David Brooks said it best: As a liberal, am I afraid of her? Yes. Why? Because strange things happen in politics all the time. Obama seems like he'd absolutely cream her if she somehow made it as the Republican candidate in the next go around. But a few years ago it was common wisdom that Hillary would've creamed Obama last year. I'm not afraid of Palin because of her "rogue" personality, whatever that means. I'm afraid because she's a freaking moron, and being the President of the United States requires a minimum amount of intellect that she simply doesn't have. I can't think of another mainstream candidate, Democrat or Republican, I'd less like to see in such an important position. If there's even a 1% chance that she could ever be president, it's too much of a chance.
Once she's done with her book tour, I have no doubt that she will. On a side note, I would hope that she stays out of the Presidential race circles and focuses her attention towards becoming an Alaskan Senator. That's her roots.....and, hopefully, her passion, IMO.
David Brooks has a lot more faith in republican primary voters than I do. I think she's got a shot at the nomination. The teabaggers need a champion. barfo
David needs to get off his high horse. He's bright, but he's no genius. His love affair with then-Sen. Obama was based off his ability to discuss Edmund Burke. Big whoop. A lot of people have read "Reflections of the Revolution In France". He started off left of center and it appears he's returning to his roots. He certainly doesn't speak for many on the right. He doesn't appear to even believe in free market economics anymore. Yet because he's the "conservative" columnist for the New York Times, we're supposed to take what he says seriously? You should be afraid of her. Frankly, I'm a little afraid of her. She touches something in the hearts and minds of the folks in flyover country. I don't get it, but to deny it is insanity. I fundamentally disagree with your position that "she's a freaking moron". There are two kinds of smarts: Book smarts (which she doesn't have); and common sense (which she has in boat loads). If you're concerned about Sarah Palin's intelligence, why aren't you concerned about Joe Biden's? Talk about an idiot. The difference is he thinks he's a genius. I have to say that I once turned my nose down on plain common sense. Probably because I don't have much of it. I can take a complex idea and break it down as well as anyone, but common sense isn't something that comes easily to me. The deeper I got into academia, however, the less respect I had for the activity. Concomitantly, the respect I had for people who simply found a way to make something work grew by leaps and bounds. Being President doesn't mean you have to be an intellectual. It's a management and leadership position. You certainly have to be smart. However, what it does require is a clear vision and the ability to distinguish black from white and right from wrong. The problem with intellectuals is they focus so much on the shades of grey they lose all bearings. Being a good President means being able to point the compass, lead the way, articulate your vision and be decisive in making decisions. I think we can all agree that Jimmy Carter was certainly more intellectual than Ronald Reagan, yet who was the better president? What made Bill Clinton such a good president is he was the rare mind that could operate easily in both worlds. He could be a policy wonk one minute and be a cornpone from Arkansas the next. I'd like to find someone like that on either side, but I'm not sure they currently exist. I don't really think John McCain would have been a particularly good President, but he would have been a damn sight better than the President we have. President Obama is the very model of an over-intellectual President, one we haven't seen since Woodrow Wilson. What we need is someone with some common sense. It's a shame President Obama never left the ivory tower. He could use a little bit of what Sarah Palin has.
You can disparage people who attend tea party protests all you wish, but it's the very definition of a grass roots movement. There's no central message except that they're frustrated and angry with the direction this Congress and Administration is taking America. Some are bothered by the economic issues and others are frustrated by the social issues. However, they care enough to protest and to do it peacefully and civilly.
Dang, you're actually making me have to think this morning! Good question. I guess I'll have to get back to you on that one.
No, it's the very definition of astroturfing - powerful people faking a grassroots movement. Mmm hmm.
ABM, that's a good point. What's that old saying.............. "always ride your champion". Something like that.
Really? That's your best shot? A few people arriving at the same conclusion? THIS is "Astroturfing" Note the coordinated colors, the professionally printed signs, etc.
Who is/are Palin's handlers? She has someone who is pretty savvy guiding her. Her "Death Panel" facebook post sure did spin things up but there is no way I think for an instant she wrote that. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116471698434 My money is on Newt or Karl Rove.
She's been a national figure now for about 18 months. In all that time she hasn't appeared on them. She used to say that McCain wouldn't let her. But it's now been over a year since she lost, and she still hasn't. And now she's too busy selling a book about her political life to appear on a political program? Huh? Every Sunday morning it seems like somebody is flogging a book on those shows. We all know what the real problem is. If you put her in front of an aggressive interviewer who asks piercing followup questions, she'll fall apart and her "tough rogue" image will be shattered. So she's avoiding such a confrontation. Which somehow passes for "balls."
No, that is quite specifically not astroturfing. What your picture shows is union members, rallying under the union banner. There is no masking of origins or attempt to pretend the gathering is organized by anyone other than the union. barfo
I realize you probably assume anyone who agrees with part of your own personal ideology (low taxes, low regulation) has common sense. Those of us who don't, obviously don't have common sense. So let's set that aside for a moment. What other evidence do you have that she actually has boat loads of common sense? I watch interviews of her and all I see is vapid re-shuffling of Republican talking points, often not in any sort of coherent order. The only thing keeping her interviews from being excruciating is that she's pretty hot for a politician.
What barfo said. And yeah, a bunch of people coming to the same conclusion, that conclusion being that Barack Obama will round people up and burn them in ovens, isn't what I would call civil discourse.
