Posted on 04/21/2010 5:03:14 AM PDT by Federalist Patriot
The media’s attacks would be relentless if ANY CONSERVATIVE runs for National office again.
People who “de-select” Sarah because they rightly predict that the lib media will attack her relentlessly had better wake up and smell the coffee.
It does not matter WHO the nominee is — IF THAT PERSON IS A CONSERVATIVE THEY WILL BE SMEARED, ATTACKED, MADE FUN OF, ETC., ETC., ETC.
If you “de-select” Sarah you might as well say you will NOT support ANY conservative candidate, because they will ALL get the Sarah treatment.
You are letting the media pick your candidate...just as they selected McCain. How well did that work out?
COME ON PEOPLE! WAKE UP!
Coulter misses the point. Palin is very popular now because the people who are buying her books, listening to her speeches, and reading her political analyses expect her to be a presidential candidate in the near future. If people knew she had no plans beyond what she’s doing now, her support would fall off dramatically. Many conservatives expect big things from Palin. That is why they are supporting her now.
I've suggested the same thing i.e. she needs a little more experience. And even though I expressed the desire to see her elected president one day, I was depicted by a number of Freepers as a "Palin-basher." What I don't want to see is Palin running for office and getting shot down before she has a chance. More time in another official capacity would do her a world of good.
Possibly true, but irrelevant...Reagan wasn't an 'intellectual.'
As for issues being difficult to grasp, we need no further evidence of how complex issues are than watch our current POTUS make a mash of things. It may not be difficult to grasp that AGW is an invention of the unholy alliance of leftist envirowackos, corrupt acadamia, Wall St, and our statist political class, but explaining that in terms most Americans can understand does require a little intellect...
Sarah Palin excels at explaining things in such a way that most Americans can understand...she's been doing so from a Facebook page. See "Death Panels."
The strike against Obo is not that he's not an intellectual, but the opposite...he's merely an intellectual, in the worst sense. It's not necessary to understand all the nuances of Middle East policy, you hire a John Bolton to do so. You hire John Bolton because you know he understands the premises.
Drill baby Drill, may be a good campaign slogan, but it is not a serious policy statement. One need look no further than Gov Terminator in California to see what happens when you elect someone who does not have a basic grasp of the issues at hand...
"We win, they lose." Simplistic, his critics said.
It is the result of a serious policy analysis, and gets to the heart of the problem.
To take on the MSM media and their ever more leftward tilt requires more than a ‘you betcha’...
Reminds me of article from early in Reagan's first term. Reagan came to Washington talking about what he was going to get done. Tip O'Neill blustered that Reagan didn't know what he was talking about, that "we do things differently in Washington. He'll learn."
Fast forward six months...Tip, how is it going? "We're getting our @sses kicked..."
I don’t read a lot of NY Times, but rather more NRO, Powerline, American Thinker, Weekly Standard, Wall St Journal. I prefer Victor Davis Hanson to Thomas Friedman any day, but read both because one does not learn by merely reading those whose opinions mirror their own...
I read Thomas Friedman occasionally, just to hear what the inmates are saying to each other. He's not a person who should be taken seriously as an intellectual.
I think there are reasons to be concerned about a Palin candidacy. I just haven't seen them offered here. What you point out as seeming weaknesses are, in fact, strengths.
Although I would like to see Palin with a little more experience, you underestimate her. I’ve read Palin’s discussion of Alaska’s energy policies while she was governor. It’s not easy stuff to understand. Yes, at some point, if she wants to be seen as a serious candidate, she’ll have to come out with a policy plan that will have to go beyond bromides and get down to specifics. But from what I’ve heard from her, she seems to understand what needs to be done of the domestic front. A little more experience on foreign affairs, and she’ll be there.
There isn’t one person I like out there besides Sarah. I could care less what Ann has to say.
Palin can post on Facebook, give speeches, write books, and use a multitude of other outlets to express her views. My point is that she is not capable of expressing her views on the fly, without knowing the questions in advance. That is her Achilles heel.
Maybe intellectual is the incorrect term. Well versed in the issues of the day, with a knowledge of their historical precedents and significance is maybe a better explanation of why I am not a Palin fan. She does not exhibit a depth of knowledge on issues when she has to speak off the cuff. You can write a Facebook posting about any issue and seem well versed if you take a few minutes and make Google your friend. Being able to go toe to toe with someone who you disagree with live on TV, or take random questions from a live audience takes a little more brainpower than posting on Facebook. Palin has not shown me that she has that ability.
Coulter gets it.
Oh please, the Katie Couric interview was so long ago, and edited to benefit CBS. Get a clue!
I don’t agree with Ann. Sorry, I just don’t. At this point, we don’t have any good candidates from which to choose. That isn’t saying someone won’t step forward, but, at this point, the field is rather slim pickings. And, who knows how long Sarah’s influence will be felt as a guest speaker?
Ann also liked Hillary Clinton, and said she would’ve voted for her over McCain. I don’t put much stock in her presidential choices.
Coulter, like 90%+ of all politicians, is a trained lawyer. Lawyers speak like no one else-—and most of what they say is a bunch of BS covered up by “fancy lawyer-speak.” Palin is not a trained attorney (or preacher or CEO)....she speaks like a NORMAL person. It’s no wonder Coulter and the legal beagles inside the Beltway are biased against the speech of most Americans. I have had enough of “fancy speaking”—I’m ready for some actual action. Palin proved she’s up to that task in her first year as Alaska’s governor.
That's what you say, but I see no evidence that she can't. What you describe as "expressing her views on the fly" is no more than been there, done that. That's just a matter of appearing before audiences for the next two years. It's not a noteworthy skill or achievement.
Maybe intellectual is the incorrect term. Well versed in the issues of the day, with a knowledge of their historical precedents and significance is maybe a better explanation of why I am not a Palin fan.
I remember the first day of American History 151. I came prepared to memorize dates and names. The teacher, a campus favorite, explained that's not how it works. History is a series of themes and forces, and if you understand the themes and forces involved the dates and names will magically come to mind. They become mere details.
Palin understands the premises of foreign policy. The rest she needs to know, she can get from a John Bolton in less than 40 hours.
I'm looking for a President who understands that imperfect premises combined with perfect logic produces flawed conclusions. She'll be hip deep in flawed premises.
The rest is just details. As another poster noted, as an adult during the '70s, I've seen this movie before.
The problem isn't that Obo doesn't understand foreign affairs, it's that he views the US as fundamentally flawed. It doesn't matter how many experts you have on staff, it doesn't matter how well Obo understands the subject matter. Any policy that results will be fundamentally flawed.
She gets people, and she gets human nature. Obo doesn't, not in anything other than a shallow, cynical way.
She does not exhibit a depth of knowledge on issues when she has to speak off the cuff.
Funny, that's what they used to say about Reagan. In fact, one of the famous descriptions of Reagan was that he was "intellectually incurious." He could only speak from a script, they said.
Funny how impressions can be so flawed.
You can write a Facebook posting about any issue and seem well versed if you take a few minutes and make Google your friend. Being able to go toe to toe with someone who you disagree with live on TV, or take random questions from a live audience takes a little more brainpower than posting on Facebook. Palin has not shown me that she has that ability.
That's what they used to say about Reagan's speeches.
Look, I understand that you have issues with Palin. I have issues with Palin.
But a person who means to speak to how conservatives have to run for office should be at least somewhat familiar with the Lessons of Reagan.
Reagan, for his flaws, was the most successful conservative politician of my time, the best return from votes I'll ever cast.
This really is a case of been there, done that.
The more time we as a community spend discussing issues that have a history easily understood, the more time we spend answering the vapid accusations of "Quitter!" the less time we'll spend discussing the issues that we should be discussing.
Such as...we assume there's one way to run a successful campaign. Yet, it's basic that the rules for running a successful RAT campaign are much different than a conservative one. Understand that, and you'll understand the promise of Palin.
We're in a rut in regards to our analytical framework. We think of the good guys/bad guys, liberal/conservative.
Given the history of the last 10 years, should we not be thinking in terms of inside versus outside?
Puts the significance of Palin in a whole new light.
yawn. coulter’s a barren 50 year old spinster woman, still fornicating with liberal arab muslims, that has not said anything interesting/new in five years. Chris Christie is a globby fat pro-abortion new jersey politician, nothing more. has no chance at anything higher.
If Palin wants the 2012 nomination, its hers. I
Ah! The Evil Romney Factor!
If you could get beyond the nasty post of yours, you could see that Palin shouldn’t run for the same reason Coulter should not run.
They draw the same kind of fire from the left. Both are polarizing.
You do not pump up your pick by denigrating others.
Yes, she does.
I agree.
This bears repeating.
Also, I've never been a Coulter fan either and in fact find her quite obnoxious at times.
She's been in Romney's pocket for some time, so her credibility on this is nada.
First Malkin gets trashed, now Coulter. Who’s next?
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.