Posted on 11/13/2010 9:47:44 AM PST by ColdOne
"Sarah Palin's Alaska" portrays the show's heroine as an adventure-loving wife and mother enjoying a whirlwind of activities amid spectacular settings in her home state.
There are no overt clues to her future political ambitions in the first episode of the eight-part TLC documentary series that begins Sunday.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Uh . . . horsepucky. Raw unadulterated nonsense.
March 10, 1980. The GOP establishment had decided they needed another candidate besides GHW Bush to stop Reagan and started recruiting Gerald Ford:
ABC News - Harris poll: FORD LEADS BOTH CARTER AND REAGAN, ALTHOUGH STILL UNDECLARED CANDIDATE
"Former President Gerald Ford is the first choice of Republican and independent voters to head the GOP ticket, even though he has not yet declared himself a candidate for the Republican nomination.
Ford also leads President Carter among the general electorate."
We’re DVRing the show JUST IN CASE we miss it! Cool clam pictures. Maybe I’ll make clam chowder for dinner? However, they’ll come from a can...no clams in the desert.
As a kid I watched Ronaldus Magnus as he hosted a very low budget TV weekly show, “Death Valley Days” not even in color. He would have been so excited to host a series in HD color featuring the grandeur of Alaska, given the parched, desert scenery and its resident twenty-mule team Borax mine wagon he endured as his backdrop. RR’s critics said the same things Palinophobes say today.
If Sarah is sacrificing her “gravitas” and, thus, a real chance at the WH, the Palinophobes should be glad about it.
It’s not the 50’s anymore.
Nice try, but perhaps you forgot that write in candidate is none other than Lisa Murkowski (hardly an unknown name in Alaska), who is the sitting senator (that Miller defeated in the primary, and then she used all kinds of tricks to remain on the ballot), and that race isn't yet over. While I don't think Miller is likely to win, let's remember that lots of democrats wrote in Murkowski's name, as their own party's candidate didn't stand a chance to win. In fact, the public employee's unions have spent heavily and done a lot of arm twisting on native Americans for Murkowski.
I yield to your superior debating skills.
I yield to your superior debating skills.
___________________________________________________________
No, I must yield to your apt analogy! Clearly the 1966 Miami Dolphin can tell us a lot about Sarah Palin and the 2012 elections. /sarc
Ronald Reagan did not start the campaign with an "Unfavorable" rating in nationwide polls of almost 50%.
Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Gerald Ford would have beaten Jimmy Carter in 1980. Yet, even now, when Barack Hussein Obama's popularity is at it's lowest, Sarah Palin is soundly beaten in the polls by Obama and Sarah Palin cannot even get her own Senate candidate in her own State of Alaska elected when he is opposed by a write-in candidate.
Ronald Reagan was the Governor of California, the most populous state in the Union, for 8 years. By contrast, Sarah Palin was the governor of a state with the population that is half the size of San Diego, California and she quit the Governorship before her first term was completed to chase the Big Bucks on the $100,000 per speech circuit and to chase the Big Bucks with TV reality shows.
Sarah Palin would not even give a speech at the Tea Party Convention unless she was paid $100,000. Tea Party Convention Organizer Sued Over ‘Rock Star’ Palin’s Speaker’s Fee
From 1975 to 1979, Ronald Reagan gave more than 1,000 daily radio broadcasts, the great majority of which he wrote himself. ... These radio programs demonstrate that Reagan had carefully considered nearly every issue he would face as president.
By contrast, Sarah Palin couldn't explain why North Korea and South Korea were separate nations.
I'm sorry, but if Sarah Palin cannot, like Reagan could, or you or I easily could, explain how the Yalta Conference shaped the post-World War II word and how the division of the Korean peninsula across the 38th Parallel into U.S. and Soviet occupation zones brought about the Korean war, Palin has no business pretending that she is qualified to be President of the United States.
I voted for Reagan for President twice and I served 7 and a half years of active duty with Ronald Reagan as my Commander-in-Chief.
Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan.
Actually, they can.
Brand new expansion team composed of washed up castoffs from the AFL and rookies = Not a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the Super Bowl in 1966
Candidate with a nationwide "UNFAVORABLE" rating of almost 50% before the Presidential campaign even starts = Not a snowball's chance in Hell of getting elected President in the general election.
Believing that the 1966 Miami Dolphins would win the Super Bowl by going undefeated for the rest of the season = Magical thinking by a child.
Believing that Sarah Palin can win the Presidency when she cannot even get her own candidate elected Senator in her own State of Alaska when opposed by a write-in candidate = Magical thinking by an adult that should know better.
So how many more times are you going to post that obsolete July 2009 poll?
Thanks for your service to our country and that’s where my thanks to you ends.
I didn’t say Sarah Palin was Ronald Reagan, and don’t ever try to lecture me about Ronald Reagan. I am a third generation native of San Diego, CA so he was also my governor. You certainly have no way of knowing that Gerald Ford would have won over Carter, so “there you again” making it up to suit you, and *this time* to lessen President Reagan! I remember the campaigns and the almost everything leading up to the election, and you’re dead wrong.
You’re lying about Sarah Palin and the speaking fee, (SHE DONATED IT) so I’m not going to bother with you anymore, only to “REFUDIATE” your lies, every time I spot ‘em.
Once a liar, always a liar and “I think” you’re a Sarah Palin hating troll. Disgusting to have to resort to lies.
As I said, unadulterated nonsense. Obama’s unfavorability rating is currently over 50%. He can’t win either by your simplistic reasoning.
After decades in public life for Ronald Reagan and 4 years of Carter malaise, he and Carter were in a dead heat in the polls before the debate, with Carter trending slightly up and Reagan trending slightly down. Pat Caddell begged Carter not to do this debate but the ever-arrogant Carter wouldn't listen. Too bad for him...he probably would have beaten Reagan if he had listened to Pat.
The American people were looking for an alternative to Carter but weren't sure of Reagan, even after Reagan's long career, 1000 radio speeches, 2 failed presidential runs, etc. etc. The constant media barrage of "Reagan the amiable dunce" and "Reagan the actor" and "Reagan the war-monger" had taken its toll in the leftist-dominated media world of the day. It was only after 105 million people saw him face-to-face with Carter and saw the real stature of Ronald Reagan, along with Carter's lameness, that they trudged to the polls and fired Jimmy Carter.
If Sarah Palin is the candidate in 2012, it will likely come down to that again. As with Reagan in '80, I have no problem with it. Others around here with different agendas do. The GOP establishment back then certainly didn't want it to come down to that just as they don't want that to happen now.
If Sarah Palin is truly unqualified and unelectable, why is the GOP Establishment in such an uproar? Why this "Stop Palin" week? Are GOP voters that gullible and stupid? Of course they aren't. We've still got some voter sanity in this country and it resides on the right.
Lots of trollin' going on around here today...LOL. They're skeered of the lil ol' ex-mayor of Wasilla. They should be.
First of all, your claimed numbers are false:
Obama's "Unfavorable" are exactly the same as Sarah Palin's "Unfavorables" : "Almost 50%"
Secondly, logic is not your strong suit. Has it ever crossed your mind that the variable that you plug into an equation matters?
Obama can't win against who or what if he has horrible polling?
A candidate more popular than Obama is?
A candidate less popular than Obama is?
Charlie Manson?
A potted plant?
Since you have such a problem with elementary logic, let me simply it for you:
The only way that a weak midget is going to win a boxing match is to pit him against an even weaker midget.
Unless both midgets are comatose or dead, somebody is going to win.
Whatever Obama's "Unfavorable" ratings may be, the polls still show Obama beating Palin like a red-headed stepchild, even now, when Obama's popularity is lower than whale scat at the bottom of the ocean.
Rasmussen .... 2012 Match-ups: Obama 48%, Palin 42%
Obama has such horrible polling that he will most likely be defeated by any Republican with decent polling.
The only way that Obama can win with his horrible polling is to give him an opponent that the majority of American voters want even less : Sarah Palin.
It not the first time this poster posted the speaking fee lie. It more like this poster is spamming Palin thread with this particular comment.
polybius has this tendency to spam Palin thread with the same talking point. This commenter is a broken record and that’s it. Oh and by the way, polybius I will not respond to the “Tin Foil Hat Brigade” so save it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:polybius/index?brevity=full;tab=comments
*****PDS does this to you and these poster should be ignored at all costs. If you are so inclined to read posters like this be advised you may go blind.
This is a public service announcement brought to you by the “Sarah Palin Ping List”.********
Thank you, Clyde5445!
No problem Onyx just doing my bit. :)
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.