ThinSkin Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Every GOP candidate has been saying he or she is a Reagan Republican for the last 20 years. You are correct, however, if she can convince enough people that she is the next Ronald Reagan, then she will be very successful. But that is easier said than done. Convincing a true believer conservative that she is that person appears to be easy - they watch the same interviews as the rest of us but see them completely differently than we do. They have a different reality. So on one sense, you are right. If she can fool enough people into thinking that she is the next Ronald Reagan then she will win. And if she can fool that many people, well, that is very scary indeed. Generally speaking, I believe conservatives fool far less easily than liberals. We aren't prone to being swept off our feet by cult-like figures (read Obama). We require substance,.... and yes, I believe Palin has substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mw11385 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 She says she's a Reagan Republican. I don't doubt her. If I'm not mistaken, more people liked Reagan than not. Now if she can convince enough people that she could be the next RR, she's got this thing in the bag. Two Points: 1) She's got 20 to 25 % of the electorate locked up no matter what she does. If you were to describe Reagan's political positions to most of those folks without identifying him, they would think he is WAY to liberal for their ahem, movement... Thus, she'll never have the appeal of a Reagan because she will need to continue to dance with the yahoos who brought her in order to energize them enough to get her the nomination.. She is too far right (and, imho, WAY too phony) for the average voter. See the NY 23rd district race for an example of how the far right continues to eat the Republican party. 2) I live in GOP country, and she will probably come to my town to sign her book. I am joking around with the idea of buying a copy, standing in line, and asking her to dedicate it to chrysanthemum. I'll wager she wouldn't be be able to spell it. (Or daisy, for that matter...) No offense to any of you folks who support her, but she seems about as dumb as a box of hair. (And trust me, I am being kind.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mw11385 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 We require substance,.... and yes, I believe Palin has substance. :hysterical: :hysterical::hysterical: :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Substance? 43rd POTUS? Sarah Palin? Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Glad you added the last sentence. I think it's absurd for people to Sarah is stupid or a moron or uneducated. If you disagree with her policies and beliefs, that is one thing. The woman isn't dumb. She may not be as well versed as a seasonsed politician, but she isn't uneducated and she isn't stupid. Matter of fact, I'd bet she has more of an education that many posters on this board. It cheapens your argument when all you can say is "she's stupid." I don't agree. For purposes of this discussion, I am considering her as a potential candidate for President. I am not comparing her to the other posters on this board. I doubt I would vote for any of them as President either. I wouldn't vote for me, either, and I'm pretty damn full of myself. I see very little indication that Palin has anywhere near the breadth of knowledge and level of intellectual curiousity that I hope for in the leader of the Free World. She seems to be working with the "Cliff's Notes" on every issue she discusses. I have never seen her discuss "both sides" of a single issue, not a single one. And I don't think that a couple of years of intensive coaching can make up for a lifetime of not caring about things outside her small world view. And before you attack me for being partisan, let me say two things. First - I have made similar attacks on Democrats over the years, particularly empty suits like John Edwards and Chris Dodd. Second, I have defended Republicans when people on here said they were stupid - including George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan (neither of whom were stupid). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Generally speaking, I believe conservatives fool far less easily than liberals. We aren't prone to being swept off our feet by cult-like figures (read Obama). We require substance,.... and yes, I believe Palin has substance. I have no doubt that you believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 here are some questions I have: Is Palin as divisive as Hillary (it seems like she is to me) I would say so. Is she judged more harshly than others because she's a female? I would say "don't make me laugh". Going just on what I remember of gut feelings, I saw a lot of hostility towards Hillary because of her gender. I have never seen hostility towards Palin because of hers. (I've seen hostility. just not because of her gender.) Although I don't necessarily think it's as simple as that, either. IMO, at the time I saw the gender hostility towards Hillary, she was First Lady. A job with no Constitutional power whatsoever. When Sarah Palin became a political figure, it was because of positions she'd achieved on her own. (Or at least been appointed to.) I think at least part of the reason people were hostile towards Hillary was because of the perception that she was trying to flex political muscles that she didn't have. (And I will admit that I have seen some gender-based attacks on Condie Rice. So no, I'm not gonna try to claim that this is a GOP-only phenomenon.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mw11385 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 And before you attack me for being partisan... Don't sweat it, Predicto, they'll be busy attacking me for being partisan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanleys Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 2) I live in GOP country, and she will probably come to my town to sign her book. I am joking around with the idea of buying a copy, standing in line, and asking her to dedicate it to chrysanthemum. I'll wager she wouldn't be be able to spell it. (Or daisy, for that matter...) No offense to any of you folks who support her, but she seems about as dumb as a box of hair. (And trust me, I am being kind.) The left/media does such a great job on the demonization front. Palin's dumb, W. Bush was a moron despite having degrees from both Yale and Havard, Ford was a stumbling, bumbling doofus despite having the best athletic accomplishments of any President. People have this image of Obama as an athlete when he may have the worst skills in the history of the Presidency. He can't break a hundred at golf, said to be Clintonesque bad, bowls worse than my 5 year old (beat him by 18 pins the same week on the same lane) and throws like a 3 year old girl. Yet we see no endless replays of his first pitch or jokes by the late night comedians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinSkin Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 I have no doubt that you believe that. I know I'm leaving myself wide open to ridicule....eh...more ridicule, should Palin crash and burn, but I'm willing to take that chance.....As much of a chance as you can take on an anonymous message board that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Palin was the mayor of a town of less than 10,000 people, . . . Actually, I seem to recall having it pointed out that . . . "was Mayor of a town of less than 10,000 people, where the Mayor is not in charge of the police department, fire department, or schools, and wasn't able to handle the job, requiring the city to hire a City Manager to handle the administration." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 I admit that I am scared of what she represents. Angry anti-intellectual populism scares me. I absolutely admit it. Yep. That's me. Imagine how the GOP would feel if, say, Al Sharpton were drawing support from 40% of all voters, who claimed that the were voting for him because "we think the Right is scared of him". I think the fact that she's not being laughed off the stage scares me a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 The left/media does such a great job on the demonization front. Palin's dumb, W. Bush was a moron despite having degrees from both Yale and Havard, Ford was a stumbling, bumbling doofus despite having the best athletic accomplishments of any President. Which further supports the supposition that no one has cornered the market better on the "people are out to get us" role than the conservative movement. No one plays a victim like the GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Palin isn't going to win anything. Already her whinning about the media is getting old. I think once she's up there in debate against some of the candidates with substance; she will get crushed. She thinks after Obama, the country will go to someone again with little experience. I have no doubt she wants to run. Whether its 2012 or 2016 depends on whether she wants to subject her family to it again. It wouldn't be a 2 month campaign this time. It would be nearly 2 year campaign, should she actually get the nomination. She will be descending in Columbus on Monday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Which further supports the supposition that no one has cornered the market better on the "people are out to get us" role than the conservative movement. No one plays a victim like the GOP. Yeah, nobody made fun of Clinton. Or tried to make Carter look like a dumb country hick. See, what stanleys is actually demonstrating, here, is "once the media sticks a label on you, it's just about impossible to get rid of it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Also, the only way Obama looses in 2012 is if things are still bad or worse. If the economy has turned around; then there is no way he loses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Generally speaking, I believe conservatives fool far less easily than liberals. We aren't prone to being swept off our feet by cult-like figures (read Obama). We require substance,.... and yes, I believe Palin has substance. Weren't you just talking about Ronald Reagan? The most cult of personality politician this country has seen since Kennedy (and with just about as little real substance as JFK). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mw11385 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 The left/media does such a great job on the demonization front. Palin's dumb, W. Bush was a moron despite having degrees from both Yale and Havard, Ford was a stumbling, bumbling doofus despite having the best athletic accomplishments of any President. Have you listened to the words that come out of that woman's mouth? Seriously? Do you think for one second that George W. would have gotten into or out of either of those esteemed institutions if his last name wasn't Bush? Seriously? Are you old enough to remember seeing Ford fall down the airplane stairway... not once but twice? He got a raw deal, but it was mostly good-natured, and those events didn't help his cause. People have this image of Obama as an athlete when he may have the worst skills in the history of the Presidency. He can't break a hundred at golf, said to be Clintonesque bad, bowls worse than my 5 year old (beat him by 18 pins the same week on the same lane) and throws like a 3 year old girl. Yet we see no endless replays of his first pitch or jokes by the late night comedians. So... let's get Al Bundy or Fred Flintstone to run for president... They've got MAD bowling skills! Which, by the way, are bona fide occupational qualifications for the job of president, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 People have this image of Obama as an athlete when he may have the worst skills in the history of the Presidency. He can't break a hundred at golf, said to be Clintonesque bad, bowls worse than my 5 year old (beat him by 18 pins the same week on the same lane) and throws like a 3 year old girl. Yet we see no endless replays of his first pitch or jokes by the late night comedians. Err... http://www.streetball.com/video/1024073:Video:216433 Not bad for a guy who is almost 50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinSkin Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 The fine art of criticizing Sarah Palin's intellectualism By: Mary Katharine Ham Weekly Standard 11/18/09 6:30 AM EST There are thoughtful arguments to be made against Sarah Palin's future as a national politician, her persona as a conservative folk hero, her political ideology. Relatively few liberals or critics in the media bother to make them. It's a testament to how thoroughly they caricatured her the first time around, and how little respect she warrants in some circles, that all questions about her are presumed perfectly settled, and serious engagement about her is often treated as a nuisance to be avoided. To them, Palin is audacious (not in that good, Obama way) and out-of-line to even write a book. Her criticisms of the McCain campaign leakers who anonymously bashed her while the campaign was still going on are "ungrateful." To venture to promote the book is more audacious still, and means she gets exactly what's coming to her in all interviews and coverage, no matter how unfair. The fact that the book she's daring to promote is selling extremely well means more license still to sully the woman from Alaska once again. I've heard each of these sentiments uttered or implied by pundits or reporters in print, on Twitter, or on TV this week. The thoughtlessness of these critics, who never see the irony in attacking Palin's alleged anti-intellectualism using debunked doctored photos of the governor in a bikini, is crystallized in Ana Marie Cox's review of Sarah Palin's Going Rogue today. It is perhaps overly generous to call the Washington Post piece a review. It reads like an off-the-cuff e-mail to a friend with very low standards in e-mail correspondence. It's atrocious, not in its assessments necessarily (of which there are few), but in its laziness. I hesitate to excerpt much of it, because at 379 words, I would quickly be dealing with questions of fair use,..... ....cont... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/The-fine-art-of-criticizing-Sarah-Palins-intellectualism-stupidly-70307337.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 ThinSKkin, As an obvious fan of Palin, how do you characterize her use of the flag in that photo I posted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share Posted November 18, 2009 ThinSKkin,As an obvious fan of Palin, how do you characterize her use of the flag in that photo I posted? like these?? or is it ok to use as ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share Posted November 18, 2009 Corcaigh, The issue with Newsweek is that it wasn't a photo for their magazine. it was a photo for a runners magizine. Granted, there is the odd photo of Obama's man boobs floating around, first time I've seen that (Predicto posted I think?). Newsweek did it to once again portray her as only a pretty face. Its obvious. The difference between posting the pic of Obama is that it tries to show him as being big and strong. The photo of Palin (or any woman) is that it attempts to show her as just another pretty face. I say that as a woman, its not political, its sexism. I don't expect the guys on here to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Vandevort Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 I congratulate you posters who have an open mind on Sarah and arn't just drinking the "Cool Aid" that the left throughs out there to demean her. I say give all candidates the chance to say their piece and then let's get on with it. Nice job guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinSkin Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 ThinSKkin,As an obvious fan of Palin, how do you characterize her use of the flag in that photo I posted? I saw nothing disrespectful by Palin toward our flag in that photo. Just as I saw nothing disrespectful when the goalie for the 1980 gold medal winning US hockey team, wrapped the flag around himself and skated around the rink. Bruce Jenner did same when he won the gold in an Olympic track event. If you want to know what disrespect for the flag is, look at this photo of Obama's associate Bill Ayers. EDIT: In order to keep this thread from becoming hijacked by me or anyone else, I replaced "good friend" with "associate". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 like these?? I don't recognize them. Are they all politicians who want to be taken seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.