the spirit of America!
Posted on 12/01/2009 8:22:33 AM PST by Bob J
“Her inexplicable resignation as governor of Alaska years before her term ended....”
Her resignation is very ‘explicable’ - he just needs to get to the end of the book. I finished it last night & enjoyed it thoroughly. While it isn’t what I would call ‘deep’ it still indicates an intelligent, kind, practical human being. Her experiences would fit a leadership position. If Obama can be president with his background, then Sarah can be president. And I bet she’d do this country proud.
390 pages. Read it in four days. Found it a very fun and informative read.
Morning, Bob.
You must have tons of time on your hands. Why not just send Freepers to
http://www.johnmarkreynolds.com/
so they can read the final summary of JM Reynolds. They’ll be able to get the whole story, and get it in a much more succinct manner.
If the writer was a covert operative for Romney I doubt he would admit it upfront in the article.
If Palin wins the nomination, for her to win the general she is going to have to win over Romney fans as well...or they might sit out the election because “my guy didn’t win”, just like the Palinistas threaten to do.
Burning all your bridges on your way out of Atlanta is no way to win a national election.
John Mark Reynolds' writing is insufferable. But suffered I, I, I, I, did. I, I, I suffered so much I, I, I documented it. Here is a condensed version of his review:
I have decided . . . I finished the book . . . I felt the . . . I have defended . . . I thought . . . I certainly did not think . . . I have grown . . . I waited . . . I am a Romney guy . . . I read that book . . . I may change my mind . . . I took this . . . I want to take . . . I will post my . . . I had to re-read twice . . . I once went to a Monkees concert . . . we are left wondering . . . I don’t believe a pol has to read Plato . . . I cannot find it . . . I suspect . . . I am willing to bet . . . I am guessing . . . Why do I care? . . . I am a Plato guy . . . I am thinking . . . I find this kind of . . . (rightly I think) . . . If I read the chapter right . . . I am not enjoying . . . if I could hear . . . I bet I would . . . I think I would like . . . Perhaps I am just a snob . . . than I should . . .What is bothering me . . . One thing I like . . . One thing I don’t like . . . I am hoping . . . Am I now demonstrating . . . There is no doubt in my mind . . . I am wondering if . . . I am not sure . . . better athlete than I am . . . I lack her gifts . . . However, I do believe . . ., I can relate . . . We are not nearly so important as we think . . . I believe and admire . . . I see no reason . . . I hope . . . in my opinion . . .I, I, I confess. Or I, I, I admit: John Mark Reynolds maybe have made some decent points. But I, I, I was so distracted by the I's, I, I, I couldn't see them.
Dear Bob,
I am reading the book out of order.
I don’t think many of us expected Samuel Johnson or Thomas Wolfe when we decided to read “Going Rogue.”
I think you will agree with me, that there are degrees of ghost-writing. If the the ghost writer is deemed competent, and she is, then we can either assume that the work was too hurried, or that the book was largely the work of the official author. We might be seeing a lot of both, here. This is substantially Sarah Palin’s voice.
Sarah Palin describes herself as a “common sense” conservative. Like defining pornography, it is a “know it when you see” type of thing. Indeed, I read the second half already, and went back to the beginning, and am less than whelmed by her defense of Title IX. Or, as you put it, she likes things that help her or her family. However, I also appreciate the fact that she puts her thoughts out there, with little regard for whether they will help or hurt her politically. Her position on Title IX will not get her a single lefty voter, it might alienate a handful of conservatives. It certainly provides fodder for those who jump and say “See! See! She has no grand-arching philosophy. She is no Reagan, she is not even a John Connolly.
No, she isn’t.
I found it interesting that the early parts that jumped out at me were not even mentioned in your piece. Religion has been an important part of Sarah Palin, her family and yes, her political career. In her earliest years, the book read as if she caught just the tail-end of the “old” Catholic Church (before the nuns dropped their habits, etc.), and then she describes her mother wanting to do more liturgically, and finally joining the Assembly of God because they were the liveliest.
That can’t be the whole story. Her mother would have been raised in an era where she would have known that going to other churches would be wrong. Either she had a reaction to the Post Vatican II changes, especially an apparent relaxing or moral standards, or the local church was nutty early, so no distinction between it and the protestant churches would seem essential. I could list other possibilities, but it wasn’t that she just wanted to “do more liturgically.”
In a different era, I would not be so much on the Sarah Palin bandwagon. She brings a lot to the table. She has the ability to force a realignment, where entire groups of people disassociate themselves from the Democrats for a generation. When the boat has holes and is sinking, sometimes you just want someone who is good at serious baling and a quick patch. The wonky engineer can come in later to seal the job. In the short term, heart, energy and a genuine desire to get the job done may be the best we can do. But that’s awfully good. She loves the country, and I believe would sacrifice herself for it. Would Clinton, Obama, Huckabee, Romney?
I will also defend her placing herself in a good light. One, what she is writing is substantially true. Two, she goes out of her way to say some good things about some of the people she had troubles with (you haven’t read that part yet.), and you also get the feeling she is holding back, mainly saying what has to be said to defend her own reputation (especially about the campaign wardrobe). Three, I have followed politics seriously for over thirty years, and have read archives from the past. I have not seen anyone slimed in such a way ever. Not Reagan, not Bush the Younger, not Bork, not Nixon, not Grover Cleveland. These attackers would take the slightest hint of a deficiency, and take it out of context or reword it entirely. She has no choice but to write the book with that in mind. There was no way the book could be written without being somewhat stilted.
I’ll give her a pass on the Plato. I had a similar quotation but it was from Ralph Kramden. People just hear these things. And she is just as likely to quote Ralph Kramden as Plato.
The guys who read The Republic will be her advisors. Not commie tax cheat pedophiles.
You’re kind of a “Cliff Notes” guy?
No sh!t. John Mark Reynolds on Mitt Romney:
Mitt Romney is nearly a picture perfect Republican candidate for President. LinkThere's lots more from Reynolds on Romney. I think I'll pass on his "review" of Palin's book.Romney demonstrates he is intellectually ready to be President of the United States. He is not just smart (in the MBA sense), he is thoughtful. Link
On Romney's abortion flip-flop -- Romney has over time come to traditional points of view on culture of life and family issues. This is not surprising given his religious and social background. Romney is a man of profound faith (though it is not my own) and of deep and abiding traditional values in his personal life. As he has grown older, it is no surprise that a maturing statesman would bring his personal life into closer consistency with his political life. Link
Yeah, reflective of the fact that somebody else writes it.
Thanks for the thoughtful analysis.
ping for later
I agree, this guy is about as objective as David Axelrod.
How bad can the book be if on ABC’s own website there is a story in which it is reported the book has sold 2,700,000 copies.
John Mark Reynolds is a milque-toast, beta-male, mealy-mouthed seminary “professor” that I haven’t heard from since I last listened to Romney sycophant Hugh Hewitt’s radio show in November of 2007 when his irrational, cult-like support of Romney turned off everyone but the Warren Jeffs family members. Does any man here on this website, that has made a living doing real, back-breaking work with his hands, and/or risked his own capital to build a business for himself to support his family(like Sarah and Todd Palin have done), want to listen to some pasty-faced seminary professor? Does any man here really respect a seminary professor? Reynolds talks out of both sides of his mouth in that predictable, gooey, wimp, nondenominational, watered down doctrine, evangelical mush-mouthed say-nothing way.
bkmking your post...
This is not a fair and unbiased review. Don't believe it? Sorry, but that is my take on it, too many little things said that scream "Sarah Hater". Period. BTW, I liked the book, especially the second half, I liked all of it but the second half detailing the campaign crap she had to put up with was a real eye opener and explained many puzzling aspects of the campaign. She is an amazing women and this book shows that up very well.
Yeah, reflective of the fact that somebody else writes it.
I think it is more reflective of the fact he is a communist. BTW, Bob, don't you get tired of trying to trash Sarah? Are you a Romneybot or just a DU plant?
bookmark
Cliff Notes are not a summary written by the author. Sometimes a recapitulation is just as informative as pages and pages (Chapter by Chapter) of a critique. I certainly wouldn't suggest a simple condensation of the author's work. And I'm no guy.
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.