Return to the Article
Posted on 06/26/2009 12:44:26 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Return to the Article |
I just watched the classic movie "High Noon" (again). Gary Cooper played a brave sheriff who brought law and order to his town. As one woman said, "He made it safe for a decent woman to walk down the street". A recently released outlaw was coming back to town on the noon train to deliver vengeance against the sheriff who put him away. His gang of three arrived early to help their leader take out the sheriff.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/sarah_palin_at_high_noon.html at June 26, 2009 - 03:39:17 PM EDT
It doesn’t matter.
She was on a presidential ticket.
There is no historical example where a losing VP candidate produced a better result 4 years later in a rematch against the candidate that defeated them.
there is a direct parallel to what the PalinBots want, though: Mondale vs. Reagan.
And rest assured, a Palin vs. 0bama rematch would go down much the same.
“Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us.”
—Thomas Jefferson
Ever heard of Richard Nixon?
Ive read your stuff before and your logic in really screwed up. Back Mitt with all your strength and money...you guys deserve each other.
Read more of the thread before going over covered ground.
My, oh my. Angels dancing on the head of a pin. If you need so many qualifications to make your rule axiomatic, odds are it's not a rule!
Again with the Mitt Romney strawman?
It has been pointed out to you about 20 times that McCain lead the ticket, not Palin. And all the polling evidence suggests that Palin HELPED the ticket, not hurt it.
Your “theory” is a bunch of hogwash started by Romney’s advisors.
Also, your wisecrack about Letterman gives you away. Palin has been SAVAGELY assualted before and after the election by Democratic POLITICAL operatives and the sycophant Hollywood industry.
You sound just like one of the beltway Republicans who are scared to death of Palin. Every fiber of your being is dedicated to marginalizing her, because you know if she runs she will cut all of the RINOs out of the game.
Newt Gingrich has a better chance of being named Miss California than he does being elected President. Gingrich has gotten caught up in the Washington back-patting circuit and has already begun compromising his principles. His best days are far behind him.
You are offering NOTHING viable. You are offering NOTHING substantive. Go to DU and play their game.
Dont make me wade though a bunch of your posts (and post them here) to show where you stand.
“And yet Palin came up 10 million votes short.
Has a light gone on yet?”
The light is on.
JOHN S McCAIN CAME UP 10,000,000 VOTES SHORT, EINSTEIN!!!
Take Palin away, he comes up 20,000,000 - 30,000,000 votes short.
It was McCain vs Obama, not Palin vs Obama. You must have concrete for brain matter.
Guys like you are THE MAIN PROBLEM with the GOP. You want to be like the liberals. You want to be liked. Therefore, you cozy it to them and select candidates they try to be like liberals.
Sorry, but when you put a candidate up against someone they never ran against a decade later, you are conducting a different test entirely, and thus different results can be expected.
That’s why these conditions are important.
We are discussing running a losing candidate against the ticket they lost against again, specifically.
And that is why you have to limit your comparisons to like situations.
You want to loosen the conditions to the point where they are no longer relevant, invalidating the test completely.
Hell, why not use George Bush as an example while you’re at it?
George Bush was defeated by Bill Clinton, but 8 years later George Bush beat Al Gore.
Hey, look at that! My whole hypothesis has been disproved by your standards.
No matter how you look at it, Palin on the ticket still didn’t produce enough votes to defeat 0bama.
We have no way of knowing how many votes she added or took away from the ticket. All we know is it wasn’t anywhere near enough.
She doesn’t produce the kind of votes needed to defeat 0bama.
That has been tested and proved.
Newt might not be the candidate to take on 0bama in 2012.
But his participation in the GOP primary sure would elevate the discourse.
He doesn’t have to win the nomination to set the tone and frame the debate.
He is needed to identify the issues, focus the debate, and challenge the other candidates with real ideas.
It will be up to them to out-do him.
And regardless of who ultimate wins the nomination, the GOP candidate will be stronger for it.
You must be Megan McCain.
McCain was THE NUMBER ONE PROBLEM WITH THE TICKET. Why vote for a Republican trying to be a liberal when you can simply vote for a liberal?
You are giving McCain a total pass. The Vice President is basically irrelevant to the election. Always has been, always will be (as long as the VP has as little power as he does).
By your reasoning, Joe Lieberman is THE reason Gore lost in 2000.
“Newt might not be the candidate to take on 0bama in 2012.
But his participation in the GOP primary sure would elevate the discourse.
He doesn’t have to win the nomination to set the tone and frame the debate.
He is needed to identify the issues, focus the debate, and challenge the other candidates with real ideas.
It will be up to them to out-do him.
And regardless of who ultimate wins the nomination, the GOP candidate will be stronger for it.”
You are living in an alternate political universe. The candidate putting forth the best ideas AND WINNING THE NOMINATION sets the discourse, not the loser.
Newt won’t be the king maker, here. He has compromised his credibility with conservatives. As I said earlier, Newt’s best days are far behind him.
National Security
Economic Security
Economic Freedom
Personal Freedom
Those are what will drive the debate. The candidate who frames his/her arguments in those terms will be the nominee. IMO, Palin has one of those 3 covered in spades. And she is quietly working the other 3.
All I hear from the rest of the GOP is liberal-talk.
You still haven't addressed my fundamental questions. And I don't think you want to.
I would've expected more of a John Galt fan.
What do you think?
McCain was the #1 problem on the ticket, and Palin was the #2 problem on the ticket.
Normally VP candidates don’t matter, this much is true.
But everyone knows that this past election was different.
I paid attention to the election.
I am well aware it was agreed by all that McCain was irrelevant, that Sarah Palin was the GOP ticket.
She got all the attention. She was the star. it was her vs. 0bama.
McCain and Biden were completely side-lined.
It was less than a year ago. You were there, don’t you remember?
And 0bama trounced Palin-McCain by 10 million votes and nearly 10 points.
You can’t act now as though Sarah didn’t really count on the ticket after all that (but at the same time claim that she was the only one who pulled in votes.)
No matter how you come at it, the fact remains that Palin’s name was right there on the ticket for all to vote for, and the voters decided not to in record amounts.
Palin was also making deep inroads into Obama when McCain’s camp put the muzzle on her and they walked back her comments... at the same time McCain started praising Obama and MCCAIN voted for TARP!.. not Palin... McCain also refused to allow Palin to go up into Michigan, etc., and campaign.
Littler cp was born unglued.
So McCain put forward the best ideas and set the discourse last year?
It didn’t seem that way to me.
Primaries with no incumbent are rarely dominated by one candidate.
It is often smaller candidates who ultimately don’t win who set the agenda and direction of the debate.
Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter did that early on in the 2008 primary on immigration.
Had they stayed in the race, McCain probably would not have rebounded.
And yet neither were ever going to win.
As far as I know Palin has never run for President. If you are going to blame McCain's loss on her that's disingenuous. McCain admitted she probably got more votes than he did. Obama didn't win in any landslide either. I propose that if it wasn't for the Economic Tsunami McCain may have won.
As far as Newt. I don’t see him beating Obama. The MSM would portray him as the one who lead the Impeachment of Clinton. And then there is the marital infidelity issue. You know they would be all over that. I would have real issues supporting him for that reason. Dumb move on his part.
We shall she how this campaign works out. I'm keeping an open mind but I don't see how we could find a better candidate than Sarah right now. It's her turn. If she loses you can blame me but I have this feeling she can beat the Chosen One. He's going down like Carter.
Grasping at typos (and quickly corrected ones at that) is a sign of a desperate argument.
It sounds like a lot of excuses from a Palin apologist trying to blame others for Palin’s inability to attract votes.
Couple things here. 1. Like half of your argument is based on one thing that Sarah said. If you look far back almost everyone will have made some grammatical errors. 2. No matter what you say, McCain ran against Obama. I know several people in my personal life who were not going to vote for McCain till Sarah was added to the ticket. Some still refused. She added manymanymany votes, look at the polls from last year. 3. Palin can beat Obama, especially after four years of this crap that “The One” is gonna throw on us.
Oh and if you screen my comment to look for any sort of error in spelling or grammar so you can use ad-homonym attacks against me. Forget about it. There are too many of those going around.
Like it or not, Palin is a major player, and she has incredible approval in Alaska, she has made a real difference there with RESULTS. She attracts large crowds and is the number one target of the left right now for a reason. They are scared of her.
She is CONSERVATIVE, young, attractive, family oriented and she DOES communicate conservatism.
I have no idea what planet your on if you cannot see that.
I would questions anyones political judgment to call such a person a “dim bulb”.
Facts and logic play no part in your thinking, do they? That's ok though, your posts are amusing. :^)
Actually, 0bama did win in a landslide.
there were more than 6 points separating 0bama and McPalin.
It was almost 10 points and 10 million votes. That is quantifiable landslide by all accounts. It was larger than Reagan’s landslide against Carter, and Bush Sr’s landslide against Dukakis.
I’m not blaming McCain’s loss on Palin.
I am saying that she was unable to pull in the votes to win.
That’s not the same thing as saying McCain would have won without her.
She just didn’t help. Not enough to beat 0bama.
And that is a pretty good indication that she would not be able to beat 0bama in a rematch, either.
And I know that one of my points is technically a logical fallacy. Just an example.
I can’t even wrap my head around what she’s saying
I agree. You obviously can't. But that's your problem.
Just when I think I’ve gotten to the bottom of it, I find yet another condition lurking just below.
Forest=|trees. Look at the overall picture instead of overanalising.
Who is she criticizing? Letterman for telling the joke?
She's already done that, now it';s a comment on the culture
Or the people who get away with thinking his joke is acceptable? Or the people who think that it’s funny to get away with thinking that Letterman’s joke is acceptable?
"a so-called comedian to get away with being able". How in the frilly heck do you associate the words "get away" with anyone other than Letterman?
What exactly is she trying to say?
Letterman made jokes which associated Palin's 14 year old daughter with both A-Rod and Spitzer. That was unacceptable.
In the face of criticism, Letterman eventually made a lame-ass "apology" which consisted of claiming it was his job as a dumb comedian, and retelling the jokes to a studio-audience which was being prompted to applause.
There was concensus among the chattering classes that that "apology" was acceptable.
It wasn't. And it is not unreasonable to point out that the view it was shows a degradation of American culture.
After seeing you live in California I can see how you could post such nonsense. Anyone who still lives in that socialist shitte hole has a skewered view of reality! You don’t understand that what your socialist neighbors there spew is not what those of us in the rest of the country view as normal.
1) I’m not basing it on one thing Sarah said.
I just used that as an example, because it was her latest public statement.
I could use any number of unscripted things she’s said.
I could point to all of her interviews and her debate performance, too.
It’s all just more of the same.
Color me unimpressed with her mental acumen.
2) A deficit of 10 million votes shows that she can’t draw them in. If she was the juggernaut her fans claim she is, the election would have at least been a little bit close.
3) AB0 (Anybody But 0bama) is not a winning strategy. The Democrats learned that in 2004. Our side is going to have to offer the voters something with substance if we want to win. We are going to have to identify the problems, shape the debate, articulate a real path forward, and convince the voters we are right. It’s going to take more than a tightly scripted figurehead politician to succeed. We’re going to need a real leader for that. Maybe even someone like Jack Welch. But not an Alaskan fisherman.
It’s funny, I started this thread yesterday at noon or so, so this theme of counterpunch’s has been going for 30 hours plus, virtually nonstop. I’ve only posted to him 3 times, posts#8,#58,and #230. He responded only to #8. I liked my posts 58 and 230, but sadly counterpunch did not.
Counterpunch has a repetitive theme, Palin is mediocre, inarticulate, unelectable,etc. He always comes back to the theme, it’s his security blanket.
When I first signed aboard here back in 2000, we called people like counterpunch disrupters. Now, I guess the word is troll, but I think disrupter fits counterpunch better.
He practices the Saul Alinsky tactics of ridicule, demeaning, and repetition.Agitprop. He poses as a conservative, but after a while it is easy to see through the smokescreen. His incessant repetition and obsessive need to continue to post on this thread is telling.
Combined with the above, the giveaway becomes obvious, the fact of the matter is liberals cannot handle strong, independent women. In counterpunch’s case, it eats him up.
It’s quite sad, not that he’s a liberal. Who cares. No, what’s so sad is the obsessive/compulsive behavior. It’s worrisome.
Thank you for your valiant effort in detangling what Palin said.
I’m just replying to people’s comments to me. I keep getting them.
And still, as you’ve pointed out, though I try to respond to all of the salient points, I can’t respond to every post.
But you want it both ways.
You want me to respond to all of your posts to me, but for me not to respond to any of the others.
You are in denial, Megan.
No detangling. I got it from that start. But have been puzzled by your inability to understand. It was only when you gave the specific questions that I saw where your problem lay.
Well, CouterPunch isn’t alone in this. He is one of a number of people who fault Palin for objecting to the abysmal behavior directed at her.
The left is an interesting case study. They support women, children, retirees, the infirmed, the poor, Blacks, Mexicans, Hispanics, and other minorities. The only thing they ask in return is that these people wear a blindfold, wear a muzzle, and vote the Democrat party line.
Alter from that mindset, and you’re persona non gratis.
Another words, they don’t support any of these groups on the mertis. They only expect these groups to support them.
On the contrary. My concern is for your wellbeing, nothing more. My posts to you have made that clear. Your politics are irrelevent to me. I’ll not post to you again. Take Care.
Very well said.
He's written thousands of words and said very little. When (and if) he stops posting on this thread he can puff his chest out, walk away and say to himself what a terrific job he's done in saying nothing he didn't say in his first hundred words.
Worrisome? Yes, but nothing a little professional help probably wouldn't cure.
So true. And it has proven to be so harmful to the minority groups you mention, and therefore harmful to the country as a whole.
Not to mention she was by far the most well spoken of all others on the ticket. Dude, she did not run against Obama McCain did. An “Alaskan Fisherman”??? That sounds like something an uppity libby would say. She is a leader of the people, from the people, who does not have a long paper trail behind her.
Oh and is not Newt Gingrich an adulterer? Do we want someone who cannot keep control of his personal life as POTUS? And no Bristol has nothing to do with this, she is an adult. Not Tod and Sarah’s fault.
I certainly agree, with modern science and medicine, so much is possible that wasn't when I was young.
Assuming, of course, private health care isn't nationalized. Hell, then we're all gonna be in trouble! :)
I looked at the two other posts you faulted me for not responding to.
I had not seen either. I think you would agree the later post doesn’t merit a response.
I will respond to this earlier one, though.
I think much of the excitement Palin generates is more anti-0bama (and anti-McCain) than it is pro-Palin, per se. It is as much a defiant finger in the face of the liberal MSM as anything else.
That’s the feeling I get. She is more of a conduit and outlet for the frustration many disenfranchised conservatives feel. Believe me, I understand where they are coming from.
The way she was attacked so personally, treated so unfairly by the left-wing media generated a certain protective reaction from those who empathized with her, all the conservatives who have felt the same backhand from pop media and internalized the insults against Palin and her family.
But none of this makes Palin the right person to lead conservatives back out of the wilderness. While there was a double standard in play by the harsh scrutiny Palin recieved compared to the free pass 0bama got, there was still a kernel of truth behind much of the rub on Palin, disproportionate as it may have been.
We need to see that in hindsight. It’s a long, uphill battle carrying water for Palin, one where we would spend all of our time fighting smears and defending her basic abilities, rather than advancing a conservative agenda and going on the offense against what 0bama and the Democrats have done. For better or for worse, the media has already written their script for Palin (with a lot of help from her) and it isn’t going to magically change 3 years from now.
Regarding her being a principled conservatives, I’m not so sure I agree 100%.
Would a truly principled conservative really agree to be John McCain’s running mate, which entails both propping him up as a candidate and adopting much of his platform and agenda?
My, how time does fly!!!
It’s time for the Pirates game again!
Or as Yogi Berra would say; “It’s deja vu all over again”!
Later, Gator! :o)
LOL!
I catch your Pirates on the play by play on their site today. Later! :-)
We will never have good leadership if we are continually ruled by the politics of personal destruction.
Newt’s past marriages are no more relevant to his political vision than Ronald Reagan’s was, or Sarah Palin’s daughter’s personal life.
We should elect leaders for their vision, not for their family portrait.
The 0bamas have a very nice family portrait but a pretty destructive agenda for America.
What is more important, really?
Our country is in some really serious trouble right now. Much of it was a long time in the making. There are many intellectuals on our side who have been warning of it for a long time. Wouldn’t it make more sense to turn to someone who understands the problems we’re facing and has some solutions, over someone simply because their from a small town and we can identify with them? I wouldn’t vote for my next door neighbor to be president, either.
It must be really, really important to him that Palin not be the 2012 Republican nominee.
Funny, I don't recall getting nearly so involved in the candidacy of, say, John Kerry. Did you?
I don’t fault Palin for objecting to the behavior directed towards her.
I fault her for turning it into a circus for her own publicity instead of handling it with grace, as Dick Cheney did when he received similar attacks on his daughter.
What argument? You aren'/t worth arguing with -- even if you had an argument -- which you don't.
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.