Posted on 09/18/2011 3:07:02 PM PDT by se_ohio_young_conservative
Obviously there is no logical reason for her unfavorables in the polls to be what they are. Did she do anything like let an intern give her oral sex or get involved in some disasterous scandal ? absolutely not. There is NOTHING on her. They have looked and looked and looked. Nobody has found a thing. She seems to be the kind of leader that the American people are wanting to represent them.
They do. I contend to you that her unfavoribles mean NOTHING. It is useless polling data and should have no impact on who wins the nomination in 2012. If she gets the nomination, she would win electoral votes based on national and global events (the economy, ect)
I believe the number of Americans who hate her with a passion is very very small. The unfavoribles you see in the polls are a result of some very shallow group think left over from the 2012. Nobody has seen Saraj Palin run her own national campaign. It would not take much at all to turn those numbers inside out.
What we see here is that the anti palin people in this country are just very loud. Conservatives hear them and for some reason think the high volume of their voice mean they have huge numbers. Even some here on FR get their information from people who hate them and then they are ignorant enough to toss it around like it is fact !
So you are blaming the victim?
Nice.
Who is "Geoff"? I wasn't bashing Palin, either. I was responding in a Vanity thread about Palin about why she may have some negatives. What the hell are you talking about, samantha?
“So will Palin become a full-fledged candidate when she returns to Iowa on September 3?
She was asked that very question by several reporters during her whirlwind walking tour of the Iowa State Fair on August 12.
Here she is, in her own words:
Q: When is a good time? Do you have a timeline?
Palin: I have said that that August/September timeframe is important for logistical and legal reasons to jump in there, but...
Q: So by next month?
Palin: I think that just practically speaking that has to be kind of a drop dead time. Also, in fairness to supporters, who are standing on the timeline, and this is what I have told Todd over and over again, I don’t want to be seen as or perceived as stringing people along, asking supporters, ‘Oh don’t just jump in there on someone else’s bandwagon because I may jump in, so hold off a little bit.’ That is not fair to them. After another month or two goes by, they need to know who it is that they can jump behind. Now more than ever, everybody has got to get involved in this 2012 election. They need to get out there and campaign for their chosen candidates, its all the more reason to hurry up and decide.
A few moments later, there was this exchange:
Q: Will you know by the next time you are here in Iowa whether you will be in, over Labor Day?
Palin: I doubt it. By the next time I am here by September 3? I don’t know if within the next couple of weeks I will be ready for an announcement or not.
Q: So the end of September is no longer a viable deadline?
Palin: No, he was asking about my next visit here on September 3, if I would be ready for an announcement September 3. And I said I don’t know if I would be ready by September 3.
Q: So the end of September would still be your timetable?
Palin: That is still a possibility for a timetable. Yes, definitely.”
http://www.wibw.com/nationalnews/headlines/Palin-2012_128254068.html
So the end of September is definitely a possibility?
1980: Reagan’s bid for the Republican nomination in 1976 paid off in 1979, when he emerged as the front-runner for the 1980 Republican nomination. Although George H.W. Bush came the closest to actually toppling Reagan in the early primaries, Reagan’s closest competition in 1979 Gallup polls for support among Republicans nationwide came from Gerald Ford, who never formally entered the race. In January 1979, Reagan led Ford by 31% to 26%. Republicans’ preferences for the two were about tied from May through July, but by August, Reagan was up, 36% to 22%, and he maintained a strong lead through the end of the year. When the 1979 trend is re-configured by substituting Ford supporters’ second choice, Reagan’s position looks even stronger — he beat John Connally and Howard Baker by more than 20 points in each poll.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146489/lack-gop-front-runner-2012-atypical.aspx
“I guess you haven’t been reading her articles or listening to her speeches have you? “
People don’t see that Palin when she gives public interviews. They see a chatty cathy with an annoying voice. I watched her alaska governor debate and a charlie rose interview from before she was picked for VP. She was disciplined and professional.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/8736
This is the Palin we want (you may have to skip to around 4:00 to hear Palin)
This law was needed to protect the people of Alaska from politicians like Murkowski. It was "fine tuned" and will keep the Alaskans from being victims of dishonest politicians.
You are mean and insensitive,and sign off like you are some serious patriot.
There are other people that have 911 in their tag line and are very nice,decent and give us good patriotic feelings about them. You have just the opposite effect. You are never positive, you are always negative.
If the victim helps create and install the weapon opponents use to bring her down, she deserves some of the blame. So, yes, some of Sarah’s trouble is Sarah’s fault. I’m charging a short-sighted, slightly niave, inexperienced, over-trusting exec for her own sudden, unexpected, forced career change.
i still think when all of the chips are on the table, they would vote for her with the economy this bad
i still think when all of the chips are on the table, they would vote for her with the economy this bad
No you're not. You are blaming a conservative for being the victim of Dem operatives.
Please now see my post 88.
m not sure how you overcome this.
It is not a problem one has to overcome really. If given a choice between Obama and Sarah a conservative women has no choice.
Yes, I think quitting was a mistake--if she wants to continue in politics. While I understand the difficulties created by the idiotic ethics complaints, I have to wonder if she didn't have alternatives to quitting, such as asking the legislature to change the law to address the abuses. Ditto for finding a way to defray costs.
If she doesn't want to seek office again, then I don't think she hurt herself.
Why is it that these posters that know what happened keep telling lies or repeating the DNC talking points? You would have to have rice for brains to post on these threads and not get it. The only answer is that they know but Mommy never told them not to tell lies about people. They learned that Clinton could lie, and they think that people will not notice if they lie.
You obviously were not alive at the time to know what was happening.
Yes, I am. I’m charging a short-sighted, slightly niave, inexperienced, over-trusting exec with accidentally helping cause her own sudden, unexpected, forced career change. Don’t tell me I’m not.
And open herself for MORE violation complaints. What the heck are you thinking!
So she should have allowed Dem operatives to bring the state of Alaska to it's knees?
Never trust a politician that will not relinquish power for the good of the people.
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.