Thread: Is Sarah Palin the Next Barack Obama?

This is the title of a story on AOL today. Is this possible?
I would love to see a woman president in my life time. But not her. I know most people either love her or hate her, few are indifferent.

Originally Posted by buglebe

This is the title of a story on AOL today. Is this possible?
I would love to see a woman president in my life time. But not her. I know most people either love her or hate her, few are indifferent.

I would like to see her get elected. Why, because I feel if you (America) think that she will do such a great job I say give it to her. Kind olf like what happened to Obama. Everyone though he was so great. Well now how do you feel? Give her the job. I dare yah.

I think she has her usefulness, but being a president isn't it.

I think this is almost funny ...

3 reasons Sarah Palin should not be president
Tue May 31, 8:10 am ET

New York – As the buzz once again builds around a possible presidential run by the Mama Grizzly, some conservatives can't mask their disdain for Palin. On Tuesday, Sarah Palin toured the battlefield at Gettysburg, on the latest stop of her "One Nation" bus tour. The trip, which kicked off Sunday in Washington, D.C., has sparked renewed speculation about Palin's presidential intentions. But while reporters play "a cat-and-mouse game" with Palin, trying to figure out where her bus will head next, a number of conservative commentators have responded to Palin's building buzz by rattling off a few reasons the former Alaska governor isn't ready for the White House. Here, three criticisms of the Mama Grizzly:

1. She can't be trusted with nukes : The "threshhold question" when picking a president is "Should we give this person nuclear weapons?" said George Will on ABC's This Week. With Palin, that question "answers itself." Palin is a "genius" at manipulating the media, and she can have a big impact on this race, but she's not ready to handle the nuclear football.

2. She can't handle the 3 a.m. crisis call : Being president is about being woken up in the middle of the night and handed a crisis. "Does anybody think Sarah Palin's ready for that? I don't think so," said David Brooks on NBC's Meet the Press. People may like Palin, and agree with her on many of the issues, but "running for president is not American Idol." Ultimately, people won't think she's qualified to be president.


3. "She's not a team player" : Palin proved this weekend that she could still draw crowds and cameras, but she also made it clear that she "is in business for herself," says Jonathan S. Tobin at Commentary. Palin seems "anxious to prove that she has no use for" other Republicans, and at this stage she's right — her megawatt star power is enough. But "her complete lack of organization will eventually come back to haunt her." Politics is a team sport. Palin has "got to play as part of the team," says Brooks, but she's given no indication she's willing to do that.

979 Comments

I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but the media's obsession with her is a bit creepy.

--

She's not going to run. She can make more money as a celebrity than a politician.

--

This is exactly the reason we have the secret ballot... let the idiots on both sides make their case and then we will decide... God Bless the USA!!!

---

Personally, I feel that Obama has failed all three of these "tests". Abroad when he deceides to go against Libya, he stays in South America and returns to brief the nation after - what - ten days ? Disaterous tornadoes stike our heartland but he continues to visit his - eh "homeland" - Ireland. He announced that "I won - get used to it" after preaching bipartisan cooperation. He has betrayed our trusted allies and appeases those who have declared an intent to destroy us and our way of life.

---

The three reasons you listed for Palin are the very three that scare the crap out of me because America hating Obama is president. The third reason is ironic since Odumbo virtually ignored the republicans for two years and crammed his horrible healthcare plan, which he immediately exempted himself and the government from, down the screaming public's throat. And the nuke thing.....if he ever got a chance, he would be the first to use it on America, after he had safely landed in another country, using our tax dollars to fly himself there. The quacking AFLAC DUCK is as qualified as Odumbo.

---

The forth reason is that democrats would have an mental breakdown, especially after throwing the kitchen sink and the fridge at her with no visual damage done!

MSM/lefty bloggers work in concert to discredit Palin, but she wins in the end
June 4, 2011 at 12:32 pm

I’ve been watching and reading in absolute fascination as the MSM, left wing bloggers and pundits have been busy spinning like tops the last couple of days to add another layer to their “Sarah Palin is stooopid” meme. The latest example comes as a result of comments she made on CNN about Paul Revere’s famous midnight ride. We’ll go with the USA Today’s write-up, as it first references the liberal New York Mag’s account of Palin’s remarks before noting the reaction of two left wing websites: http://content.usatoday.com/communit...dnight-ride-/1

Sarah Palin apparently flubbed details of Paul Revere’s famous midnight ride when she visited Boston yesterday.

The former Alaska governor, who may or may not be running for the GOP presidential nomination, thought Revere was warning the British army during the Revolutionary War.

Here’s the transcript, from New York magazine, of what she told reporters who were trailing her on her bus tour of historical sites:

He who warned, uh, the … the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms, uh, by ringin’ those bells and, um, by makin’ sure that as he’s ridin’ his horse through town to send those warnin’ shots and bells that, uh, we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free … and we were gonna be armed.

Revere was, in fact, riding from Boston to Lexington to warn John Hancock and Samuel Adams of the approaching British army.

The blogosphere is having a field day with this one. ThinkProgress is panning Palin’s description of this historic event. Mediaite spotlighted this for folks.

I’d like to note for the record that that is three, count ‘em, three liberal sources USA Today referenced in response to the alleged “Palin flub”: NY Mag, Think Progress, and Mediaite. Add to that Ben Smith at Politico, who referenced Think Progress’ account of Palin’s remarks here.

Aaron Worthing, blogging at Patterico’s, has a spectacular round-up of predictable, mindless left wing reactions to Palin’s “flub”, so you get from their reactions and the regurgitation of them in the MSM, that they are definitively correct. Palin got it wrong, it’s just another example of why she’s unfit for political office, you shouldn’t trust her to take out your trash, much less advise on policy, etc.

Only, come to find out, Sarah Palin got it right – as William Jacobson noted here:

In fact, as pointed out at Conservatives4Palin, Revere did in fact tell the British that the colonial militias, who had been alerted, were waiting for them. Here is the original historical text written by Revere:

I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back,and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from,& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up. He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms

Palin’s short statement on the video was less than clear; that sometimes happens but the part of the statement which has people screaming — that Revere warned the British that the colonial militias were waiting – appears to be true.

I’ve learned something new today, about Paul Revere.

And so did anyone else who wasn’t busy jerking their knees over comments made by Sarah Palin.

History is an interesting thing, especially “popular history.” Sometimes it can be right, sometimes it can be wrong, sometimes it can be incomplete. For example, liberals would have you believe that Bill Clinton’s impeachment was about sex, when in actuality it was about him lying under oath about having an affair - and lying under oath is an impeachable offense. Popular history tells us that the 1964 Civil Rights Act happened because Democrats were fearless champions of the rights of minorities. In reality, prior to that Act being signed into law, every significant piece of civil rights legislation signed into law was done so thanks to Republican legislations and Presidents. Not only that, but as a percentage of their party, more Republicans voted for the 1964 CRA than Democrats. Popular history tells us that Paul Revere’s ride was to warn Revolutionaries that the British were coming, which is true, but what is not widely known – as evidenced by the left-wing freak-out over Palin’s comments – is that Revere also warned the British, when detained.

Funny how left wing elites think they know it all – but they really don’t. How amusing it’s been to find out that the joke this week has been on them, thanks to a bit of “educatin’” by the lowly Sarah Palin.

It’s both hysterically funny and maddeningly infuriating at the same time. Funny because of the irony at play with liberals trying to prove that Palin is an idiot, only to turn around and look like idiots themselves (hey, it’s happened before). Infuriating because the left wing interpretation of Palin’s remarks will, sadly, be what passes for “authoritative commentary” on the matter when it comes to the MSM’s reporting, thus creating another myth about Palin’s grasp of history.

I say all this as someone who is not a reflexive defender of Sarah Palin. I’m a big fan, but I’ve been critical of her in the past, especially as it relates to how she picks and chooses her battles with the MSM. I think she’s someone who at times spends too much time trying to refute MSM nonsense rather than going about her business, and trying to help good conservatives get elected to office. She needs to leave some of the refuting to bloggers – case in point (ahem). At the same time, I absolutely despite the snobbish, arrogant nature of left wingers both in the opinion world and in the so-called “unbiased” press when it comes to history and the facts. Not only are they regional bigots who take great pleasure in making fun of her accent – which is their code of way of saying “dumb country bumpkin hick!” – but they also frequently and deliberately distort, misinterpret, and/or lie about things that she says and does, because it’s fashionable to look down at the “little lady from Alaska.” On the other hand, our celebrity President can make outright absurd (and false) declarations about America, such as the one he made about how the Muslim population in America could technically make it “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world”, and you hear barely a contrary peep from the MSM.

There’s a reason they do this, and it’s not just because she’s a Republican. It’s because she’s a female Republican aka a “minority”, and as I’ve said before, there is nothing that the left and their allies in the press fear more than losing the “minority” vote. That’s why they can’t stand “minority” Republicans like Sarah Palin, Sen. Marco Rubio, and Rep. Allen West. These prominent Republican leaders are representative of the grip that the Democrat party is losing when it comes to the female, Latino, and black vote. When the left loses their stranglehold on these voters, they’ll find it a lot harder to win – because Democrats keep their party going by keeping the country divided into little “victim” groups, groups that they assert only the left can “rescue” … with more big government “solutions” that don’t work. Once a majority in each of these “special groups” feel less like collective victims and more like individuals who just want to live their lives with minimal to no government “assistance”, the left will lose and lose big.

I, for one, can’t wait for that day to come.

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/20...ns-in-the-end/


comments

Not only were the British seeking to arrest Adams and Hancock, there were also trying “to confiscate a cache of munitions.”

So tell me my liberal friends, how does it feel to know that Sarah Palin knows more than you?

http://www.nationalheritagemuseum.or...aspx?tabid=293

---

Governor Palin’s verbal miscue (if in fact it was one) was most likely caused by fatigue from traveling by bus to all 57 states. Or perhaps her version was passed down by her father who watched it in the 30′s on TV during one of FDR’s “Fireside Chats”. Or maybe it was from taking too a big of a hit off a breathalizer during an asthma flare up. Or perhaps a “corpseman” relayed that version to her…

You get the point.

I think Palin shot herself in the political foot leaving her post as Governor of AK.... if you can't stand the heat, don't stand in the firing line. On the other hand I have to laugh everytime some one "quotes" the bit about "I can see Russia ffrom my porch." Palin never said that - it was from a skit on SNL.... tends to show where the speaker gets their political savy.

'Lamestream media' defends Palin
By Molly Ball | Politico – 10 hrs ago

They kicked her around, victimized her, tried to destroy her. But all of a sudden, the lamestream media is coming to Sarah Palin’s defense.

Faced with a barrage of negative portrayals — a much-hyped investigative book, a Levi Johnston memoir and a new movie — Palin is finding support in the unlikeliest of places. Film reviewers have slammed the British documentary “Sarah Palin: You Betcha!” Newspapers have refused to run comic-strip excerpts of Joe McGinniss’s rumor-mongering tome “The Rogue.” Johnston’s accusations have been consigned to the gossip pages. And none other than The New York Times has angrily taken Palin’s side in a brutal takedown of the McGinniss book.

Reviewer Janet Maslin called “The Rogue” a work of “caustic, unsubstantiated gossip,” accusing its author, who rented a house next door to the Palins for a time, of sloppiness, attention seeking and a lack of neighborliness. “‘The Rogue’ is too busy being nasty to be lucid,” Maslin concludes, describing its many accusations as “indefensibly reckless.”

In a statement issued through a PR representative, Todd Palin trumpeted the Times review, pointing to it as proof that the book was so reprehensible that “even The New York Times” disdained it. But it wasn’t the first time in recent weeks the Palins have found the Times — the print voice of East Coast intellectualism — in their corner. The Gray Lady also recently published an op-ed praising Palin as a person of ideas and calling for her to be taken seriously.

The column by Anand Giridharadas — impeccably credentialed as an Aspen Institute fellow and Cambridge, Mass., resident — accused the media of “ignoring the ideas [Palin] unfurled” in her recent speech at an Iowa tea party rally. “Ms. Palin may be hinting at a new political alignment that would pit a vigorous localism against a kind of national-global institutionalism,” he wrote.

It’s a lot of love for Palin from the news outlet she decried back in March in a Facebook post titled “NYT, There You Go Again,” wherein she speculated that the paper’s “false reporting” was the source of its “economic and reputation woes.” And it’s not the sort of treatment Palin generally perceives from what she loves to call the “lamestream media” — because, as she explained in another Facebook post, “The ‘mainstream’ media isn’t mainstream anymore. That’s why I call it ‘lamestream,’ and the LSM is becoming quite irrelevant, as it is no longer the sole gatekeeper of information.”

“The Rogue” hasn’t yet been widely reviewed — the Times defied the publisher’s embargo to publish its take, and the Los Angeles Times followed suit with a less acerbic take that nonetheless called the book “tame” and said it lacked credibility. But many of its accusations have been aired over the past several days in “Doonesbury,” which received McGinniss’s permission to weave excerpts from the text into the strip’s narrative.

Once again, though, media outlets haven’t played along with the anti-Palin gambit. The Chicago Tribune and other newspapers have declined to publish the “Doonesbury” strips, with the Trib explaining, “The subject matter does not meet our standards of fairness.”

And then there’s “You Betcha!” a cheerfully ruthless documentary about Palin from Nick Broomfield, whose past subjects have included Kurt Cobain, Margaret Thatcher, Heidi Fleiss and Tupac Shakur.

The film premiered last week at the Toronto International Film Festival, and it wasn’t exactly a critical darling.

Variety called it “a sarcastically toned, strategically timed character assassination” that “lacks sufficient humor and insight to make it a must-see for anyone outside the Brit muckraker’s fan base.” Other critics called it “obnoxious” and “unnecessary.”

When reviewers turned their noses up at “The Undefeated,” the pro-Palin film that came out in July, Palin’s fans cried foul and blamed critics’ presumed liberal tendencies. But the critics faulted the anti-Palin movie for the same flaw they noted in “The Undefeated” – clumsy one-sidedness.

Now that the enemy has crossed to their side, Palin’s fans don’t quite seem to know what to do.

The pro-Palin Conservatives4Palin website acknowledged Maslin’s review only in the context of Todd Palin’s statement. It linked to the Giridharadas column without comment.

A C4P commenter on the Giridharadas post wrote, “OMG! Are these city Liberals beginning to see the light?” But other commenters speculated that the Times must have some sinister anti-Palin ulterior motive in publishing it.

Even as Palin become the unlikely darling of the media elites, some in the conservative media have turned against her. Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter recently said she shouldn’t run for president; RedState founder Erick Erickson, in a post titled “Enough,” unloaded on Palin and her most die-hard fans, calling them a “cult” and “kooks.”

To Mark McKinnon, the GOP consultant, former George W. Bush adviser and onetime Sarah Palin debate coach, there’s a simple explanation for the mainstream rejection of the new works of anti-Palinism. “Sometimes trash is trash,” he said, “and you have to call it for what it is no matter who it comes from or who it’s about.”

http://news.yahoo.com/lamestream-med...093100032.html