Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board. (The 2012 window is now closed; thanks for playing.)
I'm not a sophisticated or even exceptionally politically well informed person. Probably more informed however than your average "Joe Plummer". I did daily watch and read about the recent Presidential election. I could not believe what I saw/hear/read about the qualifications and then her 'performance'of Sarah Palin. She failed (IMHO) at every turn. In my estimation she was painfully out of her league - even at venues far below the national level.
And I thought Tina Fey was more than kind in what would normally be a hey day for the SNL group and other pundit regulars. So my question is - "Was that what I thought it was?" - a sad sad commentary on the condition of our political 'teams'. AND it was also painful to watch how people in her own party 'reach' for ways to support her and what they were witnessing.
I was continually amazed at how inept things were - and now I hear that some think she has a lot of 'potential'. Palin and "Presidential Candidate" are actually being spoken of in the same sentence. Or she may be the 'spokesperson for the republican party" -ouch.
I really have no ax to grind with Sarah Palin the person but that whole deal just jumped out .... woe is me and the USofA if this is what waits for our country.
no one wrote:Palin and "Presidential Candidate" are actually being spoken of in the same sentence.
Clearly she does represent the views of the right, but I agree her performance has been very weak. I still wonder what would have happened if McCain had gone with Pawlenty as a running mate.
Is it possible that the right will stick with Palin and splinter from the republicans that rally around Pawlenty and Powell?
Palin was a puzzle to me from the get-go. I sincerely thought McCain had a death-wish, politically speaking. But lots of people did end up voting his ticket. Were they just praying he wouldn't die in office, or was it just a case of closing one's eyes and voting Rep no matter what? ?
I would guess the people who are attracked to Palin feel she is a breath of fresh air, they see politcians as suit and tie wearing stiffs who are cardboard fake.
Get real. Most of the people bleating about Palin's qualifications/performance/etc. had no intention of voting for the ticket in the first place. And it's not like her VP opponent has covered himself in glory.
SQUACKEE wrote:I would guess the people who are attracked to Palin feel she is a breath of fresh air, they see politcians as suit and tie wearing stiffs who are cardboard fake.
Ah yes, the cool breeze from Alaska strategy. I doubt THAT will be tried again!
There is a regular poster on this board, who shall remain nameless, who actually said to me in a pm that Palin was more qualified to be President than Obama and John Kerry.
jazzcyclist wrote:There is a regular poster on this board, who shall remain nameless, who actually said to me in a pm that Palin was more qualified to be President than Obama and John Kerry.
gm wrote:Get real. Most of the people bleating about Palin's qualifications/performance/etc. had no intention of voting for the ticket in the first place. And it's not like her VP opponent has covered himself in glory.
That's total b.s. There were a number of prominent conservatives for whom Sarah Palin was the deal-breaker.
Kathleen Parker wrote: Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.
No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I've been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I've also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.
David Brooks wrote:[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party. When I first started in journalism, I worked at the National Review for Bill Buckley. And Buckley famously said he'd rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. But he didn't think those were the only two options. He thought it was important to have people on the conservative side who celebrated ideas, who celebrated learning. And his whole life was based on that, and that was also true for a lot of the other conservatives in the Reagan era. Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices.
not a smackdown here ... at least not intended on my part
did you really, I mean genuinely, believe that Palin was (or even is) a reasonable pick/choice for VP? Take away partisan line. I really just cannot picture. And I don't ever vote party lines anyway - but thats a dif post.
I couldn't "get it", I guess, but it was surreal - I really remain at a loss for adequately describing my 'incredulity'. Still am. If the political (party) machines see that as ... well ....
But - you really thought she was a good candidate? Help me understand as I am more than befuddled. Yep I said that - befuddled.
I know two generally apolitical women who hadn't registered to vote in 20-odd years and both did last year, both because they said, "I couldn't live with myself if that woman were elected to national office."
gh wrote:I know two generally apolitical women who hadn't registered to vote in 20-odd years and both did last year, both because they said, "I couldn't live with myself if that woman were elected to national office."
I predicted last year that women would come to view Sarah Palin the same way Blacks view Clarence Thomas. I get the feeling that Hispanics feel the same way about Alberto Gonzales. What Republicans have to learn is that you can't choose any woman, Black or Hispanic to expand your base. Your have to pick someone that members or those groups can be proud of.
no one -- I didn't vote for either of the generally useless top tickets. It just bores me to tears that people harp on Palin and make it seem like she was Satan incarnate.
Heck, I wouldn't want either of those bowl-floaters on top of the D or R ticket near my house or family, but I'm not going to go on and on and on about it. I voted, my guy lost by about 59 million votes, there will be another chance in four years.
TrackDaddy wrote:She's quitting as governor.. Wow.
I can't wait for the other shoe to drop, and you know it will.
Wow - talk about not being able to stand the heat (understandable for an Alaskan, I guess); we start a thread criticizing her and she QUITS!
There are rumors floating around that Sarah Palin wants to move to the lower 48 states in order to further her political aspirations, but as of now those are just rumors.
What aspirations? She must know she's a political liability by now!
gm wrote: It just bores me to tears that people harp on Palin and make it seem like she was Satan incarnate.
NObody thinks she's Satan - that's giving her way too much credit.
gh wrote:I know two generally apolitical women who hadn't registered to vote in 20-odd years and both did last year, both because they said, "I couldn't live with myself if that woman were elected to national office."
I predicted last year that women would come to view Sarah Palin the same way Blacks view Clarence Thomas. I get the feeling that Hispanics feel the same way about Alberto Gonzales. What Republicans have to learn is that you can't choose any woman, Black or Hispanic to expand your base. Your have to pick someone that members or those groups can be proud of.
That is one of the most unintentionally hilarious things I have ever read, man.
this is sorta kinda what I think (partially) - I think Sarah Palin is probably a decent well meaning and perhaps hard working governor/individual (there really is no way for me to know). I think she somehow 'found herself" in a pretty headsy situation and if I had to bet - she thought she was wayyyy over her head. Sometimes the writing on the wall is there to begin with.
There was just too much stuff to absorb understand, then put it out there. Cramming for finals wasn't the answer (again , my 'hunch' - I've had those "oops" moments where I just couldn't fake it at all) - Once the die was cast McCain couldn't turn back and I bet behind close doors he asked himself "Gheez, what have I wrought?", to which his campaign people thought "Yep, what have you wrought", then soldiered up and marched on in the valley of political death.
t the end of the day I think Palin was shell shocked and couldn't believe how brutal the political (campaign) arena can be. - not Satan or not 'bad' but like one of my daughters in the men's 100 meters - any mens 100. Someone said something about wolves and sheep and .... Fast but in the wrong race.
I think Palin was just in an untenable, no win situation and was essentially thrown to the wolves. I felt bad for her and sorry for us and as Marty Liquori announced "What is El Guerrouj thinking?" akin to "What was McCain thinking?" El Guerrouj recovered as we all know.
What I continue to marvel(?) at is the huge huge huge mistake so called seasoned Washington insiders made, and I think it was colored with the proudly advertised "Maverick" label. So I stand with no ax to grind just my head shakin and shakin ... shakin all over. but not in that 60s way
gm wrote: It just bores me to tears that people harp on Palin and make it seem like she was Satan incarnate.
NObody thinks she's Satan - that's giving her way too much credit.
Correct. Satan has ruled an entire kingdom for quite some time, and apparently quite competently.
Competency is the rub with Palin: lots of folks have her general political outlook, but was she really the most competent VP candidate that McCain had available? Really??
And while Bush II created a new base level for a President or Vice President to competently handle, say, your average interview or news conference, Palin is a step or two below him.
jazzcyclist wrote:There is a regular poster on this board, who shall remain nameless, who actually said to me in a pm that Palin was more qualified to be President than Obama and John Kerry.
I don't know who Jazzcyclist is referring to but I will up the ante. ANYONE on this board is more qualified to be President of the United States and would do less damage than Barach Hussein Obama.
There, I said it. No smiley.
Gee, that felt good
Last edited by lonewolf on Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jazzcyclist wrote:There is a regular poster on this board, who shall remain nameless, who actually said to me in a pm that Palin was more qualified to be President than Obama and John Kerry.
I don't know who Jazzcyclist is referring to but I will up the ante. ANYONE on this board is more qualified to be President of the United States and would do less damage than Barach Hussein Obama. There, I said it. No smiley.
lonewolf wrote:I don't know who Jazzcyclist is referring to but I will up the ante. ANYONE on this board is more qualified to be President of the United States and would do less damage than Barach Hussein Obama. There, I said it. No smiley. Gee, that felt good
That may have felt good, but it shows that you have a distinct inability to judge the qualifications for President. I mean, have you actually read some of the stuff posted around here??
Marlow wrote: C'mon, ya gotta admit, he's better than SOME of us!
Nope, I was not a McCain enthusiast and I don't care how you spell his name, electing Obama will prove to be the biggest political/financial disaster in this country's history, or future if it has one.
No smiley..
lonewolf wrote:ANYONE on this board is more qualified to be President of the United States and would do less damage than Barach Hussein Obama. There, I said it. No smiley. Gee, that felt good
