...I would like to take this opportunity to express my full support for her and her ideals. I got your six, Sarah! I've decided that I am a Palin man. Here's hoping the pendulum of public opinion swings hard to the right in 2010 and continues on its arc toward a Palin win in 2012.Wednesday, November 18, 2009
WITH ALL OF THE NEGATIVE PRESS SWIRLING AROUND SARAH PALIN THESE DAYS...
...I would like to take this opportunity to express my full support for her and her ideals. I got your six, Sarah! I've decided that I am a Palin man. Here's hoping the pendulum of public opinion swings hard to the right in 2010 and continues on its arc toward a Palin win in 2012.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
So you think she would make a good president. A better president than the other Republican options.
Highly unlikely.
I think she would make an outstanding president. I don't think she is of the highest intellectual caliber. I don't think she is particularly well-read. She was not shaped by the best liberal arts education.
However, Obama is very smart (we're told ad nauseum), he's well read and benefited from the best education our nation has to offer. And he is turning out to be a wretched president.
My biggest concern about her is that the government has grown to such an extent that she can not hope to staff the administration with people who are sympathetic to her vision and supportive of her leadership.
I have decided to like her for all the reasons that establishment Republicans scorn her.
I like her just fine. I'd like to go to church with her. I think she'd be a fine mother-in-law. I'd like to hunt bears with her and tour Alaska. I even think she made a great governor. And I love how she drives some on the left absolutely insane with rage.
But I won't be supporting her for president. Just because Barack the Brilliant is a lousy leader doesn't mean we need to find his opposite. Not when we have plenty of other options. Not when evangelicals are already accused of ignorance.
Perhaps we could pull McCain out of his sarcophagus (sp?)for another run. You know what else might be good would be an urbane, sophisticated Republican with years of experience in Washington. How about someone who knows what to say to every potential constituency, who knows how to go along to get along, but who hypothetically possesses the right convictions.
If our choice is between someone who will promise, in effect, to row Obama's boat in Obama's direction with a higher degree of competence and efficiency, and someone who threatens to sink that boat, give me Calamity Jane (John Derbyshire's affectionate take on Palin). I've got my waders on.
I read a quote on NRO today from a donating pastor who sounded so much like you that I decided to just assume it was!
I agree with your second paragraph--I just don't think that's our choice. We've got plenty of possibilities who will do anything but "row Obama's boat in Obama's direction." Romney. Thune. Pawlenty. Jindal. Petraeus? All, in my book, preferable to Palin. You might not like one or two, but to choose her now over all possibilities? Seems a bit foolhardy.
Steve makes some good points, but I remain a Palin man. I am glad for the deep bench though. I can get genuinely excited about many of those names you listed. I'm not sure what basis exists to question Palin's intellectual caliber though, Joel. I think if we buy into that pernicious lie we are gibbling up what the left is dishing out- hook, line and sinker. For that matter Ronaldus Magnus and George II were similarly, and unfairly, labeled as dolts. These days, possessing true moral balast and sincere conviction, is seen as unnuanced, ignorant, and dangerously simplistic. They want to rob the conservative movement of what is quite possibly its greatest asset- the unmuddied clarity and honesty of our ideals. The argument is that those ideals are themselves the product of feeble unsophisticated minds and by extension their champion(s) are either possessed of limited intellect themselves or guilty of preying upon their simple minion for personal gain. I agree with Palin on matters of substance, and I won't abandon my kindred because the enemy has enjoyed some success in damaging her standing. If we pass Palin by they will just train their guns on the next guy. The left will make sure that no one who champions conservative ideals is left looking like an intellectual giant- get used to that. There is a reason why they are gunning for her. It's because she represents what they loathe-us. I support her for that.
I agree with Joel. That was not clear in the above post. I latched onto his comment about Palin's limited intellect, but the rest of my rant was aimed at Steve's waterline.
Sarah Palin is not ashamed of the likes of us, and we ought not be ashamed of her.
But look at what I wrote! I'm not ashamed of anyone! I have just concluded, based on my own assessment of strengths and weaknesses, that she is not the best option. Can either of you make the argument that she is -- on any grounds other than an emotional desire to stick it to the left while defending her honor? She's good, but she's far from the best we have, and admitting that is not the same as making her walk the plank.
She is the focus of conservatives and liberals alike. It's a defacto thing, Steve. You're not being pragmatic about this. It's not as though we're standing in front of a fruit stand deliberating over which we should choose. Whatever circumstances have conspired to elevate her to the top of everyone's consideration she is the defacto voice of the movement and I am simply saying I'm behind her. I see no reason to put on the brakes, nothing to disqualify her, and or hedge my support. She's legitimate and she has the floor. Frankly, the rest of those guys could issue statements and hold press conferences until they're blue in the face, and they would be hard pressed to get the attention that Palin generates through a simple facebook post. The onus is on you, my friend, to make the case against her. The statement that we have other options is debatable. The momentum is all moving contrary to the likes of Jindal and Pawlenty. I have no beef with them, they're fine, but Palin is the standard bearer in this early hour, and I am supporting her in that role. As long as she is the one out front, taking the rounds, and firing back, she has my admiration and support. In 2012 I might be saying, "Remember Palin?" and I might be just as enthusiastic about someone else's candidacy but right now she serves as my champion in the public debate.
The fact that she resigned her elected position, seemingly to profit from the publication of her memoirs comes awfully close to disqualifying her in my book.
Seemingly? Let's not resort to liberal talking points.
Do they bother with the "seemingly"? I've never understood the "talking points" argument. Is something automatically wrong just because your enemy believes it?
She quit her job in politics, a job she hadn't had long, to write a book. If she is our movement's de facto leader, the left will continue to foam, belittling her at every opportunity. That will distract them. But she is perhaps best as a polarizer, raising funds and firing up crowds. She has not proven she can govern or lead. She has not proven she has the best ideas. I will not blindly line up behind the one who has the spotlight.
Fair enough. I respect that, I really do. We'll see how things hash out over the next couple of years. I don't care to be characterized as "blindly" lining up behind anybody though, but I doubt you meant that as a personal jab so I won't take it as one. I am really excited that the nation is looking for someone to give voice to their frustration and angst against this current administration, and I am also heartened by the sputtering, caught-off-balance left. Obama can't seem to get out of his own way at times. Caught between and betwixt the liberal ambitions of his own party and the reservations of the center-right public he lacks the balast and conviction necessary I think to govern according to the dictates of his own conscience. He is doomed to a no man's land of dithering and half-measures, which will only frustrate and alienate both camp's. I agree that the backwater of Alaska politics has done little to prepare Palin for the national stage, but I like what she's saying, and even though she's a long shot for 2012, I'm gonna remain a Palin man until someone more compelling and less vulnerable comes along. I resonate with her message though and I have no complaints regarding her style. I'm one of those. I haven't shut the door on the rest of the crowd though- not by a long shot. I haven't drank the kool-aid...yet. We'll see what the coming years offer up, but today the Bummer-Free Zone remains unapologetic in its endorsement of Palin.
I like Sarah Palin and do not easily forget that she was the sugar that made the McCain medicine go down easier. But I agree with Steve that we have so many, many better options. I'm excited about 2012 because it appears we have no heir apparent like Dole or McCain to be sentimentally nominated...in fact the field of possible GOP candidates is vastly executive...governors...and they have made their press by prosecuting their ideas (Romney, Jindal esp.) Palin has an instinct for appealing to the Right and for being newsworthy (Reagan traits) but the fact that I'd not be defending her if she weren't on this book-selling publicity blitz? Makes me feel like a pawn.
I'm still a Thompson man...but knowing that won't happen: Huck, save us in 2012.
I love Sarah Palin. I think she's the best possible republican candidate. Josh's defense of this notion was superb!
Post a Comment