New York Times: Did Sarah Palin really say that? Wow.

New York Times via The American Conservative ^ | September 9, 2011 | Rod Dreher

[2ndDivisionVet]

Sarah Palin said some amazing and terrific things the other day

[wmfights]

This year's line up is one in which everyone is vying to be seen as the most conservative. The only candidate I would not support is Romney.

FWIW, the Tea Party has changed everything. Whomever gets the nomination and wins will not have control over the Party the way they have in the past. They will have to steer right or they won't survive for a 2nd term.

[Calif Conservative]

C GGMA has an excellent question.

My question: Who will answer her question?

My takes:

1. Gov. Palin has articulated a correct assessment of the rotten core of the ailmentss that afflict the nation. There indeed is a “chubby, clubby five-man patty cake” cycle of co-dependency.

2. Palin has only focused on part of the problems. Palin in that Tea Party speech did not emphasize economic growth — which Perry has addressed. Palin did not emphasize spending cuts and fiscal discipline — which Bachman has addressed.

3. She has not articulated a cure for her assessment of THE ailments.

4. She is not obliged at this time to do so, since she is not a declared candidate.

5. Were she to be a declared candidate, Gov. Palin would then be obliged to specify the cures

Finally...
in alphabetical order, the following Republicans would make an excellent president:

Bachman, Palin, Perry,

The following Republicans would make a good president:

Cain, Gingrich, Santorum

The following Republican might make a good president, so long as strong conservatives in the House and Senate were the ones who set the agenda, much like they did with Bill Clinton in days gone by

Romney

-George

[little jeremiah]

The only reason that lobbyists can profit in Washington is because the government is no longer restrained by the Constitution. A Constitutional government would not have the unlimited power to make or break a corporation, so the lobbyists would not be needed to defend their employers or persuade the government to crush the competition.

Excellent point.

[little jeremiah]

You think you’re fooling anyone?

[xzins]

I was on Free Republic long before the 2008 election, and Marlowe did indeed predict Sarah Palin as the nominee well ahead of everyone else. It was a good call. You could probably find it if you search between about April and June of 2008.

In any case, since then his postings speak for themselves. Look them up. Find one that isn’t absolutely supportive of Palin and I’ll be surprised.

The Whitehouse nonsense is just that.

[P-Marlowe]

There are some patriotic Democrats out there...

I find that very hard to believe. There may be some democrats who have found that Obama has not served their SELF INTEREST, but nobody who would think to put country first would be a democrat. Not in this day and age. There were still a few around when Reagan was president, but since then the democrat party has become the centrialized government socialist party of McGovern/Pelosi/Reid and Obama. The democrats who did not vote for McGovern are all either Republicans, independents or dead.

[SuziQ]

Unfortunately, Palin opponents make up 60% of the US population...

I daresay, most of those would NEVER vote for a Republican, anyway. But some are working on what they think is true, based on what they've read, and heard, since 2008. If Sarah decides to run, she'll have the chance to get out there on her own, not held back as she was by McCain's people. I believe many will change their minds when they get the chance to see and hear her, unfiltered by the MSM. The media elites can't stand her, and would happily do anything to make her look bad.

[CA Conservative]

I daresay, most of those would NEVER vote for a Republican, anyway.

True, on average about 40% of the population is going to vote for the person with the "D" after their name.

If Sarah decides to run, she'll have the chance to get out there on her own...

Sarah has BEEN out on her own since 2009, almost 3 years. She is the Republican candidate with the highest name recognition, yet she still has very high negatives among independent voters. And she hasn't yet shown an ability to move those numbers. Not saying she can't, just saying she has a long road ahead of her.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

3. She has not articulated a cure for her assessment of THE ailments.

Thank you, no one else has attempted to answer my questions. I assume they have no answers but they love what Palin said. Why?

[grey_whiskers]

The post of mine to which you are responding was not about Palin, but to another poster about the offshoring craze.

If you'd like me to help interpret something Palin said, point me to the quote of hers which you want interpreted; if not, I won't know where to start, and it'll waste both your time and mine.

Otherwise, I can take a brief stab at it from general knowledge:

"America is Great! Obama sucks! No pay-for-play cronyism! (shot across the bow to Perry now that he's broken his promise not to run for President)"

Cheers!

[arasina]

"As for you, kindly read my post. But since it’s possible you need for me to type more slowly so you can more readily keep up, here goes..."

"Did I type slowly enough for you?"
-George

Why George, you dear old man, you. How kind of you to type slowly. Need a hug?

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

The whole article. Read it and EXPLAIN in simple enough terms that I can understand it, EXACTLY what is she saying and HOW does she intend to fix the problem?

[samtheman]

I didn’t see that many quotes in the original piece and what is there is all broken up and dissected and out of context.

The original piece is NOT what Sarah Palin said but what the author of the original piece THINKS she said.

And he thinks WRONG. He THINKS she said something like: the age of anti-Big-Government is over.

If that’s what he is saying (and it seems like he’s saying that to me) then he’s a 24-carat moron.

[samtheman]

If Sarah decides to run, she'll have the chance to get out there on her own, not held back as she was by McCain's people.

She's been out on her own and not associated with McCain's people since the day after election day, 2008.

All the work she did in 2010 was completely done on her own.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Thanks, at least you tried and that’s more than anyone else has tried. I honestly have no clue what she intends to do about the supposed problem and the disheartening thing is that no one else on this thread knows either. They just know they like the sound of what she supposedly said.

[grey_whiskers]

Which article? The original one in the New York Slimes, or Dreher's synopsis of it at the top of this thread?

Cheers!

[samtheman]

I embarrassed to say I haven’t read the full text of her speech. Is there an FR thread where it’s posted? If you link to it, I’ll read it, meet you there, and discuss that question there.

I think it’s not fair to discuss it on this thread because the original article of this thread is, in my mind, extremely suspect.

My suspicion: the writer is a nincompoop, a moron, and an idiot.

[CommieCutter]

His entire purpose for arguing with me was just nonsense.

Like I cared. I was just trying to add to the conversation.

(Start picking fights over stupid things...you get what you deserve. Make baseless accusations, get them back.)

[CommieCutter]

I'm not the one accusing her of being disingenuous about it. That seems to be the position of her most ardent supporters.

I don't know about you, but my reaction to the above sentence is: WHO CARES? Someone has a lot to learn about life if something like this bothers them sooooo much.

[Forty-Niner]

“His entire purpose for arguing with me was just nonsense.”

xzins and P-Marlowe are tag team buddies....I’m surprized it took almost all morning for him to show up.

I’d take both of them with a grain of salt......just about their worth.....