Andrew Sullivan Shocks Chris Matthews: Palin Can Beat Obama as the 'Principled' Tea Party Candidate
By Noel Sheppard | May 29, 2011 | 08:56
Andrew Sullivan this weekend seemed to shock Chris Matthews when he said that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin could actually beat President Obama in next year's elections running as the "principled candidate" representing "this grassroots movement of cutting government down to size."
Maybe even more surprising, Time's Joe Klein seemed to agree telling the host of "The Chris Matthews Show," "You were around in ’79 and ’80 as I was. Did you see many people in the Carter administration think that Ronald Reagan could beat Jimmy Carter?" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Does anybody here really, does anybody imagine Sarah Palin being elected President of the United States?
ANDREW SULLIVAN, DAILY BEAST: Yes.
MATTHEWS: You can.
SULLIVAN: Yes, because…
[LAUGHTER]
GLORIA BORGER, CNN: Uh oh, here it comes.
SULLIVAN: …not because of her apparent virtues, not because of Obama’s weakness, but because of unforeseen events. I do think that if for example we have a collapse in the markets because of a debt ceiling crisis, if we have a second recession…
MATTHEWS: You’re talking Armageddon.
SULLIVAN: If we have another terrorist attack…
BORGER: Sorry.
SULLIVAN: No, I’m just saying we shouldn’t rule out things.
MATTHEWS: Okay, okay, let’s go…
JOE KLEIN, TIME MAGAZINE: You were around, you were around in ’79 and ’80 as I was. Did you see many people in the Carter administration think that Ronald Reagan could beat Jimmy Carter?
MATTHEWS: Okay, let’s imagine that short of an Armageddon moment like the capture of 80 hostages and the humiliation of the United States for year-long and inflation and unemployment like Carter had.
Well, we’ve got the soaring gas and food prices as well as the unemployment. Apparently Obama gives Matthews too much of a thrill up his leg to notice.
Regardless, a few minutes later, the discussion came back to Palin:
MATTHEWS: Okay, let’s go to Palin. Lot of fun here. Palin, you love Palin. In some strange way you’re fascinated by her, Andrew.
SULLIVAN: As I said on the show many times, she started running the day after the 2008 election ended, and there’s no reason to believe she isn’t running.
MATTHEWS: Did she take a smart break the last three or four months so that the Newts and the Trumps make fools of themselves more or less?
SULLIVAN: Her position has been formerly if no one else will represent this grassroots movement of cutting government down to size and standing up for America abroad, then I will have to go in.
MATTHEWS. Anger. She’ll be the anger candidate.
SULLIVAN: Not just the angry candidate. She’ll be the principled candidate against what she will describe as the free…
MATTHEWS: Are you getting her into this race? Are you escorting her into this race?
SULLIVAN: No, no, no, no, no. I’m too terrified for the country to do such a thing. But I don’t, I do think Washington has misread her, underestimated her, and doesn’t see the…
MATTHEWS: Okay, can Palin and Bachmann run both on the right?
KLEIN: Sure they can both run, but I don’t know that either of them can win. But one thing you have to say about Palin: she doesn’t know anything about policy, but she’s got skills. She knows how to be a standup politician.
MATTHEWS: I agree. Great on the stage.
KLEIN: Yeah.
BORGER: But I believe in the end she’s so relentlessly negative that the, the American people don’t like relentlessly negative politicians. Look at Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was optimistic, positive…
SULLIVAN: But “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” is the most – I know it’s completely phony – but it’s very optimistic. This whole “Triumph of the Will” movie she’s putting out there, two hours of total upbeat, optimistic stuff. She, she knows this, and she’s going to work around it.
It is indeed fascinating that any media discussion of Republican presidential candidates always goes back to Palin.
Is it because the press really want her to run to make the race more interesting, or much like Sullivan they secretly fear she could be the one to beat the president they love so much?
*****Update: Sullivan once again made a Nazi reference to Palin by calling her upcoming documentary "Triumph of the Will."
As NewsBusters reported Friday, Sullivan first did this at his Daily Beast blog substituting the title of a 1934 Nazi propaganda film for Palin's "The Undefeated" (H/T Right Scoop).
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
The problem for Palin, I believe, is that
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 9:16am.
in debate, where technical details will be called for and need be criticized she will get creamed. The problem is that that will marginalize her.
I worked for a manager who, in my 40 years in a technology industry was hands down the best manager. However, he knew very little about the technology that he managed. What he had were amazing skills in recognizing the right people to put between himself and these areas, that he had 100% faith in, and our projects were greatly successful. The point being, without having the detail, you can manage if you know how and with whom to delegate responsibilities to. Palin could well have these same skills.
But, between the marginalization and that most people don't realize that a manager can manage if they are of the right mindset (Obama is not), I think Palin would have an extremely tough time getting elected.
By the way, if she was the GOP choice, of course I would vote for her.
I agree
Submitted by Gat New York on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 9:27am.
The problem I have had with Sarah Palin is her stage presense and the fact, for whatever reason, she does not come across with the gravitas we expect of a President. Her catch phrases such as "going rogue" or "lamestream media" are great if you are a political pundit and she is a very good one. But they are not "presidential" speak.
I would imagine that her facts are better than they were when she ran for vice president but it is still her delivery and stage persona are still not presidential - although I will be happy if it did change once she goes on the road.
Having said that, Obama is so fatally flawed that once there is a GOP candidate he will be slaughtered. He could be beaten even by someone like Pat Paulson.
You mean the gravitas and the baritone voice
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 9:31am.
of the Teleprompter of the United States? If gravitas is required, then that buffoon Jimmah Carter would have never been elected and the left wouldn't keep pushing people like Kerry forward. Sarah has what is needed; an ability to relate to people (which Obama doesn't have), an ability to put complex thoughts into simple phrases (death panels) and an ability to stand toe-to-toe with accusers and call them out.
Dennis Prager
Gat,
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 10:37am.
You make some valid points.
Palin is a much better "off the cuff" speaker than Obama, she actually can speak in complete sentences and paragraphs.
But she, and Michelle Bachman to a lesser extent, truly "have" the intellectual stammer (HA!) in that they both talk faster and faster as they get into a topic, and the pitch of their voices rise. Not good. Some voice and elocution lessons would benefit the both of them hugely, I think.
I know it's a picky criticism, but it's important, inasmuch as perception is reality for many people. Think of Palin's words, delivered in a Maggie Thatcher modulated voice and diction. She doesn't need to go full Brit, obviously, but losing the "twang", high pitch, and some of the cheesy colloquialisms would go a long way in giving her some of this "faux" gravitas that pundits and non-political junkies value so highly.
And finally, from the fashion police, she needs to lose the beehive hair (and have it styled into something more chic and serious). Her wardrobe if just fine, her suits and shoes work beautifully.
If she can just learn to deliver her message in a more pleasing manner, she's more than half way home.
And to those who think this is just "silly"....we passed on one of the smartest guys around a few elections back, merely because he looks and sounds kind of goofy. Steven Forbes. Smart, articulate, well dressed, horrible voice and that sweet but silly face. A shame.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 109 (and Counting)
Allen West
Submitted by Gat New York on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 11:26am.
Blonde - taking off of your sign-off, after watching FoxNews Sunday this morning, Allen West must be on everyone's short list for VP. He is an illustration of gravitas - no quirky catch phrases - by calm direct command of the facts and presentation of the issues. Every word he says is important and needs to be listened to.
Gat
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 11:46am.
Wait until you see him in person! I refer you to this, my very own photo. We were about 3 rows back. As for his "calm direct command of facts"....the man is incredibly charming and quick-witted. He just exudes leadership in person. Here is the moonbat heckler I referred to in my blog (she's a serial heckler and got tossed from a meeting last month, apparently).
I suspect you may be correct. Allen has said many times "he's not ready", and also that he promised to us, his constituents, that he'd complete his term in office. And I've said here, many times, he knows what he doesn't know about DC and how the game is played at that level. But joining the ticket as the VP candidate would take care of both concerns. And he's more than ready for that.
But I also believe that VP might be the perfect position for him right now. Ryan/West. Anyone/West. West would do for whomever is at the top what Sarah Palin did for McCain.
FNS doesn't hit the airwaves here until 2:00, but I got Allen's e-mail alert, so we are ready.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 109 (and Counting)
BINGO!
Submitted by beauxdog on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 12:45pm.
My biggest complaint with Palin is that her voice grates on me. I think she is a lot smarter and wiser than some people give her credit for. Is she presidential? I don't know... but at a minimum... she is a king maker. I know I would seriously look at anyone she recommended.
As for her being negative... I am afraid the leftists look at anyone who doesn't bow before their altar as negative... no matter how sunshiny their personality is.
If she learned to control her voice and presentation, she would be presidential. She could even work in a few colloquialisms that would be devastating to the competition.
Bingo
Submitted by Gat New York on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 2:01pm.
I think you nailed it. I don't think Palin will run but this bus tour us setting herself up as the king maker and driver of the party platform. She could be an enormously powerful force in this election doing just that and, at the same time, drive up her ability to make even more money with appearances and books.
One problem.
Submitted by davehm on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 11:03am.
The only problem that I see with your assessment is the fact when Palin shows up to speak she fills the room.
So does any celebrity and she
Submitted by Gat New York on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 11:30am.
So does any celebrity and she has become more of an entertainment level celebrity rather than a leader. I think she will not run and instead be the primary mover of the GOP campaign on framing issues and going after Obama. That is her strength.
There is a valley of difference between Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin. Both fill up a room - both have a commanding presence. But you want to listen to every word of sage analysis of Cheney and Palin only serves to reinforce what you already believe and has no ability to increase the number of believers.
You mean, like Biden beat her?
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 9:29am.
The only traction that the left has is by using Tina Fey quotes and attributing them to Sarah Palin. Sarah has a year to learn stuff, and she is good. No one is fooled by the stupid media questions of "not knowing the lord magnificent of Transylvania" or some other question as having importance.
Palin can only beat herself if she let's them distract her from being on message. However, I still think that Herman Cain can be the candidate that Palin wants to come from the tea party. We'll see as he unfolds.
Dennis Prager
The debate with Biden was a joke.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 9:42am.
As much as BO is incompetent, you don't really think he is as impotent as Joe (viagra or not), do you?
Anyone think Palin can't win a debate?
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 9:46am.
Considering the fury after Palin said a mere two words "Death Panels", I am sure she will do fine.
To win a debate against Obama (now that he has a record of more than voting "present") one merely needs to behave as the child in The King's New Cloths and say what no one else dares speak. The truth.
_______________________________________
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
_______________________________________
Look Stinky, I don't think so.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 9:51am.
There are many policies and details therein to trip her up. If she stumbles on any of these things during debate, she will be marginalized. These debates will be harsh and technical. Harsh is not enough.
Take away his teleprompter .....
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 10:07am.
make certain he doesn't have the questions supplied in advance, and how well do you think charlatan Obama will do is such an environment? We've seen what happens when the TOTUS breaks and he goes off-script. It isn't pretty!
Yes, we all saw that at the
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 11:06am.
Yes, we all saw that at the Rick Warren "town hall" in 2008. Obama did so poorly the Liberals accused McCain of cheating.
_______________________________________
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
_______________________________________
That's Mr. Stinker to you
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 10:56am.
She can be more than harsh.
You shouldn't believe what the Make Believe Media says about her.
_______________________________________
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
_______________________________________
Sarah Palin
Submitted by Icarus on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 9:23am.
Well, Sarah Palin is probably not going to run.
And, she can't win in a match up with Barack Obama.
Any one can beat Obama. the
Submitted by Gat New York on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 9:29am.
Any one can beat Obama. the man is so fatally flawed and has proven to be the most incompetent and weakest President in American history that even Pat Paulson could beat him - and he's deceased.
Pretty sure...
Submitted by Icarus on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 9:33am.
...the polling doesn't back that up. That is, the empirical evidence that matches Obama up with each of the (possible) Republican candidates. Obama winning.
There is ONE candidate that will defeat Obama ...
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 9:37am.
as surely as I write this, provided he is allowed to run : $4 per gallon gasoline.
$4 gasoline is already here
Submitted by Icarus on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 9:45am.
And Obama's polling is still pretty good.
Of course, gas prices are going to go down in the near future, and the unemployment rate will decline in the long-term. So, I'm not sure how those issues are going to work out for the angry challengers of Obama.
Not so.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 9:49am.
Gas prices are at 4.50 today. Don't worry the thieves will make the necessary adjustments at the appropriate moment though.
From AAA:
Submitted by Icarus on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 10:02am.
The national average for regular unleaded for today: $3.79, which is down. State wise, the highest average is in Alaska, at $4.265.
National average: http://fuelgaugereport.aaa.com/?redirectto=http://fuelgaugereport.opisne...
State by state: http://fuelgaugereport.aaa.com/?redirectto=http://fuelgaugereport.opisne...
$4.50? Today?
Price of crude is now back over 100 bucks/ bbl.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 11:14am.
The price at the pump will be climbing again.
Don't tell the jobs killer or he will sweep in and declare this a wasteland, just like be did in the gulf.
A fellow Democrat when Reagan was one.
Icarus LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 3:25pm.
Did the man say average? Huh? Idiot. He gave a price. Period. So you mock a guy that is correct. What does that say about you? Idiot. Instead of acting up the idiot, why don't you try telling the truth here for once.
$4.69
Marathon
335 N Ogden Ave & Carroll Ave
Do you hear anybody in the national press ....
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 10:10am.
talking about Obama's responsibility for this? I have seen polling data that says that less than 10% of the people believe Obama is responsible for the high price of gas. To allow $4 gas to run against Obama means to blame him and his failed polices for this situation. Which Republican candidate is doing this aggressively? None, that is who!
"unemployment rate will decline"
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 10:44am.
They say pictures speak louder than words. Well, here are two pictures which even a ten year old can understand.
Employment as a Percent of Population.
Dream on, Icarus. Keep flying up there, close to your sun, Obama.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 109 (and Counting)
Yep, the unemployment rate
Submitted by Icarus on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 11:28am.
Yep, the unemployment rate will decline in the long-term, just like it's been declining from it's 10.1% peak in October of 2009. No one has to "dream on" about facts.
The "rate"
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 11:54am.
....is only declining, because the government is spoofing the numbers.
The real rate is north of fifteen percent. And it's not going to improve as long as Obama continues to fiddle. This latest stunt with the NLRB spiking the Boeing move to the Carolinas has got every business in the country on edge. Can't move to a non-union state? Fine, move out of the country. Yep, that's the ticket to economic recovery, Bammy. Straight away.
So yes, you can "dream on" about your faux facts. Because reality matters. And unemployed voters, and those who are friends and family of the unemployed, are totally unimpressed with the fake unemployment number(s). They know the truth.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 109 (and Counting)
Oh look, the anonymous lying moniker is making predictions again
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 3:30pm.
Too bad the lying idiot Icarus has never been correct about one single prediction here. Remember his taunting prediction of Democrats winning every single Senate seat last November?
Go away lying idiot. Go somewhere that appreciates taunting idiot trolls.
Once the price of a gallon of gas hits $5.00
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 9:45am.
you could probably beat BO with a pile of turds. However, there is little doubt that these crooks will play with all the numbers just before election to "pump" their approval ratings.
They will temporarily force gas prices down and cook the books to fool the public into thinking the economy and job market are getting better. Whatever it takes to win. Remember, if you're a thief, the ends always justify the means.
"Once the price of a gallon
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 1:43pm.
"Once the price of a gallon of gas hits $5.00 you could probably beat BO with a pile of turds."
Nah, that would result in a draw.
Wax wings?
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 9:49am.
So what you're saying is that in a poll where you can either choose one guy (we'll call him candidate Zero, for delineation purposes) -OR- you can choose between one of a dozen people and the data shows that Zero comes out on top, that this will translate equally in a poll between Zero and only one of the aforementioned dozen?
Icarius, polls are mostly meaningless this far out
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 9:49am.
In your way of thinking horses would not actually have to run their races because the bookies would pick the winners based on their handicapping picks.
More than one Presidential race has been decided by voter switches in the last week of the campaign.
John McCain was ahead in polling a few weeks out and then the economic crunch came and gave the democrats the edge.
Obama did not win in a landslide and only a few percentage of his voters have to switch to the Republicans for him to lose re-election.
bkeyser AND MidAmerica
Submitted by Icarus on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 10:09am.
Okay, I'll give you that. Perhaps maybe, the general election match-ups today are wrong or will change dramatically change over time. But it seems better to be in Obama's position (I'm ahead in all the polls) than in the Republican candidates' position (We hope the polls will change).
You're missing the point-
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 10:26am.
You're missing the point-
When potential voters are given the choice to vote on competing issues, and one side is represented by only one candidate, everyone who supports those issues will support that single candidate. When those who support the competing issues are forced to choose between a dozen potential candidates, their votes are split. Polling data relative to support for Obama vs. support for a GOP candidate is meaningless so long as more than one GOP candidate is theoretically still in the running.
General enthusiasm data is much more valid at this stage; Barry's not looking so good on this front.
Don't fly too high...
Interesting theory you have there
Submitted by Icarus on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 11:23am.
About a single candidate versus a series of potential challengers. I tested the theory against a couple of past Presidential elections and got mixed results. The 2004 and 1996 elections seem most appropriate because they each had an incumbent President that was the clear favorite of his party matched up against a series of challengers from the opposing party. (I excluded the 1992 election because Ross Perot's effect on the general election results disqualified it.)
In the spring-summer of 2003, Repub incumbent George W. Bush led Dem challenger John Kerry significantly (something like 15-20 points). The eventual election outcome was much closer, with a slight Bush win. One could make the case that Kerry's support was split in 2003 among the several Dem candidates and that he improved his standing by unifying that support.
In the spring-summer of 1995, Repub challenger Bob Dole led Dem incumbent Bill Clinton by a few points (!). Of course, Dole lost support after the Republican primaries were over and Republican support was more unified.
Is any single candidate among an active primary field at a disadvantage because of the split among the primary field? Results inconclusive.
Not so much of a theory
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 12:26pm.
as simple math.
100% of voters.
36% Dems, 34% Repubs, 30% Indies (roughly).
One Dem candidate who gets 100% of Dems, and 14% of Indies (for demonstration purposes) leaves 50% of voters for the GOP. With a dozen candidates to chose from, no candidate is likely to receive more than 15% or so of the vote. So Obama leads by a wide margin. Narrow the GOP candidate to one, and he/she likely gets 50% of the total vote. The only variable is crossovers; those that tentatively support one political viewpoint now, but switch later based on either the specific nominees or the political environment.
The point is, polls at this stage relative to a GOP candidate vs. Obama are useless exercises.
George Bush the Senior thought so too
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 10:44am.
....with 90+% approval ratings prior to his re-election bid.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 109 (and Counting)
Even SNL covered Bush Sr.'s lead
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 11:16am.
In fact, Bush Sr.'s lead was so pronounced, SNL did a sketch based on the Democrat debates, and called is "Decision 92. The Race to *NOT* be the one who loses to Bush", and all the candidates were talking about why they were unqualified, corrupt, etc.
_______________________________________
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
_______________________________________
Now that's the fact, Blonde---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 4:47pm.
that provides the heat that melts the wax that holds the Birdman's faux wings tight along his body just to the north of his arse thereby loosening the bonds that heretofore prevented his spiraling out of control towards the sea.
Alas, contact is reluctantly but inevitably made, with the Sea of Discontent, by Icarus, at a high level of speed, resulting in the compaction of his body and the altering of his username.
To "Ickrus". :o) (h/t upcountrywater)
MD
Polls today of matchups are
Submitted by Gat New York on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 11:06am.
Polls today of matchups are completely irrelevant.
Once there is a GOP candidate and the focus is on anti-Israel Obama, bad economy Obama, high gas prices Obama, high unemployment Obama, and Obamacare then it will not be close. Obama has zero chance of re-election - even with the outrageous lies spewing from the no-idea left.
Don't count on polls.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 12:13pm.
"the polling doesn't back that up."
Kinda like Reagan in 1980. Carter had a 34 point advantage over Reagan, and look how that turned out.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Icarus = Troll
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 9:45am.
Do not feed the Troll.
_______________________________________
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
_______________________________________
Actually
Submitted by Icarus on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 9:54am.
I just have a belief that's different from yours and which you oppose.
Scandalous, right?
Lying to people will win them over.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 10:04am.
Yeah, you go through life believing that. Troll.
Lying to people will win them over.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 10:05am.
Yeah, that belief is scandalous. Troll.
Oh look. The anonymous moniker made a prediction.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 10:01am.
The anonymous idiot that has not been truthful here once suddenly expects us to have faith in his prediction.
Yeah, that is how it works. Idiot. We believe you this time.
Wow.
Submitted by Icarus on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 10:12am.
I haven't been truthful once here?
That's some indictment. I should feel bad.
Missed the point dintcha?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 11:37am.
And no. You have done nothing but lie. So you fill those diapers and act shocked, shocked I tellz ya.
Hey, Icky.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 10:20am.
Maybe your Boy Genius will give another Memorial Day speech (or is He over that?) welcoming "the veterans we honor today who are here with us." He probably can raise the dead, though.
So, your criticism is...
Submitted by Icarus on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 10:26am.
...Obama honored living veterans?
Harsh.
Sorry Icarus
Submitted by Demonhunter on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 10:59am.
Sorry Icarus, you are apparently as ignorant as Obama when it comes to honoring our military. Memorial Day is about those who died. It is Veteran's Day, November 11th that honors living veterans.
One might assume you pronounce it Marine "Corpse" as well.
If those were isolated slip-ups, it would not be significant. But, Obama is as big a gaffe machine as Joe Biden. And that is one humungous gaffe machine.
It wasn't even a slip-up on Obama's part
Submitted by Icarus on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 11:43am.
At least not by what has been presented. So, there's no chance of it being significant.
There's nothing wrong with honoring living veterans, on Memorial Day or on any day.
It is indeed an honorable thing to honor---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 4:56pm.
veterans; living, or having passed on to their rewards, on any day.
That you are blind, Icarus, to the disdain shown by so many liberals and Democratic politicians to our military establishment and personnel is one of the more salient reasons to dislike both you and the ridiculous liberal tripe you spout on these threads during your (thankfully rare) visits here.
MD
Icarus LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 6:09pm.
President Obama spoke of fallen heroes in the crowd. Fallen heroes are those that have died in battle.
Yes there is Idiot.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 7:26pm.
Memorial day is for honoring the dead. Veterans day is for the living, retired, and discharged veterans.
Figures a cowardly little idiot like you would not know that.
I have called you a liar. Now I am calling you a Stupid Liar.
Memorial Day represents one day of national awareness and reverence, honoring those Americans who died while defending our Nation and its values. While we should honor these
heroes every day for the profound contribution they have made to securing our Nation's freedom, we should honor them especially on Memorial Day.
How many times do I have to catch you acting like you have some measure of intelligence while spouting some of the stupidest blather here?
Ever hear of Veterans Day?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 7:33pm.
Ever hear of Veterans Day? That's the day (November 11th, in case you didn't know) all veterans, living or dead, are honored. Memorial Day is reserved for those men and women who died in battle. And I say this as a veteran myself.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Gravitas more overrated than diversity!
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 9:49am.
We have a "president" who is a great speaker, if you don't listen to the actual words he's saying. The acoustic effects are fantastic. He actually can sound like God with the right effect! The man could bullshiite his way all the way to the office never having done squat. That takes skill, and being latte doesn't hurt.
We've had all that. As Herman Cain asked, "How's that working out for you, America?" If you like Bambi, why not Joooooohn Kerry? He can even almost pronounce Gin-Ghis Khan, yo. Sounds great doesn't it? Nobody says it like that but him, so he MUST be smarter than a community organizer.
All said, I'll go with someone who can be a successful mom. That's a tough job.
It's the Reverberator Pro
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 10:46am.
...don't believe me? Listen to Shanklin's stuff. :)
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 109 (and Counting)
Obama never had an ounce of
Submitted by Gat New York on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 11:19am.
Obama never had an ounce of gravitas. Being articulate and reading teleprompters does not equate to gravitas. There are many in the GOP who have commented on Palin's lack of gravitas and it is evident. It has nothing to do with her position on issues or her ability to command a stage. It has to do with the perception of her as being "serious" and with catch phrases like "going rogue" or "lamestream media" she only furthers that perception.
If you watched Allen West on FoxNews Sunday that is someone who does not need quirky catch phrases or rabble-rounsing rhetoric to exude gravitas and, while on the subject, he should be on everyone's short list for VP.
Yes, SHE can!!
Submitted by ekslib on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 10:14am.
Sarah CAN win. The GOP's main problem isn't an inability to present the issues. The GOP's MAIN problem is with getting the word out at the same time that Democrats and the press are obnoxiously interrupting and squelching the GOP talking points.
Sarah is just about the only candidate who can be heard above the din.
BHO just needs one more year
Submitted by povertypimpin on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 10:35am.
BHO just needs one more year of Fed money printing/massive deficit spending to artificially pump the economy so that he can be elected again. Any "cuts" he agrees to will be years down the road.
policy and details are effect not a cause.
Submitted by c5then on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 11:02am.
The problems that conservatives have are related to values and ideals, not policy. Policy flows from and is a result of the bedrock values and ideals that a person has. The president doesn't need to be a policy wonk and in fact should not be. How much did policy knowledge help Obama on the BP oil spill? How much policy was in place when Egypt erupted in civil unrest? How much is policy helping him decide how to deal with Syria and Yemen and Bahrain?
It is the underlying values that a person has that dictate how they respond to unforseen crises. That is THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect of anyone running for President.
Reagan beat Carter not because he had more policy knowledge but because he had the values and ideals that America wants in the Oval Office. Palin can beat Obama the same way and for the same reasons. So can Cain, Bachmann, Pawlenty and Paul. I'm not so sure about the others.
Part time Congress with term limits! - No more professional politicians. Let's start rebuilding the Republic!
Best Wonk = Worst President
Submitted by Avitar on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 1:27pm.
I don't know that the title is true but the people who do the best with the big picture get the details done without making a great show of them.
I was looking back at Reagan's commercialization of the Internet and his Human Genome Project this week. Either is now shaking our world more than the space program and the missions to the Moon has but how often are the speechs anouncing them replayed? He just quietly went about reshaping civilzation.
You wonder how many news reporters even know about the transportation of Alaskan natural gas to the lower forty-eight states via Canadian pipelines that Sarah Palin arranged as Governor. Just quietly going along getting the details right.
I didn't see it on here but...
Submitted by ArchConservative on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 12:14pm.
Did anyone else notice that Andrew Sullivan used the movie title "Triumph of the Will" to describe Sarah Palin. This is a direct and purposeful comparison to Adolf Hitler. When the HELL are these people going to be held accountable for their slandering and horrendous "reporting"?
You support the troops by supporting the mission! If you don't support the mission, have the guts to say you don't support the troops.
Obama: Not my President. Ever.
Bad news for Obama!
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 12:18pm.
"Okay, let’s imagine that short of an Armageddon moment like the capture of 80 hostages and the humiliation of the United States for year-long and inflation and unemployment like Carter had."
Hay, Crissy, you just admitted that during a crisis, that "Armageddon" you mentioned, no one would want Obama as President just like they didn't want Carter! HA HA!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Oh, and by the way...
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 12:40pm.
Oh, and by the way, Chrissy, it wasn't just the capture of those 80 hostages, it was 444 days of captivity and the paralysis of the Carter Administration, along with a failed 'rescue" that help to defeat Carter. What happened to those hostages when Reagan took office? Oh, that's right, they were RELEASED just before he was sworn in!
Let's just forget Carter's self-created "oil crisis," shall we? Let's ignore those long lines at the pump and the "no gas today" signs. I guess that didn't have an impact on America, did it Chrissy?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Palin can't beat Obama?
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 1:08pm.
Palin can't beat Obama?
Listen to the guy without a Teleprompter, you'll realize that any Conservative can beat him. OBAMA FAIL
_______________________________________
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
_______________________________________
Keep telling yourself that
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 3:11pm.
Despite that video and many others, Obama currently has around a 50% approval rating. How often do presidents with that high an approval rating lose? Sure, it could drop, but I wouldn't count on it.
Like it or not, he's not going to be easy to beat. If Palin is our candidate, he will be impossible to beat, unless something devastating happens. Not exactly a good position to be in.
And please, folks, stop mentioning Reagan and Carter. It's not 1979-1980, and neither Reagan nor Carter are on the ballot. What happened then has no bearing on what happens in 2012. Just because Reagan got elected doesn't mean Palin has a chance in hell of getting elected. She is no Reagan. And Bush senior isn't relevant either, unless you expect Obama to come out and say he is for privatizing social security and outlawing abortion, causing Hillary to run as a third party candidate. Then Palin might have a shot.
I say these things not because I don't like Palin, because I do. But just because I like someone doesn't mean I have to be dumb. She can't win. And if we're hoping everything collapses so she has a decent shot, we're really screwed.
Palin aside, at this point, unless a game-changer candidate emerges, I really don't like our chances in 2012.
Given who is reporting
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 3:12pm.
Given who is reporting Obama's personal approval rating, I do not believe it one bit.
Ask Ford about that
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 6:32pm.
"How often do presidents with that high an approval rating lose? "
Maybe you should ask Ford about that. He was polling around 53 percent just before he lost to Carter. And then there's H.W. Bush, who lost to Clinton despite having higher approval ratings than Obama does today. Here's an interesting little chart you should see.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
If Palin does run, she can
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 8:13pm.
If Palin does run, she can win, and she would win because she has better ideas, and she isn't afraid to talk about them.
_______________________________________
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
_______________________________________
I would count on it
Submitted by needle on Mon, 05/30/2011 - 9:16pm.
“Sure, [Obama’s approval rating] it could drop, but I wouldn't count on it.”
Well, I would count on it. The Osama incident notwithstanding, Obama simply is not a leader. It is more likely that I will win the lottery than he will slip by the next 18 months without at least a few ,and probably many, serious misjudgments and the nation escape unscathed.
As for offing of Osama, be assured Obama has milked that for all it is worth and the then some; and he has already arrogated to himself more credit than he deserves for that. For example, Obama should have kept the whole operation secret until the rumors of Osama’s demise were rife and undeniable, and in the meantime we should have exploited the numerous opportunities which the captured trove of intelligence provided to wipe out huge chunks of Al Qaeda, before anybody figured out what had happened. But did our wise leader do that? Nooooooo. Instead he went about bragging like a school boy, trying to establish his creds that he is a leader. As always “It’s all about him.”
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
Palin's Wonkish Index Fatally Low. Banned from Washington.
Submitted by Avitar on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 1:11pm.
What everyone keeps looking for in Sarah Palin is she is not wonkish. We are so used the talking heads on TV where wonkiness was the ratings magic for success over fifty years after 1946 that many people have forgotten that being wonky has zero value in Managing or Governing.
The same is true for debates. While House members and Senators debate neither a President nor a Governor should be debating as part of their jobs. The control of access to the public that exercised by the Government regulated broadcasters and consolidated publishers was so great for 75 years that much of the country forgot that their interests are contrary to the public's interest. They have forgotten that a glib candidate does not make a good Governor or President.
The candidates that needed to communicate with the public have been required since 1960 to stand on stage and perform glib responses at the call of a monkey in a suit called a "moderator."
I blame our horribly bad public schools that everyone does not know that Douglas won the Lincoln/Douglas debates and went on to become Senator in the election. Everyone should know that things said during those debates are responsible for slavery not being ended peacefully but only after America's bloodiest war. Can anyone imagine New York's beloved Mayor LaGuardia winning one of today's debates?
That Sarah Palin makes most of the reporters interviewing her look like monkeys in suits is not and accident or a failure on her part but the truth emerging.
Sarah's the best...
Submitted by pbthinker on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 1:45pm.
I have no problem believing that, if Sarah Palin chose to run, she would win the nomination. I have no problem believing that, if she won the nomination, she would defeat Obama. Why am I this optimistic? The Democrats have thrown everything they had against her since she gave her convention speech, they saw the potential she had, they know what she can do, and they have tried everything to distort Sarah Palin, her record, her intelligence, and her presentation.
It appears she's not prepared to get in now, and why should she? If she gets in now, the White House political operation is just going to start putting out all the false stories about her they can get and the LSM is going to repeat every single one of them, without regard to whether they're true or not.
My guess is, this tour is to take her name and reputation back. To show people, in New Hampshire, she's nothing like what the Boston Globe says she is. She'll fill a venue with people and I would expect the Democrats to have some union rent-a-mob people there protesting to try and make her look foolish, and she will show people she's not what they've read about her.
Luckily, the polarizing issue has gone since Obama made his El Paso speech. I don't believe I've ever heard a president make amore polarizing speech, about an important issue, in my lifetime. I'm sure she'll use that, among other things.
Obama, will be lucky
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 3:40pm.
If he isnt primaried. Even dimwits are ready to vote for a fence post over this disaster. I also dont give a squat about poll number either, not till I can find more folks then the drones who have something positive to say about the last 2-4 years.
Oh, and BTW fuel and energy will continue to rise, these clowns are waging war with energy of all kinds. Even Wind and Solar,
It will be George Bush's fault if Sarah Palin or any Republican
Submitted by Rush Fan on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 5:01pm.
nominee loses to Barack Obama. Blame Bush, NOT Barack Obama. That is, if you believe CNN's Candy Crowley, who said on CNN's Your Money:
I have little doubt that the CNN/Opinion Research Poll
Submitted by Rush Fan on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 7:07pm.
referred to in my post above is rigged (weighted to favor Obama and Democrats). Here is the POLL. The poll reflects interviews with 1,034 adult Americans conducted by telephone April 29 - May 1, 2011. But unless I missed it, the poll doesn't tell me the makeup of the total sample. Shouldn't it?
A CNN Money article 8 in 10 Americans: Economy is in poor shape is based on the poll, and places the blame for the economy on George Bush.
You can smell klein and
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 5:03pm.
You can smell klein and matthews fear. They know she could destroy obama.
They are obsessed with the enemy they fear -Sarah
Submitted by Don L on Mon, 05/30/2011 - 2:50pm.
The Democrats fear her like Carter fears swamp rabbits - only they know she's a momma grizzly and now their worst fears are rolling - they are already setting up the left's usual low IQ GOP attack -she's so stupid ,but great on stage," lies for the next 8 years.