Monday, February 20, 2012
Politics Sarah Palin: In Honor of President's Day, A Message Just for You
Posted by Jack Silverman on Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 1:03 PM
For those hoping for a brokered Republican convention, here's a little glimmer of hope from up north. A special President's Day message from Sarah Palin. And judging by the whopping 304 views already, the momentum may be unstoppable!
Of course, no telling if the upcoming HBO movie Game Change will be a game changer.
Comments (30)
Showing 1-30 of 30
As far as I can determine from the video, America has only ever had two presidents deserving of celebration on President's Day: Lincoln and Reagan. Makes it easier, I guess, to only have to remember a _part_ of history... that way it all fits in the brain.
like
dislike
damn, that hateful woman still on the news? sarah, please i had a bad day today..go and fuck off, and just go away please..fade away, and take your whole redneck family with you to ..i dont know. chechenya, or albania..just dissapera please...thank you
Just finished Joe McGinniss's book, and had a wonderful time reading it. What a horrible, horrible human being she is.
Joe McGinniss is the horrible human being. Sarah Palin is the honest, experienced, hard-nosed leadership we need.
Big Time Gannet Employee picks President's Day to come up with a pathetic
hit piece on 4 year old story for what reason? Lack of imagination or couldn't
find any material to continue the Canonization of his support for the re-election
effort of the President! You know, the one that says he's probably ranked
number 4 in the "best Presidents" contest!
Describing Sarah Palin as "experienced" is a bit like describing Bio-Dome as a "potentially Oscar-winning film".
sarah palin is breathtakingly stupid. ergo, she should be the GOP nominee in 2012. it's only right and fair.
The left can't find anything that Sarah's done wrong politically, and she's scares them so badly, that they have to resort to vile personal attacks. Hey, it's not like she was elected President after recruiting for the crookedest organization ever - ACORN - or ran up the biggest deficits ever after railing against deficits for two whole years in the Senate, or lied about hiring lobbyist to work in the White House or running a transparent administration; or picked a vice-president who cheated his way through college, or hired bureaucrats that implemented strategy such as "Fast and Furious." You know, things your guy has done.
Gast: I'd say quitting her term as Governor of Alaska about a year early does nothing to help her political reputation as a steady performer. Or helping send the Presidential run of one of the more promising Republican candidates down the tubes at lightning speed through demonstrated inexperience on the national stage.
Both of those are pretty bad, politically, but maybe that's just me processing things I've actually observed... you know, unlike the items you've mentioned above that involve weakly proven assertions, opinion, and assumptions about direct knowledge.
Now, if Obama resigns his first term early, does poorly in expressing his platform during Presidential debates, or kicks a puppy in front of live television cameras, I'll be the first in line to buy a Mitt Romney magic teeshirt.
Gast, Democrats would drool over Sarah Palin running. Maybe Sarah can get the nomination and pick Santorum for Veep. Quick kids, grab the popcorn, you're getting ready to see a slaughter.
Sarah Palin is so wise, so funny, so witty. Her comments are so astute. The depth of her thinking, the vastness of her perception of situations, her obvious knowledge of history, and the brilliance of her speaking skills all add up to this: She would be the BEST possibly candidate for President by the Republicans. She is truly undefeatable. No matter how many times she errs, fails, slips up, loses, quits, etc.; SHE always stands tall and knows she is not defeated.
"and she's scares them so badly, that they have to resort to vile personal attacks."
Sarah Palin doesn't scare me. She annoys the crap out of me, but she doesn't scare me.
"The left can't find anything that Sarah's done wrong politically."
Where do you get this stuff from? Do you give a damn whether it makes sense? Is this your idea of intelligent argument? She's done a LOT of things that "the left" considers wrong politically, and would do more if she actually were to hold some actual office in the future. Don't Ask mentions a couple of the bigger ones. Smaller ones include firing the director of the Wasilla library because she wouldn't remove books from the shelves, firing Walt Monegan for not helping her with her (and Todd's) personal crusade to destroy Mike Wooten, replacing capable administrators in Wasilla and Juneau with personal friends and evangelicals, giving $500 million for a pipeline to a gas company that had no access to gas to pump into the pipeline, and many others. She had to hire a city administrator to run Wasilla, not exactly a burgeoning metropolis, because she had no ability or desire to. She resigned in disgrace as governor before ethics complaints could catch up with her.
I don't know why you reactionaries cling to this woman. The only thing that she did as governor that might debatably have value was to get taxes raised on oil companies, and that doesn't seem to fit in with your profits-over-people dogma. She held Wasilla in a grip of terror. She used people and then fired or belittled them. Yes, I get a lot of this from McGinniss's book, and that's why I believe it, because he is a trusted author. Abandon this horrible person, conservatives! It will be addition by subtraction. She is a monumental mistake. "Honest, experienced, hard-nosed leadership," Ed Evans? Oh, come ON. What evidence have you got for that?
Gast: ACORN is "the crookedest organization ever?" Have you no sense of proportion, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of proportion?
@Don"t ask: Everything I wrote about Obama was factual and reported in the news.
@Pete Wilson: All of her ethical problems are made up crap. Every time she turned around some progressive weirdo was filing a lawsuit about an imagined impropriety that she had to hire lawyers to defend. If I remember correctly she spent around $500,00 on attorney's fees defending herself against baseless crap. Mike Wooten is that thuggish ex-brother-in-law-cop who deserved everything he got and more. As far as ACORN being the crookedest organization ever...after further thought I've decided it's rivaled by the Democrat's political machine in Illinois. A couple of ex-Governors in jail, Senate seat for sale; vote early, vote often....
Oh, sure, everything's made up crap. Jesus Christ, Gast. You are such a manichaean. Everyone is perfectly good or perfectly bad; anything bad about someone on the good side has to be made up. You could be shown firsthand evidence and you'd say that it was fabricated. If Sarah Palin had been on trial instead of O.J. Simpson, you'd say Nicole was a terrorist and the other guy a pedophile, and you'd give Palin a medal. There's never any doubt or gray areas with you. This is one reason nobody takes you seriously in argument.
Seriously, I really don't see why conservatives cling to their adulation of Sarah Palin. There is no justification for it. So many lies and whitewashes wasted on her when they would be better spent on someone who actually cares about anyone but herself.
Dig that glittery t-shirt Sarah thought was appropriate dress for visiting the Lincoln museum, with her hair all tied up as if she'd been scrubbing the tub or something.
"Despite significant evidence to the contrary, the McCain campaign continues to assert that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told the federal government "thanks but no thanks" to the now-famous bridge to an island in her home state.
But Gov. Palin's claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122090791901411709.html
Reported in the news does not make something a fact without fail. Nor does reporting necessarily make a news outlet trustworthy. I know you probably agree with this. For my part, I don't consider WorldNewsDaily to be a particularly reliable source.
My two items are either directly obtained facts (she resigned before her term was up) and research conducted by academics and first-hand sources of BOTH parties (she was inexperienced on the national stage and was a major factor in the McCain campaign going off-message and losing steam in the closing days of the race).
You divert ire to Obama but fail to address these points. Obama probably deserves ire for some things, but probably not all that you state... But never matter that as it is irrelevant to the point.
Gast uses a typical strategy in changing the subject to Obama.
1. A "liberal" says something bad about a hero of conservatives.
2. You, the conservative, say, "Well, well, what about [some "liberal" figure seen as roughly equivalent]."
3. You are already well prepared with ammunition against this "liberal" figure, some of it dubious and some of it possibly genuine, and you shoot some of it off.
4. You declare a win on the grounds that what you say about the "liberal" figure is worse than what your opponent can say about the conservative. It doesn't matter whether it really is because that's a judgment call anyway.
5. The original topic is muddied up beyond recognition.
This approach can also used by "liberals," of course. But it is a prime weapon in Gast's arsenal.
@Pete Wilson: You finally got it figured out, how easy it is to use a liberal's hypocrisy in a debate. The first thing a liberal does to a new political opponent is to claim the opponent is dumb. The second thing they do is to try to make that person into someone despicable. Both of these approaches have been used on Sarah Palin. To do that, though, they have to look past legions of miscreants in their own camp. People of your mindset in this matter will do or say anything to further their cause and therefore are not to be trusted about any matter.
It's hard for liberals to debate on money or moral issues so their option is to launch spurious personal attacks while preaching a hopesy/changey future. The only thing that saves liberals from oblivion is that so much of the public has a short attention span and virtually no ability to link A to B to C and see down the path they vote.
At the risk of extending this beyond its useful lifetime, the assertion was made that Gov. Palin has done no wrong politically (the statement was "the left can't find anything that Sarah's done wrong politically"). Two critical points were raised -- both facts -- that proves this to be an incorrect statement.
At no time did I assert that Gov. Palin was dumb, nor did I try to paint her as someone despicable; I merely pointed out that she is now, at bare minimum, not a shining political example, and, at worst, she would be a terrible political liability to any party that chose her as a nominee for elected office. No personal attack, no assertion of low intelligence, no moral issue to discuss. She's just not the Republican Party's best political asset (that'd be Huntsman, and he's already out).
And like I said, the fact that Obama has done things you consider to be terrible is irrelevant to this. Diversion is a wonderful tool to the magician; but it's his worst enemy if done clumsily.
@Don't Ask: A while back I happened upon a TV pundit interviewing an important Republican insider (I think it was Karl Rove, but not absolutely positive - it's been awhile) who was privy to all information, including polls, on the 2008 election. They were discussing Palin's effect on McCain's campaign and it went on for awhile - she wasn't this, she wasn't that, these people didn't like her, those people hated her, and finally the moderator asked, "So she hurt his election chances?" The insider replied, "No, McCain would have lost by a bigger margin without her."
The first time I heard her speak was at the nominating convention and after her speech my thought was that I had just seen the Democrat's worst nightmare. Things change but she would still draw a lot of votes as a VP candidate. At the time she had an 83% approval rating in her home state, remember?
Hm. Rove has been incredibly critical of Palin. I'd say it wasn't him. I don't doubt you, though, that there have been TV pundits who defend her -- then again, if those pundits were on Fox News, they would have been defending one of their own number.
No, my take is based on Steve Schmidt, the top election strategist for the McCain campaign, who had the following to say about her (I presume he would know because he was the man responsible for developing her politically):
- If Palin is the 2012 presidential nominee, the Republican Party "would have a catastrophic election result".
- "(She) has done nothing to expand her appeal beyond the base."
- "I think she has talents, but my honest view is that she would not be a winning candidate."
And then Nicolle Wallace, who served as the McCain campaign's press officer:
- Concurred that the general view within the campaign was that Palin represented "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus."
- Described Gov. Palin's media interview skills as being "demoralizing and humiliating" to the campaign.
- "I mean, in hindsight, she never should have done any interviews. I wish she'd just Tweeted. She would have been our Twitterer. But at the time I grossly overestimated her capacity to answer questions about world affairs and about how her personal points of views were shaped."
- Admitted that she never even voted for the ticket she worked for: "I didn't, I didn't. (I never received my absentee ballot), and I was fine with that."
I think if McCain had not felt obliged to choose a female running mate, he'd have chosen Huckabee or Pawlenty as a running mate and we'd be discussing the policies of President McCain today.
I saw the same speech at the nominating convention; I thought it was well written, but like many convention speeches it seemed written for her -- and many of the thoughts she conveyed as if she were hearing them said that way for the very first time. I thought her fairly charming but not convincing. Palin left office with just over a 50% approval rating, but a strong 41% disapproval rating. A uniter in her own state she was not.
I would almost like to see Palin put in some new governmental position--one where she can't screw things up so badly that they can't be fixed. It would force her to put up or shut up. As it is now she has just enough official experience to fool people like Ed Evans into talking about "honest, experienced, hard-nosed leadership." About the best she can really say for her time in Wasilla and Juneau is that the town and the state still exist. On that basis it is assumed she is some sort of stateswoman. She is not, and another round of fumbling, cronyist, would-be theocratic misgovernment would expose that.
"I personally believe that U.S Americans are unable to do so because uh, some people out there in our nation don't have maps and I believe that our education like such as South Africa and The Iraq everywhere like such as and I believe that they should our education over here in the U.S should help the U.S should help South Africa and should help The Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future for our children"
Lauren Caitlin Upton
@Farlboro: Insert a few "ahs" and "uhs" and you'd read like Obama sounds when he doesn't have a teleprompter.
"@Farlboro: Insert a few "ahs" and "uhs" and you'd read like Obama sounds when he doesn't have a teleprompter."
Ironic statement considering Palin utilizes the teleprompter (as did Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush II) in most of her speeches. She has even used the device while criticizing Obama's use of it. It was caught on tape and it was priceless.
By the way, he didn't have the teleprompter during his debates with Hillary and later McCain, and he did just fine. But it's nice to see the teleprompter continues to be a "campaign issue" for the Fox News crowd.
