Saturday, October 16, 2010
Hate or love her, Sarah Palin is a force to be reckoned with. For the morning argument with your coffee mate, "five myths" about Sarah Palin.
Sharon Carson, author of Act Like A Lady, Think Like A Man, copyright 2004, says celebrity Steve Harvey’s book of the same name is disempowering to women and does disservice to the title.
Sharon Carson reveals her reasons in a new Youtube audio
Audio Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfJLfbYewJk
web site link: www.actlikealadythinklikeaman.com
He left out one of the biggest myths of all, that she is trying to cram her personal religious beliefs down the throats of her constituents. This slur is definitively belied by her veto of the bill passed by the Alaska legislature that would have outlawed gay marriage.
Sarah had me at hello. But let's run down the myths.
1. Palin cost McCain the 2008 election. Not. She amped a campaign that needed a jolt. She was ill-used in the latter part of the campaign.
2. Resigning as governor was rash. Not. Like a good Marine, she attacked in a different direction.
3. Palin and the tea party are destroying the GOP. Not, but there's a lurking issue over how Christian fundamentalist Political Sarah wants to be. Gary Rosen's post isn't a full answer.
4. Palin is extreme. Not, but see above.
5. Palin is unelectable. Today she is ... see above. Sarah has high negatives in several key demographics. The likes of Bomber Girl matter here. Odds are that this won't change sufficiently by 2012. The Joker in the deck is Obama -- does his personal popularity drop below 30%?
Sarah may be in a stronger position by not running, She already has an effective veto on whoever's the Republican 2012 nominee, and a really cool and lucrative day job. Not bad for the former mayor of Wasilla.
Here's the actual quote from interview with Gibson:
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of this state give you?
PALIN: They're our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.
With apologies to Tina Fey, Palin's answer is a hoot with or without the backyard reference!
To Anon 9:56 am She actually gave a cynical answer to what was a stupid gotcha question.
Gibson also asked Sarah for her views on the Bush Doctrine, another gotcha. (I still don't know what the Bush Doctine is.) Her response "in respect to what, Charlie" was actually a good comeback to a stupid question, but she was called "clueless" for it. Sarah also got sandbagged in her interview with Gidget.
Myth 6. Palin is too dumb to be President. Today, it's the consensus view unfortunately.
I remember learning in grade school that the islands Big Diomede (belonging to Russia) and Little Diomede (belonging to the US in Alaska) were less than 3 miles apart. The post from anon 9:56 is quite a hoot because he unknowingly exposes himself as a pathetically stupid astroturfer.
Not to mention the fact that we bought Alaska from Russia in 1867, less than 100 years before Alaska's statehood. There are remains of an old Russian settlement in Fort Ross in California, less than 100 miles north of San Francisco. When you don't know jackshit about the history or geography of our country, you're better off keeping your piehole shut than making a fool of yourself.
Let's all cut Anonymous @9:56 some slack. The poor guy probably got educated in an Ivy League school, where they had a big Mercator projection world map on the wall showing Alaska at the Far Left and Russia at the Far Right.
Can't get further apart than Far Left & Far Right, right? And just cut that trash talk about the world being round. The Mercator projection is Settled Science!
I think both questions and both answers show 1) the attempt to show her foreign policy greenness and 2) her foreign policy greenness. Just imagining, but if Gov. Christie was asked the same question he might have a bit more forceful response saying basically, you are electing me to do something because of the experience I have, not to pretend to be in an expert in something I know nothing about.
Ok, I'm just projecting.
B.G. If we're going there, let's talk about Obama's greenness on virtually everything. Prior to traveling the globe on the taxpayer dime, where had this idiot been, or done? If Sarah is a right-winger, let's talk about what Obama is. 20+ years in a the black liberation, hate whitey, god damn Amerikkka 'church', been to Church a few times since becoming President "Christian".
We have a (apologies to actual retarded folk, loved ones of actually retarded persons, etc.) retarded VP, an abject failure in the WH, and growing sense of doom about what our future as Americans holds.
Call Sarah what you want. I call her kingmaker. She's a lightning rod for everything Leftists hate about America, and while she's getting the camera, the big right is coming around to cold cock Lefty upside their understuffed (with brain) head. She makes or breaks candidates, and will raise a ton of cash for the party, and for herself. More power to her.
John, I wasn't trying to compare the experience of the two, just to point out that candidates who speak straight are appealing. If she succeeds, it will be because she plays to her strengths, not soft pedals and stretches her resume.
"She's a lightning rod for everything Leftists hate about America"
Bingo. The more hysterical attacks, the more ground she gains and the more nasty her critics look. She's like one of those paper fingercuffs for identity liberals.
Palin is a hot looking talking head. She has no qualifications other than her ability to do what her handlers tell her. Compare Sarah to Dan Quayle--both percieved as good looking, but Quayle has been twice elected to the house and twice elected to the senate, and he had a law degree and practiced as an attorney. He looks like an intellectual giant compared to Palin. Reagan ran the State of California, and did so well. Palin quit as governor of Alaska, a State awash in oil revenues. I give Palin credit for being in the right place at the right time, and for knowing how to deamonize her opponents. That and looking good in a skirt are her only assest.
Anonymous @ 2:09:
I give Palin credit for... knowing how to deamonize her opponents...
Considering that there have been much more negative statements about Palin coming from her her opponents than negative statements coming from Palin about her opponents, I conclude that Anonymous @ 2:09 is trying out for Comedy Central.
No comedy intended, it's just a fact. Palin got elected in Alaska by running a negative campaign, and she hopes to improve her political standing by serving plenty of red meat to her "us versus them" constituency. I have no intent to state that others are not running negative ads against Palin. Negative campaigning in general is a crutch for those that have nothing else to offer. In Palin's case much of the criticism is objective. She just isn't the best either party has to offer by a long shot. Being the target of negative campaigning doesn't make Palin smart, or experienced, or qualified. She's just such an easy target for ridicule when she tries to sell herself as the next potential leader of the free world. Can't we all find a better politician that the former part-time governor of Alaska? Do you think she is smarter than Dan Quayle?
So anon you are saying that Dan Quayle is more qualified than BO? Because Palin has vastly more qualifications and experience to be President than that emptiest of suits whose adult accomplishments prior to November 2008 amounted to exactly zip dot squat.
Obama was twice elected to the Illinois House and US Senate
He is a graduate of Columbia and Harvard, passed the bar and practiced law.
Sarah Palin? 4 colleges and junior colleges before she got her degree in Journalism; Experience two years as a sportscaster and as a "hockey mom" driving her son to practice. She won the mayor's job in Wasilla twice when a grand total of about 2100 total votes were cast in both elections. These are the credentials for the next President? Palin is a lightweight of the first order.Is she really the best we can do?
Anonymous @ 3:39 p.m.
Palin is a lightweight of the first order.Is she really the best we can do?
I don't know, but we can do better than Obama, whose experience metric compared to other US Senators elected President most resembled that of Warren Harding.
Compare the executive experience of the two before the 2008 election. Obama: chaired the Annenberg Challenge, where he doled out ~ $100 million, counting matching funds, for research on improving performance in the Chicago public schools. Result of the ~ $100 million spent on research: Annenberg-funded schools performed no better than schools that were not blessed with Annenberg research. IOW, a total waste of money. As chair for a project dedicated to improving performance in Chicago public schools, Obama was a total failure. All he did was hand out money.
Palin: Mayor of Wasilla, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission,Governor of Alaska.
Also rather interesting that you neglected to note Sarah Palin's executive experience beyond Mayor. You are either ignorant or deceitful. Which is it?
"Also rather interesting that you neglected to note Sarah Palin's executive experience beyond Mayor. You are either ignorant or deceitful. Which is it?"
It's not an either-or question, especially if he's the same anonymous moron who didn't know there is a place where Alaska and Russia are within three miles of each other.
Thanks, BT, for setting the record straight on Palin. As for BO, I've been asking these questions for a while now regarding his pre-November 2008 achievements:
In BO's adult life, what did he accomplish?
What did he lead?
What did he change?
What did he cause to happen?
The only answers I've come up with are nothing, or close to it. As for his degrees, there are plenty of people with degrees from prestigious universities who have done nothing with them. Such a degree is a significant accomplishment for someone applying for their first job out of college. It is laughable to consider it one of the major credentials of a candidate for President.
Mmm, some believe Liberals are afraid of her.
Yet others, like myself who are surrounded by Democrats out east, should know full well, Democratic Partisan long for the stereotype they prey upon which is provided by Mrs. Palin.
There are myths, but the biggest is her SUPER CONSERVATIVE IMAGE. She began her career as a Moderate Reformer, which is one reason why the Maverick liked her. She raised populist taxes on Oil Companies, pushed Climate Panel Bureaucracy on Alaska, etc. Her abandoning her sworn oath after just two years, in the face of Liberal lawsuits was truly not Conservative - a real sign of a lack of commitment and responsibility.
Mrs. Palin is a product of exploiting a modern Conservative fashion, much like when Democratic Partisans desperately hoisted all their 'hopes' and ideals on an unknown named Obama - because the others they knew were rather tainted.
The article is amusing, because there is a sense many Democrats "HOPE" Sarah Palin runs against Obama, which will be easy prey for them. This article is indeed a sense of helping this potential. Sarah Palin only polls at a dismal O'Donnell - Hillary Clinton like standing today against a terribly unpopular Obama - she gets only 35% of the Vote vs. 55% for the hapless Obama.
To run Sarah Palin, would be as foolish as running John McCain in the last General Election. That is the sad reality.
The 'myth' that Sarah Palin hurt John McCain is only off, because the Maverick was so bad, her poor offering could not hurt. But her terrible interviews did hurt the National image of Mrs. Palin, and the Republican offering. Conservatives stuck in the fashion, and those Pundits who exploit it, who fail to lead, won't want to admit the truth.
The ironic question for many Conservatives should be, why didn't Sarah Palin reference Ronald Reagan prior to her selection of the VP Candidacy in political arenas? Why did she jump to accept a terrible Maverick Platform which was so near to the Democrats, including that disastrous Cap and Trade Taxation, or the undermining of a sound interrogation technique known as 'waterboarding'. Why didn't she wait until she could offer a more sound, principled Conservative offering, especially allowing her expecting Daughter more privacy?
The answers are simply not the positive spin many put upon us, which slant all to make overt excuses for the Hockey Mom or the Palin Franchise.
The HYPE peddled by so many Elite Conservative Pundits is the actual problem, not the slander of the Democratic Partisans.
We are pushing a fashion which has little basis, and is leaving us all with a weaker offering. We need to do better.
And if we run Mrs. Palin, she has to do better. In her last interview with Mr. Wallace, it was embarrassing, as she could not answer the most simple question about why to continue the Bush TAX CUTS. Instead she made a joke after a few bumbled slips, about having answers written on her hand (again), and then went to read prepared written statements about the Bush Tax Cuts. If she wants to be President, get her to do the homework. We don't need a teleprompter Celebrity in a debate with the teleprompter President.