I am not necessarily saying that Sarah Palin would be the best candidate, but I have a question. Why do we allow the other side to beat up our best, then agree they "could not win" and that we should nominate someone else?
To the left before 2008, John McCain would have been the best candidate for conservatives. The real reason they liked him was because he was a piece of soggy toast. The left knew he would not appeal to conservatives, and they knew that he would not appeal to liberals, either. Now we have Obama.
Is cannibalism a conservative trait? Why do we let the left define who our candidate should be? No one will be perfect. It just seems that the more the left hates a conservative, the better he should look to us. There is not one great conservative that the left, through the MSM, will not try to make mincemeat out of before the nomination. They want us to have an ineffective nobody as the Republican candidate. We can't let them do that to us.
Why do we let the left define who our candidate should be? An uninformed and apathetic electorate is largely responsible, in my opinion.
I also think the leftist media is able to sway popular opinion because they have the majority of voices and, again, they are often speaking to a lot of folks who blindly accept what they are told.
Can you imagine the media outrage if John Ashcroft was in Eric Holder's position right now with the Fast & Furious scandal? It would be on the front page of every major newspaper and the lead in all the tv news networks.
The left has had a huge advantage over the right in message and news reporting for a long, long time. That is starting to change, finally.
I don't want bias, I want ethical, journalistic standards.
I think she probably would have been the most effective candidate, simply because she is the total antithesis of Obama.
Anyone who still thinks her stupid or shallow has not bothered to read her writings or listen to her speeches.
The trouble is, as all of you said above, far too many people in this country, even though they may say they do not trust the media still listen and are swayed by the manufactured stories FOR Democrats and AGAINST Republicans.
Heck I even still find myself thinking of Gingrich 'Great idea man but no executive ability' which is nothing more than a media meme.
It does not reduce my disappointment, though it does sadden me that the probable reason for Palin's decision was looking at the media-manufactured negatives, and realized that she would still never get through to the low-information voters who make up the vast majority of independants, as well as significant percentages of both Rep & Dem voters.
You know, there are times when I think a little of the rack would feel good!
If we don't vote for someone such as Palin because she is they say she is unelectable, then she is unelectable. If we ignored the comments in the MSM she may very well be electable. If some real dufus was running for the Republican nomination, they wouldn't be talking that way about him. They would be hoping he won the nomination.
Matt - I'm not sure how to put what I'm thinking in to words, so please bear with me.
I've noticed that someone like Palin, who bursts onto the national scene without a national reputation, is far more susceptible to the kinds of character assassination that the media and bumper-sticker mafia put out than someone who has already built their reputation.
For instance- Donald Trump. We've known him for years, and it's all hung out. We KNOW him. The people who still get their information from the media KNOW him. What can the media say about him? We've already made all the hair jokes there are to make.
Vs. Michelle Bachman, who was unknown nationally until she placed herself on the side of the Tea Party. People didn't have a foundation of belief about her already with which to compare the info they go through the media.
I was actually quite sad to hear that Chris Christie isn't running. I believe that he falls into the same category, on a much smaller scale, that Trump does. Christie is known nationally. People have heard of him, people have seen him. What else can he be attacked with, his weight? We already know. The fact that he's got mob connections? Um, he's from Jersey. Who hasn't heard of or seen The Sopranos? People would think there was something wrong if he DIDN'T have those connections.
Ronald Reagan fell into the same sort of category. People knew him from his movies. They knew he was divorced and remarried.
I think that is something to consider. It takes time to grow representatives if you don't have people taking nimbus pictures of you.
Actually, pure and simple, we're fucked. Voices of sanity and reason do not presently have a stage upon which to act, or at least a stage with a large audience. Florrie hits the high points, really. Except perhaps for seeing change, which I pessimistically now see little of, other than blogs, which is a only a mildly influential force at this time.
I've noticed that someone like Palin, who bursts onto the national scene without a national reputation, is far more susceptible to the kinds of character assassination that the media and bumper-sticker mafia put out than someone who has already built their reputation.
That is most often the case but I have to respectfully disagree with you a little.
Don't forget the chattering classes and media tearing Hillary Clinton a new one when they had decided Obama was The One...ditto Goldwater, ditto Reagan.
(I know, I know, Goldwater was back in the dinosaur days :-)
Tom reminds me occasionally that we are both at that age where one is more likely to make shyte up (I believe those words of wisdom came from a birthday card).
florrie - I can think of another example of the phenom - everyone "knew" John McCain but it didn't stop the media from harping on his weaknesses, real (temper) and imaginary (non-existent sex scandal). That is, after the media anointed him as the "maveric" "good Republican".
Mitt Romney will likewise be anointed by the media as the "sensible, reasonable, adult voice in the room" Republican candidate.
And then, around the time of the election, #sisterwife will be trending as the most popular twitter hashtag, endlessly re-tweeted by the JournoList types in the media.
I'm disappointed that Christie isn't running, but I completely understand his reasons.
IMHO, Palin is wise to bow out. If she threw her hat in the ring, the press would be akin to a snarling pack of hungry wolves on red meat; who would choose to go through that, or have their family savaged in such a brutal and public way? It makes me mad as hell.
I'm thinking that it's inevitable: Romney will be the R nominee. He'll pick up Cain as a running mate. I don't like Romney, I don't want Romney to be my president, I don't trust Romney to be CIC. I'll be stuck holding my nose and voting for him, just like I was stuck voting for the progressive McCain last time. Yeah, I'm mad as hell.
Who will represent me? Who speaks with my voice? Bah.
The left is staging a slow coup. Companies nationalized, Reid making up new rules to lock out the minority party, the feds (as we speak!) designing a health "insurance" plan for the masses, political candidates are selected by what is essentially the government-run media, yada yada yada.
Luther said it best. We're fucked.
Gee, I'm just a brimming bucket of cheer this morning, aren't I? 8-}
Off topic. But I'm thinking we knock them off where they collect. Targets of opportunity so to speak. After all, what would be missing other than a fetid oder upon the air.
Yes, I'm speaking of the 'Wall Street Occupiers'.
I'm, at the moment, speaking generally but specifically of this guy.
I find my mind melding around a Pol Pot point of view. Though with different motives and goals.
Our educational institutions are pumping out by the thousands, idiots, who have no ability to think for themselves.
Ah, it is all too dire for me to even contemplate or comment. But I have to, at times, say something.
Oh good Lord, I hadn't seen THAT one before, Luther.
I find it extremely disturbing that the class and race warfare that Obama has subtlely (or maybe not so subtlely) been urging for the last year is slowly coming to fruition.
I agree that she will be more effective helping raise money and supporting the GOP candidate with the best odds of beating the JEM.
ReplyDeleteI am not necessarily saying that Sarah Palin would be the best candidate, but I have a question. Why do we allow the other side to beat up our best, then agree they "could not win" and that we should nominate someone else?
ReplyDeleteTo the left before 2008, John McCain would have been the best candidate for conservatives. The real reason they liked him was because he was a piece of soggy toast. The left knew he would not appeal to conservatives, and they knew that he would not appeal to liberals, either. Now we have Obama.
Is cannibalism a conservative trait? Why do we let the left define who our candidate should be? No one will be perfect. It just seems that the more the left hates a conservative, the better he should look to us. There is not one great conservative that the left, through the MSM, will not try to make mincemeat out of before the nomination. They want us to have an ineffective nobody as the Republican candidate. We can't let them do that to us.
RadioMattm asked ....
ReplyDeleteIs cannibalism a conservative trait?
Yes. At least in my lifetime.
Why do we let the left define who our candidate should be?
ReplyDeleteAn uninformed and apathetic electorate is largely responsible, in my opinion.
I also think the leftist media is able to sway popular opinion because they have the majority of voices and, again, they are often speaking to a lot of folks who blindly accept what they are told.
Can you imagine the media outrage if John Ashcroft was in Eric Holder's position right now with the Fast & Furious scandal? It would be on the front page of every major newspaper and the lead in all the tv news networks.
The left has had a huge advantage over the right in message and news reporting for a long, long time. That is starting to change, finally.
I don't want bias, I want ethical, journalistic standards.
I want ethical, journalistic standards.
ReplyDeleteAnd I want to win Lotto Max tomorrow ($30 million -- and Canada's lotteries are tax exempt). And I want Santa Claus to be good to me this year.
I think she probably would have been the most effective candidate, simply because she is the total antithesis of Obama.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who still thinks her stupid or shallow has not bothered to read her writings or listen to her speeches.
The trouble is, as all of you said above, far too many people in this country, even though they may say they do not trust the media still listen and are swayed by the manufactured stories FOR Democrats and AGAINST Republicans.
Heck I even still find myself thinking of Gingrich 'Great idea man but no executive ability' which is nothing more than a media meme.
It does not reduce my disappointment, though it does sadden me that the probable reason for Palin's decision was looking at the media-manufactured negatives, and realized that she would still never get through to the low-information voters who make up the vast majority of independants, as well as significant percentages of both Rep & Dem voters.
#6
ReplyDeleteWell said, Dances, well said.
You mean Santa won't be good to me this year? :-/
ReplyDeleteYou know, there are times when I think a little of the rack would feel good!
If we don't vote for someone such as Palin because she is they say she is unelectable, then she is unelectable. If we ignored the comments in the MSM she may very well be electable. If some real dufus was running for the Republican nomination, they wouldn't be talking that way about him. They would be hoping he won the nomination.
Matt - I'm not sure how to put what I'm thinking in to words, so please bear with me.
ReplyDeleteI've noticed that someone like Palin, who bursts onto the national scene without a national reputation, is far more susceptible to the kinds of character assassination that the media and bumper-sticker mafia put out than someone who has already built their reputation.
For instance- Donald Trump. We've known him for years, and it's all hung out. We KNOW him. The people who still get their information from the media KNOW him. What can the media say about him? We've already made all the hair jokes there are to make.
Vs. Michelle Bachman, who was unknown nationally until she placed herself on the side of the Tea Party. People didn't have a foundation of belief about her already with which to compare the info they go through the media.
I was actually quite sad to hear that Chris Christie isn't running. I believe that he falls into the same category, on a much smaller scale, that Trump does. Christie is known nationally. People have heard of him, people have seen him. What else can he be attacked with, his weight? We already know. The fact that he's got mob connections? Um, he's from Jersey. Who hasn't heard of or seen The Sopranos? People would think there was something wrong if he DIDN'T have those connections.
Ronald Reagan fell into the same sort of category. People knew him from his movies. They knew he was divorced and remarried.
I think that is something to consider. It takes time to grow representatives if you don't have people taking nimbus pictures of you.
Not that we have time...
ReplyDeleteActually, pure and simple, we're fucked. Voices of sanity and reason do not presently have a stage upon which to act, or at least a stage with a large audience. Florrie hits the high points, really. Except perhaps for seeing change, which I pessimistically now see little of, other than blogs, which is a only a mildly influential force at this time.
ReplyDeleteAnd I want to win Lotto Max tomorrow ($30 million -- and Canada's lotteries are tax exempt). And I want Santa Claus to be good to me this year.
ReplyDeleteimg:"http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/concentrate.gif"
img:"http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/torture1.jpg"
img:"http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/happydance.gif"
'which are'.
ReplyDeleteI've noticed that someone like Palin, who bursts onto the national scene without a national reputation, is far more susceptible to the kinds of character assassination that the media and bumper-sticker mafia put out than someone who has already built their reputation.
ReplyDeleteThat is most often the case but I have to respectfully disagree with you a little.
Don't forget the chattering classes and media tearing Hillary Clinton a new one when they had decided Obama was The One...ditto Goldwater, ditto Reagan.
(I know, I know, Goldwater was back in the dinosaur days :-)
Why, thank you, Luther!
ReplyDeleteTom reminds me occasionally that we are both at that age where one is more likely to make shyte up (I believe those words of wisdom came from a birthday card).
img:"http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/angel_smile.gif"
florrie - I can think of another example of the phenom - everyone "knew" John McCain but it didn't stop the media from harping on his weaknesses, real (temper) and imaginary (non-existent sex scandal). That is, after the media anointed him as the "maveric" "good Republican".
ReplyDeleteMitt Romney will likewise be anointed by the media as the "sensible, reasonable, adult voice in the room" Republican candidate.
And then, around the time of the election, #sisterwife will be trending as the most popular twitter hashtag, endlessly re-tweeted by the JournoList types in the media.
Oh - UGH. I'd totally not factored in the Hillary Clinton attacks. I have no idea how I forgot that one, as it continues to horrify me.
ReplyDeleteI need to rethink my premise.
And the #sisterwives thing made me cough. Because it's true.
I'm disappointed that Christie isn't running, but I completely understand his reasons.
ReplyDeleteIMHO, Palin is wise to bow out. If she threw her hat in the ring, the press would be akin to a snarling pack of hungry wolves on red meat; who would choose to go through that, or have their family savaged in such a brutal and public way? It makes me mad as hell.
I'm thinking that it's inevitable: Romney will be the R nominee. He'll pick up Cain as a running mate. I don't like Romney, I don't want Romney to be my president, I don't trust Romney to be CIC. I'll be stuck holding my nose and voting for him, just like I was stuck voting for the progressive McCain last time. Yeah, I'm mad as hell.
Who will represent me? Who speaks with my voice? Bah.
The left is staging a slow coup. Companies nationalized, Reid making up new rules to lock out the minority party, the feds (as we speak!) designing a health "insurance" plan for the masses, political candidates are selected by what is essentially the government-run media, yada yada yada.
Luther said it best. We're fucked.
Gee, I'm just a brimming bucket of cheer this morning, aren't I? 8-}
Off topic. But I'm thinking we knock them off where they collect. Targets of opportunity so to speak. After all, what would be missing other than a fetid oder upon the air.
ReplyDeleteYes, I'm speaking of the 'Wall Street Occupiers'.
I'm, at the moment, speaking generally but specifically of this guy.
I find my mind melding around a Pol Pot point of view. Though with different motives and goals.
Our educational institutions are pumping out by the thousands, idiots, who have no ability to think for themselves.
Ah, it is all too dire for me to even contemplate or comment. But I have to, at times, say something.
Oh good Lord, I hadn't seen THAT one before, Luther.
ReplyDeleteI find it extremely disturbing that the class and race warfare that Obama has subtlely (or maybe not so subtlely) been urging for the last year is slowly coming to fruition.