Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Not a fan: Krauthammer calls Palin 'rather weak' and gives her 'no chance of winning' in 2012
The Daily Caller ^ | December 31, 2010 | Jeff Poor

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)


TOPICS: Campaign News; Parties; Polls; State and Local
KEYWORDS: 2012; carterspeechwriter; democrats; dncspeechwriter; elitist; fakeshrink; freepressforpalin; gopbackstabber; gopsaboteur; jourbalists; krauthammer; krauthammer4dnc; krauthammer4dsmiv; krauthammer4fraud; krauthammer4obama; krauthammer4romney; misogynist; misogynist4romney; mondale; mondalespeechwriter; obama; palin; phoneyshrink; rinos; romney4romney; sociopathcentral
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 361-365 next last
To: roostercogburn
Talk about a closed mind.

Palin did NOT help Angle in Nevada.

According to this chop-logic, the only reason candidates she DID endorse elsewhere around the country won only because of her endorsement, or in spite of it? I would love to hear your answer on this, unless you're of the belief that the only contest that should be used to judge her effective usefulness to candidates she endorses is explicitly Reid vs Angle.

Independents might have broke for Angle, but Palin’s endorsement probably fired up more rats to get out and vote.

Karl rove, is that you? This "analysis" is absurd from the ground up, and again does not reflect reality when taken into context of all races she endorsed specific candidates across the country. This type of reasoning does not reflect anything more that a deep seated dislike of either women in general or Mrs. Palin in particular, IMO. In any case, again, this does not square with the results we saw across the country in numerous races, and actually seems to parrot DNC/Liberal talking points, not to mention RINO Elitists.

My criticisms of Palin do not mean I do not like the woman.

I do not believe you are sincere with that statement, and I in fact do not believe you are being honest with us our yourself.

I just know that she CANNOT win the general election. Period.

Arrogance to the nth degree. Why even bother having a primary, I suppose we may as well just consult you and have you declare the Republican nominee. Thank you for saving us all the time and effort by providing your divine guidance.

Every political analyst in this country says the same.

Interesting, I do believe that is either a blatant and outright falsehood on your part, or blinding ignorance as I've seen opinions to the contrary of your belief posted here on this forum in just the last 2 weeks if I'm not mistaken.

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.

This is again absurd in the extreme. I would not put a 3rd party run out of the picture, but I would not consider it a run created out of "her ego", and to believe such seems to me to denote a predefined belief and attitude towards Mrs. Palin that reflects the thoughts someone who is likely a CINO and would not hesitate to vote for Romney or any other RINO simply to "win".

From my point of view, if the Republican party cannot nominate a solid conservative in 2012, such as Mrs. Palin, then they are no longer a viable alternative to the left/dems/marxists, and it will be time to put up a new party that represents conservatives in this country. The Republican party will render itself obsolete if they continue to be the "dem-lite" party, and starting a conservative party now is exactly what is called for, regardless of the outcome of the 2012 elections. You have to start somewhere, and this will be as good a time as any.

RINO's are not an option, and neither is the status quo.

My fear is we will end up having another RINO selected as the Republican nominee which will then necessitate several election cycles of democrat party dominance while the new conservative party displaces and eventually replaces the useless Republican party.

I'll ask you this. If Romney ends up being the Republican nominee, will you vote for him, vote for Obama, write in another candidate, or refuse to vote?
221 posted on 12/31/2010 6:26:02 PM PST by Pox (Good Night. I expect more respect tomorrow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: RichInOC

I mean, really, it would have been perfectly reasonable for people to look at the competition Sarah Palin faced in the governor’s race in 2006, the incumbent in the primary, and then his immediate predecessor in the general, and say she had no chance of winning. Perfectly reasonable...and as it turned out once they ran the campaigns, completely wrong.


222 posted on 12/31/2010 6:26:58 PM PST by RichInOC (Palin 2012: BOOM. Taste My Cluebat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
Questioning Palin has become something of a capital crime around here. Seeing that kind of cult of personality on FR is a bit unsettling.

I don't know what to tell you, friend, except that you're misreading it.

Hang in there, and try not to let all of the happy fireworks bother you.

223 posted on 12/31/2010 6:28:57 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: cubreporter

You’re wrong.

BTW, who’s Herman Cain? Wasn’t he a columnist for the SF Chronicle?


224 posted on 12/31/2010 6:32:20 PM PST by PhiloBedo (You gotta roll with the punches and get with what's real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PhiloBedo

Oh, come on. You remember Cain. Murdered his brother then got deported. It’s been a few years, though.


225 posted on 12/31/2010 6:39:01 PM PST by Rashputin (Barry is totally insane and being kept medicated and on golf courses to hide the fact)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Recovering Ex-hippie
CK has never poo=poohed Tea parties..He supports them.

I just took a quick scan of mentions he's made about the Tea Parties, and I'll admit that I didn't see a straight-up negative appraisal by him.

That said, Krauthammer has revealed himself to be an elitist RINOcrat in many of his other postings, including this one.

226 posted on 12/31/2010 6:40:36 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

“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.”

You actually think that no one who knows her background could possibly question her electability (if by “electability” you mean “likelihood of being elected”)? Your infatuation is making you delusional. Hopefully the bulk of her supporters have a better grasp of the real world; otherwise there will be no cohesive strategy to combat her negatives and instead the assumption that she’ll be elected simply on the basis of her undeniable wonderfulness.


227 posted on 12/31/2010 6:44:44 PM PST by Magic Fingers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

“Yeah. What’s up with all of those “free thinkers” debating the pros and cons of the potential candidates ahead of the primary anyway? The nerve...”

Yeah, the nerve of you telling those people that they’re “pushing the enemy line”.


228 posted on 12/31/2010 6:46:04 PM PST by Magic Fingers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

“It would be weak of you to be “turned off” Palin by anything I (or anyone else) says.”

Cults are dangerous regardless of whom they deify.


229 posted on 12/31/2010 6:49:20 PM PST by Magic Fingers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Magic Fingers

Were supporters of Ronald Reagan, a “cult”?


230 posted on 12/31/2010 6:51:06 PM PST by Cringing Negativism Network (McCarthy Was Right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: bwc2221

Sean Hannity is the Weekly Reader version of Rush Limbaugh, without 97% of the intellect.


231 posted on 12/31/2010 6:56:08 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet ("You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body." CS Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

Sadly, I think the Kraut is right. Sarah P. Needs more gravitas before she can be president. Maybe she needs to be in the Cabinate or Senate first. She must Prove herself—She can and will but—maybe not 2012—maybe 2016 (if Its Obama/Hillary).


232 posted on 12/31/2010 6:59:34 PM PST by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade

“gravitas”?

Are you kidding me?

How more beltway, can one be?


233 posted on 12/31/2010 7:00:29 PM PST by Cringing Negativism Network (McCarthy Was Right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Magic Fingers
You're making the mistake of confusing enthusiasm with infatuation, IMO. Whether intentional or not remains to be seen.

A lot of the fervor against those who rudely or ignorantly (compared to those who have spent countless hours debating the subject here at FR) post negative comments concerning Mrs. Palin is due to the fact that those who are staunch defenders are becoming exasperated at having to continually and repeatedly explain to those who make those comments why it is believed their statement is in error.

Add to that those who continually post negative articles concerning Mrs. Palin in an effort to make her an undesirable nominee to those here at FR, by the same subset of freepers with an agenda, and you start to understand why you see such a spirited defense of a woman whose values reflect those of a very large portion of posters here at FR.

234 posted on 12/31/2010 7:01:08 PM PST by Pox (Good Night. I expect more respect tomorrow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Magic Fingers
You actually think that no one who knows her background could possibly question her electability

Well, it's pretty obvious that you don't know much about her background. Try reading up on her race for Alaska Governor, to get an early indication of how she'll fare as a candidate for president. She beat TWO entrenched political machines to get to the Governor's office.

Your infatuation is making you delusional.

It's not "infatuation", it's honest appreciation for demonstrated competence, executive experience, and real accomplishments.

"Delusional"? That's what happens when people supplant real life observation and information for preconceived notions and narrow-minded bias, based on little more than mainstream media's negative depictions of a candidate.

Hopefully the bulk of her supporters have a better grasp of the real world; otherwise there will be no cohesive strategy to combat her negatives...

Well, she did miss that caribou four times with that rifle with the bad sight....

Negatives? What would those be, pray tell?

235 posted on 12/31/2010 7:01:53 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Pox

Simply put - many are starting to learn, that both the left and the RINOs, use the tactics of Saul Alinsky.


236 posted on 12/31/2010 7:02:55 PM PST by Cringing Negativism Network (McCarthy Was Right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Trolleyman; onyx; darkwing104; Old Sarge; Josh Painter; Lakeshark

So you signed up yesterday to let us know that Governor Sarah Palin can’t be elected president and call the people who want proof of Mr. Obama’s natural born citizenship (”birthers”) crackpots?


237 posted on 12/31/2010 7:03:44 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet ("You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body." CS Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
Mitch Daniels sounds like an alcoholic drink to me...

I will be working and supporting SARAH PALIN. i like Charles Krauth...but he is not listening to us ordinary Americans who who have become known as the TEA PARTY...

wake up Charles, there are many of us out here!!!!!

238 posted on 12/31/2010 7:04:02 PM PST by haircutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Magic Fingers
Cults are dangerous regardless of whom they deify.

You're sounding more and more like a "concern" troll, or a stealth supporter for some other candidate. Folks who throw out the "cult" smear almost uniformly turn out to be working the board for some second tier, or retread candidate.

Who's yours?

239 posted on 12/31/2010 7:06:03 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

“Were supporters of Ronald Reagan, a “cult”?”

No, his supporters (including me) are not. I never heard any of them proclaiming the inevitability of his election, denying that he had any vulnerabilities, or swooning like children over him. The same can’t be said of Sarah’s sycophantic idolizers. As I have said, I’ll vote for her if she’s the nominee and I think she has the potential to do good things. However, her election is anything but assured, she does have signficant vulnerabilities, and she doesn’t walk on water. Jeez people, get a grip!


240 posted on 12/31/2010 7:08:37 PM PST by Magic Fingers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 361-365 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson