Thanks to Aron Goldman for tipping me off to this.
From Palin’s interview with Greta:
VAN SUSTEREN: How — I mean, you haven’t said you’re going to run. And I’m not going to (INAUDIBLE) but I mean, in the back of your mind, you must think, How can I reach the people who don’t agree with me?
PALIN: Yes.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK? I mean, it’s easy to reach the people that agree with you. How do you reach the people who are a little farther to the left and way far to the left from you?
PALIN: I think that those people are going to start seeing that the direction of our country right now has got to change. And whether they agree with me personally on my values or the — some of the issues that I really grabbed hold of and tried to progress with — whether they agree with that or not, I think what they’re going to agree with is that we have to build a stronger nation economically and in terms of national security.
And the things that I’m standing for, they’re such common sense measures that have to be undertaken in order to get there for America with national security, with the economy. I think they’re going to be agreeing with that. But I’m never going to please everyone. There’s no — there’s no need to even try to please everyone. Some people will — if it comes from me, they’ll automatically not like what the idea is or what the position is.
VAN SUSTEREN: So how do you win over the people that don’t — I mean, who may have that sort of kneejerk reaction, if you want to — if you want to talk to them, if you want to reach them, at least have them consider what you have to say?
PALIN: Well, for instance, the book is a good tool to get — hey, read the book, and if you still don’t like the positions that I take or if you don’t like who I am after reading the book, unfiltered through the media, then so be it. You know, I’m never going to win you over. But at least give me a shot there in trying to figure out who I am, what my record is, what my accomplishments are and what I represent.
And then, Greta, if I can’t please them, I can’t please them. I’m not going to try. I’m not going to change who I am or compromise my positions, my values, in order to placate or to try to get some demographic or some group of people on board with me if they just don’t get it.
Utterly stunning. Is she serious?
A manifesto, Going Rogue was not. But there you have it. If you don’t agree with her now, you’ll never agree with her.
43%’s her ceiling, then?
November 27th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Well, one thing looks certain from the book and from all these conversations. She is running.
November 27th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
This is exactly what is wrong with her worldview. “If only the media wasn’t getting between me and the people, everyone would love me!” Perhas its the message, not the messenger.
November 27th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Translation: “I’m not going to compromise my value set to win over a bloc of voters.”
If only more politicians were so convicted.
November 27th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
2. Perhaps it’s the quality of the message, and the messenger.
November 27th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
The problem with the message of the book is that it’s more of a ‘look how great I am, and look how bad everyone else is’ book than Palin looking forward and instilling confidence that she can lead.
November 27th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
“I’m not going to try.”
That is the scary part of the message.
November 27th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Hmmm… I have reservations about Palin 2012. This quote does not reinforce any of those reservations. I’m still not understanding how this quote translates to Alex’s claim of a 43 percent ceiling. Seems like a stretch to me.
November 27th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
#7 He’s talking about the 43% she got in the last PPP(D) and Rasmussen poll against Obama.
I don’t think the point is wrong though. If one did not come away with a favorable impression of her and her views from reading her book, then there probably isn’t anything she can do to win that person over because every book by a politician is a glorified press release to some extent.
Think about it: if you didn’t come away with a favorable impression about Obama from reading Audacity of Hope (I didn’t), then you’ll probably be never open to him ever because there won’t be any other situation in which the politician can probably convince you otherwise if you remain skeptical after reading his or her book.
November 27th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Alex, I really don’t see how her point is wrong or shocking. Perhaps she shouldn’t have said it because it’s blunt but isn’t she right in reality?
If an American took the time to purchase her book and read her story in her own words and still isn’t ready to at least consider voting for her in a general election, the likelihood of this person changing their opinion later is slim considering that there won’t be as easy an opportunity to change that person’s mind than through a book.
Most voters won’t read her book. But among the “undecideds” who did read it, her hope should be that they became much more favorable to her as a presidential candidate.
Look at it this way: if Obama couldn’t build support among undecideds for his healthcare plan after a primetime speech to a joint session of Cognress, don’t you agree there is no other situation where he can hope to win those people over?
November 27th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
I completely agree with you, Tommy Boy. I guess I didn’t express myself clearly. Bottom line: I don’t see how this quote is shocking.
November 27th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
9 – Are you kidding me?
Did you even read Going Rogue?
It was an autobiography, not a manifesto. She spent a lot of time talking about what she did in Alaska and what she did on the McCain campaign. She used approximately 1/40 of the book talking about potential policy prescriptions.
November 27th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
In 2012 the GOP has a choice, a man with top grades from an Ivy League College who made a fortune in the private sector as a successful businessman and who ran preparations for one of the world’s biggest sporting events and a major state OR a woman whose SAT grades were barely average, who made no particualarly major waves in her career and who was governor of one of the nation’s smallest states. I know which one I would choose – Sarah you should run to replace Oprah, but leave the White House to Mitt!
November 27th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
12 – Are you seriously using her freaking SAT scores from when she was 17 years old as a barometer of whether we should vote for her?
November 27th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
In 2012 the GOP has a choice, a man with top grades from an Ivy League College who made a fortune in the private sector as a successful businessman and who ran preparations for one of the world’s biggest sporting events and a major state OR a woman whose SAT grades were barely average, who made no particularly major waves in her career and who was governor of one of the nation’s smallest states. I know which one I would choose – Sarah you should run to replace Oprah, but leave the White House to Mitt!
November 27th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
#11 Yes, I did read the book.
You seem to be drawing a distinction between an autobiography and a manifesto. Don’t voters cast their ballots on the basis of biography just as much as they do on policy prescriptions? In fact, I’d argue in her case, the autobiography is more important because of the concerns that some have with her experience.
November 27th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
13 – well she hasn’t got a PHD from Harvard since has she!!
November 27th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
14, You must be joking. Good one.
November 27th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
15 – Oh, certainly, the biography matters. A lot, quite frequently.
But it’s awfully boneheaded to say that “I’m not even going to try” to win you over if autobiography isn’t enough, don’t you think?
I mean, for someone like me, especially — someone who more or less approves of her biography but isn’t so sure about her policy prescriptions because of how vague she’s been and the fact that she’s been kind of light on the substance — I mean, I cannot be the only one out there. And I’m pretty far right, in general. Someone in the center who is on the fence is going to want substance. And she hasn’t given it. Judging by this quote, she isn’t going to.
November 27th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
I think our current president has proven that a degree from Harvard isn’t quite enough, HYUFD.
November 27th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
#18 It depends on what she means by “I’m not even going to try.”
Let’s try this statement:
If you at least wouldn’t consider voting for her after taking the time to read her book, how likely is it that you would consider voting for her at some other time?
The statement is limited to those who read her book. If you aren’t open to voting for her from reading about her political and personal biography, why would you be open to her when/if she writes a second book comprised mainly of policy prescriptions (as Althouse says, this book is her “Dreams of my father” and a second book would be “Audcaity of Hope.” I hate the analogy, but I think it’s reasonable to look at it in that fashion).
November 27th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
20 – Then it’s a dumb statement to begin with. The book is too damn long for people who are not particularly fascinated by her but might just be interested in getting to know her as a prospective candidate.
For someone like me, she might as well say the same thing relating to voting for her in a primary. So I guess she’s not even going to try to win me over into her primary camp?
November 27th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
#21 I think where our disagreement lies is that I interpret her statement as “anyone who reads my book ought to be open to vote for me” whereas you read the statement as “anyone who reads my book should be completely on board with me.”
November 27th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
22 – OK. I can see that. The statement still doesn’t sit well with me, though, especially since it’s weird in the first place — she actually expects skeptics to sit there and read 400 pages about her?
November 27th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Knee-jerk reaction on you and Aron’s part. All she is saying is that she is not going to compromise her beliefs to win votes. This is something that I find attractive in a politician personally.
If you are predisposed to like Sarah, you interpret her statement like Tommy and me. If you aren’t, you interpret it like you and Aron did.
November 27th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I join my voice to HYUFD and say that this is not the time for Palin. I’m not saying she is a bad or stupid person and Im not saying she doesn’t have conservative values.
What I am saying is that at this point she is not qualified to be President of the United States, and should not be seriously considered to be the nominee. She quit before her first term as Governor of Alaska ended, further eroding her credibility.
Also she’s too involved with and supported by the Talk Radio Faction which is another problem. If she was the nominee, i can see the democrat’s ads now “A vote for Palin is a vote for Limbaugh”. And given the weak leadership of our party right now, I’m not sure we could defend against such a charge.
November 27th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
If Sarah wants a role model for overcoming negatives, she should turn to Hillary Clinton. Hillary didn’t write off people who thought she was unelectable following the Clinton administration. She ran for Senate and famously conducted listening tours. She became an expert on the issues. Her unfavorables have dropped considerably and it wasn’t her book that turned things around.
November 27th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
24. She said it, and it didn’t sound right. That’s the problem with Palin as of right now. Everything she says and does is picked apart to the extreme. Like the other day when she was talking about the settlements in Israel. Suddenly she’s referring to the end times? Come on. Palin was just trying (and failing) to answer a simple policy question. She rambled on in hopes of finding a point.
A lot of the time, she’s just BSing it.
November 27th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
19 – No, but it is not as if Palin has achieved much elsewhere in her life. Reagan and Ike did not have Ivy League degrees like Ford, Bush Snr and W or the IQ of Richard Nixon but Ike was Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe and even Reagan had made it to Hollywood stardom, the presidency of the Screen Actors Guild and governor of the nation’s largest state for two full terms. Palin was a minor-league sports journalist and her most notable appointment to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission lasted less than a year. The fact that she couldn’t stick to the governorship of Alaska, hardly a role on the scale of the California governorship, for a full 2 terms also does not inspire confidence either!
November 27th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
These times are much like a marathon: They tries men’s soles.
/ PUN-ditry
November 27th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
This all has a 2008 Fred Thompson feel to it.
November 27th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
30. Fred was superman, I remember.
November 27th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
25, My friend, didn’t Mitt Romney have the, as you put it – “Talk Radio Faction” last time?
How’d that work out?
November 27th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
I really think you guys are reading WAY too much into this. Do we forget that a lot of the reason people don’t like Mitt Romney is because he seems too much like a snake-oil salesman? Personality has EVERYTHING to do with how most non politically-oriented people vote. That’s why most politicians write biographies first, then policy-oriented books second.
What Sarah Palin is saying is that “If you still don’t like me after I tell you EVERYTHING about my life, after I correct all the wrongs portrayed about me, chances are you never will. So, what’s the point in me wasting my time when I can be doing other, more important things?
I admire her bluntness for actually saying what all politicians are thinking out loud. I actually wish more people would do that. People that pander make me sick.
November 27th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
This is not an irrelevant question. It goes to the heart of whether the Republican party should change to attract new voters. We can’t say, “if they don’t like me by now, they’ll never like me”. That’s a formula for being a permanent minority party. Its at the core of the RINO/Big Tent battle. Sarah Palin has unwittingly expressed the view of some conservatives that they would rather lose than compromise on issues.
November 27th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
It’s not too late to come back into the fold with us 95% of the people AK.
I’m prepared to forgive and forget your fall of madness.
November 27th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
This seems a “best case scenario”, that people would buy the book and wade through 200 odd pages to find out if you like here. Best case because even if you don’t like her in the end, at least she got $4.50 from you.
More likely, and more important than the 2,500,000 who will but a book, is the 100,000,000 people who will not buy the book and continue to hold their opinion that she is not ready for the toughest job on earth.
BTW, I think Obama’s performance as RIC (Rookie in Chief) probably hurts her. This country probably isn’t ready to double down on inexperience and a cult following.
November 27th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
O.K I haven’t read the book.
Having said that, Sarah seems like a nice person, like perhaps a dozen women I have known and worked with over 30-40 years. Average intelligence, good values, some common sense. But what she needs to do , if she wants a full time career in politics, is to do something full time, full term. You can’t just ” get bored ” and leave a political responsibility that people elect you to do. Sarah has a resume that would get ash canned by any senior manager without bothering to waste time in an actual interview. So, she wants to ” Go Rogue”, to avoid the usual track of challenge and accomplishment, problem solving and solution development. Just by- pass the normal track to political achievement and go to the head of the GOP line. It reminds me of folks who don’t want to wait in line to enter the country legally, by applying at the U.S Embassy on Paseo Del Reforma in the D.F. They just want to walk across the border and go to the head of the line.
If Sarah wants to run for President, ask her to do something and actually finish the job, even if she is bored early.
November 27th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
To 34 (asparagus). Very well said.
I’m in the camp of “I liked that statement. It shows she’s strong and convicted”.
But you do raise a very important point about the party. Should we stand firmly on things and alienate new voters, or should we go about it with a big tent approach? I feel we need both. If we don’t stand for anything, how do we gain the respect of the “middle” voters? But if we’re too rigid, how do we expect middle voters to identify with us?
I personally am optimistic this healthy balance is something we’re finding right now. I like the “establishment” GOP’s 7 out of 10 compromise. I feel that’s a good start, as imperfect as the system is.
November 27th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I just found an old transcript of Reagan’s from the 70′s!
JOHNSON: Governor Reagan, what do you have to say about your critics?
REAGAN: Hey, read the book, and if you still don’t like the positions that I take or if you don’t like who I am after reading the book, unfiltered through the media, then so be it. You know, I’m never going to win you over.
JOHNSON: Alright…
REAGAN: If I can’t please them, I can’t please them. I’m not going to try.
November 27th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
If Sarah wants a role model for overcoming negatives, she should turn to Hillary Clinton. Hillary didn’t write off people who thought she was unelectable following the Clinton administration. She ran for Senate and famously conducted listening tours. She became an expert on the issues. Her unfavorables have dropped considerably and it wasn’t her book that turned things around.
Word!
November 27th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I paid 17.50, I’ve read the first 2 chapters, and it got too boring to keep going. Talk about tedious. I will probably finish it sometime, simply because I should. It’s just too much about settling old scores to be that interesting.
Book sales do not translate to support.
November 27th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Speaking of political books, I just purchased John Derbyshire’s latest, entitled “We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism.” Looks like a good read. A review will be forthcoming.
November 27th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
I thought Greta was trying to get Palin to say that she would take her message to the people through the media. Even though her book plays an important role, it’s primarily only being read by to her supporters.
But for now she’s not facing an unfriendly media. She will never be challenged as long as her supporters, and the friendly conservative media, like FOX et.al. are willing to carry her to the finish line. If Palin runs for President, they aren’t doing her any favors by building a shell around her.
Romney & Pawlenty, go on MSNBC and CNN all the time…they recognize that being challenged with tough questions are a good thing and a good way to reach people outside their base.
November 27th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
42 – I read a lot of that in the store. I’m gonna get it when it comes into paperback. As a side note, he’s linked to Race before (a piece of mine on the religious right).
November 27th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
41 – Skip to Chapters 4 and 5 if you want the good stuff. Chapter 1 was a slog and Chapter 2 was only moderately interesting.
November 27th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
A candidate doesn’t have to “win you over” to get your vote. There are people who vote in every election who begrudgingly make “protest” votes. Then, too, there is the obvious larger issue that seems to be escaping the left: the election of 2012 willbe largely determined by how many people think four years was enough for Obama. If his approval rating is in the low 40′s, an opposing candidate with approval in the mid-40′s could get the job done.
The troubling issue for the left is that whites and indies are bailing on Obama. The lofty rhetoric has fallen flat abroad as evidenced by his leaving China without any significant concessions on the part of China. Then,too, there’s his willingness to live with oil at a
$100 a barrell, which we’ll likely see again.
The man is in way over his head and he’s having his legs cut out from under him by incompetent advisors, a voter base more obsessed with taking down Palin than covering his back, and a media that ironically by trying to dispatch Palin is actually making her seem more likeable, viable, and savvy. The left can deny this but in any fight between the left and reality, take reality every time.
November 27th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
46.
That’s all so true.
November 27th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Hey Alex, I’d like to see a book review from you on Tom Coburn’s Breach of Trust next…
November 27th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
asparagus Says:
November 27th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
If Sarah wants a role model for overcoming negatives, she should turn to Hillary Clinton. Hillary didn’t write off people who thought she was unelectable following the Clinton administration. She ran for Senate and famously conducted listening tours. She became an expert on the issues. Her unfavorables have dropped considerably and it wasn’t her book that turned things around.
One of the best comments I’ve ever read on here.
Probably safe to say that Hillary never conducted an interview with turkeys being slaughered in the background either.
November 27th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
This forum is full of RINOs.Your guy Mitt Romney is nice ,highly educated person(so is Barak),
very good business man(so is Jon Corzine,Luttenburg etc,etc.).
SARAH PALIN is the only hope and the only conservative who can defeat Obama,period!
November 27th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
45. Will do.
November 27th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Alex:
Sarah gave an honest assessment of offer and acceptance which is the basis of any contractual arrangement.
If what Sarah offers is not acceptable, there is no bargain and simply no sale or what the lawyers call CONSIDERATION.
I used to be in direct sales. For those of you who are not familiar with the intricacies of direct sales here’s how it works. A sales rep’s job is to beat the bushes (businesses/private residences/institutions) in an attempt to market a product to a service to a POTENTIAL CUSTOMER/CLIENT and in return receives from the purchaser some money (debit/credit card) and/or signs a contract to pay a certain amount of money each month (installments). This is called free enterprise. Millions of transactions like this happen every day.
As a sales rep who works in the field and who approaches potential customers/clients as politicians do on the campaign trail while engaged you soon learn you only have 24 hours in the day, that you have to sleep, and that your clients are only available for certain hours of the day or evening. In my case I usually started by day around 3PM and met with my last prospect at 9-9:30 Pm. So you learn not to waste your time talking to folks who have no interest or need in what you are trying to market. In other words through trial and error and experience you learn to manage your time efficiently and try your best to be always in front of legitimate prospects; after a while through osmosis you figure out who a real prospect is.
Quite simply Alex, Sarah recognizes who a prospect is and who is likely not a prospect. There is nothing stupid, ill-advised or outrageous about dealing with politics in this manner. Why do think the Going Rogue Tour is avoiding NYC, SF, Boston etc-the bigger markets and why Sarah has decided to sign books in smaller towns and cities? Quite simply Alex: she has a higher likelihood of convincing independent conservative fence-sitters in the Ozarks of Missouri to vote for her than the liberal folks that live in the gay section of San Francisco.
You act like Sarah has committed the worst sin imaginable. C’mon, let’s get real. Some will, some won’t, so what. Deal with it and move on. Do you really believe that a flaming lib who reads HuffPo every day and relishes every moment that Sarah is made to look stupid is a likely prospect to vote Palin in 2012?
November 27th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Yeah, but Palin was interviewed by foreground turkeys, too. None were slaughtered. Presumably Palin was unarmed at the time.
November 27th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
#33……Who’s the snake oil salesman here?
Palin spits out some talking points and a very thin resume along with a basketful of gaffes and does that little shimmy, gives off a wink or two, and blows a kiss if you are lucky and then basically says, “Just trust me.”
Romney on the other hand at least tries to communicate how he’s done things in the past and how he wants to work on things in the future…….not to mention that he takes and answers live questions and isn’t afraid to be interviewed by anybody.
Sarah’s a nice person, but if you want to talk “snake-oil salesman,” then you have to go with Palin because we have no idea what she’s really selling…..
November 27th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Calling Sarah Palin a ‘snake oil salesman’ is like calling Lindsay Lohan a model of sobriety. The monikers fit neither lady by a wide margin.
November 27th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
#39……Sounds like Sarah ripped off Reagan…..LOL
November 27th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
#55….bob…..I know you’re a big Palin fan but……
If you really think so…..tell me what we’ll get from her if she becomes POTUS.
And don’t give me any of that “Hope and Change”……sorry…….”common sense ideas”….stuff…..I’ve heard enough fluff to last a lifetime from the present occupant of the WH.
November 27th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
#56:
This is just another sign that Sarah is an expert on Reagan and that unlike Jeb Bush is never going to abandon the Reagan legacy. As she said in her resignation speech, “Politically, if I die, I die.”
Having said that I think Sarah is fully aware this is 2009 and not 1980; she knows the challenges and issues are different now (eg. Islamic terrorism) and so is the technology available to her-thus her use of Facebook, Twitter and the internet.
November 27th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Nothing Jerald, nothing at all except our God-given freedom of choice and free will, free of the nanny state, individual liberty to pursue our own happiness and initiatives under a low-tax free enterprise system and the belief that life is sacred and that under her tenure life will be held sacrosanct and a strict adherence to the Constitution as CIC to protect the nation and its citizens from tyranny.
Other than that I want nothing from Sarah Palin.
November 27th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Bob(#52),
Excellent analysis.Couldn’t say better.When Sarah Palin resigned Governorship of Alaska liberals and stupid,
spineless RINOS proclaimed that she was finished.
Willy Brown,former mayor of San Francisco and top California politician for decades,big,big
liberal,said at the time that Sarah Palin is POLITICAL GENIUS with the best political instict he’s ever seen.
OK libs and RINOS,is SARAH PALIN finished or is she stronger than ever?
I can’t hear you!Wich is it?!!!
November 27th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Dave interviewed Derbs for R4’08:
http://race42008.com/2007/06/12/race42008-interview-with-john-derbyshire/
November 27th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
While searching for Dave’s Derbs interview, I came across this on our 2007 New Year’s Eve prediction thread:
Eerie, isn’t it? That prediction was made almost a full year from the Iowa Caucuses.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
#62:
I agree with that sentiment except when a superstar is in the race. That changes the entire equation, whether it be sports or politics.
Do you think that the Patriots would have any chance in hell to beat the undefeated Saints on MNF if Tom Brady were injured? They’d be blown out. But with Brady performing his magic, I expect the Patriots to take the Saints.
If Sarah were not a superstar she would have no chance in hell of gaining the nomination in 2012. But she is and frankly that is the primary reason why I support her.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
#59….That’s really nice bob…..funny how I think Huckabee, Pawlenty, Romney, and not a few other possible GOP candidates would all do the same for us……
But you know what?…..That’s like just having a nice big road out there…..the action starts when you actually have to get a car and drive……I want some idea of what Sarah’s going to do when she starts driving…….and has to adjust to conditions……make split decisions…..decide what route to take…….and what she’s going to do if that route gets blocked…
There is one year before the 2012 primaries start and then Sarah will have to be ready to show she’s got the right stuff…..the infatuation of a fan base won’t cut it where the rubber meets the road…especially considering the sober reality that if the GOP gets it wrong this time……it means 4 more years of Dear Leader.
And since you like borrowing Reagan quotes, try this one, “I would rather support someone who agrees with me 80% of the time and can get elected than someone who agrees with me 100% of the time but can’t.”
November 27th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Jerald,
You are the best friend liberals have.You and the rest of RINOS never pass a chance to stick knife in
Sarah Palin’s back.
You promote Mitt Romney.I’m not like you,I will not attack Mitt, I will say that Romney is a good man,100 times better than Obama.The problem is,he is liberal Republican(RINO).He can never,ever get
Republican nomination,as long as Sarah Palin is running,and he can never defeat Obama.Only idiots can’t see or don’t want to see that Sarahcuda is running for the White House.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
#63..bob….Your analysis is flawed.
Tom Brady is a superstar because he can PERFORM better than almost anyone else.
Stick Paris Hilton in as QB of the Patriots and see how they do.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
#65…Tex Milan…..Why is it you guys always call other GOPers RINOs and liberals when you don’t know how to answer a question?
I’m very willing to vote for Sarah Palin if I think she’s got the right stuff.
Don’t I have a right to see the goods before I buy?
This attitidude you folks have of “No questions allowed” while condeming all other possible GOP candidates as “damaged goods RINOs” if their positions don’t square 100% with yours is a LOSING strategy.
It will get you ZERO of what you want when you could have gotten at least something better than that.
You folks say all of Sarah’s problems are the fault of the McCain campaign or the drive-by media (I’ll admit the media of mostly not our friend). So I say great…..Come on out Sarah and show us what you are REALLY made of……show us…..don’t just give us jive talk while standing in frieindly waters.
If you thank that makes me a RINO then you are completely clueless.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
#64:
I agree with you on one point. Sarah will have to prove in the 2010 midterms that as you call it that she has ‘the right stuff’. Just because I am a Palinista does not mean I am blind to reality.
For me Sarah does not lack in her resume but I’ll be honest for many fence-sitters and skeptics she does. And of course there’s the quitting meme that is a hangup for many Republicans, conservatives, and independents. What Sarah needs to do IMHO is to orchestrate a huge GOP victory in the 2010 midterms; if she can pull that off I am confident the skeptics and fence-sitters will come around and eventually the quitting meme in GOP circles will become old news and no longer relevant. Quitters don’t help the GOP to massively increase its fundraising, quitters don’t generate so much excitement that the vote turnout for the GOP is overwhelming and quitters don’t work day and night for conservative candidates to see them get elected.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
#66:
Now you’re sinking low. Sarah Palin was has been involved in politics since 1992. She is not a novice or an airhead. Don’t believe that crap that Keith Olbermann, David Schuster, Chris Matthews, Jack Cafferty or David Frum are spewing! Sarah Palin took down a sitting governor in the 2006 primaries and then defeated a former governor in the general election.
Nobody, I mean nobody could accomplish this feat if they were an idiot or a moron. It’s like saying a golfer that won 2 majors in a year just got lucky. Use a little common sense. After all if you are a conservative you do have a functioning brain.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
#65 Tex,
I take a different view. If Romney had been the nominee (with perhaps Huckabee as the VP) Obama would still be voting “present” in the Senate instead of being in the White House.
As for RINO’s I don’t consider Romney one, in fact that title goes for the Talk Radio faction that is doing everything it can to make the GOP look stupid.
CNN has this story today on those wanting to draft Cheney to run on 2012. While I don’t think he is the best candidate, he may be the only one with enough courage to stand up to Limbaugh. That alone would give him some major momentum among conservatives who are tired of our weak leadership pandering to entertainers. Cheney enjoys support among both conservatives and establishment republicans and could be a force to unite the party for 2012 either as the nominiee or as a “kingmaker”.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
#70:
I admit I wasn’t following the 2008 primaries as close as I should, but wasn’t there a moment when McCain was in dire straits and out of money; I always wondered why didn’t Romney finish him off then? After all he’s got all the money in the world. I guess I’m asking why did he allow the maverick to resurrect himself? Perhaps Mitt is just too nice a guy. And remember the old adage, “Nice guys finish last.”
And if he couldn’t finish McCain off, why do you think he can finish Palin off?
November 27th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Tex, you sure must love Obama and his agenda seeing as how you are working so hard to make sure that the GOP loses big time. Keep pounding your retard RINO drum.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
#68…bob…the jury is still out about Sarah quitting the governorship. If she really was being hamstrung and quitting ensured her replacement can win reelection…..then it might have been a stroke of genius……but how Sarah communicates about it and little things like fact-check problems about the actual cost of litigation, etc., don’t help her with that. It’s too early to make a call.
And I don’t think Sarah has to go that far in 2010 to show what she’s made of. For one thing, since so many people are working on the 2010 races, it wouldn’t look good for her to claim responsibility for successes.
All she needs to do is show that she’s got a good handle of the issues, that she can get good people around her, and that she can formulate policy stances, communicate in a convincing way how she intends to implement them, and then be able to defend them off the cuff in interviews, at town halls, and in debates.
She also needs to show that she can actually work with people who don’t agree with her to get the most possible for the conservative agenda.
As we all know, “my way or the highway” doesn’t work in the American political system because it is set up to prevent a take over by dictators.
That may be irritating when politians we agree with are in office, but it is a God-send when people like Dear Leader and his cronies control the WH and both branches of Congress.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Hey Jerald,
Of course Sarah Palin has to prove herself,of course she has to get out and deal with “state controled
media” and beat them in their own game.
But you have to agree that no politician has ever been attacked so savagely and viciously like
Sarah Palin and her family.
She needs time to get in full force.We don’t need people on our side to atack her and help
liberals and “Dear Leader”.
Sarah Palin is super star,she’s the only one that liberals and White House are afraid of.Not
because Mitt Romney,Mike Huckabee and many others are not better than Obama,it’s because Sarah Palin has
unusual charisma and star power,not seen since Ronald Reagan.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
#69……I wasn’t comparing Sarah to Paris…..God forbid.
I was sinking the idea that Sarah will win because she’s a “superstar” unless she’s a superstar because of what she IS and DOES.
Nobody was calling Reagan a superstar until around the time of his landslide reelection win in 1984.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
*Tex Milan:
Your the 4th Palin supporter here tonight that feels a need to put Romney down to make your candidate look good…I have only heard Romney speak of Palin with the greatest respect….and is getting bashed by Palin supporters in the most personal ways…..Isn’t that what Palin and her supporters are complaining the liberals are doing to her?……. You guys are hypocrites.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
#73:
This is where I disagree with you. Sarah has to demonstrate leadership to LEGITIMIZE herself. She has to prove to her supporters and to skeptics that she is a winner. The 2010 midterms are her playoffs. Win there she gets to advance to the championship game in 2011-2012 (final two in the primaries).
All that other stuff is periphery. Sarah has a year to prepare herself for ‘the battle of a lifetime’.
I don’t know what will happen in fall 2010 but I do know one thing-Sarah will not give up; she will fight Obama to the bitter end and she will definitely draw blood and inflict bruises on the Messiah and the Democrats before it is all said and done. I’m betting that Sarah will prevail.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
#74….Yes, but when straight questions from fellow GOPers is considered to be “attacking” we have a problem.
You might have gotten confused with the “snake-oil salesman” post where I was responding to the often repeated wacko meme that Romney is a snake-oil salesman, and I was just explaining to the wacko that he/she/it didn’t understand what the term meant by showing him/her/it how it could be applied to Sarah (he/she/it is a Sarah fan).
Please note that I have never thought of Sarah as a snake-oil salesman.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
#77….I understand bob, but she is not the one running but will be one of many voices out there pushing the conservative cause in 2010, it would be unbecoming of her to try to take credit for successes. But I agree with you that we will be able to recognize her impact, which will be good for her and the GOP.
But I still think she needs to do more than that to show that she can be a leader and not just a cheerleader of the GOP.
Romney has the opposite problem. He is way overboard on the capable leadership side but sorely lacking as a cheerleader.
Reagan was both……that’s why he’s a legend.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
#79:
It is not the question of Sarah personally taking credit for successes in an egotistical fashion but a question of a general PERCEPTION among the ranks of the Right that she was highly instrumental in causing the a gain of 50+ seats in the House and Senate and/or the taking back of one or both houses.
Sarah will not be a cheerleader in this battle for America. Instead I envision her as a battlefield commander, developing strategy, supporting her officers with needed resources (campaigning vigorously for GOP congressional candidates) and rallying the troops (GOTV efforts).
Obama will be on the ground as well full-time while he neglects his presidential duties. It will be a titanic struggle to the end. And it’s only 2010.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Ericf,
Cheney is not conservative,never was in his life.He was always moderate.He worked for Gerald Ford,great friend with Bob Dole,as far as I know never worked or was close to Ronald Reagan.
Cheney became a NEOCON,late in his life.Neocon is moderate or even liberal,Joe Liberman,
Hillary (running under sniper fire in Bosnia)Clinton and many others,who are chicken hawks in foreign and
military policies.It means,attack,bully and bomb any small country that refuses to go along with neocons
“diktat” and can not defend themselves,always in the name of democracy,OF COURSE.
“Dear Leader” would mop the floor with Cheney.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
76. Liberals tear down Sarah and Mike constantly (check out the Daily Kos etc. etc.).
And Romney supporters on THIS site viciously tear down Palin and Huckabee as well.
Why are you doing Obama this favor?
Hmmm…
November 27th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Ummm guys Reagan didn’t say that.
AK was making a point.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
#82. Sounds a bit rediculas for you to say Sarah and Mike are victoms while Romney is not. That is far from the truth. On this site Romney is crucified just as much as anyone else. Stop playing the victom card and man up!
November 27th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
^^^that would be ridiculous
November 27th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
#82…Cry me a river Sarabee……Some Romney supporters tear down Sarah and Mike.
Are you telling me there aren’t at least “some” Huckabee and Palin supporters on this site that tear down Romney or even each other’s candidate?
Do I like it? No. Is it good for the GOP? “Not really.” Will there always be immature people in politics? Yes.
So complain about it if you want, but park the martyr’s mantle at home….
November 27th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Ikv(76),
You are wrong.I have very high regard for Mitt Romney.The man has been succesful all his life,in everything
he’s done,except running for Republican nominee in 2008.If he runs again,he doesn’t have a prayer with
Sarah Palin in the race.In 2008 I was totaly for him.If he was nominee,I’m sure he would win.
Yes,he has very poor killer instinct.He should never let McCain win the nomination.
Yes,last year I was for Romney,I couldn’t stand McCain “my friend”.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
#87;
Since you were a Romney supporter last time, do you think Mitt could have beaten Obama or was the financial meltdown too huge for any Republican to overcome?
Or do you think Mitt would have done better than McCain or worse than him?
November 27th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Kavon, it looks to me that your posting was made dec 31st of 2007, just a couple weeks before the Iowa caucus, not a year before, right?
November 27th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Bob(#88),
If Mitt got the nomination,I’m sure he would beat Obama,under one condition:
When the meltdown hit,if he would react like Sarah Palin would,if she was at the
top of the ticket.McCain killed his chances by going along with the biggest scam
in American history:bailout of the biggest and richest crooks on Wall Street.
If he rejected George Bush,Paulson and the co. scam to help their friends
I firmly believe that he would be President.
I’m also sure that Sarah Palin would never go along with the biggest rip off
in US.Remember,she went after our own Republican crooks in Alaska with vengeance and
put some of them in prison.She IS DIFFERENT,she is uncoruptable.
November 27th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
CR is correct at 89 – t’was a good prediction but McCain was well and truly back in the game on 12/31/07 (and he was the joint front-runner with Rudy a year before Iowa anyway by the way).
He got back in the game from Nov 07 when the surge started working (verifiably) and when Huck took out Mitt in Iowa. It took a perfect storm for Mitt to lose the nomination but it happened.
November 27th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
#90:
At the time quite honestly I thought McCain appeared weak and also completely out of his element. It appeared he was going along with his advisors.
In one of the interviews-I can’t remember which one-I think it might have been with Barbara Walters-Sarah still insisted she went along with McCain on TARP 1 but called it a mistake. This is one time I don’t really believe her. I’m with you. I think she opposed it from the start but she can’t fess up for fear of making McCain look bad.
Romney certainly would have handled the financial meltdown better IMHO but do really believe he could have overcome not only the fallout from the meltdown but also the ‘media malpractice’ of the MSM in hiding Obama’s true nature.
Joel Mowbray in an analysis after the election claimed it was conservatives who originally voted for Bush in 2004 that deserted the Republicans and voted for Obama who put the Messiah over the top-mainly independent conservatives, security moms and Roman Catholics. Assuming this is so, could Mitt have kept these constituencies in the GOP tent? I wonder if the hatred towards Bush was too great for even Mitt to overcome.
November 27th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
#91:
Romney’s front-loading strategy was very risky. True, if he had won Iowa, then New Hampshire, then Michigan, it would have been hard to stop him, but as we saw, that track was frought with peril. Romney’s biggest strategic mistake was ignoring Mike Huckabee until it was too late. I’m betting the Romney folks felt that once Fred Thomspon got in the race, he would have sucked up alot of Huckabee voters and Mitt would have won over a divided field. Romney could have afforded a loss in Iowa if that didn’t foreshadow a loss in New Hampshire. Losing one was bad, but survivable. Losing two was probably fatal.
November 27th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Oh God, we’re bringing up Mittens now!
My opinion on Palin changed from negative to neutral-to-positive.
My opinion on Mittens remains very negative.
November 27th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
you mean,
negative to neutral-to-positive-to-neutral.
November 27th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Bob(#90),
John McCain was horrible candidate.Still,because of Sarah Palin,and only because of Sarah Palin he was
leading right to the moment of “meltdown”.It was crisis,not meltdown.George Bush,Paulson(he should be
in jail and many others)and co. drummed it up as the end of the world.It wasn’t.
As bad as McCain was, it was God sent oportunity for him to reject very,very unpopular George Bush.
He would be a hero,and President.
But noooooo,he’s Johnny the loser.I felt and still feel sory for poor Sarah.She had no choice,
she had to go along with the joker.
November 27th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Our opinion of Alex’s opinion remains very…..
November 27th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
No. That’s not what I mean, actually.
November 27th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Our opinion of Alex’s opinion remains very…..negative to neutral-to-positive-to-neutral.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:34 am
Listen, Palin is a “superstar” if you will, not because people are longing to see her but the media keeps her in the spotlight. Her book, with all the fanfare and whatnot is #1 on the NY Times Best Seller List. Mike Huckabee’s “A Simple Christmas” opened up last week at #3, and this week is tied at #4/5 along with Glen Beck. Over 1,000 people came to see him in one stop in IA (and he had two others); they gave out wristbands for him too and people waited for hours. Same thing in Witchita, Kansas, and all through the south. And again today in Texas. As a matter of fact, over 1,000 people turned out for him in the Villages, Fla == less than that turned out for Palin. People buying A Simple Christmas really want to read it. Many of those buying Palin’s book are curiosity-seekers, gossip seekers, critics looking for negatives, Romney/Pawlenty fans who want to understand their candidate’s potential adversary, many, many, many of the same people who also bought Huckabee’s book and came out to see him (and similarly like her but will not necessarily vote for her over Huckabee) and, of course, devoted Palin fans. I predict that Palin’s book will fizzle out as strongly as it lit up — because, alas, it appears to have offered a hint of scandal, a reservoir for negativity for anti-Palin folks but very little substance. I say “appears” because I am one of those who do not fit into any of the above categories and have no interest in reading her book at all.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Some Will… Some Won’t… So What… NEXT!
Bob – #52 and #58… thanks for the beat-the-bushes reminder… that’s what Sarah Palin is doing during her book tour, beating the bushes just as she did in Wasilla while dragging her children on the sled. From reading her book, Sarah KNOWS how to beat-the-bushes like a pro.
Alex, thanks for your #39 post about Reagan’s 70′s quote about his book. It is pertinent to Palin today, and his sentiment was/is realistic and delightfully poignant.
It reminds me of Palin’s “If I die, I die” comment during her resignation speech… and look at her now; or as Reagan put it,
#39 – REAGAN: If I can’t please them, I can’t please them. I’m not going to try… followed by 2 landslide elections.
The realism of Reagan was not scary in the 70′s, and there is nothing scary with Palin’s point-man and tip-of-the-spear and cutting-edge realist attitude.
It’s the hard-core 20% on the right and the 60% to 70% in the average-American-middle that Reagan was pleased with.
Maybe Palin had Reagan’s success in mind… similar to dragging a sled with children while going house to house and walkin’-knockin’-talkin’… because some will… some won’t… so what… NEXT!
November 28th, 2009 at 12:53 am
Voter(#100)
Your attempt to minimize SARAH PALIN triumph,SARAHCUDA TSUNAMI is pathetic.
Go back under the rock and stay there,or go back home,at Huffington Crap.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:56 am
Alex, thanks for your #39 post about Reagan’s 70’s quote about his book. It is pertinent to Palin today, and his sentiment was/is realistic and delightfully poignant.
LOL!
I was being SARCASTIC with that post.
I just copy-pasted what Sarah said and put it to Reagan, because it is so incredibly goddamn absurd to think that Reagan would have EVER said such a thing.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:10 am
Funny watching all the twitterpated Palin groupies fall for Alex’s “70s Reagan quote” sarcasim. They are so desparate and so clueless.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:21 am
#96 Tex Milan:
Tex, McCain was was actually leading in the polls up until the infamous Coric and Gibson interviews, the banking meltdown, and the realization that both McCain and Palin had no clue of the economic mess we were in. Obama didn’t know either, but he acted like he knew….. But come on, McCain was not a very good candidate, but he is not a loser..He’s a good American and a hero.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:28 am
What’s up with this place?Forum of spineless,worthless RINOS and libtards?!
November 28th, 2009 at 1:33 am
LOL… SARCASTIC… Copy-Pasted…
I was being SARCASTIC with that post.
#39 – I just found an old transcript of Reagan’s from the 70’s… does not look like sarcasm, does it?
How are readers supposed to know what it real or sarcasm… if you don’t tell your readers up front?
You hid your sarcasm very will. So, why were you “hiding” it?
I just naturally trusted you, but I won’t again… ever. You know, it’s that “fool me once” thing.
Of course, if you preface a sarcastic comment up front, that’s cool… but blind-siding is not cool… ever.
From neutral to negative cursing in a blink of an eye…
“… because it is so incredibly goddamn absurd to think that Reagan would have EVER said such a thing.”
However, this is still pertinent -
Maybe Palin’s mindset while on a non-political book tour is privately focused on Reagan’s success in two 90%+ landslide elections.
You know, similar to the mindset that is needed while dragging a wagon with children while going house to house and walkin’-knockin’-talkin’ because with a success oriented mindset that knows that some will… some won’t… so what… NEXT!… future success is enhanced, if not ensured.
Maybe from negative curses to positive accolades is in the future? Who knows?
November 28th, 2009 at 1:39 am
It’s not Alex’s job to help the clueless.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:43 am
#107…..Art….You truly miss the irony of it all.
The people who REALLY know Reagan know that he would never say anything like that. They also just read Alex’s post stating that what Palin was saying was not a winning strategy. Keep in mind Alex is trying to find reasons to support Sarah.
Alex (and others) have also been complaining about the fast and loose use of “just like Reagan” by various supporters, not the least of which are the Palin supporters, so you folks just fell into it headlong.
Lesson learned: Don’t be superfical when jumping for or against somebody based on cyberspace “info”. Do your homework and don’t be a tool.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:44 am
#106…..Yes, that’s it. Name calling will really make the mature-thinking population rally to Sarah……good grief
November 28th, 2009 at 1:46 am
Hidden sarcasm does not help to move conversation forward, and it is not a “job”… it is duplicitous.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:07 am
#109… Egg on face…
The people who REALLY know Reagan know that he was a realist “just like Palin” is a realist… “if I die, I die” is as real as it gets politically.
“Just like Reagan” fits because it is definitely true of Palin (and possibly of Jindal too, we’ll see) and not true of any other Republican, including Huckabee and Newt Gingrich.
“Just like Reagan” is not true for Huckabee because he is a produce of his environment in Arkansas and cut his political teeth in the same political era of Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker.
“Just like Reagan” is not true for Gingrich since the day he said that the era of Reagan is over. It seems that the era of Gingrich is over… but he would make an outstanding Secretary of State in a Palin administration.
With all the Reagan references in Palin’s book, “just like Reagan” is a natural statement that rolls off the tongue easily… because it’s true. The anti-Palin and pro whomever supporters just have to deal with it.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:19 am
#112..”rolls off of the tongue easily”…..kind of like twitterpated
November 28th, 2009 at 2:28 am
“In 2012 the GOP has a choice”
That’s it? Romney or Palin? (We could do worse, we could be stuck between Romney and Giuliani!).
I think you left out a half dozen others who might challenge your limited field.
November 28th, 2009 at 3:25 am
Jonathan wrote (#93) “I’m betting the Romney folks felt that once Fred Thomspon got in the race, he would have sucked up alot of Huckabee voters and Mitt would have won over a divided field.”
He’ll make the same mistake if he thinks Palin will do the same thing. I have not exactly figured out the Huckabee and Palin voters yet, but they are not identical constituents. They could easily finish first and second in Iowa, even with Mitt in. Mitt would be better off to skip Iowa and hope that he wins both New Hampshire and South Carolina. Unless Huckabee and Palin split Iowa and New Hampshire, I doubt if Romney can survive with three second place finishes like he did in 2008.
November 28th, 2009 at 6:12 am
#115:
In terms of evangelicals they overlap somewhat, but Palin does well with independent conservative/libertarian types while Huck does better with working-class/lower-middle class types who go to church every Sunday.
November 28th, 2009 at 6:51 am
Well said David Shedlock. Of course there is some overlap between Mr. Huckabee and Mrs. Palin after all, they are the only two candidates with charisma. However, it is very simplistic to say they have the say constituents. Conservatives may tolerate Mr. Huckabee, but they tend to love Mrs. Palin. Yes, Mr. Romney does a few Conservatives is his camp, but it is fair to say he appeals more to moderates than he did last time. Too be sure it is a cheap shot to call Mr. Romney a RINO, but the fact that Romneyites are more upset with the name calling than the actual name suggests that the repositioning for 2012 has begun. This simply strengthens the resolve of many of we Palinites because of the major viable candidates, she is becoming the only candidate that will actually promote Conservatism. M & M certainly are not liberals, but they are now stuck with having to at least pursue primary voters that are rather to the Left of them.
November 28th, 2009 at 7:16 am
#117:
If Mitt wins the GOP nomination in 2012 it will be as a moderate and not a conservative.
November 28th, 2009 at 7:23 am
That is the sad thing bob. I hope that if Mr. Romney somehow does win, there will be enough Conservatives left in his camp so that he will still govern more as a Conservative.
November 28th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Can we stop with all this nonsense that Sarah Palin:
1)Is going to host her own talk show and be the next Oprah
2) wants to appear in a reality TV show
3) wants is to be the biggest celeb on the planet.
4)only cares about making money on the speech circuit
5)is using politics as a steppingstone to feathering her own nest
Cite the proof. You have none, except that Sarah will be paid by groups wanting her to speak to them. But I think Bill Clinton does that, so does Colin Powell, and so down Condi Rice. That’s what aspiring politicians or out-of-office politicians do. It’s their modus operandi.
The reason the argument is completely off base is celebrity is not what motivates Sarah Palin to get out of bed in the morning. I knows Romney, Huckabee and Pawlenty supporters wish it were. Sarah Palin is passionate about America; analyze all the speeches that she has referred to Obama-she uses the words enslavement, immoral and death panels a lot to refer to the Messiah’s agenda. These are not the words of a quitter or someone who is about to leave the American political scene anytime soon.
Sarah Palin is a serious player and for several months on her sarahpac she has listed as one of the mission statement as supporting like-minded (conservative) candidates who run for office; as the next election is not to 2010, you can surmise that is what she means for now. And on several occasions Sarah has re-echoed these thoughts.
Sure Sarah Palin is a celebrity in the sense she is a superstar and well-known but it does not mean she relishes it to the extent it consumes her life to the exclusion of her goal of advancing her conservative principles and opposing Obama’s whenever it harms America and Americans. Going Rogue is another example of her commitment to America and the people of the lower 48.
November 28th, 2009 at 8:05 am
#40:
Overcoming negatives in F/UF didn’t help Hillary win the presidency did it? Politics in 2009 is too much about PROCESS and IDENTITY POLITICS and not enough about VICTORY. The narrative has become not IF you win, but HOW you win. IMHO that was McCain’s major problem. White guilt prevented him from doing the right thing politically.
As sapwolf at C4P pointed out “40% of this country will NEVER vote for her (Sarah Palin).”
That means there is a possiblity that 60% of America could.
So do you focus on the 40% and pander or dilute your message or should you be positive and go after the 60% and bring that group into your tent by asserting rock-solid commonsense conservative principles?
Sarah has chosen the latter course Alex and you criticize her for acknowledging the truth of where her support lies or where the potential growth lies. Sarah has clarified her potential electability perfectly IMHO. She has decided to focus all her political time and energy in bringing about victory rather than spending it with advisors who tell her how to stem the tide of defeat.
November 28th, 2009 at 8:23 am
#43:
BUT FOR NOW SHE IS NOT FACING AN UNFRIENDLY MEDIA…ROMNEY AND PAWLENTY GO TO MSNBC AND CNN ALL TIME…
So if Mitt and Tim want to commit electoral suicide and pander and antagonize the base of the party then Sarah should as well.
And what do you want Sarah to do? Sit down with that frothing at the mouth idiot Keith Olbermann or the tingle down your leg Chris Matthews or that gay witch Rachel Maddow so they can savage her like the lions did to the Christians in the Roman coliseum. Are you a masochist or sadist or what?
CNN is slightly better but have you heard what Jack Cafferty, Rick Sanchez, Campbell Brown and Larry King have done to impugn her reputation, constantly giving that twit Levi Johnston air time so he can smear her whenever Soros orders him to get back in the game?
Sarah is not now facing an unfriendly media: that’s like saying that the MSM is not staking out Tiger Woods’ house right now and digging for ‘the real story’ behind his tangle with a fire hydrant and tree. C’mon, drones and Obamatrons don’t frequent this site. Unlike them, our brains function very well. We know the lay of the political land. Sarah Palin has been treated bar none with the most venom and vitriol and has had the worse lies, disinformation and propaganda spread about her and her family in the history of the nation, or at least from 1945.
For the last 14 months on a daily 24/7 basis the Far Left has had her in the crosshairs. The release of Going Rogue will only intensify its efforts to take her down with Alinsky tactics.
I haven’t laughed so hard for a long time. Not facing an unfriendly media. Ha, ha, ha!
November 28th, 2009 at 8:33 am
#46 (JOHN CARPENTER):
THE TROUBLING ISSUE FOR THE LEFT IS THAT WHITES AND INDIES ARE BAILING ON OBAMA…
THE MAN IS IN WAY OVER HIS HEAD AND HE’S HAVING HIS LEGS CUT OUT FROM UNDER HIM BY HIS INCOMPETENT ADVISORS, A VOTER BASE MORE OBSESSED WITH TAKING DOWN PALIN THAN COVERING HIS BACK, AND A MEDIA THAT IRONICALLY BY TRYING TO DISPATCH PALIN IS ACTUALLY MAKING HER SEEM MORE LIKEABLE, VIABLE, AND SAVVY. THE LEFT CAN DENY THIS BUT IN ANY FIGHT BETWEEN THE LEFT AND REALITY, TAKE REALITY EVERY TIME.
Amen!
November 28th, 2009 at 8:36 am
bob,
Palin won’t do a serious interview, because she can’t. Until she does, she is not credible. The people she’s talking to now will never giver her a tough question. It’s all fluff.
The MSM is propping Palin up by giving her non-stop attention. They want her to be the face of the GOP. Wonder why?
November 28th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Barbara Walters would definitely take offense at your suggestion that she wasn’t a serious interviewer, and so would Bill O’Reilly.
THE MSM IS PROPPING PALIN UP:
You must be drinking the same kool-aid as ilv. Are you serious?
If the Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, Norah O’Donnell and Bill Maher are propping Palin up then I’ll be voted the sexiest guy alive in 2010; and I’m an ugly overweight son of a bitch.
November 28th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Of course they are, Bob. They want her to be the nominee so they can paint the entire GOP as exactly like Palin.
Nope, sorry. Walters is not a serious interview, and O’Reilly went so easy on her it was embarrassing. He was clearly trying to protect Palin from herself.
She needs to go on a Sunday morning program and face real questions.
November 28th, 2009 at 9:09 am
So David Gregory and George Stepanopoulos carry more weight than Barbara Walters and Bill O’Reilly. I think not.
You seem to forget Bawa has interviewed the Shah of Iran, Castro, and a multitude of world leaders over the past 40 years. Believe me, I’m not a Babs fan but I have to give the doyenne of the media her dues. Babs has forgotten more than most current interviewers know.
Landing the Walters’ interview was a coup for Palin; that she performed way beyond expectations was a bonus.
Bill Maher, propping Palin up. The chances of that happening is the same chance that he is going to become a born-again Christian.
Keith Olbermann, his hatred of Palin has no bounds. The chances that is going to cease is the same chance that the Detroit Lions are going to win the Super Bowl in the next decade.
November 28th, 2009 at 9:19 am
“As sapwolf at C4P pointed out “40% of this country will NEVER vote for her (Sarah Palin).”” True and these days unfortunately, 40% of the American people will never vote for any Republican.
November 28th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Another reason for Huckabee to call in the cavalry:
http://www.billygraham.org/News_Article.asp?ArticleID=730
November 28th, 2009 at 10:53 am
#6
Alex, you are right about this being the scary part of the message. Even if you believe that, you DO NOT utter those words, ever! People want to know that you believe that you have hope for winning them over because of the decency and values in you, you may stir up the same decency in them.
It’s almost like saying, “if they don’t have my values, which I believe are the best values, forget about them. It translates into a haughty view of herself and they are the ones not worthy of working hard to win over.
November 28th, 2009 at 10:54 am
By the way, if Palin runs, as well as Huckabee (I hope they both do) then Romney has the nomination.
There is not enough room in that base for Palin and Huck together.
November 28th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Bob, I agree with you. I think the anti-Palin people have closed their minds and will see anything she does as a negative. While very skeptical about her decision to resign, my opinion of her has improved, watching these interviews. I believe the polls reflect many people like me in the last week, who were impressed with her performance. To each, their own. I saw a positive thing the last week. Her book is also very good, and sells her perspective/experience well.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:18 am
“If Mitt wins the GOP nomination in 2012 it will be as a moderate and not a conservative.”
You people keep acting as if Mitt is changing positions! He hasn’t changed a thing gentlemen…he’s still a three legged stool conservative….the very best one by far.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:23 am
122 “So if Mitt and Tim want to commit electoral suicide and pander and antagonize the base of the party then Sarah should as well.”
How has Mitt pandered? And how has he antagonized the base? He’s been working his tail off for conservative candidates for the last two years, and hasn’t modified his conservative positions one iota….you’d love him to be, but he is not.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:41 am
#132:
You are representative of the folks that Sarah needs to become more viable. For Sarah to be 3 points of Obama in the Rasmussen poll head-to-head (46-43) is outstanding, especially for someone who was pronounced ‘unelectable’ just a week before.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:46 am
#134:
It doesn’t appear that ‘working his tail off’ has helped Mitt among conservatives and Republicans.
By way of the November PPP poll:
Mitt Romney F/UF:
Conservatives: 46/22
Republicans: 48/19
Call it ingratitude or perhaps he has antagonized the base but bottom line it will be very difficult for Mitt to win the GOP nomination with these types of F/UF.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Some people she will never win over, Martha for one, thinks she would really risk the life or health of her child, does that really make any sense to you. Knickers is always repeating the
same disproven rumors, Aron is always linking MSNBC, the most in the tank network for Obama, although CNN is a close second.
She is personally very religious, they states that openly in the book, but she has taken pains not
to have it affect her public policy
stance, (the veto of the domestic
partnership ban, the appointment of a PP member to the Alaskan Supreme Court are clear examples) Hence the ARTL gambit in Iow; a mug’s game in my book. So stop citing cheap shot analysis, polls that aren’t worth the electrons they are transmitted.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
bob, you’re still dwelling on the favorable/unfavorables way too much. REMEMBER, poll after poll has shown that people are favorable to Palin, but that they do not think she is qualified for the Presidency. The reason Palin gets in the lower forties against Obama is because of the Rasmussen very unfavorable ratings of Obama being at 39%. Those people are pretty much ready to vote for anybody but Obama.
If you take Mitt’s 48/19 and extrapolate it out distributing the remaining 33% with the same percentage, you have Mitt at 71/29 with republicans. When he starts campaigning and debating it will get even better. You also have to remember that when people are stating favorables, the hard core Palin supporters and hard core Huckabee and Paul supporters are stating unfavorable for Mitt, even though they, in reality have a decent opinion of him. They just state it to make him look bad, and it’s alreay somewhat of a tag team, just like it is becoming on here.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
The MSM do whatever they can to keep Palin relevant. They do whatever it takes to keep her in the news. Sometimes they do things that ticks off her base, and they rise up in support. Other times they give her a softball interview to make her supporters and others think she is making headway. Why would they do this? Pretty danged simple: THEY SEE HER AS EXTREMELY EASY TO BEAT IN THE GENERAL. As much as I hate OBAMA, I can see that he can easily beat the heck out of Palin in a debate. She will constantly put her foot in her mouth and come off as clueless once the interviews get tough!
November 28th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
“The reason Palin gets in the lower forties against Obama is because of the Rasmussen very unfavorable ratings of Obama being at 39%.” With respect the other two are also in the low to mid 40s and low to mid 30s in a 3 way contest.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
It is more important what a candidate believes, than the candidate him or herself. That’s why when Mitt has spoken out on our defense posture, I have defended him. Huckabee is generally
strong on Israel, but he often bends over backwards to obfuscate
the Administration’s shortcomings, on the domestic and foreign policy
side
November 28th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
138 -> The poll Bob is citing is a 2012 Presidential matchup between Obama and Palin, where Obama wins 46-43. This is within the margin of error. These are not favorables.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
#138:
By the same token you could take that approach with Palin as well as she had been hardly visible on American TV since the resignation until her interview with Oprah on November 16th. Once Sarah starts campaigning and debating it will get even better for her as well.
And by the way conservatives means indie conservatives and conservative democrats. Are these folks also sabotaging Mitt?
And to boot we’re not talking about Mitt’s numbers being an aberration. For 4 straight months Mitt has been <50F among CONSERVATIVES.
And Mitt has been <55F with Republicans for 5 straight months.
I would call this a trend.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
142, yes I reaize that. It’s the same one Mitt was shown as tied with Obama 45/45.
“Once Sarah starts campaigning and debating it will get even better for her as well.” I don’t think so bob…I’m pretty sure she will be doomed once the debates and interviews start. Unless she gets a whole lot better that is, which is possible, but not probable.
It’s not fair to treat Mitt’s favorables as being below 50% when 33% are undecided. Those remaining will break his way by at least the percentage already having made up their mind. If you don’t understand that, you don’t know much about statistics and political polling.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
#144:
You must have been on vacation between November 16th-November 23rd. I think the interviews have already begun; that was Sarah Palin being interviewed by Barbara Walters and Bill O’Reilly. The polls released by Fox News and Rasmussen (polls taken about Going Rogue released) do not reflect your assertion that they will doom Sarah. As for debates, Sarah took out during the 2008 campaign a sitting US Senator (Joe Biden) with 35 years experience in foreign affairs and I think there are two candidates in the 2006 Alaskan gubernatorial debates who would disagree with you on Palin’s debating skills.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
I think the bottom line is: a lot of Republicans here are spending a ridiculous amount of energy to discredit Sarah Palin. First of all, as Republicans, can we just unite against this ridiculous administration and just wish all our party leaders the best? I will support Romney, Huckabee, Palin, Pawlenty, whoever gets the nomination and the unique road they follow to further our message and our values.
Secondly, in the perspective of someone who is still on the fence about balls to the wall backing of Palin, I do like her, and tend to like her more when I hear people tear her down. I’d like for identity politics not to get in the way, but when people that tear her down (even on our side) are blatantly disregarding facts, refuse to read her book, etc, it really pushes me to like her a little more. I’d say a significant reason why I decided to check out the book was due to this. If you dislike Palin so much, quit talking about her!
November 28th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
#146:
After 14 months of non-stop vituperation, vitriol, and smears levelled against Sarah Palin without any success you would think the Obama war room, the Far Left, the MSM, academia, and the entertainment industry would contemplate reversing course, backing away from their Alinsky strategies and stop talking about her and ignore her, wouldn’t you?
Perhaps there are two reasons why they don’t:
1)They know that they must destroy Sarah Palin or she might upset the apple cart and 40 years of planning of the Far Left to take over the federal government. Fear is driving this 24/7 onslaught. It will not stop.
2)They have no confidence whatsoever on the GOP establishment taking Palin down. With Palin favorables among conservatives at 80 and Republicans at 75, I can see why they might think this way.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
omg bob, if you think she did well in the Biden debate, you are delirious. She refused to answer some questions she didn’t like for Pete’s sake. It was absolutely terrible. If Biden had not been lousy, it would have been more evident.
Hahaha….bob, don’t you realize those were softball interviews? And even then, she evaded several answers. Normally, O’Reilly would have nailed her on them, but because Foxnews is so much in bed with Palin right now, she got off scott free. As long as she doesn’t have to go into any subject with some amount of depth, she does have way decently. But, whenever the subject calls for a deeper understanding, she falls on her face, or refuses to answer.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
#147 – The actual reason is that they are doing all they can to keep her relevant. Whatever angle they can play to keep her in the fore front of the news, they will do that. She is the one they want to run against, and the more the rail against her, the more they rally her base.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
“She refused to answer some questions she didn’t like for Pete’s sake.” That is not exactly unique in politics.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
#149;
Yea right: Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann want to keep Sarah Palin relevant.
That’s like saying that Hitler felt sorry for the Jews so he locked them up for their own protection from the German citizens.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
You don’t have to believe it bobby, but that’s exactly what is happening. Her being our candidate would be wonderful from their standpoint.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I’m beginning to wonder whether #152 (ConservativeRepublican) is even what his name claims to be. Why is he/she spending so much energy to attack one of our own, and claiming to know what the other side thinks?
I’m not going to sit here and imagine what the other side is thinking. That’s irrelevant and counterproductive. Let’s focus on the blessings we have: great candidates like Romney, Huckabee, Palin, and other GOP leaders furthering our cause and message, resulting in great wins for us this year in VA and NJ.
Who cares what Democrats think? They have proven to be illogical, emotional and fickle. I think many of us have gotten caught up in the political junkie/strategy making part of politics that we forget, that for many, it’s not as involved or as cynical as we make things out to be (even the candidates we are rooting for). All this talk is fun, but obsessively tearing one of our own is just so lame.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
If they (the Dems) are so silly to think that Mrs. Palin would be great for them, that is there problem. I realize that you think you need to save us from Mrs. Palin Conservative Republican, but in a way I feel sorry for you that you feel that way. Mrs. Palin is a Conservative with charisma. It is fine that she is not your first or second choice, but she is the type of person that we will need in 2012.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Cali…what in the heck are you talking about????
I don’t attack anyone! I state the facts, and this site is to put forth argument about which candidates are our strongest. How do you do that without pointing out deficiencies? Mitt has been bombarded on this site by numerous commenters and front pagers for three years now….so get ready to argue for your candidate. BUT DON’T YOU DARE TRY TO IMPLY THOSE THAT DON’T AGREE WITH PALIN AS BEING SOMETHING OTHER THAN CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS> That really ticks me off!!!!
November 28th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
155. Descending the level of discourse and resorting to all Caps is an unfortunate sign of where you are at. My statement is blanketed for everyone (including people who diss Mitt Romney). I voted for Mitt Romney in the primaries and he is my number one choice for 2012 (a strong and stable no-nonsense leader). As much as I support Mitt, do I feel the need to attack Sarah Palin the way a lot of you guys do (and sounding like a bitter, broken record)? Obviously, you have missed the point of my posts and are resorting to emotions/histrionics, which is not very appealing. I question your “conservative”-ness and “Republican”-ness because I have a higher regard for people on our side: that we can actually use reason and judgment in assessing the world around us. Emotions and histrionics are best left to the Left.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
155. Calm down, Mr. all caps.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
156. You beat me to it.
Well put.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Well, I am a very strong conservative republican, and I don’t appreciate an implication that because I critique candidates, (the very purpose for this site) that someone insinuates that I might not be. I am proud to be a conservative republican. Cali, if people were not constantly incorrectly attempting to tell us how great and ready for the presidency Sarah was, we wouldn’t have to continue making the points that she is not.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
159. Ok, critique your Romney for a change.
We’re waiting.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
“159. Ok, critique your Romney for a change.” With respect that is a bit of a cheap shot, he should not have to be critic of somebody he does not want to be. Hey, some of us will just have to try and prove him wrong in 2013.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
159 – Who is saying that she is so great? A few commenters, maybe. Usually they do so in defense of people like you that mercilessly attack Sarah Palin. Other times, yes, agreed, they go too far, which I’m calling them out on their behavior too. I find the bloggers, namely Alex, to be generally fair in regards to Sarah Palin. Overall, I find this site to be pretty balanced, in terms of what the different bloggers put up. If you don’t like Sarah Palin, I got an easy suggestion: ignore her. If there are articles about her, don’t click on it. (Remember, this thread is about Sarah)
Finally, “Conservative” and “Republican” mean different things to many people. Like any label, it is fluid in nature. No need to get so frustrated and have your identity tied up with that. I, have at times, considered myself “moderate”, other times “conservative”.
Chill.
November 28th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
When I’m critiquing Romney, I’m praising him!…it’s the same thing when people have the right credentials.
You were the one questioning my ID as an appropriate title. Considering your remarks, in the last paragraph of 162, that’s pretty ironic that you would have done that.
I am an ex-Marine, and I do tend to have a temper when people question my patriotism, or try to imply I am something other than what I claim to be. I am sorry you don’t like that, and I’ll try to do better, but you were the name caller, not me.
November 28th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
163. “When I’m critiquing Romney, I’m praising him!…’
-That sir could be the problem. Narrow minded Rombotness.
November 28th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Call me whatever names you want, but he’s a tremendous Republican candidate..just hope we’re smart enough to run him next time.