Sarah Palin - Teflon Republican?

coonecb1 · 05-09-2010 08:08PM #1

Is it just me or is it shocking the Sarah Palin's popularity seems to rise in inverse proportion to the amount of negative press she receives?

Rather than making people less confident in her abilities, it seems that any sniggering at, for example, hand-written notes, is angrily attacked and labelled liberal elitist snobbery :rolleyes:

I'm worried about where this is leading and what her position will be in the coming years.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Overheal · 05-09-2010 09:33PM

Well this is what you get when you have a woman, like Palin, who runs on a platform of media elitism.

My thinking is that whatever campaign she is in would be rough. The GOP was ill prepared to defend itself appropriately to all of her skeletons and thats just from what the Democrats were able to find in the weeks between her nomination and the election. No doubt her entire laundry list will be on display if she decides to run for election. At which point she'll pull the sexism card; the Hannity Brigade will support that view; the Left and Jon Stewart will exhibit their hypocrisy through a serious of amusing clips and at the end of the day I think Palin will spell her own defeat, as it's become ever apparent she loves caving to criticism.

05-09-2010 09:47PM

Sarah Palin as a 2012 GOP (AKA Tea Party) presidential candidate is "A Bridge to Nowhere."

southsiderosie · 06-09-2010 01:31AM

I think she is popular as a media personality who talks about politics in their own weird way, but I think she is now toxic as an actual candidate, especially for anything at a national level. She basically quit the governors position to be on Fox News, her family life is a ****show, she shows little interest in learning about policy issues (according to people within her own party), and although both the far left and independents have lost faith in Obama, putting her on the head of the GOP presidential ticket would fire up the left, and scare the crap out of independents.

That said, I think she is a dangerously ignorant political demagogue.

Nodin · 06-09-2010 11:18AM

coonecb1 wrote: »

Is it just me or is it shocking the Sarah Palin's popularity seems to rise in inverse proportion to the amount of negative press she receives?

Rather than making people less confident in her abilities, it seems that any sniggering at, for example, hand-written notes, is angrily attacked and labelled liberal elitist snobbery :rolleyes:

I'm worried about where this is leading and what her position will be in the coming years.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Shes immensely popular with the already converted. All others range from indifference to horror.

Denerick · 06-09-2010 11:32AM

Unfortunately around 40% of the American electorate are utter imbeciles. So she is always going to do well with that constituency.

The other 60% is the problem.

Manic Moran · 06-09-2010 04:48PM

The first thing is that she doesn't need to be good. She just needs to be more appealing than the rest of the candidates. Unfortunately, right now, that is actually attainable for her. The GOP actually would have a fair shot at turning Obama into a one-turn-President if they arsed themselves to put a decent candidate forward.

I think there's also a little sympathy starting up. There's a growing realisation that she was sortof 'Borked' by the media. Granted, if she can't distinguish herself from Tina Fey that may be a problem on her part, but her saying 'I can see Russia from my house' is about as common an attribution as Ahmadthingy saying 'we must exterminate Israel.'

NTM

southsiderosie · 06-09-2010 04:56PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The first thing is that she doesn't need to be good. She just needs to be more appealing than the rest of the candidates. Unfortunately, right now, that is actually attainable for her. The GOP actually would have a fair shot at turning Obama into a one-turn-President if they arsed themselves to put a decent candidate forward.

I think there's also a little sympathy starting up. There's a growing realisation that she was sortof 'Borked' by the media. Granted, if she can't distinguish herself from Tina Fey that may be a problem on her part, but her saying 'I can see Russia from my house' is about as common an attribution as Ahmadthingy saying 'we must exterminate Israel.'

NTM

Come on. "Borked"? She gave an impressive introductory speech, and was dynamite at the convention, but that Katie Couric interview was an absolute disgrace, and it was downhill from there.

If the GOP base wasn't so busy driving moderates out of the party, they would be a shoo-in in 2012.

Overheal · 06-09-2010 05:06PM

if it wasnt couric it was going to be someone else. the woman was ill prepared to handle the run. As to whether she's prepared now is debatable; I think she's platforming on her personality, not her policy.

Killer Wench · 06-09-2010 06:40PM

She is nothing more than a professional provocateur who is speaking louder and more visibly than the other side. Can anyone name another female -presently not in office- who is out on the circuit advancing the liberal position?

Truth is, I actually hope that the Tea Party mobilizes and gets some seats in Congress; not because I support their position, but I think that once there is a large enough voting block with an agenda that will begin to whittle away the average American's privileges and securities, the apathetic youth and minority communities will wake up and rally for the Democrats in 2012.

06-09-2010 06:54PM

The first interview where Sarah Palin crashed was not with CBS's Katie Couric, but earlier with ABC's Charlie Gibson in 2008. Her incompetence in foreign relations became obvious during the Gibson interview, when she answered Gibson's question about the Bush Doctrine as it pertained to foreign relations with what Gibson called a "flurry of words" did not address the question. Further, it was discovered that she had just obtained a US Passport for the first time one year before running for Vice President, and that she felt qualified to deal with the Russians because they were just across the Strait (could see it from her porch).

Gibson also disclosed that Palin as Alaska's governor had been endorsing the $400 million dollar "Bridge to Nowhere" up until the media reported how it wasted federal highway transportation funds, then she flip flopped to opposing it. This badly affected her claim to being a fiscal conservative.

Manic Moran · 06-09-2010 06:57PM

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

(could see it from her porch).

I rest my case.

NTM

06-09-2010 07:02PM

Killer Wench wrote: »

Truth is, I actually hope that the Tea Party mobilizes and gets some seats in Congress

Tea Party = Republicans (in Tea Party clothing). They are out to unseat Democrats, not Republicans. The Tea Party movement published a list earlier this year that targeted Democrats, not Republicans. The Tea Party is a contemporary spin on what Newt Gingrich did with his "Contract with America" back during the Clinton years to win a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress. It's all Republican marketing spin.

Killer Wench · 06-09-2010 07:13PM

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Tea Party = Republicans (in Tea Party clothing). They are out to unseat Democrats, not Republicans. The Tea Party movement published a list earlier this year that targeted Democrats, not Republicans. The Tea Party is a contemporary spin on what Newt Gingrich did with his "Contract with America" back during the Clinton years to win a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress. It's all Republican marketing spin.

No, that isn't truly accurate. The Tea Party has also recruited Libetarians such as Rand Paul. The Tea Party began with the intention of unseating Republicans; look at the races in Alaska and Arizona for the most blatant examples of this. Murkowski lost her seat and McCain had a credible challenge early on. As a result, McCain has taken a more conservative position visibly departing from moderate positions that he had taken on in the past few years. It was the overall intent of the Tea Party to remove Republicans who had voted for legislation that they perceived to be non true conservative values.

Now that these conservatives will be running for positions in Congress, it is a possibility that the Democrats lose the House and lose their strong majority in the Senate. With a strong representation of the conservatives pushing their conservative agenda, those liberal youth and minorities that mobilized to get Obama into office will lose their current apathy because of the fear that we are regressing back to the Bush era. It takes fear to get people to break a routine; it will take a couple splashes of cold water to realize that they have been sleeping while the Tea Party has been organizing and advancing their position.

06-09-2010 07:24PM

Killer Wench wrote: »

No, that isn't truly accurate.

Let's not talk Republican primaries, where there is a lot of flip flopping among Republicans like John McCain, et al. How many Democrats are being supported for both Houses of Congress by the Tea Party in November 2010? I could only find one "token" Democrat, with all the rest "registered" Republicans.

Killer Wench · 06-09-2010 07:34PM

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Let's not talk Republican primaries, where there is a lot of flip flopping among Republicans like John McCain, et al. How many Democrats are being supported for both Houses of Congress by the Tea Party in November 2010? I could only find one "token" Democrat, with all the rest "registered" Republicans.

You have to discuss primaries because that is what sets the tone for November. Their strategy was to reclaim the conservative movement and they felt that Republican politicians were not true conservatives; therefore, they began running conservative individuals against established and recognized Republicans. If it makes you feel better, we can term it as an insurgency primarily within the Republican Party, but at the core is a conservative and Christian movement that aims to "take back" America. This is why the Tea Party movement is very much an energizer for those who consider themselves as Independents; much of the Independent community were people who formerly were members of the Republican Party but left the party after it began to take a less conservative position.

To be conservative is not synonymous with being Republican.

06-09-2010 07:56PM

Killer Wench wrote: »

... but at the core is a conservative and Christian movement that aims to "take back" America.

So there are no "conservative and Christian" Democrats that the Tea Party is supporting in November 2010 for the US Congress, only "conservative and Christian" Republicans?

Killer Wench wrote: »

To be conservative is not synonymous with being Republican.

Oh, I agree with you on this statement. But it also follows that to be Tea Party is Republican in terms of whom the Tea Party is backing in November 2010 for the US Congress; ergo, generally speaking, to be a Tea Party candidate is to be a Republican candidate in November 2010.

If the Tea Party was not Republican driven, and rather driven by "conservative and Christian" principles, they would also be running many "conservative and Christian" Democrats for the US Congress in November 2010, which they are not, suggesting that this is more about being Republican than being "conservative and Christian."

What was that Shakespearean quote about "A rose by any other name..." although I associate Republicans (and Democrats) as being with the thorns on the stem.

Killer Wench · 06-09-2010 08:33PM

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

So there are no "conservative and Christian" Democrats that the Tea Party is supporting in November 2010 for the US Congress, only "conservative and Christian" Republicans?

Thus far, I have found two. Wilson in Maryland and Minnick in Idaho. Granted, Minnick later denounced their backing, but it does not negate the fact that the largest Tea Party organization decided to support him. Regardless of whether there are two or five hundred, the underlying theme is that these individuals are conservative and Christian.

Oh, I agree with you on this statement. But it also follows that to be Tea Party is Republican in terms of whom the Tea Party is backing in November 2010 for the US Congress; ergo, generally speaking, to be a Tea Party candidate is to be a Republican candidate in November 2010.

If the Tea Party was not Republican driven, and rather driven by "conservative and Christian" principles, they would also be running many "conservative and Christian" Democrats for the US Congress in November 2010, which they are not, suggesting that this is more about being Republican than being "conservative and Christian."

What was that Shakespearean quote about "A rose by any other name..." although I associate Republicans (and Democrats) as being with the thorns on the stem.

As previously stated, it was the intention of the Tea Party activitists to unseat Republicans who they believe did not represent their conservative values; historically, and likely inaccurately, the Republican Party was viewed as the more conservative party in comparison to the contemporary Democratic Party. However, those die hard conservatives opted out of the Party once they began to equate big business interests with Republican Party values; not to mention that it was under the Bush administration that the bail outs were first proposed and planned. So, the Tea Party began organizing to remove those Republicans who supported the bailout or the health care proposal. Once again, if it would make this dialogue easier, we can consider it a insurgency within the Republican Party but the Tea Party movement was created with the intention of bringing back a true social and fiscal conservative party.

southsiderosie · 07-09-2010 02:00AM

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

The first interview where Sarah Palin crashed was not with CBS's Katie Couric, but earlier with ABC's Charlie Gibson in 2008. Her incompetence in foreign relations became obvious during the Gibson interview, when she answered Gibson's question about the Bush Doctrine as it pertained to foreign relations with what Gibson called a "flurry of words" did not address the question. Further, it was discovered that she had just obtained a US Passport for the first time one year before running for Vice President, and that she felt qualified to deal with the Russians because they were just across the Strait (could see it from her porch).

Gibson also disclosed that Palin as Alaska's governor had been endorsing the $400 million dollar "Bridge to Nowhere" up until the media reported how it wasted federal highway transportation funds, then she flip flopped to opposing it. This badly affected her claim to being a fiscal conservative.

I think the Couric interview was more devastating than the Gibson interview, simply because Gibson came off as being pretty smug. His attitude made it far too easy for conservatives to shriek that the media was out to get her, even though she did not cover herself in glory. But Katie Couric has a softer touch (even as she is slicing people apart), and Palin was still a mealy mouth mess.

Originally Posted by Killer Wench
As previously stated, it was the intention of the Tea Party activitists to unseat Republicans who they believe did not represent their conservative values; historically, and likely inaccurately, the Republican Party was viewed as the more conservative party in comparison to the contemporary Democratic Party. However, those die hard conservatives opted out of the Party once they began to equate big business interests with Republican Party values; not to mention that it was under the Bush administration that the bail outs were first proposed and planned. So, the Tea Party began organizing to remove those Republicans who supported the bailout or the health care proposal. Once again, if it would make this dialogue easier, we can consider it a insurgency within the Republican Party but the Tea Party movement was created with the intention of bringing back a true social and fiscal conservative party.

I agree. And the irony here is that they may well help Democrats by overreaching. Harry Reid must be thanking his lucky stars that he is running against Sharron Angle instead of a candidate who isn't the mayor of cloud cuckoo land.

Killer Wench · 07-09-2010 02:38AM

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think the Couric interview was more devastating than the Gibson interview, simply because Gibson came off as being pretty smug. His attitude made it far too easy for conservatives to shriek that the media was out to get her, even though she did not cover herself in glory. But Katie Couric has a softer touch (even as she is slicing people apart), and Palin was still a mealy mouth mess.

Was the Couric interview when Palin just sat there with her chin in her fist lacking the ability to answer?

I agree. And the irony here is that they may well help Democrats by overreaching. Harry Reid must be thanking his lucky stars that he is running against Sharron Angle instead of a candidate who isn't the mayor of cloud cuckoo land.

Ahh Harry Reid... :P

Manic Moran · 07-09-2010 03:36AM

Harry Reid, incidently, is another of those examples that the common perception of a party as being the domain of a particular organisation is not the case: He's being supported by the NRA against his opponents.

NTM

jank · 07-09-2010 08:07AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The first thing is that she doesn't need to be good. She just needs to be more appealing than the rest of the candidates. Unfortunately, right now, that is actually attainable for her. The GOP actually would have a fair shot at turning Obama into a one-turn-President if they arsed themselves to put a decent candidate forward.

I think there's also a little sympathy starting up. There's a growing realisation that she was sortof 'Borked' by the media. Granted, if she can't distinguish herself from Tina Fey that may be a problem on her part, but her saying 'I can see Russia from my house' is about as common an attribution as Ahmadthingy saying 'we must exterminate Israel.'

NTM

Borked is a bit strong. She did all that to herself. I saw her babbling on about something the other day on fox news, she was babbling on about crap when confronted with a reasonable question from Couric. All she does is babble.
At least Newt, Bush, McCain have some policies all she does is babble.

The woman would be dangerous if she was in the whitehouse. She thought Africa was a country ffs! It was not only Democrats that expressed concerns about her lack of knowledge, the whole of the GOP thinks she is an idiot. By all means they will use her to get themselves elected and raise funds but to put her on the ticket for the whitehouse in 2012... pigs will fly first!
Anyway it will come down to the economy and I say Romney gets the nod!

kev9100 · 07-09-2010 08:08PM

jank wrote: »

Anyway it will come down to the economy and I say Romney gets the nod!

Maybe, but he probabaly isn't conservative enough for this GOP and a fair few in the GOP don't like his religion either.

demonspawn · 08-09-2010 02:08AM

Sarah Palin, I'd hit it then quit it. Just saying.
Imagine all that slippery sliding around if she really was made of teflon.

coonecb1 · 08-09-2010 10:54PM

demonspawn wrote: »

Sarah Palin, I'd hit it then quit it. Just saying.
Imagine all that slippery sliding around if she really was made of teflon.

You've got my imagination running wild now, damn you!

Sarah Palin - Teflon Republican?

Comments