Sarah Palin in Newsweek: “I can win”

posted at 8:45 pm on July 10, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin hasn’t yet revealed whether she plans to run for the GOP presidential nomination, but she’s confident she could win if she really wanted.

“I believe that I can win a national election,” Palin said recently in a conversation with Newsweek’s Peter J. Boyer. “I’m not so egotistical as to believe that it has to be me, or it can only be me, to turn things around. But I do believe that I can win.”

Perhaps her popularity among Republicans and conservatives warrants that pretty impressive confidence (after all, a countless many continue to clamor for her entrance into the presidential race), but, for whatever the polls are worth, Palin hasn’t yet bested President Barack Obama in a hypothetical presidential match-up (at least that I’ve seen). But, then, of the present GOP candidates, only former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has fared favorably against the incumbent, anyway, so maybe Palin has a point. If anything, the utter lack of cockiness among the current Republican contenders (with, again, the possible exception of Romney, who was cool and confident recently to suggest the firing of an Obama economic adviser) might be just what has caused so many to describe this year’s field as “dullsville.” Maybe the Palin presumption is what this race needs. Maybe, with Palin competing for the nomination, the other Republicans would kick it into even higher gear.

Fortunately for Palin (as she herself recognizes) and probably for the GOP, it’s still very early and the field is far from set.

“Thank goodness the field is not yet set,” Palin said in the interview with Newsweek. “I think that there does need to be more vigorous debate. There needs to be a larger field. And there’s still time. There’s still months ahead, where more folks can jump in and start articulating their positions.”

But, if she’s going to get in, I wish she’d get in now, so folks would stop evaluating her non-campaign-campaign tactics and start talking again about her policy positions (which, at least as she laid them out in the Newsweek article, are as solid as ever).


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8 9

I agree..The Democratic party has definitely changed..For the worse I might add..:)

Dire Straits on July 11, 2011 at 2:05 PM

I’m watching the miniseries “The Kenndey’s”. It reminds me how anti-Communist democrats used to be. It was the reason for us going into Korea and Vietnam. Today, they support it.

darwin on July 11, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Uh, no you haven’t…but whatevs.
gryphon202 on July 11, 2011 at 1:53 PM

I answered it here. You strongly implied that we can only comment about issues which directly affect the candidates we like. That is beyond asinine so if anyone is “beclowning” themselves it would be>>>>>>>>>>>>you.

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 2:12 PM

As much as Palin is a great conservative, she’s susceptible to getting nervous and not quick witted enough or eloquent enough to dig out when the media gotcha traps are laid. We need to field a wordsmith that can run circles around Obama. We can’t afford to lose this election.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Do you ever watch her on Fox? Do you watch her speak from prepared remarks on the stump or at rallies? Or are you speaking only from the times someone has blown up her remarks?

Not disagreeing with your assessment, but would you agree that when speaking from prepared remarks–which I believe she writes herself–she is the best speaker we have right now?

She is clearly working on your criticism, as well as the Newsweek interview states, to minimize the opportunities for bad-faith quotes. However, in the age of the smart phone and YouTube, she must learn to walk away from potential pitfalls instead of trying to hit home runs off the cuff. But she is a warm and engaging person, not cold and aloof like Obama, so I think she will always have some of this.

rwenger43 on July 11, 2011 at 2:13 PM

darwin on July 11, 2011 at 2:12 PM

I need to watch that miniseries myself..:)

PS..Good point on Democrats and war..

Dire Straits on July 11, 2011 at 2:16 PM

I’ve decided I’m going to start complaining CONSTANTLY that Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich, Bachmann et al have jumped in far TOO soon and as a result are ruining my primary experience because I’m for Palin. That they’re distracting from my preferred candidate’s game plan. That they’re taking money that she should get. That they’re getting media attention she should get.

Ummm… no, I don’t think so.

Good grief, folks. You might consider not trying to micro-manage the world. While I do think the current declared candidates have jumped in too soon, I also recognize they don’t have name sufficient recognition or money or both; but do I bang my drum making demands on them? Do I complain ad nauseam about it? No. It is what it is. I deal with it.

If you have someone you currently support, awesome! If you don’t yet, hopefully you will, and hopefully you’ll get the chance to cast your vote for your choice. But why on Earth is it necessary to dump on someone’s support of a candidate? I’ll be happy to explain why I don’t support certain other candidates, but will I insult someone because of their support of their candidate? No ~ at least not purposefully. I will support Palin in any way I’m able, and until she definitively tells me she’s NOT running, I will continue to believe she is running.

While I am extremely confident she will win hands down, I don’t consider my support of her as being in a cult. What utter nonsense. Calling Palin supporters cultists is nothing more than an insult ~ nothing more, nothing less.

greeneyedconservative on July 11, 2011 at 3:08 PM

I am having fun today. I less than 10 minutes, I got a call from the DNC fund raising for Obama. My elderly mother lives with me and she is an old school JFK type of Democrat. She refuses to acknowledge that progressives have taken over the traditional democrat party and only gets her information from the newspaper. So, she is in vacation right now. I answered the phone and frankly want them to quit hounding her for money. So I told the girl at the other end, to take this phone number off your list because this household is voting for Sarah Palin for President this time. She said, “WHAT?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!” really shrilly. I said, YES, Obama is a disaster and only Sarah Palin can fix this. Please remove us from your list, we are sending our dollars to Sarah.

Then not 5 minutes later, Dick Morris’ pac called. The lady asked me to listen to Dick Morris’ message and then take a survey about Obama when it ended. I told her I didn’t need to listen to the message, I thought Obama was enough of a disaster anyway, but she put the message on. Then a different lady came back and asked me to send in $100 or $150 to help pay for the USA Today full page ads that call out Obama on his miserable jobs performance. I told her that I would not EVER send a dime to Dick Morris again as long as he is bad mouthing Sarah Palin on tv.

I then went on about a 2 minute tirade about how pissed off I was that he was constantly saying she can’t win, she won’t run, etc etc. I told her that not only is Sarah Palin going to run, she is the ONLY Republican that has the chops to call out Obama on his record. When I finally took a breath, she probably had a script to ask me, “but is she running, has she declared?. I told her to tell Dick Morris that anyone who knows squat about politics knows she is going to declare and when she does, she will win. And I told her to tell Dick Morris to watch the movie, “The Undefeated” and to quit slamming Sarah on television. And I told her to tell DIck Morris that all he has done is alienate millions of Sarah Palin supporters and will end up looking like an ignorant ass because he still keeps saying she won’t run and she can’t win. I told her to write than down and make sure he gets that message!!!!

It is a beautiful day.

karenhasfreedom on July 11, 2011 at 3:13 PM

greeneyedconservative on July 11, 2011 at 3:08 PM

+ 1 gazillion

miConsevative on July 11, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Do-Over 2012

Sarah Palin!

ChuckTX on July 11, 2011 at 3:18 PM

karenhasfreedom on July 11, 2011 at 3:13 PM

greeneyedconservative on July 11, 2011 at 3:08 PM

+ U.S. Debt !!!!!

darwin on July 11, 2011 at 3:18 PM

A Recession is when your neighbor loses his/her job.

A Depression is when you lose your job.

A Recovery is when Barack Obama loses his job.

ChuckTX on July 11, 2011 at 3:21 PM

karenhasfreedom on July 11, 2011 at 3:13 PM

You had me cheering at the end of your story! Good for you. Feels great, doesn’t it? ;~)

greeneyedconservative on July 11, 2011 at 3:31 PM

+ 1 gazillion

miConsevative on July 11, 2011 at 3:14 PM

I’m blushing… ;~)

greeneyedconservative on July 11, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Hey karen, hey greeneyed, Yeah! Some people on the internet can’t let another’s opinion REMAIN WRONG, they must immediately be shown the error of their ways!

bigmike on July 11, 2011 at 3:41 PM

karenhasfreedom on July 11, 2011 at 3:13 PM

You Rock. The Blowback is coming; Nice work. :)

Geochelone on July 11, 2011 at 4:13 PM

karenhasfreedom on July 11, 2011 at 3:13 PM

I am green with envy!

ajacksonian on July 11, 2011 at 4:17 PM

But why on Earth is it necessary to dump on someone’s support of a candidate?
greeneyedconservative on July 11, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Ha! Who is doing this other than Palinistas (forgive me for using this term, apparently is can be considered offensive) who are dumping on Romney, using idiotic phrases like “your boy Willard” blah blah blah.

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 4:19 PM

karenhasfreedom

Geez, what’s with all the hate towards Morris, he is basing his remarks on current facts. Sarah’s negatives make her un-electable. Now that could all change if she gets into the race, and if those negatives go down, Morris will change his prediction. Speaking of facts, I got a big kick out of this line:

I told her to tell Dick Morris that anyone who knows squat about politics knows she is going to declare and when she does, she will win.

You can’t possibly think that you know more about politics than Dick. Unless you are actually Karl Rove in disguise.

Haldol on July 11, 2011 at 4:28 PM

A Recession is when your neighbor loses his/her job. A Depression is when you lose your job. A Recovery is when Barack Obama loses his job.

ChuckTX on July 11, 2011 at 3:21 PM

I love it, Chuck. I’m stealing this.

Kataklysmic on July 11, 2011 at 4:29 PM

dumping on Romney, using idiotic phrases like “your boy Willard” blah blah blah.

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Is his name not Willard Romney?

Is “Your girl Sarah” offensive?

I don’t understand your sensitivities to this.

portlandon on July 11, 2011 at 4:29 PM

A Recession is when your neighbor loses his/her job. A Depression is when you lose your job. A Recovery is when Barack Obama loses his job.

ChuckTX on July 11, 2011 at 3:21 PM
I love it, Chuck. I’m stealing this.

Kataklysmic on July 11, 2011 at 4:29 PM

ANY Conservative who doesn’t know where this comes from belongs back in the EIB Institue of Learning, Remedial Class. No it didn’t come from Rush. It is Reagan announcing his run for President.

Marcus on July 11, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Marcus on July 11, 2011 at 4:33 PM

I was familiar with the first two sentences, but not the Obama punchline.

Kataklysmic on July 11, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Ha! Who is doing this other than Palinistas (forgive me for using this term, apparently is can be considered offensive) who are dumping on Romney, using idiotic phrases like “your boy Willard” blah blah blah.

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Any white politician who wades into a crowd of black folks and starts beclowning himself by trying to moke Who Let the Dogs Out? JUST BECAUSE he is in a crowd full of black folks deserves to be horsewhipped and shunned as an embarrassment to a$$clown politicians everywhere. Especially Republicans.

That’s just embarrassing. Romney is a store mannequin who, if nominated by our party, will get beaten like a rented mule by Barack Obama. It will be ugly.

Mitt Romney would have tried to do stand up jokes at the Trial and Scourging of Christ just to lighten the mood. That’s how much of a tin ear Romney’s got.

victor82 on July 11, 2011 at 4:42 PM

portlandon on July 11, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Calling someone “your boy” is a derogatory phrase and “dumps on” my support of his candidacy. I didn’t say it was “offensive”. I am not easily offended. I am merely pointing out that for all the sanctimony of his long speech, it is his fellow Palin supporters who are doing exactly what he says we shouldn’t do.

And please, don’t come back and pretend that there was nothing derogatory about those comments (which came from two different commenters).

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 4:46 PM

First of all… for the record, I’m a she, not a he.

Second, sanctimony? Reach much?

Third, I can only control my own behavior and was primarily referencing that. Do I think there’s a preponderance of insults towards Palin supporters by certain posters? Yes. Do I condone insults by either side? No, of course not. I understand that you might find “your boy, Willard” condescending, but I don’t know the context in which is was written. You can say, “your girl, Sarah” and I swear, I won’t cry. I will eagerly agree with you.

greeneyedconservative on July 11, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Go Sarah…..

Drill Baby Drill!!!

highninside on July 11, 2011 at 5:03 PM

greeneyedconservative on July 11, 2011 at 4:58 PM

I began my comment to you with a “Ha!”. I don’t know where you’re from but in my neck of the woods that is laughing not crying. So please don’t pretend that I was upset. I am just pointing out the irony of your statement.

Oh, and if you look up^^^^ you’ll see someone named “victor” making idiotic (and over the top) comments that “dump” on Romney. And so it goes…

P.S. I’m also a “she”. People call me a “he” all the time. I rarely even bother to point it out as it doesn’t matter all that much.

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 5:05 PM

I’ve decided I’m going to start complaining CONSTANTLY that Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich, Bachmann et al have jumped in far TOO soon and as a result are ruining my primary experience because I’m for Palin. That they’re distracting from my preferred candidate’s game plan. That they’re taking money that she should get. That they’re getting media attention she should get.

Ummm… no, I don’t think so.

Good grief, folks. You might consider not trying to micro-manage the world. While I do think the current declared candidates have jumped in too soon, I also recognize they don’t have name sufficient recognition or money or both; but do I bang my drum making demands on them? Do I complain ad nauseam about it? No. It is what it is. I deal with it.

If you have someone you currently support, awesome! If you don’t yet, hopefully you will, and hopefully you’ll get the chance to cast your vote for your choice. But why on Earth is it necessary to dump on someone’s support of a candidate? I’ll be happy to explain why I don’t support certain other candidates, but will I insult someone because of their support of their candidate? No ~ at least not purposefully. I will support Palin in any way I’m able, and until she definitively tells me she’s NOT running, I will continue to believe she is running.

While I am extremely confident she will win hands down, I don’t consider my support of her as being in a cult. What utter nonsense. Calling Palin supporters cultists is nothing more than an insult ~ nothing more, nothing less.

greeneyedconservative on July 11, 2011 at 3:08 PM

I am merely pointing out that for all the sanctimony of his her [greeneyedconservative] long speech,

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Please point out the parts that are tainted with sanctimony. Clarification is needed because I am not sure what you are referring to.

Geochelone on July 11, 2011 at 5:09 PM

karenhasfreedom on July 11, 2011 at 3:13 PM

Daaang…you lucky duck. The only polls that call me are the ones that you have to, “press one for this” or “press two for that”….you don’t get to give them your 2 cents worth. :(

Way to go!

tencole on July 11, 2011 at 5:11 PM

You can’t possibly think that you know more about politics than Dick. Unless you are actually Karl Rove in disguise.

Haldol on July 11, 2011 at 4:28 PM

So, you’re saying it’s just a coincidence that after Palin didn’t hire Morris to work with her PAC, he started to talk negatively about her. Gotcha.

NoNails on July 11, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Hey Buy Danish, I finally clicked on the name, saw the video, WOW! I don’t think those people are going to go quiet when Obama goes down to defeat at the hands of whoever wins the GOP nomination. Good luck to you and your candidate, but be prepared, they’ll try to paint him as the second coming of the anti-christ.

bigmike on July 11, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Sarah’s negatives make her un-electable. Now that could all change if she gets into the race, and if those negatives go down, Morris will change his prediction.

Haldol on July 11, 2011 at 4:28 PM

You are contradicting yourself here.

Those numbers represent a challenge to overcome.

You yourself say they will change when she gets into the race officially, so she is not “unelectable” right now based on polls that are not permanent.

“Unelectable” is a misleading buzzword too many have fallen for as of late.

Sarah Palin is quite electable, all she has to do is take the steps to get her name on the ballot and wipe out all the carefully constructed conventional wisdom drumbeat of the last 6 or 8 months.

Brian1972 on July 11, 2011 at 5:18 PM

Please point out the parts that are tainted with sanctimony. Clarification is needed because I am not sure what you are referring to.
Geochelone on July 11, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Good grief, folks. You might consider not trying to micro-manage the world. While I do think the current declared candidates have jumped in too soon, I also recognize they don’t have name sufficient recognition or money or both; but do I bang my drum making demands on them? Do I complain ad nauseam about it? No. It is what it is. I deal with it.

If you have someone you currently support, awesome! If you don’t yet, hopefully you will, and hopefully you’ll get the chance to cast your vote for your choice. But why on Earth is it necessary to dump on someone’s support of a candidate? I’ll be happy to explain why I don’t support certain other candidates, but will I insult someone because of their support of their candidate? No ~ at least not purposefully.

Sanctimonious: Making a show of being morally superior to other people.

It had a whiff of sanctimony which I found amusing since not a single person has done what she is lecturing us about except for fellow Palin supporters.

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 5:21 PM

There are boatloads of self-described conservative women who hate Palin because of her looks. Let’s be honest.
ddrintn on July 11, 2011 at 12:31 AM

Be honest with yourself. Just because you have the mindset of a jealous third grade girl does not mean that the rest of us do. It would make far more sense to argue that if Palin weren’t so attractive she wouldn’t be as popular as she is.

Priceless. In attempting to refute my statement, you reinforce it.

It’s stupid because I repeatedly stated that my point is about Palin needing to fish or cut bait. I have absolutely no problem with her running. I just want her to make up her mind. And as I have already stated repeatedly, Romney is not the one who is hurt by this so please stop bringing him up. It is lesser known candidates who are trying to get the ball rolling who are hurt and I already named them.

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 8:14 AM

Palin “needs” to fish or cut bait for her benefit, or for the benefit of those poor overshadowed candidates about whom you’re so concerned? We’re told on the one hand that Palin is so hated and unpopular that her candidacy would be pretty much DOA…and then we’re told that she’s so charismatic that no one else can get any airtime because people are wondering when she’s going to get this DOA candidacy under way. You folks are going to have to get your narratives straight.

ddrintn on July 11, 2011 at 5:21 PM

Romney is not the one who is hurt by this so please stop bringing him up. It is lesser known candidates who are trying to get the ball rolling who are hurt and I already named them.

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 8:14 AM

I’ll bring up Romney one last time. Romney’s ability to raise lots of money is terribly unfair to the lesser-known candidates. He’s depriving them of resources they need to become better-known to primary voters. I think Romney should donate some of his haul to those lesser-known candidates so that there may be more of a level playing field.

There’s your “logic” playing itself out.

ddrintn on July 11, 2011 at 5:27 PM

It had a whiff of sanctimony which I found amusing since not a single person has done what she is lecturing us about except for fellow Palin supporters.

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 5:21 PM

No one has called Palin supporters cultists? Of course they have.

darwin on July 11, 2011 at 5:31 PM

It had a whiff of sanctimony which I found amusing since not a single person has done what she is lecturing us about except for fellow Palin supporters.

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 5:21 PM

So you find fault that some Palin supporters are taking the “low-road” and still find fault with someone who makes an appeal to take the “high-road” because that appeal was made by a Palin supporter who in no way can control what her “fellow Palin supporters” do?

You sound a tad bit sanctimonious by making a show of being morally superior to other people NO MATTER WHAT POSITION THEY TAKE, and no matter how genuine the appeal so long as it was given by a Palin supporter. That seems to be the common denominator in your stance.

Geochelone on July 11, 2011 at 5:37 PM

I’ll also bring up Romney one last time. 2008 was Mitt’s time to make his appeal and have his best chance of getting in to the White House. In 2012, it’ll be seen, broadly, that we’re in a DEPRESSION, and it will be admitted that, that is what it is, NOT THE BEST TIME to run a candidate who can be EASILY painted by Obama as one-of-those-evil-big-bankers-who-got-us-into-this-mess.

bigmike on July 11, 2011 at 5:39 PM

This Palin gal is just…just so… disconcerting to those who wish her to adhere to the tried and true method of letting the media and the Estab Repubs select our candidate well or before the convention.

UPSTART WOMAN!!!111ONEONENICELEGGS

44Magnum on July 11, 2011 at 5:41 PM

Geochelone on July 11, 2011 at 5:37 PM

No, I found fault with someone who made a speech about how to behave, when not a single person had said anything like what she said we must not do. Except the ironic examples I pointed out. So basically she made a big speech about how well behaved she is for no reason, with no specific context. Hence the whiff of sanctimony.

ddrintn

I have already said (exhausted) all I have to say to you on this thread, so you can save your not so clever commentary.

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 5:55 PM

I’m watching the miniseries “The Kenndey’s”. It reminds me how anti-Communist democrats used to be. It was the reason for us going into Korea and Vietnam. Today, they support it.

darwin on July 11, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Uh, n one despised the Kennedys more than myself. You need to do some streching exercises before you reach back to Korea.

katy the mean old lady on July 11, 2011 at 6:08 PM

I have already said (exhausted) all I have to say to you on this thread, so you can save your not so clever commentary.

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Of course. Nothing could ever be as clever as your amusing forays into chop-logic.

ddrintn on July 11, 2011 at 6:13 PM

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 5:55 PM

OK. At least now I understand better what you are saying; it a minor point of contention I suppose.

Geochelone on July 11, 2011 at 6:18 PM

As much as Palin is a great conservative, she’s susceptible to getting nervous and not quick witted enough or eloquent enough to dig out when the media gotcha traps are laid.

This is nonsense. She’s doing quite well lately on this type of thing. You have moved on past 2008, yes?

We need to field a wordsmith that can run circles around Obama. We can’t afford to lose this election.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 1:31 PM

We actually do not have such a “wordsmith” in the party with any sort of reliable record on fiscal conservatism. Gingrich is the only one I can think of and he is compromised. Further, that would mean attempting to beat Obama at his own game. That’s not a winning strategy. We need someone who will go around the credentialed hierarchy he has constructed, someone who will change the game. The only one who is playing at that level is Palin.

alwaysfiredup on July 11, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Uh, n one despised the Kennedys more than myself. You need to do some streching exercises before you reach back to Korea.

katy the mean old lady on July 11, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Reread my comment.

darwin on July 11, 2011 at 6:38 PM

Sorry you don’t like my comments, Danish, but they are meant to be vicious because Romney has a sense of entitlement about the nomination which must be denied him.

He is an immensely wealthy man who hasn’t a clue as to the struggles of working and middle income people in this country. Neither has Obama, for that matter, but Obama and his enablers will very successfully paint Romney as an out of touch Bond Trader/Shake and Bake Corporate Raider who closes companies and then gives the employees pink slips before allowing the Shanghai Trading Corporation to move the machine tools to China.

And don’t get me started on Romneycare.

You want to nominate a walking block of Composition B like that for the nomination? Go right ahead. Don’t expect the Reagan Wing of the Party to follow you down your path of self-destruction. We’ve been through the Bush Terms. Both of them. That’s the Romney Campaign right there.

Danish, I’m appalled that you would even come on here and produce apologetics for Mittens after he and the Massachussetts Democrats introduced Romneycare and forced it on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. That was a betrayal of everything Reagan was supposed to have stood for.

But no one should have been surprised. Romney dumped Reagan when he was running against Kennedy in 1994, didn’t he? I wasn’t, because I was never under the illusion that Romney was a conservative in the first place. He is an opportunist of the first order, like the Bushies before him, but he is no conservative.

Go right ahead, Danish. Support the Chameleon of your choice.

I’m sticking with Palin.

victor82 on July 11, 2011 at 6:39 PM

This is nonsense. She’s doing quite well lately on this type of thing. You have moved on past 2008, yes?

Then how do you explain her comment about the Paul Revere? Watch the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4C7bvHv2w

If you can’t see from her body language and her repeating the phrase about ringing the bells that she is either distracted or nervous or both, then I think you need to be more honest with yourself. All it is going to take is one moment like this during a campaign for the media to mount an all out assault on which many low information independents will base their entire opinion of Palin.

Did you notice that’s exactly what happened in 2008? Do you honestly think the media is going to suddenly turn around and play nice with Palin? Do you really think that voters out there who don’t spend all day on the blogs like we do are going to bother to research deeper than the media narrative?

We actually do not have such a “wordsmith” in the party with any sort of reliable record on fiscal conservatism.

We don’t have candidates who are eloquent and conservative? Bachmann, West, Rubio, Bolton to name a few. Yes, all more eloquent than Palin.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:01 PM

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:01 PM

She gave seventeen press avails in four days and some of the media made a big deal out of her comments on PR because they thought she was wrong. What did she say that was not true? Yes, she was distracted and her words were a little disjointed, but so what?

Today, the NYDN decided to fact-check her Slim Jims comment. Are you too stupid to understand that it doesn’t matter what she says, some of the MSM will find fault and then fools like you will repeat it?

NoNails on July 11, 2011 at 7:12 PM

We don’t have candidates who are eloquent and conservative? Bachmann, West, Rubio, Bolton to name a few. Yes, all more eloquent than Palin.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Yes. Because I want my President to be able to eloquently lie to me.

portlandon on July 11, 2011 at 7:12 PM

Buy Danish… you’re striking me as a contrary person. It seems you find fault with EVERYTHING anyone says. Though it will clearly be a waste of my time to explain, I’ll go ahead and do so – once.

I prefer folks know I’m a she and not a he ~ it makes a difference in interpretation in many cases. Given the opportunity, I correct the error. Because you don’t care doesn’t mean I shouldn’t. I kindly corrected you and you could not just accept that. You had to try to make an argument about it.

I was not attempting to lecture you or anyone else. I was merely pointing out a frustration I’ve had over the past three years of being a daily observer of the fighting and name-calling and judgmental tirades, snipes and flat out rudeness. Only recently have I been able to comment. Excuse me for having my own opinion.

Furthermore, I beg to differ about your claim of nonexistent condescending remarks hurled regularly at Palin supporters, even here on HA. Really? “Palinbots” “Cultists” “Palinistas” and so forth? You really must adjust your blinders. The regular ridicule at our faith that not only will she run, but that she’ll win is quite evident. You see, even as an observer, I’ve watched this for three years, in particular, HA. Only recently have these declared GOP candidates entered the fray, and although I don’t necessarily agree with it, I feel there might be a bit of revenge from the Palin supporters over the treatment they’ve received in the past for showing their support for her. Your claim that the Palin supporters are the worst is laughable and even childish. But if that makes you feel better about your own contrariness… whatever.

greeneyedconservative on July 11, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Are you too stupid to understand that it doesn’t matter what she says, some of the MSM will find fault and then fools like you will repeat it?

Is ad hominem all you got? Look, this is a major weakness. A candidate for President has to be ridiculously “on message” and a conservative, even more so. Why are you willing to call me names because I as a conservative want to field the best possible candidate and to make sure we beat Obama. Is it OK to disagree here? Is it OK to point out possible weaknesses? I notice that the Palin supporters here have no problems critiquing the other candidates. For example:

We don’t have candidates who are eloquent and conservative? Bachmann, West, Rubio, Bolton to name a few. Yes, all more eloquent than Palin.

So are you saying that Bachmann, West, Rubio and Bolton are liars? It is a fact that these four potential candidates are excellent speakers and better than Palin. I am sure you have seen videos of them speaking here at HA.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:21 PM

Yes, all more eloquent than Palin.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Maybe if you only focus on what the media wants you to focus on.

If you watch her speeches and interviews that they don’t talk about, she is quite eloquent, articulate and most importantly right.

Brian1972 on July 11, 2011 at 7:22 PM

Ooops, that last quote should be:

Yes. Because I want my President to be able to eloquently lie to me. portlandon on July 11, 2011 at 7:12 PM

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:23 PM

most importantly right.

Brian1998 on July 11, 2011 at 7:22 PM

But OF COURSE.

/

CW on July 11, 2011 at 7:26 PM

It is a fact that these four potential candidates are excellent speakers and better than Palin. I am sure you have seen videos of them speaking here at HA.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:21 PM

There is no way that Bachmann is a better speaker than Palin.

No freakin way.

I have seen just about every single speech Palin has given, and she is much more of a natural talent with crowds than Bachmann has ever been.

Bachmann is pretty darn good, but Palin is a magnitude better. It is just true. Even many of her detractors and critics will admit amongst their criticisms she is a rare talent, on the level of Reagan and Clinton, once in a generation. I have read those type comments in articles criticizing her, some rather mercilessly.

Palin > Bachmann.

It is just a fact.

Brian1972 on July 11, 2011 at 7:26 PM

Brian1972,

You are missing the point, as are others here. I agree, when Palin is reading a prepared speech, or she is on her game, she does well. But that’s not what the rest of the voters are going to see. And the point is that when she’s not on her game, she is very susceptible to distracted, and in many cases awkward remarks that allow for her to be destroyed by the media.

I think there are other candidates who are more capable of staying on message and don’t have the baggage of having already been destroyed by the media. And candidates who are conservative enough to represent the overall GOP ticket well. You might disagree, but I hope you understand that the many in these comments who are disagreeing with you are doing so in hopes of beating Obama. That’s far more important to this country than any one candidate.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:30 PM

Are we back to Palin and Paul Revere again? At least there is some interpretive latitude in this case since historians have clarified the record.

Now what about Bachmann’s history gaffe wherein it is impossible to furnish a plausible historical correction?

How is it possible to not know that Lexington and Concord are in Massachusetts; she thought these towns were in New Hampshire, right?

The Battles of Lexington and Concord were the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War.

I don’t mean to be petty about Bachmann but if we are going to beat Paul Revere into the ground, well….

Geochelone on July 11, 2011 at 7:30 PM

CompleteWaste on July 11, 2011 at 7:26 PM

Again with your stupid little age thing.

Don’t waste your time trying to screw around with me, because I’m not playing.

I don’t know what your problem is, but you can keep it for yourself.

That is all I’m saying to you.

Brian1972 on July 11, 2011 at 7:31 PM

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:21 PM

I addresses your concerns the first time you posted virtually the same thing earlier. Let me ask you again, what did she say about PR that was inaccurate?

Regarding the other politicians you mentioned, are you trying to say that their words have been microscopically examined and that they have been found to always be eloquent?

Why do you think that the media, as a whole, pretty much ignores how often Palin has been right on the issues, yet will write volumes on her perceived gaffes?

I prefer a leader who gets out front on the issues and is usually proven correct, even if occasionally an off-the-cuff comment may lack perfection.

NoNails on July 11, 2011 at 7:36 PM

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:30 PM

Just give Bachmann a little more time.

She puts her foot in her mouth just as often if not more than Palin or anyone else does.

Who knows what may be in her closet we are not yet aware of.

I like Palin better, for substantive reasons.

If/when she runs, I’m going to be voting for her for those reasons.

That’s the point, to me.

Let the process work itself out. If someone else is better, why not have them prove it by defeating Palin fair and square?

I’m cool with that, if that is how it works out.

Brian1972 on July 11, 2011 at 7:36 PM

If you can’t see from her body language and her repeating the phrase about ringing the bells that she is either distracted or nervous or both

Of course I can see that. I’m asserting it is not a “gotcha” question; it was a throwaway and completely immaterial to explaining conservative arguments.

Do you honestly think the media is going to suddenly turn around and play nice with Palin?

They’ve already started. The Newsweak article was much better than usual.

We don’t have candidates who are eloquent and conservative? Bachmann, West, Rubio, Bolton to name a few. Yes, all more eloquent than Palin.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:01 PM

West, Rubio and Bolton are not running. This is another version of the nirvana fallacy. And Bachmann frequently gets into the weeds with her comments. I still have a problem with her asserting that the vast majority of people in the “homosexual lifestyle” are sick and the result of abuse. But no, no, let’s pounce on a stupid throwaway comment like Palin’s Paul Revere comment, because that’s the really important stuff./

alwaysfiredup on July 11, 2011 at 7:37 PM

addresses = addressed

NoNails on July 11, 2011 at 7:38 PM

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:30 PM

And another thing I mentioned which you chose to ignore is that she gave the media seventeen avails in four days. The media was very complimentary of her off-the-cuff comments and her willingness to answer all questions. That’s not chopped liver.

The fact that you had the need to bring up an almost three year-old Couric interview in your first post on this subject speaks volumes.

NoNails on July 11, 2011 at 7:41 PM

I think there are other candidates who are more capable of staying on message and don’t have the baggage of having already been destroyed by the media.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:30 PM

I don’t. Bachmann is widely ridiculed, and has been since 2004. Santorum, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Johnson and Paul are going nowhere. Romney is a disaster ideologically and cannot relate to voters. Pawlenty might be good if he can figure out how to fight, and I don’t know much about Perry. Palin connects with people and yes, has been improving in her defenses of conservatism. You are blind to her strengths.

alwaysfiredup on July 11, 2011 at 7:43 PM

And the point is that when she’s not on her game, she is very susceptible to distracted, and in many cases awkward remarks that allow for her to be destroyed by the media.

That applies to all the candidates out there right now. And none of them is more prone to the explosive gaffe than one Michele Bachmann.

I think there are other candidates who are more capable of staying on message and don’t have the baggage of having already been destroyed by the media.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:30 PM

Jack Kelly in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Liberals hope their sliming of her will keep Ms. Palin from running. But it may be the most important reason why she should.

Prominent journalists already are trying to do to Ms. Bachmann what they did to Ms. Palin in 2008. Her 23 foster children will be investigated, declared George Stephanopoulos of ABC. Chris Wallace of Fox News asked her if she were a flake. Michael Isikoff of NBC reported Ms. Bachmann’s husband, who runs a mental health clinic, received $137,000 in reimbursements for Medicaid patients he has treated. (There was no impropriety, but liberals consider this scandalous because Ms. Bachmann thinks the federal government spends too much money and supports Medicaid reform.)

Many “mainstream” journalists have abandoned all pretense of fairness, but still expect to be treated as if they were honest brokers. Most Republicans oblige them.

Sarah Palin doesn’t. She uses social media to bypass news media “gatekeepers.” That’s one reason so many journalists hate her. They seethe even more because Ms. Palin uses their obsession with her to make them look ridiculous, as she did during her bus vacation in the Northeast last month.

If one of Ms. Bachmann’s foster kids failed to pay a parking ticket, this will be reported as “news.” And if no improprieties can be found, journalists like Mr. Isikoff will make much ado about nothing. They’ll do this to whoever is the Republican nominee.

But her critics have shot their bolt where Sarah Palin is concerned. They’ve already said every bad thing they could say about her.

If Palin can be slimed, they all can and will be slimed.

ddrintn on July 11, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Are we back to Palin and Paul Revere again? At least there is some interpretive latitude in this case since historians have clarified the record.

No. If you read back through my earlier comments, you will see I am making a point that I have not seen others make. It’s easy for Palin supporters to get caught up in defending the content of her remarks. I’m not disagreeing here that what she said was accurate.

My point is that the media is throwing out videos like this one in situations where they know they have Palin distracted or off guard. And often, this sets Palin up for her awkward moments wherein she makes statements like she did about Paul Revere. Statements that even her supporters admit appear disjointed or awkward as NoNails mentioned above.

NoNails response, and other Palin supporters appears to be “so what?” This to me is unacceptable, because low information voters will not be saying “so what.” I think that we need to have a candidate that is always on message, and more eloquent than Obama to offset the gotcha power of the media.

I think this is a fair point, and I am not even saying that the candidate might not be Palin. I am simply saying that if it is Palin, she better be a lot more on her game than she has been, and aware of every statement that can and will be used against her.

And my other point here is that I don’t understand why many Palin supporters here are so unwilling to have a discussion about her weaknesses in the same way they would about Romney, or Cain, or Bachmann, or any other GOP candidate.

And especially a discussion without calling other conservatives “stupid.” That’s a tactic that I expect every day from the left, but I would hope that anyone who calls themselves a true conservative or a strong Palin supporter, would never stoop to.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:49 PM

I think there are other candidates who are more capable of staying on message and don’t have the baggage of having already been destroyed by the media.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:30 PM

In the last two-plus years, no one has been more on message than Palin.

Regarding her baggage, you sound like you’re a pansey arse who thinks the media should set the agenda. I guess you’re not much of a fighter.

NoNails on July 11, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Someone please explain to me how the “John Wayne” Gacy remark was perfectly understandable (well, you know his parents were from there…but which is not what she said) is somehow orders of magnitude better than Palin’s word salad re: Paul Revere (well, he did end up warning the Redcoats even if that wasn’t what he set out to do, and bells were then rung and shots fired…but which is not what she said)?

Neither comment really matters. Both were throwaways and not used in the course of speaking about important issues. Get one set of standards and stuck to them, people!

alwaysfiredup on July 11, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Well I think we can safelty say that the last IA poll scared someone enough to go on full attack mode against Bachmann.

unseen on July 11, 2011 at 7:51 PM

alwaysfiredup,

OK, fine on Bachmann, but you can’t say that about every other conservative candidate. That’s my point. There are some who are going to be better about deflecting the media than others. Palin is on the lesser end of that spectrum. That is a fact.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:52 PM

I think that we need to have a candidate that is always on message, and more eloquent than Obama to offset the gotcha power of the media.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Not possible. Even Obama doesn’t live up to your Obama standard; the media just covers for him. We need a candidate to go around the media, someone who will not play by their rules, someone who will fight back. So far, the only one who fits that profile is Palin.

alwaysfiredup on July 11, 2011 at 7:53 PM

A pansey arse is someone who has to call others a pansey arse to make a point.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:53 PM

And my other point here is that I don’t understand why many Palin supporters here are so unwilling to have a discussion about her weaknesses in the same way they would about Romney, or Cain, or Bachmann, or any other GOP candidate.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:49 PM

All of the candidates have weaknesses, including Palin. You seem to think that anything short of perfection dooms Palin. Do you honestly think that whoever gets the GOP nomination won’t get the same treatment that she gets and has gotten for the last three years?

NoNails on July 11, 2011 at 7:55 PM

So are you saying that Bachmann, West, Rubio and Bolton are liars? It is a fact that these four potential candidates are excellent speakers and better than Palin. I am sure you have seen videos of them speaking here at HA.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:21 PM

Of course not. I just don’t think Eloquence is a factor as to supporting one for President. Obama speaks very well, and is running our country into the ground.

Give me a plain spoken leader who doesn’t need to use flowery prose to tell me we’re in trouble financially.

portlandon on July 11, 2011 at 7:55 PM

OK, fine on Bachmann, but you can’t say that about every other conservative candidate. That’s my point. There are some who are going to be better about deflecting the media than others. Palin is on the lesser end of that spectrum. That is a fact.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Every candidate has strengths and weaknesses. Palin and Bachmann fight hard, which is good, but both have a bad habit of saying odd things, which is bad. Bachmann has the added stone of holding social beliefs that are pretty far outside the mainstream of America. Gingrich could debate rings around everybody, but he shoots himself in the foot more often than not and has no political organization to speak of. Pawlenty is damn near perfect on paper and yet in real life…meh. Mitt’s imperfections have been addressed ad nauseum around here. We have to pick a human being, not an ideal, and we have to pick the best human being for the current atmosphere. Again, for my money, that’s Palin hands down.

alwaysfiredup on July 11, 2011 at 7:56 PM

alwaysfiredup,

You are making my case. It’s about the media. Yes, I fully agree, Obama could never live up to the standard that a conservative candidate has to live up to today. But that’s reality. I’d rather field a West or a Bolton who I have seen deflect the media very well.

And I agree Palin has been on message, but only through Facebook, where she has time to compose her thoughts and respond appropriately. When she is live on camera, there’s the possibility of awkward moments. This is the point. I’m simply saying we need someone who when live on camera, can handle the media and has less awkward moments. And there are several other candidates who have demonstrated a better skill for this than Palin. And yeah, better than Bachman too.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:58 PM

A pansey arse is someone who has to call others a pansey arse to make a point.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:53 PM

You refuse to address the points I’ve made to you. Why is that? I called you a pansey arse because that’s how you sound. Was I wrong to call you that? Yes I was? Was I wrong to imply that you are a fool? Yes, I was. I have a problem. I do not suffer fools gladly.

NoNails on July 11, 2011 at 7:59 PM

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:49 PM

I find it ironic that after decades of pointing out liberal bias in the media and trying to do something about it, along comes Sarah Palin who is willing and able to fight back against the propaganda machine and some conservatives want to make her walk the plank so the media sharks can get their meal, in hopes that they won’t eat everyone else next.

Why should she be sharkbait to clear the way for someone else who hasn’t been in the fight like she has?

If she is willing to step up and take on these people, she deserves some backup.

Lord knows that kind of Republican is a rare thing.

I have never said she should be handed the nomination, and I don’t know of anybody who believes that , despite what many here say constantly.

I believe she has earned a fair shot.

If she decides to take that shot, it’s up to her to win fair and square.

If she can’t win the nomination, so be it I will support whoever does.

If she does win, by the time it has been decided all the conventional wisdom of today will be long forgotten, and the landscape will be totally new.

You may yet be convinced yourself.

There is a long way to go yet.

Brian1972 on July 11, 2011 at 8:02 PM

And I agree Palin has been on message, but only through Facebook, where she has time to compose her thoughts and respond appropriately. When she is live on camera, there’s the possibility of awkward moments.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:58 PM

That goes for all of them. “Are you a flake?” “What do you think about the right of return? *blank stare*” Gingrich imploding. Pawlenty looking desperate. Then we have Romney putting his foot in his mouth about 3 or 4 times in a row, sounding more like a Dem candidate than a GOP one.

The fact is, NONE of the declared candidates with the possible exception of Gingrich have ever been subject to the same scrutiny that Palin and her family have been subjected to. And NONE of them are more consistently the targets of gotcha sorts of stuff. Still, Palin’s held up pretty well. I wonder how any of the others could hold up to that sort of thing.

ddrintn on July 11, 2011 at 8:05 PM

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:58 PM

A talent for handling media is only one element of a campaign. (And I do think Palin has significantly improved on this measure, otherwise with all the media avails she did you would have heard gaffes from her bus tour of far more consequence than Paul Revere). You also have to enunciate positions on issues that do not alienate your party, raise loads of money, and inspire your partisans to go all out and work their butts off for you (only passionate volunteers can crack the media stranglehold). Palin can do all of these. I do not know another current GOP candidate, whether in or “seriously considering” getting in, who can match her.

No one is arguing she’s the perfect candidate. She’s not. But we have a noticeable lack of perfect candidates. I think she’s the best fit we have for the current opening.

alwaysfiredup on July 11, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Palin 2012. accept no clones.

unseen on July 11, 2011 at 8:07 PM

alwaysfiredup,

We disagree on who that should be, but I appreciate that you see that there are strengths and weaknesses. I am framing them through the media, because for the average uninformed American, that’s how they will see it. Thanks for arguing respectfully.

NoNails,

I expect every candidate to get the media treatment, some handle it better than others. That’s my point. And that that’s the view that everyone else outside of the political junkies is going to see.

portlandon,
Don’t confuse eloquence with flowery rhetoric. I am not asking for the ideal. I am asking for someone who can handle the media, and who is more eloquent than Obama, and can out argue him in debates when they have to think on their feet. I don’t think Palin would be as good as others in these key areas. She’s demonstrated repeatedly that the media can throw her off and make her nervous.

I think it is more important to beat Obama than anything else. I am not wedded to any candidate.

I gotta go. Have a nice night.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 8:08 PM

I’m sticking with Palin.
victor82 on July 11, 2011 at 6:39 PM

No doubt she’s delighted to have you on her team./

I was not attempting to lecture you or anyone else. I was merely pointing out a frustration I’ve had over the past three years of being a daily observer of the fighting and name-calling and judgmental tirades, snipes and flat out rudeness. Only recently have I been able to comment. Excuse me for having my own opinion.
greeneyedconservative on July 11, 2011 at 7:2PM

*sigh* The fact that you had an opinion is not the point. Obviously everyone here at this blog has opinion. It would have helped if you had pointed out to an example in this thread of someone “dumping” on another candidate. You didn’t do that – you just suddenly decided to make a speech without any context.

Do people refer to Palin supporters as “cultists” and so forth? Yes. What does that have to do with this thread? And please, the idea that calling her supporters “Palinistas” is derogatory is ridiculous.

Only recently have these declared GOP candidates entered the fray, and although I don’t necessarily agree with it, I feel there might be a bit of revenge from the Palin supporters over the treatment they’ve received in the past for showing their support for her.

Well, seeking “revenge” would be rather childish now, wouldn’t it?

Your claim that the Palin supporters are the worst is laughable and even childish. But if that makes you feel better about your own contrariness… whatever.

At this particular thread nothing you were pontificating about was occurring. I responded (“Ha!) with specific examples at this thread which you seemed not to have noticed.

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 8:09 PM

NoNails,
One last point in response to your comment. Try not assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is a fool, and you might get more responses. I usually don’t respond to those who start with name calling. Again, that’s lefty behavior. You can do better.

OK, I really gotta go.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 8:12 PM

And I agree Palin has been on message, but only through Facebook, where she has time to compose her thoughts and respond appropriately. When she is live on camera, there’s the possibility of awkward moments.

JeffB. on July 11, 2011 at 7:58 PM

That’s not true. She hasn’t been “only on Facebook”.

She has been in several q&a situations the last couple of years where she demonstrated very good message discipline, and responsiveness on her feet.

Many good interviews as well.

There was a forum in Long Island where she did exceptionally well, and her appearance in India featured a very good speech followed by a q&a session with the host afterward, and she was great.

There was also an event in Colorado last year where she gave another terrific speech, then sat down with Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager for a q&a session with the host.

It was also very good.

Her speech in Madison was fantastic, right in the heart of the battle, surrounded by the Progressive Mob trying to shout her down.

You underestimate her greatly.

Brian1972 on July 11, 2011 at 8:12 PM

And please, the idea that calling her supporters “Palinistas” is derogatory is ridiculous.

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 8:09 PM

So “Mittbot” is perfectly acceptable as well.

ddrintn on July 11, 2011 at 8:12 PM

And please, the idea that calling her supporters “Palinistas” is derogatory is ridiculous.

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 8:09 PM

Hey i would rather be a Palinista than a Mittbuttboy.

unseen on July 11, 2011 at 8:21 PM

ddrintn on July 11, 2011 at 8:12 PM

Using “bot” implies the person is a mind-numbed robot. What does Palinista imply to you? Seriously, I’m wracking my brain? Does it sound like her supporters are illegal aliens? What? Is Palinite better? That sounds vaguely Old Testament. Palinist? Do you like that? Clearly to say “Palin supporter” every time is rather tedious, no?

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Not only can Palin win she can win a landslide.

unseen on July 11, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Gosh, Buy Danish, I didn’t realize you were the designated thread hall monitor. Pardon me. I don’t even know why I bother to explain to you, but I was giving my opinion on the tenor of this thread and every other Palin thread I read. It was a freaking general statement triggered by something I was reading ON THIS THREAD at that moment. I didn’t reference anything in particular because it wasn’t about any slight in particular. If you don’t like it, fine. Who cares? Nobody’s asking YOU to like it. I don’t even care if no one else likes it, though apparently some here have. If you have a problem with my lack of specific references, that’s entirely your problem. Obviously my “sanctimonious lecture” struck a nerve.

greeneyedconservative on July 11, 2011 at 8:30 PM

ddrintn on July 11, 2011 at 8:12 PM

Except for the fact that there is not now, nor could there ever be, a Mitt cult.

Really Right on July 11, 2011 at 8:31 PM

Not only can Palin win she can will win a landslide.

unseen on July 11, 2011 at 8:26 PM

FIFY ;~)

greeneyedconservative on July 11, 2011 at 8:31 PM

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 8:26 PM

oh let’s see….

Ista= Latin suffix used to indicate adherence to a certain doctrine or custom

unseen on July 11, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Not only can Palin win she can will win a landslide.

unseen on July 11, 2011 at 8:26 PM

FIFY ;~)

greeneyedconservative on July 11, 2011 at 8:31 PM

LOL…I tend to agree but most of it depends on how well Palin campaigns and if the Mittbots give up on their cruch for the one with the great hair.

unseen on July 11, 2011 at 8:36 PM

unseen on July 11, 2011 at 8:26 PM

On what basis do you make this assertion? Close to 50% of American adults are either on the public dole or, at the very least, pay no federal income taxes. Virtually none of these people will vote for any Republican.

Really Right on July 11, 2011 at 8:36 PM

Really Right on July 11, 2011 at 8:36 PM

IMO – They simply will not vote. Some will, but not like we saw in ’08. A little bit of economic strife with a hope and change promise only goes so long. A LOT of economic strife with no hope in sight may keep people on their sofas (or park benches), OR, the other scenario is that they vote for Palin out of protest to punish the WON. Anything can happen. Obviously we saw that in ’08.

greeneyedconservative on July 11, 2011 at 8:50 PM

unseen on July 11, 2011 at 8:36 PM

I agree on this point ~ a simple win vs a landslide will depend on how she campaigns and how many Romney folk switch sides. But for my money, she wins either way ;~)

greeneyedconservative on July 11, 2011 at 8:52 PM

On what basis do you make this assertion? Close to 50% of American adults are either on the public dole or, at the very least, pay no federal income taxes. Virtually none of these people will vote for any Republican.

Really Right on July 11, 2011 at 8:36 PM

Stop repeating the groupthink. many of those on the “dole” are people that want a better life, unemployed looking for work, getting foodstamps because of rough times. while there is a big % that want to be wards of the state, the human soul was not created to be so and history shows that the human soul does not seek out nor long abide that station in life. Sure you have the lazy bums and some generational welfare families but it is a condition of learned response not natural and doomed to fail long term. It is why all socialism and marxism and communism fails.

given the choice for oppurtunity and work vs a welfare check the vast majority will choose oppurtunity. They always have and always will. the problem with the GOP establishment is they have forgotten these basic truths and no longer teach or show a better way.

give the people a real choice and they will flock to you.

unseen on July 11, 2011 at 8:55 PM

ddrintn on July 11, 2011 at 8:12 PM

Except for the fact that there is not now, nor could there ever be, a Mitt cult.

Really Right on July 11, 2011 at 8:31 PM

I could point out several regular contributors at mittromneycentral to dispute that.

ddrintn on July 11, 2011 at 8:55 PM

But for my money, she wins either way ;~)

greeneyedconservative on July 11, 2011 at 8:52 PM

agreed

unseen on July 11, 2011 at 8:55 PM

Using “bot” implies the person is a mind-numbed robot.

Buy Danish on July 11, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Thin-skinned, no?

ddrintn on July 11, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8 9