Posted on 12/31/2010 2:46:02 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Is the idea that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin could be America’s next president laughable? Not only to many on the left, but also to conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer.
On Friday’s broadcast of “Inside Washington,” Krauthammer offered several reasons why Palin shouldn’t be considered the presumptive Republican nominee for the 2012 presidential election.
“What do you mean if not Sarah Palin in 2012?” Krauthammer said. “Who’s saying she’s going to be the presidential candidate? I don’t even hear her saying it. Her chances of being are smaller than half a dozen other people. If you talk to Republicans, I don’t think there are what, more than one in three who would tell you she has a chance of winning the presidency or even the nomination.”
Because of that, he said, she wasn’t the favorite.
“And she is not the favorite,” he continued. “She has a very strong core constituency but outside of that I think she is rather weak.”
Krauthammer has previously downplayed Palin’s chances and indicated he favors Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. He said Palin would not be the ideal candidate to unseat a “vulnerable” President Barack Obama.
“Her negatives are over 50 percent,” Krauthammer said. “She has no chance of winning a general election. Why would you want a candidate who is going to lose against a Democrat who is going to be vulnerable and who is also extremely ideologically ambitious?”
He even employed a Keith Olbermann catch phrase to describe Palin and said even fellow Republicans didn’t see Palin as qualified.
“A half-term governor? I’m not sure Republicans think of her as qualified.” Krauthammer said.
Watch:
(VIDEO AT LINK)
She's willing to fight the lamestream media to the death. She's already locked in a life and death battle with them. As far as I can discern, she's determined that they are the enemy, and she's treating them as such.
Her strategy to do an end-run around them, via her Facebook postings, Fox appearances, and TLC show, has been a smashing success. We know this because within the last month, both Time and The NY Times published lengthy and fair articles about her. It's obvious that she laid down some ground rules before the interviews, since the tone was an inversion of their typical treatment of her. The take-away: the LSM needs her; she doesn't need them.
To be fair to Reagan, the current alternatives to the LSM were not available to him. And he did his best to brush off the media, a classic example being Reagan's "I can't hear what you're saying" brush-off of Sam Donaldson, as he walked to Air Force One.
Even so, given Reagan's genial personality, I don't think he would be fighting the media as ferociously as Sarah is. I can't imagine him referring to them, frequently and publicly, as "the lamestream media." Sarah's picking a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel. That takes a lot of guts.
I attribute Sarah's media savvy to her stint as a sports broadcaster. She saw what goes on behind the scenes. She knows the devil she's dealing with. And she knows that she has to kill it, for her sake, and for the sake of the country.
Why would anyone use Wikipedia as a source...anyone can put anything on there...and there is no verification.
You may not like CK’s view of Palin...but all those other issues he is not on board with.
They're all the same now (worthless).
She absolutely deserves credit for that. She loathes the media. She relishes going to war with them.
Actually, I think that’s the single strongest point in her favor.
George Soros is one of Wikipedia’s largest financial backers. The site is positively toxic.
Better yet, if presented with Romney as the Republican nominee, would you vote for him, Obama, enter a write-in, or refuse to vote at all?
Herman Cain would thrash Palin in a debate on ANY ISSUE except what it is like to go through childbirth or menstrual pains. He is as elegant a speaker as there is out there. If you do not know who he is, turn off TLC and read his books “They think you’re stupid” and “leadership is common sense”
Excellent businessman also. Which I think is more impressive than being governor for two years of Alaska. She didn’t have to produce a profit. He did.
Frankly, I'm troubled. Maybe even disconcerted.
Like it or not..Krauthammer brings up valid cirticisms of Palin....You may not like him, you may not like what he says, but....these criticsms can not just be ignored or swept away with hysterical hyperbole in posts here.
Its great if you are a Palin fan, I like her too. But grow up and get better responses to the critics than the angry outbursts and comparisons to Obama.
Americans who are voting —especially the Independents—are looking at and thinking the SAME thing CK is. So Palin better have a stronger retort than the yelping on Freeper by those we know are already palin fans.
and yes,she LEFT the governor position...THAT is a tough one, YOU may forgive her or ‘understand” her valid rationale...but don’t think that is an easy one to “explain”.
Yup...it s worthless.
Palin accomplished more because she did step down.
Perhaps I can make a list of things she did accomplished for this country and then you can make a list of things that weren't accomplished in Alaska.
Or perhaps you can hide behind your empty who-buys-this-stuff remark.
RINO.
great.. so watch nothing.
Are you also using Wikipedia and the MSM as the descriptors of Ck?
Oh, if only we all were as perfect conservatives as you..I am sure we would win elections then.
No, it doesn't.
I'm a Palin supporter, but I have no issues with anyone who simply hasn't chosen a candidate to support. That's entirely understandable, given that most center-right voters aren't 1/10th as well-informed as most Freepers are.
However, I'm deeply suspicious of those who present themselves as informed conservatives, yet who question her "electability" at this late date. Palin is arguably the most well vetted candidate of the last century. Any conservative who's even passingly familiar with her record of public service, her positions on the issues, her writings and speeches, and her admirable personal qualities, can't possibly still question her electability.
She outshines most Republican presidential candidates (and even presidents) since at least the middle of last century.
For conservatives, the real question should be: what's it going to take to ensure her victory in 2012? Not, "is she electable"?
Where Palin is concerned, there appears to be three camps;
A) those who are very well-informed about her, and who support her for president,
B) those who have mostly drawn their opinions of her from the biased MSM, and remain ambivalent or undecided about her, and
C) those who are very well-informed about her, but who stand in the opposite ideological corner to her. These folks vehemently oppose her. Unfortunately, some of them pose as Republicans and conservatives.
CK has never poo=poohed Tea parties..He supports them.
Uhhh, what is not true in that statement? Palin did NOT help Angle in Nevada. Republicans would have voted for her no matter what they were so desperate to beat Reid. Independents might have broke for Angle, but Palin’s endorsement probably fired up more rats to get out and vote.
My criticisms of Palin do not mean I do not like the woman. Or that she couldn’t run the country better than Obama has done. I just know that she CANNOT win the general election. Period. Why is it so offensive to mention that small point. Every political analyst in this country says the same. Are they all part of a grand liberal media scheme? No. They study numbers and trends and they are usually pretty good.
I do fear that her ego may cause her to run third party. That will hurt our chances in 2012 and will hurt senate candidates all across the country.
Happy New Year. :)
Blah blah blah.
You knew I would post back with this question, Who is the best nominee we can field?
Right now, I don’t see one, do you?
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.