14
   

"Sarah Palin is a F***ing Retard!"

 
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 05:12 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

tsarstepan wrote:

I know a strong politically empowered female politician ... her name is Ann Richards, former governor of Texas.

R.I.P.

Shocked I see dead politicians. Shocked

And yes... Rest In Peace Madame Richards.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 11:37 pm
Quote:
By David S. Broder
Thursday, February 11, 2010

The snows that obliterated Washington in the past week interfered with many scheduled meetings, but they did not prevent the delivery of one important political message: Take Sarah Palin seriously.

Her lengthy Saturday night keynote address to the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville and her debut on the Sunday morning talk show circuit with Fox News' Chris Wallace showed off a public figure at the top of her game -- a politician who knows who she is and how to sell herself, even with notes on her palm.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/10/AR2010021002451.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

You people who sh*t all over Palin only prove that you dont understand America, where America is right now. I can't stand her, but I do take her and the tea party movement seriously.

America is ready for a change, and Obama is not it.
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 01:15 am
@hawkeye10,
I must disagree with Mr Broder, and Mr. Hawkeye. I have been given no real reason to take Mrs. Palin seriously. That is not to say that I don't observe that some people do invest a great interest in her, but that in itself is not her being taken seriously.

In her speech, what was I supposed to take away from it? What specific strategy did she present in earnest for me to "take serious?" She is being made into a conservative pop icon, and she offers up some nice stump speeches to get a few people excited on the right, but she isn't demonstrating anything worth being considered a threat.

At least not her, not Sarah. If her speech demonstrates any threat, it is not about her, it's about a loud and enthusiastic group of big mouth tea party types. These people don't threaten the Dems, they threaten the existing GOP.

T
K
O
Green Witch
 
  4  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 07:19 am
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
These people don't threaten the Dems, they threaten the existing GOP.


Totally agree. Go TEABAGGERS! They are the nutty fringe being rounded up into a single homemade bunker. They are like the extreme liberals who supported Ralph Nadar in 2000. It's the two extremes that tilted the vote towards a Bush win. Let them run Sarah on some Libertarian/Independent/Stupid & Proud of It ticket, that will leave the rest of us sane people to pick our leaders. See Sarah run. Run, Sarah, run.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 12:20 pm
@Green Witch,
I usually do think of her in Nadar like terms.
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 12:31 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

I usually do think of her in Nadar like terms.


dear lord tell me that was a typo and you meant Nader

Nadar (Tamil: நாடார்) "Nadar" (also referred as Nadan, Nataar, Gramani and Shanar) is one of the prominent castes of Tamil Nadu, South India. The term, Nadar, in Tamil literally means "one who rules the land". The Nadars are also quite commonly called as Annachi (meaning elder brother). Nowadays, the Nadars occupy various positions, including education, politics and mostly retail business.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 01:51 pm
@djjd62,
It was? I mean, I did!
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 02:09 pm
@djjd62,
That's almost a typical malaprop for me. Kind of funny, but definitely a typo.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 03:54 pm
@Green Witch,
Just saw a book on display at the library. I didn't take it home.

Sarah Palin
Going Rouge
An American Nightmare
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 04:00 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
At least not her, not Sarah. If her speech demonstrates any threat, it is not about her, it's about a loud and enthusiastic group of big mouth tea party types. These people don't threaten the Dems, they threaten the existing GOP.


she is a politician, what counts is the willingness of people to follow her, not your evaluation of her technical skills. Broder is talking about her ability to figure out what the would be followers want and to then offer it, which is a hugely valuable political skill. I don't think that he is wrong about that.

You might not want to be so blithe about the tea party, because their main point....that it is time to stop following the elite....is a message that is equally attractive to dems of a certain class as it is to republicans. If the teapartiers are right about what America wants they will first take over the GOP, and then if left unchallenged by the out of tune Dems will take enough dems and independents at the ballot box to take over Washington and many states as well.

The time is not right to care about non GOP'er, after the party is theirs they will pivot and reach out to Dems and independents. This could happen very quickly, the rise of Obama shows how unstable the political landscape is.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 04:16 pm
Encouraging news about how voters view Palin:

The Sarah Palin Surge (and why it's overblown)

Excerpt:

Chris Cilizza wrote:
Second, Palin still faces major doubts among the broader electorate.

In the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, 37 percent had a favorable impression of her while 55 percent regarded her unfavorably. Perhaps more troubling for Palin's future political prospects is that just one in four (26 percent) of those polled said she is qualified to be president while a whopping 71 percent said she wasn't up to the job. (Even among self identified Republicans, just 46 percent believe Palin is qualified to be president while 52 percent say she isn't.)


Lots of links in the original. I followed one link to the original poll about whether she is qualified to be president and the numbers are also significantly lower than when the same question was asked 11/15/09. (The '09 numbers were 38% thought she was qualified, 60% thought she wasn't.)
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 04:21 pm
@sozobe,
Quote:
Lots of links in the original. I followed one link to the original poll about whether she is qualified to be president and the numbers are also significantly lower than when the same question was asked 11/15/09. (The '09 numbers were 38% thought she was qualified, 60% thought she wasn't.)


She was not ready for the White House, but if Broder and the rest are right that she is the real deal she will adapt and grow quickly. Look back at the history...a year before she was GOV of Alaska just about no one took her seriously for that gig either.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 04:23 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
She was not ready for the White House, but if Broder and the rest are right that she is the real deal she will adapt and grow quickly. Look back at the history...a year before she was GOV of Alaska just about no one took her seriously for that gig either.


When exactly is she going to 'adapt and grow?' I don't believe that she has the basic capabilities to do the job. You can't grow intelligence in middle age.

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 04:35 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
When exactly is she going to 'adapt and grow?' I don't believe that she has the basic capabilities to do the job. You can't grow intelligence in middle age


her argument is that intellectual abilites are overrated. Before the big crash almost no one was willing to follow that line, Prosperity was too important to risk a leader who is not intellectually smart. Now there is a good argument that the smart guys who designed this economy totally screwwed us over, and walked off with a big pot of money to boot. We rolled the dice with Obama, a guy we dont know, because he seemed to be the smartest guy avail at a time when lots of things need fixing. But if he is a failure look for America to decide that intellect is not the answer.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  5  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 04:46 pm
@hawkeye10,
Do you get that people think she's LESS ready now than they did right after the election? And she's coasted on soundbites and scripted interaction since then. ("Tell me, what are your core principles?" "Gee, that's a good surprise question! Let me just check my hand for a sec...")
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 06:00 pm
@sozobe,
Quote:

Do you get that people think she's LESS ready now than they did right after the election


Ya, I get it. I think this matters but is not a deal breaker. People have high favorable opinions of people they hardly know, or people who don't do anything. We did not know Palin at all when McCain picked her, and by election time had not seen much outside of the stage show that the campaign put on. We have seen more since, plus some of the McCain people have been gunning for her and have participated in a media and political campaign to stick a knife in her. That her numbers have come down is not at all surprising

And yet in spite of much of the establishment trying to kill her, she lives. And no matter how many asterisks you want to use she was good enough to take on the power structure of Alaska and beat them to become Gov. She was good enough to get picked as the VP candidate of one of the two major parties. She is good enough to inspire a rabid following even now.

It is far to early to write her off, to come to the conclusion that she cant bring her numbers up to a level to make her a major contender on the national stage.

sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 06:05 pm
@hawkeye10,
But in what reasonable sense is an ex-Governor whom only a quarter of the electorate thinks is qualified for the presidency and of whom 55% disapprove "alive"? John Edwards is alive too, doesn't mean much in terms of his chances for becoming president.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 06:05 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

She is good enough to inspire a rabid following even now.



Un huh. We'll have to wait and see how much directionless frustration is around in another few years.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 06:07 pm
@roger,
Quote:
directionless


You are joking right?? The direction is anti elite, anti Washington, and pro looking out for the little guy. This is clear and consistent.
engineer
 
  5  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 06:22 pm
@hawkeye10,
How come you want to elect people who aren't elite? I would think you would want the best of the best to lead the country. Average Joe doesn't really cut it.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/12/2021 at 01:34:12