Thursday, November 25, 2010

Did Sarah Palin Mis-Speak? The Left Is "All We-Weed Up" Over "Our North Korean Allies"

The American political left, also known as the progs, are all "We-weed up" about what they believe was an incredible mis-statement by their nemesis.

It seems that during a discussion with Pat Gray on The Glenn Beck Radio Program, Sarah Palin accidentally said the sentence "Obviously, We've Got To Stand With Our North Korean Allies," but in typical liberal fashion they're taking the statement completely out of context and are only making themselves look more desperate than ever.

You can listen to the entire statement here.

Before the "mis-speak," she was discussing the current administration and whether or not they would have the cajones to sanction North Korea.

Said Palin:

And we're not having a lot of faith that The White House is going to come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that North Korea is going to do. So this speaks to a bigger picture here, that certainly scares me, in terms of our national security policies.

In the next sentence she accidentally made the "North Korean allies" statement.

Her policy statement was, while somewhat Neo-con and interventionist in direction, not a sign of stupidity or lack of understanding of world events. That's what the left is playing it up to be, but if you listen carefully you'll realize she just made a very understandable slip, one that anyone could make (except an elitist prog, of course).

At least that's how I see it.

This is, in my opinion, about on par with Obama's "My Muslim Faith" statement, and maybe not even that much of a slip. At least in that case there is at least some hint of conspiratorial evidence to validate the possibility that he is Of course that doesn't make it so, but we can at least point to his upbringing, his father, pictures...

Palin has never shown so much ineptitude that we should believe for one moment that this is worthy of discussion, yet here is the left giving me yet another chance to show off their hypocritical and delusional ways.

The "Africa is a country" thing was debunked, and so has nearly everything else the left has tried to spin. "See Russia from my house" much lately, Sarah? Yeah... that's about what this smear is worth. That one was purely B.S. too, although it sure kick-started the career of (at best) moderately talented Tina Fey.

Contrarily, Sarah Palin has been extremely worthy of praise regarding her position on Bernanke and QE2, Obama's dangerous (if not racist) position on the our immigration policy, and so much more. Funny how "Death Panels" are in the news again, isn't it?

Mrs. Palin may be Facebooking and Tweeting statements that she does not completely generate on her own, but I believe her thoughts and ideas are genuinely hers. Right now Palin is putting forward the thoughts that Americans can relate to and believe in, so much so that in "An exclusive interview with Barbara Walters from the White House," President Obama was asked (and not for the first time recently) about Sarah Palin.

Palin is clearly the antithesis of everything that has happened in The District of Criminals since 2008, and really since 2006 and before if we were to be honest and delve into some of the mistakes and violations of trust committed by the Republican Party over the past decade or so.

Fortunately we have some excellent representatives moving into key committee leadership positions come January. Speaker-to-be John Boehner has clearly received the message that was delivered on November 2nd, and with incumbents like Eric Cantor, Michele Bachmann, Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa working with freshmen like Alan West, Kristi Noem, and others it appears real change may be on the horizon.

I don't care if Sarah Palin runs for president, but she's got the progs frothing and flailing, and they really just don't know what to do. That in itself is worth the cost of my cable and internet connections, many times over.

Sarah Palin is a huge money-maker for the predominately correct political positions in this nation - conservatism with a good strong streak of Libertarian-like independence and understanding of true individual sovereignty.

And lest we forget, Palin is also quite the thorn in the side of old-school Republicans. She truly is the "Maverick" that John McCain made her out to be. She is not at all McCain-like. He is notorious for "Reaching across the aisle" and comprimising princliple. McCain-Feingold, the failed McCain-Kennedy, the failed McCain-Leiberman; enough said. Contrarily, Palin appears to be grounded in principle, and every time she makes a statement it seems that we learn more about how different her behavior is than the insiders we see on camera from The Hill.

She may have stumped for John McCain as a way of paying him back for bringing her on to the national scene, but she's had next to nothing to do with him since he secured the Republican primary. The indignant behavior by McCain's closet prog daughter (who wants to be just like dear ol' dad, don't you know...) shows exactly how much love has not been lost between the two former running-mates.

If there is one thing Meghan McCain has always done, it's have her Dad's back, so to speak. If he really had much positive to say about Palin, I believe he'd have his daughter shut her trap, but she just keeps on feeding the leftist media's anti-Palin machine with "She's like, so not smart" type commentary, and he doesn't dispute those comments. Remember, John McCain admitted that economics were not his strong suit, just as America was in the beginning of a massive economic shift for the worse.

Remember, McCain was for TARP before he was against it.

McCain's closest associates in The Senate are Joe Leibermann, a hawkish yet rather liberal Democrat, and Lindsay Graham, a man who should declare his membership in the Democrat Party based upon some of the positions he's taken over the not-so-distant past.

Palin seems to learn more quickly than Barack Hussein Obama has (not). While Obama has been jet-setting around the world and playing more golf in the past year than Tiger Woods, Palin has been busy documenting and presenting evidence that she is less arugula and Ivy League, and really more of a fresh Halibut and mountain-climbing sort - and that she can reel in, club, and fillet that halibut herself.

The very idea that Bristol survived so many rounds of Dancing With the Stars and created such an uproar in doing so, speaks volumes about where the mindset of any leftist is these days.

The left is in full "Palin character assassination" mode and is striking out relentlessly. They're essentially throwing things at her and hoping something sticks, regardless of the audacity of the claims.

And this North Korea "misspeak" is a perfect example.

There's a ton of discussion about this at Memeorandum.

36 comments:

LL said...

It was a misstatement. Everyone knows that. Much ado about nothing - which is why MSNBC's ratings are in the tank.

Just a conservative girl said...

And her mis statements play right into their hands.

The problem is that former campaign aides said she didn't understand this part of the world. It may have been a mis-statment, but this just makes that hurdle of the pre-concevied notions of her that much harder to disspell.

A commenter on one of the Palinista sites actually said no one should be allowed to question her on more than three topics per interview. That should scare the crap out of any republican voter.

Soloman said...

LL - exactly. I am watching the re-run of Olbermann right now, and I'm sure he blatantly takes her out of context.

Every liberal blog at Memeorandum did exactly that, and I laughed out loud when I went to Ben Smith's Politico page, and he did an "update" about the fact that she was correct in leading up to the "misspeak.

Soloman said...

JACG -

It's outlandish that people think she should get special treatment, just like it's ridiculous and embarrassing what the state of our "news" media has become if this represents their idea of good journalism.

Keith Olbermann fancies himself a journalist - he repeatedly calls his show a "News Hour," and calls comparisons between FNC and MSNBC a "false equivalency."

Yet he blatantly misrepresents her words in order to promote his own partisan agenda.

That has nothing to do with campaign staffers and her inability to shake preconceived notions- that has to do with a complete and total lack of integrity within the news media. His employer is one of the predominant news agencies in the world.

And what's most fascinating about that is the fact that these same people attempt to besmirch FNC as dishonest, when these days their the only ones honest about what it is they are doing, and the only ones even trying to present diverse points of view.

Just a conservative girl said...

Sol:
And Hannity doesn't do the same? We are so polarized in this country right now, so what your describing is inevitable.

I actually heard about this on more centerist website. I have not read any of the coverage on the left leaning sites. I can only imagine what they are saying. But, it is no different then right leaning outlets and blogs were saying when Obama says something odd.

What you cannot get around is the fact that in politics perception is reality. Her misstatement is going to feed into the existing perception about her. Is it fair? No, of course not. But, will it happen, yes.

We can rail all we want about the state of affairs, but that won't change it. She needs to deal with the perceptions if she wants to make a run. Making these missteps are going to make that much harder for her to do. Life is not fair, so lets stop pretending it is and deal with the reality.

Her most ardent supporters need to accept that and start working to change the perception. The first step in that is admitting this really hurts her. It may not be getting much coverage right now, but the audio isn't magically going to go away.

Woodsterman (Odie) said...

Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, it's a double standard.

Happy Thanksgiving.

The Conservative Lady said...

I heard that interview with Palin, but missed the mis-statement. Guess I wasn't paying close enough attention. The Left is going to jump on every little mistake she makes...and so will the elitist GOP if it makes their case against her.
Another topic...
Congrats on your guy Jimmy Johnson winning the Sprint Car Championship AGAIN! We were in Homestead to watch the big win.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family!

Fuzzy Slippers said...

It was a misstatement, of course, and pushing back is exactly what she and we need to do. God knows there's a loooooooooong list of the Idiot in Chief's idiot statements. Trotting them out every time the go for Sarah may just make them think twice about it. He looks far more stupid than she does (or ever could).

Soloman said...

JACG -

In your follow-up comment you said "I actually heard about this on more centrist website."

I'd be curious to know what site, and if that same site ever mentioned Obama's multitude of slips.

And BTW - I didn't hear about this issue on a leftist website or on Memeorandum, I heard about it on Left Coast Rebel, where Les Carpenter of Rational Nation had opined his concerns over Palin's lack of ability to discern between the two Koreas.

Of course, to be fair, he's a Ron Paul aficionado. Not that there's anything wrong with that either, mind you... I think Paul is a very worthy thinker whose values probably lie closer to The Founders' than most any other modern politician, but there's something about Paul-ites. And Les definitely has it in for Palin - he's making that perfectly clear.

Herein lies a little more of my concern, much to the point TCL made in her comment here - there is an elitist element across the board who think a politician needs to be perfect on every level, every time he (or she) steps in front of a microphone or camera. Les calls himself an independent, or a Libertarian - but (in my opinion) he's acting like an elitist liberal snob over this one, because this was clearly a simple slip of the tongue.

As I said in my post - I don't care if she runs or not. I've not decided who I would support in the Republican Primary. It may be her, it may not. Actually, at the moment I'd probably lean more toward Mitch Daniels than anyone else, because he is a proven commodity in the administrative arena, having governed Indiana out of the abyss, who believes (as I do) that social issues do not need to move to the forefront (which is where I take issue with Pence, Huckabee, and even Palin). But to be honest, I don't know enough about Daniels to say, so I'm refraining from commitment at this time.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and so if that site where you heard about this did happen to note Obama's slips, it doesn't forgive the right side of commentary for their behavior. You're correct in noting the hyper-partisan level at which the nation currently finds itself, and I hope that the right (or at least those of us who call ourselves conservatives) is taking the initiative to be the "grown-ups" here. I think we've seen that from Leader Boehner, as well as the recent broadcasting from much of FNC (O'Reilly certainly comes to mind, he's toned it waaay back, as has Beck in many respects).

You mentioned Hannity - many of us bloggers, perhaps even you and me - are guilty of following the lead of the likes of Hannity on occasion, but of course we know that doesn't make his rhetoric okay either. Perhaps it could be said that we should tone it down a bit? I don't know... I'm not being paid millions to base my logical opinion in fact, and I'm not dependent on billions of dollars of advertising revenues, as are Hannity and Beck.

Maybe you and I are both trying to turn into "kinder, gentler" bloggers and this is one where we both see it pretty much the same way regarding the media, but we have different ways of coming to our conclusions.

I agree with you that Hannity and others are guilty of equivalent hyperbole; my concern is that only a few million are reached by Hannity, whereas when this kind of stuff hits the AP, it then reaches every major newspaper and website in America, and perhaps worldwide.

And again, two wrongs don't make it right. In that respect, I am glad that most of the the hosts on FNC have toned it down within the last year and taken their "role" as "the voice of the right" (if that's what they really are) more seriously than in the past. We must be able to win the battle of respectfulness, if nothing else. we don't need to get down in the mud with the left.

Soloman said...

Odie - I'm thinking that was one of the best Barack Hussein Obama impressions of all time.

but there I go, being hyper-partisan again! heh.

Soloman said...

TCL -

I had to listen to the audio twice to hear it, and really only caught on after looking at Memorandum to see what the leftist sites were saying.

But that is, as said JACG, the state of the media these days. Media Matters entire existence is based on the agenda of sniping moments like this, as is Brent Bozell's Media Research Center on the right, I suppose.

Regarding the #48 - I must say I am glad he finally had to really fight for one. I'm also glad he pretty much had to drive the wheels off and everybody saw it. I think it kinda vindicates him and will help some recognize how good a driver he truly is.

Soloman said...

Fuzzy -

Pushing back indeed, which is why I'm here discussing it.

And you're correct, there's a laundry list of goofs by Obama, of which we are all well aware, but unfortunately many "independents" or left-leaners may not be, because their media doesn't want them to know that Obama said there are 57 states, or that he taked about his "Muslim faith."

But.. the truth is that he is no longer the person we must focus on in that respect. We need to focus on the person who we hope will replace him in The Oval, and sadly JACG is correct; no matter how she tries, Palin is losing the perception game - partially on her own, and mostly thanks to media bias, but she has to be better than the media bias if she plans to succeed.

Soloman said...

All - In case you didn't see it, here's Mrs. Palin's reply to the situation.

One thing I truly appreciate about here is that she is better at making them look like fools, than they are at trying to do the same to her.

Of course, the sad state of the media provides that they will bash her, but they will never publicize her reply. They must protect their own self-interests, as well as their own political interests. She clearly does not represent either, as far as they are concerned.

Hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving Day, and are enjoying your weekend.

Just a conservative girl said...

Sol:
I don't agree that Les has it in for Palin. Les and I agree on Palin. She is very good for the conservative movement, but she is not capable of winning the presidency in two years. Her loyal following, in many respects, are just as blind as were Obama's two years ago. No matter what she does or says it is somehow blamed on someone else or called an unwarrented attack. Those posts were taken down off LCR; which is unfortunate. Because they proved my above point. If a conservative dares to say that Palin won't be the next president you are attacked.

That was the point of his post. We cannot choose our next nominee based on emotion. It needs to be done with one thing in mind; obama cannot win re election. If he does, we are stuck with Obamacare forever.

Soloman said...

JACG - part 1 of 2...

I don't think you are correct when you say those posts proved your point that "If a conservative dares to say that Palin won't be the next president you are attacked."

I think those posts prove that Les is rather off-base in his assessment of that specific incident (the "misspeak), which I believe I proved rather well with my post here.

And I also think that his consistent desire to post negatively about Palin proves that he does indeed have it in for her, or at the very least that he has no respect for her. Again - and I don't mean to harp on this - Les is a Ron Paul fanatic, and in many instances I think that speaks volumes.

That's sad, really, because if we were to address the belief system of both, I'd say that they are rather similar. Palin is a bit more of an interventionist-type of foreign policy "hawk" than Paul, but otherwise they're really not that dissimilar.

As of right now it is my belief that Les doesn't just think Palin is unelectable, he simply doesn't like her and will speak out against her at every turn. .

If he posts anything positive about Palin, then I'll believe otherwise.

BTW - those posts are not taken down from LCR, I just checked. Check here and here.

If that were the case I would say that's pathetic, for the same belief that you presented - we need to be able to discuss openly and honestly what we see in every candidate, good and bad, and if anyone's opinion is stifled, then what's the point?

You and Les may agree in the theory that Palin can't be elected, but I'd be careful acting like judge, jury, and executioner too quickly.

Remember, Reagan was not the main choice of the establishment in '80 - George H.W. Bush was. Even in '76 Reagan was deemed by "those in the know" to be a non-intellectual who was way out of his league, and yet now we revere him as the best president in modern history - and the far left still hates him, which means he was indeed great.

Soloman said...

Part 2 of 2:

Again, I'm not saying Palin is the reincarnation of Reagan, and I don't even know that I'll support her through the primary process.

What I am saying is that to deem Palin unelectable right now is foolish. I know she polls poorly right now, and I know she's got a massive uphill battle against the far left and the MSM.

That's all a given, but then, doesn't anyone from the right have the same to contend with? Who's to say that Pence, Daniels, or Gingrich won't face exactly the same level of distorted reporting and "gotcha" type journalism that Palin would face?

Look what they tried to do to Rubio, and he "fits" their "mold" in the sense that he's a Latino. But that doesn't matter - any conservative is going to be lambasted by the MSM.

Therefore, it would seem that you are essentially saying that we'd better accept Romney or Huckabee now as the nominee, because they are the most "moderate."

In other words, we have to accept a RINO, who ultimately must lose to "The Black Guy" because that's what the MSM is telling us we must do.

Screw that.

Two years is a lifetime in politics - we say it all the time, yet for some reason you don't want to allow the same to be true with respect to Palin?

It's up to Palin to change the perception.

When her points are valid and she presents them well, she just might win the perception battle. The MSM will be of no help whatsoever, so she's got to be 100% on her game.

If she can't stop speaking in circles, she's in for a tough haul. I admit I have trouble sometimes keeping up with what she's saying. People who don't pay much attention until 2 weeks before they vote will never take to her if she doesn't learn to consolidate her thoughts.

She needs to lower her exposure after this book tour is over - she's everywhere, all the time, and she's in danger of burn-out, even with centrists.

I agree wholeheartedly, she's got one heck of an uphill climb, but I don't think it's accurate or reasonable to completely discount her today.

All in all, I think it's way to early for anyone on the right to begin dismissing anyone that could potentially be our nominee.

Not that we should be all positive, all the time, mind you... but again, this was such pettiness on the part of the left that it really bothered me to see Les jump on it.

Fuzzy Slippers said...

Hi Sol, one thing that you and others who support Palin keep saying is that she's 1.) like Reagan, and 2.) the MSM and far left are her only concerns.

First, she is nothing like Reagan except in sweeping, surface statements (most of which come from her) that have nothing to do with anything "real." The '70's are about as different from today as you can get--yes, Reagan was an actor, but . . . . Unlike Sarah, Reagan was articulate, had a firm grasp on the principles of conservatism (theoretical as well as practical and romantic--small "r"--the latter is Sarah's grasp, romantic not realistic), clearly understood the problems we faced (some the same as now, some different), and he carried himself with a . . . I don't know if "dignity" is the right word, but maybe, certainly a level of gravitas that is definitely absent in Sarah. I think that people who don't want to hear this are in a bit of denial, maybe even wishful thinking. I'm not sure. But I do know that I'm done pussy footing around on this issue.

JACG is correct, people who aren't totally in the bag for Palin are indeed demonized and attacked (in a way far too reminiscent of the Alinsky-style attacks on Sarah herself. There's some irony for you.). I've had people "unfollow" me on Twitter and "unfriend" me on FB for saying that I don't think Sarah is a good choice for 2012. It doesn't bother me, but it's symptomatic of the kind of emotion that pervades any discussion of her. And it does happen, and it happens a lot. There's a post at Pajama Media right now that has about a hundred comments on it that if you substitute "Obama" for "Sarah" (or "Palin"), you'd swear you were reading crap from koolaid-swilling Obots circa 2007-2008.

Fuzzy Slippers said...

heh, you know me, going on and on . . .

And 2.) the MSM is, as you note, going to be a problem for any republican, and that, to my mind, is all the more reason to select someone who will not be chum in the water for them. Especially as we cannot all get enthusiastically behind Sarah, and we can't. That's us, we on the right, conservatives. Many of us may love her, think she's great for the Tea Party, great for the GOP (nothing like shaking them up to get them back to core principles), great for America. That does not mean she should be president. After four years of BO, I think we'll all want someone in whom we can have confidence, and I just don't have that in Sarah. Not that here's my country (its damaged, divided self--BO has done all he can to create race and class divides that will need to be bridged--and its failing economy), its crap position in the world thanks to BO, and a range of incredibly dangerous situations that BO has destabilized (does anyone not think that someone's going to be dropping nukes in the next few years?) . . . you handle it Sarah. Um. No.

Which brings me to the other point about it being only the far left who do not see her as presidential material. That's fantasy. We all know that indies hate her (or think of her as a bit of a joke--either way, not a resounding endorsement). There's probably nothing she can do to win them over because it's HER that they don't like. God knows, again as you point out, we've been drenched in Sarah morning, noon, and night, and while most people aren't as focused on this stuff as we are, it's more than enough for people to form an opinion (most of which was formed way back and will not change). Think about it, is there anything, ANYTHING, that BO can say or do to make you vote for him in 2012? Well, that is the exact feeling that the majority of people have toward Sarah. It just is.

Soloman said...

Fuzzy - part 1 of 2:

I would not "unfriend" or "unfollow" you over a Palin discussion, or really any other topic over which we did not see eye to eye. IMHO that's childish, and if people have done that to you in the past, I'd say you're better off without them. We can agree to disagree, that's gonna happen from time to time, true?

Now -

From my own post and my own comments in this very thread:

"Mrs. Palin may be Facebooking and Tweeting statements that she does not completely generate on her own"

"I don't care if Sarah Palin runs for president"

"It's outlandish that people think she should get special treatment"

"As I said in my post - I don't care if she runs or not. I've not decided who I would support in the Republican Primary. It may be her, it may not. Actually, at the moment I'd probably lean more toward Mitch Daniels than anyone else, because he is a proven commodity in the administrative arena, having governed Indiana out of the abyss, who believes (as I do) that social issues do not need to move to the forefront (which is where I take issue with Pence, Huckabee, and even Palin). But to be honest, I don't know enough about Daniels to say, so I'm refraining from commitment at this time."

"JACG is correct; no matter how she tries, Palin is losing the perception game - partially on her own, and mostly thanks to media bias, but she has to be better than the media bias if she plans to succeed."

"Again, I'm not saying Palin is the reincarnation of Reagan, and I don't even know that I'll support her through the primary process."

"It's up to Palin to change the perception."

"When her points are valid and she presents them well, she just might win the perception battle. The MSM will be of no help whatsoever, so she's got to be 100% on her game.

If she can't stop speaking in circles, she's in for a tough haul. I admit I have trouble sometimes keeping up with what she's saying. People who don't pay much attention until 2 weeks before they vote will never take to her if she doesn't learn to consolidate her thoughts.

She needs to lower her exposure after this book tour is over - she's everywhere, all the time, and she's in danger of burn-out, even with centrists."

"Not that we should be all positive, all the time, mind you"

Soloman said...

Part 2 of 2:


I'd like to know exactly when I proved myself to be one of the "you and others who support Palin keep saying is that she's 1.) like Reagan, and 2.) the MSM and far left are her only concerns?"

I wrote this post originally not in support of Palin as a presidential candidate, but as a commentary about the media. It seems, however, that now it is I who am being targeted incorrectly - Alinsky style. Please - re-read everything I wrote. Read the post again, and read all my comments. And again - please tell me at what point I indicated that I am an ardent Palin supporter?

I will say this again, since it was clearly missed the first time: I don't care if Palin runs or not. If she does, I don't know that I would or would not support her. I don't mean to repeat myself, but right now I'm more interested in a candidate who will not bring social issues to the forefront, and we all know with Palin that abortion will be a front-line issue, whether by her doing or by the instigation of the media.

At no time have I made direct comparisons between Palin and Reagan, in the sense that I have never called Palin the second coming. In fact, I literally said, "I'm not saying Palin is the reincarnation of Reagan."

What I have said is that it is uncanny, the similarities between the political landscape that brought Reagan to his presidency, and what we face today, and that Palin is the one character in the modern landscape that most closely resembles Reagan, in the sense that she is a target of the left and the right, she literally stole the stage from McCain just as did Reagan from Ford in '76, and that she has an incredible uphill climb if she wishes to reach both the nomination and the presidency.

And I'll say it again - one more time, just to be perfectly clear - I don't necessarily support Palin today. In fact, to be absolutely clear - again - I support nobody specific today.

What I support today is a strong, clearly defined debate amongst all who believe they can lead America in the way that Obama is not leading America. That group may or may not include Palin. I believe her participation in that type of debate would only strengthen the eventual Republican nominee, because as you mentioned, "nothing like shaking them up to get them back to core principles."

I know that many (and it seems that would include you and JACG) would prefer she not even participate in the primary process. I understand your reasons, but I disagree. If she is not strong, she will not win the nomination.

Emotional voters are not going to push her over the top - the rest of us are too wise to allow that to happen, I believe. I have a lot of faith in the conservative electorate right now that we will do the right thing, and if that means leaving Mrs. Palin in her current role of Fox News Channel contributor and Facebook commenter, we'll see to it that is the case.

However, if she is strong enough to win the nomination over the likes of Pence, Daniels, Gingrich, Romney, Barbour, and a host of others?

Well, then I would say we might all be wise to get damned excited about her, or it's four more years of Barack Hussein Obama.

Fuzzy Slippers said...

Heyas Sol, whoa, slow down there, Champ. I am not attacking you in any way, certainly not Alinsky-style. You were defending Palin (as I too often find myself having to do), and you were certainly making comparisons between her and Reagan (not saying she's Reagan reincarnated or whatever, but making the comparisons nonetheless).

Bottom line, she's divisive. And if she's divisive HERE, of all places--amongst conservatives, then it's a pretty good bet that she's divisive nationally and across the ideological spectrum. The last thing this country needs is more division.

I, personally (can't speak for JACG), don't really know how I feel about her running in the primary. There is a danger in that, she may win that and then get beaten in the general (what I think would happen if she ran against BO). If she can somehow bring the primary candidates more to the right (ditch the Romneys, McCains, and other RINOs, while weeding out the conservatives that are just as divisive as she is), that's one thing, but I don't think that's going to happen.

FIREBIRD said...

her innocuous comment wasn't nearly are revealing as Obama's remark that he'd visited 57 states... but the press missed his completely - perhaps because vetting a candidate hadn't been invented before the 2008 election... excellent post, BTW

Soloman said...

Fuzzy,

Slow down I will..

I almost said, as I wrote that reply, that I was about to come off a little rough, hostile, even defensive. I believe you gave me fair reason, to take a defensive position, but I also now believe I understand where your perspective comes from.

You gotta see - IMO, you labeled me as part of the kool-aid drinking "Sarah is the Messiah" when you said, "one thing that you and others who support Palin keep saying."

Now you're willing to add yourself to the list of people who defend Palin - but at that moment as I read your words that wasn't part of the equation. Of course I know you're not a Palin-hater, but I simply took things at face value.

Thereofore, it may not have been your intent to label me a kool-aid drinker, but those are your words, and I had no other way to take them than as you used them.

Then you also said:

"JACG is correct, people who aren't totally in the bag for Palin are indeed demonized and attacked (in a way far too reminiscent of the Alinsky-style attacks on Sarah herself. There's some irony for you.)."

So by referencing my discussion with JACG, and having already (by my perception) labeled be a Palin kool-aid drinker, I was taken by surprise, because not only have I never been that kool-aid drinker, but I had not (again, IMHO) attacked JACG or you.

So quite simply, I didn't understands where the heck you were coming from with all that.

However, to read your comments on your own Palin post, and specifically the ones in reply to JACG regarding the hostilities on other, larger blogs where the kool-aid drinking, "Mmm, Mmm, Mmm, Palin" types apparently troll in abundance, I think it has all become much more clear.

So - can we kiss and make up now? heh...

Bottom line - I think you'd agree that we're much in agreement. She's got her strong points, she's definitely got her weaknesses, and it's far too early to know much more than that.

Soloman said...

Firebird -

I don't think his 57 states comment meant anything at all... he was thinking about a cheesburger, and of course we know he doesn't like mustard...

And vetting candidates happens all the time. Ask anyone who has ever run as a Republican!

Just a conservative girl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Just a conservative girl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Just a conservative girl said...

Sol:
I am not saying that you are a Palin kool aid drinker, I think that what Fuzzy and I are saying is that they exist. Personally, they scare me because it is based on emotion and not on fact. Not unlike what happened with Obama two years ago.

In my referencing Les' posts were not the posts themselves but the comments. You are correct they were not removed but back dated because they upsetting regular readers. Do you see what I am saying?

People act like children when it comes to Palin. I have had about enough of it. There is not one reputable poll that says she can beat Obama. While yes it is two years away, the reality is that Palin has total name recoginition. The needle is not going to move too much at this point. The vast majority of the voting public have their minds made up about her. Human nature is that you will take the known over the unknown. If the economy starts to improve, Obama will be harder to beat.

The media is biased against the right, what about that is news? It has been that way for long time and won't be changing anytime soon. But, the media hated Dubbya and he was able to get reelected. It can be overcome, I just don't think that Palin is the one that can overcome it.

My only goal is nominate someone that has a realistic chance at beating Obama.

Now, I am not saying that I would vote for Obama over Palin, nor am I saying that I will sit at home and not vote. But, I have read Palinistas that said they will. They would rather have four more years of Obama than vote for say someone like Daniels or Pence? That is the conservative version of Palin Derangement Syndrome.

My fear is that no matter how she performs she will get the nomination anyway and lose the general election. We need to take emotion out of it and deal with the cold hard fact that this country cannot take another term for President Obama. That and only that has to be our goal.

Fuzzy Slippers said...

Sol, you took something that I was saying far too personally and didn't address my points at all. That's find, but it's (again) the same thing that we see over and over when it comes to any discussion of Sarah Palin.

When I said that I defend Sarah, I certainly don't mean that I make a case for her as a serious candidate for 2012. I have never done that and almost certainly never will. Even if she is stupid and selfish enough to run in 2012, I will not "support" her, I will simply vote against BO. I don't defend Sarah to conservatives, either. The only time that I defend Sarah is when people say things about her that are patently untrue (and there is a looooooong list of things that people say about her that are untrue) or mistakenly think that she said something that was actually said by that old shrew on SNL.

As for kissing and making up, well, sure. But I was never upset with you, and you completely misread my comments here. I meant nothing in them at all and was commenting (somewhat generally, actually) on what I see on the right in regards to Sarah. I'm sorry that you took it so personally, but that was never my intent.

JACG is right again in her comment above about Sarah and the crazies who blindly support her without giving any acknowledgment that they are a minority, that Sarah has just about no chance of beating BO (and certainly not if the economy improves). What does she know about foreign policy? What does she know about diplomacy? What does she know about meeting with world leaders and not sounding like she's perpetually peppy and rather naive? There is something simplistic and sweet about her that we all love, but the world is a total mess, America is sinking almost daily (economically, diplomatically, and in every conceivable way), and she is just not my first (or thirtieth) choice for someone who can cope with all that. I would love to see her on the Republican 2012 president's energy team (she knows a great deal about energy and America's natural resources--well, that may be being too generous, she knows a lot about Alaska's natural resources), but I wouldn't want to see her as Secretary of State much less as head of state.

I hope and pray that she doesn't decide to run, that she recognizes that her best contribution/s to America are in continuing to support conservative candidates, continuing to defend America in the face of the attacks from BO and his traitorous horde, continuing to bear the brunt of the lunatic leftie attacks, continuing to do exactly what she is doing. For many many years to come.

Soloman said...

JACG - 1 of 2:

I understand that Palin kool-aid drinkers exist, and I can see how they'd be detrimental to a rational conversation.

I never thought you called me such. If I misunderstood Fuzzy's words, so be it - let's move on.

We can't see facial expressions and hear inflection of voice as we read each others written words, so these mis-communications may happen between us from time to time.

I can't say that I noticed anything different about the comments on LCR. If people are fanatically upset because Les said something negative about her, then they are the fools - just like Obama-bots, agreed.

And if those posts were moved "back-blog" for that reason, than that blog owner has made his choice, and I respectfully disagree with that decision.

To worry so much about being controversial is silly - that's how newspapers end up pandering to big government and we end up electing the same idiots time and time again. Do what feels good, not what's in sound judgment. No thank you.

And therein also lies the debate about Palin and the Palinistas, to a large extent.

I wholeheartedly agree - priority #1 is the ouster of Obama in 2012.

If there are idiots out there that are so fanatical about Palin that they would sit out the vote and allow Obama the chance for reelection, that's pathetic & hypocritical to say the least.

I've not dealt with those types to the level you and Fuzzy clearly have, but I don't go to many of the larger blogs.

Regarding my personal choice from the right? I'll vote for any of the above, as long as it's not Obama. As I've said before, as of today I'm not sure who I believe fits my belief system and ideals most closely, but we've got plenty of time to vet the possible candidates.

I'll reiterate - I understand that many have the fear of Palin, in the respect that they (you) are worried she can't beat Obama. But that could be true of anyone.

I know she's got all the negatives out there about her right now - I get it. But Pence might be seen as too far right on social issues, and Romney's got that Mormon issue and Romney-care. Gingrich is loaded with baggage, and Huckabee is Southern Christian, is a Fox News host, and many conservatives see him as too much the big-government prog type. Jindal, if he runs, looked weak in the SOTU response last year, and while he may be a great governor, I don't think he comes across as formidable enough. He's got that softish voice and a smallish stature... but then, that also just might be what benefits him. Hard to say...

Soloman said...

JACG - 2 of 2:



I'd agree more to Fuzzy's point; perhaps Palin is not the best person to beat Obama, meaning the person we should most wish for, because as "adorable" as she is with her quirky behaviors and all, she does come across as a bit of a dimwit.

Whether she is a dimwit is not for me to say, but she does sometimes seem to struggle with some easy questions. She should have just said I don't read a lot of major publications, for example - honesty would have been better than fumbling around.

On the other hand, she has proven to be a quick study, which is why I refuse to rule out the possibility that she could beat BHO. It was suggested early after the 2008 that she needed to go home, work on her mannerisms (like talking in circles) and most of all study policy.

I know it's easy to look like you know policy when you have the chance to think about it before you post on Facebook, but each time she does these posts she learns, and her understanding of the issues seems to be strengthening.

Is she being helped? Perhaps.

But.. one of the worst thing about Obama's presidency, IMHO, is his ability to build a competent team of people around himself. I think Palin is the opposite - I think she understands very well that she's not completely capable, and that to succeed she needs a strong support system.

That's the type of thing I think we all saw in her that we liked when she first came on the scene. As opposed to the narcissist Obama, we have the rather confident, yet clearly more humble, woman who understands what it is to work with a team to get the job done, how to learn from an experience (or a mistake), and how to rally people with actions rather than soaring rhetoric.

And while I'm not pasting Palin bumper stickers all around town, that's what I would have faith in - were she to win through the primary. And I would hope and expect that anyone with a brain would gladly have her over Obama - again, maybe not as the first choice, but between her and Obama? Definitely the better choice.

Soloman said...

Fuzzy - 1 of 2:

We've resolved the "took it too personally" issue by now, I think.

I thought I addressed your points - if I didn't, and you'd like me to discuss something specific - please, by all means let me know.

If you don't believe Palin can even contend against Obama 1-on-1, that's your opinion. Again - at this time, today, I don't believe I can make that call.

You said if she were to somehow move through the primary, you would simply "vote against Obama," rather than "supporting" Palin.

I don't feel the same. Not so much that I would be all bubbly about Palin, per se, but I would actively speak out on her behalf. I would consider making phone calls, and I would definitely contribute to her campaign. Anything I could do to help oust Obama, and I'd be very disappointed if she lost - not because it was her, but because it meant 4 more years of what we're suffering now.

Now if what I describe myself doing in that case fits your definition of "simply voting against" Obama, then I misunderstand your process, because in my mind to "simply vote against" means not lifting a finger until election day, and then casting a begrudging vote - kinda like what we all did for McCain in '08.

The most important thing I know we all agree upon is that our decision to support anyone from the right must be made from logic, not emotion, and that once the primary is over, we must support whomever is standing from the right.

As I said in my reply to JACG, perhaps I don't deal with the rabid Palin freaks as much since I don't peruse the larger blogs. I've cut back my time on the 'net a ton in general, and when I'm not writing my own or reading the few like yours and JACG that I do still keep up with, I spend a lot of time on HuffPo, because it helps me sharpen my debating skills and keeps me informed on what the enemy (gasp!) is saying.

Now I'll admit that over there I see a lot of what they call "trolls" who act rabid about Palin, but I figured that was just because they're from the right and they're in moonbat leftist-land, so they came across over-the-top for that reason. Maybe this discussion with you and JACG is teaching me something new that I wasn't completely aware of about Palin "true believers."

Soloman said...

Fuzzy - 2 of 2:

Regarding your questions about what she knows about foreign policy, diplomacy, and meeting with world leaders? I can't say I have all the answers to your questions. I know this: she wouldn't go overseas and make speeches that appear to appease radical fundamentalists who want to blow us up. She wouldn't put her hand on the shoulder of The Queen. I'm guessing she'd study in preparation enough to know to curtsy, but not bow, to leaders of some nations if appropriate, and I'll bet she would never shake hands with and accept an anti-America book from Hugo Chavez.

Does that make her any better than our other conservative choices? Probably not. Can she stand toe-to-toe with the leaders of Middle Eastern nations in a debate over oil prices? Maybe, maybe not. I'll bet she wouldn't grovel, like Obama and GWB have both done, in trying to get them to keep their price per barrel down.

Can she go to China or other Asian nations and negotiate positive deals for both parties, instead of coming home with nothing and appearing so weak that it's suspected Kim Jong Il is saber-rattling because your visit was so pathetic?

I don't know. I'll bet, though, that she'd have a competent team of advisers who would help her walk into those meetings prepared to negotiate strongly and not come away looking like a patsy.

Maybe I expect too much, and maybe I'm way off base. Like I said to JACG - the one thing I know she has is that executive experience, and I do think she understands how important a support system is to her success. That's one thing this current narcissist definitely lacks.

So while I'm not going to hope and pray she doesn't run, I'm not going to hope and pray she does, either.

I completely agree that her very best role might be exactly where she is right now, and I'd honeslty be thrilled if that's where she decided to stay, because then we wouldn't have to deal with the sideshow that the media would make of her.

(I say that as Olbermann bashes Palin and Jan Brewer, literally as I write the previous sentence. Prophetic?)

I'm simply going to watch the field. In the primary, if it matters by the time they get to AZ, I'll cast my vote for whomever I believe is the strongest candidate, based on all the information I have before me. And in the general, I'll do anything I can do for the person running against Obama, because even if it is Palin, (or Huckabee or Romney who I really don't want) we must vote him out of office.

Soloman said...

Just a thought - a direct quote from Les, from his own blog (Rational Nation USA), not from LCR where he cross posts:

"Should that become the choice, Palin or Obama, I shall abstain fro casting a vote for President.

Call it a protest vote, but the reality is Palin will result in assuring the "Great Impostor's" reelection."


And therefore he would prefer to contribute to Obama's reelection by abstaining, rather than at least voting for the "lesser evil."

I stand by my original statement, JACG - he has it in for Palin.

He'll say "I like her," in one breath, but say this in the next.

To abstain and allow - and actually, in that case, actively contribute to, Obama's reelection?

Well, it's his choice... I just happen to think it's an irrational one.

Especially for someone who calls his blog "Rational Nation USA."

For Your Eyes Only said...

Sarah Palin tells it like it is, no other way.

Teresa said...

Aren't there 57 Islamic States? That's what I heard recently.

I think counting Palin out and calling her unelectable is a huge mistake. The same thing happened to Reagan and look how he turned out. Ford is one person who called Reagan unelectable: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,924192,00.html

Plus, think about how the political landscape has changed since 2008. Have some peoples' eyes been opened to the radicalism and big government Leftist mentality of Obama? I would say Yes. People were looking to vote for anyone who wasn't Bush or Bush-like and they gave Obama a chance because of his postpartisan "hope and change" mantra. Obama has been anything but bipartisan and/or postpartisan. He has probably been the most divisive president in recent times.

I am open to a number of possible presidential candidates but I am still very much open to Palin running for president.

Soloman said...

Teresa -

As a matter of fact, there are indeed 57 member states of the "Organisation of The Islamic Conference.

But let's not discuss that, of course... that's an Obama mis-speak, and they never really happened.

I don't know if you read through these comments. As much as some people believe there are positive reasons to wish for a Palin presidency, there have been some very valid concerns about the idea.

There are some very good reasons to prefer that she maintain exactly the position she has right now - sniping in from the sidelines at anyone who does not hold true to the integrity of The Constitution, or who does wrong by Americans.

I raised some of what I see as positive comparisons between Palin and Reagan. Fuzzy has also brought to the discussion some very important differences, and to be realistic we can't base our decision about who should be president on their similarity to a past president of whom we have fond memories.

I do agree with you about the change in the landscape since '08. I also, though, believe the media machine will do all it can to relive the mistakes Palin has made.

Issues like the Couric interview, which was truly awkward, and leaving her office, which they have warped more into her being a "quitter" than reporting the truth about the unsubstantiated legal claims filed against her that were costing Alaskans a small fortune, may be very difficult for her to overcome.

And of course there's the Tina Fey thing, which used to be funny until she recently went overboard at that acceptance speech she gave for an award she received.

You mentioned divisiveness - Obama is undoubtedly the most intentionally divisive president - perhaps ever. While others, including George W. and Reagan have irritated the left and the likes of Carter and Clinton have irritated the right, none of them have done so with what appears to be the purposeful nature we've seen from Obama.

And as I say that, I realize that is one other thing to be concerned about with Palin. She has right now a good role as an antagonist of the MSM, but that also could become a problem moving forward.

She might not know how to quit.

And if there's one thing we don't need in The White House, it's another crybaby who whines all the time about the media they don't like.