Charles Krauthammer Rips Liberal Media for Being Obsessed with Sarah Palin
Charles Krauthammer on Friday tore into the liberal media for being obsessed with former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.
After Krauthammer scolded the "editorial judgment" of the producers of PBS's "Inside Washington" for week after week prominently displaying her as the "only representative of conservatism of any importance" in this nation, the Washington Post's Colby King proved his point (video follows with transcript and commentary):
GORDON PETERSON, HOST: In an exclusive interview with Barbara Walters at the White House this week, when asked if he thinks he could beat Sarah Palin in 2012, the President said, “I don’t think about Sarah Palin.” Perhaps Sarah Palin will lead us out of the smoldering ruins of public life, perhaps not. Former first lady Barbara Bush apparently thinks not.
(BEGIN VIDEO)
LARRY KING: What’s your read about Sarah Palin?
BARBARA BUSH: I sat next to her once, thought she was beautiful, and I think she’s very happy in Alaska, and I hope she’ll stay there.
(END VIDEO)
PETERSON: Former first lady Barbara Bush.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I should explain again as I do every week to the viewers as a kind of a viewer's guide that this is the weekly Sarah Palin segment in which the impression is given that the whole of conservatism in America is encapsulated in this one glorious woman?
PETERSON: Why do you oppose her candidacy if she has one?
KRAUTHAMMER: I never took a position on her candidacy. I am making a comment on the editorial judgment of this show in which she is prominently figured week after week, which is I think in the liberal imagination she is and will always be the only representative of conservatism of any importance.
COLBY KING, WASHINGTON POST: She is the most significant Republican, conservative around. She brought this your party back from oblivion to this wonderful state that it is in now...
NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: (Laughter)
KING: ...where the nation’s Democrats are quaking in their wake.
KRAUTHAMMER: You see what I mean?
KING: You ought to be proud of her. The elites, the elitists in the Republican Party puts this poor woman from Wasilla down. I think it’s a shame.
KRAUTHAMMER: Perfect evidence of how liberals are obsessed with Sarah Palin.
Indeed. Taking this further, this media obsession also comprises a compulsion to bash her at every turn.
As I noted Tuesday, this is destined to get far worse as Republicans announce whether or not they're running for president in 2012.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
King is spot-on about the elitists
Submitted by kch50428 on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 11:18am.
And the Ruling Class, Establishment blue-bloods. They hate Sarah Palin. And they will stop at nothing to help their liberal, ruling class establishment elitists in trying to destroy Sarah Palin.
Charles Krauthammer seems rather an elitist.
Isn't that a rather circular argument?
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 11:33am.
Elitists hate Sarah Palin. Charles Krauthammer (sort of) criticizes Palin by saying the media pay her too much attention. Charles Krauthammer seems rather an elitist.
Elitists hate Palin
Submitted by kch50428 on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 11:41am.
From both sides of the aisle. Kraut comes from the Republican side.
Side of the aisle is not an
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 12:26pm.
Side of the aisle is not an issue.
It seems that you are saying Krauthammer criticizing Palin makes him an elitist.
I'f that's not the reason, why do you consider him an elitist?
Not ready to call him a GOP elitist yet, but
Submitted by lsudolemite on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 1:09pm.
his ganging up on Christine O'Donnell's candidacy, and the Delaware primary voters to boot, is moving him solidly into that camp. I still have a hard time understanding this obsession of Krauthammer's and Rove's about O'Donnell "screwing up" a Senate majority, when this hypothetical majority would consist of Murkowski, McCain and his little protege Lindsey Graham, and the RINO sisters in Maine. On the big issues those are as good as 5 Dem votes, naturally to show what good, fair-minded people the Republicans are, and our willingness to reach across the aisle.
Hey LSU
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 2:07pm.
Adding McCain, Murkowski, and Grahamnesty is redundant when you're talking about the RINO sisters. :)
Kraut kind of walks the line....neither conservative nor republican elitist...he wavers from one to the other, which is disappointing.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Hi there J, hope you had a great Thanksgiving
Submitted by lsudolemite on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 2:54pm.
I'll be pulling for yall against the Seminoles. We need all the help we can get against Arkansas this afternoon. It's astounding that we can finish with 10 wins and STILL finish 3rd in the west. This conference is murder.
I agree
Submitted by Gabrielle E on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 6:33pm.
Krauthammer is no fan of Sarah Palin. I remember one of the recent interviews he did in which he basically said that he wanted an uncharismatic president. To me it seemed like a backhanded attack on Palin. If she runs, I wouldn't be surprised if he starts attacking her like he did Angle and O'Donnel.The great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter a chance to do something stupid.
Art Spander
Ruling class
Submitted by Apache on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 11:37am.
I'm starting to think that using terms like "elite" and "ruling class" to mock the pseudo intellectuals in DC and the media might be a mistake. I think they truly believe it and using those terms only reinforces their belief. To the extend they openly mock the "unwashed masses" as demonstrated by everyone from Reid to Couric. I think these people are brain dead stupid and only out for themselves. I don't want them to actually believe I consider them "elite". The ruling class should be a term applied to the voter. That's what is supposed to be unique about the US. We don't have King Obama and Queen Pelosi as much as the media may please itself to the thought. Although Paul Krugman can continue to be the court jester.
All hail the naked emperor
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 11:54am.
Well, perhaps rather than 'elites' they should be referenced as the 'Emperor' class, as in 'the Emperor has no clothes'. They sure don't seem elite to me either, and I am no brainiac, but a President who can't speak off 'teleprompter' without adding 4000 'ummms' and 'ahhhhs', and 'answers' a simple question with a 17 minute speech doesn't even seem bright to me.
Hey Barry, is there a WH Toastmaster club?
Submitted by Clutch1956 on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 10:01pm.
Maybe he should join it, he would get dinged ever time he uses one of his 'clutch words" (no relation! ;-) ) and someone would keep track of all his "ummms', "errrs' and "so". They would also time his "speeches" to make sure that they don't run over and stay on target. It would be funny to see him do his "icebreaker" without notes or the TOTUS. And evalutaing him would be a blast (we are supposed to offer "positive feedback" but in Zerobama's case, I'd make an exception. ;-) ).
Personally I can do without
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 10:16pm.
Personally I can do without the word "folks". When obama uses it I feel as if he's talking down to me. How about "The people are upset", or the "citizens are unhappy".
I'm glad you noted
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 11:46pm.
I'm glad you noted that.........cause it bugs the hell out of me too!!! It's like - there are the upper crust, and then there are the 'folks'............as in, all of us meaningless bodies out here who are too stupid to figure out the high-minded nuances and compexities and vagaries of the REGIME.................plus, 'folks' can sound a lot like something else............
The term elite doesn't really
Submitted by RefudiateObama2012 on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 1:44pm.
The term elite doesn't really describe those with whom we hold in disdain. It's the elitists who we have a problem with.. They think they're better than the unwashed and don't hesitate to tell us so.
"elites" and disdain
Submitted by sarge329 on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 11:40am.
I don't hold anyone in " disdain " . As I see it, that's exactly the attitude that the country club RINOS, and hardline leftists hold against anyone who doesn't believe the way they do. Am I better than them? No. Am I more honest than them? I'd like to think so. I don't hate them. I do feel sorry for them. They live in a world of delusion. They have this notion that, since they were born into " X" family, or went to "Y" school, that they are superior in every way to those who didn't. Then, to amplify that, they believe that since they are superior, they are the only ones capable of making command decisions and running the show, so to speak. Would I like to see Mrs. Palin run in 2012? You betcha! Do I think that she should? I don't know. If she does, she won't get much support from the bluebloods and RINOs who run the RNC. They'll just look down on her as " just another hick from the sticks " . Or worse, they'll just shake their collective head, give her a pitying look, and say , " Bless her heart " . As someone I knew who was born and bred in the South once told me, that expression is used about someone who is either born without an abundance of good looks, brains, money, good luck, or simply has no chance in life. Of course, phrasing it in such a way ( " Bless her heart " ) gives the impression that the speaker is doing so with no malice at heart, but rather with a sense of pity. Which, as I see it, is worse. It is disdain, camouflaged. It is a distortion. It is a lie. If you are going to lie to someone, at least have the honesty to look them in the eyes. I'm not sure that the RNC and the leftists in charge of the DNC can do so.
Who needs to write a book.
Submitted by Tjexcite on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 11:50am.
If Sarah charged rental fees for all the heads she lives in. She could of buy most of Manhattan from all the profit that are being produced.
Allowing someone to live rent
Submitted by brerol on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 12:55pm.
Allowing someone to live rent free inside your head is a waste of time. With Palin liberals are wasting a lot of time.
BINGO! I thought the exact
Submitted by BD on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 6:15pm.
BINGO!
I thought the exact thing. She is in the headspace of all liberals and they FEAR her like the boogyman of their youth.
Why is this? Because unlike their current candidate she talks directly to the populous and her message defeats the "Let me be clear..." gobbledegook coming out of Obama.
Liberalism is the ideology of hate
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 11:51am.
. Liberalism is the ideology of hate They live in a world of villains and good guys. Liberalism cannot be sold to the American public because it goes against what Americans want so it is only by personally attacking an opponants character can they win.
They bash Sarah Palin because they must have an evil foe to vent their rath upon and distract the public from policy debates. They used to have George Bush to beat up but the public doesn't care about him anymore .
Liberals and the Republican elites have one thing in common, they both look down their noses on Sarah Palin because she represents ordinary Americans. They don't believe ordinary Americans have the ability to know what's best for themselves and frankly are just too crude and unrefined.
Bullying.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 12:16pm.
Do you think that the liberal "elites" realize that by outlawing bullying in grade school, they are killing off newly minted liberals early in their education? I mean, making girls cry is great early life training for becoming a liberal dumbocrap.
Maybe they plan to offset the "loss" with having more gays created in early sex education class.
Spotlight
Submitted by brerol on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 12:29pm.
Palin clearly loves the attention she gets. And liberals are more than happy to give it to her in the belief the more the public sees her the more turned off the public will be towards conservatives. Considering the recent election results and the reasons for them liberals have once again have misread the publics concerns and problems.
Good assessment
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 2:21pm.
The bottlom line for the media is . . . well, it's the bottom line. It needs to increase its circulation/audience in order to raise the price of its advertising space. So, they run with what's popular.
Obama used to be the big attraction. As his star faded and he seemed less and less unique, attention shifted to the First Lady -- you know, the one with the magnificent arms. :-p
But the big name for them now is Sarah Palin. People tend to love her or hate her, and both camps make her very marketable in the MSM.
Her resilience is an added bonus to the MSM --- she just doesn't fade away regardless of the attacks levied against her.
Add to the fact that she is very active, photogenic, and utters the occasional controversial statement, and you have a news editor's dream.
Whether she runs for President or not, the media will continue to over-cover her because she sells.
Sarah Palin has to run for the Presidency
Submitted by philipjames on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 12:32pm.
Look, the fellow on the far left of panel, King.... whether he was being straight up or just messing with Charles, he was absolutely right.
It was Sarah Palin that brought the Republican Party back in 2008. Unfortunately, it was the Republican Party that threw Sarah Palin under the bus in 2009. And Charles is part of that Republican Elite that snickered (and still does, just like that skank Totenberg) at Sarah when she was being viciously attacked on all fronts in 2009. They did not support her, instead they chuckled and snickered themselves.
Sarah said f**k you, left her office in Alaska and came down to the lower 48 and fought the liberals and Democrats. I would bet that many in the Tea Party Movement got their courage to got to town halls, attend rallies and stand up and not shut up from the example that Sarah Palin gave to them.
So, fu*k Charles, fu*k Barbara Bush, f*ck all the Republican Establishment Elites. Sarah Palin said when she left office that she was not retreating, but reloading. She also said that in doing to that politically " If she died, she died." And that has been how she has fought all along. With no thought of would she survive, would she still have friends in high places.
Sarah Palin has to run if only to flush out as she has already all the pussified, butt kissing RINOs in the Republican Party. All the back slapping good old boys. All the money grubbing sucking off the hind teat of the Republican Party advisors and consultants. The only way the Republican Party is going to become truly Conservative and Representative of its core principles is if a warrior like Sarah goes after them. And they know it and are doing all they can to stop her.
That is why there is an immediate push back from Sarah Palin supporters whenever anyone, and I mean anyone, says or does something negative towards Sarah or her family. And there are millions of those supporters.
Sarah Palin may not make it all the way, but she will "go down swinging" in this fight, as she said recently.
And that is why I support her.
She may not be perfect and she may not know all the nuances of every policy, but I do know she lives by Conservative values and she will follow the basic principles of the Constitution. I ask for nothing more at this point because in watching the actions of previous Presidents of our time, they did not.
Palin DOES have a contagious "can do" attitude
Submitted by ekslib on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 1:25pm.
Philipjames wrote:
I would bet that many in the Tea Party Movement got their courage to got to town halls, attend rallies and stand up and not shut up from the example that Sarah Palin gave to them.
I agree.
Progressives are everywhere
Submitted by Okieflyover on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 12:46pm.
Barbara Bush and others who criticize her are quite often progressives whether they are republican or democrat. Big government is what they want. If Barbara can say that noone can dislike Bill Clinton and he has spent years bashing her husband and son then she is either clueless or senile.Barbara Bush...another possibility
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 2:13pm.
I saw W's interview with Sean Hannity the other night, where he was talking about his potty mouth and drinking.
He said something like, "well, I got my dad's xxxx (can't remember the exact quote) and my mom's mouth, so booze didn't help."
Remember, Barbara Bush is one of those northeast patrician elites (boarding school and all). Of course she looks down her nose at Sarah Palin. It's not the first time she's let her mouth get in the way of her image.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
they tremble in fear!!!
Submitted by Patriot II on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 12:56pm.
The despicable scum called the liberal media and the insane dumocrats are all trembling in fear of Sarah Palin................they know she has something to say and they don't....all they are capable of is calling her and her family names.......anyone that would support the liberal media or vote dumocrat.........has a loose wire and needs to have their head examinined imho!!!
Patriot II wrote:"...they know she has something to say "
Submitted by ekslib on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 1:15pm.
Exactly. She has a gift for clearly speaking out. She points out an important issue before many other pundits do. Because she resigned as Governor, she has been able to use that gift even more freely.
Her life is going as she said it would at the time she resigned. And the way that many Americans hoped it would.
Even if she never speaks out again, she has already proven that the "gloom and doom"ers underestimated her.
Its What Marxists (Demorats) Do
Submitted by aposematic on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 1:31pm.
The Marxist Democrat Party have to put a face on morality, in this case Conservatism; so they can then isolate, target, and destroy that which they fictionally created. They tried to put a face on the Tea Party and failed to create a fictional leader that they could isolate and destroy. Now, they are trying to make Palin the leader of Conservatism to continue their lying assult on Palin and their goal of bringing down Conservatism in the process. It's what the Marxist Democrat Party does, Alinsky told them so in his book, the modern Marxists' Bible!
what I took away from Krauthammer's remarks was
Submitted by delmar on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 1:39pm.
that the liberals are trying to make Sarah Palin the face of the Republican party. And that they're doing this because they think they have been successful in making her out to be unelectable and undeserving of being president. That's how I interpreted it, I don't know if Krauthammer has a history of running down Palin. But that would surprise me since he's such a smart guy.
There have been few times
Submitted by RefudiateObama2012 on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 1:49pm.
There have been few times when CK has stood up for her. One of those times was when Gibson asked her about the Bush Doctrine. Since CK is credited with the origination of the term, he's the expert. He said Palin's answer was just as correct as Gibson's assertion.
yeah, it's all coming back to me now
Submitted by delmar on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 1:52pm.
thanks for the reminder.
I think the libs are trying
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 1:53pm.
I think the libs are trying to NOT make her the face of the Republican Party, in terms of who they want as a candidate..........you know, the libs LOVE to tell the Republicans WHO they should be running, right?? And they are scared sh*tless of Palin, so they must continue to attack her at any chance they can - even if they have to fabricate their chances!!! I think they're trying to make her look so bad that the Republicans WON'T consider her................they're probably hoping another RINO will come around that they can support - just long enough to LOSE!!!!
I listen to 'the Hammer' any time I see him on TV............he's the smartest and most lucid guy the is on consistantly, as far as I"m concerned. I just think, here, that he was pointing out the MSM's obbsession with Palin, regardless of the circumstances........and I agree with him. These guys all suffer from incurable Palin-itis.................it's infectuous, it's contagious, and they gave it to themselves!!!!!
Spot on, Killa,
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 3:41pm.
the libs managed to convince the "elite" in the R party that, last time around, it was "McCain's turn", and look what it got us. I'm to the point now, that every time I hear "reach across the aisle" or "bi-partisan" I want to hurl. The R's have done that time and time again, to absolutely no benefit to R's or conservatives, or the Nation.
As someone or several people have said here, bi-partisan is doing what the dems want, unless they're in power, then it has no meaning.
And Krauthamer is right
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 2:31pm.
The MSM will continue to follow the Democratic Party playbook to demonize Palin and declare her the face of the GOP. The playbook calls for identifying individuals as representatives of the opposition, and then heap attacks on those individuals.
To reiterate, I really like Sarah Palin and respect
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 1:51pm.
her and her philosophies for this country. However, I fear in a heated debate with the nastiest most well trained debaters that WILL confront her, she may just be too weak.
Being right, unfortunately is not enough. You need the weapons to defeat your opponents and those include debating skills. She needs more time training on this.
What makes the most sense in my humble but rock like opinion is for her to support the GOP primary winner (and perhaps to steer whom that will be) and offer the best support singing that person's praises.
We need to win and stop this runaway train. In six or ten years, she can have her skills honed and then make a successful run.
I think that will be fleshed
Submitted by Captain Repus on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 2:47pm.
I think that will be fleshed out in the GOP debates, in which I believe she could surprise everyone based on what I have seen in her somewhat rapid growth in major domestic and world affairs in the past year.
I believe that if she continues educating herself, stays sharp and avoids being too 'folksy' in debates, assuming the format and moderators are fair she just might do quite well. Could even scare the pants off of the teleprompter-in-chief.
Should be fun.
"Should be fun"
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 12:52am.
We are on a train right now about to go off a cliff. Do you want to go on your hunch or hope or faith or live to fight another day?
I believe it takes years to not let being beaten on by your opponent to have an affect on you and rather for such assaults to emboldens you and energize your discourse.
Yes we are on train going off
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 3:02am.
Yes we are on train going off on a cliff and we have to choose who to believe. The classic dilemma played out before us. We have heard a number of people's plans and each of them says they are the best. If we choose wrong we plummet to our death.
The last time the same ones who are trying to discredit Palin were the same ones promoting McCain. And you believe the LSM?.
The only reason...
Submitted by Irene Flick on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 1:55pm.
...these elites do not worship the ground she walks on is because she doesn't have 'that certain part of the male body.' To all you who acuse me of a knee-jerk reaction, put her scenario on any of the republicans faces who do have a palpable pair and see if you feel the same way. There would be no question who would be the nominee.
There is no place for seixisn in the 21st Century.
You are correct!! The
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 2:25pm.
You are correct!!
The unspoken 600 pound gorilla in the room is sexism from both parties. Look at the dems. They had a ready experienced candidate in Hillary Clinton but were easily won over by an unkown candidate with no experience but.... he was male. If a female version of obama had stepped forward she wouldn't have had a chance.
Sarah Palin has more guts and vision than most of the male Republican politicians, she's just not a guy.
You avoided the 800 pound guerilla in the room
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 6:02pm.
Hillary Clinton had no executive experience in 2008, and a few more years in the Senate than Obama.
Obama didn't win because he was male. His rhetoric was virtually indistinguishable from that of John Edwards and not much better than Hillary's.
He won because he is black.
That, and Hillary Clinton ran one of the most inept campaigns in the modern history of her party. She started the 2008 campaign with more $$$ than all her Democratic competitors combined, and she didn't seem to take any of them seriously until Obama struck some early victories.
Krauthammer...
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 2:07pm.
has been critical of Palin, O'Donnell, McCain, and virtually every other politician, on the left and right, because he understands that none are infallible. Unlike those who blindly followed The One and are now thoroughly disappointed from his left and right, CK doesn't mind speaking out against elected officials. That's how you hold their feet to the fire. And I'm pretty sure he was indicating that Conservativism is much stronger than the fate of one person; and argument the show has been trying to make for some time: As Palin goes, so does Conservatism. They're simply tring to minimize and mock the movement; CK was pointing that out and defending Conservatives at the same time.
Oh, and Colby King- totally mocking Palin and CK with his comments. He didn't believe one word of it - the wry smile was the giveaway.
I have to agree with Charles
Submitted by TerryWest on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 2:47pm.
I have to agree with Charles Krauthammer , they are obsessed and come off as check stand tabloid junkies instead of producers of real news and intelligent broad minded conversationalist.
Sarah Palin didn't resurrect the conservative movement in this country, the people did before many of us knew who Sarah Palin was. Although I respect her and believe she has a role in our government, perhaps even as GOP leader I don't believe that role is running for President (in 2012 that is) when we are in such dire straights. Why would she want it when she is far more effective doing what she is doing marching to her own drummer on behalf and in support of the majority of people in this country. The left want her running because they feel they have demonized her enough to lose, they are trying once again to control the agenda. Which really is the best indicator they do indeed realize they have no candidate to talk about or run in 2012. One would think they discuss that topic some instead of a round table of tabloid fodder and trying to convince the audience of it's exclusive importance. Don't get me wrong, if the people decide Palin is the candidate I'll be voting for her or any other republican candidate who wins, but really lets move on from the Palin obsession and become real media instead of predictable tabloid parrots.Missing the mark
Submitted by Ashrak on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 2:33pm.
CK hammers the media for its action and the focus is placed on SP instead. This is how mainstream media avoids dealing with criticisms of itself and the Democrat/Republican progressivism it carries water for.
I think CK isn;t tring to help or slam Sarah, indeed, I think he is trying to make a point about his profession. I believe CK understands that more and more people view his life's proession as laughable these days. Sarahand media coverage of her is the object here, not the subject.
I have said before that the only way Sarah runs for President is if Obama declares that he is running. I am of the opinion that neither one will or they both will. If Obama runs, Sarah wins the GOP primary hands down without any doubt. And she will smoke Obama like trees in the California summertime. From the start, MSM dedicated itself to destroying Sarah and it made the decision about the TEA party also. Both have failed miserably, but that section of society is in so deep that they cannot change course. That would mean admitting how wrong they have been all along. Not Going To Happen.
I look for mainstream media to be increasingly harder on Obama as policy goes - especially foreign policy -in the weeks and months to come, with Lakin's court martial to be huge news when it plays out. SCOTUS will soon grant certs in various eligibility cases, probably combining them, and if that happens Obama will claim "distraction" again but this time offering himself up as a sacrificial lamb for his party and bow out of 2012 race. The MSM may well grab onto this as a way to avoid a Sarah candidacy. Liberal elites fear her so much that they would throw Obama under the bus in a heartbeat if it meant they could avoid facing a President Palin.
Does CK want to see a President Palin? Maybe, maybe not. I would offer that what he wants more than anything else is for the profession he loves to straighten up its act before it destroys journalism altogether.
I agree with you about Palin
Submitted by Newsbusterbrown on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 3:07pm.
I agree with you about Palin running if Obama officially announces that he will. Though Palin has baggage (almost all of it given to her unfairly, IMO), BHO now does, too. I'm fairly certain she can beat Jimmy Carter to the tenth power at this point.
“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Her negatives are too high
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 6:13pm.
She might be able to win the Republican nomination, but she'd have to do something to bring her negatives down for the general election.
Don't underestimate Obama's campaign skills. The GOP made that mistake with Clinton in '96, when they should've flattened him. Instead, they nominated Beltway-troll Bob Dole, and Clinton won re-election.
The stronger opposition for Obama right now is probably Marco Rubio.
That is Irrelevant.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 7:02pm.
Don't underestimate Obama's campaign skills? Obama's had time to demonstrate what he can bring to the table, and no campaigning is going to get him out of it. You can't bs your way out of Obamacare, SALT, Cap-and-trade, Stimulus I and II, the czars, ad infinitum. Also, his campaign was based upon high-flying rhetoric and being the anti-Bush. He can't do that this time, because Bush is history and the rhetoric belies the reality.
Palin is no Dole. To even compare the two in terms of charisma and definitive political positions is ludicrous. Dole was a beltway insider and was hamstrung by years of milquetoast political decisions. Palin has very little baggage of the sort, and in comparison to Dole, she has ZERO. Dole was a generic nothingness; Palin is a definitive conservative.
Marco Rubio is going to be a first-term US senator. He does not have the executive experience to be president yet. Besides that, there have been astonishingly few candidates to go from the Senate to the presidency; it is simply not the usual path.
Visions and Principles blog
Hope that Obama isn't Clinton
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 7:27pm.
I never said Palin was Dole. I said the GOP has a record for underestimating Dems like Clinton and Obama, and in '96, they picked the candidate that Clinton least feared, and Clinton won. Granted, Clinton is a better politician than Obama, but he overcame his track record and managed to pull out a victory merely be being the alternative to Dole.
A lot can happen between now and November 2012, but if Palin's negatives remain higher than Obama's, he wins.
The 2010 Election results are not a perfect barometer. While the Tea Parties mustered a lot of conservative turnout to help the GOP take the House, a lot of Obama's 2008 support stayed home -- they only turnout for Presidential elections. They'll return in 2012.
Rubio may not have a lot of executive experience, but I think he is the guy the Dems fear the most. That's why they encouraged Dems to vote for the independent instead of the Democrat in Florida; they were desperate to stop Rubio at any cost. He blows apart the myth the the GOP is a party of old male WASPs.
Once Rubio is on a GOP ticket as Presidential or VP candidate, the Dems start worrying about the Hispanic vote.
Clinton did not win a
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 2:39am.
Clinton did not win a majority of the vote in '96. Bob Dole was a weak candidate. Ross Perot siphoned off significant anti-Clinton votes. In fact, I'd go so far as to say Ross Perot elected Clinton in '92. Remove Perot, and I think Bush 41 wins in a squeaker.
I assume you are aware, NL, that
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 4:22am.
Dole could have received every single one of Perot's votes in '96, and he still would have trailed Clinton in the popular vote. With respect to '92, you, as well as many other sour-grapes Republicans, have gone so far as to say Ross Perot elected Clinton. And you, as well as they, are wrong. I linked this analysis recently. It should be right up your alley. [The relevant findings are delineated on p. 284]
Jer
The fact remains that
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 12:06am.
The fact remains that wing-nut ran as a third party candidate. Not only did he suck up a huge portion of the Conservative oxygen, but he drew almost 19% of the popular vote. Clinton - Bush split the rest 43-37.
You claim as these 'experts' do that 40% of those folks that voted Perot were going to vote for Clinton if Perot was not in the race, thus giving Clinton a majority. I think that is pure rubbish. Perot ran on a fiscal responsibility platform. That certainly describes the Democrats, doesn't it? NOT! Perot attracted the same folks as the TEA Party today does. Those people are overwhelmingly conservative. They aren't going to vote for Clinton in large numbers.
Perot was the Tea Party candidate before there were . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 1:23pm.
. . . Tea Parties. Perot's message was all about fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget.
The difference between Perot in '92/'96 and 2010 is that Perot was an individual around whom a 'third party' formed, but like all so created third parties, it was only as strong as the candidate leading it.
The Tea Parties, on the other hand, are bubbling up from the grass roots, and are not dependent on one or even a few big name candidates.
I've seen no evidence that Perot cost either Bush-41 or Dole the elections. Republicans have always blamed their losses on him, because it was easier than blaming themselves.
What makes this history important is that the same primary/caucus system that selected Dole in '96 is what is in place now. If the GOP wants more control over whom their candidates are, they'll need to address this. Perhaps going back to state and national conventions is their best bet.
I don't think Perot was a
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 12:12am.
I don't think Perot was a factor in Dole's defeat. Dole was the wrong man at the wrong time. I do think Perot was the difference for Bush 41.
I do not know what evidence you expect to see. This is all what-if scenarios. We will never know what would have happened if Perot had not run.
All dictatorial regimes need
Submitted by Richard B. on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 2:51pm.
All dictatorial regimes need an enemy to rally aroung, Sarah Palin is the enemy of the Hussein O. regime.
Help
Submitted by TerryWest on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 2:55pm.
No matter what I do I cannot seem to get a consistant paragraph break where I need it to be when placing a comment it seems to decide on it's own when it will breck!, says browser dose not support this.... what ever I try! I use explorer, OS Win Vista
I liked the old format better where it was auto, no clip board permissions and so fourth but can someone please offer a suggestion as to how I might over come this frustration?
Thank you
Terry
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 3:29pm.
Terry,
Try turning your rich text editor off.
I find that's helpful when c/p.
It will turn back on when you preview your post, however.
Good luck...still lots of twitchy bugs here.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
If you are copying some
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 3:23am.
If you are copying some comment from the blog it is annoying because the auto paragraph feature will not work. But before you copy go into the box and hit enter to create another paragraph. Then go up to the first para and control V the comment and delete the extra. Then go down to the one you created and you will get the auto paragraph.
Yes I hope they work out the bugs soon.
LA Times editorial Board - on Sarah Palin's little gaffe
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 4:10pm.
I've been out, but I know that NS posted a super piece on Palin's little North Korea gaffe yesterday - here: Sarah Palin Sends 'Message to All 57 States' Bashing Media Focus on North Korea Gaffe .
Here's LA Time's editorial board member Paul Thornton, in his blog today:
Why make a big deal of Sarah Palin's 'our North Korean allies' gaffe?
More "Perfect evidence of how liberals are obsessed with Sarah Palin."
(;~> gary
A+B=C
Submitted by mulerider24 on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 4:43pm.
I side with Krauthammer on this one. He is directly addressing what I had to deal with over Thanksgiving.
My liberal brother starts undressing the Tea Party because our glorious media has annointed Palin as its spiritual advisor. Then the media hide in the bushes until Palin executes a minor miscue. Then they traipse out the usual A+B=C equation... Palin is stupid, ergo the Tea Party is a misguided movement with inept leadership.
It's not a strategy with a lot of depth, but given my brother's regurgitation the marching orders have reached the desired base.
As an earlier post indicated,
Submitted by Smartypants on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 7:08pm.
As an earlier post indicated, the political left always needs a demon to point to in order to energize its base. They had GWB for eight years, actually more than that if you consider they still are trying to blame him for the world's problems. Since Palin came on the scene, they undestand two things: 1. She is someone who is a threat to them and; 2. She is someone who can easily be demonized (a perfect substitute for Bush). They can then make her, and her alone, out to be THE face of the Republicans. By continuing this avenue, along with regular unfair demonization of everything she says and does, they can discredit the conservative movement, including the Tea Party and the Republican Party. This is why a day does not go by in which Palin is not mentioned in the msm, on some network program or in one of the daily rags.
~The desired base
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 10:59pm.
Is already a lost cause, there's no point in even trying to win them over. The people Palin is reaching are the "independents" who see her vilified, smeared, and mocked every time they turn around, thereby highlighting how dishonest and biased the MSM is.
It's hard to pretend you're not a hater when you've been caught wearing a white sheet and carrying a torch. The relentless attacks on Palin have only damaged the MSM's credibility and made her more popular over time. America always roots for the underdog.
I respect Krauthammer but he's missing the point
Submitted by DaMav on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 8:31pm.
Sarah Palin has the libs dancing on stage like silly puppets week after week. It was Sarah who almost single handedly derailed the rollout of ObamaCare last year with a page in Facebook on Death Panels. Rather than realizing that this was a brilliant political move, Krauthammer and a lot of conservative establishment types sat on the sidelines or even sanctimoniously knocked her for it.
It was Sarah Palin who this week made the media look like idiots with her clever rejoinder on "57 states", not Krauthammer.
There are numerous examples of this. She has them dancing on a string because she is not only right on key positions but rather brilliant at getting her point across. Instead of looking down his nose at her and sniffing, Krauthammer needs to figure out what she is doing right and reinforce it. In exchange, maybe she can give him some tips. lol, bet he'd hate to look at it that way but...
I like you Dr K but you need to realize you can learn as well as teach.
Charles is right
Submitted by michiganruth on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 9:30pm.
I'm with Charles K. on this one. and I'd hate to think that we are now going to be using the word "elitist" like the liberals use the word "racist"--that is, decide that the word now means "anyone who does not want Sarah Palin to run for president."
Dr. K. and Karl Rove are despised by the tea partiers now because they dared to point out that Christine O'Donnell was an awful candidate. (note to the TP: she was.) these guys are smart enough that we should respect their opinions even when we don't agree with them.
many of us who admire Palin don't want her to run. the point here is that the liberals would like to define "conservatism" as "Sarah Palin." the Dems would love Palin to run against Obama, because she would lose.
please people, let's not get stupid now. Christie, Jindal, Rubio...that's where we need to be looking for candidates, not Palin or--god forbid--Gingrich.
It wasn't the TP.
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 10:10pm.
Ruth,
The reason they got despised by the tea partiers is that the candidates that won the PRIMARY should have been supported. The people of those states have spoken and REGARDLESS if the people like Rove had a problem with them or not, the point is, the Republican Candidates that got selected in the primary, Angle, O'Donnell, and Miller, should not have been tarred and feathered by their own party. You mention Rubio, he was also a Tea Party favorite, but I say again, the people have spoken and he won, and not just because of the Tea Party.
In my book, that's a betrayal by not supporting those others. People did not want to have RINOs in place again and that's who Rove and the others wanted, especially Castle of Delaware, the guy might as well have a D instead of an R because of his voting record. Same thing with Murkowski. As for Sharon Angle, come on, miss out on a chance to get rid of Harry Reid? Need I say more about that?
It had nothing to do with "pointing out an awful candidate." It had to do with supporting the people's choice, and if they lost even though they got support, so be it. That's just how it goes, but they lost and did not have that support, that's not losing once, that's losing twice.
And defining Conservatism as "Sarah Palin" would be a bad idea. It's not just her, it's Rush, it's Rubio, it's West, and it's a whole lot of others. Conservatism is not about one person, it's not a selfish thing(unlike liberalism), it's about people and their freedom.
-Jon
Please, please, don't tell me
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 9:54pm.
Please, please, don't tell me that there is going to be a litmus test for what makes a "real" conservative and that litmus test is if one supports,in advance, without question, Sarah Palin as the Republican presidential nominee in 2012. If we are being set up for this, (and I am seeing more and more signs that it is) I'm deathly afraid things are going to get rough around here.
MSM had head start tearing Palin's image down
Submitted by nkviking75 on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 11:09pm.
One reason the media is obsessed with Sarah Palin is that they had the advantage of tearing down her image almost from the moment most of America first heard of her. They didn't see Limbaugh or Hannity or Beck or the others coming until they had built up a following. But Palin's speech to the GOP convention in St. Paul was a warning to the left that she could electrify conservatives if left alone. The first impression many Americans had of Palin were the MSM's attacks. They won't let up until she's gone. And if she manages to be elected President, the George W. Bush era will seem like a love fest.
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
They also serve who try but fail
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 11:25pm.
Sarah Palin is a blessing to the Conservative cause.
Agree
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 12:10am.
But better used as a rich keynote speech giver than a candidate perhaps?What is it with Sarah Palin and conservatives?
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 12:01am.
I hate that the MSM is obessesd with her, but it seems whenever anyone questions she might be overwhelmed by the job, people take it as insult. Questioning her competency is not out of bounds. I like Palin and her spirit, but she has to show more knowledge about foreign and domestic affairs before she gets my vote.Do you think that if the MSM
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 12:13am.
Do you think that if the MSM had covered Sarah Palin fairly and impartialy this sensitivity amongst her supporters would be such a problem?
no
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 1:26am.
No, why do you ask? Is it relivent on if she is competent to be POTUS or not?
You weren't making a point
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 1:32am.
You weren't making a point about the questions themselves. You were raising an issue about the reactions of her defenders.
Aside from that, compare the questions the MSM have raised about Palin's fitness to be POTUS and the ones they raised about Obama. Obama is not only unfit to be POTUS, he is not even constitutionally qualified to occupy the office.
and I am not disagreeing with you NL
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 1:39am.
My main point is asking if she is competent to be POTUS. If you would rather deflect the topic to how there is a double standard or if she is more quailfied than Obama, "both I am not disagreeing with you btw: then that is fine.
However if we stick to the subject about her competency, that would be great. I apologize if I am being rude when I say, answering with. Well Obama has been terrible because........ . Sorry that will not fly.
Please if you want me and other independents to vote for her, please give me reasons other than is she is better than Obama.
She is not a big government
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 1:43am.
She is not a big government marxist. She is a small government conservative.
I'm well aware of her views NL
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 1:52am.
Lots of people share her views. She has great charmisma and she can really pump up a crowd. Do you think with the situation right now with Korea. Would you trust her in a situation of crises more than Mitt Romney or Lynn Cheney?
There is more to a persons ablitly to lead than charisma. There has to be knowledge and understanding of how things work, and being able to work out solutions.
Shawn, Forget it. I've
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 2:14am.
Shawn,
Forget it. I've tried. These are true believers. Any doubts expressed about Sarah Palin will draw charges of heresy from them. Apparently, they have set up unconditional support of Sarah Palin as the limus test of what makes a true conservative. Forget that we've only been aware of her for what, three years? This is getting like the Inquisition. I'm waiting for the first comment that Ronald Reagan was a "RINO".
And would you like to discuss
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 2:15am.
And would you like to discuss this topic further? If Obama is qualified to be POTUS, then Sarah Palin is a gimmee.
I didn't think so.
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 10:23am.
I didn't think so.
You must be deliberately
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 10:24am.
You must be deliberately obtuse. No conservative here has said that Palin isn' qualified to be president if Obama's experience is the standard. However, some of us want the next president to be better than Obama. Is it all right for us to make up our minds over the coming year if Palin or someone else is that person? Apparently not. People like you want us to support Palin 1000% now - no questions asked. Otherwise, you lump us in with the media who trash her. I have never written one word derogatory about Palin. I defend her to liberals. However, I do not consider her some sort of a political saint, here to be worshipped. I'll support her if I decide she's the best of the field of candiidates and/or if she gets the nomination. If that's not good enough for you and her buddies - too freakin' bad.
You've got the PopTech
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 10:41am.
You've got the PopTech disease. And you've got it bad.
Not trashing Palin? You are certainly trashing me for defending Palin and trying to connect people's widespread misimpressions of her to the MSM's Palin defamation campaign that we now know was orchestrated by the JournoLists, a large body of lefty, hack journalists operating within the MSM.
Where did I ever say I say anyone has to support Palin 100%? There are large portions of her platform conservatives all agree on and the gulf between her policy agenda and Obama's couldn't be much larger. There is also a significant gap between her, McCain and the RINOs.
I will name one issue where she is on the right side : domestic energy production. Drill baby, drill! Now, you identify one issue where Palin deviates from the conservative agenda ... or start to look very foolish.
Seems that when
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 1:50am.
Palin is criticized, somebody will bring up something Obama did like clockwork.Shawn...You can take this to the bank:
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 2:13am.
There is no chance on God's green earth that Sarah Palin will run for president in 2012. The only people who wish she would run even more so than her very vocal and loyal conservative base are the majority of Democrats who realize she may be the only candidate Obama is capable of beating in the next election.
Besides, she is making way too much money and having way too much fun being a celebrity diva, conservative speaker-in-demand, and wisecracking tweeter than to take a pay cut for a job she doesn't really want and for which she is not really well-suited.
Jer
Obama is the current
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 2:22am.
Obama is the current President. He is the defacto standard against which all potential replacements will be compared, and it is a low standard indeed. So why are you surprised when he gets mentioned in regards to the qualities we want in a POTUS?
Chris I feel you pain buddy
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 2:17am.
I am not going to back down on this one. I am not a person that is going to call Sarah Palin hypocritical for her daughter having a baby and claiming abstinence or attack her children or call her daughter a whore.
She has went through alot and it great to see her fight back and win and laugh at her detracters
I remember what hapenned Chris. Hopefully it will be different this time.
>Sigh!<
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 2:11am.
I can't teach you leadership in one post. Let's just say that the truly great leaders are loaded with Charisma. They INSPIRE others to follow them. The success of any leader is the exponential product of the successes of his followers.
That noted, I think Sarah Palin is wise enough to know who to trust as her advisors. Her resignation as Governor of Alaska was an inspired move and I don't think she did this on her own. I think the folks she retained to advise her told her to do this. A great leader appoints a competent Secretary of State if he or she is not up to leading diplomacy herself. A great leader appoints a competent Secretary of Defense to administer and prepare the military and advances the right flag and general officers to lead in battle. Its called delegation and Ronald Reagan was a master at it. Obama sux. He appoints a load of Marxist ideologues just like himself and all these people do is screw up.
Last, Palin's views are everything. Philosophically, she supports and WILL APPOINT THOSE WHO SUPPORT, limited constitutional government. Obama is a statist tyrant. He appoints arrogant tyrants like Donald Berwick.
Sure her views are important to the Tea Party
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 2:22am.
What makes her more competent and a better leader than Lynn Cheney or Michelle Bachman or Donald Trump?
Dude, Its not just the Magazine question. It was a combination of her answers during her interviews. I am not saying I will not vote her, I want to know that she is up to the task.
How did you know Ronald
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 2:37am.
How did you know Ronald Reagan, either Bush or Bill Clinton were up to the task? The truth is neither you nor anyone else knew 100% for sure if any of those people would be acceptable Presidents before they held the office. Of that group, I would argue that Clinton was easily both the worst and simply unqualified by temperament or ideology to hold the office. The Bushes were at least competent and RR was simply extraordinary.
What qualities did Reagan have that made him extraordinary? Does Palin have any of these? What other potential candidates have these qualities as well?
I thought Reagan
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 2:44am.
the way he communicated with the American people was very inspiring. The way the sent in the jets to Libya to Star Wars and his peace making ability with the Soviet Uniion was remarkable.
Clinton when asked a question "not related to Monica" could phrase answers like no other, he had a awesome command of the English language and was very quick minded and in my opinion competent. I am not asking you to agree with me on Clinton, I am saying that is what I saw in him.
With Sarah Palin, I see very simple outlook on life about good vs evil and taxes are bad and lets protect the constitution. All good traits, but I do not know yet if she is qualified.
What you knew about Reagan
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 2:48am.
What you knew about Reagan BEFORE he took office was limited to your first sentence.
Reagan WAS a great communicator. Palin is too, but uses different 'channels'.
Did Reagan endure the kind of media propaganda assault that has plagued Palin prior to taking office?
Well NL
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 2:52am.
I have not made up my mind yet and I have plenty of time to judge myself if she deserves my vote. Obviously you are not going to come up with any more of a defense than how we did not know much about Reagan, she is getting picked on worse than Obama by the msm and her policy views, we probably don't have much more to talk about.
No other defense but her record is necessary
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 10:22am.
We know what she did as Mayor of Wasilla and as Gov. of Alaska. She is not generally judged on her complete record in those offices and that is because of this media barrage, much of which is outright false. Is she the most complete Conservative leader out there? I'd say no, but the others haven't declared themselves as candidates. One of them is the former Sepaker of the Florida State Legislature : Sen.-elect Marco Rubio.
My point about Palin is this : she is emminently preferrable to any of McCain, Huckabee, Romney, etc. and is more charismatic not to mention younger than Fred Thompson. This is why the Lib Media is trashing her AND in an act of despicable cowardice, her whole family including her kids.
My point about you is that you are being influenced by this propaganda and don't even seem to realize it.
That is not true NL
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 1:05pm.
I make up my own mind. I know Couric and Gibson was ruff on her, but it just seemed her understanding of issues was not quite there yet On the GOP side I prefer Chris Christy and Lynn Cheney but neither said they would run. I support Palin later, it depends on her performance during the primariesMore like Couric and Gibson's
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 12:19am.
More like Couric and Gibson's understanding of the issues was not quite there. Probably nothing has changed with those two since.
Do yourself a favor. Make a score card of the ten issues facing America most important to you. Then check Palin's position on each. See what you think of her after that exercise.
The interviews were a disaster
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 1:46am.
And they were not all the msm fault I did your ten questions thing, but instead of using Sarah Palin, I used Howard Stern. Seems his issues are very consistent with what I want. However jus because I like his stance on issues does not mean he would make a good President Perhaps you should take off the rose colored glasses and look more objectively.I did not ask you to evaluate
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 2:18am.
I did not ask you to evaluate Howard Stern. Where he stands is immaterial to the discussion. I asked you to evaluate Palin, which you did not. Mind still closed/
I am looking objectively. If we look past the MSM propaganda, Palin is a solid conservative. Moreover, she is a terrific communicator. She can reach everybody in this country except that hardcore 20% who self identify as liberals if we could ever correct the smear MSM has applied to her.
Communicator. That is what made Reagan a great President. There are lots of solid conservatives around. How many of them can clearly explain conservatism in a positive light to those who do not understand it? Palin can grow into that role. There are a few other Republicans who can do this too but none of them were running for POTUS in 2008. Whether you like her or not, she still is on the Republican short list for President.
Not. A closed mind
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 11:01am.
My point is that just because she is on the right side on issues does not make her the right candidate. I told you I would look at all factors during the primaries but it looks like out f two of us, only one has made up his mind. So I would not be so quick to fingerpoint a closed mind.shawn, overwhelmed
Submitted by gfrrman on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 1:59am.
with bs. As you should know by now this site is about liberal media Bias...."it seems whenever anyone questions she might be overwhelmed by the job, people take it as insult. Questioning her competency is not out of bounds." Where was the same from you and the MSM about Teleprompter boy??? Again more MSM bias, "she has to show more knowledge about foreign and domestic affairs before she gets my vote." Anyone in the MSM ask these questions about Teleprompter boy? You apparently ARE part of the MSM by proxy. Pot meet kettle
G
You see gfrrman that is why NL is in such a different class than
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 2:23am.
.......you are.
Even though he defects once in a while, he stays on the topic.
All you have is to accuse me of being like the msm, when I have done nothing but defend her and call out hatemongers like Mike Malloy.
It simply is not true, you make it sound like seeing if she is knowledgable and handling the job first before she gets my vote is silly.
Its the most important job in the world. Surely trying to make sure she is up for the task is not being like the msm would it?
.
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 12:14am.
.
I know how how Krauthammer feels
Submitted by goldwaterfan on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 3:49am.
He really despises her and wants her to go away. It's too late though. The genie is out of the bottle. The media is fascinated by her, and she loves the attention , so it's a mutual thing. She's got her book to sell and her reality show to promote, so nothing's going to change for awhile. I don't think she is going to run for president though. Krauthammer and the rest of the Republicans don't seem so sure. They are scared to death that she might somehow win the nomination, then lose badly in the general election.
Amanda Carrington
They are scared to death that
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 6:11am.
They are scared to death that she might somehow win the nomination, then lose badly in the general election.Couldn't do any worse than MCain. No I think the elites worry they can't keep her in check and she will be reform to DC like she did in Alaska.
She's going to do much worse
Submitted by goldwaterfan on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 6:31am.
Than McCain did, if she ran for president. What states is she going to win that McCain didn't? What did she reform when she was in Alaska? I guess she taxed the oil companies a little more. What else?
Amanda Carrington
Whoopi GoldbergFan
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 9:02am.
If you'd dig a little deeper, (but obviously you won't), you would find the minerals under the ground in Alaska belong to the collective rather than the individual. That's not something Sarah Palin instituted.
So, are you claiming Sarah raised the royalties oil companies were paying to the State, or are you saying she raised their taxes.
Pity you can't decipher the difference.
Krauthammer May Be an Elitist, but He's Criticizing PBS
Submitted by daveinboca on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 4:11am.
I don't think CK is as afraid of Palin as he is of the Demonrats setting up a straw man every day, it seems, and knocking her down. Now that the majority of the thinking country realizes the lamestream MSM is going down the tubes into history's cesspool day-by-day, with ogress Totenberg leading the sliders, perhaps Gordon Peterson, who died long ago, might understand how much he's being played for a knave or a fool.
I'd say more like possessed.
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 6:58am.
I'd say more like possessed.
Barack_Must_Go.....
Conservatives need to stop worrying about 2012...
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 10:59am.
...and start focusing on the here and now, because if Obama isn't stopped cold in his tracks starting right f'ing now, as in today, what happens in the voting booths of America two years hence will be utterly meaningless.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
He cannot be stopped by the House alone.
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 11:11am.
Obama has sole control of the administrative state. His allies retain control of the Senate. He will continue misusing that authority as he has for the last two years to further his agenda without the consent of Congress.
The best we can do is to use the power of the House to defund some of his activities, hold hearings on others and force reconciliations with the Senate.
Right now, the most important single piece of legislation we need to block in the Lame Duck is the DREAM Act. We've got to do that with the 42 sitting Republican Senators. This will be hard .... RINOs may be the death of us.
What does the GOP have
Submitted by Cowboy on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 10:41pm.
What does the GOP have without the conservatives?
Democrats... More of the same we have now...