April 15, 2010

Sarah

Sarah Palin's book is exactly the kind of fare you expect from a politician. I have no doubt it is true, but the narrative paints her in the best possible light. It is a long written campaign ad, no more or less. In that instance it is no different than tomes written by politicians for hundreds of years. It is light reading, but so were the writings of Obama, Clinton and TR.

Sarah Palin is not the dumb broad portrayed by the media. No one has the success in her profession she has being a vacant mouth-breathing moron. Those who portray her as such, or perpetuate the myth, are disingenuous at best. You can disagree with her beliefs, but her stance on the issues is shared by a great many Americans. Some polls would suggest her conservative values are those of most Americans. So she did not go to an Ivy League school. Most of us did not either. That does not mean her education is lacking. I went to a small private school. I received an excellent education. I have the Latin inscribed sheepskin to prove it. I may not be able to read my diploma, but that in no way means my education was lacking. In fact my college is consistently ranked in the top colleges in the country. A list of the alumni would impress you, but it was not Harvard or Yale. So what?

I find it laughable that Obama is trying to portray her as lacking. Her knowledge of Nuclear weapons is as complete as the President's. In fact there is no doubt her experience was significantly greater in all areas compared to Obama. On this there is no argument. Look at some of the remarks and actions of some of our elected representatives, The former Governor of Alaska looks a clone of Einstein in comparison. I am pretty sure she at no point EVER believed Guam might capsize, for instance. (Check my archives)

It is a sad state that most Americans are unable to separate the fictional character played on TV with the real Sarah Palin. Sadly, the bias found in today's media is not much different than the "yellow journalism" decried 100 years ago. Future generations will look at today's media in the same historical light.

That said, Palin is unelectable. Her failure to finish her term as Governor is a major obstacle. No matter how she spins the decision (and maybe it was best for the people of Alaska), she quit.

Palin is the most polarizing figure in American politics today. You either love her or hate her. The mass of undecideds will be swayed by the reams of negative press and TV spoofs any run for elective office will create.

Palin is feared by those who call themselves progressive. They fear her values, they fear her popularity. They fear her conservative beliefs. Sarah Palin came within one bailout of getting McCain elected. The left will not make that near-mistake again.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree she is not electable,she is in the king maker seat. The question becomes does the TEA party become a reality and make this a three party country and where does she fit in the scheme of a three party political election. Does a third party make Obama's attempt at a second term more of a reality? I am afraid that is the reality, if the republican party doesn't wake up and jump on part of the TEA party platform, and a third party is created, Obama wins.


James Old Guy

Joe said...

The GOP has to realize their future is in the Tea party movement. If the National committee coninues to back RINOs -- the gOP is done and we ge tfour more years of Obama and liberal destruction.

The Tea party can win then, but it will be too late.

Greybeard said...

"Palin is the most polarizing figure in American politics today."
Arguable.
I think Palin is only polarizing because our President and his Marxist cronies are scared to death of her.
Unelectable?
Maybe. Wait and see.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Obama's pretty polarizing himself.

jonas said...

Thanks for the update.

Joe said...

You guys are right, I should have said Palin is ONE of the most polarizing figures...

Do not get me wrong, I would vote for her in a second, but at this point, unless she can change her public perception, she is unelectable.

Galt-in-Da-Box said...

So, when she runs in 2012 and loses, will THAT convince you she's not the "traditional Conservative" her PR/salespeople are trying so desperately to palm her off as?
Just curious.

Joe said...

Ted,
I am not sure what you are saying. Do you not believe she is conservative? Does her losing make her not conservative? I just said she is unelectable -- the left and the media will desroy her. The amount of fear and loathing she engenders makes reagan and Nixon look like pikers.

I do not get your point.

Foxhound said...

Hoosierboy: Unfortunately, turning things around in this country and reversing the harm that the libs and the rinos have been inflicting upon this nation for the past 50 years can't be done overnight or in a single election. Polarizing works for me because the alternative is moderate/centrist - i.e., standing between people who ACTUALLY do stand for something. McCain, both Bushes, Dole, ... enough already!

To get this country back on track will require a new party and at least three or four election cycles to build the base. People have to be convinced the new party isn't a fly-by-night nor a giant soap box for a single, glib, gazillionaire celebrity-politician, e.g., the Reform Party. The party must be bigger than any of the people in it. The party of Sarah Palin or Ross Perot ain't gonna cut it. And, most importantly, the individual voters can't be afraid of losing. Fear of losing always results in the voter making an inferior, compromised selection at the voting booth. The resultant low numbers reflected in the new party candidate's final totals can only serve to further damage the cred of that party - something the established Dems, Repubs and the mainstream media will already be working overtime on.

If we all voted from our heart for a couple of election cycles, momentum would build and things would ultimately change. Call me Pollyanna...

Joe said...

Fox -- it has been 150 years since a third party won the Presidency. Since that time both parties have worked to make sure it never happens again. The entire primary system and voting process ultimately makes the job impossible. Perot could not make it happen. Many looked at that experiment and realized the net result was 8 years of Bill Clinton.

I do think you are a pollyanna. we have a greater shot at returning the nation to its limited-government roots by retaking the GOP. I don't like it, but rreality dictates the best shot at winning.

3-4 more election cycles where the thrid party puts the progressives into power will put the nation too far gone. The right will be somewhere left of center as we become France, Germany, Britain, and Belgium.

Consider everything here that is of original content copyrighted as of March 2005