Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No matter what is said about Palin, there will still be lots of folks who think that she is the next best thing since sliced bread. All Americans should be afraid of her if she runs.
There are goofy statements and goofy statements. Yeah, Biden's made a few, like FDR going on TV. Some of Sarah's are excusable, too. But someone who can't tell you what their foreign policy background is other than you can see Russia from her state, that's a problem. She has no depth. Just one example.
Are you referring to interviews when she was a VP candidate? If so, I would give her a break, most VP candidates come off looking and sounding badly, because they are busy trying to answer questions that will match the views and opinions of the person on top of the ticket. This is why VP debates are so boring, they are not allowed to speak for themselves, they are just too busy trying to be little clones of the boss.
No matter what is said about Palin, there will still be lots of folks who think that she is the next best thing since sliced bread. All Americans should be afraid of her if she runs.
We "left wingers" love Falin Palin! Bring her on in 2012!
You think you want her running, but you would end up being wrong. Palin may not win the primary, but she will turn the debates and election platforms into the candidates competing to embrace the conservative agenda.
Liberalism does not sell, as has been evidenced these past two years. 0bama, Pelosi, et al, were selling liberalism, and the American people were clearly not buying it. The voting public is also now more skeptical of lying politicians, they will seek proof of their past conduct and words to mirror what they say, and they will look for prior accomplishments and proof of their ability to follow thru on their campaign promises.
Even if you do not agree with Palin's views, her frankness and openness will affect the debates and the way voters will view the candidates, which will be the death of liberal politicians, who think they can get by on deceptive manipulation and outright lies.
You think you want her running, but you would end up being wrong. Palin may not win the primary, but she will turn the debates and election platforms into the candidates competing to embrace the conservative agenda.
Liberalism does not sell, as has been evidenced these past two years. 0bama, Pelosi, et al, were selling liberalism, and the American people were clearly not buying it. The voting public is also now more skeptical of lying politicians, they will seek proof of their past conduct and words to mirror what they say, and they will look for prior accomplishments and proof of their ability to follow thru on their campaign promises.
Even if you do not agree with Palin's views, her frankness and openness will affect the debates and the way voters will view the candidates, which will be the death of liberal politicians, who think they can get by on deceptive manipulation and outright lies.
Americans don't want conservatism or liberalism. They want politicians who are close to the centre and that is what Obama was able to sell. If the GOP goes for a conservative candidate then they will lose.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,456,964 times
Reputation: 6670
Actually, when all is said and done, I doubt that the lovely and talented ms Palin is ever really in all this for anything (or anyone) other than herself. Basically she's always been an opportunist, who was never even loyal to McCain, who "brung her to the dance" to begin with.
Always a "ho" for attention (any attention), selling herself remains Palin's core "skill". And getting folks to speculate on her "politics" or ambitions has never been more than just another expedient "tool" in her repertoire. She reminds me a lot of that other drama queen, the Rev. Terry Jones, who kept threatening to burn the Koran ("omigosh, will he, or won't he...?!"). ;-p
Calling a person "stupid" over and over again doesn't actually MAKE them stupid.
Can you give me one factual, actual reason she is not qualified to hold public office? I don't mean opinion, or liberal talking points. Or goofy statements (because then we'd have to assume the same of Joe Biden). I mean a real, legitimate reason.
COURIC: "Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more, and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?"
PALIN: "That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it's got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and getting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade -- we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation."
I've never said that I thought Palin was stupid. I think she's a savvy, ambitious and very focused woman. I don't think that she likes to think through problems. She seems to be the kind of administrator who wants to be presented with the bottom line, (okay, bottom line, this is the problem), and then she wants to hear the recommendations of the experts on how to deal with the problem. She'll make the decision, but I think she'll make the decision based on political reasons, and I don't think that that choice is always the wisest path to follow. But that doesn't mean that Palin is stupid in any way, it just means that she is pragmatic, and especially politically pragmatic.
The reason the old guard of the GOP is wary of her is because of how elections work. During the primaries, the candidates that lean furthest to the extremes do very well, because the most extreme members of the parties are more energized and motivated to be involved in selecting their party's candidate. The more moderate candidates have a harder time appealing to the hardcore wings of their parties, and primaries can also be very draining financially to a campaign, and the hardcore will contribute to what they perceive as the hardcore candidate much more readily than to the moderate candidate. So primaries favor more extremes. But elections don't. After the primaries, you inevitably see candidates taking more moderate positions. During the election, the hardcore wings actually become liabilities because the task is persuading the vast middle majority, the undecided, that a candidate will represent them. That middle majority isn't hardcore right or left, and they aren't going to elect someone perceived as hardcore right or left. The GOP is well aware of this. Palin's appeal isn't to the vast middle majority, it's to a hardcore portion of the GOP. And while Obama's presidency has been marred by a difficulty in crafting bipartisan agreement, Obama never actively sought that divisiveness. The GOP sought the divisiveness to undermine Obama's authority, and Obama himself created divisiveness not because of what he does, but because of who he is. Some of the divisiveness surrounding Obama's presidency is due to racial tension. That's not playing the race card, it's simply recognizing a pertinent reality. Palin, though, does seek out divisiveness. She does try to polarize issues and political strategies. Her comments about "real" America, and her overwrought rhetoric are all about engineering political divisiveness that serves her, politically and financially. And it's that, her political pragmatism, that creates problems for the GOP. Because that divisiveness sometimes serves the Republican agenda, which is good for the GOP, but the nature of Palin's pragmatism is to serve her own agenda, first and foremost. Palin's singular ambitions are all about Sarah. When it coincides with the GOP, no problems, but it doesn't always coincide with the GOP agenda, and that's a problem for the GOP.
Did anybody read all the opinions from the OP? I found one that I agreed with completely and haven't seen one word about it yet. I think exactly like Ann Coulter about Palin, However, I would vote for her over any Democrat that I know will be running, Obama or Clinton so maybe we don't agree 100%.
Whoops, I forgot that most lefties won't read anything Coulter says so you folk don't know how I feel about Palin.
I've never said that I thought Palin was stupid. I think she's a savvy, ambitious and very focused woman. I don't think that she likes to think through problems. She seems to be the kind of administrator who wants to be presented with the bottom line, (okay, bottom line, this is the problem), and then she wants to hear the recommendations of the experts on how to deal with the problem. She'll make the decision, but I think she'll make the decision based on political reasons, and I don't think that that choice is always the wisest path to follow. But that doesn't mean that Palin is stupid in any way, it just means that she is pragmatic, and especially politically pragmatic.
The reason the old guard of the GOP is wary of her is because of how elections work. During the primaries, the candidates that lean furthest to the extremes do very well, because the most extreme members of the parties are more energized and motivated to be involved in selecting their party's candidate. The more moderate candidates have a harder time appealing to the hardcore wings of their parties, and primaries can also be very draining financially to a campaign, and the hardcore will contribute to what they perceive as the hardcore candidate much more readily than to the moderate candidate. So primaries favor more extremes. But elections don't. After the primaries, you inevitably see candidates taking more moderate positions. During the election, the hardcore wings actually become liabilities because the task is persuading the vast middle majority, the undecided, that a candidate will represent them. That middle majority isn't hardcore right or left, and they aren't going to elect someone perceived as hardcore right or left. The GOP is well aware of this. Palin's appeal isn't to the vast middle majority, it's to a hardcore portion of the GOP. And while Obama's presidency has been marred by a difficulty in crafting bipartisan agreement, Obama never actively sought that divisiveness. The GOP sought the divisiveness to undermine Obama's authority, and Obama himself created divisiveness not because of what he does, but because of who he is. Some of the divisiveness surrounding Obama's presidency is due to racial tension. That's not playing the race card, it's simply recognizing a pertinent reality. Palin, though, does seek out divisiveness. She does try to polarize issues and political strategies. Her comments about "real" America, and her overwrought rhetoric are all about engineering political divisiveness that serves her, politically and financially. And it's that, her political pragmatism, that creates problems for the GOP. Because that divisiveness sometimes serves the Republican agenda, which is good for the GOP, but the nature of Palin's pragmatism is to serve her own agenda, first and foremost. Palin's singular ambitions are all about Sarah. When it coincides with the GOP, no problems, but it doesn't always coincide with the GOP agenda, and that's a problem for the GOP.
Well during this past cycle when she was boiling enough to start calling mainstream establishment GOP types "RINHOs" and wannabes, it cost them in places like Delaware. When cornered, she went on the attack and was relentless, which as you say, when it coincides with GOP establishment, or even mildly chides them in favor of firing up the base, its great, but once she attacked her own, that was it. She is rogue, which may appeal to people who despise compromise, but when it comes to politics, the establishment types see her as a loose cannon and cannot be controlled. She might do good things here and there, but over all she is a liability because they never know when she is going to attack the wrong person from her own party.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
