatives do damage to us all. Palin is simply the test case for how the Republican nominee, whoever that person may be, will be treated, and we pile on her at our own peril.
**snip**
Simply by waiting to announce, Palin has driven media conservatives mad. It all seems so familiar.
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
You've got a point there, but for me, the skin thickening process began almost two years ago, when the PDS crowd first began to surface here.
I still butt heads with them, but I care less and less about their asinine rants. Sarah herself is pulling my attention towards the real fight ahead, and I find myself being more and more interested in what I'll soon be doing to help her win the nomination.
So that they will be beholden to the big money people rather than the voters?
So they can win. We need someone who can beat Obama, and raising money is a requirement for a competitive campaign.
Palin, and really, only Palin has presented the issues and her platform for all to see in writing and in public address.
Candidates have to defend their positions under fire from competitors. They have to run against other candidates, not just release statements. And, it's not a "platform" until you are a candidate for office.
No professed candidate is prepared to debate Palin.
They don't have to unless she enters the race.
She is the only candidate that has done anything of significance
Except become a candidate. She's not a candidate, she's not in the race.
We need an effective, winning candidate; and, that means someone who is willing to do the things a candidate has to do, to work for it. Actually enter the race, build a finance team and a campaign staff, win local endorsements, organize a real campaign on the ground, debate and defend their positions, develop and execute a campaign strategy.
A Rosey Ruiz strategy is not going to cut it.
“all because she is going to announce in September. “
How do you know that? What makes you think she will announce her run at all? More than likely, she won’t run.
How do you know that? What makes you think she will announce her run at all? More than likely, she won’t run.
Clarification: All because she is going to announce (her decision) in September.
Most likely the announcement will be that she is running.
That's a good summary of the practical reality.
Palin supporters that have a 'hope and a prayer' view of this believe that Palin can break the above rules, the grassroots will spring like flowers after a thundrstorm, the party faithful will flock, and that those claiming otherwise are just out to hurt her chances.
Dont be hard on those who doubt the hope, which feels to some of us like hype. Even if you dont his critique of Palin and her supporters, Erick Erickson is a real conservative, a real activist, and someone who has helped advance the cause in many ways. The points he made about Palin, what she needs to do if she were to run and what her weaknesses are, are honest assessments of where she stands. confusing those assessments with the 'attack and spin' done by some on the 'other side' and/or calling Erickson 'vermin' etc. (as was done on this thread) really doesnt help at all. That's ad hominem. Its only spawns his own comments vis a vis Scientology. Let not go there.
Some real, genuine conservatives have great hopes for Palin. Some real, genuine conservatives have great doubts that Palin will be a candidate at all or will be effective if she runs. having seen the rise and fall of a number of stars, Gingrich for one, the biggest errors we could make is to see our leaders are perfect or infallible, and see fellow conservatives as traitors to the cause simply because we have a difference of opinion.
“OK, that’s a pretty dumb post right there. Perry taking a public paycheck to be a full time governor and Perry running for president, a full time responsibility. “
As a Texan, I can tell you that’s full of beans. Unlike the Fox contract, which forbids the conflict of interest, there is nothing in the Texas constitution forbidding a sitting Governor running for President. that’s how G W Bush did it in 2000. Perry wisely focussed on the lege session and only after it was over did he focus on his decision to run (as happened with Mitch Daniels, who decided not to run). Perry wisely is keeping tabs on his duties as governor and is attending to them as need be, as he did wrt Texas wildfires.
Moreover, Rep Bachmann, Rep Paul, Huckabee, Rep Hunter, Rep Tancredo, McCain, GWBush, GHWBush in 1988, Dole, Obama, Clinton, Biden, Kennedy, Kerry, etc. in other words 80% of candidates running for President, and most previous Presidents - ALSO RAN WHILE HOLDING ANOTHER OFFICE.
So now everyone who actually is holding down a job while running is unethical? We can only our top job from the ranks of the unemployed / media-employed? that’s a pretty dumb POV.
“Palin, and really, only Palin has presented the issues and her platform for all to see in writing and in public address.”
C’mon, you cant be serious.
We have 2 books from Perry, maybe a dozen books from Gingrich. Ideas galore from Gingrich, Santorum, Cain and Bachmann. They’ve given more real substance and detail on their plans, and folks like Bachmann can back up their words with what they’ve been doing in Congress.
Just this week, Romney delivered a tome, a serious detailed economic plan, almost 100 pages of specific legislation and presidential actions to turn the economy around:
Here’s Romney’s summation:
Right-size government by cutting spending, repealing Obamacare, and ending wasteful programs
Make American businesses competitive in the global economy
Open markets abroad, on fair terms, for American goods and services
Ensure energy security and independence for America
Train and prepare American workers for the jobs of today and tomorrow
Sound familiar? It should sound familiar because in fact nothing Palin has been saying is drastically different from what the announced GOP candidates are saying, including Romney’s plan. It’s all about drilling for energy, reforming tax code, cutting the spending, fixing entitlements, repealing Obamacare and getting govt back under control and giving the people their freedom. The ‘plan’ in her Iowa speech is a cliff notes version of what Romney lays out in detail.
And this “No professed candidate is prepared to debate Palin” must be unintentional satire, since OF COURSE the announced candidates just DID debate tonight, and Palin is free to join the crown if/when she announces. None will fear her in the debates.
“Hitting the pretender in the offal orifice with real, well thought out commentary on his failures and devastation of the country.”
Palin has been great on this, true, but pretending she’s the only one is silly, when most of the candidates (i’d say all except Huntsman) have been going after Obama pretty well. Perry did enough right out of the gate to get Team Obama focussed on him, like Sauron’s eye after the Ring!
>> “and folks like Bachmann can back up their words with what they’ve been doing in Congress.” <<
.
IOW, nothing! No bills written, nor submitted. Essentially a spectator. Unable to even hire a competent chief of staff.
.
>> “Ideas galore from Gingrich” <<
.
Really? God help us! Pelosi’s couch was newtie’s pinnacle.
And all of the copying that has recently been done of Palin’s layout from two years ago by all the “other thans” is meaningless. All of it coaxed in recent weeks.
Nothing that Romney proposes is acceptable for present conditions; if he were trying to fluff up Reagan’s last term, maybe, but we are way down the road from Romney’s wader depth now.
You’re imagining substance from the fluff the “other thans” have offered.
.
>> “And this “No professed candidate is prepared to debate Palin” must be unintentional satire, since OF COURSE the announced candidates just DID debate tonight, and Palin is free to join the crown if/when she announces. None will fear her in the debates.” <<
.
You obviously didn’t read past the first clause of that paragraph. Today’s controled question “debate” is designed to protect those lightweights from Palin’s hard points. Let’s talk about a real debate between the candidates with never before seen questions from people chosen out of the audience at random by the debators.
Stop protecting the chaff.
>> “and folks like Bachmann can back up their words with what they’ve been doing in Congress.” <<
.
IOW, nothing! No bills written, nor submitted. Essentially a spectator. Unable to even hire a competent chief of staff.
.
>> “Ideas galore from Gingrich” <<
.
Really? God help us! Pelosi’s couch was newtie’s pinnacle.
And all of the copying that has recently been done of Palin’s layout from two years ago by all the “other thans” is meaningless. All of it coaxed in recent weeks.
Nothing that Romney proposes is acceptable for present conditions; if he were trying to fluff up Reagan’s last term, maybe, but we are way down the road from Romney’s wader depth now.
You’re imagining substance from the fluff the “other thans” have offered.
.
>> “And this “No professed candidate is prepared to debate Palin” must be unintentional satire, since OF COURSE the announced candidates just DID debate tonight, and Palin is free to join the crown if/when she announces. None will fear her in the debates.” <<
.
You obviously didn’t read past the first clause of that paragraph. Today’s controled question “debate” is designed to protect those lightweights from Palin’s hard points. Let’s talk about a real debate between the candidates with never before seen questions from people chosen out of the audience at random by the debators.
Stop protecting the chaff.
Being a hack for the establishment what ever party is like scientology.
>> The question is, WHY is Gov. Palin waiting “till some time in September?” <<
.
The answer is here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2763551/posts
OK, that’s a pretty dumb post right there.
No it isn't, your response is dumb.
Unlike the Fox contract, which forbids the conflict of interest,
Palin hasn't announced yet and Fox is free to release Palin when they see a conflict of interest. Both parties to the contract don't seem to have a problem with it at this point. Yet you, a person who is not a party to the contract, seem to have a problem. That's dumb.
Moreover, Rep Bachmann, Rep Paul, Huckabee, Rep Hunter, Rep Tancredo, McCain, GWBush, GHWBush in 1988, Dole, Obama, Clinton, Biden, Kennedy, Kerry, etc. in other words 80% of candidates running for President, and most previous Presidents - ALSO RAN WHILE HOLDING ANOTHER OFFICE.
Just because one (or many politicians) does something, doesn't make it right. That's exactly the kind of thing we should be trying to change.
So now everyone who actually is holding down a job while running is unethical? We can only our top job from the ranks of the unemployed / media-employed? that’s a pretty dumb POV.
Anybody running for president, campaigning across the country while holding down another job certainly is acting unethical.
I've had Bachmann supporters agree with me when I point out that Bachmann (who I happen to like) has missed many votes.
I've had Perry supporters agree with me when I point out that the Texas fires versus the debate situation is only one of many conflicts that will arise if Perry doesn't resign.
I even said in one post that Palin, who I also happen to like, should have temporarily turned over her duties as governor, when she was picked for two months to run for VP.
Yet you can't seem to get up the fortitude to objectively criticize your guy on such a basic principle of ethics.
Here's another one. Perry promised not to run for president when he ran for governor in 2010. Perry has now broken that promise just one short year later. That's also unethical. Are you now going to defend that dumb idea too? Are you now going to start smearing folks who simply point that out?
Thanks for your reply, and good points..
I didn't say she shouldn't run - just that I can't support her run for those reasons. She can do as she wishes. Unfortunately, if she runs this time around I think she will lose so badly it will prevent her from being a viable candidate in the future, when I think she would be a better choice.
“And all of the copying that has recently been done of Palin’s layout ...”
Oh, so we have gone from the other guys have nothing to the other guys are cribbing from Palin.
Gotcha ... still absurd.
And btw, Bachmann authored the Obamacare repeal bill.
jeeez.
“You obviously didn’t read past the first clause of that paragraph. Today’s controled question “debate” is designed to protect those lightweights from Palin’s hard points.”
Nobody stopped Palin from announcing last week and getting her own ticket to the debate. The only one stopping Palin from debating is ... well, Palin.
OK, so you have your opinion.
In my opinion you are wrong to criticize Perry, Bachmann, Palin etc. just because they decided to run and serve at the same time.
Just because you dont like what practically EVERY POLITICIAN WHO RUNS FOR RE-ELECTION DOES, doesn’t make it unethical.
I can’t emphasize enough how early we are in the election cycle. This time 4 years ago, the GOP vote was divided as follows:
Rudy - 27%
Fred - 24%
McCain - 14%
Romney - 11%
You are changing the argument. I said running for president while holding another public office.
Pols who simply run for re-election do so by performing their job and traveling amongst their constituency.
But thanks for the meaningless scream caps.
“You are changing the argument. I said running for president while holding another public office.”
And I already said ‘big deal’ and pointed out that it is commonly done, is NOT unethical, nothing underhanded or dishonest in a public official who can walk and chew gum at the same time, it just happens to be something you apparently don’t like to see.
The comparison of every politician who run for re-election fits, because it is the same set of actions.
“Pols who simply run for re-election do so by performing their job and traveling amongst their constituency.”
oh so THAT’S what obama’s black bus was, and his speech with ‘take em out’ Hoffa ... ‘doing his job’. riiight.
So Obama can be president while the economy burns and run for re-election, using taxpayer money for his campaign stops no less, but Perry cant manage being a Governor with the lege not even in session? What a double-standard.
Again, you are entitled to your opinion about not liking this common practice, but its just plain wrong to call this common practice ‘unethical’. Its not.
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.