tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post1946101725769805867..comments2024-01-09T09:45:48.706-07:00Comments on The Wisdom of Soloman: Did Sarah Palin Mis-Speak? The Left Is "All We-Weed Up" Over "Our North Korean Allies"Solomanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12934220245789538762noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-56298313384535619792010-12-03T20:46:38.592-07:002010-12-03T20:46:38.592-07:00Teresa -
As a matter of fact, there are indeed 5...Teresa - <br /><br />As a matter of fact, there are indeed 57 member states of the "<a href="http://www.oic-oci.org/member_states.asp" rel="nofollow">Organisation of The Islamic Conference</a>. <br /><br />But let's not discuss that, of course... that's an Obama mis-speak, and they never really happened.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />And of course there's the Tina Fey thing, which used to be funny until <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/16/tina-fey-mark-twain-speech_n_784178.html" rel="nofollow">she recently went overboard at that acceptance speech she gave for an award she received</a>.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />She might not know how to quit. <br /><br />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.Solomanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12934220245789538762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-14824000973578667072010-12-03T16:44:50.431-07:002010-12-03T16:44:50.431-07:00Aren't there 57 Islamic States? That's wha...Aren't there 57 Islamic States? That's what I heard recently. <br /><br />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<br /><br />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. <br /><br />I am open to a number of possible presidential candidates but I am still very much open to Palin running for president.Teresahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16040553825059591114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-1452089187992282282010-12-01T18:03:04.148-07:002010-12-01T18:03:04.148-07:00Sarah Palin tells it like it is, no other way.Sarah Palin tells it like it is, no other way.Sensitive Information For Your Eyes Onlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11868481637360006330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-20996636192390143602010-11-30T22:10:04.786-07:002010-11-30T22:10:04.786-07:00Just a thought - a direct quote from Les, from his...Just a thought - a direct quote from Les, from his own blog (Rational Nation USA), not from LCR where he cross posts:<br /><br /><i><a href="http://rationalnationusa.blogspot.com/2010/11/another-sarahs-misstep-and-she-wants-to.html#comments" rel="nofollow">"Should that become the choice, Palin or Obama, I shall abstain fro casting a vote for President.<br /><br />Call it a protest vote, but the reality is Palin will result in assuring the "Great Impostor's" reelection."</a> </i><br /><br />And therefore he would prefer to contribute to Obama's reelection by abstaining, rather than at least voting for the "lesser evil."<br /><br />I stand by my original statement, JACG - he has it in for Palin. <br /><br />He'll say "I like her," in one breath, but say this in the next.<br /><br />To abstain and allow - and actually, in that case, actively contribute to, Obama's reelection?<br /><br />Well, it's his choice... I just happen to think it's an irrational one.<br /><br />Especially for someone who calls his blog "Rational Nation USA."Solomanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12934220245789538762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-89350003711444642972010-11-30T21:37:07.264-07:002010-11-30T21:37:07.264-07:00Fuzzy - 2 of 2:
Regarding your questions about wh...Fuzzy - 2 of 2:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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? <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>(I say that as Olbermann bashes Palin and Jan Brewer, literally as I write the previous sentence. Prophetic?)</i><br /><br />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.Solomanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12934220245789538762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-10993539927117320052010-11-30T21:36:03.809-07:002010-11-30T21:36:03.809-07:00Fuzzy - 1 of 2:
We've resolved the "took...Fuzzy - 1 of 2:<br /><br />We've resolved the "took it too personally" issue by now, I think. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />You said if she were to somehow move through the primary, you would simply "vote against Obama," rather than "supporting" Palin. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The most important thing I <i>know</i> 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. <br /><br />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 <i>(gasp!)</i> is saying.<br /><br />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."Solomanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12934220245789538762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-54317129294708319972010-11-30T20:54:33.935-07:002010-11-30T20:54:33.935-07:00JACG - 2 of 2:
I'd agree more to Fuzzy'...JACG - 2 of 2:<br /><br /><br /><br />I'd agree more to Fuzzy's point; perhaps Palin is not the <i>best</i> 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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <i>study policy.</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />Is she being helped? Perhaps. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Solomanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12934220245789538762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-51955170800377857282010-11-30T20:53:33.394-07:002010-11-30T20:53:33.394-07:00JACG - 1 of 2:
I understand that Palin kool-aid d...JACG - 1 of 2:<br /><br />I understand that Palin kool-aid drinkers exist, and I can see how they'd be detrimental to a rational conversation.<br /><br />I never thought you called me such. If I misunderstood Fuzzy's words, so be it - let's move on. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 <i>feels</i> good, not what's in sound judgment. No thank you.<br /><br />And therein also lies the debate about Palin and the Palinistas, to a large extent.<br /><br />I wholeheartedly agree - priority #1 is the ouster of Obama in 2012. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 <i>be</i> 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...Solomanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12934220245789538762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-42757310399983751852010-11-30T01:46:06.122-07:002010-11-30T01:46:06.122-07:00Sol, you took something that I was saying far too ...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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Fuzzy Slippershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13021615731454709413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-27828302349692777522010-11-30T00:50:42.727-07:002010-11-30T00:50:42.727-07:00Sol:
I am not saying that you are a Palin kool aid...Sol:<br />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. <br /><br />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? <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />My only goal is nominate someone that has a realistic chance at beating Obama. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Just a conservative girlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11982406297072353275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-41989093115946063332010-11-30T00:50:20.534-07:002010-11-30T00:50:20.534-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Just a conservative girlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11982406297072353275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-12995170860168964372010-11-30T00:50:01.439-07:002010-11-30T00:50:01.439-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Just a conservative girlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11982406297072353275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-90661824717383282982010-11-28T18:22:05.379-07:002010-11-28T18:22:05.379-07:00Firebird -
I don't think his 57 states comme...Firebird - <br /><br />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... <br /><br />And vetting candidates happens all the time. Ask anyone who has ever run as a Republican!Solomanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12934220245789538762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-12335185412135688972010-11-28T18:20:18.238-07:002010-11-28T18:20:18.238-07:00Fuzzy,
Slow down I will..
I almost said, as I ...Fuzzy, <br /><br />Slow down I will.. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />You gotta see - IMO, you labeled me as part of the kool-aid drinking "Sarah is the Messiah" when you said, <i>"one thing that you and others who support Palin keep saying."</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Then you also said:<br /><br /><i>"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><br /><br />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.<br /><br />So quite simply, I didn't understands where the heck you were coming from with all that.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />So - can we kiss and make up now? heh... <br /><br />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.Solomanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12934220245789538762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-37373408694793454952010-11-28T14:54:03.358-07:002010-11-28T14:54:03.358-07:00her innocuous comment wasn't nearly are reveal...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, BTWFIREBIRDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01379814857388579908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-90858836559939609432010-11-28T10:51:32.750-07:002010-11-28T10:51:32.750-07:00Heyas Sol, whoa, slow down there, Champ. I am not...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). <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Fuzzy Slippershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13021615731454709413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-47878681119898866552010-11-28T02:14:34.076-07:002010-11-28T02:14:34.076-07:00Part 2 of 2:
I'd like to know exactly when I...Part 2 of 2:<br /><br /><br />I'd like to know exactly when I proved myself to be one of the <i>"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><br /><br />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? <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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>"I'm not saying Palin is the reincarnation of Reagan."</i> <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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, <i>"nothing like shaking them up to get them back to core principles."</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />However, if she is strong enough to win the nomination over the likes of Pence, Daniels, Gingrich, Romney, Barbour, and a host of others?<br /><br />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.Solomanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12934220245789538762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-25887043671381837472010-11-28T02:13:48.230-07:002010-11-28T02:13:48.230-07:00Fuzzy - part 1 of 2:
I would not "unfriend&q...Fuzzy - part 1 of 2:<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Now - <br /><br />From my own post and my own comments in this very thread:<br /><br />"Mrs. Palin may be Facebooking and Tweeting statements that she does not completely generate on her own"<br /><br />"I don't care if Sarah Palin runs for president"<br /><br />"It's outlandish that people think she should get special treatment"<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />"It's up to Palin to change the perception."<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />"Not that we should be all positive, all the time, mind you"Solomanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12934220245789538762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-84418599712479029182010-11-27T21:13:49.893-07:002010-11-27T21:13:49.893-07:00heh, you know me, going on and on . . .
And 2.) t...heh, you know me, going on and on . . .<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Fuzzy Slippershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13021615731454709413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-31368128835208649142010-11-27T21:09:46.294-07:002010-11-27T21:09:46.294-07:00Hi Sol, one thing that you and others who support ...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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 Slippershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13021615731454709413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-42319730750950135352010-11-27T20:41:22.154-07:002010-11-27T20:41:22.154-07:00Part 2 of 2:
Again, I'm not saying Palin is t...Part 2 of 2:<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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." <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Screw that.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />It's up to Palin to change the perception. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Solomanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12934220245789538762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-1580826229341890772010-11-27T20:40:44.180-07:002010-11-27T20:40:44.180-07:00JACG - part 1 of 2...
I don't think you are ...JACG - part 1 of 2... <br /><br />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."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. .<br /><br />If he posts anything positive about Palin, then I'll believe otherwise.<br /><br />BTW - those posts are not taken down from LCR, I just checked. Check <a href="http://www.leftcoastrebel.com/2010/11/palin-polls-weak-13-in-marist-poll.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.leftcoastrebel.com/2010/11/another-sarahs-misstep-and-she-wants-to.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Solomanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12934220245789538762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-91148037116540557962010-11-27T18:01:29.649-07:002010-11-27T18:01:29.649-07:00Sol:
I don't agree that Les has it in for Pali...Sol:<br />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. <br /><br />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.Just a conservative girlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11982406297072353275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-61012180697252898902010-11-26T17:36:46.431-07:002010-11-26T17:36:46.431-07:00All - In case you didn't see it, here's Mr...All - In case you didn't see it, <a href="http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/a-thanksgiving-message-to-all-57-states/463364218434" rel="nofollow">here's Mrs. Palin's reply</a> to the situation.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving Day, and are enjoying your weekend.Solomanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12934220245789538762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965825415349936737.post-1638454289627994922010-11-26T17:36:29.410-07:002010-11-26T17:36:29.410-07:00Fuzzy -
Pushing back indeed, which is why I'...Fuzzy - <br /><br />Pushing back indeed, which is why I'm here discussing it. <br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.Solomanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12934220245789538762noreply@blogger.com